Grusilda's Tools3
Legendary Artifact 5, T, Sacrifice Grusilda's Tools; Exile target creature, then return it to the battlefield as though it were cast with a mutate cost targeting another target creature you control.
Removal spell and goofy combo enabler. Probably a rules nightmare. Didn't include "non-Human" anywhere here, partially because I don't like the "non-Human" part of Mutate, and partially because Grusilda wouldn't either.
This is a tricky one to template, I'll try to take a crack at it later. It will probably involved not using mutate since "non-human" is tied to that ability in the rules and so it would still apply even if you don't reference it.
Merge target creature with another target non-human creature as though it had mutated.
Keeping the non-human clause allows you to reference mutate without causing any potential problems. I'm not sure if it would cause problems but its better to hedge against such things.
Grusilda's Tools3
Legendary Artifact 5, T, Sacrifice Grusilda's Tools; Exile target creature, then return it to the battlefield as though it were cast with a mutate cost targeting another target creature you control.
Removal spell and goofy combo enabler. Probably a rules nightmare. Didn't include "non-Human" anywhere here, partially because I don't like the "non-Human" part of Mutate, and partially because Grusilda wouldn't either.
Okay, I took a glance at the actual rules for mutate, and I think this should theoretically work:
5, T, Sacrifice Grusilda's Tools: Exile target creature (you control?), then cast it as a mutating creature spell without paying its manacost targeting a creature you own and control.
Technically, the mutate keyword (which lets you cast the creature as a Mutating creature spell) is what specifies non-Human, so this could legally target a human creature, though that is such a subtle rules distinction that people familiar with Mutate would probably expect it to still not target humans.
Yes it does, it simply replaces the initial engagement dynamic with a bypass to the resolved effect.
Allow me to point you to the relevant section of the comprehensive rules:
702.139. Mutate
702.139a Mutate appears on some creature cards. It represents a static ability that functions while the spell with mutate is on the stack. “Mutate [cost]” means “You may pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost. If you do, it becomes a mutating creature spell and targets a non-Human creature with the same owner as this spell.” Casting a spell using its mutate ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs (see 601.2b and 601.2f–h).
702.139b As a mutating creature spell begins resolving, if its target is illegal, it ceases to be a mutating creature spell and continues resolving as a creature spell and will be put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell’s controller.
702.139c As a mutating creature spell resolves, if its target is legal, it doesn’t enter the battlefield. Rather, it merges with the target creature and becomes one object represented by more than one card or token (see rule 721, “Merging with Permanents”). The spell’s controller chooses whether the spell is put on top of the creature or on the bottom. The resulting permanent is a mutated permanent.
You'll notice the words "mutated onto" are nowhere to be found. The relevant game term is "merged" (see Comp Rules 721) which could be used in the effect of this artifact as:
Grusilda's Tools 3
Legendary Artifact
5, T, Sacrifice Grusilda's Tools: Exile target creature, then return it to the battlefield merged with target creature you control.
The term 'mutated' refers to the keyword mechanic.
I don't think the typical person is going to question what that means, so long as they are familiar with the mechanic.
It's uhh...very coherent to read the term, 'mutated with'.
Whereas, using the descriptive term from the comprehensive rulings has no open relativity to the keyword mechanic, and thus isn't very coherent.
"Mutated with" would have been a decent term of phrase that WotC could have used... but they didn't... so you are wrong.
End of story.
How do you figure?
It states that, "the result is a mutated permanent". So given this designation, you should need to reference the overlying mechanic for continuity; and not use the term 'merged', which is simply an errata term, that provides descriptive context as to how this operation proceeds.
Dude, you are so absolutely wrong it is stunning. If you took a moment to actually educate yourself and read the actual rules of the game, you'd see that (a) mutated permanent relies specifically on the keyword mutate and casting as a mutated creature spell and (b) merged permanent is the actual rules definition for combining two permanents by placing one over or under the other, so (c) you clearly have no idea what "errata" means either.
Just stop trying to "mutated with" happen. It's not going to happen.
Dude, you are so absolutely wrong it is stunning. If you took a moment to actually educate yourself and read the actual rules of the game, you'd see that (a) mutated permanent relies specifically on the keyword mutate and casting as a mutated creature spell and (b) merged permanent is the actual rules definition for combining two permanents by placing one over or under the other, so (c) you clearly have no idea what "errata" means either.
Just stop trying to "mutated with" happen. It's not going to happen.
lol
text convo from an actual match using this:
Nerd:"So you merged them, but it's not mutated?"
Dweeb:"No, it's mutated too."
Nerd:"But it doesn't say mutated. It should have to say mutated."
Dweeb:"Dude, I didn't write this ish. I would have had it say mutated."
Dude who doesn't understand the difference between conversational slang and card text: Everyone says you mutated onto the creature.
Guy who understands the rules and how cards are written: It's fine for people to say that, but it doesn't get written on the card any more than "3 to the dome" would get written on Lava Spike.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Legendary Artifact
5, T, Sacrifice Grusilda's Tools; Exile target creature, then return it to the battlefield as though it were cast with a mutate cost targeting another target creature you control.
Removal spell and goofy combo enabler. Probably a rules nightmare. Didn't include "non-Human" anywhere here, partially because I don't like the "non-Human" part of Mutate, and partially because Grusilda wouldn't either.
Okay, I took a glance at the actual rules for mutate, and I think this should theoretically work:
5, T, Sacrifice Grusilda's Tools: Exile target creature (you control?), then cast it as a mutating creature spell without paying its manacost targeting a creature you own and control.
Technically, the mutate keyword (which lets you cast the creature as a Mutating creature spell) is what specifies non-Human, so this could legally target a human creature, though that is such a subtle rules distinction that people familiar with Mutate would probably expect it to still not target humans.
"return it to the battlefield mutated with target creature"?
This could include a 'in any way you choose' clause, but I would question how necessary that is.
Because that doesn't actually work within the rules for mutate and merged creatures work.
Yes it does, it simply replaces the initial engagement dynamic with a bypass to the resolved effect.
Allow me to point you to the relevant section of the comprehensive rules:
You'll notice the words "mutated onto" are nowhere to be found. The relevant game term is "merged" (see Comp Rules 721) which could be used in the effect of this artifact as:
Grusilda's Tools 3
Legendary Artifact
5, T, Sacrifice Grusilda's Tools: Exile target creature, then return it to the battlefield merged with target creature you control.
I don't think the typical person is going to question what that means, so long as they are familiar with the mechanic.
It's uhh...very coherent to read the term, 'mutated with'.
Whereas, using the descriptive term from the comprehensive rulings has no open relativity to the keyword mechanic, and thus isn't very coherent.
"Mutated with" would have been a decent term of phrase that WotC could have used... but they didn't... so you are wrong.
End of story.
How do you figure?
It states that, "the result is a mutated permanent". So given this designation, you should need to reference the overlying mechanic for continuity; and not use the term 'merged', which is simply an errata term, that provides descriptive context as to how this operation proceeds.
Just stop trying to "mutated with" happen. It's not going to happen.
lol
text convo from an actual match using this:
Nerd: "So you merged them, but it's not mutated?"
Dweeb: "No, it's mutated too."
Nerd: "But it doesn't say mutated. It should have to say mutated."
Dweeb: "Dude, I didn't write this ish. I would have had it say mutated."
Guy who understands the rules and how cards are written: It's fine for people to say that, but it doesn't get written on the card any more than "3 to the dome" would get written on Lava Spike.