CR 112.1a defines an ability as a characteristic an object has. But CR613,9 acknowledges that some effects give abilities to players. The whole of section 112 Abilities doesn't allow for that.
112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.
If the cost referred to by an ability on the stack can change based on the application of a separate static ability of a certain permanent, in a continuous manner, then there is no independence.
The ability exists on the stack independent of it's source. That's the only independence implied or stated. Nothing you do to the source can remove the ability from the stack and vice versa. The rules never say that they're completely independent - in fact, such a claim is ludicrous because abilities are explicitly tied to their source for color and ownership/controller reasons.
Rhetorical question: Which half of a fuse card has fuse? In which text box does the ability exist? If it's in both, does it have two instances? If it's in neither, why does CR 708.4c allow it to have fuse?
708.4c A split card has each card type specified on either of its halves and each ability in the text box of each half.
This subrule elaborates upon 708.4 "In every zone except the stack, the characteristics of a split card are those of its two halves combined. This is a change from previous rules."
The rules don't let us parse the card-anatomy of split cards with text box strangeness like a fuse card.
702.101a Fuse is a static ability found on some split cards (see rule 708, “Split Cards”) that applies while the card with fuse is in a player’s hand. If a player casts a split card with fuse from his or her hand, the player may choose to cast both halves of that split card rather than choose one half. This choice is made before putting the split card with fuse onto the stack. The resulting spell is a fused split spell.
It's a static ability of the card, not in either text box.
An intriguing claim. True enough, nothing in the rules implies that cards can't have text outside a textbox. CR112.1a does imply Fuse must be rules text, but nothing in CR 2. Parts of a card suggests exhaustiveness.
702.94 Soulbond doesn't actually specify that a creature paired with another creature implies that the second creature is paired with the first, i.e. that paired is a commutative relation. Its definition only gives that the soulbond creature becomes paired with another when it enters, or perhaps another creature becomes paired with it when that one enters.
702.94b A creature becomes “paired” with another as the result of a soulbond ability. Abilities may refer to a paired creature, the creature another creature is paired with, or whether a creature is paired. An “unpaired” creature is one that is not paired.
I'm confused as to what you're referring to. The rule explicitly says that the two creatures are paired together.
Where does it use the word 'together'? What is explicit? The only thing explicit is that one creature is paired with another.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
The issue "Two-Headed Giant and certain can't-attack-a-player effects" is now moot as of Dominaria; now, creatures can attack individual players in a team in Two-Headed Giant as in other games using the shared team turns option (C.R. 810.7, 805.10a-b).
With the addition of loop rules to the Magic Tournament Rules, the comprehensive rules update in Core Set 2019 added C.R. 720.1c, which states that the Magic Tournament Rules take precedence whenever they "contradict [the] rules" "governing shortcuts and loops" "during a tournament". However, the existing rules for shortcuts and loops (as they appear in C.R. 720.2 and what follows) remain in place unchanged. The reason for making this particular change (as opposed to modifying the comprehensive rules' shortcut rules to be in line with those of the M.T.R., or incorporating those rules by reference, not just in tournaments but in all Magic games) is supposedly that updating the shortcut rules in the comprehensive rules would not follow "formal logic". Which goes back to what I vaguely recall is the real nature of the comprehensive rules: they exist largely for Magic Online's sake. It remains to be clarified whether this is (still) true, especially with the advent of MTG Arena. Maybe "formal logic" is the same reason why, by default, graveyards can't be reordered by any player under the comprehensive rules or why nothing in the comprehensive rules explicitly allows players to reveal cards they're allowed to see?
For this reason, I have declared moot the issue "Conditional actions in shortcut proposals".
According to a ruling, an effect that exchanges a permanent's toughness with another number (C.R. 701.10g), such as the one found on Tree of Perdition, fails if that permanent is no longer on the battlefield (see also this thread). The rationale is that "you can't change last known information", which would otherwise be used by effects that care about the information of a permanent no longer on the battlefield (C.R. 608.2g).
This shows that C.R. 701.10g is not clear enough, unfortunately. It's up to the rules manager to decide whether to add clarifying text like the following: "If either of those values is a characteristic of an object, and the object is not in the appropriate zone, the exchange fails; its last known information (see rule 608.2g) is not used this way."
In essence, the issue lies with wether "commanderness" of a card is a "visible mark" that everyone gets to know about the card whereever it is, and thus being able to identify it in every zone or while face down. This leads to an issue about knowledge of the position of a commander in the library or hand, and which face down card is the commander, even if that information should not be known by players.
Aura tokens entering the battlefield with nothing they can enchant
Under C.R. 303.4g, if an Aura token enters the battlefield without a legal object or player to choose from, the token "remains in its current zone". However, there is no "current zone" for a token before it enters the battlefield. C.R. 303.4i clarifies this matter in the case of an token entering the battlefield attached to an illegal object or player, and I have requested the rules manager to add that rule's last sentence to C.R. 303.4g. See this thread.
This is a record of questions yet to be answered by the rules manager:
Does an ability that triggers when a permanent "dies" trigger even if that permanent both dies and leaves the game at the same time? (See also this thread.) Post.
Cryptoplasm still says "...you may have Cryptoplasm become a copy .... If you do, Cryptoplasm gains this ability." Is the ability "gain[ed]" this way (still) copiable by other copy effects? Post.
If something makes Growth-Chamber Guardian enter the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it, does Growth-Chamber Guardian get that counter before it enters, while it does so, or after it does so? (See also this thread.) Post.
Does Panharmonicon, Naban, or Torpor Orb affect Animation Module's first ability if an appropriate permanent enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter? (See also this thread.) Post.
For the purposes of Guardian Beast, does control of a permanent reverting to another player because a control-change effect ends (e.g., "gain control until end of turn") count as that player "gain[ing] control" of that permanent? (See also this thread.) Post.
I think C.R. 700.5 is ambiguous in part; e.g., "devotion to red and blue" may be interpreted to mean "all mana symbols in mana costs of red and/or blue permanents" rather than the intended "all red and/or blue mana symbols in mana costs of permanents". (See also this thread.) Post.
The updated Oracle text for Once More with Feeling includes: "A deck can have only one card..." Presumably "...no more than one card..." is meant? Post.
If Regal Force enters the battlefield, and before its ability resolves, Mind Bend changes "green" in its text to "black", is a card drawn for each black or for each green creature "you control" when the ability resolves? (See also this thread.) Post.
If a player creates two tokens with Tatsumasa, the Dragon's Fang (or Stangg) while controlling Doubling Season, is one delayed triggered ability created for each such token, or one for both? Recall C.R. 603.7b in this case. (See also this thread.) Post.
Before a player shuffles, if he or she has drafted Caller of the Untamed and Volatile Chimera, can that player reveal both cards and exile the same creature card (among others) for both? (See also this thread.) Post.
Can an ability of the form "Whenever ... this turn,..." or "Until end of turn, whenever..." (Massacre Girl, Bonus Round, False Cure) trigger in the same turn even after "this turn" effects end, assuming the cleanup step gives players priority? In other words, is an effect creating such an ability a "this turn" or "until end of turn" effect within the meaning of C.R. 514.2? (See also this thread.) Post.
If something makes Growth-Chamber Guardian enter the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it, does Growth-Chamber Guardian get that counter before it enters, while it does so, or after it does so?
The first Gatherer Ruling already covers the interaction . At least, it says it will trigger which your posts suggest is what you are looking for. I am not sure if the exact timing it really relevant if you just want to know if it triggers or not. Are you simply waiting on Eli to point out where in the CR this is covered?
If something makes Growth-Chamber Guardian enter the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it, does Growth-Chamber Guardian get that counter before it enters, while it does so, or after it does so?
The first Gatherer Ruling already covers the interaction . At least, it says it will trigger which your posts suggest is what you are looking for. I am not sure if the exact timing it really relevant if you just want to know if it triggers or not. Are you simply waiting on Eli to point out where in the CR this is covered?
In my view, whether Growth-Chamber Guardian's second ability will trigger in the circumstance given in that question depends on when Growth-Chamber Guardian is given the +1/+1 counter as far as the game is concerned -- before it enters the battlefield as opposed to while or after it does so (see also C.R. 400.6 and this thread). In my opinion, the answer of "before" has a much more solid basis in the comprehensive rules than the answers of "while" or "after" (C.R. 400.6).
For the purposes of Rishkar's Expertise, is only the chosen half of a split card "evaluated" (C.R. 708.3a) to determine its converted mana cost, or always both halves? Post.
If Twincast copies a spell that targets a permanent, does that permanent "become the target" of the copy, even without choosing new targets? [Additional question: If so, what if that permanent is an illegal target?] E.g., Unsettled Mariner, Cowardice, Phantasmal Image. Post.
Veil of Summer allows a player to gain "hexproof from [quality]" but the current rules don't cover "hexproof from [quality]" on a player, which might not be intended. Post.
For the purposes of Shallow Grave, does the "top creature card of your graveyard" mean the "topmost creature card" there, or the "top card if it's a creature card"? Post.
If a player controls only ten permanents, nine of which has "different names" and the tenth with a name shared and a name not shared by the others, does that player control ten permanents "with different names"? Review C.R. 201.2c. Post.
If Dance of the Manse (X = 6) brings 2x Starfield of Nyx and 3+ other enchantments to the battlefield, who decides whether Starfield of Nyx is 5/5 or 4/4: the active player or someone else? C.R. 613.6j appears not to cover this case. Post. See also this thread.
A minor thing occured to me after pondering a CR quote I gave recently in the rules forum.
122.6 Some spells and abilities refer to counters being “put” on an object. This refers to putting counters on that object while it’s on the battlefield and also to an object that’s given counters as it enters the battlefield.
122.6a If an object enters the battlefield with counters on it, the effect causing the object to be given counters may specify which player puts those counters on it. If the effect doesn’t specify a player, the object’s controller puts those counters on it.
These rules refer to counters being put on objects, yet then it is specified to only mean objects in regards to the battlfield, i.e. permanents. But permanents are not the only objects that can be given counters. The most notable discrepancy is time counters and suspended cards. The quoted rules don't address them. So these rules, while meant to clarify terminology, are actually too specific.
I don't see the problem with that. Is there a card that references counters being put on a card in exile or a player? Or some situation where this omission actually matters?
If not, then there really isn't a reason for that rule to call it out. The rule is only there to clarify what it means when a counter is put on something and that it applies as it enters the field. Which can only happen to a permanent.
Yes, there are a number of cards that interact with suspended cards by putting time counters on them. Like Dust of Moments, Joira's Time Bug, Timecrafting, etc. Suspend itself gives objects in exile counters. Don't forget the cards, that resuspend themselves with time counters. There's also Lightning Storm as a example of a card outside the realm of suspend.
And yes, I realize, that all those examples say, who puts the counters on. But they do use the terminology of putting counters on those objects, and the rules meant to explain that terminology are not including those cards.
To be clear, I am not asking about cards that do the "putting". I am asking if cards exist that care about the "putting" happening. Such as Hardened Scales but for the things you are talking about.
The rule you quoted is to clarify how Hardened Scales works with things that enter the battlefield with counters because it cares about counters being put on something. Or, Growth-Chamber Guardian's own ability that cares about counters being put onto itself.
My point is that the rule you are talking about is a rule for these situations. It is a rule for when something looks for a counter being put on something. Since nothing that I am aware of looks for counters being put on anything that isn't a permanent, it doesn't matter that the rule doesn't call them out. The omission literally never matters as nothing cares about counters being put onto a suspended card or player.
For a card that does care about a player getting a counter: Winding Constrictor. And you will notice that they intentionally didn't use "if a counter is put onto you" which means that the rule still doesn't apply to that case.
I recognize this kind of tidy quibble doesn't rise to the level of _structural critique of language generating undecideability on interaction questions_, the purpose of this thread; nevertheless I'd like to share in company with petero and the others here, the following:
""
I wish there was a treatment for split cards in the casting process at the site of 601.2 (to describe split and fuse castings), OR, a reference at 702.101a that it is modifying the casting procedure specifically of 601.2a."
indeed as something I cut from my recent post.
Overall, the CR in other places, and rules documents in games in general, have the effective practice of stating a rule dynamically changing a rule by naming the other rule -specifically-, not just glossing over a process. At least meet in the middle and say "casting... as defined in 601.2". Forget subrule, sure, but the one should be communicated in terms of the definitions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
To be clear, I am not asking about cards that do the "putting". I am asking if cards exist that care about the "putting" happening. Such as Hardened Scales but for the things you are talking about.
The rule you quoted is[...]
[...]
You're drawing a distinction, then, between (1) spells & abilities referring to counters being put on an object, and (2) [those] referring to putting counters on an object. In distinguishing that, you can then say while there's plenty of the second, the first has need only of spotting the case where the "an object" equals a permanent -- because the extent of cards in print, approaching that general situation, are yet not so general.
Trouble is, how can you say that the text of what Rezz writes as 122.6, is only talking about the event and not the incident? Is it consistently the case that the CR says "a spell/ability says" for the second purpose, and "a spell/ability refers to" for the first-? --i.e., the difference between the (executing) instruction, and a meta-linguistic instrument to clarify the applicability of a rule?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
To be clear, I am not asking about cards that do the "putting". I am asking if cards exist that care about the "putting" happening. Such as Hardened Scales but for the things you are talking about.
The rule you quoted is[...]
[...]
You're drawing a distinction, then, between (1) spells & abilities referring to counters being put on an object, and (2) [those] referring to putting counters on an object. In distinguishing that, you can then say while there's plenty of the second, the first has need only of spotting the case where the "an object" equals a permanent -- because the extent of cards in print, approaching that general situation, are yet not so general.
Trouble is, how can you say that the text of what Rezz writes as 122.6, is only talking about the event and not the incident? Is it consistently the case that the CR says "a spell/ability says" for the second purpose, and "a spell/ability refers to" for the first-? --i.e., the difference between the (executing) instruction, and a meta-linguistic instrument to clarify the applicability of a rule?
I have a hard time parsing what you are actually saying due to the overwhelming verbosity of your statements, so apologies upfront if this response doesn't make sense regarding your comment.
The rule is clearly focusing on the clarification of things that "refer to counters being “put” on an object" I mean, it is in the rule, in the first sentence, that the rule is specifically about things that *refer* to counters being put onto an object; not things that put counters onto something. The rule cares about things that look for the action. What else would the phrase "refers to counters being put on an object" mean?
Rezzahan's objection to this seems to be that counters can be put on players and exiled cards. And he would be right. But the rule doesn't care about those because Clockspinning doesn't "refer" to counters being put; Jhoira's Timebug doesn't refer counters being put. They certainly refer to the counters that are already there to see what the spell can do, but neither one says anything about the new counters being put onto the card. As such, I am not entirely sure where your disagreement lies.
It almost seems like part of the issue is that people think this rule is meant to define what "put" means as a whole. It doesn't. We don't have a rule for defining "put" any more then we have a rule for defining "produce" or "return" because we don't need one. We use the normal English definition for these words to explain the meaning of what cards are doing. The rule above is an extension of certain scenarios where "put" is used and to offer clarification as to how "put" works in those cases. It is not meant to be anything more than an explanation of a specific scenario and one that Players and Exiled Cards can't be part of. At least, not with current cards.
If a card is ever printed that refers to counters being put on a player, and is actually worded as "counters put onto a player" (so, not the wording of Constrictor) then there may be a case for that rule needing to be adjusted. But there is no reason to update a rule to cover a scenario that currently can't exist.
Self-replacement effects are defined as replacement effects, even though they function basically not like them (CR614.15). Because of this, there is no place for Ram Through's self-replacement to, in fact, express how damage is dealt. In the hierarchy in CR 120.4, replacement effects are considered after the like of excess damage determinations. Ram Through is told by 614.15 to work as a replacement effect, in step 2, where the 'excess' term has no application.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
======
True. I'll cross out the other post.
An intriguing claim. True enough, nothing in the rules implies that cards can't have text outside a textbox. CR112.1a does imply Fuse must be rules text, but nothing in CR 2. Parts of a card suggests exhaustiveness.
Where does it use the word 'together'? What is explicit? The only thing explicit is that one creature is paired with another.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Plain English. When something is paired with another, it's commutative. The two join together to form a pair.
For this reason, I have declared moot the issue "Conditional actions in shortcut proposals".
According to a ruling, an effect that exchanges a permanent's toughness with another number (C.R. 701.10g), such as the one found on Tree of Perdition, fails if that permanent is no longer on the battlefield (see also this thread). The rationale is that "you can't change last known information", which would otherwise be used by effects that care about the information of a permanent no longer on the battlefield (C.R. 608.2g).
This shows that C.R. 701.10g is not clear enough, unfortunately. It's up to the rules manager to decide whether to add clarifying text like the following: "If either of those values is a characteristic of an object, and the object is not in the appropriate zone, the exchange fails; its last known information (see rule 608.2g) is not used this way."
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/800738-face-down-commander
In essence, the issue lies with wether "commanderness" of a card is a "visible mark" that everyone gets to know about the card whereever it is, and thus being able to identify it in every zone or while face down. This leads to an issue about knowledge of the position of a commander in the library or hand, and which face down card is the commander, even if that information should not be known by players.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Under C.R. 303.4g, if an Aura token enters the battlefield without a legal object or player to choose from, the token "remains in its current zone". However, there is no "current zone" for a token before it enters the battlefield. C.R. 303.4i clarifies this matter in the case of an token entering the battlefield attached to an illegal object or player, and I have requested the rules manager to add that rule's last sentence to C.R. 303.4g. See this thread.
Cryptoplasm still says "...you may have Cryptoplasm become a copy .... If you do, Cryptoplasm gains this ability." Is the ability "gain[ed]" this way (still) copiable by other copy effects? Post.If a player creates two tokens with Tatsumasa, the Dragon's Fang (or Stangg) while controlling Doubling Season, is one delayed triggered ability created for each such token, or one for both? Recall C.R. 603.7b in this case. (See also this thread.) Post.For the purposes of Rishkar's Expertise, is only the chosen half of a split card "evaluated" (C.R. 708.3a) to determine its converted mana cost, or always both halves? Post.If a player controls only ten permanents, nine of which has "different names" and the tenth with a name shared and a name not shared by the others, does that player control ten permanents "with different names"? Review C.R. 201.2c. Post.These rules refer to counters being put on objects, yet then it is specified to only mean objects in regards to the battlfield, i.e. permanents. But permanents are not the only objects that can be given counters. The most notable discrepancy is time counters and suspended cards. The quoted rules don't address them. So these rules, while meant to clarify terminology, are actually too specific.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
If not, then there really isn't a reason for that rule to call it out. The rule is only there to clarify what it means when a counter is put on something and that it applies as it enters the field. Which can only happen to a permanent.
And yes, I realize, that all those examples say, who puts the counters on. But they do use the terminology of putting counters on those objects, and the rules meant to explain that terminology are not including those cards.
I also stated, that I think this a minor issue.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
The rule you quoted is to clarify how Hardened Scales works with things that enter the battlefield with counters because it cares about counters being put on something. Or, Growth-Chamber Guardian's own ability that cares about counters being put onto itself.
My point is that the rule you are talking about is a rule for these situations. It is a rule for when something looks for a counter being put on something. Since nothing that I am aware of looks for counters being put on anything that isn't a permanent, it doesn't matter that the rule doesn't call them out. The omission literally never matters as nothing cares about counters being put onto a suspended card or player.
For a card that does care about a player getting a counter: Winding Constrictor. And you will notice that they intentionally didn't use "if a counter is put onto you" which means that the rule still doesn't apply to that case.
""
I wish there was a treatment for split cards in the casting process at the site of 601.2 (to describe split and fuse castings), OR, a reference at 702.101a that it is modifying the casting procedure specifically of 601.2a."
indeed as something I cut from my recent post.
Overall, the CR in other places, and rules documents in games in general, have the effective practice of stating a rule dynamically changing a rule by naming the other rule -specifically-, not just glossing over a process. At least meet in the middle and say "casting... as defined in 601.2". Forget subrule, sure, but the one should be communicated in terms of the definitions.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
You're drawing a distinction, then, between (1) spells & abilities referring to counters being put on an object, and (2) [those] referring to putting counters on an object. In distinguishing that, you can then say while there's plenty of the second, the first has need only of spotting the case where the "an object" equals a permanent -- because the extent of cards in print, approaching that general situation, are yet not so general.
Trouble is, how can you say that the text of what Rezz writes as 122.6, is only talking about the event and not the incident? Is it consistently the case that the CR says "a spell/ability says" for the second purpose, and "a spell/ability refers to" for the first-? --i.e., the difference between the (executing) instruction, and a meta-linguistic instrument to clarify the applicability of a rule?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
The rule is clearly focusing on the clarification of things that "refer to counters being “put” on an object" I mean, it is in the rule, in the first sentence, that the rule is specifically about things that *refer* to counters being put onto an object; not things that put counters onto something. The rule cares about things that look for the action. What else would the phrase "refers to counters being put on an object" mean?
Rezzahan's objection to this seems to be that counters can be put on players and exiled cards. And he would be right. But the rule doesn't care about those because Clockspinning doesn't "refer" to counters being put; Jhoira's Timebug doesn't refer counters being put. They certainly refer to the counters that are already there to see what the spell can do, but neither one says anything about the new counters being put onto the card. As such, I am not entirely sure where your disagreement lies.
It almost seems like part of the issue is that people think this rule is meant to define what "put" means as a whole. It doesn't. We don't have a rule for defining "put" any more then we have a rule for defining "produce" or "return" because we don't need one. We use the normal English definition for these words to explain the meaning of what cards are doing. The rule above is an extension of certain scenarios where "put" is used and to offer clarification as to how "put" works in those cases. It is not meant to be anything more than an explanation of a specific scenario and one that Players and Exiled Cards can't be part of. At least, not with current cards.
If a card is ever printed that refers to counters being put on a player, and is actually worded as "counters put onto a player" (so, not the wording of Constrictor) then there may be a case for that rule needing to be adjusted. But there is no reason to update a rule to cover a scenario that currently can't exist.
Self-replacement effects are defined as replacement effects, even though they function basically not like them (CR614.15). Because of this, there is no place for Ram Through's self-replacement to, in fact, express how damage is dealt. In the hierarchy in CR 120.4, replacement effects are considered after the like of excess damage determinations. Ram Through is told by 614.15 to work as a replacement effect, in step 2, where the 'excess' term has no application.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].