My opponent has an Archetype of Courage and I have a Stromkirk Captain on the battlefield. Is it correct to assume that none of my vampires will get first strike nor +1/+1 (according to rule 113.11)?
113.11. Effects can stop an object from having a specified ability. These effects say that the object “can’t have” that ability. If the object has that ability, it loses it. It’s also impossible for an effect to add that ability to the object. If a resolving spell or ability creates a continuous effect that would add the specified ability to such an object, that part of that continuous effect does not apply; however, other parts of that continuous effect will still apply, and that resolving spell or ability can still create other continuous effects. Continuous effects created by static abilities that would add the specified ability won’t apply to that object.
No, Vampire creatures "you control" other than Stromkirk Captain will still get +1/+1 despite Archetype of Courage. For the purposes of C.R. 113.11's last sentence, "Other Vampire creatures you control get +1/+1" and "Other Vampire creatures you control ... have first strike" are separate continuous effects; the former affects power and toughness (C.R. 613.4c), and the latter affects abilities (C.R. 613.1f), and Archetype of Courage stops the latter from granting first strike to creatures "you control". (Recall that under C.R. 609.1, static abilities "may create one or more continuous effects".)
Alternatively, if you believe that C.R. 113.11's last sentence could be read as "Continuous effects won't apply to that object if they're created by static abilities that would add the specified ability", then that is an ambiguity in that rule.
EDIT (Dec. 18): One rule was renumbered in the meantime. Correctness edit.
Well worded as it is, Stromkirk Captain does look like a unique continuous effect (being applied in serveral different layers as you mention, I agree, but a single continous effect as a whole nonetheless).
So your understanding is that, for the purpose of C.R. 113.11, you have to split Stromkirk Captain continuous effect in two different parts?
While I would agree if the continuous effect was created by resolving a spell or an ability:
If a resolving spell or ability creates a continuous effect that would add the specified ability to such an object, that part of that continuous effect does not apply; however, other parts of that continuous effect will still apply, and that resolving spell or ability can still create other continuous effects.
my understanding of the rule for static abilities is different from yours.
The rule states that:
Continuous effects created by static abilities that would add the specified ability won’t apply to that object.
So, in this case, since the whole effect is "Gain First Strike and Get +1/+1", and since the rule don't allow us to only apply part of the continuous effect for static abilities (like they would do for a spell/ability resolving), my understanding is that none of my Vampires would get +1/+1.
Alternatively, if you believe that C.R. 113.11's last sentence could be read as "Continuous effects won't apply to that object if they're created by static abilities that would add the specified ability", then that is an ambiguity in that rule.
That's exactly my understanding of the rule (which I find highly surprising), and this is why I'm coming here to see if anyone has a definite answer for this.
So, in this case, since the whole effect is "Gain First Strike and Get +1/+1", and since the rule don't allow us to only apply part of the continuous effect for static abilities (like they would do for a spell/ability resolving)
They have to be applied only part at a time, because they are applied in different layers. It might be different if Stromkirk Captain said something like "Other Vampire creatures you control that can have first strike get +1/+1 and have first strike."
613.6. If an effect should be applied in different layers and/or sublayers, the parts of the effect each
apply in their appropriate ones. If an effect starts to apply in one layer and/or sublayer, it will
continue to be applied to the same set of objects in each other applicable layer and/or sublayer, even
if the ability generating the effect is removed during this process.
Example: An effect that reads “Wild Mongrel gets +1/+1 and becomes the color of your
choice until end of turn” is both a power- and toughness-changing effect and a colorchanging
effect. The “becomes the color of your choice” part is applied in layer 5, and then
the “gets +1/+1” part is applied in layer 7c.
Example: Act of Treason has an effect that reads “Gain control of target creature until end
of turn. Untap that creature. It gains haste until end of turn.” This is both a controlchanging
effect and an effect that adds an ability to an object. The “gain control” part is
applied in layer 2, and then the “it gains haste” part is applied in layer 6.
Example: An effect that reads “All noncreature artifacts become 2/2 artifact creatures until
end of turn” is both a type-changing effect and a power- and toughness-setting effect. The
type-changing effect is applied to all noncreature artifacts in layer 4 and the power- and
toughness-setting effect is applied to those same permanents in layer 7b, even though those
permanents aren’t noncreature artifacts by then.
Example: Svogthos, the Restless Tomb, is on the battlefield. An effect that says “Until end of
turn, target land becomes a 3/3 creature that’s still a land” is applied to it (layers 4 and 7b).
An effect that says “Target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn” is applied to it (layer 7c),
making it a 4/4 land creature. Then while you have ten creature cards in your graveyard,
you activate Svogthos’s ability: “Until end of turn, Svogthos, the Restless Tomb becomes a
black and green Plant Zombie creature with ‘This creature’s power and toughness are each
equal to the number of creature cards in your graveyard.’ It’s still a land.” (layers 4, 5, and
7b). It becomes an 11/11 land creature. If a creature card enters or leaves your graveyard,
Svogthos’s power and toughness will be modified accordingly. If the first effect is applied to
it again, it will become a 4/4 land creature again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why bother with mere rulings when so many answers can be found in the Rules?
Just to make it clear, I'm not contesting the fact that Stromkirk Captain effect is (or should be) applied in different layers.
However, the rulings of C.R. 113.11 says:
Continuous effects created by static abilities that would add the specified ability won’t apply to that object.
It doesn't state that only the parts of the effect that apply in this layer aren't applied. It states that "Continuous effect (...) won't apply to that object."
Since the Gaining First Strike and Getting +1/+1 are parts of a single continuous effect (despite them being applied it different layers), it means, from what I understand, that the whole effect shouldn't be applied (so no +1/+1).
Just to make it clear, I'm not contesting the fact that Stromkirk Captain effect is (or should be) applied in different layers.
However, the rulings of C.R. 113.11 says:
Continuous effects created by static abilities that would add the specified ability won’t apply to that object.
It doesn't state that only the parts of the effect that apply in this layer aren't applied. It states that "Continuous effect (...) won't apply to that object."
Since the Gaining First Strike and Getting +1/+1 are parts of a single continuous effect (despite them being applied it different layers), it means, from what I understand, that the whole effect shouldn't be applied (so no +1/+1).
Similarly to how a spell with multiple targets will still resolve and do as much as it can even if one of the targets is gone you still have the +1. If you think about it as one ability it tries to give first strike but it can't so it moves on and gives just +1/+1.
Similarly to how a spell with multiple targets will still resolve and do as much as it can even if one of the targets is gone you still have the +1. If you think about it as one ability it tries to give first strike but it can't so it moves on and gives just +1/+1.
I'm sorry, but is this claim backed up by any actual rule? Cause I've just quoted a rule that actually says the opposite. Perhaps there is another rule I'm missing, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading, and I'm fine discussing that! But I'm not inclined to blindly follow claims that aren't back-up by any rule.
For the record, if instead of Stromkirk Captain, the effect was produced by an instant/sorcery/ability resolving, I would agree with you. Cause this case is handled by:
If a resolving spell or ability creates a continuous effect that would add the specified ability to such an object, that part of that continuous effect does not apply; however, other parts of that continuous effect will still apply, and that resolving spell or ability can still create other continuous effects.
But my case is different, since my continous effect if created by a static ability, not a spell/ability resolving.
I'm sorry, but is this claim backed up by any actual rule? Cause I've just quoted a rule that actually says the opposite. Perhaps there is another rule I'm missing, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading, and I'm fine discussing that! But I'm not inclined to blindly follow claims that aren't back-up by any rule.
This might be difficult to hear, but Comprehensive Rules, despite its grandiose name, vast amounts of text, and regular upkeep, simply isn't built to handle every single specific card interaction in the game. Specific card interactions can be a blind spot for certain card interactions, and that's why there's another rule: what the judge says, goes. Judges may be wrong, as they are human, but the comp rules simply can't intercede in every quibble over card interactions. Those judge rulings may be written down, in which they become [O] rulings, such as this one:
2/1/2014
While you control an Archetype, continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells and abilities that would give the specified ability to creatures your opponents control aren’t created. For example, if you control Archetype of Courage, a spell cast by an opponent that gives creatures they control first strike wouldn’t cause the creatures to have first strike, even if later in the turn Archetype of Courage left the battlefield. (If the spell has additional effects, such as raising the power of the creatures, those effects will apply as normal.)
Now, this particular [O] ruling does not, as you have said, answer your precise question regarding static abilities, so I encourage you to seek out a judge ruling on this subject from a judge community. However, the text I have bolded here indicates that the response I expect from the judge will be that the lord will still give +1/+1, extrapolating from the spell interaction.
I apologize that it might be frustrating for you to ask for hard rulings on the subject and get a direction to find a judge who may very well give you the same response as us, but that's the space most of the game's card-to-card rules interactions live in.
I've actually asked two different judges their oppinion on this ruling.
One agreed that the ruling was ambiguous, but is considering my understanding to be wrong.
The other one stated that I was wrong, but somehow to admit the ruling was unclear. I discovered later that this Judge is entitled to provide [O] rulings, so I guess the final word would be that I'm wrong. I'm still hoping for an answer from the rules manager on this topic, since I still think there's something fishy with this rule.
I guess there's no point to keep this topic going, unless an official answer is provided.
In the meantime I have received an answer from Matt Tabak, the rules manager at the time of this writing: Despite Archetype of Courage, "[o]ther Vampire creatures you control [than Stromkirk Captain will still] get +1/+1" due to Stromkirk Captain.
This is a shortcoming in the rules. Tabak's answer implies the generality that effects are not composite objects, i.e., they are not the kind of thing where an effect plus another effect is an effect, or an effect can be made out of effects. In this case, that the static ability of the Captain is creating a set of effects defined by one ability. But, over a handful of places in the CR, now that I'm looking for it, is language that casts the effects produced from cards as being each indeed one effect, and therefore made out of multiple effects for the obvious examples of it. Some citations:
613.6. If an effect should be applied in different layers and/or sublayers, the parts of the effect each apply in their appropriate ones.
Explicitly says 'parts'.
611.2c {...} If a single continuous effect has parts that modify the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects and other parts that don’t, the set of objects each part applies to is determined independently.
An unfortunate resort of, it appears, wanting to DISPEL the idea of effects being composite and having meta-rules modify them together, and yet it talks of when a "single effect" "has parts".
I'd be wary about how many other places have such implications.
I would wager that the intended semantics are that effects are not composite. They are radically atomic, with the exception of modifying power and toughness which is not to be broken down into a sum of +1/+0s and +0/+1s, for instance. Indeed there is some complexity here, because giving multiple colors, or multiple names, could be broken down into multiple effects each giving one characteristic value, and I don't think that's intended either. The greater part of the CR, the "meat" of the rules, treat with disposing each effect to its correct layer, and in honoring essentially "notwithstanding" clauses, in effects persisting through failures of their peers produced from the same source.
The trouble with deciding effects are composite vs. that they are radically atomic, is that the wording of CR113.11 talks about effect application. It doesn't say that the effect "doesn't give that ability". The concept of effect composition becomes pivotal to interpreting that rule. It is highlighted as an issue because it is a distinction contained within the single rule itself, its earlier part for spells referring to "parts" but that not being used to clarify static abilities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
My opponent has an Archetype of Courage and I have a Stromkirk Captain on the battlefield. Is it correct to assume that none of my vampires will get first strike nor +1/+1 (according to rule 113.11)?
Alternatively, if you believe that C.R. 113.11's last sentence could be read as "Continuous effects won't apply to that object if they're created by static abilities that would add the specified ability", then that is an ambiguity in that rule.
EDIT (Dec. 18): One rule was renumbered in the meantime. Correctness edit.
So your understanding is that, for the purpose of C.R. 113.11, you have to split Stromkirk Captain continuous effect in two different parts?
While I would agree if the continuous effect was created by resolving a spell or an ability:
my understanding of the rule for static abilities is different from yours.
The rule states that:
So, in this case, since the whole effect is "Gain First Strike and Get +1/+1", and since the rule don't allow us to only apply part of the continuous effect for static abilities (like they would do for a spell/ability resolving), my understanding is that none of my Vampires would get +1/+1.
That's exactly my understanding of the rule (which I find highly surprising), and this is why I'm coming here to see if anyone has a definite answer for this.
They have to be applied only part at a time, because they are applied in different layers. It might be different if Stromkirk Captain said something like "Other Vampire creatures you control that can have first strike get +1/+1 and have first strike."
However, the rulings of C.R. 113.11 says:
It doesn't state that only the parts of the effect that apply in this layer aren't applied. It states that "Continuous effect (...) won't apply to that object."
Since the Gaining First Strike and Getting +1/+1 are parts of a single continuous effect (despite them being applied it different layers), it means, from what I understand, that the whole effect shouldn't be applied (so no +1/+1).
Similarly to how a spell with multiple targets will still resolve and do as much as it can even if one of the targets is gone you still have the +1. If you think about it as one ability it tries to give first strike but it can't so it moves on and gives just +1/+1.
I'm sorry, but is this claim backed up by any actual rule? Cause I've just quoted a rule that actually says the opposite. Perhaps there is another rule I'm missing, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading, and I'm fine discussing that! But I'm not inclined to blindly follow claims that aren't back-up by any rule.
For the record, if instead of Stromkirk Captain, the effect was produced by an instant/sorcery/ability resolving, I would agree with you. Cause this case is handled by:
But my case is different, since my continous effect if created by a static ability, not a spell/ability resolving.
This might be difficult to hear, but Comprehensive Rules, despite its grandiose name, vast amounts of text, and regular upkeep, simply isn't built to handle every single specific card interaction in the game. Specific card interactions can be a blind spot for certain card interactions, and that's why there's another rule: what the judge says, goes. Judges may be wrong, as they are human, but the comp rules simply can't intercede in every quibble over card interactions. Those judge rulings may be written down, in which they become [O] rulings, such as this one:
2/1/2014
While you control an Archetype, continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells and abilities that would give the specified ability to creatures your opponents control aren’t created. For example, if you control Archetype of Courage, a spell cast by an opponent that gives creatures they control first strike wouldn’t cause the creatures to have first strike, even if later in the turn Archetype of Courage left the battlefield. (If the spell has additional effects, such as raising the power of the creatures, those effects will apply as normal.)
Now, this particular [O] ruling does not, as you have said, answer your precise question regarding static abilities, so I encourage you to seek out a judge ruling on this subject from a judge community. However, the text I have bolded here indicates that the response I expect from the judge will be that the lord will still give +1/+1, extrapolating from the spell interaction.
I apologize that it might be frustrating for you to ask for hard rulings on the subject and get a direction to find a judge who may very well give you the same response as us, but that's the space most of the game's card-to-card rules interactions live in.
I've actually asked two different judges their oppinion on this ruling.
One agreed that the ruling was ambiguous, but is considering my understanding to be wrong.
The other one stated that I was wrong, but somehow to admit the ruling was unclear. I discovered later that this Judge is entitled to provide [O] rulings, so I guess the final word would be that I'm wrong. I'm still hoping for an answer from the rules manager on this topic, since I still think there's something fishy with this rule.
I guess there's no point to keep this topic going, unless an official answer is provided.
Thanks everyone!
EDIT (Jan. 13): Clarification.
613.6. If an effect should be applied in different layers and/or sublayers, the parts of the effect each apply in their appropriate ones.
Explicitly says 'parts'.
611.2c {...} If a single continuous effect has parts that modify the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects and other parts that don’t, the set of objects each part applies to is determined independently.
An unfortunate resort of, it appears, wanting to DISPEL the idea of effects being composite and having meta-rules modify them together, and yet it talks of when a "single effect" "has parts".
I'd be wary about how many other places have such implications.
I would wager that the intended semantics are that effects are not composite. They are radically atomic, with the exception of modifying power and toughness which is not to be broken down into a sum of +1/+0s and +0/+1s, for instance. Indeed there is some complexity here, because giving multiple colors, or multiple names, could be broken down into multiple effects each giving one characteristic value, and I don't think that's intended either. The greater part of the CR, the "meat" of the rules, treat with disposing each effect to its correct layer, and in honoring essentially "notwithstanding" clauses, in effects persisting through failures of their peers produced from the same source.
The trouble with deciding effects are composite vs. that they are radically atomic, is that the wording of CR113.11 talks about effect application. It doesn't say that the effect "doesn't give that ability". The concept of effect composition becomes pivotal to interpreting that rule. It is highlighted as an issue because it is a distinction contained within the single rule itself, its earlier part for spells referring to "parts" but that not being used to clarify static abilities.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].