Okay, so, I took my best shot at coming up for reminder text for this one, however, figured I wouldn't mind some help. What should proper reminder text for this one look like?
If you clarify every scenario it would possibly leave the battlefield, the espected reminder would see like this:
("Destroy" effects and lethal damage don't destroy it. It can't be returned to its owner's hand, or shuffled into its owner's library, or exiled. It can't phase out. It can't be put on the top, or bottom, or any place* of its owner's library from the battlefield. It can't be placed into the out-of-game-zone by any effect.)
* As "... third from the top..."
Of course it will not see ok, and if you become specific about each posible situation, the reminder would become clunky and more "confusing" (remember this reminder is oriented to unexperted players) than the ability's text itself.
So I propose the following:
(If any effect would make it leave the battlefield zone, it remains in the battlefield zone instead.)
And a tweak on the comprensive rules to do mention of this new ability and the possible interactions with the preexistent ones.
Since what the ruling proposes is a "veiled replacement effect", I think it could be ok to make it clear with a "replacement explanation".)
If the enchanted creature were to become 0/0 (through an effect like Infest), you'd cause the game to go into a state-based effect loop. SBEs check and recheck to make sure that the play environment is as it should be. Once the SBEs go through a check, they then repeat the check to see if anything has changed. As your creature is still 0/0, the game will continuously try to put it into its owner's graveyard, which your card will then keep preventing. Basically, the only way to make your card work is to change the rules, and this really isn't an area worth changing.
If the enchanted creature were to become 0/0 (through an effect like Infest), you'd cause the game to go into a state-based effect loop.
If this were true, it would happen every time an indestructible creature had lethal damage on it.
Quote from "Comp Rules" »
420.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 408, "Timing of Spells and Abilities"), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based effects. All applicable effects resolve simultaneously as a single event, then the check is repeated. Once no more state-based effects have been generated, triggered abilities go on the stack, and then the appropriate player gets priority. This check is also made during the cleanup step (see rule 314); if any of the listed conditions apply, the active player receives priority.
What that means is that when performing SBEs, if another SBE condition is created, it is immediately performed as well. For instance, if you have a Wizened Cenn and a Goldmeadow Stalwart in play and they both have 2 damage on them when SBEs are checked, the Cenn is destroyed (402.5c), then the Stalwart is destroyed rather than waiting around for the next time a player would receive priority. It doesn't mean that the SBEs will check and recheck themselves until none of their conditions are met.
As for reminder text, just write whatever makes the most sense in the least amount of space. Personally I don't think any is necessary in this case.
Originally Posted by Rush_Clasic
If the enchanted creature were to become 0/0 (through an effect like Infest), you'd cause the game to go into a state-based effect loop.
If this were true, it would happen every time an indestructible creature had lethal damage on it.
Incorrect. "Indestructible" prevents the effect "destroy" from applying. "Leaves play" is the result of that effect, not the effect itself. That effect will still have to happen, or at least try to.
And then, think about what would happen in multiplayer if the card's owner loses, if it worked the way you want.
Incorrect. "Indestructible" prevents the effect "destroy" from applying. "Leaves play" is the result of that effect, not the effect itself. That effect will still have to happen, or at least try to.
The Comp Rules don't say anything is dependent on whether the effect happens or not.
Quote from "Comp Rules" »
420.5b A creature with toughness 0 or less is put into its owner's graveyard. Regeneration can't replace this event.
420.5c A creature with lethal damage, but greater than 0 toughness, is destroyed. Lethal damage is an amount of damage greater than or equal to a creature's toughness. Regeneration can replace this event.
I fail to see how a check of lethal damage would suddenly be ignored, but a check of 0 toughness would persist. You seem to be saying SBEs are checked, see a creature with lethal damage, destroy it, then recheck (as per 420.3) and even though there is still a creature with lethal damage, they don't destroy it this time and move one?
Quote from "Condor" »
And then, think about what would happen in multiplayer if the card's owner loses, if it worked the way you want.
The way I want? I'm just trying to help out here; I'm not at all invested in this card working one way or another. Yeah, I'm sure there are issues with the card, the question is whether they only make for awkward moments or actually break games.
Quote from "Rush_Clasic" »
Good to see you over here, too, Condor.
Ditto, Condor. If I'm wrong, I would much rather have someone call me out on it than let my misconceptions spread like a virus. Even if you are a total sourpuss, I like having you around.
EDIT:
Rush_Clasic (or anyone reading), if you "get it" now, please let me know why it works that way. I'm not so conceited as to believe Condor is the only member capable of proving me wrong.
Indestructible
If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects can't destroy it. Such permanents are not destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the lethal-damage state-based effect (see rule 420.5c). Rules or effects may cause an indestructible permanent to be sacrificed, put into a graveyard, or removed from the game.
This is (I believe) the difference with both scenarios:
1) SBEs are checked. A creature with indestructible is in play with lethal damage on it. No SBE check is generated for it as its indestructibility quality just ignores the rule.
2) SBEs are checked. A creature enchanted my Immaterialise has a toughness of 0. A SBE effect is generated to put it into the graveyard. That effect attempts to put the creature into a graveyard, but can't do so. However, a SBE was still generated, so the check will repeat and recreate the SBE continuously.
In other words, the card created would need to have a clause about ignoring SBEs. The idea is just very messy.
In other words, the card created would need to have a clause about ignoring SBEs. The idea is just very messy.
I see. I didn't think "indestructible" had any rules text associated with it because it isn't an ability; I didn't even think to look for it in the Comp Rules. Thanks.
Yeah, I agree that putting "state-based effects" anywhere on a card's text, even reminder text, is just too ugly to be worth it.
Speak of the devil! The article on the CR update is up. Here's a little nugget on our topic:
704.3
This is the rule about when state-based actions are checked. It's been reworded to clarify that if the conditions for a state-based action exists, but that state-based action can't be performed (for example, if an indestructible creature has lethal damage marked on it), that state-based action isn't checked again even though the conditions for it still exist.
Speak of the devil! The article on the CR update is up. Here's a little nugget on our topic:
704.3
This is the rule about when state-based actions are checked. It's been reworded to clarify that if the conditions for a state-based action exists, but that state-based action can't be performed (for example, if an indestructible creature has lethal damage marked on it), that state-based action isn't checked again even though the conditions for it still exist.
Yeah, I saw that too. So I was wrong, but I will be right as of Zendikar? Or is it just "clarifying" what was already the case? Either way, I'm glad it's going to be more clear now.
Okay, so, I took my best shot at coming up for reminder text for this one, however, figured I wouldn't mind some help. What should proper reminder text for this one look like?
Thanks
-Niv
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
("Destroy" effects and lethal damage don't destroy it. It can't be returned to its owner's hand, or shuffled into its owner's library, or exiled. It can't phase out. It can't be put on the top, or bottom, or any place* of its owner's library from the battlefield. It can't be placed into the out-of-game-zone by any effect.)
* As "... third from the top..."
Of course it will not see ok, and if you become specific about each posible situation, the reminder would become clunky and more "confusing" (remember this reminder is oriented to unexperted players) than the ability's text itself.
So I propose the following:
(If any effect would make it leave the battlefield zone, it remains in the battlefield zone instead.)
And a tweak on the comprensive rules to do mention of this new ability and the possible interactions with the preexistent ones.
Since what the ruling proposes is a "veiled replacement effect", I think it could be ok to make it clear with a "replacement explanation".)
I hope to be right and to be helpful.
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
If this were true, it would happen every time an indestructible creature had lethal damage on it.
What that means is that when performing SBEs, if another SBE condition is created, it is immediately performed as well. For instance, if you have a Wizened Cenn and a Goldmeadow Stalwart in play and they both have 2 damage on them when SBEs are checked, the Cenn is destroyed (402.5c), then the Stalwart is destroyed rather than waiting around for the next time a player would receive priority. It doesn't mean that the SBEs will check and recheck themselves until none of their conditions are met.
As for reminder text, just write whatever makes the most sense in the least amount of space. Personally I don't think any is necessary in this case.
Incorrect. "Indestructible" prevents the effect "destroy" from applying. "Leaves play" is the result of that effect, not the effect itself. That effect will still have to happen, or at least try to.
And then, think about what would happen in multiplayer if the card's owner loses, if it worked the way you want.
Good to see you over here, too, Condor.
it stays in play but it's non-static abilities have no effect due to lack of owner/controller (including the triggers if I'm right)?
EDIT: except it is forced to leave once the enchantment does.
The Comp Rules don't say anything is dependent on whether the effect happens or not.
I fail to see how a check of lethal damage would suddenly be ignored, but a check of 0 toughness would persist. You seem to be saying SBEs are checked, see a creature with lethal damage, destroy it, then recheck (as per 420.3) and even though there is still a creature with lethal damage, they don't destroy it this time and move one?
The way I want? I'm just trying to help out here; I'm not at all invested in this card working one way or another. Yeah, I'm sure there are issues with the card, the question is whether they only make for awkward moments or actually break games.
Ditto, Condor. If I'm wrong, I would much rather have someone call me out on it than let my misconceptions spread like a virus. Even if you are a total sourpuss, I like having you around.
EDIT:
Rush_Clasic (or anyone reading), if you "get it" now, please let me know why it works that way. I'm not so conceited as to believe Condor is the only member capable of proving me wrong.
This is (I believe) the difference with both scenarios:
In other words, the card created would need to have a clause about ignoring SBEs. The idea is just very messy.
I see. I didn't think "indestructible" had any rules text associated with it because it isn't an ability; I didn't even think to look for it in the Comp Rules. Thanks.
Yeah, I agree that putting "state-based effects" anywhere on a card's text, even reminder text, is just too ugly to be worth it.
Yeah, I saw that too. So I was wrong, but I will be right as of Zendikar? Or is it just "clarifying" what was already the case? Either way, I'm glad it's going to be more clear now.