This is a bit more out there since it doesn't involve an existing card, but I was working on some custom cards where this came up, and would like to check if this wording would work within the confines of the current rules.
Effect: "Copy target spell. You may choose new targets for the copy. If the copy would become a permanent, create a token that's a copy of it instead."
Here, I'm using wording from Twincast and the reminder text in Perplexing Chimera.
Rule 706.10a is relevant here: If a copy of a spell is in a zone other than the stack, it ceases to exist. If a copy of a card is in any zone other than the stack or the battlefield, it ceases to exist. These are state-based actions. See rule 704.
If I read this correctly, then the copy of the permanent spell would still attempt to enter the battlefield, but the moment it would do so, it ceases to exist. So the the phrase "if the copy would become a permanent" is valid and would cause that part of the effect to trigger (the "if" is true). The "instead" at the end is probably not required (because the spell would cease to exist and you'd still have a token), but I added it in there for clarity to make it more defined that the copy of the spell never actually attempts to enter the battlefield, because a token is created instead.
There is precedent to making copies of objects that create objects of a different type (see Body Double, copy of a card here becomes a permanent), where the same rule referenced above is relevant.
Does anyone have a thought on this?
Thanks!
EDIT: Forgot to mention that I also used phrasing for the token copy from Eternalize, which is another example of a copy of a card (as opposed to a permanent) becoming a token (itself a permanent):
Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Cat with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.
You'd be better off bringing that to the custom card forum. This rulings forum deals with rules that already exist, as well as precendent. The precedent for uncharted territory is to write new rules that support the new mechanic.
Yeah, that's fair. Don't want to double post, so maybe I'll wait for an admin to move it.
In the meantime, would there even need to be new rules made to have this phrasing work? That's kind of what I was looking to ask with this post. If this phrasing was valid within the current rules. If the simple answer is not, then that's fine.
As for your hypothetical wording, it feels very close to how this effet would be worded, I think; it might be possible for this to work without too much stuff added to the comprehensive rules, BUT I still think it would require some. Though I can't pinpoint them all, I believe the effect has rules issues linked to it, or it would probably already have been done. You're creating a token permanent that's a copy of a permanent spell. Permanent spells are not normally copiable, and they have certain particularities that may not translate too well to being copied onto a permanent. The issue that comes first to my mind is a permanent with an X in its mana cost. That X is defined when the card is a spell on the stack, but not anywhere else, it's treated as 0. How would that be translated when the spell's characteristics are copied into the token? It would probably end up as 0 as is usual for a permanent, but that would need a rules clarification, I think. I'm pretty sure there are bigger issues too, that don't come to my mind right now.
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
"If the copy would become a permanent, create a token that's a copy of it instead." This hasn't circumvented Rule 706.10a you are simply saying that the copy is a token but it is still a copy of a spell. This works fine for reminder text but rules text has to be more comprehensive.
If such an ability was added to the game it would be added to the rules because there is no simple and clear way for a single card to define what should be happening. There are a host of reasons to use an actual rules addition rather than simply saying you make a token; the simplest and most obvious are Auras, Mutating creatures, and X.
While the effect is fairly complicated its also understandable enough that if you wanted to make custom cards with such an effect it is easy to imagine how the rules would function for them. Because you would likely not even run into them you could ignore the edge cases that would inevitably come up and have to be dealt with by actual rules changes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Effect:
"Copy target spell. You may choose new targets for the copy. If the copy would become a permanent, create a token that's a copy of it instead."
Here, I'm using wording from Twincast and the reminder text in Perplexing Chimera.
Rule 706.10a is relevant here: If a copy of a spell is in a zone other than the stack, it ceases to exist. If a copy of a card is in any zone other than the stack or the battlefield, it ceases to exist. These are state-based actions. See rule 704.
If I read this correctly, then the copy of the permanent spell would still attempt to enter the battlefield, but the moment it would do so, it ceases to exist. So the the phrase "if the copy would become a permanent" is valid and would cause that part of the effect to trigger (the "if" is true). The "instead" at the end is probably not required (because the spell would cease to exist and you'd still have a token), but I added it in there for clarity to make it more defined that the copy of the spell never actually attempts to enter the battlefield, because a token is created instead.
There is precedent to making copies of objects that create objects of a different type (see Body Double, copy of a card here becomes a permanent), where the same rule referenced above is relevant.
Does anyone have a thought on this?
Thanks!
EDIT: Forgot to mention that I also used phrasing for the token copy from Eternalize, which is another example of a copy of a card (as opposed to a permanent) becoming a token (itself a permanent):
Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Cat with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.
In the meantime, would there even need to be new rules made to have this phrasing work? That's kind of what I was looking to ask with this post. If this phrasing was valid within the current rules. If the simple answer is not, then that's fine.
Thanks!
As for your hypothetical wording, it feels very close to how this effet would be worded, I think; it might be possible for this to work without too much stuff added to the comprehensive rules, BUT I still think it would require some. Though I can't pinpoint them all, I believe the effect has rules issues linked to it, or it would probably already have been done. You're creating a token permanent that's a copy of a permanent spell. Permanent spells are not normally copiable, and they have certain particularities that may not translate too well to being copied onto a permanent. The issue that comes first to my mind is a permanent with an X in its mana cost. That X is defined when the card is a spell on the stack, but not anywhere else, it's treated as 0. How would that be translated when the spell's characteristics are copied into the token? It would probably end up as 0 as is usual for a permanent, but that would need a rules clarification, I think. I'm pretty sure there are bigger issues too, that don't come to my mind right now.
If such an ability was added to the game it would be added to the rules because there is no simple and clear way for a single card to define what should be happening. There are a host of reasons to use an actual rules addition rather than simply saying you make a token; the simplest and most obvious are Auras, Mutating creatures, and X.
While the effect is fairly complicated its also understandable enough that if you wanted to make custom cards with such an effect it is easy to imagine how the rules would function for them. Because you would likely not even run into them you could ignore the edge cases that would inevitably come up and have to be dealt with by actual rules changes.