Apologies in advance I know this is a weird scenario and spy kit is a little screwy. So long story short I want to find a way of using mazes end to win with only being in 4 colors. The setup is to have 7 unique gates out, animate a gate copy it with sakashima the imposter, animate sakashima make a copy of sakashima with helm of the host or mirror gallery bc legendary, give sakashima spy kit activate maze's end finding a 10th gate.
Does the spy kit giving sakashima more names make it unique or do they cancel each other out bc they are both sakashima?
I forgot it's still 1 gate short but would still like to know to settle the ruling with a friend if it did work
Spy kit really COULD have been great.
Sadly it is not as good as it could have been.
The main point is “has all names of nonlegendary creature cards”. There are no creatures that exist with the same name of the absent gates, thus spy kit would not be able to grant the equipped creature those needed names.
That doesn't matter, maze looks for 10 gates and if they are named differently. I can have sakashima stand in as a gate if she copies an animated gate bc she keeps her name. If I can give llanowar elves the gate land type it would also work though so far haven't figured out how to do that. The question is wether sakashima+ llanowar elves is the same or different than jUst sakashima
I see your point. I think our answer lies in the interpretation of the errata:
“ Controlling multiple Gates with the same name has no effect on your ability to win the game with Maze’s End. The excess Gates are simply ignored.”
The fact that they made a point to make this errata makes me believe each gate to count must have a name that no other gate has.
This would in turn negate the shakishma cloning spy kit strategy, but would still mean shakishima becoming a gate would still count.
How would you make Llanowar Elves into a gate?
If you could and have it keep just that name, that currently seems like it would also work, but it would be a new trick for me.
Sharing a name is the same thing as sharing a color: a blue-red shares color with a blue-black.
Having extra names doesn't chagne the fact that Sakashima is named Sakashima: any other legendary Sakashima will be subject to the Legend rule.
Try reading rule 704.5j by substituting the word 'color' instead of 'name':
If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same namecolor, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”
The question is not the legend rule (OP mentions how they need something like Mirror Gallery).
If you control
Eight ordinary gates with different names,
A gate named Sakashima, the Impostor,
A gate that has a gazillion names, one of which is Sakashima, the Impostor,
do you control ten gates with different names?
Under C.R. 201.2c, "[t]wo or more objects have different names if there are no names that both objects have in common." Thus, for example, if two permanents both have the name Sakashima the Impostor, they both don't have different names. Thus if the permanents you give are the only permanents a player controls, that player doesn't control ten Gates "with different names".
Note, however, that—
Gate is not a creature type, but a land type (C.R. 205.3i, 205.3m), and
Sakashima the Impostor is not the name of a nonlegendary creature card.
They ran into this with Dead Ringers, a simple concept that was banged up by the fact of things being multiple colors, and Set theory not having natural language isomorphism. Mostly things have one name, but not necessarily. So really, the intent behind "have different names" is what's key.
I'd start by noting that "ten things with different names" cannot be expanded to "for each two things of those ten, those two have different names." You need to have ten different names, or the counting part wouldn't change the logic of the "different" formula. We are supposed to check the names of (each of) the things, definitely, not to depend on a function of the totality of the names of each thing. Names are merely an attribute of a large class of values, and colors attributes of a class of five.
Does Sakashima the Impostor AKA Thragtusk AKA Murderous Redcap AKA Li'l Red AKA Anonymous Walmart Greeter AKA... and Sakashima the Impostor, have different names? I'd think yes, since {A} has one that's not {B}'s name (i.e., a name of {B}).
If you consider a third thing {C}, then {A},{B},{C} are only three things with different names if {C} has a name that isn't a name of {A}, or {A} has a name that isn't a name of {C}. Every name that you find that does distinguish another object from the aggregate also has to be something not used more than once. For example, if I had Thragtusk Murderous Redcap Flutterfox, and Flutterfox Thragtusk, and Murderous Redcap, and Flutterfox Murderous Redcap, then the last three are "three things with different names", seemingly, but to say the thrice-named strange-o can show up, and, having only the same names, make up "four things with different names", doesn't make any sense.
It's a friggin hard situation.
At minimum though, the Spy Kit will let that tenth Gate have a different name if you have 9 Gates with different names uncontroversially. Somewhere in like 1300 Magic cards is going to be a name not there.
The ruling on this is not going to be that it can't share any names to make up ten different ones.
It's really looking like I need to turn in my cap on this business. And in particular, despite idolizing petero and his posting style, I have what is now clearly a habit of just not seeing even the main assertion of some of his posts.
201.2c is actually completely self-explanatory, and makes the whole thing decided. You need ten things that have no names in common, at all. Find ten Gates where none of those ten things have a name another one has. Nothing with Spy Kit is going to work in a set of Gates with even one nonlegendary creature name. Full stop.
Does Sakashima the Impostor AKA Thragtusk AKA Murderous Redcap AKA Li'l Red AKA Anonymous Walmart Greeter AKA... and Sakashima the Impostor, have different names? I'd think yes, since {A} has one that's not {B}'s name (i.e., a name of {B}).
This directly contradicts CR 201.2c.
201.2c. Two or more objects have different names if there are no names that both objects have in common.
This rule is funny because the first half say "two or more" but the second half only mentions the two-object case ("both objects"), but it is clear Sakashima and Walmart Sakashima do NOT have different names.
Now, how about three or more objects? Changing "both" to "all" is clearly wrong (A, A and B would be differently named), so the only option seems to be changing "both objects" to "two or more of those objects".
It's really looking like I need to turn in my cap on this helpful business. See edit of previous post... ignore anything before the crossed-out line, unless you like Magic history and/or experimental game design (yeah... let's call it that...).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I have what is now clearly a habit of just not seeing even the main assertion of some of his posts.
Rest assured: you're not alone. As a teacher in my daily job, I have observed that clear and simple answers are much more helpful than Peter's precise but abstruse style.
201.2c is actually completely self-explanatory, and makes the whole thing decided. You need ten things that have no names in common, at all.
Indeed, as I've said 18 days ago, and as Peter has proven 2 days ago with rule 201.2c. A very challenging situation: my favorites!
Eighteen days ago (oct. 27) you made a statement about sharing names, when the determination at issue is about having different names. A relation between those terms was not offered into evidence in the post. The established complement to 'different' in Magicese is 'same', not sharing.
I have what is now clearly a habit of just not seeing even the main assertion of some of his posts.
Rest assured: you're not alone. As a teacher in my daily job, I have observed that clear and simple answers are much more helpful than Peter's precise but abstruse style.
You've twisted my unflinching praise of petero into support for your critique of the style, which I am obliged to take this chance to correct. While my attempt to take the whole blame on this is not, I suppose, incompatible with there being something wrong with petero's style objectively, it's still an opposite of what I said and I am made uneasy by it without adding this note.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
We are getting off-topic here, and a bit too personal. We're here to answer rules questions to the best of our ability, not to criticize each other. As was explained above, rule 201.2c answers the question. Thread over.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does the spy kit giving sakashima more names make it unique or do they cancel each other out bc they are both sakashima?
I forgot it's still 1 gate short but would still like to know to settle the ruling with a friend if it did work
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion Combo
GUEzuri, Claw of progress Morph
GUBSidisi, Brood tyrant
RWGisela, Blade of Goldnight Random red white cards i dont use.dec
GBLoam Pox
Modern
UBFaeries
GBWGoyfless Abzan
On Squirrels
On Risen Executioner
Sadly it is not as good as it could have been.
The main point is “has all names of nonlegendary creature cards”. There are no creatures that exist with the same name of the absent gates, thus spy kit would not be able to grant the equipped creature those needed names.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion Combo
GUEzuri, Claw of progress Morph
GUBSidisi, Brood tyrant
RWGisela, Blade of Goldnight Random red white cards i dont use.dec
GBLoam Pox
Modern
UBFaeries
GBWGoyfless Abzan
On Squirrels
On Risen Executioner
“ Controlling multiple Gates with the same name has no effect on your ability to win the game with Maze’s End. The excess Gates are simply ignored.”
The fact that they made a point to make this errata makes me believe each gate to count must have a name that no other gate has.
This would in turn negate the shakishma cloning spy kit strategy, but would still mean shakishima becoming a gate would still count.
If you could and have it keep just that name, that currently seems like it would also work, but it would be a new trick for me.
Having extra names doesn't chagne the fact that Sakashima is named Sakashima: any other legendary Sakashima will be subject to the Legend rule.
Try reading rule 704.5j by substituting the word 'color' instead of 'name':
If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same
namecolor, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
If you control
Note, however, that—
I'd start by noting that "ten things with different names" cannot be expanded to "for each two things of those ten, those two have different names." You need to have ten different names, or the counting part wouldn't change the logic of the "different" formula. We are supposed to check the names of (each of) the things, definitely, not to depend on a function of the totality of the names of each thing. Names are merely an attribute of a large class of values, and colors attributes of a class of five.
Does Sakashima the Impostor AKA Thragtusk AKA Murderous Redcap AKA Li'l Red AKA Anonymous Walmart Greeter AKA... and Sakashima the Impostor, have different names? I'd think yes, since {A} has one that's not {B}'s name (i.e., a name of {B}).
If you consider a third thing {C}, then {A},{B},{C} are only three things with different names if {C} has a name that isn't a name of {A}, or {A} has a name that isn't a name of {C}. Every name that you find that does distinguish another object from the aggregate also has to be something not used more than once. For example, if I had Thragtusk Murderous Redcap Flutterfox, and Flutterfox Thragtusk, and Murderous Redcap, and Flutterfox Murderous Redcap, then the last three are "three things with different names", seemingly, but to say the thrice-named strange-o can show up, and, having only the same names, make up "four things with different names", doesn't make any sense.
It's a friggin hard situation.
At minimum though, the Spy Kit will let that tenth Gate have a different name if you have 9 Gates with different names uncontroversially. Somewhere in like 1300 Magic cards is going to be a name not there.
The ruling on this is not going to be that it can't share any names to make up ten different ones.It's really looking like I need to turn in my cap on this business. And in particular, despite idolizing petero and his posting style, I have what is now clearly a habit of just not seeing even the main assertion of some of his posts.
201.2c is actually completely self-explanatory, and makes the whole thing decided. You need ten things that have no names in common, at all. Find ten Gates where none of those ten things have a name another one has. Nothing with Spy Kit is going to work in a set of Gates with even one nonlegendary creature name. Full stop.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
This rule is funny because the first half say "two or more" but the second half only mentions the two-object case ("both objects"), but it is clear Sakashima and Walmart Sakashima do NOT have different names.
Now, how about three or more objects? Changing "both" to "all" is clearly wrong (A, A and B would be differently named), so the only option seems to be changing "both objects" to "two or more of those objects".
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Rest assured: you're not alone. As a teacher in my daily job, I have observed that clear and simple answers are much more helpful than Peter's precise but abstruse style.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
Eighteen days ago (oct. 27) you made a statement about sharing names, when the determination at issue is about having different names. A relation between those terms was not offered into evidence in the post. The established complement to 'different' in Magicese is 'same', not sharing.
You've twisted my unflinching praise of petero into support for your critique of the style, which I am obliged to take this chance to correct. While my attempt to take the whole blame on this is not, I suppose, incompatible with there being something wrong with petero's style objectively, it's still an opposite of what I said and I am made uneasy by it without adding this note.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].