I control Patagia Viper, and create a token that copies it. In response to the enters-the-battlefield triggers, I cast Sea-Dasher Octopus for its mutate cost, mutating the token Viper.
When the token's abilities resolve, does it find that was spent to cast it? (see CR400.7) I think not, by way of noting the Octopus spell did not "become" the merged permanent, but only came to represent (among other representatives) that permanent. Is that the interaction?
Still, what happened to the Octopus spell? It resolved, it "becomes part of an object on the battlefield"(721.2b), and it "does not enter the battlefield"(702.139c). But it's still an object, so if it's not in any zone, it's outside the game (400.11). Which rule has the exception due to mutate? Is it an object that's not a permanent? Is it not an object yet a card? Is it inside the game not in a zone?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
For the purposes of Patagia Viper's last ability, "U was spent to cast" Patagia Viper if that mana was spent to cast the Patagia Viper spell that resolved as Patagia Viper (by entering the battlefield as Patagia Viper [C.R. 608.3]) (C.R. 400.7c). In most cases, if the permanent entered the battlefield as a token, then for the purposes of that ability, no mana "was spent to cast" that permanent, regardless of whether it would no longer be a nontoken permanent because of "mutating" [review C.R. 723.2d], since no spell resolved as that permanent.
Where Patagia Viper's ability says "it", it means the permanent represented by Patagia Viper, regardless of whether it's a merged permanent or not. And a "merged permanent is the same object that it was before" (C.R. 723.2c).
Thus, for the purposes of effects that care whether certain mana "was spent to cast" a spell that became what is now a merged permanent, what is relevant was whether the original permanent (here, Patagia Viper) entered the battlefield from the stack as a result of resolving. If so, the effect looks at whether mana was spent to cast the spell that became the original permanent (here, a Patagia Viper spell), and if so, what mana.
EDIT (Dec. 5): Correctness edit.
EDIT (Oct. 3, 2021): Some rules were renumbered in the meantime.
EDIT (Jun. 5, 2022): Add rule citation.
Still, what happened to the Octopus spell? It resolved, it "becomes part of an object on the battlefield"(721.2b), and it "does not enter the battlefield"(702.139c). But it's still an object, so if it's not in any zone, it's outside the game (400.11). Which rule has the exception due to mutate? Is it an object that's not a permanent? Is it not an object yet a card? Is it inside the game not in a zone?
A single permanent can be represented by multiple cards. While it didn't enter the battlefield it is in fact on the battlefield. You quote the rule yourself that says it's on the battlefield.
That rule doesn't say it's on the battlefield. It says it's part of an object on the battlefield. Not every quality of a whole is true of any part.
>>> Actually, the puzzlement I have is settled by an answer to one question, attached at the end.
If the card is an object and it's on the battlefield then the rule defining them says it IS a permanent. We know there has to still be object semantics for components of a merged permanent. CR 721 is loaded with ways that we still treat components as having the complex qualities of objects, like face-down status for example. Their being objects is not in question.
The intent is that some objects have components, and the necessity is that components are objects. The components are always cards, and those cards represent the object made of those components, and certain references to components pass on to the object merging them and vice versa. But the components are no longer meant to be addressable by player choices. They can't be targets & they can't be chosen as attackers.
The question:
If my opponent merges two cards without flash, & I gain control of the merged permanent, & my opponent controls Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir, does a Mutual Destruction I cast have flash (triggering my Slitherwisp) ?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
That rule doesn't say it's on the battlefield. It says it's part of an object on the battlefield. Not every quality of a whole is true of any part.
>>> Actually, the puzzlement I have is settled by an answer to one question, attached at the end.
If the card is an object and it's on the battlefield then the rule defining them says it IS a permanent. We know there has to still be object semantics for components of a merged permanent. CR 721 is loaded with ways that we still treat components as having the complex qualities of objects, like face-down status for example. Their being objects is not in question.
The intent is that some objects have components, and the necessity is that components are objects. The components are always cards, and those cards represent the object made of those components, and certain references to components pass on to the object merging them and vice versa. But the components are no longer meant to be addressable by player choices. They can't be targets & they can't be chosen as attackers.
The question:
If my opponent merges two cards without flash, & I gain control of the merged permanent, & my opponent controls Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir, does a Mutual Destruction I cast have flash (triggering my Slitherwisp) ?
You reading too much into this.
It is no different than meld cards. Each card is on the battlefield but is not coterminous with the permanent it represents, rather one of several components of that permanent.
Since the cards are on the battlefield, both the original and mutating card don't have flash as per Teferis rule text.
For the purposes of Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir, is a nontoken component of a merged permanent a "car[d] ... that [isn't] on the battlefield"? Similarly for the purposes of Conspiracy. I have asked the rules manager on this matter.
However, remember that generally, an object that merges into another permanent "becomes part of" that permanent (under C.R. 723.2b) largely insofar as it changes that permanent's characteristics. For example, a mutating creature spell doesn't enter the battlefield as a separate permanent when it resolves.
EDIT (Oct. 3, 2021): One rule was renumbered in the meantime.
When the token's abilities resolve, does it find that was spent to cast it? (see CR400.7) I think not, by way of noting the Octopus spell did not "become" the merged permanent, but only came to represent (among other representatives) that permanent. Is that the interaction?
Still, what happened to the Octopus spell? It resolved, it "becomes part of an object on the battlefield"(721.2b), and it "does not enter the battlefield"(702.139c). But it's still an object, so if it's not in any zone, it's outside the game (400.11). Which rule has the exception due to mutate? Is it an object that's not a permanent? Is it not an object yet a card? Is it inside the game not in a zone?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Where Patagia Viper's ability says "it", it means the permanent represented by Patagia Viper, regardless of whether it's a merged permanent or not. And a "merged permanent is the same object that it was before" (C.R. 723.2c).
Thus, for the purposes of effects that care whether certain mana "was spent to cast" a spell that became what is now a merged permanent, what is relevant was whether the original permanent (here, Patagia Viper) entered the battlefield from the stack as a result of resolving. If so, the effect looks at whether mana was spent to cast the spell that became the original permanent (here, a Patagia Viper spell), and if so, what mana.
EDIT (Dec. 5): Correctness edit.
EDIT (Oct. 3, 2021): Some rules were renumbered in the meantime.
EDIT (Jun. 5, 2022): Add rule citation.
>>> Actually, the puzzlement I have is settled by an answer to one question, attached at the end.
If the card is an object and it's on the battlefield then the rule defining them says it IS a permanent. We know there has to still be object semantics for components of a merged permanent. CR 721 is loaded with ways that we still treat components as having the complex qualities of objects, like face-down status for example. Their being objects is not in question.
The intent is that some objects have components, and the necessity is that components are objects. The components are always cards, and those cards represent the object made of those components, and certain references to components pass on to the object merging them and vice versa. But the components are no longer meant to be addressable by player choices. They can't be targets & they can't be chosen as attackers.
The question:
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
You reading too much into this.
It is no different than meld cards. Each card is on the battlefield but is not coterminous with the permanent it represents, rather one of several components of that permanent.
Since the cards are on the battlefield, both the original and mutating card don't have flash as per Teferis rule text.
However, remember that generally, an object that merges into another permanent "becomes part of" that permanent (under C.R. 723.2b) largely insofar as it changes that permanent's characteristics. For example, a mutating creature spell doesn't enter the battlefield as a separate permanent when it resolves.
EDIT (Oct. 3, 2021): One rule was renumbered in the meantime.