Marionette Master is on the battlefield.
6 Treasures are in my control.
I cast my commander with the treasures.
In response, my opponent casts Resculpt targeting Marionette.
Do I still do damage from the treasures or because Marionette is gone, her power is irrelevant?
When Marionette Master's last ability resolves with a legal target, the targeted opponent will lose life even if Marionette Master isn't on the battlefield anymore; the amount of life will be equal to Marionette Master's power if Marionette Master is still on the battlefield, or the power that Marionette Master last had if it's no longer on the battlefield (C.R. 608.2h, 113.7a). Note that the loss of life caused by that ability is not damage (damage to players usually causes loss of life, but not always [C.R. 120.3]).
Indeed, Marionette Master's last ability can be kept from resolving not by removing Marionette Master from the battlefield, but by countering that ability or by making the opponent it targets an illegal target of it (C.R. 115.1d, 608.2b, 701.5a, 113.7a).
Note that although a "Treasure token", as defined by C.R. 111.10a, is a "colorless Treasure artifact token with 'T, Sacrifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color'", the Treasure artifact type itself (C.R. 205.3g) has no abilities or game mechanics inherent to that type.
It seems you've updated your response since I initially replied, stating it's not considered damage dealt, but rather loss of life.
I understand this, but I'm having trouble communicating with a new player.
They don't understand how this scenario is different than, when earlier in the game, I destroyed their creature in response to them casting Ram Through, stating that upon resolving, since their creature isn't around, Ram Through doesn't have a creature to reference power from, so it does no damage.
They reminded me of this when I brought up Marionette Master, but I know Marionette Master doesn't specifically state SHE is doing the damage; Ram Through states "Target creature you control" does the damage.
Can you help me articulate the difference specifically with more rules references? This situation caused me to lose the game because I just went with it rather than arguing (while waiting for a response), but that has bothered me a lot, so I'd like help knowing officially why these circumstances are different.
Ram Through isn't merely getting data from the target creature. Ram Through tries to make the target actually -do- something; specifically, deal damage. Spells are not allowed to make illegal targets do things. Just as spells cannot do things to illegal targets.
From 608. Resolving Spells and Abilities,
608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard. Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.11), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen. (emphasis added)
If you're troubled by the sentence after the bolded part, it means to refer to cases where a spell has multiple target indicators, with different requirements, and you have pointed those targets at the same object. Decimate targeting an object like an enchantment creature as the target enchantment and as the target creature, which then loses one of those types, would be an illegal target for one of those selections but still a legal target for another one.
Do take confidence if you recall, that abilities can sometimes cause things that don't exist to do things. This is what happens if you destroy Bosh, Iron Golem with its ability on the Stack; and it's what happens every time Mogg Fanatic's ability resolves. A rule exists for this, which only mentions when abilities request that the nonexistent thing does something, so it doesn't apply to spells: "If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability." CR 608.2h. That rule isn't what makes Marionette Master do its thing though; that is covered by 113.7a:
"113.7a. Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to any target”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source for use while announcing an activated ability or putting a triggered ability on the stack checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists." --No actually this doesn't apply either.
The last sentence of 113.7a is not relevant here; Marionette Master's ability doesn't cause the Master to do anything, it causes a player to do something. And the part in the middle is just talking about parts of an ability's definition that refer to "the kinds of things you do when stacking or playing a spell or ability", like choosing targets or modes, if those definitions are unusual and reference the source of the ability. The reference to this rule in 608.2h covers the case of checking the source redundantly; in the context 113.7a the determination is that Marionette Master is not referring to itself in how to target things or otherwise placing the trigger on the Stack, so therefore (from the "Otherwise," on,) any information is checked when the ability resolves.
608.2h 608.2b (I meant 608.2b when I wrote this) doesn't fit, because "If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process." says "this process", of evaluating targets, which isn't how Marionette Master refers to itself.
so, I'm still looking, but kind of stumped right now.
edit: It's just another part of 608.2h:
608.2h If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.
Literally everything in it other than the part I quoted before.
In this respect, if Marionette Master's last ability had said "...Marionette Master deals damage equal to its power to target opponent" rather than "...target opponent loses life equal to Marionette Master's power", the ability would still have had Marionette Master deal that damage even if Marionette Master isn't on the battlefield anymore (C.R. 113.7a). Unlike Marionette Master's last ability, Ram Through has not just one, but two targets — "[t]arget creature you control" and "target creature you don't control" (C.R. 115.1a, 115.1d). If one target of Ram Through is illegal, but not the other, Ram Through will still get to resolve, but:
If the "creature you control" is illegal, the illegal target won't deal any damage (C.R. 608.2b).
If the "creature you don't control" is illegal, the illegal target won't be dealt any damage (and by extension, neither will excess damage be dealt as appropriate) (C.R. 608.2b, 120.4a).
(See also Dead Ringers and this thread.) By contrast, if Marionette Master's last ability's only target is illegal, the entire ability fails to resolve (C.R. 608.2b), but if that target is legal, the ability will get to resolve even if Marionette Master isn't on the battlefield anymore — especially because Marionette Master itself isn't a target of that ability (C.R. 115.1d, 608.2b).
Wow! Thank you both for expounding upon this issue! I knew it was complicated, especially for a new player, but the ruling that makes it so is quite long-winded.
I teach a lot of new players, but I don't know the letter of the law per se, so sometimes it's hard to communicate when a player gets angry about me saying, "because that's just how it is... ." I fear they think I'm just trying to win, but I don't need to make up rules to win.
To demonstrate understanding: Royal Assassin would still destroy the attacking creature even if Assassin is exiled in response to tapping, because the target creature is still legal, and the tap ability only has one target when it resolves.
Boy, thank you both, again, for helping me parse this data. This was a hard one to articulate coherently.
I am a relatively new MTG player. I learned a lot from this thread (as I do from most threads on this site).
But, one aspect of the OP puzzles me.
Why would the opponent lose any life at all when the Treasure tokens are sacrificed? They are tokens. They never enter the graveyard.
Why would the opponent lose any life at all when the Treasure tokens are sacrificed? They are tokens. They never enter the graveyard.
Yes, they do.
701.17. Sacrifice
701.17a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s a permanent they don’t control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action.
111.7. A token that’s in a zone other than the battlefield ceases to exist. This is a state-based action; see rule 704. (Note that if a token changes zones, applicable triggered abilities will trigger before the token ceases to exist.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why bother with mere rulings when so many answers can be found in the Rules?
111.8. A token that has left the battlefield can't move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a token would change zones, it remains in its current zone instead. It ceases to exist the next time state-based actions are checked; see rule 704.
111.8. A token that has left the battlefield can't move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a token would change zones, it remains in its current zone instead. It ceases to exist the next time state-based actions are checked; see rule 704.
This rule means, that once the token is gone from the battlefield to whatever zone, it can't leave that new zone. The rule does not mean, that it cannot leave the battlefield.
6 Treasures are in my control.
I cast my commander with the treasures.
In response, my opponent casts Resculpt targeting Marionette.
Do I still do damage from the treasures or because Marionette is gone, her power is irrelevant?
Indeed, Marionette Master's last ability can be kept from resolving not by removing Marionette Master from the battlefield, but by countering that ability or by making the opponent it targets an illegal target of it (C.R. 115.1d, 608.2b, 701.5a, 113.7a).
Note that although a "Treasure token", as defined by C.R. 111.10a, is a "colorless Treasure artifact token with 'T, Sacrifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color'", the Treasure artifact type itself (C.R. 205.3g) has no abilities or game mechanics inherent to that type.
I understand this, but I'm having trouble communicating with a new player.
They don't understand how this scenario is different than, when earlier in the game, I destroyed their creature in response to them casting Ram Through, stating that upon resolving, since their creature isn't around, Ram Through doesn't have a creature to reference power from, so it does no damage.
They reminded me of this when I brought up Marionette Master, but I know Marionette Master doesn't specifically state SHE is doing the damage; Ram Through states "Target creature you control" does the damage.
Can you help me articulate the difference specifically with more rules references? This situation caused me to lose the game because I just went with it rather than arguing (while waiting for a response), but that has bothered me a lot, so I'd like help knowing officially why these circumstances are different.
From 608. Resolving Spells and Abilities,
If you're troubled by the sentence after the bolded part, it means to refer to cases where a spell has multiple target indicators, with different requirements, and you have pointed those targets at the same object. Decimate targeting an object like an enchantment creature as the target enchantment and as the target creature, which then loses one of those types, would be an illegal target for one of those selections but still a legal target for another one.
Do take confidence if you recall, that abilities can sometimes cause things that don't exist to do things. This is what happens if you destroy Bosh, Iron Golem with its ability on the Stack; and it's what happens every time Mogg Fanatic's ability resolves. A rule exists for this, which only mentions when abilities request that the nonexistent thing does something, so it doesn't apply to spells: "If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability." CR 608.2h. That rule isn't what makes Marionette Master do its thing though;
that is covered by 113.7a:"113.7a. Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to any target”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source for use while announcing an activated ability or putting a triggered ability on the stack checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists."--No actually this doesn't apply either.The last sentence of 113.7a is not relevant here; Marionette Master's ability doesn't cause the Master to do anything, it causes a player to do something. And the part in the middle is just talking about parts of an ability's definition that refer to "the kinds of things you do when stacking or playing a spell or ability", like choosing targets or modes, if those definitions are unusual and reference the source of the ability. The reference to this rule in 608.2h covers the case of checking the source redundantly; in the context 113.7a the determination is that Marionette Master is not referring to itself in how to target things or otherwise placing the trigger on the Stack, so therefore (from the "Otherwise," on,) any information is checked when the ability resolves.
608.2h608.2b (I meant 608.2b when I wrote this) doesn't fit, because "If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process." says "this process", of evaluating targets, which isn't how Marionette Master refers to itself.so, I'm still looking, but kind of stumped right now.
edit: It's just another part of 608.2h:
608.2h If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.
Literally everything in it other than the part I quoted before.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
(See also Dead Ringers and this thread.) By contrast, if Marionette Master's last ability's only target is illegal, the entire ability fails to resolve (C.R. 608.2b), but if that target is legal, the ability will get to resolve even if Marionette Master isn't on the battlefield anymore — especially because Marionette Master itself isn't a target of that ability (C.R. 115.1d, 608.2b).
I teach a lot of new players, but I don't know the letter of the law per se, so sometimes it's hard to communicate when a player gets angry about me saying, "because that's just how it is... ." I fear they think I'm just trying to win, but I don't need to make up rules to win.
To demonstrate understanding:
Royal Assassin would still destroy the attacking creature even if Assassin is exiled in response to tapping, because the target creature is still legal, and the tap ability only has one target when it resolves.
Boy, thank you both, again, for helping me parse this data. This was a hard one to articulate coherently.
But, one aspect of the OP puzzles me.
Why would the opponent lose any life at all when the Treasure tokens are sacrificed? They are tokens. They never enter the graveyard.
Yes, they do.
111.8. A token that has left the battlefield can't move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a token would change zones, it remains in its current zone instead. It ceases to exist the next time state-based actions are checked; see rule 704.
This rule means, that once the token is gone from the battlefield to whatever zone, it can't leave that new zone. The rule does not mean, that it cannot leave the battlefield.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)