I've read a couple things about how this resolves, and it's okay if you yell at me for being obtuse, but I'm having difficulty with this one. Signed up just for this, and plan on playing a Mishra deck this weekend.
Mishra triggers at combat, selecting effigy. Mishra says that the token is an artifact creature, effigy says it is not (if you opt to make it a copy of a creature). There doesn't appear to be a clear order of operations for these two conflicting attribute assignments nor any indicator of which one takes priority over the other (that I can understand at least). Both use the same verbiage "except that".
My leaning is that Mishra finds the effigy, produces a token, and then effigy overwrites that tokens text, but I don't see anything in actual rules to support that timing or that there is an order to it at all, that's just the intuitive route.
There's also a line in rule 707.2 that says type-changing effects are not copied, of which effigy has a type-changing effect (or maybe it's not an effect but just rules text).
There is an order of operations, though. You create a token that's a copy of the Machine God's Effigy, "except its name is Mishra's Warform and it's a 4/4 Construct artifact creature in addition to its other types." The token acquires the copied information same as a permanent that becomes a copy, or a permanent that enters the battlefield as a copy. (CR 707.1)
This token has the ability of Machine God's Effigy only because it IS a copy of / it copied Machine God's Effigy. That ability, which makes an applicable replacement effect, subjects you to the choice to accept the "may" in it. If you do have that token "enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield, except it's an artifact and it has "{T}: Add {U}.", then it enters copying those things, and the other stuff, which the copy-origin of the token gave to that token, will not matter any more, just as the other characteristics of a Machine God's Effigy played straight, do not matter any more.
Nothing under 707.9 touches on complicating this picture. The resulting token itself, may have a complicated past, but the last applied copy effect (from the ability patterned on Machine God's Effigy's text), will have set "The copy’s copiable values" [to] "become the copied information" (CR 707.3). Everything that looks to that token to, for example, copy it for yet another permanent, will just get the values that this token showed up with, as it became a copy of "any creature on the battlefield" through that ability.
If this creature was a Gray Ogre, then that token would be a red artifact named Gray Ogre with "{T}: Add {U}.", mana cost 2R, and a power/toughness stat (2/2) that is not effective on its own unless given the card type creature (like a Vehicle has).
edit (extension):
In relation to your mystery over 707.2, the trouble with that rule is enumerating the other kinds of effects to copy effects runs into problems since a copy effect can change any kind of characteristic at all. The difference is just fiat. A copy effect is treated differently in layers, just because it says "copy" and the rules make it different. And the things that copy effects don't copy are anything other than "copiable values", which is a parallel assessment of characteristics, to the object's actual characteristics, mostly specified by the printed values interacting with other copy effects, and ending there. The list of what changes copiable values, in 707.2, is definitive. The free example exceptions are bringing in language that comes out of lives in relevance to 613. Interaction of Continuous Effects. The exceptions of status, counters, and stickers, are definitive. Copying doesn't copy effects at all, it copies values.
I don't actually see any rules based reason for that though.
"In relation to your mystery over 707.2"
I couldn't really follow your logic on this one. The example it gives on the rules manual I looked at made it plain that when it was a type-changing effect that only lasted until end of turn and not a type-change due to different text, it was not copiable. But I struggle to find any clarity here for other scenarios with type-changing.
In general, an effect that creates "a token that's a copy of" something, with or without exceptions (C.R. 707.9), defines that token's initial values (C.R. 111.3). Such values "are functionally equivalent to the characteristic values that are printed on a card" (C.R. 111.3). They are also "the values of the characteristics defined by" that effect — the values of the "actual object" — for purposes of C.R. 613.1.
In general, an effect that creates "a token that's a copy of" something, with or without exceptions (C.R. 707.9), defines that token's initial values (C.R. 111.3). Such values "are functionally equivalent to the characteristic values that are printed on a card". They are also "the values of the characteristics defined by" that effect — the values of the "actual object" — for purposes of C.R. 613.1.
"that token's initial values" - I do interpret that as meaning the token starts as an artifact creature BEFORE token effigy would turn itself into a non-creature artifact.
I don't blame you for seeing lack of clarity in the rules. There are small nuances as well as large strokes at which the body of 707. Copying Objects is understated. However, I will try to refine my answer into a formal argument with more direct citations.
The argument I made was an intuitive one that, just based on satisfying the meanings of the effects involved, excludes the interpretation that you can put them in another order. Briefly, that is because one of those effects does not exist until the other applies, to create the ability that generates that one.
The order of operations falls out, formally, from the layer system considered in tandem with the "initial values" rule of CR111.3 that peteroupc brings in. There is no 'before', since the token is never a creature, but instead it has a priorness or precedence rule, where each and every effect manipulates the object(s) by considering just the object as it began and then up to the mutations inflicted by effects with higher precedence, in an always-well-founded sequence (the guts of CR613.1).
I'll say, while it is of course coherent had the rules said to sometimes insert an effect, into the formula of effect interaction (CR613), at a stage prior to even the effect that is causing that effect to exist, the Magic rules don't do that, and dependency rules guarantee it. For other effects than Continuous Effects, and for replacement effects, precedence again arises, but from actually preceding others in time; or, for replacement effects, in preceding the others in being "applied" (even though this occurs without intervening moments in which the characteristics, statuses, zones, or any other disposition of the game alters, apart from the unactualized event(s) you are about to enact to change it).
I will edit the formalization of the argument into this post, if it remains the most recent one when I've finished.
edit:
The formal case hinges at the end, on establishing if an object which "does not have a subtype" (for example), made possible by CR109.3 (and reinforced by CR200.1), has still a value for the subtype characteristic.
If every object always has a value for the characteristics (enumerated at 109.3) - if only as "none" or "empty" - then the values that a copy "acquires" from an object in the copying process [CR 707.2], "derived from the text printed on" the object, will include the affirmative nullity of not being various colors, subtypes, and loyalties, where inapplicable. Then an object which has a characteristic that the source object lacks will lose it. Whereas, if not having a subtype means there is no value, then the copy cannot acquire that value, which means that copying a vanilla creature will lose none of the abilities the copy started with, and copying things (perhaps face-down) with no mana cost leaves the mana cost and color, and copying the rare object with no printed subtypes, or plentiful ones with no printed supertypes, by default leaves the subtypes or supertypes of the copy (not withstanding subtypes being masked to a card type the copy lacks).
I can plead that these apparently contravene the expectation of the rule authors, as loads of text has been written otherwise to behavior that doesn't even exist. For a proof, the matter of an absent characteristic still having a value is required to get through using 707.2, as written, to arrive at that conclusion.
I wrote the proof and this missing premise, and have reconsidered doing this much free labor for the company.
I appreciate the detailed breakdown. I believe this situation is problematic, if for no other reason than it is completely impossible to ELI5 the reason for correct/intended play of these cards in certain interactions. But that's a gripe I have with a lot of the current state of the game. I imagine a lot of people here play with pretty advanced groups, but in mine there is a lot of googling involved, usually with clear results.
So - to add to the question - your first explain with Gray Ogre kind of answered this addition, but i just want to clarify -
If i play MGE copying(in my case, metalworker colossus) but in reality any creature -- go to combat, making Mishra construct token(s) - which etb as MGE-metalworker colossus copy - do those tokens then have a p/t of 4/4 or 10/10.
in my eyes it all gets really convoluted when you start copying artifacts that copied a creature artifact making it not a creature.
The Mishra token gets some initial information from the copiable values of the Machine God's Effigy, but then modifies them. The token is an (Construct) artifact creature in addition to any types the Machine God's Effigy itself had, and it is 4/4.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
ahh ok, so doing what I did doesn't really matter then, the whole reason for that order/combo was to make all the constructs 10/10. That clarifies things.
Thanks for the quick response.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The scenario is Mishra, Eminent One in play with Machine God's Effigy in play as itself and not as a copy.
Mishra triggers at combat, selecting effigy. Mishra says that the token is an artifact creature, effigy says it is not (if you opt to make it a copy of a creature). There doesn't appear to be a clear order of operations for these two conflicting attribute assignments nor any indicator of which one takes priority over the other (that I can understand at least). Both use the same verbiage "except that".
My leaning is that Mishra finds the effigy, produces a token, and then effigy overwrites that tokens text, but I don't see anything in actual rules to support that timing or that there is an order to it at all, that's just the intuitive route.
There's also a line in rule 707.2 that says type-changing effects are not copied, of which effigy has a type-changing effect (or maybe it's not an effect but just rules text).
This token has the ability of Machine God's Effigy only because it IS a copy of / it copied Machine God's Effigy. That ability, which makes an applicable replacement effect, subjects you to the choice to accept the "may" in it. If you do have that token "enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield, except it's an artifact and it has "{T}: Add {U}.", then it enters copying those things, and the other stuff, which the copy-origin of the token gave to that token, will not matter any more, just as the other characteristics of a Machine God's Effigy played straight, do not matter any more.
Nothing under 707.9 touches on complicating this picture. The resulting token itself, may have a complicated past, but the last applied copy effect (from the ability patterned on Machine God's Effigy's text), will have set "The copy’s copiable values" [to] "become the copied information" (CR 707.3). Everything that looks to that token to, for example, copy it for yet another permanent, will just get the values that this token showed up with, as it became a copy of "any creature on the battlefield" through that ability.
If this creature was a Gray Ogre, then that token would be a red artifact named Gray Ogre with "{T}: Add {U}.", mana cost 2R, and a power/toughness stat (2/2) that is not effective on its own unless given the card type creature (like a Vehicle has).
edit (extension):
In relation to your mystery over 707.2, the trouble with that rule is enumerating the other kinds of effects to copy effects runs into problems since a copy effect can change any kind of characteristic at all. The difference is just fiat. A copy effect is treated differently in layers, just because it says "copy" and the rules make it different. And the things that copy effects don't copy are anything other than "copiable values", which is a parallel assessment of characteristics, to the object's actual characteristics, mostly specified by the printed values interacting with other copy effects, and ending there. The list of what changes copiable values, in 707.2, is definitive. The free example exceptions are bringing in language that
comes out oflives in relevance to 613. Interaction of Continuous Effects. The exceptions of status, counters, and stickers, are definitive. Copying doesn't copy effects at all, it copies values.Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I don't actually see any rules based reason for that though.
"In relation to your mystery over 707.2"
I couldn't really follow your logic on this one. The example it gives on the rules manual I looked at made it plain that when it was a type-changing effect that only lasted until end of turn and not a type-change due to different text, it was not copiable. But I struggle to find any clarity here for other scenarios with type-changing.
"that token's initial values" - I do interpret that as meaning the token starts as an artifact creature BEFORE token effigy would turn itself into a non-creature artifact.
The argument I made was an intuitive one that, just based on satisfying the meanings of the effects involved, excludes the interpretation that you can put them in another order. Briefly, that is because one of those effects does not exist until the other applies, to create the ability that generates that one.
The order of operations falls out, formally, from the layer system considered in tandem with the "initial values" rule of CR111.3 that peteroupc brings in. There is no 'before', since the token is never a creature, but instead it has a priorness or precedence rule, where each and every effect manipulates the object(s) by considering just the object as it began and then up to the mutations inflicted by effects with higher precedence, in an always-well-founded sequence (the guts of CR613.1).
I'll say, while it is of course coherent had the rules said to sometimes insert an effect, into the formula of effect interaction (CR613), at a stage prior to even the effect that is causing that effect to exist, the Magic rules don't do that, and dependency rules guarantee it. For other effects than Continuous Effects, and for replacement effects, precedence again arises, but from actually preceding others in time; or, for replacement effects, in preceding the others in being "applied" (even though this occurs without intervening moments in which the characteristics, statuses, zones, or any other disposition of the game alters, apart from the unactualized event(s) you are about to enact to change it).
I will edit the formalization of the argument into this post, if it remains the most recent one when I've finished.
edit:
The formal case hinges at the end, on establishing if an object which "does not have a subtype" (for example), made possible by CR109.3 (and reinforced by CR200.1), has still a value for the subtype characteristic.
If every object always has a value for the characteristics (enumerated at 109.3) - if only as "none" or "empty" - then the values that a copy "acquires" from an object in the copying process [CR 707.2], "derived from the text printed on" the object, will include the affirmative nullity of not being various colors, subtypes, and loyalties, where inapplicable. Then an object which has a characteristic that the source object lacks will lose it. Whereas, if not having a subtype means there is no value, then the copy cannot acquire that value, which means that copying a vanilla creature will lose none of the abilities the copy started with, and copying things (perhaps face-down) with no mana cost leaves the mana cost and color, and copying the rare object with no printed subtypes, or plentiful ones with no printed supertypes, by default leaves the subtypes or supertypes of the copy (not withstanding subtypes being masked to a card type the copy lacks).
I can plead that these apparently contravene the expectation of the rule authors, as loads of text has been written otherwise to behavior that doesn't even exist. For a proof, the matter of an absent characteristic still having a value is required to get through using 707.2, as written, to arrive at that conclusion.
I wrote the proof and this missing premise, and have reconsidered doing this much free labor for the company.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
If i play MGE copying(in my case, metalworker colossus) but in reality any creature -- go to combat, making Mishra construct token(s) - which etb as MGE-metalworker colossus copy - do those tokens then have a p/t of 4/4 or 10/10.
in my eyes it all gets really convoluted when you start copying artifacts that copied a creature artifact making it not a creature.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Thanks for the quick response.