I am having a blast working on my Experiment Kraj EDH deck and ran into a card interaction that I wanted to double check. My question arises from having Experiment Kraj in play along with a creature with a +1/+1 counter equipped with Heartseeker. The Experiment Kraj will gained the activated ability of the creature granted from the Heartseeker, but I am not sure what to make of the "Unattach Heartseeker" part of the cost of the ability ({T}, Unattach Heartseeker: Destroy target creature.).
I suppose it depends on what exactly "unattach Heartseeker" means. If it means "unattach Heartseeker from this permanent", this won't work. If it means "unattach Heartseeker from whatever it's attached to", then I think this would work. I have no idea which interpretation the rules actually support.
I would rule that this interaction works just fine.
My basis for this is that the ability is paid for by the player, not by the creature. Just because you can't unattach Heartseeker from Experiment Kraj does not mean you cannot unattach Heartseeker. Indeed, there must be a creature with a Heartseeker attached, or else Kraj would not have the ability in the first place.
So, you unattach Heartseeker from whichever creature Kraj got the ability from as the cost. Note that the rule for "unattach" does not say you must control the equipment or the creature it is attached to in order to unattach it.
701.3d. To "unattach" an Equipment from a creature means to move it away from that creature so the Equipment is on the battlefield but is not equipping anything. It should no longer be physically touching any creature. If an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification that was attached to something ceases to be attached to it, that counts as "becoming unattached"; this includes if that object and/or that Aura, Equipment, or Fortification leaves the battlefield.
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
And you can't unattach it because it is not attached to "this permanent", that is, Kraj.
So you can't pay the cost.
There is no "this permanent" anywhere, Heartseeker only says "Unattach Heartseeker."
Quote from Experiment Kraj »
Experiment Kraj has all activated abilities of each other creature with a +1/+1 counter on it.
{T}: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.
Quote from Heartseeker »
Equipped creature gets +2/+1 and has "{T}, Unattach Heartseeker: Destroy target creature."
Equip {5} ({5}: Attach to target creature you control. Equip only as a sorcery. This card enters the battlefield unattached and stays on the battlefield if the creature leaves.)
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
Experiment Kraj would have said text reading "T, Unattach Heartseeker: Destroy target creature." However, as unattaching Heartseeker is part of the cost, not the effect, you couldn't use this ability at all(because you can't pay the cost).
Experiment Kraj would have said text reading "T, Unattach Heartseeker: Destroy target creature." However, as unattaching Heartseeker is part of the cost, not the effect, you couldn't use this ability at all(because you can't pay the cost).
Why can't you pay the cost, exactly? Is there some reason why you can't unattach Heartseeker from another creature to pay the cost?
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
Deep down, the question is: The cost "Unattach Heartseeker, T" means exactly that? If it does, the cost can be paid for.
If it has an implicit meaning "Unattach Heartseeker from this permanent, T", then it can't be paid and the ability is never played.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-
YOU ARE SURPRISED BY A MANTICORE! IT QUICKLY SHREDS YOUR FLESH AND DEVOURS YOU!
Deep down, the question is: The cost "Unattach Heartseeker, T" means exactly that? If it does, the cost can be paid for.
If it has an implicit meaning "Unattach Heartseeker from this permanent, T", then it can't be paid and the ability is never played.
I haven't missed that point, I addressed it in my first post in this thread. Deep down, the answer is that there is no written implicit meaning in "Unattach Heartseeker" in the rules which states that it means from this permanent. It means exactly what it says, unattach Heartseeker. There is nothing barring you from performing that action.
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
I haven't missed that point, I addressed it in my first post in this thread. Deep down, the answer is that there is no written implicit meaning in "Unattach Heartseeker" in the rules which states that it means from this permanent. It means exactly what it says, unattach Heartseeker. There is nothing barring you from performing that action.
I'm not sure about that. The ability isn't talking about "a card named Heartseeker", so it's talking about the permanent itself. Since Kraj isn't equipped, he can't unequip anything.
I'm not sure about that. The ability isn't talking about "a card named Heartseeker", so it's talking about the permanent itself. Since Kraj isn't equipped, he can't unequip anything.
I already addressed that, the player pays the costs, not the creature.
It's talking about the object which granted the ability. It means "Unattach this Heartseeker" not "Unattach Heartseeker from this permanent."
201.2b. If an ability of an object grants to an object an ability that refers to the first object by name, the name refers only to the object whose ability grants that ability, not to any other object with the same name.
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
I'm pretty sure he did. The problem is that the rules define what unattaching an Equipment from a (given) creature entails, but the cost in the ability that Heartseeker provides doesn't identify the creature from which Heartseeker must be unattached to pay the cost.
"Unattach Heartseeker" can mean "Unattached Heartseeker from this creature" or it can mean "Unattach Heartseeker from whichever creature it's attached to". Both interpretations are equally valid since there is no rule that tells us to favor one over the other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
Triangle man, read the rules excerpt from my first reply's quote (your OWN saying by the way :D).
I presume you are referring to first sentence of the citation?
To “unattach” an Equipment from a creature means to move it away from that creature so the Equipment is on the battlefield but is not equipping anything.
While it does state "that creature", in the context of the creature the equipment is attached to, the rule does not state that the creature has to have the ability. You are reading something from the rule that isn't actually there. The cost can be paid, by simply unattaching the "source" equipment from whatever creature it is attached to. It doesn't matter that the equipment isn't attached to the creature with the ability.
> Let the Quicksilver Elemental target a creature with Heartseeker
> equipped on it.
Heartseeker gives an ability to the creature. Quicksilver
Elemental copies that ability, entirely. This includes
whatever "links" exist to the Heartseeker. The activation
cost of that ability is "unattaching" the Heartseeker from
whatever it is attached to. Whoever controls a creature with
that ability can pay the cost (if it is possible to do so,
of course) to activate the ability.
Now, it may be good to revisit the question (on either MTG-L or MTGRules-L) since it's been over 5 years since it was originally answered, but AFAIK, nothing in the rules has changed this. Provided you can unattach the Heartseeker from something (meaning it has to be attached to something), you can pay that cost even if you control neither Heartseeker nor what it is actually attached to.
No, it only means the first, read the rule, please!
If Kraj stole an ability like this:
"Remove a -1/-1 counter from this creature: gain 2 life"
Would you remove the -1/-1 counter from the original creature?
Of course not, because the ability itself specifies which creature to remove the counter from.
Heartseeker, on the other hand, does not specify which creature to unattach Heartseeker from.
"Equipped creature gets +2/+1 and has "{T}, Unattach Heartseeker: Destroy target creature."
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
No, it doesn't work. In order to unattach something, it has to be attached.
701.3d. To "unattach" an Equipment from a creature means to move it away from that creature so the Equipment is on the battlefield but is not equipping anything.
In other words, in order to unattach something from a creature, it first has to be attached to that creature. Notice in the rule that it says to unattach an equipment from a creature means to move it away from that creature.
I don't know if this helps or not, But Quicksilver Elemental has a ruling on Gatherer that says if it steals the activated ability of another creature equipped with Leonin Bola, it can actually make the Leonin Bola detach from the original permanent.
It seems like a very similar situation here.
Edit: I see epeeguy explained this about a thousand times better two posts ago.
I don't know if this helps or not, But Quicksilver Elemental has a ruling on Gatherer that says if it steals the activated ability of another creature equipped with Leonin Bola, it can actually make the Leonin Bola detach from the original permanent.
It seems like a very similar situation here.
Well... I guess we're settled. It works and is not counter-intuitive.
You may unattach your Heartseeker from a permanent other then your Experiment Kraj as part of paying it's cost, as an analogy to Quicksilver Elemental.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-
YOU ARE SURPRISED BY A MANTICORE! IT QUICKLY SHREDS YOUR FLESH AND DEVOURS YOU!
You can do that but not sacrifice a permanent another player controls?
Correct, but the rules are explicit on that particular point:
701.13a 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 he or she doesn’t control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action.
No such language exists for "unattach" (and to be fair, you'd have to reword at least one or two cards if you did add that kind of language), so you can unattach equipment you don't control from a creature you don't control (provided something "lets" you do it).
Again, if you're concerned about this and want to follow-up on MTG-L or MTGRules-L, I'd certainly recommend it. It is possible that this has been changed since the earlier ruling, and is something I overlooked. But nothing in the rules leads me to believe it has been changed (especially since it's a really "odd" situation to have come up).
In that quote, I've read the term "link", hasn't this interaction been "corrected" with the more recent "linked abilities" issue.
"Link" is not being used in a formal way by the Netrep who issued the ruling, it is just being used to express the concept as easily as possible. The rules on linked abilities (CR 607) do not apply here, regardless of the use of that word in the explanation I quoted.
Wow, thank you everyone for the rules help! It seemed logical, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't making a rules snafu when I first play my Kraj EDH deck.
I am having a blast working on my Experiment Kraj EDH deck and ran into a card interaction that I wanted to double check. My question arises from having Experiment Kraj in play along with a creature with a +1/+1 counter equipped with Heartseeker. The Experiment Kraj will gained the activated ability of the creature granted from the Heartseeker, but I am not sure what to make of the "Unattach Heartseeker" part of the cost of the ability ({T}, Unattach Heartseeker: Destroy target creature.).
Thanks you in advance for any help or tips!
Cheers,
Tom
MTGCast Facebook Group
MTGCast Twitter Feed
http://www.pathofreason.com/
My basis for this is that the ability is paid for by the player, not by the creature. Just because you can't unattach Heartseeker from Experiment Kraj does not mean you cannot unattach Heartseeker. Indeed, there must be a creature with a Heartseeker attached, or else Kraj would not have the ability in the first place.
So, you unattach Heartseeker from whichever creature Kraj got the ability from as the cost. Note that the rule for "unattach" does not say you must control the equipment or the creature it is attached to in order to unattach it.
MTG Rules Adviser/Advisor
Comp Rules, FAQs, and DCI Rules
There is no "this permanent" anywhere, Heartseeker only says "Unattach Heartseeker."
MTG Rules Adviser/Advisor
Comp Rules, FAQs, and DCI Rules
I had this issue before. So, what gives?
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
WUDragonlord Ojutai [Modern legal w/ Yorion, Sky Nomad transformation]
WBR THE definitive 1v1 Primer to all things Kaalia of the Vast!
WBLurrus of the Dream-Den [Trinkets & Tidbits]
WUBRGGarth One-Eye [Nostalgia Trip]
RKari Zev, Skyship Raider [Stax]
Why can't you pay the cost, exactly? Is there some reason why you can't unattach Heartseeker from another creature to pay the cost?
MTG Rules Adviser/Advisor
Comp Rules, FAQs, and DCI Rules
Deep down, the question is: The cost "Unattach Heartseeker, T" means exactly that? If it does, the cost can be paid for.
If it has an implicit meaning "Unattach Heartseeker from this permanent, T", then it can't be paid and the ability is never played.
I haven't missed that point, I addressed it in my first post in this thread. Deep down, the answer is that there is no written implicit meaning in "Unattach Heartseeker" in the rules which states that it means from this permanent. It means exactly what it says, unattach Heartseeker. There is nothing barring you from performing that action.
MTG Rules Adviser/Advisor
Comp Rules, FAQs, and DCI Rules
I'm not sure about that. The ability isn't talking about "a card named Heartseeker", so it's talking about the permanent itself. Since Kraj isn't equipped, he can't unequip anything.
Casual Commander player.
Check this Magic Shop to buy singles and cards online in Europe!
I already addressed that, the player pays the costs, not the creature.
It's talking about the object which granted the ability. It means "Unattach this Heartseeker" not "Unattach Heartseeker from this permanent."
MTG Rules Adviser/Advisor
Comp Rules, FAQs, and DCI Rules
You're going to have to elaborate here if you want to make your point. Are you talking about 701.3d?
MTG Rules Adviser/Advisor
Comp Rules, FAQs, and DCI Rules
I'm pretty sure he did. The problem is that the rules define what unattaching an Equipment from a (given) creature entails, but the cost in the ability that Heartseeker provides doesn't identify the creature from which Heartseeker must be unattached to pay the cost.
"Unattach Heartseeker" can mean "Unattached Heartseeker from this creature" or it can mean "Unattach Heartseeker from whichever creature it's attached to". Both interpretations are equally valid since there is no rule that tells us to favor one over the other.
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
I presume you are referring to first sentence of the citation?
To “unattach” an Equipment from a creature means to move it away from that creature so the Equipment is on the battlefield but is not equipping anything.
While it does state "that creature", in the context of the creature the equipment is attached to, the rule does not state that the creature has to have the ability. You are reading something from the rule that isn't actually there. The cost can be paid, by simply unattaching the "source" equipment from whatever creature it is attached to. It doesn't matter that the equipment isn't attached to the creature with the ability.
A similar situation came up with Quicksilver Elemental and Heartseeker. Quoted from an MTG-L post on July 11, 2004:
Now, it may be good to revisit the question (on either MTG-L or MTGRules-L) since it's been over 5 years since it was originally answered, but AFAIK, nothing in the rules has changed this. Provided you can unattach the Heartseeker from something (meaning it has to be attached to something), you can pay that cost even if you control neither Heartseeker nor what it is actually attached to.
Of course not, because the ability itself specifies which creature to remove the counter from.
Heartseeker, on the other hand, does not specify which creature to unattach Heartseeker from.
"Equipped creature gets +2/+1 and has "{T}, Unattach Heartseeker: Destroy target creature."
MTG Rules Adviser/Advisor
Comp Rules, FAQs, and DCI Rules
701.3d. To "unattach" an Equipment from a creature means to move it away from that creature so the Equipment is on the battlefield but is not equipping anything.
In other words, in order to unattach something from a creature, it first has to be attached to that creature. Notice in the rule that it says to unattach an equipment from a creature means to move it away from that creature.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
It seems like a very similar situation here.
Edit: I see epeeguy explained this about a thousand times better two posts ago.
Santiago de Cuba Review: Carpooling Together
Spellfight!
Eternity Vessel vs. Mindslaver
Tainted Strike vs. Exsanquinate
No, of course not, but where does Heartseeker's ability say "from this creature"?
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
Well... I guess we're settled. It works and is not counter-intuitive.
You may unattach your Heartseeker from a permanent other then your Experiment Kraj as part of paying it's cost, as an analogy to Quicksilver Elemental.
Correct, but the rules are explicit on that particular point:
701.13a 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 he or she doesn’t control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action.
No such language exists for "unattach" (and to be fair, you'd have to reword at least one or two cards if you did add that kind of language), so you can unattach equipment you don't control from a creature you don't control (provided something "lets" you do it).
Again, if you're concerned about this and want to follow-up on MTG-L or MTGRules-L, I'd certainly recommend it. It is possible that this has been changed since the earlier ruling, and is something I overlooked. But nothing in the rules leads me to believe it has been changed (especially since it's a really "odd" situation to have come up).
"Link" is not being used in a formal way by the Netrep who issued the ruling, it is just being used to express the concept as easily as possible. The rules on linked abilities (CR 607) do not apply here, regardless of the use of that word in the explanation I quoted.
Wouldn't Experiment Kraj gain the -exact- abilities as the equipped creature?
So if Experiment Kraj used this ability, isn't that referring to the original equipment?
I don't know too much, but that way makes sense to me.
░░░░░░░░░▄▀▀▀░░░░░░░▀▄░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄░░░░░░
░░░░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░▄▀▀▄▀▄░░░░░
░░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░▄▀░░██▄▀▄░░░░ Dafuq I just read?
░░░▄▀░░▄▀▀▀▄░░░░█░░░▀▀░█▀▄░░░
░░░█░░█▄░░░░█░░░▀▄░░░░░▐░█░░░
░░▐▌░░█▀░░░▄▀░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▀░░█░░
░░▐▌░░█░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░
░░▐▌░░░▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐▌░
░░▐▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄░░░░░░▐▌░
░░▐▌░░░░░░░░░▄░░░░░█░░░░░░▐▌░
░░░█░░░░░░░░░▀█▄░░▄█░░░░░░▐▌░
░░░▐▌░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░▐▌░
░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░
Cheers,
Tom
MTGCast Facebook Group
MTGCast Twitter Feed