* If, during a check of state-based effects, you'd lose the game at the same time a creature you own would be put into your graveyard (due to an Earthquake for 10 or combat damage dealt to both you and the creature, for example), that creature's controller has a choice to make. The state-based effects rule is trying to simultaneously (a) shuffle that creature card into your library (due to Lich's Mirror's replacement effect) and (b) put it into your graveyard. Only one of those things can happen. The creature's controller chooses which one. If the creature is put into your graveyard, it isn't shuffled into your library. Abilities that trigger when that creature is put into a graveyard will trigger only if that option is chosen.
The State-Based Effects resolve simultaneously as a single event, which, in the example, at first try to give the following imperatives: {Destroy that creature, You lose the game}.
But the replacement effect wants to replace the losing part with Lich stuff, so you get the imperatives to:
Destroy that creature.
You shuffle your hand, graveyard, and all permanents you own into your library, then draw seven cards and your life total becomes twenty.
Having the creature's controller choose is something that falls outside the rules right now; this isn't quite how replacement rules would do it - really, they'd get all annoyed that you took a simultaneous set of occurrences, picked out a piece of it, and substituted an event with an instruction to do something contradictory to what you didn't cut out. Replacement effects so far always cut the complete form of something, and make a new event that ties up every loose end.
Of course, to remind us all, the FAQ is correct, by definition. That's its purpose.
The other thing is:
* If a spell targets the same player or object multiple times, you can't target it with Swerve.
which changes a lot of answers down in the history of Magic Rulings. I notice because of my Ink-Treader Nephilim question from ages past, wondering if a spell that had all its targets focused on it would be copied. This used to be yes (since, "duh," the spell is targeting only one thing and that target is Nephilim). But now it's no.
This FAQ entry means that a spell's targets are considered from the reference point of the spell, not just as a relation the spell bears to other objects. That is, Agony Warp, for example, is a card that makes a spell with two targets - it always has two targets, no matter how you play it. The number of targets a spell has is constant, unless it actually has something like "any number of target [foobar]s".
Oh, and Gather Specimens is just insane in the membrane. Look at this cool rule they made up for it:
* The Gather Specimens replacement effect is applied before any other replacement effects that would also modify how the creature comes into play. These are usually worded "as [this creature] comes into play" or “[this creature] comes into play with.” For example, if your Gather Specimens has resolved, then the following things are true:
-- If a creature with devour would come into play under an opponent's control, you choose and sacrifice your creatures as it comes into play under your control.
-- If Voice of All would come into play under an opponent's control, you choose a color as it comes into play under your control.
-- If Clone would come into play under an opponent's control, you choose which creature it copies as it comes into play under your control.
-- If a Wizard would come into play under an opponent's control and that player controls Sage of Fables, the Wizard will not come into play with a +1/+1 counter on it as it comes into play under your control.
-- If a Wizard would come into play under an opponent's control and you control Sage of Fables, the Wizard will come into play with a +1/+1 counter on it as it comes into play under your control.
Look at that carefully. That is a pretty major statement (this is definitely not how replacements would have handled it without this FAQ).
The devour is what's relevant to people for prerelease. But the rest of it is gold for Johnnies and Melvins (and ambrosia for Johnny/Melvins, if I can make a generalization from my own case).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
They mentioned in the Comp Rules update they are rewording the rule which applies to multiple replacement effects trying to modify the same event. This is likely due to cards just like those you mentioned HH
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Certified Judge(retired)
Chas Hinkle
Alternate Universes (Blue Bell) Store Website
* If a spell targets the same player or object multiple times, you can't target it with Swerve.
which changes a lot of answers down in the history of Magic Rulings. I notice because of my Ink-Treader Nephilim question from ages past, wondering if a spell that had all its targets focused on it would be copied. This used to be yes (since, "duh," the spell is targeting only one thing and that target is Nephilim). But now it's no.
I don't think your deduction is right. Swerve says to change the target of a spell with a "single target", Ink-Treader Nephilim instructs you to copy a spell if it is the "only target" of that spell. There's a difference there! If I give the Nephilim +3/+3 with Seeds of Strength for example, the spell has three targets, so it isn't a spell with a "single target", but the Nephilim is still the "only target".
That gather specimens almost seems like it started as a counterspell that lets you take the creature from the stack and put it into play for yourself...
Then they decided to let it steal creatures that enter due to from abilities and other stuff that puts creatures into play...
And in order to allow it to work the way they wanted it to, they had to do all that rewording for replacement effect.
That gather specimens almost seems like it started as a counterspell that lets you take the creature from the stack and put it into play for yourself...
Then they decided to let it steal creatures that enter due to from abilities and other stuff that puts creatures into play...
And in order to allow it to work the way they wanted it to, they had to do all that rewording for replacement effect.
Desertion is worded very differently to Gather Specimens... it counters the spell and then puts the creature into play. Speciments replaces the creature's coming into play under its owner's control with coming into play under your control.
Desertion is worded very differently to Gather Specimens... it counters the spell and then puts the creature into play. Speciments replaces the creature's coming into play under its owner's control with coming into play under your control.
I know that. Go back and read the post I quoted. Dcartist's post suggests that Gather Specimens may have started out as a counterspell but that the rules didn't allow it to work the way WotC wanted. Desertion proves that the rules do allow it, it just creates a different effect than what I think they were aiming for. Gather Specimens for example can put a Scragnoth into play under your control, which you could never do if it was in fact worded as a counterspell.
I know that. Go back and read the post I quoted. Dcartist's post suggests that Gather Specimens may have started out as a counterspell but that the rules didn't allow it to work the way WotC wanted. Desertion proves that the rules do allow it, it just creates a different effect than what I think they were aiming for. Gather Specimens for example can put a Scragnoth into play under your control, which you could never do if it was in fact worded as a counterspell.
You go back and re-read MY post.
I think that it would work FINE as a counterspell (and desertion operates exactly as the theoretical spell I hypothesized... at least for creature and artifact spells, but I couldn't think of the card that did something like that).
The problem is that they wanted it to be a spell that does not only the same thing as desertion (steal a creature that would have come into play for your opponent) but that it would also work against any creature being put into play by your opponent by any means (because they wanted to make it a useful control spell that actually covers all the multitude of other ways that the opponent gets creatures into play that get around remove soul effects).
Thus much more complex wording is required, though the ultimate effect is that creatures that are put into play by the opponent's control by recurring nightmare are stolen in exactly the same manner as creatures stolen by desertion:
They come into play as if YOU'D dropped them into play.
Gather Specimens also gets you every creature your opponent would put into play this turn, yes? not exactly (as) doable in counterspell form
(I guess they could have just said, "until the end of the turn, whenever an opponent plays a creature spell, counter that spell, then put that creature into play under your control")
Gather Specimens also gets you every creature your opponent would put into play this turn, yes? not exactly (as) doable in counterspell form
(I guess they could have just said, "until the end of the turn, whenever an opponent plays a creature spell, counter that spell, then put that creature into play under your control")
Actually they couldn't say that because this also gets you creatures they are Unearthing, Vialing, Resurrecting, Dread Returning, etc... It also can get you creatures that are uncounterable.
In that case apologies for misinterpreting your post, I'm not a native English speaker. Rereading it carefully I see what you mean now. I think Gather Specimens is a case of top-down design however, as RanDomino points out this effect is not doable in counterspell form.
Gather Specimens also gets Sarkhan Vol tokens (so cruel), Suspended creatures, And so on. It doesn't effectively get any "search your library" creatures, as at that point you just fail to find it, but you might be able to trick someone at a prerelease with that one. The one thing I am concerned about is what it does with Phage. I can't read the FAQ from work, does it say what happens if you try to steal Phage with Gather Specimens?
(I guess they could have just said, "until the end of the turn, whenever an opponent plays a creature spell, counter that spell, then put that creature into play under your control")
It it were worded that way, you'd have to play it before your opponent plays the creature you want to steal, not in response. In other words, it would do absolutely nothing more often than not. (Except from preventing an opponent from trying to put creatures into play for a turn, of course. But that would be a tad expensive at six mana.)
Having the creature's controller choose is something that falls outside the rules right now; this isn't quite how replacement rules would do it - really, they'd get all annoyed that you took a simultaneous set of occurrences, picked out a piece of it, and substituted an event with an instruction to do something contradictory to what you didn't cut out. Replacement effects so far always cut the complete form of something, and make a new event that ties up every loose end.
Of course, to remind us all, the FAQ is correct, by definition. That's its purpose.
Simulaneus events always get messy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Comp Rules get this cleaned up: They stated that they are rewriting the state-based effects section to better deal with issues like this.
Quote from Horseshoe Hermit »
The other thing is:
* If a spell targets the same player or object multiple times, you can't target it with Swerve.
which changes a lot of answers down in the history of Magic Rulings. I notice because of my Ink-Treader Nephilim question from ages past, wondering if a spell that had all its targets focused on it would be copied. This used to be yes (since, "duh," the spell is targeting only one thing and that target is Nephilim). But now it's no.
This FAQ entry means that a spell's targets are considered from the reference point of the spell, not just as a relation the spell bears to other objects. That is, Agony Warp, for example, is a card that makes a spell with two targets - it always has two targets, no matter how you play it. The number of targets a spell has is constant, unless it actually has something like "any number of target [foobar]s".
Oh, and Gather Specimens is just insane in the membrane. Look at this cool rule they made up for it:
* The Gather Specimens replacement effect is applied before any other replacement effects that would also modify how the creature comes into play. These are usually worded "as [this creature] comes into play" or “[this creature] comes into play with.” For example, if your Gather Specimens has resolved, then the following things are true:
-- If a creature with devour would come into play under an opponent's control, you choose and sacrifice your creatures as it comes into play under your control.
-- If Voice of All would come into play under an opponent's control, you choose a color as it comes into play under your control.
-- If Clone would come into play under an opponent's control, you choose which creature it copies as it comes into play under your control.
-- If a Wizard would come into play under an opponent's control and that player controls Sage of Fables, the Wizard will not come into play with a +1/+1 counter on it as it comes into play under your control.
-- If a Wizard would come into play under an opponent's control and you control Sage of Fables, the Wizard will come into play with a +1/+1 counter on it as it comes into play under your control.
Look at that carefully. That is a pretty major statement (this is definitely not how replacements would have handled it without this FAQ).
The devour is what's relevant to people for prerelease. But the rest of it is gold for Johnnies and Melvins (and ambrosia for Johnny/Melvins, if I can make a generalization from my own case).
I'm hoping for a Comp Rules update that makes that Gather Specimens ruling not completely ad-hoc.
Aaaagh. You're right. They probably would never see the need, but I believe that if you have a meaning for "a target," this fixes what "the only target" means. It would mean "something which is a target," and is exactly one target, and is the unique target (in the context specified by the rest of the sentence; in this case, the targets of that spell.) The only target of [spell X] should be a thing which is a target, and is the unique target, of a spell with exactly one target.
Nephilim should become "if that spell targets only Ink-Treader Nephilim." Cost in words is minimal. EDIT: It actually saves characters.
. . . and hey wait, that's the wording on Radiate. Well now either it definitely should be reworded to match Radiate, or Nephilim really does work the way I said.
I'm hoping for a Comp Rules update that makes that Gather Specimens ruling not completely ad-hoc.
You and me both. It might have to do with how the replacement effect would change the control of "affected objects" - which would mean that "the controller of the affected object" would change after applying some but not necessarily all of applicable replacements. That would make things weird. Still not really, since you set them all up before doing anything, but since when has the actuality of things mattered?
Gather Specimens, we see in this FAQ, is given power to go first, which then changes all other replacements to take you as the affected object's controller, making it so that replacement effect "rights" could never even seem to be passed back and forth as you apply them (even though they wouldn't anyway).
The rule, then, I can theorize would refer to any replacement effect that would substitute an event which changes the control of objects.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Guys, they explicitly said in the bulletin that there's a rules update so that Gather Specimens works correctly. There are also rules updates to handle corner cases with Lich's Mirror and Prince of Thralls.
Nephilim should become "if that spell targets only Ink-Treader Nephilim." Cost in words is minimal. EDIT: It actually saves characters.
. . . and hey wait, that's the wording on Radiate. Well now either it definitely should be reworded to match Radiate, or Nephilim really does work the way I said.
(Ink Treader's ability is worded the way it is because, since it is the Nephilim's ability, they wanted the Nephilim to be the active object, not the spell.)
Quote from Sniffnoy »
Guys, they explicitly said in the bulletin that there's a rules update so that Gather Specimens works correctly. There are also rules updates to handle corner cases with Lich's Mirror and Prince of Thralls.
You're right. Apparently I didn't read the rules update closely enough.
Quote from Mark Gottleib »
419.9a
This rule governs what happens if two or more replacement or prevention effects are trying to happen at once. It's being modified to handle the Shards of Alara card Gather Specimens in a way that best conforms to intuition.
http://www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/resources.aspx?x=magic/rules/faqs
Although we already have complete spoiler, I still hope this to be useful for card clarification.
twothree things:* If, during a check of state-based effects, you'd lose the game at the same time a creature you own would be put into your graveyard (due to an Earthquake for 10 or combat damage dealt to both you and the creature, for example), that creature's controller has a choice to make. The state-based effects rule is trying to simultaneously (a) shuffle that creature card into your library (due to Lich's Mirror's replacement effect) and (b) put it into your graveyard. Only one of those things can happen. The creature's controller chooses which one. If the creature is put into your graveyard, it isn't shuffled into your library. Abilities that trigger when that creature is put into a graveyard will trigger only if that option is chosen.
The State-Based Effects resolve simultaneously as a single event, which, in the example, at first try to give the following imperatives: {Destroy that creature, You lose the game}.
But the replacement effect wants to replace the losing part with Lich stuff, so you get the imperatives to:
Destroy that creature.
You shuffle your hand, graveyard, and all permanents you own into your library, then draw seven cards and your life total becomes twenty.
Having the creature's controller choose is something that falls outside the rules right now; this isn't quite how replacement rules would do it - really, they'd get all annoyed that you took a simultaneous set of occurrences, picked out a piece of it, and substituted an event with an instruction to do something contradictory to what you didn't cut out. Replacement effects so far always cut the complete form of something, and make a new event that ties up every loose end.
Of course, to remind us all, the FAQ is correct, by definition. That's its purpose.
The other thing is:
* If a spell targets the same player or object multiple times, you can't target it with Swerve.
which changes a lot of answers down in the history of Magic Rulings. I notice because of my Ink-Treader Nephilim question from ages past, wondering if a spell that had all its targets focused on it would be copied. This used to be yes (since, "duh," the spell is targeting only one thing and that target is Nephilim). But now it's no.
This FAQ entry means that a spell's targets are considered from the reference point of the spell, not just as a relation the spell bears to other objects. That is, Agony Warp, for example, is a card that makes a spell with two targets - it always has two targets, no matter how you play it. The number of targets a spell has is constant, unless it actually has something like "any number of target [foobar]s".
Oh, and Gather Specimens is just insane in the membrane. Look at this cool rule they made up for it:
* The Gather Specimens replacement effect is applied before any other replacement effects that would also modify how the creature comes into play. These are usually worded "as [this creature] comes into play" or “[this creature] comes into play with.” For example, if your Gather Specimens has resolved, then the following things are true:
-- If a creature with devour would come into play under an opponent's control, you choose and sacrifice your creatures as it comes into play under your control.
-- If Voice of All would come into play under an opponent's control, you choose a color as it comes into play under your control.
-- If Clone would come into play under an opponent's control, you choose which creature it copies as it comes into play under your control.
-- If a Wizard would come into play under an opponent's control and that player controls Sage of Fables, the Wizard will not come into play with a +1/+1 counter on it as it comes into play under your control.
-- If a Wizard would come into play under an opponent's control and you control Sage of Fables, the Wizard will come into play with a +1/+1 counter on it as it comes into play under your control.
Look at that carefully. That is a pretty major statement (this is definitely not how replacements would have handled it without this FAQ).
The devour is what's relevant to people for prerelease. But the rest of it is gold for Johnnies and Melvins (and ambrosia for Johnny/Melvins, if I can make a generalization from my own case).
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Chas Hinkle
Alternate Universes (Blue Bell)
Store Website
I don't think your deduction is right. Swerve says to change the target of a spell with a "single target", Ink-Treader Nephilim instructs you to copy a spell if it is the "only target" of that spell. There's a difference there! If I give the Nephilim +3/+3 with Seeds of Strength for example, the spell has three targets, so it isn't a spell with a "single target", but the Nephilim is still the "only target".
Right?
Then they decided to let it steal creatures that enter due to from abilities and other stuff that puts creatures into play...
And in order to allow it to work the way they wanted it to, they had to do all that rewording for replacement effect.
Desertion says that's not the problem.
I know that. Go back and read the post I quoted. Dcartist's post suggests that Gather Specimens may have started out as a counterspell but that the rules didn't allow it to work the way WotC wanted. Desertion proves that the rules do allow it, it just creates a different effect than what I think they were aiming for. Gather Specimens for example can put a Scragnoth into play under your control, which you could never do if it was in fact worded as a counterspell.
You go back and re-read MY post.
I think that it would work FINE as a counterspell (and desertion operates exactly as the theoretical spell I hypothesized... at least for creature and artifact spells, but I couldn't think of the card that did something like that).
The problem is that they wanted it to be a spell that does not only the same thing as desertion (steal a creature that would have come into play for your opponent) but that it would also work against any creature being put into play by your opponent by any means (because they wanted to make it a useful control spell that actually covers all the multitude of other ways that the opponent gets creatures into play that get around remove soul effects).
Thus much more complex wording is required, though the ultimate effect is that creatures that are put into play by the opponent's control by recurring nightmare are stolen in exactly the same manner as creatures stolen by desertion:
They come into play as if YOU'D dropped them into play.
(I guess they could have just said, "until the end of the turn, whenever an opponent plays a creature spell, counter that spell, then put that creature into play under your control")
Actually they couldn't say that because this also gets you creatures they are Unearthing, Vialing, Resurrecting, Dread Returning, etc... It also can get you creatures that are uncounterable.
It it were worded that way, you'd have to play it before your opponent plays the creature you want to steal, not in response. In other words, it would do absolutely nothing more often than not. (Except from preventing an opponent from trying to put creatures into play for a turn, of course. But that would be a tad expensive at six mana.)
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
Swerve is worded the same way Deflection and Shunt are. They are worded differently than Radiate and Ink-Treader Nephilim.
I'm hoping for a Comp Rules update that makes that Gather Specimens ruling not completely ad-hoc.
'Bad Spirit' banner by Hot Pizza at Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe
I was a Top 32 Contestant for RPG Superstar 2008!
Come take a look at my custom set, Lost Relics. (To be finished...eventually)
Check out the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Aaaagh. You're right. They probably would never see the need, but I believe that if you have a meaning for "a target," this fixes what "the only target" means. It would mean "something which is a target," and is exactly one target, and is the unique target (in the context specified by the rest of the sentence; in this case, the targets of that spell.) The only target of [spell X] should be a thing which is a target, and is the unique target, of a spell with exactly one target.
Nephilim should become "if that spell targets only Ink-Treader Nephilim." Cost in words is minimal. EDIT: It actually saves characters.
. . . and hey wait, that's the wording on Radiate. Well now either it definitely should be reworded to match Radiate, or Nephilim really does work the way I said.
You and me both. It might have to do with how the replacement effect would change the control of "affected objects" - which would mean that "the controller of the affected object" would change after applying some but not necessarily all of applicable replacements. That would make things weird. Still not really, since you set them all up before doing anything, but since when has the actuality of things mattered?
Gather Specimens, we see in this FAQ, is given power to go first, which then changes all other replacements to take you as the affected object's controller, making it so that replacement effect "rights" could never even seem to be passed back and forth as you apply them (even though they wouldn't anyway).
The rule, then, I can theorize would refer to any replacement effect that would substitute an event which changes the control of objects.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
The wording might not match, but is clear in both cases. Both Radiate and Ink-treader Nephilim can affect a Seeds of Strength. Shunt, Deflection, and Swerve do not.
(Ink Treader's ability is worded the way it is because, since it is the Nephilim's ability, they wanted the Nephilim to be the active object, not the spell.)
You're right. Apparently I didn't read the rules update closely enough.
'Bad Spirit' banner by Hot Pizza at Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe
I was a Top 32 Contestant for RPG Superstar 2008!
Come take a look at my custom set, Lost Relics. (To be finished...eventually)
Check out the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game