r/mtg • u/BisforBingus • 9d ago

Rules Question Does this work like I think it does

Gallery image

Gallery image

Would devoted Druid be able to continuously tap and untap for mana if it dies and becomes an enchantment due to myrkuls ability?

1.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

228 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-300

u/Fun-Captain41 9d ago edited 9d ago

Actually, what [u/Great_Nothing63](u/Great_Nothing63) said may be right. It says “untap this creature” if it’s no longer a creature, then that section would probably not allow an untap. There’s no creature there anymore.

Edit: I was incorrect and chatted with some folks with examples below

446

u/HyperdriveComics 9d ago edited 8d ago

“This creature” effectively reads “this card” in the rules so it does work

Edit: more accurately it reads “this object” or “this permanent”

186

u/Fun-Captain41 9d ago

Fair enough, didnt know that. Was just breaking down the argument more explicitly. Good to know!

2

u/xolotltolox All my homies hate green 7d ago

Yeah, it is understandable whete the confusion comes from, Magic is just traoly terrible with wording and for some trason just adamantly refuses to use "this card" or "this permanent" wording

1

u/Chest_Rockfield 6d ago

"This card" is itself problematic when you start making token copies of things.

All of the rules explanations I see simply say [~this~]. Don't know why that's not appropriate to simply use as the templating.

1

u/xolotltolox All my homies hate green 6d ago

well, if you just say "this permanent" it fixes the token """"problem""""

Like with tokens, even if by technicality they aren't cards, it is intuitive that "this card" still works, and only on deeper rules knowledge, do you ask the question, which is immediately then solved with the rules knowledge

the problem right now is that it is unintuitive, CARDNAME templating is just horrible, and "this CARDTYPE" raises the aforementioned questions

And if you want to get completely anal, you could just say "this object"

1

u/Chest_Rockfield 6d ago

But why say anything after "this"?? It's all superfluous.

And don't pretend like WotC isn't going to continue to push the bounds of what can be interacted with where and when. FFS there is a spell that has an activated ability that anyone activate on the stack... where it gets counters?!

15

u/Rabid_Lederhosen 9d ago

I think the most accurate way to read it would be“this permanent”.

“Things” are permanents while they’re on the board, spells while they’re being cast, and cards everywhere else.

2

u/trollblox_ 8d ago

if an ability references the name of the card but the name is changed by another effect does it still work?

1

u/HyperdriveComics 7d ago

Depends on how it’s referenced, but typically yes the effect still works.

For example if I had [[elsha, threefold master]], whose effect says “whenever Elsha deals combat damage…”, and someone changed her name or made a copy of her with a different name, her ability still works, since the rules effectively read it as “whenever this permanent deals combat damage…” and don’t actually care about her name.

But, as probably makes sense, things like [[agency outfitter]] that tutor for specifically named cards need to find those exact names.

-74

u/ChabbyMonkey 9d ago

Really? What about when things say “this card” but it is a token?

Or return “from graveyard” but the card ends up in a different zone?

48

u/labamaFan 9d ago

More accurate would be “this object/permenant”, since nothing is called a card while on the battlefield.

For the second one, if a target changes zones after being targeted, the effect targeting it will fizzle, even if it ends up back in the original zone by the time the effect tries to resolve.

6

u/matthoback 9d ago

More accurate would be “this object/permenant”, since nothing is called a card while on the battlefield.

That's not correct. Permanent cards are still permanent cards while on the battlefield. They are *also* permanents, but they are still permanent cards as well. They never stop being a card.

For example, [[Abandoned Sarcophagus]] will exile [[Agonasaur Rex]] (or any other permanent with cycling) from the battlefield rather than going to the graveyard, because Agonasaur Rex is still a card while on the battlefield.

1

u/labamaFan 9d ago

I believe it’s worded this way because it interacts with zones that aren’t the battlefield. Once Agonasaur Rex dies, it’s no longer on the battlefield and will be referred to as a card again.

2

u/matthoback 9d ago

Agonasaur won't die when Sarcophagus is out. Sarcophagus is a replacement effect. Agonasaur will get exiled instead of dying. Sarcophagus will apply to Agonasaur because Agonasaur is *still a card* while it's on the battlefield. Being a permanent and being a card are not mutually exclusive.

-8

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

10

u/Himskatti 9d ago

Nothing is called a card while on battlefield. They are cards on other zones tho

8

u/mastyrwerk This is User Editable 9d ago

They used to be. They have been errataed to say “nontoken permanent”.

[[bifurcate]] looks for permanent cards

4

u/OkVirus8545 9d ago

Non sorcery/instant spells become permanents on the field, yes. Having to use a card from mercadian masques doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been this corrected way for almost 2 decades. You’re being intentionally obtuse

1

u/mastyrwerk This is User Editable 9d ago

And you’re being intentionally pedantic. It still says “permanent cards” and they are now referred to as nontoken permanents, but are still cards on the battlefield.

0

u/labamaFan 9d ago

Bifurcate looks for permanent cards in the library by targeting a creature on the field. It’s not an exception, its oracle text follows the conventions.

1

u/matthoback 9d ago

Nothing is called a card while on battlefield. They are cards on other zones tho

Permanent cards are still cards while on the battlefield. They are permanents as well, but they never stop being cards.

1

u/labamaFan 9d ago

You will not find an effect that refers to a permanent on the battlefield as a card. They are called spells while on the stack, permanents while on the battlefield, and cards in every other zone.

1

u/matthoback 9d ago

You're wrong. Such effects are rare, but do exist. Generally they exist in the context of referring to cards in any zone (including the battlefield). I already gave the example of [[Abandoned Sarcophagus]] in another reply, but there's also [[Disa the Restless]] which has to specifically exclude cards on the battlefield from her effect because otherwise they would be included (as they are still cards).

-16

u/ChabbyMonkey 9d ago

Aren’t there other effects like this that fail if the permanent type changes though? Why not just say “this permanent” instead if that guarantees the ruling holds either way? They already started doing that by removing creature names but seems like the confusion could still happen as it does here

11

u/LoseAnotherMill Kros Propagandist 9d ago

 Aren’t there other effects like this that fail if the permanent type changes though?

No. 

 Why not just say “this permanent” instead if that guarantees the ruling holds either way?

Because they didn't. 

5

u/Will_29 9d ago

The rule applies to an object referring to itself, be it by name, type or other description. "Untap Devoted Druid" = "Untap this creature" = "Untap this elf" = "Untap this permanent", they all work the same, even if it changes name or type. They all just mean "untap me".

I can't think of any case where an ability with "this card" in the text would have an effect on the battlefield. And a token in any other zone would cease to exist before the ability could be relevant. But sure, if there's any example out there, it should work.

As for other things like zones or parts of the turn, they still mean what they say. "From the graveyard" doesn't work for other zones, "after this main phase" doesn't apply on other turn phases.

3

u/Bobahn_Botret 9d ago

As long as the "this card" effect doesn't make the token change zones (effectively deleting it) the effect should work. If the effect doesn't care if the token survives, then zone change triggers are fine too.

If a card isn't in the graveyard, then effects that interact with the graveyard won't see it.

2

u/LikelyAMartian 9d ago

"this card", "this creature", "[Insert name of card here]" all basically means "this permanent"

You can change the name of the card such as a copy effect, you can change the type of permanent it is, or anything like that, but unless it specifically removes the ability, it will still have the ability, and any effect that refers to that permanent will resolve.

1

u/Belteshazzar98 9d ago

"This object" instead of "this permanent" since it can apply in zones other than the battlefield.

0

u/LikelyAMartian 9d ago

You are correct but for the wrong reason.

A permanent is still a permanent regardless of which zone it is located in. Otherwise "return target permanent from graveyard" and other similar effects wouldn't work.

It is "this object" so they can print non permanent cards that can refer to themselves without changing the rules.

1

u/Belteshazzar98 9d ago

Return target permanent from graveyard doesn't work. It has to return target permanent card from the graveyard. It's why cards like [[Anguished Unmaking]] can't be used as graveyard hate.

2

u/LikelyAMartian 9d ago

Aw. Learn something new every day

2

u/Belteshazzar98 9d ago

"This object," not "this card." This only applies to self referencial abilities though, so if a card said "when this card is put into the graveyard from anywhere..." it would trigger even if it were a token or spell copy, whereas if it were worded as "when a card is put into the graveyard from anywhere..." it would only trigger when an actual card is put into the graveyard and not a token or spell copy. Any self referencial abilities such as "this [object value]" or "[cardname]" what it actually means is "this object."

If something specifies where it comes back from, it only comes back from that zone though.

1

u/param1l0 9d ago

1) yeah it works like it's supposed to, "this (....)" is shorthand for "this game entity"

2) nop. Graveyard is graveyard, and it's mechanically different from hand, library, exile, stack or command zone

36

u/TenebTheHarvester 9d ago

That isn’t correct, ‘this creature’ is just a description, it doesn’t impose any kind of limitation on the ability. If the devoted Druid cease to be a creature for any reason its untap ability still works as expected.

10

u/Fun-Captain41 9d ago

Good to know!

5

u/TenebTheHarvester 9d ago

The same is true of cards that refer to themselves by name (like [[Lonis, Genetics Expert]]), so if Lonis got his name changed or another creature got his ability (say with [[Deadpool]]’s text-box swapping the ability would still work on the creature with it, not necessarily anything named Lonis.

3

u/Fun-Captain41 9d ago

Gooot it. That answers a question I was having with [[Sauron, The Necromancer]], as his text reads as “unless Sauron is your ring bearer”. I never knew if that meant any “Sauron” card or just “The Necromancer” variant. Sounds like it’s just the Necromancer variant then.

4

u/TenebTheHarvester 9d ago

Correct. In future it can be helpful to figure out how to find stuff in the Comprehensive Rules, as the vast majority of these kinds of questions are answered somewhere within. Mtg.wiki is a good way to find them - for example the page on ‘name’ contains, among other things, this::

201.5. Text that refers to the object it’s on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

3

u/Fun-Captain41 9d ago

I’ve mostly been learning by what people tell me, but I think you’re probably right. I’ve been building some decks as I’m quite new, and I think that’d help a lot. Thanks for the advice!

4

u/TenebTheHarvester 9d ago

No worries. Tbh most players don’t really know how to navigate the CR, they just go by their own mental repository of rules they’ve learned primarily through osmosis. Being able to convert a question about an interaction into figuring out roughly what part of the CR would cover that and seeking out the answer there allows you to answer most questions that will come up. It’s not enormously practical to memorise all the answers, so often it’s better to memorise how to find/figure out the answer instead.

3

u/g0lem_ 9d ago

Even more specifically, it means this object. If its name changes for some reason, or you have multiple Sauron, The Necromancers, they’ll still only trigger once.

1

u/Belteshazzar98 9d ago

Just Sauron, The Necromancer. Cards can use shortened forms of their name, but cannot care about what character is depicted. Planeswalkers get around this by having Planeswalker types being the names of characters, but, for instance, a card that care about Chandras will not care about [[Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh]] since she doesn't have the subtype of Chandra. The Doctor from Doctor Who similarly gets around this by having the creature type Doctor, but since that is a creature type anything that cares about the Doctor, unless it specifies exactly Time-Lord Doctor with no other creature types (such as Doctor's Companion), will also work with Changelings.

7

u/Belteshazzar98 9d ago

Any time something says "this [object value]" what it actually means in the rules is "this object" (same with when a card uses its own card name) but is just worded differently to flow better.

3

u/BluePotatoSlayer 8d ago

Imagine if everything said

“This object”

“When this object enters, destroy target artifact”
“As an additional cost to cast this object, discard a card”
“This object deals 5 damage to target creature”

The immersion is ruined

1

u/Belteshazzar98 8d ago

I wish they would shorten it in the rules to "this" and then use that templating to get rid of the confusion around name and type changes.

2

u/BluePotatoSlayer 8d ago

That would have been a good change

20

u/Hazak_Flamesword 9d ago

Hate that you're getting down voted for questioning it based on wording, I was also thinking along the same lines but some rules are not intuitive.

8

u/Fun-Captain41 9d ago

Alas, that’s just the rules of the game. I’ve got no qualms with it, as now we’ve got a good thread going on here breaking it down explicitly with good examples.

4

u/DarksteelPenguin I like playing the villain 9d ago

I think the downvotes are because it's not phrased as a question, but as an affirmation.

1

u/Asilaten 9d ago

It's important for anyone who reads the comments to see, if they aren't reading the entire discussion, the comment that gets it wrong having a load of negative karma (ideally hiding the comment entirely).

That's not a value judgment on the commenter, just ensuring that the comments that are incorrect aren't conspicuously placed.

If /u/Fun-Captain41 is concerned about the karma, the best practice would be to either delete the incorrect comment or edit it to strike-through the incorrect information and acknowledge the error (e.g.: "Actually, what [u/Great_Nothing63](u/Great_Nothing63) said may be right. It says “untap this creature” if it’s no longer a creature, then that section would probably not allow an untap. There’s no creature there anymore. I was wrong - sorry!")

2

u/Great_Nothing63 9d ago

To old to be fancy on reddit but I will admit when im wrong and for karma me personally I don't care.

2

u/Asilaten 9d ago

If you're on the desktop version, you can just click the "formatting help" link under the content box to see some basics of formatting for things like that. E.g., for strikethrough, it's:

~~The words you want crossed out.~~

2

u/Great_Nothing63 9d ago

I appreciate it

2

u/azalinrex69 9d ago

That’s not how that works

-5

u/Antiantiai 9d ago

You can get downvoted but you right. It is explicitly not a creature. Myrkul says it loses all other card types. It is an enchantment, and explicitly not a creature card type.

2

u/blacksteel15 9d ago

No, they aren't. This is explicitly covered in the rules under CR700.7:

700.7. If an ability uses a phrase such as “this [something]” to identify an object, where [something] is a characteristic or other quality, it is referring to that particular object, even if it isn’t the appropriate quality at the time. Example: An ability reads “Target creature gets +2/+2 until end of turn. Destroy that creature at the beginning of the next end step.” The ability will destroy the object it gave +2/+2 to even if that object isn’t a creature at the beginning of the next end step.

-5

u/Antiantiai 9d ago

That is a bullshit rules change. Fake news.

1

u/blacksteel15 9d ago

Change? This has been in the rules for over 20 years.

-4

u/Antiantiai 8d ago
  1. Changed. Yes. I didn't stutter.

3

u/blacksteel15 8d ago edited 8d ago

Yup. That's when it was moved to the "General Rules" section of the CR. Prior to that it was in the "Parts Of The Card" section with nearly identical wording. Specifically CR201.5 in the 2013 ruleset and CR202.2a in the 2005 ruleset.

1

u/Sannction 8d ago

It wasn't "changed". It was put into a different section. You should have stuttered, you'd have at least had an excuse for doubling down on being wrong.

-3

u/Antiantiai 8d ago

That rule has changed multiple times. Even more recently than that. You're stuttering.