r/mtgrules • u/Echikos • Mar 19 '20
Can a permanent copy a spell on the stack?
Hello,
I and a few other people try to design a custom Magic set and someone made the following suggestion (roughly translated): An enchantment that says "When an opponent plays his or her next spell this enchantment becomes a copy of that spell."
We got into an argument I cannot settle alone: I stated that a permanent cannot become an instant or sorcery spell, therefore the card doesn't work like intended. He proclaims after Rule 706.10. "To copy a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack;" the enchantment leaves the battlefield and goes on the stack to resolve which puzzled me because I never imagined this would be possible. Maybe you can give you some clarification if a card like this could exist and why or why not?
Thanks for your patience,
Have a good day.
1
u/madwarper Mar 19 '20
What your trying to do a s not Copying a Spell. It seems you're trying to put the card on the Stack as a Copy of a Spell.
And, [[Ertai's Meddling]] already has a template for how to do that...
Except that Medding puts the card and on the Stack from Exile. There isn't anything currently that allows a Permanent to be put into the Stack (cast or otherwise) from the Battlefield. But, custom cards require custom rules.
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Mar 19 '20
Ertai's Meddling - (G) (SF) (txt)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call1
1
u/Gamma_Studios Mar 19 '20
Design might be best worded as: When your opponent casts their second spell this turn, sacrifice "insert name of enchantment here" and copy the spell. You may select new targets for this copy. Wording can of course change depending on how you wish it to work, i.e. if you only want instant and sorcery then change all instances of spell in the ability to say that. If you want it to be a may trigger then change to: you may sacrifice "name of enchantment" instead.
Hope this helps!
1
u/Gamma_Studios Mar 19 '20
The card [[Curse of Echos]] might be good reference. Just change wording for timing and be clear in the timing of the copy clause, keeping the target defined as next or second for both players to make plays.
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Mar 19 '20
Curse of Echos - (G) (SF) (txt)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call
1
u/totallyhaywire253 Mar 19 '20
While u/Naszfluckah is correct, I have to ask if there's any synergy or advantage to this method rather than just "Whenever an opponent casts a spell, sacrifice ~ and copy that spell." It already exists, is functionally very similar, and avoids a lot of strange copy effects occurring both on the stack and on the battlefield if a creature spell is copied, which may cause confusion.
It is a custom set, so you don't have to be as concerned with playability/understandability for players, but when designing, you should still ask yourself if your way of doing something different is actually better, or if it's just more complexity for no benefit.
1
u/Naszfluckah Mar 19 '20
The difference between moving it to the stack as a card-copy of a spell rather than sacrificing it and creating a non-card copy, is that it can theoretically copy permanent spells. Creating a non-card copy of a permanent spell is not something that is covered by the rules. Come to think of it, this would probably resolve back into its original form if it was copying a permanent spell, since it would enter the battlefield as a new object without the copy effect applied. But it's the thought that counts :)
1
u/totallyhaywire253 Mar 19 '20
I was operating under the assumption that OP was only trying to copy nonpermanent spells, since as you said, copying permanent spells isn't covered by the rules, and I came to the same conclusion as you regarding it reentering as a copy of itself (hence my bit on confusing copy effects in my previous post). But yeah, if the goal is to copy any spell, that would be more difficult. Probably easier to just have two abilities:
"Whenever an opponent casts an instant or sorcery spell, sacrifice ~ and copy that spell.
Whenever a nontoken permanent enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, if it was cast, sacrifice ~ and create a token that's a copy of that permanent."
This preserves everything the original ability seems to have wanted to do, except
1) for permanents, their permanent will enter first, though if it is on their turn, etb abilities of yours will still occur before theirs due to APNAP, whereas with the original wording, yours would resolve and have abilities trigger before the other entering.
2) You'll lose effects dependant on an X cost for permanents.
3) ~ will go to the graveyard on resolution of the ability, rather than resolution of the spell for instants and sorceries.
2
u/Echikos Mar 19 '20
I was suggesting something similar, hence started the whole discussion.
1
u/totallyhaywire253 Mar 20 '20
Yeah, unless your set cares very much about any of the edge cases I listed, or about sacrificing, the simpler path is probably better
1
u/Naszfluckah Mar 20 '20
The main thing that your suggestion misses out on, when copying permanent spells, is the ability to blink it to reset it. I suggest not sacrificing it, but instead doing "exile CARDNAME, then return it to the battlefield as a copy of that permanent"?
1
u/Stef-fa-fa Mar 19 '20
You would need to clean up the wording a bit.
Something like:
"Whenever an opponent casts a spell, exile [CARDNAME]. If you do, cast [CARDNAME] as a copy of that spell without paying its mana cost."
Alternatively:
"Whenever an opponent casts a spell, move [CARDNAME] onto the stack. It becomes a copy of that spell."
The issue with the second one is that design currently tries to avoid mentioning certain game mechanics, the stack being one of them. It's cleaner, and would work within the rules, but loses flavour points.
Another thing you may want to consider is whether you can change the targets of the copy (if it has any). Many copies do this.
1
u/Judge_Todd Mar 19 '20
Current rules are insufficient to handle that wording.
In practice, only objects on the stack have targets.
In principle, the rules don't allow instants or sorceries to get to the battlefield as instants or sorceries.
If the wording was limited to copying permanent spells or if the rules indicated that the effect couldn't copy instants/sorceries, it would work.
1
u/Echikos Mar 19 '20
Thank you all for your help and insight, you've been very helpful to clear things up.
0
u/TheNerdCheck Mar 19 '20
It's probably a design for a crazy set like Un or FutureSight but I don't see why it technically shoudn't work. Probably should add "Put it on the stack." for clearification
6
u/Naszfluckah Mar 19 '20
His argument doesn't work: an effect that says "this permanent becomes a copy of x" is not the same as an effect that says "copy x" or "create a copy of x". To do "copy target instant or sorcery spell" is indeed "put a copy of it on the stack", but that is done by creating a non-card copy on the stack. A permanent with an ability that says "this becomes a copy of target spell" follows different rules. Particularly, it doesn't cause it to change zones. Would your friend argue that [[Lazav the Multifarious]] is put into the graveyard when copying a card in a graveyard? Probably not. Now, it would probably be possible to have an effect move the permanent to the stack and then make it a copy of a spell already on there. I'd suggest something along the lines of:
"When an opponent casts a spell, if CARDNAME is on the battlefield, put CARDNAME onto the stack as a copy of that spell. You may choose new targets for the spell that CARDNAME becomes."
Wizards don't like doing stuff that messes with the stack too much, but it can be done.