Enchantments - Phasing and Control
Phaedrus
Beautiful <cjc...@Xnbnet.Xnb.Xca> wrote:
>Q 1: If an enchantment is placed on a creature with phasing, does the
>enchantment get destroyed when it phases out?
No. There are special rules for local enchantments; they pay no
attention to the normal phasing schedule. Local enchantments always phase
out when the thing they're enchanting phases out; and they always phase in
when the thing they're enchanting phases in--and never phase in before
then.
To give an example: Let's say that I cast a Pacifism on your Shivan
Dragon. If something causes the Dragon to phase out during your turn, then
the Pacifism will automatically phase out. At the start of my next untap
phase, the Pacifism will not phase in--even though it's a phased-out card
that I controlled when it left play, and so would normally phase in at this
time--because the thing it's enchanting (the Dragon) hasn't yet phased in.
And at the start of your next untap phase, when the Dragon phases back in,
the Pacifism phases back in right along with it.
If for some reason the enchantment _cannot_ phase out--and the only
reason that could happen with the current cardset would be if Spatial Binding
had been used on it--then the enchantment will indeed get buried if the
thing it's enchanting phases out, since it now has an invalid target.
One other wrinkle that can come up because of this rule: If a local
enchantment somehow finds itself phased out without its target being phased
out along with it, then the enchantment will never phase back in--it will be
"stuck in phaseland" for the rest of the game. For example, this can happen
if I play an enchantment on a token creature, and the token creature then
phases out. The token goes to phaseland, and the enchantment goes right along
with it; but the token then immediately disappears from the game, because
tokens can't exist outside of play. So my enchantment is now in phaseland
without its target, and will be stuck there for the rest of the game.
>Q 2a and 2b: I can't remember the exact cards, but here's the
>situation. I have a creature in play that my opponent can't get rid
>of. He has a creature in play with the ability to gain control of a
>target enchanted creature. He places a Giant Strength on my creature so
>that it is enchanted, then taps his creature to steal it. As long as
>his creature remains tapped, he controls my creature. I don't have any
>untap spells, so I decide to destroy his tapped creature. First off,
>does destroying his creature return control of my creature to me?
>Secondly, if so, does my creature still have the enchantment that my
>opponent placed on it prior to stealing it?
Hmmm. I don't know of any card that matches that description. The
closest I can think of is Rootwater Matriarch--"Tap: Gain control of target
creature as long as that creature has any enchantments on it"--but that
ability doesn't require the Matriarch to stay tapped to maintain control.
This makes a big difference, because destroying the Matriarch wouldn't do
any good; the only thing that will stop the control effect is removing all
enchantments from the creature. (Well, causing the creature to leave play--
phasing it out, for example--will work too.) On the other hand, if it were
a tap-and-hold effect--if it were "Gain control of target creature as long
as that creature has any enchantments on it and Rootwater Matriarch remains
tapped"--then destroying the Matriarch _would_ cause the control effect to
end.
As for the other part of your question: There's no connection between
the controller of a creature and the controller of any enchantments on that
creature (with certain obvious exceptions, like Control Magic). Stealing
control of a creature will not give you control of any enchantments on the
creature, and losing control of the creature will not cause you to lose
control of any enchantments. So, even though you control the creature, the
Giant Strength will still be controlled by your opponent. But that doesn't
do your opponent much good, because he can't just decide to "turn off" the
Giant Strength's +2/+2; Giant Strength's ability is continuous--it doesn't
give the controller any choices. And, yes, the Giant Strength will still
be there; enchantments don't pop off just because the thing they're
enchanting changes controllers. (The only exception to this: If the
change in controllers means that the enchantment now has an invalid target--
if it says "Play only on a creature you control", for example--then it will
be buried, just as any enchantment with an invalid target would be.)
--
\o\ If you're interested in books and stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ please have a look at <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus>. Thanks! /o/
\o\ FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT \o\
/o/ a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/
Beautiful
enchantment get destroyed when it phases out?
Q 2a and 2b: I can't remember the exact cards, but here's the
situation. I have a creature in play that my opponent can't get rid
of. He has a creature in play with the ability to gain control of a
target enchanted creature. He places a Giant Strength on my creature so
that it is enchanted, then taps his creature to steal it. As long as
his creature remains tapped, he controls my creature. I don't have any
untap spells, so I decide to destroy his tapped creature. First off,
does destroying his creature return control of my creature to me?
Secondly, if so, does my creature still have the enchantment that my
opponent placed on it prior to stealing it?
--
Christopher "Beautiful" Carlson
remove X's from address to e-mail me...
Ingo Kemper
wrote:
>Q 1: If an enchantment is placed on a creature with phasing, does the
>enchantment get destroyed when it phases out?
No, local enchantments phase in and out along with their
enchantees.Card Text: TAP: Gain control of target creature as
long as that creature ha
any
enchantments on it.
>Q 2a and 2b: I can't remember the exact cards, but here's the
>situation. I have a creature in play that my opponent can't get rid
>of. He has a creature in play with the ability to gain control of a
>target enchanted creature. He places a Giant Strength on my creature so
>that it is enchanted, then taps his creature to steal it. As long as
>his creature remains tapped, he controls my creature. I don't have any
>untap spells, so I decide to destroy his tapped creature. First off,
>does destroying his creature return control of my creature to me?
Depends on the card your opponent used. I assume that your opponent
took control of your creature with a Rootwater Matriarch. If this is
true, you don't get the creature back. (Rootwater Matriarch reads "T:
Gain control of target creature as long as that creature has any
enchantments on it." Note that this is _not_ a continuous effect and
does _not_ require Rootwater Matriarch to remain tapped or in play.)
>Secondly, if so, does my creature still have the enchantment that my
>opponent placed on it prior to stealing it?
The enchantment is still on the creature, yes, because no effect
removed it and the creature is still in play.
Ingo Kemper
--
__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/
Maarten van Beek
>
> Q 1: If an enchantment is placed on a creature with phasing, does the
> enchantment get destroyed when it phases out?
No. Phasing is a special way of zone-changing. When a creature phase
out, all enchantments on it phase out with it and all counters stay on
it.
> Q 2a and 2b: I can't remember the exact cards, but here's the
> situation. I have a creature in play that my opponent can't get rid
> of.
Many possibilities here :-)
> He has a creature in play with the ability to gain control of a
> target enchanted creature.
That must be the famous Rootwater Matriarch
---------
Rootwater Matriarch 2UU
Summon Merfolk
T: Gain control of target creature
as long as that creature has
any enchantments on it.
2/3
------------
> He places a Giant Strength on my creature so
> that it is enchanted, then taps his creature to steal it. As long as
> his creature remains tapped, he controls my creature.
Hmmm.... so it is not the Rootwater Matriarch..... maybe a Seasinger?
----------
Seasinger 1UU
Summon Merfolk
If you control no islands,
bury Seasinger.
You may choose not to untap
Seasinger during your untap phase.
T: Gain control of target creature
whose controller controls any
islands as long as you control
Seasinger and Seasinger remains tapped.
0/1
----------------
> I don't have any
> untap spells, so I decide to destroy his tapped creature. First off,
> does destroying his creature return control of my creature to me?
If it was the Rootwater Matriarch: no. If it was a Seasinger: Yes.
> Secondly, if so, does my creature still have the enchantment that my
> opponent placed on it prior to stealing it?
No matter what, the enchantment will stay on it.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:controltaki...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Beautiful
>
> Beautiful wrote:
> >
> > Q 2a and 2b: I can't remember the exact cards, but here's the
> > situation. I have a creature in play that my opponent can't get rid
> > of.
>
> Many possibilities here :-)
>
> > He has a creature in play with the ability to gain control of a
> > target enchanted creature.
>
> That must be the famous Rootwater Matriarch
>
> as long as that creature has
> any enchantments on it.
>
> > that it is enchanted, then taps his creature to steal it. As long as
> > his creature remains tapped, he controls my creature.
>
> Hmmm.... so it is not the Rootwater Matriarch..... maybe a Seasinger?
Just to end anyone's suffering, the card WAS Rootwater Matriarch. My
opponent played it and somehow thought that it had to remain tapped in
order to keep my creature under his control. I briefly scanned the card
from a distance, and upside-down, so I took his word for it. Anyhoo, to
recap - if I destroy his Rootwater Matriarch after he has gained control
of my creature (which he enchanted in order to steal), the creature goes
back under my control (with the enchantment). Right?
Phaedrus
Beautiful <cjc...@Xnbnet.Xnb.Xca> wrote:
>Just to end anyone's suffering, the card WAS Rootwater Matriarch. My
>opponent played it and somehow thought that it had to remain tapped in
>order to keep my creature under his control. I briefly scanned the card
>from a distance, and upside-down, so I took his word for it. Anyhoo, to
>recap - if I destroy his Rootwater Matriarch after he has gained control
>of my creature (which he enchanted in order to steal), the creature goes
>back under my control (with the enchantment). Right?
Errr... no, as several posters already pointed out.
If the Matriarch's effect _was_ a tap-and-hold effect--if it was
"as long as Rootwater Matriarch remains tapped"--then the control effect
would end when the Matriarch left play.
If the Matriarch's ability were continuous--if its ability was simply
"You control all creatures with enchantments on them", with no activation
cost--then the effect would end immediately when the Matriarch left play.
But the Matriarch's ability doesn't fall under either of those
categories. It's not a continuous effect; it's a duration effect--an effect
with a built-in ending condition. (Abilities with activation costs _can't_
be continuous.) So the Matriarch's control effect does not end when the
Matriarch leaves play. The only way to make the Matriarch effect on a
particular creature go away is to remove all enchantments from that creature.
(Removing the controlled creature--not the Matriarch--from play will also
work.)
By the way, it's important to understand _why_ it is that tap-and-hold
effects end when the card with the ability leaves play. It's not because
of any rule that says "Abilities' effects end when their source leaves play";
again, there is no such rule, except for continuous abilities. It's because
a card that's out of play is neither "tapped" nor "untapped", for the purposes
of the rules; so by definition, a creature that leaves play does not "remain
tapped".
David DeLaney
>> T: Gain control of target creature
>> as long as that creature has
>> any enchantments on it.
>
>opponent played it and somehow thought that it had to remain tapped in
>order to keep my creature under his control. I briefly scanned the card
>from a distance, and upside-down, so I took his word for it. Anyhoo, to
>recap - if I destroy his Rootwater Matriarch after he has gained control
>of my creature (which he enchanted in order to steal), the creature goes
>back under my control (with the enchantment). Right?
Nope. Rootwater Matriarch, in particular, does +not+ say the effect ends
if she untaps, _or_ if her controller loses control of her. She says her
effect ends when the creature loses its last enchantment. So he keeps the
creature as long as the enchantment is on it, regardless of what happens
to the Matriarch. [Sorry.]
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>Q 1: If an enchantment is placed on a creature with phasing, does the
>enchantment get destroyed when it phases out?
Nope. Enchantments local to a permanent that phases out phase out with it,
and [exception to the usual rule for when they would phase in] phase back
in when it does. If an enchanted token phases out, the token evaporates ...
and the enchantment is stuck in phase-land.
>Q 2a and 2b: I can't remember the exact cards, but here's the
>situation. I have a creature in play that my opponent can't get rid
>of. He has a creature in play with the ability to gain control of a
>target enchanted creature. He places a Giant Strength on my creature so
>that it is enchanted, then taps his creature to steal it. As long as
>his creature remains tapped, he controls my creature. I don't have any
>untap spells, so I decide to destroy his tapped creature. First off,
>does destroying his creature return control of my creature to me?
Yes. If it leaves play, it ceases to be tapped or untapped. So the effect
will end. [He will also lose control of it, and most but not all such
creatures also have that as a condition to end the effect.]
>Secondly, if so, does my creature still have the enchantment that my
>opponent placed on it prior to stealing it?
Yes, sure; why wouldn't it? Changing the controller of a creature doesn't
cause enchantments on it to fall off. [Unless they specifically say "Play
only on a creature you control/a creature you do not control".]
David DeLaney
_Not_ a list of Official Answers, Rulings, etc.; just a list of questions about
various things, and notes about what happened on the group in a given week.
#28: 7/11/98
New ManyStuff combo: Tetravus/AEther Flash/Sadistic Glee, during upkeep. Add
in a Soul Warden for ManyLife...
If you have to make a random discard and a chosen discard at the same time,
what happens? For example, if you try to cast Sonic Burst through a Dream
Halls. Do you "choose which to do first", even though they're happening
at the same time? If your hand is Burst, Pyroblast, Mountain, and the random
discard snags the Pyroblast instead of the Mountain, do you "back up" because
you now cannot pay the whole cost the way you wanted to? [My original thought
but other gurus were Unhappy with it.] Are you simply not Allowed to pick the
card(s) you're choosing to discard to pay the cost as any of the card(s)
you're randomly discarding to pay the cost, instead?
Tetravus' wording, in addition to being confusing because it tries to say it's
putting +counters+ into play, which can't happen [it needs to be reworded a
bit more like Thopter Squadron]... has the unique problem of having one phase
ability that can be played multiple times, once per Tetravite in play from
it or +1/+1 counter on it that hasn't had this done already this upkeep.
Would we like to Fix this so that the moving-on-and-off must all happen as
one phase event? This would also Fix it so that my ManyStuff combo up top
wouldn't function all in one upkeep, and would be less confusing as to _why_
you couldn't keep moving things on and off, since you only got to do it once...
[Still the same day...] Tahngarth's Rage/Ensnaring Bridge. The Bridge checks
the stats of creatures that are _not_ quite yet attacking, correct? And, if
the Rage were correctly worded, it would be "As long as enchanted creature is
attacking, ...", so that it's not got the bonus yet when you're trying to see
if it's legal for it to attack? Seems to fall under the same case as the
Exalted Dragon/Assembly Worker (lunch for Dragon)/Orcish Conscripts trio...
it "looks like" we're checking the situation as it was just before attackers
were declared, there.
I've been asked to inquire whether Illusionary Mask's ability can be
interrupted ... since it's used _during_ the announcement of a spell, when
even tapping for mana isn't legal. If you +can+ interrupt it - can you counter
the spell by countering the Mask ability [opinion: no way]? Or do you
just not get to summon the creature face-down, having already spent the
extra mana before the Mask was Rusted? [opinion: way]
Takklemaggot's moving ability is worded a bit oddly in Oracle. It is templated
like a replacement ability ... but what it's replacing would be a rules-
triggered effect. Is it safe to say that it simply, during the rules-trigger
effect event, gets a target picked and moves, instead of being buried? So
that once the controller of the creature picks a new target there's _no_
chance to do anything before Takk gets there, since this is all in the same
event? [It would eliminate a class of rules questions for it and Kudzu,
anyway...]
David DeLaney
Got caught by this: from the 7/1/98 Rulings, *s of a creature's power/toughness
are seen as 0 while it's out of play. So a Volrath's Shapeshifter copies
them as zero. If the card also has some ability that sets the *s to values,
the VS copies that also and sets them normally ... but Clone and Doppelganger
do -not- have such an ability, and depend on their comes-into-play-as ability
to set the * initially. So VS copies their *s as 0s, and will be a 0/0 Clone
or Dopp [and generally dead, unless something like Castle is boosting its
toughness at the time].
Cataclysm again. Active player chooses what not-to-sac just before opponent
does, so that opponent knows what's staying on the other side when they
choose [and active player doesn't]. Now: active player -sacs- their stuff just
before opponent does, also? I believed that was the case, but am asking for
someone. [If active player has a Soul Net, will it or won't it trigger off
any creatures opponent sacrifices to Cataclysm, if active player sacrifices
the Soul Net, to put it simply?]
Noted on the group that if a blocker gets Trampled on ... but changes sides
_during_ combat damage-prevention ... that the Trample damage should then
no longer blow over, because it's no longer combat Trample damage _on
a blocker_. Confirm? Deny? The d'Angelo rulings on Trample, in current form,
leave out that the Trample damag must be +combat+ damage, and must be on a
+blocker+, to get redirected; I've already emailed him...
Maarten van Beek
>
> Maarten van Beek wrote:
> >
> > Beautiful wrote:
> > >
> > > situation. I have a creature in play that my opponent can't get rid
> > > of.
> >
> >
> > > He has a creature in play with the ability to gain control of a
> > > target enchanted creature.
> >
> >
> > as long as that creature has
> > any enchantments on it.
> >
> > > that it is enchanted, then taps his creature to steal it. As long as
> > > his creature remains tapped, he controls my creature.
> >
>
> opponent played it and somehow thought that it had to remain tapped in
> order to keep my creature under his control. I briefly scanned the card
> from a distance, and upside-down, so I took his word for it. Anyhoo, to
> recap - if I destroy his Rootwater Matriarch after he has gained control
> of my creature (which he enchanted in order to steal), the creature goes
> back under my control (with the enchantment). Right?
>
matter what happens to the Rootwater Matriarch. Only when the creature
looses all it's enchantments, will it return to ir's original
controller.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:so.it.was.t...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Ingo Kemper
wrote:
>Just to end anyone's suffering, the card WAS Rootwater Matriarch. My
>opponent played it and somehow thought that it had to remain tapped in
>order to keep my creature under his control. I briefly scanned the card
>from a distance, and upside-down, so I took his word for it. Anyhoo, to
>recap - if I destroy his Rootwater Matriarch after he has gained control
>of my creature (which he enchanted in order to steal), the creature goes
>back under my control (with the enchantment). Right?
No. The effect does not depend on Rootwater Matriarch at all. The
_only_ condition is for the creature to have at least one local
enchantment on it.
Ricky Walker
<d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> writes
>Beautiful <cjc...@Xnbnet.Xnb.Xca> writes:
[stuff about enchantments and phasing]
>>Secondly, if so, does my creature still have the enchantment that my
>>opponent placed on it prior to stealing it?
>
>Yes, sure; why wouldn't it? Changing the controller of a creature doesn't
>cause enchantments on it to fall off. [Unless they specifically say "Play
>only on a creature you control/a creature you do not control".]
So does that mean that the "Play only on a creature you control..." is a
continuous {ability/effect/requirement - not sure what to call it}. I
would have thought it was a targetting requirement, and checked on
announcement, and maybe again when the spell resolves.
>
>Dave
--
Ricky Walker
Ingo Kemper
<ri...@walley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6qe15l$4q9$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, David DeLaney
><d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> writes
>>Beautiful <cjc...@Xnbnet.Xnb.Xca> writes:
>[stuff about enchantments and phasing]
>
>>>Secondly, if so, does my creature still have the enchantment that my
>>>opponent placed on it prior to stealing it?
>>
>>Yes, sure; why wouldn't it? Changing the controller of a creature doesn't
>>cause enchantments on it to fall off. [Unless they specifically say "Play
>>only on a creature you control/a creature you do not control".]
>
>So does that mean that the "Play only on a creature you control..." is a
>continuous {ability/effect/requirement - not sure what to call it}.
No.
>I
>would have thought it was a targetting requirement, and checked on
>announcement, and maybe again when the spell resolves.
It _is_ a targeting requirement. Don't forget that local enchantments
continuously target their "enchantees", though.
If a white enchantment is on a creature and that creature leaves play
or gains protection from white, the enchantment "falls off". The same
applies here: If you lose control of a creature with a local
enchantment that reads "play only on a creature you control", the
enchantment's target is no longer legal and the enchantment is buried.
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney ><d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> writes
>>Yes, sure; why wouldn't it? Changing the controller of a creature doesn't
>>cause enchantments on it to fall off. [Unless they specifically say "Play
>>only on a creature you control/a creature you do not control".]
>
>So does that mean that the "Play only on a creature you control..." is a
>would have thought it was a targetting requirement, and checked on
>announcement, and maybe again when the spell resolves.
It's a targetting requirement, yes.
However: remember that local enchantments check their target twice while
being cast ... _and_ -ALL THE TIME-, continuously, while they are in
_play_ on that target. If their target becomes invalid while they are in
play on it, they are buried as a rules-triggered effect.
So if your Giant Strength is on a Licid, and the Licid changes to an
enchantment ... the Giant Strength is buried immediately, because the Licid
is no longer a creature, and the Giant Strength is "Enchant Creature".
And if your Betrayal is on an opponent's creature ... and you gain control
of the creature ... the Betrayal is immediately buried, because the
creature is no longer "a creature you do not control".
Ricky Walker
<d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> writes
>Ricky Walker <ri...@walley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>David DeLaney ><d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> writes
>>>Yes, sure; why wouldn't it? Changing the controller of a creature doesn't
>>>cause enchantments on it to fall off. [Unless they specifically say "Play
>>>only on a creature you control/a creature you do not control".]
>>
>>So does that mean that the "Play only on a creature you control..." is a
>>continuous {ability/effect/requirement - not sure what to call it}. I
>>would have thought it was a targetting requirement, and checked on
>>announcement, and maybe again when the spell resolves.
>
>It's a targetting requirement, yes.
>
>However: remember that local enchantments check their target twice while
>being cast ... _and_ -ALL THE TIME-, continuously, while they are in
>_play_ on that target. If their target becomes invalid while they are in
>play on it, they are buried as a rules-triggered effect.
Yes, I have it now. As I replied to Ingo Kemper, it was in the way I
was interpreting the word "play".
>
>So if your Giant Strength is on a Licid, and the Licid changes to an
>enchantment ... the Giant Strength is buried immediately, because the Licid
>is no longer a creature, and the Giant Strength is "Enchant Creature".
I never had a problem with this, it was just the way I was taking it to
be a casting requirement in that particular instance.
>And if your Betrayal is on an opponent's creature ... and you gain control
>of the creature ... the Betrayal is immediately buried, because the
>creature is no longer "a creature you do not control".
Cheers, I've got that straight now.
>
>Dave
--
Ricky Walker
Ricky Walker
<kem...@uni-muenster.de> writes>>In article <6qe15l$4q9$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, David DeLaney
>><d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> writes
>>>Beautiful <cjc...@Xnbnet.Xnb.Xca> writes:
>>[stuff about enchantments and phasing]
>>
>>>>Secondly, if so, does my creature still have the enchantment that my
>>>>opponent placed on it prior to stealing it?
>>>
>>>cause enchantments on it to fall off. [Unless they specifically say "Play
>>>only on a creature you control/a creature you do not control".]
>>
>>So does that mean that the "Play only on a creature you control..." is a
>>continuous {ability/effect/requirement - not sure what to call it}.
>
>
>>I
>>would have thought it was a targetting requirement, and checked on
>>announcement, and maybe again when the spell resolves.
>
>continuously target their "enchantees", though.
>
>If a white enchantment is on a creature and that creature leaves play
>or gains protection from white, the enchantment "falls off". The same
>applies here: If you lose control of a creature with a local
>enchantment that reads "play only on a creature you control", the
>enchantment's target is no longer legal and the enchantment is buried.
>
Aha, right. My misunderstanding was that I thought the "Play only
...etc" was a seperate restriction to the normal enchantment rules. I
was taking the word play to mean "cast". I've got my head round that one
now, to coin a phrase. Thanks.
>Ingo Kemper
--
Ricky Walker