Face-down permanents and copying

Assume that you cast a morph card face down, let's say for example Willbender, and then it becomes a copy of something else, like a Llanowar Elves (eg. via someone casting Mirrorweave targeting the elves.) What happens to the face-down Willbender?

Normally a face-down permanent is a 2/2 creature with no name, color or any other characteristics. So what happens if an effect makes it a copy of something else?

Quite many players, even very experience ones, will intuitively say that it simply becomes a copy of that something else (ie. in this case it will become an exact copy of Llanowar Elves, ie. a 1/1 green creature with that name, and with its ability.) Their intuition will usually be less sure about the question of what happens to its original morph ability, and whether it can be morphed or not. Some will guess that it retains its morph ability and can be morphed, but once morphed it will still be a copy of Llanowar elves.

Of course it's not that simple, and the situation is a bit more curious.

What actually happens is that it's the down-facing side (ie. the front of the card) of the permanent that becomes a copy of Llanowar Elves, not the up-facing side. The permanent will still be a 2/2 creature with no other characteristics even though it's now a copy of Llanowar Elves.

Since the down-facing side has no morphing ability now, it can't be morphed (for as long as it remains a copy of Llanowar Elves.) If Mirrorweave had instead targeted some other creature with a morph ability, then you could morph your face-down creature using the morph cost of that other card (if you can pay it.) However, when it turns face up, it will still be a copy of that other card.

The face-down permanent could even become a copy of a non-creature (for example if Mirrorweave had targeted an animated land.) While the down-facing side would become a copy of that non-creature card, it would still be a 2/2 creature with no other characteristics.

The reason for this is that being "face down" is a state of the permanent in the exact same way as being tapped or phased out. Being in the "face-down state" implicitly means that the permanent is a 2/2 creature with no other characteristics (regardless of what the actual card is.) It would work even if a permanent, like a land, would somehow become turned face down by some effect: It would become a 2/2 creature regardless of what it originally was.

However, note that copying in the other direction is special. In other words, if Mirrorweave had targeted the face-down permanent, then every other creature would have become a 2/2 creature with no other characteristics (rather than a copy of Willbender.) This is because the rules of the game specifically define the mechanic to work like that. (More exactly, the rules state that the visible characteristics of the face-down permanent, ie. "2/2 creature" become its copyable values.)

Mana abilities and Caged Sun

I discussed in my previous blog post when abilities are so-called mana abilities and when they are not, and how this can in some rare circumstances make a difference. Here is a rather unique problem related to this topic:

Is the triggered ability of Caged Sun a mana ability or not?

To understand this question we need to first fully understand what a "triggered mana ability" is. This is defined by the following rule in the Comprehensive Rules:

605.1b A triggered ability without a target that triggers from activating a mana ability and could put mana into a player's mana pool when it resolves is a mana ability.

The following rule makes it clear when a triggered ability is not a mana ability:

605.5a An ability with a target is not a mana ability, even if it could put mana into a player's mana pool when it resolves. The same is true for a triggered ability that could produce mana but triggers from an event other than activating a mana ability, or a triggered ability that triggers from activating a mana ability but couldn't produce mana. These follow the normal rules for activated or triggered abilities, as appropriate.

So, in summary, a triggered ability is a mana ability if it produces mana, does not target, and it triggers from activating a mana ability. If the ability targets, or it triggers from a non-mana ability, then it's not a mana ability even if it produces mana.

(A relevant difference between the two types of abilities is that a mana ability does not use the stack, and instead it resolves immediately when it triggers. It cannot be responded to. A non-mana ability uses the stack and can be responded to.)

So the question is: Is the ability of Caged Sun a mana ability or not? (Does it use the stack? Can it be responded to?) The ability in question reads:

Whenever a land's ability adds one or more mana of the chosen color to your mana pool, add one additional mana of that color to your mana pool.

Normally a mana-producing ability of any land is a mana ability, so it fulfills all the requirements for the ability of Caged Sun to be a mana ability.

However, the million dollar question is: What happens if a land has a non-mana ability that produces mana?

There exist currently no land cards that have such abilities. However, it's possible to create this kind of situation via gameplay. (One possibility is to, for example, make Deathrite Shaman into a land while retaining all of its abilities. This is possible by using certain combinations of cards.)

Technically speaking if a non-mana ability of a land produces mana like this, the ability of Caged Sun will trigger and it will not be a mana ability in this case according to the strict interpretation of the rules (and thus will use the stack.) In other words, whether the ability of Caged Sun is a mana ability or not depends on what's triggering it.

This is, as far as I know, not the intent of the card, or the game's rules in general. An ability ought to always be either a mana ability or not, rather than switching between the two depending on the situation. In other words, it ought to be a fixed characteristic of the ability that doesn't depend on anything else.

Probably for this reason the official ruling by WotC is that the ability of Caged Sun is always a mana ability, regardless of the situation (at least as of writing this post.) The interesting thing is that the comprehensive rules do not support this interpretation.

As of writing this post there is no disambiguating rule in the comprehensive rules to settle this question, but many people predict that it might be added there in the future.

When mana abilities make a difference

You control a Deathrite Shaman and another creature, all your lands are tapped, but there's a land in a graveyard. Your opponent controls a Sphere of Safety (and no other enchantments.) Question: Can you attack?

If your answer was "of course, just pay the required mana cost with the Shaman", then you haven't been reading this blog enough. Naturally the correct answer is "no", but the interesting part is the reason why not.

Deathrite Shaman's first ability is not a so-called mana ability because it targets. This is defined in the rules of the game as follows:

605.1a An activated ability is a mana ability if it meets three criteria: it doesn't have a target, it could put mana into a player's mana pool when it resolves, and it's not a loyalty ability.

Since it's not a mana ability, this means that it can only be activated any time you could cast an instant, in other words, any time you have priority. The difference with a mana ability is that the latter can be used any time you have priority and whenever something requires a mana cost to be paid. (Also, mana abilities do not use the stack, while normal activated abilities do.) In the vast majority of cases this is inconsequential, but in this particular case it makes a big difference.

The cost imposed by Sphere of Safety has to be paid when declaring attackers. This is done at the beginning of the declare attackers step. No players get priority at the beginning of that step until all attackers have been declared. (Paying possible costs is part of the process of declaring attackers, as specified by the rules.) This means that only mana abilities can be used to pay the cost. Instant-speed abilities cannot.

Activating Shaman's ability in the previous step (ie. the beginning of combat step) does not help because mana pools empty between steps.

Another question: Suppose you control a creature and one untapped land that's enchanted with a Verdant Haven. Your opponent controls a Sphere of Safety and another enchantment (thus requiring you to pay 2 mana to attack with the creature.) Can you attack?

This is another interesting question because this is not an activated ability but a triggered one. Does the same principle apply to triggered abilities that does to activated abilities?

The answer is yes: A triggered ability that adds mana to your mana pool and doesn't target is also a mana ability and thus does not use the stack and will immediately add the mana whenever it triggers. Thus you can attack.

To attack, or not to attack, part 2

In a previous blog post I asked a question about what happens when a Jackal Familiar is enchanted with Furor of the Bitten. This is a similar question, but with a slightly different twist:

Assume that a Master of Cruelties is enchanted by Furor of the Bitten. What happens?

This is closely related to the other situation, but the difference is now that rather than the creature being unable to attack alone, this one can only attack alone. Thus the question becomes: Can you attack with another creature, or are you forced to attack with Master of Cruelties each turn (if it's otherwise able), precluding any other creature from attacking?

This is once again a situation where many players, even very experienced ones, get it wrong (and may cause a considerable amount of disagreement.) The correct answer is that yes, Master of Cruelties must attack each turn (if there's nothing else stopping it, eg. summoning sickness) and thus nothing else can attack.

Rule 508.1d of the Comprehensive Rules (which I quoted in the other blog post) deals with this situation. It basically amounts to:

When declaring attackers:

1. Restrictions must not be disobeyed.
2. The amount of requirements being obeyed must be maximized (without disobeying any restriction.)
3. Any other declaration of attackers is illegal.

In this particular case a declaration of attackers where Master of Cruelties is attacking obeys more requirements (without disobeying any restrictions) than a declaration where it's not attacking. Therefore it's the only legal declaration.

(Sometimes it may happen that there are several possible declarations that obey the same number of requirements. In this case the player can freely choose between one of them. However, as stated, those are the only legal ones, and one of them must be chosen.)

But wait, there is more. Here's an even more complicated twist to the problem:

Suppose you control Master of Cruelties (not enchanted by anything) and some other creatures, and your opponent casts Aggravate. What happens?

The key to resolve this situation is to realize that an effect that says "each creature attacks if able" is placing a requirement on each such creature individually, and the amount of requirements being obeyed must be maximized.

This means that if you control two creatures (one of them being Master of Cruelties), then you can choose which one attacks. (This is an example where two different declarations of attackers obeys the same amount of requirements, and thus you can choose one of them.)

However, if you control more than two creatures, then the only legal declaration is one where all the other creatures except Master of Cruelties attack (because this declaration obeys the most requirements.)

(Bonus question: What happens in the above situation if Master of Cruelties is enchanted with Furor of the Bitten?)

Persistent Melira

Consider these questions, all if which are related in some manner:

1. Assume you control Melira, Sylvok Outcast, you give her persist (for example with Cauldron Haze), and she dies. When she comes back, will she have a -1/-1 counter?
2. Assume you control Melira's Keepers, you give it persist, and it dies. When it comes back, will it have a -1/-1 counter?
3. You control a Clone (it doesn't really matter what it's copying) and Melira's Keepers, you give the Clone persist, and it dies. When it comes back, you make it be a copy of Melira's Keepers. Will it have a -1/-1 counter?
4. You control a Volrath's Shapeshifter, the top card of your library is Melira's Keepers, you give the Shapeshifter persist, and it dies. When it comes back, will it have a -1/-1 counter?

These questions deal with some of the most obscure parts of the rules of the game. Let's examine the first two.

Melira, Sylvok Outcast has a static ability which states that creatures you control can't have -1/-1 counters placed on them. Melira's Keepers is somewhat similar, except that it affects only itself (and stops any kind of counters from being placed on it, although in this case that's inconsequential).

So there are two interesting questions here: When they gain persist and die, do they come back with a -1/-1 counter or without one, and do they behave differently in this regard?

Quite curiously their type of static ability does make a difference in this case. In particular, Melira, Sylvok Outcast will return with a -1/-1 counter, while Melira's Keepers will return without one. The reason for this may not be apparent, and it is, as said, one of the more obscure parts of the rules.

A static ability that affects all creatures behaves differently from a static ability that only affects the specific creature itself. The effect (in this case persist) that makes the creature enter the battlefield with an additional characteristic (in this case a -1/-1 counter) will be affected by a static ability that says something about the creature itself, but will not be affected by any generic effect that applies to all creatures (even if that effect is in the card being evaluated.) In a sense, one could think of it as the generic effect not affecting the creature until it's on the battlefield (and thus doesn't affect how creatures enter it.)

What about the Clone?

When the Clone is entering the battlefield, you choose what it copies. In this case we are choosing Melira's Keepers. So the question becomes: What happens first, the persist effect giving it a -1/-1 counter, or Clone acquiring the Keepers' ability that stops counters from being put onto it?

The correct answer is that Clone becomes a copy of Keepers before the persist effect tries to put a -1/-1 counter on it, and therefore it gets no counter. (This is, if anything, an even more obscure and hard to find consequence of the rules of the game.)

And finally, Volrath's Shapeshifter (and Melira's Keepers being the top card of your graveyard):

Now this is a really tricky one, and can confuse even judges. (It doesn't help that the official rulings for this card and how it interacts with enters-the-battlefield replacement effects have changed over time.)

At first it might look like this is just the same thing as with the Clone, but their abilities are a bit different. While Clone specifically says that it "enters the battlefield as a copy" of something, this card does not say anything about entering the battlefield with the characteristics of the top card of the graveyard.

This is such an obscure case that there may be some disagreement even among experts, but the majority consensus seems to be that Shapeshifter is considered to have the characteristics of the top graveyard card as it enters, and will therefore not have a -1/-1 counter put on it by persist. (However, this interpretation shouldn't be taken as set-in-stone until an official ruling from Wizards of the Coast can be cited.)

To block, or not to block?

Assume that you control a Hunter Sliver and a Two-Headed Sliver, and your opponent controls two Grizzly Bears.

The Hunter Sliver gives provoke to all slivers, the Two-Headed Sliver says that slivers can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.

Question: If you attack with one sliver and target one of the defending bears with the provoke ability, is your opponent forced to block with both bears (if they are otherwise able to do so)?

This problem is similar to one I posed in an earlier post, although in that case the question was about attackers rather than blockers.

Many a player would hastily answer to this question that "no; since the bears can't block alone, they aren't forced to do so." However, this answer would once again be incorrect.

The rule text that handles this situation is the following:

509.1c The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of blockers is illegal. If a creature can't block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.

This is very similar to the rule about declaring attackers. In short, what this is saying is that a declaration of blockers that obeys less requirements than another possible declaration of blockers (which doesn't disobey any restrictions) is an illegal declaration. Only a declaration that maximizes the number of requirements (without disobeying restrictions) is a legal declaration.

In this particular example there are two possible declaration of blockers: Not declaring any blockers, and declaring both bears to block the sliver. Since the latter obeys more requirements than the former, the former is an illegal declaration of blockers. In other words, the defending player has to block the sliver with both bears.

(Note that if the defending player had only one bear, he could not block the sliver regardless of the provoke because the Two-Headed Sliver is imposing a restriction on blocking, and a restriction always trumps a requirement.)

In cases where there are several possible declarations that would obey the same amount of requirements, the defending player can choose between them. This would be the case, for example, if you attacked with two slivers and used the provoke ability of both of them. In this case the provoke abilities are forcing the defending player to block either one of two slivers, so the defending player can choose which sliver to block with the two bears.

(Incidentally, it makes no difference in this particular case whether the two provoke abilities target the same bear or different ones. While the situation is technically speaking different, the end result is the same.)

As a thinking exercise, consider what happens if the defending player had three bears, or four bears, and you attacked with two slivers and targeted two of them with their provoke abilities.

Grave Betrayal

Assume that you control a Grave Betrayal, and an opponent controls an animated Treetop Village that dies.

1. When Treetop Village comes back under your control, will it be a Zombie?
2. If you animate it using its ability, will it then be a Zombie?

The question is relevant because there are many cards that specifically refer to Zombies (for example Diregraf Captain and Victim of Night.)

And to clarify a possible confusion: Yes, Treetop Village will return under your control with a +1/+1 counter on it if it died as a creature (under your opponent's control) even though it will not be a creature when it does so (it will be simply an unanimated Treetop Village.) Grave Betrayal's triggered ability only cares what it was when on the battlefield, not what it becomes once it hits the graveyard.

The answer to the first question is simple: As long as Treetop Village is not a creature, it simply cannot have a creature subtype (this is specifically stated in the rules of the game) and therefore it won't be a Zombie.

The second question is a bit more complicated.

Another clarification is needed at this point to avoid confusion: Yes, the effect of Grave Betrayal will be constantly applying to Treetop Village for as long as the latter is on the battlefield, regardless of whether it actually causes a change or not. It not being a creature does not cause the effect to cease to exist. (It just means that the effect isn't actually making it a Zombie if it's not a creature.)

Also note that "it's still a land" really means "in addition to its other types", which in turn means that its effect making it an Ape creature does not overwrite any other types or subtypes it may have.

So, if Treetop Village becomes a creature (eg. by using its own ability), does it become a Zombie? If you answer yes, then you haven't been reading this blog enough, because it's not that simple...

This is a rather peculiar case where the timestamps of effects have a non-trivial consequence.

There are now two effects affecting Treetop Village (on the same layer): The effect that says it's a Zombie, and the effect that says it's an Ape creature. The former has an older timestamp and is therefore applied first.

And that's the crucial point: Such effects on the same layer are evaluated one by one, in timestamp order (unless they are dependent effects, and these two are not.) This means that "is a Zombie" is evaluated first, but at this stage Treetop Village is not a creature, so that effect does nothing. Then we evaluate the "is an Ape creature" which makes it a creature (of subtype Ape.)

This means that it will be an Ape creature, but not a Zombie.