We Have To Go Deeper - Ep. 4 - The Continuous Effect

Features

TheRedMage

17 May 2016

492 views

Hello everybody and welcome to a new shiny installment of We Have to Go Deeper! This is a series in which we talk corner cases, rules interactions, and weird things you can make happen by combining cards that weren't really meant to be combined.

For those that might not have read the previous articles, here is how this works: whenever I read a question in the rules Q&A section the reminds me of an interesting interaction I have seen, or just plain puts me in a writing mood, I will use it as a jumping-off point for an article. I will discuss the question a bit more in depth, expand on the subject a bit, and usually exploit the rules I discussed to try to get the game to do something counterintuitive.

And now that the intro is out of the way, it is time, as usual, to look at our jumping-off point.

The Jumping-Off Point

This question was asked by BrianBartilet on February 16:

If I cast a Languish on my main phase, then cast another creature with power less than four, will it still die?

Well, we'll assume than by “power less than four” he means “toughness four or less”, so that the question makes sense. User Raging_Squiggle, which I have seen more and more frequently pop out in Q&A answers in the past few months, gave a good answer - here are the relevant parts:

When Languish resolves, it does what's known as a continuous effect. It only applies to all relevant objects on the battlefield as the continuous effect begins. So if a creature comes in afterwards, it'll be unaffected.

My game, my rules

So… We know that this is true in the case of Languish and other similar effects. But is that always true? Well, there are effects that are similar to this one, but don't quite work this way. In his answer, Raging_Squiggle quoted rule 611.2c. Let's see what that rule says:

611.2c If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won't change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.) A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability that doesn't modify the characteristics or change the controller of any objects modifies the rules of the game, so it can affect objects that weren't affected when that continuous effect began. If a single continuous effect has parts that modify the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects and other parts that don't, the set of objects each part applies to is determined independently.

The counterpart of this rule for static abilities is 611.3a

611.3a A continuous effect generated by a static ability isn't “locked in”; it applies at any given moment to whatever its text indicates.

Rule 611.2c seems to care about whether we are modifying the characteristics of an object or not, so let me quote rule 109.3 so that we are all on the same page.

109.3. An object's characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. Objects can have some or all of these characteristics. Any other information about an object isn't a characteristic. For example, characteristics don't include a spell's target, an object's owner or controller, whether a permanent is tapped, what an Aura enchants, and so on.

You gotta admire the comprehensive rules for being thorough enough to include stuff that only appears on Vanguard cards with a straight face.

What can we learn from this rule? Basically there are three cases:

1. If a continuous effect does not modify the characteristics of any object (i.e. “it modifies the rules of the game”) then it will apply to all objects regardless of whether they were around when the effect began. Activating the ability on Immobilizer Eldrazi is an example of this. More on an interesting consequence of this in a second.
2. If a continuous effect comes was generated a static ability, it also applies to all objects and doesn't care about order. If I cast Ambush Commander and then play a Bayou, my bayou will be a 1/1 elf. If I cast Glorious Anthem and then a Carnophage, my Carnophage will be a 3/3.
3. But, if the continuous effect both comes from the resolution of a spell or ability and modifies the characteristics of an object, it will “lock onto” whichever objects it can affect at the time the effect begins. It will stay true for those objects even if they stop being eligible for that effect, and it won't apply to any object that becomes eligible or starts existing afterwards. For example, if I cast Natural Affinity and then play a Bayou, the bayou won't be a 2/2 creature, and if I activate my Cliffside Lookout and then play a Carnophage, my carnophage will only be a 2/2.

Sick Blowouts

Up until not too long ago, I thought that how an ability was worded would influence how it work. This is partly because at the time there were two cards with similar effects both in standard: Temur Charm and Immobilizer Eldrazi.

The text on one of the modes of Temur Charm says “creatures with power 3 or less can't block this turn”. This does not affect any object's characteristics (being able to block is not a characteristic) and as such does not “lock on” the permanents it affects upon resolution. This actually was not clear for me the first time I ran into this interaction - we were drafting KTK-KTK-KTK, and my buddy 00_Jedi cast this against my board while my only untapped creatures were a morph and a Sultai Soothsayer presenting lethal damage.

My morph was however Efreet Weaponmaster (Oh, Khans, you and your five color silliness), which conveniently unmorphed into a 4-power creature, and would make my Sultai Soothsayer dodge the Falter effect too. However, when should I unmorph? If the effect was “locked on”, I should do it in response to Temur Charm. My creatures would be able to block, which means probably my opponent wouldn't attack, and I wouldn't die - on top of getting a sick 2-for-1 by wasting their Charm. However, if the effect did not lock onto the permanents it affected originally, I should wait, unmorph during Declare Attackers, and block - that way not only I don't die, but I also get to eat two of his creatures with mine, getting an even sicker 4-for-1 that would leave him incredibly behind on board.

To make things even more complicated, if I ask how the interaction works, my opponent is likely to figure out that my morph is Efreet Weaponmaster and not attack even if I don't unmorph. By the way, situations like this are why having an intimate knowledge of the rules is very important for players as well - this was an edge I could have exploited, and wasn't able to. Eventually, I just bit the bullet, talked about the interaction with a judge, found out what would happen, my opponent figured it out and declined to attack, and I didn't get my 4-for-1.

A Game Changer

Immobilizer Eldrazi does something similar: it selects a group of creatures with a certain trait (in this case “toughness greater than power” instead of “power 3 or less”) and prevents them from blocking for a turn. However, the ability is not worded “Creatures with toughness greater than their power cannot block this turn”. Rather, it says “Each creature with toughness greater than its power cannot block this turn”.

Now, as much as my love of obscure words might have obfuscated this fact, English is not, in fact, my first language (Italian is). I have been living in the states for a few years now, and I consider my English pretty good, but some of the nuances of the language are still lost on me, and it's possible “creatures with toughness greater than their power” sounds unclear, or even just a bit weird to a native speaker. However, to me that phrasing registered as perfectly fine.

But if it was, why would Wizards use a different wording? I figured it was because changing the wording would influence whether the ability would “lock on” or not. If you read the question from the Jumping-Off Point, you can even see me answer to that effect.

Then I actually read the rules, and came back to explain why I was wrong with my tail between my legs. Welp. As I said before, being able or unable to block is not a characteristic, and as such it just “changes the rules of the game” for its duration. Until the end of the turn, no object that is a creature permanent with toughness greater than its power can block, no matter what its power was, if it had a power it if even existed when the effect resolved.

It still kinda bugs me that two abilities this similar are worded differently, but I guess that's just my problem. Eldrazi Immobilizer and Temur Charm just work the same way, and I'll have to deal with it.

What if…

Usually, if an ability affects an object's characteristic, there is no way of writing them in such a way that it doesn't. That is not true of the contrary though! Consider the following card:

Restrainer Eldrazi -

Creature - Eldrazi Drone

Devoid

: Until the end of this turn, each creature with toughness greater than its power has “This creature cannot block”.

2/1

Now this card (which I templated to the best of my ability, but I am no professional Magic editor, so you'll have to forgive me if it's a bit off) is mostly equivalent to Eldrazi Obligator, except that it is giving the affected creatures an ability. This means that

1. Since, as stated earlier, an object's abilities are part of its characteristics, it will modify the way it works for the purposes of this article. Now, if I activate it and my opponent flashes in a Void Grafter afterwards, the new creature will be able to block.
2. The interaction of this card with Muraganda Petroglyphs is different. This is not particularly relevant to our discussion, but I feel if I don't mention at least one obscure card with complicated rules interaction per article I am not doing it right.

Should I stay, or should I Go (Deeper)?

And this is it for this article! This has been in the works for a while, but eventually we got there. Hopefully you won't have to wait for a few months before next article happens.

I hope you enjoyed reading about a rule I was not completely sure about until not too long ago, and I didn't bore you too much talking about the subtleties of templating. As usual, if you have comments, feedback, topic suggestions, your own stories, complaints about the fact that this article took four months to write, or any other piece of information that you want to make sure reaches my brain, you can comment below or tweet @TheR3dMage. And even if you don't, thanks for reading!

Another small PSA - and another good way of contacting me. Did you know that TappedOut has an (unofficial) IRC-style chat channel? It's hosted on Discord and we have a friendly environment and a growing community with awesome users ready to assist you with your decks, talk about the meta or just chat about magic for a while. I am often online there and always eager to talk about the rules, so you can also shoot me a message on Discord (or just come hang out) if you want! You can find the T/O Discord chat rooms here

We dug for a while, but we are not going any deeper for today. But stay tuned - next time, we are going even deeper! I'll see you then.