ozolith and reyhan interaction rule check

Asked by The_Overlord_666 3 years ago

just doing a quick rule check

Say i have Ishai, Ojutai Dragonspeaker on the battlefield with 10 +1/+1 on it, also on the board is Reyhan, Last of the Abzan , and a The Ozolith. when ishai dies how do reyhan and ozolith interact with each other and the counters

Tylord2894 says... #1

When Ishai dies, you will get to put 10 +1 counters on a creature due to Reyhan and The Ozolith will put 10 counters on itself. Neither of these two really "move" counters per se. Because +1 counters stop existing when a creature dies (with Skullbriar being the exception), there is no way to move something that doesn't exist. Instead, both of these effects use the last known information of the creature that died and then put that many counters something.

Hope this helps!!

June 9, 2020 12:53 p.m.

Rhadamanthus says... Accepted answer #2

In this example, 10 counters go on The Ozolith and 10 counters go to a target creature of your choice.

The words "put those counters on The Ozolith" mean "put counters of the same number and type onto The Ozolith". They aren't moved/removed from the creature, and The Ozolith wouldn't be able to work properly if it told you to "move" the counters because the counters cease to exist after the creature goes to the graveyard.

This is also addressed in the first Rulings Note in The Ozolith's Gatherer entry.

June 9, 2020 12:56 p.m.

TonyStark9001 says... #3

Rhadamanthus: if the ozolith simply moved the counters, it would still work. cards always beat rules. they should have worded the ozolith differently though. the way its worded, it says "those counters", which in literal terms would specify the exact counters that were on the creature.

June 9, 2020 1:01 p.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #4

TonyStark9001: Cards allow you to do things that the rules don't usually allow for, but they don't make the rules stop working. Counters on an object cease to exist when an object changes zones, meaning they don't exist anymore at the time The Ozolith's triggered ability resolves. It wouldn't be able to "move" them.

122.2 Counters on an object are not retained if that object moves from one zone to another. The counters are not "removed"; they simply cease to exist. See rule 400.7.

122.5 If an effect says to "move" a counter, it means to remove that counter from the object it's currently on and put it onto a second object. If either of these actions isn't possible, it's not possible to move a counter, and no counter is removed from or put onto anything. This may occur if the first and second objects are the same object; if the first object doesn't have the appropriate kind of counter on it; if the second object can't have counters put onto it; or if either object is no longer in the correct zone.

400.7 An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.

June 9, 2020 1:10 p.m.

TonyStark9001 says... #5

also, rule 400.7 isn't quite relevant. the creature doesn't have to remember itself, the ozolith would.

June 9, 2020 2:03 p.m.

TonyStark9001 says... #6

Rhadamanthus it would still work. it would simply remember the last known information about the card, just like other interactions where cards leave the battlefield. if a noncreature is animated and dies, it still triggers "when a creature dies" abilities, even though its a noncreature in the grave.

June 9, 2020 2:04 p.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #7

Yes, last-known-information is a very important part of this interaction because The Ozolith needs to know details about an object that no longer exists (the creature that used to be on the battlefield, but left). The issue with "moving" counters is that it's an operation performed on current objects: "remove that counter from the object it's currently on and put it onto a second object" as given in 122.5. The creature with counters is gone, so counters can't be "moved" from it.

I agree 400.7 isn't the focus of the topic being discussed. I just included it for context since it was specifically referenced in 122.2.

I guess this will be a reminder to myself to avoid side comments when answering a question, considering how easy it is for them to derail a conversation. Sorry about that.

June 9, 2020 3:50 p.m.