Spy Kit + Doubling Chant interaction
Asked by Fizzz 7 years ago
Hello,
I have been having a discussion with my friends regarding this interaction.
I say that if you equip this artifact to a creature, then cast the chant, you would not be able to search for any creature, since no creature in your library would have all the names.
They say that it would work as a fetchland, searching for a specific name as in a Flooded Strand being able to search for an Island - X land.
Which would be correct?
Epochalyptik says... #2
From the rules for split cards (which are, functionally, the closest we currently have to a Spy Kitted search):
708.6. Some effects perform comparisons involving one or more split cards in a zone other than the stack or involving one or more fused split spells.
708.6a Anything that performs a positive comparison (such as asking if a card is red) or a relative comparison (such as asking if a card's converted mana cost is 3 or less) involving one or more split cards in any zone other than the stack or involving one or more fused split spells gets only one answer. This answer is "yes" if either side of each split card in the comparison would return a "yes" answer if compared individually.
Speculation until official ruling: a card with all card names merely has multiple names, not one name that is all card names combined. Therefore, a comparison between that card's name and another card's name that looks for a single positive result will eventually find that positive result. End result: you ccan tutor for a card with any name if it uses a positive comparison.
August 24, 2016 2:20 p.m.
Raging_Squiggle says... #3
Only way I can think of to easily explain it is with computer programming jargon.
Think of it as an array (compiled list) of all non-legendary creature names. And the Doubling Chant checks each name of the searched creature to find a match in the array. If it does, then it'll go on the battlefield.
August 24, 2016 3:04 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #4
For Spy Kit to function in any meaningful way it has to be that it has each name of each creature individually. Archangel is not Archangel Avacyn Flip, just as Abbey Gargoyles isn't "Abbey Gargoyles Abbey Griffin Abbey Matron..." So for the "has all names of all non-legendary creatures" to do anything at all it has to be treated as thousands of different names, not one long name. So you could find any one non-legendary creature with Doubling Chant.
August 24, 2016 10:21 p.m.
I really don't get why would it work if it has all the names, as I would think it's name would be a concatenation of all the names.
August 25, 2016 12:04 p.m.
Raging_Squiggle says... #6
A creature having multiple creature types are not concatenated. Adaptive Automaton can name human, and Azami, Lady of Scrolls will be affected because one of its creature types is human. Same principle for Spy Kit.
August 25, 2016 12:29 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
Keep in mind also that a concatenated name would be utterly useless from a practical standpoint. The purpose of Spy Kit is, ostensibly, to allow the equipped creature to take advantage of name-based effects such as that of Cylian Sunsinger or Immediate Action.
See also the logic from my earlier post about split cards, which have multiple sets of characteristics and are not concatenated.
August 25, 2016 1:05 p.m.
My reasoning to include both possibilities is that I don't deem the first one impossible, even though I think the latter is correct (like the rest of you). However, let me elaborate on the first possibility.
First of all, the concept of creature types is fundamentally different than that of a card name. Creature types are meant to be a set of types, while a name has - until now - always been a single instance. Rule 201.2. that I quoted above states that names must be identical, which is a phrase not used in relation to creature types anywhere (I believe).
Going from there, if I would follow up using Raging_Squiggles programming terminology, the rules could compare the names like this (shoertened set of creature names for sanity):
if ['Memnite'] === ['Arbor Elf', 'Elvish Visionary', 'Elvish Piper', 'Memnite']This would return false for good reason, and would for all intents and purposes be the correct interpretation for "identical".
Yet, I agree that it would be primarily useless.
August 26, 2016 2:26 a.m.
Raging_Squiggle says... #9
Because I like talking programming stuff, and I don't often get the chance to tie it into Magic, I'll talk further on my last post:
A better idea for my array theory would be to think of it as a boolean (True/False) scenario. Copying BlueScope's example above (Note, for you programmers out there, this isn't actual code, it's purposely simplified for understanding:
if ['Memnite'] is in ['Arbor Elf', 'Elvish Visionary', 'Elvish Piper', 'Memnite', et al]
This would return True, because it sees the name 'Memnite' within the array.
This is my understanding of how spy kit would work. To me, taking the names above and 'concatenating' them into a single unique name:
Arborelfelvishvisionaryelvishpipermemnite
Would be unnecessary and would serve no purpose of having created the card except to surpass the ridiculousness of the length of the following card's name.
August 26, 2016 3:21 a.m.
@Raging_Squiggle: First of all, the concatenated name would be either of the following:
Arbor ElfElvish VisionaryElvish PiperMemniteor
Arbor Elf Elvish Visionary Elvish Piper MemniteAnd then, rule 201.2 states identical, which doesn't really allow for a "is in" interpretation.
As Epochalyptik said, the occurrence of other cards in the set that are clearly meant to interact with it pretty much clears the question whether this works or not, as both cards follow the "same name" concept. Still, I think the rules need to be adjusted to back this.
August 26, 2016 6:44 a.m.
Also, the card you linked pretty much proves that a concatenated version of the card would be the desired outcome by Wizards, or at least it's marketing department ;)
And because this is probably the only thread where this card is ever mentioned, this may be the appropriate place for a "bug report":No item found for 'Our Market Research Shows That Players Like Really Long Card Names So We Made this Card to Have the Absolute Longest Card Name Ever Elemental'
August 26, 2016 6:48 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #12
Release notes on Spy Kit say:
The set of names the equipped creature has includes the names of all nonlegendary creature cards in the Oracle card reference, including the back faces of double-faced cards. Notably, the equipped creature won't gain the names of tokens, such as Zombie, Goblin, and similar. It also won't gain the names of noncreature cards that have become creatures, such as a Wandering Fumarole that has become a creature.
Notice that it says "the set of names". It is an array, not a concatenation. Again for the card to do anything at all this had to be the case.
August 26, 2016 8:28 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... Accepted answer #13
The rules regarding names have also been expanded:
201.2. A cards name is always considered to be the English version of its name, regardless of printed language.
201.2a Two objects have the same name if their names are identical.
201.2b If an object has more than one name, it has the same name as another object if there are one or more names that both objects have in common.
201.2c Two or more objects have different names if there are no names that both objects have in common.
To answer the original question: you can search for one creature with any name.
BlueScope says... #1
First of all, Fetchlands search for cards with the Subtype "Island" (for example), not for a Supertype or Type, as your statement suggests. Also, Fetchlands don't care about card names, so it's not directly comparable.
Now for the name issue - I believe this is something not covered by the rules as of yet, and neither by the release notes of Take the Crown, unfortunately. That would mean you'd have to wait for a Gatherer Ruling, but until then, no reason not to speculate...
The core question is whether having multiple names is treated as lots of different names, or one concatenated name, composed of all the names. There are several existing rules that allow guessing:
This rule suggests that names must be the the very same, e.g. if one card has multiple different names and the other only one, they couldn't possibly be identical. However, another rule suggests something different:
Here (and bear with me, this is in 201.3, which talks about naming a card - you don't name a card in your example), a card with multiple names is presented as a set of names, of which a player can choose one. In your case, that would mean the player could look for a card with a name that is one of the names of the creature.
As I said, though, this is all speculation. Maybe someone else has more insights.
August 24, 2016 1:50 p.m.