Warstorm Surge and Coat of Arms?

Asked by Zebgora 8 years ago

For simplicity sake, I have 5 Ally tokens in play, along with Warstorm Surge, Coat of Arms and Growing Ranks.

My question is, when Growing Ranks triggers on my upkeep, how much damage does the entering token do? Is it just the base 1/1 of the token or 6/6 thanks to the Coat of Arms bonus?

Rhadamanthus says... #1

"Power" will always mean total power, unless the effect specifically says it only uses "base power". You get 6 damage in your example.

February 25, 2016 11:41 a.m.

PookandPie says... Accepted answer #2

Coat of Arms produces a continuous effect that will apply as the token enters the battlefield. Your token will enter as a 6/6, then Warstorm Surge will trigger, making it deal 6 damage to a target of your choice.

Also, it is important to note that effects that need to know something about the game state check that information when they occur:

608.2g If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself or a target that's become illegal, the effect uses the current information of that object if it's in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it's no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object's last known information. See rule 112.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it's the object as it exists -- or as it most recently existed -- that does it, not the ability.

This means that you could cast Giant Growth or similar with Warstorm Surge's trigger on the stack, and the token would deal 9 damage when Surge's ability resolves, for example. You don't just have to rely on exactly what the creature is entering the battlefield as. Hope this helps.

February 26, 2016 5:50 a.m.

Zebgora says... #3

Both answers reall helped, thanks! That was how I thought it worked, but I could see the argument going the other way too, so that clarification really helps! :)

February 26, 2016 7:30 a.m.

This discussion has been closed