What happens if a creature tries to enter the battlefield attached to something?

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
I control a Grizzly Bears enchanted by my Flickerform and my Ghastly Haunting. I activate Flickerform's ability. At the end of the turn, Grizzly Bears returns to the battlefield, then the ability tries to attach Soul Seizer, the creature, to Grizzly Bears. Rule 303.4g says that if it was an Aura, and it could not enchant the bears, it would stay in exile, but it is not an Aura.
303.4g. If an Aura is entering the battlefield and there is no legal object or player for it to enchant, the Aura remains in its current zone, unless that zone is the stack. In that case, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard instead of entering the battlefield.

Does Soul Seizer enter the battlefield unattached?
Does it enter the battlefield attached, then become unattached when state based actions are checked?
Does it stay in exile?
Soul Seizer flips to its day side in exile so it will return as a creature attached to Grizzly Bears and promptly become detached by SBA's (or alternatively the trigger will fail to attach it to the Bears at all)
711.2a In every zone other than the battlefield, and also on the battlefield with its front face up, a double-faced card has only the characteristics of the front face.

The "Attach" keyword action is only defined for Auras, Equipments, and Fortifications so the rules don't say whether or not an effect can attach a Creature to a creature.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

Yeah I don't think it would attach itself to the bears at all since it's not legal for a creature to be attached to another creature in the first place.  It would simply return to the battlefield under it's owners control as a soul seizer.  303.4g wouldn't apply in this situation since it's not returning as an aura.

DCI Level 2 Judge

Rockford, Illinois

I didn't find anything that forbids attaching a creature to another object. but there's a rule that makes it fall of as a SBA:

704.5q If a creature is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that‘s neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.
Yeah in order for creatures to be attached to something, they have to somehow be turned into auras first.

Here's a fun article describing an 11-step process it would take to make that happen:
puremtgo.com/articles/krakens-and-dreadn...
Can you point to a rule for that claim? Because Flickerform tries to attach the returning Soul Seizer to the creature, it says so in the card's Oracle  text. The only thing that could prevent this would be a rule, but I haven't found any such rule, only the one that makes it fall of as a SBA. But that rule doesn't prevent the attaching in the first place.


As weird as it it, I guess this is what happens:

Does it enter the battlefield attached, then become unattached when state based actions are checked?



Magic really is a crazy game...


If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;

If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.

 

Now you know why taxes always go up.

 

Looting: ''the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities'' (Wikipedia)

I agree that this happens as well, But I think the interpretation that attaching a Creature to a permanent is an impossible Action (since "attach" is only defined for Auras and stuff), so maybe the Creature even remains in Exile? Or maybe it just gets returned unattached?

From the Article linked upthread:

Difficult but still doable, of course.  The secret is licids.  Get a Nurturing Licid and a Dreadnought into play.  Then Cytoshape the Dreadnought into the licid.  Then use its ability to attach it to a creature — permanently!  Even after the Cytoshape wears off, and the Dreadnought turns back into a creature, it will stay attached.  (I honestly didn't think this would work at first, but it does.  Whether it's a programming bug or just a bizarre rules instance, I don't know, but it gets the job done.)  Ta-da: a creature is wearing a Dreadnought.  As jewelry.

That is obviously a bug: The SBA would cause it to fall off.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
I agree that this happens as well, But I think the interpretation that attaching a Creature to a permanent is an impossible Action (since "attach" is only defined for Auras and stuff), so maybe the Creature even remains in Exile?



Quite possible: maybe the entire action is nullified.
 
To attach a non-Aura/non-Equipment/non-Fortification may be an impossible action,
as much as ''draw a token'' would be.

Guess we'll need [O] Ruling on this one!


If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;

If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.

 

Now you know why taxes always go up.

 

Looting: ''the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities'' (Wikipedia)


Consider this: 

Flickerform: ''...return those Auras to the battlefield...''

From Flickerform's Rulings: ''Any Auras that can't enchant that permanent remain exiled.''


The ''remains exiled'' option is gaining credibility... 
   


If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;

If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.

 

Now you know why taxes always go up.

 

Looting: ''the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities'' (Wikipedia)


Consider this: 

Flickerform: ''...return those Auras to the battlefield...''

From Flickerform's Rulings: ''Any Auras that can't enchant that permanent remain exiled.''


The ''remains exiled'' option is gaining credibility... 
   




Isn't "Those auras" similar to a necrotic ooze with "T: Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player."?
And creatures can be attached, they just fall off as an SBA.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
It will return it to the field via 608.2i (or the nascent principle implied within it)
608.2i If an ability’s effect refers to a specific untargeted object that has been previously referred to by that ability’s cost or trigger condition, it still affects that object even if the object has changed characteristics.

the fact that it ceases being an aura in exile doesn't prevent the delayed trigger from returning it

whether or not it succeeds in attaching it to the Bears has never been conclusively answered.

it's similar to Skill Borrower using the equip ability of an equipment on top of the library
or Myr Welder with an equipment imprinted

The ruling on Flickerform is just summarizing rules 303.4g-h and neither would be applicable to the Soul Seizer that the delayed trigger is returning.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

It will return it to the field via 608.2i (or the nascent principle implied within it)
608.2i If an ability’s effect refers to a specific untargeted object that has been previously referred to by that ability’s cost or trigger condition, it still affects that object even if the object has changed characteristics.

the fact that it ceases being an aura in exile doesn't prevent the delayed trigger from returning it

whether or not it succeeds in attaching it to the Bears has never been conclusively answered.


Hasn't it?

> You have an effect (ability, whatever the terminology is) instructing you to perform an action.
> No card or rule tells you this action is impossible (And given this has been discussed a couple months back in a forum that can get you a rules quote in under an hour on a slow day, I strongly suspect one doesn't exist, even if it should). 

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
Hasn't it?

> You have an effect (ability, whatever the terminology is) instructing you to perform an action.
> No card or rule tells you this action is impossible. 



Still proves nothing.
 
If a card told you to ''draw a token'', you could not do it, even if no rule forbids it.

''Attach'' is a keyword; its definition describes what to do when attaching an Aura/Equipment/Fortification.
What will you do if you're instructed to attach a non-Aura? 
Such action is not defined by any rule. How can you peform it?

701.3a To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object...

101.3. Any part of an instruction that’s impossible to perform is ignored...

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;

If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.

 

Now you know why taxes always go up.

 

Looting: ''the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities'' (Wikipedia)

I agree with Chaikov here. Since it is no longer an aura, it isn't covered by the rule that tells you how to attach things, so it is impossible. If it was a creature and also an aura then it could be attached, by the same rule, since nothing forbids this. But it would of course shortly afterwards be unattached by SBAs.

If it was to be ruled it would be attached, it would require a simple change in the attach rule to simply say "To attach a permanent to an object..."
I am a Rules advisor. Feel free to send me any questions as a private message! Check if you have found a bug in Duels 2013 Report a bug Report a technical issue I have written several guides to help new DoTP players here, move to the first post to start reading. They are also in Wordpress format here. The principles involved should still be useful for Duels 2013!
Useful links:
Find other DoTP players - a database of friendly players, find a match or post your name here to be added to the list! I'll add a D13 section if anyone would like. Ask a rules question - ask anything about DoTP, Magic in general, or to check out if you've found a bug by asking if the rules are being followed. Community thread for general chatter in the DoTP part of the forum! Guide to Yugioh on Xbox live: A beginner's guide focusing on the similarities and differences to Magic.
I know threads move quick in Rules Q&A, but I think it should be alright to ask this here:

Why does Flickerform say to "return that card to play" when talking about the creature it exiled, but say "return those Auras to play" when talking about the Auras?

Shouldn't it say "creature card" and "Aura cards"?

Also, I think the difference between "return those Auras to play attached to that creature" and "return those Auras to play and then attach them to that creature" is a functional difference.  I do think the first action is impossible to perform if one of those Auras is not an Aura/Fortification/Equipment anymore, and so the entire action would need to be ignored for it.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
''Attach'' is a keyword; its definition describes what to do when attaching an Aura/Equipment/Fortification.
What will you do if you're instructed to attach a non-Aura? 
Such action is not defined by any rule. How can you peform it?

701.3a To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object...

101.3. Any part of an instruction that’s impossible to perform is ignored...


But the rules clearly do have a concept of a creature being attached to something: 704.5q. 

704.5q If a creature is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that's neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.

Given the existence of this rule, I don't know how people can claim that "attach a creature to another creature" isn't a concept the rules have. It's not an impossible action any more than a creature having 0 toughness is an impossible action. It just leads to a state of affairs that gets tidied up by SBAs.
It doesn't specify the type of the returning card, because it's possible to exile an animated permanent with it, like a Treetop Village. In exile it's not a creature card, but it will be returned anyway.

Regarding the "aura card" part, I don't know. Even before Soul Seizer came along, it was possible to have exiled a non-aura card with Flickerform, by having Copy Enchantment copying an aura attached to the creature. There are other ways as well, like with Phyrexian Metamorph and Liquimetal Coating shennanigans. Though, that could imply, that it's intended to return only cards, that are aura cards and leave anything else in exile. But equipment turned aura before the exiling (don't know of any way to make that happen right now, but this is Magic, it might be possible) could be returned attached, so really, I don't know.

This ruling from Flickerform also throws me off:

10/1/2005 If the enchanted creature was also enchanted by Copy Enchantment, Copy Enchantment will come back onto the battlefield attached to that permanent. As Copy Enchantment returns to the battlefield, its controller may choose any enchantment on the battlefield for it to copy. It can't copy Flickerform or any other Aura returning to the battlefield at the same time. If it copies a non-Aura enchantment, it will become unattached from the permanent and remain on the battlefield.

It implies, that a non-aura non-equipment non-fortification (Copy Enchantment) can be attached to an object.

On the whole business, I'm waiting for a consensus and maybe an [O] ruling.
''Attach'' is a keyword; its definition describes what to do when attaching an Aura/Equipment/Fortification.
What will you do if you're instructed to attach a non-Aura? 
Such action is not defined by any rule. How can you peform it?

701.3a To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object...

101.3. Any part of an instruction that’s impossible to perform is ignored...


But the rules clearly do have a concept of a creature being attached to something: 704.5q. 

704.5q If a creature is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that's neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.

Given the existence of this rule, I don't know how people can claim that "attach a creature to another creature" isn't a concept the rules have. It's not an impossible action any more than a creature having 0 toughness is an impossible action. It just leads to a state of affairs that gets tidied up by SBAs.


I think the question is less "what happens if" and more "can it be done"?

As a thought experiment, if an Aura was printed with the ability ": ~ is no longer an Aura," we know what would happen (please see my intent if that wording is inexact) -- (okay, so actually I've reconsidered that we would know what happens...but if an attached Aura was animated and became a Creature, then we definitely would know what would happen).  But if a creature was printed with the ability ": Attach ~ to target creature," could you actually comply with that instruction in the first place?

The Gatherer ruling that rezzahan quotes about Copy Enchantment suggests perhaps yes.  Is that official enough?  Can we interpret the Comp Rules to suggest that such an action is doable?  Or would it need to be declared in the Comp Rules what to actually do?

If we go from "To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to..." to "To attach an object to..." does that resolve any lack of clarity?

(And still, are we allowed to even return any cards to the battlefield from exile if the Oracle text doesn't actually refer to those objects as "cards"?)

Last Edit: I just realized this was already being discussed in RT&T, here, though it possibly deserves its own thread there.  Gah, I don't read every 28 page thread on the forums to see if something's already being talked about! ;)

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
In the absense of an [O] ruling or a rewrite of the attachment rules, we have no clue. The rules seem to assume that having a Non AUra etc Object attached to some other Object is fine, but yet it doesn't define what that actually means (only waht happens next: it will fall off).
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
10/1/2005 If the enchanted creature was also enchanted by Copy Enchantment, Copy Enchantment will come back onto the battlefield attached to that permanent. As Copy Enchantment returns to the battlefield, its controller may choose any enchantment on the battlefield for it to copy. It can't copy Flickerform or any other Aura returning to the battlefield at the same time. If it copies a non-Aura enchantment, it will become unattached from the permanent and remain on the battlefield.

Extrapolating from that ruling, Soul Seizer enters the battlefield attached then becomes unattached.

I do no like that outcome, and I do not think that it is properly defined in the comprehensive rules. There is a thread in RT&T talking about it: Gaps in rules for attaching things. I had posted a set of new rules there before.
The Soul Seizer will return. Rules like 701.3a apply only to equipment, auras, and fortifications. They don't apply to other permanents, so the Seizer will return to the battlefield. Since it's a creature, it will not attach to the Flickerformed creature (this is similar to Melira/persist. Returning the creature with a counter is impossible, so you do as much as possible: you return the creature without the counter).

Wizards.Com Boards Net Rep

DCI Level 2 Judge

Questions don't have to make sense, but answers do.

Does it not attach at all? Or does it attach and then become unattached by SBA's?

A ruling regarding Copy Enchantmnet says it can return and will be attached, but unattach if it doesn't copy an aura. Does your ruling make it different for creatures?

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

It will not attach at all.

Wizards.Com Boards Net Rep

DCI Level 2 Judge

Questions don't have to make sense, but answers do.

It will not attach at all.

Does this change the ruling for Copy Enchantment as well?

Meaning the following
a) Copy Enchantment's replacement effect copies an aura so it attaches per the instruction
b) Copy Enchantment copies a non-aura so it enters, but never attaches (rather than the current ruling which says it attaches and then unattaches)

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

The Soul Seizer will return. Rules like 701.3a apply only to equipment, auras, and fortifications. They don't apply to other permanents, so the Seizer will return to the battlefield. Since it's a creature, it will not attach to the Flickerformed creature (this is similar to Melira/persist. Returning the creature with a counter is impossible, so you do as much as possible: you return the creature without the counter).

Thank you. That is how I think it should work. I think the comprehensive rules need to be changed to support this ruling.
Yes, it does change that ruling. If you copy an aura with the Copy Enchantment, it attaches to the creature. If you copy a non-aura with Copy Enchantment, it will not enter the battlefield attached to the creature.

Wizards.Com Boards Net Rep

DCI Level 2 Judge

Questions don't have to make sense, but answers do.

Quick followup question: what if the Copy Enchantment isn't an Aura, but is an Equipment? (Thanks to, say, Enchanted Evening letting it copy a Leonin Scimitar or whatever.)

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.