Melira and persist

85 posts / 0 new
Last post
If I were to have Melira, Sylvok Outcast on the battlefield along with Cauldron of Souls and Melira would get destroyed after I give her persist from the cauldron, would she return to the battlefield with or without a -1/-1 counter?  Please quote the relevant rules used to support your answer.
She can't have a -1/-1 counter placed on her, so she doesn't. That's not because of any particular rule, it's a simple matter of reading the card. There is no time when she's on the battlefield and this doesn't apply.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Actually, there is a rule supporting this:
121.6. If a spell or ability refers to a counter being "placed" on a permanent, it means putting a counter on that permanent while it's on the battlefield, or that permanent entering the battlefield with a counter on it as the result of a replacement effect.

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

Yeah, it occurred to me afterward that the question might be "does Melira's CE take effect in time to affect the replacement effect that would put a counter on it from Persist?". So the question is more subtle than I gave it credit for at first, but the answer remains the same.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
And finally, not to be rude, but considering the person I'm arguing with is apparently a level 3 judge, may I ask what your credentials are?

EDIT: Also, while I used rule 121.6 to defend my stance, he still argues that it doesn't apply, as she would have the counter before entering the battlefield, and her ability wouldn't be active in time.  I argue that her ability would become active at the same time the game would try to place a counter on her.  Is there any additional CR evidence to support either claim?
And finally, not to be rude, but considering the person I'm arguing with is apparently a level 3 judge, may I ask what your credentials are?


It's this rule that is the relevant rule.
112.6h An object's ability that states counters can't be placed on that object functions as that object is entering the battlefield in addition to functioning while that object is on the battlefield.

EDIT: The rule was added fairly recently specifically for cases like this. See the May 2011 Update Bulletin
And finally, not to be rude, but considering the person I'm arguing with is apparently a level 3 judge, may I ask what your credentials are?



The relevent rule has been posted.  What does it matter who posted it?

What is the judge saying the answer is, and what rules are they providing to support their position?
 

The relevent rule has been posted.

It has now, but it hadn't when tranceban asked.
The judge goes by Woapalanne on the MTGS forums, and I can't find a cited rule.  He's justifying his stance by saying that she doesn't reference herself in her ability, though I personally feel that's irrelevant.  He also seems to be under the impression that persist doesn't create a replacement effect, and somehow that affects the outcome.

The relevent rule has been posted.

It has now, but it hadn't when he asked. 



Why doesn't 121.6 apply?   Doesn't Persist generate a replacement effect?


614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ” are replacement effects.




702.77a Persist is a triggered ability. “Persist” means “When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, if it had no -1/-1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner’s control with a -1/-1 counter on it.”


Why doesn't 121.6 apply?

It does. But the question isn't whether "placing a counter" includes entering the battlefield with counters, the question is whether melira's static ability can apply while melira is entering the battlefield. Normally an object needs to be on the battlefield for its static abilities to work. 

Here's the most recent time the topic came up in Rules T&T, and here's another occasion from about 3 years ago. The most recent one evidently caught Mr Tabak's eye, because 112.6h was added a few months later.
 Doesn't Persist generate a replacement effect?
It does.

Why doesn't 121.6 apply?

It does. But the question isn't whether "placing a counter" includes entering the battlefield with counters, the question is whether melira's static ability can apply while melira is entering the battlefield. Normally an object needs to be on the battlefield for its static abilities to work. 

Here's the most recent time the topic came up in Rules T&T, and here's another occasion from about 3 years ago. The most recent one evidently caught Mr Tabak's eye, because 112.6h was added a few months later.
 Doesn't Persist generate a replacement effect?

It does.


Thanks for the explanation.
 
Wait, I think I've got the proper evidence.  Rule 121.2 "Counters on an object are not retained if that object moves from one zone to another."  Thank you all for the helpful links and such.

As a side note, I'll be coming here more often for my rulings needs. 
I believe i found the thread you and woapalanne are participating in. The rule i quoted, 112.6h, has already been brought up, so it will carry no weight. The objection that has been raised to 112.6h is that, unlike Tatterkite, Melira's ability does not explicitly apply to the card with the ability, but rather to "creatures you control".  Melira isn't yet a creature you control, therefore she doesn't match the characteristics required. That makes sense to me, so i will retreat from my position that 112.6h is enough to resolve the issue.

As for 121.2, it isn't relevant. Melira didn't have any counters in the graveyard, so naturally it isn't bringing any with it. The -1/-1 counter it is potentially getting is unrelated to what it had in the graveyard.
That's not the rule you're looking for at all. Nothing is moving between zones with counters. Persist replaces how permanents enter the battlefield. The rules you want are 112.6h and 121.6

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

That's part of my point though.  She can't have the counter placed on her before she gets to the battlefield, at which point her ability would be active and the counter couldn't be placed.

Also, I believe you mean rule 121.6 not 112.6

Edit: nevermind, I missed the 112.6 rule.  I still believe that despite her not being self-referencial, she would include herself in the fold of "creatures you control".

Reedit: Also, there's still the fact that he holds the notion that persist doesn't create a replacement effect as it doesn't specifically say  "this creature enters the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it", but that it says "return this creature to the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it".
I think she wouldn't get the -1/-1 counter. 

614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield, continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it.

You'd apply her static ability's continuous effect to determine whether or not the replacement effect hidden in the persist action would apply.
112.6h An object’s ability that states counters can’t be placed on that object functions as that object is entering the battlefield in addition to functioning while that object is on the battlefield.




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

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013  - If you have any concerns with my conduct as a judge, feel free to submit feedback here.
DCI #5209514320


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

Woapalanne is perfectly correct. Melira gets a -1/-1 counter.

Forget Melira and persist for a moment. Instead, imagine casting Open the Vaults when you have several artifact creatures and a Grafdigger's Cage in your graveyard. Will those artifact creatures enter the battlefield? Yes! Because the Cage has to be on the battlefield in order for its ability to apply, and by the time it's there, the artifact creatures have already entered the battlefield--it's too late to stop them.

Now go back to Melira, but with Pyrrhic Revival and some other creatures instead of persist. This is the exact same situation as with the Cage with different window dressing--by the time Melira is on the battlefield and her ability can apply, everything's already on the battlefield with counters. She gets a counter for the same reason everything else does. And the same holds true when there's no other creatures coming back.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

614.12 seems to settle the issue, as it clearly states that the permanent's own static abilities are taken into account. Some people seem to think this requires it to specifically refer to itself, but the rule mentions no such requirement (112.6h can be read as including such a requirement, but even if it does, I don't see how that would override 614.12).

If anything, the interesting question is whether another creature with Persist would get the counter, because of the "ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it". It actually surprises me that that phrase is there, as it seems to imply that a creature with natural Persist would get the counter despite Melira. This strikes me as grossly counter-intuitive; why is that phrase there, and what's an example of a scenario where it's needed to get the "right" result.


Reedit: Also, there's still the fact that he holds the notion that persist doesn't create a replacement effect as it doesn't specifically say  "this creature enters the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it", but that it says "return this creature to the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it".

That, at least, is clearly wrong. That argument is like the person at a 7-11 who tried to tell me "Taxes included" and "Including taxes" meant different things, and that the latter implied having to pay the taxes in addition to the sticker price, in that it's just a clear error of reading comprehension. We have two phrases that are clearly synonymous, but he's reading way too much into the fact that they don't use the exact same words.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Is there a specific rule or combination of rules that specifically explain why this is?  Because I'm extremely confused as to why Tatterkite wouldn't get a -1/-1 counter in such a situation, yet Melira would.

EDIT: And I don't see the similarity between Open the Vaults + Graffdigger's Cage and Melira + Pyrrhic Revival.  Graffdigger's cage and every other artifact and enchantment are all hitting the battlefield at the same time, and so once the cage is active, the others are already out.  Melira and all the other creatures also all hit the battlefield at the same time, at which point the revival tries placing -1/-1 counters on them at the same time that her ability becomes active, preventing it from happening.  Unless I'm simply reading the rules wrong, and somehow it's possible for a counter to hit a permanent in between zones.  And in that case, why is Tatterkite not subject to such an effect?
614.12 does not apply here. Melira's ability doesn't interact with 614.12 at all, ever, because 614.12 is only talking about how to determine which replacement effects you apply to something that's entering the battlefield, and Melira's no-counters ability isn't trying to stop you from applying a replacement effect that would put counters on something.

Melira's no-counters ability works not via replacement effect but by making it impossible to put counters on things. When there's a Melira on the battlefield and something tries to re-enter the battlefield via persist, it's impossible for you to carry out the 'with a -1/-1 counter on it' part of persist, so you just do as much as you can and put it onto the battlefield with no counters.

But Melira's ability can only apply if she's on the battlefield. If she's not, too bad. Same as with the Cage--by the time she's on the battlefield and her 'this thing can't happen' ability starts applying, she already has the counter on her.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

614.12 does not apply here. Melira's ability doesn't interact with 614.12 at all, ever, because 614.12 is only talking about how to determine which replacement effects you apply to something that's entering the battlefield, and Melira's no-counters ability isn't trying to stop you from applying a replacement effect that would put counters on something.


Persist is a replacement effect, and Merira is trying to stop it from putting counters on itself.


Can you clarify what you are saying?


Melira and all the other creatures also all hit the battlefield at the same time, at which point the revival tries placing -1/-1 counters on them at the same time that her ability becomes active, preventing it from happening.

The process is not "Put things onto the battlefield, then put counters on things." It's "Put things onto the battlefield with counters on them." Melira enters the battlefield with the counter already on her.

In order for Melira to stop the counter from being put on herself, there would need to be a time when Melira's ability was functioning but the counter had not been placed on her yet. There is no such time. As such, she gets the counter.

Unless I'm simply reading the rules wrong, and somehow it's possible for a counter to hit a permanent in between zones.  And in that case, why is Tatterkite not subject to such an effect?

@Trancebam: Tatterkite has 112.6h stating it works that way. Melira does not.
112.6h An object's ability that states counters can't be placed on that object functions as that object is entering the battlefield in addition to functioning while that object is on the battlefield.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

That seems utterly counter-intuitive.  Under that logic, if Melira is already on the battlefield, she wouldn't stop a creature with persist from entering the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter, because despite the fact that she's on the battlefield, the creature is entering the battlefield with a counter on it, not entering the battlefield and then having the counter placed on it, despite the fact that rule 121.6 clearly defines that as another form of placing a counter on a permanent, and if I'm not mistaken, a permanent has to be on the battlefield to count as a permanent.
Persist is a replacement effect, and Merira is trying to stop it from putting counters on itself.


Can you clarify what you are saying?

Replacement effects work by looking at the very next set of instructions the game is going to carry out and modifying that set of instructions--before it gets carried out. You continue to modify those instructions again and again until no replacement effects apply, and only after that whole process is carried out do you actually follow the instructions--whatever they ended up being after all the modifications. "Applying a replacement effect" is what you're doing when you modify the instructions, not what you're doing when you're carrying them out.

Melira's no-counters ability does not care about you modifying instructions--you can modify them to your heart's delight for all it cares. All it cares about is that when you actually go to carry out the instructions, you are not going to be able to put those counters on things.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

That seems utterly counter-intuitive.  Under that logic, if Melira is already on the battlefield, she wouldn't stop a creature with persist from entering the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter, because despite the fact that she's on the battlefield, the creature is entering the battlefield with a counter on it, not entering the battlefield and then having the counter placed on it, despite the fact that rule 121.6 clearly defines that as another form of placing a counter on a permanent, and if I'm not mistaken, a permanent has to be on the battlefield to count as a permanent.

you're missing the fact that Melira doesn't apply until she is on the battlefield
if she is on the battlefield she stops other creatures entering with -1/-1 counters
proud member of the 2011 community team
That seems utterly counter-intuitive.  Under that logic, if Melira is already on the battlefield, she wouldn't stop a creature with persist from entering the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter, because despite the fact that she's on the battlefield, the creature is entering the battlefield with a counter on it, not entering the battlefield and then having the counter placed on it, despite the fact that rule 121.6 clearly defines that as another form of placing a counter on a permanent, and if I'm not mistaken, a permanent has to be on the battlefield to count as a permanent.

you're missing the fact that Melira doesn't apply until she is on the battlefield
if she is on the battlefield she stops other creatures entering with -1/-1 counters



No, I get that part.  But her ability affects creatures you control from having the counters placed on them.  If her ability doesn't work with her because she's entering the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter already on her, thereby somehow not placing it on her or she simply not yet being a creature you control when she gains this counter, then logically any other creature with persist would follow that same course of action and either gain the counter before it becomes a creature you control or somehow it would gain the counter before entering the battlefield, thus not being subject to Melira's ability.
That seems utterly counter-intuitive.  Under that logic, if Melira is already on the battlefield, she wouldn't stop a creature with persist from entering the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter, because despite the fact that she's on the battlefield, the creature is entering the battlefield with a counter on it, not entering the battlefield and then having the counter placed on it, despite the fact that rule 121.6 clearly defines that as another form of placing a counter on a permanent, and if I'm not mistaken, a permanent has to be on the battlefield to count as a permanent.

If Melira is already on the battlefield and something is coming back off of Persist, Melira's ability is in effect throughout the entire process. Since 121.6 says that Melira's ability refers to permanents entering the battlefield with counters, it applies and stops the counter.

In this situation, however, we're going from having Melira in the graveyard, where her ability does not function, to having her on the battlefield where it does. Since 121.6 says that Melira's ability refers to permanents entering the battlefield with counters, Melira's ability would apply...if it was actually functioning at the time it needed to be functioning in order to achieve that. The time Melira's ability would need to be functioning in order to stop herself from getting the counter would be the moment before she actually entered the battlefield with the counter on her. But at that time, she's in the graveyard, so her ability is not functioning. Therefore, she gets the counter.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

That still seems really counterintuitive, but thank you.
The more I read it...

Strictly speaking, Rules as Written, persist does not have a replacement effect, so none of the rules 614.12, 121.6 nor 112.6h apply to this particular interaction.

It seems odd that it doesn't, but it actually doesn't conform to the literal reading of the formats of a replacement effect as stated by the rules.

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

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013  - If you have any concerns with my conduct as a judge, feel free to submit feedback here.
DCI #5209514320


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

Somebody's missing something (and it could be me), because Melira's "can't have counters" ability should work according to 112.6h, albeit only for her.

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

no, 112.6h applies to Tatterkite, but not to Melira, Sylvok Outcast

one says "this object", the other does not
if Melira said "Melira and other creatures you control can't have counters placed on them" 112.6h would apply
proud member of the 2011 community team
The more I read it...

Strictly speaking, Rules as Written, persist does not have a replacement effect, so none of the rules 614.12, 121.6 nor 112.6h apply to this particular interaction.

It seems odd that it doesn't, but it actually doesn't conform to the literal reading of the formats of a replacement effect as stated by the rules.

That's correct, it's not a replacement effect. Just compare the two rules. They are not even the same kind of grammatical constructions. The ones in rule 614.1c are indicative statements ("things happen this way"). Persist, however, is an imperative command ("do this now"). The former are continuous effects while the latter is a one-shot effect.

614.1c Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ” are replacement effects.

702.77a Persist is a triggered ability. “Persist” means “When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, if it had no -1/-1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner’s control with a -1/-1 counter on it.”



When the rules and a card are at odds about what to do, follow the card's instructions. In this case, Melira says creatures you control cannot have -1/-1 counters put on them. Persist says a given creature, Melira or otherwise, enters the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter. No counter is put there, it just has it. Kind of like Deity of Scars: it just comes into play with the counters, none are place onto it after it enters. Sounds like replacement, and it sounds like Melira won't prevent that, at least in direct grammatical syntax form.

A persistant Melira would get a -1/-1 counter.
If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I still believe I'm right. Think of it as religion. dubito ergo sum.
if Melira is on the field Deity of Scars will enter without -1/-1 counters
so will all other Persisting creatures

the issue is only with Melira persisting, because the effect doesn't apply to her when she is not yet on the battlefield
proud member of the 2011 community team
I'm only confused by Persist saying that the creature "comes into play with a -1/-1 counter", and not that it "comes into play and you then put a counter on it." Is that what happens though, that it comes into play then a counter is put upon the creature? If that is clearly stated somewhere, then a) it would make sense that Melira prevents persist creatures from getting said counters and b) Melira would not get a counter because she is in play and then prevents it. Hence my thought that she only breaks infect and does not make Persist broken.

Maybe I'm just overthinking it though. It is a very intriguing situation though, and I know that much smarter people than myself will sort it out! Thanks, rules-savvy gamers!
If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I still believe I'm right. Think of it as religion. dubito ergo sum.
I'm only confused by Persist saying that the creature "comes into play with a -1/-1 counter", and not that it "comes into play and you then put a counter on it." Is that what happens though, that it comes into play then a counter is put upon the creature? If that is clearly stated somewhere, then a) it would make sense that Melira prevents persist creatures from getting said counters and b) Melira would not get a counter because she is in play and then prevents it. Hence my thought that she only breaks infect and does not make Persist broken.

Maybe I'm just overthinking it though. It is a very intriguing situation though, and I know that much smarter people than myself will sort it out! Thanks, rules-savvy gamers!


As far as I am aware, this is covered by a rule quoted on the first page:
Actually, there is a rule supporting this:
121.6. If a spell or ability refers to a counter being "placed" on a permanent, it means putting a counter on that permanent while it's on the battlefield, or that permanent entering the battlefield with a counter on it as the result of a replacement effect.



EDIT: unless Persist isnt a replacement effect. My head hurts. Let me know who this has all been sorted out. :/

~ Tim   
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
As far as I am aware, this is covered by a rule quoted on the first page:
Actually, there is a rule supporting this:
121.6. If a spell or ability refers to a counter being "placed" on a permanent, it means putting a counter on that permanent while it's on the battlefield, or that permanent entering the battlefield with a counter on it as the result of a replacement effect.



EDIT: unless Persist isnt a replacement effect. My head hurts. Let me know who this has all been sorted out. :/

~ Tim   



702.77a Persist is a triggered ability. "Persist" means "When this permanent is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, if it had no -1/-1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a -1/-1 counter on it."



No, Persist nor any of Melira's abilities are replacement effects.

Interestingly enough, due to 121.6, this means that even if Melira is on the battlefield, all creatures with Persist will return to the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on them. Her ability does not stop this from happening because Persist does not "place" a counter. Since she can't stop other creatures returning with the -1/-1 counter, she surely cannot stop one from being placed on her if she returns to the battlefield via Persist.
121.6. If a spell or ability refers to a counter being "placed" on a permanent, it means putting a counter on that permanent while it’s on the battlefield, or that permanent entering the battlefield with a counter on it as the result of a replacement effect (see rule 614.1c).

614.1c Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . " are replacement effects.

So while persist is a triggered ability, its resolution creates a replacement effect.
121.6. If a spell or ability refers to a counter being "placed" on a permanent, it means putting a counter on that permanent while it’s on the battlefield, or that permanent entering the battlefield with a counter on it as the result of a replacement effect (see rule 614.1c).

614.1c Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . " are replacement effects.

So while persist is a triggered ability, its resolution creates a replacement effect.



Persist is not a replacement effect, the definition never says "enters the battlefield". It says "return it to the battlefield".

Interestingly enough, due to 121.6, this means that even if Melira is on the battlefield, all creatures with Persist will return to the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on them. Her ability does not stop this from happening because Persist does not "place" a counter. Since she can't stop other creatures returning with the -1/-1 counter, she surely cannot stop one from being placed on her if she returns to the battlefield via Persist.

121.6. If a spell or ability refers to a counter being "placed" on a permanent, it means putting a counter on that permanent while it's on the battlefield, or that permanent entering the battlefield with a counter on it as the result of a replacement effect.

That's weird; I hadn't noticed it before. I'm pretty sure the red part wasn't there before. And it definitely shouldn't be there now

Edit: I've just checked it. The rule was changed when New Phyrexia came out.

Sign In to post comments