Deviant Glee / Multiple Enchantment of a single creature card.

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
I understand how this card works, my question is really about the enchanted creature. I understand that a single creature can have multiple enchantments on it so long as one does not counter another, my question is - 

We are playing a game and I draw my  Rakdos Shred-Freak 2/1 and 2 copies of Deviant Glee +2/+1 and has "Red..."etc.  
So I play Rakdos Shred-Freak and put  1 copy of Deviant Glee on it because thats all I have the mana for this turn, on my next turn I draw more mana and drop that onto the field, at this point Rakdos Shred-Freak is at 4/2, can I now drop another Deviant Glee on him and make him a 6/3? etc etc etc. If not, where is the specific ruling dealing with this type of action, if it is legal where, again, is the specific ruling, if there is no ruling as of yet is that because no one ever thought of it?
There's no ruling because there's no need for one.  You'll find no ruling that specifically says "You are allowed to play cards that begin with the letter D", either.

It's unclear why anyone would think there's anything preventing this, why there would need to be a ruling.  Trust me, people have dropped multiple Unholy Strengths on the same creature for well over a decade.

You've got a Rakdos Shred-Freak with two enchantments on it, each one granting it +2/+1.  You've got a 6/3 Freak.  That the two enchantments have the same name would only matter if they were somehow given the "Legendary" designation.
Yes, you can put multiples of the same aura on a creature. If its effect is cummulative or redundant depends on what kind of bonus the aura grants. Power/toughness modifying is cummulative, so with 2 Deviant Glees your Rakdos Shred-Freak is a 6/3. Activated abilities like the one granted by Glee are never cumulative, your Freak has two instances of " : This creature gains trample until end of turn.", but you can activate only one at a time and trample is redundant anyway.
To Autocard: [c]Rakdos Shred-Freak[/c] = Rakdos Shred-Freak
Deviant Glee

It would be 6/3.  Deviant Glee has an effect that applies a bonus that modifies the power and toughness of the creature.  If you have two of them enchanting the same creatures that would give you two different effects that are modifying the p/t by +2/+1, so both will apply and make the creature a 6/3.  As to the ruling, in this case the auras are applying a continuous effect on the permanent they are enchanting.  Each of those effects would be applied as I stated above.


From the MTG comprehensive rulebook:
611.1. A continuous effect modifies characteristics of objects, modifies control of objects, or affects players or the rules of the game, for a fixed or indefinite period.

613.1. The values of an object’s characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:
.
.
.
613.3. Within layer 7, apply effects in a series of sublayers in the order described below. Within each sublayer, apply effects in timestamp order. (See rule 613.6.) Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a sublayer. (See rule 613.7.)

613.3a. Layer 7a: Effects from characteristic-defining abilities that define power and/or toughness are applied. See rule 604.3.

613.3b. Layer 7b: Effects that set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value are applied.

613.3c. Layer 7c: Effects that modify power and/or toughness (but don’t set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value) are applied.

613.3d. Layer 7d: Power and/or toughness changes from counters are applied. See rule 120.

613.3e. Layer 7e: Effects that switch a creature’s power and toughness are applied. Such effects take the value of power and apply it to the creature’s toughness, and take the value of toughness and apply it to the creature’s power.



  

DCI Level 2 Judge

Rockford, Illinois

I play Rakdos Shred-Freak and put  1 copy of Deviant Glee on it because thats all I have the mana for this turn, on my next turn I draw more mana and drop that onto the field, at this point Rakdos Shred-Freak is at 4/2, can I now drop another Deviant Glee on him and make him a 6/3?



This passage also makes me worry you're playing 'mana' (lands) wrong.  On the next turn, it shouldn't matter if you "draw more mana and drop that onto the field" - you untap all your tapped lands at the start of each of your own turns, so you most likely have the means to cast the second Deviant Glee on your next turn even if you didn't draw or play any new lands.
Segoth, 
   Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for.  
This passage also makes me worry you're playing 'mana' (lands) wrong.  On the next turn, it shouldn't matter if you "draw more mana and drop that onto the field" - you untap all your tapped lands at the start of each of your own turns, so you most likely have the means to cast the second Deviant Glee on your next turn even if you didn't draw or play any new lands.



That was not ment to indacate that I had not untapped my lands, just that my next draw wasn't anything good to add that I should use mana for. it could just as easily been a 6/6 that I didn't currently have the amount of mana required to play it, which a 6/6 would be better even if I only had enough mana to only cast it rather then adding a second buff to a current card.
His concern might be that you're refering to Lands as Mana.  Lands and Mana are different things and many players have run into problems because they thought the two words were synonymous.  There are Lands that don't produce Mana (E.G. Arena) and ways to produce Mana without tapping a land (E.G. Llanowar Elves).

Pretty sure most of us knew what you meant, but your phrasing was wrong and on this forum we nit-pick such things.
Pretty sure most of us knew what you meant, but your phrasing was wrong and on this forum we nit-pick such things.



LOL

His concern might be that you're refering to Lands as Mana.



That was a small part of it (insofar as being another warning sign that his fundamentals might be shaky), but the bigger concern was "If he felt he had to tell us he drew and played a new land the following turn - does he think that's relevant to the question at hand?  Does he think that, if he hadn't drawn a new land and played a new land, that he wouldn't have been able to play his other Sadistic Glee the next turn?"

Usually a rules-scenario description should be as minimal and contained as possible - no camoflage of what you're asking.  If the fact that you drew and played land on your next turn is completely unrelated to the rule question you're asking, leave it unmentioned, or else people will think there's some reason you believe that info needs to be considered as part of your question.


If I want to ask "Can I tap a Royal Assassin to kill itself?" (No.), I wouldn't ask "I have an Air Elemental in play, I drew a Serra Angel this turn, and my opponent has a Zuran Orb; can I tap a Royal Assassin to kill itself?" - that will just make people wonder where I went wrong in my thinking that I thought the first three parts needed to be stated as I asked my question.  It may all be true, but if it's not relevant, why complicate the question?