Is a copy of a spell the same as a cast spell?

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
If i got Lobber Crew in game, cast Invoke the Firemind and copy it with Izzet Guildmage, does the copy trigger the Lobbercrew to untap?
And, if i cast Invoke the Firemind for x=3, does the copy also have x=3? And may i choose, that the copy deals damage instead of drawing cards?
a copy of a spell is a spell
but it is not cast

so for example you can exile the copy for Nivmagus Elemental, but it would not trigger Lobber Crew

the copy copies the modes and the value of X
so the copy will also have X=3 and draw cards
proud member of the 2011 community team
You do get certain situations (most notably, Isochron Scepter) where a spell card is copied then cast - in that case, it's a copy that WOULD trigger Lobber Crew because you're actually casting the copy.

But yes, in the circumstance suggested where you copy a spell that's already on the stack, Enigma's answer's completely right. Just watch out for the difference!
Rules Advisor. Used to play a lot of old Extended tournaments, now I just play prereleases and casual kitchen-table games with friends. My regular decks, many of which have been evolving for years: Contested Cliffs Beasts Coastal Piracy Hana Kami Spirit recycling Rout Multiplayer control Seizan, Perverter of Truth Commander
If i got Lobber Crew in game, cast Invoke the Firemind and copy it with Izzet Guildmage, does the copy trigger the Lobbercrew to untap?
And, if i cast Invoke the Firemind for x=3, does the copy also have x=3? And may i choose, that the copy deals damage instead of drawing cards?

I'm curious...
How did you manage to copy Invoke the Firemind with Izzet Guildmage? Seems impossible to me!

If i got Lobber Crew in game, cast Invoke the Firemind and copy it with Izzet Guildmage, does the copy trigger the Lobbercrew to untap?
And, if i cast Invoke the Firemind for x=3, does the copy also have x=3? And may i choose, that the copy deals damage instead of drawing cards?

Minor point.  Invoke the Firemind has a CMC of 3(+x) and can't be copied by Izzet Guildmage.  You could, however, do it with the new Nivix Guildmage from Return to Ravnica.

Cheers

Actually, Fireming has a CMC of 3+X. (while on the Stack)


Aha, correct!
You do get certain situations (most notably, Isochron Scepter) where a spell card is copied then cast

That statement is not correct, I'm afraid.

When you create a copy of another object, the copy appears in the same zone as the object being copied. Since spells only exist on the stack, a copy of a spell must be created on the stack.

The definition of casting a spell includes taking the card that represents the spell from the zone it is in and moving it onto the stack. An object created on the stack can't be moved on to the stack because it never existed in anotehr zone before the copy was made, therefore it is not possible to cast the copy of the spell. Questions along this line are asked and answered every month on every major Internet forum that deals with Magic rules.

The reason you can castthe copy created by Isochron Scepter is that the Scepter copies a card - not a  spell. The copy is created in the Exile zone and can therefore be moved from there to the stack.

It's imortant to keep this distinction in mind or you will wind up confusing others.
Still blessed by Julia of Hillsdown. M:tG Rules Adviser You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You do get certain situations (most notably, Isochron Scepter) where a spell card is copied then cast

That statement is not correct, I'm afraid.

When you create a copy of another object, the copy appears in the same zone as the object being copied. Since spells only exist on the stack, a copy of a spell must be created on the stack.

The definition of casting a spell includes taking the card that represents the spell from the zone it is in and moving it onto the stack. An object created on the stack can't be moved on to the stack because it never existed in anotehr zone before the copy was made, therefore it is not possible to cast the copy of the spell. Questions along this line are asked and answered every month on every major Internet forum that deals with Magic rules.

The reason you can castthe copy created by Isochron Scepter is that the Scepter copies a card - not a  spell. The copy is created in the Exile zone and can therefore be moved from there to the stack.

It's imortant to keep this distinction in mind or you will wind up confusing others.



I appreciate the attempt at clarification but I'm really not seeing where my statement is incorrect - I deliberately used the word "card" in my post to make exactly the distinction you're referring to. I suppose you could argue I shouldn't have used the word "spell" in there at all, but that seemed the best way to distinguish it from other (ie land) cards that aren't cast.
Rules Advisor. Used to play a lot of old Extended tournaments, now I just play prereleases and casual kitchen-table games with friends. My regular decks, many of which have been evolving for years: Contested Cliffs Beasts Coastal Piracy Hana Kami Spirit recycling Rout Multiplayer control Seizan, Perverter of Truth Commander
I suppose you could argue I shouldn't have used the word "spell" in there at all

That's exactly what he's saying.

but that seemed the best way to distinguish it from other (ie land) cards that aren't cast.

That's not what "spell" means. A spell is a card or copy on the stack, so a spell card is a card that's on the stack.

OK, fair enough. I wasn't aware that "spell card" was a specific term, I thought anything on the stack was simply a spell. Thanks for the clarification. 
Rules Advisor. Used to play a lot of old Extended tournaments, now I just play prereleases and casual kitchen-table games with friends. My regular decks, many of which have been evolving for years: Contested Cliffs Beasts Coastal Piracy Hana Kami Spirit recycling Rout Multiplayer control Seizan, Perverter of Truth Commander
"spell card" doesn't exist in Magic
but "spell" and "card" does, so it can be confusing
proud member of the 2011 community team
"spell card" doesn't exist in Magic
but "spell" and "card" does, so it can be confusing



Spell cards do exist.  The comp. rules refer to them several times.  Any spell on the stack that is represented  by a card is a spell card.

 
Spell cards do exist.

608.3. If the object that’s resolving is a permanent spell, its resolution involves a single step (unless it’s an Aura). The spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell’s controller.


It's just that they refer to cards on the stack (a subset of all spells), but specifically those spells represented by cards, not ones represented by copies of spells or copies of cards.

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

 

Taking offers on my set of unopened limited edition full art judge foil basic lands, message me if interested.
 

I find it odd that "spell card" means "spell represented by a card" but "permanent card" does not mean "permanent represented by a card" That seems really counterintuitive.

Level 1 Judge

I find it odd that "spell card" means "spell represented by a card" but "permanent card" does not mean "permanent represented by a card" That seems really counterintuitive.


This. Prior to this thread, I would have just assumed "spell card" meant "nonland card in whatever zone" by analogy with "permanent card", which would make Merestil's initial post an incorrect hypercorrection. I'd still argue that this is how the phrase should be used, and that the point is too pedantic to be worth the trouble of correcting, but it now appears that it was at least a genuine correction, as opposed to one of those situations where the one doing the "correcting" is the one who's mistaken, as I first thought.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
I find it odd that "spell card" means "spell represented by a card" but "permanent card" does not mean "permanent represented by a card" That seems really counterintuitive.


Does it mean that?

~ 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. ;)
yes, it says so in the rules

I wasn't aware of that before, I guess I never read the rules closely enough ;)
proud member of the 2011 community team
yes, it says so in the rules

I wasn't aware of that before, I guess I never read the rules closely enough ;)



Are you talking about the rule quoted by 2goth4U? Because it doesnt say that to me...

*confused*

If an effect said "Search your library for a spell card", then I could find any non-land card in my deck, right?

~ 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. ;)
whenever the comp rules talk about "spell cards" it talks about the stack

so a Nature's Spiral for "spell cards" would not currently work within the rules, because it is not defined like "permanent card" is
proud member of the 2011 community team
whenever the comp rules talk about "spell cards" it talks about the stack

so a Nature's Spiral for "spell cards" would not currently work within the rules, because it is not defined like "permanent card" is


I dont see why your first line leads to your second one.

Just because those are the only times the comp rules use the term, that doesnt necessarily mean that those are the only valid ways of using the term, does it?

Since such a card doesnt (yet) exist, there wouldnt be any need for the comp rules to use the term that way (they only talk about the times we care about spell cards), so the fact the term isnt used that way in the comp rules doesnt say to me that it would be improper to use the term that way.

I cant see anything that stops a creature, enchantment, sorcery, instant, planeswalker or artifact card from being a spell card when in my library, hand, graveyard or in the exile zone or command zone, just because the comp rules only mention spell cards existing on the stack. Im not saying they dont exist on the stack, Im just saying that I see no reason to restrict them from exisiting outside the stack (or to deny their existance in zones where they otherwise could be).

~ 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. ;)
I don't get what you're saying.

The rules consistently use "spell card" to mean "something that's both a spell and a card". Nowhere in the rules is it defined as, or used as meaning, "nonland card". That's just not what the term means, according to the existing rules, and there isn't any basis within the rules for thinking that the term means that.

If they just printed a Nature's Spiral but with "spell card", it would be nonsensical. When they mean "nonland card", they'll say that.
I don't get what you're saying.

The rules consistently use "spell card" to mean "something that's both a spell and a card". Nowhere in the rules is it defined as, or used as meaning, "nonland card". That's just not what the term means, according to the existing rules, and there isn't any basis within the rules for thinking that the term means that.

If they just printed a Nature's Spiral but with "spell card", it would be nonsensical. When they mean "nonland card", they'll say that.

 
A sorcery card is a card that is a sorcery when it is on the stack. An artifact card is a card that is an artifact when it is on the battlefield. So why isnt a spell card a card that is a spell when on the stack?

Sure "nonland card" means the same thing, but only because the only kinds of card it can be talking about in that context are either spell cards or land cards (and I guess "nonland" is easier to understand so it was used and it stuck) - the other kinds of cards (Planes, Schemes etc) dont exist in the zones it would be talking about.

However, if we start talking about cards in a wider context (like "in your collection"), not all nonland cards are spell cards, since some of them are Planes, Schemes etc.

You know how to "search your library for a sorcery card", you know how to "search it for creature card", you know how to "search it for an artifact card"... so if an ability instructed you to "search your library for a spell card"*, then you would know what to do, right? (You would search for any card that could could be cast as a spell)

 *(now, I will concede the point that "nonland card" gets used instead of "spell card" in the vocabulary of the game)

If a Shock in your hand is an instant card, and an instant is a kind of spell, why isnt it a spell card?

~ 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. ;)
"Instant" is a characteristic of the card itself. Shock always says "Instant" on the type line, so it always has that characteristic. "Spell" is about where the card is: spells only exist on the stack. A Shock in a hand or graveyard isn't a spell. You can't draw a parallel between the two.

It may be true that people refer use "spell card" to refer to "(traditional) nonland cards", but this is just an informal term. It isn't defined like that in the rules, and when the rules do use the term, they mean something different. You can't go from "people use the term that way" to "they can print it on cards" without the step inbetween of having the rules actually define the term that way.

Also, in decklists, "spell card" often instead means "nonland, noncreature card". And there's official term "spell type", which means "subtype associated with instants and sorceries"; so "spell card" could be interpreted as "instant or sorcery card" (indeed, given how many cards have to spell out "instant or sorcery", it wouldn't surprise me if they came up with a collective term for the two). It's far from obvious which of these definitions would be the correct one. If I saw a card that said "target spell card", I honestly wouldn't know what the intended definition is.

The terms "permanent card" and "permanent spell" do exist, but that's because the rules define those terms, in the glossary and in 110.4a-b. There's no need to reason your way to what those terms probably mean.
And there's official term "spell type", which means "subtype associated with instants and sorceries"; so "spell card" could be interpreted as "instant or sorcery card" (indeed, given how many cards have to spell out "instant or sorcery", it wouldn't surprise me if they came up with a collective term for the two).

Non-permanent card, perhaps?

I'd thought of that. If people completely understand what "permanent card" means and realize that "non-permanent card" would just mean "any card that isn't a permanent card", that terminology would be perfect.

I just fear that it would start to get misunderstood when it came to "nonpermanent spells". The term "permanent spell" is defined by the rules, but it isn't actually used in card texts. I'm concerned that, if "nonpermanent spell" were used in card texts, people would misinterpret that as meaning "spell with a temporary (i.e. nonpermanent) effect".
Spell = on the stack
Permanent = on the battlefield
Card = hand, library, graveyard, exile

Several can be mixed, like a permanent spell/card. Also if only the card type is given, it means "permanent", so "creature" is short for "creature permanent".

"Spell card" means nothing, as a spell is an object that only exists on the stack, in those cases the term "non-land card" is used, as land is opposed to spell in this case.

Rules Advisor

The Basic rulebook, read it! A lot of basic questions are answered there!

How to autocard :
Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus.
Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One.

You know how to "search your library for a sorcery card", you know how to "search it for creature card", you know how to "search it for an artifact card"... so if an ability instructed you to "search your library for a spell card"*, then you would know what to do, right? (You would search for any card that could could be cast as a spell)




So, if I cast your hypothetical card, I would be able to search my library and find Zoetic Cavern, despite it being a land card?

And I would also be unable to search my library and find Evermind?
You know how to "search your library for a sorcery card", you know how to "search it for creature card", you know how to "search it for an artifact card"... so if an ability instructed you to "search your library for a spell card"*, then you would know what to do, right? (You would search for any card that could could be cast as a spell)




So, if I cast your hypothetical card, I would be able to search my library and find Zoetic Cavern, despite it being a land card?

And I would also be unable to search my library and find Evermind?


Evermind is easy, since it is clearly a spell card (it even has examples of how to cast it in it's Gatherer rulings).

Zoetic Cavern is a messy card I am only vaguely aware of. I was secretly hoping no-one would bring it up. ;)

Maybe it is a spell card... but only if a creature with Flash is an instant?

*runs away*

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. ;)
You know how to "search your library for a sorcery card", you know how to "search it for creature card", you know how to "search it for an artifact card"... so if an ability instructed you to "search your library for a spell card"*, then you would know what to do, right? (You would search for any card that could could be cast as a spell)




So, if I cast your hypothetical card, I would be able to search my library and find Zoetic Cavern, despite it being a land card?

And I would also be unable to search my library and find Evermind?


I'm going to take a crack at this:
You could search for anything but a land card, period. 
Just because you can give Zoetic Cavern a creature type by the way you cast it, doesn't mean it has that type anywhere else (ie. in your library) and therefore should still be excluded.

but you can cast it as a spell, so it is a "spell card" by that definition
that's why "nonland card" is used, that is much clearer
proud member of the 2011 community team
Ain't it time you moved that Thread to «Rule Theory»? I'm getting bored by this out-of-existing-rules hairsplitting.

Then let's take a step back and summarize what we do know for sure:

The phrase "spell card" is used several times in the comprehensive rules. In each case, it is used to mean "card that is (or would be -- 706.10) representing a spell."

"Spell card" is used in two places on card printings: First, on an unglued card, which doesn't count of course -- but it's relevant because the phrase itself is not part of the joke -- and second, in the reminder text for Haunt, where I can only imagine clarity is intended. Note that Haunt uses "spell card" only for non-creature spells (see Blind Hunter for the variation used on creatures).

"Spell card" does not appear anywhere in current oracle text (i.e. magic language), nor is it defined in the comprehensive rules, so it doesn't have a particular meaning to the game. The few times it does appear, it has only its normal English meaning, which may vary based on context.

EDIT, @Chaikov: After writing this post, I'm no longer optimistic that the discussion can remain relevant to Rules Q&A. In fact, I'm certain that this belongs in RT&T. >_<
If anyone wants this thread moved, you should put a request in the thread in Magic Boards Business that exists for the purpose of requesting thread moves and similar things.

Or, open a new thread in RT&T for the topic you think needs discussing.