Strionic Resonator

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
New card that was offically previewed by Reddit: 

Strionic Resonator [2]
Artifact
[2], [T]: Copy target triggered ability you control. You may choose new targets for the copy.
 

So... It seems like this card could be ...odd things, rules-wise. The example I thought of immediuatly was EtB imprint effects, like Duplicant or Isochron Scepter
How do you determine Duplicant's P/T when it has two creatures imprinted on it? And how does Scepter work with multiple imprinted instants? As far as I can tell, this scenerio simply wasn't possible before M14.
On another note, someone over at MTGS just posted a question regarding Strionic Resonator's interaction with Oblivion Ring, Faceless Butcher and other cards that would normally exile a single card with an enters-the-battlefield triggered ability, then return "the exiled card" (singular) to some zone with a leaves-the-battlefield triggered ability. I'm not particularly sure how the rules handle (or will handle) such an interaction; Detention Sphere gets around it by returning "the exiled cards" (plural) to the battlefield.
How do you determine Duplicant's P/T when it has two creatures imprinted on it?

I don't know the answer, but for a bit of history:

At the time duplicant was printed, the rules for Linked Abilities didn't exist (or if they did, they didn't cover imprint). As a result, it was possible (with some shenanigans) to end up with two creatures imprinted on duplicant. The solution at the time was to issue errata for duplicant to say "As long as a creature card is imprinted on duplicant, duplicant has the power, toughness, and creature types of the last creature card imprinted on it". Then linked abilities came along and cleaned that up.

I don't think errata is the way to go. I imagine there's just way to many cases, and we'll certainly miss a few if we try to errata them. Perhaps there just needs to be a rule added to deal with it, though whether the rule should say to go with "the last" linked card or just to choose one, i don't know (and the rule would only need to apply if the effect is expecting a single matching card, not multiple)
I don't think the template needs to change, but it would make sense that the second exiled card overrides the first one, since the linked ability is obviously referring to just one card.
I don't think the template needs to change, but it would make sense that the second exiled card overrides the first one, since the linked ability is obviously referring to just one card.



That would make for some really unintuitive (and possibly overpowered) results with cards like Oblivion Ring and Fiend Hunter. I really don't think that will end up being how it works.

 
They're changing the template for O-Ring effects in M14, and the new version doesn't use linked abilities so there's no issues with this card. It's possible they're okay with an unintuitive interaction with the old O-Ring.
blah blah metal lyrics
I don't think the template needs to change, but it would make sense that the second exiled card overrides the first one, since the linked ability is obviously referring to just one card.



That would make for some really unintuitive (and possibly overpowered) results with cards like Oblivion Ring and Fiend Hunter. I really don't think that will end up being how it works.

 



It wouldn't always look at just the last card, just when it mattered--like in the case of Duplicant setting the P/T to a specific thing based on the 'exiled card,' it could only get one card's P/T, so it'd look at the last. With stuff like O-ring, you'd choose which to return and the like.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

It wouldn't always look at just the last card, just when it mattered--like in the case of Duplicant setting the P/T to a specific thing based on the 'exiled card,' it could only get one card's P/T, so it'd look at the last. With stuff like O-ring, you'd choose which to return and the like.

How do the rules decide which is which? You can't really accomplish that without errata. There was a time before Duplicant got its errata that you really could have a Duplicant with two sets of P/T.
blah blah metal lyrics
It wouldn't always look at just the last card, just when it mattered--like in the case of Duplicant setting the P/T to a specific thing based on the 'exiled card,' it could only get one card's P/T, so it'd look at the last. With stuff like O-ring, you'd choose which to return and the like.

How do the rules decide which is which? You can't really accomplish that without errata. There was a time before Duplicant got its errata that you really could have a Duplicant with two sets of P/T.



They could make a rule that says if something is trying to set a characteristic through a linked ability and multiple things get exiled with that ability, it looks at the last one. Or they could errata Duplicant. Since O-ring and its ilk aren't setting characteristics, they still work as expected, and Duplicant still works (and the general version of th erule allows them to make other cards like it).
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Oh cool, we're getting issues from the old non-linked days.

I like Kedar's idea of having a rule that makes "the exiled card" in linked abilities  to implicitly mean "the last exiled card". Having it spelled out on cards when normally only one exiled card is expected would feel weird.
Oh cool, we're getting issues from the old non-linked days.

I like Kedar's idea of having a rule that makes "the exiled card" in linked abilities  to implicitly mean "the last exiled card". Having it spelled out on cards when normally only one exiled card is expected would feel weird.



Well, it would only mean 'the last one' when it had to do so--when the exiled card was directly affecting the characteristics of the card that exiled it. That way an O-ring could return either one, but a Duplicant would only be affected by the last one exiled by it.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

I think it's weird to have "the exiled card" mean totally different things on different cards. Either make it count all exiled cards and errata some of the imprint stuff, or make it only count the last one and accept that pre-M14 O-Ring effects work unintuitively with this card.
blah blah metal lyrics
I think it's weird to have "the exiled card" mean totally different things on different cards. Either make it count all exiled cards and errata some of the imprint stuff, or make it only count the last one and accept that pre-M14 O-Ring effects work unintuitively with this card.



I think it's a bit silly to say it's "weird" if it leads to more intuitive results. I bet if you were to just ask a random player, they'd come up with an answer closer to what I'm saying, so if the rules can support the intuitive answer, they should.

Course, I could be wrong about what a random player would intuit. But that's just my opinion. 
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

It's only more intuitive if you're presented with only one of the two situations. If you're presented with both, it's weird.
blah blah metal lyrics
It's only more intuitive if you're presented with only one of the two situations. If you're presented with both, it's weird.



Only if you're really familiar with the rules details behind it. At a glance, intuition in both cases would go the same even when presented together.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

The one I'm wondering about is Animate Dead and the like, it can't enchant both targets.

                                                                                                                                                                                        <----- Loser.

Animate Dead's triggered ability has no target. Copying it won't be very helpful because the "enchanted creature card" won't be in the graveyard when the second instance of the ability resolves. It will gain a second, redundant instance of the enchant ability, and that's about it.
Animate Dead's triggered ability has no target. Copying it won't be very helpful because the "enchanted creature card" won't be in the graveyard when the second instance of the ability resolves. It will gain a second, redundant instance of the enchant ability, and that's about it.



okay, gotcha

                                                                                                                                                                                        <----- Loser.

It's only more intuitive if you're presented with only one of the two situations. If you're presented with both, it's weird.



Only if you're really familiar with the rules details behind it. At a glance, intuition in both cases would go the same even when presented together.

I'm not sure. Maybe it's just because I'm a math person by nature, but I would find it weird to see two cards use the exact same noun phrase to refer to different things.

In any case, making it so only cards that set characteristics have it implicitly mean "last exiled card" may not be good enough. Isochron Scepter really should not be copying all the exiled cards, for instance. It wants to be "an exiled cards".

Edit: Now that I reread your post, I see that making it really mean "an exiled card" in non-characteristic-setting cases is what you wanted. Well, it that case I would say that that is not the intuitive behaviour for O-Ring.

Animate Dead's triggered ability has no target. Copying it won't be very helpful because the "enchanted creature card" won't be in the graveyard when the second instance of the ability resolves. It will gain a second, redundant instance of the enchant ability, and that's about it.



okay, gotcha

You can still do it with Necromancy though. Based on the current Oracle text, you would only enchant one of them (the second one to return) but they'd both still die when Necromancy goes away. Weird.
blah blah metal lyrics
We got some answers in the FAQ:



  • Strionic Resonator targets a triggered ability that has triggered and is on the stack.
     

  • The source of the copy is the same as the source of the original ability.
     

  • If the triggered ability is modal (that is, if it says "Choose one —" or similar), the mode is copied and can't be changed.
     

  • * If the triggered ability divides damage or distributes counters among a number of targets (for example, the ability of Bogardan Hellkite), the division and number of targets can't be changed. If you choose new targets, you must choose the same number of targets.
     

  • * Any choices made when the triggered ability resolves won't have been made yet when it's copied. Any such choices will be made separately when the copy resolves. If the triggered ability asks you to pay a cost (for example, as the extort ability from the Return to Ravnicablock does), you pay that cost for the copy.
     

  • * If a triggered ability is linked to a second ability, copies of that triggered ability are also linked to that second ability. If the second ability refers to "the exiled card," it refers to all cards exiled by the triggered ability and the copy. For example, if Exclusion Ritual's enters-the-battlefield ability is copied and two nonland permanents are exiled, players can't cast spells with the same name as either exiled card.
     

  • In some cases involving linked abilities, an ability requires information about "the exiled card." When this happens, the ability gets multiple answers. If these answers are being used to determine the value of a variable, the sum is used. For example, if Elite Arcanist's enters-the-battlefield ability is copied, two cards are exiled. The value of X in the activation cost of Elite Arcanist's other ability is the sum of the two cards' converted mana costs. As the ability resolves, you create copies of both cards and can cast none, one, or both of the copies in any order.


 



But there are still some things that are not answered or that I'm not sure about:

1) In the Elite Arcanist example, it's a bit weird that you can choose to cast one of the copies, though I guess it has to happen this way when casting multiple spells. But does that mean that any "may" instruction works the same way? If Hoarding Dragon dies with two exiled cards can I return only on of them?

2) And what happen if I exile two lands in a hideaway trigger (e.g. Howltooth Hollow) and have two "land drops" available? can I choose to play only one? If I play both do I play them at the same time? What if I exiled two land and one nonland card, or even two nonland cards?

3) I still wonder how Necromancy and Animate Dead work. Also Mimic Vat and Prototype Portal.

4) What counts as a variable? 
Do power and toughness count as variables? So, does Duplicant gets the sum of P/T of all the exiled creature cards?
Does converted-mana-cost counts as a variable? If I exile two cards with Thought Prison do I sum their CMCs or get two answers?

edit:
 Okay, according to the rules it seems only "X" is a variable ("Y" too, though it doesn't exist in the oracle of normal cards) this probably means you'll get two CMC answers for Thought Prison.

5) What happens if one of the cards exiled with duplicant is a creature card in exile and the other isn't. Does Duplicant gets its bonus?

6)What about Summoner's Egg? Do I need both cards to be creature cards to return them, or can I return just the ones that are creature cards?

Educated guesses based on the information available



1) In the Elite Arcanist example, it's a bit weird that you can choose to cast one of the copies, though I guess it has to happen this way when casting multiple spells. But does that mean that any "may" instruction works the same way? If Hoarding Dragon dies with two exiled cards can I return only on of them?

You'll be able to put 0, 1, or both into their owner(s) hand(s).
2) And what happen if I exile two lands in a hideaway trigger (e.g. Howltooth Hollow) and have two "land drops" available? can I choose to play only one? If I play both do I play them at the same time? What if I exiled two land and one nonland card, or even two nonland cards?

You are allowed to play 0, 1, or both, but there appears to be an order to it (note that the FAQ says "in any order"). If the act of playing the first one makes it illegal to play the second one, you won't be able to play the second one.
3) I still wonder how Necromancy and Animate Dead work. Also Mimic Vat and Prototype Portal.

Dunno.
5) What happens if one of the cards exiled with duplicant is a creature card in exile and the other isn't. Does Duplicant gets its bonus?

It appears that Duplicant has received errata (check its gatherer entry). It has the power, toughness, and creature types of the last creature card exiled with duplicant. In other words, it ignores the non-creature. It also ignores the first of two exiled creatures.
6)What about Summoner's Egg? Do I need both cards to be creature cards to return them, or can I return just the ones that are creature cards?

You'll turn each one face up and put onto the battlefield each of them that is a creature.

I agree with cyphern. In general, if a card refers to a singleton "exiled card", you'll (likely) get to double-up on the effect with Strionic Resonator, be it cast two cards, or get two cards, or whatever.

Applying this logic to Necromancy:


Creatures A & B in the graveyard.


When Necromancy enters the battlefield, if it's on the battlefield, it becomes an Aura with "enchant creature put onto the battlefield with Necromancy." Put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control and attach Necromancy to it. When Necromancy leaves the battlefield, that creature's controller sacrifices it.


You target a creature A.

Retain priority & activate resonator, targeting the trigger. Resonator resolves, trigger targets creature B.

Copy of Necromancy's ability resolves: it's still on the battlefield, so it becomes an aura and gains "blah". You put B onto the battlefield and attach Necromancy to B.

Necromancy's original ability resolves. It's still the same object, and again, it's still on the battlefield, so it becomes an aura again (that generally shouldn't matter) and again gains "blah". You put A onto the battlefield, and attach Necromancy to A. This unattaches it from B.

End result: Necromancy is attached to A, and B is on the battlefield permanently.

Necromancy's LTB trigger refers to "that creature", which refers to the creature Necromancy is attached to (I think.**). When Necromancy LTB, A's controller sacrifices it. B gets a free ride.

**Necromancy's "that creature" could be referring to the targeted creature, which would be functionally different since you can Aura Graft necromancy. If this is the case, there should be two delayed LTB triggers for Necromancy, one referring to B and one referring to A. In either case, you reanimate two cards, going back to the "double up" theme.
I think you sacrifice both creatures. "That creature" is the target creature, which is A for one copy of hte ability and B for the other.
Yeah. "When Necromancy leaves the battlefield" is a DTA being created as part of the original triggered ability. So one copy of the DTA is created for A, and one copy of it is created for B. When Necromancy LTBs, two abilities will trigger; you'll choose an order for them to go on the stack; one will make A's controller sac A when it resolves, the other will make B's controller sac B when it resolves.
The way I currently see it is as follows:

The thing is, spell casting is unique. both it and drawing are actions that have to be executed alone, so a sequence of drawing or casting has to be done sequentially. So when a player is instructed to cast several of them it's inevitable that they'll get cast one at a time, and so you also have a choice of order in doing it. This is unnecessary in most other actions, so my hunch is that those actions would have to happen simultaneously, as is expected of single verb instructions.

Also, with spell casting it's unpractical to force a player to cast something, becasue if he can't, it'll cause a loop where he reverses the spell and then forced to cast it again. This is also unnecessary for other actions where you simply do as much as possible, so my hunches tell me the "may" is a single choice for the entire set of actions.

And this brings me to hideaway. In this case we have land playing which doesn't need to execute alone and that the "may" is a single choice for both, but on the other hand there's also a casting action which have to execute alone and the "may" is an individual choice for each "cast" action. It sounds a lot like cases  where a part of a simultaneous set of actions is replaced to have card draws in it, and that the rules tell us the draws execute later. So I'd expect it to happen the same way.

So if you exile two land cards and a non-land card and then instructed that you may play that set of cards, you virtually get:
you may play all the exiled land cards (if you can't play them all you can't play any)(edit: correction, you'd probably do as much as possible so you'd get to play any number of lands you can). Then, for each exiled non-land card, you may cast that card (cast in any order, and you may choose which to cast and which don't).

But then again, there's never been a situation where you could play several lands at the same time, so it might get treated like spell casting and will be forced to be executed one at a time. Also, since there isn't a written rule for spell-casting getting "delayed" like card-drawing get, maybe you can choose to cast some spells first and then play all the lands or maybe even intertwine the actions (play land, cast a spell, play another land etc...) 

5) What happens if one of the cards exiled with duplicant is a creature card in exile and the other isn't. Does Duplicant gets its bonus?

It appears that Duplicant has received errata (check its gatherer entry). It has the power, toughness, and creature types of the last creature card exiled with duplicant. In other words, it ignores the non-creature. It also ignores the first of two exiled creatures.

Oh, thanks. But I'm a bit disappointed, it may have been a chance to get a cool interaction. I would have really liked for Duplicant to get the sum of power and toughness as well as the combined creature types of all exiled creature cards. 

Earlier, looser rules frameworks (and lack of errata) did allow Duplicant to have multiple P/T values once upon a time, and its effective power (and subtypes) did work like the sum of the creature cards. However, a strict reading of the rules indicates that if a creature acquires multiple simultaneous toughness values somehow, it effectively works like the minimum, not the sum.

If you're going to misplay those hypothetical situations, be careful what you wish for.
Earlier, looser rules frameworks (and lack of errata) did allow Duplicant to have multiple P/T values once upon a time, and its effective power (and subtypes) did work like the sum of the creature cards. However, a strict reading of the rules indicates that if a creature acquires multiple simultaneous toughness values somehow, it effectively works like the minimum, not the sum.

If you're going to misplay those hypothetical situations, be careful what you wish for.



What rules indicate that?
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

It's this one:

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

Since the Duplicant has a toughness of, say, "2 and 7," then 2 damage is "greater than or equal to its toughness."
It's this one:

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

Since the Duplicant has a toughness of, say, "2 and 7," then 2 damage is "greater than or equal to its toughness."



Yeah, I thought of that rule after I asked but I left the question up in case there was another rule that I wasn't aware of. That rule would indeed make it work that way, so yeah, I suppose Duplicant needs to work the way it does.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Earlier, looser rules frameworks (and lack of errata) did allow Duplicant to have multiple P/T values once upon a time, and its effective power (and subtypes) did work like the sum of the creature cards. However, a strict reading of the rules indicates that if a creature acquires multiple simultaneous toughness values somehow, it effectively works like the minimum, not the sum.

If you're going to misplay those hypothetical situations, be careful what you wish for.


Yeah I know of that ruling. It's exactly what I'm not wishing for. I'm wishing for a *new* ruling that's similar to how they treat X variables, with summation rather than multiple values, so it won't suffer from these symptoms.