Community

cyphern wrote:

Persist doesn't have a self-replacement effect. An example of a self replacement effect is Consign to Dream .

I would say it does involve a self-replacement effect because it replaces how the permanent enters play to a non-standard configuration; if putting a counter on it comes into play is a replacement effect if it comes from an outside source , I would call it a self-replacement effect when the ability putting something into play says to do it in a non-standard way.

Can you cite proof that I'm wrong?

EDIT: Nice ninja-edit; I'll leave this up for others to read though, so if they have proof they'll cite it.

ecoris wrote:

I disagree. There is no initial event that gets replaced. It simply instructs you to "put it into play with a -1/-1 counter".
Self-replacement effects are conditional (see the first post).

Hmm, I thought 'first post' meant your first post, not first in the thread. So, there's proof that it's not a self-replacement effect.

I disagree with the ruling, however. It is affecting how it comes into play, and anything else that does so is considered a replacement effect. I don't see why this one is not considered self-replacement, since it fits the requirements for self-replacement.

(It is, however, a replacement effect, as stated in the same ruling you reference that says it's not self-replacement, so I don't see how you can agree with part but disagree and say it's not a replacement.)

First of all, self-replacement effects are very different from other replacement effects. They can only apply to the effect of the spell/ability they are part of.

Brablewood Paragon has a replacement effect that modifies how warriors enter the battlefield under your control. That event could be about to happen for a lot of different reasons (resolving a creature spell, putting a creature onto the battlefield using Elvish Piper, reanimating a creature, ...). It modifies event A into A*; it has (not literally) the form "if A, do A* instead." where A* is the modifed event.

Self-replacement effects are fundamentally different: The initial event A is provided by the spell/ability itself. And the self-replacement effect can only apply to that particular event. It makes no sense to have it do so unconditionally. In that case the effect would have the form "Do A, do A* instead of A."
I claim that Persist does not have this form; it's just "Do A*.". Why would it be any more complex that that?

We can also compare Rampant Growth to Root Maze . By your logic Rampant Growth has a self-replacement effect, since entering the battlefield tapped is a "non-standard configuration" to use your (not the rules') language.

GoblinBasar wrote:

613.14 would make a hypothetical "Target player discards a card but exiles it instead of putting it into his graveyard." a self replacement effect.

They would not use such a wording, see Remand .

ecoris wrote:

First of all, self-replacement effects are very different from other replacement effects. They can only apply to the effect of the spell/ability they are part of.

...and putting a -1/-1 counter on a creature as it comes into play from Persist is applying to the effect of the ability of which it's part, because the counter comes from Persist as well.

ecoris wrote:

How can it possibly be a (non-self) replacement effect when it is not a continuous effect?

Ask the same guy who says it's not a self-replacement when it works like other replacement effects and comes from the same ability as the event it's replacing. He's the one who said it's replacement but not self-replacement.