Community

@2goth4U and dlthe
No-

A land cannot have a creature type unless it is a creature and a creature cannot have a land type unless it is a land (Ex. Chameleon Colossus is not a Locus (rule  204.1a)

But that's not what this tread is about.

Does the text stick around as (mostly) useless rider text?

I think jeff-heikkinenis wrong (sorry if I offend you) mainly because he said "'"this creature" really means 'this object (which by the way, will normally be a creature, but it doesn't matter if it somehow isn't)'"."' That'd be like saying that doom blade can hit unanimated man-lands or a licid that gets changed into an enchantment (well it can sometimes be a creature...)

Sep 8, 2011 -- 3:37PM, SIlverSkyz wrote:

@2goth4U and dlthe
No-

A land cannot have a creature type unless it is a creature and a creature cannot have a land type unless it is a land (Ex. Chameleon Colossus is not a Locus (rule  204.1a)

But that's not what this tread is about.

Does the text stick around as (mostly) useless rider text?

I think jeff-heikkinenis wrong (sorry if I offend you) mainly because he said "'"this creature" really means 'this object (which by the way, will normally be a creature, but it doesn't matter if it somehow isn't)'"."' That'd be like saying that doom blade can hit unanimated man-lands or a licid that gets changed into an enchantment (well it can sometimes be a creature...)

He's right.  "this creature" really means "this object".

201.5. If an ability of an object uses a phrase such as “this [something]” to identify an object, where[something] is a characteristic, it is referring to that particular object, even if it isn’t the appropriatecharacteristic at the time.

Example: An ability reads “Target creature gets +2/+2 until end of turn. Destroy thatcreature at the beginning of the next end step.” The ability will destroy the object it gave+2/+2 to even if that object isn’t a creature at the beginning of the next end step. 

Sep 8, 2011 -- 3:44PM, dlthe wrote:

OK I'm convinced that the copy is NOT an illusion when it is a non-creature land.


however Sllverskyz, 2goth's question IS relevant - whether or not the copy has the illusion subtype when it is animated and becomes a creature is important for, say, Lord of the Unreal .


Getting 2 poison counters instead of 1 is a big deal, as is whether or not that flying artifact creature can be targeted with Doom blade ...

There was a recent thread with an Innistrad spoiled card that turned a target creature into a Vampire.  Someone was asking what if that card hit an animated Gideon Jura , would Gideon still be a Vampire when it animated again.  It was determined that Giddy would still be a vamp when animated next.  I'm pretty sure there were rules quotes to support this.

EDIT: Here's the thread.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Sep 8, 2011 -- 3:37PM, SIlverSkyz wrote:

I think jeff-heikkinenis wrong (sorry if I offend you) mainly because he said "'"this creature" really means 'this object (which by the way, will normally be a creature, but it doesn't matter if it somehow isn't)'"."' That'd be like saying that doom blade can hit unanimated man-lands or a licid that gets changed into an enchantment (well it can sometimes be a creature...)

No, it's not the slightest bit like saying that, because the latter concerns targeting requirements, which have their own (completely different) rules.

EDIT: Let me add, though, that there is absolutely no problem with correcting or questioning people here. I certainly wouldn't call anything in your post "offensive".

Nothing I say here is meant in such a way either, the only people here I actually lose my cool with (and they're rare) are ones that carry on being argumentative after being repeatedly corrected. Having said that, I don't generally sugar-coat things either and I am aware that some people are put off by that. (Happily for all concerned, they don't seem to come to RQ&A much, being straightforward seems to work well here.)