Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.

Rules Q&A » Post: Missing object for intervening 'if' clause

Missing object for intervening 'if' clause

Jan. 4, 2013 09:25:22 AM

Mario Haßler
Judge (Uncertified)

German-speaking countries

Missing object for intervening 'if' clause

CR 603.4 tells us how to deal with intervening ‘if’ clauses in triggered abilities (you know, “When/Whenever/At (trigger event), if (condition), (effect).”). What happens when the object to be checked is no longer on the battlefield at the time the ability resolves? Will the check fail or will it refer to the last-known information?

Example 1: I control an untapped Genesis Chamber and put a nontoken creature onto the battlefield, causing Genesis Chamber's ability to trigger and being put on the stack. Then my opponent destroys the artifact. When the triggered ability resolves, it wants to check whether Genesis Chamber is untapped.

Example 2: Someone casts a spell targeting my Ink-Treader Nephilim, causing its ability to trigger and being put on the stack. Then I sacrifice Ink-Treader Nephilim for something else. When the triggered ability resolves, it wants to check whether Ink-Treader Nephilim is the only target of the first spell.

Example 3: I control a creature with Evolve and Forget it.

CR 603.4 says that checking the ‘if’ clause condition “mirrors the check for legal targets”. So I guess the check will fail when the object isn't there any more, but I'm not sure. Thanks for your help.

Edit: The forum software eats everything between square brackets, so I replaced them by parentheses. To whom it may concern: Consider this being a bug report.

Edited Mario Haßler (Jan. 4, 2013 09:29:50 AM)

Jan. 4, 2013 09:35:07 AM

Mario Haßler
Judge (Uncertified)

German-speaking countries

Missing object for intervening 'if' clause

Sorry for double post. Please use this thread, I already deleted the other one.

Jan. 5, 2013 06:35:54 AM

Andrew Teo
Judge (Uncertified), Tournament Organizer

Southeast Asia

Missing object for intervening 'if' clause

I do believe you can refer to 608.2g of the CR:
608.2g If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself or a target that's become illegal, the effect uses the current information of that object if it's in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it's no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object's last known information. See rule 112.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it's the object as it exists – or as it most recently existed – that does it, not the ability.

Jan. 5, 2013 07:15:01 AM

Daniel Kitachewsky
Judge (Uncertified)

France

Missing object for intervening 'if' clause

Hello,

Last known information is indeed used when resolving a triggered ability, including when it has an intervening if.

The first case is just that - Genesis Chamber is gone, we need to know something about it, we just use what it looked like the last time it was on the battlefield - it was untapped.

The second case is more complicated. We don't use last known information because the object we need information from - the spell that was targeting the Ink-Treader Nephilim - is still here. Current rules would make the ability see that the spell doesn't have a legal target anymore and the second ‘if’ would fail; but it's not certain that this is intended. Rules or Oracle text are likely to change on this one. I'm still waiting for an answer from R&D.

Daniel Kitachewsky
L3, Paris, France
Rules NetRep

Jan. 6, 2013 04:01:23 AM

Mario Haßler
Judge (Uncertified)

German-speaking countries

Missing object for intervening 'if' clause

Thank you for your answers. Daniel's remarks on the second case sound reasonable, let me go further into it to see if I understood correctly.

The intervening ‘if’ clause in this case doesn't check a status or value of one object, but some kind of interaction between two objects. As long as one of those objects is still there, this check can lead to a definite result (=“false”) based on the actual setting. That means, if instead Ink-Treader Nephilim was still in play, but the spell is gone because someone has countered it, then the check would result in “false”, too, because Ink-Treader Nephilim no longer is the target of that spell.

When both spell and Ink-Treader Nephilim are gone before the check, last-known information is used. As long as they didn't leave their zones at the same time (which seems impossible to achieve), they left one after the other, resulting in a “false” outcome of that check. Right?

Although “Evolve” includes a comparision between two objects, I guess their last-known information is used, because the intervening ‘if’ clause is not based on an interaction, but just a comparision between two values, and values are determined on last-known information if necessary. Well, we'll see clearer on the non-existing example 3 when FAQs are out.

Jan. 6, 2013 11:22:39 AM

Daniel Kitachewsky
Judge (Uncertified)

France

Missing object for intervening 'if' clause

Hello,

No, we only look for information from the spell. It means that if the spell is here, we use its current information, while if the spell is gone, we use its last known information.

If the spell is gone, then we base the answer on the presence or absence of Nephilim the last time the spell was on the stack. If the Nephilim was here, the answer is “true” and the spell will be copied.

However, we have a set of rules for effects that refer to spell with targets, and the Nephilim's ability doesn't fall into them because of its templating. This is likely to change, so please don't take any answer about it as definitive.

Daniel Kitachewsky
L3, Paris, France
Rules NetRep

Jan. 6, 2013 11:49:23 AM

Mario Haßler
Judge (Uncertified)

German-speaking countries

Missing object for intervening 'if' clause

Thank you again. Ok, although the intervening ‘if’ clause starts with Ink-Treader Nephilim, it actually checks the spell and could as well be written as “if that spell's only target is Ink-Treader Nephilim”, which would be a bit more clear.

And now I see that CR 603.4 saying that checking the ‘if’ clause condition “mirrors the check for legal targets” is not refering to the details of the procedure, but for that fact itself, that it is checked twice. I was blind…

…but now can see, thank you for your help.