Aura Mutation vs. indestructible enchantments
If the target is indestructible, does Aura Mutation still resolve and give you the tokens, or is an indestructible enchantment an illegal target?
magic-the-gathering
edited 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
asked 1 hour ago
Bill
2644
add a comment |
If the target is indestructible, does Aura Mutation still resolve and give you the tokens, or is an indestructible enchantment an illegal target?
magic-the-gathering
edited 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
asked 1 hour ago
Bill
2644
add a comment |
If the target is indestructible, does Aura Mutation still resolve and give you the tokens, or is an indestructible enchantment an illegal target?
magic-the-gathering
edited 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
asked 1 hour ago
Bill
2644
If the target is indestructible, does Aura Mutation still resolve and give you the tokens, or is an indestructible enchantment an illegal target?
magic-the-gathering
magic-the-gathering
edited 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
asked 1 hour ago
Bill
2644
edited 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
asked 1 hour ago
Bill
2644
edited 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
edited 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
edited 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
2,0111825
asked 1 hour ago
Bill
2644
asked 1 hour ago
Bill
2644
asked 1 hour ago
Bill
2644
2644
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The spell still resolves and gives you tokens; being indestructible means nothing more than
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
(source: Comprehensive Rules)
This is different from being an illegal target because of protection from white, shroud or hexproof.
answered 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
add a comment |
For an indestructible enchantment, say Purphoros, God of the Forge, to have been an illegal target, the text of Aura Mutation would have had to say something like (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment without indestructible. Create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
The restrictions on targets are always explicit, and for Aura Mutation, the only restriction is that it must be an enchantment. In Magic, as long as a spell has a legal target, it resolves, doing as much as it can. This spell tries to destroy the indestructible enchantment and fails, this does not stop the second half of the ability from resolving, if it would have the wording would have been like this (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment, if you do create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
If the ability was written like this, the intervening if means the first clause has to have succeeded for the second part to happen, in this case destroying the targeted enchantment. Since you can't destroy an indestructible permanent, that second clause does not happen, and no tokens would be created.
If however the enchantment becomes an illegal target, say an enchantment creature gaining hexproof or shroud in response, then the only target of the spell is no longer legal and the spell fizzles. This used to mean being countered, but now it is just put into the graveyard without resolving.
answered 9 mins ago
Andrew
3,744428
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "147"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44456%2faura-mutation-vs-indestructible-enchantments%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The spell still resolves and gives you tokens; being indestructible means nothing more than
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
(source: Comprehensive Rules)
This is different from being an illegal target because of protection from white, shroud or hexproof.
answered 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
add a comment |
The spell still resolves and gives you tokens; being indestructible means nothing more than
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
(source: Comprehensive Rules)
This is different from being an illegal target because of protection from white, shroud or hexproof.
answered 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
add a comment |
The spell still resolves and gives you tokens; being indestructible means nothing more than
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
(source: Comprehensive Rules)
This is different from being an illegal target because of protection from white, shroud or hexproof.
answered 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
The spell still resolves and gives you tokens; being indestructible means nothing more than
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
(source: Comprehensive Rules)
This is different from being an illegal target because of protection from white, shroud or hexproof.
answered 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
answered 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
answered 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
answered 1 hour ago
Glorfindel
2,0111825
2,0111825
add a comment |
add a comment |
For an indestructible enchantment, say Purphoros, God of the Forge, to have been an illegal target, the text of Aura Mutation would have had to say something like (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment without indestructible. Create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
The restrictions on targets are always explicit, and for Aura Mutation, the only restriction is that it must be an enchantment. In Magic, as long as a spell has a legal target, it resolves, doing as much as it can. This spell tries to destroy the indestructible enchantment and fails, this does not stop the second half of the ability from resolving, if it would have the wording would have been like this (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment, if you do create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
If the ability was written like this, the intervening if means the first clause has to have succeeded for the second part to happen, in this case destroying the targeted enchantment. Since you can't destroy an indestructible permanent, that second clause does not happen, and no tokens would be created.
If however the enchantment becomes an illegal target, say an enchantment creature gaining hexproof or shroud in response, then the only target of the spell is no longer legal and the spell fizzles. This used to mean being countered, but now it is just put into the graveyard without resolving.
answered 9 mins ago
Andrew
3,744428
add a comment |
For an indestructible enchantment, say Purphoros, God of the Forge, to have been an illegal target, the text of Aura Mutation would have had to say something like (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment without indestructible. Create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
The restrictions on targets are always explicit, and for Aura Mutation, the only restriction is that it must be an enchantment. In Magic, as long as a spell has a legal target, it resolves, doing as much as it can. This spell tries to destroy the indestructible enchantment and fails, this does not stop the second half of the ability from resolving, if it would have the wording would have been like this (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment, if you do create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
If the ability was written like this, the intervening if means the first clause has to have succeeded for the second part to happen, in this case destroying the targeted enchantment. Since you can't destroy an indestructible permanent, that second clause does not happen, and no tokens would be created.
If however the enchantment becomes an illegal target, say an enchantment creature gaining hexproof or shroud in response, then the only target of the spell is no longer legal and the spell fizzles. This used to mean being countered, but now it is just put into the graveyard without resolving.
answered 9 mins ago
Andrew
3,744428
add a comment |
For an indestructible enchantment, say Purphoros, God of the Forge, to have been an illegal target, the text of Aura Mutation would have had to say something like (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment without indestructible. Create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
The restrictions on targets are always explicit, and for Aura Mutation, the only restriction is that it must be an enchantment. In Magic, as long as a spell has a legal target, it resolves, doing as much as it can. This spell tries to destroy the indestructible enchantment and fails, this does not stop the second half of the ability from resolving, if it would have the wording would have been like this (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment, if you do create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
If the ability was written like this, the intervening if means the first clause has to have succeeded for the second part to happen, in this case destroying the targeted enchantment. Since you can't destroy an indestructible permanent, that second clause does not happen, and no tokens would be created.
If however the enchantment becomes an illegal target, say an enchantment creature gaining hexproof or shroud in response, then the only target of the spell is no longer legal and the spell fizzles. This used to mean being countered, but now it is just put into the graveyard without resolving.
answered 9 mins ago
Andrew
3,744428
For an indestructible enchantment, say Purphoros, God of the Forge, to have been an illegal target, the text of Aura Mutation would have had to say something like (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment without indestructible. Create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
The restrictions on targets are always explicit, and for Aura Mutation, the only restriction is that it must be an enchantment. In Magic, as long as a spell has a legal target, it resolves, doing as much as it can. This spell tries to destroy the indestructible enchantment and fails, this does not stop the second half of the ability from resolving, if it would have the wording would have been like this (emphasis mine):
Destroy target enchantment, if you do create X 1/1 green Saproling creature tokens, where X is that enchantment's converted mana cost.
If the ability was written like this, the intervening if means the first clause has to have succeeded for the second part to happen, in this case destroying the targeted enchantment. Since you can't destroy an indestructible permanent, that second clause does not happen, and no tokens would be created.
If however the enchantment becomes an illegal target, say an enchantment creature gaining hexproof or shroud in response, then the only target of the spell is no longer legal and the spell fizzles. This used to mean being countered, but now it is just put into the graveyard without resolving.
answered 9 mins ago
Andrew
3,744428
edited 2 mins ago
answered 9 mins ago
Andrew
3,744428
answered 9 mins ago
Andrew
3,744428
answered 9 mins ago
Andrew
3,744428
3,744428
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44456%2faura-mutation-vs-indestructible-enchantments%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
