Talk:Copy

Template:Copy tokens

I was trying to create Template:Copy tokens, but it was beyond my abilities --Hunter (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I am a little lost what this meant haha. Modifying this page's template, or a new template for token copies? Since it was 3.5 yrs ago I hope we handled it by now :) - jerodast (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The latter. But we succeeded --Hunterofsalvation (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ertai's Meddling

Wanted to discuss Ertai's Meddling more since there seems to be disagreement about how special of a special case it really is. From my perspective, it is extremely unusual in copying a spell from an earlier point in time, and of course that is all wrapped in the fact that it didn't originally involve copying at all; the copying mechanic was retconned into the Oracle text. It was retconned in as an easier way to say "this is the same spell as when it was originally cast".

And that is the whole point. The reason copying was brought into the card text is because ALL copies behave exactly as this card does. Any copy of a spell where buyback was paid, also has buyback paid. Any copy of a spell that's been spliced onto, also has the spliced effects. Any copy of a spell with X=5, also has X=5. None of these things are specifically because of Ertai's Meddling, they're just how copying spells works, always. Therefore, while it is very much worth noting these things for all spells, that note does not belong under Ertai's Meddling.

From the most recent edit note, I think I see the point being made: if, hypothetically, the card DIDN'T make a copy, then attributes of the original spell would be lost during movement to exile and back; thus these attributes being retained by the copy are noteworthy. However, I think focusing too much on that hypothetical can make it easy to misunderstand the point (as it did for me when I first read the edit) as saying that the copy effect is somehow modifying the zone change rules, rather than making them irrelevant. To be clear (and I think we agree on this already), the zone change has nothing to do with the operation of the copy effect. If I Flicker a Clone, it doesn't matter that a card returning from exile "forgets" effects on itself - it's still able to become whatever copy the effect specifies. In the same way that Clone enters its new zone "as a copy", when the Ertai'd spell returns from exile, it does so specifically "as a copy", and therefore it is allowed to become whatever the copy effect specifies - in Ertai's case, "a copy of the original spell".

That's the crux of it: What does "original spell" mean? Fun fact I had to just look up: Only 4 cards use the word "original" in rules text, and the other 3 are the "expansion hoser" cards for Arabian Nights, Antiquities, and Homelands ("originally printed in ..."). There is no definition of "original spell" in the rules, it's simply a way to say that Ertai's Meddling is able to look back in time and copy the original spell. The rules are quite explicit about zone changes creating new objects which can't remember certain attributes of previous objects. But the rules say nothing about "the game" or "a delayed triggered ability created by Ertai's Meddling" being unable to remember the original spell. So "as a copy of the original spell" is simply doing what it says it does; it doesn't particularly care if the card being used to represent the copy has changed zones or not.

A hypothetical: Pretend Ertai's Meddling said "If the card has no delay counters on it, the player puts it in the graveyard, and puts a copy of the original spell on the stack." We probably wouldn't even be talking about zone changes at all. It's quite clear what "copy of the original spell" means, and it's not really dependent on the card that was in exile. If that's what "the original spell" means, it doesn't even matter if the copy is represented by a card at all, let alone what zone it's coming from. There could be a spell with "Put a copy of the first spell you cast on your last turn onto the stack." and we would understand it to make a copy very similar to how Ertai makes a copy. So what's really mechanically interesting about Ertai is the fact that it makes a copy of an old spell, not so much that it's doing certain zone changes along the way.

Also regarding the recent edit note, I'd already read the rulings on Ertai's Meddling, but I read them again upon request. I still see nothing there particularly about zone changes. It's simply following the rules about how attributes of copies always work. I do see two explanatory rulings pointing out that Buyback or Splice effects are "remembered" on the new copy, but again that simply confirms & explains what we already knew: ALL spell copies include splice effects and remember cost payments. If we focus on the plain text phrasing of the card combined with the definition of "copy", I think it's pretty self-explanatory, albeit interesting, without overly focusing on the trip to exile and back.

In summary: Ertai's Meddling IS unique in that it copies a spell from an earlier point in time, and that it causes a card to enter the stack as a copy. However it is NOT special in how those copies work once you follow the First Rule of Magic (if a card says it does it, it does it). I'm changing the text to keep the mention of zone changes but also to try not to avoid implying that they somehow affect "what the copy is", since the copy isn't actually moving from zone to zone at all, and isn't actually dependent on which object is in exile in order to become what it says it becomes.

As I mentioned, I don't think anything in the rulings indicates that the ability to copy "the original spell" has anything to do with object memory or zone changes, but I'm open to discussing anything more specific if anyone wants to point it out! Also let me know if my update still misses the point.

- jerodast (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As the one doing the quibbling, I now recognize that the exception is not noteworthy for its use of copy - its copying acts the same as other applications of the keyword. Ertai's Meddling would probably be a relevant exception for a page on zone changing, which I don't think exists yet. I tend to avoid deleting nonredundant card mentions if they are accurate, and for better or worse I had tried to find a reason to maintain its purpose on this page. You've done a better job of articulating than me on what makes it unique, so unless a more educated party says otherwise it seems fine. As an aside, I wonder if "phase the spell out for X turns" would be a better reflection of what it did, if only phasing out worked in the stack zone. 220.238.51.5 06:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Is "conjure a duplicate" like "copy"?

I recently saw a LegenVD video (his HBG draft during the VIP access) where he stated that a perpetual bonus to a creature with Double team would NOT apply to the "duplicated" card created by Double team. That led me to wonder how much the rules for "copy" applied to conjure cards (of which Double team is just a special case) - if a card on the battlefield had modified "copiable values", what would it look like "duplicated"? What happens when a card with perpetual effects is copied?

Making a similar note on Talk:Double team, Talk:Conjure, and Talk:Perpetually. - jerodast (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)