Does setting a new type clear the rules text for non-lands?

Why do radiation hardened IC packages often have long leads?

2019 gold coins to share

Grep Match and extract

Do you have to have figures when playing D&D?

Who won a Game of Bar Dice?

How can one's career as a reviewer be ended?

Why does smartdiagram replace the Greek letter xi by a number?

Is the use of umgeben in the passive unusual?

Does a bank have to tell me if a check made out to me was cashed there?

What is the Leave No Trace way to dispose of coffee grounds?

Was planting UN flag on Moon ever discussed?

empApi with Lightning Web Components?

How can I use the SpendProofV1 to prove I sent Monero to an exchange?

Electricity free spaceship

Difference between prepositions in "...killed during/in the war"

How to write a convincing religious myth?

Fermat's statement about the ancients: How serious was he?

Can you make an identity from this product?

Is it safe to change the harddrive power feature so that it never turns off?

I've been given a project I can't complete, what should I do?

Did Apple bundle a specific monitor with the Apple II+ for schools?

Why does this query, missing a FROM clause, not error out?

Do you need to let the DM know when you are multiclassing?

Do people with slow metabolism tend to gain weight (fat) if they stop exercising?



Does setting a new type clear the rules text for non-lands?














4















In CR 305.7:




If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copy effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.




is the phrase "It loses all abilities generated from its rules text" unique for land changers like Blood Moon or Spreading Seas, or is it derived from another rule?



In other words: is there a rule about setting types, from which we could derive, that if a "All creatures are elves" card existed, then it would turn all creatures into vanilla elves?










share|improve this question


























    4















    In CR 305.7:




    If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copy effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.




    is the phrase "It loses all abilities generated from its rules text" unique for land changers like Blood Moon or Spreading Seas, or is it derived from another rule?



    In other words: is there a rule about setting types, from which we could derive, that if a "All creatures are elves" card existed, then it would turn all creatures into vanilla elves?










    share|improve this question
























      4












      4








      4








      In CR 305.7:




      If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copy effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.




      is the phrase "It loses all abilities generated from its rules text" unique for land changers like Blood Moon or Spreading Seas, or is it derived from another rule?



      In other words: is there a rule about setting types, from which we could derive, that if a "All creatures are elves" card existed, then it would turn all creatures into vanilla elves?










      share|improve this question














      In CR 305.7:




      If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copy effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.




      is the phrase "It loses all abilities generated from its rules text" unique for land changers like Blood Moon or Spreading Seas, or is it derived from another rule?



      In other words: is there a rule about setting types, from which we could derive, that if a "All creatures are elves" card existed, then it would turn all creatures into vanilla elves?







      magic-the-gathering






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Jun 3 at 7:02









      piotrekpiotrek

      1,903920




      1,903920




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6














          That rule you quoted right there is the one that makes lands lose all other abilities in that situation. There is no more general rule that applies to subtypes of other types, so your not-so-hypothetical "All creatures are [specific creature type]" would not remove any abilities (see Conspiracy). You wouldn't have to search the whole Comprehensive Rulebook to be sure that such a rule does not exist. The rule you quote is in the Type section, Land subsection of the rules. Logically, if such a general rule existed, it would be in the General subsection of the Type section. That list is pretty short, and it's clear that that rule is not there.



          In fact, it wouldn't even make sense for that rule to be derived from a more general rule like the one you propose. The rule you quote specifically applies to setting a land's subtype to a basic land type (Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest), so setting a land's subtype to another land type like "Gate" or "Locus" or "Urza's" doesn't do anything to the abilities.



          More broadly, rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules. You can find some duplication in there, with specific rules listed under multiple numbers, but other than that each rule is there for a reason and does something that none of the others do.



          Functionally, the rule you quote acts as a dual to rule 305.6:




          The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “T: Add [mana symbol],” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is W; for Islands, U; for Swamps, B; for Mountains, R; and for Forests, G. See rule 107.4a. See also rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”




          With rule 305.6, adding the type "Mountain" to a land makes it act like the card Mountain in addition to whatever else it does. With rule 305.7, setting a land's subtype to "Mountain" makes it act like only the card Mountain.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Re "rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules.", This is true, but the number of derived rules is still quite large. I call them "reminder rules".

            – ikegami
            Jun 3 at 12:18






          • 2





            Can you point me at some examples?

            – murgatroid99
            Jun 3 at 15:25


















          1














          Such cards add creature types instead of setting them, e.g. Arcane Adaptation:




          As Arcane Adaptation enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.



          Creatures you control are the chosen type in addition to their other types. The same is true for creature spells you control and creature cards you own that aren't on the battlefield.




          (emphasis mine)



          A card that sets a creature's type is Omnibian ("Tap: Target creature becomes a Frog with base power and toughness 3/3 until end of turn."); note that the rulings below the card in Gatherer explicitly mention the fact that the target does not lose any abilities. A card like Amoeboid Changeling has the ability to make a target creature lose all creature types, without losing any abilities. The connection between a subtype and abilities is simply much stronger for lands than for creatures, so therefore there is no equivalent of rule 305.7 for creatures.



          For things like equipments, the connection is stronger, and 301.5c says:




          An Equipment that loses the subtype “Equipment” can’t equip a creature.




          I think that's the closest and only equivalent of 305.7 (by 301.6 it also applies to fortifications w.r.t. lands); note that there's no similar rule for Auras.






          share|improve this answer

























          • The precedent for setting creatures types without adding them is the card Conspiracy, as I mentioned in my answer. Amoeboid Changeling isn't super relevant here, because if a land loses all of its subtypes it does not in general lose its abilities either.

            – murgatroid99
            Jun 3 at 7:28











          • There's also stuff like [mtg: Omnibian]

            – Acccumulation
            Jun 3 at 15:08


















          1














          The rule quoted is an exception. Lands specifically have the rule that if they become a type then they lose their text, unless they become a type "in addition to its/their other types". This is not true for any other card type. So no, if a creature "became an Elf", even if not "in addition to its/their other types", then it would not lose its text.



          301.5c states that Equipment that loses the type Equipment can't be attached to a creature (and 301.6 for Fortifications). The text of the equipment does not change; it still has the Equip (or Fortify) ability, and you can still pay the cost and choose a target as normal; the ability will simply fail to do anything on resolution.






          share|improve this answer























            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
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47430%2fdoes-setting-a-new-type-clear-the-rules-text-for-non-lands%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            6














            That rule you quoted right there is the one that makes lands lose all other abilities in that situation. There is no more general rule that applies to subtypes of other types, so your not-so-hypothetical "All creatures are [specific creature type]" would not remove any abilities (see Conspiracy). You wouldn't have to search the whole Comprehensive Rulebook to be sure that such a rule does not exist. The rule you quote is in the Type section, Land subsection of the rules. Logically, if such a general rule existed, it would be in the General subsection of the Type section. That list is pretty short, and it's clear that that rule is not there.



            In fact, it wouldn't even make sense for that rule to be derived from a more general rule like the one you propose. The rule you quote specifically applies to setting a land's subtype to a basic land type (Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest), so setting a land's subtype to another land type like "Gate" or "Locus" or "Urza's" doesn't do anything to the abilities.



            More broadly, rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules. You can find some duplication in there, with specific rules listed under multiple numbers, but other than that each rule is there for a reason and does something that none of the others do.



            Functionally, the rule you quote acts as a dual to rule 305.6:




            The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “T: Add [mana symbol],” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is W; for Islands, U; for Swamps, B; for Mountains, R; and for Forests, G. See rule 107.4a. See also rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”




            With rule 305.6, adding the type "Mountain" to a land makes it act like the card Mountain in addition to whatever else it does. With rule 305.7, setting a land's subtype to "Mountain" makes it act like only the card Mountain.






            share|improve this answer

























            • Re "rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules.", This is true, but the number of derived rules is still quite large. I call them "reminder rules".

              – ikegami
              Jun 3 at 12:18






            • 2





              Can you point me at some examples?

              – murgatroid99
              Jun 3 at 15:25















            6














            That rule you quoted right there is the one that makes lands lose all other abilities in that situation. There is no more general rule that applies to subtypes of other types, so your not-so-hypothetical "All creatures are [specific creature type]" would not remove any abilities (see Conspiracy). You wouldn't have to search the whole Comprehensive Rulebook to be sure that such a rule does not exist. The rule you quote is in the Type section, Land subsection of the rules. Logically, if such a general rule existed, it would be in the General subsection of the Type section. That list is pretty short, and it's clear that that rule is not there.



            In fact, it wouldn't even make sense for that rule to be derived from a more general rule like the one you propose. The rule you quote specifically applies to setting a land's subtype to a basic land type (Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest), so setting a land's subtype to another land type like "Gate" or "Locus" or "Urza's" doesn't do anything to the abilities.



            More broadly, rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules. You can find some duplication in there, with specific rules listed under multiple numbers, but other than that each rule is there for a reason and does something that none of the others do.



            Functionally, the rule you quote acts as a dual to rule 305.6:




            The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “T: Add [mana symbol],” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is W; for Islands, U; for Swamps, B; for Mountains, R; and for Forests, G. See rule 107.4a. See also rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”




            With rule 305.6, adding the type "Mountain" to a land makes it act like the card Mountain in addition to whatever else it does. With rule 305.7, setting a land's subtype to "Mountain" makes it act like only the card Mountain.






            share|improve this answer

























            • Re "rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules.", This is true, but the number of derived rules is still quite large. I call them "reminder rules".

              – ikegami
              Jun 3 at 12:18






            • 2





              Can you point me at some examples?

              – murgatroid99
              Jun 3 at 15:25













            6












            6








            6







            That rule you quoted right there is the one that makes lands lose all other abilities in that situation. There is no more general rule that applies to subtypes of other types, so your not-so-hypothetical "All creatures are [specific creature type]" would not remove any abilities (see Conspiracy). You wouldn't have to search the whole Comprehensive Rulebook to be sure that such a rule does not exist. The rule you quote is in the Type section, Land subsection of the rules. Logically, if such a general rule existed, it would be in the General subsection of the Type section. That list is pretty short, and it's clear that that rule is not there.



            In fact, it wouldn't even make sense for that rule to be derived from a more general rule like the one you propose. The rule you quote specifically applies to setting a land's subtype to a basic land type (Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest), so setting a land's subtype to another land type like "Gate" or "Locus" or "Urza's" doesn't do anything to the abilities.



            More broadly, rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules. You can find some duplication in there, with specific rules listed under multiple numbers, but other than that each rule is there for a reason and does something that none of the others do.



            Functionally, the rule you quote acts as a dual to rule 305.6:




            The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “T: Add [mana symbol],” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is W; for Islands, U; for Swamps, B; for Mountains, R; and for Forests, G. See rule 107.4a. See also rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”




            With rule 305.6, adding the type "Mountain" to a land makes it act like the card Mountain in addition to whatever else it does. With rule 305.7, setting a land's subtype to "Mountain" makes it act like only the card Mountain.






            share|improve this answer















            That rule you quoted right there is the one that makes lands lose all other abilities in that situation. There is no more general rule that applies to subtypes of other types, so your not-so-hypothetical "All creatures are [specific creature type]" would not remove any abilities (see Conspiracy). You wouldn't have to search the whole Comprehensive Rulebook to be sure that such a rule does not exist. The rule you quote is in the Type section, Land subsection of the rules. Logically, if such a general rule existed, it would be in the General subsection of the Type section. That list is pretty short, and it's clear that that rule is not there.



            In fact, it wouldn't even make sense for that rule to be derived from a more general rule like the one you propose. The rule you quote specifically applies to setting a land's subtype to a basic land type (Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest), so setting a land's subtype to another land type like "Gate" or "Locus" or "Urza's" doesn't do anything to the abilities.



            More broadly, rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules. You can find some duplication in there, with specific rules listed under multiple numbers, but other than that each rule is there for a reason and does something that none of the others do.



            Functionally, the rule you quote acts as a dual to rule 305.6:




            The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “T: Add [mana symbol],” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is W; for Islands, U; for Swamps, B; for Mountains, R; and for Forests, G. See rule 107.4a. See also rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”




            With rule 305.6, adding the type "Mountain" to a land makes it act like the card Mountain in addition to whatever else it does. With rule 305.7, setting a land's subtype to "Mountain" makes it act like only the card Mountain.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Jun 3 at 7:34

























            answered Jun 3 at 7:25









            murgatroid99murgatroid99

            49.2k8126210




            49.2k8126210












            • Re "rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules.", This is true, but the number of derived rules is still quite large. I call them "reminder rules".

              – ikegami
              Jun 3 at 12:18






            • 2





              Can you point me at some examples?

              – murgatroid99
              Jun 3 at 15:25

















            • Re "rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules.", This is true, but the number of derived rules is still quite large. I call them "reminder rules".

              – ikegami
              Jun 3 at 12:18






            • 2





              Can you point me at some examples?

              – murgatroid99
              Jun 3 at 15:25
















            Re "rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules.", This is true, but the number of derived rules is still quite large. I call them "reminder rules".

            – ikegami
            Jun 3 at 12:18





            Re "rules in the Comprehensive Rulebook are generally not "derived" from other rules.", This is true, but the number of derived rules is still quite large. I call them "reminder rules".

            – ikegami
            Jun 3 at 12:18




            2




            2





            Can you point me at some examples?

            – murgatroid99
            Jun 3 at 15:25





            Can you point me at some examples?

            – murgatroid99
            Jun 3 at 15:25











            1














            Such cards add creature types instead of setting them, e.g. Arcane Adaptation:




            As Arcane Adaptation enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.



            Creatures you control are the chosen type in addition to their other types. The same is true for creature spells you control and creature cards you own that aren't on the battlefield.




            (emphasis mine)



            A card that sets a creature's type is Omnibian ("Tap: Target creature becomes a Frog with base power and toughness 3/3 until end of turn."); note that the rulings below the card in Gatherer explicitly mention the fact that the target does not lose any abilities. A card like Amoeboid Changeling has the ability to make a target creature lose all creature types, without losing any abilities. The connection between a subtype and abilities is simply much stronger for lands than for creatures, so therefore there is no equivalent of rule 305.7 for creatures.



            For things like equipments, the connection is stronger, and 301.5c says:




            An Equipment that loses the subtype “Equipment” can’t equip a creature.




            I think that's the closest and only equivalent of 305.7 (by 301.6 it also applies to fortifications w.r.t. lands); note that there's no similar rule for Auras.






            share|improve this answer

























            • The precedent for setting creatures types without adding them is the card Conspiracy, as I mentioned in my answer. Amoeboid Changeling isn't super relevant here, because if a land loses all of its subtypes it does not in general lose its abilities either.

              – murgatroid99
              Jun 3 at 7:28











            • There's also stuff like [mtg: Omnibian]

              – Acccumulation
              Jun 3 at 15:08















            1














            Such cards add creature types instead of setting them, e.g. Arcane Adaptation:




            As Arcane Adaptation enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.



            Creatures you control are the chosen type in addition to their other types. The same is true for creature spells you control and creature cards you own that aren't on the battlefield.




            (emphasis mine)



            A card that sets a creature's type is Omnibian ("Tap: Target creature becomes a Frog with base power and toughness 3/3 until end of turn."); note that the rulings below the card in Gatherer explicitly mention the fact that the target does not lose any abilities. A card like Amoeboid Changeling has the ability to make a target creature lose all creature types, without losing any abilities. The connection between a subtype and abilities is simply much stronger for lands than for creatures, so therefore there is no equivalent of rule 305.7 for creatures.



            For things like equipments, the connection is stronger, and 301.5c says:




            An Equipment that loses the subtype “Equipment” can’t equip a creature.




            I think that's the closest and only equivalent of 305.7 (by 301.6 it also applies to fortifications w.r.t. lands); note that there's no similar rule for Auras.






            share|improve this answer

























            • The precedent for setting creatures types without adding them is the card Conspiracy, as I mentioned in my answer. Amoeboid Changeling isn't super relevant here, because if a land loses all of its subtypes it does not in general lose its abilities either.

              – murgatroid99
              Jun 3 at 7:28











            • There's also stuff like [mtg: Omnibian]

              – Acccumulation
              Jun 3 at 15:08













            1












            1








            1







            Such cards add creature types instead of setting them, e.g. Arcane Adaptation:




            As Arcane Adaptation enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.



            Creatures you control are the chosen type in addition to their other types. The same is true for creature spells you control and creature cards you own that aren't on the battlefield.




            (emphasis mine)



            A card that sets a creature's type is Omnibian ("Tap: Target creature becomes a Frog with base power and toughness 3/3 until end of turn."); note that the rulings below the card in Gatherer explicitly mention the fact that the target does not lose any abilities. A card like Amoeboid Changeling has the ability to make a target creature lose all creature types, without losing any abilities. The connection between a subtype and abilities is simply much stronger for lands than for creatures, so therefore there is no equivalent of rule 305.7 for creatures.



            For things like equipments, the connection is stronger, and 301.5c says:




            An Equipment that loses the subtype “Equipment” can’t equip a creature.




            I think that's the closest and only equivalent of 305.7 (by 301.6 it also applies to fortifications w.r.t. lands); note that there's no similar rule for Auras.






            share|improve this answer















            Such cards add creature types instead of setting them, e.g. Arcane Adaptation:




            As Arcane Adaptation enters the battlefield, choose a creature type.



            Creatures you control are the chosen type in addition to their other types. The same is true for creature spells you control and creature cards you own that aren't on the battlefield.




            (emphasis mine)



            A card that sets a creature's type is Omnibian ("Tap: Target creature becomes a Frog with base power and toughness 3/3 until end of turn."); note that the rulings below the card in Gatherer explicitly mention the fact that the target does not lose any abilities. A card like Amoeboid Changeling has the ability to make a target creature lose all creature types, without losing any abilities. The connection between a subtype and abilities is simply much stronger for lands than for creatures, so therefore there is no equivalent of rule 305.7 for creatures.



            For things like equipments, the connection is stronger, and 301.5c says:




            An Equipment that loses the subtype “Equipment” can’t equip a creature.




            I think that's the closest and only equivalent of 305.7 (by 301.6 it also applies to fortifications w.r.t. lands); note that there's no similar rule for Auras.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Jun 3 at 15:12

























            answered Jun 3 at 7:22









            GlorfindelGlorfindel

            9,38113561




            9,38113561












            • The precedent for setting creatures types without adding them is the card Conspiracy, as I mentioned in my answer. Amoeboid Changeling isn't super relevant here, because if a land loses all of its subtypes it does not in general lose its abilities either.

              – murgatroid99
              Jun 3 at 7:28











            • There's also stuff like [mtg: Omnibian]

              – Acccumulation
              Jun 3 at 15:08

















            • The precedent for setting creatures types without adding them is the card Conspiracy, as I mentioned in my answer. Amoeboid Changeling isn't super relevant here, because if a land loses all of its subtypes it does not in general lose its abilities either.

              – murgatroid99
              Jun 3 at 7:28











            • There's also stuff like [mtg: Omnibian]

              – Acccumulation
              Jun 3 at 15:08
















            The precedent for setting creatures types without adding them is the card Conspiracy, as I mentioned in my answer. Amoeboid Changeling isn't super relevant here, because if a land loses all of its subtypes it does not in general lose its abilities either.

            – murgatroid99
            Jun 3 at 7:28





            The precedent for setting creatures types without adding them is the card Conspiracy, as I mentioned in my answer. Amoeboid Changeling isn't super relevant here, because if a land loses all of its subtypes it does not in general lose its abilities either.

            – murgatroid99
            Jun 3 at 7:28













            There's also stuff like [mtg: Omnibian]

            – Acccumulation
            Jun 3 at 15:08





            There's also stuff like [mtg: Omnibian]

            – Acccumulation
            Jun 3 at 15:08











            1














            The rule quoted is an exception. Lands specifically have the rule that if they become a type then they lose their text, unless they become a type "in addition to its/their other types". This is not true for any other card type. So no, if a creature "became an Elf", even if not "in addition to its/their other types", then it would not lose its text.



            301.5c states that Equipment that loses the type Equipment can't be attached to a creature (and 301.6 for Fortifications). The text of the equipment does not change; it still has the Equip (or Fortify) ability, and you can still pay the cost and choose a target as normal; the ability will simply fail to do anything on resolution.






            share|improve this answer



























              1














              The rule quoted is an exception. Lands specifically have the rule that if they become a type then they lose their text, unless they become a type "in addition to its/their other types". This is not true for any other card type. So no, if a creature "became an Elf", even if not "in addition to its/their other types", then it would not lose its text.



              301.5c states that Equipment that loses the type Equipment can't be attached to a creature (and 301.6 for Fortifications). The text of the equipment does not change; it still has the Equip (or Fortify) ability, and you can still pay the cost and choose a target as normal; the ability will simply fail to do anything on resolution.






              share|improve this answer

























                1












                1








                1







                The rule quoted is an exception. Lands specifically have the rule that if they become a type then they lose their text, unless they become a type "in addition to its/their other types". This is not true for any other card type. So no, if a creature "became an Elf", even if not "in addition to its/their other types", then it would not lose its text.



                301.5c states that Equipment that loses the type Equipment can't be attached to a creature (and 301.6 for Fortifications). The text of the equipment does not change; it still has the Equip (or Fortify) ability, and you can still pay the cost and choose a target as normal; the ability will simply fail to do anything on resolution.






                share|improve this answer













                The rule quoted is an exception. Lands specifically have the rule that if they become a type then they lose their text, unless they become a type "in addition to its/their other types". This is not true for any other card type. So no, if a creature "became an Elf", even if not "in addition to its/their other types", then it would not lose its text.



                301.5c states that Equipment that loses the type Equipment can't be attached to a creature (and 301.6 for Fortifications). The text of the equipment does not change; it still has the Equip (or Fortify) ability, and you can still pay the cost and choose a target as normal; the ability will simply fail to do anything on resolution.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Jun 3 at 21:10









                Ertai87Ertai87

                4176




                4176



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47430%2fdoes-setting-a-new-type-clear-the-rules-text-for-non-lands%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                    Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

                    Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?