Crazy interaction: Yawgmoth's WIll + Void Maw

[SiegeX]

Yawgmoth's Will {2B} |Sorcery|

Until end of turn, you may play cards in your graveyard.

If a card would be put into your graveyard this turn, remove that card from the game instead.

Void Maw {4BB} |Creature -- Horror| 4/5. Trample

If another creature would be put into a graveyard from play, remove it from the game instead.

Put a card removed from the game with Void Maw into its owner's graveyard: Void Maw gets +2/+2 until end of turn.

Not that you all needed the text for yawg but it's there for completeness sake.

Anyway here is what you need to make an Inf/Inf Void Maw.

Requirements

• arbitrary creature in play
• Void Maw in play
• Yawgmoth's Will in hand
• Sac outlet

Procedure

• Send arbitrary creature to GY using your sac outlet
• Both Yawg and Maw have their replacement effect attempt to modify the same object's destination.  Allow Maw to happen first, RFG'ing arbitrary creature (yawg then does nothing)
• Activate Maw's +2/+2 ability, Yawg's replacement effect happens yet again.  Yawg puts arbitrary creature back to RFG
• Rinse and Repeat
• Attack FTW

The way the rules are stated now, since the arbitrary creature never left the RFG zone (thanks to yawg), it is still the same object.  If it is still the same object then it still maintains "RFG by Void Maw" and thus can be used over and over again to pay the cost of Void Maw's activated ability.  I would even go so far as to say the arbitrary creature has *both* "RFG by Void Maw" AND "RFG by Yawg." 

The {O}fficial ruling on whether or not there will be errata due to intent is still out (I brought this up to a few L4's in #mtgjudge).

Nonetheless, If the combo is allowed to stay I still don't think its good enough to make a competitive deck out of, especially since Yawg is restricted, however it is a very interesting rules interaction.

[Gort32]

Even if the combo does work as stated, it still suffers from the usual problem in Vintage: if I'm going to play a 4BB spell, it's gonna be Yawgmoth's Bargian and I'll just win right now, thank you.

[Gabethebabe]

1) Replacement don´t trigger or stack or whatever. If two replacement effects can replace a certain event, you chose which to apply.

2) Your "combo" doesn´t work. You sac your Grizzly Bears and it would go to the graveyard, so you pick a replacement effect and you pick Maw´s. Now you use Maw´s ability and put Grizzly Bears into its owners graveyard, which is replaced by RFG by Will. Now you can not bring the Grizzly Bears back with Maw´s ability, because the Grizzly Bears was not RFG because of Maw´s replacement effect, but by Will´s replacement effect. So here your combo ends.

3) You don´t need a crappy creature like Void Maw to win when you are resolving Yawgmoth´s WIN.

[SiegeX]

2) Your "combo" doesn´t work. You sac your Grizzly Bears and it would go to the graveyard, so you pick a replacement effect and you pick Maw´s. Now you use Maw´s ability and put Grizzly Bears into its owners graveyard, which is replaced by RFG by Will. Now you can not bring the Grizzly Bears back with Maw´s ability, because the Grizzly Bears was not RFG because of Maw´s replacement effect, but by Will´s replacement effect. So here your combo ends.

The key point you are missing is the following: "since the arbitrary creature never left the RFG zone (thanks to yawg), it is still the same object. If it is still the same object then it still maintains "RFG by Void Maw" and thus can be used over and over again to pay the cost of Void Maw's activated ability" 

Again, if anything "RFG by Yawg" would be appended to, not replacing "RFG by Maw."

3) You don´t need a crappy creature like Void Maw to win when you are resolving Yawgmoth´s WIN.

This is why I posted it in the Rules Forum and not in Vintage Open/Improvment.  I wanted to share an interesting rules interaction for those who can understand it...

[warble]

You're giving the card memory, which would be okay except maw is a physical card.  Thus, it can be RFG's due to Maw, but when you put it back in the graveyard you don't activate a second RFG due to Maw.  Maw's ability (guess at errata) can only be used on cards that are currently RFG'd due to Maw.  Not cards that "at some point in their history" were RFG'd due to Maw and are also currently RFG'd.  Thus, if you for example:

1) RFG a card using Maw
2) Living Wish that creature back to your hand
3) Cast the creature
4) STP the creature

You cannot then activate Maw's ability because once (2) occurred the card lost the RFG'd with Maw clause.  This is more of a guess at the errata, because as you noted currently card memory is a sketchy part of the rules.  Even if you could get an inf/inf Maw it wouldn't really matter anyhow, but that is my 2 cents.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to get rulings both ways and the intent is probably as I stated above, going at lightning speed.

[parallax]

You're giving the card memory, which would be okay except maw is a physical card.  Thus, it can be RFG's due to Maw, but when you put it back in the graveyard you don't activate a second RFG due to Maw.  Maw's ability (guess at errata) can only be used on cards that are currently RFG'd due to Maw.  Not cards that "at some point in their history" were RFG'd due to Maw and are also currently RFG'd.  Thus, if you for example:

1) RFG a card using Maw
2) Living Wish that creature back to your hand
3) Cast the creature
4) STP the creature

You cannot then activate Maw's ability because once (2) occurred the card lost the RFG'd with Maw clause.  This is more of a guess at the errata, because as you noted currently card memory is a sketchy part of the rules.  Even if you could get an inf/inf Maw it wouldn't really matter anyhow, but that is my 2 cents.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to get rulings both ways and the intent is probably as I stated above, going at lightning speed.

Again, you're missing the point. Due to Yawgmoth's Will, the card being put into the graveyard is removed from the game instead. In other words, it "moves" from the RFG zone to the RFG zone. Since it never changed zones, it doesn't lose its "memory". This is different from your example, where the card goes from RFG to hand to play to RFG.

217.1c An object that moves from one zone to another is treated as a new object. Effects connected with its previous location will no longer affect it. There are two exceptions to this rule: Effects that edit the characteristics of an artifact, creature, or enchantment spell on the stack will continue to apply to the permanent that spell creates, and abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from play”) can find the object in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered.

[Arctanis]

Wow...I guess it does work then.  That's some interesting interaction.  Congrat's on the good find.

[Toad]

It has actually been discussed on the L1 Judge List for the last week. And surprisingly no one really seems to care about it 

[parallax]

I want to include Void Maw in my graveyard-heavy decks' sideboards to bring in against Leyline of the Void wielding opponents. That'll teach 'em. Only now the graveyard hate of choice will be Tormod's Crypt, so whatever.

[SiegeX]

It has actually been discussed on the L1 Judge List for the last week. And surprisingly no one really seems to care about it 

I'm not sure why you say this, it's the biggest thread of that week.  Also, note that it's getting alot of unseen attention on the guru list that is not for public viewing. 

In anycase, an update for all those who are wondering.  It still may or may not work, and interesting enough not due to the interaction but rather that Void Maw doesn't work on its own! (or at least how R&D intended).  Here's a quote from Scott to describe why:

Replacement effects don't change what's causing an action, they just
change the action.  Void Maw's ability is attempting to put a card into
a graveyard, and the replacement effect says "nope, that action is going
to RFG that card instead" - but it's still Void Maw's ability that is
resolving.

Void Maw: "If another creature would be put into a graveyard from play,
remove it from the game instead.
Put a card removed from the game with Void Maw into its owner's
graveyard: Void Maw gets +2/+2 until end of turn."

What's interesting about this is that the first ability on Void Maw
isn't what's removing the card initially, it's the effect that put that
creature in the graveyard which is then modified by Maw's replacement
effect.  It can be argued that Void Maw doesn't work at all - since it's
not what RFGs the card, there isn't a card "removed from the game with
Void Maw".

So according to Scott, this leaves us with two options. 

1)  We say that Void Maw works as R&D intended and thus its RFG ability "marks" the card as RFG by maw.  If you believe this then you must believe that Yawgmoth's will RFG ability ALSO marks the card and thus the loop ends here

2) We hold on to the notion that Void Maw doesn't work regardless of how R&D intended and thus there is no interaction at all to speak of.

However, I offered up a 3rd option to Scott in an email (im not a judge so I can't post to the list) which basically stated, if we go with #1, why are we assuming that "RFG by Maw" is getting clobbered over by "RFG by Yawg."  I think a more complete answer is that "RFG by Yawg" is appended to "RFG by Maw" since the card never changed zones and thus remains the same object.   Scott conceded the vailidity of this point and basically went on to say that we will all just have to wait until the next errata update to see what the final outcome is.  My guess is that they will errata Void Maw such that its first ability is not a replacement effect but rather a triggered ability that has maw do the removing from the game.  This will make it work as R&D intended.  Whether or not they allow a card to be RFG by more than one source is anybodies guess.

[Bob The Builder]

I don't think this will work.

Asuming they will make MAW's ability responsable for the RFG. (which I believe is a must to make the card work as intended). I'd go with the following reasoning.

1) your target creature is RFG by MAW
2) you use the ability of MAW to give it +2/+2
3) your target creature is NO LONGER RFG by MAW but by Yawgmoth's Will
Thus there is no loop.

as for

217.1c An object that moves from one zone to another is treated as a new object. Effects connected with its previous location will no longer affect it. There are two exceptions to this rule: Effects that edit the characteristics of an artifact, creature, or enchantment spell on the stack will continue to apply to the permanent that spell creates, and abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from play”) can find the object in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered.

I do not see how this aplies since the card is not moved from one zone to another.  Unless you see the attempt to move from zone due to MAW's ablitiy as a "moves from one zone to another".  (if you believe this there is no discussion since you're dealing with another object.)
OR unless you see the 'RFG -zone' as a group of different subRFG-zones (where at the first step you put the card in the subRFG-zone called MAW and in step number 3 the card is moved to subRFG-zone called Yawgmoth's will)

I like to look at the RFG-zone as a group of sub-zones, but I will be happy to adjust my vieuw on this matter if errata does admit the combo.

I would also like to add this:
Conlcuding that this rule (217.1c) does not apply, does not result in the following reasoning:
"The target creature was not moved from one zone to another thus it is still the same object."  These wordings are not in the rules and must therefore not be applied to the game.

Or am I missing something here?  If I am, please enlighten me

[SiegeX]

3) your target creature is NO LONGER RFG by MAW but by Yawgmoth's Will

Assuming they errata Void Maw to work as intended then this is definitely false because Replacement effects don't change what's causing an action, they just change the action..  Using Void Maw's +2/+2 ability is still what is causing the action, and thus is still what marks the card as "RFG by Maw."  The Yawg is simply replacing where that card goes; in this case to the same zone it's already in. 

I do not see how this aplies since the card is not moved from one zone to another.

That's exactly our point.  Since the card didnt change zones, it's the same object so it MUST retain the "RFG By Maw."  And now that I think about it, I don't think this point matters anymore.  According to what I said above about replacment effects not changing what is causing the action, Yawg could move the card to the library then to your hand then to play then to the RFG and it wouldn't matter; the card would still be "RFG by Maw" as long as the RFG zone was it's final destination.

This is definitely undiscovered territory as far as rules go because I don't think "RFG by ~this~" has ever been more than just an english phrase which is now trying to be incorporated into rules text.

[Khahan]

 According to what I said above about replacment effects not changing what is causing the action, Yawg could move the card to the library then to your hand then to play then to the RFG and it wouldn't matter; the card would still be "RFG by Maw" as long as the RFG zone was it's final destination.

This is incorrect. Once an object changes zones, it forgets everything about its prior self.

If you flicker a creature in play, it goes to the RFG zone and immediately comes back into the 'in play' zone. Guess what, its a brand new creature. If there were any counters on it, they are gone. If a Stinkweed Imp 'destroy' effect was tracking it, the destroy effect loses track.


Once a card changes zones, its a new object.

However, as discussed, this is not what is happening with void maw/yawg will.  In this case, the card is never leaving the RFG zone, so void maw doesn't lose track of it.

[Bob The Builder]

I do not see how this aplies since the card is not moved from one zone to another.

That's exactly our point.  Since the card didnt change zones, it's the same object so it MUST retain the "RFG By Maw."  And now that I think about it, I don't think this point matters anymore.  According to what I said above about replacment effects not changing what is causing the action, Yawg could move the card to the library then to your hand then to play then to the RFG and it wouldn't matter; the card would still be "RFG by Maw" as long as the RFG zone was it's final destination.

This is definitely undiscovered territory as far as rules go because I don't think "RFG by ~this~" has ever been more than just an english phrase which is now trying to be incorporated into rules text.

That's why I added this in my post:

I would also like to add this:
Conlcuding that this rule (217.1c) does not apply, does not result in the following reasoning:
"The target creature was not moved from one zone to another thus it is still the same object."  These wordings are not in the rules and must therefore not be applied to the game.

EDIT:

Assuming they errata Void Maw to work as intended then this is definitely false because Replacement effects don't change what's causing an action, they just change the action..  Using Void Maw's +2/+2 ability is still what is causing the action, and thus is still what marks the card as "RFG by Maw."  The Yawg is simply replacing where that card goes; in this case to the same zone it's already in. 

I agree that the inital RFG is caused by MAW but as Maw's ability is to put that creatre in the graveyard I asume Maw stops tracking the creature in the RFG zone.  That's why I think the moment you apply Maw's ability once the 'RFG by Maw' ends and Yawgmoth's will takes over.

I'm just clarifying myself so you'd know what is going on in my mind, not to be proven right.  It'll be the errata that solves this "problem" for us and I'm willing to adjust my ways of seeing the rules if need be.

[ashiXIII]

The problem is this, guys. Void Maw has a replacement effect. The replacement effect causes any creatures that would go to the graveyard from play to be RFG'ed instead. However, Void Maw NEVER ACTUALLY REMOVES ANYTHING FROM THE GAME. According to the way the rules work, if you have Void Maw out, and somebody Terrors a creature, the Terror is responsible for removing that creature from the game. By the same token, if you have a Void Maw out, and a creature takes lethal damage, SBE are responsible for removing that creature from the game. Because of this, Void Maw's +2/+2 ability doesn't actually work under the rules. So, what is being said is this: If you accept that Void Maw's replacement effect marks the card in some way, and that you can actually use the second ability, you must also accept that Yawgmoth's Will/Leyline marks that card when you use Void Maw's +2/+2 ability.


Now, I don't necessarily agree with that second statement. I'm just trying to clarify it. Until there's an official ruling, if you ask me this question, the answer is this: You can't activate Void Maw's +2/+2 ability.

[SiegeX]

So, what is being said is this: If you accept that Void Maw's replacement effect marks the card in some way, and that you can actually use the second ability, you must also accept that Yawgmoth's Will/Leyline marks that card when you use Void Maw's +2/+2 ability.

Read my post about 6 threads up, I have already stated exactly this and I have also posed a way that Scott Marshall agreed would work just as well as any other interpretation.

[ashiXIII]

So, what is being said is this: If you accept that Void Maw's replacement effect marks the card in some way, and that you can actually use the second ability, you must also accept that Yawgmoth's Will/Leyline marks that card when you use Void Maw's +2/+2 ability.

Read my post about 6 threads up, I have already stated exactly this and I have also posed a way that Scott Marshall agreed would work just as well as any other interpretation.

I know that, and I understood it. It seemed that everyone else who read it didn't understand it, and I was trying to clarify.

[xycsoscyx]

The thing about all of this is that Void Maw does state "by Void Maw", not just RFG.  Even if it's moving from RFG to RFG, if something else is moving it, then it should remember that something else.  It's basically flickering out of and into RFG.  You activate Maw, putting the creature into the graveyard, then Will triggers and removes it from the game instead.  Even though it was already RFG, it's the Will that puts it back into RFG, so that it was no longer removed via Maw.  This is because even though it didn't actually "change" zones, it tried to, and the game notes that a new effect replaced the zone change and put it back into RFG.  I see the point you are trying to make, but I honestly don't think it works that way.

[parallax]

The thing about all of this is that Void Maw does state "by Void Maw", not just RFG.  Even if it's moving from RFG to RFG, if something else is moving it, then it should remember that something else.  It's basically flickering out of and into RFG.  You activate Maw, putting the creature into the graveyard, then Will triggers and removes it from the game instead.  Even though it was already RFG, it's the Will that puts it back into RFG, so that it was no longer removed via Maw.  This is because even though it didn't actually "change" zones, it tried to, and the game notes that a new effect replaced the zone change and put it back into RFG.  I see the point you are trying to make, but I honestly don't think it works that way.

Yawgmoth's Will in not a triggered ability. The card never leaves the RFG zone and never hits the graveyard again. The game doesn't care if a card "tries" to change zones.

Step 1. The card is removed from the game due to Void Maw's replacement effect. It magically gains a "Removed from the game by Void Maw" reminder. (The judges are still figuring out how this works.)

Step 2. Yawgmoth's Will is cast. This sets up a replacement effect for the rest of the turn. Any card that would go to the graveyard is removed from the game.

Step 3. You activate Void Maw's ability. You pay the cost of putting the card "Removed from the game by Void Maw" into the graveyard. Will's replacement effect applies. You remove the card from the game instead. So, you remove a card that has been removed from the game from the game. The card does not change zones. It never sees the graveyard. Also, it now probably has some sort of "Removed from the game by Yawgmoth's Will" reminder (that is added by the same rule that lets Void Maw work). As the card hasn't changed zones, it remembers all previous things that have happened to it. It now has "Removed from the game by Void Maw" and "Removed from the game by Yawgmoth's Will" reminders. It is possible that the judges will rule that "Removed from the game by Yawgmoth's Will" will replace "Removed from the game by Void Maw", but as of now, there is not reason to believe it does.

Step 4. As the card is still removed from the game and still "Removed from the game by Void Maw", you may activate the ability again. Profit.

End result. The card is not moving. It is not "flickering". The card does not go anywhere.

[xycsoscyx]

First, you're right, I didn't mean Triggered by Will.  Will replaces the destination, from GY to RFG.

Second, though, I see what you mean now.  What I meant by flickering is that it can't have two "Removed by X" tags applied to it, but I guess the rules don't actually define it one way or the other.  I meant flicker as in, even though it's staying in the same zone, the game sees that it's something else that's removing it from the game (even though it's already removed from the game).  Thus replacing the "Removed by Maw" to "Removed by Will", but this is only under the assumption that a card can only be tagged by a single "Removed by X" effect.

If a card can have multiple "Removed by X" tags on it, then this is just asking for a Fling!  XD

[parallax]

Right now, the rules don't really deal with "Removed by X" tags. They were simply plain-English instructions. Plain English is sometimes ambiguous. This is one of those cases.

To be perfectly accurate, no card is ever removed from the game by Void Maw. If Void Maw is in play, and I play Putrefy on one of your creatures, Putrefy removes the creature from the game, not Void Maw. We basically just assume that the replacement effect of Void Maw somehow "magically" tags the card as "Removed from the game by Void Maw", just to make the card work according to the "obvious R&D intent". Note that in this case, the card is already simultaneously removed from the game by both Putrefy and Void Maw.

Honestly, I can see it as logical to argue either way: that "RFG by YW" replaces "RFG by VM" or that they can coexist. It's up to the high-level judging community and/or the Rules Manager to determine which interpretation is valid. I think that coexisting RFG tags is slightly more consistent, and hope they rule that way.

[xycsoscyx]

Screw it, I'm just gonna go play Duel Masters!  XD  This is all way too confusing, it shouldn't be rocket science, but it is!

[SiegeX]

Parallax, thanks for summing it up, you explained it exactly like how I was thinking it but couldn't put into words.

Xycsoscyx, heh fear not.  This is very much a corner case as far as overly complicated rulings go, mostly because we are treading on the unknown.  Thats not to say that magic can't be complex, but rather this shouldn't be used as a baseline for its complexity.

[Bob The Builder]

Parallax, thanks for summing it up, you explained it exactly like how I was thinking it but couldn't put into words.

Xycsoscyx, heh fear not.  This is very much a corner case as far as overly complicated rulings go, mostly because we are treading on the unknown.  Thats not to say that magic can't be complex, but rather this shouldn't be used as a baseline for its complexity.

Indeed parallax, you've said it right!!

Now lets all wait and see what the outcome of this corner case will be.

I do like magic fot it's complexity, much like real life, the rules attempt to define the game.  Now and again we have to adjust the rules.  As of late I discovered the world isn't flat actualy (did any of you guys know that already?)
LOL

[parallax]

Keep in mind that many of these corner cases (this one in particular) are highly unlikely to ever occur in an actual game of Magic. You can play Magic just fine even if you aren't sure how to resolve this scenario. Even if the situation does come up somehow, that's what judges are for. So you don't have to know how to interpret every possible card interaction.

[scutakicker]

Keep in mind that many of these corner cases (this one in particular) are highly unlikely to ever occur in an actual game of Magic.

I don't know...I'm really tempted to build a competetive YawgMaw deck just to mess with people. (And seriously--what happens in a tournament situation if something like this came up and there is no definitive answer, even from top level judges?)

[Apollyon]

The Head Judge will rule how it works and that's how it works for that tournament.

Section 32 of the UTR:

The head judge is the final authority regarding card interpretations. See the DCI Floor Rules for the appropriate game for more detailed rules regarding how cards should be interpreted. <snip>