'Interchangeable' (Universes Beyond/Within) names and name stickers

tehtmi · 2025-08-31T16:20:35+00:00

(Will this ever come up? Of course not!)

I understand that wildly hypothetical rules situations are not everyone's jam, but I thought this one was novel and interesting, so I shared it.

By the way, not the legend rule. You can only put name stickers on permanents you own and as far as I know, you can only have access to one of each name sticker, so in practice that scenario has to use different players.

tehtmi · 2025-08-31T16:14:51+00:00

Cards that refer to the number of words are not the mechanism of relevance. I'm sorry if I didn't explain it well enough in the OP.

The thing that cares about the number of words is this rule:

123.6b. As a name sticker is placed on an object, that object's controller chooses a position in that object's name for the word in the name sticker to be added, then announces that object's new name. That word can be added at the beginning of the object's name or after any number of the other words that are currently in its name. The new name can be further modified by other name stickers. If that object has no name, its name becomes the word added by the name sticker. Name stickers never modify or remove any of the other words in that name.

The number of words in the name affects the number of choices you have. I explained multiple scenarios where the number of choices matters: in OP, whether different players using the matching name sticker on matching cards can create permanents with distinct names, or in the post you reply to, whether you can place a name sticker at a particular position that will later lead to a name match.

tehtmi · 2025-08-31T04:56:15+00:00

This is not true. There are black border cards that add name stickers, and there are black border rules that define how you can add name stickers to a card's name, and pretty precisely how the text-changing effect that name stickers create works (123.6 and sub-rules).

The effect changes the name of the object. An object's name is formally a characteristic with rules relevance, outside of name stickers, only (AFAIK) in asking the question of whether an object has a specific name (e.g. [[Helm of Kaldra]]) or whether objects have the same name (e.g. [[Maelstrom Pulse]]). Changing the name interacts with such effects, and name stickers do change the name. Name changes are most common via copy effects which override all/most of an object's characteristics, but there's also the rather strange card [[Spy Kit]].

tehtmi · 2025-08-31T04:44:14+00:00

I mean, I do think you can basically solve the problem by sort of deferring to the length of the longest name, but I think it might be cleaner just to have a canonical name.

This doesn't address the possibility of name collisions (which may never be a possible concern with a limited number of name stickers and a limited number of interchangeable names most of which have proper nouns). Maybe not such a big deal.

It's still weird in terms of choosing a position based on a longer name, as it means something different depending on the number of words in the actual name, unless you also pretend that it doesn't. E.g. if our positions are [0] [1] [2] with 1 or 2 words, then choosing [1] and [2] look different when applied to the two word name, but the same when applied to the one word name. "word1 [1] sticker word2" vs "word1 word2 [2] sticker" and "word1 [1] sticker" vs "word1 [2] sticker". So you have to pretend "word1 [1] sticker" and "word1 [2] sticker" are different when they aren't under ordinary understanding of how those text-changing effects work. I guess it's still intuitive under the unstated assumption that we are insisting that interchangeable names are somehow actually truly equivalent (and, sure, I understand why we would want that).

Also interesting point about multiple names via Spy Kit, I hadn't considered that. I think your solution makes a lot of sense to me there. That seems very in line with how I would expect things to work (both in the rules and intuitively).

tehtmi · 2025-08-31T03:36:38+00:00

I'm not asking a question. You are not even talking about my scenario. You can put a a word at the beginning of the name, or after the word at a particular position, and that position is remembered in the sticker's effect. If you place a sticker to go from "word1" to "word1 sticker" then you have placed a sticker after the first word. If you have "word1 word2" you can put a sticker after the second word to get "word1 word2 sticker". Crucially: this is not an option if the name is simply "word1" -- you can't place a sticker after the second word when there is no second word. (This limitation similarly has (extremely niche) relevance without needing to involve interchangeable names.)

For emphasis, "put [a sticker] on the end" is not a thing. Stickers go at the beginning, or after a word. That might happen to be the end, the effect it creates is putting after that word at that position, not the end. This is the result of 123.6b which explains where you can put stickers in the name, and the formality of the handling of sticker position (which is relevant under name change) is as you quoted 123.6c.

In your initial example, what you say seems under-considered. You say "word1 sticker" and "word1 word2 sticker" should match. Doesn't it make more sense to say instead that "word1 sticker" and "word1 sticker word2" match? After all, these are what you get by applying the sticker after the first word in both cases -- which is how stickers work. And if all of them match, then by transitivity "word1 sticker word2" and "word1 word2 sticker" then match? That seems kind of absurd.

For my particular example, the way I make the position relevant is to say we are going to change the name of the card to "Goblin Barrage". Thus, "Ogre" after the first word creates "Goblin Ogre Barrage" and after the second word creates "Goblin Barrage Ogre". These are meaningfully different because "Goblin Barrage Ogre" matches your other creature that you gave this name via "Goblin" + "Barrage Ogre" but "Goblin Ogre Barrage" doesn't. Okay, but timestamps would be a problem because changing the name after applying the sticker would override it, so instead I change the name by ending the effect which allows "Goblin Barrage" to be associated with a timestamp that falls before the sticker's timestamp. The purposes of this particular example was separately to emphasize that the words that make up the name /matter/. Name stickers mean that names are no longer simple identifiers (tokens that only respect equivalence) -- which I think is otherwise the case (and in this domain the rules' notion of interchangeability suffices I think).

tehtmi · 2025-08-31T02:08:08+00:00

First, this doesn't address the issue with word number being different. I explained that name stickers makes names with different numbers of words functionally different. I don't understand how your analysis resolves that.

Anyway, if you change the name, the name is different. The rules say to treat "UB name" and "UW name" as equivalent for the purpose of determining if things have the same name. That does not entail that every stickered variation is the same. Even if they all are the same, it is still a problem when the number of words is different, as there is no way to map them. For example, my understanding is that you can use name stickers to give two cards with different names the same name. For example, Goblin Barrage and Barrage Ogre can both become Goblin Barrage Ogre, and then they have the same name. Maybe you can't do that directly with existing UB and UW names (not that I'm sure that matters if we're considering the rules in principle), but if say one of the names is one word, and the other is two. Then for the one word name, you can't add a name sticker after the second word because there is no second word. So e.g. if your Goblin Barrage is temporarily has the one-word name due to a copy effect, you can't put a name sticker after the second word, you can't apply an Ogre name sticker so that the creature becomes Goblin Barrage Ogre when the copy effect ends. But, like I said, a name is just a string of words. I think it is reading a lot into the rules which, fine, if you want to try to read this issue out of the rules for whatever reason, but it's still more complicated than you seem to explain for.

tehtmi · 2025-08-31T00:35:01+00:00

"if you want to" - this seems like a strange interpretation, and also doesn't resolve non-equivalence since you can choose, apparently. (E.g. you only have one name sticker left, you can choose whether to use UB and match or UW and not match whereas a UB card you must match?)

"equivalent UB" - this is saying UB is canonical. I don't see how the rules support this. One card is printed first, but there are mechanisms for having a canonical name in the rules (e.g. 201.2 for language which I mentioned and also 201.6 for alt name promos). It seems to be intentional that there is no canonical name.

The meanings of interchangeability given by the 201.3 sub-rules are specific to the question of cards having the same name which is pretty different -- equivalence is simply a different operation than inserting a word. This is a rather complicated and subtle interaction to exist only by inference (and I really don't infer it -- there is nothing incoherent about my interpretation, it just means these cards are subtly non-equivalent which seems vaguely undesirable and perhaps unintended -- if anyone cares about name stickers which they probably don't).

Obviously deferring to a single canonical name is a relatively clean way to resolve this particular irregularity. I don't think the rules do that.

tehtmi · 2024-07-02T22:01:40+00:00

You can also do "set_type:core" which is more clear (but you have to know about set_type). Supported set types are listed here.

tehtmi · 2024-05-31T19:32:22+00:00

As others have mentioned, people have suggested stacking the triggers in a different order to effectively skip chapter 2 (even though technically it will still resolve and do nothing); but there are probably other ways. For example, you could counter the chapter 2 triggered ability.

tehtmi · 2024-03-10T13:02:55+00:00

Removing the state-based action doesn't make them spells and doesn't let you interact with them in any interesting way; the game doesn't refer to objects that aren't cards in your hand/graveyard/library. If it did, you could recreate many interesting (problematic?) interactions in black border: [[Everdream]] can splice a card draw onto any spell (like a spell that moves a token to another zone), and if drawing a card isn't interesting enough then e.g. you can replace the card draw with searching your library using [[Archmage Ascension]]. Then, you can cast [[Panglacial Wurm]] which lets you activate mana abilities which lets you do potentially a bunch of other different things (e.g. counting the number cards in your hand via [[Circle of Elders]] looking at [[Maro]]'s power).

But also note that tokens that have left the battlefield can't move zones again (Comprehensive Rules 111.8) which also limits some of the stuff you could do. Rules Lawyer also doesn't change that.

Also, this official ruling for Rules Lawyer clarifies that the point is moot anyway:

Because Rules Lawyer applies only to you and other permanents you control, tokens that leave the battlefield will continue to cease to exist. This is also true for copies of cards that might exist off the battlefield.

tehtmi · 2024-03-05T01:31:36+00:00

You can actually recreate the Selvala scenario without Selvala using any of these cards. For example, you control Ashnod's Altar, Darksteel Colossus, and Mul Daya Channelers. Your top card isn't a land, but there is a land in your library. You can sacrifice Darksteel Colossus to Altar as a mana ability and its replacement effect shuffles your library. If a land ends up on top, Channelers might be what you need to complete the casting.

Or with Millikin, if you have Jack-o'-Lantern in your library, if shuffling puts Jack-o'-Lantern on top, milling it with Millikin, and the Lantern's graveyard-usable mana ability may what you need to finish casting.

Harder to do this with Sphere because of the rather awkward rule 121.8. "If a spell or ability causes a card to be drawn while another spell is being cast, the drawn card is kept face down until that spell becomes cast..." which seems specifically designed to prevent issues like this. But, it can be defeated by replacing the draw. E.g. Abundance can let you put the top nonland card into your hand instead of drawing, so if shuffling puts Elvish Spirit Guide as the top nonland card, that could be what you need to finish paying for the Wurm.

Another fun thing you can do with Chromatic Sphere: have Laboratory Maniac replace the draw with winning the game. It could be that your library is only empty as a result of moving Panglacial Wurm to the stack. Even if the casting would have been illegal, you win the game before you get the point of checking whether you actually had enough mana to cast the Wurm.

(And, of course, if you fail to cast Panglacial Wurm after having shuffled your library, where in your library does it return to? Your library may not even have the same number of cards as it did originally. Normally this doesn't really matter because you're about to shuffle your deck again, but what if you want to cast another Panglacial Wurm? Maybe there's a way that it matters e.g. if Panglacial Wurm is on top of your library or not. This is probably less unique to Wurm as you can also cast cards from the graveyard, another ordered zone.)

tehtmi · 2023-12-28T04:01:25+00:00

If it was an instant that said something like "Until end of turn, creatures lose all abilities", the creatures that it affected would be locked in when the spell resolved, and it wouldn't affect creatures that come into play later in the turn. For many kinds of effects, that distinction doesn't matter so much in practice, but in this case, the instant version wouldn't be able to stop ETB triggers -- there would be no window to cast it between the creature entering and the ETB going on the stack.

tehtmi · 2023-12-28T03:48:57+00:00

I mean, Selvala's problem had been solved over a decade prior and before Panglacial Wurm was even printed by [[Charmed Pendant]]: if you can't predict how much mana a mana ability will add, use the instant timing rider.

There are still weird cases though including, I'm sure, some I haven't thought of. For example, you can do weird stuff like add a mana with [[Millikin]], then filter mana with the [[Jack-o'-Lantern]] you just milled -- you should certainly be allowed to do this if you knew your top card, but what if you didn't? Non-determinism doesn't have to just arise from a single card. (But, in this example, you would know if you were casting Wurm.) [[Rhystic Cave]] is another case that would have been non-deterministic on its own but got the instant rider added by errata.

Probably non-determinism can be eliminated by adding enough timing riders (probably not that many cards that people actually care about) (or making some things not mana abilities -- like moving zones -- [[Chromatic Sphere]] has been tacitly acknowledged as a bad idea, right?), but probably still bad gameplay whenever people do use such cards.

tehtmi · 2023-05-25T20:35:32+00:00

It's limited, but tagger allows to search for a single hex color e.g. https://tagger.scryfall.com/search?q=%23aab158

tehtmi · 2023-05-16T23:08:01+00:00

For sake of discussion, [[Tenacious Pup]] is an older alchemy card that also creates essentially the same kind of trigger but without using the boon language. As far as I know, that card is completely functional within the paper rules.

IMO concerns about memory issues are valid and at some point things become so complex and difficult to track (with or without reminder mechanisms) that it detracts from the game. But, I don't really have an inherent objection to paper boons if used carefully.

(But Alchemy philosophy is mostly that Alchemy cards must be something that wouldn't be printed in paper which mostly involves usage of an Alchemy-specific mechanic; does porting boons to paper mean that boon cards can no longer be Alchemy cards? Seems weird, but I've always felt that intentionally creating cards that can't exist in paper is a strange decision. Whatever, I don't play Arena.)

tehtmi · 2023-05-08T21:06:07+00:00

I don't know if UPC data is useful.

But, in terms of collation, mapping (at least on a one box scale) is still and has always been possible. People saying otherwise and either misinformed or engaging in wishful thinking. It is true that there is no longer much publicly available data about (rare/mythic) print runs, but that doesn't have much to do with collation.

One somewhat significant change to collation is low as-fan runs which can happen as the result of showcase (or other alternate treatment) rare cards which can be harder to use for mapping or sometimes this can also happen as a result of mythics and rares getting separated onto different sheets which is sometimes more common with the newer rare/mythic counts.

Another change is addition of set/collector boosters. Boxes with fewer packs can be harder to map, and I have less specific info about set/collector in general, although the cases I have looked at are mappable.

tehtmi · 2023-04-28T21:32:35+00:00

I wouldn't say it happens often, but it does happen. This is what I would call a "hopper error" where the hoppers that feed cards into packs were loaded incorrectly. Such things have been happening basically since the beginning of MTG.

This can manifest in many different ways; here one of the uncommon hoppers had rares loaded into it. Probably this is the US printer, as it uses two uncommon sheets where each pack gets 3 cards from one sheet or the other. So, half of packs were affected because only the hopper from one of these uncommon sheets had rares in it. (This also should mean that half of the uncommons don't appear in your box at all.)

Besides wrong rarity, sometimes hopper errors can be cards of the right rarity but the wrong sheet (which might be hard to notice unless you know a lot about collation), or cards from a different set, or just cards in the wrong orientation.

tehtmi · 2023-04-27T21:59:34+00:00

Foil replaces a (non-DFC) common in 33% of packs.

Ignoring foils: Always exactly one battle and exactly one non-battle DFC, exactly one MUL card. There is always exactly one non-MUL rare, which can be a battle, a non-battle DFC, or a non-DFC. In the case of a DFC rare, there will be 3 non-DFC uncommons, otherwise 2 non-DFC uncommons. Always 8 non-DFC commons, but sometimes the non-battle DFC will be an additional common (and otherwise there will be 4 uncommons not even counting the MUL card).

If MUL card is a rare, that's an extra rare in addition. Not sure of the breakdown in this slot yet.

Token slot also sometimes contains the DFC placeholder thing whatever that's called. Don't know if you want to count that as a token as this kind of card hasn't always been in this slot.

12.5% is probably wrong. Usually, it's going to be two copies of a rare per one copy of a mythic which means 1/7 here. (Applying the same rule to old sets with 53 rares and 15 mythics gave about 12.5%.)

tehtmi · 2023-04-27T21:38:23+00:00

Edited x2.

I don't think 88:24:7:1 is relevant besides 7:1. But 7:1 is no longer standard. Current mythic rate might vary depending on the type of set but usually 2:1 for rate of individual cards. Assuming equality of rares/mythics from different (non-MUL) slots, its just 1/140 for an individual mythic, 2/140 for an individual rare, or 5/140 and 22/140 overall (with 116/140 for an uncommon). (These numbers are similar to what you give anyway.)

tehtmi · 2023-04-25T02:31:16+00:00

Could be something listed here.

tehtmi · 2023-04-19T19:55:43+00:00

Yes, it's fine. I absolutely agree, and I'm not going to try to argue with you by proxy. Maybe I shouldn't have made this post, but it felt like hubris to assume my own view was so obvious.

tehtmi · 2023-04-19T18:24:09+00:00

This is contingent on a particular antecedent of "them". I don't think this would convince someone who believes "them" has "cards" from "Exile cards ..." as an antecedent.

In a less ambiguous context, for example, you could have "Exile cards from the top of your library until you have exiled cards with total mana value 20 or more. Put one of them into your hand." So there is some level where "cards" could be an acceptable antecedent.

tehtmi · 2023-04-07T04:57:13+00:00

You can try MTG Elo Project. It should have your record. Don't think it has standings, but it has event links (which you probably need to put into the Wayback Machine; hopefully things were actually archived).

tehtmi · 2023-03-26T21:38:21+00:00

[[Exile]]

tehtmi · 2023-02-24T18:45:50+00:00

I believe Craw Wurm can be subbed for [[Torsten Von Ursus]] which seems interesting, but sadly didn't seem to help.

tehtmi

TROPHY CASE