Can I put loyalty counters on a creature?

Asked by TAMA 14 years ago

Now it is obvious I can put +1/+1 counters on a planeswalker, such as Gideon when he becomes a creature and his hence a viable target for spells such as battle-growth. However if I were to turn Gideon into a creature and then Fate Transfer would the creature get the loyalty counters?

The second part to this question which is infinitely more important is if I play a Mycosynth Lattice and then a March of the Machines with multiple planeswalkers in play and then cast Thrive targeting those planeswalkers, can my Experiment Kraj use their activated abilities and if so how many and does it get the loyalty counters?

Zylo says... Accepted answer #1

To the first part. Yes, you could move the loyalty counters to a creature.

Second part, nice combo. The problem is this: Yes, Kraj could use the activated abilities EXCEPT the cost for thos abilities would be to add or remove loyalty counters. He does not initially get any loyalty counters but he would get the ability to say add a loyalty counter to untap two lands if you had Garruk Wildspeaker out. Then that would give him a loyalty counter and work your way from there. Basically Kraj would be like a planewalker starting with 0 loyalty and not leaving the game for having 0 loyalty.

If I'm mistaken on the second part, feel free to correct me.

September 30, 2010 7:21 p.m.

banchs says... #2

You could take the counters from gideon and put them on some creature, but then gideon will go to your graveyard for having 0 loyalty as a state-based action.

As for the second part, I believe Zylo answered quite nicely..

September 30, 2010 8:06 p.m.

sporkife says... #3

yup...however, given the rules for loyalty abilities, you can't use more than one per turn.

September 30, 2010 10:09 p.m.

ballard302 says... #4

Wow Tama, awesome combo, and I agree, very insightful answer Zylo.

October 1, 2010 12:20 a.m.

cardcoin says... #5

Sorry too burst the bubble but the rules for plainswalkers were altered to stop creatures from gaining their abilities.

Only plainswalkers can triggered their own abilities. And only once a turn. So basically the creature doesn't get the effects of any plainswalkers. Which sucks...

before the erata, If a creature did then it would go infinite because the creature is not restricted by plainswalker rules.

Now, the plainswalker ability only works for that plainswalker.

October 1, 2010 12:45 a.m.

sporkife says... #6

really? I looked at the rules last night, and the only thing I saw was that only one loyalty ability of a permanent could be activated any given turn.

PLANESWALKER

October 1, 2010 9:13 a.m.

Zylo says... #7

Yes, please link the ruling you are referencing cardcoin because I'm with sporkife.

October 1, 2010 1:40 p.m.

Zylo says... #8

Sorry, but until cardcoin can provide a reference of the ruling I'm, going by what I said before as the correct answer.

October 4, 2010 7:24 p.m.

cardcoin says... #9

Yeah I screwed up... Ever so slightly.

Rule 606 should point ya's towards my idiotic mistake. The rules were changed so that the abilities Of plainswalkers can only be triggered once peer turn so Experiment Kraj combo can still work but The ability of the creature can only trigger once. therefore rendering this possible combo Almost useless :(

I hope this clears this mess I've created...

Source - 606.3. A playery activate a loyalty ability of a permanent he or she controls any she has priority and the stack is empty during a main phase of his or her turn, but player has previously activated a loyalty ability of that permanent that turn

This rule was created because of this combo lol. It was to stop a permanent from being able to somehow get access to the plainswalker ability and abusing it.

So sporkife was right and well I was wrong. (jumped the gun) Sorry.

October 4, 2010 9:34 p.m.

Zylo says... #10

That's all good. I thought I was right with my initial answer and was just curious to see if I was wrong or not. I hope my input helped you out TAMA.

October 4, 2010 10:41 p.m.

cardcoin says... #11

@TAMA

Sorry. Yahoo should change the accepted answer to this question to someone else. I messed up and humbly apologise.

@Zylo

thanks for the headsup. Hope no harm was caused.

October 8, 2010 4:30 a.m.

Zylo says... #12

No harm was caused. I'm actually glad someone had an opposing opinion because we were able to have a discussion about it, somewhat. :)

October 8, 2010 9:54 a.m.

This discussion has been closed