If the top card of my library was an equipment could I equip Skill Borrower to another creature?

Asked by memaw381 13 years ago

Let me set up the situation for you.

Lets say that I have a Skill Borrower and a Loxodon Warhammer on the battlefield. I reveal the top card of my library, its a Master of Etherium .

I equip the luxodon-warhammer to the Skill Borrower .

Next turn, I draw the Master, and I reveal the next card. It is a Cranial Plating . Now I have a Skill Borrower with a luxodon-warhammer equipped to it, but what happens if I equip the Skill Borrower to another creature?

π_is_the_word says... #1

Well, you can't equip a creature with a creature, so I am not sure what your asking?

January 14, 2011 10:48 a.m.

Siegfried says... #2

mmmm this is interesting. Technically, Skill Borrower has the Equip ability and could attach itself to another creature (but it wouldn't supply the power bonus since that is a static ability of Cranial Plating). But then, there is also the question of whether a creature can actually be treated as an equipment and attached to another creature, bringing the validity of this entire play into question.

Skill Borrower would definitely not give any of Loxodon Warhammer 's abilities to anything it was equipped to, since again that is an ability of the Hammer and is a static ability that Borrower does not copy (if that makes sense).

January 14, 2011 10:56 a.m.

Siegfried says... Accepted answer #3

Nvm.

301.5c An Equipment that's also a creature can't equip a creature. An Equipment that loses the subtype "Equipment" can't equip a creature. An Equipment can't equip itself. An Equipment that equips an illegal or nonexistent permanent becomes unattached from that permanent but remains on the battlefield. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Basically, Skill Borrower has the Equip ability, but every time you try and attach it to something, it will fall off as a state-based action.

January 14, 2011 11:08 a.m.

π_is_the_word says... #4

I was reading the question wrong, that is a very interesting question.

That ruling makes sense: if a creature(1) is equipped to another creature(2), then would the creature(1) which is acting as the equipment be able to attack and still be equipped to a creature(2)? It would get so complex to do that, I'm glad that there is a rule against it.

January 14, 2011 2:10 p.m.

memaw381 says... #5

Thank you both, you have helped me understand a broken, broken card.

January 14, 2011 5 p.m.

This discussion has been closed