What happens if the owner of a card imprinted on Mimic Vat loses the game?

Asked by theemptyquiver 13 years ago

What would happen in a three-way game (players A, B, and C) and player A had a Mimic Vat out. Player B has a creature out that is killed and is exiled and placed in the vat. Player A uses the creature to kill player B (because it was an awesome creature) and player B exits the game. The exiled card is then removed from the game entirely as are anything else tied to player B.

The question I have is this: Does the imprinted card stay imprinted? Or is the imprint removed from the Mimic vat when the card that is exiled leaves the game (which I know sounds somewhat redundant.)

I have thought about it a lot, and I feel no closer to an answer. No one I play with feel comfortable leaning one way or the other. What say all of you?

emblasochist says... #1

The creature on the Vat stays imprinted. I'll go pull a rule on it for the why in a minute, but the rules only say that the player that was eliminated gets removed and their owned stuff. Most everything keeps it same state.

February 4, 2011 4:24 p.m.

theemptyquiver says... #2

I want to think that too, but the way the card is worded, ...put a token that is a copy of the exiled card into play... has me thinking that if the exiled card is gone the mimic vat can no longer copy it.

The thing about the mimic vat is that the card itself is never "imprinted" or at least I don't read it that way. The copies are simply made from the exiled card while it is in exile, which can be changed whenever another creature goes to a graveyard.

So if you have a specific ruling, and more clarity on the text of the card itself I would love it.

I want to lean towards your answer, but my gut tells me that I am wrong.

February 4, 2011 4:39 p.m.

xeratheenigma says... #3

personally i feel the vat loses the imprint.

the reason i think this is because an imprint ability is "linked" to the card that was exiled for imprint. so when player B loses and removes all of his/her cards from the game the "link" between the exiled card and the imprint ability is broken. which to me means when player B loses you would be left with an empty vat.

hope this helps

February 4, 2011 4:40 p.m.

theemptyquiver says... #4

That is my inclination. I just was looking for confirmation. :)

It's been quite the conundrum for me! haha

February 4, 2011 4:43 p.m.

emblasochist says... #5

Damn phone browser. Wont display the rules page correctly so that I can download the english rulesbook to point out the rule that applies.

I am, however, 97% certain that the Vat remains imprinted. It is, in my logic, because while the card is no longer exiled, there is no mention of the card having to remain exiled for the Vat to stay imprinted.

February 4, 2011 4:48 p.m.

xeratheenigma says... #6

well mimic vat reads

"put a token onto the battlefield thats a copy of the exiled creature".

the thing to remember is the exile zone is actually apart of the game zone unlike the RFG zone. so when player B loses the game he/she removes All of his/her cards from the game even those in exile which breaks the link with mimic vat meaning when you try to make a token using the vat there is no exiled card imprinted on it (which it needs to copy for P/T and abilities) so no token can be put onto the field using vat until it imprints another creature i'll go look up imprints rules to see if i can find it clearly stated in there

February 4, 2011 4:59 p.m.

theemptyquiver says... #7

Anyone else want to take a stab? It seems split on the answer.

February 4, 2011 11:43 p.m.

thaimaishuu says... Accepted answer #8

I play a lot of multiplayer and it surprisingly demands a lot of rule checking. I can tell you that the card that is imprinted will leaves the game, thus making the imprint null.

Two things need to be considered.

First, when a player leaves the game. All objects and permanents that player owned will cease to exist. That means the imprinted card no longer exists.

Second; when a card becomes imprinted, the card that is exiled with it becomes "linked" to the card. In other words imprinted (this is magic rule lingo).

When a card ceases to exist, it no longer becomes linked to whatever imprinted it. It disappears from the exile and all objects (spells/abilities) disappear from the stack.

Give me a second and I'll post some rules to support.

February 5, 2011 1:49 a.m.

thaimaishuu says... #9

When a player leaves the game for whatever reason.

800.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game, all spells and abilities controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist, and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to the next player in turn order whos still in the game.
Imprint is an ability word and not a keyword (anymore) so it has been moved to oracle text for ruling.
  • A permanent with an imprint ability might not have an exiled card for its linked ability to refer to. This might happen if all cards exiled by the imprint ability have left the exile zone, if you chose not to exile a card with an optional imprint ability, or if the imprint ability failed to exile a card because it was countered, among other reasons. In such a case, the values of the exiled card called for by the linked ability are undefined. That ability has as much of its effect as possible, but may be unable to have any effect at all.

I simply pulled this out of the FAQ for Scars of Mirrodin for reference.

February 5, 2011 2:02 a.m.

thaimaishuu says... #10

xeratheenigma answered it correctly first.

Should have read the comments before answering. :]

February 5, 2011 2:05 a.m.

I always thought this, so I appreciate the clarification.

This will help clear up some multiplayer madness.

I agree that multiplayer games can get rules warped.

February 5, 2011 2:06 a.m.

Yeah. But that is true, but you backed yours up with a reference. So that makes it more official! ;-)

February 5, 2011 2:08 a.m.

This discussion has been closed