Note; When applying Replacement effects to an event of creating Tokens, there is a hierarchy to how they are applied.
* Self-Replacement effects; ie. [[Gather the Townsfolk]]
* Who is creating the Token; ie. [[Crafty Cutpurse]]
* What the Token is being created as a Copy of; ie. [[Esix, Fractal Bloom]]
* All other Replacement effects
---
If your Opponent controlled [[Ojer Taq, Deepest Foundation]], and Cast Gather the Townsfolk, while they had 5 or less life, and you cast Crafty Cutpurse; First, their Self-Replacement effect replaces the two Tokens with five Tokens. Then, your Cutpurse has you create the five Tokens instead. Since they are no longer creating the Creature Tokens, their Ojer Taq does not get a chance to apply.
* Also, since you had created these Tokens, you own them.
I do not see how this replacement effect changes the creator rather than controller of said tokens.
Consider a card like "Create a 1/1 token under your opponents control", this would give you owner and them controllership as far as i can tell, a replacement effect changing the original effect to this should not be treated differently.
Consider [[forbidden orchard]]; any time you cause an opponent to get a token, they are explicitly the one to create it as well as own it. I think wotc explicitly does this to avoid confusion or effects not working the way they should
If anyone has a counterexample please do let me know!
Sure, but this clearly states that the opponent does create the token, the "creatorship" is not, as far as i can tell touched by crafty cutpurse, only controllership - they could have easily worded it "if your opponent would create a token, you create it instead", but they did not, they said, from my mechanical analysis:
\[your opponent creates it\] (under their control) -> \[your opponent creates it\] (under \*your\* control)
Ah, somehow I just slid right over that being the point. I just checked Gatherer and, surprise, there are a bunch of rulings. None state anything about ownership but all say "controller," so it looks like you're correct and the person who originally would have created the tokens is the owner of the tokens under the cutpurse player's control.
Nope, tokens are only ever created by their owners. If a token enters the battlefield under your control, you are inherently the owner of the token due to the comprehensive rules.
111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
Per 111.2 of the comprehensive rules
> **111.2.** The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
This means that if you create it, you own it. In this case crafty cutpurse is a replacement effect, which replaces the event of your opponent creating a token, with you creating it. Thus, you control any tokens made by the cutpurse.
As a side note, this was changed to the current rule around Magic 2010. So if someone swears up and down that the tokens are owned by the controller of the effect that made them, they may just be remembering how it used to be and should be informed about the rule change.
For context: there was a Standard deck that revolved around using [[Hunted Troll]] to break the symmetry of [[Warp World]]. The idea was that you'd ramp, play the troll and then Warp on a following turn (in a deck where the only non-permanent cards were 4 copies of Warp World). At that time, the game saw the tokens that the Troll created for your opponent as belonging to you, so it got you 5 reveals on Warp World. It was easy to get to 20 or so reveals that way, virtually guaranteeing that you would put a [[Nucklavee]] in, get back the Warp World, and then cast it again with your new lands, repeating until your opponent had either literally zero permanents in play or none that mattered compared to your board.
It was a weird, counterintuitive way for the rules to work that led to an absolutely miserable play experience (multi-stepped nondeterministic combo, because why *shouldn't* extra turns take as long as the round?), so they changed the rules.
Wait wait wait wait wait.
I had a legacy deck wayyyyy back in the day that revolved around using Hunted Horror and Brand. It was killed when they changed the rule so that tokens are "owned" by the player whose control they entered under.
I played at GPs with the deck so I KNOW it used to be that if you created the token you owned it. Is it back to that now?!
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Create
* _Previously, an effect that created tokens instructed a player to “put [those tokens] onto the battlefield.” Cards that were printed with that text have received errata in the Oracle card reference so they now “create” those tokens._
* _When Hunted Troll enters the battlefield, target opponent creates four 1/1 blue Faerie creature tokens with flying._
They create them. They own them.
The Oracle text for Hunted Horror specifies that the opponent you target creates the tokens. You control the Horror and the ability, but the ability specifically specifies that it's the opponent that's creating them.
The player that creates the tokens is not always the player who controls the *effect* creating the tokens. The oracle text for the spell or ability will specify.
Might be nothing but the card doesn’t say “you create those tokens instead” it says “they are created under your control instead” meaning the original player is still creating them, they just enter the battlefield under the control of the caster of crafty cutpurse.
That wording is functionally the same. "Instead" is a replacement.
>**614.1a** Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events.
thus we look to how to resolve a replacement effect
> **614.6.** If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.
The original event, your opponent creating the tokens, never happened. It was instead replaced entirely by you creating the tokens.
The rules you quoted do, as far as i can tell, not support your conclusion. All this replacement effect does is change controllership, not creatorship/ownership.
Would you state that a card "create a 1/1 token under your opponents control" would imply that your opponent is the owner of that token?
They do indeed support that conclusion. We can see it's a replacement effect from the instead clause. We can see that it replaces the act of creating the token, that your opponent never created them. Because your opponent didn't create them, you did, rule 111.2 informs us that you are the owner. There are no further rules on token ownership.
And your wording doesn't exist. Cards that create tokens under your opponents control state "your/each/target opponent creates". See [[akroan horse]] and [[baffling end]].
Under previous rules, prior to the create keyword, you would indeed be correct. Older wording would have a separate owner based on the owner of the spell that made tokens. That is no longer the case.
Imho nope,
the control is replaced, not the ownership/creatorship. If you can show me a rule that states that ownership and control are the same thing under current rules you would be correct, i do not see how this holds up.
Your line of inquisition has been posed a few minutes ago, see my other answers, if this is still unconvincing to you, i won't be able to change your mind and we'll have to resort to letting the local judges make the call.
Ownership and control are not the same thing, no. However the only rule around ownership in relation to tokens is 111.2. cutpurse does not modify control. The control of spells is there caster, but this is not relevant to ownership.
Feel free to use the CR to create a different line of ruling. If you can, I'll believe you. And if it helps, I am my local judge.
Edit: it would help if you stated where you believe the fault in the three rules is. Do you disbelieve it's a replacement effect? That it doesn't replace the original event? Or the text of what 111.2 says?
It boils down to:
\[your opponent creates it\] (under their control) -> \*replacement\* -> \[your opponent creates it\] (under \*your\* control)
I agree with all citations you made, but, and i have not judged a tournament since the days we had dci numbers so i might just be out of the loop, but the replacement applies to the mentioned aspect and nothing beyond that (a "your damage sources deal twice the damage instead" would replace the damage but not the owner, controller or any other aspect).
Here the replacement changes the controllership, but no aspect beyond that imho.
In this case, rule 111.2 is the only rule around ownership of tokens. The issue is that \[your opponent creates it\] means that 111.2 must apply, and its pretty clear. "The player who creates the tokens is its owner" is pretty cut and dry. Cutpurse has replaced the instance of "you create" with "your opponent creates" and as such they create it, and 111.2 tells us the creator is the owner. The original controller never actually creates them. For such a thing to occur, we would need reword the card entirely, something like "Whenever a token would enter the battlefield under your opponents control, you gain control of those tokens instead". Thats not the wording, it explicitly states that you are now the creator, not your opponent. If you must view it as control effect, it doesn't change the control of the spell, merely the special game action "create a token". As the source of the tokens doesn't have a bearing on the ownership of those tokens, and is in fact a special exception to the rules.
>**110.2** A permanent’s owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it (unless it’s a token; see [rule 111.2](http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr111/#2)). A permanent’s controller is, by default, the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. Every permanent has a controller.
110.2 DOESN'T apply, the rule explicitly calls this out.
This is a change from when you judged very likely. As others pointed out, it was explicitly changed in regards to cards like \[\[hunted troll\]\] to prevent this exact sort of confusion. Unifying ownership with control on the creation of tokens with 111.2 prevents this sort of scenario.
Feels like we are disagreeing on the english language more than anything else "would be created under opponents control -> is created under your control instead" to me, does at no point mention anything related to changing who the creating party is, just the controlling.
Now the only argument i could see, is that the existence of your replacement effect implies that the replacing party now gets full ownership of the creation, but i never heard of any rule like that.
Given that this is a public debate and we hold seemingly incongruent positions, let's just get a L3+ to anwer or, assuming that still exists, just go to judge mailing list, doubt anything beyond that would seem convincing to the either party.
PS: Yes, the creator is by default the controller, changing the controller does not, as far as i can tell, change the creator.
Which had to be done because otherwise you would be the owner, given the rule change.
Or how am i supposed to interpret your point? Did you disagree or agree? oO
That a card would never be printed like that does not equate to it would create a rule based inconsistency to print a card like it.
Imagine a card with 0-cost, instant, you win the game, split second. A card like that would never be printed, still completly possible in terms of the game mechanics.
But you would agree that a card like "Create a 1/1 token. Give control of that token to your opponent" is possible, is there any, but a syntactic difference?
Before we get totally lost, my point is that creation implies ownership, control is seperate, crafty cutpurse modifies control, ownership remains the same. Creating tokens, and owning them, while having your opponent control them is not violating fundamentals of mtg mechanics as far as i can tell.
Primal vigor replaces the event of "create X tokens" with "create 2X tokens." It has no affect on the owner of the tokens, primal vigor isn't the thing making the tokens.
Crafty cutpurse replaces "create tokens under your opponent's control" with" "create tokens under your control." It doesn't say anything about ownership. I thought you were saying that the replacement on Crafty Cutpurse changes the ownership, not because of the change in control, but because technically it is Crafty Cutpurse causing the creating after the replacement. Did I misunderstand? Why doesn't the exact same logic fit Primal Vigor?
Craft cutpurse is not the source of the created tokens, it merely changes who takes the action to create them. If your opponent casts \[\[raise the alarm\]\] to create two tokens, and you cast \[\[crafty cutpurse\]\] in response, raise the alarm still makes the tokens; its just you that will own and control them. The spell has no bearing on ownership. Primal vigor, similarly, does not ever create tokens. It replaces the event "create X tokens" with "Create 2X tokens". In the above scenario, if you also controlled primal vigor, you'd instead create 4 tokens, and be the owner of them.
The owner of a spell that creates tokens has nothing to do with ownership of the tokens, nor does the owner of any effect that modifies them. The only rule determining ownership of the token is what i defined above in 111.2: Whoever creates the token is its owner.
So why does Crafty Cutperse change who creates the token? It doesn't say it does, only that it changes the ownership. It is all in passive voice, "is created." It doesn't say "you create" any more than Primal vigor. Are you reading corollary into 111.2 that one player cannot create a token under the control of another player, ergo if it is entering under the control of a player is must have been created by that player?
It changes who creates the tokens because that is the literal effect of the card. the card directly says "each token that would be created under an opponents control this turn is created under your control instead".
Your opponent attempts to create the tokens using some effect. You use the cutpurse to change who gets to create the tokens. By 111.2 whoever ends up being the one that creates them is the owner. As another commenter pointed out, \[\[an offer you can't refuse\]\] causes your opponent to create tokens, and they would be the owner of those tokens because of 111.2. The spells owner doesn't matter, only who actually creates the token. The act of creation determines ownership.
No, the literal effect is to change control. That is what the words say. Nowhere in that quote does it say anything about changing who creates the tokens. You seem to be reading an implicit effect, and justifying it with an extra step of logic, something like "If it is created under a player's control then that player must create it, and therefore get the other effects of having created, e.g. ownership."
'Create tokens under your control' means that you're the one creating the tokens, therefor you own them. With Primal Vigor, your opponent is still the one creating the tokens, even though a replacement effect you control is replacing it with them creating twice as many tokens.
Not necessarily. Something like [[An Offer You Can't Refuse]] is still an effect that you're resolving. The *game action* is the thing that the person creating the tokens does.
To create something under your control means you create them. It is the same as saying you gain control of the effect that is creating those tokens.
Edit: for clarity, it is not the same as an effect that says you gain control of the effect (or rather, the card/spell/ability) that is creating those tokens. I only meant to say that the end result is the same and that phrase was a more concise way of describing the end result. I wrote a longer description of what I mean in another comment.
so because the act of creating the token determines ownership, the entire token creation effect has to be modified rather than just you creating tokens under my control that you own?
you might be thinking about it a bit programmatically. The listed rule, 111.2, is the only rule around token ownership. With two sentences, we've defined ownership.
If your more so referring to how cutpurse works, thats just the nature of replacement effects. They redefine events as they happen. They work pretty well, and modifying the creation process is par for the course. You can check them out at section 614 of the CR, or on [judge apps](https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr614/) if you prefer that format
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the [IRC rules chat](https://chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The other comments in this thread are incorrect. Cutpurse doesn't say "you create those tokens instead," it says they're "created under your control instead." Rather than modify the controller of the game action, this modifies the effect of the action to only change which player controls the created token. Your opponent still controls the effect creating the tokens, so they create the tokens under your control and they are still the tokens' owner. They get them back if e.g. they activate a [[Homeward Path]]. This is an edge case that is only present on Cutpurse and [[Gather Specimens]]; other similar effects now explicitly indicate who is creating the token rather than who controls the resulting permanent.
That's not how replacement effects work. They modify the event, not the source of the event. In this case, after Cutpurse enters, any "create" event controlled by an opponent is modified to put the token onto the battlefield under the control of Cutpurse's controller. This doesn't change the source of the effect, so because the opponent still controls the source of the event, they still own the token.
I guess I misspoke, I meant cards that have a player other than you create the token specify that the other player is doing the creating, so they own the token created with your effect. E.g. [[Hunted Bonebrute]]
if someone owns something, that means they get to take it home with them when you pack the cards up. if the rules ever get too complicated, just remember that.
I think you're incorrect.
Because replacement effects stop the first effect from happening entirely, the thing which causes the game action "create tokens" is now Crafty Cutpurses ability, not the original source.
That's not how replacement effects work. They modify the event, not the source of the event. In this case, after Cutpurse enters, any "create" event controlled by an opponent is modified to put the token onto the battlefield under the control of Cutpurse's controller. Because they still control the source of the event, they still own the token.
I'm fairly certain you're wrong about replacement effects.
614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.
This would mean the effect to create the tokens that the opponent initiated is totally removed and replaced with the effect of Cutpurse to create those tokens instead.
The modified event is not "Cutpurse has you create the tokens," it's "the original source of the event has your opponent create the tokens under your control." The effect only modifies where the tokens end up, not what event is creating the tokens or who is creating them.
But Cutpurse IS making the tokens, that's what I'm saying. To elaborate, it is IMPOSSIBLE for your opponent to create a token for you. Players create their own tokens.
You literally cannot have a player create tokens for another player. Every player creates their own tokens. And that's exactly what Cutpurse says it does.
111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
Wrong. From the Comprehensive Rules:
>The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
This rule says that "If a player creates a token, then the token enters the battlefield under that player's control."
That's a P -> Q statement. Logically, then, !Q -> !P.
"If a token does not enter the battlefield under a player's control, then that player did not create that token."
Cutpurse makes the tokens enter the battlefield under your control. Those tokens did not enter the battlefield under your opponents' control, therefore your opponents did not create them. And since they did not create them, they do not own them.
And if you can't follow that logic, just read the Gatherer rulings for Homeward Path:
>The owner of a token is the player under whose control the token was put onto the battlefield.
This logic is sound for how things usually work, but as with most replacement effects, Cutpurse modifies how things usually work. In the P->Q statement, "under that player's control" is now "under your control" if that player is an opponent, with no other changes.
Here are two links to other discussions that make me think what I'm saying is correct:
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/767728-hunted-troll-and-zedruu
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/799702-ownership-of-tokens
Also, the ruling you're citing for Homeward Path is both not a rule and not up-to-date with current language, being from 2011. [[Trostani Discordant]] says:
>The owner of a token is the player who created it.
(2018-10-05)
which puts us back where we started, with "who created it" being the topic at hand.
Again, dude, you're literally wrong. I directly quoted the Gatherer ruling that says do and everyone else in thus thread has explained why you're wrong.
The player whose control they enter under is the one who creates them. The wording has simply been changed over time. See: [[Hunted Dragon]] over the years.
Unfortunately, a Gatherer ruling for Homeward Path, dating from before _Core Set 2019_, is obsolete, given C.R. 111.2a, and this should be notified to Matt Tabak (u/WotC_MTabak) or the rules manager Jess Dunks (u/WotC_JessD) (or, for any member of X [Twitter], _wotc\_matt_ or _dunkatog_, respectively).
For purposes of C.R. 111.2a, the replacement effect of Crafty Cutpurse's triggered ability doesn't modify who creates a token, but rather under whose control it enters the battlefield (C.R. 614.1, 614.6).
Tokens inherently enter the battlefield under their owners control. There is no way for those to be separate, one informs the other. If a token enters the battlefield under a player's control, that player is the owner of said token.
Considering all that, Cutpurse HAS to modify who creates the token.
I'm afraid I disagree with the notion that a token's owner _is necessarily determined_ by under whose control that token enters the battlefield. I have asked the rules manager:
- https://twitter.com/PeteroUPC/status/1759540571608150304
I am aware that this is not the only case where a dispute on the scope of replacement effects can be found; here is another case involving [[Ojer Axonil, Deepest Might]] or [[Mechanized Warfare]]:
- https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgrules/comments/180pxek/ojer_axonil_end_the_festivitiestectonic_hazard/
The only dispute I see there is someone misunderstanding a card's effect. Ojer only replaces damage done to opponents, it's very explicit about that on the card.
Additionally, I don't really understand what your interpretation of 111.2 is if you think that tokens can be created by one player but put onto the battlefield of another?
111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
What I was referring to is that Ojer Axonil says "...that source deals damage equal to Ojer Axonil's power instead" (without specifying the destination of damage) rather than "...that source deals damage equal to Ojer Axonil's power *to that opponent* instead", which, in my opinion, is clearly implied by the Oracle text of Ojer Axonil in conjunction with C.R. 614.1 and 614.6.
Similarly, Crafty Cutpurse says "...each token \[of a certain kind\] *is created* under your control instead" (without specifying the token's creator), rather than "...each token that a player would create \[of a certain kind\] *is created by that player* under your control instead" or even "...each token \[of a certain kind\] *is created by you* under your control instead". ~~But, pending a response from the rules manager, I don't intend to argue further on how the replacement effect on Crafty Cutpurse is intended to behave.~~
Ojer doesn't need to specify the destination of damage again, it already specifies it can ONLY modify damage to opponents. It's right there, earlier on in the same effect.
Alternatively, Cutpurse does say the tokens are "created" and to "create" a token has a defined meaning in the rules. Meaning, a token is put onto the battlefield by a given player, who both controls and owns it.
The [_Core Set 2019_ update bulletin](https://web.archive.org/web/20201111190710/https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/core-set-2019-comprehensive-rules-changes-2018-07-06), which changed the rules on ownership of tokens, explicitly addressed Crafty Cutpurse:
> **110.5a [what is now C.R. 111.2]**
>
> The owner of a card is the player who started the game with that card in their deck. But what about tokens? They don't start in your deck, not unless you're doing something very wrong. Up until now, the owner of a token has been the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. We've been considering changing the rule ever since token creation was retemplated to use the "create" technology, but there was never really a good place to put it. Well, hey, core sets are a great place for small updates just like this! Now, the owner of a token is the player who created it, _no matter what Crafty Cutpurse says_. [Emphasis added.]
The one who’s control it was created under*
You can create a token for an opponent like [[an offer you can’t refuse]] and the “opponent” in that scenario and they own the token, even if you created it
No, the person that created the token is its owner.
>111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
The person that creates the token with an offer you can't refuse is the controller of the countered spell.
>"Its controller creates two Treasure tokens."
You aren't the one creating the tokens, your opponent is. You can't create tokens under another player's control.
I don't know that there's a specific call-out prohibiting it, but none of the effects that have a player create tokens do so under another player's control (ie, if a spell or ability creates tokens under an opponent's control, it specifically directs *them* to create the tokens), and it doesn't seem like it would work with the other rules people have already quoted.
It used to be possible, as explained in one of the top comment threads, but it was changed with the introduction of the 'create' keyword.
Tokens are owned by the person who created them. So if an opponent's card causes you to create a token, you own it. In this case, you are not stealing a token your opponent made. You are stealing the ability to create the token. So you create it and you own it.
Note; When applying Replacement effects to an event of creating Tokens, there is a hierarchy to how they are applied. * Self-Replacement effects; ie. [[Gather the Townsfolk]] * Who is creating the Token; ie. [[Crafty Cutpurse]] * What the Token is being created as a Copy of; ie. [[Esix, Fractal Bloom]] * All other Replacement effects --- If your Opponent controlled [[Ojer Taq, Deepest Foundation]], and Cast Gather the Townsfolk, while they had 5 or less life, and you cast Crafty Cutpurse; First, their Self-Replacement effect replaces the two Tokens with five Tokens. Then, your Cutpurse has you create the five Tokens instead. Since they are no longer creating the Creature Tokens, their Ojer Taq does not get a chance to apply. * Also, since you had created these Tokens, you own them.
Just want to add: rules related to this hierarchy is 616.1a to 616.1e
As a novice judge, I appreciate you. <3
##### ###### #### [Gather the Townsfolk](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/6/76f66ee8-8289-4780-aaec-feabd8ea9e3d.jpg?1592762642) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gather%20the%20Townsfolk) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ddq/12/gather-the-townsfolk?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/76f66ee8-8289-4780-aaec-feabd8ea9e3d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Crafty Cutpurse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/1/117d84f7-45c5-4cfc-a5cd-c44416b48417.jpg?1625976076) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Crafty%20Cutpurse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c21/117/crafty-cutpurse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/117d84f7-45c5-4cfc-a5cd-c44416b48417?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Esix, Fractal Bloom](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/e/2e390f8e-1dd5-4383-83f5-45f20f18d410.jpg?1706241000) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Esix%2C%20Fractal%20Bloom) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/210/esix-fractal-bloom?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2e390f8e-1dd5-4383-83f5-45f20f18d410?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Ojer Taq, Deepest Foundation](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/c/1ca79dd4-67fc-496c-96fc-489b039c4932.jpg?1699043299)/[Temple of Civilization](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/1/c/1ca79dd4-67fc-496c-96fc-489b039c4932.jpg?1699043299) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ojer%20Taq%2C%20Deepest%20Foundation%20//%20Temple%20of%20Civilization) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/26/ojer-taq-deepest-foundation-temple-of-civilization?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1ca79dd4-67fc-496c-96fc-489b039c4932?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/kqx35na) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I do not see how this replacement effect changes the creator rather than controller of said tokens. Consider a card like "Create a 1/1 token under your opponents control", this would give you owner and them controllership as far as i can tell, a replacement effect changing the original effect to this should not be treated differently.
Consider [[forbidden orchard]]; any time you cause an opponent to get a token, they are explicitly the one to create it as well as own it. I think wotc explicitly does this to avoid confusion or effects not working the way they should If anyone has a counterexample please do let me know!
[forbidden orchard](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/17db644c-1acf-477d-9c20-f72221f1108a.jpg?1673149497) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=forbidden%20orchard) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/323/forbidden-orchard?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/17db644c-1acf-477d-9c20-f72221f1108a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Sure, but this clearly states that the opponent does create the token, the "creatorship" is not, as far as i can tell touched by crafty cutpurse, only controllership - they could have easily worded it "if your opponent would create a token, you create it instead", but they did not, they said, from my mechanical analysis: \[your opponent creates it\] (under their control) -> \[your opponent creates it\] (under \*your\* control)
Ah, somehow I just slid right over that being the point. I just checked Gatherer and, surprise, there are a bunch of rulings. None state anything about ownership but all say "controller," so it looks like you're correct and the person who originally would have created the tokens is the owner of the tokens under the cutpurse player's control.
Nope, tokens are only ever created by their owners. If a token enters the battlefield under your control, you are inherently the owner of the token due to the comprehensive rules. 111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
Per 111.2 of the comprehensive rules > **111.2.** The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control. This means that if you create it, you own it. In this case crafty cutpurse is a replacement effect, which replaces the event of your opponent creating a token, with you creating it. Thus, you control any tokens made by the cutpurse.
As a side note, this was changed to the current rule around Magic 2010. So if someone swears up and down that the tokens are owned by the controller of the effect that made them, they may just be remembering how it used to be and should be informed about the rule change.
For context: there was a Standard deck that revolved around using [[Hunted Troll]] to break the symmetry of [[Warp World]]. The idea was that you'd ramp, play the troll and then Warp on a following turn (in a deck where the only non-permanent cards were 4 copies of Warp World). At that time, the game saw the tokens that the Troll created for your opponent as belonging to you, so it got you 5 reveals on Warp World. It was easy to get to 20 or so reveals that way, virtually guaranteeing that you would put a [[Nucklavee]] in, get back the Warp World, and then cast it again with your new lands, repeating until your opponent had either literally zero permanents in play or none that mattered compared to your board. It was a weird, counterintuitive way for the rules to work that led to an absolutely miserable play experience (multi-stepped nondeterministic combo, because why *shouldn't* extra turns take as long as the round?), so they changed the rules.
[Hunted Troll](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/f/cfe19e16-33f6-4594-9dd3-2699a66ba0e8.jpg?1562938949) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hunted%20Troll) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c13/150/hunted-troll?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cfe19e16-33f6-4594-9dd3-2699a66ba0e8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Warp World](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/a/aa6e1fb5-a06b-4e10-8cc7-785e0f0b298e.jpg?1561991614) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Warp%20World) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m10/163/warp-world?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/aa6e1fb5-a06b-4e10-8cc7-785e0f0b298e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Nucklavee](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/d/fd706176-477a-49a9-bf47-0d10c0501227.jpg?1592761663) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nucklavee) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dds/26/nucklavee?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fd706176-477a-49a9-bf47-0d10c0501227?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Wait wait wait wait wait. I had a legacy deck wayyyyy back in the day that revolved around using Hunted Horror and Brand. It was killed when they changed the rule so that tokens are "owned" by the player whose control they entered under. I played at GPs with the deck so I KNOW it used to be that if you created the token you owned it. Is it back to that now?!
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Create * _Previously, an effect that created tokens instructed a player to “put [those tokens] onto the battlefield.” Cards that were printed with that text have received errata in the Oracle card reference so they now “create” those tokens._ * _When Hunted Troll enters the battlefield, target opponent creates four 1/1 blue Faerie creature tokens with flying._ They create them. They own them.
Thanks for that extra clarification. Did not know they erratad the cards. My dream is still dead and Maro is dead to me.
Whomst among us has not, at one point in their life, declared MaRo dead to them, step forward.
The Oracle text for Hunted Horror specifies that the opponent you target creates the tokens. You control the Horror and the ability, but the ability specifically specifies that it's the opponent that's creating them. The player that creates the tokens is not always the player who controls the *effect* creating the tokens. The oracle text for the spell or ability will specify.
Might be nothing but the card doesn’t say “you create those tokens instead” it says “they are created under your control instead” meaning the original player is still creating them, they just enter the battlefield under the control of the caster of crafty cutpurse.
That wording is functionally the same. "Instead" is a replacement. >**614.1a** Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events. thus we look to how to resolve a replacement effect > **614.6.** If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored. The original event, your opponent creating the tokens, never happened. It was instead replaced entirely by you creating the tokens.
The rules you quoted do, as far as i can tell, not support your conclusion. All this replacement effect does is change controllership, not creatorship/ownership. Would you state that a card "create a 1/1 token under your opponents control" would imply that your opponent is the owner of that token?
They do indeed support that conclusion. We can see it's a replacement effect from the instead clause. We can see that it replaces the act of creating the token, that your opponent never created them. Because your opponent didn't create them, you did, rule 111.2 informs us that you are the owner. There are no further rules on token ownership. And your wording doesn't exist. Cards that create tokens under your opponents control state "your/each/target opponent creates". See [[akroan horse]] and [[baffling end]]. Under previous rules, prior to the create keyword, you would indeed be correct. Older wording would have a separate owner based on the owner of the spell that made tokens. That is no longer the case.
[akroan horse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/1/31a8954f-467d-4eb9-8a48-d25bae9529b8.jpg?1562394382) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=akroan%20horse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c16/241/akroan-horse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/31a8954f-467d-4eb9-8a48-d25bae9529b8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [baffling end](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/0/208c6f51-3c00-4fc6-8579-8f57444d0e97.jpg?1555039647) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=baffling%20end) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rix/1/baffling-end?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/208c6f51-3c00-4fc6-8579-8f57444d0e97?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Imho nope, the control is replaced, not the ownership/creatorship. If you can show me a rule that states that ownership and control are the same thing under current rules you would be correct, i do not see how this holds up. Your line of inquisition has been posed a few minutes ago, see my other answers, if this is still unconvincing to you, i won't be able to change your mind and we'll have to resort to letting the local judges make the call.
Ownership and control are not the same thing, no. However the only rule around ownership in relation to tokens is 111.2. cutpurse does not modify control. The control of spells is there caster, but this is not relevant to ownership. Feel free to use the CR to create a different line of ruling. If you can, I'll believe you. And if it helps, I am my local judge. Edit: it would help if you stated where you believe the fault in the three rules is. Do you disbelieve it's a replacement effect? That it doesn't replace the original event? Or the text of what 111.2 says?
It boils down to: \[your opponent creates it\] (under their control) -> \*replacement\* -> \[your opponent creates it\] (under \*your\* control) I agree with all citations you made, but, and i have not judged a tournament since the days we had dci numbers so i might just be out of the loop, but the replacement applies to the mentioned aspect and nothing beyond that (a "your damage sources deal twice the damage instead" would replace the damage but not the owner, controller or any other aspect). Here the replacement changes the controllership, but no aspect beyond that imho.
In this case, rule 111.2 is the only rule around ownership of tokens. The issue is that \[your opponent creates it\] means that 111.2 must apply, and its pretty clear. "The player who creates the tokens is its owner" is pretty cut and dry. Cutpurse has replaced the instance of "you create" with "your opponent creates" and as such they create it, and 111.2 tells us the creator is the owner. The original controller never actually creates them. For such a thing to occur, we would need reword the card entirely, something like "Whenever a token would enter the battlefield under your opponents control, you gain control of those tokens instead". Thats not the wording, it explicitly states that you are now the creator, not your opponent. If you must view it as control effect, it doesn't change the control of the spell, merely the special game action "create a token". As the source of the tokens doesn't have a bearing on the ownership of those tokens, and is in fact a special exception to the rules. >**110.2** A permanent’s owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it (unless it’s a token; see [rule 111.2](http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr111/#2)). A permanent’s controller is, by default, the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. Every permanent has a controller. 110.2 DOESN'T apply, the rule explicitly calls this out. This is a change from when you judged very likely. As others pointed out, it was explicitly changed in regards to cards like \[\[hunted troll\]\] to prevent this exact sort of confusion. Unifying ownership with control on the creation of tokens with 111.2 prevents this sort of scenario.
[hunted troll](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/f/cfe19e16-33f6-4594-9dd3-2699a66ba0e8.jpg?1562938949) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=hunted%20troll) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c13/150/hunted-troll?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cfe19e16-33f6-4594-9dd3-2699a66ba0e8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Feels like we are disagreeing on the english language more than anything else "would be created under opponents control -> is created under your control instead" to me, does at no point mention anything related to changing who the creating party is, just the controlling. Now the only argument i could see, is that the existence of your replacement effect implies that the replacing party now gets full ownership of the creation, but i never heard of any rule like that. Given that this is a public debate and we hold seemingly incongruent positions, let's just get a L3+ to anwer or, assuming that still exists, just go to judge mailing list, doubt anything beyond that would seem convincing to the either party. PS: Yes, the creator is by default the controller, changing the controller does not, as far as i can tell, change the creator.
There are no cards that say that anymore. Any cards that did say that were errata'd to say that the opponent creates the token.
Which had to be done because otherwise you would be the owner, given the rule change. Or how am i supposed to interpret your point? Did you disagree or agree? oO
I'm saying such a card would never be printed. It's like arguing about hypothetical rules for a card that says "Stab your opponent with a knife."
That a card would never be printed like that does not equate to it would create a rule based inconsistency to print a card like it. Imagine a card with 0-cost, instant, you win the game, split second. A card like that would never be printed, still completly possible in terms of the game mechanics.
Yeah, but a card that says "Create a 1/1 token under your opponent's control" is NOT possible in terms of the game mechanics. That's what I'm saying.
But you would agree that a card like "Create a 1/1 token. Give control of that token to your opponent" is possible, is there any, but a syntactic difference? Before we get totally lost, my point is that creation implies ownership, control is seperate, crafty cutpurse modifies control, ownership remains the same. Creating tokens, and owning them, while having your opponent control them is not violating fundamentals of mtg mechanics as far as i can tell.
So will [[Primal Vigor]] change the ownership of tokens created by your opponent too?
Primal vigor replaces the event of "create X tokens" with "create 2X tokens." It has no affect on the owner of the tokens, primal vigor isn't the thing making the tokens.
Crafty cutpurse replaces "create tokens under your opponent's control" with" "create tokens under your control." It doesn't say anything about ownership. I thought you were saying that the replacement on Crafty Cutpurse changes the ownership, not because of the change in control, but because technically it is Crafty Cutpurse causing the creating after the replacement. Did I misunderstand? Why doesn't the exact same logic fit Primal Vigor?
Craft cutpurse is not the source of the created tokens, it merely changes who takes the action to create them. If your opponent casts \[\[raise the alarm\]\] to create two tokens, and you cast \[\[crafty cutpurse\]\] in response, raise the alarm still makes the tokens; its just you that will own and control them. The spell has no bearing on ownership. Primal vigor, similarly, does not ever create tokens. It replaces the event "create X tokens" with "Create 2X tokens". In the above scenario, if you also controlled primal vigor, you'd instead create 4 tokens, and be the owner of them. The owner of a spell that creates tokens has nothing to do with ownership of the tokens, nor does the owner of any effect that modifies them. The only rule determining ownership of the token is what i defined above in 111.2: Whoever creates the token is its owner.
[raise the alarm](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/c/6c7c8527-55f6-494d-b4f7-c427a5735053.jpg?1608908958) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=raise%20the%20alarm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/41/raise-the-alarm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6c7c8527-55f6-494d-b4f7-c427a5735053?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [crafty cutpurse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/1/117d84f7-45c5-4cfc-a5cd-c44416b48417.jpg?1625976076) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=crafty%20cutpurse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c21/117/crafty-cutpurse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/117d84f7-45c5-4cfc-a5cd-c44416b48417?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
So why does Crafty Cutperse change who creates the token? It doesn't say it does, only that it changes the ownership. It is all in passive voice, "is created." It doesn't say "you create" any more than Primal vigor. Are you reading corollary into 111.2 that one player cannot create a token under the control of another player, ergo if it is entering under the control of a player is must have been created by that player?
It changes who creates the tokens because that is the literal effect of the card. the card directly says "each token that would be created under an opponents control this turn is created under your control instead". Your opponent attempts to create the tokens using some effect. You use the cutpurse to change who gets to create the tokens. By 111.2 whoever ends up being the one that creates them is the owner. As another commenter pointed out, \[\[an offer you can't refuse\]\] causes your opponent to create tokens, and they would be the owner of those tokens because of 111.2. The spells owner doesn't matter, only who actually creates the token. The act of creation determines ownership.
[an offer you can't refuse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/9/b9d349f3-5be2-4b1f-a4c3-ba94822cf0cf.jpg?1664410382) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=an%20offer%20you%20can%27t%20refuse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/51/an-offer-you-cant-refuse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b9d349f3-5be2-4b1f-a4c3-ba94822cf0cf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
No, the literal effect is to change control. That is what the words say. Nowhere in that quote does it say anything about changing who creates the tokens. You seem to be reading an implicit effect, and justifying it with an extra step of logic, something like "If it is created under a player's control then that player must create it, and therefore get the other effects of having created, e.g. ownership."
'Create tokens under your control' means that you're the one creating the tokens, therefor you own them. With Primal Vigor, your opponent is still the one creating the tokens, even though a replacement effect you control is replacing it with them creating twice as many tokens.
correct; whoever RESOLVES the creation effect is the one that own the tokens.
Not necessarily. Something like [[An Offer You Can't Refuse]] is still an effect that you're resolving. The *game action* is the thing that the person creating the tokens does.
ah yes, i should have been more clear; resolution of the game action, not the spell.
[An Offer You Can't Refuse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/9/b9d349f3-5be2-4b1f-a4c3-ba94822cf0cf.jpg?1664410382) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=An%20Offer%20You%20Can%27t%20Refuse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/51/an-offer-you-cant-refuse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b9d349f3-5be2-4b1f-a4c3-ba94822cf0cf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Primal Vigor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/a/dafea0d1-6986-46b3-affc-1337ef564947.jpg?1562941253) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Primal%20Vigor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c13/162/primal-vigor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dafea0d1-6986-46b3-affc-1337ef564947?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
To create something under your control means you create them. It is the same as saying you gain control of the effect that is creating those tokens. Edit: for clarity, it is not the same as an effect that says you gain control of the effect (or rather, the card/spell/ability) that is creating those tokens. I only meant to say that the end result is the same and that phrase was a more concise way of describing the end result. I wrote a longer description of what I mean in another comment.
no. on account of the text in the comment that you replied to.
so because the act of creating the token determines ownership, the entire token creation effect has to be modified rather than just you creating tokens under my control that you own?
you might be thinking about it a bit programmatically. The listed rule, 111.2, is the only rule around token ownership. With two sentences, we've defined ownership. If your more so referring to how cutpurse works, thats just the nature of replacement effects. They redefine events as they happen. They work pretty well, and modifying the creation process is par for the course. You can check them out at section 614 of the CR, or on [judge apps](https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr614/) if you prefer that format
This card reminds me of my biggest misplay in a draft ever.
what was that?
they are mine
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the [IRC rules chat](https://chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m still confused
The other comments in this thread are incorrect. Cutpurse doesn't say "you create those tokens instead," it says they're "created under your control instead." Rather than modify the controller of the game action, this modifies the effect of the action to only change which player controls the created token. Your opponent still controls the effect creating the tokens, so they create the tokens under your control and they are still the tokens' owner. They get them back if e.g. they activate a [[Homeward Path]]. This is an edge case that is only present on Cutpurse and [[Gather Specimens]]; other similar effects now explicitly indicate who is creating the token rather than who controls the resulting permanent.
Crafty Cutpurse is controlled by you and is the effect making the tokens, therefor you own the tokens generated by Cutpurse.
That's not how replacement effects work. They modify the event, not the source of the event. In this case, after Cutpurse enters, any "create" event controlled by an opponent is modified to put the token onto the battlefield under the control of Cutpurse's controller. This doesn't change the source of the effect, so because the opponent still controls the source of the event, they still own the token.
[Homeward Path](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/4/54734347-eee7-4c52-b514-7342afeccabd.jpg?1562400178) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Homeward%20Path) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c16/301/homeward-path?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/54734347-eee7-4c52-b514-7342afeccabd?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gather Specimens](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/b/bbadf982-f22e-4f4f-b5c9-ac387f25c15f.jpg?1562708387) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gather%20Specimens) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ala/45/gather-specimens?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bbadf982-f22e-4f4f-b5c9-ac387f25c15f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
What newer cards now change who creates the tokens?
I guess I misspoke, I meant cards that have a player other than you create the token specify that the other player is doing the creating, so they own the token created with your effect. E.g. [[Hunted Bonebrute]]
[Hunted Bonebrute](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/4/a4ca0e10-8b7c-4ce2-888b-752fc909757a.jpg?1706241698) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hunted%20Bonebrute) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkm/87/hunted-bonebrute?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a4ca0e10-8b7c-4ce2-888b-752fc909757a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
if someone owns something, that means they get to take it home with them when you pack the cards up. if the rules ever get too complicated, just remember that.
I think you're incorrect. Because replacement effects stop the first effect from happening entirely, the thing which causes the game action "create tokens" is now Crafty Cutpurses ability, not the original source.
That's not how replacement effects work. They modify the event, not the source of the event. In this case, after Cutpurse enters, any "create" event controlled by an opponent is modified to put the token onto the battlefield under the control of Cutpurse's controller. Because they still control the source of the event, they still own the token.
I'm fairly certain you're wrong about replacement effects. 614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored. This would mean the effect to create the tokens that the opponent initiated is totally removed and replaced with the effect of Cutpurse to create those tokens instead.
The modified event is not "Cutpurse has you create the tokens," it's "the original source of the event has your opponent create the tokens under your control." The effect only modifies where the tokens end up, not what event is creating the tokens or who is creating them.
But Cutpurse IS making the tokens, that's what I'm saying. To elaborate, it is IMPOSSIBLE for your opponent to create a token for you. Players create their own tokens.
That's not correct. It doesn't instruct you to create the tokens instead, it changes how your opponent create the tokens.
You literally cannot have a player create tokens for another player. Every player creates their own tokens. And that's exactly what Cutpurse says it does. 111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
Wrong. From the Comprehensive Rules: >The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control. This rule says that "If a player creates a token, then the token enters the battlefield under that player's control." That's a P -> Q statement. Logically, then, !Q -> !P. "If a token does not enter the battlefield under a player's control, then that player did not create that token." Cutpurse makes the tokens enter the battlefield under your control. Those tokens did not enter the battlefield under your opponents' control, therefore your opponents did not create them. And since they did not create them, they do not own them. And if you can't follow that logic, just read the Gatherer rulings for Homeward Path: >The owner of a token is the player under whose control the token was put onto the battlefield.
This logic is sound for how things usually work, but as with most replacement effects, Cutpurse modifies how things usually work. In the P->Q statement, "under that player's control" is now "under your control" if that player is an opponent, with no other changes. Here are two links to other discussions that make me think what I'm saying is correct: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/767728-hunted-troll-and-zedruu https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/799702-ownership-of-tokens Also, the ruling you're citing for Homeward Path is both not a rule and not up-to-date with current language, being from 2011. [[Trostani Discordant]] says: >The owner of a token is the player who created it. (2018-10-05) which puts us back where we started, with "who created it" being the topic at hand.
[Trostani Discordant](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/9/79d61bba-4404-4336-8290-51d1576f728d.jpg?1706240188) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Trostani%20Discordant) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clu/213/trostani-discordant?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/79d61bba-4404-4336-8290-51d1576f728d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Again, dude, you're literally wrong. I directly quoted the Gatherer ruling that says do and everyone else in thus thread has explained why you're wrong. The player whose control they enter under is the one who creates them. The wording has simply been changed over time. See: [[Hunted Dragon]] over the years.
[Hunted Dragon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/5/351cea54-905e-401b-8627-7c3fd192b772.jpg?1562273392) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hunted%20Dragon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cm2/106/hunted-dragon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/351cea54-905e-401b-8627-7c3fd192b772?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Unfortunately, a Gatherer ruling for Homeward Path, dating from before _Core Set 2019_, is obsolete, given C.R. 111.2a, and this should be notified to Matt Tabak (u/WotC_MTabak) or the rules manager Jess Dunks (u/WotC_JessD) (or, for any member of X [Twitter], _wotc\_matt_ or _dunkatog_, respectively). For purposes of C.R. 111.2a, the replacement effect of Crafty Cutpurse's triggered ability doesn't modify who creates a token, but rather under whose control it enters the battlefield (C.R. 614.1, 614.6).
Tokens inherently enter the battlefield under their owners control. There is no way for those to be separate, one informs the other. If a token enters the battlefield under a player's control, that player is the owner of said token. Considering all that, Cutpurse HAS to modify who creates the token.
I'm afraid I disagree with the notion that a token's owner _is necessarily determined_ by under whose control that token enters the battlefield. I have asked the rules manager: - https://twitter.com/PeteroUPC/status/1759540571608150304 I am aware that this is not the only case where a dispute on the scope of replacement effects can be found; here is another case involving [[Ojer Axonil, Deepest Might]] or [[Mechanized Warfare]]: - https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgrules/comments/180pxek/ojer_axonil_end_the_festivitiestectonic_hazard/
[Ojer Axonil, Deepest Might](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/0/50f8e2b6-98c7-4f28-bb39-e1fbe841f1ee.jpg?1699044315)/[Temple of Power](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/5/0/50f8e2b6-98c7-4f28-bb39-e1fbe841f1ee.jpg?1699044315) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ojer%20Axonil%2C%20Deepest%20Might%20//%20Temple%20of%20Power) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/158/ojer-axonil-deepest-might-temple-of-power?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/50f8e2b6-98c7-4f28-bb39-e1fbe841f1ee?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Mechanized Warfare](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/a/ba2d026f-bdca-4376-9d70-c81c707598e8.jpg?1674421169) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mechanized%20Warfare) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bro/139/mechanized-warfare?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ba2d026f-bdca-4376-9d70-c81c707598e8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The only dispute I see there is someone misunderstanding a card's effect. Ojer only replaces damage done to opponents, it's very explicit about that on the card. Additionally, I don't really understand what your interpretation of 111.2 is if you think that tokens can be created by one player but put onto the battlefield of another? 111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
What I was referring to is that Ojer Axonil says "...that source deals damage equal to Ojer Axonil's power instead" (without specifying the destination of damage) rather than "...that source deals damage equal to Ojer Axonil's power *to that opponent* instead", which, in my opinion, is clearly implied by the Oracle text of Ojer Axonil in conjunction with C.R. 614.1 and 614.6. Similarly, Crafty Cutpurse says "...each token \[of a certain kind\] *is created* under your control instead" (without specifying the token's creator), rather than "...each token that a player would create \[of a certain kind\] *is created by that player* under your control instead" or even "...each token \[of a certain kind\] *is created by you* under your control instead". ~~But, pending a response from the rules manager, I don't intend to argue further on how the replacement effect on Crafty Cutpurse is intended to behave.~~
Ojer doesn't need to specify the destination of damage again, it already specifies it can ONLY modify damage to opponents. It's right there, earlier on in the same effect. Alternatively, Cutpurse does say the tokens are "created" and to "create" a token has a defined meaning in the rules. Meaning, a token is put onto the battlefield by a given player, who both controls and owns it.
The [_Core Set 2019_ update bulletin](https://web.archive.org/web/20201111190710/https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/core-set-2019-comprehensive-rules-changes-2018-07-06), which changed the rules on ownership of tokens, explicitly addressed Crafty Cutpurse: > **110.5a [what is now C.R. 111.2]** > > The owner of a card is the player who started the game with that card in their deck. But what about tokens? They don't start in your deck, not unless you're doing something very wrong. Up until now, the owner of a token has been the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. We've been considering changing the rule ever since token creation was retemplated to use the "create" technology, but there was never really a good place to put it. Well, hey, core sets are a great place for small updates just like this! Now, the owner of a token is the player who created it, _no matter what Crafty Cutpurse says_. [Emphasis added.]
[удалено]
[удалено]
wrong
The one who’s control it was created under* You can create a token for an opponent like [[an offer you can’t refuse]] and the “opponent” in that scenario and they own the token, even if you created it
> 111.2. **The player who creates a token is its owner.** The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.
No, the person that created the token is its owner. >111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control. The person that creates the token with an offer you can't refuse is the controller of the countered spell.
[an offer you can’t refuse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/9/b9d349f3-5be2-4b1f-a4c3-ba94822cf0cf.jpg?1664410382) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=An%20Offer%20You%20Can%27t%20Refuse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/51/an-offer-you-cant-refuse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b9d349f3-5be2-4b1f-a4c3-ba94822cf0cf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
>"Its controller creates two Treasure tokens." You aren't the one creating the tokens, your opponent is. You can't create tokens under another player's control.
What part of the rules say you can't create a token under another players control?
I don't know that there's a specific call-out prohibiting it, but none of the effects that have a player create tokens do so under another player's control (ie, if a spell or ability creates tokens under an opponent's control, it specifically directs *them* to create the tokens), and it doesn't seem like it would work with the other rules people have already quoted. It used to be possible, as explained in one of the top comment threads, but it was changed with the introduction of the 'create' keyword.
Tokens are owned by the person who created them. So if an opponent's card causes you to create a token, you own it. In this case, you are not stealing a token your opponent made. You are stealing the ability to create the token. So you create it and you own it.
Out here stealing Mr. Krabs' dime.