Say you have a creature A that gives your creatures a +1/+1 counter, and a creature B you control with that counter on it. If that counter on B is removed, does A restore the counter on the following turn?

For example, Mikaeus, the Unhallowed (creature A) is on the battlefield (giving all non-humans +1/+1 and Undying), and Noosegraf Mob (creature B) enters the battlefield (with 5 +1/+1 counters) and gets the counter from Mikaeus. When a spell is played, a counter is removed from Noosegraf and I put a 2/2 zombie onto the battlefield. In my following turn, is the counter from Mikaeus put back onto Noosegraf Mob?

  • @ikegami I believe that's a complete answer; the question is being asked out of a confusion between the two, and is completely resolved by understanding the difference. – Samthere Jun 6 '17 at 14:50
  • @ikegami Yes, but the "returning counters" question is based on a case with a static +1/+1 effect rather than a single event that adds counters. By understanding that Mikaeus doesn't give counters, there's no longer a need to ask about returning the counter he provides. – Samthere Jun 6 '17 at 14:57
  • @ikegami But the question didn't ask about those (except with the modified title). The original question was "does the counter from mikaeus go back onto noosegraf"? Or in a general case "do the counters from a static +1/+1 effect get replaced after they're removed"? There's no indication of any confusion about the way you remove counters from a Noosegraf on its own. – Samthere Jun 6 '17 at 15:04
  • There's every indication that they think that a specific counter is put back on, because that "counter" is created through a static effect. Under the misinterpretation, Mikaeus permanently says it "has a counter" even after that counter is removed. The question explicitly talks about the case where a counter is removed that it received from an anthem-type effect. If anthem-type effects were counters, it would be entirely reasonable to ask if they return or persist through being removed. I believe that misunderstanding is the basis for the question. – Samthere Jun 6 '17 at 15:15
  • I'm confident in my interpretation of what the OP is asking. They're asking about whether a very particular counter is put back on the Mob. "does that counter come back from the other creature"? "does the counter from mikaeus go back onto noosegraf"? It's clear that the OP thinks Mikaeus might track and restore the counter it provides. However, we know that Mikaeus doesn't provide a counter at all. – Samthere Jun 6 '17 at 15:24

First of all, Mikaeus doesn't grant any counters. This is covered by Are +1/+1 counters different from +1/+1 effects?

So you start with a 6/6 Mob with undying and 5 +1/+1 counters.

When a player casts a spell, the Mob will lose a counter, and you will gain a 3/3 zombie with undying. The counter is not placed on the zombie; it simply ceases to exist, so the physical object representing it is removed from the game.

Nothing causes the Mob to gain tokens when a zombie dies. This means you can create at most 5 zombies. But thanks to Mikaeus, the Mob won't be destroyed when it loses all of its counters (since it'll still be 1/1).

| improve this answer | |

It's important to note the difference between +1/+1 as a static buff, and +1/+1 counters - Mikaeus, the Unhallowed provides a static buff (which isn't represented by a counter, but instead "just there"), whereas Noosegraf Mob actually has counters placed on it.

The +1/+1 that Mikaeus, the Unhallowed provides can't be removed by Noosegraf Mob's ability, and neither will you get a Zombie from it. It will, however, allow Noosegraf Mob to survive on the battlefield as a 1/1 creature after all of it's counters have been removed.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    @ikegami: Before the title change, there was no reason to assume that there was any confusion about that, and I still find it hard to see that this would be what the questioner intended to ask. – TheThirdMan Jun 3 '17 at 18:36
  • @ikegami: The way they asked that implies a connection to Mikaeus's ability, the way I understand it, and as I said, I didn't see any reason to assume anything in this question isn't about Mikaeus before the title change. That said, the original question was rather inconclusive in a few ways, and you may well be right with your conclusions, so I guess we are left guessing, or waiting for another action of the questioner... – TheThirdMan Jun 3 '17 at 22:16
  • @ikegami: Well, that's why I earlier said "I still find it hard to see that this would be what the questioner intended to ask", implying that there is an ever-so-slight possibility that you were reading a bit too much into it. If you look at the edit history, it's not that I haven't considered the possibility, just figured it was a long shot to assume that's the core of the question from what was there, seeing as it would've changed the nature of the question entirely - much like your edit possibly did. Again - it seems to me that only the questioner can provide any insight to that. – TheThirdMan Jun 3 '17 at 22:40
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – TheThirdMan Jun 3 '17 at 22:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.