Sacrifices not going to the graveyard

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

This came up last week in a discussion with another player...(*)


As defined in the glossary of the Comprehensive Rules, 'sacrificing'
a permanent means moving it from the in-play area to its owner's
graveyard. (You can only sacrifice permanents you control and the
event can't be replaced via regeneration because it's not technically
'destroying' the permanent, but that's not what I'm getting at.) Now,
if an effect replaces the 'move to the graveyard' part, does the whole
event still count as a 'sacrifice' as far as the game is concerned?


(I suspect rather strongly that the answer is 'yes, of course', if only
to avoid introducing a bunch of unnecessary corner cases into the game.
However, I can't quite seem to arrive at that conclusion based on
the rules as written. In fact, I could see somebody with a suitably
lawyeresque attitude towards things at least *thinking* there are
supporting points for the answer being 'no' to be found there -- based
on, say, rule 419.5 ("If an event is prevented or replaced, it never
happens. [...]"), for example.)


(*) Actually, the argument was about just *how* badly a Samurai of the
Pale Curtain would mess with an Arcbound Ravager's abilities. But
assuming for a moment that I am *not* just making a mountain out of
a molehill here due to a sudden density increase between my ears, the
answer may be of more general interest than that.


==
Klaus Mittag (mittag@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de)
#include <disclaimer.h>
#include <fancysig.h>
spam > /dev/null

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Klaus Mittag <mittag@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> sent:

> This came up last week in a discussion with another player...(*)


> As defined in the glossary of the Comprehensive Rules, 'sacrificing'
> a permanent means moving it from the in-play area to its owner's
> graveyard. (You can only sacrifice permanents you control and the
> event can't be replaced via regeneration because it's not technically
> 'destroying' the permanent, but that's not what I'm getting at.) Now,
> if an effect replaces the 'move to the graveyard' part, does the whole
> event still count as a 'sacrifice' as far as the game is concerned?

Yes. The sacrifice part didn't get replaced, just the move to the
graveyard. It still looks like a sacrifice to things that specifically
ask whether you sacrificed something.

> (I suspect rather strongly that the answer is 'yes, of course', if only
> to avoid introducing a bunch of unnecessary corner cases into the game.
> However, I can't quite seem to arrive at that conclusion based on
> the rules as written. In fact, I could see somebody with a suitably
> lawyeresque attitude towards things at least *thinking* there are
> supporting points for the answer being 'no' to be found there -- based
> on, say, rule 419.5 ("If an event is prevented or replaced, it never
> happens. [...]"), for example.)

You have to look very precisely at exactly what it is that's been
prevented or replaced. It's exactly that that changes, and nothing
more.

> (*) Actually, the argument was about just *how* badly a Samurai of the
> Pale Curtain would mess with an Arcbound Ravager's abilities. But
> assuming for a moment that I am *not* just making a mountain out of
> a molehill here due to a sudden density increase between my ears, the
> answer may be of more general interest than that.

Arcbound Ravager {2} Artifact Creature 0/0
/ Sacrifice an artifact: Put a +1/+1 counter on Arcbound Ravager.
/ Modular 1

Altering the destination of sacrifices with a replacement effect like
that of the Samurai won't change whether you successfully paid the cost
of the Ravager's ability.

The most famous example of cost replacement I can think of, off the top
of my head:

Enduring Renewal {2}{W}{W} Enchantment
/ Play with your hand revealed.
/ If you would draw a card, reveal it instead. If it's a creature card,
put it into your graveyard. Otherwise draw it.
/ If a creature would be put into your graveyard from play, put that
creature into your hand instead.

Goblin Bombardment {1}{R} Enchantment
/ Sacrifice a creature: Goblin Bombardment deals 1 damage to target
creature or player.

--
-- zoe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Klaus Mittag <mittag@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote:
>This came up last week in a discussion with another player...(*)
>
>As defined in the glossary of the Comprehensive Rules, 'sacrificing'
>a permanent means moving it from the in-play area to its owner's
>graveyard.

Yes, though moving a permanent from in-play to the graveyard, contrariwise,
does not mean you're sacrificing it. "Destroy" means taking the same actions
as "sacrifice", but it's a different name...

>(You can only sacrifice permanents you control and the
>event can't be replaced via regeneration because it's not technically
>'destroying' the permanent, but that's not what I'm getting at.) Now,
>if an effect replaces the 'move to the graveyard' part, does the whole
>event still count as a 'sacrifice' as far as the game is concerned?

Oh yes. Just like Library of Leng, or Madness, can replace the "it ends up
in the graveyard" part of discard, but still have it be a discard.

If it said "If <foo> would be sacrificed, instead remove it from the game",
then that _would_ replace sacrificing - but if it says "If <foo> would be
put into a graveyard {from play / from anywhere}, instead ..." then that's
not replacing the -sacrifice- per se, just part of what the sacrificing
does.

>(I suspect rather strongly that the answer is 'yes, of course', if only
>to avoid introducing a bunch of unnecessary corner cases into the game.

Yes ... and that's actually a major component of the reason. (Discussions
among the gurus get -quite- far enough out there on various subjects, and
we really don't want to make _players'_ brains melt out their ears just from
trying to figure out exactly how a card works, fun though it might be
sometimes.)

> However, I can't quite seem to arrive at that conclusion based on
>the rules as written. In fact, I could see somebody with a suitably
>lawyeresque attitude towards things at least *thinking* there are
>supporting points for the answer being 'no' to be found there -- based
>on, say, rule 419.5 ("If an event is prevented or replaced, it never
>happens. [...]"), for example.)

Right. The trick here is realizing that the rules ALSO don't define what an
"event" is, or have a list of "events" - each triggered ability defines its
own trigger event, and each replacement / prevention effect defines its own
event that it replaces or prevents. And using a different definition? Means
you're watching for a -different event- - events are mutable. The Glossary
notes, under "Event", that a series of actions ... or even one action (since
we don't define "an action" anywhere either) can be taken as a single event
by one thing but as multiple events by another - it all depends on what the
things -looking at- it say they are looking for.

So if something specifically replaces "sacrificing", and doesn't put the
"sacrifice" back in in what it replaces it with, then that would mean the
sacrifice doesn't happen after all. But if something replaces "goes to the
graveyard", that's part of what 'sacrifice' DOES - but it's not the same
event, so the "sacrifice" can go off just fine but find it ended up in a
different zone.

(Short version: yes, you CAN sacrifice your Darksteel Colossus to pay the
cost of your Krark-Clan Ironworks' ability, and the ability will work fine,
it's just that the Colossus ends up shuffled back in, in the process...)

>(*) Actually, the argument was about just *how* badly a Samurai of the
>Pale Curtain would mess with an Arcbound Ravager's abilities. But
>assuming for a moment that I am *not* just making a mountain out of
>a molehill here due to a sudden density increase between my ears, the
>answer may be of more general interest than that.

Arcbound Ravager 2 Artifact Creature
0/0 Sacrifice an artifact: Put a +1/+1 counter on ~. / Modular 1 (This comes
into play with a +1/+1 counter on it. When it's put into a graveyard, you may
put its +1/+1 counters on target artifact creature.)

Samurai of the Pale Curtain WW Creature - Fox Samurai
2/2 Bushido 1 (*) / If a permanent would be put into a graveyard, remove it
from the game instead.

It does not interfere with paying the cost of the activated ability; the
Samurai's effect doesn't replace "sacrificing" something. It does interfere
with the Modular ability, since the Samurai's effect -does- replace putting
the permanent into a graveyard, which is the same thing the triggered part
of the Modular ability says it's watching for to trigger off of.

If this were a variant Modusacrilarifice ability, "... When it's sacrificed,
you may put its +1/+1 counters on...", then the Samurai wouldn't interfere
with that either. But Modular doesn't JUST trigger off sacrificing, it
triggers off going from play to graveyard... which is what the Samurai is
replacing, specifically, making the trigger event never occur. See the
difference?

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
> Klaus Mittag <mittag@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote:
>>This came up last week in a discussion with another player...(*)
>>
>>As defined in the glossary of the Comprehensive Rules, 'sacrificing'
>>a permanent means moving it from the in-play area to its owner's
>>graveyard.

> Yes, though moving a permanent from in-play to the graveyard, contrariwise,
> does not mean you're sacrificing it. "Destroy" means taking the same actions
> as "sacrifice", but it's a different name...

>>(You can only sacrifice permanents you control and the
>>event can't be replaced via regeneration because it's not technically
>>'destroying' the permanent, but that's not what I'm getting at.) Now,
>>if an effect replaces the 'move to the graveyard' part, does the whole
>>event still count as a 'sacrifice' as far as the game is concerned?

> Oh yes. Just like Library of Leng, or Madness, can replace the "it ends up
> in the graveyard" part of discard, but still have it be a discard.

> If it said "If <foo> would be sacrificed, instead remove it from the game",
> then that _would_ replace sacrificing - but if it says "If <foo> would be
> put into a graveyard {from play / from anywhere}, instead ..." then that's
> not replacing the -sacrifice- per se, just part of what the sacrificing
> does.

// *snip*

>>(*) Actually, the argument was about just *how* badly a Samurai of the
>>Pale Curtain would mess with an Arcbound Ravager's abilities. But
>>assuming for a moment that I am *not* just making a mountain out of
>>a molehill here due to a sudden density increase between my ears, the
>>answer may be of more general interest than that.

> Arcbound Ravager 2 Artifact Creature
> 0/0 Sacrifice an artifact: Put a +1/+1 counter on ~. / Modular 1 (This comes
> into play with a +1/+1 counter on it. When it's put into a graveyard, you may
> put its +1/+1 counters on target artifact creature.)

> Samurai of the Pale Curtain WW Creature - Fox Samurai
> 2/2 Bushido 1 (*) / If a permanent would be put into a graveyard, remove it
> from the game instead.

> It does not interfere with paying the cost of the activated ability; the
> Samurai's effect doesn't replace "sacrificing" something. It does interfere
> with the Modular ability, since the Samurai's effect -does- replace putting
> the permanent into a graveyard, which is the same thing the triggered part
> of the Modular ability says it's watching for to trigger off of.

> If this were a variant Modusacrilarifice ability, "... When it's sacrificed,
> you may put its +1/+1 counters on...", then the Samurai wouldn't interfere
> with that either. But Modular doesn't JUST trigger off sacrificing, it
> triggers off going from play to graveyard... which is what the Samurai is
> replacing, specifically, making the trigger event never occur. See the
> difference?

I do. Just making sure that what *I* think makes sense is actually
how it plays out in practice...after all, for some strange reason not
everything I consider a good idea seems to make it into the rules.

==
Klaus Mittag (mittag@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de)
#include <disclaimer.h>
#include <fancysig.h>
spam > /dev/null