Sacrifice Question

[Grognard]

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

In a recent match, my opponent wanted to utilize a Feldon's Cane's ability
to reshuffle his graveyard into his library, then sacrifice it before it
could be removed from the game. His logic was that the reshuffle went on
the stack, and then he could sacrifice it before it was removed from the
game. The wording on the card is "(0) Reshuffle your graveyard into your
library. If Feldon's Cane is used, remove it from the game,...", however,
the current Oracle wording is "[Tap] Remove Feldon's Cane from the game:
Shuffle your graveyard into your library."

From the Oracle wording, it sounds like my opponent wouldn't have a chance
to sac the Cane, since it would be removed from the game, then the
reshuffle would be put on the stack, but would it have been in the
opposite order under the card's original wording? Is that why they
reversed the order?

On a more general note, can anyone recommend any article or primer on
sacrificing permanents that would deal with issues of using a permanent's
ability/blocking, etc., then sacrificing it, or sacrificing something on
its way to the graveyard? Thanks.

Allen

--
"A sad tale; is it true?"
"No. There's a song, too."
-- Harvard Lampoon, Bored of the Rings
Allen Rines -- grognard@theworld.com -- Boston, Massachusetts, USA

 

[Guest]

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

Grognard <grognard@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
> In a recent match, my opponent wanted to utilize a Feldon's Cane's ability
> to reshuffle his graveyard into his library, then sacrifice it before it
> could be removed from the game. His logic was that the reshuffle went on
> the stack, and then he could sacrifice it before it was removed from the
> game. The wording on the card is "(0) Reshuffle your graveyard into your
> library. If Feldon's Cane is used, remove it from the game,...", however,
> the current Oracle wording is "[Tap], Remove Feldon's Cane from the game:
> Shuffle your graveyard into your library."

Well, you use the current Oracle wording then.

> From the Oracle wording, it sounds like my opponent wouldn't have a chance
> to sac the Cane, since it would be removed from the game, then the
> reshuffle would be put on the stack,

That's correct. Removing the Cane is a part of the cost, and so
happens during the announcement of the ability. You can't then
sacrifice it.

> but would it have been in the opposite order under the card's
> original wording? Is that why they reversed the order?

Trying to use old wording with current rules doesn't really work. I
don't know the old rules, so I don't know how it used to
work. Regardless, the new wording and new rules is how it works now.

> On a more general note, can anyone recommend any article or primer on
> sacrificing permanents that would deal with issues of using a permanent's
> ability/blocking, etc., then sacrificing it, or sacrificing something on
> its way to the graveyard? Thanks.

Well, sacrifices aren't really special in any way, and there's no such
thing as "on its way to the graveyard". You can play abilities at
times when you can play those abilities. Spells and abilities do as
much as they can when they resolve, except that if it has targets and
all targets are illegal when it tries to resolve, the spell or ability
gets countered. Blocked creatures stay blocked even if the blocker
gets removed from combat. I think that those are the basics... Maybe
you could be a little more specific and we could help you more?

--
Peter C.
"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."
-- Douglas Adams

 

[Guest]

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

In news:cqa1hp$3f2$1@pcls4.std.com,
Grognard <grognard@shell01.TheWorld.com> rambled:
>
> In a recent match, my opponent wanted to utilize a Feldon's Cane's
> ability to reshuffle his graveyard into his library, then sacrifice
> it before it could be removed from the game. His logic was that the
> reshuffle went on the stack, and then he could sacrifice it before it
> was removed from the game. The wording on the card is "(0) Reshuffle
> your graveyard into your library. If Feldon's Cane is used, remove
> it from the game,...", however, the current Oracle wording is "[Tap]
> Remove Feldon's Cane from the game: Shuffle your graveyard into your
> library."
>

Unless it's your house rules, always always always use the Oracle wording.
Any sanctioned tournament (and most casual games, as well) will use the
current Oracle rules text.

> From the Oracle wording, it sounds like my opponent wouldn't have a
> chance to sac the Cane, since it would be removed from the game, then
> the reshuffle would be put on the stack, but would it have been in the
> opposite order under the card's original wording? Is that why they
> reversed the order?

In the Oracle wording (and current rules), there is no way your opponent
could put the Feldon's Cane into his graveyard *before* its ability is put
on the stack. There's probably a fairly complicated way he could get it into
his graveyard *after* it's gone on the stack, but that's not what you're
after here.[1]

There's no way to pay part of a cost in Magic. You either pay the cost of
you don't. The cost of using Feldon's cane is two-fold. 1) tap it. 2) remove
it from the game. Only when costs are paid can the spell actually go on the
stack.

I don't think that a situation like this is the reason they reversed the
order. I think, basically, the old days of Magic were less strict. There
were rules, but nowhere near as many as post-6th Edition Magic. There was no
stack, only "LIFO" (Last In, First Out). Wizards assumed that people knew
how cards worked, when by today's standards, the cards were written very
poorly. IIRC, Feldon's Cane has always been removed from game when you use
it, not when it's ability finally resolves. It was just worded very poorly,
that's all. Most cards (mostly pre-6E) have gone through a rewrite process,
so as to be worded properly, within today's rules.

> On a more general note, can anyone recommend any article or primer on
> sacrificing permanents that would deal with issues of using a
> permanent's ability/blocking, etc., then sacrificing it, or
> sacrificing something on its way to the graveyard? Thanks.


Hmm...can't point you to a primer, but the Comprehensive Rules do a good job
of explaining when things can and can't be done. (Things to remember here:
you can't pay only part of a cost. You can't do anything *while* something
else is happening. You can only do things when you have priority. Combat
phase has multiple steps, allowing for blocking and *then* things to be
done.)


[1] Your opponent has a Vedalken Orrery and an Arcbound Ravager in play. He
"pops" the Cane, puts it on the stack, then casts Golden Wish, gets his Cane
back, casts the Cane, and sacrifices it to the Ravager. It ends up in the
graveyard, and when the Feldon's Cane shuffling effect resolves, it goes
back into the library with the rest of the graveyard. Why he'd do this, I
don't know, but it's possible. I told you it would be convoluted.

--

KB

Briscobar AT gmail DOT com

 

[Guest]

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

Grognard <grognard@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>In a recent match, my opponent wanted to utilize a Feldon's Cane's ability
>to reshuffle his graveyard into his library, then sacrifice it before it
>could be removed from the game.

Nope; not possible.

> His logic was that the reshuffle went on
>the stack,

Nope. The -ability of the Cane- goes on the stack.

>and then he could sacrifice it before it was removed from the
>game. The wording on the card is "(0) Reshuffle your graveyard into your
>library. If Feldon's Cane is used, remove it from the game,...", however,
>the current Oracle wording is "[Tap] Remove Feldon's Cane from the game:
>Shuffle your graveyard into your library."

Right. Removing it from the game is part of its activation cost, and is done
long before the effect resolves and causes the shuffle.

>From the Oracle wording, it sounds like my opponent wouldn't have a chance
>to sac the Cane, since it would be removed from the game, then the
>reshuffle would be put on the stack, but would it have been in the
>opposite order under the card's original wording? Is that why they
>reversed the order?

Under the original wording, you also have to look at the _rules_ that were in
effect then.

Feldon's Cane Mono Artifact 1 C1________
0: Reshuffle your graveyard into your library. If ~ is used, remove it from
the game, returning it to its owner's deck only when the game is over.
(Antiquities)

Feldon's Cane Artifact 1 C2,AQ
Tap: Reshuffle your graveyard into your library. Remove ~ from the game. [+5]
(Chronicles, which was 4th Edition rules)

Feldon's Cane Artifact 1 U1
Tap, Remove ~ from the game: Shuffle your graveyard into your library.
(5th Edition)

It was last printed in 5E. Current Oracle wording is the same as the 5E
wording (though there was a very brief period, connected with the whole 6E
Oracle mess, when it temporarily reverted to nearly the original wording).

However, note that there is a VERY old Ruling, from 1995, on the Cane, which
effectively made it work pretty much as it does today even back then:

Feldon's Cane:
Is removed from play when the effect is announced and not when it
resolves. [D'Angelo 03/01/95]
Has been on the Duelist's Convocation restricted list (only 1 per deck)
for tournaments since 05/02/94.
(4/24/95 Rulings file)

5th Edition was the first edition to have the wording actually 'catch up
with' the Ruling ...

So even Way Back When, you wouldn't have been able to do the trick he wants
to do - they just fixed the problem with a Ruling at that time, and didn't get
the actual card wording synched up for a while.

>On a more general note, can anyone recommend any article or primer on
>sacrificing permanents that would deal with issues of using a permanent's
>ability/blocking, etc., then sacrificing it, or sacrificing something on
>its way to the graveyard? Thanks.

The last part is easy: there is no "on its way to the graveyard". Period. That
concept was last used in 5th Edition, and went Away with damage-prevention
steps.

If the permanent's activation cost removes the permanent from play - either by
sacrificing it, returning it to your hand (Recurring Nightmare etc.), or some
other way - it won't be there after announcement, so you won't be able to
respond by doing anything to it in play. Responses can't go on the stack until
announcement of a spell or ability is fully finished being done.

If the permanent's ability's _effect_ removes it from play, then in general
you can Do Stuff to it in response. Most of the time this will have no effect
on the effect itself. If the ability -targets- the permanent itself (and
it will have to use the word 'target' AND have the permanent itself picked as
the target, to do this), and that's its only target, removing it from play in
response will counter the ability. And if the ability text -says- part of the
effect depends on removing the permanent (for example, "Return ~ to your hand.
If you do, gain 5 life."), then that part of the effect can't happen unless
you do remove the permanent during resolution as specified ... which you can't
do if it's already gone missing.

Did you have questions about specific cards, maybe?

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?)

Ken Briscoe <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote:
>I don't think that a situation like this is the reason they reversed the
>order. I think, basically, the old days of Magic were less strict.

(Oh, you have No Idea...)

>There were rules, but nowhere near as many as post-6th Edition Magic.

No, really. 6E rules are _much_ simpler than a lot of what came before.

>There was no
>stack, only "LIFO" (Last In, First Out).

There were batches, which were more complicated; there were also series,
because certain things didn't go into Limbo before resolving. And there were
the ... very special ... ways that interrupts worked, plus a whole set of
special rules different from most any of this for damage-prevention steps. And
wait, there's more...

>Wizards assumed that people knew
>how cards worked, when by today's standards, the cards were written very
>poorly.

Agreed.

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?)

Ken Briscoe wrote:
> In news:cqa1hp$3f2$1@pcls4.std.com,
> Grognard <grognard@shell01.TheWorld.com> rambled:
> >
> > In a recent match, my opponent wanted to utilize a Feldon's Cane's
> > ability to reshuffle his graveyard into his library, then sacrifice
> > it before it could be removed from the game. His logic was that
the
> > reshuffle went on the stack, and then he could sacrifice it before
it
> > was removed from the game. The wording on the card is "(0)
Reshuffle
> > your graveyard into your library. If Feldon's Cane is used, remove
> > it from the game,...", however, the current Oracle wording is
"[Tap]
> > Remove Feldon's Cane from the game: Shuffle your graveyard into
your
> > library."
> > [snipped]
> > From the Oracle wording, it sounds like my opponent wouldn't have a
> > chance to sac the Cane, since it would be removed from the game,
then
> > the reshuffle would be put on the stack, but would it have been in
the
> > opposite order under the card's original wording? Is that why they
> > reversed the order?
>
> In the Oracle wording (and current rules), there is no way your
opponent
> could put the Feldon's Cane into his graveyard *before* its ability
is put
> on the stack. There's probably a fairly complicated way he could get
it into
> his graveyard *after* it's gone on the stack, but that's not what
you're
> after here.[1]

[snipped]

> [1] Your opponent has a Vedalken Orrery and an Arcbound Ravager in
play. He
> "pops" the Cane, puts it on the stack, then casts Golden Wish, gets
his Cane
> back, casts the Cane, and sacrifices it to the Ravager. It ends up in
the
> graveyard, and when the Feldon's Cane shuffling effect resolves, it
goes
> back into the library with the rest of the graveyard. Why he'd do
this, I
> don't know, but it's possible. I told you it would be convoluted.

Dave, is this sequence legal? I thought the Vedalken Orrery only
allowed you to play Sorceries when you could play an Instant.

 

[Guest]

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

dancle16@yahoo.com writes:
> Ken Briscoe wrote:
>> [1] Your opponent has a Vedalken Orrery and an Arcbound Ravager in
>> play. He "pops" the Cane, puts it on the stack, then casts Golden
>> Wish, gets his Cane back, casts the Cane, and sacrifices it to the
>> Ravager. It ends up in the graveyard, and when the Feldon's Cane
>> shuffling effect resolves, it goes back into the library with the
>> rest of the graveyard. Why he'd do this, I don't know, but it's
>> possible. I told you it would be convoluted.
>
> Dave, is this sequence legal? I thought the Vedalken Orrery only
> allowed you to play Sorceries when you could play an Instant.

Well, I'm not Dave, but I don't see any reason for it *not* to be
legal...

,----[ Oracle ]
| Vedalken Orrery
| {4}
| Artifact
| You may play nonland cards any time you could play an instant.
`----

--
Peter C.
"Subtlety is when you move the queen to two spaces from the piece it's
attacking instead of one."
-- Me & Jessi

 

[Guest]

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

Grognard sez:

<<
>In a recent match, my opponent wanted to utilize a Feldon's Cane's ability
>to reshuffle his graveyard into his library, then sacrifice it before it
>could be removed from the game. His logic was that the reshuffle went on
>the stack, and then he could sacrifice it before it was removed from the
>game. The wording on the card is "(0) Reshuffle your graveyard into your
>library. If Feldon's Cane is used, remove it from the game,...", however,
>the current Oracle wording is "[Tap] Remove Feldon's Cane from the game:
>Shuffle your graveyard into your library."

>
>>

....and you go by Oracle. Removing FC from the game is a cost, and thus can't
be responded to by anything.


----
Just say "No" to the draft!

 

[Guest]

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

dancle16@yahoo.com <dancle16@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ken Briscoe wrote:
>> [1] Your opponent has a Vedalken Orrery and an Arcbound Ravager in play. He
>> "pops" the Cane, puts it on the stack, then casts Golden Wish, gets his Cane
>> back, casts the Cane, and sacrifices it to the Ravager. It ends up in the
>> graveyard, and when the Feldon's Cane shuffling effect resolves, it goes
>> back into the library with the rest of the graveyard. Why he'd do this, I
>> don't know, but it's possible. I told you it would be convoluted.
>
>Dave, is this sequence legal? I thought the Vedalken Orrery only
>allowed you to play Sorceries when you could play an Instant.

Nope (but that's the Evil part of what it does allow):

Vedalken Orrery 4 Artifact
You may play nonland cards any time you could play an instant.

So yes, that allows you to cast the Cane in response to a Cane ability (and,
if you need to, to cast something you can sacrifice it to as well).

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?)

Q: Are we not men? A: We are David DeLaney!
> there is no "on its way to the graveyard". Period. That
> concept was last used in 5th Edition, and went Away with damage-prevention
> steps.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I remember the Mirage rulebooks mentioning
that there was no longer any such concept as being on the way to the
graveyard.