Creature 1 has the ability "When ~ comes into play, destroy target enchantment or sacrifice ~"
Creature 2 has the ability: "When ~ comes into play, destroy target enchantment. If you don't, sacrifice ~."
Creature 3 has the ability: "When ~ comes into play, sacrifice it unless you destroy target enchantment."
Do any of these wordings work as obviously intended, or will none of the abilities go on the stack if there are no enchantments? Is the only way to word this like Drake Familiar?
Yea, none of those would go on the Stack unless there was an enchantment in play, but you could always use this wording:
"When ~ comes into play, choose one: Destroy target enchantment; or, sacrifice ~."
Well, first off, they don't all do the same thing; so it isn't all that obvious which of the subtle differences you intend.
Quote from JimTheMighty »
Creature 1 has the ability "When ~ comes into play, destroy target enchantment or sacrifice ~"
This lets you choose to do either action, but only if that action is possible (ignore replacements). If both are impossible, you can't choose either. That isn't a good idea, even though it is meaningless what you would choose, because it creates uncertainty. And uncertainty causes confusion.
But, while the rules are clear that you couldn't choose to destroy an indestructible enchantment, or choose to sacrifice "~" if it isn't in play or you don't control it, you will get arguments about it. Even from "rules experts." So this wording would not be used anyway.
Creature 2 has the ability: "When ~ comes into play, destroy target enchantment. If you don't, sacrifice ~."
Here, you must try to destroy the enchantment. But it is ambiguous: what happens if the enchantment somehow regenerates? Does that count as "if you do" or "if you don't?" This one can't be used, as is.
There is a rule that handles a similar wording that starts "you may destroy..." (the rule is that "if you do" means "if you choose to do"), but that doesn't cover this. That wording would be functionally identical to...
Creature 3 has the ability: "When ~ comes into play, sacrifice it unless you destroy target enchantment."
Here, "Do A unless you do B" means "You may do B. If you don't, do A." This gets around the "you can't choose an impossible action" rule because you only choose to (try to) do B. Again, there will be arguments about whether it is possible to choose to destroy something indestructible (it isn't), so I doubt this card would ever see print. But this is the wording that would be used if it did.
I'm trying to have it destroy an enchantment or it dies. If it is regenerated, I would assume that it still lives, although I would be fine if the wording worked and thiswasn't the case (since it comes up so rarely no one cares). Whether it dies if the only enchantment in play is indestructible is immaterial, since atm the only way for that to happen is slobad + mycosynth lattice, which is probably never coming up. The main point I was wondering about was that you raise on 1. Is your reading, that you can choose either if it is possible correct, or is elfboy's (and my belief) that it won't go on the stack correct? There are no precedents that I have encountered, although I suppose I might have missed something.
I was not addressing whether there was a target. It will be removed from the stack (as opposed to not going on the stack, essentially the same thing) if there is none. To avoid that, you could make it modal as Elf Boy suggests. That way, the choice is made when you put it on the stack. The down side is that, if you choose to destroy an enchantment, and the target gets removed from play after the trigger goes on the stack, then nothing happens at all. That is unusual. Why would you word an effect with a consequence for not doing it, if you don't force that consequence to happen?
What I addressed was whether the effect, as written or similar, could work within the rules; or if it would become a point of confusion. In case 1, you only get to the point of the choice if here is a valid target when you put it on the stack, and when it resolves. You would then have the choice of sacrificing or destroying, but you could only choose an option that you could do. And that would cause confusion because people would not understand why, or what to do if you could do neither.
I guess the question is, couldn't the wording from Gilded Drake be used as a starting point for this particular combination? In this case, the wording would at least start with:
When ~this comes into play, choose one - sacrifice ~this; or destroy target enchantment. If the enchantment doesn't go to the graveyard as a result of this ability, sacrifice ~this. This ability can't be countered.
I won't argue that the wording isn't the best, but it does at least check to see if the enchantment goes to the graveyard as a result of the ability. And, if it doesn't (whether due to regeneration, or being indestructible, etc.), then the source of the ability is sacrificed.
Looking at epeguy's suggestion, I see why Elf Boy's wording really won't work. Nothing stops you from choosing the targeted mode when there is no target, the abiltiy will just get removed from the stack. So you can avoid the sacrifice. That is about the only way, other than option 3 which has a few small technical difficulties, to work it. You can argue about what the "if" condition should be, if not what he suggested.
No, abilities without a legal target cannot be put on the stack, they don't just get removed. You can't choose an option for which their is no legal target, this is why gilded drake works.
I was aware of the modal wording, but I would rather use Drake Familiar's, even with the ambiguity (since it is so much more elegant and yet is equivalent well over 99.9% of the time). I was just wondering if any of the others work. Most specifically, I thought option 3 might kill it if there was no legal target, because:
The game sees the ability, gives me the choice.
I choose to sacrifice it, or I choose to put the ability "destroy target enchantment" on the stack. I can only do option 2 if its legal.
No, abilities without a legal target cannot be put on the stack, they don't just get removed.
While that is true for abilities you choose to play (i.e., activated abilities), it is not true for triggers which get put on the stack automatically:
410.4. When a triggered ability goes on the stack, the controller of the ability makes any choices that would be required while playing an activated ability, following the same procedure (see rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities"). If no legal choice can be made (or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal), the ability is simply removed from the stack.
Targets are one of the things chosen in 409. A targeted trigger will get put on the stack; but when you can't choose a target, it will get removed.
Most specifically, I thought option 3 might kill it if there was no legal target, because:
The game sees the ability, gives me the choice.
I choose to sacrifice it, or I choose to put the ability "destroy target enchantment" on the stack. I can only do option 2 if its legal.
You put entire abilities on the stack, not just the individual parts; and the choices not called for in 409 are made at resolution. So what goes on the stack in case 3 is "sacrifice it unless you destroy target enchantment." If it gets to resolution, you choose to sacrifice or destroy then. But you are right, that it is in fact incorrect, if there is no target. It gets removed from the stack.
You are completely correct again on the count of going on the stack then getting removed. Apparently my memory is bad.
You are incorrect on ElfBoy's wording not working, however, since you can't choose the illegal mode. Obvious evidence provided by Gilded Drake working.
So I guess the final wording is either modal, or "destroy an enchantment or sacrifice ~". In that case it won't survive if all enchantments in play are indestructible, but it will if the enchantment is regenerated, no?
So I guess the final wording is either modal, or "destroy an enchantment or sacrifice ~". In that case it won't survive if all enchantments in play are indestructible, but it will if the enchantment is regenerated, no?
No, the problem is as originally noted, that the effect still tries to destroy the Enchantment (even if the destruction would be prevented). So, it's unclear with this wording on whether it failing to go to the graveyard would actually cause the sacrifice or not. Hence why I suggested:
When ~this comes into play, choose one - sacrifice ~this; or destroy target enchantment. If the enchantment doesn't go to the graveyard as a result of this ability, sacrifice ~this. This ability can't be countered.
This defines the key action that needs to happen (the enchantment actually going to the graveyard) as part of the condition. So, while the wording is clunky, the important part is there; if the enchantment fails to go to the graveyard, then the source of the ability is sacrificed. It doesn't matter how the enchantment is kept from being destroyed and put in the graveyard, just that if it doesn't go to the graveyard the source is sacrificed.
You are incorrect on ElfBoy's wording not working, however, since you can't choose the illegal mode. Obvious evidence provided by Gilded Drake working.
I agree now. I saw it after I walked away from my computer, but for some reason didn't think it changed my answer. So I didn't look back in to fix it.
But it still isn't very orthodox, if it doesn't do the "double check" on whether you could destroy. Like Gilded Drake does. I think that is what threw me off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Creature 2 has the ability: "When ~ comes into play, destroy target enchantment. If you don't, sacrifice ~."
Creature 3 has the ability: "When ~ comes into play, sacrifice it unless you destroy target enchantment."
Do any of these wordings work as obviously intended, or will none of the abilities go on the stack if there are no enchantments? Is the only way to word this like Drake Familiar?
"When ~ comes into play, choose one: Destroy target enchantment; or, sacrifice ~."
a la Gilded Drake
This lets you choose to do either action, but only if that action is possible (ignore replacements). If both are impossible, you can't choose either. That isn't a good idea, even though it is meaningless what you would choose, because it creates uncertainty. And uncertainty causes confusion.
But, while the rules are clear that you couldn't choose to destroy an indestructible enchantment, or choose to sacrifice "~" if it isn't in play or you don't control it, you will get arguments about it. Even from "rules experts." So this wording would not be used anyway.
Here, you must try to destroy the enchantment. But it is ambiguous: what happens if the enchantment somehow regenerates? Does that count as "if you do" or "if you don't?" This one can't be used, as is.
There is a rule that handles a similar wording that starts "you may destroy..." (the rule is that "if you do" means "if you choose to do"), but that doesn't cover this. That wording would be functionally identical to...
Here, "Do A unless you do B" means "You may do B. If you don't, do A." This gets around the "you can't choose an impossible action" rule because you only choose to (try to) do B. Again, there will be arguments about whether it is possible to choose to destroy something indestructible (it isn't), so I doubt this card would ever see print. But this is the wording that would be used if it did.
What I addressed was whether the effect, as written or similar, could work within the rules; or if it would become a point of confusion. In case 1, you only get to the point of the choice if here is a valid target when you put it on the stack, and when it resolves. You would then have the choice of sacrificing or destroying, but you could only choose an option that you could do. And that would cause confusion because people would not understand why, or what to do if you could do neither.
When ~this comes into play, choose one - sacrifice ~this; or destroy target enchantment. If the enchantment doesn't go to the graveyard as a result of this ability, sacrifice ~this. This ability can't be countered.
I won't argue that the wording isn't the best, but it does at least check to see if the enchantment goes to the graveyard as a result of the ability. And, if it doesn't (whether due to regeneration, or being indestructible, etc.), then the source of the ability is sacrificed.
I was aware of the modal wording, but I would rather use Drake Familiar's, even with the ambiguity (since it is so much more elegant and yet is equivalent well over 99.9% of the time). I was just wondering if any of the others work. Most specifically, I thought option 3 might kill it if there was no legal target, because:
The game sees the ability, gives me the choice.
I choose to sacrifice it, or I choose to put the ability "destroy target enchantment" on the stack. I can only do option 2 if its legal.
I guess this is in fact incorrect.
410.4. When a triggered ability goes on the stack, the controller of the ability makes any choices that would be required while playing an activated ability, following the same procedure (see rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities"). If no legal choice can be made (or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal), the ability is simply removed from the stack.
Targets are one of the things chosen in 409. A targeted trigger will get put on the stack; but when you can't choose a target, it will get removed.
You put entire abilities on the stack, not just the individual parts; and the choices not called for in 409 are made at resolution. So what goes on the stack in case 3 is "sacrifice it unless you destroy target enchantment." If it gets to resolution, you choose to sacrifice or destroy then. But you are right, that it is in fact incorrect, if there is no target. It gets removed from the stack.
You are incorrect on ElfBoy's wording not working, however, since you can't choose the illegal mode. Obvious evidence provided by Gilded Drake working.
So I guess the final wording is either modal, or "destroy an enchantment or sacrifice ~". In that case it won't survive if all enchantments in play are indestructible, but it will if the enchantment is regenerated, no?
No, the problem is as originally noted, that the effect still tries to destroy the Enchantment (even if the destruction would be prevented). So, it's unclear with this wording on whether it failing to go to the graveyard would actually cause the sacrifice or not. Hence why I suggested:
When ~this comes into play, choose one - sacrifice ~this; or destroy target enchantment. If the enchantment doesn't go to the graveyard as a result of this ability, sacrifice ~this. This ability can't be countered.
This defines the key action that needs to happen (the enchantment actually going to the graveyard) as part of the condition. So, while the wording is clunky, the important part is there; if the enchantment fails to go to the graveyard, then the source of the ability is sacrificed. It doesn't matter how the enchantment is kept from being destroyed and put in the graveyard, just that if it doesn't go to the graveyard the source is sacrificed.
But it still isn't very orthodox, if it doesn't do the "double check" on whether you could destroy. Like Gilded Drake does. I think that is what threw me off.