Had this crop up at FNM last week. A player managed to get the 20 effect from The Deck of Many Things, and then the owner wanted to use a Minimus Containment on it. The player who owned the creature claimed that because the deck says "When that creature dies," that meant that if he sacrificed it while it wasn't a creature the effect wouldn't occur.
The judge (who was called before the player cast the enchantment in order to confirm) ruled that it would still occur, since the use of 'that creature' simply referred to the card that was put on the battlefield, and not to it having to be a creature at that time. Does anyone know if this ruling was correct, and what part of the rules could be used as proof for/against the ruling?
Yes, that ruling was correct for the reason given. "That creature" really just means "this object".
08.2jIf an ability’s effect refers to a specific untargeted object that has been previously referred to by that ability’s cost or trigger condition, it still affects that object even if the object has changed characteristics.
EDIT: Wrong rule. here's the correct one.
700.7. If an ability of an object uses a phrase such as “this [something]”to identifyan object, where [something] is a characteristic, it is referring to that particular object, even if it isn’t the appropriate characteristic at the time.
The judge (who was called before the player cast the enchantment in order to confirm) ruled that it would still occur, since the use of 'that creature' simply referred to the card that was put on the battlefield, and not to it having to be a creature at that time. Does anyone know if this ruling was correct, and what part of the rules could be used as proof for/against the ruling?
EDIT: Wrong rule. here's the correct one.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)