So I was goldfishing my new Myrkul, Lord of Bones deck and realized that Sidisi, Undead Vizier's Exploit reminder text states "When this creature enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature."
Does this mean Sidisi's Eploit trigger won't happen when she comes back as an enchantment from Myrkul? If so I got some more mods to do...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my group there's this thing called taking a "Ryan turn."
Yeah, that's my fault...
Occasions when an ability refers to an object demonstratively do not check for any quality of that object. That ability on Sidisi means "This permanent", or, might as well say "This".
Your real noodle is the fact that the next rule in the book, 702.110b, says:
702.110b A creature with exploit “exploits a creature” when the controller of the exploit ability sacrifices a creature as that ability resolves.
which leaves out how it is that an enchantment "exploits a creature". A noncreature has, technically, no rule indicating when it counts as exploiting a creature, so the other ability on your token has no reason to trigger except for an appeal to rules-as-intended.
edit: My reading of rulings for exploit would even seem to indicate this really was the functionality as intended, since it *is* meant to only count as happening when the permanent with exploit still exists. See rulings under the same Sidisi printing dated 2/25/2015 .
So if I understand you correctly, it works because the text is only a reminder text. The "this creature" could also be read as "this permanent", or "this enchantment"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my group there's this thing called taking a "Ryan turn."
Yeah, that's my fault...
No, the reminder text faithfully recreates the real definition of exploit found in CR 702.110a . But the cards do not combo because the triggered ability on the Sidisi token asks "When Sidisi exploits a creature", and nothing in the rules describes how it is possible for that noncreature enchantment token to do that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
In simple terms please. I'm still not sure if you are saying it works or not. I'd like to know why or why not as well, but at the moment I'm trying to figure out what you are saying.
Thank you for your time and I'm sorry that I suck at understanding rules jargon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my group there's this thing called taking a "Ryan turn."
Yeah, that's my fault...
I didn't want to go into heavy details on a scenario, but it seems like I should for this one. Just so that there are no misunderstandings on either side. I hope she works as stated in the example, but please let me know simply as possible why it doesn't work if it doesn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my group there's this thing called taking a "Ryan turn."
Yeah, that's my fault...
Your scenario works as you intend it. Exploit works on a noncreature permanent, there's no logical reason why it wouldn't as far as the usual structure of the rules and card text goes, but I agree Horseshoe_Hermit is bringing up a genuine issue that the rules for exploit are worded badly.
702.110. Exploit
702.110a. Exploit is a triggered ability. "Exploit" means "When this creature enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature."
702.110b. A creature with exploit "exploits a creature" when the controller of the exploit ability sacrifices a creature as that ability resolves.
As Hermit pointed out above, the wording "when this creature enters the battlefield" doesn't actually denote that the permanent needs to be a creature for the ability to work. I would argue that this logic extends to the rules themselves, and I can't think of a similar example where the card types of the source of an ability would prevent it from working in this way like Hermit believes here. But I think 702.110 needs to be reworded to use the word 'permanent' instead of 'creature' in the first instance in each subrule. 702.110b in particular opens up Hermit's stance way too much for my tastes. Maybe the rules team prefers it this way so as to not get messages saying "why does this rule say 'permanent' instead of 'creature', there are no noncreatures with Exploit", I don't know, but I would advise them to change it regardless.
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
Thank you MadMage! Your explanation was very easy to understand. So the verdict is that it should work. What happens if someone challenges my take on the rules at a table? That's what I'm most concerned about. I wanted hard evidence to prove the interaction would work that way. Hopefully your explanation would be enough to convince people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In my group there's this thing called taking a "Ryan turn."
Yeah, that's my fault...
Thank you MadMage! Your explanation was very easy to understand. So the verdict is that it should work. What happens if someone challenges my take on the rules at a table? That's what I'm most concerned about. I wanted hard evidence to prove the interaction would work that way. Hopefully your explanation would be enough to convince people.
The way I would explain it is that when an object directly refers to itself within the text of its ability, no matter how it refers to itself (name, type, etc.), that means "this object", and it doesn't check anything about itself that would prevent the ability from working.
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does this mean Sidisi's Eploit trigger won't happen when she comes back as an enchantment from Myrkul? If so I got some more mods to do...
Yeah, that's my fault...
Your real noodle is the fact that the next rule in the book, 702.110b, says:
which leaves out how it is that an enchantment "exploits a creature". A noncreature has, technically, no rule indicating when it counts as exploiting a creature, so the other ability on your token has no reason to trigger except for an appeal to rules-as-intended.
edit: My reading of rulings for exploit would even seem to indicate this really was the functionality as intended, since it *is* meant to only count as happening when the permanent with exploit still exists. See rulings under the same Sidisi printing dated 2/25/2015 .
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Yeah, that's my fault...
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Thank you for your time and I'm sorry that I suck at understanding rules jargon.
Yeah, that's my fault...
I control Myrkul, Lord of Bones and...Bloom Tender for example.
I cast Sidisi, Undead Vizier by tapping the Bloom Tender, a Swamp, and another land.
When she enters the battlefield I have her Exploit herself, she dies, then gets exiled by Myrkul, Lord of Bones.
This creates a noncreature enchantment token copy of Sidisi, Undead Vizier.
I expect that her Exploit trigger would go on the stack and I choose to Exploit the tapped Bloom Tender.
Of course this would lead to getting a noncreature enchantment token copy of Bloom Tender, as well as two Sidisi, Undead Vizier triggers to search my library for two cards.
I didn't want to go into heavy details on a scenario, but it seems like I should for this one. Just so that there are no misunderstandings on either side. I hope she works as stated in the example, but please let me know simply as possible why it doesn't work if it doesn't.
Yeah, that's my fault...
As Hermit pointed out above, the wording "when this creature enters the battlefield" doesn't actually denote that the permanent needs to be a creature for the ability to work. I would argue that this logic extends to the rules themselves, and I can't think of a similar example where the card types of the source of an ability would prevent it from working in this way like Hermit believes here. But I think 702.110 needs to be reworded to use the word 'permanent' instead of 'creature' in the first instance in each subrule. 702.110b in particular opens up Hermit's stance way too much for my tastes. Maybe the rules team prefers it this way so as to not get messages saying "why does this rule say 'permanent' instead of 'creature', there are no noncreatures with Exploit", I don't know, but I would advise them to change it regardless.
Yeah, that's my fault...