Either I am very confused, or this Troll ignores Wrath completely, regardless of the no regeneration clause. (Or should i say because of the regeneration clause.) Basically, the Troll REPLACES destruction with regeneration. The Wrath says creatures cant' regenerate, so the regeneration effect never even hits the stack. Nothing happens to the Troll at all. No destruction, no regeneration, and therefore no tapping.
Another example of this phenomenon (of a replacement effect canceling out and initial effect entirely), using very recent cards, is this:
The interaction between Maralen of the Mornsong, which says "Players can not draw cards."; and the newly spoiled Swans of Bryn Argoll, which replaces damage to itself with card drawing. I'm pretty sure that if both of these are out, Incinerating the Swans does absolutely nothing at all. Same principal though, replacing one effect with another one that can't actually happen, and I don't think that this would retroactively allow the first effect to resolve.
In short, the only thing a no regeneration clause does is prevent you from having to tap your Troll. The guy is nigh Indestructible.
Unfortunately, "can't be regenerated" means just that - Wrath, Damnation, or even Terror will all kill the troll just fine. The anti-regeneration clause stops the entire regeneration action from working, which includes the part that replaces the destruction with "not being destroyed".
Don't fool yourself into thinking this is good in constructed. The argument for use in Big Mana is null because it's easily counterable, and while the deck runs big spells, it also plays 24+ land, cheap mana accelerants, and most importantly, wants its X spells to win the game. If you're burning with it and not winning if it resolves, you're losing.It's good in limited because it's an X burn spell. But it's a bulk rare you're going to be pissed you open after the novelty of the set wears off. Which means I'm going to get seven in my box.
During Ravnica, I had asked this to a friend, and he had pointed me to an answer here (I think). The answer, was that it died because state-based effects were checked before the card was actualy in the graveyard as putting it there is done as the last part of a spell's resolution.
Why is it then different for Tarmogoyf?
Thank you.
State-based effects are checked after Last Gasp is in the graveyard, not before, but the end result is the same: Vulturous Zombie dies to state-based effects before it could be saved by its triggered ability.
When Last Gasp resolves, Vulturous Zombie gets -3/-3. As the last part of Last Gasp resolving, the spell hits the graveyard, which triggers Vulturous Zombie's ability. But before the triggered ability goes on the stack, state-based effects will be checked, and the zero-toughness Vulture will be put into its owner's graveyard.
Unfortunately, "can't be regenerated" means just that - Wrath, Damnation, or even Terror will all kill the troll just fine. The anti-regeneration clause stops the entire regeneration action from working, which includes the part that replaces the destruction with "not being destroyed".
State-based effects are checked after Last Gasp is in the graveyard, not before, but the end result is the same: Vulturous Zombie dies to state-based effects before it could be saved by its triggered ability.
When Last Gasp resolves, Vulturous Zombie gets -3/-3. As the last part of Last Gasp resolving, the spell hits the graveyard, which triggers Vulturous Zombie's ability. But before the triggered ability goes on the stack, state-based effects will be checked, and the zero-toughness Vulture will be put into its owner's graveyard.