4/13/2010 SF: "You Are Not Prepared!"

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Serious Fun, which goes live Tuesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
I was not prepared for that, I thought all the Eldrazi had been previewed already. Does anyone have any idea on how many Eldrazi/Colourless cards are left for preview, if any?

Oh, and out of all the Eldrazi, I think that one is the most combo-rific card out of the the lot, including the Mythic rares. This is definitly on my to get list, it will go well in my Sweet Sacrifice deck. Not to mention it is reanimationable.

EDIT: This card should have Diablo's saying for the flavour text: "Not even death can save you from me"
98% of people use statistics in their sigs, or have used them in the past. If you are one of the 2% that haven't or don't, place this into your signature. New Magic Forums, Im'a let you finish, but the old Magic Forums were one of the greatest boards of all time!
That's the last one. Interestingly, they seem to have gotten It That Betrays and Kozilek out of alphabetical order -- Kozilek should be #7 and It should be #6, rather than the other way around.

Also, re: mailed-in deck, Doubling Season won't affect the counters from Gideon's abilties. He'd come in with double (so 12) but using his +2 ability will only put him up to 14 counters, not 16. Doubling Season only doubles spells and effects, and putting counters on a planeswalker is a cost.

Edit: Whoops, he's using Gilder Bairn to double from 8 to 16. That works. That'll teach me to read.Foot in mouth
Best name ever!

And that's really funny that they messed up the alphabet!
wow, that's awesome.  I might have to build my thraximundar EDH from the ground up once I get my hands on some of this set.  There are a lot of splashy effects, and not just on these ungodly expensive eldrazi.  The whole set reminds me of mirrodin block, which I will always remember for the mindslavers and fist of suns more than the affinity and skullclamps.
This is the happy swamp. Love it. I am red/blue, I think logically and act impulsively.
Did Mr. Styborski actually write that flavor piece?  If so, put him in Beyer's department; his work on SF has been a bit lackluster IMO, not bad but not great, and if he's capable of writing fiction of this caliber, it would be criminal not to employ him in that capacity instead of having him just give game reports and whatnot on this column.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
I was not prepared for that, I thought all the Eldrazi had been previewed already. Does anyone have any idea on how many Eldrazi/Colourless cards are left for preview, if any?



I've seen at least one piece of Eldrazi art that doesnt' correspond to a yet-released card; I suppose it might be a spell concerning the Eldrazi rather than one of them, but still, I'm willing to bet one or two of them have been saved to surprise people at the prerelease.

EDIT: This card should have Diablo's saying for the flavour text: "Not even death can save you from me"



Right you are; that would be perfect, apart from the fact that the Eldrazi are probably too alien to bother taunting their victims.  It'd be neat to have that as an alteration or something.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi

Incredibly cool card, very flavorful. This is what they call a top down design.
Probably the amount of token running around in the format will hamper it a bit but we can't have every thing.
A little bit on the spawnsire of Ulamog. I'm a Timmy, and proud of it, but the 20 mana activated ability, while incredibly cool, left me wondering  "20 mana is their life total. Simply burn them!".

 

Ah, I forgot. The World of warcraft related pun in the title has been noticed. ;P
 
No mention of using It That Betrays in a deck with Razia's Purification? That'll likely win some multiplayer games, easily.
It's big with a really cool and destructive ability that can combo with itself, not to mention many other cool cards (as shown in the article)?
It's not Mythic or even Legendary, so you can have more than one in the battlefield to abuse its effect.....



He kind of feels like an Eldrazi Lord, since his ability is a combo with any Eldrazi with Annihilator (which most of them have) and the more you have, the best. The only thing left would be an unnecessary +1/+1 bonus to look more like a Lord....

 
It That Betrays is an excellent Eldrazi card.  I love the fact that it combines so well with the other Eldrazi.  I can't wait until this weekend!

A little bit on the spawnsire of Ulamog. I'm a Timmy, and proud of it, but the 20 mana activated ability, while incredibly cool, left me wondering  "20 mana is their life total. Simply burn them!".



First, you have to be playing burn.  Second, the effect would work in a multiplayer game where spending 20 mana to burn someone would leave you wide open to attack.  Third, Spawnsire of Ulamog appears to be the only eldrazi with an activated ability so you can use mana from Eldrazi Temple to activate it, saving you a little bit of mana.  

I do agree, though, that spending 20 mana on something that won't end the game immediately (Except if you play Emrakul, the Aeons Torn) seems a bit of a waste in singleplayer.


IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1205820039/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
You are right...I was not prepared.

Very cool Eldrazi card.  Not mythic.  Does not have the avoids the graveyard clause.

But the art.....kinda freaks me out......like it's unfinished or something.
What happens if you're playing say a 5-man FFA and you and another opponent has an It That Betrays.  Then a different opponent, unrelated to you and the owner of the other It That Betrays, sacrifices a nontoken permanent.  Who gets control of it?
I really hate the name
What happens if you're playing say a 5-man FFA and you and another opponent has an It That Betrays.  Then a different opponent, unrelated to you and the owner of the other It That Betrays, sacrifices a nontoken permanent.  Who gets control of it?

When multiple triggered abilities from permanents controlled by multiple players go on the stack at the same time, they are placed on the stack in turn order, starting with the active player (the one whose turn it is).

Let's say it's a 3-player game. The turn order is Player A, Player B, Player C. Players A and B each control one It That Betrays. It's Player C's turn, and he sacrifices a permanent to pay for some cost. Both It That Betrays' abilties trigger at the same time, and since Player A is next in turn order, its trigger goes on the stack first, then Player B's goes on the stack on top of it. Since the stack resolves last-in, first-out, Player B's trigger resolves first, and he puts the card that was the sacrificied permanent from Player C's graveyard under his control. Then Player A's trigger resolves, can't find the sacrificied card in Player C's graveyard, and does nothing.

If, instead, Player C has to sacrifice a permanent during Player B's turn, say because Player A has played a Diabolic Edict, then Player B's trigger will go on the stack first, because he's the active player, then Player A's trigger will go the stack on top of it, and will resolve first (players A and B are interchangeable here).

The funny thing about that situation is that if either Player A or Player B attacks player C with It That Betrays, or an other Annhilator creature, any permanents sacrificied to Annihilator will end up under his other opponent's control instead of his own.

Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
The funny thing about that situation is that if either Player A or Player B attacks player C with It That Betrays, or an other Annhilator creature, any permanents sacrificied to Annihilator will end up under his other opponent's control instead of his own.



Thanks for the explanation.  That sounds really counterintuitive to me but I see why now.  I couldn't help but think that multiplayer would be the perfect to use this guy.  I guess the odds are low that multiple people would have this guy in play.  Maybe they should have made it a Legend to avoid this situation.
Ah, I forgot. The World of warcraft related pun in the title has been noticed. ;P
 


This. Came to mind right after reading the title. For people who didn't get it.

And really nice card. It should have been previewed in From the Lab, but OK. I like it a lot. The name is very good, the art is wonderfull and the effects can be abused. I liked it a lot.
OMG click HERE! OMG! How to autocard and use decklist format
--->
For autocarding, write [c][/c] with the name of the card inside it. [c]Island[/c] = Island For linking a card to Gatherer without writting the name of said card for readers, use the autocard brackets together with and equal sign and right the name of the real card. Then put the message you want inside the tags, like you would do with autocarding. Like this: [c=Curse of the Cabal]Captain Never-resolves[/c] = Captain Never-resolves For using the decklist format, follow this: [deck] 4* Terramorphic Expanse 4* Evolving Wilds ... [/deck] It equals:
Real signature, Sblocked for space:
57817638 wrote:
I like storm crow because I really like crows in real life, as an animal, and the card isn't terribly stupid, but packs a good deal of nostalgia and also a chunck of the game's history. So it's perhaps one of the cards I have most affection to, but not because "lol storm crow is bad hurr hurr durr".
Listen to my SoundCloud while you read my signature. The Island, Come And See, The Landlord's Daughter, You'll Not Feel The Drowning - The Decemberists by vimschy IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/rkvR.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/L3es.gif) IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/m71H.gif)
Quotes
56747598 wrote:
57295478 wrote:
Although I do assume you deliberately refer to them (DCI) as The Grand Imperial Convocation of Evil just for the purposes of making them sound like an ancient and terrible conspiracy.
Now, now. 1994 doesn't quite qualify as "ancient".
56734518 wrote:
Oh, it's a brilliant plan. You see, Bolas was travelling through shadowmoor, causing trouble, when he saw a Wickerbough Elder with its stylin' dead scarecrow hat. Now, Bolas being Bolas took the awesome hat and he put it on his head, but even with all his titanic powers of magic he couldn't make it fit. He grabbed some more scarecrows, but then a little kithkin girl asked if he was trying to build a toupee. "BY ALL THE POWERS IN THE MULTIVERSE!" he roared, "I WILL HAVE A HAT WORTHY OF MY GLORY." and so he went through his Dark Lore of Doom (tm) looking for something he could make into a hat that would look as stylish on him as a scarecrow does on a treefolk. He thought about the Phyrexians, but they were covered in goopy oil that would make his nonexistant hair greasy. He Tried out angels for a while but they didn't sit quite right. Then, he looked under "e" (because in the Elder Draconic alphabet, "e" for Eldrazi is right next to "h" for Hat) in his Dark Lore of Doom and saw depictions of the Eldrazi, and all their forms. "THIS SHALL BE MY HAT!" he declared, poking a picture of Emrakul, "AND WITH IT I WILL USHER IN A NEW AGE OF DARKNESS -- ER, I MEAN A NEW AGE OF FASHION!" And so Nicol Bolas masterminded the release of the Eldrazi.
57864098 wrote:
Rhox War Monk just flips pancakes, and if games have told us anything, it's that food = life.
56747598 wrote:
76973988 wrote:
This thread has gotten creepy. XP
Really? Really? The last couple days have been roughly every perverse fetish imaginable, but it only got "creepy" when speculation on Mother of Runes's mob affiliation came up?
76672808 wrote:
57864098 wrote:
57531048 wrote:
Nice mana base. Not really.
Yeah, really. If my deck was going to cost $1000+, I'd at least make it good.
99812049 wrote:
I like to think up what I consider clever names for my decks, only later to be laughed at by my wife. It kills me a little on the inside, but thats what marriage is about.
56816728 wrote:
56854588 wrote:
Of course, the best use [of tolaria west] is transmuting for the real Tolaria. ;)
Absolutely. I used to loose to my buddy's Banding deck for ages, it was then that I found out about Tolaria, and I was finally able win my first game.
70246459 wrote:
WOAH wait wait wait
56957928 wrote:
You know, being shallow and jusdgmental aside, "I later found out that Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people"
56957928 wrote:
"I later found out that Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people"
56957928 wrote:
Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates
56957928 wrote:
OH MY GOD
109874309 wrote:
The only way I'd cast this card is into a bonfire.
82032421 wrote:
The short answer is that there's no rule barring annoying people from posting, but there a rule barring us from harassing them about it.
56747598 wrote:
Browbeat is a card that is an appropriate deck choice when there's no better idea available. "No better idea available" was pretty much the running theme of Odyssey era.
56874518 wrote:
Or perhaps it was a more straightforward comment indicating a wish for you to be bitten (Perhaps repeatedly) by a small yet highly venomous arachnid.
70246459 wrote:
58280208 wrote:
You're an idiot, and I'm in no mood for silliness.
57817638 wrote:
57145078 wrote:
You just... Vektor it.
That's the answer to everything.
70246459 wrote:
58347268 wrote:
I think the problem is that you don't exist.
This would sound great out of context!
56965458 wrote:
Modern is like playing a new tournament every time : you build a deck, you win with it, don't bother keeping it. Just build another, its key pieces will get banned.
57864098 wrote:
57309598 wrote:
I specifically remember posting a thread when I was just a witty bitty noob.
You make it sound like that's still not the case.
58325628 wrote:
Rap is what happens when the c from crap is taken away.
Doug Beyer:
But sometimes it's also challenging. Because sometimes OH MY GOD, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS THING?
141434757 wrote:
Flashforward five thousand years (Click for atmosphere) :
57927608 wrote:
to paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, Vektor finds a way.
58347268 wrote:
when in rome **** AND PILLAGE
143229641 wrote:
I always find it helpful when im angry to dress up in an owl costume and rub pennies all over my body in front of a full body mirror next to the window.
Dymecoar:
Playing Magic without Blue is like sleeping without any sheets or blankets. You can do it...but why?
Omega137:
Me: "I love the moment when a control deck stabilizes. It feels so... right." Omega137: "I like the life drop part until you get there, it's the MtG variant of bungee jumping"
Zigeif777:
Just do it like Yu-Gi-Oh or monkeys: throw all the crap you got at them and hope it works or else the by-standers (or opponents) just get dirty and pissed.
57471038 wrote:
58258708 wrote:
It's true that Alpha and Beta didn't contain any cards like Tarmogoyf, Darksteel Colossus, or Platinum Angel. It just contained weak, insignificant cards like Black Lotus, Mox Sapphire, and Time Walk.
Normally it's difficult to pick up on your jokes/sarcasm. But this one's pretty much out there. Good progress. You have moved up to Humanoid. You'll be Human in no time.
91893448 wrote:
94618431 wrote:
I didn't know Samurai were known to be able to cut down whole armies...
They can when they're using lightsabers!
57129358 wrote:
97980259 wrote:
My wife brought home a baby black squirrel they found on a horse track and cared for it for a few days. We named it Grixis, but it died.
Unearth it!
70246459 wrote:
[/spoiler] And I'm on Magic Arcana. How about you? Oh, by the way, I'm also on From the Lab now. Twice, actually. And now with my own submited decklist!
It That Betrays is an excellent Eldrazi card.  I love the fact that it combines so well with the other Eldrazi.  I can't wait until this weekend!

A little bit on the spawnsire of Ulamog. I'm a Timmy, and proud of it, but the 20 mana activated ability, while incredibly cool, left me wondering  "20 mana is their life total. Simply burn them!".



First, you have to be playing burn.  Second, the effect would work in a multiplayer game where spending 20 mana to burn someone would leave you wide open to attack.  Third, Spawnsire of Ulamog appears to be the only eldrazi with an activated ability so you can use mana from Eldrazi Temple to activate it, saving you a little bit of mana.  

I do agree, though, that spending 20 mana on something that won't end the game immediately (Except if you play Emrakul, the Aeons Torn) seems a bit of a waste in singleplayer.




1. I know I know. Is just a sensation. Like when stupid people says that any card that cost more than 4 mana should win the game on the spot. Probably my limit is 20 mana. ;P
2. True
3. true
Just to clarify. Of course I'll try to use his activated ability with a stack of eldrazi waiting on the side.
 
What happens if you're playing say a 5-man FFA and you and another opponent has an It That Betrays.  Then a different opponent, unrelated to you and the owner of the other It That Betrays, sacrifices a nontoken permanent.  Who gets control of it?

When multiple triggered abilities from permanents controlled by multiple players go on the stack at the same time, they are placed on the stack in turn order, starting with the active player (the one whose turn it is).

Let's say it's a 3-player game. The turn order is Player A, Player B, Player C. Players A and B each control one It That Betrays. It's Player C's turn, and he sacrifices a permanent to pay for some cost. Both It That Betrays' abilties trigger at the same time, and since Player A is next in turn order, its trigger goes on the stack first, then Player B's goes on the stack on top of it. Since the stack resolves last-in, first-out, Player B's trigger resolves first, and he puts the card that was the sacrificied permanent from Player C's graveyard under his control. Then Player A's trigger resolves, can't find the sacrificied card in Player C's graveyard, and does nothing.

If, instead, Player C has to sacrifice a permanent during Player B's turn, say because Player A has played a Diabolic Edict, then Player B's trigger will go on the stack first, because he's the active player, then Player A's trigger will go the stack on top of it, and will resolve first (players A and B are interchangeable here).

The funny thing about that situation is that if either Player A or Player B attacks player C with It That Betrays, or an other Annhilator creature, any permanents sacrificied to Annihilator will end up under his other opponent's control instead of his own.




Nothing in the card text ("Whenever an opponent sacrifices a nontoken permanent, put that card onto the battlefield under your control.") leads me to believe that it has to check the graveyard to make sure it's still there.  As long as it hasn't been exiled, you should still be able to get control of it.  The only argument I could buy is that it might no longer be a 'permanent sacrificed by an opponent' because it has changed zones.

So, I think you're right but for the wrong reason.

What happens if you're playing say a 5-man FFA and you and another opponent has an It That Betrays.  Then a different opponent, unrelated to you and the owner of the other It That Betrays, sacrifices a nontoken permanent.  Who gets control of it?

When multiple triggered abilities from permanents controlled by multiple players go on the stack at the same time, they are placed on the stack in turn order, starting with the active player (the one whose turn it is).

Let's say it's a 3-player game. The turn order is Player A, Player B, Player C. Players A and B each control one It That Betrays. It's Player C's turn, and he sacrifices a permanent to pay for some cost. Both It That Betrays' abilties trigger at the same time, and since Player A is next in turn order, its trigger goes on the stack first, then Player B's goes on the stack on top of it. Since the stack resolves last-in, first-out, Player B's trigger resolves first, and he puts the card that was the sacrificied permanent from Player C's graveyard under his control. Then Player A's trigger resolves, can't find the sacrificied card in Player C's graveyard, and does nothing.

If, instead, Player C has to sacrifice a permanent during Player B's turn, say because Player A has played a Diabolic Edict, then Player B's trigger will go on the stack first, because he's the active player, then Player A's trigger will go the stack on top of it, and will resolve first (players A and B are interchangeable here).

The funny thing about that situation is that if either Player A or Player B attacks player C with It That Betrays, or an other Annhilator creature, any permanents sacrificied to Annihilator will end up under his other opponent's control instead of his own.




Nothing in the card text ("Whenever an opponent sacrifices a nontoken permanent, put that card onto the battlefield under your control.") leads me to believe that it has to check the graveyard to make sure it's still there.  As long as it hasn't been exiled, you should still be able to get control of it.  The only argument I could buy is that it might no longer be a 'permanent sacrificed by an opponent' because it has changed zones.

So, I think you're right but for the wrong reason.


I believe the ability tries to retrieve the card in the graveyard because it is where it logically should be after being sacrificied. But you do bring an interesting doubt in my mind : I wonder whether, in the case of a Leyline of the Void affecting the permanent's controller, the ability could retrieve it from the exile zone instead of the graveyard; the permanent was sacrificied, so the trigger condition is met, and there would have been only one zone change, so the ability could be able to retrieve the object, as per the following rule :

400.7d Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield”) can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered.


(which is one of the six exceptions under rule 400.7) :

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are six exceptions to this rule:

But I am not entirely sure 400.7d can cover It That Betrays' ability. The truth is, it seems to me like there has never been an ability like this one, that wants to retrieve a card after a zone change, without explicitely triggering from a zone change and without spelling out what the new zone is ("sacrifice" differs from "put into a graveyard" in that regard). Every ability in print that is close to that could clearly be covered by 400.7d. Something tells me 400.7 might be amended just for It Who Betrays. At least, I am convinced that the FAQ entry about it will clarify this aspect.

Anyway, in the case of two It That Betrays, what matters is that the card has left the zone where it was after being sacrificied and entered the battlefield with the first trigger to resolve, so it is considered a new object, and the second trigger to resolve cannot find the object it was looking for and put it onto the battlefield, because there has been two zone changes.  It was already put onto the battlefield, too. I can't believe this card allows for a card already put on the battlefield to be put on the battlefield again, or cause a control-changing effect. Then again, we will have to wait for the FAQ and the new version of the rules to be sure.

Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
What happens if you're playing say a 5-man FFA and you and another opponent has an It That Betrays.  Then a different opponent, unrelated to you and the owner of the other It That Betrays, sacrifices a nontoken permanent.  Who gets control of it?

When multiple triggered abilities from permanents controlled by multiple players go on the stack at the same time, they are placed on the stack in turn order, starting with the active player (the one whose turn it is).

Let's say it's a 3-player game. The turn order is Player A, Player B, Player C. Players A and B each control one It That Betrays. It's Player C's turn, and he sacrifices a permanent to pay for some cost. Both It That Betrays' abilties trigger at the same time, and since Player A is next in turn order, its trigger goes on the stack first, then Player B's goes on the stack on top of it. Since the stack resolves last-in, first-out, Player B's trigger resolves first, and he puts the card that was the sacrificied permanent from Player C's graveyard under his control. Then Player A's trigger resolves, can't find the sacrificied card in Player C's graveyard, and does nothing.

If, instead, Player C has to sacrifice a permanent during Player B's turn, say because Player A has played a Diabolic Edict, then Player B's trigger will go on the stack first, because he's the active player, then Player A's trigger will go the stack on top of it, and will resolve first (players A and B are interchangeable here).

The funny thing about that situation is that if either Player A or Player B attacks player C with It That Betrays, or an other Annhilator creature, any permanents sacrificied to Annihilator will end up under his other opponent's control instead of his own.




Nothing in the card text ("Whenever an opponent sacrifices a nontoken permanent, put that card onto the battlefield under your control.") leads me to believe that it has to check the graveyard to make sure it's still there.  As long as it hasn't been exiled, you should still be able to get control of it.  The only argument I could buy is that it might no longer be a 'permanent sacrificed by an opponent' because it has changed zones.

So, I think you're right but for the wrong reason.


I believe the ability tries to retrieve the card in the graveyard because it is where it logically should be after being sacrificied. But you do bring an interesting doubt in my mind : I wonder whether, in the case of a Leyline of the Void affecting the permanent's controller, the ability could retrieve it from the exile zone instead of the graveyard; the permanent was sacrificied, so the trigger condition is met, and there would have been only one zone change, so the ability could be able to retrieve the object, as per the following rule :

400.7d Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield”) can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered.


(which is one of the six exceptions under rule 400.7) :

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are six exceptions to this rule:

But I am not entirely sure 400.7d can cover It That Betrays' ability. The truth is, it seems to me like there has never been an ability like this one, that wants to retrieve a card after a zone change, without explicitely triggering from a zone change and without spelling out what the new zone is ("sacrifice" differs from "put into a graveyard" in that regard). Every ability in print that is close to that could clearly be covered by 400.7d. Something tells me 400.7 might be amended just for It Who Betrays. At least, I am convinced that the FAQ entry about it will clarify this aspect.

Anyway, in the case of two It That Betrays, what matters is that the card has left the zone where it was after being sacrificied and entered the battlefield with the first trigger to resolve, so it is considered a new object, and the second trigger to resolve cannot find the object it was looking for and put it onto the battlefield, because there has been two zone changes.  It was already put onto the battlefield, too. I can't believe this card allows for a card already put on the battlefield to be put on the battlefield again, or cause a control-changing effect. Then again, we will have to wait for the FAQ and the new version of the rules to be sure.





Haha!  We have the definitive answer from the FAQ:

* If the sacrificed permanent that caused the second ability to trigger somehow leaves the graveyard before the ability resolves (possibly because it was returned to the battlefield by the ability of another It That Betrays), the ability simply won't do anything when it resolves.

While it doesn't say why, I think we were right in that it was because it changed zones.
While it doesn't say why, I think we were right in that it was because it changed zones.

The rules ambiguity should be covered in the RoE rules update, if it hasn't already.

What happens if you're playing say a 5-man FFA and you and another opponent has an It That Betrays.  Then a different opponent, unrelated to you and the owner of the other It That Betrays, sacrifices a nontoken permanent.  Who gets control of it?

When multiple triggered abilities from permanents controlled by multiple players go on the stack at the same time, they are placed on the stack in turn order, starting with the active player (the one whose turn it is).

Let's say it's a 3-player game. The turn order is Player A, Player B, Player C. Players A and B each control one It That Betrays. It's Player C's turn, and he sacrifices a permanent to pay for some cost. Both It That Betrays' abilties trigger at the same time, and since Player A is next in turn order, its trigger goes on the stack first, then Player B's goes on the stack on top of it. Since the stack resolves last-in, first-out, Player B's trigger resolves first, and he puts the card that was the sacrificied permanent from Player C's graveyard under his control. Then Player A's trigger resolves, can't find the sacrificied card in Player C's graveyard, and does nothing.

If, instead, Player C has to sacrifice a permanent during Player B's turn, say because Player A has played a Diabolic Edict, then Player B's trigger will go on the stack first, because he's the active player, then Player A's trigger will go the stack on top of it, and will resolve first (players A and B are interchangeable here).

The funny thing about that situation is that if either Player A or Player B attacks player C with It That Betrays, or an other Annhilator creature, any permanents sacrificied to Annihilator will end up under his other opponent's control instead of his own.




Nothing in the card text ("Whenever an opponent sacrifices a nontoken permanent, put that card onto the battlefield under your control.") leads me to believe that it has to check the graveyard to make sure it's still there.  As long as it hasn't been exiled, you should still be able to get control of it.  The only argument I could buy is that it might no longer be a 'permanent sacrificed by an opponent' because it has changed zones.

So, I think you're right but for the wrong reason.


I believe the ability tries to retrieve the card in the graveyard because it is where it logically should be after being sacrificied. But you do bring an interesting doubt in my mind : I wonder whether, in the case of a Leyline of the Void affecting the permanent's controller, the ability could retrieve it from the exile zone instead of the graveyard; the permanent was sacrificied, so the trigger condition is met, and there would have been only one zone change, so the ability could be able to retrieve the object, as per the following rule :

400.7d Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, “When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield”) can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered.


(which is one of the six exceptions under rule 400.7) :

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are six exceptions to this rule:

But I am not entirely sure 400.7d can cover It That Betrays' ability. The truth is, it seems to me like there has never been an ability like this one, that wants to retrieve a card after a zone change, without explicitely triggering from a zone change and without spelling out what the new zone is ("sacrifice" differs from "put into a graveyard" in that regard). Every ability in print that is close to that could clearly be covered by 400.7d. Something tells me 400.7 might be amended just for It Who Betrays. At least, I am convinced that the FAQ entry about it will clarify this aspect.

Anyway, in the case of two It That Betrays, what matters is that the card has left the zone where it was after being sacrificied and entered the battlefield with the first trigger to resolve, so it is considered a new object, and the second trigger to resolve cannot find the object it was looking for and put it onto the battlefield, because there has been two zone changes.  It was already put onto the battlefield, too. I can't believe this card allows for a card already put on the battlefield to be put on the battlefield again, or cause a control-changing effect. Then again, we will have to wait for the FAQ and the new version of the rules to be sure.





Haha!  We have the definitive answer from the FAQ:

* If the sacrificed permanent that caused the second ability to trigger somehow leaves the graveyard before the ability resolves (possibly because it was returned to the battlefield by the ability of another It That Betrays), the ability simply won't do anything when it resolves.

While it doesn't say why, I think we were right in that it was because it changed zones.

Hmmm, so it seems the FAQ doesn't tell what I really wanna know, then. I'm hoping the rules update will cover the Leyline of the Void interaction; if not, I'll bring it up in the rules issue forum.

Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
Did Mr. Styborski actually write that flavor piece?  If so, put him in Beyer's department; his work on SF has been a bit lackluster IMO, not bad but not great, and if he's capable of writing fiction of this caliber, it would be criminal not to employ him in that capacity instead of having him just give game reports and whatnot on this column.




Totally agreed, great little piece of storytelling there. 
Proud member of C.A.R.D. - Campaign Against Rare Duals "...but the time has come when lands just need to be better. Creatures have gotten stronger, spells have always been insane, and lands just sat in this awkward place of necessity." Jacob Van Lunen on the refuge duals, 16 Sep 2009. "While it made thematic sense to separate enemy and allied color fixing in the past, we have come around to the definite conclusion that it is just plain incorrect from a game-play perspective. This is one of these situations where game play should just trump flavor." - Sam Stoddard on ending the separation of allied/enemy dual lands. 05 July 2013