Devour spells gaining devour (planechase plane)

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
Seen on Cranial Insertion:

Q: Our chaotic duel has sent us to Jund, and I cast Gluttonous Slime. Does it have devour 1, devour 5, or devour 6 now?

A: It technically has both devour 1 and devour 5 now, which is unfortunately not the same as devour 6. Each devour ability only counts how many creatures were fed to that ability, and you can't feed a creature to both abilities, so you'll probably ignore the devour 1 ability and feed all your fodder to the devour 5 ability.

>>> Is this true? Shouldn't both devour count each creature the permanent devoured for the purpose of putting counters?

Rules Advisor

The Basic rulebook, read it! A lot of basic questions are answered there!

How to autocard :
Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus.
Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One.

Each instance of Devour is a separate ability, and it only counts creatures sacrificed for THAT ability in order to decide how many counters to add.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
Yeah, two separate instances occur separately, so it basically asks:

Do you want to sacrifice any creatures? If you do, put 5 counters on for each one you sacrificed.

then

Do you want to sacrifice any creatures? If you do, put 1 counter on for each one you sacrificed.
Rules Advisor. Used to play a lot of old Extended tournaments, now I just play prereleases and casual kitchen-table games with friends. My regular decks, many of which have been evolving for years: Contested Cliffs Beasts Coastal Piracy Hana Kami Spirit recycling Rout Multiplayer control Seizan, Perverter of Truth Commander
Devour isn't a triggered ability.  It's a static ability that generates a replacement effect.
Devour isn't a triggered ability.  It's a static ability that generates a replacement effect.



You're right, I was using the word "trigger" as a normal english word rather than its specific meaning in Magic, i've edited.
Rules Advisor. Used to play a lot of old Extended tournaments, now I just play prereleases and casual kitchen-table games with friends. My regular decks, many of which have been evolving for years: Contested Cliffs Beasts Coastal Piracy Hana Kami Spirit recycling Rout Multiplayer control Seizan, Perverter of Truth Commander
It'd still be nice if they'd put it in the rules that you can't sacrifice the same creature to multiple instances of Devour.
(Whether the instance comes from the same creature or multiple creatures)

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

As a replacement effect it doesnt use the stack correct? So I can sac a token to the devouring creature that is generated by that creature entering the battlefield, correct?
As a replacement effect it doesnt use the stack correct? So I can sac a token to the devouring creature that is generated by that creature entering the battlefield, correct?


You can sacrifice a token that is on the battlefield.  You can not sacrifice a token that will be on the battlefield Real Soon Now.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
I'm not sure what you are asking in the second question, perhaps you could provide an example.

Replacment effects do not use the stack.

If a creatue with devoure creates tokens when it enters the battlefield, you can not sac those tokens to the devoure because that needs to be done before the creature enters the battlefield.  (while it is resolving)
MTG Rules Advisor
It'd still be nice if they'd put it in the rules that you can't sacrifice the same creature to multiple instances of Devour.

That would be creating a «can't / doesn't» rule, which is redundant.
It can already be concluded from rule 616.1 that you can't get double bonus from one sacrifice. 


If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;

If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.

 

Now you know why taxes always go up.

 

Looting: ''the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities'' (Wikipedia)

You know, I'm not actually sure you can't get 6 counters off of this. Remember the whole thing about The Mimeoplasm-in-a-graveyard repeatedly exiling itself to get arbitrarily large? Because replacement effects are figured out before the event, is there any particular reason why you can't replace "Enter the battlefield" with "Enter the battlefield, sacrificing this creature to Devour 5 and Devour 1"? I feel like there should be, but I'm not sure if the rules have a mechanism to treat sacrificing the same creature multiple times in the same event differently from exiling the same card multiple times.
Rules Nut Advisor
We've got a permanent with Devour 1 and Devour 5.

Devour is a replacement effect. The first instance of devour replaces "This permanent enters the battlefield" with "This permanent enters with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 1]." Then, the second instance replaces that with "This permanent enters the battlfield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 5]". Note that you could have switched their order so that Devour 1 "wins" instead.

This actually seems pretty counterintuitive. It means that any creatures sacrificed to the first devour ability are wasted. Thus, you can't mix and match devour.

Due to how counterintuitve this answer sounds, I'm not really committed to it. I like it better when the rules work the way I'd assume without poring over the comp rulebook. I assumed that you'd be able to sacrifice creatures to each devour ability separately, and, for each creature, get either five counters or one counter. If anyone can explain why the replacement effect doesn't work the way I've stated above, please correct me.

EDIT: I've been corrected. My intuition was right even if my rules-fu wasn't.
We've got a permanent with Devour 1 and Devour 5.

Devour is a replacement effect. The first instance of devour replaces "This permanent enters the battlefield" with "This permanent enters with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 1]." Then, the second instance replaces that with "This permanent enters the battlfield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 5]". Note that you could have switched their order so that Devour 1 "wins" instead.


No.  All that's replaced is "this permanent enters the battlefield".

The first replacement replaces "this permanent enters the battlefield" with "this permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed".  The second replacement turns "this permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed" into "this permanent enters the battlefield with M +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 5] with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 1]".

Likewise, if you bring out a creature with modular while your opponent has Kismet, Kismet's "tapped" doesn't touch modular's "with N +1/+1 counters on it", nor vice versa.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
Devour is a replacement effect. The first instance of devour replaces "This permanent enters the battlefield" with "This permanent enters with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 1]." Then, the second instance replaces that with "This permanent enters the battlfield with N +1/+1 counters for each permanent sacrificed [because of Devour 5]".


That doesn't look right to me. Multiple instances of Bloodthirst can create multiple replacement effects that modify an "enters the battlefield" event multiple times without overwriting the number of +1/+1 counters that the previous replacement effects were adding. I don't see why Devour wouldn't be able to do the same.

Not that anyone would ever be likely to sacrifice any creatures to the lesser Devour effect anyway, so I suppose it's rather irrelevant.
Thanks, guys. That makes sense, and it's in line with my expectation. I'm happy about this.
I think you would have to choose which instance of devour you were using for each saced creature. Devour cannot stack in the 'traditional' sense, you cannot get 6 couners from Devour 1 and Devour 5.
I think it is like Birthing Pod in that you sac a creature to activate the ability, and that creature is immediately gone even if the ability is countered in some way. With Devour, no matter the value, you sac a creature, and it is gone. The only way you could get Devour six out of two separate cases of Devour 5 and Devour 1 would be an effect that makes all cases of Devour add their values to have only one single case of Devour at a higher value instead. I don't know off the top of my head if there is a way for that to work, though. One creature per case of Devour, and you get to choose if there are multiple values of Devour for each creature sacced.

I think also it might be like giving a creature First Strike twice. It doesn't become Double Strike, it just becomes First Strike, applied once during combat.

That's all in laymen's terms for those like myself that are too lazy to try to explain the comp rules. I hope it helps a little for understanding if not for the legalistics of it in a court of Magic law.
If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I still believe I'm right. Think of it as religion. dubito ergo sum.
Ok lets look at some rules:


From the MTG comprehensive rulebook:

702.80a. Devour is a static ability. “Devour N” means “As this object enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of creatures. This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it for each creature sacrificed this way.”



The key word for me is that it says it gets N +1/+1 for each creature sacrificed this way.  If you have two devour effects you would have to choose which devour sacrificed the creatures, that one would be the effect that applies.

Think of it this way.  Instead of a card having both devour 1 and devour 5 replace that with the above ability.

So the object would read:
As this object enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of creatures.  This permanent enters the battlefield with 1 +1/+1 counter on it for each creature sacrificed this way.
As this object enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of creatures.  This permanent enters the battlefield with 5 +1/+1 counters on it for each creature sacrificed this way.  

So you'd have to choose which creatures are sacrificed with which ability and the number of counters they'd get would be determined by that.        

DCI Level 2 Judge

Rockford, Illinois

You know, I'm not actually sure you can't get 6 counters off of this. Remember the whole thing about The Mimeoplasm-in-a-graveyard repeatedly exiling itself to get arbitrarily large? Because replacement effects are figured out before the event, is there any particular reason why you can't replace "Enter the battlefield" with "Enter the battlefield, sacrificing this creature to Devour 5 and Devour 1"? I feel like there should be, but I'm not sure if the rules have a mechanism to treat sacrificing the same creature multiple times in the same event differently from exiling the same card multiple times.

There was an [O] ruling that said you can't sac the same creature to two (or more) devour replacements.

With The Mimeoplasm, they ruled it the other way.

By rules as written, I don't see anything preventing me from choosing to apply the Devour 1 replacement and choosing to sac a saproling and then applying the Devour 5 and choosing to sac that same saproling to it as well. The saproling is still on the field for me to choose when I go to apply the second replacement effect.

The [O] ruling is contrary to 117.12
117.12. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, “[Do something]. If [a player] [does or doesn’t], [effect].” or “[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does or doesn’t], [effect].” The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves. The “If [a player] [does or doesn’t]” clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred.


Sacrificing a creature to devour is a cost to get the +1/+1 counters.
If they choose to sacrifice the creature to both devour replacements, the cost is sated regardless of what happens.

I don't see any substantial difference between The Mimeoplasm interaction and this devour interaction.
One is ruled one way and the other the other way.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

reading the rules it doesn't say additional +1/+1 counters
so for example what happens if a creature with Devour 2 enters because of undying and sacrifices 1 creature
does it enter with 2 or 3 +1/+1?
proud member of the 2011 community team
reading the rules it doesn't say additional +1/+1 counters
so for example what happens if a creature with Devour 2 enters because of undying and sacrifices 1 creature
does it enter with 2 or 3 +1/+1?


It would enter with 3 +1/+1 counters.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
By rules as written, I don't see anything preventing me from choosing to apply the Devour 1 replacement and choosing to sac a saproling and then applying the Devour 5 and choosing to sac that same saproling to it as well.


117.10. Each payment of a cost applies to only one spell, ability, or effect. For example, a player can't sacrifice just one creature to activate the activated abilities of two permanents that each require sacrificing a creature as a cost. Also, the resolution of a spell or ability doesn't pay another spell or ability's cost, even if part of its effect is doing the same thing the other cost asks for.

No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
117.10 would appear to make The Mimeoplasm interaction not work then.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

By rules as written, I don't see anything preventing me from choosing to apply the Devour 1 replacement and choosing to sac a saproling and then applying the Devour 5 and choosing to sac that same saproling to it as well.


117.10. Each payment of a cost applies to only one spell, ability, or effect. For example, a player can't sacrifice just one creature to activate the activated abilities of two permanents that each require sacrificing a creature as a cost. Also, the resolution of a spell or ability doesn't pay another spell or ability's cost, even if part of its effect is doing the same thing the other cost asks for.



That's great, but Devour is not a cost. At all. It's a replacement effect, pure and simple. You aren't "paying" a creature sacrifice. You're replacing "X enters the battlefield" with "X enters the battlefield with Y counters and sacrifice Z". 117.10 isn't applicable to the situation.
Rules Nut Advisor
117.12 appears to indicate that it is a cost of the replacement effect on the spell.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

117.12 appears to indicate that it is a cost of the replacement effect on the spell.


117.12. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, “[Do something]. If [a player] [does or doesn’t], [effect].” or “[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does or doesn’t], [effect].” The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves. The “If [a player] [does or doesn’t]” clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred.



Devour is none of those things, 117.12 does not apply.

Edit: Yes, the creature with Devour was at one point a spell. Devour is not, and Devour is not a spell effect. It's a replacement effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield. 117.2 is referring to spell abilities of instants and sorceries.
Rules Nut Advisor
TM - are you saying that a ceature can be sacrificed to more than one ability?
TM - are you saying that a ceature can be sacrificed to more than one ability?


I'm not going to argue with the official ruling, but I'm saying that unless I've missed a part of the rules that sets sacrifices apart form other things of this nature (possible, as I have not yet read the relevant parts of the rulebook regarding this question), you should be able to based on other, similar rulings.

Edit: Actually, have we ever gotten an [O] ruling on this, or is that a third-party ruling? I don't know.
Rules Nut Advisor
I would also like to point out the Planechase 2 FAQ, with its statement that "you can't sacrifice the same creature to satisfy multiple devour abilities."
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
I would also like to point out the Planechase 2 FAQ, with its statement that "you can't sacrifice the same creature to satisfy multiple devour abilities."


Well, I'd say that's a definitive official ruling on the matter. However, after reading through the section of the rules pertaining to replacement effects and sacrificing, I can't find any reason why this is so. Do we have any rulings on similar situations involving simultaneous replacement effects? i.e. What happens if two Wood Elementals enter the battlefield at the same time? Can you sacrifice the same untapped Forests to both of them? It seems really weird... but then, so does repeatedly having The Mimeoplasm exile and copy itself in a graveyard.
Rules Nut Advisor
I would also like to point out the Planechase 2 FAQ, with its statement that "you can't sacrifice the same creature to satisfy multiple devour abilities."


Well, I'd say that's a definitive official ruling on the matter. However, after reading through the section of the rules pertaining to replacement effects and sacrificing, I can't find any reason why this is so. Do we have any rulings on similar situations involving simultaneous replacement effects? i.e. What happens if two Wood Elementals enter the battlefield at the same time? Can you sacrifice the same untapped Forests to both of them? It seems really weird... but then, so does repeatedly having The Mimeoplasm exile and copy itself in a graveyard.



The Devour case is pretty clearly handled by the wording of the ability, specifically the use of the term "this way". "This way" means "as a result of this specific ability". If you choose to sac a creature to the Devour 1 ability, then you didn't sac it to the Devour 5 ability, and vice versa.

The double-Wood Elemental is an interesting example, but they are considered linked abilities though. No double credit for the same forest.

 
@forty2j: theoretically, if one could choose to sac the same creature to both replacements, the event would contain two instances of sacrifice creature X and when it processed the creature would be sacced to both, in the same way that a totem armor can be subjected to two destroy actions when hit by Planar Cleansing. The event would also have an instance of put one +1/+1 counter on creature Y and put five +1/+1 counters on creature Y. The event would be applied as such.

The debate is whether one can choose to sacrifice the same creature again after applying the first replacement. 117.10 seems to say no (which aligns it with the [O] ruling), but The Mimeoplasm interaction was temporarily [O] ruled the other way.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

What is this Mimeoplasm ruling people speak of? I read the oracle page, nothing showed up.
It was on either these forums or the RT&T forums. It had to do with copying a mimeoplasm with a mimeoplasm.
All Generalizations are Bad
@forty2j: theoretically, if one could choose to sac the same creature to both replacements, the event would contain two instances of sacrifice creature X and when it processed the creature would be sacced to both, in the same way that a totem armor can be subjected to two destroy actions when hit by Planar Cleansing. The event would also have an instance of put one +1/+1 counter on creature Y and put five +1/+1 counters on creature Y. The event would be applied as such.

The debate is whether one can choose to sacrifice the same creature again after applying the first replacement. 117.10 seems to say no (which aligns it with the [O] ruling), but The Mimeoplasm interaction was temporarily [O] ruled the other way.


The Mimeoplasm doesnt have devour though, so why are people pointing at that like it's affecting this at all? 'Sides, I've always played under the assumption that when a creature, or any other permanent, is sacrifice as a cost to anything (whether fling or devour) you cannot use that creature to pay for another cost. If you COULD do that, then you would only need a single creature in play to make a devour creature enormously large by repeatedly sacrificing that creature to devour. It simply does not work. 701.14a enforces that;

701.14a. To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner's graveyard. A player can't sacrifice something that isn't a permanent, or something that's a permanent he or she doesn't control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn't destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can't affect this action.


The underlined part tells us that the sacrificed permanent is no longer on the battlefield once it has been used as a payment. In the example brought up earlier, a creature with devour 5 and devour 1 is coming into play. A token is sacrificed to the devour 5, and by following 701.14a, that token is now in the graveyard and no longer a valid creature to pay the devour 1 ability with. 117.10 just makes it a stronger case.

edit: Undying and Persist might make it possible to use the same creature twice, but that's unnecessarily complicating things.
Tyris - The I think issue is whether the replacement effect can be used "looped". You sac one creature to Devour X which is replacing Devour Y which is replacing regular ETB. Maybe I am missing the point, but I think thats it, you only sac one creature, but replacement effects give multiple counters.
Tyris - The I think issue is whether the replacement effect can be used "looped". You sac one creature to Devour X which is replacing Devour Y which is replacing regular ETB. Maybe I am missing the point, but I think thats it, you only sac one creature, but replacement effects give multiple counters.

Devour Y doesn't replace Devour X.

"[Enter the battlefield]" becomes
"[[Enter the battlefield] and Devour X" becomes
"[Enter the battlefield and Devour X and Devour Y]" 

There is a sequence to the events.. so if you Devour X a creature, it isn't there to Devour Y with.
 
Tyris - The I think issue is whether the replacement effect can be used "looped". You sac one creature to Devour X which is replacing Devour Y which is replacing regular ETB. Maybe I am missing the point, but I think thats it, you only sac one creature, but replacement effects give multiple counters.


Giving a creature an additional instance of devour doesnt replacing the prexisting devour when it comes into play. They're concurrent abilities, much like a creature having multiple instances of Amplify or Bloodthirst- subsequent occurrences of the ability do not replace the previous ones, they happen independently. So we may be looking at the entire situation wrong. If devour functions identically to amplify/bloodthirst, then multiple copies of devour on a creature means that (again using the previous example) a creature with devour 5 and devour 1 would enter play with 6 counters for each creature devoured.
here is the difference between Devour and Bloodthirst
assuming 5 and 1 of each

Bloodthirst
Bloodthirst 5 asks: "has an opponent been dealt damage this turn? if yes add 5 counters"
Bloodthirst 1 asks: "has an opponent been dealt damage this turn? if yes add 1 counter"
endresult 6 counters

Devour
Devour 5 asks: "how many creatures do you want to sacrifice? add 5 counters for each"
Devour 1 asks: "how many creatures do you want to sacrifice? add 1 counters for each"
endresult is depending on how many you sacrifice to each ability. they don't look for the same thing like Bloodthirst does, they look how many creatures have been sacrificed for them.
proud member of the 2011 community team
Tyris - The I think issue is whether the replacement effect can be used "looped". You sac one creature to Devour X which is replacing Devour Y which is replacing regular ETB. Maybe I am missing the point, but I think thats it, you only sac one creature, but replacement effects give multiple counters.

Devour Y doesn't replace Devour X.

"[Enter the battlefield]" becomes
"[[Enter the battlefield] and Devour X" becomes
"[Enter the battlefield and Devour X and Devour Y]" 

There is a sequence to the events.. so if you Devour X a creature, it isn't there to Devour Y with.
 


ETB replacement effects explicitly occur all at once, not in a specific order.

What is this Mimeoplasm ruling people speak of? I read the oracle page, nothing showed up.


Here's the situation. The particular ruling was given in a RUles Q&A and/or Rules Theory and Templating thread some time ago, around the release of Commander. I don't know which thread(s) specifically.

The Mimeoplasm and a vanilla creature (say RUneclaw Bear) are in your graveyard. A Body Double enters the battlefield as a copy of The Mimeoplasm. The Mimeoplasm's replacement effect takes efefct as a result, and you choose to exile The Mimeoplasm (to copy) and Runeclaw Bear (for counters). Then, because it's entering the battlefield as The Mimeoplasm, The Mimeoplasm's replacement effect takes efefct as a result, and you choose to exile The Mimeoplasm (to copy) and Runeclaw Bear (for counters). This "process" loops indefinitely until you choose to copy the Bear instead of the Mimeoplasm (or just not copy anything).

The end result of this is a replacement effect that changes "Body Double enters the battlefield" with a convoluted mess that involves exiling The Mimeoplasm and Runeclaw Bear from your graveyard... an indefinite number of times. Despite the face that this exile can only actually happen once, because replacement effects are determined BEFORE any action actually occurs, at the time you are choosing what to exile, the cards you chose are still in your graveyard, and you can choose them to be exiled for future simultaneous replacement effects.

To me, multiple instances of Devour is an analogous situation. When the Devour creature enters the battlefield, you choose to replace "~ enters the battlefield" with "~ enters the battlefield with 5 +1/+1 counters and sacrifice Generic Creature A and with 1 +1/+1 counter and sacrifice Generic Creature A." Because the events do NOT happen sequentially, and are all determined BEFORE any action takes place, there is no rules reason you can't choose the same creature to sacrifice twice.
Rules Nut Advisor
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Devour
Devour 5 asks: "how many creatures do you want to sacrifice Did you sacrifice creatures when this one came into play? add 5 counters for each"
Devour 1 asks: "how many creatures do you want to sacrifice Did you sacrifice creatures when this one came into play? add 1 counters for each"



The way the CR for Devour is worded- ""Devour N" means "As this object enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice any number of creatures. This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it for each creature sacrificed this way."" would mean that it's only checking for the number of creatures you sacrificed as that creature entered the battlefield, not asking you to sacrifice creatures TO the devour ability, correct?