Devour

39 posts / 0 new
Last post
I have out a Mycoloth and Parallel Lives. If I Cackling Counterpart the Mycoloth, can I choose to apply the Devour replacement effect before the Parallel Lives and have both tokens get the counters?

Level 1 Judge

Yes, that should work.

More accurately, I don't see any reason it wouldn't. 

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

I don't think it would give both Mycoloth tokens the 2 +1/+1 counters. One would have the counters, and the other one wouldn't. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding. Perhaps someone more familiar with replacement effect interactions could clear this up.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

I'm not sure. Not a real "rules guru", but it looks like it wont.

Devour says "as this enters the battlefield".

Parallel Lives effects the number of tokens you put into the battlefield.

So it (pretty much) makes Cackling Counter part say, "put 2 tokens onto the battleifled that's a copy of target creature you control."

As they both enter the battlefield, and you can't Sac 1 creature for 2 effects, I don't think you can devour for the both of them.

(again, I may be wrong, but thats how I see it) 
Both effects at work here are replacement effects. It's impossible to apply Devour first and then have only one Mycoloth enter with the counters (because which one would it be? There isn't an "original" token after Parallel Lives takes effect).

(That metaphysics class I took years ago finally paid off.)

I looked at the CR and found that "as ~ enters" and "~ enters with" happen at the same time, so there is no timing issue here between when the counters are applied and when the token splitting happens. It happens in whatever order its controller wants.

EDIT: See the post below mine.

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

I have out a Mycoloth and Parallel Lives. If I Cackling Counterpart the Mycoloth, can I choose to apply the Devour replacement effect before the Parallel Lives and have both tokens get the counters?



You must choose the devour first before doubling the resulting token.

_Magic: The Gathering_ Comprehensive Rules

These rules are effective as of October 1, 2012.

614.15. Some replacement effects are not continuous effects. Rather, they are an effect of a resolving spell or ability that replace part or all of that spell or ability's own effect(s). Such effects are called self-replacement effects. When applying replacement effects to an event, self-replacement effects are applied before other replacement effects.





Devour is not a self replacement effect.  While devour is an effect of a resolving spell, it's not replacing part of or all of that spell's own effect.

Dissipate
Brimstone Volley
Tragic Slip

These have self replacement effects because it replaces part of (in the case of dissipate) or all of (brimstone volley, tragic slip) the effects of the resolving spell.    

DCI Level 2 Judge

Rockford, Illinois

There's nothing in the CompRules that says this, but I believe the Parallel Lives effect has to apply first.

I've suggested previously that Parallel Lives' effect should apply even before replacement effects that contain copy effects and this is just another reason supporting that implementation.

It's not unlike why Madness replacement effect still says the discarded card is still discarded even though it goes to exile, so that it can still trigger things like Megrim.

Or when you sacrifice a creature and an opponent has a Leyline of the Void, replacing the zone does not remove the fact that a sacrifice occured. It merely changes where the sacrificed object ends up.

There is a strata that the rules don't currently have down yet, but is being worked towards.

Mind you, applying Devour first leads to a similar situation as Living Weapon and Parallel Lives where you have equipment wanting to be attached to two tokens and in your case you'd have one set of +1/+1 counters wanting to be put on two dfferent objects and based on the Germs ruling as precedent, only one of the tokens should be able to get the counters in that case.

So either way you slice it you can't get counters for both by saccing one set of creatures.
However, intuitively, I think everybody would expect devour to apply after Lives.

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

 

Taking offers on my set of unopened limited edition full art judge foil basic lands, message me if interested.
 

Devour is not a self replacement effect.  While devour is an effect of a resolving spell, it's not replacing part of or all of that spell's own effect.


Devour is a replacement effect replacing how the spell with Devour enters the battlefield. How is that not a self-replacement effect?

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

I have out a Mycoloth and Parallel Lives. If I Cackling Counterpart the Mycoloth, can I choose to apply the Devour replacement effect before the Parallel Lives and have both tokens get the counters?

I would say that even if you apply the devour effect first, only one token gets counters.

This is not perfectly defined in the CR.

Parallel Lives modifies the event so another token is created. To determine what the new token looks like, it looks only at the characteristics of the first token as described in rule 614.12. You could then apply the new token's devour effect if you wanted that token to get counters.
Devour is not a self replacement effect. While devour is an effect of a resolving spell, it's not replacing part of or all of that spell's own effect.

Devour is a replacement effect replacing how the spell with Devour enters the battlefield. How is that not a self-replacement effect?

Devour is a static ability that generates a continuous effect.

Here is the definition for self-replacement effects.
614.15. Some replacement effects are not continuous effects. Rather, they are an effect of a resolving spell or ability that replace part or all of that spell or ability's own effect(s). Such effects are called self-replacement effects. When applying replacement effects to an event, self-replacement effects are applied before other replacement effects.

An example of a self-replacement effect would be Consign to Dream's "If that permanent is red or green, put it on top of its owner's library instead.", or Increasing Savagery's "If Increasing Savagery was cast from a graveyard, put ten +1/+1 counters on that creature instead."
Devour is not a self replacement effect. While devour is an effect of a resolving spell, it's not replacing part of or all of that spell's own effect.

Devour is a replacement effect replacing how the spell with Devour enters the battlefield. How is that not a self-replacement effect?

Devour is a static ability that generates a continuous effect.

Here is the definition for self-replacement effects.
614.15. Some replacement effects are not continuous effects. Rather, they are an effect of a resolving spell or ability that replace part or all of that spell or ability's own effect(s). Such effects are called self-replacement effects. When applying replacement effects to an event, self-replacement effects are applied before other replacement effects.




Can you clarify that?  I don't understand how this is a continuous effect:

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.”


 
Can you clarify that? I don't understand how this is a continuous effect:

There are two types of effects: one-shot effects and continuous effects. It is not a one-shot effect. All replacement effects except for self-replacement effects are continuous effects.
614.1c. Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . " are replacement effects.

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

614.1c. Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . " are replacement effects.




I wasn't questioning if it was a replacement effect.  I didn't understand that all replacement effects were continuous effects.  The previous answer explained it.

 
Can you clarify that? I don't understand how this is a continuous effect:

There are two types of effects: one-shot effects and continuous effects. It is not a one-shot effect. All replacement effects except for self-replacement effects are continuous effects.



I didn't realize that.  Thanks for the explanation.
 
How is that not a self-replacement effect?

Tragic Slip has a self-replacement effect. The effect of the spell is altered by its own ability hence self-replacement.

Parallel Lives' replacement effect is generated by a continuous effect from a static ability on it and does not affect itself so it's not a self-replacement effect.
614.15. Some replacement effects are not continuous effects. Rather, they are an effect of a resolving spell or ability that replace part or all of that spell or ability’s own effect(s). Such effects are called self-replacement effects. When applying replacement effects to an event, self-replacement effects are applied before other replacement effects.

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

 

Taking offers on my set of unopened limited edition full art judge foil basic lands, message me if interested.
 

Mind you, applying Devour first leads to a similar situation as Living Weapon and Parallel Lives where you have equipment wanting to be attached to two tokens and in your case you'd have one set of +1/+1 counters wanting to be put on two dfferent objects and based on the Germs ruling as precedent, only one of the tokens should be able to get the counters in that case.


In the case of living weapon they issued a minor rule clarification to make it clear that you wouldn't have two tokens equipping the same weapon.  I do not think that similar logic would apply here as counters aren't objects; having counters is a property that objects can have.  If an effect would put a token onto the battlefield with a +1/+1 token on it, then Parallel Lives would cause it to place two tokens onto the battlefield with +1/+1 tokens on them.  This could be compared to how Geist of Saint Traft would put two tokens into play tapped and attacking.  That said, I do agree that the rules should probably be changed so that Parallel Lives resolves first.
Aren't there two different effecting being modified here?  Parallel Lives is replacing the effect generated by Cackling Counterpart.


The Devour ability is modifying how Mycoloth enters the battlefield, but isn't really modifying the effect of Cackling Counterpart, is it?

I think there is a distinction to be made between you putting something onto the battlefied, and that object entering the battlefield.  Putting something on to the battlefield is an action that a player takes.  An object entering the battlefield is a result of that action.  Although they are happening at the same time, one is happening because of the other.

Parallel Lives modifies the action the player is making.  Devour modifies the result of that action.

If that is true (and I'm not 100% certain that this is a correct interpretation), then Parallel lives would have to be applied first.
Parallel Lives is replacing the effect generated by Cackling Counterpart. The Devour ability is modifying how Mycoloth enters the battlefield, but isn't really modifying the effect of Cackling Counterpart, (...) then Parallel lives would have to be applied first.

Nice analysis. I'm with you!

It's not Logic, it's Magic!

I think there is a distinction to be made between you putting something onto the battlefied, and that object entering the battlefield. 



Is there a rule to back that up?

Level 1 Judge

I think there is a distinction to be made between you putting something onto the battlefied, and that object entering the battlefield. 

Is there a rule to back that up?

no, because currently there is no such distinction

proud member of the 2011 community team
There is no distinction, both effects occur before the permanent enters the battlefield.  They don't enter the battlefield then apply the effects, so for parallel lives the token doesn't enter the battlefield and then another enters the battlefield, two tokens enter at the same time.  Likewise with devour the token enters the battlefield with the counters on them already them and the creatures are sacrificed before it enters the battlefield, it doesn't enter then have the counters placed on them nor sacrifice the creatures after it enters the battlefield.  So you have two replacement effects trying to replace the same event, even though the replacement effects are created by different sources, and even though the way it's worded is different.  So the player in question would decide the order those replacement effects apply.


From the MTG comprehensive rulebook:
614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like “shields” around whatever they’re affecting.

614.1c. Effects that read “[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ,” “As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ,” or “[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . ” are replacement effects. 



In both cases the event modified is the token creature (the permanent in question) entering the battlefield.

DCI Level 2 Judge

Rockford, Illinois

I'm still having trouble accepting the fact that one Devour's sacrifice would provide +1/+1 counters for both tokens. Magic is so strange!

It's not Logic, it's Magic!

I'm going to weigh in my support for devour putting a token on each creature per sacrifice.

There's not going to be a rules quote (because there isn't a rule to quote), but I will try to reason this out by talking about a theoretical card. Let's imagine that we had a card with the following text: Put a 1/1 Elf token onto the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it.

If we cast this with Parallel Lives in play, I think it would be pretty clear that you get two elves and they both have a +1/+1 counter. My feeling is that, once devour is applied, we have an effect very similar to my theoretical spell.

Don't think of it as paying one cost to get two effects; instead, think of it as a single effect that is being doubled. Parallel Lives certainly doesn't care why its tokens are getting counters placed on them.
I'm still having trouble accepting the fact that one Devour's sacrifice would provide +1/+1 counters for both tokens. Magic is so strange!


I must have missed something somewhere while reading this thread: where is the conclusion that one devour sacrfice puts counters on both tokens?  From what I understand, Parallel Lives makes Cackling Counterpart put two Mycoloth tokens onto the battlefield, both of which have devour.  Then you choose your sacrifices, but one thing can't be chosen for two devours, right?
614.13b The same object can’t be chosen to change zones more than once when applying
replacement effects that modify how a single permanent enters the battlefield.
Example: Jund (a plane card) says, “Whenever a player casts a black, red, or green
creature spell, it gains devour 5.” A player controls Runeclaw Bear and casts Thunder-
Thrash Elder, a red creature spell with devour 3. As Thunder-Thrash Elder enters the
battlefield, its controller can choose to sacrifice Runeclaw Bear when applying the
devour 3 effect or when applying the devour 5 effect, but not both. Thunder-Thrash
Elder will enter the battlefield with zero, three, or five +1/+1 counters, depending on
this choice.


Does this rule have anything to do with anything beind discussed in this thread, or does the "single permanent" part make this ruling obsolete since we're talking about two devouring tokens?  Either way, how is it possible for two things with devour entering the battlefield at the same time to both eat the same saproling token and both get a counter?

Rules Advisor

We are discussing applying devour before parallel lives, so at the time devour is applied there is only a single creature entering the battlefield and so the creature is chosen to be devoured once.  However the exact text of 614.13b suggests that, even if you apply parallel lives first, you can still choose to have both creatures devour the same creature from the battlefield, as 614.13b only applies to effects that modify how a single permanent enters the battlefield.  Therefore it may be that the order the effects are applied in doesn't matter.  Edit: The rulings for devour say that if two creatures with devour enter the battlefield at the same time they can't both devour the same creature, but I'm not quite sure what the rules support for this is.
Either way, how is it possible for two things with devour entering the battlefield at the same time to both eat the same saproling token and both get a counter?

The argument is this:

You start with the event [put a Mycoloth token onto the battlefield], as generated by the resolution of Cackling Counterpart. Now, there are two replacement effects wanting to apply to this event:
1. Parallel Lives' "put double the number of tokens onto the battlefield"
2. Devour's "sac some creatures and put the creature onto the battlefield with twice that many counters"

If you elect to apply Devour first, you change the original event to:
[put a Mycoloth token with N +1/+1 counters onto the battlefield]

Next, apply Parallel Lives:
[put a Mycoloth token two Mycoloth tokens with N +1/+1 counters onto the battlefield]

The problem I see with that reasoning is that at this moment you haven't actually sac'ced anything yet, so I'm not certain that Devour's "This permanent enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it for each creature sacrificed this way." has actually determined N yet. In other words, does "each creature sacrificed this way" mean "creatures actually sacrificed", or "creatures chosen to be sacrificed"? If the latter, then the above argument should hold, and it should be possible to get two Mycoloths with the same number of counters. If the former, then the above argument should fall apart, because then you'd still have to choose for each selected creature which Mycoloth will get to eat it, and effectively split the counters between the two.

Either way, I don't think 614.13b is relevant here, because each creature is actually chosen only once to be sacrificed, when you apply Devour. By the time you apply Parallel Lives, the sacrifice choices have already been made, and you don't get to make new ones.

Of course, it's also completely possible that the rules should be interpreted to give the following result when you apply Parallel Lives:
[put a Mycoloth token with N +1/+1 counters and another Mycoloth token onto the battlefield]

If that's the case, then Devour would still apply to the second Mycoloth, and you would get to make new Devour choices for the second token.

And, as I'm writing this, this interpretation does seem plausible to me, and I don't think the other position is any better supported than this.

DCI Lvl 2 Judge

However the exact text of 614.13b suggests that, even if you apply parallel lives first, you can still choose to have both creatures devour the same creature from the battlefield, as 614.13b only applies to effects that modify how a single permanent enters the battlefield. Therefore it may be that the order the effects are applied in doesn't matter.

You are reading rule 614.13b wrong. It was created so that one permanent cannot be sacrificed for multiple devour effects. Devour's effect modifies how a single permanent enters the battlefield. You use 614.13b when you apply multiple devour effects. That is why the rule says "when applying replacement effects" plural.

Rule 614.13b is not relevant to the original question about Parallel Lives though.
The rulings for devour say that if two creatures with devour enter the battlefield at the same time they can't both devour the same creature, but I'm not quite sure what the rules support for this is.


I don't see why it would be different.  I understand the complicated nature of this question, but it just seems to me at first glance that everyone is overthinking this.  I don't see how or why applying these two effects in different orders would change the outcome at all.  Parallel Lives basically just makes Cackling Counterpart create two tokens instead of one, both of which enter the battlefield at the same time.  If only one creature gets sacrificed to one of the tokens' devour ability, then only one of the tokens enters with the counters.  Devouring first and then putting the second token onto the battlefield shouldn't matter, because counters are not a copiable aspect.

Rules Advisor

Parallel Lives isn't a copy effect, it doesn't matter that counters aren't copy-able.
You have two Loxodon Smiters in hand and there's a Rest in Peace out.

Your opponent casts Mind Rot at you.

Do both replacement effects apply to the event at the same moment?
Or does one (Smiter's) apply first?

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

 

Taking offers on my set of unopened limited edition full art judge foil basic lands, message me if interested.
 

Loxodon Smiter applies first, the same way regeneration always applies first when Rest in Peace is out.

Note that even if you apply Rest in Peace first, it would still be a discard action, and so the Loxodon Smiter would still be applicable.

Regarding the OP question, I think the 2 replacement effects would be applied at the same time, so you chose the order.

  - Either you apply the "devour 2" ability of the token first, devouring X creatures, and then apply the Parallel Lives ability. Each token enters the battlefield with 2*X +1/+1 counters on it.

  - Or you apply the Parallel Lives ability first, creating two tokens with devour 2. There is two devour abilities : you chose X creatures to devour for the first, then Y other creatures to devour for the second. One token enters the battlefield with 2*X +1/+1 counters on it, the other enters the battlefield with 2*Y +1/+1 counters on it.

EDIT : I've simplified the second case. You actually can chose the same creature to devour for the two devouring tokens (because rule 614.13b is not applicable to them), but, as you determine what event is moving the devoured creature to the graveyard, you end up with two mutually exclusive effects. As per rule 400.6, the controller of the devoured creature has to chose wich devour effect to apply, thus chosing which devouring token would get the counters (since the second devour effect is not applied).

400.6 If an object would move from one zone to another, determine what event is moving the object. If the object is moving to a public zone, all players look at it to see if it has any abilities that would affect the move. Then any appropriate replacement effects, whether they come from that object or from elsewhere, are applied to that event. If any effects or rules try to do two or more contradictory or mutually exclusive things to a particular object, that object’s controller—or its owner if it has no controller—chooses which effect to apply, and what that effect does. (Note that multiple instances of the same thing may be mutually exclusive; for example, two simultaneous “destroy” effects.) Then the event moves the object.

You have two Loxodon Smiters in hand and there's a Rest in Peace out.

Your opponent casts Mind Rot at you.

Do both replacement effects apply to the event at the same moment?

Yes. The event is "I discard two loxodon smiters by moving them from my hand to my graveyard". All three replacement effects are applicable to the event. If I choose to apply loxodon first, the creature will be put onto the battlefield. If I choose to apply RiP, it will be exiled.

It's not the first debate Devour creates! That ability is confusing! Let's try to summarize...

The event created by Cackling's resolution is «Put a token on the Field».
Two replacement effects are trying to affect it:
1-«Double your pleasure»
2-«The token enters the Field with counters, provided you sac some critters»

I believe there is no more debate about the fact that the controller of Cackling Counterpart is allowed to -and, in fact, must- pick one to apply first.

If they apply Parr-Lives first and then Devour, the result is simple: two individual tokens, each devouring different creatures and getting different buffs. 
But if they apply Devour first and then Parr-Lives, then it is not crystal-clear whether the single Devour buff should profit both tokens. 
Some of us say «Of course! the Devour buff is doubled by Parr-Lives!» Some say not.

Apparently, the exact answer cannot be inequivocally deduced from the CR.
Conclusion: someone must arbitrate!
In other words: we need [OR]!

...and the Devour ability really needs overhaul! 

It's not Logic, it's Magic!

I really like dslatimore's distinction between the two events, because that makes a lot of sense about how it should play out.

But if they are modifying the same event, I don't see why applying devour first wouldn't cause the two tokens to both have counters.  I think that's intuitively wrong, but I don't think there's any other valid interpretation of the rules as-is.

I'm also torn because my Dragon Broodmother would love devour to apply to both Parallel Lives tokens in my Kresh the Bloodbraided Commander deck, but I would hate having to explain that to people. 
Any official word on this interaction?
Yes. There is a change coming in the next rules update:

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...