2 Relentless Deads returning each other

Asked by Vasseer 8 years ago

I control 2 Relentless Deads, Ashnod's Altar and Warstorm Surge (the reason why I would want to accomplish this). Obviously I can't sacrifice the Relentless Deads and just have them return each other because of targeting and stuff. But what if I were to cast a spell, at this time during the casting of the spell I would be able to activate mana abilities, now say during the casting of this spell I sacrifice both relentless deads to the altar, can I have them target each other in the graveyard (with trigger #2) since their triggered abilities would only be put onto the stack after I finish putting the spell on the stack?

Rhadamanthus says... Accepted answer #1

That works, but you're doing it in kind of an overly complicated way. Here's a more straightforward method:

  • Sacrifice one Relentless Dead. Do something or nothing with its trigger. Doesn't really matter.
  • Sacrifice the other Relentless Dead. Use the mana you got from Ashnod's Altar to pay for its trigger and return the first Dead to the battlefield.
  • Sacrifice the newly returned Dead. Use the mana you got from the Altar to return the other Dead to the battlefield.
  • etc.
April 5, 2016 5:06 p.m.

Vasseer says... #2

Well, I guess you're right, huh, I was just wondering more if I could manage to get both to target each other

April 5, 2016 5:18 p.m.

sonnet666 says... #3

The problem with your way is that you can't simultaneously sac both Relentless Deads.

If you sac one, the trigger is going to go on the stack before you get priority again, so you can't target the second one, since you haven't sacrificed it in order to put it in your graveyard yet.

The way Rhadamanthus posted works fine though.

April 5, 2016 10:04 p.m.

Vasseer says... #4

sonnet666 see but this is the question I'm asking, rule 605.3a says that I wouldn't need priority to activate the altar if I was using it to cast a spell, 603.3 also means that the trigger would only go on the stack once a player receives priority, which can't occur during the mana ability activating part of casting a spell. The way Rhadamanthus suggested does work but doesn't really answer my question involving having both target each other without either ability resolving.

April 5, 2016 10:17 p.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #5

I did mean to verify what you were asking about when I started my earlier response with "that works", but I admit it wasn't clear. So to be clear: you're right that you can activate the Altar twice while casting a spell, and that you wait to choose targets for the two triggers until they're actually put onto the stack after you've completed the casting process. In that situation each Relentless Dead's trigger can target the other.

April 5, 2016 11:24 p.m. Edited.

sonnet666 says... #6

That is an interesting way to go about it...

Keep in mind that in order to do that though, you'd need to cast a spell or activate activate an ability each time you cycle the Relentless Deads.

And because of rule 601.2g: "If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities. Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid," you would only be able to do it with a spell or activated ability that actually costs mana (No : activations, phyrexian mana costs, Kobolds of Kher Keeps cycled with Cloudstone Curio... none of that would work.), which means the loop would be limited by how much mana you had to continue paying, and would not be infinite.

April 6, 2016 12:24 a.m.

ericwhet says... #7

EDIT: Just saw the important part of the altar making and now feel like an idiot.

Wouldn't it save more mana to have each Relentless Dead target itself? You're only paying there instead of .

April 19, 2016 9:52 a.m. Edited.

Rhadamanthus says... #8

That first trigger only returns Relentless Dead to your hand, not the battlefield. Doing it that way costs a total of for each cycle, which is much more difficult to set up than then proposed loop with Ashnod's Altar (it might actually be impossible).

April 19, 2016 1:54 p.m.

This discussion has been closed