The stack and Sacrificing
Asked by zretrareo27 3 years ago
Other question - Angelic Purge requires a sac - if I have Tragic Poet in play with Squee's Embrace attached, is there any way (as in an order to play them in) for me to return both the creature and the enchantment to my hand if I sac one off of Angelic Purge ? This one makes my brain hurt.
Nova Chaser has a triggered ability that triggers upon it entering the battlefield and uses the stack, so until the ability resolves, you can cast spells and activate abilities as normal. Sacrificing it for Brion Stoutarm will work.
For your second question, you need to understand how state-based effects and the stack work. Because both sacrifices are costs (meaning whatever you sacrifice will be in the graveyard once you put the ability or spell on the stack), this won't work out the way you want it to, as to activate Tragic Poet to return the Embrace to your hand, the Ambrace needs to be in your graveyard already - but if it were, if you sacrificed Tragic Poet, Embrace wouldn't be able to save it.
May 30, 2016 11:58 a.m.
Pray tell what is a state-based effect and what does the stack have to do with the fact that if the Squee's Embrace is in the graveyard to be targeted, it isn't attached to the creature to save it.
There is no need to try to drag irrelevant jargon into what should be a simple answer. The Tragic Poet can't be sacrificed to pay for both its ability and Angelic Purge because you can't pay two costs with the same action. If the Squee's Embrace is in the graveyard to be targeted by Tragic Poet's ability, it isn't attached to the Tragic Poet to save it.
May 30, 2016 12:35 p.m.
@Gidgetimer: I agree that I was mentioning more than needed for the answer... I was originally going to explain what would happen to the Aura if you sacrificed the creature, and why you couldn't interact with it, hence the mention of SBAs. I simply forgot to remove that line from the final post (and since I can't edit it, it's still in there). The state-based effect thing is a simple typo.
May 30, 2016 5:01 p.m.
Snarky nitpicking is just as unnecessary as an overcomplicated response. Please stick to answering the question.
May 30, 2016 10:37 p.m.
I'm not sure what I did qualifies as nitpicking. I was a little snarky and for that I appologize. People just throwing around jargon is one of the reasons that some people find the MTG rules to be intimidating. Mentioning things that don't exist and mentioning things that are irrelevant directly works against the goal of fostering understanding of the rules.
One who didn't know that state-based effects are not a thing is likely to be confused about what the difference is between them and state-based actions. Mentioning the stack and that it is important to understanding the answer also only serves to confuse people who do not have a solid grasp of the rules. While I could have gone about it in a more thoughtful manner I maintain that clarifying that state-based effects are not a thing and that the stack is irrelevant was necessary.
May 31, 2016 9:50 a.m.
I agree with you that an overcomplicated/high-jargon response is unnecessary, and my comment was meant to communicate that. Sorry if it was unclear.
The "nitpicking" was in regards to calling out the use of SBE vs. SBA, and honestly a matter of personal opinion on my part. Though one of the two terms is technically the correct choice, I think they're much more likely to be conflated in the mind of the average player than held as separate concepts, meaning it's rarely important to make a distinction except in very technical discussions.