Herald of Leshrac/Gitrog Monster interaction

Asked by 220ave220 7 years ago

in this interaction, Herald of Leshrac has a cumulative upkeep where you take another player's lands; However, The Gitrog Monster says that at the beginning of your upkeep, you may sacrifice a land. Can you sacrifice the land that you stole from the other player? If so, does it go into your graveyard or theirs? And if it does go into your graveyard, is it still returned to them after Herald of Leshrac leaves the battlefield? In this deck I'm also using Splendid Reclamation, so I would like to know how this all works before I decide to add Herald of Leshrac to my deck. Thanks.

You may sacrifice the stolen lands since you are the one who controls them. However, you will not draw a card off it because it does not go to your graveyard, it goes to its owner's graveyard.

When the lands leave the battlefield and go to their owner's graveyards, they are no longer tied to Herald of Leshrac's ability so when he leaves the battlefield, nothing happens with them.

Splendid Reclamation only affects the lands you own that are in your graveyard. It will not return to your battlefield other players' lands that you stole and sacrificed.

August 14, 2016 1:37 a.m.

acbooster says... Accepted answer #2

Whenever multiple abilities trigger at the same time, they're placed in APNAP order (Active Player Non-Active Player). Each player in turn, starting with the active player, will place abilities on the stack until they have placed all of them. Since you control both of these abilities, you can stack them so that the Herald of Leshrac's ability resolved before The Gitrog Monster's ability resolves, allowing you to sacrifice the land you stole.

If a permanent were to leave the battlefield and go to a graveyard, it always goes to its owner's graveyard, not its controller's graveyard. So if you sacrificed a stolen land to The Gitrog Monster, it would go to the graveyard of the player you stole it from (assuming they didn't steal it themselves).

August 14, 2016 1:39 a.m.

This discussion has been closed