Tabernacle is also the only card for which the Magus has a different effect, because the Magus of the Tabernacle does cause creatures to get sacrificed. (Unless you count that Magus of the Balance discards cards before it sacrifices creatures, which could be relevant if an opponent of the balance player has Dodecapod, Wilt-Leaf Liege, Loxodon Smiter, Obstinate Baloth or Nullhide Ferox in hand, but that's about it.)
I'm guessing how it used to work is it would be treated as if Amy just didn't pay and her creatures would be destroyed? It's kind of a brutal mistake to make, but that ruling feels more intuitive to me.
Correct, it used to be that the creatures would be destroyed. Similarly, if you failed to pay a Pact trigger, you would instantly lose the game. R&D never particularly liked these rules and decided it led to too many feels-bad moments so they just got rid of it. They made this change during the RNA set release. There was some concern at the time about how players could abuse this by paying for a pact trigger at a later point in the turn (say, after they made their land drop) but those concerns were mostly blown out of proportion.
@@supermarth64 I can empathize with the feels bad on Tabernacle triggers. It's the oppont's card doing it after all. However, I really don't like the change for Pacts. It kind of reduces the coolness of the cards' flavor. I agree that it doesn't seem particularly abusable, though.
This was a hard one. Thanks for the video. Now I'm thinking how efficient Tabernacle is against Ruxa, Patient Professor, from a few videos ago, since it gives an ability to all creatures. If I remember correctly, abilities come before P/T changes in layers, right?
What happens if the opponent of the dark depths and Tabernacle player has dress down in hand to remove indestructible, is the trigger still not put on the stack later?
it feels like how this should work is that her creature should just be destroyed, since 1: at competitive rel, its called competitive for a reason. if you miss the opportunity to pay for that trigger, you should suffer the consequences. 2: paying the mana isnt something that needs to happen, so moving on to the draw step should imo be taken as the choice to let it be destroyed
that is how it was handled in the past. If you missed a trigger similar to the one of Tabernacle, the default action would have been executed, thus destroying the creatures.
In cEDH what happens if player A Has a tabernacle and B has a creature and miss the trigger? Is it a beneficial trigger for player A? Can the other players decide to put it on the stack?
Tabernacle is also the only card for which the Magus has a different effect, because the Magus of the Tabernacle does cause creatures to get sacrificed. (Unless you count that Magus of the Balance discards cards before it sacrifices creatures, which could be relevant if an opponent of the balance player has Dodecapod, Wilt-Leaf Liege, Loxodon Smiter, Obstinate Baloth or Nullhide Ferox in hand, but that's about it.)
gawd i wish i bought a tabernacle for 1000 a few months ago.
I'm guessing how it used to work is it would be treated as if Amy just didn't pay and her creatures would be destroyed? It's kind of a brutal mistake to make, but that ruling feels more intuitive to me.
Correct, it used to be that the creatures would be destroyed. Similarly, if you failed to pay a Pact trigger, you would instantly lose the game. R&D never particularly liked these rules and decided it led to too many feels-bad moments so they just got rid of it. They made this change during the RNA set release. There was some concern at the time about how players could abuse this by paying for a pact trigger at a later point in the turn (say, after they made their land drop) but those concerns were mostly blown out of proportion.
@@supermarth64 I can empathize with the feels bad on Tabernacle triggers. It's the oppont's card doing it after all. However, I really don't like the change for Pacts. It kind of reduces the coolness of the cards' flavor. I agree that it doesn't seem particularly abusable, though.
Hello past Dave
Would just like to confirm that this is the updated ruling? Know rules keep changing
Long live Treva the Renewer!!!!
This was a hard one. Thanks for the video.
Now I'm thinking how efficient Tabernacle is against Ruxa, Patient Professor, from a few videos ago, since it gives an ability to all creatures.
If I remember correctly, abilities come before P/T changes in layers, right?
If someone is running a $2-3000 card against a Ruxa deck, I think there's a bigger problem there lol.
Magus of the Tabernacle is only $2-3 and also shuts down Ruxa.
Fair enough, but I'm still not sure why anyone would be concerned about shutting down a deck full of vanilla creatures.
What happens if the opponent of the dark depths and Tabernacle player has dress down in hand to remove indestructible, is the trigger still not put on the stack later?
it feels like how this should work is that her creature should just be destroyed, since 1: at competitive rel, its called competitive for a reason. if you miss the opportunity to pay for that trigger, you should suffer the consequences. 2: paying the mana isnt something that needs to happen, so moving on to the draw step should imo be taken as the choice to let it be destroyed
that is how it was handled in the past. If you missed a trigger similar to the one of Tabernacle, the default action would have been executed, thus destroying the creatures.
Well shoot, I need that last situation expanded. What if the game state WOULD change if the same person both controls and owns the triggered ability?
In cEDH what happens if player A Has a tabernacle and B has a creature and miss the trigger? Is it a beneficial trigger for player A? Can the other players decide to put it on the stack?
What happens if you would every turn explicitly put the trigger on the stack and someone forgets to pay? Same result?
Is this still the same ruling today?