Annihilating fire and regenerate
Standard forum
Posted on Jan. 21, 2013, 6:54 p.m. by megapenthes
Can you regenerate a creature that is hit by Annihilating Fire ? Annihilating fire sends things to exile instead of the graveyard so does that mean the creature would not technically be 'destroyed' and so regenerate would not trigger?
I'm confused as well though because destroy reads - 701.6a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owners graveyard.
But it wouldn't go to the graveyard if hit by Annihilating Fire , so does it actually 'destroy' ?
January 21, 2013 7:33 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #5
But Regenerate reads..."the next time that creature would be destroyed, it isn't." There's a strange overlap of replacement effects going on here.
Rhadamanthus or Epochalyptik to the rescue?
January 21, 2013 7:46 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #6
I think you'd layer them in priority sequence. But I'm not sure what that means for this situation...mafteechr is good for these things too.
January 21, 2013 7:48 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
In this case, we need to look at the specific wordings of each replacement effect.
Regenerate means The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Instead tap it, remove all damage from it, and remove it from combat. (We're only considering the case of creatures here.)
Annihilating Fire 's replacement effect says If a creature dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead.
In MTG, lethal damage causes destruction. Destruction causes a creature to die. Regeneration replaces destruction, while Annihilating Fire 's ability replaces death. Therefore, regeneration will apply first, and there will be no instance of death for Annihilating Fire to replace with exile. Note that if the same creature would die later in the turn, Annihilating Fire 's replacement effect applies at that time.
Or, you could just look at the Gatherer page for Annihilating Fire .
10/1/2012: The creature can still regenerate.
January 21, 2013 7:56 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
@jminute14: Neither priority order nor layers have anything to do with replacement effects. The controller of the object that would be affected is the only player who decides the order in which multiple replacement effects would apply. In this case, that's irrelevant because each replacement effect is concerned with a different event.
January 21, 2013 7:58 p.m.
Read the Gatherer entry.
10/1/2012 The creature can still regenerate.
This is because regeneration is a replacement effect that replaces the event of dying with an event of tapping the creature and removing it from combat. The creature would never die because it would never be put into its owner's graveyard from the battlefield, and so the creature would never be exiled instead of dying (...because it would never die).
January 21, 2013 7:59 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
@Jimhawk: Your answer is right, but for the wrong reason. Regeneration does not replace the event of dying; it replaces the event of destruction. This is the key to understanding this situation because regeneration will apply before Annihilating Fire 's replacement effect would. If both replacement effects replaced the event of dying, then the controller of the creature would be able to decide which replacement effect to use because they'd both be applying to the same event.
January 21, 2013 8:01 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #12
For future reference, this kind of question is best asked in the Q&A. Most of our rules gurus frequent that area, so you're likely to get a fast and accurate answer from at least one of us.
January 21, 2013 8:02 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #13
Thanks Epoch, thats why we keep you guys around lol.
MindAblaze says... #2
But regenerate reads "the next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, instead..." So it never "dies."
So yes, you can regenerate a creature hit with Annihilating Fire .
January 21, 2013 7:19 p.m.