Mox Diamond errata after SHA.

[PhanTom_lt]

Didn't anyone else notice? Now you can stop whining about your Moxes getting countered after you discarded a land.


New Oracle wording:
If Mox Diamond would come into play, discard a land card instead. If you do, put Mox Diamond into play. If you don't, put it into its owner's graveyard.
{oT}: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.

[Maveric78f]

All the advantages, unstiflable contrary to chrome mox and counterspells does not creature card advantage. It's definitely a very good card.

[Nihil Credo]

Three cheers for Aggro Loam and White Stax!

[Barook]

It was about friggin' time.

[SnakeEater]

Nice! Now you can play the Mox again, without discarding a land, to get an artifact into your grave for more Tarmogoyf power. I like the new ruling.

[Nightmare]

This makes Mox Diamond much better in Storm Combo.

It's about frigging time.

[kicks_422]

How so? Does the new wording allow you to tap it before it gets put to the graveyard, if you don't discard a land?

[Sanguine Voyeur]

How so? Does the new wording allow you to tap it before it gets put to the graveyard, if you don't discard a land?You can't tap it for mana, but now you can at least play it for the storm.

[Whit3 Ghost]

It was about friggin' time.

[FoolofaTook]

I thought they made a commitment to do away with power level errata and just have the cards do what they say on the card?

Did the whole Flash-Hulk debacle mean nothing in terms of long-term progress on this issue?

[Nightmare]

I thought they made a commitment to do away with power level errata and just have the cards do what they say on the card?

Did the whole Flash-Hulk debacle mean nothing in terms of long-term progress on this issue?Uh, have you actually read the card? This is the closest its been to doing what it's supposed to do in a loooong ass time. It worked almost exactly like this when it was printed, pre-sixth edition rules changes.

[FoolofaTook]

Uh, have you actually read the card? This is the closest its been to doing what it's supposed to do in a loooong ass time. It worked almost exactly like this when it was printed, pre-sixth edition rules changes.

It says: When Mox Diamond comes into play choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond.

Should I not be able to Stifle the comes into play ability and deploy the MD without discarding a land?

[Nightmare]

It says: When Mox Diamond comes into play choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond.

Should I not be able to Stifle the comes into play ability and deploy the MD without discarding a land?
No, you should not. Because the more likely scenario is playing the Mox, tapping it in response to the CIPT trigger, and letting it die. This was never the intent of the card - in fact, it was impossible pre-sixth edition - and it's literally taken them this long to come up with a good way to replicate the functionality of it as it was intended from day 1 without making the card a Lotus Petal or shitty. They went with shitty for a while, but they finally fixed that, too.

This isn't one of those grey area cases like Time Vault where the wording makes things unclear. This is a black and white issue, where we know what they wanted the card to do, and we know how it was intended to work back then.

[Nightmare]

And to address the inevitable comparison to Dreadnaught:

From a later Ask Wizards: (August 6, 2007)



Q: With the recent restoration of Phyrexian Dreadnought when can we expect similar worded cards, such as Mox Diamond and Lotus Vale, to also be restored?
–John, Lynchburg, VA, USA

This is a question we've received a lot ever since the return of Flash to its original functionality, and even more since the Tenth Edition update bulletin and the announcement that Phyrexian Dreadnought would be similarly restored. It seems at first glance that the printed wordings of Flash and Phyrexian Dreadnought represent the same case as the printed wordings of Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, Scorched Ruins, and similar cards with comes-into-play drawbacks. Let's look at the printed wordings:

Phyrexian Dreadnought
Card Text:
Trample
When Phyrexian Dreadnought comes into play, sacrifice any number of creatures with total power of 12 or more, or bury Phyrexian Dreadnought.

Lotus Vale
Card text:
When Lotus Vale comes into play, sacrifice two
untapped lands or bury Lotus Vale.
TAP: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool.

Hmmm. Those look the same to me—so similar that I asked Rules Manager Mark Gottlieb (who is way too busy keeping the rules from disintegrating to answer Ask Wizards questions) what the difference was. He didn't deign to answer—he speaks mostly in cryptic riddles these days—but he did email me the URL of the Weatherlight FAQ. Now we're getting somewhere. This historical document dates back to the set's release (though not, one supposes, in its online form). Maybe I can find a passing reference to it, or... ah, this should do:
Can I tap Lotus Vale for mana before I sacrifice the two lands?
No. You must deal with a card's coming-into-play cost before you may activate any of its abilities.

There you have it. Under pre-Sixth Edition rules, comes-into-play costs—much like phase costs such as echo—had to be paid before any of a permanent's abilities could be used. Lotus Vale and company could never be tapped for mana without paying the proper costs, and so their current Oracle wordings reflect only the changing rules, not changing functionality. By contrast, Phyrexian Dreadnought doesn't have any activated abilities, and Flash doesn't give you the chance to use them—the creature comes into play and leaves play (if you don't pay) all during the spell's resolution.
So don't expect to see errata for Mox Diamond, Lotus Vale, or Scorched Ruins. We might revisit them to get them even closer to intended functionality—you'll notice an interaction change with Ankh of Mishra, for instance—but all evidence indicates that they currently work the way they always did in the majority of cases.

The difference between MoxD and Lotus Vale, of course, is that one is a spell and the other is a land. You can't counter Lotus Vale and make your opponent get 4-for-1'd. Now they all actually work the way they were supposed to.

[FoolofaTook]

My point was not that it was somehow better or worse to have Mox Diamond work one way or the other. My point was that it should work the way it's worded on the card. WoTC said explicitly when they began removing power level errata that they wanted the cards to be more transparent and obvious in their effects even if that made some cards more or less powerful than they were intended due to poor wording.

We all saw what happened with Flash, when it was un-errata'd last year. Why the hell not just keep the errata on Flash to reflect it's intended usage if they were then going to continue issuing errata for cards for that purpose?

There's just an enormous disconnect in all of this from the WoTC perspective. They're saying one thing for some cards and saying another thing for others. Transparency was their goal and now it's not?

[Nightmare]

My point was that it should work the way it's worded on the card. WoTC said explicitly when they began removing power level errata that they wanted the cards to be more transparent and obvious in their effects even if that made some cards more or less powerful than they were intended due to poor wording.I'd love to see a quote from where they said this. Seriously, if you can find it let me know, because I'm not sure I've read that anywhere. In the mean time, I am aware based on this quote:


Other cards from Mox Diamond's era, like Kjeldoran Outpost and Lotus Vale, got no-shenanigans wordings that prevented them from coming into play (and thus being tapped for mana) unless you fulfilled their sacrifice costs. Mox Diamond is getting a wording like that, to keep it as true to its era and its printed wording as possible. (It's still not exactly the same as the printed functionality, but it's closer.)
That their intentions are to "keep it as true to its era and its printed wording as possible." Again, based on this quote, it seems like working the way it's intended to is the driver, but they're going to try and keep it as close to the written card as possible while doing so.


We all saw what happened with Flash, when it was un-errata'd last year. Why the hell not just keep the errata on Flash to reflect it's intended usage if they were then going to continue errating cards for that purpose?Because in restoring it to its original intent, it now actually works like it does on the card. The two are the same. It was supposed to put a creature into play, then kill it if you don't pay the mana. It didn't a year ago. It does now.

[Nightmare]

Taking it a step further, let's look at how the power level errata vs. functional errata has proceeded thus far:

Time Vault - Looks nothing like it does on the card. Works like it was supposed to, apparently (there is still some debate).
Priest of Gix, Cloud of Faeries, etc. - Looks like it does on the card. Errata was removed that changed it back to a) the way it originally worked, and b) the way it was written.
Flash - Looks like it does on the card. Errata was removed that changed it back to a) the way it originally worked, and b) the way it was written.
Phyrexian Dreadnaught - Looks like it does on the card. Errata was removed that changed it back to a) the way it originally worked, and b) the way it was written.
Lotus Vale - Looks similar, but not exactly the way it does on the card. Works almost exactly the way it did when printed.
Scorched Ruins - Looks similar, but not exactly the way it does on the card. Works almost exactly the way it did when printed.
Mox Diamond - Looks similar, but not exactly the way it does on the card. Works almost exactly like it did when printed.

[Barook]

Well, the idea of Wizards to make cards worded/work like they're printed was raped, murdered, raped, mutilated, raped again and then flushed down the toilet at the point they started to go apeshit with creature types.

Making cards work like they're printed but adding tons of creatures types you'll never know until you look the oracle wording up? Good going, Wizards!

[freakish777]

The important thing here is that all of the cards work the way they were originally intended to (with the possible exception of debate on Time Vault). Phyrexian Dreadnaught was supposed to come into play and then be sacrificed if you couldn't pay it's cost. When people starting finding ways around paying that cost and still getting an effect (Pandemonium), Wizards panicked and essentially came up with the excuse of "We didn't intend for it to work that way!" because at the time of designing the card hadn't anticipated creatures with comes into play triggers (cipt first appeared in Visions, Dreadnaught's from Mirage), let alone an Enchantment that would trigger for all creatures entering play (Pandemonium's from Exodus). Wizards at the time wanted to have their cake and eat it to, and they've since realized that that was the wrong approach. If they make a mistake as far as making an effect too powerful, we have their word that they'll just ban it (or rather Forsythe's word, should be good enough though), and we also have their word that if they print a card accidently with the wrong wording that they'll issue errata to the proper wording (Oboro Envoy, Psychic Battle which results in a game draw due to infinite triggers as worded).

I think this is a pretty clear case of them having always intended for Mox Diamond and Lotus Vale to pay a cost as it came into play and they simply hadn't come up with the proper wording (keep in mind that at the time even members of Wizards R&D probably didn't have that firm of a grasp on the rules and didn't have the help of the likes of Randy Buehler or Mike Turian).

[revenge_inc]

This makes Mox Diamond much better in Storm Combo.
I understand the errata, but how does it become better for Storm Combo?
Before this errata you could use it as a Lotus Petal the turn you wanted to combo off. Now you can't.

[Xero]

I understand the errata, but how does it become better for Storm Combo?
Before this errata you could use it as a Lotus Petal the turn you wanted to combo off. Now you can't.

No you couldn't. The way it was worded, you were required to discard a land or Mox Diamond could not be played at all. Now you can play it as a 0 cost spell with no effect. I don't think it's very good in Storm Combo, however. Those decks tend to run very few lands, making Mox Diamond about as good as Ornithopter (weighing the few instances where you'd be able to discard a land vs. blocking).

[Lego]

Before this errata you could use it as a Lotus Petal the turn you wanted to combo off. Now you can't.

The thing you're missing is that before this errata, there was ANOTHER errata. Basically, there are three steps to Mox Diamond.

Step 1, as written: When Mox Diamond comes into play, choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond.

This was pre-Sixth edition rules change, so all comes into play abilities had to be resolved before you could play any abilities of the permanent.

Step 2 post-6th, and current wording: As an additional cost to play Mox Diamond, discard a land card.

When they changed the rules at 6th edition, as Mox Diamond was printed, you were able to play it, tap it for mana, and then sacrifice it. To fix this, they made the discard an additional cost, but that changed the functionality of the card, because now you can't play it if you don't have a land to discard (and if it's countered, you lose the land.)

Step 3 post-Shadowmoor: If Mox Diamond would come into play, discard a land card instead. If you do, put Mox Diamond into play. If you don't, put it into its owner's graveyard.

This is much closer to the original functionality, although still not perfect. Now you can play it without a land, and it adds to storm, but never comes into play. And discarding a land isn't an additional cost, so if it's countered, you never discard the land.


Good move by WOTC I guess, even though itd be cool if it was Lotus Petal 5-8 like it once was. Now they just need to give Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins the same treatment, and of course restore Lion's Eye Diamond (it says mana source rite on the card)! :wink:

1) It was never Lotus Petal 5-8. See the 3 steps above.

2) Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins already got this treatment. Compare Step 3 above to the current Oracle wording of Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins.

3) There's no such thing as a "mana source" anymore. LED is still a mana ability, but due to timing changes after 6th, it had to be errataed to maintain functionality. 6th edition rules changes made it a whole lot more powerful, so they gave it an errata to restore the previous power level. The same thing happened to Waylay.

[MattH]

I'm also glad they finally fixed Waylay. The "only during attack step" wording was terrible. What if I had Anger in the graveyard? Thank god that works now, I have casual decks to maintain.

Anyway, I don't see why they can't just pull the same trick they did with Winter Orb and Master at Arms and force the old functionality straight into the wording:

"When Mox Diamond comes into play, choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond. You can't play activated abilities of Mox Diamond while this ability is on the stack. (This includes mana abilities.)"

But they don't for some reason. That would restore even more of the functionality, such as letting the Weatherlight lands interact with Ankh of Mishra, and Mox Diamond play better with Arcbound Crusher and, uh, Urza's Miter.

[Bovinious]

I'm also glad they finally fixed Waylay. The "only during attack step" wording was terrible. What if I had Anger in the graveyard? Thank god that works now!

Anger + Waylay eh? You, sir, have broken the format :wink:

[Machinus]

oh fuck yes.

mark gottlieb, your sentence has been reduced...no wait, why did this take ten years? ass.

[Anusien]

"When Mox Diamond comes into play, choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond. You can't play activated abilities of Mox Diamond while this ability is on the stack. (This includes mana abilities.)"

[13:08] <Lee|work> Those were people suggesting other wordings so it actually comes into play.
[13:08] <Anusien> I think my wording suggested split second, but that doesn't actually work
[13:11] <Lee|work> We don't have a way to grant abilities on the stack split second, no :P
[13:11] * nialo has quit IRC (Ping timeout: no data for 484 seconds)
[13:11] <[Klep]> also would allow triggered abilities and morph and such
[13:11] <[Klep]> which also doesn't match what you're trying to do
[13:12] <Lee|work> Yeah.
[13:12] <Lee|work> I don't think we're too worried about the "whether or not it actually comes into play" part.
[13:12] <Anusien> LeeSharpe: You can't?
[13:12] <Lee|work> It's not THAT different.
[13:13] <Lee|work> I mean, there are other solutions.
[13:13] <[Klep]> As ~this~ comes into play, choose and discard a land card. If a land card is not discarded in this way, sacrifice ~this~. No other action can be taken until this choice is resolved.
[13:13] <[Klep]> what about something like that?
[13:13] <Anusien> You can't have an ability with Split Second at the front of the text? Or are you saying, you can't do it NOW/hasn't been done
[13:13] <Lee|work> The closest thing we discussed is adding a "Play this ability only if no ability whose source is Mox Diamond is on the stack." to the mana ability.
[13:13] <Lee|work> And that just seemed too weird.
[13:13] <Anusien> ew
[13:14] <Javasci> the problem with split second is it can't be stifled
[13:14] <Lee|work> It works for the most part, but is functionally different with granting abilities and other things.

[Machinus]

no more uba mask lock:


If a player would draw a card, that player removes that card from the game face up with a mask counter on it instead.
Each player may play each card with a mask counter on it he or she removed from the game this turn.

[Anusien]

By the way, the Shadowmoor set code is SHM not SHA.

[Barook]

I don't get it - what's different from the old version aside from the mask counters? :confused:


If a player would draw a card, that player removes that card from the game face up instead.
Each player may play cards he or she removed from the game with Uba Mask this turn.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Now you can play cards that you removed with other Uba Masks. Before, a "different" Uba Mask would have been in play after doing Welder stuff. The new mask hasn't removed any cards this turn, so there's nothing to play.

[xsockmonkeyx]

Link to announcement plz.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Link to announcement plz.Today's featured article.
(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/453a)

[xsockmonkeyx]

Muchas gracias.

EDIT: they nerfed double Raging River :_:

[freakish777]

no more uba mask lock:


HA! I bet Vroman is pissed.

[mercenarybdu]

It makes sense as the Iggy Pop or Tendrils player would had taken advantage of the previous text to build the count by one at nearly no cost. With this in effect they have lost one count to the combo.

Another thing they finally got right as the rest are the come along later.

[Lego]

It makes sense as the Iggy Pop or Tendrils player would had taken advantage of the previous text to build the count by one at nearly no cost. With this in effect they have lost one count to the combo.

Another thing they finally got right as the rest are the come along later.

I'm not sure what you're going for here. They can still play it without a land card, it simply can't add mana unless you discard a land.

[Lego]

Anger + Waylay eh? You, sir, have broken the format :wink:

It was really good with Fires of Yavimaya :)

[MattH]

blah

Absolutely nothing you posted explains why my proposal wouldn't work, not least because what I wrote isn't split second*.

I mean, it might not, but you're just spouting gibberish.

*I originally had a SS wording, but I revised it when I realized that it wouldn't work for a host of reasons...the most important of which** you don't even mention. Derf @ you - no, worse than that. DRAGONDERF @ U


**With a Split Second spell (or ability) on the stack, you still get priority, you just can't cast any spells. When you have priority, you can still play mana abilities, so merely giving the ability SS still lets you play it as Petal 5-8. You'd have to give it both Split Second AND the LED/Rhystic Cave wording, or some other workaround.

[Anusien]

Read the whole quote, noob.

[13:13] <[Klep]> As ~this~ comes into play, choose and discard a land card. If a land card is not discarded in this way, sacrifice ~this~. No other action can be taken until this choice is resolved.
[13:13] <[Klep]> what about something like that?
[13:13] <Anusien> You can't have an ability with Split Second at the front of the text? Or are you saying, you can't do it NOW/hasn't been done
[13:13] <Lee|work> The closest thing we discussed is adding a "Play this ability only if no ability whose source is Mox Diamond is on the stack." to the mana ability.
[13:13] <Lee|work> And that just seemed too weird.

[MattH]

Read the whole quote, noob.
So he brought up some wording which WASN'T like mine, and wasn't like Klep's, because Lee's wording is altering the mana ability and not the triggered ability, which is an approach so bizarre and backward that almost no one would think to do that unless they were TRYING to get a suggestion shot down, and...

...drumroll...

...it got rejected.

Way to make my case for me. Noob.

[Lego]

Way to make my case for me. Noob.

So do it yourself. You can log into #mtgjudges just as easily as he can. Don't be a jerk when someone tries to do you a favor.

[B.C.]

HA! I bet Vroman is pissed.

I think heartbroken is a better word.



wotc may have killed you, but you will live on in my heart forever.

http://inlinethumb55.webshots.com/41398/2504992390086718795S500x500Q85.jpg (http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/photo/2504992390086718795GmTlXY)

[MattH]

So do it yourself. You can log into #mtgjudges just as easily as he can. Don't be a jerk when someone tries to do you a favor.
Anusien wasn't trying to do me a favor - or at least I don't see how. I asked why a particular wording would not, in theory, work, and he replied with a non sequiter: the judge/rules/errata team had considered and rejected a wording which was not really like mine. This did not answer my question.

Also, I'm not agitating for further errata - their fix accomplished 90% of what I wanted - I was just asking, academically, why a particular wording wouldn't work.

[xsockmonkeyx]

Also, I'm not agitating for further errata - their fix accomplished 90% of what I wanted.

What is the other 10%?

[Illissius]

The idea I had, which is similar to Matt's:

When Mox Diamond comes into play, (you may?) discard a land card. If you do, Mox Diamond gains "T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.". If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond.

The issue both of these have is that someone can Disenchant it in response to the the CIP, and you can't tap it for mana in response. On the other hand, it correctly triggers CIP and LP effects when you don't discard, unlike the current/new wording. So it's a tradeoff, but it's pretty trivial either way.

[MattH]

What is the other 10%?
Growing Arcbound Crusher without discarding a land (I suppose the more 'Spike' application is triggering a Disciple of the Vault). Right now, the Mox never gets into play without discarding a land, but at least it can get on the STACK without a land - previously it could do neither!

[Nihil Credo]

Just for the hell of it, I just had an idea for this wording:

Mox Diamond - :0:
Artifact
When Mox Diamond comes into play, you may discard a land card. If you do, Mox Diamond gains "T: Add one mana of any colour to your mana pool". If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond. This ability can't be countered*.

* Modelled after Gilded Drake; that way Stifle can't be used to effectively counter a Mox Diamond.

[Lego]

Just for the hell of it, I just had an idea for this wording:

Mox Diamond - :0:
Artifact
When Mox Diamond comes into play, you may discard a land card. If you do, Mox Diamond gains "T: Add one mana of any colour to your mana pool". If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond. This ability can't be countered*.

* Modelled after Gilded Drake; that way Stifle can't be used to effectively counter a Mox Diamond.

That ability probably needs split second, otherwise Disenchant can counter Mox Diamond. And I think the whole problem was putting split second on a CIPT ability.

[MattH]

That ability probably needs split second, otherwise Disenchant can counter Mox Diamond. And I think the whole problem was putting split second on a CIPT ability.

I don't think it's a RULES problem with doing that; it just looks ugly.

[Anusien]

I don't think it's a RULES problem with doing that; it just looks ugly.
At the moment, it's never been done and it's unclear whether the rules support it, bordering on no (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=225000&postcount=26http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=225000&postcount=26).

*shrug* These two look a lot alike to me. They have the same "can't tap for mana whilst the CIP is on the stack", but it's just in which ability the sentence is.

Mox Diamond {0}
Artifact
When Mox Diamond comes into play, choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond. You can't play activated abilities of Mox Diamond while this ability is on the stack. (This includes mana abilities.)
T: Add one color of any mana to your mana pool.

Mox Diamond {0}
When Mox Diamond comes into play, choose and discard a land card or sacrifice Mox Diamond.
T: Add one color of any mana to your mana pool. Play this ability only if no ability whose source is Mox Diamond is on the stack.


which is an approach so bizarre and backward that almost no one would think to do that unless they were TRYING to get a suggestion shot down
Somehow, I don't think Lee would do that. It's almost as if he's a NetRep and an L3+ (is he L4 yet?) who cares about having the best possible wording that maintains as much functionality as possible. Both wordings have the same clause, it's just whether it's in the CIP trigger or the mana ability.

And it makes more sense to have the condition on the mana ability. "Play this ability only when X" is seen a lot, while the other is not seen at all. Plus it's pretty awful to me to have a triggered ability that has not resolved yet affect the game.


ecause Lee's wording is altering the mana ability and not the triggered ability, which is an approach so bizarre and backward that almost no one would think to do that
Charmed Pendant, Lion's Eye Diamond
No one would ever think to put a timing restriction on a mana ability!

[Aleksandr]

Maybe I am totally off topic, but is there any problem to use the wording similar to Ravnica "shocklands" or Pithing Needle? Would it still result in collision with the stack?

Pithing Mox:
"As Mox diamond comes into play, you may discard a land card. If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond"

Shocking Mox:
"As Mox Diamond comes into play, you may discard a land card. If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond."

Maybe "..put it into your GY" would be better...
Nonetheless, is this wording going to prevent the stack problem?

Thanks a lot. (And if this was already discussed, thn I apollogize...)

[technogeek5000]

Wait so can we make this clear (I don't have enough time to look into it myself currently). Can you tap the mox before you have to pay the additional cost and not discard a land? Yes or no.

[PhanTom_lt]

No.

[Bardo]

I think this has run its course.

[Bardo]

One last point that Nihil hadn't finished making while the thread was being locked. - Bardo


Maybe I am totally off topic, but is there any problem to use the wording similar to Ravnica "shocklands" or Pithing Needle? Would it still result in collision with the stack?

Pithing Mox:
"As Mox diamond comes into play, you may discard a land card. If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond"

Shocking Mox:
"As Mox Diamond comes into play, you may discard a land card. If you don't, sacrifice Mox Diamond."

Maybe "..put it into your GY" would be better...
Nonetheless, is this wording going to prevent the stack problem?

Nihil replies: A card isn't yet in play while "As (this) comes into play [do stuff]" happens; this is necessary so that it can take into account changes in how it comes into play (replacement effects). Example: you play Vesuva, and "as it comes into play" you choose a Gemstone Mine to copy. Vesuva will come into play (tapped) with three gem counters on it - as you'd expect - only because that choice happened before it came into play as a copy of Mine.

Because of this, you can't say "As (this) comes into play, sacrifice it"; you can't sacrifice something that isn't in play.