If I remember correctly, back in the olden days of Magic, there was a concept that a creature was "on the way to the graveyard" before actually going there.
You can kind of see that illustrated in Judge Dave's playthrough of the Shandalar computer game haha. "Killed" cards that are about to go to GY have a skull icon on them and then you can play damage prevention. I can't remember if the "on the way" thing was slang for the Damage Prevention Step, or if that idea was formalized into the Damage Prevention Step later.
The thing with reducing a walker to 0 loyalty or a creature to be 0 toughness is that even IF they did count as being destroyed, regeneration still wouldn't help. They'd use their regeneration shield, then the game would see them still being at 0, and put them into the yard all over again immediately
This has been one of my favorite mechanics since '94. While I definitely prefer the OG timing I feel the new definition is better defined mechanics wise.
It went from intuitive timing to unintuitive with the change. The regeneration and prevention itself was defined perfectly fine. It's just that if you wanted to interact with THOSE abilities you had to play OTHER abilities that WEREN'T prevention and it became a snowball of what's actually allowed during the Damage Prevention Step, that they didn't want to deal with. (Part of the issue was removing interrupts...) So they gave up and said "uhhh ok nevermind, nobody can ever take actions directly against damage, you just have to 'regenerate' the creature before it even takes the damage." I've never forgiven them haha.
As soon as I saw this title I thought "oh man, I'm really excited to see how you discuss this in the history of magic rules changes video once I get back to that one" haha. But you gave a nice long video here with at least a minute on the old days, nice! Got me on the "destroy event contains dies event" example. I really think "destroys" should be defined as a subtype of "dies"; destroying IS dying so both replacements should apply and then controller chooses one. Save the "contains" weirdness only for multiple simultaneous events.
I remember years ago finding the card Debt of Loyalty and since it says on the card "Regenerate target creature,. Gain control of that creature" thinking this is an absurd gain control effect, and in WHITE! then saw the oracle text and got sad :( Still very cool card that probably should see more play in commander than it does.
Love your "debt of loyalty" card, genuinely thought it was real for a second, the art and design just work so well Now I want WotC to print it, would be fun to cast in response to a Day of Judgement targeting an opponent's commander
I feel like you should address what it means to be removed from combat. It's been years since I've faced this, but I do remember someone claiming that removing from combat meant that the regenerated creature dealt no damage. Thankfully regenerate was replaced with indestructible; but I can see someone trying to argue what the effect of removing from combat means.
It won't deal damage if it hasn't already. Normally, if it's trading in combat or will be dealing damage simultaneously with the other creature meaning it will be removed after already dealing it's damage, but if it would die to first strike damage or a removal spell, then yeah it won't be in combat by the time the appropriate damage step comes up.
My favorite Regeneration interaction is how it interacts with a Planeswalker being attacked. If you regenerate the Planeswalker and then destroy it, it gets removed from combat and never gets hit by the attacking creatures.
@@miserepoignee9594 That's really too bad. I was hoping I could save it by animating the planeswalker somehow, but a planeswalker being attacked is neither attacking nor blocking so that doesn't help.
What about a card like Casualties of War targets twice a permanent (eg. an artifact creature) with 2 "regeneration shields"? Both try to replace the first attempt and then the permanent is destroyed?
This was covered in the video; the controller of the regenerating permanent chooses which regeneration shield to apply. After it has been applied, it has replaced the "destroy" effect and the second shield continues to exist with no reason to intervene until a second "destroy" effect comes along. A more interesting question is whether the two "destroy" effects of Casualties of War get combined; the Gatherer clarification suggests that they run sequentially, but there is a rule for combining multiple, simultaneous effects with the same outcome.
Really appreciate the clarification. It’s nice to hear a succinct explanation that moves past my original understanding from the first days of the game. It can be hard to update our own mental models sometimes!
I never understood why WotC called it "Regenerate" and not something like "Shield" when it basically puts a shield around a creature that prevents dying. You could say that a "shield" usually protects damage and not death, but to "regenerate" something definitely brings something back from the dead. I don't know, I feel like WotC definitely could've avoided a lot of problems with players misunderstanding the keyword if they gave it a better name.
Regenerate doesn't mean reanimate to regenerate is just to heal at a fast pace kinda like a healing factor, it's also worth noting that old magic had a very very different flavor
Keep in mind that Regenerate is OLD. Like really really old. Wizards couldn't have named it to flavorfully work with Stack interactions, because Regenerate is significantly older than the Stack itself
It's funny you say this, because this is basically what Shield counters do now, and is probably why we're more likely to see shield counters than regeneration in the future.
I'm still a little confused when you have a regeneration shield on a creature and they cast Terror. Should the regeneration shield be consumed anyway or not? I'd have guessed it sees a destruction event and replaces it, but what it replaces it with has no effect. But you seem to have said the replacement doesn't try because it somehow knows it won't succeed?
would both creatures be dead in the fencing ace scenario if instead of regenerate the ace had a umbra armor effect on it such as dog umbra? and can you order regeneration before an umbra armor effect or will they both fall off.
Yes you can order them, no they would not both die. It's similar to the several examples Judge Dave mentioned where two different effects want to replace the Ace being "destroyed" with something else. The controller chooses which to apply. If they really want to kill the Leeches, they could use Umbra Armor to survive the first strike damage and finish damaging the Leeches on regular damage step. (In this case though, why even bother using up a regenerate effect on it?) Or, they could let the regenerate work on it and it would be removed from combat, just like in the original example - in this case the Umbra Armor would stay on it.
One key detail is both Regenerate and Umbra Armor are defined to apply "when the creature would be destroyed", not "when it receives damage" or "when it dies" like in some other examples he showed.
That's what happens when they pull the legal rug out from under a staple (at the time) mechanic. Overhauling the entire ruleset in 6th ed I'm sure made judging a lot clearer but basically killed Regeneration. It's more of a niche treat for the nostalgia players now.
Interaction question: Infect/Wither vs Regeneration If Nick blocks Amy’s Grizzly Bear with Wither with his own normal Grizzly Bear and casts Death Ward during the declare blockers step. Does Nick’s Grizzly Bear survive? Specifically because Wither/Infect gives -1/-1 counters instead of damage, does the regenerate remove/negate the counters?
No, regenerate cares not about damage, so the bear would get two -1/-1 counters on it, reach 0 toughness, and die to state based effects that do not destroy. So regeneration never does anything in that case.
I understand that the counters get the creature to zero toughness and therefore 5:27 suggests that the creature dies. However, because regenerate removes damage I’m not 100% sure when it gets used in combat.
@@oia Regeneration removes damage as part of it's destruction replacement effect, not in general. No Since A: No damage is ever dealt, and B: No destruction event occurs. Regeneration does nothing. It's there because otherwise the regenerated creature would just get destroyed by damage again.
@@Mattwae…“Regenerate [permanent]” means “The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and its controller taps it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat.”… This is what’s causing me confusion.
@@oia "Damage on a creature" and "-1/-1 counters" are different things. A creature being destroyed due to having taken lethal damage, and a creature being put into the graveyard for having 0 or less toughness are also different things. I think there's some confusion here.
I appreciate the examples from other games but I have a small correction: in Pokemon, Focus band gives a 25% attack buff with the downside of being locked into a move, focus sash is the item that let's a Pokemon survive a one hit KO on one HP. Thanks for the explanation of regenerate!
Because regeneration is a replacement effect, shouldn't cards like terror (that specifically destroy rather than deal damage) have their statements reversed? because the destroying happens first (and the regeneration replaces it immediately, because it's not state based) and *then* the creature would lose the ability to regenerate. or is that not how replacement effects work altogether?
This is a great point that is specifically referenced in the CR. 608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, “Destroy target creature. It can’t be regenerated” or “Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner’s library instead of into its owner’s graveyard.”) Don’t just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases-read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.
@@miserepoignee9594 Another good example that the CR spells out is something being reanimated with a sentence afterward making it a Zombie or what-have-you. In that case the type-changing effect is actually created simultaneously with the card changing zones.
Consider that nowadays we have cards that needs an attorney to play correctly, the simplification of the past are obsolete, they could really bring back regeneration as was meant to be, much more interesting and flavoured than the lame indestructible mechanic, or shield counters
Right? This is what I'm saying. Pre-6th edition rules actually let things like Regeneration be based on intuition. Instead of just giving more precision to the mechanics they had, they threw out the whole system to "simplify" it, even though the game fundamentally was not defined to be simple. Embrace the complexity, 6th edition overhaul was the worst decision in the game's history :P
If I remember correctly, back in the olden days of Magic, there was a concept that a creature was "on the way to the graveyard" before actually going there.
You can kind of see that illustrated in Judge Dave's playthrough of the Shandalar computer game haha. "Killed" cards that are about to go to GY have a skull icon on them and then you can play damage prevention. I can't remember if the "on the way" thing was slang for the Damage Prevention Step, or if that idea was formalized into the Damage Prevention Step later.
The thing with reducing a walker to 0 loyalty or a creature to be 0 toughness is that even IF they did count as being destroyed, regeneration still wouldn't help.
They'd use their regeneration shield, then the game would see them still being at 0, and put them into the yard all over again immediately
This has been one of my favorite mechanics since '94. While I definitely prefer the OG timing I feel the new definition is better defined mechanics wise.
It went from intuitive timing to unintuitive with the change. The regeneration and prevention itself was defined perfectly fine. It's just that if you wanted to interact with THOSE abilities you had to play OTHER abilities that WEREN'T prevention and it became a snowball of what's actually allowed during the Damage Prevention Step, that they didn't want to deal with. (Part of the issue was removing interrupts...) So they gave up and said "uhhh ok nevermind, nobody can ever take actions directly against damage, you just have to 'regenerate' the creature before it even takes the damage." I've never forgiven them haha.
I love your videos because it looks like you're recording in the lost card dimension
As soon as I saw this title I thought "oh man, I'm really excited to see how you discuss this in the history of magic rules changes video once I get back to that one" haha. But you gave a nice long video here with at least a minute on the old days, nice!
Got me on the "destroy event contains dies event" example. I really think "destroys" should be defined as a subtype of "dies"; destroying IS dying so both replacements should apply and then controller chooses one. Save the "contains" weirdness only for multiple simultaneous events.
This video was wonderful as always. I think you meant Focus sash when you said focus band, but your point was made very clear, fret not
Thought the same but band also works... just 10% of the time
Ahh you're right, I was thinking of Choice Band
Appreciate the video as always you make it super easy to understand!
How does regenerate work?
"Awkwardly"
*since 6th edition
@@luca6819 I mean, before sixth edition, EVERYTHING worked awkwardly.
One time I whir'd in a Liquid metal coating to turn my Karn into an Artifact to regenerate him with Welding Jar.
So many people don't understand this mechanic, thanks for discussing it.
Also; ran into you briefly at Eternal Weekend, thanks for the token!
I remember years ago finding the card Debt of Loyalty and since it says on the card "Regenerate target creature,. Gain control of that creature" thinking this is an absurd gain control effect, and in WHITE! then saw the oracle text and got sad :( Still very cool card that probably should see more play in commander than it does.
I'm guessing the creature has to actually has to take lethal damage or be destroyed for you to steal it.
@@williamdrum9899 Yes, still very doable and potentially interesting for a color that doesn't usually get control-changing effects.
Love your "debt of loyalty" card, genuinely thought it was real for a second, the art and design just work so well
Now I want WotC to print it, would be fun to cast in response to a Day of Judgement targeting an opponent's commander
That's an actual Magic card. The only printing was back in ye olde days, hence requiring the mockup featuring the Oracle text.
@miserepoignee9594 ohhhhhhh, guess I may have a new pet card to put in white decks then
Great video! Thank you!
I feel like you should address what it means to be removed from combat. It's been years since I've faced this, but I do remember someone claiming that removing from combat meant that the regenerated creature dealt no damage. Thankfully regenerate was replaced with indestructible; but I can see someone trying to argue what the effect of removing from combat means.
It won't deal damage if it hasn't already. Normally, if it's trading in combat or will be dealing damage simultaneously with the other creature meaning it will be removed after already dealing it's damage, but if it would die to first strike damage or a removal spell, then yeah it won't be in combat by the time the appropriate damage step comes up.
My favorite Regeneration interaction is how it interacts with a Planeswalker being attacked. If you regenerate the Planeswalker and then destroy it, it gets removed from combat and never gets hit by the attacking creatures.
According to the rule onscreen at 2:51, a permanent that regenerates is only removed from combat if it's an attacking or blocking creature.
@@miserepoignee9594 That's really too bad. I was hoping I could save it by animating the planeswalker somehow, but a planeswalker being attacked is neither attacking nor blocking so that doesn't help.
What about a card like Casualties of War targets twice a permanent (eg. an artifact creature) with 2 "regeneration shields"? Both try to replace the first attempt and then the permanent is destroyed?
This was covered in the video; the controller of the regenerating permanent chooses which regeneration shield to apply. After it has been applied, it has replaced the "destroy" effect and the second shield continues to exist with no reason to intervene until a second "destroy" effect comes along.
A more interesting question is whether the two "destroy" effects of Casualties of War get combined; the Gatherer clarification suggests that they run sequentially, but there is a rule for combining multiple, simultaneous effects with the same outcome.
@@MAlanThomasIIthey are not simultaneous. Modal spells resolve the modes one at a time, from top to bottom.
Really appreciate the clarification. It’s nice to hear a succinct explanation that moves past my original understanding from the first days of the game. It can be hard to update our own mental models sometimes!
I never understood why WotC called it "Regenerate" and not something like "Shield" when it basically puts a shield around a creature that prevents dying. You could say that a "shield" usually protects damage and not death, but to "regenerate" something definitely brings something back from the dead. I don't know, I feel like WotC definitely could've avoided a lot of problems with players misunderstanding the keyword if they gave it a better name.
The way regenerate worked back in the day made a lot for sense- it was really the rules change that messed with the flavour
Regenerate doesn't mean reanimate to regenerate is just to heal at a fast pace kinda like a healing factor, it's also worth noting that old magic had a very very different flavor
Under the original rules, it was more like the creature actually 'died' but then sort of came back to life. The new rules make it work differently
Keep in mind that Regenerate is OLD. Like really really old.
Wizards couldn't have named it to flavorfully work with Stack interactions, because Regenerate is significantly older than the Stack itself
It's funny you say this, because this is basically what Shield counters do now, and is probably why we're more likely to see shield counters than regeneration in the future.
I'm still a little confused when you have a regeneration shield on a creature and they cast Terror. Should the regeneration shield be consumed anyway or not? I'd have guessed it sees a destruction event and replaces it, but what it replaces it with has no effect. But you seem to have said the replacement doesn't try because it somehow knows it won't succeed?
Because terror says no when it would be regenerated due to being destroyed by terror.
would both creatures be dead in the fencing ace scenario if instead of regenerate the ace had a umbra armor effect on it such as dog umbra? and can you order regeneration before an umbra armor effect or will they both fall off.
Yes you can order them, no they would not both die. It's similar to the several examples Judge Dave mentioned where two different effects want to replace the Ace being "destroyed" with something else. The controller chooses which to apply. If they really want to kill the Leeches, they could use Umbra Armor to survive the first strike damage and finish damaging the Leeches on regular damage step. (In this case though, why even bother using up a regenerate effect on it?) Or, they could let the regenerate work on it and it would be removed from combat, just like in the original example - in this case the Umbra Armor would stay on it.
One key detail is both Regenerate and Umbra Armor are defined to apply "when the creature would be destroyed", not "when it receives damage" or "when it dies" like in some other examples he showed.
Man I hate regeneration. It sounds simple at first but then you get into so many situations where it doesn’t work like you expected
That's what happens when they pull the legal rug out from under a staple (at the time) mechanic. Overhauling the entire ruleset in 6th ed I'm sure made judging a lot clearer but basically killed Regeneration. It's more of a niche treat for the nostalgia players now.
Interaction question: Infect/Wither vs Regeneration
If Nick blocks Amy’s Grizzly Bear with Wither with his own normal Grizzly Bear and casts Death Ward during the declare blockers step.
Does Nick’s Grizzly Bear survive?
Specifically because Wither/Infect gives -1/-1 counters instead of damage, does the regenerate remove/negate the counters?
No, regenerate cares not about damage, so the bear would get two -1/-1 counters on it, reach 0 toughness, and die to state based effects that do not destroy.
So regeneration never does anything in that case.
I understand that the counters get the creature to zero toughness and therefore 5:27 suggests that the creature dies. However, because regenerate removes damage I’m not 100% sure when it gets used in combat.
@@oia Regeneration removes damage as part of it's destruction replacement effect, not in general. No Since A: No damage is ever dealt, and B: No destruction event occurs. Regeneration does nothing. It's there because otherwise the regenerated creature would just get destroyed by damage again.
@@Mattwae…“Regenerate [permanent]” means “The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and its controller taps it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat.”…
This is what’s causing me confusion.
@@oia "Damage on a creature" and "-1/-1 counters" are different things. A creature being destroyed due to having taken lethal damage, and a creature being put into the graveyard for having 0 or less toughness are also different things. I think there's some confusion here.
I appreciate the examples from other games but I have a small correction: in Pokemon, Focus band gives a 25% attack buff with the downside of being locked into a move, focus sash is the item that let's a Pokemon survive a one hit KO on one HP. Thanks for the explanation of regenerate!
You're thinking of choice band. The focus band is a less consistent focus sash that works at less than full hp
Because regeneration is a replacement effect,
shouldn't cards like terror (that specifically destroy rather than deal damage) have their statements reversed?
because the destroying happens first (and the regeneration replaces it immediately, because it's not state based)
and *then* the creature would lose the ability to regenerate.
or is that not how replacement effects work altogether?
This is a great point that is specifically referenced in the CR.
608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, “Destroy target creature. It can’t be regenerated” or “Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner’s library instead of into its owner’s graveyard.”) Don’t just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases-read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.
@@miserepoignee9594 Another good example that the CR spells out is something being reanimated with a sentence afterward making it a Zombie or what-have-you. In that case the type-changing effect is actually created simultaneously with the card changing zones.
You know you look cursed, right
Consider that nowadays we have cards that needs an attorney to play correctly, the simplification of the past are obsolete, they could really bring back regeneration as was meant to be, much more interesting and flavoured than the lame indestructible mechanic, or shield counters
Right? This is what I'm saying. Pre-6th edition rules actually let things like Regeneration be based on intuition. Instead of just giving more precision to the mechanics they had, they threw out the whole system to "simplify" it, even though the game fundamentally was not defined to be simple. Embrace the complexity, 6th edition overhaul was the worst decision in the game's history :P