Tabernacle says the following:

All creatures have "At the beginning of your upkeep, destroy this creature unless you pay 1."

Pendrell Mists says the following:

All creatures have "At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice this creature unless you pay 1."

So one says "destroy" and one says "sacrifice". That seems surprising. If so then indestructible creatures would be immune to Tabernacle's effect whereas they would not be immune to Pendrell Mists effect. And similarly, Sigarda, Host of Heron would protect you against Pendrell Mists whereas it wouldn't against Tabernacle of Pendrell Vale.

Is this assessment correct?

  • Can you ask an actual question? What part of your assessment do you not understand?
    – Rainbolt
    Jul 2, 2014 at 18:44
  • 1
    All of it? It's a yes or no question. Actually, I suppose it's technically two yes or no questions. Yes or no questions are not without precedent. See boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/16672/6542 . No one voted to close that one so I don't know why people are voting to close this one.
    – neubert
    Jul 3, 2014 at 2:08
  • Perhaps other users see a small difference between "Can I dredge twice?" and "Is my understanding correct?" Yes, destroy and sacrifice are two different words. Yes, you can read correctly. Yes, both of the cards work exactly like the text on the cards say they work. Yes, Sigarda protects you from sacrificing. All of these things are literally written on the cards, and I am at a loss as to what part you don't get.
    – Rainbolt
    Jul 3, 2014 at 3:06
  • 1
    @Rusher - many players are not aware of what rules text should be taken literally (e.g. "target", "sacrifice") and what mechanisms have more complex rules text behind them and are only somewhat related in flavor (e.g. "regenerate").
    – Hao Ye
    Jul 3, 2014 at 6:51

2 Answers 2


That is completely correct.

Indestructible and regeneration prevent/replace destruction but not sacrifices.

Sigarda prevents sacrifices but not destruction.

  • 1
    Indestructible does not replace destruction. It simply ignores it. It literally "can't be destroyed". This would matter in the event that you have an indestructible creature with a regeneration shield that gets hit with a destruction spell like Doom Blade. The regeneration shield would not be consumed. If the creature lost indestructible during the same turn, it would still have the regeneration shield.
    – Rainbolt
    Jul 2, 2014 at 16:15
  • 2
    Note that Sigarda helps with an opponent's Pendrell Mists, but not if it's under your control or an ally (or some other non-opponent player).
    – Hao Ye
    Jul 2, 2014 at 16:54
  • 1
    I disagree that Sigarda has any effect against Pendrell Mists. The ability "At the beginning of your upkeep..." is controlled by the controller of the creature, not the controller of the Mists. Since your creatures aren't controlled by your opponent, Sigarda has no problem letting you sacrifice them.
    – Kevin
    Jul 25, 2014 at 13:38
  • @Kevin is correct. Sigarda has no effect on Pendrell Mists (or Magus of the Tabernacle), because the triggered ability causing the sacrifice is controlled by the player with Sigarda, not the player with the Mists/Magus.
    – Brian S
    Jul 25, 2014 at 16:10
  • Right. I'll fix later today.
    – ikegami
    Jul 25, 2014 at 16:29

As to the implied question "Why is the Tabernacle worded this way?": Because it's old. Card text templating wasn't always as refined as it is now, and will probably always be changing over time, so it's common to look at an older card and see some ways it would be obviously different if printed today. To the modern eye, any card instructing a player to destroy their own permanents would be a "sacrifice", but that wasn't always the case. The Abyss is another example of an old card that would say "sacrifice" if it were printed in a modern set, but as printed allows you to pull shenanigans with untargetable, indestructible, or prot-black creatures.

  • Destroy and sacrifice are very much modern terminology.
    – Rainbolt
    Jul 2, 2014 at 15:54
  • @Rusher: Take a look at the alpha printing of Terror. Jul 2, 2014 at 17:59
  • @ChadMiller Is the text on Terror supposed to convince me that destroy is not a modern term?
    – Rainbolt
    Jul 2, 2014 at 18:34
  • @Rusher: I guess I misunderstood. I thought you meant exclusively a modern term (as opposed to one that has always been in use and is still in use) Jul 2, 2014 at 21:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .