<p>That is completely correct.</p>

<p>Indestructible and regeneration prevent/replace destruction but not sacrifices.</p>

<p>Sigarda prevents sacrifices but not destruction.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T16:15:50.047Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T16:54:41.777Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-25T13:38:33.547Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-25T16:10:52.103Z
@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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-25T16:29:08.747Z
Right. I'll fix later today.
ikegami
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T14:48:36.677Z
2014-07-02T17:08:58.297Z
2014-07-02T17:08:58.297Z
ikegami
<p>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.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T15:54:47.090Z
Destroy and sacrifice are very much modern terminology.
Rainbolt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T17:59:51.210Z
@Rusher: Take a look at the alpha printing of Terror.
Free Monica Cellio
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T18:34:25.887Z
@ChadMiller Is the text on Terror supposed to convince me that destroy is not a modern term?
Rainbolt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T21:42:37.233Z
@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)
Free Monica Cellio
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T15:49:37.530Z
2014-07-02T17:59:29.757Z
2014-07-02T17:59:29.757Z
Free Monica Cellio
<p><a href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=201236">Tabernacle</a> says the following:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>All creatures have "At the beginning of your upkeep, <strong>destroy</strong> this
  creature unless you pay 1."</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=pendrell%20mists">Pendrell Mists</a> says the following:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>All creatures have "At the beginning of your upkeep, <strong>sacrifice</strong> this
  creature unless you pay 1."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>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, <a href="http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=240033">Sigarda, Host of Heron</a> would protect you against Pendrell Mists whereas it wouldn't against Tabernacle of Pendrell Vale.</p>

<p>Is this assessment correct?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-02T18:44:04.723Z
Can you ask an actual question? What part of your assessment do you not understand?
Rainbolt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-03T02:08:32.560Z
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 http://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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-03T03:06:01.253Z
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
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-03T06:51:51.507Z
@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
<magic-the-gathering>
Why are Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale and Pendrell Mists worded differently?
neubert
# Why are Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale and Pendrell Mists worded differently?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-07-02)

[Tabernacle](http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=201236) says the following:

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

[Pendrell Mists](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=pendrell%20mists) 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](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=240033) would protect you against Pendrell Mists whereas it wouldn't against Tabernacle of Pendrell Vale.

Is this assessment correct?

**Tags:** magic-the-gathering

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you ask an actual question? What part of your assessment do you not understand?  
> **username_0**: 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 http://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.  
> **username_1**: 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.  
> **username_2**: @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").  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-07-02. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

That is completely correct.

Indestructible and regeneration prevent/replace destruction but not sacrifices.

Sigarda prevents sacrifices but not destruction.

> **Comments:**
> **username_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.  
> **username_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).  
> **username_4**: 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.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 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.  
> **username_3**: Right. I'll fix later today.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2014-07-02. Score: 6

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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Destroy and sacrifice are very much modern terminology.  
> **username_6**: @Rusher: Take a look at the alpha printing of Terror.  
> **username_1**: @ChadMiller Is the text on Terror supposed to convince me that destroy is not a modern term?  
> **username_6**: @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)  

---

