If i have 3 creatures in play, and one of them has Embalm, and I make a 4th creature, building over my earlier Embalm creature, sending it to the graveyard, it’s activate gems are not created.
//Edited Title - Tombstone
Replacing creatures does not destroy them, it exiles them (although they don’t seem to be exiled either, might be a “removed from game” scenario)
If you replace a creature that has been reinforced, though, usually the reinforcements go to the graveyard but the base creature does not. Game has always been like this, it just didn’t matter until somewhat recently.
One reinforcement is exiled (or maybe not) and the rest got to the graveyard? This behaviour makes no sense.
I just tested it because I always thought they got exiled based on how things behaved in the past, but according to the graveyard view replaced creatures do go there, so they should create embalm/eternalized gems but they dont. I have screenshots but it might be easier to test yourself then me figuring out how to post screenshots. In the past Ive also noticed replacing a reinforced embalm/eternalized creature did create gems for the reinforcements but not the base creature.
I’ve just tested this too, and now that you can see the graveyard, you can see that replaced creatures absolutely do go to the graveyard.
On further testing, I notice that creature effects which say “when this creature dies” do not seem to trigger when a replaced creature goes to the graveyard; in this case it was a Shore Keeper. Is this intentional or unintentional behaviour?
Note that this wording is different from that used on the Embalm ability, which is “while this creature is in the graveyard”.
Most likely the function used when replacing a creature does not contain the same code as when it dies. Most likely intentional but not written down, because without written rules it is easier to brush off your comments.
I can’t think of any reason why the code should be different. They should use the same code.
I imagine the developers decided that replacing a creature is like unsummoning it rather then killing it, because they couldn’t control the shenanigans with death effects if they made it equal to dying. My snide comment about the lack of clearly defined rules play a big part in my reasoning. They simply do not know how to handle many corner cases, which I think this is.
Hi everyone, I’ll go ahead and relay this to the team for review.
@Tombstone - I looked into this page which describes the embalm mechanic (among other things) https://d3go.helpshift.com/a/magic-puzzle-quest/?s=gameplay-questions—general&f=mtgpq-abilities-gallery&p=all
There is no mention of the rule for replacing a creature either with embalm or not.
Where do replaced creatures go, what happens to reinforced creatures, what about reinforcements bases upon copied creatures and I could go on and on.
How does the team ensure consistency on decisions made over time?
Don’t get me wrong… I want this to be a thing. But it seems that QA has been sacrificed to keep operations lean.
Sorry, which lean operations?
When I replace one creature it does not count as destroyed either. It is good for some objectives and bad for others.