I was explaining the Interaction of Desecration Demon, activating a Mutavault, and casting removal, (the actual spell was Hero's Downfall). I know the interaction, and the rulings, but my explanation turned into a minute long ramble that veered dangerously close to play advice, and ended with a, “Imagine as if” clause. Not well done at all. Looking for a clear a concise way to phrase this ruling.

To make it clear. Please do not quote me rules citations or offer me comparisons. Looking for a clear, concise, non-alzheimery-sounding way to convey the information rather than my fiasco. Thanks in advance.

Moving to Competitive REL.

Daniel Kitachewsky
L3, Paris, France
Rules NetRep

How about:

Desecration Demon has a triggered ability. As the ability resolves, you can sacrifice a creature to tap it. It will resolve if both players pass priority; if both players agree to not respond to it anymore.

What was the question being asked? That seems like it would have some bearing on how much information veers into coaching.

I agree with Chris: not knowing the specific question makes it hard to evaluate exactly what the player did and did not know. Even ignoring the issue of coaching: did the player not understand that Mutavault couldn't be activated during the trigger's resolution; did they not believe that the removal spell could be cast in response for some reason; frankly, even knowing which player it was that was confused is significant, because it changes the question from “does this do what I think?” to “why can he do that?”