sure :

quite the same as your mutavault scenario there, first round :

AP: Combat?
NAP: sure.
AP: wants to sacrifice a token and attack with the butcher.
NAP: Judge!

I asked some questions and got that he acted way more precisely when dealing with his goblin rabblemasters by precising BoC, which conforted my feeling, but I am curious to know that if it was the first attack with a creature needing potential needs at BoC, because I would have ruled the same way by denying the sacrifice

Edited Théo CHENG (Jan. 5, 2015 05:26:49 PM)

Sure, that sounds fine. There's this weird (but possible) corner, where you control a Rabblemaster as your only creature; you cast & resolve Butcher, then want to go to combat, get the goblin token, and sacrifice it to give Haste to the Butcher - but in such a situation, you've got a trigger at BoC that you have to resolve, then you get priority again anyway. (And your opponent could still kill the Rabblemaster before combat and mess up your plan…)

d:^D

Yes but I believe that we have already talked a lot about cornercases here :)

thanks

While the Rabblemaster/Butcher scenario my require a very specific board state, at some point we have to stop calling things corner cases when they show up every week at FNM.

Things aren't corner case because they can't happen (although that's often true); they're corner cases because they don't fit neatly within the parameters by which we define policy. Policy is carefully crafted to fit most situations; it's not only impossible, but impractical as well to try to cover all the possible permutations when we mix thousands of cards, complex rules, and humans.

Typically, when we say “corner case”, it's because it really doesn't matter (in the grand scheme of things). However, it can also be a valid observation that, in some corner case scenarios, we may have to adapt to handle things.

Most importantly, the existence of such corner cases neither invalidates existing policy nor justifies sweeping change.

And, with that, we are done here.

d:^D