Crazy rulings at pro tour dragons!

[particle]

Ok so I'm not gonna get into the Chapin thing, but I did see an awesome interaction with Ari Lax and am wondering if it was ruled correctly, as according to reddit it was.

Ok so Ari had {illusory gains} resolved on some dude. Opponent played {sidisi, undead vizier}. Now after a million uses of the word "trigger" since the creature the opponent wanted to sacrifice also had an ability, the stack played out.

The end result was, sidisi was given to ari with the exploit trigger on the stack. The opponent still had the choice to exploit a creature, which he did, and then that allowed ari to {demonic tutor}.
Now obviously if this is correct procedure, the opponent obviously shouldn't have sacced a creature to let ari tutor. But was this right? Seems super far fetched. Shenanigans!

[LinkCelestrial]

It's gotta be wrong. How it should work is that {Sidisi, Undead Vizier} hits the field. Then there are two abilities triggering. {Illusory Gains}, and Exploit. I'm not sure who decides how they stack, but it shouldn't matter. (Assuming it's the active player.) The thing is both the abilities will be on the stack before either can resolve. If {Illusory Gains} resolved first you don't steal the ability, Sidisi had already entered the battlefield. It's already on the stack and only {Stifle} and co can stop it.

To help understand how wrong this is think about some things. If you ult a Planeswalker, or activate a creature ability, then it gets {Hero's Downfall}'d the ability is already on the stack and you're good to go. If you activate a creature's ability then somebody flashes a {Control Magic} at it they don't steal the ability.

The only way I can see this as legit is if {Illusory Gains} resolves before exploit triggers, then the owner of {Illusory Gains} would still have to pay the exploit cost. That's not even possible as they're both ETB effects.

All in all I've gotta say this is another bad mistake like Chandra vs Protection.

Let's see if I'm right. I really do like these discussions. :3

[LinkCelestrial]

The tutor trigger should not change control just because the creature did.

Me: *posts a three paragraph explanation*

Noblellama: *sums it up in one sentence*

[particle]

The thing is sidisi says "you." No one is claiming that you will control the triggers. But now you are the "you" being referred to. It's not interacting with it like stifle would. The trigger is still gonna go off. It's just who is "you." 

[particle]

And just to be clear link: the stack always resolves in apnap.
Ari was nonactive player. If both he and his opponent have triggers that occur from the same event, the active player will put there triggers on first and ari will put his on last. ari's triggers will resolve first.

[LinkCelestrial]

Okay I'm seeing what you're saying. Another thing I didn't notice is they're separate abilities. I thought it was written like most inspired cards. ({King Macar, the Gold Cursed}).

Now that I see that it actually does seem legit. Exploit isn't part of the tutor, the tutor triggers of exploit resolving. Gotta say I take it back and it seems legit. (Though silly).

[Remillo]

The two biggest things to take away from this are that just because Sidisi changed controllers, control of her exploit trigger does not.  However, since she was the source of the trigger, her 'When Sidisi Exploits a creature' trigger still goes off, allowing her current controller to search for a card.

It's actually not that complicated.

[LinkCelestrial]

So the stealing player gets both Sidisi and the tutor effect while the casting player pays the mana and sacs the creature?

Talk about the short end of the stick.

[Remillo]

Of course, they could always elect to not sacrifice the creature.

[particle]

So the stealing player gets both Sidisi and the tutor effect while the casting player pays the mana and sacs the creature?

Talk about the short end of the stick.

My exact words I deleted....

Of course, they could always elect to not sacrifice the creature.

So seeing how the stack shapes up they can say F it and not sack because of MAY?

It's because you only choose to sacrifice if the exploit trigger is resolving. And sidisi already changed sides by then.