so I was watching a starcitygames video and an interesting interaction occurred.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDGe90l2L-MUDGe90l2L-M
So basically, it's {chandra, pyromaster}'s plus 1 versus {god's willing}. The question is, if in response to targeting by Chandra's ability, god's willing is cast to give pro red. Can the creature block? After many appeals and a long discussion by the judges, it was determined that the creature still cannot block even if it was given pro red before resolution.
Even though it wasn't explicitly explained, it's because protection is very specific in what it interacts with. While it cannot be targeted, the wording on chandra is very important. The 1 damage will be prevented, but because it says "that creature can't block", not "target creature can't block" the protection doesn't help this. Since there is still at least one legal target for the ability (the player) the ability will still resolve and still do as much as it can.
Yay rules!
And it's an awesome video anyway. Even after Jen gets the ruling not in his favor his awesome jankiness is able to get it together. Enjoy.
That actually doesn't make sense to me. {Chandra, Pyromaster}. "To target creature, that creature can't block this turn." Seems to me like that is tied into the targeting to me. You couldn't fire it off at a hexproof because the first part still has to work. Guess that's why I'm not a judge.
I'm not buying it. It targets damage to the creature. Then that creature can't block. If the creature is no longer a legal target for the damage, then it shouldn't receive the can't block tag. My understanding is that if a creature has protection, it can't be targeted by spells or abilities of that color, any damage dealt to it by that color is reduced to zero, and creatures of that color can't block the protected creature. The can't block tag is reliant on the ability to be targeted by the damage end of it.
Quote from: Dsx Cherno on February 26, 2015, 04:43:35 PM
I'm not buying it. It targets damage to the creature. Then that creature can't block. If the creature is no longer a legal target for the damage, then it shouldn't receive the can't block tag. My understanding is that if a creature has protection, it can't be targeted by spells or abilities of that color, any damage dealt to it by that color is reduced to zero, and creatures of that color can't block the protected creature. The can't block tag is reliant on the ability to be targeted by the damage end of it.
Agreed.
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on February 26, 2015, 04:10:00 PM
That actually doesn't make sense to me. {Chandra, Pyromaster}. "To target creature, that creature can't block this turn." Seems to me like that is tied into the targeting to me. You couldn't fire it off at a hexproof because the first part still has to work. Guess that's why I'm not a judge.
I agree. Personally I would rule differently, though I'm not a judge (yet)
The creature is still targeted by Chandra's ability, because the ability is still on the stack. The damage will be prevented. However it still can't block because the "can't block" clause is not affected by DEBT (damage, enchanted, blocked by, target).
Even though the creature gains protection from red, Chandra's ability will still resolve as much as it can. So the damage will still be prevented, but the creature still cannot block.
Quote from: rarehuntertay on February 26, 2015, 05:00:00 PM
The creature is still targeted by Chandra's ability, because the ability is still on the stack. The damage will be prevented. However it still can't block because the "can't block" clause is not affected by DEBT (damage, enchanted, blocked by, target).
Even though the creature gains protection from red, Chandra's ability will still resolve as much as it can. So the damage will still be prevented, but the creature still cannot block.
So you are saying that even giving the creature hexproof would not prevent the targeting once it's on the stack? It is an illegal target upon resolution, so I'd reason since THAT creature was the targeted one, it would fizzle.
Quote from: rarehuntertay on February 26, 2015, 05:00:00 PM
The creature is still targeted by Chandra's ability, because the ability is still on the stack. The damage will be prevented. However it still can't block because the "can't block" clause is not affected by DEBT (damage, enchanted, blocked by, target).
Even though the creature gains protection from red, Chandra's ability will still resolve as much as it can. So the damage will still be prevented, but the creature still cannot block.
But it can't be targeted. Just like {Gods Willing} vs {Murderous Cut}. It checks upon resolution and fizzles. As such it'd fizzle on the damage part and the two effects are part of the same ability. Remember it says "that creature" which was targeted. That's like saying {Terminate} would still make the creature unregeneratable. I have to say this ruling is looking worse the more I think about it.
The way they rules this would afftect so many pther cards that I dont think it makes sense. They should have ruled it with logic. If Chandra throws fire at you, you have to deal with that fire burning you and you are no able to block. However, if you are protected from the fire, you should still be able to block.
From the rulings:
7/18/2014: If the first ability resolves but the damage is prevented or redirected, the target creature still won't be able to block that turn.
Quote from: rarehuntertay on February 26, 2015, 06:00:18 PM
From the rulings:
7/18/2014: If the first ability resolves but the damage is prevented or redirected, the target creature still won't be able to block that turn.
The /target creature/. Can't be targeted.
Quote from: rarehuntertay on February 26, 2015, 06:00:18 PM
From the rulings:
7/18/2014: If the first ability resolves but the damage is prevented or redirected, the target creature still won't be able to block that turn.
If it was a simple "prevent x damage", you would be right. But the element in question is whether the protection effect makes targeting illegal, which it does, and whether the fact that the target is illegal eliminates the secondary effect of being targeted, which it should. He wasn't a legal target to receive dage, so he isn't a legal target for "can't block".
Something else I found:
The Reaper of the Wilds won't be able to block this turn. Although it has hexproof as the ability resolves, that only means Chandra doesn't deal damage to it. Imposing a restriction on its ability to block this turn still happens because it's not an action performed on or by the illegal target.
Quote from Comp. rules »
608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that's no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. However, if any of its targets are illegal, the part of the spell or ability's effect for which it is an illegal target can't perform any actions on that target, make another object or player perform any actions on that target, or make that target perform any actions. The effect may still determine information about illegal targets, though, and other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them.
Quote from: rarehuntertay on February 26, 2015, 06:10:17 PM
Something else I found:
The Reaper of the Wilds won't be able to block this turn. Although it has hexproof as the ability resolves, that only means Chandra doesn't deal damage to it. Imposing a restriction on its ability to block this turn still happens because it's not an action performed on or by the illegal target.
Quote from Comp. rules »
608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that's no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. However, if any of its targets are illegal, the part of the spell or ability's effect for which it is an illegal target can't perform any actions on that target, make another object or player perform any actions on that target, or make that target perform any actions. The effect may still determine information about illegal targets, though, and other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them.
That sounds very contradictory. But if that's what it is, that's what it is.
That last part sounds like it would be relevant to a card that says, "bla bla deals 2 damage to target creature. That creatures controller loses 2 life." You give the creature protection, but it doesn't fizzle the spell. The player still loses the life. It sounds like the rule covers the creature against ANYTHING that would touch it. So yeah...strange ruling
That is really weird. And silly.
In my opinion I agree the no blocking ability would fail as well because there was no valid reference for "that creature". But I read her +1 as two linked abilities - which is where I think all the confusion comes from. The judges treated her +1 as one complete ability, not two separate linked abilities.
Quote from: mickeven on February 26, 2015, 06:00:11 PM
The way they rules this would afftect so many pther cards that I dont think it makes sense. They should have ruled it with logic. If Chandra throws fire at you, you have to deal with that fire burning you and you are no able to block. However, if you are protected from the fire, you should still be able to block.
But the thing is magic is not just an imagined concept. It is a game with well defined rules. Protection is not just some blanket term that means he's untouchable. Protection is defined very specifically in the rules. No where in DEBT does it say that protection will override other rules, like a spell resolving as much as it can when some, but NOT ALL, targets are illegal.
This is similar to thinking that {white knight} should survive {damnation} since he has pro black. This "that creature can't block" clause is similar to a global effect, having an effect on a creature without actually targetting it. And it's definitely not being "targeted" again with the word "that" even if it's being referenced. Magic is only targeting something if it uses "target" specifically in that instance.
Sorry but just english grammer makes me think this is wrong. "That" is used to refer to something that has already been pointed out.
If her abilltiy just said "that creature can't block" without the first part, how would you know what it is talking about? That is why most spells like this would say "target creature can't block." To clarify what the spell is being used on.
Instead it has the rest of the ability first. Which targets a creature then says grammaticly "the targeted creature can't block."
At least that is how i would have read it.
Quote from: redwolv on February 27, 2015, 12:03:53 PM
Sorry but just english grammer makes me think this is wrong. "That" is used to refer to something that has already been pointed out.
If her abilltiy just said "that creature can't block" without the first part, how would you know what it is talking about? That is why most spells like this would say "target creature can't block." To clarify what the spell is being used on.
Instead it has the rest of the ability first. Which targets a creature then says grammaticly "the targeted creature can't block."
At least that is how i would have read it.
But even though that creature is being referred to, it is not being targeted in that instance. While grammar may cause you to assume words that aren't there, that doesn't mean the rules do. If they wanted the can't block to be based on the targeting it would have said that target creature.
So then i can use her to make my foes {sagu mauler} unable to block?
Quote from: redwolv on February 27, 2015, 12:55:38 PM
So then i can use her to make my foes {sagu mauler} unable to block?
No. That creature has hexproof so it can't originally be targeted by the spell. The creature in this instance is only gaining protection after the spell has already targeted it.
Quote from: particle on February 27, 2015, 01:01:12 PM
Quote from: redwolv on February 27, 2015, 12:55:38 PM
So then i can use her to make my foes {sagu mauler} unable to block?
No. That creature has hexproof so it can't originally be targeted by the spell. The creature in this instance is only gaining protection after the spell has already targeted it.
And that's exactly why I stick to disagreeing with this ruling. If you would make a creature hexproof, the creature would not be a legal target so that part of the ability would fizzle IMHO. The part where target player gets damage still works though. Same with protection, can't be targeted, so that creature refers to an illegal target. It's not the same as damage prevention, I agree that that would not cancel the can't block clause.
Quote from: Kaylesh on February 27, 2015, 01:05:46 PM
Quote from: particle on February 27, 2015, 01:01:12 PM
Quote from: redwolv on February 27, 2015, 12:55:38 PM
So then i can use her to make my foes {sagu mauler} unable to block?
No. That creature has hexproof so it can't originally be targeted by the spell. The creature in this instance is only gaining protection after the spell has already targeted it.
And that's exactly why I stick to disagreeing with this ruling. If you would make a creature hexproof, the creature would not be a legal target so that part of the ability would fizzle IMHO. The part where target player gets damage still works though. Same with protection, can't be targeted, so that creature refers to an illegal target. It's not the same as damage prevention, I agree that that would not cancel the can't block clause.
It's not a linked ability - think of it as "that creature" was locked in as soon as the target was declared. Giving the pro red afterwards invalidates the targeting, but not the second part of the ability because it wasn't a targeting.
Quote from: Nfidel2k on February 27, 2015, 01:32:24 PM
Quote from: Kaylesh on February 27, 2015, 01:05:46 PM
Quote from: particle on February 27, 2015, 01:01:12 PM
Quote from: redwolv on February 27, 2015, 12:55:38 PM
So then i can use her to make my foes {sagu mauler} unable to block?
No. That creature has hexproof so it can't originally be targeted by the spell. The creature in this instance is only gaining protection after the spell has already targeted it.
And that's exactly why I stick to disagreeing with this ruling. If you would make a creature hexproof, the creature would not be a legal target so that part of the ability would fizzle IMHO. The part where target player gets damage still works though. Same with protection, can't be targeted, so that creature refers to an illegal target. It's not the same as damage prevention, I agree that that would not cancel the can't block clause.
It's not a linked ability - think of it as "that creature" was locked in as soon as the target was declared. Giving the pro red afterwards invalidates the targeting, but not the second part of the ability because it wasn't a targeting.
That makes sense, logically. Rules wise it's a loophole I think would be best avoided by other wording.
The way I read the ability is that the creature gains the "can't block" tag because it was targeted for damage. I thought that in an instance like this, because it's ineligible to target, the damage and can't block would fizzle.
If the ability read "target player, and a creature that player controls each take one damage. That creature can't block", then the protection for red would only reduce the damage. But since the creature is targeted with the ability, and protection makes it untargetable, it shouldn't receive damage or the "can't block" tag.
Quote from: Dsx Cherno on February 27, 2015, 01:42:21 PM
The way I read the ability is that the creature gains the "can't block" tag because it was targeted for damage. I thought that in an instance like this, because it's ineligible to target, the damage and can't block would fizzle.
If the ability read "target player, and a creature that player controls each take one damage. That creature can't block", then the protection for red would only reduce the damage. But since the creature is targeted with the ability, and protection makes it untargetable, it shouldn't receive damage or the "can't block" tag.
Totally agree, if this was the wording I could accept the ruling fully.
You guys are missing a part of 608.2b that can be found here http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/rules-changes/c13-bng/?one=D608.2b. changed during Born of the Gods.
You can also see the giant discussion on reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2wpzp1/chandra_and_gods_willing_ruling_at_scgla/
The creature is allowed to block.
Quote from: Quisequise on February 27, 2015, 02:16:05 PM
You guys are missing a part of 608.2b that can be found here http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/rules-changes/c13-bng/?one=D608.2b. changed during Born of the Gods.
You can also see the giant discussion on reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/2wpzp1/chandra_and_gods_willing_ruling_at_scgla/
The creature is allowed to block.
It seems i stand corrected. Thank you for the links.
Edit: and kinda surprised {{remillo}} didn't lay the smack down of rules upon us sooner.
So I was right.
608.2b (http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?action=imtg;area=rule;number=608.2b): If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that's no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. However, if any of its targets are illegal, the part of the spell or ability's effect for which it is an illegal target can't perform any actions on that target, make another object or player perform any actions on that target, or make that target perform any actions. If the spell or ability creates a continuous effect that affects game rules (see rule 613.10), that effect doesn't apply to illegal targets. The effect may still determine information about illegal targets, though, and other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them.
Example: Sorin's Thirst is a black instant that reads, "Sorin's Thirst deals 2 damage to target creature and you gain 2 life." If the creature isn't a legal target during the resolution of Sorin's Thirst (say, if the creature has gained protection from black or left the battlefield), then Sorin's Thirst is countered. Its controller doesn't gain any life. Example: Plague Spores reads, "Destroy target nonblack creature and target land. They can't be regenerated." Suppose the same animated land is chosen both as the nonblack creature and as the land, and the color of the creature land is changed to black before Plague Spores resolves. Plagues Spores isn't countered because the black creature land is still a legal target for the "target land" part of the spell. The "destroy target nonblack creature" part of the spell won't affect that permanent, but the "destroy target land" part of the spell will still destroy it. It can't be regenerated.
Tldr: so it WAS a misruling?
That raises another question - the 7/1/2013 ruling came out before the rules change. So why is it still listed as an active ruling for Chandra if the rules were changed and it is no longer true?
Edit: when I re-read rule 608.2b again, I still don't think it prevents the can't block piece from happening. The example with Sorin's thirst states that the player doesn't gain 2 life - not because the damage wasn't dealt, but because the spell was countered for having no legal target.
Hmm my 2 cents.
Logic was used to determine the ruling, however I think people are over looking the most basic logic.
If a spell or ability is on a stack targeting an opponent's creature, then that creature's controller responds with a spell that would make his creature an invalid target for said spell or ability, it would fizzle.
In this case, the word "that" in Chandra's +1 refers to creature who is no longer a valid target for that spell and/or ability. The "can't block" part also only applies and refers to the invalid creature as players can't block in the first place...
The word "that" in this place, is not a standalone word, it is dependent on the target creature which became an invalid target before the ability was able to resolve, thus making the word "that" redundant.
Ex1: let's say an instant spell has the following effect "'spell name' deals 1 damage to target creature. That creature gains indestructible till the end of the turn." If I were to cast this card on a 1/1 creature, according to card text sequence ruling, that creature would die as a result of state-based action, before the 2nd part of the spell checks if the creature is still valid for the indestructible portion of the card's text ability.
Ex2. I have a 2/1 creature blocking my opponent's 2/2 white creature. I cast god's willing. He responds with last breath in an attempt to save his creature. I then respond with another gods willing protection from white. As it stands, my 2nd gods willing will resolve first giving protection from white, I then scry. Last breath will fizzle as my creature becomes an invalid target, I do not gain 4 life. My first god's willing will also fizzle for the same reason and I won't be able scry again due to the sequence of the cards text.
Too long to copy but here is what you missed:
1. The effect only fizzles if all targets, for every instance of the word "target", become invalid. Invalidating one of the two targets does not fizzle the ability. See the rule referenced earlier in the thread.
2. State-based actions do not check mid-resolution of an effect (see rule 704.4 I believe). So your first example would actually save the creature as the indestructible would be added before the state-based action was checked. Indestructible then causes you to ignore the state-based action.
3. What "card text sequencing rule" are you referencing? Once an effect starts to resolve, nothing can interrupt it. It resolves in full for all parts that are valid, and as i understand it all text resolves simultaneously - even if it is applied by layer.
Quote from: Glaze_uno on March 09, 2015, 07:21:47 AM
Hmm my 2 cents.
Logic was used to determine the ruling, however I think people are over looking the most basic logic.
If a spell or ability is on a stack targeting an opponent's creature, then that creature's controller responds with a spell that would make his creature an invalid target for said spell or ability, it would fizzle.
In this case, the word "that" in Chandra's +1 refers to creature who is no longer a valid target for that spell and/or ability. The "can't block" part also only applies and refers to the invalid creature as players can't block in the first place...
The word "that" in this place, is not a standalone word, it is dependent on the target creature which became an invalid target before the ability was able to resolve, thus making the word "that" redundant.
Ex1: let's say an instant spell has the following effect "'spell name' deals 1 damage to target creature. That creature gains indestructible till the end of the turn." If I were to cast this card on a 1/1 creature, according to card text sequence ruling, that creature would die as a result of state-based action, before the 2nd part of the spell checks if the creature is still valid for the indestructible portion of the card's text ability.
Ex2. I have a 2/1 creature blocking my opponent's 2/2 white creature. I cast god's willing. He responds with last breath in an attempt to save his creature. I then respond with another gods willing protection from white. As it stands, my 2nd gods willing will resolve first giving protection from white, I then scry. Last breath will fizzle as my creature becomes an invalid target, I do not gain 4 life. My first god's willing will also fizzle for the same reason and I won't be able scry again due to the sequence of the cards text.
Please see the correct versions of your rulings below. Try not to post answers in rulings unless you have checked with the comprehensive rule book beforehand. Don't want people trying to act on misrulings.
Quote from: Nfidel2k on March 09, 2015, 08:33:09 AM
Too long to copy but here is what you missed:
1. The effect only fizzles if all targets, for every instance of the word "target", become invalid. Invalidating one of the two targets does not fizzle the ability. See the rule referenced earlier in the thread.
2. State-based actions do not check mid-resolution of an effect (see rule 704.4 I believe). So your first example would actually save the creature as the indestructible would be added before the state-based action was checked. Indestructible then causes you to ignore the state-based action.
3. What "card text sequencing rule" are you referencing? Once an effect starts to resolve, nothing can interrupt it. It resolves in full for all parts that are valid, and as i understand it all text resolves simultaneously - even if it is applied by layer.
This is all correct except the bit in number three. All text does not resolve simultaneously. The spell {living end} has specific steps to follow. If you just did it in any order, or all simultaneously, there would be no cards to return.
Ahh thanks particle