Awesome ruling

[particle]

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.

[LinkCelestrial]

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.

[Dsx Cherno]

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.

[LinkCelestrial]

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.

[Kaylesh]

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)

[rarehuntertay]

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.

[Kaylesh]

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.

[LinkCelestrial]

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.

[mickeven]

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.

[rarehuntertay]

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.

[LinkCelestrial]

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.

[Dsx Cherno]

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".

[rarehuntertay]

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.

[Dsx Cherno]

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.

[Oldschoolmtgnoob]

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