Awesome ruling

[LinkCelestrial]

That is really weird. And silly.

[Nfidel2k]

 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.

[particle]

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.

[redwolv]

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.

[particle]

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.

[redwolv]

So then i can use her to make my foes {sagu mauler} unable to block?

[particle]

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.

[Kaylesh]

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.

[Nfidel2k]

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.

[Kaylesh]

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.

[Dsx Cherno]

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.

[Kaylesh]

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.

[Quisequise]

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.

[particle]

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.

[Dsx Cherno]

So I was right.