Awesome ruling

[LinkCelestrial]

So I was right.

As was I. Interesting.

[Kaylesh]

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?

[Nfidel2k]

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.

[Glaze_uno]

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.

[Nfidel2k]

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.

[particle]

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.

[particle]

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.

[Nfidel2k]

Ahh thanks particle