Let's say Bruna is wearing Spectra Ward. When she triggers, her effect adds additional Auras (notably without targeting her, which I understand gets around 702.16b). Further, the effect of Spectra Ward states that it does not cause Auras to fall off, which I believe nullifies 702.16c.
My conclusion is that Bruna the Spectracular can rock all the colored jeans she wants, as long as she gets them through her effect. Colored Auras targeting her directly run afoul of 702.16b and won't fly. Is this correct?
702.16b A permanent or player with protection can’t be targeted by spells with the stated quality and can’t be targeted by abilities from a source with the stated quality.
702.16c A permanent or player with protection can’t be enchanted by Auras that have the stated quality. Such Auras attached to the permanent or player with protection will be put into their owners’ graveyards as a state-based action. (See rule 704, “State-Based Actions.”)
Yes she will still be able to get more aura's, Natedog explains how spectra ward's ability should be interpreted
Yes, you can. Effectively, what Spectral Ward's ability does is turn off the “can't have enchantments of that type attached to it” part of protection for that creature. While you still can't cast a colored aura spell targeting it, if you're putting an aura on the battlefield with something like Sun Titan or Replenish, you can attach it to the creature enchanted by the Ward.
I'm guessing the ruling is there because of the condition "that could enchant that creature" specified in the card text...
But "[this] doesn't remove Auras" only means that the SBA of Auras already on the permanent falling off is ignored. It doesn't also say that the rule saying Auras that a permanent has protection from can't be attached to that permanent is ignored. In other words, the sentence only has to do with Aura detachment, not Aura attachment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
But "[this] doesn't remove Auras" only means that the SBA of Auras already on the permanent falling off is ignored.
The [O] ruling is that "[This] doesn't remove auras." means that the aura is not illegal for attachment by aura permanents that would otherwise be illegally attached if the protection effect would normally make the attachment illegal. Basically, it applies to the SBA and to the replacement effect of an aura entering the field from a zone other than the stack.
However, the targeting by aura spells restriction does remain in force.
The [O] rulings are made only because the CR rules say something that makes the rulings true. I can't find anything in the CR that supports that ruling. To say that the [O] ruling is correct only because it comes from a high authority defeats the very purpose of the CR in the first place; it implies that the CR is not the ultimate rules resort to the game and that it is meaningless.
It is analogous to saying "Combat damage uses the stack" even when the CR clearly no longer supports a stack-utilizing combat system.
The point of this is not to immediately say "Oh, they arbitrarily said so so they have to be right" and dismiss the problem. If it was, we would've stopped at the very first post and would not have continued with this discussion. The point is to see what rule in the CR supports the [O] ruling, and if there isn't, whether the CR was erroneously not fully updated or whether the [O] ruling is incorrect on the basis of the CR.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The O ruling is telling us how to interpret the wording on the card, so we interpret it in that way.
The current wording was probably used to try and avoid confusion, as trying to say something about being legal to enchant would cause confusion with making it sound like you could still target it with aura spells. So making it sound confusing in a very smaller subset of circumstances was their choice.
The O ruling is telling us how to interpret the wording on the card, so we interpret it in that way.
Then the desired interpretation should be put into the CR to prevent further confusion from arising. They already put a rule specifically addressing the sentence "[This] doesn't remove Auras", so it doesn't hurt to just add a sentence to the CR with the additional detail that the [O] ruling has provided us.
This has happened with Disaster Radius + Wild Evocation before, in that there was no rule at all that told players what to do in such a case until [O] stepped in and the CR was updated with the rule. I expect the CR should be updated to incorporate this [O] ruling as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
What makes you feel so entitled to rehash this when they've acknowledged the oversight and issued an [O] ruling until it can be fixed?
If something comes up in a game, and the CR doesn't mention anything about it, then it is ultimately up to the people responsible for the flow of the game (the players and the judges) to arbitrarily come up with something for the sake of logistics and letting the game go on. Whether that arbitrary decision is how Wizards intended for the interaction in question to work remains uncertain. As such, we as players are responsible (used relatively loosely) for pointing out oversights and mistakes in the CR, Gatherer, etc. for Wizards to fix.
There have been some cases where [O] rulings have been made on interactions not covered by the CR and no effort was made to change the CR to disambiguate the situation despite the interactions being brought up constantly over on Wizards' forums. (One such interaction is also discussed here frequently.) I have not personally discussed this over on their forums, but I will bring it up if I feel the need to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
To say that the [O] ruling is correct only because it comes from a high authority defeats the very purpose of the CR in the first place; it implies that the CR is not the ultimate rules resort to the game and that it is meaningless.
Just like how the existence of a legal system implies that laws are meaningless?
Isn't this just another discussion that basically boils down to "Can Zur have aura's attached to him while he has diplomatic immunity attached?" My understanding of how protection works is that protection acts somewhat like hexproof or shroud, preventing the card in question that has protection from being targeted by any spells/abilities by a source that the card in question is being protected from, and is additionally immune to being dealt damaged by these sources, nor are these sources able to blocked the card in question that has protection. However, protection doesn't 100% shutdown whatever it is that it's protected from. I.E. Mirran Crusader will still get killed by a Damnation or a Black Sun's Zenith, since these cards hit everything and never actually target it. Furthermore, I believe enchantments and auras work similarly; in layman's terms, while they're attached, they're kind of constantly targeting whatever it is they're attached to. Give what they're attached to protection from the aura/artifact and they'll fall off.
Now, you probably think I'm rambling but I have a point to all of this. So spectra ward gives protection from all colors. However the card clearly states that it doesn't remove any aura's attached to the creature. That being said, Bruna's ability is very similar to Zur's; it takes any auras you want that are on the field, and any that happen to be in your graveyard, and just sucks them onto her like Kirby eating Yoshi. There's no targeting at all, it just puts them onto her. Also kind of like Order of Succession gets around shroud, hexproof, and protection from blue or sorcery spells, since it doesn't target anything, but rather you just choose. (take that Progenitus!)
In my opinion this card is very clear cut with Bruna. It gives her protection from all colors, but doesn't stop her from attaching whatever auras she wants to attach to her since she gets around the drawbacks of protection/shroud/hexproof in terms of auras through her abilities. In short, she can wear whatever damn pants she wants.
it is different because a normal English interpretation of spectra's wards ability says they don't remove it and not that an enchantment would be a legal choice to enchant it. The question is what exactly does the words mean and the o-ruling as stated it, though they may clear it up in the future with an update to the CR or the card's text.
Isn't this just another discussion that basically boils down to "Can Zur have aura's attached to him while he has diplomatic immunity attached?" My understanding of how protection works is that protection acts somewhat like hexproof or shroud, preventing the card in question that has protection from being targeted by any spells/abilities by a source that the card in question is being protected from, and is additionally immune to being dealt damaged by these sources, nor are these sources able to blocked the card in question that has protection. However, protection doesn't 100% shutdown whatever it is that it's protected from. I.E. Mirran Crusader will still get killed by a Damnation or a Black Sun's Zenith, since these cards hit everything and never actually target it. Furthermore, I believe enchantments and auras work similarly; in layman's terms, while they're attached, they're kind of constantly targeting whatever it is they're attached to. Give what they're attached to protection from the aura/artifact and they'll fall off.
I'm not even sure where to start with explaining how badly you've misunderstood every single thing relevant to the discussion so I'm just going to explain from the ground up.
The issue is that a creature with pro-white cannot have a white Aura attached to it this means that if Bruna gets pro-White she cannot put white Auras onto herself because she is an invalid choice. The text of Spectra Ward says only that the protection it grants "does not remove auras" but the official ruling is that this means "the portion of protection that prevents Auras from being attached no longer applies".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My conclusion is that Bruna the Spectracular can rock all the colored jeans she wants, as long as she gets them through her effect. Colored Auras targeting her directly run afoul of 702.16b and won't fly. Is this correct?
But "[this] doesn't remove Auras" only means that the SBA of Auras already on the permanent falling off is ignored. It doesn't also say that the rule saying Auras that a permanent has protection from can't be attached to that permanent is ignored. In other words, the sentence only has to do with Aura detachment, not Aura attachment.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The [O] rulings are made only because the CR rules say something that makes the rulings true. I can't find anything in the CR that supports that ruling. To say that the [O] ruling is correct only because it comes from a high authority defeats the very purpose of the CR in the first place; it implies that the CR is not the ultimate rules resort to the game and that it is meaningless.
It is analogous to saying "Combat damage uses the stack" even when the CR clearly no longer supports a stack-utilizing combat system.
The point of this is not to immediately say "Oh, they arbitrarily said so so they have to be right" and dismiss the problem. If it was, we would've stopped at the very first post and would not have continued with this discussion. The point is to see what rule in the CR supports the [O] ruling, and if there isn't, whether the CR was erroneously not fully updated or whether the [O] ruling is incorrect on the basis of the CR.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The current wording was probably used to try and avoid confusion, as trying to say something about being legal to enchant would cause confusion with making it sound like you could still target it with aura spells. So making it sound confusing in a very smaller subset of circumstances was their choice.
Then the desired interpretation should be put into the CR to prevent further confusion from arising. They already put a rule specifically addressing the sentence "[This] doesn't remove Auras", so it doesn't hurt to just add a sentence to the CR with the additional detail that the [O] ruling has provided us.
This has happened with Disaster Radius + Wild Evocation before, in that there was no rule at all that told players what to do in such a case until [O] stepped in and the CR was updated with the rule. I expect the CR should be updated to incorporate this [O] ruling as well.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
If something comes up in a game, and the CR doesn't mention anything about it, then it is ultimately up to the people responsible for the flow of the game (the players and the judges) to arbitrarily come up with something for the sake of logistics and letting the game go on. Whether that arbitrary decision is how Wizards intended for the interaction in question to work remains uncertain. As such, we as players are responsible (used relatively loosely) for pointing out oversights and mistakes in the CR, Gatherer, etc. for Wizards to fix.
There have been some cases where [O] rulings have been made on interactions not covered by the CR and no effort was made to change the CR to disambiguate the situation despite the interactions being brought up constantly over on Wizards' forums. (One such interaction is also discussed here frequently.) I have not personally discussed this over on their forums, but I will bring it up if I feel the need to.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Just like how the existence of a legal system implies that laws are meaningless?
Now, you probably think I'm rambling but I have a point to all of this. So spectra ward gives protection from all colors. However the card clearly states that it doesn't remove any aura's attached to the creature. That being said, Bruna's ability is very similar to Zur's; it takes any auras you want that are on the field, and any that happen to be in your graveyard, and just sucks them onto her like Kirby eating Yoshi. There's no targeting at all, it just puts them onto her. Also kind of like Order of Succession gets around shroud, hexproof, and protection from blue or sorcery spells, since it doesn't target anything, but rather you just choose. (take that Progenitus!)
In my opinion this card is very clear cut with Bruna. It gives her protection from all colors, but doesn't stop her from attaching whatever auras she wants to attach to her since she gets around the drawbacks of protection/shroud/hexproof in terms of auras through her abilities. In short, she can wear whatever damn pants she wants.
I'm not even sure where to start with explaining how badly you've misunderstood every single thing relevant to the discussion so I'm just going to explain from the ground up.
The issue is that a creature with pro-white cannot have a white Aura attached to it this means that if Bruna gets pro-White she cannot put white Auras onto herself because she is an invalid choice. The text of Spectra Ward says only that the protection it grants "does not remove auras" but the official ruling is that this means "the portion of protection that prevents Auras from being attached no longer applies".