So my family and I are getting into magic, and have some very simple questions but will start with one that caused an argument last night.
Moat Piranhas was played and it clearly states that this creature cannot attack.
Now, my interpretation is that the piranha cannot be declared as an attacker.
So, the argument arose when the moat piranhas was used to block. The blocking player stated that since the moat piranha is BLOCKING, and not ATTACKING, that the attacking creature would still be dealt damage equivalent to the piranhas power (3), which would have killed the attacking players creature and the piranhas (attacker was 3/3 as well). He was upset because the card "clearly states it can't attack but somehow it is attacking his creature". We tried to clarify that dealing damage while blocking was not the same as dealing damage while declaring an attacker.
The ultimate conclusion we all came to is WHY THE HELL would a card say it cannot attack, but simultaneously be granted some power if it was not able to be used at some point, like in the blocking scenario I mentioned.
The semantics in this game can really be confusing as some of the terms that have rules are also just words people use to describe things in general that are going on.
So, who was right, the pirhana can damage an attacking creature if piranhas are declared as blockers, or, does the piranhas not do any damage, even when blocking, and the power on the card is there for use potentially with some other card (that removes the cant attack rule or something?)
Creatures with defender do deal damage. Your interpretation that attacking isn't dealing damage is correct. Attacking is only being declared as an attacker. It isn't anything else.
Most thing in magic are exactly the thing they say they are. They aren't also various other things that may be part of the first thing. "Can't attack" means "can not be declared as an attacker". An ability would have to say "prevent all damage this card would deal" and there are card with similar effects.
Creatures with defender do deal damage. Your interpretation that attacking isn't dealing damage is correct. Attacking is only being declared as an attacker. It isn't anything else.
Most thing in magic are exactly the thing they say they are. They aren't also various other things that may be part of the first thing. "Can't attack" means "can not be declared as an attacker". An ability would have to say "prevent all damage this card would deal" and there are card with similar effects.
Thanks for the response...but just to clarify the main thing that this card cannot do is BE DECLARED AS AN ATTACKER. Dealing damage (while blocking) is not classified as attacking. That is my take away and that is how we will continue playing with that card and similar cards.
Second Example
Opponent declares a 2/3 creature as attacking.
I declare piranhas as blocker
damage is dealt and the attackers creature dies, piranhas survive.
but just to clarify the main thing that this card cannot do is BE DECLARED AS AN ATTACKER.
Not "main thing", "only thing". For example, you could use the ability of Ilharg, the Raze-Boar to put Moat Piranhas onto the battlefield tapped and attacking. Its Defender ability would not even try to interfere with that, because it never "attacked".
508.3a An ability that reads “Whenever [a creature] attacks, . . .” triggers if that creature is declared as an attacker. Similarly, “Whenever [a creature] attacks [a player or planeswalker], . . .” triggers if that creature is declared as an attacker attacking that player or planeswalker. Such abilities won’t trigger if a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking.
508.4. If a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking, its controller chooses which defending player or which planeswalker a defending player controls it’s attacking as it enters the battlefield (unless the effect that put it onto the battlefield specifies what it’s attacking). Similarly, if an effect states that a creature is attacking, its controller chooses which defending player or which planeswalker a defending player controls it’s attacking it becomes attacking (unless the effect has already specified). Such creatures are “attacking” but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects, they never “attacked.”
If a word has a definition in the rulebook, that's what you use while playing. Most arguments about that involve the words "target" and "protection", but imagine someone trying to use an Elephant deck and a pair of cleats in combination with the dictionary definition of "trample".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why bother with mere rulings when so many answers can be found in the Rules?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Moat Piranhas was played and it clearly states that this creature cannot attack.
Now, my interpretation is that the piranha cannot be declared as an attacker.
So, the argument arose when the moat piranhas was used to block. The blocking player stated that since the moat piranha is BLOCKING, and not ATTACKING, that the attacking creature would still be dealt damage equivalent to the piranhas power (3), which would have killed the attacking players creature and the piranhas (attacker was 3/3 as well). He was upset because the card "clearly states it can't attack but somehow it is attacking his creature". We tried to clarify that dealing damage while blocking was not the same as dealing damage while declaring an attacker.
The ultimate conclusion we all came to is WHY THE HELL would a card say it cannot attack, but simultaneously be granted some power if it was not able to be used at some point, like in the blocking scenario I mentioned.
The semantics in this game can really be confusing as some of the terms that have rules are also just words people use to describe things in general that are going on.
So, who was right, the pirhana can damage an attacking creature if piranhas are declared as blockers, or, does the piranhas not do any damage, even when blocking, and the power on the card is there for use potentially with some other card (that removes the cant attack rule or something?)
Most thing in magic are exactly the thing they say they are. They aren't also various other things that may be part of the first thing. "Can't attack" means "can not be declared as an attacker". An ability would have to say "prevent all damage this card would deal" and there are card with similar effects.
Thanks for the response...but just to clarify the main thing that this card cannot do is BE DECLARED AS AN ATTACKER. Dealing damage (while blocking) is not classified as attacking. That is my take away and that is how we will continue playing with that card and similar cards.
Second Example
Opponent declares a 2/3 creature as attacking.
I declare piranhas as blocker
damage is dealt and the attackers creature dies, piranhas survive.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Not "main thing", "only thing". For example, you could use the ability of Ilharg, the Raze-Boar to put Moat Piranhas onto the battlefield tapped and attacking. Its Defender ability would not even try to interfere with that, because it never "attacked".
If a word has a definition in the rulebook, that's what you use while playing. Most arguments about that involve the words "target" and "protection", but imagine someone trying to use an Elephant deck and a pair of cleats in combination with the dictionary definition of "trample".