I would like to double check something. If a chandra, pyromaster was targeting say a white creature Precinct captain and the opponent with a +1 and with that on the stack the opponent casts a brave the elements and names red before the abilitly resolves and then chandras ability goes to resolve.
1. Would the damage be prevented(to captain not player) and the no blocking clause still happen.
2. chandra only resolve as much as possible since the creature is no longer a legal target upon resolution the +1 would only hit the player and the creature could still block.
3. chandras ability be countered all together since 1 of the targets is illegal upon resolution.
I think its 2 but i would like to know for certain and some explanation if im missing something be appreciated.
Would you mind explaining this in further detail to me?
Im confused upon whether or not the damage to the creature is technically considered prevented, or just being countered by pro red(and never resolving) when her +1 resolves. Since it has been give pro red after it has been targeted but before resolution of the abilitly.
I thought the +1 abilitly of chandra(to the creature) would just fizzle never actually being prevented but instead just never resolves, and the only part of her abilitly that resolves(including the no block clause) is the 1 damage to the opponent.
Would you mind explaining this in further detail to me?
Im confused upon whether or not the damage to the creature is technically considered prevented or just never happening when it goes to resolution since it has been give pro red after it has been targeted. I thought that part of the +1 abilitly of chandra would just fizzle never actually being prevented just it never resolves, and the only part that resolves(including the no block clause) is the 1 damage to the opponent.
Okay here's how illegal targets work:
When a spell goes to resolves, if it has any targets, it checks to see if those targets are legal. If all of its targets are illegal it is countered. If only some of them are illegal it will resolve.
This is where it gets tricky. The spell can affect illegal targets, the only things I can't do are "perform any actions on that target or make that target perform any actions" and declaring that a creature cannot block is neither performing an action on it or making it perform an action.
Damage dealt by sources with [X] is prevented
Enchantments or Equipment with [X] can't enchant/equip it
Blocks by creatures with [X] are illegal
Targeting by sources with [X] can't happen.
The +1 ability will resolve and do as much as it can. The creature target is illegal, but the player target is legal. Chandra's ability resolves and does as much as it can to the remaining legal targets. The Captain will be able to block, since it can't be affected by that part of Chandra's ability, but the 1 damage to the opponent still happens.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
The spell or ability is countere 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."
While CP's ability can't deal damage to the Precinct Captain, the "can't block" portion of CP's ability doesn't fulfill any of the criteria listed in 608.2b. Hence, it will prevent that creature from blocking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nicholas Sabin
[email]nicholas@teamsabin.com[/email]
Regional (Level 3) Judge
Mid-Atlantic Regional Coordinator
Ralegh, NC, USA
What exactly does it mean to "perform an action" or "make that target perform any actions"? How is an "action" defined in the MtG CR? To me, making that creature not able to block would seem to be an action performed on that creature. Similarly, if the effect instead said "that creature attacks during its controller's next turn if able", would that be an action?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
What exactly does it mean to "perform an action" or "make that target perform any actions"? How is an "action" defined in the MtG CR? To me, making that creature not able to block would seem to be an action performed on that creature. Similarly, if the effect instead said "that creature attacks during its controller's next turn if able", would that be an action?
You cannot change the characteristics of the object (name, mana cost, color, card type, subtype, supertype, expansion symbol, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, or loyalty), the zone that it is in (destroy it, bounce it, etc), or its current state (number of counters on it, if it is enchanted, if it is tapped, etc).
In technical rules language I believe the most precise thing we can say is that the spell or ability cannot do anything that would change information received if the object were checked. Things like being tapped, being blocked, having damage marked on it, and such don't have a particular name in the Rules but they are all information that can be checked.
wouldn't adding the no block clause for a turn be considered "changing the characteristics of the object"?
That is what is confusing me as well...because im thinking it would be added to the card in this case the creature for the duration of its effect then be removed.
Also is "that creature can't block this turn" from CP considered to be from a red source and to target. Which would be illegal if its pro red? I thought it was.
wouldn't adding the no block clause for a turn be considered "changing the characteristics of the object"?
No because the creature doesn't gain rules text that says "this creature cannot block" a temporary change to the game rules is created which says "that game object cannot block".
This is actually very common in Magic, but usually in other contexts. If someone plays Ghostly Prison that doesn't give an ability to the creatures, it just sets up a new rule in the game for as long as it is around.
Also is "that creature can't block this turn" considered to be from a red source and to target. Which would be illegal if its pro red? I thought it was.
Chandra's +1 ability is a single ability for which she is the source. It has either one target (the player) or two targets (the player and a creature she controls).
The entire ability has a red source.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. Would the damage be prevented(to captain not player) and the no blocking clause still happen.
2. chandra only resolve as much as possible since the creature is no longer a legal target upon resolution the +1 would only hit the player and the creature could still block.
3. chandras ability be countered all together since 1 of the targets is illegal upon resolution.
I think its 2 but i would like to know for certain and some explanation if im missing something be appreciated.
Not the same situation the problem is that the creature isn't a legal target when it would resolve not that the damage will be prevented.
[edit]: Your conclusion is correct the damage doesn't happen and the creature cannot block. This is not the same as option #2, though.
Im confused upon whether or not the damage to the creature is technically considered prevented, or just being countered by pro red(and never resolving) when her +1 resolves. Since it has been give pro red after it has been targeted but before resolution of the abilitly.
I thought the +1 abilitly of chandra(to the creature) would just fizzle never actually being prevented but instead just never resolves, and the only part of her abilitly that resolves(including the no block clause) is the 1 damage to the opponent.
Okay here's how illegal targets work:
When a spell goes to resolves, if it has any targets, it checks to see if those targets are legal. If all of its targets are illegal it is countered. If only some of them are illegal it will resolve.
This is where it gets tricky. The spell can affect illegal targets, the only things I can't do are "perform any actions on that target or make that target perform any actions" and declaring that a creature cannot block is neither performing an action on it or making it perform an action.
Damage dealt by sources with [X] is prevented
Enchantments or Equipment with [X] can't enchant/equip it
Blocks by creatures with [X] are illegal
Targeting by sources with [X] can't happen.
The +1 ability will resolve and do as much as it can. The creature target is illegal, but the player target is legal. Chandra's ability resolves and does as much as it can to the remaining legal targets. The Captain will be able to block, since it can't be affected by that part of Chandra's ability, but the 1 damage to the opponent still happens.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
While CP's ability can't deal damage to the Precinct Captain, the "can't block" portion of CP's ability doesn't fulfill any of the criteria listed in 608.2b. Hence, it will prevent that creature from blocking.
[email]nicholas@teamsabin.com[/email]
Regional (Level 3) Judge
Mid-Atlantic Regional Coordinator
Ralegh, NC, USA
What exactly does it mean to "perform an action" or "make that target perform any actions"? How is an "action" defined in the MtG CR? To me, making that creature not able to block would seem to be an action performed on that creature. Similarly, if the effect instead said "that creature attacks during its controller's next turn if able", would that be an action?
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
You cannot change the characteristics of the object (name, mana cost, color, card type, subtype, supertype, expansion symbol, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, or loyalty), the zone that it is in (destroy it, bounce it, etc), or its current state (number of counters on it, if it is enchanted, if it is tapped, etc).
In technical rules language I believe the most precise thing we can say is that the spell or ability cannot do anything that would change information received if the object were checked. Things like being tapped, being blocked, having damage marked on it, and such don't have a particular name in the Rules but they are all information that can be checked.
That is what is confusing me as well...because im thinking it would be added to the card in this case the creature for the duration of its effect then be removed.
Also is "that creature can't block this turn" from CP considered to be from a red source and to target. Which would be illegal if its pro red? I thought it was.
No because the creature doesn't gain rules text that says "this creature cannot block" a temporary change to the game rules is created which says "that game object cannot block".
This is actually very common in Magic, but usually in other contexts. If someone plays Ghostly Prison that doesn't give an ability to the creatures, it just sets up a new rule in the game for as long as it is around.
Chandra's +1 ability is a single ability for which she is the source. It has either one target (the player) or two targets (the player and a creature she controls).
The entire ability has a red source.