Is preventing Guttersnipe damage possible?

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Is there a way to prevent the Guttersnipe damage?  This actually a generic question towards any card that says its own name does the damage.  Guttersnipe says that "{spell cast trigger}, Guttersnipe deals 2 damage to each opponent."  So, the group of people i play with are not sure about the fact that it says it is doing the damage.  If Guttersnipe is dead before the spell cast trigger comes off the stack, does the damage still happen?

The specific example I am seeing is.  My Guttersnipe is on the field.  I cast Ponder, in response the enemy casts Murder towards Guttersnipe.  So the stack should look like:

Murder (target: Guttersnipe)
Guttersnipe damage at all opponents 
Ponder

 
Is there a way to prevent the Guttersnipe damage?

Yes, there are quite a few ways to prevent non-combat damage. For example, Healing Salve, Awe Strike, Sphere of Law. Also, you could use something like Stifle to counter the ability.
So, the group of people i play with are not sure about the fact that it says it is doing the damage.  If Guttersnipe is dead before the spell cast trigger comes off the stack, does the damage still happen?

Yes, the damage still happens. If anything cares about the source of the damage, the source is guttersnipe as it looked at the last moment it still existed.
112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won't affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, "Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player") rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it's expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

A player having Protection from Red would also prevent the damage to that player.
That helps greatly.  I probably worded it incorrectly.  I was more thinking of is there a way to prevent the damage by removing the guttersnipe because i did know about preventing damage in general.  But overall the source of damage being the name of the card clarification is greatly appreciated.  I have missed out on damage because my coworker told me that because the card specifically names the source as the card (that is now removed) instead of wording it like trigger, do damage, the damage doesn't happen.  Hopefully, that doesn't sound too rambly and makes sense.  Thank you for that clarification though.

Related question: Is there ever a time where a triggered effect (that specifies the card name does something) doesn't resolve because the card is removed from the battlefield before the effect comes off the stack?  Or does specific naming not matter?  Going back to Guttersnipe as an example; would Guttersnipe be any (or would any card be) different if instead of reading "{trigger}, Guttersnipe deals 2 damage ...." it read "{trigger}, deal 2 damage ..."?
Abilities on the stack exist independently of their source.  This means that if Guttersnipe's ability triggers and is put on the stack, removing Guttersnipe from the battlefield will not remove the ability from the stack.  It will still resolve as normal.

Think of it this way:  If I throw a grenade at you but you shoot me dead before the grenade hits, the grenade will not disappear.

Rules Advisor

That helps greatly.  I probably worded it incorrectly.  I was more thinking of is there a way to prevent the damage by removing the guttersnipe because i did know about preventing damage in general.  But overall the source of damage being the name of the card clarification is greatly appreciated.  I have missed out on damage because my coworker told me that because the card specifically names the source as the card (that is now removed) instead of wording it like trigger, do damage, the damage doesn't happen.  Hopefully, that doesn't sound too rambly and makes sense.  Thank you for that clarification though.

Related question: Is there ever a time where a triggered effect (that specifies the card name does something) doesn't resolve because the card is removed from the battlefield before the effect comes off the stack?  Or does specific naming not matter?  Going back to Guttersnipe as an example; would Guttersnipe be any (or would any card be) different if instead of reading "{trigger}, Guttersnipe deals 2 damage ...." it read "{trigger}, deal 2 damage ..."?



No, that wording wouldn't  matter.  There are a few cards, such as Stalking Yeti that if you get rid of it the ability won't do anything, but there aren't many like that.
Thank you for the help.