Help Settle A Silly Rule Debate!

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hello all! 

So, even though most of my play is done casually with friends, I'd like to think I have a decent understanding of the game's rules. The other day two of my other Magic playing friends got in a little arguement over a certain ruling and consulted me for advice, and though the answer is actually pretty clear to me, the person on the other side of the arguement is a stubborn one, so let me go ahead and paint this picture for you all.

Player A has two life remaining, two creatures in play, and has a Mark of Asylum in play, her creatures are protected from noncombat damage.

Player B has eight poison counters, one creature in play, and has full life. 

Player B's turn: Attacks Player A with his only creature.

Player A blocks the attacking creature with one of her creatures.

Player B then casts a Chandra's Outrage on Player A's other creature that is not blocking.

And that's it, this is where it becomes an arguement. Player A believes that because Mark of Asylum prevents the damage to her creature from the Chandra's Outrage, that the second effect of Chandra's Outrage ultimately dealing enough damage to defeat her does not occur. Honestly, it's crazy to me that someone would even argue this, and when they consulted me my answer was this: As long as the target is valid, and in this case it most certainly is, then both effects of Chandra's Outrage resolve. It does not matter if the damage is prevented afterwards, the target is valid, the entire spells resolves. Period. If the target wasn't valid, say from protection, hexproof, bounce, exile, then the Chandra's Outrage would be countered on resolution, of course, but that isn't the case in this scenario. Player A continues to argue that the 4 damage MUST occur before the 2 damage can be dealt, and has even pulled rule clauses out of context to prove this point.  

So does anyone else have some input? Again, I'm 99.9% sure that my assesment is accurate, but maybe there's some judges around these forums that can provide an official answer?
Chandra's Outrage will deal 0 damage to its target, then deal 2 damage to player A, then player A will lose the game.

Players aren't creatures. Mark of Asylum can't prevent damage to players. 

If the 4 damage needed to be dealt to hit the creature's controller, Chandra's Outrage would read "~ deals 4 damage to target creature. If it deals damage to that creature this way, it deals 2 damage to that creature's contorller."

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

Mark of Asylum only stops the damage to the creature.  It does not stop the damage to the player.  Player A gets 2 damage and goes to 0 life to lose the game.

Exactly! 

After telling her this, she proceeded to pull this rule clause:

615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens. A modified event may occur instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can't be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

Somehow, she seems to think that the prevention causes a modified event or condition that prevents Chandra's Outrage from doing the second part of damange. Which is absolutely ridiculous and maddening! Haha.

Anyways, just wanted to get my point reevaluated, because I'm petty and feel the need to go this far to prove her wrong! Haha, if she still can't see the light, I give up hope. :P
Exactly! 

After telling her this, she proceeded to pull this rule clause:

615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens. A modified event may occur instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can't be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

Somehow, she seems to think that the prevention causes a modified event or condition that prevents Chandra's Outrage from doing the second part of damange. Which is absolutely ridiculous and maddening! Haha.

Anyways, just wanted to get my point reevaluated, because I'm petty and feel the need to go this far to prove her wrong! Haha, if she still can't see the light, I give up hope. :P


The thing being modified by prevention is the damage to the creature.  The damage to the player is not modified and is dealt normally.
 
Exactly! 

After telling her this, she proceeded to pull this rule clause:

615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens. A modified event may occur instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can't be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.


700. General

700.1. Anything that happens in a game is an event. Multiple events may take place during the resolution of a spell or ability. The text of triggered abilities and replacement effects defines the event they're looking for. One "happening" may be treated as a single event by one ability and as multiple events by another.
Example: If an attacking creature is blocked by two creatures, this is one event for a triggered ability that reads "Whenever [this creature] becomes blocked" but two events for a triggered ability that reads "Whenever [this creature] becomes blocked by a creature."


Mark of Asylum sees that resolution of Chandra's Outrage as one event that it prevents and another event that it ignores.

If Essence Drain is cast at a creature controlled by Mark of Asylum's controller, it sees the resolution of that spell as one event that it prevents and another event that it similarly ignores.

Likewise, Mark of Asylum would see the resolution of Rummaging Goblin's ability as one event that it ignores entirely.

Does she understand why Mark of Asylum doesn't modify the resolution of Rummaging Goblin's abiilty or the last four words of Essence Drain's rules text?  Well, that's the reason Chandra's Outrage can deal "2 damage to that creature's controller" without interference.

No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.

Arent they asking for the rule that says that spells and abilities do as much as possible when they resolve?

~ Tim 
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens. A modified event may occur instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can't be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

She is partly correct: rule 615.6 does apply.
When Chandra's Outrage resolves, it gets modified by Mark of Asylum's prevention effect:

From its original
«Chandra's Outrage deals 4 damage to target creature and 2 damage to that creature's controller.»,
Chandra's Outrage then becomes a modified event:
«Chandra's Outrage deals no damage to target creature and 2 damage to that creature's controller.»


Keep in mind that her inability to understand this may actually be unwillingness to understand: some people just can't stand losing... 

Wizards of the Coast: NOT ANYMORE outsourced to Elbonia

Sign In to post comments