Progenitus

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
So... Conflux's Progenitus is pretty rediculous.
Hes got protection from everything...
But can he be wrath of god-ed?
I mean its not specificly targeting him...
thanks
Protection from "everything" doesn't do anything that any other combination of protections couldn't do. A creature with protection from White can be destroyed by Wrath of God despite the fact that it's white, therefore a creature with protection from everything can be destroyed by Wrath despite the fact that it's... anything.
The World of Eldangard - a three act M:tG block by Fallingman Eldangard Stormfront Ragnarok
So... Conflux's Progenitus is pretty rediculous.
Hes got protection from everything...
But can he be wrath of god-ed?
I mean its not specificly targeting him...
thanks

Yes, Wrath of God will destroy Progenitus.

There are a number of other ways to deal with him - anything that doesn't target, damage, block, or attach to him can affect him.
M:tG Rules Advisor
That being said, it isn't just protection from all colors. "Everything" includes just that, everything. Why wouldn't this include protection from instants, sorceries, and creatures? Devoted Caretaker and Beloved Chaplain btw. But, this seems like an enormously vague thing that will probably be argued over until there is an official ruling though.
That being said, it isn't just protection from all colors. "Everything" includes just that, everything. Why wouldn't this include protection from instants, sorceries, and creatures?

What makes you think it doesn't?
But, this seems like an enormously vague thing that will probably be argued over until there is an official ruling though.

Why? It's not like it leaves any room for interpretation. All damage that would be dealt to Progenitus is prevented; it can't be enchanted, equipped or fortified; it's unblockable; and it has what amounts to Shroud (EDIT: And the ability does nothing else besides this, since by the definition of Protection, that is the absolute upper limit of what it could do). There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about it.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
That being said, it isn't just protection from all colors. "Everything" includes just that, everything. Why wouldn't this include protection from instants, sorceries, and creatures?

Because Protection (of any kind) means:

D. Damaged
E. Enchanted/Equipped
B. Blocked
T. Targeted

So, since Wrath Of God, doesn't damage, enchant, block, or target something with protection from white (or everything) then it still works.
That being said, it isn't just protection from all colors. "Everything" includes just that, everything. Why wouldn't this include protection from instants, sorceries, and creatures? Devoted Caretaker and Beloved Chaplain btw. But, this seems like an enormously vague thing that will probably be argued over until there is an official ruling though.

It seems pretty simple to me. When a creature has protection from something, you just check every time something would try to damage, enchant, equip, target or block it and ask "does that thing have qualities that I have protection against?" With Progenitus, the answer is always "Yes".
The World of Eldangard - a three act M:tG block by Fallingman Eldangard Stormfront Ragnarok
Sooo... not to sound silly or start a flame war, but couldn't you just say that everything also includes card names? Like protection from "Wrath of God"?
Yeah, but that doesn't mean the creature wouldn't die to a Wrath.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Even if a creature had literally "Protection from Wrath of God", Wrath of God would still destroy it.
Even if a creature had literally "Protection from Wrath of God", Wrath of God would still destroy it.

That might be the post of the week, right there.
ΦΦΦΦΦ
I'd like to make a small issue that creatures CAN damage Progenitus, especially if an effect like Everlasting Torment, or a creature like Excruciator, were involved, or the effects of Flaring Pain were active the turn Proggie would be involved in a situation it could be damaged (Earthquake = 10).
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
So the only ways to permanently deal with Progenitus are False Prophet and Final Judgement.

Yike.

I'm Charlie Owens, good night and good luck.

http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/CEOIII1117.png

So the only ways to permanently deal with Progenitus are False Prophet and Final Judgement.

Yike.

No (although those do work).

It's possible to devise ways of putting Progenitus into its owner's graveyard, although all the ones I've come up with so far involve teaching Progenitus who <em>really</em> rules the roost. Since it has no abilities, there is no effect replacing "Progenitus goes to its owner's graveyard," so into a graveyard it goes. Once it's in the graveyard, there it will stay until something moves it.
Still blessed by Julia of Hillsdown. M:tG Rules Adviser You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You do understand that Wrath of God will destroy it, right? I guess that doesn't 'permanently' deal with it (you could draw it and replay it), but it still seems nice.

DCI Level 2 Judge

 

"That's what's so stupid about the whole magic thing, you know," Rincewind said. "You spend twenty years learning the spell that makes nude virgins appear in your bedroom, and then you're so poisoned by quicksilver fumes and half-blind from reading old grimoires that you can't remember what happens next."

- Terry Pratchett, The Colour Of Magic

No (although those do work).

It's possible to devise ways of putting Progenitus into its owner's graveyard, although all the ones I've come up with so far involve teaching Progenitus who <em>really</em> rules the roost. Since it has no abilities, there is no effect replacing "Progenitus goes to its owner's graveyard," so into a graveyard it goes. Once it's in the graveyard, there it will stay until something moves it.

wait.... huh? what?

I thought that a creature moving from one zone to another became a new object...

as such wouldn't progenitus if humilitywas in play still be shuffled back into the owners library

hmmm but perhaps it works i know that snakeforming a revillark prevents its leaves play ability... but that isn't the same wording as progenitus's replacement effect ability
Replacement effects have to exist before whatever event they're trying to replace in order to actually work. If Progenitus doesn't have the ability at the time it's trying to go to the graveyard, that ability can't do anything because it doesn't exist yet.

The fact that it regains the ability as soon as it's actually in the graveyard is irrelevant--it's already in the graveyard.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

as such wouldn't progenitus if humilitywas in play still be shuffled back into the owners library

No. You are giving the reason yourself:
hmmm but perhaps it works i know that snakeforming a revillark prevents its leaves play ability... but that isn't the same wording as progenitus's replacement effect ability

Humilty asks, "What's this 'replacement effect ability' you're talking about? That Progenitus here is a humble 1/1 without abilities."
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
wow that is funny now i can give cairn wanderer protection from everything.... (obviously having to kill my own humility after progenitus is in grave) but still thats funny
Yeah... I'd say WOTC needs to clarify because apparently something as simple as "Protection from everything" is anything BUT simple... I still interpret it as Wrath does NOT kill it. I mean homeboy is supposed to be what, like the god of Alara? So I don't think he'd be that easy to kill...
Yeah... I'd say WOTC needs to clarify because apparently something as simple as "Protection from everything" is anything BUT simple... I still interpret it as Wrath does NOT kill it. I mean homeboy is supposed to be what, like the god of Alara? So I don't think he'd be that easy to kill...

Wizards did clarify --

From the rulebook:
502.7g Protection from everything is a variant of the protection ability. A permanent with protection
from everything has protection from each object regardless of that object’s characteristic values.
Such a permanent can’t be targeted by spells or abilities, enchanted by Auras, equipped by
Equipment, fortified by Fortifications, or blocked by creatures, and all damage that would be
dealt to it is prevented.

From the FAQ:
* "Protection from everything" means the following:
-- Progenitus can't be blocked.
-- Progenitus can't be enchanted or equipped.
-- Progenitus can't be the target of spells or abilities.
-- All damage that would be dealt to Progenitus is prevented.

* Progenitus can still be affected by effects that don't target it or deal damage to it (such as Wrath of God).
-----

i see. i just tend to avoid cards that **** me off like that.
Yeah... I'd say WOTC needs to clarify because apparently something as simple as "Protection from everything" is anything BUT simple... I still interpret it as Wrath does NOT kill it. I mean homeboy is supposed to be what, like the god of Alara? So I don't think he'd be that easy to kill...

actually for the people who pay attention to what protection does it is extremely simple... however in this game it seems as an increasing number of people do not know the rules.

Although I have a lot of trouble with the enchantment part of protection.... because there was one point in time in which you were able to enchant a creature, then give it protection from that color and the enchantment would not fall off... because it was considered that the enchantment "became part of the creature" however if I remember the current ruling on it the enchantments do fall off when it gains protection from that color

I generally have a fairly good grasp on the rules although i have a lot of trouble with layered effects/ timestamping

my largest pet peeve is when people play a planeswalker and put counters on it as a +effect for instance they will play garruk wildspeaker with a single counter on him to signify they are untapping two lands (this is exceptionally anti rules of the game) as the planeswalker rules state when you put them into play you place loyalty counters on them equivalent to their loyalty number
---- oops ----
I find it strange that you would object to that shortcut.

As planeswalkers can normally only be played on your turn, you will get priority immediately after the planeswalker resolves. Thus, you can immediately play an ability of that planeswalker, and I don't see any reason why you should be forced to go through the physical motions of adding 3 counters and then immediately removing 2, instead of just putting one on and making it clear you are playing its ability. Shortcuts get used all the time, and this seems a rather non-intrusive one.

Garruk's untap 2 lands ability is a +1 ability, not a -2 ability.
All Generalizations are Bad
rootbreak and cyphern thanks for proving my point about people knowing how to properly use planeswalkers

;)
Although I have a lot of trouble with the enchantment part of protection.... because there was one point in time in which you were able to enchant a creature, then give it protection from that color and the enchantment would not fall off... because it was considered that the enchantment "became part of the creature" however if I remember the current ruling on it the enchantments do fall off when it gains protection from that color

I'm not aware of any such time. Thus, if there was, it ended in April 1994, with the release of Revised Edition.

As long as I have been playing, giving an object protection from a colour caused auras of that colour to fall off the protected object.
Still blessed by Julia of Hillsdown. M:tG Rules Adviser You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
well all i know is that at one point in time when i was attempting to understand the protection rules I email wizards (which at the time was how you got rulings rather than the forum) and I have one in which I was told that after a enchantment is on a creature, giving the creature protection does not remove the enchantment

keep in mind this is on a pc at my parents house that uses windows 98 (so i can't really check it right now)
I'm not aware of any such time. Thus, if there was, it ended in April 1994, with the release of Revised Edition.

Even in alpha protection prevented enchanting. From the original rulebook:
Protection: A creature with protection from one or more colors of magic cannot be affected by any magic of those colors. For example, a creature with protection from blue cannot be blocked by blue creatures, dealt damage by blue creatures, or enchanted, damaged, or otherwise affected by blue cards. Damage done by such a creature cannot be prevented using blue cards. Note that the creature does not have this ability until it is successfully summoned. If, for example, you are summoning a creature with protection from blue magic, your rival can still cast a blue interrupt that affects the summoning spell.

Though IIRC White Ward for example received errata making it not remove itself.
All Generalizations are Bad
Though IIRC White Ward for example received errata making it not remove itself.

Only a 6 of the 19 auras that grant protection don't specify that that protection doesn't remove the card itself (Even Black Ward (a white card that grants protection from black) and artifact ward (a white card that grants protection from artifacts) arn't removed by the protection they grant.)
So if I understand correctly, as per rule 502.7g, it is possible to place counters on it as long as long as the effect does not actually target it when placing said counters...right ?!?
So if I understand correctly, as per rule 502.7g, it is possible to place counters on it as long as long as the effect does not actually target it when placing said counters...right ?!?

Yes, certainly. For example:
If you control Progenitus and Vigor, and a player plays Earthquake, you can choose to have the damage that Earthquake would deal to Progenitus be prevented by Vigor's ability rather than Progenitus's protection. Vigor's ability will then put +1/+1 counters on Progenitus equal to the damage prevented this way.

Nothing about protection prevents a protected permanent from having counters of any sort on it.
actually for the people who pay attention to what protection does it is extremely simple... however in this game it seems as an increasing number of people do not know the rules.

Although I have a lot of trouble with the enchantment part of protection.... because there was one point in time in which you were able to enchant a creature, then give it protection from that color and the enchantment would not fall off... because it was considered that the enchantment "became part of the creature" however if I remember the current ruling on it the enchantments do fall off when it gains protection from that color

I generally have a fairly good grasp on the rules although i have a lot of trouble with layered effects/ timestamping

my largest pet peeve is when people play a planeswalker and put counters on it as a +effect for instance they will play garruk wildspeaker with a single counter on him to signify they are untapping two lands (this is exceptionally anti rules of the game) as the planeswalker rules state when you put them into play you place loyalty counters on them equivalent to their loyalty number


It is a shortcut that doesn't actually break any rules of the game, assuming the 'Walker was played under normal circumstances. Once you let the spell resolve, the active player receives priority and may play any abilities of the 'Walker before anyone else gets a chance to do anything. They choose to play the +1 ability of the card, and so they put four counters on it (3 for coming into play, 1 for the cost). You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who'll rule in your favour in this situation, and to be blunt, that's not something you should about which you should have a pet peeve, because that's a ridiculous pet peeve to have.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Though IIRC White Ward for example received errata making it not remove itself.

When I first started playing was just about the time this problem was identified and the ruling was issued that it would not remove itself.

It still removed every other white Aura, both before and after the errata.

@ Cyphern : Thanks. I haven't actually sat down and read the first rulebook. It's nice to know that hasn't changed.
Still blessed by Julia of Hillsdown. M:tG Rules Adviser You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
well all i know is that at one point in time when i was attempting to understand the protection rules I email wizards (which at the time was how you got rulings rather than the forum) and I have one in which I was told that after a enchantment is on a creature, giving the creature protection does not remove the enchantment

keep in mind this is on a pc at my parents house that uses windows 98 (so i can't really check it right now)

You may be confusing protection with shroud. It is true that granting shroud to a creature with an aura on it will not cause the aura to go to the graveyard. Protection, however, works differently, and has always caused enchantments to "fall off."

It is a shortcut that doesn't actually break any rules of the game, assuming the 'Walker was played under normal circumstances. Once you let the spell resolve, the active player receives priority and may play any abilities of the 'Walker before anyone else gets a chance to do anything. They choose to play the +1 ability of the card, and so they put four counters on it (3 for coming into play, 1 for the cost). You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who'll rule in your favour in this situation, and to be blunt, that's not something you should about which you should have a pet peeve, because that's a ridiculous pet peeve to have.

Actually, I think he means that they put a single counter on Garruk for the "+1" ability and not 4 counters for the inital 3 that it comes into play with plus the 1 for ability.

I have seen people do it, and it shouldn't be done.

It is a shortcut that doesn't actually break any rules of the game, assuming the 'Walker was played under normal circumstances. Once you let the spell resolve, the active player receives priority and may play any abilities of the 'Walker before anyone else gets a chance to do anything. They choose to play the +1 ability of the card, and so they put four counters on it (3 for coming into play, 1 for the cost). You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who'll rule in your favour in this situation, and to be blunt, that's not something you should about which you should have a pet peeve, because that's a ridiculous pet peeve to have.

methinks you misread what I wrote

they played a garruk wildspeaker and when it came putting loyalty counters on him they placed 1 to untap 2 lands

they did not place 3 on him when he came into play they placed 1 to "use the ability" because the three was already represented in the lower right hand

to be even more clear the garruk in play had a total of 1 counter on it after just coming into play and that one counter was supposed to be from the +1 activation to untap two land


*sigh*

I am not confusing protection with shroud or anything to that effect i understand how it works "now" my complaint was how it worked "then"

also the person who pointed out the alpha rules, thank you however if you looked at the example I gave it was a creature gained protection, not started out with

I really wish I was back home so I could cut and paste the info from that email....
also the person who pointed out the alpha rules, thank you however if you looked at the example I gave it was a creature gained protection, not started out with

That really is not relevant.

There has never been a time when a player could enchant a creature with an aura, then give the creature protection from the Aura's colour and expect the Aura to stay enchanting the creature.

Even in Alpha, that would cause all relevant auras to be sent to the graveyard.
Still blessed by Julia of Hillsdown. M:tG Rules Adviser You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
When can you sacrifice Progenitus?
Thanks
When you have something that would allow you to do so, like Scarland Thrinax or Nantuko Husk or Phyrexian Vault.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Sign In to post comments