|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 10:13AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2005
|
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).
-----
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 10:17AM
#22
|
|
|
i see. i just tend to avoid cards that **** me off like that. 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 10:24AM
#23
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 10:30AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
---- oops ----
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 10:37AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2002
|
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
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 1:38PM
#26
|
|
|
rootbreak and cyphern thanks for proving my point about people knowing how to properly use planeswalkers 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 1:40PM
#27
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 1:45PM
#28
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 1:55PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
I'm not aware of any such time. Thus, if there was, it ended in April 1994, with the release of Revised Edition.[/quote]
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 2:05PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2002
|
Though IIRC White Ward  for example received errata making it not remove itself.
All Generalizations are Bad
|
|
|
