|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 2:15PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2001
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 3:05PM
#32
|
|
|
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 ?!?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 3:08PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 4:20PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
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
[FONT="Bell MT"]
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.[/FONT]
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 4:40PM
#35
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 6:59PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2007
|
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."
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 11, 2009 - 7:39PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2002
|
[FONT="Bell MT"]
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.[/FONT]
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 12, 2009 - 3:03PM
#38
|
|
|
[FONT="Bell MT"]
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.[/FONT]
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....
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 12, 2009 - 3:13PM
#39
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 13, 2009 - 8:37AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2008
|
When can you sacrifice Progenitus?
Thanks
|
|
|
