|
3 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2010 - 11:18AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 30, 2010
|
if a 1/1 creature blocks say a 5/5 and then the 1/1 owner unsummons the 1/1 to his hand is the 5/5 still blocked?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2010 - 11:20AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 18, 2009
|
if a 1/1 creature blocks say a 5/5 and then the 1/1 owner unsummons the 1/1 to his hand is the 5/5 still blocked?
Yes. It was blocked, so it remains blocked for the rest of the combat and will deal no combat damage (unless it has trample  or something similar  ).
[<o>]
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2010 - 11:24AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 30, 2010
|
and if it did have trample it would deal 5 right?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2010 - 11:25AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 18, 2009
|
and if it did have trample it would deal 5 right?
Yes, exactly.
[<o>]
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 13, 2010 - 11:26AM
#5
|
|
|
and if it did have trample it would deal 5 right?
Correct. A creature with trample must first assign enough damage to destroy all blockers before assigning damage to the defending player. If all the blockers are removed before the damage step and all the damage is assigned to the defending player.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 7:35PM
#6
|
|
|
No, this seems wrong because both creatures do damage at the same time, unless one of them has "First Strike". The blocked creature has been dealt lethal damage, you are using the "Return to owners hand" as a regenerate. If you want to withdraw the block to save your creature, then block has not taken place.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 7:54PM
#7
|
- Mogic Puzzle Master
- Plays Well With Others
|
No, this seems wrong because both creatures do damage at the same time, unless one of them has "First Strike". The blocked creature has been dealt lethal damage, you are using the "Return to owners hand" as a regenerate. If you want to withdraw the block to save your creature, then block has not taken place.
Please don't bump a two year old thread. If it hasn't been corrected in all that time it's almost certainly correct (or the rules changed).
This however was and is correct. Once a creature is blocked it stays blocked. Removing the blocker after it was declared as an blocker does not 'unblock' the attacker.
And yes, you can cast spells between blockers being declared and damage being dealt.
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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 7:56PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2009
|
Is this a troll post? You've necro'd a 2 year old thread with an incorrect interpretation of the events. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though - the original answers were correct. If a blocker is declared against an attacker at the start of the declare blockers step, then the attacking creature is blocked until the end of combat, and won't deal damage to the defending player unless it has trample or a trample-like ability . If the blocking creature isn't around anymore - perhaps it's been Unsummon  ed, or Momentary Blink  'd, or Doom Blade  d, or what have you - the attacking creature is still blocked. It became blocked as soon as the blocker was declared, and only an effect which explicitly says it is no longer blocked (can't think of any of the cards off the top of my head, but there are some which 'unblock' an attacker) will change this.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 8:15PM
#9
|
|
|
Thanks for all the attitude...nice to know there are good people on here so willing to help beginners with odd situations...
Anyway, guess if removal of creature before combat/block damage is assigned then it makes for sense. Still not familiar with the little mulitaple steps involved to perform an action.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 9:10PM
#10
|
|
|
So...Not an April Fool's Day joke? Because it's pretty fitting that you decide to sign up on April 1st, and then post the way you did.
Anyway, don't feel discouraged -- just keep in mind that necro-posting/reviving a thread that's nearly 2 years old to "correct" something that wasn't wrong doesn't leave a very good first impression.
It would've been one thing if you had been asking a question, but the way you posted made you sound awfully adamant about how the scenario works, when you were not correct about it. In the future, it's generally a better idea to start a new thread. If you really feel that you need to reference a previous thread, you can simply link to it from your new post.
|
|
|
