Community

 
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why does protection not protect from destruction effects?
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 11:23AM #1
DjVortex
Date Joined: Jul 19, 2012
Posts: 16
One significant feature of protection (from something) is that it prevents all damage dealt to the protected permanent from a source of the specified characteristics, even if the damage is untargeted (eg. something like "deals X damage to all creatures").

However, it does not protect from destruction effects from a source with those characteristics (such as "destroy all creatures"). Why not? It would make sense that it would, given that it protects from almost everything else as well.

(Incidentally, the mnemonic "DEBT" to remember what protection works against is confusing because both "Damage" and "Destruction" begin with D. One has to remember that the D stands for "Damage" but not "Destruction".)

(Also, in a tangent, the "E" in the mnemonic could also stand for "Exiling", which could mean that it protects the permanent also from untargeted exilement. Of course this isn't the case. Perhaps my question could be extended into this as well, ie. why doesn't protection protect from being exiled?)
Quick Reply
Cancel
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 11:37AM #2
Enigma256
Date Joined: Jul 28, 2010
Posts: 13,858
because it doesn't

every card and ability needs an answer, if protection did indeed protect from everything it would be too strong, so it just protects from DEBT

afaik there was a time when protection protected from everything, but that was deemed too strong
proud member of the 2011 community team
Quick Reply
Cancel
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 11:45AM #3
EyeballFrog
Date Joined: Mar 18, 2012
Posts: 1,033
There's so many more ways to remove a creature than destruction.  How should protection interact with these effects?
Quick Reply
Cancel
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 11:47AM #4
rezzahan
Date Joined: Mar 12, 2011
Posts: 4,779
There are a lot of words that begin with D, E, B or T and thus could be used to form the same acronym. That doesn't mean, that they have any saying on what protection does or doesn't. DEBT is only a helpful tool to remember what protection does, but it only works in one direction: from Damage/Enchanting/Blocking/Targeting to DEBT, no matter what else you want those letter to stand for.

Also, in the very beginning, protection did make the protected permanent immune to all kinds of effects that came from a source with the stated quality. But this caused some scenarios, where you simply couldn't determine what would actually happen. Also, it is part of the game, that everything can be answered, and making protection do less then total immunity makes it possible to answer.
Quick Reply
Cancel
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 11:50AM #5
KyCygni
Date Joined: Dec 29, 2010
Posts: 828
First, that would make protection creatures virtually unstoppable. It's just not practical to give them almost-invincibility.

Secondly, you've chosen one of many board-wipe effects. Why discriminate? What makes destruction so special? Inundate Wash Out Terminus Barter in Blood ...... If you're going to arbitrarily pick one board-effect, then why not the others? At that point, of course, they would be absurdly powerful.
Quick Reply
Cancel
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 11:54AM #6
Astarael7
Date Joined: Oct 15, 2009
Posts: 706
There are two answers to both of those questions:

1) Because that's not what the rules say it does. So you're just gonna have to remember the right answer.

2) Back in the olden days of yore, Protection used to protect from everything. Everything. This got very, very messy when Black Knight was on the field and someone was trying to resolve Balance . Because they would count the Knight for the purposes of determining the fewest stuff, but wouldn't have to sacrifice him, even if he was the only creature they had and everybody else was binning everything else they had. Unless they did have to get rid of him, because Balance isn't affecting the Knight: it's directing the player to sacrifice their own knight. So the protection shouldn't even apply, right? But, wait, Wrath of God can't touch him (everyone agreed on that) (sort of), but Balance can? Unless Balance can't. Which makes no sense, because why does protection apply to things that don't directly affect them. Also what happens when the Knight becomes white and I have a Crusade ?

This was a very bad system. So the Rules Dudes sat down and paired Protection down to the four things which would allow it to cover 90% of the ways that cards directly affect each other: damaging each other, blocking each other, enchanting each other and targeting each other. All of those things are unquestionably one card directly interacting with another card in an easily-stoppable way. Destruction was not chosen as one of those things because pinpoint-destruction effects are covered by the targeting rule, while blocking mass destruction lands us right back in the hole we just climbed out of.

Later, other things came along, like Equipment (which is just enchanting for artifacts). These were grandfathered in, because they were a very logical extension of what protection already did, so no harm would be done by adding them to the list of forbidden actions. Other things, like exiling, weren't added for the same reason that destroy wasn't put in in the first place.

Does that answer your question?
Rules Advisor as of 03/01/2013
Zammm = Batman
"Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman
Quick Reply
Cancel
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 11:55AM #7
EyeballFrog
Date Joined: Mar 18, 2012
Posts: 1,033
Incidentally, as long as we're talking about protection, why does protection from X specity "Can't be enchanted, equipped, or fortified by X" instead of just "Can't have X attached to it"?  Seems simpler, and would prevent the need to update rules if they make new types of attachable things.
Quick Reply
Cancel
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 11:58AM #8
Enigma256
Date Joined: Jul 28, 2010
Posts: 13,858
but protected permanents can be haunted (if you find a way around targetting)
so stuff can be attached, except the 3 mentioned
proud member of the 2011 community team
Quick Reply
Cancel
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 12:01PM #9
will_dice
Date Joined: Oct 18, 2009
Posts: 5,456

Jul 26, 2012 -- 11:58AM, Enigma256 wrote:

but protected permanents can be haunted (if you find a way around targetting)

so stuff can be attached, except the 3 mentioned



Haunting is not Attaching.


The attach action is only used by equipments, auras, and the fortification. Nothing else.



702.53b. Cards that are in the exile zone as the result of a haunt ability "haunt" the creature targeted by that ability. The phrase "creature it haunts" refers to the object targeted by the haunt ability, regardless of whether or not that object is still a creature.


701.3a. To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object. If something is attached to a permanent on the battlefield, it's customary to place it so that it's physically touching the permanent. An Aura, Equipment, or Fortification can't be attached to an object it couldn't enchant, equip, or fortify, respectively.


[<o>]
Quick Reply
Cancel
11 months ago  ::  Jul 26, 2012 - 12:02PM #10
EyeballFrog
Date Joined: Mar 18, 2012
Posts: 1,033

Jul 26, 2012 -- 11:58AM, Enigma256 wrote:

but protected permanents can be haunted (if you find a way around targetting)
so stuff can be attached, except the 3 mentioned




Haunt doesn't attach.  The creature or spell is in exile when it haunts a creature.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing