|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 2:39PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2011
|
the following is a rules question i found on the internet: === naftman asked: Can Bloodrush be used targeting a creature with protection from creatures? No. Protection from Creatures means you can’t target that creature with the activated abilities of creature cards, like Bloodrush. === ( magicjudge.tumblr.com/post/42216375794/w...) and the following is from the latest cranialinsertion.com: === Q: With Linvala, Keeper of Silence  < /a>  out, can I still activate bloodrush? A: You can! Linvala only stops activated abilities of creatures, and creatures only exist on the battlefield. Everywhere else, they're creature cards, and Linvala doesn't do anything about activated abilities of creature cards. You can still bloodrush through her. === ( www.cranialinsertion.com/article/759) it feels like there's a contradiction, so can someone help clear this contradiction for me, perhaps by pointing out what rules are actually being used here? that is, why does Protection from Creatures give protection from activated abilities from creature *cards*, but "Activated abilities of creatures your opponents control can't be activated" only stops activated abilities of creatures, not creature cards?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 2:42PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
Bloodrush is an ability on a creature card, Linvala stops abilities on creature permanents (if only "creature" is mentioned it means "creature permanent")
protection doesn't care about these differences, it will stop abilities no matter if they are from a card or a permanent
there is no contradiction here, you just need to be aware of these rule subtleties to fully understand it
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 2:43PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
Well spotted! There is an (apparent) contradiction there. The resolution to the contradiction is this rule: 702.15a Protection is a static ability, written "Protection from [quality]." This quality is usually a color (as in "protection from black") but can be any characteristic value. If the quality happens to be a card name, it is treated as such only if the protection ability specifies that the quality is a name. If the quality is a card type, subtype, or supertype, the ability applies to sources that are permanents with that card type, subtype, or supertype and to any sources not on the battlefield that are of that card type, subtype, or supertype. This is an exception to rule 109.2.
109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn't include the word "card," "spell," "source," or "scheme," it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.
While normally you would need to say "creature card" to refer to a bloodrush card that is outside the battlefield, protection has a special exemption and simply by saying "creature" it will include both creatures on the battlefield, and creature cards in other zones.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 2:44PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2011
|
um, would you be willing to spell out these sublties to me, please?
i still don't understand why "Protection from Creatures" means "Protection from both Creature Cards and Creature Permanents"
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 2:46PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
"Protection from creatures" means, in part, that the permanent with it cannot be the target of abilities from sources that have the creature card type. That's why Bloodrush can't legally be used; the bloodrush card has the creature card type in its owner's hand.
It's not the same with Linvala's ability, which uses the word "creature" in a way that, as defined in the rules, refers only to permanents.
 Magic The Gathering DCI Rules Advisor Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 2:47PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2011
|
@cyphern: == This is an exception to rule 109.2.== lol, gotta love little exceptions :D can't ever be sure you have learned a rule (i read the cranialinsertion article first) believing that it'll be 100% reliable for other scenarios  okay, but this clarifies things for me, in terms of the apparent contradiction. now i have to decide if i'm interested enough in knowing /why/ they felt Protection should work differently, to post to RT&T.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 2:50PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
can't ever be sure you have learned a rule
That's one of the reasons this Forum exists: to clarify rules.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 2:59PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Protection cares about Sources; the Source of the Bloodrush ability is a card that happens to have the creature subtype. End of discussion.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 3:06PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
could there be a "Protection from Cards"?
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 3:08PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
...whch wouldn't be protected against Tokens... Why not? Progenitus  ain't and that far away!
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
