 |
Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online Magic: the Gathering Play with Apprentice and Magic Workstation; casual or tournament play.
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
LoneWulf
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 155
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Craze wrote: | | I once asked (I don't remember exactly who) if you can kill a blocking creature with a shock before it blocks, thus leaving your attacking creature unblocked. And the judge said that you can at the beginning of the declare blockers step. |
Don't know who you asked but he was wrong.
Once your opponent has declared what's blocking what then you can start playing your spells/abilities. If you kill a blocker (even before damage is stacked) your attacker doesn't become "unblocked" and won't deal damage.
Now if your attacker has trample (or a Thorn Elemental-like ability) you'd be able to assign all the damage to your opponent as there is no blocking creature to absorb any of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LoneWulf
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 155
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lennin wrote: | | you can craze you just do it during the declare attackers step not the declare blockers step. |
Technically that's just killing a "potential blocker".
Once you pass your priority during the declare attackers step you won't get it back until after he's declared his blockers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lennin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isn't that what you were talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LoneWulf
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 155
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craze wrote: | So you can't play a spell to kill a blocker during the declare blockers step in order to get your creature to go unblocked?
no way no how? |
(Bold added)
No lennin. I bolded the significant part of his question. Of course you can kill his creatures during your declare attackers step but they're technically not blockers yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lennin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ok i see |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorbadoc
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craze wrote: | | ...you can use a spell before he declares actual blockers. Which really works as a surprise being very little people announce every priority change and generally just say "ok I block you with this" right after you attack. |
Suppose you're attacking me. You assign attackers, and I promptly say who will block. You say, "Wait!" and bounce one of my would-be blockers, and you tell me that you wanted to do this before I assigned blockers. Assuming you said "Wait" within a reasonable amount of time, we would back up the game state to when you meant to take your action. The fact that I announced how I would have assigned blockers doesn't matter (not counting anything it teaches you about my play style); we'd proceed as though it hadn't happened.
This is a matter of courtesy. If you want a rule to back it up, though, I'd go with Rule 422: Handling Illegal Actions. Treat it as though I had attempted to declare blockers while your bounce spell was on the stack. Declaring blockers would be an illegal action; therefore, we backtrack to before I did it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LoneWulf
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 155
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gorbadoc wrote: | Suppose you're attacking me. You assign attackers, and I promptly say who will block. You say, "Wait!" and bounce one of my would-be blockers, and you tell me that you wanted to do this before I assigned blockers. Assuming you said "Wait" within a reasonable amount of time, we would back up the game state to when you meant to take your action. The fact that I announced how I would have assigned blockers doesn't matter (not counting anything it teaches you about my play style); we'd proceed as though it hadn't happened.
This is a matter of courtesy. If you want a rule to back it up, though, I'd go with Rule 422: Handling Illegal Actions. Treat it as though I had attempted to declare blockers while your bounce spell was on the stack. Declaring blockers would be an illegal action; therefore, we backtrack to before I did it. |
You're right that this is a matter of courtesy but it does not fall under Rule 422 as all actions that were done were legal at the time.
Best thing to do would be call a judge.
From the DCI Penaly Guide (Player Communication):
• Players are responsible for being aware of the game state. Judges will not generally assist the player in determining the current game state but can answer questions about the rules, interactions between cards, or the Oracle texts of relevant cards. At Regular REL, the judge may assist the players in understanding the game state in the interest of education.
Depending on the judges investigation he could go with either Game Play Error-Game Rule Violation or Tournament Error- Player Communication Violation (or even Cheating-Fraud if he thought the attacking player was being shady). Both GPE-GRV and TE-PCV are Warnings at all RELs.
GPE-GRV does allow backing up the game state with the Head Judge's permission.
From the DCI Penaly Guide (GPE-GRV):
If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error. Each action taken is undone until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Unless the identity of the card is known to all players, drawn cards should be reversed by placing a random card on top of the library. Once the game is backed up, it continues from that point.
Since this is hypothetical I'm not sure which way I would go. That's were investigation comes in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hardtrack
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 310
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craze wrote: | | Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first regeneration removes the creature from combat, so technically doesn't the damage aimed at it fizzle still leaving the second regeneration field on it? |
I actually wasn't to sure about this either. So I looked it up:
| Quote: | 310.4. Combat damage resolves as an object on the stack. When it resolves, it’s all dealt at once, as originally assigned. The combat damage object is then removed from the stack and ceases to exist. After combat damage finishes resolving, the active player gets priority.
310.4a Combat damage is dealt as it was originally assigned even if the creature dealing damage is no longer in play, its power has changed, or the creature receiving damage has left combat.
310.4b The source of the combat damage is the creature as it currently exists, if it’s still in play. If it’s no longer in play, its last known information is used to determine its characteristics.
310.4c If a creature or planeswalker that was assigned combat damage is no longer in play, or is neither a creature nor planeswalker, the damage assigned to it isn’t dealt. |
Bolding, as always, mine.
| Craze wrote: | I don't really understand it but someone explained it to me so I'll try to say it right, but I might be extremely wrong in which case correct me.
I once asked (I don't remember exactly who) if you can kill a blocking creature with a shock before it blocks, thus leaving your attacking creature unblocked. And the judge said that you can at the beginning of the declare blockers step. So shouldn't it go:
He gets priority, does nothing, passes it
You get priority, do nothing pass it.
Then he declares blockers? |
Well, I think it has been explained quite well, but I'll answer just to make sure.
You can destroy a creature before it blocks but after you declared attackers. You just have to do it in the Declare Attackers Step, after you declared attackers.
This does not mean your creature automatically goes unblocked. It just means that the creature you destroyed can not block.
If you destroy a creature after it was assigned as blocking this will not 'unblock' your creature. It just means that it is now blocked by thin air. Assuming it doesn't have trample (or super trample) it won't deal nor receive damage.
And no, you don't get priority in the Declare Blockers Step before blockers are declared. But I really don't understand why people keep getting so hung up on that (many others before you have asked me the same thing). What is the big difference between destroying something in the Declare Attackers Step after attackers are declared or destroying something in the Declare Blockers Step before blockers are declares (which, as I said, is not possible). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorbadoc
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the person doing the attacking should make it clear with body language that he's at least thinking about taking an action after declaring attackers. Common sense says he could just as well cast Lightning Bolt before declaring attackers or even during his main phase (since if it's countered that could affect who he wants to attack with), but there are similar types of situations where one player moves ahead when the other player is still thinking and hasn't officially passed. That's why if my action would reveal something important, I check to see that priority was actually passed.
It's in this body language (or the timing of "Thinking" online) where you can bluff, and one of the things I enjoy about Magic; hint through contemplation and brazenness of action that maybe you do have that Giant Growth or Pyroclasm in your hand, and see if your opponent lets your 2/2 attacker waltz past his 3/3 creature. That's why I'm less than fond of blue decks; a card in-hand loses its power as an unknown threat when cards like counterspell exist as a universal contingency.
Edit:
And yeah, Hardtrack, it's frustrating how many people get caught up in the names of things rather than their function. We both know that it would be redundant to add an extra priority to the beginning of the Declare Blockers step, but, then, we're both reasonably competent with deductive logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hardtrack
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 310
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gorbadoc wrote: | | It's in this body language (or the timing of "Thinking" online) where you can bluff, and one of the things I enjoy about Magic; hint through contemplation and brazenness of action that maybe you do have that Giant Growth or Pyroclasm in your hand, and see if your opponent lets your 2/2 attacker waltz past his 3/3 creature. That's why I'm less than fond of blue decks; a card in-hand loses its power as an unknown threat when cards like counterspell exist as a universal contingency. |
I know this is completely off-topic, but I just got to say: are you insane? There is no deck where you have to bluff more, think harder and weigh threats more than a MUC or UW Control deck. There is no greater joy than spending two minutes pretending to be thinking about playing a counterspell while you are staring at your hand which contains nothing but two Islands. No wait, there is. Having them fall for it and hold back the creature they really wanted to play.
And just making sure: I'm not really questioning your sanity, only your tastes  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lennin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cards in hand increase in power of the unknown because of counterspells what are u talking about |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
