noob question

nightxmare · Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 3

OK, I've been playing magic for about 9 months and this is how I was taught and never questioned it. I was playing someone else the other day and they said it was wrong. Here's the situation:

1. I'm playing my GR aggro deck, and I decide to attack my opponent with a 3/3.
2. My opponent decides to defend with a 3/3.
3. In response to this I decide to flame javelin my opponent's 3/3

Now I was under the impression that my flame javelin would kill my opponents 3/3, thus allowing mine to stroll through for 3. I was also under the impression that after my flame javelin was played, there would be no time for another blocker to be assigned.
Would this play be correct or would I have to burn before blockers are declared?
Thanks.

Hank333 · Joined: 23 Oct 2006 Posts: 197 Location: San Antoni

Your blocker will be considered blocked. I would assume you did not flame javilin his guy with damage on the stack, so your guy lives. You really need to kill his guy befor the "decleares blocker step" otherwise your guy is blocked. Its like you attack with a guy, he blocks, you make your guy flying will NOT work for the same reason.

Trotsky1 · Joined: 12 Apr 2005 Posts: 554

Yes you do have to burn before declare blockers.

SaTiVa · Joined: 09 Jun 2005 Posts: 185

unless ur guy has trample if it is blocked then all blockers are removed b4 the combat damage step it will not assign and thus not deal any combat dmg.

Bushviper · Joined: 07 Aug 2006 Posts: 81

Even if the creature has trample it would still deal no damage. The javlin will kill his opponent's creature before or after damage has been put on the stack. Thus, if its before, it will deal no damage because the blocker is now gone. If it is after damage, then the blocker still absorbs the 3 damage and no damage gets through.

Enyeez · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 45

if you had not assigned damage at the time of the javelin, you can assign all damage to the player (if no other creatures are blocking it)

(edit) sorry, was thinking it had trample...

(edit2) SaTiVa, is correct.

ransom3 · Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 90

I believe Sativa is correct. If the blocker is destroyed before combat damage is assigned, an attacking creature with trample will first assign damage up to lethal damage to the blocking creature (which does not exist and is therefore 0) and then assigns all remaining damage (3) to the defending player.

bl0t · Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 26

To achieve your effect, you can burn before blockers are declared. Then, your creature will waltz through, assuming your opponent controls no other creatures.

Hardtrack · Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 234

Once your creature has a blocker it is 'blocked'. Removing the blocker does not change this. You will not deal any damage to the defending player.

Trample works just as well if all blockers are removed. If all blockers are removed before combat damage is assigned, you can assign all damage to the defending player, because there is no creature you have to assign damage to.

nightxmare · Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 3

That's great. Thanks for the help everybody. Smile

Drizzs · Joined: 04 Sep 2004 Posts: 34

If your ever unsure about anything you've been taught i suggest you try goin to an FNM and checking out how it goes and ask questions to the players.

Hardtrack · Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 234

Ggerg · Joined: 04 Sep 2005 Posts: 202

ya. hardtrack is soo right on this.

friend of mine got some horrible ruling with a myojin....somehow the judge was convinced that killing a myojin with its "remove a counter" ability on the stack removed the ability...twas vs this jerk off who was a complete ass hole about it too...

FNM sucks...

Vedrfolner · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 868

I have never had trouble with bad ruling in FNMs. If I have a point of view and all the others can not come up with a rule that makes more sense, or can refute it, we play by my rules until next week. By then the correct ruling should be available. The same goes if my point of view is overruled by others, of course.

thedarkness · Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 449

I never had problems with bad rulings at FNM because our judge was competent. Razz

He could easily have been a j3, but his logic for not being one was flawless: he didn't want the workload. xD