Hello, a recent touch on a favored Hero card "Akroma" has brought to my attention that I probably dont understand what 'Protection from' actually means. Again, I understand that this is probably common knowledge for most of ya, but rules have changed and have morphed over the years since Unlimited and Revised were the newest sets.. so perhaps I need some explaination. :-) As I understand it, 'Protection from' means simply that the color that a particular creature/spelll/enchantment is protected from, cannot be killed or countered by the color is protected from. i.e. If a Benalish Hero had 'black ward' on it.. and it was attacking for 1 , a person could block with their Sengir Vampire - the vampire would take one damage, but the hero would take none, and receive no lethal damage that would send it to the graveyard. Also too, the Hero would not be able to be targeted by say a Royal assasin which would destroy it if it were tapped. -however- My questioning lies with lets say.. 'Vhati -il Dal" (black and green creature that you can tap to turn target creatures power to 0 until end of turn) ... its my understanding that.. if the Hero with black ward was attacking, I could still tap to turn its power to 0 until end of turn - because the hero is not receiving any damage, or anything that would destroy it ... so the 'ward' would have no affect since no lethal damage is taking place. is this correct?
Another example that I'm thinking of is.. what if something had 'Protection from Artifacts' ? Okay.. so say something does have protection from artifacts... so I couldn't use alladins ring to do direct damage to something with protection from artifacts (because its doing damage) but couldn't this same creature with the protection be targeted by an icy manipulator to tap it? Its not receiving any damage?
Another example.. hmmm okay take an Ishans Shade (5/5 protection from white) this guy couldn't be 'wrath of god' killed.. or 'swords to plowshares' or even killed by that 'northern paladin' but this guy could still be tapped by a 'minister of impediments' correct?
Another example?? hmm... okay.. you've got Akroma out.. Cant she still be forced to attack by a nettling imp?
I just always was under the impression that 'protection from' meant that the thing in question could not be destroyed, enchanted, or dealt lethal damage... by the color its protected from....
Protection A keyword ability seen on creatures. A creature with protection will always have “protection from ________.” That something is what the creature is protected from. It might be protection from red, for example, or protection from Goblins. Protection does several different things for the creature: • All damage those kinds of sources would deal to the creature is prevented. • The creature can’t be enchanted by those kinds of Auras or equipped by those kinds of Equipment. • The creature can’t be blocked by those kinds of creatures. • The creature can’t be targeted by those kinds of spells or by abilities from those kinds of cards.
One note though: so, after reading that you would think that your ihshan's shade would be safe from wrath of god. This is not true. Wrath of god is not considered to target creatures, rather it is a global spell targeting players. Hence, since the shade is not targeted directly by wog, it still dies
a black and green creature is still black so when you tap it to turn target creatures power to zero, you'll have to target a creature that doesn't have protection from green or black with the ability.
Akroma cannot be forced to attack by nettling imp because he is a black creature and his ability can only target a creature with out protection from black. Be careful too now.. theres a new shadowmoor card I have up for auction called "Runed Halo" it's an enchant player, you NAME A CARD, and have protection from that card.
Just a quick note on the WoG thing it does not target players, it does not target at all. So if someone played a Halo and named WoG it would not protect their creatures (so naming something like hat is useless, same with naming most Auras).
... I give up. Shoot.. I'm more confused now than I was before I asked the question! I dont understand how something with protection from a color.. (white for example).. is not immune to 'certain special' spells, regardless if the creature is protected from a spell of that color or not. Seems like there is a very large 'grey area' around this procedure. --this is the line of logic I'm hearing.. see if you can follow this and tell me if I'm not right here... "Target creature cannot be the target of spells or abilities.- If a spell is cast or an ability is used that does not target this specific creature, this creature is still suceptable to any and all spells or abilities used during any turn at any time." or "This creature has protection from every color at all times. If a player would cast a spell, or use a creature ability, ignore this creatures ability until that spell is resolved. Once the spell is resolved - this creature again regains protection from all colors, as long as the original spell or ability did not target this specific creature upon its initial cast."
It seems like a lawyers loophole for a way around anything. So even though its probably the 'right way' .. I'll never understand it..
So with that said... WoG would kill Ishans shade.. just like Damnation would kill Akroma.. correct? in the same respect.. Swords to plowshares couldn't kill Ishans shade, and Terror couldn't kill Akroma.. right?
No you are right! Damnation can kill Akroma but not Terror. Why not? Read the card. Terror says the word TARGET! While Damnation does not. Damnation nails any creature. Protection only prevents a player from TARGETING something. That's it. Ishan's Shade is safe from Swords to Plowshares because it targets him. Wrath of God does not. Another example. Take Wash Out. It returns all permanents of a chosen color to all player's hands. But it doesn't target anyone! So the Akroma, Angel of Fury may have protection from blue, but it doesn't do her any good. She's not a target. Another game idea for you. If Ishan had flying somehow, he still couldn't block Akroma because of her protection from black. But guess what? Neither could she block him!
Now, I know this is just mean throwing this next part in to make it more confusing, but I can't help myself so here goes!:
Let's say a Goblin Warchief is out, and someone plays Arrest on him. He's stopped, can't attack or block. But what if his controller suddenly plays a Whispersilk Cloak on him, since he now basicly has protection from every color, whould it remove the Arrest enchantment? ---- ------ ----- ------ ----- ----- ------ No!! It would not remove it. Why? Well, (and this is a fun rule for ya!) because Arrest is not targeting the creature anymore. Sure it's preventing him from attacking and blocking, but it's not targeting him! The only time the Warchief got targeted was when the Arrest was played and then attached. The whole protection thing can be understood better once you get your head all in line with the rules on targeting. Fun huh?!!! :)
Um... no the arrest would be destroyed. From http://www.wizards.com/magic/rules/Keywords_08242007.pdf
Protection A protection ability always lists what it’s giving protection from. It might be protection from red, for example, or protection from Goblins. Protection does several different things for a creature that has it: • All damage those kinds of sources would deal to the creature is prevented. • The creature can’t be enchanted by those kinds of Auras or equipped by those kinds of Equipment. • The creature can’t be blocked by those kinds of creatures. • The creature can’t be targeted by those kinds of spells or by abilities from those kinds of cards. Players or other permanents can also have protection. In those cases, apply as many of the above aspects of protection to that player or permanent as you can.
Bullet 2 "can't be enchanted", so if it gets protection a state based effect is activated that would destroy the enchantment (or equipment would 'fall off').
Huh? Wow, I thought all this time protection didn't remove a already in play enchant, but I went to this link and confirmed you were right krallersales. Here's the complete 411 from wizards on protection:
Okay.. thats great. I think I finally got it. Thanks for the link to the 'wizards protection' webpage.. that helped a lot. I do have one final question about this whole protection thing.. Attacking/Blocking
If my white knight was attacking a monoblack deck player - he would not be able to block with any of his creatures.. right? on the flip side... If one of his black creatures.. lets say its 99/99.. it comes galloping over - I can block this monstrosity with my 2/2 right? No damage dealt?
As long is this sounds correct.. I think I finally got it. Thanks for all your help!
)
)
)
