Can making a creature unable to attack, after it has been assigned as an attacker, remove it from combat?What...
What is the most triangles you can make from a capital "H" and 3 straight lines?
How to avoid being sexist when trying to employ someone to function in a very sexist environment?
How to prevent users from executing commands through browser URL
Does static makes difference for const local variable?
How can my powered armor quickly replace its ceramic plates?
Early credit roll before the end of the film
Can a person refuse a presidential pardon?
How do you funnel food off a cutting board?
Highly technological aliens land nuclear fusion powered ships in medieval city and slaughter everyone, using swords?
My cat mixes up the floors in my building. How can I help him?
Injecting creativity into a cookbook
Avoiding morning and evening handshakes
How should I handle players who ignore the session zero agreement?
Can I string the D&D Starter Set campaign into another module, keeping the same characters?
Why Normality assumption in linear regression
Lick explanation
Citing paywalled articles accessed via illegal web sharing
Is it a fallacy if someone claims they need an explanation for every word of your argument to the point where they don't understand common terms?
Why are the books in the Game of Thrones citadel library shelved spine inwards?
What is the wife of a henpecked husband called?
Publishing research using outdated methods
Writing a character who is going through a civilizing process without overdoing it?
Why exactly do action photographers need high fps burst cameras?
Dilemma of explaining to interviewer that he is the reason for declining second interview
Can making a creature unable to attack, after it has been assigned as an attacker, remove it from combat?
What happens if a blocking creature with flying loses flying?Unleash UnleashedCan Act of Treason allow a Detained creature to attack?Can I steal a creature then block my own attack with it?How much damage do I deal? (How is damage dealt if an attacker gains power as combat damage is being assigned?)Does first strike damage occur before normal damage?Can I play blessed alliance after damage resolves to make him sac a creature I didn't kill?Is there a term for defensive effects that only/primarily function for attacking creatures?Can I give a creature spell hexproof to prevent it from being countered?MTG: Creature can't attack unless X after “declare attackers”Can a Thallid create saprolings at end of combat phase and still kill attacker
Kulrath Knight has an effect that states 'Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block.' So a creature is assigned as an attacker and subsequently gets a counter placed on it prior to combat resolution, does that remove the creature from combat?
magic-the-gathering
|
show 1 more comment
Kulrath Knight has an effect that states 'Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block.' So a creature is assigned as an attacker and subsequently gets a counter placed on it prior to combat resolution, does that remove the creature from combat?
magic-the-gathering
1
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
18 hours ago
@GendoIkari close-enough that it might be a dupe, but this one is specifically asking about attacking and not blocking so I figured it was worth an answer. Plus there is clean/clear rule in CR so why not.
– Malco
18 hours ago
2
@Malco Yeah I don't think it's a duplicate; although there could easily be another question that these could then be both duplicates of. But unless this same basic question pops up a few more times in a few more forms; I don't think there's a need for such a question.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
1
A -1/-1 counter can remove a creature from combat (by killing it), but I suspect that that's not what you meant.
– Arcanist Lupus
16 hours ago
2
@ArcanistLupus It's the interaction with Kulrath Knight's ability "Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block." that Bill is referring to, asking if making a creature unable to attack after it was declared as attacking invalidates and reverses that attack (I think it does in YuGiOh and causes confusion for players coming from that game)
– Andrew
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Kulrath Knight has an effect that states 'Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block.' So a creature is assigned as an attacker and subsequently gets a counter placed on it prior to combat resolution, does that remove the creature from combat?
magic-the-gathering
Kulrath Knight has an effect that states 'Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block.' So a creature is assigned as an attacker and subsequently gets a counter placed on it prior to combat resolution, does that remove the creature from combat?
magic-the-gathering
magic-the-gathering
edited 12 mins ago
Glorfindel
4,85611338
4,85611338
asked 18 hours ago
BillBill
40218
40218
1
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
18 hours ago
@GendoIkari close-enough that it might be a dupe, but this one is specifically asking about attacking and not blocking so I figured it was worth an answer. Plus there is clean/clear rule in CR so why not.
– Malco
18 hours ago
2
@Malco Yeah I don't think it's a duplicate; although there could easily be another question that these could then be both duplicates of. But unless this same basic question pops up a few more times in a few more forms; I don't think there's a need for such a question.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
1
A -1/-1 counter can remove a creature from combat (by killing it), but I suspect that that's not what you meant.
– Arcanist Lupus
16 hours ago
2
@ArcanistLupus It's the interaction with Kulrath Knight's ability "Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block." that Bill is referring to, asking if making a creature unable to attack after it was declared as attacking invalidates and reverses that attack (I think it does in YuGiOh and causes confusion for players coming from that game)
– Andrew
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
18 hours ago
@GendoIkari close-enough that it might be a dupe, but this one is specifically asking about attacking and not blocking so I figured it was worth an answer. Plus there is clean/clear rule in CR so why not.
– Malco
18 hours ago
2
@Malco Yeah I don't think it's a duplicate; although there could easily be another question that these could then be both duplicates of. But unless this same basic question pops up a few more times in a few more forms; I don't think there's a need for such a question.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
1
A -1/-1 counter can remove a creature from combat (by killing it), but I suspect that that's not what you meant.
– Arcanist Lupus
16 hours ago
2
@ArcanistLupus It's the interaction with Kulrath Knight's ability "Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block." that Bill is referring to, asking if making a creature unable to attack after it was declared as attacking invalidates and reverses that attack (I think it does in YuGiOh and causes confusion for players coming from that game)
– Andrew
16 hours ago
1
1
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
18 hours ago
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
18 hours ago
@GendoIkari close-enough that it might be a dupe, but this one is specifically asking about attacking and not blocking so I figured it was worth an answer. Plus there is clean/clear rule in CR so why not.
– Malco
18 hours ago
@GendoIkari close-enough that it might be a dupe, but this one is specifically asking about attacking and not blocking so I figured it was worth an answer. Plus there is clean/clear rule in CR so why not.
– Malco
18 hours ago
2
2
@Malco Yeah I don't think it's a duplicate; although there could easily be another question that these could then be both duplicates of. But unless this same basic question pops up a few more times in a few more forms; I don't think there's a need for such a question.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
@Malco Yeah I don't think it's a duplicate; although there could easily be another question that these could then be both duplicates of. But unless this same basic question pops up a few more times in a few more forms; I don't think there's a need for such a question.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
1
1
A -1/-1 counter can remove a creature from combat (by killing it), but I suspect that that's not what you meant.
– Arcanist Lupus
16 hours ago
A -1/-1 counter can remove a creature from combat (by killing it), but I suspect that that's not what you meant.
– Arcanist Lupus
16 hours ago
2
2
@ArcanistLupus It's the interaction with Kulrath Knight's ability "Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block." that Bill is referring to, asking if making a creature unable to attack after it was declared as attacking invalidates and reverses that attack (I think it does in YuGiOh and causes confusion for players coming from that game)
– Andrew
16 hours ago
@ArcanistLupus It's the interaction with Kulrath Knight's ability "Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block." that Bill is referring to, asking if making a creature unable to attack after it was declared as attacking invalidates and reverses that attack (I think it does in YuGiOh and causes confusion for players coming from that game)
– Andrew
16 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No, making a creature "unable to attack or block" after attackers have been declared does not remove it from combat.
An ability that says "Creatures can't Attack or Block" means that they can not be declared as blockers or attackers. If they are already attacking or blocking it is too late and they will not be removed from combat.
506.4a: Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
add a comment |
No, creatures that are already declared as attacking (or blocking) are not removed from combat because they could no longer be legally declared as an attacker or blocker. That is only checked when declaring the attack or block, and never again for that combat. This is covered by the comprehensive rules(Emphasis mine):
506.4a Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
There are effects that will remove a creature from combat, these though all specifically say they do so, on cards like Maze of Ith, Reconnaissance or Illusionist's Gambit. The ways that a creature CAN be removed from combat are spelled out here:
506.4 A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it's a planeswalker that's being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it's an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.14) or stops being a creature. A creature that's removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that's removed from combat stops being attacked.
There are also effects that can get around combat restrictions, usually effects that force a creature into play tapped and attacking, this lets you get around effects like Ensnaring Bridge with bigger ninjas, like
Ink-Eyes, Servant of Oni, or past effects like Crawlspace by creating tokens when attacking with Hero of Bladehold or Tilonalli's Summoner. If an effect causes creatures to enter with a counter, say Rhythm of the Wild it will also bypass Kulrath Knight that turn.
Time Stop does not explicitly say it removes creatures from combat (and the foil hilariously lacks all of the "reminder" text entirely), but since there's no other logically reasonable interpretation of the card, there is a ruling to that effect.
– Kevin
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "147"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45341%2fcan-making-a-creature-unable-to-attack-after-it-has-been-assigned-as-an-attacke%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, making a creature "unable to attack or block" after attackers have been declared does not remove it from combat.
An ability that says "Creatures can't Attack or Block" means that they can not be declared as blockers or attackers. If they are already attacking or blocking it is too late and they will not be removed from combat.
506.4a: Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
add a comment |
No, making a creature "unable to attack or block" after attackers have been declared does not remove it from combat.
An ability that says "Creatures can't Attack or Block" means that they can not be declared as blockers or attackers. If they are already attacking or blocking it is too late and they will not be removed from combat.
506.4a: Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
add a comment |
No, making a creature "unable to attack or block" after attackers have been declared does not remove it from combat.
An ability that says "Creatures can't Attack or Block" means that they can not be declared as blockers or attackers. If they are already attacking or blocking it is too late and they will not be removed from combat.
506.4a: Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
No, making a creature "unable to attack or block" after attackers have been declared does not remove it from combat.
An ability that says "Creatures can't Attack or Block" means that they can not be declared as blockers or attackers. If they are already attacking or blocking it is too late and they will not be removed from combat.
506.4a: Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
edited 16 hours ago
doppelgreener
16.1k858122
16.1k858122
answered 18 hours ago
MalcoMalco
6,6961454
6,6961454
add a comment |
add a comment |
No, creatures that are already declared as attacking (or blocking) are not removed from combat because they could no longer be legally declared as an attacker or blocker. That is only checked when declaring the attack or block, and never again for that combat. This is covered by the comprehensive rules(Emphasis mine):
506.4a Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
There are effects that will remove a creature from combat, these though all specifically say they do so, on cards like Maze of Ith, Reconnaissance or Illusionist's Gambit. The ways that a creature CAN be removed from combat are spelled out here:
506.4 A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it's a planeswalker that's being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it's an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.14) or stops being a creature. A creature that's removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that's removed from combat stops being attacked.
There are also effects that can get around combat restrictions, usually effects that force a creature into play tapped and attacking, this lets you get around effects like Ensnaring Bridge with bigger ninjas, like
Ink-Eyes, Servant of Oni, or past effects like Crawlspace by creating tokens when attacking with Hero of Bladehold or Tilonalli's Summoner. If an effect causes creatures to enter with a counter, say Rhythm of the Wild it will also bypass Kulrath Knight that turn.
Time Stop does not explicitly say it removes creatures from combat (and the foil hilariously lacks all of the "reminder" text entirely), but since there's no other logically reasonable interpretation of the card, there is a ruling to that effect.
– Kevin
9 hours ago
add a comment |
No, creatures that are already declared as attacking (or blocking) are not removed from combat because they could no longer be legally declared as an attacker or blocker. That is only checked when declaring the attack or block, and never again for that combat. This is covered by the comprehensive rules(Emphasis mine):
506.4a Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
There are effects that will remove a creature from combat, these though all specifically say they do so, on cards like Maze of Ith, Reconnaissance or Illusionist's Gambit. The ways that a creature CAN be removed from combat are spelled out here:
506.4 A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it's a planeswalker that's being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it's an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.14) or stops being a creature. A creature that's removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that's removed from combat stops being attacked.
There are also effects that can get around combat restrictions, usually effects that force a creature into play tapped and attacking, this lets you get around effects like Ensnaring Bridge with bigger ninjas, like
Ink-Eyes, Servant of Oni, or past effects like Crawlspace by creating tokens when attacking with Hero of Bladehold or Tilonalli's Summoner. If an effect causes creatures to enter with a counter, say Rhythm of the Wild it will also bypass Kulrath Knight that turn.
Time Stop does not explicitly say it removes creatures from combat (and the foil hilariously lacks all of the "reminder" text entirely), but since there's no other logically reasonable interpretation of the card, there is a ruling to that effect.
– Kevin
9 hours ago
add a comment |
No, creatures that are already declared as attacking (or blocking) are not removed from combat because they could no longer be legally declared as an attacker or blocker. That is only checked when declaring the attack or block, and never again for that combat. This is covered by the comprehensive rules(Emphasis mine):
506.4a Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
There are effects that will remove a creature from combat, these though all specifically say they do so, on cards like Maze of Ith, Reconnaissance or Illusionist's Gambit. The ways that a creature CAN be removed from combat are spelled out here:
506.4 A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it's a planeswalker that's being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it's an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.14) or stops being a creature. A creature that's removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that's removed from combat stops being attacked.
There are also effects that can get around combat restrictions, usually effects that force a creature into play tapped and attacking, this lets you get around effects like Ensnaring Bridge with bigger ninjas, like
Ink-Eyes, Servant of Oni, or past effects like Crawlspace by creating tokens when attacking with Hero of Bladehold or Tilonalli's Summoner. If an effect causes creatures to enter with a counter, say Rhythm of the Wild it will also bypass Kulrath Knight that turn.
No, creatures that are already declared as attacking (or blocking) are not removed from combat because they could no longer be legally declared as an attacker or blocker. That is only checked when declaring the attack or block, and never again for that combat. This is covered by the comprehensive rules(Emphasis mine):
506.4a Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.
There are effects that will remove a creature from combat, these though all specifically say they do so, on cards like Maze of Ith, Reconnaissance or Illusionist's Gambit. The ways that a creature CAN be removed from combat are spelled out here:
506.4 A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it's a planeswalker that's being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it's an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.14) or stops being a creature. A creature that's removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that's removed from combat stops being attacked.
There are also effects that can get around combat restrictions, usually effects that force a creature into play tapped and attacking, this lets you get around effects like Ensnaring Bridge with bigger ninjas, like
Ink-Eyes, Servant of Oni, or past effects like Crawlspace by creating tokens when attacking with Hero of Bladehold or Tilonalli's Summoner. If an effect causes creatures to enter with a counter, say Rhythm of the Wild it will also bypass Kulrath Knight that turn.
answered 15 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
5,279838
5,279838
Time Stop does not explicitly say it removes creatures from combat (and the foil hilariously lacks all of the "reminder" text entirely), but since there's no other logically reasonable interpretation of the card, there is a ruling to that effect.
– Kevin
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Time Stop does not explicitly say it removes creatures from combat (and the foil hilariously lacks all of the "reminder" text entirely), but since there's no other logically reasonable interpretation of the card, there is a ruling to that effect.
– Kevin
9 hours ago
Time Stop does not explicitly say it removes creatures from combat (and the foil hilariously lacks all of the "reminder" text entirely), but since there's no other logically reasonable interpretation of the card, there is a ruling to that effect.
– Kevin
9 hours ago
Time Stop does not explicitly say it removes creatures from combat (and the foil hilariously lacks all of the "reminder" text entirely), but since there's no other logically reasonable interpretation of the card, there is a ruling to that effect.
– Kevin
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45341%2fcan-making-a-creature-unable-to-attack-after-it-has-been-assigned-as-an-attacke%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
18 hours ago
@GendoIkari close-enough that it might be a dupe, but this one is specifically asking about attacking and not blocking so I figured it was worth an answer. Plus there is clean/clear rule in CR so why not.
– Malco
18 hours ago
2
@Malco Yeah I don't think it's a duplicate; although there could easily be another question that these could then be both duplicates of. But unless this same basic question pops up a few more times in a few more forms; I don't think there's a need for such a question.
– GendoIkari
17 hours ago
1
A -1/-1 counter can remove a creature from combat (by killing it), but I suspect that that's not what you meant.
– Arcanist Lupus
16 hours ago
2
@ArcanistLupus It's the interaction with Kulrath Knight's ability "Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block." that Bill is referring to, asking if making a creature unable to attack after it was declared as attacking invalidates and reverses that attack (I think it does in YuGiOh and causes confusion for players coming from that game)
– Andrew
16 hours ago