Can making a creature unable to attack after it has been assigned as an attacker remove it from combat?
Kulrath Knight has an effect that states 'Creatures your opponents control with counters on them can't attack or block.' So if a creature is assigned as an attacker and subsequestly get a counter placed on it prior to combat resolution. Does that remove it 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 if a creature is assigned as an attacker and subsequestly get a counter placed on it prior to combat resolution. Does that remove it from combat.
magic-the-gathering
1
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
11 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
11 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
10 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
9 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
9 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 if a creature is assigned as an attacker and subsequestly get a counter placed on it prior to combat resolution. Does that remove it 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 if a creature is assigned as an attacker and subsequestly get a counter placed on it prior to combat resolution. Does that remove it from combat.
magic-the-gathering
magic-the-gathering
edited 4 hours ago
doppelgreener
16.1k858122
16.1k858122
asked 11 hours ago
BillBill
39718
39718
1
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
11 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
11 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
10 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
9 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
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
11 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
11 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
10 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
9 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
9 hours ago
1
1
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
11 hours ago
Related: boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/7343/…
– GendoIkari
11 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
11 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
11 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
10 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
10 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
2 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-attacker%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 9 hours ago
doppelgreener
16.1k858122
16.1k858122
answered 11 hours ago
MalcoMalco
6,6761454
6,6761454
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
2 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
2 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 8 hours ago
AndrewAndrew
5,259838
5,259838
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
2 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
2 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
2 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
2 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-attacker%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
11 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
11 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
10 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
9 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
9 hours ago