Am I blocked, or unblockable?
Michael A. Norville
>
> Infiltrate
> U
> Instant
> Target creature is unblockable.
>
> I attack with a creature, and after my opponent declares which creature are
> blocking it, i cast infiltrate... is it blocked???
Yes.
Once a creature is blocked, bestowing upon it an evasion ability or aother
ability that affected what can be assigned to block it doesn't change the fact
that it's ALREADY blocked. Once it's blocked, it's blocked. The time to play
Infiltrate would be anytime before the 'declare blockers' step.
If Infiltrate read 'Target blocked creature becomes uncblocked', that would be
a different story.
Steve Lord
> Infiltrate
> U
> Instant
> Target creature is unblockable.
>
> I attack with a creature, and after my opponent declares which creature are
> blocking it, i cast infiltrate... is it blocked???
Sure. It was blocked, and this can't change that because it doesn't _say_
it can.
Blocked Creature
An attacking creature becomes a blocked creature when another creature
blocks it or an effect causes it to become blocked during the combat
phase. It remains a blocked creature until it's removed from combat, it
stops being a creature, its controller changes, or the combat phase ends.
Steve L
Pat2
David DeLaney
Yes. Only False Orders, and as presently worded Imprison, can "unblock" a
blocked attacker after blockers are declared, and only because each one
specifically -says- it can (and thus overrides the rule).
Simply making a creature "unblockable" -after- it's already blocked has
no particular effect; whether a creature is unblockable or not is -only-
checked for when blockers are declared. Never before or after then. Your
blocked attacker that gets Infiltrate cast on it is still a blocked attacker;
you'd have to cast the Infiltrate -before- blockers were declared, to have
the effect in place in time for it to actually do something.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Steve Lord
> Pat2 <plo...@pc.jaring.my> wrote:
> >Infiltrate >U >Instant
> >Target creature is unblockable.
> >
> >I attack with a creature, and after my opponent declares which creature are
> >blocking it, i cast infiltrate... is it blocked???
>
> Yes. Only False Orders, and as presently worded Imprison, can "unblock" a
> blocked attacker after blockers are declared, and only because each one
> specifically -says- it can (and thus overrides the rule).
CAMOUFLAGE
G
Instant
Turn your attacking creatures face down and arrange them as you choose.
After blockers are declared, turn the cards face up again. Remove all
illegal blockers from combat. Creatures blocked only by illegal blockers
are considered unblocked.
This can 'unblock' _some_ creatures; vanillas are probably going to be
unaffected by Camouflage, but evasion creatures have a much better chance
of Camouflage making them unblocked.
But this also falls under the "It _says_ it can, so it can." rule.
Steve L
David DeLaney
> On 28 May 2000, David DeLaney wrote:
> > Yes. Only False Orders, and as presently worded Imprison, can "unblock" a
> > blocked attacker after blockers are declared, and only because each one
> > specifically -says- it can (and thus overrides the rule).
>
> CAMOUFLAGE> G> Instant
> Turn your attacking creatures face down and arrange them as you choose.
> After blockers are declared, turn the cards face up again. Remove all
> illegal blockers from combat. Creatures blocked only by illegal blockers
> are considered unblocked.
Yes. This one's just plain worded badly, in current Oracle. It -should-,
I believe, get worded so that its effect -replaces- declaring blockers,
with turn-face-down-and-rearrange/declare-blockers/turn-face-up-and-find-out-
what's-actually-blocked. That would get rid of the "the stuff that was
blocked gets 'unblocked'" problem, plus the 'when -do- we turn them back
over, exactly?' problem. (As stated above, it -can't- be during the
resolution of Camouflage ... and doesn't exactly say how -long- after
blockers are declared...)
> This can 'unblock' _some_ creatures; vanillas are probably going to be
> unaffected by Camouflage, but evasion creatures have a much better chance
> of Camouflage making them unblocked.
As worded, yes; it should probably be worded more clearly (though doing so
seems certain to make it somewhat longer).
> But this also falls under the "It _says_ it can, so it can." rule.
Yep.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru BellSouth!! "It's not the pot that grows the flower