Lone Wolf Questions

Dave

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2003
2,727
0
20,780
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Just a quick question regarding Lone Wolf

Lone Wolf
{2}{G}
Creature -- Wolf
2/2
You may have Lone Wolf deal its combat damage to defending player as
though it weren't blocked.

-----------

The question is simple, suppose the Lone Wolf is blocked by a Grizzly
Bears ('classic' 2/2 green creature with no special abilities).

Its clear the player of the Lone Wolf can choose to either deal 2 damage
to the bears, or to the defending player.

The point of contention is whether or not the Grizzly Bears gets to deal
its damage to the Lone Wolf if the attacker chooses 'deal its combat
damage to the defending player as though it weren't blocked'.

We located a 2000 post in this group that clearly indicated that the
Lone Wolf's ability only affected only the damage the lone wolf dealt,
and that the bears would deal its damage to the wolf normally,
regardless of what the attacker chose. (interpretation A)

However, one of the players mentioned that he'd heard that Wizards had
issued a ruling since then re-interpreting Lone Wolf's ability.

Such that if the attacker chose to do combat 'as if the Lone Wolf had
not been blocked', when the combat damage is assessed, the wolf's state
is "as if it had not been blocked", and thus the bears deal no damage.

Can you clarify the correct interpretation. Is there a rule in the
official rules that covers this or is this a 'ruling'?

Out of curiosity was the wrong interpretation (by current rules) ever
right under previous rules?
---------------

A second question about Lone Wolf

We came accross a ruling on one of the magic fan-sites that mentioned
that if the Lone Wolf was blocked by a creature with Banding, that the
*defending* player had the option of determining wether or not the Lone
Wolf selected it 'deal combat damage as if it weren't blocked' not the
attacker.

Is this correct? Why?

---------------

Thanks,
Dave
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Dave <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Just a quick question regarding Lone Wolf
>
> Lone Wolf
> {2}{G}
> Creature -- Wolf
> 2/2
> You may have Lone Wolf deal its combat damage to defending player as
> though it weren't blocked.
>
> -----------
>
> The question is simple, suppose the Lone Wolf is blocked by a Grizzly
> Bears ('classic' 2/2 green creature with no special abilities).
>
> Its clear the player of the Lone Wolf can choose to either deal 2 damage
> to the bears, or to the defending player.
>
> The point of contention is whether or not the Grizzly Bears gets to deal
> its damage to the Lone Wolf if the attacker chooses 'deal its combat
> damage to the defending player as though it weren't blocked'.
>
> We located a 2000 post in this group that clearly indicated that the
> Lone Wolf's ability only affected only the damage the lone wolf dealt,
> and that the bears would deal its damage to the wolf normally,
> regardless of what the attacker chose. (interpretation A)
>
> However, one of the players mentioned that he'd heard that Wizards had
> issued a ruling since then re-interpreting Lone Wolf's ability.
>
> Such that if the attacker chose to do combat 'as if the Lone Wolf had
> not been blocked', when the combat damage is assessed, the wolf's state
> is "as if it had not been blocked", and thus the bears deal no damage.
>
> Can you clarify the correct interpretation. Is there a rule in the
> official rules that covers this or is this a 'ruling'?

"As though"
Text that states a player or card may do something "as though" some
condition were true applies only to the stated action. For purposes of
that action, treat the game exactly as if the stated condition is true.
For all other purposes, treat the game normally.
Example: Giant Spider reads, "Giant Spider may block as though it had
flying." You may treat the Spider as a creature with flying, but only
for the purpose of declaring blockers. This allows Giant Spider to block
a creature with flying (and creatures that "can't be blocked except by
creatures with flying"), assuming no other blocking restrictions apply.
For example, Giant Spider can't normally block a creature with both
flying and shadow.
Example: Future Sight reads, "Play with the top card of your library
revealed. / You may play the top card of your library as though it were
in your hand." The revealed card may be played by the usual rules. If
it's a spell, it's placed on the stack as the first step of playing it
(see rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities"); if it's a
land, it's put directly into play. Because the card isn't actually in
your hand, it can't be discarded, removed from the game to pay a cost,
cycled, or counted toward the number of cards in your hand.
Example: Rolling Stones reads, "Walls may attack as though they weren't
Walls." As long as this effect is active, Walls are treated exactly like
creatures that don't have the Wall creature type for the purposes of
declaring attackers. They're still subject to all other rules and
effects that determine whether an attack is legal.
If two cards state that a player or card may do the same thing "as
though" different conditions were true, both conditions could apply. If
one "as though" effect satisfies the requirements for another "as
though" effect, then both effects will apply.
Example: Two effects read, "You may play cards in your graveyard as
though they were in your hand," and "You may play cards from other
players' graveyards as though they were in your graveyard." Both effects
apply. You may play cards in your graveyard and cards in your opponents'
graveyards. (The cards may be played by the usual rules.)

Note "For all other purposes, treat the game normally." Any "attacks
but isn't blocked" trigger counts as an "other purpose", and will not be
triggered by the use of that ability. Likewise, the asssignment of
combat damage FROM the blocking bear will not be affected.

> Out of curiosity was the wrong interpretation (by current rules) ever
> right under previous rules?
> ---------------
>
> A second question about Lone Wolf
>
> We came accross a ruling on one of the magic fan-sites that mentioned
> that if the Lone Wolf was blocked by a creature with Banding, that the
> *defending* player had the option of determining wether or not the Lone
> Wolf selected it 'deal combat damage as if it weren't blocked' not the
> attacker.

That seems to be an official ruling for Thorn Elemental (with the same
ability) from 1999.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 11:38:07 GMT, Dave <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>Just a quick question regarding Lone Wolf
>
>Lone Wolf >{2}{G} >Creature -- Wolf
>2/2 You may have ~ deal its combat damage to defending player as
>though it weren't blocked.

(Actually works like "You may have ~ _assign_ its combat damage...".)

>The question is simple, suppose the Lone Wolf is blocked by a Grizzly
>Bears ('classic' 2/2 green creature with no special abilities).
>
>Its clear the player of the Lone Wolf can choose to either deal 2 damage
>to the bears, or to the defending player.

Right.

>The point of contention is whether or not the Grizzly Bears gets to deal
>its damage to the Lone Wolf if the attacker chooses 'deal its combat
>damage to the defending player as though it weren't blocked'.

Why, yes it does. Nothing on Lone Wolf says "Prevent all damage that would
be dealt to ~ by creatures blocking it", or "If you use this ability, any
blockers ~ has do not assign combat damage this Combat". The Lone Wolf will
be killed in the normal way if this happens.

>We located a 2000 post in this group that clearly indicated that the
>Lone Wolf's ability only affected only the damage the lone wolf dealt,
>and that the bears would deal its damage to the wolf normally,

Right.

>However, one of the players mentioned that he'd heard that Wizards had
>issued a ruling since then re-interpreting Lone Wolf's ability.

Nope. "I've heard this is the case" is usually code for "I want this to be
the case but have no supporting evidence anywhere".

>Out of curiosity was the wrong interpretation (by current rules) ever
>right under previous rules?

Nope. Sorry to your friend, they're remembering things that never were.

>We came accross a ruling on one of the magic fan-sites that mentioned
>that if the Lone Wolf was blocked by a creature with Banding, that the
>*defending* player had the option of determining wether or not the Lone
>Wolf selected it 'deal combat damage as if it weren't blocked' not the
>attacker.

Yes.

>Is this correct? Why?

This is correct. And the reason why is that one half of "banding" is "You
choose how creatures blocking or blocked by this assign their combat damage".
Meaning that defender assigns the Lone Wolf's damage, not attacker, in this
case... and since one legal option is "assign it as though Lone Wolf were
unblocked", defender can pick that one. And since another legal option is
"assign it normally", defender can pick that option instead.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@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://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Dave sez:

<<
>Just a quick question regarding Lone Wolf
>
>Lone Wolf
>{2}{G}
>Creature -- Wolf
>2/2
>You may have Lone Wolf deal its combat damage to defending player as
>though it weren't blocked.
>
>-----------
>
>The question is simple, suppose the Lone Wolf is blocked by a Grizzly
>Bears ('classic' 2/2 green creature with no special abilities).
>
>Its clear the player of the Lone Wolf can choose to either deal 2 damage
>to the bears, or to the defending player.
>
>The point of contention is whether or not the Grizzly Bears gets to deal
>its damage to the Lone Wolf if the attacker chooses 'deal its combat
>damage to the defending player as though it weren't blocked'.

>
>>

Why not? It is blocking the Lone Wolf, isn't it? Just because it does
something "as though it weren't blocked" doesn't mean it suddenly isn't
(anymore than a Giant Spider blocking a flying creature "as though it had
flying" gives it flying; or spending colorless mana "as though it were any
color" thanks to Mycosynth Lattice makes it black for the lifegaining purposes
of Soul Burn...)


----
If [Michael Moore] makes a mistake in [F 9/11], it's not that he's careless
with the facts ... It's that he suggests Bush is the cause of our problems,
when, in fact, Bush is just the result.
--The Libertarian Lessons of Fahrenheit 9/11