Abilities, keywords and Turn to Frog
Asked by SteveHaley 9 years ago
After reading rule the comprehensive rules section on abilities (112) and in particular the final paragraph (112.12), I'm confused about what specifically Turn to Frog can remove from a creature. Link to rule 112: http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/magic-rules/#R112 (Sorry, I don't know how to linkify the text)
Paragraph 112.2c states "If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, "Keyword Abilities"), each paragraph break in a card's text marks a separate ability."
So in this situation, if a creature card has the text "[Card name] can't be blocked", this is an ability. Even if it's not specifically a keyword ability such as Intimidate, it's still an ability because it's a paragraph on the card. In this situation, if this creature is attacking, and is targeted by Turn to Frog before the Declare Blockers step, it loses the "can't be blocked" ability and can be blocked. Is this right?
However, this seems to be contradicted by rule 112.12, which with its example states that:[...] Similarly, if an effect states a quality of that object ("[creature] can't be blocked," for example), it's neither granting an ability nor setting a characteristic.Example: Muraganda Petroglyphs reads, "Creatures with no abilities get +2/+2." A Runeclaw Bear (a creature with no abilities) enchanted by an Aura that says "Enchanted creature has flying" would not get +2/+2. A Runeclaw Bear enchanted by an Aura that says "Enchanted creature is red" or "Enchanted creature can't be blocked" would get +2/+2
Therefore "Can't be blocked" is apparently not an ability after all, since the creature benefited from Muraganda Petroglyphs .
I appreciate that this is slightly different, in that we're now discussing a creature enchanted by an Aura, rather than the rules text on the creature itself, but I'm now confused. In this situation, if that Bear were targeted by Turn to Frog , after it had been declared an attacker, it would seem that it still was unblockable, because "Can't be blocked" is not an ability and thus is not lost. Is that the case?
If I'm right in both situations, then I don't understand why "Can't be blocked" is an ability in one situation but not the other. Could someone explain?
Gidgetimer says... #2
All those frogs are supposed to be 1/1 frogs not 2/2. For some reason I forgot what size the frog was halfway through the explanation.
July 20, 2014 2:32 p.m.
SteveHaley says... #3
Thanks for the explanation. Looking at your two examples, it seems like a good way to distinguish between the two is the exact wording. Flight uses the "has/gains keyword" template, whereas Aqueous Form uses very different language.
July 20, 2014 2:46 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #4
Yes, that is actually exactly it. From 112.1a in the comprehensive rules:
Abilities can also be granted to objects by rules or effects. (Effects that do so use the words has, have, gains, or gain.)
If something does not use those word in the oracle text, then the ability is not on the creature and can't be removed by removing the creature's abilities.
Gidgetimer says... Accepted answer #1
All of the rules text on a card are abilities. The difference is what the cards are doing in each scenario. I will lay out 3 scenarios of what would happen with Turn to Frog cast on different things.
A Keymaster Rogue attacks and Turn to Frog is cast on him. He loses all abilities and is now a 1/1 blockable frog.
An Armored Cancrix enchanted with Aqueous Form attacks and Turn to Frog is cast on him. He loses all abilities and becomes a 2/2 frog. However Aqueous Form 's ability is modifying him making him unblockable. The ability is from Aqueous Form and is only modifying Armored Cancrix , not granting him any abilities.
An Armored Cancrix enchanted with Flight attacks and Turn to Frog is cast on him. He loses all abilities and becomes a 2/2 frog. He no longer has flying because Flight 's ability was to grant him the keyword ability "flying" which Turn to Frog then removed.
July 20, 2014 2:31 p.m.