Creatures with +1/+1 counters on them getting killed by -1/-1 counters
Asked by BlueScope 9 years ago
So, I have a question about two things here that likely have the same answer, which is why I'm combining them.
First, Chasm Skulkers Gatherer rulings state: "If enough -1/-1 counters are put on Chasm Skulker at the same time to make its toughness 0 or less, the number of +1/+1 counters on it before it got any -1/-1 counters will be used to determine how many Squid tokens you get. For example, if there are two +1/+1 counters on Chasm Skulker and it gets three -1/-1 counters, youll get two Squid tokens. [7/18/2014]"
What's the reason for this? By my logic, the only way the creature would die is if the -1/-1 counters are already taken into account, and if that happens, I'd assume that +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters would've been removed to leave only the kind that had more counters on it.
Accepting that, it raises the question of Wither versus Undying. Let's say there's a Strangleroot Geist with a +1/+1 counter on my opponent's side, blocking my attacking Midnight Banshee - will the Geist return to the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter, or - as I suspect because of the Chasm's ruling - not? If I'm wrong, where exactly is my error?
Thanks in advance!
erabel says... Accepted answer #1
It's covered in the Comprehensive Rules:
704.7. If a state-based action results in a permanent leaving the battlefield at the same time other state-based actions were performed, that permanents last known information is derived from the game state before any of those state-based actions were performed.
In this case, the SBA that removes +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters happens at the same time as the SBA that kills it for having 0 or less toughness. So, it dies, but anything that cares about its last known information sees it as having both kinds of counters on it.
If I remember, this was something that wasn't in the comp rules when Undying came out, and it was in Standard at the same time as Infect. I think a judge made a call at a major event (because it could have gone either way) and it was the ruling that stuck.
April 15, 2015 5:15 p.m.