skullcrack and damage prevention

Asked by skozzkozz 5 years ago

So if I cast Skullcrack then cast Lightning Strike Targeting a creature with it could a spell that gives the targeted creature protection from red prevent the 3 damage from Lightning Strike

GoldGhost012 says... #1

Well, if you cast Skullcrack and then immediately cast Lightning Strike without letting Skullcrack resolve, then Lightning Strike would resolve first and the pro red creature would still prevent Lightning Strike 's damage.

However, if you wait until Skullcrack resolves OR cast Lightning Strike , then Skullcrack , then Skullcrack 's ability would apply and the damage would push through.

tl;dr if Skullcrack has already resolved before Lightning Strike does, the pro red creature will not be able to prevent the damage from Lightning Strike .

May 31, 2014 7:15 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... Accepted answer #2

You missed something huge here.

You can't use Lightning Strike to target a creature with protection from red. From the MTGS Wiki:

The effects of protection are often described using the mnemonic DEBT. The permanent or player with protection can't be:
  • Damaged by sources with the given quality (all such damage is prevented)
  • Enchanted or equipped by permanents with the given quality
  • Blocked by creatures with the given quality (if it's a creature)
  • Targeted by spells of the given quality, or abilities with sources of the given quality.

Although Skullcrack 's effect prevents damage from being prevented, it does not override any of protection's other effects. As such, the creature is still untargetable by red spells.

If the creature has protection from red when you would cast Lightning Strike , you can't target that creature. If the creature gains protection from red after you cast Lightning Strike , then Lightning Strike will be countered by game rules for having zero legal targets.

May 31, 2014 9:19 p.m.

Arachnarchist says... #3

Note that Protection from Red would also stop the creature from being a legal target for Lightning Strike which would then be countered by state based actions.

May 31, 2014 9:19 p.m.

BlueScope says... #4

That's not correctly answered... the creature with protection from red may not have the damage prevented (I'm unsure whether protection is a prevention effect), but either way, it prevents targetting. That being said, regardless whether Skullcrack is in play or not, you won't be able to target a creature with protection from red with Lightning Strike , and therefore never deal damage to it.

May 31, 2014 9:20 p.m.

Arachnarchist says... #5


May 31, 2014 9:20 p.m.

GoldGhost012 says... #6

Clearly, I need to chant "DEBT" to myself whenever I encounter protection situations, much like I do the "untap, upkeep, draw."

May 31, 2014 9:22 p.m.

"So if I cast Skullcrack then cast Lightning Strike Targeting a creature with it could a SPELL that gives the targeted creature protection from red prevent the 3 damage from Lightning Strike?"

Nobody caught this??

Skullcrack will beat any SPELL that might prevent damage. Unless that spell itself cannot be prevented.

As someone previously mentioned, Skullcrack has to resolve first, THEN a spell like Lightning Bolt could not be prevented. Even a spell that can't be countered can be stopped by Skullcrack if it's trying to prevent damage in some way.

Skullcrack really is an immensely powerful play at the right moment!

September 1, 2016 1:55 a.m.

Epochalyptik says... #8

@PolyRhythmicBeast: This question was resolved over two years ago. A spell that gives the creature protection from red will cause Lightning Strike to have an illegal target (because a protected permanent can't be targeted by an object with the protected-against characteristic).

The "damage can't be prevented" clause of Skullcrack does not override the "can't be the target of red spells or abilities" clause of protection from red.

September 1, 2016 7:16 a.m.

@Epochalyptik:I know this thread was from 2 years ago but you missed the point of my comment entirely!

My point was that nobody noticed that the original poster was talking about a SPELL targeting a creature to give it protection from red he never said anything about the creature just having protection from red.

Everybody was responding like he had said the creature itself had protection from red, which was wrong. See?

Again here is the original post (with a very important comma added to help clarify the question):

Asked by skozzkozz 2 years ago

"So if I cast Skullcrack then cast Lightning Strike Targeting a creature with it, could a SPELL that gives the targeted creature protection from red prevent the 3 damage from Lightning Strike?"

If you go read my previous comment you'll understand that all I was saying is everybody seemed to miss that important little detail. Obviously you can't target a creature with protection from red with a red spell...

And the order of resolution of spells is obvious as well. If you cast an instant after another, the second will always resolve first. Elementary right?

The question skozzkozz was trying to ask was: If you cast a Lightning Bolt to kill a "non color-protected" creature, and your opponent casts a spell immediately after to give that creature protection, and then you cast Skullcrack right after that, would their "protection" spell still prevent your Lightning Bolt? (and subsequently the Skullcrack as well)"

And of course, the answer is no! Because the Scullcrack would have prevented their "protection" spell from preventing your Lightning Bolt.

Order of resolutions is not an issue here anybody who's played long enough should've been able to work out the order these "hypothetical" spells would resolveSame goes for a permanent that has "protection" that goes without saying of course. And i'm sure now you can see that had nothing to do with my comment and that I never said Scullcrack would supersede a creature with "protection-from"...Again, all I was saying is that everybody misunderstood the original question, that much is obvious by reading each following response. Skozzkozz was asking about a spell giving a creature "protection" and the ensuing hierarchy of spell resolutions therein

I know I'm coming across as a _ick, I'm not trying to be. I'm just being matter-of-fact because you're trying to correct me when there was nothing to correct, which can confuse other members. Additionally, you yourself seemed to have missed that skozzkozz was talking about a spell and not the creature itself (winky face).

September 3, 2016 10:09 p.m.

That's still incorrect. Skullcrack does not "prevent protection"; there's no such effect in this game. Skullcrack says that damage can't be prevented. This negates a portion of protection's effects, but the "no targeting" rule is still in effect. Therefore, when the burn spell goes to resolve, it will have an illegal target and be countered instead.

September 4, 2016 12:27 a.m.

But Skullcrack states it would stop damage from being prevented in any way. So once something like Feat of Resistance resolves, targeted damage should still go through regardless of protection. But only because "Damage can't be prevented this turn" is printed as an absolute statement, without any other specification. Which should mean that spells, activated abilities, and even mechanics like protection wouldn't prevent damage from occurring, right? What else would "Damage can't be prevented this turn" mean?

September 4, 2016 5:07 a.m.

Again, that's incorrect.

Damage prevention is a very specific effect. Things like Fog and protection prevent damage. A spell being countered for having no remaining legal targets has nothing to do with prevention.

Skullcrack's "damage can't be prevented" effect does not override protection's "this object can't be the target of red spells or abilities" effect. Lightning Bolt is being countered by the game rules for having no remaining legal targets.

September 4, 2016 9:26 a.m.

I see.. One of those almosts haha.

September 4, 2016 11:44 p.m.

This discussion has been closed