Gorm the Great + Raving Dead + Camouflage
Asked by bj_bancroft 4 years ago
What the heck would happen if I declared attacks with Gorm the Great , Raving Dead , Virtus the Veiled , & Phage the Untouchable and then cast Camouflage ??
dragonstryke58 says... #2
If Gorm the Great unluckily/luckily got assigned a pile with less than two creatures, wouldn't he end up unblocked? Since the oracle text for Camouflage reads "...Each creature in a pile that can block the creature that pile is assigned to does so.", wouldn't normal blocking restrictions apply?
July 3, 2019 2:31 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #3
Because Camouflage tells you to skip declarations (Oracle text says "This turn, instead of declaring blockers...") you don't take all those things into account in the way you normally would to check whether a given blocking declaration is legal. Where it says "Each creature in a pile that can block the creature..." it means you check things like flying, reach, protection, and intimidate that can affect whether or not you'd be allowed to declare a creature blocking the attacker under any circumstances. Abilities like menace or Gorm's ability don't matter, because you're only considering whether the creature "could" block the attacker at all.
July 3, 2019 4:35 p.m.
dragonstryke58 says... #4
@Rhadamanthus But you're not skipping the declare blockers step. Camouflage modifies how blockers are declared. Instead of the defender declaring blockers, they make piles of any number of creatures they control equal to the number of creatures attacking them. Then the attacking player assigns a pile to an attacking creature he controls. Whether or not a block is legal should still follow the rules in 509 (which should include menace).
I also looked into it more and I guess the Oracle Ruling helped.
It's not that you can't block Gorm the Great with less than two creatures, just that if it's possible to block him with two or more creatures, you must do so. If there's only one creature that can block him, that creature does so.
From the Gatherer on Gorm the Great :
6/8/2018: If only one creature can block Gorm the Great, that creature does so.
July 3, 2019 6:12 p.m. Edited.
dragonstryke58, the key thing is that piles of blockers are assigned randomly. The blocking restriction must be adhered to if possible, but you cannot guarantee bllind luck will work with Gorm's ability, so it is not necessary to bother with it. Additionally, none of the actions of Camouflage are done by blocking players, not attacking ones.
July 4, 2019 5:03 a.m.
dragonstryke58 says... #6
I'm not disputing that you can have Gorm be blocked by one creature. His Gatherer entry says he can.
However, I still think that creatures with menace can't be blocked with only one creature. Therefore, if a pile randomly (sorry I missed the randomly in the last post--I thought I put it in there) assigned to a creature with menace has only one creature in it, it will result in an illegal block and end up with the attacking creature unblocked. No matter if normal declarations are skipped, the game should still follow the rules on blocking in section 509.
Flying and Menace are both keyword abilities that restrict what can block them. If when camouflage is played, the game checks the legality of blockers for flying, it should do the same for menace as well.
July 4, 2019 4:12 p.m.
Sarkhan420X says... #7
i don't think you're understanding what Rhadamanthus is saying. flying and menace are not comparable in the way you are trying to compare them. you're basically making a false equivalency. creatures with flying can only be blocked by creatures with flying. menace however, does not actually "restrict what can block it" as you say. ANY creature "can" block an attacking creature with menace.
Camouflage literally does skip the declare blockers step. Rhadamanthus already explained this when he stated the oracle text says "INSTEAD of declaring blockers...". this means Camouflage DOESN'T "modify" how blockers are being declared, because they AREN'T being declared. and thats what menace cares about. declaring blockers.
July 5, 2019 3:01 p.m.
To follow up on this... bear with me here, but imagine there's an instant spell that read "Reveal a creature card from your hand. If the permanent that that card would become if it would enter the battlefield could be declared as a blocker for target attacking creature, you may put that creature card from your hand onto the battlefield blocking that creature."
That's a terrible card that I just designed and I'm sorry. But would that spell likewise be able to be used to have a vanilla creature be assigned as a blocker for an attacking creature with menace, but not one with flying?
July 6, 2019 11:55 a.m.
For what it's worth, a quick Google search for Camouflage 's interactions with menace pulled up this quote (from Stackexchange, but quoting someone asking on a Magic Judge tumblr):
- I asked this question to the (Unofficial) Ask a Magic Judge tumblr blog worded like this: "Say Anthony attacks with a Charging Rhino and Boggart Brute, then casts Camouflage. Then, while declaring blocks, Nathan puts 2 vanilla creatures in one pile and 1 in the other. Unfortunately, he gets unlucky, and the pile with 2 creatures is assigned to block Charging Rhino and the pile with 1 creature is assigned to block Boggart Brute. Which creatures end up blocked, and why does it work that way?" and this is the response: "Neither creature is blocked because neither set of blockers is legal."
So menace should probably still require a legal set of blockers (2 or more), even though blockers aren't declared, if intimidate and flying are also considered for this. Basically if a creature with menace is assigned a pile with only one creature, too bad, that's not a legal block for the menace creature.
Gorm the Great doesn't count in this situation since he doesn't actually have menace, just an "if able" condition. The implication there is "if unable, then block normally."
July 6, 2019 12:49 p.m.
dragonstryke58 says... #10
@Sarkhan420X: Flying and Menace are comparable. According to the MTG Comprehensive Rules:
702.9b A creature with flying can’t be blocked except by creatures with flying and/or reach. A creature with flying can block a creature with or without flying. (See rule 509, “Declare Blockers Step,” and rule 702.17, “Reach.”)
702.110b A creature with menace can’t be blocked except by two or more creatures. (See rule 509, “Declare Blockers Step.”)
As I said before, both are keyword abilities that restrict what can block them. When checking the legality of any blocks, both set restrictions on what can block them. That means NO, any creature CANNOT block a creature with menace except if there's another creature blocking it along with it.
July 6, 2019 2:54 p.m.
Sarkhan420X says... #11
dragonstryke58 no actually they are not comparable. only specific creatures with certain abilities can block flying, whereas literally any creature that can block, "can" block something with menace. they are not similar, they do not restrict "what can block them". menace might restrict "how" a creature can block, but not "what" creatures can block. any creature that doesn't say "this creature can't block" "can" block something with menace. so YES, any creature CAN block a creature with menace. compare it to the combination of Reflecting Pool and a Vivid Crag that has no counters on it. lets say they are the only lands you control. the Reflecting Pool would still be able to generate mana of any color, even though the Vivid Crag
July 6, 2019 3:07 p.m.
Sarkhan420X says... #12
even though the Vivid Crag itself wouldn't actually be able to.
July 6, 2019 3:08 p.m.
dragonstryke58 says... #13
The reason (and it may be a bad reason) I said that Camouflage doesn't skip the declare blockers step and instead modifies it is because the turn does not go directly from the declare attackers step to the combat damage step. You still have to finish the declare attacker step, passing priority to move to the next step or phase. However, the next step is not the combat damage step as would happen if you skipped the declare blockers step. You would need to apply the replacement ability created by Camouflage .
506.1. The combat phase has five steps, which proceed in order: beginning of combat, declare attackers, declare blockers, combat damage, and end of combat. The declare blockers and combat damage steps are skipped if no creatures are declared as attackers or put onto the battlefield attacking (see rule 508.8). There are two combat damage steps if any attacking or blocking creature has first strike (see rule 702.7) or double strike (see rule 702.4).
You cannot say that you apply the effect of Camouflage on either the declare attackers or combat damage step because that is not the step you would declare blockers.
Also, like one of the most used explanations in MTG says: "Things in Magic do exactly what they say." In this case, I reason that Camouflage does not skip the declare blockers step since it does not say "skip". It uses "instead" which is a replacement effect that modifies the event occurring. Camouflage replaces the declaration of blocker with another event not skips the declare blockers step altogether.
614.1a Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events.
614.1b Effects that use the word “skip” are replacement effects. These replacement effects use the word “skip” to indicate what events, steps, phases, or turns will be replaced with nothing.
July 6, 2019 3:24 p.m.
dragonstryke58 says... #14
@Sarkhan420X: Please reread the rules I referenced. Both Flying and Menace are restrictions on what can block them.
Creatures without flying do not have an ability that says that they can't block flying creatures. It is the restriction of the flying creature which prevents them from blocking.
Also, your example of Reflecting Pool and Vivid Crag does not apply to this situation. Vivid Crag has two abilities, one which can produce red and one which can produce any color. Just because you do not have a counter, doesn't mean the second ability can't produce any color of mana. It means you just can't activate the ability.
July 6, 2019 3:37 p.m.
Sarkhan420X says... #15
dragonstryke58: false. menace is not a restriction on "what" can block, but "how" a creature can block. my example applies perfectly. because the Vivid Crag "could" create mana of any color (if it had the counter), just like any creature "could" block something with menace, (if something blocks alongside it). the rules you reference in no way, shape, or form, gives any sort of restriction of any kind whatsoever on "what" can block something with menace, only "how". please learn the difference between "what" and "how".
with flying however, there are zero conditions of any kind that could allow a non-flying/non-reach creature to block something with flying. this makes it very different to menace.
also note that "can block" and "can be declared as a blocker" are 2 different things. menace cares about "declaring" blockers. even if a creature blocked by only 1 defending creature gains menace after blockers are declared, the creature is still considered blocked and nothing changes. that right there definitively proves that if a creature with menace is blocked by a 1-creature pile due to Camouflage , it remains blocked.
July 6, 2019 3:49 p.m.
"If a creature blocked by only 1 defending creature gains menace after blockers are declared, the creature is still considered blocked and nothing changes."
I'm not saying that you're wrong overall, but that's definitely not proof of anything. The exact same thing happens in this scenario with both menace and flying. If creature A is blocked by creature B, then creature A gains either menace or flying, it is still blocked by creature A.
"please learn the difference between "what" and "how""
Please don't be intentionally patronising. This site's Q&A section is usually pretty good about this.
July 6, 2019 4:20 p.m.
Camouflage is replacing the normal act of declaring blockers (defending player chooses which creatures block and what they're blocking) with its replacement (defending player makes piles of creatures, attacking player randomly assigns piles to attackers). Restrictions aren't considered until the point of "each creature in a pile that can block the creature that pile is assigned to does so."
Flying, Intimidate, Shadow, etc. all restrict whether a creature can block its randomly assigned attacker because they're evasion abilities. So is Menace.
-
702.110a Menace is an evasion ability.
-
702.110b A creature with menace can’t be blocked except by two or more creatures. (See rule 509, “Declare Blockers Step.”)
The second rule above alone should be enough to say that if a pile with only one creature was assigned to the creature with Menace, then the Menace creature is unblocked because it can't be blocked unless there are two or more creatures in the pile.
In the normal order of declaring blockers, the defending player would assign blockers to attackers, then check for restrictions (rule 509.1b). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of blockers is illegal. The point where Camouflage says creatures in each pile block their attacker if able is where the restrictions should be checked (such as whether or not a blocker has Shadow, Flying, Reach, or is the right colors/type for Fear/Intimidate). This is also where it should check if there are enough creatures to block the creature with Menace. If there is only one, it can't actually block the creature with Menace because it doesn't meet the requirement (have two or more creatures capable of blocking). It's not strictly looking for a quality of the creature, but the evasion ability should still apply.
And I can certainly see why Camouflage hasn't been reprinted any time recently.
July 6, 2019 6:35 p.m.
I will try and summarize all the discussion so far:
-
Gorm the Great does not have menace. If it did, it would have to be blocked by two creatures. But as he is, he can be blocked by a single creature.
-
Camouflage can be a pain in the ... head ... to try and wrap your head around it.
July 8, 2019 5:32 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #19
To be clear: I never said Camouflage had you skip the declare blockers step. I said it made you skip the act of declaring blockers. I was using the word "skip" in the colloquial sense rather than the strict Comprehensive Rules sense and maybe I shouldn't have done that.
I'm not convinced menace is one of the things that gets considered when deciding what creatures "could block" the attacker in the case of Camouflage but I understand the arguments for both sides. I'll retract what I said about menace earlier and leave it for more official sources to decide (I'm really surprised the Gatherer entry for Camouflage doesn't already have a rulings note about it).
July 8, 2019 5:27 p.m.
I was going to mark an answer as accepted, as this post has been open for a week, but I see there is still some discussion and a full conciseness has not been reached. Camouflage is a strange little card, so that's entirely understandable.
Declaring blockers works with a couple different steps, which are simplified below:
- Blocking player chooses creatures to block with (Rule 509.1(a)).
- Then the game checks whether the blocks were legal and forces players to pay costs to block if applicable; if the block does not work, that block is declared illegal.
- The creatures become blocking creatures.
Camouflage creates a replacement effect modifying Rule 509.1(a), but does not modify 509.1(b)-(i). Menace is checked in Rule 509.1(b) and (c), which are not modified by Camouflage.
Let's look at the regular rules first, without Camouflage's modification.
Under Rule 509.1(a), you can declare a single creature to block a creature with menace; you can also declare a non-flying creature to block a creature with flying. It is only once you reach 509.1(b) and (c), where it checks the legality of your blocks, that these declarations become an issue and are determined to be illegal and thus void.
Camouflage works the same way, albeit it is random chance, rather than a silly blocking deceleration, that tries to assign the illegal blocks. Once these are checked in the non-modified portions of the declare blockers steps, that's when the block becomes void.
Most telling is the fact that the Gatherer text for Camouflage specifically declined to mention anything about the legality of blockers, despite the fact the original card text discussed legality. Like with many older cards, the Gatherer text streamlines the rules such that the card's current rules text only addresses those rules which it is explicitly modifying, leaving the remaining rules untouched.
July 12, 2019 10:06 a.m.
In the future, please remember to hit the "Mark as Answer" button to indicate your question has been resolved and you no longer have any follow-up questions--though I know that is a bit hard with the amount of discussion on this thread. Since this question has been answered for a few days now, I have gone ahead and chosen an answer on your behalf.
Boza says... #1
None of these cards and Camouflage have any particularly spicy interactions. Keep in mind that the Oracle text of Camouflage and its printed version read quite differently. How Camo actually works is by substituting how you declare blockers:
1/ Opponent separates their blockers into piles, no less than 0 and no more than the number of attacking creatures.
2/ Each pile is then randomly assigned to a different attacker.
3/ The creatures that can block the attacking creature actually do so.
Depending on what/how many the blockers are (the question does not specify that), the interactions will be different.
The only weird case I would consider is Gorm the Great - if he is randomly assigned a pile with less than 2 creatures, he is simply blocked by all creatures in that pile.
July 3, 2019 12:08 p.m.