Removing from combat question

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

This came up tonight in MTGO, and I'm wondering how it would have worked
had my opponent played it differently.

My opponent is attacking with, among other things, a Rhox. He has enough
untapped lands to pay to regenerate it once, but not twice. I block with
a combination of creatures that can kill it while only losing one of
their number. Combat damage goes on the stack and my opponent assigns
all of it to me, since it looks like this will kill me and even if it
didn't, he could just regenerate the Rhox under normal circumstances.

While damage is still on the stack, I Chastise the Rhox.

As it actually played out, my opponent just let the Rhox die; he didn't
even try to regenerate it. I'm wondering now whether that was necessary.
Regeneration removes the creature from combat. If he had regenerated
from the Chastise, would the Rhox still have taken the combat damage and
died again?

As it was, I was kicking myself for not playing the Chastise before
damage hit the stack, temporary though that solution would have been.
Now I'm wondering if I didn't semi-accidentally make a really good play.

****************
Not that the exact details are important, but:

Rhox (Nemesis and Eighth Edition rare)
4GG
Creature - Beast
5/5
You may have Rhox deal its combat damage to defending player as though
it weren't blocked.
2G: Regenerate Rhox.

Chastise (Judgment and Eighth Edition uncommon)
3W
Instant
Destroy target attacking creature. You gain life equal to its power.

*****************
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Apologies; this SO went to the wrong group. (I've cancelled it, but
these days very few servers actually pay attention to that, so most
people will probably get it anyway.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
> Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Matt Frisch just said...
> > On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:23:14 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org>
scribed
> > into the ether:
> >
> > >This came up tonight in MTGO, and I'm wondering how it would have
worked
> > >had my opponent played it differently.
> > >
> > >My opponent is attacking with, among other things, a Rhox. He has
enough
> > >untapped lands to pay to regenerate it once, but not twice. I
block with
> > >a combination of creatures that can kill it while only losing one
of
> > >their number. Combat damage goes on the stack and my opponent
assigns
> > >all of it to me, since it looks like this will kill me and even if
it
> > >didn't, he could just regenerate the Rhox under normal
circumstances.
> > >
> > >While damage is still on the stack, I Chastise the Rhox.
> > >
> > >As it actually played out, my opponent just let the Rhox die; he
didn't
> > >even try to regenerate it. I'm wondering now whether that was
necessary.
> > >Regeneration removes the creature from combat. If he had
regenerated
> > >from the Chastise, would the Rhox still have taken the combat
damage and
> > >died again?
> >
> > I'm not entirely current on MTG these days, but IIRC, the
destruction and
> > regeneration would have put the Rhox tapped back on his side, then
the
> > damage from the blockers would have resolved (against no target),
and life
> > would have continued.
>
> It turns out that's wrong, according to WotC's official netrep.

That still Dave DeLaney? Tell him Chyron says hello. :)

Laszlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:23:14 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org> scribed
into the ether:

>This came up tonight in MTGO, and I'm wondering how it would have worked
>had my opponent played it differently.
>
>My opponent is attacking with, among other things, a Rhox. He has enough
>untapped lands to pay to regenerate it once, but not twice. I block with
>a combination of creatures that can kill it while only losing one of
>their number. Combat damage goes on the stack and my opponent assigns
>all of it to me, since it looks like this will kill me and even if it
>didn't, he could just regenerate the Rhox under normal circumstances.
>
>While damage is still on the stack, I Chastise the Rhox.
>
>As it actually played out, my opponent just let the Rhox die; he didn't
>even try to regenerate it. I'm wondering now whether that was necessary.
>Regeneration removes the creature from combat. If he had regenerated
>from the Chastise, would the Rhox still have taken the combat damage and
>died again?

I'm not entirely current on MTG these days, but IIRC, the destruction and
regeneration would have put the Rhox tapped back on his side, then the
damage from the blockers would have resolved (against no target), and life
would have continued.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Matt Frisch just said...
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:23:14 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org> scribed
> into the ether:
>
> >This came up tonight in MTGO, and I'm wondering how it would have worked
> >had my opponent played it differently.
> >
> >My opponent is attacking with, among other things, a Rhox. He has enough
> >untapped lands to pay to regenerate it once, but not twice. I block with
> >a combination of creatures that can kill it while only losing one of
> >their number. Combat damage goes on the stack and my opponent assigns
> >all of it to me, since it looks like this will kill me and even if it
> >didn't, he could just regenerate the Rhox under normal circumstances.
> >
> >While damage is still on the stack, I Chastise the Rhox.
> >
> >As it actually played out, my opponent just let the Rhox die; he didn't
> >even try to regenerate it. I'm wondering now whether that was necessary.
> >Regeneration removes the creature from combat. If he had regenerated
> >from the Chastise, would the Rhox still have taken the combat damage and
> >died again?
>
> I'm not entirely current on MTG these days, but IIRC, the destruction and
> regeneration would have put the Rhox tapped back on his side, then the
> damage from the blockers would have resolved (against no target), and life
> would have continued.

It turns out that's wrong, according to WotC's official netrep. (It
sounds like you have the old misconception that regenerating creatures
actually get removed from play briefly, which was *never* true.) The
Rhox would indeed have been destroyed twice in this scenario, so my
opponent was right not to bother regenerating it from the first one.