Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hey, I'm now an official rules-questions-answering-guy... instead of just a know-it-all. Sweet. Anyways...



Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: When questions about Protection from [color, card type, etc.] always, always, ALWAYS, use the D.E.B.T. rule. Commit it to memory; I'll write it out again. (That goes for everyone!)

Damage - If a creature with protection from [source] would be dealt damage from anything corresponding to that source, it instead takes no damage.
ex1) Pyroclasm is played; it will not harm ANY creatures with Protection Red, as it is a red source. Period.
ex2) A Protection Red creature takes no damage when blocking a red creature. **Trample damage can still be assigned; as long as you assign X damage to the Pro. Red creautre (where X is that creature's toughness), you can trample over with the rest, even though X damage is never dealt to the creature. Handy.
NOTE: "D" is for DAMAGE ONLY. Not DESTRUCTION. This is why Pro. Red creatures laugh at Pyroclasm, but Pro. White creatures still cry when they see a Wrath of God.

Enchanting/Equipping - A creature with protection [source] cannot be enchanted or equipped by something of that source AT ANY TIME. This answers your question, Renegade: when Watchwolf gains Pro. White (ie. Bathe in Light resolves) states are checked, and we find a conflict. Watchwolf is now Pro. White wearing a white enchantment; one of them has to go, and it can't be something built into Watchwolf (even if only temporary), so the Arrest falls off. The same would happen for equipment, except it would simply unequip instead of being destroyed.

Blocking - blocking creatures with protection [source] can be assigned damage from an attacking creature of that source, but will take none of the assigned damage. Attacking creatures with protection [source] cannot be blocked by creatures sharing any aspect of the source. This is by far the simplest of all of them...

Targeting - a creature with protection [source] cannot be targeted by spells or abilities that are of that souce. The loophole in this rule is what causes a lot of "fails to resolve" conditions. If I target a creature with a[source] spell/ablility but then that creature gains protection [source], the spell/ablility fails to resolve properly (does nothing) because it has no legal target NOW. **For spells that have two effects that are MANDATORY and must have seperate targets, if there are not two targets, it can't be played, and if there are not two targets when it resolves, it fails.
ex1) I played Awe Strike on Watchwolf; in response it is Bathe in Light'd for White. When it is Awe Strike's turn to resolve, it fails because Watchwolf is NOW an illegal target.
ex2) I play a Hellbent Twinstrike on the only two creatures in play. If EITHER of them dies, or becomes Pro. Black or Red, Twinstrike fails to resolve because one of the two MANDATORY targets is now illegal.

I hope you remember this, so that it may serve you well in the future...

Wow, crazy. That's definitely different. The last time I did something like this (not a Twinstrike, but some other card who's name escapes me right now) the judge ruled that the card's ability did not resolve because not all targets were legal. Then again, that was quite awhile ago and the ruling on it may have changed since then.

Guess I owe you one there, Yawgmoth, and now I know more than I did before.

just seeing if my rules trivia is up to date, wasn't that change made with the addition of the splice mechanic in order to ease rules problems? or am i thinking about something else....

If I give a gustcloak creature first strike and attack, then remove it from combat after the first strike damage goes to the stack will the damage still be dealt?

Just checked into it, and the answer is yes. It was changed to ensure that all effects of the card (after or without Splicing) could at least be attempted to be used. For example if you attempt to Glacial Ray w/ Glacial Ray two different creatures and one became Pro. Red, the spell would still resolve doing damage only to the other target, while the other half simply didn't work. Ever since that change, spells with multiple targets would only have partial fizzles, instead of an entire spell fizzling because of one illegal target.

It took a long time to find that, though. sweatdrop

Making sure no one forgets: any questions related to rules just toss in here, and someone will get to answering it.

Ok guys. It's come to my attention that often this thread falls off of the page and rules questions come up as threads of their own so what I think I'm going to do is request to Vicious X that this thread be made a sticky so Mikujin and I don't have to 'bump' it up and it's easily accessable for everyone in the guild who has a rules question. 3nodding This thread has been made quite successful thanks to all of you guys/girls posting in it with your questions when we get them and keeping it alive (even if it isn't posted in very often) so if you too want this stickied show your support. Thanks again guys
-Yawg