If all combat damage is prevented on a particular turn, can creatures

>>49060426

> (This creature deals damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters and to players in the form of poison counters.)
>All Sliver creatures have poisonous 1. (Whenever a Sliver deals combat damage to a player, that player gets a poison counter. A player with ten or more poison counters loses the game.)
>DEAL DAMAGE

That's infect. The shit that says "when X attacks and isn't blocked" still goes through because it's conditioned on the attack going through

Absolutely not.

>702.69. Poisonous
>702.69a. Poisonous is a triggered ability. "Poisonous N" means "Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, that player gets N poison counters." (For information about poison counters, see rule 104.3d.)
>702.69b. If a creature has multiple instances of poisonous, each triggers separately.

>702.89. Infect
>702.89a. Infect is a static ability.
>702.89b. Damage dealt to a player by a source with infect doesn't cause that player to lose life. Rather, it causes the player to get that many poison counters. See rule 119.3.
>702.89c. Damage dealt to a creature by a source with infect isn't marked on that creature. Rather, it causes that many -1/-1 counters to be put on that creature. See rule 119.3.
>702.89d. If a permanent leaves the battlefield before an effect causes it to deal damage, its last known information is used to determine whether it had infect.
>702.89e. The infect rules function no matter what zone an object with infect deals damage from.
>702.89f. Multiple instances of infect on the same object are redundant.

>119.3. Damage may have one or more of the following results, depending on whether the recipient of the damage is a player or permanent, the characteristics of the damage's source, and the characteristics of the damage's recipient (if it's a permanent).
>119.3a. Damage dealt to a player by a source without infect causes that player to lose that much life.
>119.3b. Damage dealt to a player by a source with infect causes that player to get that many poison counters.

>119.8. If a source would deal 0 damage, it does not deal damage at all. That means abilities that trigger on damage being dealt won't trigger. It also means that replacement effects that would increase the damage dealt by that source, or would have that source deal that damage to a different object or player, have no event to replace, so they have no effect.

File: 49.jpg (69KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 312x445px

>>49060572
>If a source would deal 0 damage, it does not deal damage at all. That means abilities that trigger on damage being dealt won't trigger. It also means that replacement effects that would increase the damage dealt by that source, or would have that source deal that damage to a different object or player, have no event to replace, so they have no effect.

I don't see how this applies in the case of pic related.

>>49060532
>The shit that says "when X attacks and isn't blocked" still goes through because it's conditioned on the attack going through

Creatures can be enchanted to penetrate blocks. So if a creature with 0 power is unblockable and has Infect, then does the opponent get poison counters - even if an effect like Fog or Darkness is active?

>615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens. A modified event may occur instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can't be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.
>603.2f. An ability triggers only if its trigger event actually occurs. An event that's prevented or replaced won't trigger anything.

>>49060620
>I don't see how this applies in the case of pic related.
It doesn't. That rule does prevent the Poisonous keyword from triggering.
Swamp Mosquito can still hand out poison counters. Swamp Mosquito's ability is unrelated to damage.

>So if a creature with 0 power is unblockable and has Infect, then does the opponent get poison counters
No.
They deal "0 damage", so it does not deal damage at all.
Even if rule 119.8 weren't around they still wouldn't get a poison counter!
What damage means is context dependent.
See >>49060572, 119.3b: Poison counters aren't a side effect of infect damage, they *are* the damage.
>even if an effect like Fog or Darkness is active?
Still no.

>>49060764

This shit's confusing, even more so with the presence of poison counters occurring before "Infect" ever became a keyword. It seems some additional rulings were made since then. For instance, Infect causing penalties when the card attacks a creature instead of a player. Before it was turned into a keyword, I assume these types of cards dealt conventional damage to creature targets equal to the card's power, and the poison counters were reserved for player targets only.

>>49060923
>This shit's confusing
Absolutely not.

The meaning of "damage" has always been context dependent.

>and the poison counters were reserved for player targets only.
Poison counters have always been reserved for only players.
>119.3d. Damage dealt to a creature by a source with wither and/or infect causes that many -1/-1 counters to be put on that creature.
>119.3e. Damage dealt to a creature by a source with neither wither nor infect causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.

>Before it was turned into a keyword
Before Infect was turned into a keyword, the vast majority of poison counters came from the Poisonous keyword.

>>49061097
>Before Infect was turned into a keyword, the vast majority of poison counters came from the Poisonous keyword.

"Poisonous" is a newer keyword. Old cards (e.g. probably anything prior to 8th edition) had neither Infect nor Poisonous, which is what I'm referring to. Otherwise this would have turned up some results: http://magiccards.info/query?q=o%3APoisonous+is%3Aold&v=card&s=cname

I probably have no choice but to apply newer rulings retroactively to old cards, but it's hard to reconcile when these types of creatures clearly indicate no such exceptions to how poison counters and damage are dealt out. Based on the card rules (which is the only thing we had to go by back in that day) these creatures could do *only* two things: 1.) If they weren't blocked, they would hit players with poison counters, (probably not dealing any damage to the player's life in the process) or 2.) If they attacked other creatures or were blocked by other creatures instead, they would simply deal combat damage to said creatures.

So if the field were under the effects of something like Fog or Darkness, it wasn't clear if attacking another player would still afflict them with poison counters. After all, poison counters aren't damage, and Fog and Darkness are stated only to prevent damage.

>>49061365
>"Poisonous" is a newer keyword. Old cards (e.g. probably anything prior to 8th edition) had neither Infect nor Poisonous, which is what I'm referring to.
Oh, right. That was a Timespiral thing, wasn't it?

All of the older cards are trigger abilities and all but a few (3?) are trigger by damage.
Hell, most of the Oracle text is the meaning of Poisonous near verbatim.
>Whenever Marsh Viper deals damage to a player, that player gets two poison counters. (A player with ten or more poison counters loses the game.)
To be fair, the older cards would trigger off of non-combat damage, but that's pretty much the only difference.
And none of them had abilities that deal non-combat damage, so taking advantage of that takes some legwork.

>>49061365
>After all, poison counters aren't damage, and Fog and Darkness are stated only to prevent damage.

>poison counters aren't damage,
Poison counters from infect *are" damage.

Pretty much everything else that explicitly creates poison counters does so through trigger abilities.
>603.2f. An ability triggers only if its trigger event actually occurs. An event that's prevented or replaced won't trigger anything.
If damage is prevented, damage based triggers will not go off.

And for future reference, there's a general for MtG rules questions.
>>49057131
>>49057131
>>49057131

>>49061634
>Poison counters from infect *are" damage.

There was no such thing as "Infect" in old MtG. There was no such thing as "Poisonous" either. There were poison counters, but no keywords attached to them. None of the old poison counter cards indicate any special type of damage or any other exceptions, whether explicit or remotely implicit. And the only cards I possess are old cards.

I have no idea what rules for Infect, Poisonous, etc. have been established POST-old MtG. I have literally not played MtG in over a decade. I've been going over my old cards to see what I could try playing with today, but apparently the rules have evolved into some seriously convoluted newfangled shit that require players to memorize a practical bible of rulings and exceptions before they can even begin to understand any keywords. Back in my day, all we went by was what was printed on the cards.

Fuck that shit. I'll just find someone to play old MtG with.

>>49061869
Tbh the old poison cards weren't very playable so few people cared about the rulings enough to elaborate on them further. Infect on the other hand is broken as shit so now the old cards are even obsolete in addition to being useless.

>>49061869
The things about trigger abilities and damage prevention were true during "old Mtg" too.
And that's the bulk of what's been discussed in this thread.

>>49061869
I think you're being too narrow-minded. There are several ways to put a poison counter on your opponent. You seem to be fixated on using just one method and applying it to all cases.

>>49061869
Your mental damage isn't a fault of the game.
The old cards that dole out poison counters come in two flavors.
Flavor A is "attacks but isn't blocked"
What that means is that if the creature attacks and nothing blocks it, the attacked player gets however many poison counters the effect calls for.
Now let that process for about five minutes, I know it's a lot for you to take in.
Flavor B is "damages a player"
Now buckle up, because this one calls for some radical thinking. Wouldn't want to strain anything.
So, get this. Whenever the creature, let's go with Pit Scorpion, deals damage to a player (recent rulings change this to combat damage, try not to go into a seizure contemplating what that means) that player will get a poison counter.
Go on ahead and take another breather.
Okay, so because that effect is dependent on damage, that means things that prevent damage
will
prevent
that
poison
counter
Shocking, I know.

Now stop being retarded on purpose and go play some Magic.