It is my understanding that the individual card rulings on Gatherer are essentially clarifying comments. i.e. they are "just" an application of the comprehensive rules to that specific card.

With that in mind, the rulings for Carrionette state:

A creature with Protection from Creatures can’t be targeted by this card’s ability.

But, when Carrionette is in the graveyard, it is not a creature. My guess is that rule 112 covers this somehow, but I'm not seeing it.

up vote 12 down vote accepted

'creature' is not only a permanent type, but also a card type. Rule 702.16a states:

702.16a Protection is a static ability, written “Protection from [quality].”
...
If the quality is a card type, subtype, or supertype, the ability applies to sources that are permanents with that card type, subtype, or supertype and to any sources not on the battlefield that are of that card type, subtype, or supertype. This is an exception to rule 109.2.

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.

(emphasis mine)

so even though while a graveyarded Carrionette is not a creature by rule 109.2, it's still a card with type 'creature' which is sufficient for the protection ability.

  • 1
    It is not clear to me why 109.2 does not apply here. "Protection from creatures" is an ability that includes a card type and does not include the word "card". It sounds like 702.16a and 109.2 contradict each other. – GendoIkari Dec 5 at 21:16
  • 109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield. – GendoIkari Dec 5 at 21:16
  • Because the expanded definition of the ability explicitly states that it applies to non-permanent objects. – murgatroid99 Dec 5 at 21:17
  • 3
    @GendoIkari I don't know why they made an exception to rule 109.2, but they did. – Glorfindel Dec 5 at 21:18
  • 1
    @GendoIkari thanks for pointing that out, it's slightly more convoluted than I originally thought (but still covered by the rules...). – Glorfindel Dec 5 at 21:24

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.