Nakhthorheb + Venenation

If Nakhthorheb is blocked and plays venenation on the blocking minion does combat still occur since the block is no longer legal?

On Oct 21, 4:10 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > If Nakhthorheb is blocked and plays venenation on the blocking minion > does combat still occur since the block is no longer legal? I'm going to say yes, because it would be downright unfair if Venenation became a "This Block Fails" card for him. He's already enough of an @$$ with that card disallowing future block attempts. Also, Venenation is only usable when a minion "is blocked", so hopefully the granting of the block by Big N's controller moves the action to resolution, which is the combat. Man, I hope so. I'm in a Starter league with a guy playing the new FoS deck...

The question is if combat would occur. I think we can all agree that the action is blocked. But does it end without a combat, or does the minion get a change to give nakh a beating?

> The question is if combat would occur. I think we can all agree that > the action is blocked. But does it end without a combat, or does the > minion get a change to give nakh a beating? I would combat occurs because the block was legal at the time Venenation was played. Sorrow

I'm really not sure which way it would be ruled. I was just thinking that, for example, you can Nose of the Hound someone who's tapped, but if they untap in response to it the action fizzles, because they are no longer a valid target. Can a block "fizzle" like an action can? -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes that is possible. For example: Meth A has a minion (MA) has a temptation (from Meth B) with enough counters to take control over it. Meth B bleeds Meth A, A attempts to block with MA, in response Meth B takes control of MA and the acting minion continues with his action as though unblocked. But this is something different the the above situation. The action is surely blocked else venenation couldn't be played. So I think that there is a combat, since that is part of the block.

Wookie813 wrote: > On Oct 21, 4:10 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If Nakhthorheb is blocked and plays venenation on the blocking minion >> does combat still occur since the block is no longer legal? > > I'm going to say yes, because it would be downright unfair if > Venenation became a "This Block Fails" card for him. He's already > enough of an @$$ with that card disallowing future block attempts. > Also, Venenation is only usable when a minion "is blocked", so > hopefully the granting of the block by Big N's controller moves the > action to resolution, which is the combat. Correct, for the latter reason. The block succeeds, then Venenation is played.

[ quoted text not captured ] Akaif- the target must be a valid target at the time of declaring the nose of the hound If it manages to untap later is irrilevant best Emiliano

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:27:15 +0200, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >Akaif- the target must be a valid target at the time of declaring the nose >of the hound >If it manages to untap later is irrilevant Wrong. Nose of the Hound cannot be used to enter combat with an untapped minion. If the target is untapped, then the target is no longer a valid target and, if the action isn't blocked, it will fizzle at resolution (that is, the "enter combat with a tapped minion" will not occur). See Absence of Legal Target. LSJ Jul 25 2002, 7:42 am http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/bb46ca056521778a See also: Sho-Fizzle LSJ Oct 4 2004, 2:37 pm http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c3788873e0058947

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for the clarifications ;-)

On 21 loka, 11:10, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > If Nakhthorheb is blocked and plays venenation on the blocking minion > does combat still occur since the block is no longer legal? Lazy to look around eh blue? I asked this exact same question here few weeks back. ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, I wasn't going to bother to point it out, but actually that was another one of our players posting under my account by accident. -- David Cherryholmes