Shadow use CantBlockBy and static abilities

[Hanmac]

Shadow can be these two abilities:

• CantBlockBy | ValidAttacker$ Card.Self | ValidBlocker$ Card.withoutShadow
• CantBlockBy | ValidAttacker$ Card.withoutShadow | ValidBlocker$ Card.Self

Then there is Aetherflame Wall and Aether Web with can block creatures with shadow as though they didn’t have shadow This can be done in the first ability in checking withoutShadow similar to IfReach. But i Probably need to check the other ability too because of this rule:

If Aetherflame Wall gains shadow, it won’t be able to block any creatures (not even those with shadow).

Problem there is Wall of Diffusion and Heartwood Dryad with: CARDNAME can block creatures with shadow as though CARDNAME had shadow The wording is slightly different so i assume that if gains Shadow, it still would be able to block Creatures with Shadow.

for the second one i need to ask judges.

or if combined. how Heartwood Dryad attached with Aether Web can block creatures with Shadow?

Some Matrix Data Table:

	Attacker	Attacker
Blocker	without Shadow	with Shadow
without Shadow	x
with Shadow		x
Aetherflame Wall without Shadow	x	x
Aetherflame Wall with Shadow
Heartwood Dryad without Shadow	x	x
Heartwood Dryad with Shadow		x
Heartwood Dryad with Aether Web and without Shadow	x	?
Heartwood Dryad with Aether Web and with Shadow	?	?

x = "can block" ? = are the rules question below

[Hanmac]

I think for the corner case of Heartwood Dryad + Aether Web, i talked with some judges, but didn't got a confirmation from the rules manager

in my current opinion these two abilities should conflict with each other:

• CARDNAME can block creatures with shadow as though CARDNAME had shadow
• can block creatures with shadow as though they didn’t have shadow

if such a creature tries to block a creature with shadow this should happen:

• the first ability should treat the defender as if it has shadow
• the second ability should threat the attacker as if it doesn't have shadow
• which then should make it look like a Shadow defender is trying to block a non Shadow attacker and that should fail

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has not been updated in a while and has now been marked as stale. Stale messages will be auto closed.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has not been updated in a while and has now been marked as stale. Stale messages will be auto closed.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has not been updated in a while and has now been marked as stale. Stale messages will be auto closed.

[tool4ever]

609.4a. If two effects state that a player may (or a creature can) do the same thing "as though" different conditions were true, both conditions could apply. If one "as though" effect satisfies the requirements for another "as though" effect, then both effects will apply.

[Hanmac]

609.4a. If two effects state that a player may (or a creature can) do the same thing "as though" different conditions were true, both conditions could apply. If one "as though" effect satisfies the requirements for another "as though" effect, then both effects will apply.

@tool4ever what would that mean for the Heartwood Dryad with Aether Web cases?

[tool4ever]

Unfortunately I have no real idea :/ In the rules it actually has an example but it's for combining Vedalken Orrery with Shaman's Trance

[Hanmac]

If one "as though" effect satisfies the requirements for another "as though" effect

I think I need to ask the rules-manager what happens when one "as though" effect invalidates the requirements for another "as though" effect

Like in this case, block creatures with shadow as though they didn’t have shadow, would applying this invalidate can block creatures with shadow as though CARDNAME had shadow ?

[Hanmac]

Another funky thing: block creatures with shadow as though they didn’t have shadow could cause an attacker to "temporary" lose the "shadow" keyword for calculating blockers.

• Jasmine Boreal of the Seven could cause the attacker without abilities trying to be blocked by a blocker with abilities.
• But also Muraganda Petroglyphs might increase the power of the attacker, which then might cause other shenanigans

[tool4ever]

On that I'm a bit more certain no interaction will occur:

609.4. [...] This applies only to the stated effect. For purposes of that effect, treat the game exactly as if the stated condition were true. For all other purposes, treat the game normally.

[Hanmac]

On that I'm a bit more certain no interaction will occur:

609.4. [...] This applies only to the stated effect. For purposes of that effect, treat the game exactly as if the stated condition were true. For all other purposes, treat the game normally.

The case I mean:

• Dauthi Marauder attacks
• Aetherflame Wall wants to block. Causes Dauthi Marauder to be a vanilla for the look at blocking?
• Jasmine Boreal of the Seven says: now that Dauthi Marauder is a vanilla, it can't be blocked by Aetherflame Wall