Turn // Burn vs. Indestructible Ruling

Deck Help forum

Posted on May 14, 2013, 9:03 a.m. by strateupjee

I had this question posed to me, and I'm pretty sure it's a straightforward answer, however my opponent claimed to have ruling behind him, can you Turn / Burn a creature with indestructible to kill it?

Zurnic says... #2

Turn would strip indestructible from that creature.

May 14, 2013 9:09 a.m.

Schuesseled says... #3

Yep, indestructibility is a static ability.

May 14, 2013 9:12 a.m.

ZeroAvix says... #4

You can, but if they used something like Boros Charm or Rootborn Defenses , it would not remove that as it is not an ability on the creature.

May 14, 2013 10:01 a.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #5

It depends on whether it's a "this is indestructible" ability printed on the creature (like on Tajic, Blade of the Legion ) or an effect created by some other spell or ability (like by Boros Charm or Indestructibility ). Turn / Burn will only take away abilities of the creature, not effects created by other things.

May 14, 2013 10:09 a.m.

meecht says... #6

For another likely Standard scenario, if you target a Falkenrath Aristocrat with Turn / Burn , your opponent can respond by sacing a creature to make Aristocrat indestructible. If they do, the indestructribility persists after Turn / Burn has resolved, so the 0/1 Weird cannot be destroyed.

May 14, 2013 10:25 a.m.

Schuesseled says... #7

yes quite true it only takes away abilities on the card itself.

I would be right in saying that a creature enchanted with Indestructibility is not vulnerable to that spell right?

May 14, 2013 10:32 a.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #8

A creature enchanted with Indestructibility is vulnerable to Turn / Burn , because it's not being given any abilities. Rather, there's just some other effect saying it's indestructible. That was the whole reason I used Indestructibility as an example in what I posted earlier...

May 14, 2013 10:39 a.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #9

Something happened with my brain and I made a stupid post. Ignore all that.

May 14, 2013 10:40 a.m.

Rayenous says... #10

What if a creature was given a +3/+3 (Giant Growth ) before Turn / Burn was cast. does it become a 3/4 or a 0/1?

If it's a 3/4, would it also occur for a creature like Nivix Cyclops , whose +3/+0 came from it's own ability?

May 14, 2013 11:31 a.m.

meecht says... #11

The creature will retain the +3/+3, so it will become a 3/4 Weird.

If somebody casts Turn / Burn on your Nivix Cyclops and you cast a spell in response, the Cyclops will become a 3/1 Weird. When a creature references itself in its rules text, the text can be read as "this creature," so it doesn't matter that the creature has changed types or lost abilities.

May 14, 2013 12:10 p.m.

alulien says... #12

Are you sure the Weird(Cyclops) will still get buffed? The Turn portion of Turn / Burn specifically says "loses all abilities" and the +3/+0 on spell cast is an ability, no? If, after Turn resolves, the Weird's(Cyclops') controller casts a spell and the Weird(Cyclops) becomes 3/1 then how does Tajic, Blade of the Legion lose his indestructibility after being targeted with Turn? Pretty sure Nivix Cyclops when targeted with Turn will become a 0/1 Weird regardless of how the stack is played.

May 14, 2013 12:56 p.m.

meecht says... #13

Spells like Giant Growth are a static effect that last until end of turn. They are not granted abilities. In order for the Weird creature to receive the +3/+0 from the Nivix Cyclops , that trigger must already be on the stack before Turn can resolve.

Two things can happen:

1.) Opponent casts Turn / Burn targeting your Nivix Cyclops . You do nothing in response, allowing Turn / Burn to resolve. The cyclops is now a 0/1 Weird creature with no abilities.

2.) Opponent casts Turn / Burn targeting your Nivix Cyclops . You cast a spell in response (let's say Giant Growth ), which triggers the Cyclops's ability. When the stack resolves the Cyclops has been turned into a 0/1 Weird, but it is not a new permanent. Therefore, the +3/+0 trigger still applies to the Weird, so it becomes a 6/4 in this example.

This is similar to how the once-per-turn activated ability of each side of Wolfbitten Captive  Flip can be abused. You can activate one ability in response to the flip trigger, then use the activated ability of the flip side to give the creature +6/+6 for that turn. This is because the creature is not a new permanent when it flips.

May 14, 2013 2:01 p.m.

alulien says... #14

I see what you're saying, that makes sense. My previous statement should have been "Pretty sure Nivix Cyclops when targeted with Turn will become a 0/1 Weird unless you respond to Turn before it resolves." Thanks for clarifying how that stack interaction works.

May 14, 2013 2:14 p.m.

Schuesseled says... #15

actually meecht if Turn / Burn is cast after giant growth, then it will turn it into a 0/1 wierd and deal 2 damage to it., which would therefore kill it before giant growth is applied and then that card is countered as it has no legal target.

May 14, 2013 2:44 p.m.

meecht says... #16

Turn of Turn / Burn is similar to Turn to Frog . Here is a ruling from Turn to Frog :

1/22/2011 Effects that modify the targeted creature's power or toughness, such as the effects of Titanic Growth or Glorious Anthem, will apply to it no matter when they started to take effect. The same is true for counters that change the creature's power or toughness (such as +1/+1 counters) and effects that switch its power and toughness.

May 14, 2013 2:54 p.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #17

+/- effects are always applied after effects that set P/T to specific values. This is one of the results of the Layer system used for figuring out an object's characteristics. There was a time when these were both in the same layer and used timestamps instead, but that was many years ago.

May 14, 2013 3:09 p.m.

alulien says... #18

If both halves of Turn / Burn resolve first then of course it will die, but if Giant Growth resolves first it will survive. If Turn resolves without response then the +3/+0 for casting won't happen.

May 14, 2013 3:12 p.m.

invictvsnox says... #19

Huh. Didn't know "Indestructable" was an ability, since it doesn't do anything or get triggered by anything else.... more like an adjective or trait, if anything.

May 14, 2013 3:35 p.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #20

"Indestructible" is just a special property, not an ability. The only time it's part of an ability is when something has the ability "This guy is indestructible".

May 14, 2013 3:38 p.m.

invictvsnox says... #21

Thought so. Thanks.

May 14, 2013 3:41 p.m.

This discussion has been closed