There's better option for redirecting damage, but this isn't that bad...
dregoth00
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
Something I don't understand about the rulings..... they state:
"However, if it's not able to be dealt damage because it's neither a creature nor a planeswalker..."
A planeswalker isn't a creature so couldn't be targeted right? You also can't target a player for the damage to be redirected. So why the reference???
Either i'm missing something or i've just found a new use for this card :-)
OpeeFomenom
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
@dregoth00 I @ssume they're referring to the planeswalker that turns into a creature, so that it's targeted while it's a creature.
ShakaUVM
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
In a creatureless deck, it's actually pretty good. Earthquake and reflect the damage onto a creature a second time, for example.
blurrymadness
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
@drego & opee Indeed, if it's a creature when this targets but not on resolution (I.E. it reverts to a planeswalker) it can still have the damage dealt/redirect to it. If this thing can't actually redirect the damage is the only case where it's countered.
SarcasmElemental
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
If you only have stuffy dolls it poses quite a conundrum
Comments (8)
"However, if it's not able to be dealt damage because it's neither a creature nor a planeswalker..."
A planeswalker isn't a creature so couldn't be targeted right? You also can't target a player for the damage to be redirected. So why the reference???
Either i'm missing something or i've just found a new use for this card :-)
Indeed, if it's a creature when this targets but not on resolution (I.E. it reverts to a planeswalker) it can still have the damage dealt/redirect to it. If this thing can't actually redirect the damage is the only case where it's countered.