Slaver

[Keith Katsikas]

032
Slaver
Human
Rogue
8
1
1
1
Any creature that would be destroyed as a result of combat damage caused by Slaver, instead becomes a slave under your control. No damage is dealt.
0
0
0
0
0
Adam Bray
C

[Deleted]

At what point is this ability declared as intended to resolve? Can't someone make the case that even if the Slaver was removed after it gets involved in combat with another creature that would fall for this that if Slaver would infact destroy it and thus control it? Do you get what I'm saying?

[Keith Katsikas]

I think I understand (please, let me if I'm wrong) and I agree, however, I see no issue with the wording of the card, if that's what you're ultimately getting to. See, in order for the effect of the slaver's ability to take place, (in fact, in order for damage to take place at all) the slaver would need to still be in play at the point the damage would resolve. So if the slaver was removed from play at any point prior the point of damage resolution then the damage would not happen and the effect would not take place. However, if the slaver were to be removed after the damage had resolved and after the effect had already happened and the entire event had fully resolved (because normal damage is always the last thing to resolve) then the enslaved creature would remain under the control of the slaver's controller.

[redshirt]

Let's say that Slaver deals one damage to a two toughness creature. At some point prior to the creature's natural healing phase, that creature sustains another one damage. Does the controller of Slaver get control of it or not? Does it matter if Slaver is no longer in play at that point?

[Keith Katsikas]

Yes it matters, because the ability will no longer be in play. There is no card in play with the ability that says the controller gains control of the card, so it would not happen. Now if, the slaver was still in play when the other point of damage occurred, then I think there may be an argument as to whether ot not it takes place, and I still would say no, because it was not the damage from the slaver that destroyed the creature.

[redshirt]

Even though the damage from the Slaver wasn't the final straw, the creature wouldn't have been destroyed without the 1 point of damage from the Slaver.