Ring of Gix and Nettling Imp

[theJuggernaut]

Say it's my opponent's attack phase and I control a Nettling Imp. If I tap their creature with my Ring, and then force it to attack with my Imp....does it die?

[Seth]

The current wording for Nettling Imp seems to be

{T}: Choose target non-Wall creature the active player has controlled continuously since the beginning of the turn. That creature attacks this turn if able. If it doesn't, destroy it at the beginning of the next end step. Activate this ability only during an opponent's turn, before attackers are declared.


So if it wasn't able to attack (because tapped) it isn't destroyed

[NightLoki]

Actually, it will be destroyed. The rulings on oracle specifically say that you can use it on a creature you know can't attack, such as Perimeter Captain (Defender =/= Wall technically) or a tapped creature.

[Seras]

being able to target something that cannot attack doesn't mean it bypasses the "attacks... IF ABLE" condition.

it's not able to attack, therefor it does not trigger.

[Seth]

being able to target something that cannot attack doesn't mean it bypasses the "attacks... IF ABLE" condition.

it's not able to attack, therefor it does not trigger.

I agree, unless the wording I posted is no longer valid the creature will not die if it can't attack because it's tapped. Doesn't mean you can't target it, it just doesn't have the desired outcome :)

[NightLoki]

Ok, I've gotta break this down, because either I'm misreading it or everyone else is. Bold is card text.

Tap: Choose target non-Wall creature the active player has controlled continuously since the beginning of the turn. (this is just targeting a non-Wall creature without summoning sickness, basically)
That creature attacks this turn if able. (because it doesn't want to bypass any attacking restrictions already on the targeted creature, that's a standard clause for this type of ability.)
If it doesn't, destroy it at the beginning of the next end step.(not being able to attack means that it doesn't attack)
Activate this ability only during an opponent's turn, before attackers are declared. (meh, casting restrictions, not what we're talking about.)

That's the way I interpreted it. If you'd like to appeal, I know some Level 3 Judges that could clear this up easily.

[Seras]

If you'd like to appeal

that's awfully presumptuous, why would we have to appeal your "judgment"?

-imp targets creatureX before the declare attackers step.
-declare attackers step begins: check to see if creatureX is currently eligible to be declared as an attacker.

if it can be declared as an attacker and is not, it will be destroyed.

if it's not eligible to be declared as an attacker(say, for example, it's tapped) then nothing happens.

[NightLoki]

Tone, we cannot has it. Sarcasm on the internet is incredibly difficult sometimes. I apologize, I was making a joke.

[Seth]

Loki: I'll settle for your interpretation. Old cards can be unclear like that sometimes.

[NightLoki]

Meh, I'm still gonna check with a better judge than me, I'm still not 100% on it.

[Jovensferrets]

10/4/2004 If the Imp leaves the battlefield before the end of the turn, the creature still is destroyed.
10/4/2004 You can use this effect on a creature you know won't be able to attack. For example, you can use it on a tapped creature.
10/4/2004 The creature is destroyed if it does not attack because it simply can't do so legally.

there you go, this is coming from an dci judge and the oracle from gatherer

i have found throughout the years that instead of grabbing info out the rule book it is easier to just use the mtg gatherer, though it doesn't always have an answer it usually does.

[NightLoki]

confirmed by an L3, it dies