Armor

[reznicguy]

Does anybody know what's the difference between a creature that has no armor and a creature that has zero armor?

[Laddinfance]

A creature that has 0 armor, can gain armor though spells and effects.

A creature with / armor cannot gain armor and has 0 armor.

[reznicguy]

What about a creature that has no armor at all? (Not zero and not /)

[ACG]

There is no such creature.

Some conjurations have the indestructible trait and do not have an armor symbol; Objects with the indestructible trait cannot receive damage, and as a consequence do not have an armor symbol at all. If a creature existed that had the indestructible trait, it would likewise require no armor symbol, as it would not be eligible for damage.

Creatures and conjurations are the only objects that can receive damage, so no other type of card has need for an armor symbol.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I kinda wish that "not being able to be destroyed" and "not being able to take damage" were two separate traits. Why aren't they anyway? Is there some sort of balance issue that prevents that? Or will there later be a trait like resilient but for life instead of armor?

Oh wait I see now indestructible creatures without dissipate could give an endless source of mana for altar of carnage if they could take damage.

[ACG]

I kinda wish that "not being able to be destroyed" and "not being able to take damage" were two separate traits. Why aren't they anyway? Is there some sort of balance issue that prevents that? Or will there later be a trait like resilient but for life instead of armor?

I have often complained about this very issue. If it can't be destroyed by damage, then preventing it from taking damage isn't really necessary, and makes it more difficult to have cool effects like making a creature invulnerable for X turns ("Unstoppable Fury?"), after which it would succumb to any damage it has taken, or like a phylactery spell, or any number of other cool ideas. Not impossible, just awkward.

Oh wait I see now indestructible creatures without dissipate could give an endless source of mana for altar of carnage if they could take damage.

Probably not an issue, if you are wasting actions to attack your own creatures. Altar of Carnage is good because it rewards you for doing something that you want to do anyway (hit enemy stuff).

[Sailor Vulcan]

I kinda wish that "not being able to be destroyed" and "not being able to take damage" were two separate traits. Why aren't they anyway? Is there some sort of balance issue that prevents that? Or will there later be a trait like resilient but for life instead of armor?

I have often complained about this very issue. If it can't be destroyed by damage, then preventing it from taking damage isn't really necessary, and makes it more difficult to have cool effects like making a creature invulnerable for X turns ("Unstoppable Fury?"), after which it would succumb to any damage it has taken, or like a phylactery spell, or any number of other cool ideas. Not impossible, just awkward.

Oh wait I see now indestructible creatures without dissipate could give an endless source of mana for altar of carnage if they could take damage.

Probably not an issue, if you are wasting actions to attack your own creatures. Altar of Carnage is good because it rewards you for doing something that you want to do anyway (hit enemy stuff).

I meant if the opponent summons such a creature. Hold it down with something like force hold and have at em. The bloodwave warlord won't want to do this as much because vet tokens, though...hmm...