Protection from noncreatures

[BOVINE]

So there is "Protection from creatures" but it doesn't seem right reading "Protection from noncreatures." Is it correct though?

[spacemonaut]

Sure! That sounds fine. It's just protection from <quality> and noncreature is a quality.

That's protection from any permanent that isn't a creature (like non-animated lands, artifacts, enchantments, etc), protection from instant/sorcery spells, and protection from things like emblems and schemes. This means it can't be equipped or enchanted by anything. Lightning Bolt couldn't target it, Earthquake couldn't damage it.

It can still be damaged, blocked, and targeted by creatures. Fanatical Firebrand could block it, then ping it, if it's a creature with this ability.

[SecretInfiltrator]

So there is "Protection from creatures" but it doesn't seem right reading "Protection from noncreatures." Is it correct though?

Note: technically "protection from creatures" is already misleading wording since it only works since rule 702.16a. creates an exception to rule 109.2. If it didn't, "protection from creatures" would only protect from creature permanents.

So keeping this in mind the wording "protection from creatures" makes use of 109.2, but alters what it means to create the wording. But here is the thing: Rule 109.2 only allows use of card type and supertype, not for derived properties e. g. negations, which is why we have Protection from Humans and Protection from Spirits, but not the opposite; instead we have Protection from non-Human creatures and Protection from non-Spirit creatures.

Technically there is nothing stopping you from altering the rules to allow "protection from noncreatures", but "noncreature" being a derived quality like "non-Human"/"non-Spirit", so it probably would be used like other adjectival terms e. g. it's "protection from red" not "protection from reds". Hence I'd call it "protection form noncreature". I actually would expect WotC to go even further and use explixt wording e. g. "protection from noncreature permanents and spells".

That's partly purely a matter of templating/wording. Disregarding how it would need to be worded, "noncreature" is a valid characteristic to have protection from.

[spacemonaut]

I actually would expect WotC to go even further and use explixt wording e. g. "protection from noncreature permanents and spells".

I like this wording because it defines a specific scope you have to consider (permanents and spells) and leaves out emblems, schemes, and other things that might come out of left field as things the card surprisingly grants protection from.