Trample and deathtouch that don't kill creatures

[Elstar]

This has bugged me for a while according to the rules if a creature has deathtouch and trample

If it where one rule is a little wrong it is the deathtuch trample rule
http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Deathtouch
"If an attacking creature with deathtouch and trample becomes blocked, the attacking creature first assigns damage to the creature(s) blocking it. Once all those blocking creatures are assigned lethal damage, any remaining damage is assigned as its controller chooses among those blocking creatures and the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking. However, since the creature has deathtouch, assigning even 1 damage to a creature is considered to be lethal damage. "
applied to a creature that negates combat damage(or indestructible). The problem is that lethal damage don't nessesary kill a creature while trample damadge essentially assumes it does.

Logically if the creature survives deathtouch one would assume it would absorb trampledamage equal to it's toughness.

Does anyone know if this is a problem with the wording when the rules where written or if this was indead the intended functionallity? Is there any situations where it would be wrong to take the toughness into account?

[Elstar]

It's hard to forsee what problems would arise taking the all the effects into account so it is likely that Wizards chose an easier way to implement deathtouch, despite the fact that part of the deathtouch effect needs to be placed before damage is dealt and the other part needs to be placed after damage has been dealt. Is there any other effect that need to do that?

[piripiago]

If you start trying to take into account damage prevention for trample and deathtouch, then how do you handle cards like Phantom Tiger[magiccards.info] and Seraph of the Sword[magiccards.info]? Do they just completely stop trample?

The current method of assigning all combat damage, then dealing all assigned combat damage dates back pretty far in the game's history as an solution to cards like Furnace of Rath[magiccards.info]. That is before my time, but I remember reading a story about an older version of trample and Furnace of Rath. It was something like:
A 4/4 creature with trample is blocked by a 2/2 creature, it assigns 4 damage to the blocker but because of Furnace of Rath the damage is doubled to 8 damage, trample allows it to assign the extra 6 damage to the defending player but because of Furnace of Rath the damage is doubled to 12 damage.

That is obviously not how those cards should interact though. Assigning all damage first, then only applying damage prevention and replacement effects when the damage is actually dealt makes interactions a lot more consistent.

[SlackerBoe]

Do they just completely stop trample?

They do at my house. It's 200% better then the lame ass official rules.

[Torgan]

House rules always was more fun for the host :)

[SlackerBoe]

House rules are fun for everybody. IRL I play with a 4 player casual group and each person decided there own house rules and we have a blast playing in all 4 rule sets.

[Torgan]

It is ok if don't break game mechanics. Meant no harm :) House made formats are even more funny than usuall ones :)

[Elstar]

The Seraph of the Sword and Phantom Tiger would partly stop trample giving there toughness. Essentially negating deathtouch on them.

Indeed Furnace of Rath. 4 damage(2 up in smoke not moved to the player) to the blocker and 4 to the player, only 6 damage accually taken by permanents and player while double of 4 is 8. Same of cause with the "Inquisitor's Flail". Well it is atleast better then doubling part of the damage twice. Pretty interesting to dig deaper into the rules. I have been spoiled by having the PC doing the ruling for me :).

[Hayashi]

Deathtouch+Trample=OP

[pjfeigel]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από xblacklightz:

Just a clarifaction: protection cancels all damage,

To correct your clarification; Protection PREVENTS the damage that would be dealt, it doesn't "cancel" it. Which is relevant when it comes to damage that can't be prevented[magiccards.info].

[Nickslayer7]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από elstar_tomas:

The only thing that is a little wierd is that 702.2b assumes(assuming is dangerus) lethal damage without checking if that it is lethal damage. This leads to the unintuitive interaction with damadge prevention. It still works as it is an unambiguous rule equal to all.

It doesnt asume anything, you are assuming that in this case lethal damage actually has to mean lethal. Look at the rule...any nonzero is considered lethal, whether it actually kills a creature does not matter.

Rule 702.2b Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage, regardless of that creature's toughness.

[Elstar]

Yes, but the prupose of the thread was to understand why Wizard choose to have deathtouch redistribute the damage despite the fact that the creature is not destroyed. It always possible to say that is the rule and thats true. You can have any rules in the game they don't need to make sence as long as they are rules. But so far piripiago has the best answere, that it is due to the history of Mtg. The rules where not written at hte same time and the rule for combatdamage and effects has been rewritten since the start to a more easy to oversee system. That gives rise to interaction that may or may not exacly be as intended. The only way to have the interaction as "intended" would be if all the rules and essentailly cards where rewritten and that is called a new TGC game.

[Nickslayer7]

You do make a good point. So we are all clear on the current rule and what it means

Ok so the question then is should protection stop trample (Which would make it a bit OP too, right?). If it doesn't then I still think only 1 damage is needed to move on with trample because otherwise you are saying that a creature with protection can absorb its toughness in damage but not more. This is not what happens with protection, protection negates all damage done to it so it should be able to absorb all damage. This will make protection even more op than trample-deathouch with a creature that can block multiple creatures.

I think the problem creates a loop where if this then that where everything becomes OP. in that way the question is about balance, should protection be in the same league as deathtouch. In that way I would say this.

Protection against deathtouch negates the damage assignement rule of deathouch, damage equal to the defender with protections toughness must be dealt first before you can assign trample damage.

This is a very niche moment as it only happens in 1 specific event. When a attacking deathouch-trample creature is assigning more damage to a defending creature with protections toughness. Whether multiple creatures are involved or not.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

[Nickslayer7]

I would also add that we cant simply say that damage must first equal toughness because that is lethal damage because in the same breath we say that assigning 1 deathouch damage wasnt lethal because the creature wouldnt die from it. Well the creature would not die if we assigned +9999 damage to it. In that way its not about lethality anymore

[Elstar]

I think it is very close to the intended functionality of trample with deathtouch(I changed toughness to current life):

Protection against deathtouch negates the damage assignment rule of deathouch, damage equal to the defender with protections toughness taking into account any previous damage dealt first before you can assign trample damage.

Previouse damage could be for instance spelldamage or combat damage(first strike,...) before the blocker had protection.

This takes into account the affect of rewriting tramples lethal damage. It is a little ugly to need an exclution but that is a way to do it without needing to rewrite all the rules. The next question is would this be OP? This is a small nerf to deathtouch and a small buff to protection. We need to ask how can this be exploited? We must make sure protection can not be remove between damage distributed and damage taken. Otherwise I could give the defender temporary protection to avoid some trampledamage and then remove it before is is applied and still be partly protected.

[pjfeigel]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Nickslayer7:

protection

negates

all damage done to it so it should be able to

absorb

all damage.

/sigh

Protection does NOT "negate" damage, it does NOT "absorb" damage.

702.16e Any damage that would be dealt by sources that have the stated quality to a permanent or player with protection is

prevented

.

Protection PREVENTS damage. This is specifically a prevention effect, and falls under 615, specifically 615.11.

Regardless, Trample has always required the Blocked Creature to assign what /would be/ lethal damage to the Creature(s) Blocking it, before it could assign the remaining damage to the Defending Player. It did not matter whether that damage assigned would be prevented, redirected or otherwise prove to not have been lethal to the Blocking Creature, the damage assigned to the Defending Player is dealt to the Defending Player.

702.2b only changes what is considered to be lethal damage. Whether or not that damage is dealt is irrelevant.

Of course, had M2010 not noobified the rules by removing Combat Damage assignments from the STACk and adding the conga-line of death that Blocking currently is, 702.2b would never have been needed in the first place.