When the store owner doesnt know basic rulings
Posted on Sept. 6, 2017, 7:22 p.m. by Prootzy_Zoots
This isnt really a question more of a 'Can you believe this?" I was playing a 4 person game of Commander last night, the store owner was playing and he had out Oketra the True for a few turns now, another player casts a spell that dealt 2 damage to each creature on the board, im not sure what the card was exactly but that doesnt matter. I had a Dismember in hand and decided that because the 3/6 creature just took 2 damage, it's now a 3/4 until the cleanup step, meaning I can give it -5/-5 with Dismember to finish it off.
I'm not sure if they were salty or what but what followed was a ruling dispute on what Indestructible actually meant, he said that Indestructible made it so it was immune to damage, I know darn well that is not what the ability states, I know for a fact the ability means "The state based action of a creature taking lethal damage, or hitting 0 toughness doesnt happen" meaning it can still take damage. In short, huge 5-10 minute dispute that even had us agreeing with how it worked, only to say, "No, it took two damage, but nothing happens, then you gave it -5/-5" I was kind of annoyed as that was the ruling they went with because "Hes the store owner" I mean I judged for almost 3 years but no, dont listen to me. The thing that annoyed me most about it was the fact I just wasted a removal card for something I knew it should have worked on, no one let me take it back(I didnt ask but still).
As I said, its not much of a question or concern, more of a "Can you believe this nonsense"
Thanks for your time!
I don't think his creature would be dead though. You gave it -5/-5 but the creature still had 1 toughness so how could it die? It didn't turn into a 3/4 after taking 2 damage. It was a 3/6 with two damage on it.
September 6, 2017 7:30 p.m.
That's kind of stupid. Sorry to hear that. @maxon: The Oketra would have died. Toughness is how much damage a creature can take before it dies, if oketra had taken 2 damage then 2 of that toughness would have been used up so while it's still a 3/6, only 4 of it's toughness is left so giving it -5/-5 would put it to -1 toughness so it dies to state based effects. At least i'm pretty sure that's how it works.
September 6, 2017 7:49 p.m.
Um, the store owner was right.
If an Indestructible 3/6 is dealt 3 damage, it's a 3/6 with 3 damage marked on it. If you then use Dismember on it, it's then a -2/1 with 3 damage marked on it, but this doesn't destroy it because it's Indestructible.
September 6, 2017 8:02 p.m.
Sorry, but you're incorrect. Damage doesn't "use up" toughness. It's just marked on the Creature (Infect and Whither being exceptions). Then, if the total damage marked on a Creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based action.
September 6, 2017 8:06 p.m.
Indestructible is defined as:
702.12b A permanent with indestructible cant be destroyed. Such permanents aren't destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
Damage doesn't reduce the toughness of a creature, but simply remains marked on that permanent until the cleanup step. The only things that reduce toughness is negative buffs (Dismember, Night of Souls' Betrayal), and negative counters (Black Sun's Zenith).
Also, don't be so quick to bad mouth other people, because you may be the one that ends up in the wrong, which would be embarrassing.
September 6, 2017 8:21 p.m.
Damage dealt does not reduce toughness. It is marked on the creature till end of turn or is otherwise removed. So Oketra was a 3/6 with two damage marked on it. You made it a 0/1 with two damage marked on it. And since an indestructible cant be destroyed by damage or effects that say destroy, Oketra would still survive.
Most people who have your train of thought got the misinterpretation from playing the games on consoles or computer, where it simplifies it by showing damage taking away toughness. This is not how the game actual works.
119.3e Damage dealt to a creature by a source with neither wither nor infect causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.
119.6. Damage marked on a creature remains until the cleanup step, even if that permanent stops being a creature. If the total damage marked on a creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based action (see rule 704). All damage marked on a permanent is removed when it regenerates (see rule 701.13, Regenerate) and during the cleanup step (see rule 514.2).
September 6, 2017 8:32 p.m.
I had a hard time reading this. that's rough. RIP 5-10 minutes. Can you delete posts?
Has to be troll post. LUL you got me!
September 7, 2017 2:53 a.m.
September 7, 2017 6:58 a.m.
For all intents and purposes it would be a 0/1. It can't deal negative damage, and the only time the negative power becomes relevant is when a positive buff is added. This is why I say it's just a 0/1.
September 7, 2017 12:44 p.m.
Yeah, I know what you mean, I just wanted to make sure OP had it exactly right, this time.
I'm also used to playing with a bunch of buffs (e.g., RG Pummeler in Standard, Infect in Modern, and various Equipment in EDH), and I've also started with a relatively big creature and nerfed it myself in order to sneak under an opponent's Ensnaring Bridge. In all those cases the actual Power makes a big difference.
September 7, 2017 2:16 p.m.
"I mean I judged for almost 3 years"
I sincerely hope this is a lie. I'm not sure how you'd get past the judge tests in order to become certified with this completely lack of literally basic game knowledge. Damage does not, has not, and will never, reduce toughness (damage modifying effects like Wither/Infect aside). If it's not, I can't even imagine how many poor players were driven away from the game by false rulings over the course of three years.
September 7, 2017 4:44 p.m.
I think since OP has not responded its a fake situation just to get us all to freak out.
September 7, 2017 5 p.m.
Or he's so embarrassed and afraid of more ridicule that he won't post anything..
September 7, 2017 5:17 p.m.
@clayperce: huh. Guess i've been playing it wrong. Oh well.