Asked by thewyzman 2 weeks ago
To the latter point, an additional Hordeling Outburst cast before Resonance would make Resonance (4+6) 10 damage (or just the 2 still?)
2 damage. The greatest amount of damage Purphoros dealt was 2 damage, it just dealt that amount of damage multiple times.
May 12, 2017 12:28 a.m.
The ruling for Impact Resonance says this:
"Impact Resonance looks at the entire turn to see the greatest amount of damage dealt from a single source to a single permanent or player."
This implies that the amount of damage that a single source (purphoros) has dealt so far in this turn to a single target when Impact Resonance is cast will be X. The ability deals only 2 damage at once, but Impact Resonance asks us to count the amount that a source has already dealt in this turn...unless purphoros hasn't left and entered the battlefield sometimes inbetween (with Eldrazi Displacer for example), he is still considered the same source, so the total amount of damage he dealt is more than just 2.
May 12, 2017 3:40 a.m.
I tend to agree with Neotrup, but I can't cite a specific rule that would back up my reasoning for why.
When I read the wording "where X is the greatest amount of damage dealt by a source to a permanent or player this turn." I singled out the word "amount," reasoning that if the card had meant "total amount of damage dealt by a source" it would have used the word "total." But as far as I'm aware, "total" and "amount" aren't magic-eese words with magic-eese definitions like "whenever" or "instead" so I don't know what rule to cite this ruling off of. If anyone knows, i'd love to hear it.
May 12, 2017 3:42 a.m.
I don't think the card would read "greatest total amount" because the "greatest amount" combined with "this turn" and "by a source" (not "by a spell or ability", then it would be clear that it's only 2 dmg) implies that it is the total.
the key to this problem is that the "source" is the permanent purphoros, not the triggered ability.
It's the same with cards that give protection of a certain colour. Take Eight-and-a-Half-Tails and something like Lightning Crafter for example...you can make the lightning crafter (the source) white and give a creature protection (prevent damage from a white source) and the ability won't be able to damage that creature. The source is always the permanent the ability comes from, not the ability itself. This is also why you can't change the colour of an ability on the stack and stuff like that...
May 12, 2017 4:11 a.m.
Doing more research, but the source of damage is not always the permanent the ability comes from, the source is whatever the ability defines it to be, which in this case is Purphoros. The ability says that Purphoros deals 2 damage to each player, so it is the source.
May 12, 2017 4:26 a.m.
My thoughts were the words total and this turn implying accumulation, like Winter said, basically a floating X value adding up multiple Purph triggers.
May 12, 2017 5:28 a.m.
That's a pretty reasonable explanation Winterblast, I think you've won me over.
119.7. The source of damage is the object that dealt it. If an effect requires a player to choose a source of damage, he or she may choose a permanent; a spell on the stack (including a permanent spell); any object referred to by an object on the stack, by a prevention or replacement effect that’s waiting to apply, or by a delayed triggered ability that’s waiting to trigger (even if that object is no longer in the zone it used to be in); or a face-up object in the command zone. A source doesn’t need to be capable of dealing damage to be a legal choice. See rule 609.7, “Sources of Damage.”
For me, the logical way to think about it seems to be as a parallel to a "prevent the next X damage from a source of your choice" type of ability. If I wanted to not take damage from Purphoros I would choose Purphoros as the source, not the triggered ability. And if I prevented the next 4 damage, it would work across two of his triggers.
May 12, 2017 5:29 a.m.
The word "total" is used whenever a card is talking about adding up values. See this search for examples. Impact Resonance does not use a total. It looks throughout the whole turn (up to the moment it is cast) at each instance where damage was dealt. It then selects the greatest of those instances and uses that value for X. If X was meant to be an accumulated value then it would say, "where X is the greatest total amount of damage..."
May 12, 2017 9:44 a.m.
The official ruling for Impact Resonance is that it considers each damage event separately. In your example that means X=2.
Unfortunately I don't have any rules citations to offer, as I admit I don't 100% understand the logical steps that start with the game rules and end with the official ruling for the card. I get the feeling there's something basic that I'm forgetting about or not considering.
May 12, 2017 10:34 a.m.
Impact Resonance pretty clearly says "greatest amount of damage dealt by a source" not total.
If you cast Dragon Fodder with Purphoros, God of the Forge on the board, when it resolves and creates the tokens, Purphoros will trigger twice, putting two instances of his ability on the stack, which each resolve separately, with a whole round of priority between resolutions. Purphoros never did 4 damage, he did 2 damage, and then he did 2 damage. The greatest amount of damage he's dealt this turn is 2.
May 12, 2017 2:17 p.m.
The reasoning for the X in Impact Resonance is that single sources can deal varying amounts of damage.
Take Purphorous, God of The Forge, without any buffs, he can do 2 damage and 6 damage per event. 2 damage for every creature that enters the battlefield. 6 damage when every he deals combat damage.
Impact Resonance compares each instance a source dealt damage and deals damage equal to the greatest instance.
May 13, 2017 4:05 p.m.
Does a card with "greatest total amount" even exist at the moment?
May 14, 2017 2:52 a.m.
If there are more than 1 opponent then the amount dealt by purphoros as seen by the later resonance will be 2 x the number of opponents.
May 14, 2017 2:25 p.m.
No, Impact Resonance only looks at the damage the source dealt to one permanent or player, not the total damage it dealt.
May 14, 2017 2:41 p.m.
Does anyone know a judge? Hate to keep this going for another week.
May 14, 2017 9:33 p.m.
Rhadamanthus is a former judge who weighed in already, and you can always ask judges in live chat
May 14, 2017 10:16 p.m.
Sorry, link didn't work, URL is http://chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules/
May 14, 2017 10:17 p.m.
I keep up with the rules as a hobby and I used to have a Rules Advisor certification when that was still a thing (it was removed from the Judge Program system a year or two ago), but I was never an actual Judge. I apologize if I've said something in the past to give the wrong impression.
The ruling I referenced in post #9 is something I read on an official Judge Program message board that I still have access to (from the former Rules Advisor cert): https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/. I don't know if it's accessible to anyone outside the Judge Program.
May 14, 2017 11:15 p.m.
I don't know who anyone is Neotrup, but Rhadamanthus's answer seems like the answer to mark based on the stated the credentials. The card is much less interesting to me now, but I suppose that'd explain why it's less than a buck. I'd have to cast it after a Blasphemous Act or something to really behold its power.
Thanks all ;)