Where's a Judge? Deathtouch/Trample VS Indestructible
General forum
Posted on Oct. 29, 2013, 2:08 a.m. by HeroFallenVillain
OK, so this started in another thread, but it was closed and I think this needs some light shed on it...
The scenario is as follows...
Say creature-A is a 5/5 creature with DT & Trample and is blocked by creature-B, a 3/3 Indestructible. Does creature-A have to assign 3 points before trampling the remaining 2 damage?
I have been scouring the net and have found a few things, but have not definitively answered this...
~Point 1 - DT WILL assign redundant "lethal damage"
~Point 2 - Indestructible "ignores" "lethal damage" (700.4)
~Point 3 - I cannot find anywhere in the official rules where it says DT only has to assign 1 damage to each creature before selecting new targets!
I believe this is a misconception... due to the practical use of DT, people say you only have to assign one damage... reinforced by the argument that "lethal damage" IS dealt. However, this seems to me to revolve around the fact that the blocking creature IS destroyed! In the case of Indestructible, it is NOT!
Can anyone link me to where it says officially that DT only has to assign one point of damage before moving to the next source? Thanx
The relevant rules entries are as follows:
702.19b The controller of an attacking creature with trample 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.
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 creatures toughness.
The two rules will both apply at the same time; trample requires lethal damage to be assigned before assigned additional damage to the defending player or planeswalker, and deathtouch makes any nonzero damage lethal damage. You may assign 1 or more damage to any creature(s) blocking an attacking creature with deathtouch and trample to satisfy the lethal damage requirement when assigning damage for trample, then assign damage equal to the remaining power of the attacker to the player or planeswalker. You may also assign the remaining damage to the blocking creatures if you so choose; trample doesn't require that you trample over to the player, it simply allows it.
In your example, the 5/5 deathtouch trample attacker may assign 1 damage to the indestructible blocker and 4 damage to the defending player or planeswalker being attacked. Both creatures will survive.
October 29, 2013 2:25 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
A couple things to start:
- Questions like this should be asked in the Q&A. The Q&A handles all questions about game rules.
- I don't know what other thread you started. I don't think I deleted anything in the past day or so.
- You don't need a judge to answer this question. We have plenty of knowledgeable rules advisers and regular players who can answer your rules questions and cite the rulings to support their statements.
- Deathtouch doesn't target anything.
- Your understanding of deathtouch is wrong
When you assign combat damage from an attacker with trample, you need to assign at least lethal damage to each creature in the blocking order before you can assign remaining damage to the defending player or planeswalker. You take into account any effects that modify the damage itself (e.g. deathtouch), but not any effects that modify the outcome of damage (e.g. damage-doubling effects, indestructible, protection, etc.).
Specifically, indestructible and protection have no impact on the assignment of combat damage. They only affect the result of combat damage.
Deathtouch damage, by definition, is considered lethal as long as you deal at least 1 damage to a creature.
Therefore, when you assign combat damage from a creature with both deathtouch and trample, you only need to assign 1 damage to each blocker. 1 damage from a source with deathtouch is considered lethal. The outcome of the damage is irrelevant to damage assignment.
CR quotes:
702.19b The controller of an attacking creature with trample 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. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures thats being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage thats actually dealt. The attacking creatures controller need not assign lethal damage to all those blocking creatures but in that case cant assign any damage to the player or planeswalker its attacking.
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 creatures toughness. See rules 510.1c-d.
October 29, 2013 2:28 a.m.
MagnorCriol says... #5
herofallenvillain, the other thread wasn't closed. I just answered you there with relevant rules links.
October 29, 2013 2:46 a.m.
MagnorCriol says... #6
It also occurs to me, based on your wording here, that you may be operating under the misconception that damage assigned is the same as damage dealt.
You assign damage first, then damage is dealt. Trample couldn't work any other way - all damage in a step is dealt at the same time, so you have to assign all the relevant damage to the blocking creatures and to the player, then it's all dealt at the same time based on the damage assignments. You don't deal it to one creature, then deal it to another creature, and so on.
October 29, 2013 2:50 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #7
@Jimhawk - Thanx. That's the info I was missing by looking into DT. Seems like an abuse of wording IMO, but hey, rules are rules, huh? :P
@Epochalyptik - First, Sorry! I didn't mean to upset anyone.
- I scrolled up and down the forum page for about 5 mins trying to think of where to post this... I didn't realize Q&A wasn't IN the forums, which seems rather odd to me, again I'm sorry.
- I didn't start another thread. I said it started in another thread. I suppose it was answered, not closed. Sorry for wording it wrongly.
- It was just meant to call attention to the technicality of the question. I didn't mean to offend anyone or suggest I needed an answer from an actual judge.
- I didn't mean "target" as in the fine-print usage of the word, but rather a source to deal damage to (I hope that's not an improper usage again). :(
- Actually, I think I have a pretty good grasp on DT. I simply haven't been wording things properly. Again, sorry :(
Creature-A is an attacking 5/5 with DT. Defending player blocks with creature-B, a 3/3 Indestructible, and creature-C, a 2/2 Indestructible. I don't see in the rules where creature-A ONLY has to assign 1 damage to creature-B, 1 damage to creature-C and then can simply assign the remaining 3 damage to the player/planeswalker! In my understanding, the "lethal damage" is redundant (without trample's wording) and the 2 creatures could block all of the damage.
October 29, 2013 3:12 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #8
@MagnorCriol - OK, I don't understand why I'm being ripped up because I'm not wording everything properly. In my question, it doesn't matter when the damage is dealt. Nothing in my question involves timing.
To clarify, I started this because, as I tried to state, I felt that the other thread wasn't being looked at because it was listed as closed. Not to disrespect you, but I wanted another opinion and mainly something that stated that the one damage was all the needed to be dealt, which oddly enough, isn't related to DT. It's related to Trample lmao
I feel like I'm pissing everyone off, by trying to clarify a simple question, which Jimhawk did simply. Thanx again :P
October 29, 2013 3:20 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #9
@ MagnorCriol I just looked at the other thread and saw your post. You posted that @ 2:35am. I posted this @ about 2:10am
I wasn't trying to be rude. I wouldn't have posted this if I had saw your last post there.
October 29, 2013 3:27 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
@herofallenvillain: Nobody is lambasting you for being technically incorrect. We're pointing out technical errors in your phrasing because Magic is an incredibly complex game, and the technical details make a great difference in how some scenarios are handled.
In regards to post #6, the scenario you gave is incorrect.
There is no one rule that says such; rather, you arrive at the conclusion by referencing various rules in various locations. As several of us pointed out, the relevant rules in this scenario are 702.2b and 702.19b.
702.2b states that any amount of damage dealt to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered lethal damage.
702.19b states that an attacking creature with trample must assign lethal damage to each creature blocking it before it can assign any combat damage to the defending player or planeswalker.
By combining these rules, we arrive at the following conclusion:
An attacking creature with deathtouch and trample will only ever need to assign 1 damage to each of its blockers before it can assign damage to the defending creature or planeswalker.
October 29, 2013 3:34 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
Also, you can always ask another question in the Q&A if you want something clarified.
The Q&A doesn't work quite like a normal forum. Users can still respond to an original post (in this case, the question), but the Q&A divides posts into active and answered categories. Active questions have not yet been fully answered. Answered questions are considered inactive because they have been sufficiently addressed.
There is rarely activity on answered questions because users normally only check active questions (the ones that still need to be addressed). Therefore, you are far less likely to get a response posting to an old question than you are posting a new question.
October 29, 2013 3:39 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #12
OK, I'm getting frustrated. I had read all these rules except 702.19b. Which is the answer to my original question (where it shows you only have to assign 1 damage). I honestly didn't expect the fine-print about DT usage to come from Trample lmao. The rest I have read, in depth.
ALL of these answers came at the same time! After I asked here. I wasn't ignoring anyone. I'm not being stubborn. Jimhawk was first (that I saw) to answer me and I thanked him and went on to clarify...
I believe you are reading my post #6 incorrectly. Due to the information given, I removed trample from the equation... because, in root, my question is about Deathtouch and the belief that you only have to assign 1 damage. Which, in fact, comes from using DT against a creature that it can kill (indirectly) or coupled with Trample (directly).
October 29, 2013 3:48 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #13
@Epochalyptik on post #10 - That's exactly why I thought it would be wiser and faster to post an un-answered thread. Plus the whole topic wasn't the same as the OP topic lmao. Like I said, I just didn't realize that Q&A wasn't IN the forum. Seems to me it would be. I was just talking to you the other day on this same sort of subject.
Again, I apologize. I know now. It won't happen again.
October 29, 2013 3:52 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #14
Can anyone verify this for me?
Note that there is no Trample in this scenario.
Creature-A is an attacking 5/5 with Deathtouch. Defending player blocks with creature-B, a 3/3 Indestructible, and creature-C, a 2/2 Indestructible. I don't see in the rules where creature-A ONLY has to assign 1 damage to creature-B, 1 damage to creature-C and then can simply assign the remaining 3 damage to the player/planeswalker! In my understanding, the "lethal damage" is redundant (without trample's wording) and the 2 creatures could block all of the damage.
Like I said, this is the root of my question... aside from Trample rules being mixed in... where does it say DT ONLY has to assign 1 damage per creature.
October 29, 2013 3:57 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
Again, there is no one rule that says a creature with deathtouch only needs to assign 1 damage to each of its blocking/blocked creatures in combat. Instead, you reach that conclusion by combining rules.
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 creatures toughness. See rules 510.1c-d.
510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. If exactly one creature is blocking it, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature. If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. This may allow the blocked creature to divide its combat damage. However, it can't assign combat damage to a creature that's blocking it unless, when combat damage assignments are complete, each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that's being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that's actually dealt. An amount of damage that's greater than a creature's lethal damage may be assigned to it.
In order for an attacking creature to assign damage to one of its blockers, each blocker before that blocker in the damage assignment order must have already been assigned lethal damage. Because any amount of deathtouch damage is considered lethal, a creature with deathtouch only needs to assign 1 damage to each of its blockers.
October 29, 2013 4:09 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #16
OK, I'd simply like to point out that no one has posted 510.1c in either thread, as I thank you for your help and apologize for the confusion.
Then I'll add that IMO that's an abuse of wording. Someone should clarify and preferably rename one of the uses of "lethal damage" as it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever to assign "lethal damage" to an indestructible. Furthermore, compounding the issue that it wouldn't kill the indestructible.
How does a source deal "lethal damage" to an indestructible source, get around it and not kill it? Here I was praising Magic for being so logical... o.O
Finally, if I may bother you with another question regarding...
"700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects cant destroy it. (See rule 701.6, Destroy.) Such permanents are not destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the lethal-damage state-based action (see rule 704.5g). Rules or effects may cause an indestructible permanent to be sacrificed, put into a graveyard, or exiled."
Can you explain to me what "they ignore the lethal-damage state-based action" means? "Ignore" seems like such a powerful word lmao but the state-based action thing gets me O.o
October 29, 2013 4:35 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #17
From what I'm reading, Indestructible "ignores" the state-based action of ever taking "lethal damage". Would that not mean that essentially, an indestructible ignores anything trying to place lethal damage upon it? State-based actions are instant and don't go on stack, so at no point at all would an indestructible have a "Lethal-damage State-based action" placed on it?
This would confirm everything I've been saying... or am I misunderstanding the phrase?
October 29, 2013 4:43 a.m.
MagnorCriol says... #18
This is going to be a bit circular, but one of the game's handful of state-based actions is destroying any creature that has lethal damage marked on it. Indestructible means it gets to not be destroyed by that action. It's really just that simple: when that specific state-based action comes knockin', the Indestructible permanent gets to flash the game a shiny badge and say "Nah, bro, I'm cool," and the game lets it stay.
That's why the damage assignment has no involvement in whether or not a creature is Indestructible. As far as the damage is concerned, everything is exactly the same as if it were on a normal creature. Indestructible simply changes the permanent's involvement in something that happens later as a result of that damage.
October 29, 2013 4:48 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
@herofallenvillain: Everything comes down to a technical understanding of the rules.
Damage is not a state-based action. Nothing is ever dealt damage as an SBA. Rather, the SBA in question here is the one that destroys a creature that has lethal damage marked on it.
Indestructible ignores this SBA. Because an indestructible permanent cannot be destroyed, it has to ignore the SBA that would destroy a creature for having lethal damage marked on it.
As for the wording issue regarding "lethal damage" and indestructible creatures, there are bound to be some problems. Magic is, as I said, an incredibly complex game. Lethal damage is perhaps the easiest phrase with which to define the concept in question. Perhaps it's easiest to think of damage assignment this way: you need to assign enough damage so that if that damage were to be dealt under normal circumstances, it would be lethal. Indestructible is meant specifically to counteract lethal damage and destroy effects. Therefore, it makes sense that there's a conflict there.
October 29, 2013 4:50 a.m.
MagnorCriol says... #20
119.5 - "Damage dealt to a creature or planeswalker doesn't destroy it. Likewise, the source of that damage doesn't destroy it. Rather, state-based actions may destroy a creature or planeswalker, or otherwise put it into its owner's graveyard, due to the results of the damage dealt to that permanent. See rule 704."
(704 is a list of state-based actions.)
This is probably now the crux of the understanding issue here. Creatures can have damage marked on them all day long, but that's not what destroys them. It's the state-based action that does. So the ordinary 5/5 creature can get 900 damage marked on it, then when state-based actions happen it'll get destroyed; but that same 5/5 made Indestructible gets to ignore that specific state-based action so nothing happens.
This delineates, once again, that there's a difference between assigning the damage and the result of the damage. They're separate things, and the creature assigning the damage not only doesn't care about the later results, he actually can't care about them - in order for the game to "look ahead" and see what the result would be, you'd have to begin to calculate results and perform SBAs, which in turn implies that you've assigned damage already. Paradox!
October 29, 2013 5:02 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #21
OK, I can see that fitting the wording... it "ignores" it, but doesn't "prevent" it. So it would be there, it would simply "shine it's badge" :P lmao
So, IMO they should simply reword it to...
"700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects cant destroy it. (See rule 701.6, Destroy.) Such permanents prevent lethal damage (see rule 704.5g). Rules or effects may cause an indestructible permanent to be sacrificed, put into a graveyard, or exiled."
I feel that would represent Indestructible much better :P But heh, again, I don't make the rules lmao Thanx again for the help fellas. I feel wiser now lmao
October 29, 2013 5:03 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #23
@herofallenvillain: Well, damage prevention is another beast entirely. "Preventing damage" is a specific thing in Magic, and indestructible doesn't prevent the damage. In fact, 704 specifically avoids using the word "prevent" for exactly that reason. Also, using "aren't affected" is basically the same as saying "can't," which is what the current iteration of 704 uses.
October 29, 2013 5:12 a.m.
MagnorCriol says... #24
I get where you're coming from flavor-wise, but that still wouldn't work rules-wise. "Prevent", again, is a very rules-laden term (for a lot of the same reasons as we've been discussing here, actually) and strapping a prevention effect into all of this would only make things even more complicated!
Think of it like Superman. Superman can still be hit by all manner of things, he simply doesn't take any of the effects from those things us normal humans would (the omnipresent, supposedly-rare kryptonite notwithstanding). Swing a wrecking ball into him? You'll connect, you might even send him reeling backwards, but you won't break his bones. Shoot him with a ray gun? You'll singe his clothes but not his skin. That's indestructible. The Darksteel Myr still gets punched by the Kalonian Hydra , but he's not destroyed by it. It did, however, make the wurm waste a little bit of its attention on it, resulting in a slightly weaker punch past it.
October 29, 2013 5:15 a.m.
HeroFallenVillain says... #25
I hear ya :P
I figured that would be a bit much, that's why I tried again. Easy to talk schit when it's not my job, right? lmao o.O
Well, next time I have a question, Imma bug you two instead of starting a thread in the standard forum lmao ;)
October 29, 2013 5:37 a.m.
But the term "Prevent" is actually a more powerful word that Ignore.
Maybe you'd like Indestructible creatures to be able to be dealt an infinite amount of damage without it counting as lethal damage for the purposes of trample, but that would have a -very- unbalancing effect on the game.
The real trick here is that you've been conflating assigning damage with being dealt damage. It is very important for the function of a ton of cards that have neither trample nor indestructible that the damage still be dealt, and just ignoring the destroy effect that comes from what would otherwise be lethal damage.
October 29, 2013 7:29 a.m.
Also, if you have a question, you should post it in the Q&A rather than "bug them" about it. They are both exactly as capable of helping you in the proper place as helping you if you go post to their wall, and additionally, if they aren't around at the time you ask, plenty of other people who know the rules of the game are available to respond in Q&A.
Posting it to Q&A also means that the rest of the site's users who might have that question in the future can see it being answered and be educated thereby as well.
October 29, 2013 7:31 a.m.
PixelBrady says... #28
I think the problem comes from reading the indestructible rule. Indestructible doesn't "ignore lethal damage" (thus ignoring the DT and needing the trampler to assign all damage), it simple lets the Indestructible creature to ignore being killed by the DT, that's all.
The DT can assign the 1 damage (which, during damage step, turns into "lethal damage" which would be damage enough to kill them) then trample over onto the next blocker (which would also be 1 with DT) then trample the rest onto player/planeswalker.
It's the exact same as non-indestructible creatures...except that the indestructible one shrugs off the whole "getting killed" thing and just sticks around afterwards instead.
October 29, 2013 8:18 a.m.
It can be very important to understand that the Indestructible creature still takes the damage, even though it does not die from it.
For example: A 3/3 Indestructible creature takes 1 point of Deathtouch damage. -> it does not die because it is Indestructible... Later in the same turn, someone uses the Turn side of Turn / Burn on the same creature. -> it becomes a 0/1 and loses it's abilities (Including Indestructible). -> Because it has already taken a point of Deathtouch damage, and is no longer Indestructible, when state based effects check it's status it is placed in the graveyard.
If you were to think that Indestructible causes lethal damage to be prevented, the creature would survive... but this is not the case.
October 29, 2013 8:58 a.m.
It's all good dude, we all have rules we think need to be reworded... hell I still think its ridiculous that you can have the extort ability used in non white or black edh decks simply because of the placement of parenthesis, you either allow permanents with abilities congruent to your commanders color identity or you don't. Sorry, different rant for a different day but again a dispute wth the word ignore. My point is just not to feel bad or putoff for misunderstanding a rule, while some of us may be rough around the edges when trying to explain things... most of us here on t/o are usually more than happy to help :)
Slycne says... #2
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 creatures toughness. See rules 510.1c-d.
702.12b A permanent with indestructible cant be destroyed. Such permanents arent destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
So a deathtouch trampler is allowed to assign what it believes to be leathal damage to the creature, which is 1, and trample over the rest. The indestructible creature gets to ignore the state-based action that would normally remove it from the field in this situation.
October 29, 2013 2:18 a.m.