Login

Username:


Password:


Remember me



Forgot Password?




 Merchandise




FREE Magic The Gathering Deck (UK & RoI only sorry)

For discussion of Magic the Gathering

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:04 am

tonight we started using the Green 10th ed theme deck - Molimo's Might- against the white theme deck - Cho-Manno's Resolve- and i have a question that i hope you can help with.

I was attacking with several creatures with Trample, while Kate's defenders included Cho-Manno, Revolutionary himself, who has the rule:
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to Cho-Manno, Revolutionary.


the Basic Rulebooksays:
Trample
A keyword ability seen on creatures. Trample is an ability that lets a creature deal excess damage to the defending player even
if it’s blocked. When a creature with trample is blocked, you have to deal at least enough of its combat damage to the creatures
blocking it to destroy all those creatures. But if each creature is assigned damage at least equal to its toughness, then you can
assign any of its damage that’s left over to the defending player.


the Comprehensive Rules say:
502.9b The controller of an attacking creature with trample first assigns damage to the creature(s) blocking it. If 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 on the creature and damage from other creatures that will be assigned at the same time (see rule 502.9e). The controller need not assign lethal damage to all those blocking creatures but in that case can’t assign any damage to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking.


502.9d Assigning damage from a creature with trample considers only the actual toughness of a blocking creature, not any abilities or effects that might change the final amount of damage dealt.
Example: A 6/6 green creature with trample is blocked by a 2/2 creature with protection from green. The attacking creature’s controller must assign at least 2 damage to the blocker, even though that damage will be prevented by the blocker’s protection ability. The attacking creature’s controller can then choose to assign the rest of the damage to the defending player.


212.3g Damage dealt to a creature stays on that creature. If the total accumulated damage on that creature is equal to or greater than its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based effect (see rule 420.5c). All damage on a creature is removed when it regenerates (see rule 501.5, "Regenerate") and during the cleanup step (see rule 314.2).


Lethal Damage
Lethal damage is an amount of damage greater than or equal to a creature’s toughness.


so, based on all that^, how should it be resolved? :?:

lets say Cho-Manno, a 2/2 blocks a 5/5 with Trample.
i assign "lethal damage" (i.e. 2, as this is equal to his Toughness), and the rest (i.e. 3) is taken by his controlling player - despite the fact that the damage Cho-Manno takes will be prevented?
or does he take all 5 damage, as it is impossible to assign enough damage to him to kill him, so i will never have any damage left over to be assigned to his controller?

at the time we only had the basic rules to hand, and we decided that he effectively absorbed all the damage from a single attacker when blocking. however, looking at the more detailed rules, it does seem that this was incorrect. thoughts? :?:

cheers in advance :)

~ Tim
p.s. as an aside, i had discovered a nice combo with this Green deck:
as first, Stampeding Wildebeests rule ("At the beginning of your upkeep, return a green creature you control to its owner's hand.") seemed like a downside. however, combined with Civic Wayfinder& Kavu Climber, i was able to ransack my library at an alarming pace. this meant that Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer grew very quickly, as did my creatures enchanted with Blanchwood Armor. this method also got me the card that won me the game: Overrun. :twisted:
actually, i have a question about the Wildebeests, but that can wait for now...
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby Culven » Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:53 pm

You assign damage equal to Cho-Manno's toughness, the rest tramples over to the player. It doesn't matter that Cho-Manno ignores the damage. Think of Cho-Manno as having "Protection from damage", then apply the rulings for Protection.
Culven
Commander, Catachan XIII "Black Cats"
Pray that a Black Cat never crosses your path.
User avatar
Culven
Junior Officer
Junior Officer
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:00 am
Location: At a desk working on one of too many projects.

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:03 pm

thought so, cheers mate. Kates not too pleased, but thems the breaks. :P

as to Stampeding Wildebeests, here is my next question:

At the beginning of your upkeep, return a green creature you control to its owner's hand.


what about Creature tokens? they are creatures - they just dont go to the graveyard when destroyed. could i chose to just remove one from play instead of putting a Green creature card back in my hand?

cheers :)

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby Culven » Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:48 am

As you say, they are creatures, so yes, the Wildebeests can return them to your hand. They just cease to exist as soon as they get there.
Culven
Commander, Catachan XIII "Black Cats"
Pray that a Black Cat never crosses your path.
User avatar
Culven
Junior Officer
Junior Officer
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:00 am
Location: At a desk working on one of too many projects.

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:19 pm

Culven wrote:As you say, they are creatures, so yes, the Wildebeests can return them to your hand. They just cease to exist as soon as they get there.

cool, cheers mate! :)
(it doesnt matter in the 10th ed themedeck games, but when i put the card into my proper Green deck it will matter, as that one is teeming with creatute tokens :twisted:)

are you thinking of downloading MTG Online to join in the free trial area? Dan and I have had some great games. :D

~ Tim
Last edited by LordMalekTheRedKnight on Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:15 am

a question just came up while Kate and I were using the Jace vs Chandra Dueldecks, and i was hoping someone could help. :)

Kate had Guile in play. one of its rules says:

If a spell or ability you control would counter a spell, instead remove that spell from the game and you may play that card without paying its mana cost.


im a little confused as to how a spell can be removed from play whilst the card it is written on gets played, potentially staying in the game. :?

for example, if i played a Creature spell, and Kate countered it, what happens?

does she get to put the Creature into play under her control? if so, how can anything be removed from the game? :?:

we played it that she could, but it ended up being very powerful - with lots of counter spells and abilities, this meant that she could steal my creatures and enchantments, and even Chandra herself. 8O

could someone confirm whether or not we were playing this correctly? or should the cards have been removed after they were played (allowing one off effects and abilities to be resolved, but not for creatures, planeswalkers or enchantments etc to stay in play under her control after that point)?

many thanks in advance for any help :)

~ Tim
EDIT: just thought of something:
can the spell exist on the stack independantly of the card itself existing in the game? so the spell can cease to exist and therefore never get resolved, but the card is still in the game, and can therefore be played? :?:

and a related question: Kate can "play that card without paying its mana cost" - but what about variable mana costs (that include "(x)" for example)?
and what if the card has different options as to how it can be played?
does the amount of Mana i payed or the choices i made have any impact on how Kate can play the card?
if not, what limits things like what value is placed on "(x)"?
or is it, that since she never payed its mana cost, then no cost was payed, so "(x)" = 0?
what about aditional costs, like Fireball?
can Kate choose to pay to split the damage between multiple targets? :?:
Last edited by LordMalekTheRedKnight on Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby Culven » Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:38 pm

IIRC, the cards themselves are: cards when in the library, hand, or graveyard, spells when cast, and permanents when in play.

Something else to consider is that guile's ability states that they may be played, but I do not believe it overrides the limit of only being able to play Instants during another player's turn. So, Kate wouldn't be able to play enchantments, artifacts, creatures, planeswalkers, etc.

As for X, it would be 0, just like when determining the converted mana cost. Any costs in the text of the card cannot be played. Options in the text can be selected as normal.

Finally, I believe the spell is removed from play. Guile's controller can choose to play these removed cards as though they were in the player's hand. You may wish to check Gatherer to see if there is a clarification.
Culven
Commander, Catachan XIII "Black Cats"
Pray that a Black Cat never crosses your path.
User avatar
Culven
Junior Officer
Junior Officer
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:00 am
Location: At a desk working on one of too many projects.

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:35 am

cheers mate. :)

i have another question. im using my Red deck. i have a (Red & White) Creature in play (Hobgoblin Dragoon), that has both Double Strike (due to Double Cleave) and Lifelink (due to Scourge of the Nobilis). lets say my Power and Toughness are 5/4.

Kate blocks with a single 4/4 (Flying) Creature, that has no relevant special rules or abilities.

its clear that i will deal 5 damage at the First Strike Combat Damage Step, gaining me 5 Life and killing Kate's Blocker before it has a chance to kill my Attacker.

however, what happens at the normal Combat Damage Step?
1. i am no longer being blocked, so i deal 5 Damage to Kate and gain 5 Life in the process
2. i was Blocked during the Declare Blockers step, so cannot deal any Damage to Kate, plus:
2.a. i deal 5 damage despite not having a Blocker to deal it to, so still gain 5 Life
2.b. i deal no damage as i have no Blockers to deal it to, so do not gain 5 Life
:?:

to err on the side of caution we played it safe and went with 2.a., but i would like to know if we were correct (weve not really used Double Strike before, especially not with Lifelink).

now, as long as the combined Toughness of all Blockers (either one big one or several smaller ones) was greater than 5, i assume i would have been able to deal 5 Damage at each Combat Damage Step, and gain a total of 10 Life in the process. its just because i was Blocked but there were no Blockers left for me to attack that is caused confusion.

i suppose the same thing could happen if a spell or ability killed a Creature after it declared it was Blocking an attacker with Lifelink but before the start of the Combat Damage Step - what happens to the damage that would normally be dealt by that creature? :?

cheers in advance for any help :)

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby estarriol » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:30 am

I would say you do the first strike damge only, as you are blocked, to carry further damage over you would need trample. The second attack I read as being against the same target as the first attack, which has already died.
--
estarriol

See my buildings at: www.templebuilder.wordpress.com

Home of 6mm Miniatures and offbeat 28mm Fantasy goodness: www.rapierminiatures.co.uk
User avatar
estarriol
Mad Dok
Mad Dok
 
Posts: 1145
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Cave in Sheffield.
Blog: View Blog (2)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:31 pm

estarriol wrote:I would say you do the first strike damge only, as you are blocked, to carry further damage over you would need trample. The second attack I read as being against the same target as the first attack, which has already died.

i agree that no Damage can be done to the player, since the Attacker was Blocked (and as you said, doesnt have Trample).

if no Damage can be done at the normal Combat Damage Step though then wouldnt this mean, by the same logic, that you could prevent your opponent from gaining Life via Lifelink by Blocking his Attacker but then destroying/sacrificing your Blocker before the Combat Damage Step?

for example, block with Bottlegnomes and sacrifice them straight away. or play an Instant to do damage to your own Blocker (Shock etc).

is this a valid and recognised tactic? :?:

cheers :)

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby estarriol » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:00 pm

The blocker has to be alive when the first strike hits (to block obviously). I would say that lifelink gives you the life from the first strike damage, but as the blocker is dead for the second attack from double cleave, maybe you should be able to hit the player as there is no blocker. I think this might need a look in the Wizards FAQ zone, or asking there.
--
estarriol

See my buildings at: www.templebuilder.wordpress.com

Home of 6mm Miniatures and offbeat 28mm Fantasy goodness: www.rapierminiatures.co.uk
User avatar
estarriol
Mad Dok
Mad Dok
 
Posts: 1145
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Cave in Sheffield.
Blog: View Blog (2)

Postby Culven » Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:23 pm

With the Double Strike damage, the blocking creature would take the First Strike damage, and be removed. Then during the normal damage step, there is no creature to deal damage to, as it has already been removed. However, the attacking creature was already blocked, so it wouldn't deal damage to anything.

With the Bottle Gnome example, yes, it is possible to block an attacking creature and they remove the blocker after the Declare Blockers step. This will leave the attacker blocked, but with nothing to deal damage to.
Culven
Commander, Catachan XIII "Black Cats"
Pray that a Black Cat never crosses your path.
User avatar
Culven
Junior Officer
Junior Officer
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:00 am
Location: At a desk working on one of too many projects.

Previous



Return to Magic the Gathering




 Social Links