Trample and damage prevention
Laurie Cheers
>
> After reading the general rulings summary, I have a question about
> Trample and damage prevention. Am I right in believing that, with
> regard to assinging Trample damage, there is a difference between
> "blocking creature cannot be assigned damage" and "all damage assigned
> to blocking creature is reduced to 0"?
Yes, there would be... if there were any cards that still said either of
these things.
> In the first case, the trampler completely ignores the blocker, while
> in the second case, it must assign damage equal to the blocking
> creature's toughness before putting any damage through onto the
> player. How can I tell the difference between the first case and the
> second?
All abilities of this sort (for example, both Gaseous Form and
Protection From X) now say they "prevent" the damage.
They work the same way- the second of the two that you offer.
> For example:
>
> Prot. green is the second case, so a green trampler must still try to
> kill my prot. green blocker.
Yes.
> What about Inviolability? It reads "prevent all damage...", which
> seems to fall under the second case as well.
Yes.
> What about the blue enchantment that is similar to Inviolability,
> whose name I can't remember right now?
That's the second case as well.
> In fact, I can't think of a case where a creature cannot be assigned
> damage, only cases where it's reduced to zero. Maybe I don't
> understand this as fully as I want to.
The only cards that used to say a creature "cannot be assigned damage"
were Fog Bank and Gaseous Form. They've been changed so that they
prevent the damage, just like everything else.
--
Laurie Cheers (lrc...@york.ac.uk)
Only fools can't see
the emperor's new .sig:
Joshua Bardwell
damage prevention. Am I right in believing that, with regard to assinging
Trample damage, there is a difference between "blocking creature cannot be
assigned damage" and "all damage assigned to blocking creature is reduced to
the second case, it must assign damage equal to the blocking creature's
toughness before putting any damage through onto the player. How can I tell
the difference between the first case and the second?
For example:
Prot. green is the second case, so a green trampler must still try to kill my
prot. green blocker.
What about Inviolability? It reads "prevent all damage...", which seems to
fall under the second case as well.
What about the blue enchantment that is similar to Inviolability, whose name I
can't remember right now?
In fact, I can't think of a case where a creature cannot be assigned damage,
only cases where it's reduced to zero. Maybe I don't understand this as fully
as I want to.
Please help!
:-)
J
Joshua Bardwell
>The only cards that used to say a creature "cannot be assigned damage"
>were Fog Bank and Gaseous Form. They've been changed so that they
>prevent the damage, just like everything else.
So, just to clarify and make sure I totally understand: this whole issue with
damage prevention making my creatures useless as blockers against tramplers is
a figment of my imagination, at least under 6th Edition rules.
Thanks ;-)
J
David Weinlick
They're not useless, but trampling creatures may be able to assign some damage to
you. An attacking player must assign "lethal damage" to a blocking creature,
even if that damage will subsequently be prevented. Lethal damage is equal to or
greater than a creature's toughness (minus any damage already dealt this turn).
--
David Weinlick
<da...@tcinternet.net>--<fus...@tcinternet.net>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2383/
David DeLaney
>After reading the general rulings summary, I have a question about Trample and
>damage prevention. Am I right in believing that, with regard to assinging
>Trample damage, there is a difference between "blocking creature cannot be
>assigned damage" and "all damage assigned to blocking creature is reduced to
>0"?
There is BUT:
(and this is a very -large- BUT)
No effect currently in the game says a creature 'can't be assigned damage'.
When the Urza's Saga rules sheets came out, 5E wordings were still in
effect, and the Gaseous Form wording there said this... and interacted
with Trample by the Gaseous Form-ed blocker being ignored totally. Gaseous
Form -now- says "Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to or dealt
by enchanted creature" ... so the Trampling attacker now has to assign
some combat damage to it, which will end up prevented.
> In the first case, the trampler completely ignores the blocker, while in
>the second case, it must assign damage equal to the blocking creature's
>toughness before putting any damage through onto the player. How can I tell
>the difference between the first case and the second?
It's fairly easy right now; nothing currently in the game -uses- the first
case, under 6th Edition Oracle wordings.
>Prot. green is the second case, so a green trampler must still try to kill my
>prot. green blocker.
Correct.
>What about Inviolability? It reads "prevent all damage...", which seems to
>fall under the second case as well.
Correct. In addition to the above note, pretty much all of the old "reduce
this damage to 0" wordings are now "prevent this damage"; the same rules
apply to both.
>In fact, I can't think of a case where a creature cannot be assigned damage,
>only cases where it's reduced to zero. Maybe I don't understand this as fully
>as I want to.
The key here is that the "can't be assigned damage" wording has been pretty
much Removed From The Game, so to speak... you're correct that you can't think
of any, because they aren't there any more. (And yes, this is confusing,
and is one of the things I'm noting to Stephen on my current read-through of
the General Rulings file...)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.