Questions about Banding and Trample

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
1) If I band Mesa Pegasus with Razorfoot Griffin, do they both have first strike? Same applies to trample, flying, etc.

2) IIRC, when the attacker assigns damage with a Trample-enabled creature, s/he may choose to assign more than lethal damage to the creature (for example, assigning an extra three damage to ensure that pesky creature dies, even if Giant Growthed).  If this is so, is the reverse also true for a defender with banded creatures?  Could s/he assign less than lethal damage to the creatures and take more him/herself in order to ensure a particular creature (or more) survived?

2b) Just thought of this one: If I'm playing against a Ninja deck, can I block a trampling creature with a band, and then allow all the damage to hit me - just to avoid Ninjutsu?
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
Ugh, Banding.  I'm not sure about this but I'll take a stab at it since nobody else is here yet.

As far as I can tell, Banding just changes who gets to assign the damage, it doesn't change the rules for how that damage can be assigned.

Actually there is this in the rulings for Mesa Pegasus:
"If a creature in combat has banding, it's controller assigns damage for creatures blocking or blocked by it. That player can ignore the damage assignment order when making this assignment."

Now this just says that you can ignore the the assignment order.  I'm very inclined to say that lethal damage must still be assigned to all blocking creatures before any can be assigned to the defending player.
1) If I band Mesa Pegasus with Razorfoot Griffin, do they both have first strike? Same applies to trample, flying, etc.


No.
702.19g Banding doesn't cause attacking creatures to share abilities, nor does it remove any abilities. The attacking creatures in a band are separate permanents.


2) IIRC, when the attacker assigns damage with a Trample-enabled creature, s/he may choose to assign more than lethal damage to the creature (for example, assigning an extra three damage to ensure that pesky creature dies, even if Giant Growthed).  If this is so, is the reverse also true for a defender with banded creatures?  Could s/he assign less than lethal damage to the creatures and take more him/herself in order to ensure a particular creature (or more) survived?


No.  But the defending player in that case can simply assign all the damage to one or more blocking creatures that they are willing to lose.
702.17b 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 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. The attacking creature's 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.
Example: A 2/2 creature with an ability that enables it to block multiple attackers blocks two attackers: a 1/1 with no abilities a 3/3 with trample. The active player could assign 1 damage from the first attacker and 1 damage from the second to the blocking creature, and 2 damage to the defending player from the creature with trample.
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 divide the rest of the damage as he or she chooses between the blocking creature and the defending player.




No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
Just to make sure I have this right:

Player A attacks with Darksteel Colossus.
Player B blocks with Mesa Pegasus/Razorfoot Griffin band.

Player B can assign ALL damage to Razorfoot Griffin?!
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
Yes they can. Trample is optional: you don't have to assign the extra damage to the defending player if you don't want to. If the player with the banding creature wants, they can have the trampler assign all of its damage to one of the defending creatures and not take any trample damage.

Wizards.Com Boards Net Rep

DCI Level 2 Judge

Questions don't have to make sense, but answers do.

If you are attacking with a band, do all creatures in the band deal combat damage to the blocking creature?
If yes, and you have a creature with trample in your band, and the blocking creature blocks the creature with trample, do you have to assign lethal damage to the blocking creature with the trample creature, or can you assign lethal damage to the blocking creature with other creatures, allowing all the trample damage to be assigned to the defending player? (I understand if the blocking creature has banding it is a moot point)

Above Argus quotes rule 702.17b, which says "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."

So when assigning damage, any damage the trampler does can go on to the player, as long as between it and other creatures there is enough damage assigned to the blocker to be considered lethal. 

If you are attacking with a band, do all creatures in the band deal combat damage to the blocking creature?

If they don't have trample, yes, they must. If some have trample, they may not deal damage to the blocking creature, depending on the power and toughness of the creatures involved
If yes, and you have a creature with trample in your band, and the blocking creature blocks the creature with trample, do you have to assign lethal damage to the blocking creature with the trample creature, or can you assign lethal damage to the blocking creature with other creatures, allowing all the trample damage to be assigned to the defending player? (I understand if the blocking creature has banding it is a moot point)

As long as lethal damage is assigned to the blocking creature by an attacker or by some combination of attackers, the trampler can deal damage to the defending player.

For example, i attack with a 1/1 creature, a 2/2 creature and a 5/5 trampler, all in a band. My opponent blocks with a 4/4 creature. I can choose to assign the 1/1's damage to the 4/4, and the 2/2's damage to the 4/4, and split my trampler's damage 1 and 4 between the blocker and the defending player. If the blocker had been a 3/3, i could assign all 5 of the trampler's damage to the defending player.

I use banding quite a bit.


Normally, when blocking with more then one creature, the attacker decides what creature takes how much damage.  With banding, the defender gets the choice. You can assign all the damage to a single creature. You can only band one creature without banding in any given band.

A band only has a special quality (first strike, flying) only if all creatures in the band have that same quality. A mesa pegasus (1/1 flying, banding)   banded with a keljoran skycaptain (2/2 flying, banding, first strike) would retain flying, but lose first strike for example. on the flip side, a keljoran skycaptain banded with a white knight(2/1 first strike) would retain first strike, but lose flying. A mesa pegasus with a white knight and a glory seeker (2/2) would not retain banding with all three, unless either white knight or glory seeker gains banding somehow.

In regards to banding/ trample. Trample damage is decided normally.  If a rino (4/4 trample) Was blocked by a band of white knight/ mesa pegasus, and all damage was given to the pegasus, the player would still take 3 trample damage.

Just to make sure I have this right:

Player A attacks with Darksteel Colossus.
Player B blocks with Mesa Pegasus/Razorfoot Griffin band.

Player B can assign ALL damage to Razorfoot Griffin?!



In this example, if all the damage gets assigned to the Griffin, the griffin would die, and the player still takes 9 damage from trample.

If you are attacking with a band, do all creatures in the band deal combat damage to the blocking creature?
If yes, and you have a creature with trample in your band, and the blocking creature blocks the creature with trample, do you have to assign lethal damage to the blocking creature with the trample creature, or can you assign lethal damage to the blocking creature with other creatures, allowing all the trample damage to be assigned to the defending player? (I understand if the blocking creature has banding it is a moot point)



When attacking with a band, all the creatures in the band deal damage. A band is considered a single creature. You either block all of it, or none of it. If you attack, and one of the creatures in the band has trample, you lose trample for that battle. If both banded creatures have trample, trample danage is decided normally.

RPGtable username : RTiger
A band only has a special quality (first strike, flying) only if all creatures in the band have that same quality. A mesa pegasus (1/1 flying, banding)   banded with a keljoran skycaptain (2/2 flying, banding, first strike) would retain flying, but lose first strike for example. on the flip side, a keljoran skycaptain banded with a white knight(2/1 first strike) would retain first strike, but lose flying. A mesa pegasus with a white knight and a glory seeker (2/2) would not retain banding with all three, unless either white knight or glory seeker gains banding somehow.

Bands do not have abilities, creatures have abilities. Banding creatures together cannot cause them to gain abilities nor can it cause them to lose abilities. If you band a kjeldoran Skycaptain with a white knight, the skycaptain still has flying, first strike, and banding; and the white knight still has first strike and protection from black.
In regards to banding/ trample. Trample damage is decided normally.  If a rino (4/4 trample) Was blocked by a band of white knight/ mesa pegasus, and all damage was given to the pegasus, the player would still take 3 trample damage.
You are using rules for trample that are more than a decade old. The rules for trample were changed shortly before 6th edition was released. Under modern rules, damage is dealt the same way it is assigned, so if all of the damage is assigned to the pegasus, all of the damage is dealt to the pegasus.

If you wish to deal damage to the defending player with a trampler, you must assign damage to the defending player; and if you wish to assign damage to the defending player, you must first assign lethal damage to all blocking creatures.
In this example, if all the damage gets assigned to the Griffin, the griffin would die, and the player still takes 9 damage from trample.

Incorrect. If all of the damage is assigned to the griffin, then all of the damage is dealt to the griffin.
A band is considered a single creature.

No it isn't.
702.19g Banding doesn’t cause attacking creatures to share abilities, nor does it remove any abilities. The attacking creatures in a band are separate permanents.

A band only has a special quality (first strike, flying) only if all creatures in the band have that same quality. A mesa pegasus (1/1 flying, banding)   banded with a keljoran skycaptain (2/2 flying, banding, first strike) would retain flying, but lose first strike for example. on the flip side, a keljoran skycaptain banded with a white knight(2/1 first strike) would retain first strike, but lose flying. A mesa pegasus with a white knight and a glory seeker (2/2) would not retain banding with all three, unless either white knight or glory seeker gains banding somehow.

Bands do not have abilities, creatures have abilities. Banding creatures together cannot cause them to gain abilities nor can it cause them to lose abilities. If you band a kjeldoran Skycaptain with a white knight, the skycaptain still has flying, first strike, and banding; and the white knight still has first strike and protection from black.



That is true, but in the case of the skycaptain and white knight, the band would still deal damage first. (Unless the defender also has first strike) They are not sharing abilities. They all have the same ability.

However, a White knight banded with a skycaptain would not be able to block a flying creature.
If this band went against a black creature, you could just shift the damage to the knight to null it. Being banded with a knight doesnt give the skycaptain protection from black.

At the end of combat, the skycaptain is still banding/flying/first strike, and the knight is first strike/ protection from black. The abilitys don't change.



In regards to banding/ trample. Trample damage is decided normally.  If a rino (4/4 trample) Was blocked by a band of white knight/ mesa pegasus, and all damage was given to the pegasus, the player would still take 3 trample damage.
You are using rules for trample that are more than a decade old. The rules for trample were changed shortly before 6th edition was released. Under modern rules, damage is dealt the same way it is assigned, so if all of the damage is assigned to the pegasus, all of the damage is dealt to the pegasus.



702.17b 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 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. The attacking creature's 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.
Example: A 2/2 creature with an ability that enables it to block multiple attackers blocks two attackers: a 1/1 with no abilities a 3/3 with trample. The active player could assign 1 damage from the first attacker and 1 damage from the second to the blocking creature, and 2 damage to the defending player from the creature with trample.
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 divide the rest of the damage as he or she chooses between the blocking creature and the defending player.

Just because all the damage gets assigned to one creature doesnt change this rule. If all the damage gets assigned to one creature, all the damage above lethal is still considered trample damage.
RPGtable username : RTiger
However, a White knight banded with a skycaptain would not be able to block a flying creature.

You don't declare bands when blocking, so i'm not sure what you're getting at. 
702.17b 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 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. The attacking creature's 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.
Example: A 2/2 creature with an ability that enables it to block multiple attackers blocks two attackers: a 1/1 with no abilities a 3/3 with trample. The active player could assign 1 damage from the first attacker and 1 damage from the second to the blocking creature, and 2 damage to the defending player from the creature with trample.
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 divide the rest of the damage as he or she chooses between the blocking creature and the defending player.

Just because all the damage gets assigned to one creature doesnt change this rule.


That rule supports what I said, not what you said. It describes the process for assigning damage, and its description matches mine.
If you wish to deal damage to the defending player with a trampler, you must assign damage to the defending player; and if you wish to assign damage to the defending player, you must first assign lethal damage to all blocking creatures.

If all the damage gets assigned to one creature, all the damage above lethal is still considered trample damage.

Where do you see text that says something like "damage assigned to a creature that exceeds the creatures toughness is dealt to the defending player instead of to the creature it was assigned to"?

The old rules for trample were that you assigned all the damage to the creature, and then, when damage was being dealt, extra damage would find its way to the defending player. This was all well and good in the era of the Damage Prevention Step, but since they wanted to remove that, they altered the rules to use rule 702.17b which you quote above. With the new rules, trampling is done during the assignment of damage, not during the dealing of damage.
702.17b 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.

So in other words, if you assign all the damage from a 4/4 trample to a 1/1, even if you have banding, the player still takes 3 damage from trample. Either that, or trample completely cancels banding and lets the attacker reassign damage above lethal as he sees fit normally, depending how you read the rule.
RPGtable username : RTiger
702.17b 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.

So in other words, if you assign all the damage from a 4/4 trample to a 1/1, even if you have banding, the player still takes 3 damage from trample. Either that, or trample completely cancels banding and lets the attacker reassign damage above lethal as he sees fit normally, depending how you read the rule.


"other words" = "words other than those in the rule"

If you assign all the damage from a 4/4 trample to a 1/1, you deal all the damage from the 4/4 trample to the 1/1.  If you assign 1 damage to the 1/1 and 3 damage to the defending player, you deal 1 damage to the 1/1 and 3 damage to the defending player.  If you expect to deal it that way, you have to assign it that way.  That's what damage assignment is.
510.2. Second, all combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it's dealt. This is a change from previous rules.


No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
702.17b 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.

So in other words, if you assign all the damage from a 4/4 trample to a 1/1, even if you have banding, the player still takes 3 damage from trample.

You appear to be misreading the rule.  The rule does not say "any remaining damage is assigned to the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking", it says "any remaining damage is assigned as its controller chooses among those blocking creatures and the player or planeswalker the creature is attacking". The rule is giving the creature's controller the option to assign damage to the defending player, if you so desire. The rule does not specify that you have to assign damage to the defending player, nor does it specify that if you choose to assign the damage to the creatures the game will ignore your decision and deal the damage to the player/planeswalker despite your intentions.

So your saying banding completely nullifies trample?
RPGtable username : RTiger
So your saying banding completely nullifies trample?

Yes. Blocking creatures with banding effectively nullify trample on attacking creatures.
I still disagree, even if you are a rules advisor. Trample says that the player/plainswalker is a valid target when considering damage, and damage above lethal to blockers goes through. Banding or not.
RPGtable username : RTiger
I still disagree, even if you are a rules advisor. Trample says that the player/plainswalker is a valid target when considering damage, and damage above lethal to blockers goes through. Banding or not.

Damage left over after assigning lethal damage to blockers CAN be assigned to the defending player,  but it doesn't HAVE to.





True, it is an option.

I am moving this to rules issues. This is a bit too broad to be clearcut.
RPGtable username : RTiger
True, it is an option.

I am moving this to rules issues. This is a bit too broad to be clearcut.

This is in no way a rules issue, the rules are quite clear on this, whether you agree with it or not.

You also may want to note that cyphern has almost 7000 posts, most of which I'm betting are answers to questions in this forum.  99.9999% of the time what cyphern says is correct.


You also may want to note that cyphern has almost 7000 posts, most of which I'm betting are answers to questions in this forum.  99.9999% of the time what cyphern says is correct.

Thanks for the compliment, but neither the quantity of my posts, nor my generally good record of providing correct answers guarantees i'm correct. Instead, it is the rules that demonstrate the correct answer.

Incidentally, the pre-M10 rulebook was more direct in stating that damage was dealt as it was assigned:
310.4a Combat damage is dealt as it was originally assigned even if the creature dealing damage is no longer in play, its power has changed, or the creature receiving damage has left combat.

It explicitly said that however damage was assigned, that's the way it is dealt. The M10 rules have altered the language, probably because there is now no gap between assignment and damage dealing, and thus little room for confusion:
510.2. Second, all combat damage that’s been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn’t use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it’s dealt. This is a change from previous rules.

You will notice that it says nothing at all about deviating from the way damage was assigned. The rules for trample (which i have quoted below in their entirety) also say nothing about deviating from the way damage was assigned. Indeed, the rules for trample specify that they alter the rules for assigning damage, and make no mention of dealing damage.
702.17. Trample

702.17a Trample is a static ability that modifies the rules for assigning an attacking creature’s combat damage. The ability has no effect when a creature with trample is blocking or is dealing noncombat damage. (See rule 510, “Combat Damage Step.”)


702.17b 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 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. The attacking creature’s 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.
Example: A 2/2 creature with an ability that enables it to block multiple attackers blocks two attackers: a 1/1 with no abilities a 3/3 with trample. The active player could assign 1 damage from the first attacker and 1 damage from the second to the blocking creature, and 2 damage to the defending player from the creature with trample.
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 divide the rest of the damage as he or she chooses between the blocking creature and the defending player.


702.17c If an attacking creature with trample is blocked, but there are no creatures blocking it when damage is assigned, all its damage is assigned to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking.


702.17d If a creature with trample is attacking a planeswalker, none of its combat damage can be assigned to the defending player, even if that planeswalker has been removed from combat or the damage the attacking creature could assign to that planeswalker exceeds its loyalty.


702.17e Multiple instances of trample on the same creature are redundant.


Bumping this thread to make sure the information on it is current as of recent rules adjustments.  Please let me know which of the following four resolutions of the scenario is correct:

Scenario:  My 6/6 trampling Beast is blocked by a 3/3 Elephant and a 2/2 Knight with banding.

Caveat:  This scenario assumes that banding entirely ignores the blocking/damage assignment order, which I am 99.9% is still true.

Resolution 1:  The defender assigns all the damage to either his Knight or his Elephant (or any mix of the two) and takes no trample damage.  (This appears to be the answer indicated above, but I'm making sure it's still current.)

Resolution 2:  The defender will take trample damage exceeding the toughness of all the creatures he assigns damage to, so he could: kill the Knight and take 4; or kill the Elephant and take 3; or kill the Knight, put 2 damage on the Elephant, and take 2; or kill the Elephant, put 1 damage on the Knight and take 2.

Resolution 3:  As with Resolution 2, but with these additional options: put 2 damage on the Elephant, 1 on the Knight, and take 3; or take all 6 damage himself and leave the creature unharmed.  (I am extremely dubious on either of these interpretations being true.)

Resolution 4:  The defender cannot assign all the damage to his Knight; trample indicates that 5 damage has to go to the 5 toughness worth of creatures and 1 goes through to the player, but the defender's banding allows him to place all of the 5 damage on one creature or the other.

Please let me know which of these interpretations is correct.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
Resolution 1 is the most accurate of your four, but it's still not quite correct. The defending player could also, if he so desired, choose to have the Beast deal 3 damage to the Elephant, 2 damage to the Knight, and 1 damage to himself. Though why he'd want to do such a silly thing is anybody's guess.

You could just start a new thread rather than bumping an 11-month old one with possibly outdated rules information, you know--we don't mind new threads for old questions.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Resolution 1 is the most accurate of your four, but it's still not quite correct. The defending player could also, if he so desired, choose to have the Beast deal 3 damage to the Elephant, 2 damage to the Knight, and 1 damage to himself. Though why he'd want to do such a silly thing is anybody's guess.



Okay, thanks for answering!

You could just start a new thread rather than bumping an 11-month old one with possibly outdated rules information, you know--we don't mind new threads for old questions.



I've never understood the prejudice against thread necromancy; I'd think thread proliferation is more of an inconvenience.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi


I've never understood the prejudice against thread necromancy; I'd think thread proliferation is more of an inconvenience.


A) Due to a flaw in the forum software, a thread that was revived after more than about a month doesn't appear in the forum's list as if it had new posts.
B) If the thread was sufficiently old, the rules could have changed since then.  This doesn't seem to have happened with this particular thread, but the solution when it does happen is to leave the thread dead rather than go hunting through any old threads that might have become out of date.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.


I've never understood the prejudice against thread necromancy; I'd think thread proliferation is more of an inconvenience.


A) Due to a flaw in the forum software, a thread that was revived after more than about a month doesn't appear in the forum's list as if it had new posts.
B) If the thread was sufficiently old, the rules could have changed since then.  This doesn't seem to have happened with this particular thread, but the solution when it does happen is to leave the thread dead rather than go hunting through any old threads that might have become out of date.



If the thread's rules are outdated and potentially misleading, it ought to be "buried" in a clearly labeled "dead threads" archive, so nobody makes the mistake I did.  I didn't go digging through eighty pages of threads to find this thing; I put "banding trample" into a search window and this was like the second result.  So since nobody else had asked the question in 11 months (which is not that long a time by my standards, even if it is for the MTG rules team), I assumed that posting here was the thing to do.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi


I've never understood the prejudice against thread necromancy; I'd think thread proliferation is more of an inconvenience.

I don't quite get it either, but what I do, and suggest others do, is go along with it anyway just for "when in Rome" reasons. If you know that Xing annoys people, and you can get along fine without Xing, then it's probably best not to X - even if you think it's silly of people to get annoyed at it, as you and I both do.



If the thread's rules are outdated and potentially misleading, it ought to be "buried" in a clearly labeled "dead threads" archive, so nobody makes the mistake I did.

This, on the other hand, is just completely impractical with the volume of traffic this forum gets. Why have someone go to all that extra work, when just leaving things the way they are accomplishes the same goal upwards of 99% of the time?

Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
In addition to the points raised by Argus, it's more likely that a new question posted in an old thread will be overlooked than the same question in a new thread.

Most threads in this forum receive an answer in their first reply, and by the time there's two or three, there's definitely been time for an answer and any necessary corrections; some answerers might overlook a bumped thread, since they assume from the number of replies it's been handled already. In addition, bumped threads don't show up in the forum's RSS feed while new threads do. So if you post in an old thread, anyone keeping track of the forum through the feed (*raises hand*) won't know you've posted.


Thread proliferation is only really a problem when the same thread is showing up continuously over a short period of time. When it's been eleven months since the last question on the topic, there's no need to worry about proliferation.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

"When in Rome" is incredibly destructive logic.  If you walk into a town and see everyone doing something that you know is wrong, you should try to make them understand the damage they're causing, not only to themselves but to the larger environment which includes things far beyond them.

As for 99%...I'm a perfectionist.  Practicality should not be an excuse for doing less than the best.

The reason thread proliferation might be seen as a bad thing is that it results in the list of threads becoming unmanageably long.  I have an incredibly vast library of books and am usually glad of all that information, but it can be daunting trying to find anything in all that mess.  Navigation tools and procedures for increasing efficiency can help counteract this; clearly, though, this site's methods in that vein are sub-adequate.  800 pages of threads, with no easy way to analyze all that content and determine whether it contains something you need to know - not good.  Until we start getting cyber-brains, we're not going to be able to make good use of these archives because of how cluttered they are.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
"When in Rome" is incredibly destructive logic.  If you walk into a town and see everyone doing something that you know is wrong, you should try to make them understand the damage they're causing, not only to themselves but to the larger environment which includes things far beyond them.

True, but spectacularly irrelevant to the case at hand. I only argued for going along to get along when no harm comes of doing so (and I thought I was pretty clear on that). When it increases rather than decreases the net sum of happiness in the universe, if you want to think of it that way. I certainly didn't suggest anything nearly as silly as you are putting in my mouth, and find your suggesting otherwise mildly insulting.

Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
"When in Rome" is incredibly destructive logic.  If you walk into a town and see everyone doing something that you know is wrong, you should try to make them understand the damage they're causing, not only to themselves but to the larger environment which includes things far beyond them.

True, but spectacularly irrelevant to the case at hand. I only argued for going along to get along when no harm comes of doing so (and I thought I was pretty clear on that). When it increases rather than decreases the net sum of happiness in the universe, if you want to think of it that way. I certainly didn't suggest anything nearly as silly as you are putting in my mouth, and find your suggesting otherwise mildly insulting.




No offense was intended; I generalize on the basis of a spectacularly poor sense of proportion.  Comes of having a binary mindset given to automatic exagerration, as exemplified by the phrase "Life is pretty awesome when it doesn't totally suck".
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
Well, I did say "mildly" Wink. But you may want to take on board that that kind of thinking can be as dangerous as the kind of unthinking conformism you were rightly (if contextually inappropriately) railing against earlier...
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
The reason thread proliferation might be seen as a bad thing is that it results in the list of threads becoming unmanageably long.

See, I've never understood that. If you use search, thread proliferation doesn't matter because the search picks out what you need, and who in their right mind tries to seriously navigate any forum without search unless they already know exactly what they're looking for and where it is?

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

The reason thread proliferation might be seen as a bad thing is that it results in the list of threads becoming unmanageably long.

See, I've never understood that. If you use search, thread proliferation doesn't matter because the search picks out what you need, and who in their right mind tries to seriously navigate any forum without search unless they already know exactly what they're looking for and where it is?



Did I say I was in my right mind?

An 800-page list of threads is almost certain to contain a few things that I'd be very happy to find, if I had time to look for them, which I will never find by searching because I don't know to search for them.  I legitimately wish that it was possible for me to skim through the entire archives of this site, apart from sections such as Deck Critique and Tournament Advice that don't apply to me.  The impossibility of this task is increased by thread proliferation.  Plus I've always had a dislike of the mentality that says we should build new stuff instead of making use of our existing stuff; it's what gets historic buildings torn down and replaced with ugly prefab retail complexes.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
My question is this.

If an 8/8 trampler attacks.  And it is blocked only by one 1/1 creature that has banding.  Banding rules for assigning damage still apply right? You can assign all 8 damage to the 1/1 and take no trample... correct? Even though there is not a second creature to "band" with.

I'm assuming that a banding creatures controller always assigns the damage even when not "in a band".  Obviously in all cases besides trample it doesn't matter who assigns damage to one creature... so thus no one talks about damage assignment with a solo bander.  But what about blocking trample with just one solitary bander?
Correct, with banding involved the defending player assigns the damage and can assign all 8 to the blocking creature.
MTG Rules Advisor
If a thread has been idle for more than about a month, adding a new post doesn't make it appear as an updated thread to most people.
My question is this.

If an 8/8 trampler attacks.  And it is blocked only by one 1/1 creature that has banding.  Banding rules for assigning damage still apply right? You can assign all 8 damage to the 1/1 and take no trample... correct? Even though there is not a second creature to "band" with.

I'm assuming that a banding creatures controller always assigns the damage even when not "in a band". 


Yes.  Otherwise, banding would never do anything if it is on a blocking creature.
702.20c As a player declares attackers, he or she may declare that one or more attacking creatures with banding and up to one attacking creature without banding (even if it has "bands with other") are all in a "band." He or she may also declare that one or more attacking [quality] creatures with "bands with other [quality]" and any number of other attacking [quality] creatures are all in a band. A player may declare as many attacking bands as he or she wants, but each creature may be a member of only one of them. (Defending players can't declare bands but may use banding in a different way; see rule 702.20j.)

702.20j During the combat damage step, if an attacking creature is being blocked by a creature with banding, or by both a [quality] creature with "bands with other [quality]" and another [quality] creature, the defending player (rather than the active player) chooses how the attacking creature's damage is assigned. That player can divide that creature's combat damage as he or she chooses among any number of creatures blocking it. This is an exception to the procedure described in rule 510.1c.

No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.