Trample vs Protection

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
If I attack an oponent with 11/11 trample and he/she blocks with a 4/4 creature that has protection from my creatures color does the damage still trample through to the player or is the damage nulled?
When you assign the damage, you must assign at least 4 to the blocking creature, but you can assign any/all of the remaining 7 to the defending player.  The damage assigned to the creature will be prevented, but the damage assigned to the defending player will be successfully dealt.
If I attack an oponent with 11/11 trample and he/she blocks with a 4/4 creature that has protection from my creatures color does the damage still trample through to the player or is the damage nulled?

could be either, the 11/11's controller has to assign at least 4 to the blocker, but he could assign all 11 to the blocker. Whatever is assigned to the blocker will be prevented by protection so the damage could trample through to the player or be nullified at the trampler's option

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

And just to add some complexity, if the 11/11 was equipped with basilisk collar one point of damage would be sufficient to kill it so you could apply 10 to the player. Notice that the damage is still prevented so the 4/4 does not die and you would gain 10 life feom the lifelink since 11 damage was done and one was prevented..
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
Is this true? Wow, I've been doing this wrong. I always thought that enough damage has to be assigned to destroy the blocker before you can assign any to the defending player. Since none of your damage can destroy the blocker, nothing can get through.
Is this true? Wow, I've been doing this wrong. I always thought that enough damage has to be assigned to destroy the blocker before you can assign any to the defending player. Since none of your damage can destroy the blocker, nothing can get through.



You have to assign enough damage that the trampler *would* kill the blocking creature; the trample rules don't care if the damage gets prevented or redirected after assignment.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Is this true? Wow, I've been doing this wrong. I always thought that enough damage has to be assigned to destroy the blocker before you can assign any to the defending player. Since none of your damage can destroy the blocker, nothing can get through.


When determining "lethal" combat damage for trample (or the damage assignment order), you ignore effects that might tamper with the actual amount of damage dealt (although you do get to treat as little as 1 combat damage from a creature with deathtouch as lethal).  Protection won't make it necessary to assign all damage to the blocker, a Healing Salve won't make it necessary to assign 7 damage from a trampling attacker to a 4/4 blocker, and Furnace of Rath won't let a trampling attacker get away with assigning 2 damage to a 4/4 blocker.
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.
Is this true? Wow, I've been doing this wrong. I always thought that enough damage has to be assigned to destroy the blocker before you can assign any to the defending player. Since none of your damage can destroy the blocker, nothing can get through.

what is considered lethal damage from a source with deathtouch has been changed recently, you most likely missed that rule update.
lethal damage is considered damage equal to the toughness OR 1 damage with deathtouch
after that is dealt to a creature you can move on to the next creature or player in the case of trample.
proud member of the 2011 community team
Is this true? Wow, I've been doing this wrong. I always thought that enough damage has to be assigned to destroy the blocker before you can assign any to the defending player. Since none of your damage can destroy the blocker, nothing can get through.

what is considered lethal damage from a source with deathtouch has been changed recently, you most likely missed that rule update.
lethal damage is considered damage equal to the toughness OR 1 damage with deathtouch
after that is dealt to a creature you can move on to the next creature or player in the case of trample.


I knew about the Deathtouch change, I just assumed that protection trumped all of that. Well, good to know thanks.
no, it's basically the same as indestructible
when you assign damage you have to assign lethal damage, if that damage goes through is of no concern.

just as you can target an indestructible permanent with a spell that destroys, the rules don't discriminate against play errors ;)
proud member of the 2011 community team

The problem is that the rules are unintuitive and inconsistent. I get what the rules say and I abide by them in my friendly games (and tournament games obviously). However I do not agree with them.


Let me illustrate my position. Let’s start with the definition of the word (not rule) lethal. A common definition of the word seems to be "sufficient to cause death."  If you don’t like the definition you can find others here… www.google.com/search?q=define%3Alethal


Intuition would tell you that if any amount of damage generated from a source with the ability deathtouch is enough to kill the creature receiving the damage, then any amount of damage dealt would be "lethal". Everything seems to be in agreement here.


Now, if we have a creature that is dealt damage from a source it has protection from, intuition would tell you that the damage is prevented. Whether its 1 damage or 1 billion damage (insert Dr. Evil joke here) the creature is not killed. It’s not “lethal” by definition since the creature is not killed. This sounds good to me.


This is where I do not agree with the rules and find them inconsistent and unintuitive. During the calculation of combat damage, the ONE AND ONLY ability that is factored in to the decision of whether or not a given amount of damage is considered to be lethal or not is deathtouch. Since intuition (and the rules I might add) would tell you that when one billion damage is prevented, it does not kill the creature in question. Preface, yes I do realize what the rules say. So philosophically, why is it that the prevention ability is not considered when lethal damage is calculated like deathtouch is?


I remember a time when Wizards wanted to make the rules intuitive enough for the beginner to play and not have any issues. Let me tell you the rules were not intuitive to my relatively new to the game friend. Based on the amount of discussion I found is on this issue all over the web, "lethal damage" is most certainly not intuitive. Especially when factoring in trample with death touch versus protection abilities.


In the glossary of the comprehensive rule book Lethal Damage is stated as meaning "An amount of damage greater than or equal to a creature's toughness. See rules 119.6, 510.1, and 704.5g" In my opinion, this is not sufficient a definition for the novice to lookup the ruling and play the game correctly.


I have to admit that for the longest time I was playing the trample vs protection rule in correctly. I myself assumed that since the damage was prevented none of it would overflow to the defending player. I implore you Wizards, please try make the rules more consistent and intuitive. 

Now, if we have a creature that is dealt damage from a source it has protection from, intuition would tell you that the damage is prevented. Whether its 1 damage or 1 billion damage (insert Dr. Evil joke here) the creature is not killed. It’s not “lethal” by definition since the creature is not killed.

And yet, guns don't get reclassified as non-lethal weapons just because someone puts on a bullet-proof vest.
Now, if we have a creature that is dealt damage from a source it has protection from, intuition would tell you that the damage is prevented. Whether its 1 damage or 1 billion damage (insert Dr. Evil joke here) the creature is not killed. It’s not “lethal” by definition since the creature is not killed.

And yet, guns don't get reclassified as non-lethal weapons just because someone puts on a bullet-proof vest.



Ah great! Okay lets say a bullet traveling at 500 feet per second has 1000 Kilojoules of engergy. A person (creature) walks in front of the bullet while it's on it way to a target (player). Lets assume a human center body mass (creature toughness) can absorb 100 Kilojoules of energy. That bullet is going to pass right on through to the target. If the person has a bullet proof vest on, or shield, that can absorbe the full 1000 kilojoules then nothing gets through to the target (player).

Exibit 615.10.

"Some prevention effects prevent the next N damage that would be dealt to each of a number of untargeted creatures. Such an effect creates a prevention shield for each applicable creature when the spell or ability that generates that effect resolves."
 
Snip 



It may seem odd, but unfortuantely a creature can't see into the future.

How is the trampler suppose to know that damage will be prevented?
… and then, the squirrels came.

as a reply to myself, yea I will forfeit the indestructible rule with trample. the damage happens, whether or not the creature dies is of no consequence, same with regeneration. With protection,



615.1. Some continuous effects are prevention effects. Like replacement effects (see rule 614),
prevention effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren‘t locked in ahead of time. Such
effects watch for a damage event that would happen and completely or partially prevent the damage
that would be dealt. They act like ―shields‖ around whatever they‘re affecting.



615.6. If damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens.



the damage NEVER HAPPENS, it's gone evaporates... poof. Like I said. I do realize what the rules say and can follow them. Philosophically, why is it that the prevention ability is not considered when lethal damage is calculated like deathtouch is?


Snip 



It may seem odd, but unfortuantely a creature can't see into the future.

How is the trampler suppose to know that damage will be prevented?




Great great question and I would have to ponder that. Unfortunatly, the only answer I have is a question back to you. How is the deathtoucher supposed to know that damage won't be prevented since it can deal 1 damage to be considered lethal? It doesn't know. That is the inconsistancy.
the damage NEVER HAPPENS, it's gone evaporates... poof. Like I said. I do realize what the rules say and can follow them. Philosophically, why is it that the prevention ability is not considered when lethal damage is calculated like deathtouch is.



You seem to have some misconceptions, deahttouch isn't calcualated when considering lethal damage. A 2/2 with 1 "deathtouch" damage doesn't have "lethal damage".

What the rules says is that any amount of combat damage assigned from a source with deathtouch is considered lethal damage for the purposes of assigning combat damage.

It's a bit trickier the other way around. How do you word that with damage prevention?

Great great question and I would have to ponder that. Unfortunatly, the only answer I have is a question back to you. How is the deathtoucher supposed to know that damage won't be prevented since it can deal 1 damage to be considered lethal? It doesn't know. That is the inconsistancy.



The deathtouch/Trample rules doesn't rely on the damage being dealt. It only matters when damage is assigned.
… and then, the squirrels came.
snip



Thank you for the reply, I find this very informative and new way to look at it.

By "calculate", I refer to...

"510.1c... 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."

...which yea I get isn't really calculating.

I think I get the philosophy now. Thanks.

Edit: I still stand by my option that it's not that intuitive... hehe Wink

After reflecting on it I realize wizards had to draw a line somewhere.  And the line was drawn at damage assignment to prevent the rules from being even more complex.  The unfortunate byproduct is when you have an attacking 3/3 creature with deathtouch and trample being blocked by a 6/6 with protection. That just seems wrong that 2 damage can still trample over to the player. I guess that's not really any different than Rhox (gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details....)

the damage NEVER HAPPENS, it's gone evaporates... poof. Like I said. I do realize what the rules say and can follow them. Philosophically, why is it that the prevention ability is not considered when lethal damage is calculated like deathtouch is.



You seem to have some misconceptions, deathtouch isn't calculated when considering lethal damage. A 2/2 with 1 "deathtouch" damage doesn't have "lethal damage".

What the rules says is that any amount of combat damage assigned from a source with deathtouch is considered lethal damage for the purposes of assigning combat damage.

It's a bit trickier the other way around. How do you word that with damage prevention?

Great great question and I would have to ponder that. Unfortunatly, the only answer I have is a question back to you. How is the deathtoucher supposed to know that damage won't be prevented since it can deal 1 damage to be considered lethal? It doesn't know. That is the inconsistancy.



The deathtouch/Trample rules doesn't rely on the damage being dealt. It only matters when damage is assigned.

As much as I would like to agree with you Skibo, I am in Gonkers corner on this one.  As Gonkers said, the rules have come down squarely on the ASSIGNED side of the fence of damage resolution, rather than the DEALT side.  One is incoming damage, the other is what actually HITS.

Trample and Deathtouch (IMHO) should be based on what HITS, rather than what is assigned.  When all post blocker fast effects have resolved, you DO KNOW how much damage is incoming and how much will be prevented.

In the case of PROTECTION, the damage absorbed is INFINITE,  and clearly stated in protection rules.  When combined with the trample rules that explicitly state that LETHAL DAMAGE must be "ASSIGNED" before any trample damage gets through to the player... All that need be changed is to change ASSIGNED to DEALT.

In regards to DEATHTOUCH, the same process would be followed and Deathtouch would be based on a single point of damage DEALT.

So our theoretical Trampling, Deathtouch monstrosity could be blocked completely by a creature with protection from the color of the monstrosity...  WHY?  Because not one single point of damage will get past his immunity to that color.  

Someone somewhere gave me the D.E.B.T. rule for determining if protection applies.  Since the D is damage, no damage can be dealt to a Protected creature by a source of the protected color.  

Why trample and deathtouch bypass this is beyond me, and as Gonkers says... unintuitive.
Might be slighy off topic but a huge part goes over trample , damage and unintuitive ruling so I feel it fits.
While reading this I ponderd the following.

Let's set an simple situation ,
Player A(nton) and Player B(ernard) , are playing a nice game of casual magic with tons of mana. They are both in top deck mode with nothing on the field and happen to get in the following situation:
Player A draws an "blightsteel colossus" , and cast it.

Player B prays for somthing good and the gods of strange odds, let him also draw an "blightsteel colossus",
which he casts. So 2 steel machines of doom are starring in each other in the face of wath seems like an stand off.

Player A is on the turn  again and he draws an "basilisk collar", he casts , equips it to his "blightsteel colossus".
And attacks.........

Can player A now assign , 1 damage to player B's his "blightsteel colossus"  because of the deathtouch from the "basilisk collar"  and assign the rest of tha damage to player B , drowing him in posion counters?

Until i read this thread , my feelings would tell me , no ofcourse that can't be done they are both equal powerfull creatures.
And if this scenario was done with  two "darksteel colossus" in stead their nastier cousins. Would that lead to ,
player A gains 11 life , player B lose 10 life?

If someone still reads this , I hope you are able to stop my pondering with an answer.



Might be slighy off topic but a huge part goes over trample , damage and unintuitive ruling so I feel it fits.
While reading this I ponderd the following.

Let's set an simple situation ,
Player A(nton) and Player B(ernard) , are playing a nice game of casual magic with tons of mana. They are both in top deck mode with nothing on the field and happen to get in the following situation:
Player A draws an "blightsteel colossus" , and cast it.

Player B prays for somthing good and the gods of strange odds, let him also draw an "blightsteel colossus",
which he casts. So 2 steel machines of doom are starring in each other in the face of wath seems like an stand off.

Player A is on the turn  again and he draws an "basilisk collar", he casts , equips it to his "blightsteel colossus".
And attacks.........

Can player A now assign , 1 damage to player B's his "blightsteel colossus"  because of the deathtouch from the "basilisk collar"  and assign the rest of tha damage to player B , drowing him in posion counters?

Until i read this thread , my feelings would tell me , no ofcourse that can't be done they are both equal powerfull creatures.
And if this scenario was done with  two "darksteel colossus" in stead their nastier cousins. Would that lead to ,
player A gains 11 life , player B lose 10 life?

If someone still reads this , I hope you are able to stop my pondering with an answer.




That's correct. Because 1 damage is lethal damage with Deathtouch, the rest of the damage can be assigned to the defending player.