Trample and Indestructible

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
if a 5/5 creature with trample blocks by a 3/3 creature that has indestructible? does the 2 damage will go to the player that has 3/3 creature indestructible?

trample says that enough damage that would be dealt and result to a lethal damage the remaining will pass through to the player..

but in this case the 3/3 creature is indestructible.. it will be not destroyed?

can anyone explain? how , why and what will happen?
Lethal damage is by definition, the amount of damage equal or greater to the creature's toughness. It does not have to destroy the creature in order for it to be 'considered lethal damage'.
Lethal damage is by definition, the amount of damage equal or greater to the creature's toughness. It does not have to destroy the creature in order for it to be 'considered lethal damage'.

so it means... 2 damage will be taken by the controller of 3/3 indestructible?
What means what?

I stated the definition of Lethal damage, since that seems to be what your original confusion and question is about.

Your 5/5 trampler only needs to assign 3 damage to a 3/3 indestructable blocker before it can assign damage to the player, if you want me to note the outcome of the situation.

Or... perhaps your question is much simpler, and you want me to tell you why an indestructable creature isn't destroyed..?

Please clarify.
He is just still confused by lethal damage, even though you explained it pretty good.

Think of it this way, lethal damage is toughness.

That doesn't work when you consider shock, though, because if you shocked the 3/3, it would have two damage on it already. So lethal damage will only be 1.
It's not until you learn something you realize how little you know. DCI Level 1 Judge.
Guys, stop making it so complicated. The question, as well as the answer, is extremely simple.

You must assign at least 3 damage to the 3/3 (it will NOT be destroyed,) the remaining damage (which is 2) will be assigned to the defending player.

[INDENT]# 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.[/INDENT]

[INDENT][INDENT]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.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

Heh, holy cow.

That original exchange between Cross and swoohf reminds me of why people find the game so daunting to learn.

It's all in how you teach it. Thanks jmpayne.
Guys, stop making it so complicated. The question, as well as the answer, is extremely simple.

You must assign at least 3 damage to the 3/3 (it will NOT be destroyed,) the remaining damage (which is 2) will be assigned to the defending player.


However, that is misleading to answer with only that.

If the 3/3 has been burned already in the turn, then the damage needed to be assigned to it is not three damage; the 5/5 trampler will only need to assign 1 damage, leaving 4 to hit the player. If it's been burned more, then the trampler needs not assign any damage to it, leaving all 5 to hit the defending player. Also, if the creature is able to block two creatures at once and one has at least a power of three, it can assign its three to the blocker and the trampler can hit the player for five points of damage.

The amount of damage you need to assign to reach lethal damage is the creature's toughness minus any damage already assigned or dealt to that creature.

That is the simplest way to think of it, and it is not confusing when stated that way.

It is not simple, because of what I stated above. Saying something as specific as 'lethal damage is equal to the creature's toughness' but not explaining the full details of that statement will lead the player to make incorrect plays later ("Oh, that 3/3 was incinerated, but it's indestructible so it's alive and blocking my 5/5 trampler, the defending player will take 2." That is an incorrect statement.)
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png


However, that is misleading to answer with only that.

If the 3/3 has been burned already in the turn, then the damage needed to be assigned to it is not three damage; the 5/5 trampler will only need to assign 1 damage, leaving 4 to hit the player. If it's been burned more, then the trampler needs not assign any damage to it, leaving all 5 to hit the defending player. Also, if the creature is able to block two creatures at once and one has at least a power of three, it can assign its three to the blocker and the trampler can hit the player for five points of damage.

The amount of damage you need to assign to reach lethal damage is the creature's toughness minus any damage already assigned or dealt to that creature.

That is the simplest way to think of it, and it is not confusing when stated that way.

It is not simple, because of what I stated above. Saying something as specific as 'lethal damage is equal to the creature's toughness' but not explaining the full details of that statement will lead the player to make incorrect plays later ("Oh, that 3/3 was incinerated, but it's indestructible so it's alive and blocking my 5/5 trampler, the defending player will take 2." That is an incorrect statement.)

I never remember seeing High Ground, Incinerate, or Shock in the question. Where did you see them at? No wonder players get confused, you bombard them with all these "SITUATIONS" that are completely irrelevant to the original question.

The question was regarding TWO creatures, not "Oh, what happens if I do , , , , , , , , ."


If you're going to do that, then let me just copy and paste a huge chunk out of the comprehensives and tell the OP to get reading.
I never remember seeing High Ground, Incinerate, or Shock in the question. Where did you see them at? No wonder players get confused, you bombard them with all these "SITUATIONS" that are completely irrelevant to the original question.

The question was regarding TWO creatures, not "Oh, what happens if I do , , , , , , , , ."


If you're going to do that, then let me just copy and paste a huge chunk out of the comprehensives and tell the OP to get reading.

True, but to say specifically that 'you need to assign damage equal to the creature's toughness' (i.e. to attempt to help them learn for the future) leaves off key elements and will mislead them when they do run into those situations.

Answering the specific question would be to say 'you would assign 3 to the creature and 2 to the player'; to give them information so that they might reach the correct conclusion in the future includes all information related, not just half of the information that happens to apply to the specific question.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Answering the specific question would be to say 'you would assign 3 to the creature and 2 to the player'; to give them information so that they might reach the correct conclusion in the future includes all information related, not just half of the information that happens to apply to the specific question.

You must assign at least 3 damage to the 3/3 (it will NOT be destroyed,) the remaining damage (which is 2) will be assigned to the defending player. How is that different from what you just said?

True, but to say specifically that 'you need to assign damage equal to the creature's toughness' (i.e. to attempt to help them learn for the future) leaves off key elements and will mislead them when they do run into those situations.

The question was regarding two creatures, not two creatures and 3 totally irrelevant spells. Do you really think that writing a novel-sized answer that didn't even ANSWER HIS QUESTION is more misleading than I am being? Holy hell, take a look at this. Did this quote below me even answer his question? Sure, it's an answer to a totally different question. I will ask again, WHERE did these three random cards come from? How does this have anything to do with his question? He didn't ask you to lecture him on every possible aspect of indestructible and how trample works. He asked about two cards, and the outcome of two said cards.

If the 3/3 has been burned already in the turn, then the damage needed to be assigned to it is not three damage; the 5/5 trampler will only need to assign 1 damage, leaving 4 to hit the player. If it's been burned more, then the trampler needs not assign any damage to it, leaving all 5 to hit the defending player. Also, if the creature is able to block two creatures at once and one has at least a power of three, it can assign its three to the blocker and the trampler can hit the player for five points of damage.

The question was regarding two creatures, not two creatures and 3 totally irrelevant spells. Do you really think that writing a novel-sized answer that didn't even ANSWER HIS QUESTION is more misleading than I am being? Holy hell, take a look at this. Did this quote below me even answer his question? Sure, it's an answer to a totally different question. I will ask again, WHERE did these three random cards come from? How does this have anything to do with his question? He didn't ask you to lecture him on every possible aspect of indestructible and how trample works. He asked about two cards, and the outcome of two said cards.

And so answering about those two cards specifically would be fine by saying 'Assign 3 to creature, 2 to player.' But to give him the rules in general that apply to the situation means to give him all the rules, not just half of them. If you gave him that answer with the rules support that you gave, he would come across a burned Stuffy Doll and think the trampler would still deal x-1 damage, where x is that creature's power. This is wrong. If you're going to educate him on the rules side of it instead of answering the specific question, give all relevant rules data, not half of it.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

He didn't ask you to lecture him on every possible aspect of indestructible and how trample works. He asked about two cards, and the outcome of two said cards.

Of course, it just MIGHT be of benefit to other people who happen to have a similar question and might, for whatever convoluted reason (sarcasm), be trolling the rules Q&A looking for the answer to it.
And so answering about those two cards specifically would be fine by saying 'Assign 3 to creature, 2 to player.' But to give him the rules in general that apply to the situation means to give him all the rules, not just half of them. If you gave him that answer with the rules support that you gave, he would come across a burned Stuffy Doll and think the trampler would still deal x-1 damage, where x is that creature's power. This is wrong. If you're going to educate him on the rules side of it instead of answering the specific question, give all relevant rules data, not half of it.

Ohhhhhhh! Let's take a look at my original post real quick. Apparently I referred to his card as the "3/3" and not "creature," or the "specific card name." Oh, I see what you're getting at.. I could be referring to ANY card with 3/3. Dude, get over yourself. If you read anything out of context it's going to be confusing. I find it rather funny that you keep referring to everything as "specific," dude, last time I checked he didn't even NAME A CARD, the OP is rather vague, you are reading WAYYYY to much into this crap.

So, if I post the rules that JUST PERTAIN TO THE OP, I HAVE TO "GIVE HIM ALL THE RULES." RIGHT? Because, man! That just makes sooo much more sense.

"You must assign at least 3 damage to the 3/3 (it will NOT be destroyed,) the remaining damage (which is 2) will be assigned to the defending player."

@jmpayne: Count to ten, take a deep breath and relax. Most of the people here tend to point out to people ways in which their answers might not be applicable, in order to keep them from blindly using one answer in a seemingly similar situation. You might think this is a bad thing, so just stick to your way of answering questions, but please let us answer in ways we see fit for the question at hand.
DCI L2 Judge "When nothing remains, everything is equally possible." - One With Nothing
I never remember seeing High Ground, Incinerate, or Shock in the question. Where did you see them at? No wonder players get confused, you bombard them with all these "SITUATIONS" that are completely irrelevant to the original question.

That attitude seems short-sighted at best. An answer that is right for that particular situation, but actively misleading about other fairly common ones, is not substantially better than one that's completely wrong. Worse in some respects, since it's more likely to cause confusion later than one that can be corrected quickly and simply.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Guys, stop making it so complicated. The question, as well as the answer, is extremely simple.

You must assign at least 3 damage to the 3/3 (it will NOT be destroyed,) the remaining damage (which is 2) will be assigned to the defending player.

# 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.


Ohhhhhhh! Let's take a look at my original post real quick. Apparently I referred to his card as the "3/3" and not "creature," or the "specific card name." Oh, I see what you're getting at.. I could be referring to ANY card with 3/3. Dude, get over yourself. If you read anything out of context it's going to be confusing. I find it rather funny that you keep referring to everything as "specific," dude, last time I checked he didn't even NAME A CARD, the OP is rather vague, you are reading WAYYYY to much into this crap.

So, if I post the rules that JUST PERTAIN TO THE OP, I HAVE TO "GIVE HIM ALL THE RULES." RIGHT? Because, man! That just makes sooo much more sense.

You quoted a rule to support your answer, but you only quoted one rule which, taken by itself, will mislead anyone into thinking things such as the Stuffy Doll example. If you had just answered his question, that would be fine. Using the rules to back your answer up, however, is an attempt to educate someone on the rules so they will know the answer in the future. Giving only half of those rules when doing so will mislead people to the wrong answer later is frowned upon.

If you're going to give quotes from the rules as back-up for your answers, please give all relevant data so as not to mislead them later.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Is anyone going to mention that that attacking player, could, if he chose, assign 4 or 5 damage to the indestructible 3/3 and only 1 or 0 to the defending player rather than 3 to the creature and 2 to the player - trample allows you to assign "spare" damage to the player; it doesn't force you to.
M:tG Rules Advisor
Is anyone going to mention that that attacking player, could, if he chose, assign 4 or 5 damage to the indestructible 3/3 and only 1 or 0 to the defending player rather than 3 to the creature and 2 to the player - trample allows you to assign "spare" damage to the player; it doesn't force you to.

I thought about it, but decided the thread was enough of a mess =P
Question now is what kills an indestructable creature, land or artifact? or are they God now?

Thanks
Question now is what kills an indestructable creature, land or artifact?

Anything that isn't doesn't involve destruction. Try taking a look at the Indestructibility FAQ.
Question now is what kills an indestructable creature, land or artifact? or are they God now?

Thanks

Reducing its toughness to zero or less, forcing it to change zones, or causing it to be sacrificed, among other things.
All Generalizations are Bad
Thanks for the information...