Consume Spirit?

59 posts / 0 new
Last post
When using consume spirit to target a creature with a toughness of one, can you spend more than one mana on it to increase the lifegain.

I don't see how this is possible simply because you cannot do more damage to a creature than it has life, and first and foremost, on consume spirit, X is representative of the damage being done. X is only one thing, mana spent, and you cannot spend more mana on X then is able to be used as damage done to the creature, yes?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated, and if anyone knows the links to the rules that determines the outcome of this conflict, can you please link it?

Consume Spirit: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=189893
you cannot do more damage to a creature than it has life

Wrong.

You can deal more damage to a creature than its toughness.
X is representative of the damage being done. X is only one thing, mana spent

X is a value you choose when casting the spell. The spell's effects including dealing that much damage to a target creature or player, and gaining that much life.

My signature shows an easier way to link to cards.
When you ask a rules question, please autocard. Type [c]Doom Blade[/c] to get Doom Blade.
What Color Am I?
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
Yes, you can, because this

I don't see how this is possible simply because you cannot do more damage to a creature than it has life

is not true.

The following rule wouldn't say "greater than" if you couldn't do more damage to a creature than its toughness.

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

All Generalizations are Bad
There's no limit to how much Damage can be dealt to the Creature, or how much life you can gain.

the fact that the Creature has a Toughness of 1 is irrelevant.
Originally Posted by Comprehensive Rulebook
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

This does not indicate that your doing more dmg than the creature has toughness, this just states that once the dmg reaches the amount of toughness a creature has, it dies.

What I am getting caught up on is that apparently the card is being used where X is representing two different things(dmg and life gained), which is not really quite possible. X, being mana tapped for the spell, has to be the same thing when being applied to either of the effects that X determines. Therefore, because you can only do 1 dmg to the creature, therefore, you really can't use any more mana for the ability of the card, any extra mana tapped would just mana burn you.

Anyone perhaps have anymore clarification they can bring to this?
This does not indicate that your doing more dmg than the creature has toughness

From where are you drawing the idea that a creature can't be dealt damage greater than its toughness?

Such a thing would surely be specified in the Comprehensive Rules - would you quote the passage for me?

When you accept that you can deal 314 damage to a Glory Seeker, your other objection falls apart.

A note: X is not determined by the amount of mana spent to cast the spell. X is a value chosen during the casting of the spell.

PS - Check out Drain Life.
PPS - Check out Rushing-Tide Zubera and Burning-Eye Zubera.
When you ask a rules question, please autocard. Type [c]Doom Blade[/c] to get Doom Blade.
What Color Am I?
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
This does not indicate that your doing more dmg than the creature has toughness, this just states that once the dmg reaches the amount of toughness a creature has, it dies.

It states what happens when a Creature has damage on it greater than its toughness.
Which means, it CAN have an amount of accumulated damage on that's greater than its toughness.

What I am getting caught up on is that apparently the card is being used where X is representing two different things(dmg and life gained), which is not really quite possible.

Why not?
Therefore, because you can only do 1 dmg to the creature,

Wrong.

There is NO limit to the amount of Damage that can accumulate on a Creature.


If you think otherwise, then Read the Rules and quote the Rule that supports your claim.
Pro Tip: There is no such Rule.
Originally Posted by Comprehensive Rulebook
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

This does not indicate that your doing more dmg than the creature has toughness, this just states that once the dmg reaches the amount of toughness a creature has, it dies.

What I am getting caught up on is that apparently the card is being used where X is representing two different things(dmg and life gained), which is not really quite possible. X, being mana tapped for the spell, has to be the same thing when being applied to either of the effects that X determines. Therefore, because you can only do 1 dmg to the creature, therefore, you really can't use any more mana for the ability of the card, any extra mana tapped would just mana burn you.

Anyone perhaps have anymore clarification they can bring to this?

...Do you not understand what the phrase 'greater than' means? If you couldn't possibly deal more damage to a creature than the toughness it has, 'greater than' wouldn't be there because it could never have damage 'greater than' its toughness.

X is the same at all times on the same card. If you chose X=5, X=5 at every point on that card. That means you deal 5 damage and gain 5 life in the case of Consume Spirit.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Originally Posted by Comprehensive Rulebook
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

This does not indicate that your doing more dmg than the creature has toughness, this just states that once the dmg reaches the amount of toughness a creature has, it dies.

Read the rule again:

[indent]
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.
[/indent]

Contrary to what you seem to believe this rule says, the rule is very explicitly acknowledging the fact that it is possible for a creature to receive damage in excess of its toughness.

Anyone perhaps have anymore clarification they can bring to this?

If one bullet is enough to kill you, and I fire 10 bullets into you, how many bullets did you take?
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
The reason it can't represent two things in this case is because X is the mana tapped for the spell, and that mana tapped has two effects. It is not that you can choose either of the effects, X has to be both of them, not just one, but both of them. If X were to represent each of the effects individually, then the mana cost of the spell would have to have two X's, not just one.

See this for this effect: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?printed=true&multiverseid=26621
(Yes I understand this is an older version of the card, but it is a completely applicable concept for this context.)

"Originally Posted by Comprehensive Rulebook
704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event."

This comment, the way I understand it, is implying that if you were to say, shock a creature with only one toughness. The total dmg value of shock is 2, and the creatures toughness is one, however, your only doing one dmg, you can't do more than one dmg because there is not more than one toughness to do dmg to, despite the fact that the spell does 2 dmg, the one extra dmg of the spell is simply lost. This is where the greater than term comes in, it is not implying that you can do greater dmg than what toughness the creature has, it is just saying that if the effect of the amount of the dmg being done is higher than the of total value of toughness, then the creature dies. It does not say that the dmg done is higher than the toughness value, because you can't do more dmg then the toughness value, there is nothing to dmg once the max toughness value has been dmg'ed.

In the case of consume spirit, your actively spending mana on the value of X, and since the effects of what X is, is both dmg done and life gained, therefore, every mana spent on the value of X has to do the same amount of dmg and has to be the same amount of life gained, it cannot be just one of the effects, it has to be both. Hence, if your targeting a creature with a toughness of one, you can't spend more mana on X just to gain the life, because that is not what X is; X is the mana tapped for both of the effects of dmg done and life gained. And since you can't apply dmg where there is nothing to dmg, you can't tap more mana for the spell, because at that point, there is no longer a target (for the dmg), and therefore, you cannot have the effect of the life gain either, because you can't have one of the effects without the other in this instance. I know some of you will likely scream bloody murder at this statement, but it is a completely logical way of looking at it, and I do not see anything that contradicts this in the rules. (yet, lol. Still looking)

Does anyone know if this is clarified in the rules somewhere? I suppose I should have more pointedly asked this earlier. Could really use help with this, because me and my brother can't stop argueing over this lol.
The reason it can't represent two things in this case is because X is the mana tapped for the spell, and that mana tapped has two effects

You got it backwards, bro. X isn't determined by the mana tapped for the spell. The mana tapped for the spell is determined by X. X is announced by you.

Could really use help with this, because me and my brother can't stop argueing over this lol.

If your brother thinks Consume Spirit can deal twenty damage or more to Squire, your brother is right.

there is no longer a target (for the dmg)

Damage is applied all at once. When you cast Char targeting Squire, it is not four instances of one damage going on the stack. It is one spell going on the stack, one instance of four damage. Squire eats up all four of it and dies a horrible death.
There is NO limit to the amount of Damage that can accumulate on a Creature.
{/QUOTE]

Where in the rules does it say this? I am not an expert, and am seriously just trying to find help, but I can't really find a definitive rule going either way on this concept.
The reason it can't represent two things in this case is because X is the mana tapped for the spell,

First of all, you have cause and effect backwards...
When playing a Spell, first you choose what the X will be [601.2b], then you figure out the Total Cost [601.2f].
X has to be both of them, not just one, but both of them.

And, they ARE the same; If X=5, then the Creature is dealt 5 damage and you gain 5 life.

What part of that do you find difficult to understand?
This comment, the way I understand it, is implying that if you were to say, shock a creature with only one toughness. The total dmg value of shock is 2, and the creatures toughness is one, however, your only doing one dmg,

Wrong.

You are dealing TWO damage. <- Period
you can't do more than one dmg because there is not more than one toughness to do dmg to,

Proof?
despite the fact that the spell does 2 dmg, the one extra dmg of the spell is simply lost.

Proof?
This comment, the way I understand it, is implying that if you were to say, shock a creature with only one toughness. The total dmg value of shock is 2, and the creatures toughness is one, however, your only doing one dmg, you can't do more than one dmg because there is not more than one toughness to do dmg to, despite the fact that the spell does 2 dmg, the one extra dmg of the spell is simply lost. This is where the greater than term comes in, it is not implying that you can do greater dmg than what toughness the creature has, it is just saying that if the effect of the amount of the dmg being done is higher than the of total value of toughness, then the creature dies. It does not say that the dmg done is higher than the toughness value, because you can't do more dmg then the toughness value, there is nothing to dmg once the max toughness value has been dmg'ed.

You're misreading the rule. The rule is not talking about damage being done. It's talking about damage that has been done. As such, it is VERY CLEARLY acknowledging that a creature CAN take more damage than its toughness.

Here's another rule for you:

[indent]
118.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source without wither causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.
[/indent]

The rule explicitly says "that much damage," and not "that much damage but only up to its toughness."

That ought to settle that.
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
Where in the rules does it say this?

704.5g has been quoted SEVERAL times in this thread so far.


However, We shall repeat... Read the Rules; http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20090708.txt And, quote the Rule that supports your claim.
This comment, the way I understand it, is implying that if you were to say, shock a creature with only one toughness. The total dmg value of shock is 2, and the creatures toughness is one, however, your only doing one dmg, you can't do more than one dmg because there is not more than one toughness to do dmg to, despite the fact that the spell does 2 dmg, the one extra dmg of the spell is simply lost. This is where the greater than term comes in, it is not implying that you can do greater dmg than what toughness the creature has, it is just saying that if the effect of the amount of the dmg being done is higher than the of total value of toughness, then the creature dies. It does not say that the dmg done is higher than the toughness value, because you can't do more dmg then the toughness value, there is nothing to dmg once the max toughness value has been dmg'ed.

A creature only gets damage marked on it by damage dealt to it; if damage isn't dealt, it's not marked by that not-dealt damage.

Once again, the rules don't have to explicitly say that you can deal damage to a creature greater than its toughness because that is implied by the rule already quoted twice.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Does anyone know if this is clarified in the rules somewhere? I suppose I should have more pointedly asked this earlier. Could really use help with this, because me and my brother can't stop argueing over this lol.

Is this not clear enough?

607. Resolving Spells and Abilities

607.1. Each time all players pass in succession, the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves. (See rule 608, “Effects.”)

607.2. If the object that’s resolving is an instant spell, a sorcery spell, or an ability, its resolution may involve several steps. The steps described in rules 607.2a and 607.2b are followed first. The steps described in rules 607.2c–i are then followed as appropriate, in no specific order. The step described in rule 607.2j is followed last.

...

607.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, “Destroy target creature. It can’t be regenerated” or “Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner’s library instead of into its owner’s graveyard.”) Don’t just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases—read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.

If the instruction is "Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage to target creature or player.", then that is what happens. Even if the target creature is something like Grizzly Bears with a toughness of 2. "Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage ...." means "Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage ...." Period.

Opponent: "Judge! His Lightning Bolt can't deal 3 damage to my Grizzly Bears!"
Judge: "Why not?"
Opponent: "My Grizzly Bears have a toughness of only 2."
Judge: "So?"
Opponent: "It's only 2 o'clock."
Judge: "So?"
Opponent: "My cat's breath smells like cat food."
Judge: "So?"

For that matter, Consume Spirit can easily give more life than the amount of damage it deals. Perhaps not quite as easily as Stream of Life, but it's still pretty easy.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
I do not see anything that contradicts this in the rules. (yet, lol. Still looking)

Do you see anything that supports it?

Your entire argument - "logical" though it may be - is based on the premise that a 1/1 creature can't have 5 damage dealt to it. That premise still doesn't sit nicely with 704.5g, or with the abilities of Rushing-Tide Zubera and Burning-Eye Zubera. Drain Life also illustrates the difference in Consume Spirit's function.

For your perusal, here's the entry on damage:
Show

118. Damage

118.1. Objects can deal damage to creatures, planeswalkers, and players. This generally has a detrimental effect on the object or player that receives that damage. An object that deals damage is the source of that damage.

118.1a Damage can’t be dealt to an object that’s neither a creature nor a planeswalker.

118.2. Any object can deal damage.

118.2a Damage may be dealt as a result of combat. Each attacking and blocking creature deals combat damage equal to its power during the combat damage step.

118.2b Damage may be dealt as an effect of a spell or ability. The spell or ability will specify which object deals that damage.

118.3. Damage may have one or more of the following results, depending on the characteristics of the damage’s source and recipient.

118.3a Damage dealt to a player causes that player to lose that much life.

118.3b Damage dealt to a planeswalker causes that many loyalty counters to be removed from that planeswalker.

118.3c Damage dealt to a creature by a source with wither causes that many -1/-1 counters to be put on that creature.

118.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source without wither causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.

118.3e Damage dealt to an object or player by a source with lifelink causes that source’s controller to gain that much life, in addition to the damage’s other results.

118.4. Damage is processed in a three-part sequence.

118.4a First, damage is dealt, as modified by replacement and prevention effects that interact with damage. (See rule 613, “Replacement Effects,” and rule 614, “Prevention Effects.”) Abilities that trigger when damage is dealt trigger now and wait to be put on the stack.

118.4b Next, damage that’s been dealt is transformed into its results, as modified by replacement effects that interact with those results (such as life loss or counters).

118.4c Finally, the damage event occurs.
Example: A player who controls Boon Reflection, an enchantment that says “If you would gain life, you gain twice that much life instead,” attacks with a 3/3 creature with wither and lifelink. It’s blocked by a 2/2 creature, and the defending player casts a spell that prevents the next 2 damage that would be dealt to the blocking creature. The damage event starts out as [3 damage is dealt to the 2/2 creature, 2 damage is dealt to the 3/3 creature]. The prevention effect is applied, so the damage event becomes [1 damage is dealt to the 2/2 creature, 2 damage is dealt to the 3/3 creature]. That’s transformed into its results, so the damage event is now [one -1/-1 counter is put on the 2/2 creature, the active player gains 1 life, 2 damage is marked on the 3/3 creature]. Boon Reflection’s effect is applied, so the damage event becomes [one -1/-1 counter is put on the 2/2 creature, the active player gains 2 life, 2 damage is marked on the 3/3 creature]. Then the damage event occurs.
Example: The defending player controls a creature and Worship, an enchantment that says “If you control a creature, damage that would reduce your life total to less than 1 reduces it to 1 instead.” That player is at 2 life, and is being attacked by two unblocked 5/5 creatures. The player casts Awe Strike, which says “The next time target creature would deal damage this turn, prevent that damage. You gain life equal to the damage prevented this way,” targeting one of the attackers. The damage event starts out as [10 damage is dealt to the defending player]. Awe Strike’s effect is applied, so the damage event becomes [5 damage is dealt to the defending player, the defending player gains 5 life]. That’s transformed into its results, so the damage event is now [the defending player loses 5 life, the defending player gains 5 life]. Worship’s effect sees that the damage event would not reduce the player’s life total to less than 1, so it is not applied. Then the damage event occurs.

118.5. Damage dealt to a creature or planeswalker doesn’t destroy it. Likewise, the source of that damage doesn’t destroy it. Rather, state-based actions may destroy a creature or planeswalker, or otherwise put it into its owner’s graveyard, due to the results of the damage dealt to that permanent. See rule 704.
Example: A player casts Lightning Bolt, an instant that says “Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage to target creature or player,” targeting a 2/2 creature. After Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage to that creature, the creature is destroyed as a state-based action. Neither Lightning Bolt nor the damage dealt by Lightning Bolt destroyed that creature.

118.6. Damage marked on a creature remains until the cleanup step, even if that permanent stops being a creature. If the total damage marked on a creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based action (see rule 704). All damage marked on a permanent is removed when it regenerates (see rule 701.11, “Regenerate”) and during the cleanup step (see rule 514.2).

118.7. The source of damage is the object that dealt it. If an effect requires a player to choose a source of damage, he or she may choose a permanent, a spell on the stack (including a permanent spell), or any object referred to by an object on the stack or a delayed triggered ability that’s waiting to trigger (even if that object is no longer in the zone it used to be in). A source doesn’t need to be capable of dealing damage to be a legal choice. See rule 608.7, “Sources of Damage.”

118.8. If a source would deal 0 damage, it does not deal damage at all. That means abilities that trigger on damage being dealt won’t trigger. It also means that replacement effects that would increase the damage dealt by that source, or would have that source deal that damage to a different object or player, have no event to replace, so they have no effect.
Do you see anything to support the premise? You won't. It's not there.

Also, this is from the section on the Combat Damage Step:
510.1a Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. Creatures that would assign 0 or less damage this way don’t assign combat damage at all.

If your premise is true, oughtn't this to read differently?
Where in the rules does it say this?

It doesn't say that damage can't accumulate in excess. Therefore, damage does accumulate in excess.

PS - It's entirely possible for Consume Spirit to deal less damage than it gains life. Consume Spirit Cho-Manno, Revolutionary and you'll gain X life, though not a bit of damage will be dealt to him.
When you ask a rules question, please autocard. Type [c]Doom Blade[/c] to get Doom Blade.
What Color Am I?
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
There is NO limit to the amount of Damage that can accumulate on a Creature.
{/QUOTE]

Where in the rules does it say this?

704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed

What this says is that you a creature with 2 toughness will die if dealt 2 damage or more. If it were lightning bolted the creature is still dealt 3 damage and upon recognising that that is lethal damage it then dies.
Do you see anything that supports it?

Your entire argument - "logical" though it may be - is based on the premise that a 1/1 creature can't have 5 damage dealt to it. That premise still doesn't sit nicely with 704.5g, or with the abilities of Rushing-Tide Zubera and Burning-Eye Zubera. Drain Life also illustrates the difference in Consume Spirit's function.

With the effects of those two cards, I think that clarifies it. Though truthfully, there is nothing wrong with the way I was looking at it either. After a fashion you could even say that because it is an effect of those cards, it does not justify the same meaning for all other cards as well under the context of the rules; which would still make my arguement very viable.

- It doesn't say that damage can't accumulate in excess. Therefore, damage does accumulate in excess.

That could go either way lol :p.

- 607.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, “Destroy target creature. It can’t be regenerated” or “Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner’s library instead of into its owner’s graveyard.”) Don’t just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases—read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.

This actually supports my claim that both of the effects have to be representative of X, which is in turn, the mana cost of the spell. The whole crux of the arguement here is whether you can do more dmg to a creature than it has toughness.

- 704.5g If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and the total damage marked on it is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed.
- What this says is that if you dmg a creature with 2 toughness will it die if dealt 2 damage or more. If it were lightning bolted, the creature is still dealt damage and upon recognising that that is lethal damage it then dies.
- 118.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source without wither causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.

Very viable way of looking at it, but my understanding of it is just as viable, although it would seem not as popular lol. Though this still does not say that the dmg being delt is higher than the toughness, it's just saying that the values of the effects, and the toughness, are different. As I said before, the crux is whether the excess dmg is actually applicable or not, which is sadly, from what I can see, not clarified in the rules; and since I know many of you will likely get all hellbent over that comment, just keep in mind that there are many different ways of interpreting the rules, not just one

Sorry, not entirely sure how to work all the quotes in from other posts, but I am sure you can understand which are my comments. Thanks for all the help guys; not sure why some peeps felt the need to be rude, but it's a small matter, thanks for helping.
- 118.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source without wither causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.

This should answer your question.

not sure why some peeps felt the need to be rude

Well, honestly, it's because however honourable or purely academic your reasons may be, it really just sounds to me like you're a really stubborn person who doesn't want to admit to your brother that he's right.
keep in mind that there are many different ways of interpreting the rules, not just one

There are indeed many ways to interpret the rules. However, only one of them is correct.

Rule 118.3d is as clear as it needs to be. If you deal 12345 damage to a creature with toughness 1, 12345 damage will be marked on the creature, since that's the "that much" that the rule is talking about. The rule does not mention the toughness of the creature anywhere, therefore the toughness of the creature is irrelevant.
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
Well, honestly, it's because however honourable or purely academic your reasons may be, it really just sounds to me like you're a really stubborn person who doesn't want to admit to your brother that he's right.

Hahahaha, touche! Although true after a fashion, my point of view is not necessarily wrong either, so far all that has really been illustrated is that the interpretation of the rules has some leeway lol.

My brother is actually sitting right here with me reading all this lol.
118.3d is about as definitive an answer as you'll get.
there are many different ways of interpreting the rules, not just one

There are, but all of these except one are wrong.
so far all that has really been illustrated is that the interpretation of the rules has some leeway lol.

Not, it does not. The position that damage can accumulate in excess is supported explicitly in 118.3d. Nowhere under 118 is the ignoring of excess damage discussed.

not sure why some peeps felt the need to be rude

I'm unable to determine which peeps, in particular were being rude. However, I will comment that you seem to be ignoring evidence that contradicts this position you've been arguing. You seem to be interested discussing Rules that, while held together by logic, are not the Rules of Magic.

That's not a bad thing - in principle - but when you bring this discussion to RQ+A, where we deal in questions with definitive answers, and you've been given definitive answers by Rules Advisors and at least one Judge, it can cause frustration.
When you ask a rules question, please autocard. Type [c]Doom Blade[/c] to get Doom Blade.
What Color Am I?
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
um 704.5g is a State Based Action rule

the sub rules of 704.5 are ONLY checked prior to player's getting priority
they are not omnipresent jumping into effect the moment the damage reaches an amount equal to the toughness of the creature

a spell effect says "deal 3 damage to target creature" and that's what happens, that creature is marked with 3 damage. Once the spell resolves, prority returns to the active player and immediately before that happens the actions in Rule 704.5 are checked. 704.5g sees a creature with 2 toughness and 3 damage marked on it and jumps into action destroying that creature because the marked damage is >= to the creature's toughness.

That's how it works. End of Story.

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

118.3d is about as definitive an answer as you'll get.
There are, but all of these except one are wrong. Not, it does not. The position that damage can accumulate in excess is supported explicitly in 118.3d. Nowhere under 118 is the ignoring of excess damage discussed.

However, I will comment that you seem to be ignoring evidence that contradicts this position you've been arguing. You seem to be interested discussing Rules that, while held together by logic, are not the Rules of Magic.

So far I haven't ignored anything, I have simply looked at all the rules from a different perspective, and a completely logical one, as you said yourself, at that. I haven't created anything here, I've simply illuminated some possible discrepencies in the rules based on a lack of clarification through them.

- 118.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source without wither causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.

I am not arguing that the dmg is not being marked, the point here is that the dmg that actually has any effect is only applicable insofar are the toughness(including the players here) of the recipient of it. You cannot do more dmg to something when there is nothing to do more dmg to, (this is reasoning, not a rule, but this is not contradicted in the rules either). With the Consume Spirit spell, you have to announce a value for X, which means you have a have a target for X, this means each mana spent on X, and X represents both of the effects of dmg done and life gained, it cannot mean just one of the effects, it is both of them. And therefore, if you cannot meat both of the effects, you cannot tap the mana for it, if you do, the mana isn't being used by the spell then, it couldn't be since there is ultimately no target for the excess dmg, and since X is both dmg done and life gained, you don't get the life gained either; The excess mana spent would simply mana burn you.

You might laugh at this, but my brother is starting to agree with me having read many of the rules you guys have quoted lol. Thanks for all the rule quotes btw, that's alot of what we were hoping for, we appreciate it.
I am not arguing that the dmg is not being marked

So you agree that it is possible to deal 10 damage to a creature with toughness 1?
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
You cannot do more dmg to something when there is nothing to do more dmg to, (this is reasoning, not a rule, but this is not contradicted in the rules either).

It's contradicted by rule 607.2c. And the rest of your post is mostly gibberish.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
- 118.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source without wither causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.

Yes, I do laugh at your brother for starting to agree with you. I won't say why.

However, as for the part I left in the quote...

You quote that and say that you're not arguing that it's not being marked, you're just arguing that the damage isn't actually dealt.

This is because you seem to not be actually reading what you quoted. Allow me to break down the sentence for you.

[INDENT]118.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source without wither causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.[/INDENT]

You cannot say that you agree with the damage being marked but not dealt because the damage being dealt is what's causing the creature to become marked with that damage.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

So you agree that it is possible to deal 10 damage to a creature with toughness 1?

This is why quoting on forums is stupid, because people always take things out of context. (not calling you stupid here) Read that statement in the context and I have already answered that.

- It's contradicted by rule 607.2c. And the rest of your post is mostly gibberish.

It's not contradicted by that rule, and is in fact, as stated previously, supported by it. I am not trying to be rude here, but your calling the rest of my post gibberish is just simply because there really is no contradiction to my arguement. I am not disagreeing with you guys here, both my interpretation and your interpretation are completely viable; although, as I have said, mine is clearly not the more popular one lol.
I have already answered that.

Then please humor me and answer it again: What happens when the instruction "Deal 10 damage to target creature" is followed on a creature with toughness 1?
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
If only p damage can be dealt to a creature with toughness p, why does Drain Life read "You gain life equal to the damage dealt, but not more life than the player's life total before Drain Life dealt damage or the creature's toughness?" Corrupt is not as explicit. If this aspect of Drain Life is part of the rules of the game, why does it explicitly say so? It's rules text, not reminder text...
When you ask a rules question, please autocard. Type [c]Doom Blade[/c] to get Doom Blade.
What Color Am I?
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
If only p damage can be dealt to a creature with toughness p, why does Drain Life read "You gain life equal to the damage dealt, but not more life than the player's life total before Drain Life dealt damage or the creature's toughness?" Corrupt is not as explicit. If this aspect of Drain Life is part of the rules of the game, why does it explicitly say so? It's rules text, not reminder text...

At this point, he's admitted that Drain Life is an example of why it works the way it does; he's just (incorrectly) arguing that there's an ambiguity about it in the rules.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

However, as for the part I left in the quote...

You quote that and say that you're not arguing that it's not being marked, you're just arguing that the damage isn't actually dealt.

This is because you seem to not be actually reading what you quoted. Allow me to break down the sentence for you.

[INDENT]118.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source without wither causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.[/INDENT]

You cannot say that you agree with the damage being marked but not dealt because the damage being dealt is what's causing the creature to become marked with that damage.

This rule is applied differently when looking at a shock type spell vs. a spell with a variable X in it determining the effect. I am saying that a 2dmg shock going up against a 1toughness creature is still only doing 1dmg, despite the difference in values; the excess dmg of the spell is simply lost, not applied.

For the spell with the variable X in it, in this case Consume Spirit, which is very unique to this issue, the dmg dealt is determined by an action of the player, through the tapping of a variable amount of mana for the variable X. Because of this, you cannot tap more mana than what is targettable for the effect of the spell. If X were able to represent both the dmg done and the life gained seperately, I could understand being able to tap more mana for X just to achieve the life gain effect of X, but in this case it doesn't. X is both dmg done and life gained, and therefore cannot be either one of them seperately, it has to be both. Like I said, the crux here is still if you can do more dmg to a creature(or player) than it has toughness.
I am saying that a 2dmg shock going up against a 1toughness creature is still only doing 1dmg, despite the difference in values; the excess dmg of the spell is simply lost, not applied.

You have absolutely no basis for this claim. In fact, your claim is DIRECTLY contradicted by rule 118.3d.
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
This rule is applied differently when looking at a shock type spell vs. a spell with a variable X in it determining the effect.

Please quote a rule that supports that.
For the spell with the variable X in it, in this case Consume Spirit, which is very unique to this issue, the dmg dealt is determined by an action of the player, through the tapping of a variable amount of mana for the variable X.

You still have it backwards.

Not true: The amount of mana you pay determines X.
True: The value you choose for X determines how much mana you must pay.
This rule

What Rule?

If you are going to try to continue this, get something that supports what you say.
This rule is applied differently when looking at a shock type spell vs. a spell with a variable X in it determining the effect. I am saying that a 2dmg shock going up against a 1toughness creature is still only doing 1dmg, despite the difference in values; the excess dmg of the spell is simply lost, not applied.

For the spell with the variable X in it, in this case Consume Spirit, which is very unique to this issue, the dmg dealt is determined by an action of the player, through the tapping of a variable amount of mana for the variable X. Because of this, you cannot tap more mana than what is targettable for the effect of the spell. If X were able to represent both the dmg done and the life gained seperately, I could understand being able to tap more mana for X just to achieve the life gain effect of X, but in this case it doesn't. X is both dmg done and life gained, and therefore cannot be either one of them seperately, it has to be both. Like I said, the crux here is still if you can do more dmg to a creature(or player) than it has toughness.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Is your brother Fireball-Debate?

You do not chose a value of X by tapping lands. You choose a value of X by saying 'I choose this value (insert value here) for X.'

There is nothing in the rules that says X-damage spells work differently from set-damage spells. They work the exact same as far as dealing damage to creatures goes. The rule works just the same for both kinds of spells. You can deal any amount of damage you desire to a creature (provided you can pay the mana cost for the chosen X) and gain the same amount of life. (Or you can deal more damage than the life you gain. Or you can gain more life than the damage you deal. Under normal circumstances, however, you will deal and gain the same amount.)
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

- It's contradicted by rule 607.2c. And the rest of your post is mostly gibberish.

It's not contradicted by that rule, and is in fact, as stated previously, supported by it.

"The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written."

Which of the following better represents following the instruction "Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage to target creature or player.", if the target happens to be Grizzly Bears?

  • Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage to Grizzly Bears.
  • Lightning Bolt deals 2 damage to Grizzly Bears.

I am not trying to be rude here, but your calling the rest of my post gibberish is just simply because there really is no contradiction to my arguement.

No, it's just that putting all of the contradictions in a post is tedious and pointless.

With the Consume Spirit spell, you have to announce a value for X,

Okay.
which means you have a have a target for X,

No. X is covered by rule 107.3, which makes absolutely no mention of any target.

this means each mana spent on X, and X represents both of the effects of dmg done and life gained, it cannot mean just one of the effects, it is both of them.

Is this supposed to be English?

And therefore, if you cannot meat both of the effects, you cannot tap the mana for it,

The rules for mana abilities make no reference to any sort of usage.
if you do, the mana isn't being used by the spell then, it couldn't be since there is ultimately no target for the excess dmg,

What is "excess dmg" and why would it need a "target"?
and since X is both dmg done and life gained, you don't get the life gained either;

"... and you gain X life." See rule 607.2c.

The excess mana spent would simply mana burn you.

There is no "excess mana"; it was spent while playing the spell.

Which part of the following do you need explained in greater detail?

  • AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
    AP's mana pool:
  • AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
    AP's mana pool:
  • AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
    AP's mana pool:
  • AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
    AP's mana pool:
  • AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
    AP's mana pool:
  • AP gets priority and casts Consume Spirit. This follows the sequence described in rule 601.2. AP announces Consume Sprit and puts it on the stack [601.2a]. AP specifies X=3 [601.2b]. AP specifies that the target is NAP's Grizzly Bears [601.2c]. AP determines that the total cost of the spell is , of which at least 3 of the must be paid using black mana [601.2e]. AP doesn't feel the need to play more mana abilities [601.2f]. AP spends the on the spell [601.2g]. The spell has now been cast [601.2h].
    Note that none of the above steps refer to the fact that the spell will eventually deal damage and give life, rather than give +x/+0.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
If only p damage can be dealt to a creature with toughness p, why does Drain Life read "You gain life equal to the damage dealt, but not more life than the player's life total before Drain Life dealt damage or the creature's toughness?" Corrupt is not as explicit. If this aspect of Drain Life is part of the rules of the game, why does it explicitly say so? It's rules text, not reminder text...

As far as I understand that, the rule has not changed, they just took it off the card(s) of future sets.

Feigal, I was referring to the rule in the quote, I am sure that was obvious.

- This rule is applied differently when looking at a shock type spell vs. a spell with a variable X in it determining the effect.

- Please quote a rule that supports that.

It's an interpretation, not a rule, if you can find a rule that contradicts what I am saying with that statement, please post it.

- You still have it backwards.
Not true: The amount of mana you pay determines X.
True: The value you choose for X determines how much mana you must pay.

So, technically speaking then, you do not need a target for Consume Spirit? You can just choose a value for X, and gain the life? If that's the case, that closes the whole discussion right there lol.

- I am saying that a 2dmg shock going up against a 1toughness creature is still only doing 1dmg, despite the difference in values; the excess dmg of the spell is simply lost, not applied.
You have absolutely no basis for this claim. In fact, your claim is DIRECTLY contradicted by rule 118.3d.

Of course I have no basis for the claim, because it is not clarified in the rules, this is simply my interpretation of it, and my interpretation is not contradicted in the rules. rule 118.3d does not say whether the excess dmg is applied or lost, I am simply saying that my interpretation is that it is lost. Someone said earlier, "The rules do not indicate that excess dmg is ignored, therefore it is not" Or something along those lines, however, as I answered, that can go either way depending on how you look at it.

- Is your brother Fireball-Debate?
You do not chose a value of X by tapping lands. You choose a value of X by saying 'I choose this value (insert value here) for X.'
There is nothing in the rules that says X-damage spells work differently from set-damage spells. They work the exact same as far as dealing damage to creatures goes. The rule works just the same for both kinds of spells. You can deal any amount of damage you desire to a creature (provided you can pay the mana cost for the chosen X) and gain the same amount of life. (Or you can deal more damage than the life you gain. Or you can gain more life than the damage you deal. Under normal circumstances, however, you will deal and gain the same amount.)

Haha, very intuitive. Despite the logic however, the rules do not state that you can do more dmg to a creature than it has life, the fact that it is marked with a higher dmg value does not mean that the dmg is actually applied to the target, because you can interpret that as simple math and determine only the value of toughness, when smaller than the value of the dmg marked, is actually applied as dmg, and the rest is not applied as dmg because there is nothing to apply it to.

- Which part of the following do you need explained in greater detail?
1.AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
AP's mana pool:
2.AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
AP's mana pool:
3.AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
AP's mana pool:
4.AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
AP's mana pool:
5.AP gets priority and activates the ": Add to your mana pool." ability of a Swamp. AP taps the Swamp to pay the cost and adds to his mana pool.
AP's mana pool:
6.AP gets priority and casts Consume Spirit. This follows the sequence described in rule 601.2. AP announces Consume Sprit and puts it on the stack [601.2a]. AP specifies X=3 [601.2b]. AP specifies that the target is NAP's Grizzly Bears [601.2c]. AP determines that the total cost of the spell is , of which at least 3 of the must be paid using black mana [601.2e]. AP doesn't feel the need to play more mana abilities [601.2f]. AP spends the on the spell [601.2g]. The spell has now been cast [601.2h].
Note that none of the above steps refer to the fact that the spell will eventually deal damage and give life, rather than give +x/+0.

While most of your post was just meant to be rude, and didn't actually argue anything at all, there is no need to delve into that part of it further. This part however makes sense. However, it does not address the arguement that I am raising about applying dmg to a target more than its toughness value.

107.3. Many objects use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X.
601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. A spell may require some targets only if an alternative, additional, or special cost (such as a buyback or kicker cost), or a particular mode, was chosen for it; otherwise, the spell is cast as though it did not have those targets. If the spell has a variable number of targets, the player announces how many targets he or she will choose before he or she announces those targets. The same target can't be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word "target" on the spell. However, if the spell uses the word "target" in multiple places, the same object, player, or zone can be chosen once for each instance of the word "target" (as long as it fits the targeting criteria).The chosen players, objects, and/or zones each become a target of that spell. (Any abilities that trigger when those players, objects, and/or zones become the target of a spell trigger at this point; they'll wait to be put on the stack until the spell has finished being cast.)
Example: If a spell says "Tap two target creatures," then the same target can't be chosen twice; the spell requires two different legal targets. A spell that says "Destroy target artifact and target land," however, can target the same artifact land twice because it uses the word "target" in multiple places.

One, a target has to be chosen, as seen here, and two, because the value of X, while determined by the player, it is under my interpretation that you cannot apply a value of mana cost for X when that would require X to be applied as dmg in excess of the toughness of the target. The ability of this card is also a determining factor for X in this regard. As I have said before, the crux is whether you can apply more dmg to a target then it has toughness.

I apoligize for the delayed reply, multitasking right now lol.
Wall of text crits you for 1268.
it is under my interpretation that you cannot apply a value of mana cost for X when that would require X to be applied as dmg in excess of the toughness of the target.

Here is the rule for when you select X. Please highlight the portions of the rule that restrict your choices based on what the spells future effects will be:
601.2b If the spell is modal the player announces the mode choice (see rule 700.2). If the player wishes to splice any cards onto the spell (see rule 702.44), he or she reveals those cards in his or her hand. If the spell has alternative, additional, or other special costs that will be paid as it’s being cast such as buyback, kicker, or convoke costs (see rules 116.8 and 116.9), the player announces his or her intentions to pay any or all of those costs (see rule 601.2e). A player can’t apply two alternative methods of casting or two alternative costs to a single spell. If the spell has a variable cost that will be paid as it’s being cast (such as an in its mana cost; see rule 107.3), the player announces the value of that variable. If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes hybrid mana symbols, the player announces the nonhybrid equivalent cost he or she intends to pay. Previously made choices (such as choosing to cast a spell with flashback from a graveyard or choosing to cast a creature with morph face down) may restrict the player’s options when making these choices.