Community

a 1/1 creature with infect attacks, a 1/1 creature with "(G): regenerate" blocks. the blocking player pays for regenerate. does the creature with regenerate die, or is it saved?

It will go to the graveyard for having less than 1 toughness.  This isn't destruction, so the regeneration shield won't help.

MTG comprehensive rulings/definitions:

regenerate - 614.8. Regeneration is a destruction-replacement effect. The word "instead" doesn't appear on the card but is implicit in the definition of regeneration. "Regenerate [permanent]" means "The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it's an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat." Abilities that trigger from damage being dealt still trigger even if the permanent regenerates. See rule 701.11.


infect -  (This creature deals damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters and to players in the form of poison counters.)

so in case of infect, regenerates ruling "Abilities that trigger from damage being dealt still trigger even if the permanent regenerates." the -1/-1 counters still go onto the creature even though i deals leathal damage. or is it that the creature did have infect and  the damage was never present? it just threw -1/-1 counters on the blocker. i'm srry i'm tring to understand what is happening.

Sep 28, 2010 -- 6:21PM, jaco0draconus wrote:

MTG comprehensive rulings/definitions:

regenerate - 614.8. Regeneration is a destruction-replacement effect. The word "instead" doesn't appear on the card but is implicit in the definition of regeneration. "Regenerate [permanent]" means "The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it's an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat." Abilities that trigger from damage being dealt still trigger even if the permanent regenerates. See rule 701.11.


infect -  (This creature deals damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters and to players in the form of poison counters.)

so in case of infect, regenerates ruling "Abilities that trigger from damage being dealt still trigger even if the permanent regenerates." the -1/-1 counters still go onto the creature even though i deals leathal damage. or is it that the creature did have infect and  the damage was never present? it just threw -1/-1 counters on the blocker. i'm srry i'm tring to understand what is happening.

Creatures with toughness 0 or less are put into their owner's graveyards. This is not destruction, so regeneration cannot replace it.

Sep 28, 2010 -- 6:21PM, jaco0draconus wrote:

so in case of infect, regenerates ruling "Abilities that trigger from damage being dealt still trigger even if the permanent regenerates." the -1/-1 counters still go onto the creature even though i deals leathal damage. or is it that the creature did have infect and  the damage was never present? it just threw -1/-1 counters on the blocker. i'm srry i'm tring to understand what is happening.

I'm having trouble understanding your question, but I will mention that the rule you quote has no bearing on this situation at all; neither regeneration nor infect involve anything "triggering". "Trigger" as used in the Magic rules always refers specifically to triggered abilities, and there are no triggered abilities mentioned in your scenario.

Dealing damage is a two-step process.

First you figure out what damage is actually being dealt.

Then you figure out what the result of the dealt damage is.

So my 3/3 Infect Lifelink is blocked by your 1/1 regenerator, and you play a spell/ability that prevents the next 1 damage that would be dealt to your regenerator.

In the first step, we see that 3 damage (from a source with Infect & Lifelink) is going to be dealt to your creature, but 1 of it is being prevented.  Okay.  Now 2 damage (from a source with Infect & Lifelink) is going to be dealt to your creature.

Now we determine what the result of that 2 damage is.  If Infect weren't involved, 2 damage would be marked on your creature.  But because my creature has Infect, instead of marking 2 damage, I put 2 -1/-1 counters on your guy.  Also, because of lifelink, I gain 2 life.

So the result of the damage is "I put 2 -1/-1 counters on your creature and I gain 2 life."

So you see, the regenerator never had damage of any kind marked on him.  Damage was dealt to him yes, but it never got there... 2 -1/-1 counters got there.

srry guys this happened alot during the pre-release at my shop this weekend. i'm playing devil's advocate. the problem card:

Blight Mamba

since infect was every where people wanted to stop those poison counters, so they blocked a creature w/ infect with Blight Mamba. stating they could regenerate and it live. alot said yes, many said no. my question, whose right? and why?

regenerate stops "destroy" effects. but, if a creature is dealt lethal damage (according to the comp rules) it is "destroyed" as a state-based effect so therefore regeneration removes all damage and removes the creature from combat. thus saving it.

but infect forces the -1/-1 counters on to the creature, not really damage. 2nd the creature hits 0 toughness and then is 'destroyed" as a state-based effect. so can it be regenerated then? will the counters remain and just kill it anyway or are they removed?

EDIT: srry about that. i'm never doing a copy paste from gatherer again.

No, having 0 toughness does not destroy the creature. A creature that has 0 toughness is sent to the graveyard as a state based action, this is not destruction thus regeneration and being indestructible does not save it.

Sep 28, 2010 -- 6:47PM, jaco0draconus wrote:

but infect forces the -1/-1 counters on to the creature, not really damage. 2nd the creature hits 0 toughness and then is 'destroyed" as a state-based effect. so can it be regenerated then? will the counters remain and just kill it anyway or are they removed?

Creatures that have a toughness of zero are very specifically NOT destroyed. They are merely placed into their owner's graveyard.

Creatures are destroyed by state based actions only when they have a lethal amount of damage marked on them. Since infect does not mark any damage on creatures, it will never cause them to be destroyed, thus regeneration has no event to replace.

thanks guys. some big arguements were being thrown over this. i'll be sure to tell them next time i'm there.

"Regenerate [permanent]" means "The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it's an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat."

Note: regenerate couldn't remove the -1/-1 counters in any event as they are not marked damage
so even if the rules allowed it to be regenerated (which they unequivocably do not) it would still have the -1/-1 counters and still go to the graveyard even after we applied a regeneration effect to it.

704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can’t replace this event.
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.
704.5h If a creature has toughness greater than 0, and it’s been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked, that creature is destroyed. Regeneration can replace this event.

Now how come a creature with Infect and Lifelink doesn't remove poison counters from it's controller when it deals damage...

Oct 9, 2010 -- 5:31PM, rezwits wrote:

Now how come a creature with Infect and Lifelink doesn't remove poison counters from it's controller when it deals damage...

Because gaining life has nothing to do with poison counters.

Please don't bump old threads.  Start a new thread for your questions.
 

I wonder why nobody has mentioned this when talking about regenerating when it comes to infect:

Infect cards say this:
"This creature deals damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters and to players in the form of poison counters."

Regenerate says this:

“The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove  all damage marked on it and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking  creature, remove it from combat.”

Does "damage marked on it" mean damage ABOUT to be dealt? or does this mean it has taken the damage and then it is being removed?

Does "damage marked on it" mean damage ABOUT to be dealt? or does this mean it has taken the damage and then it is being removed?

It means damage that has already been dealt to it, with the source of damage having neither infect nor wither.

119. Damage

119.3. Damage may have one or more of the following results, depending on whether the recipient of the damage is a player or permanent, the characteristics of the damage's source, and the characteristics of the damage's recipient (if it's a permanent).

119.3d Damage dealt to a creature by a source with wither and/or infect causes that many -1/-1 counters to be put on that creature.

119.3e Damage dealt to a creature by a source with neither wither nor infect causes that much damage to be marked on that creature.

Since Cyphern already answered the question, I'll just put this here.

Oct 9, 2010 -- 5:48PM, rudolf wrote:

Please don't bump old threads.  Start a new thread for your questions.

 

So say Thrun, the Last Troll blocks an Ichorclaw Myr with 2 +1/+1 counters on it making it a 3/3. Thrun is regenerated. So he still takes all 5 poison counters from blocking the myr even tho the regeneration removes him from combat, correct?

Mar 29, 2011 -- 8:49PM, fatfreesaltines wrote:

So say Thrun, the Last Troll blocks an Ichorclaw Myr with 2 +1/+1 counters on it making it a 3/3. Thrun is regenerated. So he still takes all 5 poison counters from blocking the myr even tho the regeneration removes him from combat, correct?

In the future, if you have new questions, ask in a new thread rather than resurrecting a month-old one.

Thrun, the Last Troll takes 5 damage from the Ichorclaw Myr . This damage causes five -1/-1 counters to be put on Thrun, making him a -1/-1. He is then put into the graveyard, no questions asked. Regeneration cannot help, because that is not destruction.

Edit: Note that regeneration doesn't happen when you activate the ability that says "Regenerate [something]". The actual regeneration (the tapping, removing damage, and removing from combat) happens the next time the Regenerated permanent would be destroyed. If anything besides destruction happpens, Regeneration has no effect.

i odnt understand why there is a diffrence between destryed and dying by minus counters both send to graveyard as a death. so what you are all telling me is that if a zombie with regen comes at me i can stick him with 2 vials of poisen he wont come back but if i rip him to shreads he will.? this sounds compleetly wrong but who am i to argue the rules, im sorry zombies r immune to poisen counters so how can this be?

sieriously tho both ways the creature is sent to graveyard destruction or not its still a death if u poisen me it destroys my life i die the same if u slaughter me either way  

Please do not necro years old threads. It won't show up as having new content and the answers within may be outdated anyway. If you have a question post it in a new thread.

Flavor has no power before the rules. And the rules say, that regeneration replaces destruction, which only comes in three forms: 1) effects that use the word "destroy", 2) lethal damage marked on a creature or 3) damage from a source with deathtouch. Having 0 or less toughness is not destruction and so regeneration cannot save the creature.

Whoa.  I'm not sure if it's awesome, or really sad that this thread was necro'd not once, not twice, but four times (!) -- three of which occured specifically after Rudolf explicitly asked that people not revive old threads.  That's...depressingly impressive. -_-

As rezzahan says, flavor doesn't hold any power over the rules of the game, no matter how much you want it to.  The rules expressly define what destruction is and is not.  A creature with 0 toughness is not destroyed (again, by the game's definition), and that's the end of it.

Oh, and let's throw this in again: please don't revive old threads!  I feel like someone's going to rebel against it yet again and necro this within the next year or two; count on it!