Community

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. 

Jan 31, 2012 -- 9:52PM, cyphern wrote:

Jan 31, 2012 -- 9:41PM, Gonkers wrote:

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."
 

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?

Jan 31, 2012 -- 10:19PM, Gonkers wrote:

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?

Jan 31, 2012 -- 10:25PM, Gonkers wrote:

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.

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....)