If you let the defending player choose the damage assignment order, that removes the whole point of the damage assignment order.
Actually give yourself a scenario involving blocking with two or more nonidentical creatures. I'd be ashamed if you couldn't see how silly that decision becomes.
If you really can't, you can check charlequin's post.
Get a strong creature, get a chump, gang block with everything you have, blah blah attacking is now impossible.
charlequin, I have read your re-explanation of your damage assignment system, and I have this reply for it:
Now that throws flavour out the window.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Two things that I think are potentially good ideas being discussed:
1) Fixing the way combat damage works to work more like Deathtouch all the time (and more like pre-m10 rules, though without the stack). This is easily one of the most confusing aspects of combat to new players. The fact that you order the blockers but that all the damage is done at the same time, and that you also need to assign "lethal" damage before moving on and that that doesn't include damage prevention... It's just way more confusing than just "assign damage how you like."
That being said, unless Wizards wants to weaken pump and damage prevention spells, this probably won't be the tweak.
2) Regeneration I've thought was always kind of clunky. Why do you have to regenerate your creature before he's dead? The "regeneration shield" concept was just always clunky and unintuitive. Wouldn't something like "If this creature would be destroyed, you may pay its regeneration cost to regenerate it. If you do, tap this creature, remove it from combat and remove all damage from it." Wouldn't this work better and more intuitively? I'm not a rules expert, but would this really cause a lot of problems? Only thing I can think of off the top of my head that this would effect is something like Capricious Efreet, where you'd be able to regenerate a creature that it destroys after it gets hit... I'm not sure that's a bad thing as that makes much more intuitive sense to me.
I hope they are putting mana burn back. I am still unconvinced of this amazing design space that "no mana burn" opens. Where are these amazing cards that justify killing my Citadel of Pain deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Decks:
Saproling Crush
Faeries WRStuffymare BDiscard Damnation RBLand? What Land?
We're told it's a small tweak of a rules change. This means:
They are NOT putting mana burn back. He said they're tweaking something because it works but they're trying to make it better, ergo they will not be completely undoing a change.
They will not be changing anything like protection, because they are tweaking one of the M10 rules changes. If it didn't change it M10, it isn't changing now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Rage is the only freedom left me"
"Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they're folded.". - Dr. Jeebus
I'm going on record right now and stating that before the end of 2012 we will see foil dual lands in booster packs (The real, Alpha dual lands). You can quote me on that.
Telling your creature to "kill that guy first, that guy second, and that guy third" essentially is arranging your opponent's creatures into a neat, single file line.
Mechanically, they're identical. Flavorfully, they're very different. In the former, you're telling your own creature what to do (which makes sense). In the latter, you're telling your opponent's creatures what to do (which doesn't).
Many people seem to have latched onto the flavorful explanation that doesn't make sense instead of the one that does. And then, of course, they complain when they realize their chosen explanation doesn't make sense.
2) Regeneration I've thought was always kind of clunky. Why do you have to regenerate your creature before he's dead? The "regeneration shield" concept was just always clunky and unintuitive. Wouldn't something like "If this creature would be destroyed, you may pay its regeneration cost to regenerate it. If you do, tap this creature, remove it from combat and remove all damage from it." Wouldn't this work better and more intuitively? I'm not a rules expert, but would this really cause a lot of problems? Only thing I can think of off the top of my head that this would effect is something like Capricious Efreet, where you'd be able to regenerate a creature that it destroys after it gets hit... I'm not sure that's a bad thing as that makes much more intuitive sense to me.
Remember that we're talking about a slight tweak to a rule change from M10. Regeneration wasn't changed in M10, so that can't be it.
My vote is for making any amount of deathtouch damage be considered lethal damage, and making deathtouch no longer ignore the damage assignment order. That seems a bit big to me, but maybe Aaron Forsythe's idea of "tweaked ever-so-slightly" is bigger than mine.
ATM for me, its between mana burn being brought back, dethtouch re-errata, and mana dissipating between steps not phases.
Mana burn is OK, i really don't care that it's gone, but i do miss it.
Combat was changed so damage prevention wouldn't be broken (healing salve the creature you assigned just enough damage to to kill) Deathtouch made things a bit more complicated by doing a roundabout way of breaking those rules. I bet 10 to 1 this is it, and that the change will be to "Creatures with deathtouch deal lethal damage." (as in, it assigns 1 point of damage, it is considered lethal)
Otherwise, it's going to make it so things like lotus cobra to be used to pay for Ghostly prison effects, an annoying setback.
I'm assuming you mean in some way other than that ordering damage that way is silly, because the current rules are already completely disconnected from flavor in terms of ordering blockers.
Are you guys just completely checking common sense at the door when you suggest this as a possibility? The mana burn change has been a huge success. It's not going to change back now, it's not going to change back ever.
Now: You have to deal enough damage to kill each blocker in sequence.
Suggested Change: You have to do the same amount or more damage to each blocker in sequence as the one after it.
This would let them get rid of the awkward hack in the Deathtouch rules and bring back tricks like Volcanic Fallout-after-damage but not bring back actual damage on the stack.
All the other M10 rules are basically exactly right the way they changed them, IMO, so I kind of hope this is the change they're making.
In my opinion, this is the only change to the combat rules that is likely. It allows for more strategic damage placement and works well in combination with damage or toughness-reducing sweepers.
The idea of having the defender decide Blocking Order is absolutely ludicrous. The negative effect that change would have on the game would be huge in Limited formats, where blocking (and especially multi-blocking) are considerably more common.
The change of having mana empty at the end of each phase instead of each step is probably the most likely chage overall. It is not particularly intuitive that your mana pool empties multiple times during combat. The issue of floating mana from your upkeep to your draw step looms, but it is far more agreeable than the other option.
i would say the biggest thing I can conceive of them doing is removing the ordering of blockers and having the attacking player able to assign damage between creatures anyway he chooses on resolution.
It would remove confusion/complaints about the timing of ordering blockers and fit in with the m10 theme of making the rules more intuitive.
On the negative side it would further weaken combat tricks, and especially damage prevention, and cause another uproar.
Much more likely it really is a small tweak like weakening deathtouch, changing how mana/phases work exactly.
Another guess could be that they will remove the opportunity to play "fast effects" between the first strike and normal damage steps.
Actually, yeah, thinking further, your version is more streamlined than some. It would definitely make Deathtouch not feel clunky in comparison to other damage while finding middle ground between the systems.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
New Rules come out for 1999 6th Edition... "THEY'RE TURNING MAGIC INTO PORTAL! THE GAME IS RUINED! EVERYONE PETITION AND GET THEM TO CHANGE IT BACK!"
New Rules come out for 2010 Edition... "THEY'RE TURNING MAGIC INTO YU-GI-OH! THE GAME IS RUINED! EVERYONE PETITION AND GET THEM TO CHANGE IT BACK!"
New Rules come out for *Reserved for something in 2020* "THEY'RE TURNING MAGIC INTO *currently "simple" game by the more "skilled" players*! THE GAME IS..." etc.
Are you guys just completely checking common sense at the door when you suggest this as a possibility? The mana burn change has been a huge success. It's not going to change back now, it's not going to change back ever.
Just out of curiosity...what makes you call the change "a huge success"? I don't see people whooping it up in the streets singing about how the wicked mana burn is dead. All I see is a lot of complaining about it and a lot of people essentially saying "Deal with it or GTFO". Not a huge success in my book.
I mean, one can't really believe that a spike in sales with M10 and Zendikar that coincided with the M10 rules change is proof of the "success" of the rules change. Too many lurking variables at work. People could, on the whole, dislike the rules change but still be willing to play a game they are heavily invested in and/or like a lot in spite of it.
Anyway, while I don't want to turn this into a Damage on the Stack thread, I really don't like the "conga line" blocking and hope they find a way to resolve that without making Mogg Fanatics able to 2 for 1.
Maybe I'm missing something from an overall perspective, but why don't they just add a Sandskin-like rule that says "If a creature leaves play, any damage it has put onto the stack and hasn't resolved is removed from the stack." That would clear up all the deathtouch/blocker order mess and remain intuitive, "attackers assign damage however they want, because a in a real multi-fight that's how you would do it, not a conga line" and "if a creature isnt in play, it can't float damage".
Maybe I'm missing something though? Wouldn't that solve most stuff?
I was under the impression that even 1 damage done by a deathtouch creature could kill something. Isn't deathtouch stated as : whenever a creature deals damage to a creature destroy that creature.
Im very confused about all this deathtouch talk and would love some clarification.
Thanks to everyone for answering my question and confusion.
I was under the impression that even 1 damage done by a deathtouch creature could kill something. Isn't deathtouch stated as : whenever a creature deals damage to a creature destroy that creature.
Im very confused about all this deathtouch talk and would love some clarification.
Basicially, pre-M10, you could distribute damage, so if you had a 4/1 deathtouch being chump blocked by four people, everyone dies. After M10, if they all have 5 toughness, then only the first creature in the conga line dies. Hence, the change in power - this also applies to cards that contain the text "whenever this deals combat damage to a creature, ...". However, to bandaid fix it, they added to deathtouch the reminder text "Creatures with deathtouch can assign damage however they like", basicially making it clunky, unintuitive, and shortsighted.
Deathtouch damage isn't considered "lethal" until damage is dealt, but if, for the purposes of blocker order it WAS considered lethal, then it wouldn't be such a clunky reminder text and would mesh more. Or maybe it still wouldn't.
I was under the impression that even 1 damage done by a deathtouch creature could kill something. Isn't deathtouch stated as : whenever a creature deals damage to a creature destroy that creature.
Im very confused about all this deathtouch talk and would love some clarification.
One damage from a creature with deathtouch is enough to destroy a creature (as a state-based action, to be precise; deathtouch is no longer a triggered ability like you described).
The "conga line" requires lethal damage to be assigned to each preceding creature in the damage assignment order in order for it to "spill over" to the next creature.
Lethal damage is a term with a very specific meaning. Lethal damage has absolutely nothing to do with whether a creature will be destroyed by the damage (which would actually be impossible to predict). The definition of lethal damage on a given creature is "damage equal to or greater than the creature's toughness."
You know, the current rules would make a lot more sense if everyone just stopped calling it a conga line! The correct phrase is "damage assignment order". You're not arranging your opponent's creatures into a neat, single file line. You're telling your creature to "kill that guy first, that guy second, and that guy third."
Telling your creature to "kill that guy first, that guy second, and that guy third" essentially is arranging your opponent's creatures into a neat, single file line.
Mechanically, they're identical. Flavorfully, they're very different. In the former, you're telling your own creature what to do (which makes sense). In the latter, you're telling your opponent's creatures what to do (which doesn't).
Many people seem to have latched onto the flavorful explanation that doesn't make sense instead of the one that does. And then, of course, they complain when they realize their chosen explanation doesn't make sense.
When two players are actually playing the game, and Player B blocks with multiple creatures, then a lot of the time, maybe even most of the time, Player A indicates the damage assignment order by physically (reaching out with the hand) and arranging the blockers in a line. This "looks" like Player A is actually deciding the order in which the blockers stand.
The point is that people latch onto the latter flavor explanation because that is what seems to be happening, that blockers are getting lined up in a row to get hit. The actual physical/manual mechanics encourage that view of what is happening. Even if it is inaccurate, that is what people think.
That part of CLoD is unintuitive for many players, especially newbies. A large part of what WotC has been trying to do with the M10 is to have the rules match people's expectations (they mention this again and again, how they are willing to change the rules to "match players' expectations", in such articles as the M10 rules primer at http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a). The physical/manual mechanics of CLoD make it seem like the attacker gets to choose how the blockers stand, which goes against people's expectations. WotC has not succeeded in their goals with this part of CLoD.
One out of left field, the game is based on planeswalkers, whichever planeswalker is featured in that block or format, all versions of that planeswalker is legal in that format, i.e. instead of reprinting Jace Beleren in M11, all versions of Jace are legal in standard as long there is one version of him (Jace, Mindsculptor).
Highly unlikely, but you never know.
^ Now this should be commended...."All versions of a Planeswalker is legal in a format if any variants of the Planeswalker is legal".....I LIKE THIS!
it also makes sense flavourfully...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am NOT the girl in my avatar. Stop hitting on me. I'm a dude, just like you!
One damage from a creature with deathtouch is enough to destroy a creature (as a state-based action, to be precise; deathtouch is no longer a triggered ability like you described).
The "conga line" requires lethal damage to be assigned to each preceding creature in the damage assignment order in order for it to "spill over" to the next creature.
Lethal damage is a term with a very specific meaning. Lethal damage has absolutely nothing to do with whether a creature will be destroyed by the damage (which would actually be impossible to predict). The definition of lethal damage on a given creature is "damage equal to or greater than the creature's toughness."
It actually doesn't, because if you have a 4/x deathtouch with trample, and two x/2 are blocking it, you cannot deal any trample damage to the player. Because you need to assign at least 2 damage to each creature in order to trample over.
Under this tweak (if that is indeed the tweak) then you can deal 2 damage to the player.
Thats really the only difference.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll hold myself to this. I'll get fancy dishes and everything.
^ Now this should be commended...."All versions of a Planeswalker is legal in a format if any variants of the Planeswalker is legal".....I LIKE THIS!
it also makes sense flavourfully...
But it's in no way a tweak of an M10 rules change. It's a wholesale change to a decade-old system of format legality. I'm going with no here.
I think the change is likely some fix for Deathtouch, without creating a Trample loophole. MaGo and the rules team has had a year to figure out a way to smooth over that weirdness in a (hopefully) intuitive and (hopefully) less clunky way.
These sentences are simply incorrect. You've been misinformed.
Deathtouch absolutely does have a special rule that lets you spread damage as you see fit (702.2b, as seen above). Damage from creatures with deathtouch is not considered automatically lethal damage.
Not sure how this is an issue. What situation would a player block a creature with deathtouch with multiple creatures, especially since such creatures would probably die from a single creatures blocking it? TBH, the change you would describe would make deathtouch significantly weaker. It isn't that strong...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I don't know why people say a double-edged sword is bad. It's a sword. With two edges." - Kamahl, Pit Fighter
It actually doesn't, because if you have a 4/x deathtouch with trample, and two x/2 are blocking it, you cannot deal any trample damage to the player. Because you need to assign at least 2 damage to each creature in order to trample over.
Under this tweak (if that is indeed the tweak) then you can deal 2 damage to the player.
Thats really the only difference.
I understand that by "this tweak" you're referring to the proposal that a single point of damage from a deathtouch creature be considered lethal. I understand how that differs from current rules, and I assume that's what you're comparing it to.
What I don't understand is why you're mentioning that in response to my post, since I wasn't talking about that or any other proposed tweak at all. I was explaining how the rules currently work because someone asked for clarification. I believe my explanation was correct, and nothing you've said contradicts it.
Not sure how this is an issue. What situation would a player block a creature with deathtouch with multiple creatures, especially since such creatures would probably die from a single creatures blocking it? TBH, the change you would describe would make deathtouch significantly weaker. It isn't that strong...
Whether or how often this becomes an issue is irrelevant. Someone made an outright incorrect statement regarding the rules, so I corrected it.
If you're really looking for a contrived example, I suppose if you thought you could win on your next turn, but had two life and were being attacked by a Stampeding Rhino equipped with a Quietus Spike, you might want to block it with both your 1/3 creatures.
And I don't understand what change you think I would be describing, since I'm just describing how the rules work right now.
I understand that by "this tweak" you're referring to the proposal that a single point of damage from a deathtouch creature be considered lethal. I understand how that differs from current rules, and I assume that's what you're comparing it to.
What I don't understand is why you're mentioning that in response to my post, since I wasn't talking about that or any other proposed tweak at all. I was explaining how the rules currently work because someone asked for clarification. I believe my explanation was correct, and nothing you've said contradicts it.
Mostly because I can't seem to read properly. I thought you had said that lethal damage is any damage the creature will die to.
Way to not pay attention, me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll hold myself to this. I'll get fancy dishes and everything.
Actually give yourself a scenario involving blocking with two or more nonidentical creatures. I'd be ashamed if you couldn't see how silly that decision becomes.
If you really can't, you can check charlequin's post.
charlequin, I have read your re-explanation of your damage assignment system, and I have this reply for it:
Now that throws flavour out the window.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
1) Fixing the way combat damage works to work more like Deathtouch all the time (and more like pre-m10 rules, though without the stack). This is easily one of the most confusing aspects of combat to new players. The fact that you order the blockers but that all the damage is done at the same time, and that you also need to assign "lethal" damage before moving on and that that doesn't include damage prevention... It's just way more confusing than just "assign damage how you like."
That being said, unless Wizards wants to weaken pump and damage prevention spells, this probably won't be the tweak.
2) Regeneration I've thought was always kind of clunky. Why do you have to regenerate your creature before he's dead? The "regeneration shield" concept was just always clunky and unintuitive. Wouldn't something like "If this creature would be destroyed, you may pay its regeneration cost to regenerate it. If you do, tap this creature, remove it from combat and remove all damage from it." Wouldn't this work better and more intuitively? I'm not a rules expert, but would this really cause a lot of problems? Only thing I can think of off the top of my head that this would effect is something like Capricious Efreet, where you'd be able to regenerate a creature that it destroys after it gets hit... I'm not sure that's a bad thing as that makes much more intuitive sense to me.
Current Decks:
Saproling Crush
Faeries
WRStuffymare
BDiscard Damnation
RBLand? What Land?
In Progress:
RGVintage Liquimetal
They are NOT putting mana burn back. He said they're tweaking something because it works but they're trying to make it better, ergo they will not be completely undoing a change.
They will not be changing anything like protection, because they are tweaking one of the M10 rules changes. If it didn't change it M10, it isn't changing now.
"Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they're folded.". - Dr. Jeebus
Mechanically, they're identical. Flavorfully, they're very different. In the former, you're telling your own creature what to do (which makes sense). In the latter, you're telling your opponent's creatures what to do (which doesn't).
Many people seem to have latched onto the flavorful explanation that doesn't make sense instead of the one that does. And then, of course, they complain when they realize their chosen explanation doesn't make sense.
Remember that we're talking about a slight tweak to a rule change from M10. Regeneration wasn't changed in M10, so that can't be it.
My vote is for making any amount of deathtouch damage be considered lethal damage, and making deathtouch no longer ignore the damage assignment order. That seems a bit big to me, but maybe Aaron Forsythe's idea of "tweaked ever-so-slightly" is bigger than mine.
Mana burn is OK, i really don't care that it's gone, but i do miss it.
Combat was changed so damage prevention wouldn't be broken (healing salve the creature you assigned just enough damage to to kill) Deathtouch made things a bit more complicated by doing a roundabout way of breaking those rules. I bet 10 to 1 this is it, and that the change will be to "Creatures with deathtouch deal lethal damage." (as in, it assigns 1 point of damage, it is considered lethal)
Otherwise, it's going to make it so things like lotus cobra to be used to pay for Ghostly prison effects, an annoying setback.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
How so?
I'm assuming you mean in some way other than that ordering damage that way is silly, because the current rules are already completely disconnected from flavor in terms of ordering blockers.
Are you guys just completely checking common sense at the door when you suggest this as a possibility? The mana burn change has been a huge success. It's not going to change back now, it's not going to change back ever.
In my opinion, this is the only change to the combat rules that is likely. It allows for more strategic damage placement and works well in combination with damage or toughness-reducing sweepers.
The idea of having the defender decide Blocking Order is absolutely ludicrous. The negative effect that change would have on the game would be huge in Limited formats, where blocking (and especially multi-blocking) are considerably more common.
The change of having mana empty at the end of each phase instead of each step is probably the most likely chage overall. It is not particularly intuitive that your mana pool empties multiple times during combat. The issue of floating mana from your upkeep to your draw step looms, but it is far more agreeable than the other option.
Actually, yeah, thinking further, your version is more streamlined than some. It would definitely make Deathtouch not feel clunky in comparison to other damage while finding middle ground between the systems.
Just out of curiosity...what makes you call the change "a huge success"? I don't see people whooping it up in the streets singing about how the wicked mana burn is dead. All I see is a lot of complaining about it and a lot of people essentially saying "Deal with it or GTFO". Not a huge success in my book.
I mean, one can't really believe that a spike in sales with M10 and Zendikar that coincided with the M10 rules change is proof of the "success" of the rules change. Too many lurking variables at work. People could, on the whole, dislike the rules change but still be willing to play a game they are heavily invested in and/or like a lot in spite of it.
Anyway, while I don't want to turn this into a Damage on the Stack thread, I really don't like the "conga line" blocking and hope they find a way to resolve that without making Mogg Fanatics able to 2 for 1.
Maybe I'm missing something though? Wouldn't that solve most stuff?
Im very confused about all this deathtouch talk and would love some clarification.
Thanks to everyone for answering my question and confusion.
Basicially, pre-M10, you could distribute damage, so if you had a 4/1 deathtouch being chump blocked by four people, everyone dies. After M10, if they all have 5 toughness, then only the first creature in the conga line dies. Hence, the change in power - this also applies to cards that contain the text "whenever this deals combat damage to a creature, ...". However, to bandaid fix it, they added to deathtouch the reminder text "Creatures with deathtouch can assign damage however they like", basicially making it clunky, unintuitive, and shortsighted.
Deathtouch damage isn't considered "lethal" until damage is dealt, but if, for the purposes of blocker order it WAS considered lethal, then it wouldn't be such a clunky reminder text and would mesh more. Or maybe it still wouldn't.
One damage from a creature with deathtouch is enough to destroy a creature (as a state-based action, to be precise; deathtouch is no longer a triggered ability like you described).
The "conga line" requires lethal damage to be assigned to each preceding creature in the damage assignment order in order for it to "spill over" to the next creature.
Lethal damage is a term with a very specific meaning. Lethal damage has absolutely nothing to do with whether a creature will be destroyed by the damage (which would actually be impossible to predict). The definition of lethal damage on a given creature is "damage equal to or greater than the creature's toughness."
When two players are actually playing the game, and Player B blocks with multiple creatures, then a lot of the time, maybe even most of the time, Player A indicates the damage assignment order by physically (reaching out with the hand) and arranging the blockers in a line. This "looks" like Player A is actually deciding the order in which the blockers stand.
The point is that people latch onto the latter flavor explanation because that is what seems to be happening, that blockers are getting lined up in a row to get hit. The actual physical/manual mechanics encourage that view of what is happening. Even if it is inaccurate, that is what people think.
That part of CLoD is unintuitive for many players, especially newbies. A large part of what WotC has been trying to do with the M10 is to have the rules match people's expectations (they mention this again and again, how they are willing to change the rules to "match players' expectations", in such articles as the M10 rules primer at http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a). The physical/manual mechanics of CLoD make it seem like the attacker gets to choose how the blockers stand, which goes against people's expectations. WotC has not succeeded in their goals with this part of CLoD.
^ Now this should be commended...."All versions of a Planeswalker is legal in a format if any variants of the Planeswalker is legal".....I LIKE THIS!
it also makes sense flavourfully...
It actually doesn't, because if you have a 4/x deathtouch with trample, and two x/2 are blocking it, you cannot deal any trample damage to the player. Because you need to assign at least 2 damage to each creature in order to trample over.
Under this tweak (if that is indeed the tweak) then you can deal 2 damage to the player.
Thats really the only difference.
But it's in no way a tweak of an M10 rules change. It's a wholesale change to a decade-old system of format legality. I'm going with no here.
I think the change is likely some fix for Deathtouch, without creating a Trample loophole. MaGo and the rules team has had a year to figure out a way to smooth over that weirdness in a (hopefully) intuitive and (hopefully) less clunky way.
Not sure how this is an issue. What situation would a player block a creature with deathtouch with multiple creatures, especially since such creatures would probably die from a single creatures blocking it? TBH, the change you would describe would make deathtouch significantly weaker. It isn't that strong...
I understand that by "this tweak" you're referring to the proposal that a single point of damage from a deathtouch creature be considered lethal. I understand how that differs from current rules, and I assume that's what you're comparing it to.
What I don't understand is why you're mentioning that in response to my post, since I wasn't talking about that or any other proposed tweak at all. I was explaining how the rules currently work because someone asked for clarification. I believe my explanation was correct, and nothing you've said contradicts it.
Whether or how often this becomes an issue is irrelevant. Someone made an outright incorrect statement regarding the rules, so I corrected it.
If you're really looking for a contrived example, I suppose if you thought you could win on your next turn, but had two life and were being attacked by a Stampeding Rhino equipped with a Quietus Spike, you might want to block it with both your 1/3 creatures.
And I don't understand what change you think I would be describing, since I'm just describing how the rules work right now.
Mostly because I can't seem to read properly. I thought you had said that lethal damage is any damage the creature will die to.
Way to not pay attention, me.