Super-Duper Death Ray gives us the term "excess damage" to explain how "Trample" theoretically works on an instant or sorcery. While obviously intended as a joke, I think the term "excess damage" actually has a lot of applicability for black border Magic. Trample itself could use the term "excess combat damage".
Rolling Boulder2RR
Sorcery
~ deals 5 damage to target creature without flying or target planeswalker. It deals excess damage to that permanent's controller.
Boulder RollerR
Creature - Goblin Warrior
Trample (This creature deals excess combat damage to the player or planeswalker it's attacking.)
1/1
I even thought of an ability word that takes advantage of excess damage:
Bloodfray Reveler(B/R)(B/R)
Creature - Human Warrior Overkill - Whenever a source you control deals excess damage to a creature or planeswalker, put a +1/+1 counter on ~.
2/2
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
The excess damage wording has been in trample's reminder text for some time now. Core Set 2019 creatures with trample have the same reminder text as Super-Duper Death Ray, but older cards have trample longer reminder text that more accurately describes how the mechanic functions. The thing is, trample's functionality hasn't changed even though its reminder text has.
My stance on this type of mechanic is that there can be a mechanic that functions similarly to trample for noncombat damage, but you can't put actual trample on something that deals noncombat damage because of how differently damage is handled inside and outside of combat. For example, removing a creature blocking an attacker with trample will cause all combat damage to be dealt to the player or planeswalker being attacked, but removing Death Ray's target will cause the spell to fizzle and deal no damage. There are a bunch of other inconsistencies that I mentioned back when people advocated that actual-factual trample end up on black border instants and sorceries in Death Ray's spoiler thread, but I don't need to go into that here.
That being said, I like the approach that you've taken here, especially since you've distanced spell trample from the real McCoy. All you need is a consistent definition for excess damage (Does it count the damage the spell would deal or is actually dealt? What if I cast Rolling Boulder on Cho-Manno, Revolutionary? What about absorb?) as you use it here. In particular, I really like Overkill. It would make a fine set mechanic for either Rakdos, Gruul, or Jund.
That being said, I like the approach that you've taken here, especially since you've distanced spell trample from the real McCoy. All you need is a consistent definition for excess damage (Does it count the damage the spell would deal or is actually dealt? What if I cast Rolling Boulder on Cho-Manno, Revolutionary?) as you use it here.
That is exactly the rules problem here, as combat damage solves that through assignment, while noncombat damage is never assigned.
You can just make a definition for excess noncombat damage in this case and it solves your issue, even if we all "know" what it means.
Hah, so my example was actually pretty close to what black border is already doing! Strange though that the reminder text says "can deal excess combat damage". It's not optional, right?
Basically, "excess damage" is any amount more than necessary to destroy a particular creature or planeswalker. I could even see a case being made for excess damage on players in multiplayer formats.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Basically, "excess damage" is any amount more than necessary to destroy a particular creature or planeswalker. I could even see a case being made for excess damage on players in multiplayer formats.
Would that make the damage split based on how much would be dealt or how much is needed, then? Let's take casting Rolling Boulder on Cho-Manno, Revolutionary and Lymph Sliver as examples. If either of these creatures blocked a 5/5 creature with trample, then damage assignment would allow the attacking player to control how much damage the defending player receives and whether or not Lymph Sliver takes lethal damage, but you don't have that luxury.
Cho-Manno cannot take any amount of damage (assuming there isn't anything like Skullcrack to stop prevention) but he does have 2 toughness. If your definition cares only about how much damage would be needed based on toughness and other damage marked on the creature, then Cho-Manno's controller would take 3 damage and the creature would take no damage and survive. Under a definition based on the damage that actually gets deal, Cho-Manno would eat the whole Rolling Boulder with no damage dealt to his controller.
Now, Lymph Sliver. Absorb means that, despite the creature having 3 toughness, 4 damage needs to be dealt to destroy it. Under the damage needed based on toughness and marked damage definition, then an undamaged Lymph Sliver would take 3 damage (1 prevented) and its controller would take 2. Lymph Sliver would survive. Under the damage dealt definition, Lymph Sliver would take 4 damage (1 prevented), hit lethal damage, and its controller would take 1.
The first issue is that you omit the important "can".
Damage assignment for noncombat damage could be a thing even if you make it automatic whenever a spell doesn't have trample. In a way combat damage no longer using the stack might make this easier. Just use the same definitions trample uses in combat and never omit "can".
If you are going to define and use excess damage this way it could be interesting but you can't use it on trample. Unless you want to change the functionality of trample.
In defining excess damage as damage marked greater than the creatures toughness, a spell like Rolling Boulder would deal its damage and then check how much was excess. Creating two separate instances of damage. Technically the spell would deal more damage than is printed on it which can cause confusion with lifelink but I think there are too many problems with trying to make it like trample where you look at the damage that would be dealt rather than is actually dealt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rolling Boulder 2RR
Sorcery
~ deals 5 damage to target creature without flying or target planeswalker. It deals excess damage to that permanent's controller.
Boulder Roller R
Creature - Goblin Warrior
Trample (This creature deals excess combat damage to the player or planeswalker it's attacking.)
1/1
I even thought of an ability word that takes advantage of excess damage:
Bloodfray Reveler (B/R)(B/R)
Creature - Human Warrior
Overkill - Whenever a source you control deals excess damage to a creature or planeswalker, put a +1/+1 counter on ~.
2/2
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
My stance on this type of mechanic is that there can be a mechanic that functions similarly to trample for noncombat damage, but you can't put actual trample on something that deals noncombat damage because of how differently damage is handled inside and outside of combat. For example, removing a creature blocking an attacker with trample will cause all combat damage to be dealt to the player or planeswalker being attacked, but removing Death Ray's target will cause the spell to fizzle and deal no damage. There are a bunch of other inconsistencies that I mentioned back when people advocated that actual-factual trample end up on black border instants and sorceries in Death Ray's spoiler thread, but I don't need to go into that here.
That being said, I like the approach that you've taken here, especially since you've distanced spell trample from the real McCoy. All you need is a consistent definition for excess damage (Does it count the damage the spell would deal or is actually dealt? What if I cast Rolling Boulder on Cho-Manno, Revolutionary? What about absorb?) as you use it here. In particular, I really like Overkill. It would make a fine set mechanic for either Rakdos, Gruul, or Jund.
You can just make a definition for excess noncombat damage in this case and it solves your issue, even if we all "know" what it means.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Basically, "excess damage" is any amount more than necessary to destroy a particular creature or planeswalker. I could even see a case being made for excess damage on players in multiplayer formats.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Would that make the damage split based on how much would be dealt or how much is needed, then? Let's take casting Rolling Boulder on Cho-Manno, Revolutionary and Lymph Sliver as examples. If either of these creatures blocked a 5/5 creature with trample, then damage assignment would allow the attacking player to control how much damage the defending player receives and whether or not Lymph Sliver takes lethal damage, but you don't have that luxury.
Cho-Manno cannot take any amount of damage (assuming there isn't anything like Skullcrack to stop prevention) but he does have 2 toughness. If your definition cares only about how much damage would be needed based on toughness and other damage marked on the creature, then Cho-Manno's controller would take 3 damage and the creature would take no damage and survive. Under a definition based on the damage that actually gets deal, Cho-Manno would eat the whole Rolling Boulder with no damage dealt to his controller.
Now, Lymph Sliver. Absorb means that, despite the creature having 3 toughness, 4 damage needs to be dealt to destroy it. Under the damage needed based on toughness and marked damage definition, then an undamaged Lymph Sliver would take 3 damage (1 prevented) and its controller would take 2. Lymph Sliver would survive. Under the damage dealt definition, Lymph Sliver would take 4 damage (1 prevented), hit lethal damage, and its controller would take 1.
Damage assignment for noncombat damage could be a thing even if you make it automatic whenever a spell doesn't have trample. In a way combat damage no longer using the stack might make this easier. Just use the same definitions trample uses in combat and never omit "can".
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
In defining excess damage as damage marked greater than the creatures toughness, a spell like Rolling Boulder would deal its damage and then check how much was excess. Creating two separate instances of damage. Technically the spell would deal more damage than is printed on it which can cause confusion with lifelink but I think there are too many problems with trying to make it like trample where you look at the damage that would be dealt rather than is actually dealt.