Immortal FireXRR Enchantment
When Immortal Fire enters the battlefield, choose one—
• Creatures you control get +X/+0.
• Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness. Draegøn's musings wrap around them and stir the heart. Razing the fires of his gifted to a towering inferno; surging with power; blazing and indomitable.
Alt. Flavor Text
Some are blessed the gift to light the fire within themselves. The same endow the gift unto others by the powers of praise, and beckon, and worship.
Whatever happened to Be Bo Bu Be? That big, bright, beautiful smile; charged with innocence, and sweetheartedness.
Had a few variants of this. Originally, it wanted to be an aura. Then an equipment. And this became the final form.
Is that second ability supposed to be zilortha, strength incarnate? If so, there is already a specific wording for that effect and you are not pioneering a new effect.
Being her own woman I hope. Putting her foot down.
Yeah, that was a convoluted way to write it though.
I don't really think 'lethal' is needed to be honest. Lethal damage is the end of the damage assignment path, and should kind of be an autonomous function here that doesn't need to be referenced, because it's simply the end path. If damage is assigned based on something, then the conditions of lethal damage assignment come naturally. Should be anyways. Lethal damage should only be referenced when it specifically is being modified.
Being her own woman I hope. Putting her foot down.
Yeah, that was a convoluted way to write it though.
I don't really think 'lethal' is needed to be honest. Lethal damage is the end of the damage assignment path, and should kind of be an autonomous function here that doesn't need to be referenced, because it's simply the end path. If damage is assigned based on something, then the conditions of lethal damage assignment come naturally. Should be anyways. Lethal damage should only be referenced when it specifically is being modified.
And that's your opinion.
I just revealed the official rules. Saying that they are the official rules is objective. That is how rules work.
Wording composure is subjective and is not definite. Certainly, there can become standards of wording composure, where no question arises (contest has to be faced). I'm raising that question here and challenging with contest.
There was no need to describe lethal damage for Doran, the Siege Tower. Lethal damage is the end path in the damage assignment process. Lethal damage should only be referenced when it is being modified explicitly (such as being prevented—to redirected). There should be no question as to lethal damage in the damage assignment process, so long as the proper descriptors have been giving to provide a clear path towards damage assignment and lethal damage calculation.
The wording composure that I've provided is much more clean and coherent, and falls in line with the previous "standard" for this type of effect (which itself was instantly coherent and understandable).
This rehash was a pitiful pretzel bender attempt. It required a cheap pass to be made for it to proceed. There was never a defense for it to begin with.
Secondly, I would like to add that worship goes far deeper than just praise; with elements of admiration and thankfulness, for example.
Wording composure is subjective and is not definite. Blah blah blah pile of pretentious bs.
No. Poetry is subjective, art is subjective. Game rules are definitely because there cannot be subjectivity if you need to resolve effects that interact. The rules define the one and only one possible outcome of any possible interaction between different effects.
This is not game rules, this is composure of wording to describe functionality.
Just the same as writing computer code. Certainly, there are many ways it can be done, but not all of them are as proficient and elegant.
We can write wording composure for card effect in many ways, but we do it a specific way, and develop standards based on that way because it's the most elegant, proficient, and coherent way to compose it.
This is the argument we really need to see here if you're honestly trying to defend that convoluted mess.
I can assure you once again, there was never a defense for it in the first place. It was the product of pernicious things, irresponsible things, self-righteous things (that never want to have to face contest—because they're incapable to do so; incompetent; unaccomplished—the root of all evil).
Furthermore, not all damage is lethal, so it's incorrect to reference lethal damage skipping ahead so abruptly on the order of operations.
This effect has to reference damage assignment as a whole, which includes the damage stack. The process of stacking damage onto a source (based on a descriptor), until that damage becomes lethal, or all damage is removed from that source without it ever reaching that measure. Because the other effect references lethal damage so abruptly, skipping ahead like it does, that's apart of what makes it so convoluted. And another example of why the original standard (and my adaptation on it) is more elegant, proficient, and coherent.
This is not game rules, this is composure of wording to describe functionality.
Just the same as writing computer code. Certainly, there are many ways it can be done, but not all of them are as proficient and elegant.
We can write wording composure for card effect in many ways, but we do it a specific way, and develop standards based on that way because it's the most elegant, proficient, and coherent way to compose it.
This is the argument we really need to see here if you're honestly trying to defend that convoluted mess.
I can assure you once again, there was never a defense for it in the first place. It was the product of pernicious things, irresponsible things, self-righteous things (that never want to have to face contest—because they're incapable to do so; incompetent; unaccomplished—the root of all evil).
Furthermore, not all damage is lethal, so it's incorrect to reference lethal damage skipping ahead so abruptly on the order of operations.
This effect has to reference damage assignment as a whole, which includes the damage stack. The process of stacking damage onto a source (based on a descriptor), until that damage becomes lethal, or all damage is removed from that source without it ever reaching that measure. Because the other effect references lethal damage so abruptly, skipping ahead like it does, that's apart of what makes it so convoluted. And another example of why the original standard (and my adaptation on it) is more elegant, proficient, and coherent.
It only mentions lethal damage as the ability doesn't give damage the option to be used as a Power Reducer like damage dealt to the toughness does.
This is attempting to force alike credentials for two different parameters, under the blind assumption that the functionality needs to be universal, when simply, it does not.
In fact, this functionality suggested by the wording being used is not possible under this consideration without entirely bypassing the functionality of damage assignment entirely. In your case, where is damage being assigned? Back to toughness (not power), where toughness is reduced by it, even though it's supposed to be referencing the value of power; but no damage was stacked based on this value to reference; it's simply attempting to bypass it at the last minute; when the damage stacked on toughness could have far exceeded it. And then trying to hotfix this logical path and order of operations by saying that you vaguely referenced "lethal damage" as an identifier and that should suffice. That's totally backwards functionality to fabricate an argument that your ability works as intended and was thought-out and meticulous.
If the effect wants to base lethal damage on the value of power, it needs to stack that damage on the power side.
To amend this ability for power, the conditions needed to be reworked and changed so that damage assignment is cached based on the value of power, but does not reduce the power of the creature; because damage assignment for power is different than toughness; as power is a different attribute already—with different functionality than toughness. This is a comprehensive ruling technicality. it cannot/should not be written out on the card in full detail, but possibly could have used some kind of reminder text to elaborate that damage doesn't reduce power. Or it needs to literally be on the card as an additional effect clause, written exactly as: [Damage assigned to power this way doesn't cause it to be reduced.]
This is attempting to force alike credentials for two different parameters, under the blind assumption that the functionality needs to be universal, when simply, it does not.
In fact, this blah blah blah more bloviating...
First, "Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness." is meaningless, because damage assignment is only relevant in situations where there are multiple blockers or there is trample. It has nothing to do with the state-based effect that determines if a creature is destroyed due to having received lethal damage - defined as damage greater than or equal to its toughness and thus the reason Zilortha refers to how "lethal damage" is determined.
Second, if your intention if for your effect to work the same as Zilortha, Strength Incarnate, there is no reason to write the effect differently. Lightning Bolt, Volcanic Hammer and Open Fire all have the same effect, and you don't see them written with different phrasing just because the designers wanted to be "creative".
Third, if you intend this to work differently that Zilortha, you haven't explained how or why.
Damage is not reduced by the toughness. It becomes excess damage.
This is not relevant to the argument.
Damage marked in a creature reduces its toughness.
That is a property that only toughness has.
Actually, Reap is right here for once in the entirety of his existence. Toughness is not changed by damage, only by effects that apply -X/-X to the creature. If my Fusion Elemental was dealt 4 damage in combat and later that turn I cast Grim Contest, the Elemental will still deal 8 damage. Damage is counted on the creature until it is equal to or greater than the creature's toughness, and then state based effects destroy that creature for having lethal damage.
yeah an by the simplicity of the wording of zilortha, strength incarnate we dealt with all of that without changing the rules. As a lot of us said already alot of your cards could achieve the same if you would stay within the standard wording and game rules but it is you and ONLY you that insists on changing the rules to fit your cards instead of the thing EVERYBODY ELSE on this Forum and the official Magic designers do chaning the cards to fit the cards.
Zilorthas Wording:
Lethal damage dealt to creature you control is determined by their power rather than their toughness.
16 Words No Change in Rules Neccesary to avoid the issue of "To amend this ability for power, the conditions needed to be reworked and changed so that damage assignment is cached based on the value of power, but does not reduce the power of the creature;"
Conscise. No additional baggage. Professional.
Your Wording
Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness.
15 Words + 10 Words Reminder Text Since you change the rules + Rewriting of the Rules, bloating it (unnnecessarily)
Convoluted. Baggage heavy. Unprofessional.
It's not about the amount of words, it's about the amount of necessity. And this is the minimum necessary to fully adapt the function.
Dare to think for a second there's a reason I didn't write it like that in the first place. Because I didn't want to look like an ass. Because I loath cutting corners.
Furthermore, that is damage assignment regarding multiple blockers. But general damage is assigned by single creatures, Butcher Orgg. If there was no aspect of damage assignment, then could not exist damage in the first place. It is the means that it can exist and be distributed.
This is a core function of the game. I think this conversation ends now.
I feel like everyone is too far down the rabbit hole on this one. If not for the first post detailing thst this was meant to be make toughness equal to power I read the ability as being a simple anti Doran. Which normally would be nonsense but this being reap made perfect sense. I mean read the words.
Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness.
Your creatures are Assigned damage equal to THEIR power tather than THEIR toughness. How anyone made sense of these words unless they didn't actually read them is baffling. As written, this is replacement effect that does nothing because the event it wants to replace. "Your creatures being assigned damage based on THEIR toughness." Never happens.
Creatures being assigned damage based on its power; naturally meaning, the damage calculation is based on the value of power and not toughness.
I don't aim to write things that cut corners logically, bypass orders of operations, or exist as inherently nonsensical because I don't want to look like an ass.
Social Awareness
Stepping off that one spectrum and onto the Extrasensory Spectrum.
Let me repeat: "Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness." is meaningless, because damage assignment is only relevant in situations where there are multiple blockers or there is trample. It has nothing to do with the state-based effect that determines if a creature is destroyed due to having received lethal damage.
It's not about the amount of words, it's about the amount of necessity. And this is the minimum necessary to fully adapt the function.
[/quote}
As Zilortha, Strength Incarnate shows it is not it works within the game there is no necessity to change the rules.
[quote from="ReapThaWhirlwind »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/827205-immortal-fire?comment=14"]
Dare to think for a second there's a reason I didn't write it like that in the first place. Because I didn't want to look like an ass. Because I loath cutting corners.
To me it looks exactly like cutting corners. If you would like to do something you cut corners by not looking up if there is already a wording and instead make one up (and then not even bothering to fix it when people tell you that there is already a wording on that.
Furthermore, that is damage assignment regarding multiple blockers. But general damage is assigned by single creatures, Butcher Orgg. If there was no aspect of damage assignment, then could not exist damage in the first place. It is the means that it can exist and be distributed.
Nobody said there is no damage assignment with zilrotha. Nothing changes with damage assignment that functions as it always functions. The only change that happens is if the marked damage on a creature is higher than their Power they die, the end.
This is a core function of the game. I think this conversation ends now.
The core function when it comes to damage and creatures is the following:
120.6. 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 701.15, “Regenerate”) and during the cleanup step (see rule 514.2).
And that rule is the reason Zilrotha is worded the way it is.
It certainly is not, because Doran, the Siege Tower wouldn't have used the term assign then.
Let me just say, for someone who had come back to the game at Lorwyn block, from last playing and leaving the game at Mirrodin; Doran's text was elegant and instantly coherent. It had professional composition and body. It felt unique and majestic. Everything about it defines the essence one seeks to capture by wording such effects, or adapting the obvious opposite effects from them.
It certainly is not, because Doran, the Siege Tower wouldn't have used the term assign then.
Let me just say, for someone who had come back to the game at Lorwyn block, from last playing and leaving the game at Mirrodin; Doran's text was elegant and instantly coherent. It had professional composition and body. It felt unique and majestic. Everything about it defines the essence one seeks to capture by wording such effects, or adapting the obvious opposite effects from them.
Since Assigning damage based on strength is already the norm your card doesnt need the term like at all. Doran needs the term because assigning damage based on Toughness INSTEAD of strength. Your card doesnt change the damage assignment rules at all t just changes the fact that lethal damage is calculated with strength instead of Toughness again nothing in the damage assignment is changing at all. Doran, the siege Tower still has the same rules text nothing changed because as you yourself said
Quote from "ReapThaWhirlwind »
This is attempting to force alike credentials for two different parameters, under the blind assumption that the functionality needs to be universal, when simply, it does not.
and yet this is what you are doing attempting to force two different parameters to be universal.
So you even do the things you said we shouldnt do yourself.
Creatures assign damage with their Strength under normal circumstances. They dont assign damage to Toughness but to a creature.
The Thing doran changes is Strength to toughness in this sentence nothing more.
Creatures are destroyed as a state based action when they are marked with lethal damage that is defined as marked damage >= toughness or the source of the damage had deathtouch.
The thing Zilrotha changes is toughness to strength in this sentence nothing more.
Doran and zilrotha have different wordings because they affect different rules.
Zilrotha doesn't change damage assignment rules at all, and doran ONLY changes damage assignment. You Try to make apples out of oranges.
It certainly is not, because Doran, the Siege Tower wouldn't have used the term assign then.
Let me just say, for someone who had come back to the game at Lorwyn block, from last playing and leaving the game at Mirrodin; Doran's text was elegant and instantly coherent. It had professional composition and body. It felt unique and majestic. Everything about it defines the essence one seeks to capture by wording such effects, or adapting the obvious opposite effects from them.
Let me just say, as someone who started playing during Ice Age, has played regularly since then and has been a judge since 2015, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Like Kamino points out, Doran changes the way damage is normally assigned because it used the toughness value to determine how much is assigned instead of power. Zilortha does care about assignment because power still determines that value, and it chanhes how lethal damage is determined instead.
They don't affect different rules. They do exactly the same thing by opposite parameters.
Parameters themselves that are unique and apart from one another, but within a single realm of functionality (damage assignment).
As written your card doesn't even do the thing you want to think it does.
I block your 3/6 with my 5/6. If each creature I control "is assigned damage based on its power" that actually means my 5/6 is assigned 5 damage, because ITS power is 5. Then the state based effects check and it still hasn't received a greater amount amount of damage than its toughness so it doesn't die.
They don't affect different rules. They do exactly the same thing by opposite parameters.
Parameters themselves that are unique and apart from one another, but within a single realm of functionality (damage assignment).
Damage assignment and destroying creatures for having lethal damage marked on them are completely different rules. Your failure to understand that doesn't change this fact. Your card doesn't have the desired effect because it's trying to change the rules for lethal damage by adjusting damage assignment.
Look at Zilortha vs Doran
Lethal damage dealt to creatures you control is determined by their power rather than their toughness.
Each creature assigns combat damage equal to its toughness rather than its power.
Zilortha clearly calls out lethal damage while Doran clearly calls out assigned damage because that is what they are trying to affect. Completely different aspects of the game.
I can see where people who don't understand how rules work would conflate them as they both appear to swap power and toughness. Step past this simple pitfall and understand how things actually work.
Doran's effect is not intended to only involve multiple blockers (as you've all stated the word assign addresses).
Simply, it does not only address this. And this understanding is a basic fundamental of the game. Damage assignment is apart of the entire game, involved in multiple channels of the game's dynamics, including the declare blockers step; but certainly not limited to that.
Let's stop trying to argue that it is limited to that.
Doran can 1:1 with any creature and the effect still applies. Why is that then; without multiple blockers?
You're taking the terminology out of context when you say that it will deal damage to itself because the wording composure is using the term 'its'.
The context of the statement is clear to denote first that a creature is "assigned damage" based on its power. Meaning, actually, the creature's power is referenced for damage instead of its toughness. If you're doing to start attempting to butcher context, and claim that all context needs to be absolutely specific, I think you've lost yourself there. We all know that's not entirely the case. And established contexts are apart of the common sense of the game.
Certainly, coherence has its place, but any context can be blatantly misinterpreted; bypassing the common sense of the game, its terminology, and fundamental context of wording composure that it uses (which are based on the rules/comprehensive rulings/rulebook guidelines).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Enchantment
When Immortal Fire enters the battlefield, choose one—
• Creatures you control get +X/+0.
• Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness.
Draegøn's musings wrap around them and stir the heart. Razing the fires of his gifted to a towering inferno; surging with power; blazing and indomitable.
Alt. Flavor Text
Some are blessed the gift to light the fire within themselves. The same endow the gift unto others by the powers of praise, and beckon, and worship.
Whatever happened to Be Bo Bu Be? That big, bright, beautiful smile; charged with innocence, and sweetheartedness.
Had a few variants of this. Originally, it wanted to be an aura. Then an equipment. And this became the final form.
Yeah, that was a convoluted way to write it though.
I don't really think 'lethal' is needed to be honest. Lethal damage is the end of the damage assignment path, and should kind of be an autonomous function here that doesn't need to be referenced, because it's simply the end path. If damage is assigned based on something, then the conditions of lethal damage assignment come naturally. Should be anyways. Lethal damage should only be referenced when it specifically is being modified.
And that's your opinion.
I just revealed the official rules. Saying that they are the official rules is objective. That is how rules work.
There was no need to describe lethal damage for Doran, the Siege Tower. Lethal damage is the end path in the damage assignment process. Lethal damage should only be referenced when it is being modified explicitly (such as being prevented—to redirected). There should be no question as to lethal damage in the damage assignment process, so long as the proper descriptors have been giving to provide a clear path towards damage assignment and lethal damage calculation.
The wording composure that I've provided is much more clean and coherent, and falls in line with the previous "standard" for this type of effect (which itself was instantly coherent and understandable).
This rehash was a pitiful pretzel bender attempt. It required a cheap pass to be made for it to proceed. There was never a defense for it to begin with.
Secondly, I would like to add that worship goes far deeper than just praise; with elements of admiration and thankfulness, for example.
No. Poetry is subjective, art is subjective. Game rules are definitely because there cannot be subjectivity if you need to resolve effects that interact. The rules define the one and only one possible outcome of any possible interaction between different effects.
You want subjectivity, go write a haiku.
Just the same as writing computer code. Certainly, there are many ways it can be done, but not all of them are as proficient and elegant.
We can write wording composure for card effect in many ways, but we do it a specific way, and develop standards based on that way because it's the most elegant, proficient, and coherent way to compose it.
This is the argument we really need to see here if you're honestly trying to defend that convoluted mess.
I can assure you once again, there was never a defense for it in the first place. It was the product of pernicious things, irresponsible things, self-righteous things (that never want to have to face contest—because they're incapable to do so; incompetent; unaccomplished—the root of all evil).
Furthermore, not all damage is lethal, so it's incorrect to reference lethal damage skipping ahead so abruptly on the order of operations.
This effect has to reference damage assignment as a whole, which includes the damage stack. The process of stacking damage onto a source (based on a descriptor), until that damage becomes lethal, or all damage is removed from that source without it ever reaching that measure. Because the other effect references lethal damage so abruptly, skipping ahead like it does, that's apart of what makes it so convoluted. And another example of why the original standard (and my adaptation on it) is more elegant, proficient, and coherent.
It only mentions lethal damage as the ability doesn't give damage the option to be used as a Power Reducer like damage dealt to the toughness does.
This is not relevant to the argument.
Damage marked in a creature reduces its toughness.
That is a property that only toughness has.
In fact, this functionality suggested by the wording being used is not possible under this consideration without entirely bypassing the functionality of damage assignment entirely. In your case, where is damage being assigned? Back to toughness (not power), where toughness is reduced by it, even though it's supposed to be referencing the value of power; but no damage was stacked based on this value to reference; it's simply attempting to bypass it at the last minute; when the damage stacked on toughness could have far exceeded it. And then trying to hotfix this logical path and order of operations by saying that you vaguely referenced "lethal damage" as an identifier and that should suffice. That's totally backwards functionality to fabricate an argument that your ability works as intended and was thought-out and meticulous.
If the effect wants to base lethal damage on the value of power, it needs to stack that damage on the power side.
To amend this ability for power, the conditions needed to be reworked and changed so that damage assignment is cached based on the value of power, but does not reduce the power of the creature; because damage assignment for power is different than toughness; as power is a different attribute already—with different functionality than toughness. This is a comprehensive ruling technicality. it cannot/should not be written out on the card in full detail, but possibly could have used some kind of reminder text to elaborate that damage doesn't reduce power. Or it needs to literally be on the card as an additional effect clause, written exactly as: [Damage assigned to power this way doesn't cause it to be reduced.]
First, "Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness." is meaningless, because damage assignment is only relevant in situations where there are multiple blockers or there is trample. It has nothing to do with the state-based effect that determines if a creature is destroyed due to having received lethal damage - defined as damage greater than or equal to its toughness and thus the reason Zilortha refers to how "lethal damage" is determined.
Second, if your intention if for your effect to work the same as Zilortha, Strength Incarnate, there is no reason to write the effect differently. Lightning Bolt, Volcanic Hammer and Open Fire all have the same effect, and you don't see them written with different phrasing just because the designers wanted to be "creative".
Third, if you intend this to work differently that Zilortha, you haven't explained how or why.
Actually, Reap is right here for once in the entirety of his existence. Toughness is not changed by damage, only by effects that apply -X/-X to the creature. If my Fusion Elemental was dealt 4 damage in combat and later that turn I cast Grim Contest, the Elemental will still deal 8 damage. Damage is counted on the creature until it is equal to or greater than the creature's toughness, and then state based effects destroy that creature for having lethal damage.
Zilorthas Wording:
16 Words No Change in Rules Neccesary to avoid the issue of "To amend this ability for power, the conditions needed to be reworked and changed so that damage assignment is cached based on the value of power, but does not reduce the power of the creature;"
Conscise. No additional baggage. Professional.
Your Wording
15 Words + 10 Words Reminder Text Since you change the rules + Rewriting of the Rules, bloating it (unnnecessarily)
Convoluted. Baggage heavy. Unprofessional.
Dare to think for a second there's a reason I didn't write it like that in the first place. Because I didn't want to look like an ass. Because I loath cutting corners.
Furthermore, that is damage assignment regarding multiple blockers. But general damage is assigned by single creatures, Butcher Orgg. If there was no aspect of damage assignment, then could not exist damage in the first place. It is the means that it can exist and be distributed.
This is a core function of the game. I think this conversation ends now.
Your creatures are Assigned damage equal to THEIR power tather than THEIR toughness. How anyone made sense of these words unless they didn't actually read them is baffling. As written, this is replacement effect that does nothing because the event it wants to replace. "Your creatures being assigned damage based on THEIR toughness." Never happens.
I don't aim to write things that cut corners logically, bypass orders of operations, or exist as inherently nonsensical because I don't want to look like an ass.
Social Awareness
Stepping off that one spectrum and onto the Extrasensory Spectrum.
To me it looks exactly like cutting corners. If you would like to do something you cut corners by not looking up if there is already a wording and instead make one up (and then not even bothering to fix it when people tell you that there is already a wording on that.
Nobody said there is no damage assignment with zilrotha. Nothing changes with damage assignment that functions as it always functions. The only change that happens is if the marked damage on a creature is higher than their Power they die, the end.
The core function when it comes to damage and creatures is the following:
And that rule is the reason Zilrotha is worded the way it is.
But rowan already told you that.
Let me just say, for someone who had come back to the game at Lorwyn block, from last playing and leaving the game at Mirrodin; Doran's text was elegant and instantly coherent. It had professional composition and body. It felt unique and majestic. Everything about it defines the essence one seeks to capture by wording such effects, or adapting the obvious opposite effects from them.
Since Assigning damage based on strength is already the norm your card doesnt need the term like at all. Doran needs the term because assigning damage based on Toughness INSTEAD of strength. Your card doesnt change the damage assignment rules at all t just changes the fact that lethal damage is calculated with strength instead of Toughness again nothing in the damage assignment is changing at all.
Doran, the siege Tower still has the same rules text nothing changed because as you yourself said
and yet this is what you are doing attempting to force two different parameters to be universal.
So you even do the things you said we shouldnt do yourself.
Creatures assign damage with their Strength under normal circumstances. They dont assign damage to Toughness but to a creature.
The Thing doran changes is Strength to toughness in this sentence nothing more.
Creatures are destroyed as a state based action when they are marked with lethal damage that is defined as marked damage >= toughness or the source of the damage had deathtouch.
The thing Zilrotha changes is toughness to strength in this sentence nothing more.
Doran and zilrotha have different wordings because they affect different rules.
Zilrotha doesn't change damage assignment rules at all, and doran ONLY changes damage assignment. You Try to make apples out of oranges.
Let me just say, as someone who started playing during Ice Age, has played regularly since then and has been a judge since 2015, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Like Kamino points out, Doran changes the way damage is normally assigned because it used the toughness value to determine how much is assigned instead of power. Zilortha does care about assignment because power still determines that value, and it chanhes how lethal damage is determined instead.
Parameters themselves that are unique and apart from one another, but within a single realm of functionality (damage assignment).
As written your card doesn't even do the thing you want to think it does.
I block your 3/6 with my 5/6. If each creature I control "is assigned damage based on its power" that actually means my 5/6 is assigned 5 damage, because ITS power is 5. Then the state based effects check and it still hasn't received a greater amount amount of damage than its toughness so it doesn't die.
Look at Zilortha vs Doran
Zilortha clearly calls out lethal damage while Doran clearly calls out assigned damage because that is what they are trying to affect. Completely different aspects of the game.
I can see where people who don't understand how rules work would conflate them as they both appear to swap power and toughness. Step past this simple pitfall and understand how things actually work.
Simply, it does not only address this. And this understanding is a basic fundamental of the game. Damage assignment is apart of the entire game, involved in multiple channels of the game's dynamics, including the declare blockers step; but certainly not limited to that.
Let's stop trying to argue that it is limited to that.
Doran can 1:1 with any creature and the effect still applies. Why is that then; without multiple blockers?
You're taking the terminology out of context when you say that it will deal damage to itself because the wording composure is using the term 'its'.
The context of the statement is clear to denote first that a creature is "assigned damage" based on its power. Meaning, actually, the creature's power is referenced for damage instead of its toughness. If you're doing to start attempting to butcher context, and claim that all context needs to be absolutely specific, I think you've lost yourself there. We all know that's not entirely the case. And established contexts are apart of the common sense of the game.
Certainly, coherence has its place, but any context can be blatantly misinterpreted; bypassing the common sense of the game, its terminology, and fundamental context of wording composure that it uses (which are based on the rules/comprehensive rulings/rulebook guidelines).