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).
The one person talking about multiple blockers was indeed wrong. Notice how no one backed them up? Yet everyone is in agreement that your wording doesn't work?
Now let's step past that and reiterate why you're wrong.
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.
You are altering assigned damage when you want to alter how lethal damage is calculated this doesn't work.
They are not attempting to do separate things. They do exactly the same thing—but through inverse attributes.
One doesn't bypass the damage stack, skipping straight ahead to lethal damage; whereas one does.
The level of BS hotfixing this involves to where damage is stacked and assigned, the other conditions for those effects, it's absolutely unbelievable what an unprofessional mess this is.
Because possibly, someone had the very thought addressed in the OP originally, that there might be confusion about lethal damage; when there shouldn't be; because lethal damage is the end path in the damage assignment pathway. The effect should proceed down that pathway fully and officially. All that comes natural in the end follows suit. Not all sources are going to be dealt lethal damage possibly, but that damage should still be referenced and stacked on the proper side (for what the ability says that it's supposed to be doing). Truly, entry level organization, order of operations, and indexing common sense.
Good intentions or bad intentions, it doesn't matter. It's wrong, and easy to explain the level of f-up here.
The wording composure should be as I've written it. Requiring reminder text or an additional clause if necessary to describe that the power of a creature is not reduced as damage is assigned and/or stacked on that creature; referencing power as the descriptor for other state-based effects and/or game dynamics down the line (such as lethal damage).
They are not attempting to do separate things. They do exactly the same thing—but through inverse attributes.
One doesn't bypass the damage stack, skipping straight ahead to lethal damage; whereas one does.
Blah blah blah...
You still didn't parse the damn sentence you wrote.
"Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness."
I block your 3/7 with my 5/6. My 5/6 is assigned 5 damage because ITS power is 5. Then state based effects check to see if it was dealt damage greater than its toughness to see if its destroyed (it wasn't).
Now, lets assume you corrected grammatically for which creature is assigning the damage to your creatures.
"Each creature your opponents control assigns damage equal based on its power rather than its toughness."
I block your 3/7 with my 5/6. My 5/6 is assigned 3 damage because your creature's power is 3. Then state based effects check to see if it was dealt damage greater than its toughness to see if its destroyed (it still wasn't).
Just as relevantly, your wording has no interaction with non-creature damage sources. If I Lightning Bolt your creature, it still hasn't changed the state-based effect that checks if a creature has been dealt damage greater than its toughness. (But Zilortha did)
Damage assignment has nothing to do with whether a creature dies or not. Learn the damn rules.
Again You think damage gets marked on a creatures toughness normally but it doesn't never has and probably never will.
When I Bolt your 1/4 damage is assigned by the bolt and 3 damage is marked on the creature. If I then play Zilrotha in the same turn your creature will die,thats because it has 3 damage marked and now that zilrotha is in play that is enough to count as letal damage.
That is how Zilrotha works in the game If damage would be assigned to toughness the creature wouldn't have died since the assignment is already done at that point and the creture would be a 1/4 with 3 damage marked on toughness. But again since damage isn't marked on toughness thats not how it worked the creature dies.
To reiterate what 3 of us are saying over and over Zilrotha (and by extention your card) and Doran affect different rules. Not inverse rules not the opposite etc. The opposite of a Doran is normal creature combat aka Creatures assign damage based on their power. The opposite of zilrotha is normal lethal damage calculation aka if marked damage is greater or equal to a creatures toughness.
Zilrotha affects rules 120.6 and 704.5g and Doran affects Rule 510.1a they literally affect different rules.
They are not attempting to do separate things. They do exactly the same thing—but through inverse attributes.
Look, I pointed out the exact words they used to display that they did different things.
One doesn't bypass the damage stack, skipping straight ahead to lethal damage; whereas one does.
You are even saying they do different things. They happen at completely different times. You are the one pointing out how they are completely different yet somehow don't understand that they are different.
The level of BS hotfixing this involves to where damage is stacked and assigned, the other conditions for those effects, it's absolutely unbelievable what an unprofessional mess this is.
OMG I agree, the level of BS hotfixing that you are going through to equate these options as the same is madness. How are you so close yet so far?
Because possibly, someone had the very thought addressed in the OP originally, that there might be confusion about lethal damage; when there shouldn't be; because lethal damage is the end path in the damage assignment pathway. The effect should proceed down that pathway fully and officially. All that comes natural in the end follows suit. Not all sources are going to be dealt lethal damage possibly, but that damage should still be referenced and stacked on the proper side (for what the ability says that it's supposed to be doing). Truly, entry level organization, order of operations, and indexing common sense.
Let's assume you are right. You are still comparing the beginning with the end. This is like saying launching a rocket and landing a rocket are the same process just in reverse. If you think this is true then there is no hope for you.
Good intentions or bad intentions, it doesn't matter. It's wrong, and easy to explain the level of f-up here.
And yet, each time we explain what you did is wrong your response is "But my way is better, just look it's obviously better." Just because you spice it up with buzzwords you think make you sound smart doesn't hide the fact that you completely lack substance.
The wording composure should be as I've written it. Requiring reminder text or an additional clause if necessary to describe that the power of a creature is not reduced as damage is assigned and/or stacked on that creature; referencing power as the descriptor for other state-based effects and/or game dynamics down the line (such as lethal damage).
How do you get this? The existing version is clear and concise requiring no additions. You admit that your version would need clarification yet still claim its suppioror. How can you admit to being wrong in the same sentence where you proclaim your victory? Do you honestly not see your own admittance of failure?
You still didn't parse the damn sentence you wrote.
assigned damagebased on its power
You can now understand that if this ability did what you are now suggesting, it would be composed:
If a creature you control would be dealt damage, it's dealt an amount of damage equal to its power instead.
Cause when the wording composure reads, "assigned damage", we understand it's first referencing the natural process of damage assignment from another source to itself. Based on its power is then context that changes the descriptor from which the attribute the damage stack will reference (for other game dynamics and state-based effects down the line).
Furthermore, if the entire argument for Doran was true, we know that his ability would be worded referencing opponent's creatures instead.
"Each creature your opponent's control are dealt lethal damage based on..."; or an [If] replacement effect on these lines.
You still didn't parse the damn sentence you wrote.
assigned damagebased on its power
You can now understand that if this ability did what you are now suggesting, it would be composed:
If a creature you control would be dealt damage, it's dealt an amount of damage equal to its power instead.
Cause when the wording composure reads, "assigned damage", we understand it's first referencing the natural process of damage assignment from another source to itself. Based on its power is then context that changes the descriptor from which the attribute the damage stack will reference (for other game dynamics and state-based effects down the line).
Furthermore, if the entire argument for Doran was true, we know that his ability would be worded referencing opponent's creatures instead.
"Each creature your opponent's control are dealt lethal damage based on..."; or an [If] replacement effect on these lines.
Close the book up.
Doran's Effect is simetrical, it affects both your creatures and your opponent's so even that wording wouldn't do it.
Furthermore, if the entire argument for Doran was true, we know that his ability would be worded referencing opponent's creatures instead.
"Each creature your opponent's control are dealt lethal damage based on..."; or an [If] replacement effect on these lines.
If you were right and they were the same then Doran would need such wording. As I've said. They are different and thus use different wording. How is this so hard to understand? One affects how damage is assigned. The other effects how lethal damage is calculated. The only overlap is that they both care about damage. However, one cares about the source the other cares about the target. Dealing damage and being dealt damage is very different. Get off the fact that they see both damage coming from creatures because one doesn't care about damage from creatures. It cares about damage DEALT to creatures. Stop finding similar words in both effects and claiming they must be the same because one cares about dealing and the other cares about dealt damage. They are completely different things as far as the rules are concerned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Now let's step past that and reiterate why you're wrong.
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.
You are altering assigned damage when you want to alter how lethal damage is calculated this doesn't work.
One doesn't bypass the damage stack, skipping straight ahead to lethal damage; whereas one does.
The level of BS hotfixing this involves to where damage is stacked and assigned, the other conditions for those effects, it's absolutely unbelievable what an unprofessional mess this is.
Because possibly, someone had the very thought addressed in the OP originally, that there might be confusion about lethal damage; when there shouldn't be; because lethal damage is the end path in the damage assignment pathway. The effect should proceed down that pathway fully and officially. All that comes natural in the end follows suit. Not all sources are going to be dealt lethal damage possibly, but that damage should still be referenced and stacked on the proper side (for what the ability says that it's supposed to be doing). Truly, entry level organization, order of operations, and indexing common sense.
Good intentions or bad intentions, it doesn't matter. It's wrong, and easy to explain the level of f-up here.
The wording composure should be as I've written it. Requiring reminder text or an additional clause if necessary to describe that the power of a creature is not reduced as damage is assigned and/or stacked on that creature; referencing power as the descriptor for other state-based effects and/or game dynamics down the line (such as lethal damage).
You still didn't parse the damn sentence you wrote.
"Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness."
I block your 3/7 with my 5/6. My 5/6 is assigned 5 damage because ITS power is 5. Then state based effects check to see if it was dealt damage greater than its toughness to see if its destroyed (it wasn't).
Now, lets assume you corrected grammatically for which creature is assigning the damage to your creatures.
"Each creature your opponents control assigns damage equal based on its power rather than its toughness."
I block your 3/7 with my 5/6. My 5/6 is assigned 3 damage because your creature's power is 3. Then state based effects check to see if it was dealt damage greater than its toughness to see if its destroyed (it still wasn't).
Just as relevantly, your wording has no interaction with non-creature damage sources. If I Lightning Bolt your creature, it still hasn't changed the state-based effect that checks if a creature has been dealt damage greater than its toughness. (But Zilortha did)
Damage assignment has nothing to do with whether a creature dies or not. Learn the damn rules.
When I Bolt your 1/4 damage is assigned by the bolt and 3 damage is marked on the creature. If I then play Zilrotha in the same turn your creature will die,thats because it has 3 damage marked and now that zilrotha is in play that is enough to count as letal damage.
That is how Zilrotha works in the game If damage would be assigned to toughness the creature wouldn't have died since the assignment is already done at that point and the creture would be a 1/4 with 3 damage marked on toughness. But again since damage isn't marked on toughness thats not how it worked the creature dies.
To reiterate what 3 of us are saying over and over Zilrotha (and by extention your card) and Doran affect different rules. Not inverse rules not the opposite etc. The opposite of a Doran is normal creature combat aka Creatures assign damage based on their power. The opposite of zilrotha is normal lethal damage calculation aka if marked damage is greater or equal to a creatures toughness.
Zilrotha affects rules 120.6 and 704.5g and Doran affects Rule 510.1a they literally affect different rules.
You are even saying they do different things. They happen at completely different times. You are the one pointing out how they are completely different yet somehow don't understand that they are different.
OMG I agree, the level of BS hotfixing that you are going through to equate these options as the same is madness. How are you so close yet so far?
Let's assume you are right. You are still comparing the beginning with the end. This is like saying launching a rocket and landing a rocket are the same process just in reverse. If you think this is true then there is no hope for you.
And yet, each time we explain what you did is wrong your response is "But my way is better, just look it's obviously better." Just because you spice it up with buzzwords you think make you sound smart doesn't hide the fact that you completely lack substance.
How do you get this? The existing version is clear and concise requiring no additions. You admit that your version would need clarification yet still claim its suppioror. How can you admit to being wrong in the same sentence where you proclaim your victory? Do you honestly not see your own admittance of failure?
assigned damage based on its power
You can now understand that if this ability did what you are now suggesting, it would be composed:
If a creature you control would be dealt damage, it's dealt an amount of damage equal to its power instead.
Cause when the wording composure reads, "assigned damage", we understand it's first referencing the natural process of damage assignment from another source to itself. Based on its power is then context that changes the descriptor from which the attribute the damage stack will reference (for other game dynamics and state-based effects down the line).
Furthermore, if the entire argument for Doran was true, we know that his ability would be worded referencing opponent's creatures instead.
"Each creature your opponent's control are dealt lethal damage based on..."; or an [If] replacement effect on these lines.
Close the book up.
Doran's Effect is simetrical, it affects both your creatures and your opponent's so even that wording wouldn't do it.