I believe this also skirts Hexproof on a player as well??? As the excess damage isn't targeted?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
well, this needed comprehensive rules changes to make it work, so I have no idea how it actually interacts with stuff
will be interesting to read the notes
Given the pestilent spirit precedent, I am sad it doesn't have trample and just directly states the effect. But trample might have caused a whole bunch of issues when you staple it to other spells with complicated effects
I am a little surprised by the wording, and that it doesn't take more to explain. I would think "Damage in excess of the creature's toughness" would be better, although the current wording, I think, is worse against indestructible.
well, this needed comprehensive rules changes to make it work, so I have no idea how it actually interacts with stuff
will be interesting to read the notes
Given the pestilent spirit precedent, I am sad it doesn't have trample and just directly states the effect. But trample might have caused a whole bunch of issues when you staple it to other spells with complicated effects
In the set that's all about Keyword it would have made a lot of sense to go with trample instead of writing it out.
Feels like this should be keyworded with a word like Overflow and it applies to spells.
I don't think that would be necessary. There have been things that give keyword to instants and sorceries that were otherwise creature exclusive prior to that. I think trample would work just fine.
I am a little surprised by the wording, and that it doesn't take more to explain. I would think "Damage in excess of the creature's toughness" would be better, although the current wording, I think, is worse against indestructible.
I guess its the same against indestructible. Trample lets you assign damage beyond lethal to a player -- and "lethal" is merely toughness for the purposes of indestructible.
Feels like this should be keyworded with a word like Overflow and it applies to spells.
I don't think that would be necessary. There have been things that give keyword to instants and sorceries that were otherwise creature exclusive prior to that. I think trample would work just fine.
Abilities like Lifelink applies to any damage the source deals. When a creature with lifelink Fights, for example, you gain life. So it's fine for a damage spell to have lifelink, or deathtouch, wither, infect.
But Trample is a combat ability. When a creature with trample fights, excess damage is not dealt to the player. So damage spells with Trample are still a bad fit, as they aren't dealing combat damage.
Guys, this can't have trample. The whole reason Super-Duper Death Ray got printed in an unset is because trample bolt didn't work in black border. This is the closest thing.
well, this needed comprehensive rules changes to make it work, so I have no idea how it actually interacts with stuff
will be interesting to read the notes
Given the pestilent spirit precedent, I am sad it doesn't have trample and just directly states the effect. But trample might have caused a whole bunch of issues when you staple it to other spells with complicated effects
At least if you have Pestilent Spirit out, this kills a creature with a single point of damage and then deals 3 to the player.
Abilities like Lifelink applies to any damage the source deals. When a creature with lifelink Fights, for example, you gain life. So it's fine for a damage spell to have lifelink, or deathtouch, wither, infect.
But Trample is a combat ability. When a creature with trample fights, excess damage is not dealt to the player. So damage spells with Trample are still a bad fit, as they aren't dealing combat damage.
In an absolute sense you're correct. But I like to think magic players are capable of thinking about the context. "Obviously this instant can't deal combat damage but the designers of the game put it on here so why shouldn't it work?" I don't think anyone would have questioned it if this had said trample instead.
Saying "there's a reason Super-Duper Death Ray is a silver bordered card for a reason" discounts the existence of all 5 pacts as well as Barren Glory.
I actually think this is less intuitive. How does this work with Pestilent Spirit? You aren't assigning damage so what? Even though this has deathtouch all of it's damage has to go to the creature even though 1 would have been enough? I'm sure it works as actually expected but if they had just put trample on it it would have been much more elegant and simple.
Abilities like Lifelink applies to any damage the source deals. When a creature with lifelink Fights, for example, you gain life. So it's fine for a damage spell to have lifelink, or deathtouch, wither, infect.
But Trample is a combat ability. When a creature with trample fights, excess damage is not dealt to the player. So damage spells with Trample are still a bad fit, as they aren't dealing combat damage.
In an absolute sense you're correct. But I like to think magic players are capable of thinking about the context. "Obviously this instant can't deal combat damage but the designers of the game put it on here so why shouldn't it work?" I don't think anyone would have questioned it if this had said trample instead.
Saying "there's a reason Super-Duper Death Ray is a silver bordered card for a reason" discounts the existence of all 5 pacts as well as Barren Glory.
I actually think this is less intuitive. How does this work with Pestilent Spirit? You aren't assigning damage so what? Even though this has deathtouch all of it's damage has to go to the creature even though 1 would have been enough? I'm sure it works as actually expected but if they had just put trample on it it would have been much more elegant and simple.
And if anyone is wondering, Eli Shiffrin is the MTG Rules Manager. So this is correct. Giving the spell deathtouch, for instance with Pestilent Spirit, does allow 1 damage to be dealt to the creature—as it will be lethal damage—with the other 3 going to the player. As he also notes, there is no may here, which a functional difference with trample. When assigning combat damage with trample you can choose not to deal the excess damage to the player. One example is if my opponent has No Mercy out, I might want to kill his creature that is a 1/1 with my 5/5 trampler by assigning all 5 damage to the creature. I cannot do that with the spell.
Abilities like Lifelink applies to any damage the source deals. When a creature with lifelink Fights, for example, you gain life. So it's fine for a damage spell to have lifelink, or deathtouch, wither, infect.
But Trample is a combat ability. When a creature with trample fights, excess damage is not dealt to the player. So damage spells with Trample are still a bad fit, as they aren't dealing combat damage.
In an absolute sense you're correct. But I like to think magic players are capable of thinking about the context. "Obviously this instant can't deal combat damage but the designers of the game put it on here so why shouldn't it work?" I don't think anyone would have questioned it if this had said trample instead.
Saying "there's a reason Super-Duper Death Ray is a silver bordered card for a reason" discounts the existence of all 5 pacts as well as Barren Glory.
"Some un cards were printed in black border therefore all un cards could maybe be printed in black border" doesn't work. Super-Duper Death Ray wasn't printed in silver border just because it's a wacky humourous card. It's not a wacky effect, it's quite intuitive for anyone who understands Trample. It was printed in silver border *specifically* because they couldn't get it to work in black border rules. Flame Spill is the closest we are going to get, and, according to MaRo, Flame Spill only happened because they found a neat way to word the effect that did work in the rules.
In an absolute sense you're correct. But I like to think magic players are capable of thinking about the context. "Obviously this instant can't deal combat damage but the designers of the game put it on here so why shouldn't it work?" I don't think anyone would have questioned it if this had said trample instead.
I don't see it as "avoiding confusion". Just about consistency, keeping an evergreen keyword from having two slightly different yet contradictory definitions.
Saying "there's a reason Super-Duper Death Ray is a silver bordered card for a reason" discounts the existence of all 5 pacts as well as Barren Glory.
Fortunately I never said that.
I actually think this is less intuitive. How does this work with Pestilent Spirit? You aren't assigning damage so what? Even though this has deathtouch all of it's damage has to go to the creature even though 1 would have been enough? I'm sure it works as actually expected but if they had just put trample on it it would have been much more elegant and simple.
Eli Shiffrin confirmed on twitter this indeed works with Deathtouch the way Trample does.
And I think we will have to agree to disagree about what is more intuitive and elegant. I just see it the exact opposite way as you.
And if anyone is wondering, Eli Shiffrin is the MTG Rules Manager. So this is correct. Giving the spell deathtouch, for instance with Pestilent Spirit, does allow 1 damage to be marked on the creature, with the other 3 going to the player. As he also notes, there is no may here, which a functional difference with trample. When assigning combat damage with trample you can choose not to deal the excess damage to the player. One example is if my opponent has No Mercy out, I might want to kill his creature that is a 1/1 with my 5/5 trampler by assigning all 5 damage to the creature. I cannot do that with the spell.
Yes, you edited it in after I had posted. Or maybe I just hadn't refreshed the page and seen it. As I said in the post you quoted I'm sure it works as one would think it would. My point is that it's far less intuitive and elegant than if they had just given it trample.
This card probably doesn't have trample, because trample specifically refers to the defending player. If trample were to refer to the controller of the receiving creature, then it would change the functionality of fight and creatures that deal non-combat damage.
Then again there is precedent of mechanics working entirely differently across card types. Cough legendary cough.
However, the word itself makes no flavour sense for a spell either. A wave of magma, a fireball or a lightning strike don't "trample".
2R
Instant U
~ deals 4 damage to target creature. Excess damage is dealt to that creature's controller instead.
https://twitter.com/maro254/status/1248021703986315264?s=20
They got a silver border card in black border
super-duper death ray
I believe this also skirts Hexproof on a player as well??? As the excess damage isn't targeted?
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Well it’s not the first time but yeah. It’s nice when a design they think is too crazy ends up making it.
will be interesting to read the notes
Given the pestilent spirit precedent, I am sad it doesn't have trample and just directly states the effect. But trample might have caused a whole bunch of issues when you staple it to other spells with complicated effects
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
I am a little surprised by the wording, and that it doesn't take more to explain. I would think "Damage in excess of the creature's toughness" would be better, although the current wording, I think, is worse against indestructible.
In the set that's all about Keyword it would have made a lot of sense to go with trample instead of writing it out.
I don't think that would be necessary. There have been things that give keyword to instants and sorceries that were otherwise creature exclusive prior to that. I think trample would work just fine.
I guess its the same against indestructible. Trample lets you assign damage beyond lethal to a player -- and "lethal" is merely toughness for the purposes of indestructible.
Abilities like Lifelink applies to any damage the source deals. When a creature with lifelink Fights, for example, you gain life. So it's fine for a damage spell to have lifelink, or deathtouch, wither, infect.
But Trample is a combat ability. When a creature with trample fights, excess damage is not dealt to the player. So damage spells with Trample are still a bad fit, as they aren't dealing combat damage.
If there was a way to make it work, they would have probably done it. There's a reason Super-Duper Death Ray is a silver-bordered card.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Yes, for odd-cmc spells, which this is. Obosh, the Preypiercer.
Can you link the source in your post, please.
At least if you have Pestilent Spirit out, this kills a creature with a single point of damage and then deals 3 to the player.
https://twitter.com/AngryBrewerMtG/status/1248024337891893256/photo/1
In an absolute sense you're correct. But I like to think magic players are capable of thinking about the context. "Obviously this instant can't deal combat damage but the designers of the game put it on here so why shouldn't it work?" I don't think anyone would have questioned it if this had said trample instead.
Saying "there's a reason Super-Duper Death Ray is a silver bordered card for a reason" discounts the existence of all 5 pacts as well as Barren Glory.
I actually think this is less intuitive. How does this work with Pestilent Spirit? You aren't assigning damage so what? Even though this has deathtouch all of it's damage has to go to the creature even though 1 would have been enough? I'm sure it works as actually expected but if they had just put trample on it it would have been much more elegant and simple.
I just responded with the answer to the Pestilent Spirit question in the post above. https://twitter.com/AngryBrewerMtG/status/1248024337891893256/photo/1
https://twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/1248024224360361984
And if anyone is wondering, Eli Shiffrin is the MTG Rules Manager. So this is correct. Giving the spell deathtouch, for instance with Pestilent Spirit, does allow 1 damage to be dealt to the creature—as it will be lethal damage—with the other 3 going to the player. As he also notes, there is no may here, which a functional difference with trample. When assigning combat damage with trample you can choose not to deal the excess damage to the player. One example is if my opponent has No Mercy out, I might want to kill his creature that is a 1/1 with my 5/5 trampler by assigning all 5 damage to the creature. I cannot do that with the spell.
"Some un cards were printed in black border therefore all un cards could maybe be printed in black border" doesn't work. Super-Duper Death Ray wasn't printed in silver border just because it's a wacky humourous card. It's not a wacky effect, it's quite intuitive for anyone who understands Trample. It was printed in silver border *specifically* because they couldn't get it to work in black border rules. Flame Spill is the closest we are going to get, and, according to MaRo, Flame Spill only happened because they found a neat way to word the effect that did work in the rules.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I don't see it as "avoiding confusion". Just about consistency, keeping an evergreen keyword from having two slightly different yet contradictory definitions.
Fortunately I never said that.
Eli Shiffrin confirmed on twitter this indeed works with Deathtouch the way Trample does.
And I think we will have to agree to disagree about what is more intuitive and elegant. I just see it the exact opposite way as you.
Yes, you edited it in after I had posted. Or maybe I just hadn't refreshed the page and seen it. As I said in the post you quoted I'm sure it works as one would think it would. My point is that it's far less intuitive and elegant than if they had just given it trample.
Then again there is precedent of mechanics working entirely differently across card types. Cough legendary cough.
However, the word itself makes no flavour sense for a spell either. A wave of magma, a fireball or a lightning strike don't "trample".
This feels like it should have been a part of red the whole time. Hopefully they keep this up with Red for future cards.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries