now, of course we all know that creatures with 0 or less toughness are put into the graveyard as a state-based effect, but I was wondering, Why do the rules need this case.
Why isn't this already covered by the rules that says that any creature with damage marked on it equal to or greater than it's toughness is destroyed( 0 damage >= 0 toughness).
I know that it matters with indestructible, but what about before indestructible creatures came out? Did wizards have indestructible in mind when they made this rule?
Indestructible might not have existed, but regeneration sure did, and it would be very confusing to a lot of players how that would interact with regeneration, and creature problematic infinite loops because in theory you could create an infinite number of regeneration shields with infinite mana, and each time the creature tried to be destroyed because it was marked with 0 toughness and had 0 damage, it would be protected by the regen shield. This would be even worse with the old "indestructible' cards like glittering lynx, clergy of the holy nimbus or knight of the holy nimbus
There would also be issues with timing with regeneration shield. Say you cast sudden death on a creature that has a regeneration shield on it. I can't respond, my creature becomes an x/0, and now is attempted to be destroyed because it has 0 damage marked and 0 toughness. Regeneration happens. Now, can I respond before it dies with a giant growth? What if it had 2 shields on it, can i respond between the two shields?
And that's just for regen, I imagine there are many other examples even dating as far back as alpha.
TL;DR - This rule exists because having a creature with 0 toughness die as if it had been marked with 0 damage would create all kinds of headaches. Plus, as you said, with indestructible now it is a necessary rule nowadays, so what's the point in debating it?
Edit - Yes, I know you can't do things "infinite" numbers of times and have to specify an amount, but I am not sure how long that rule has existed.
Edit 2 - Also, this would create confusing interactions with protection and other damage prevention creatures. Can you prevent the 0 damage? If so, does the 0 toughness creature now get to live forever?
1) It matters for wither, or infect, or anything else with -1/-1 counters (like quag sickness or cinderhaze wretch)
2) It also matters for non-counter enchantments or creatures that might give -toughness effects, such as Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite
3) It matters for cards with */* power/toughness, where the variable ends up being zero depending on game situation. For example, Serra Avatar + Phyrexian unlife
4) It matters for the ever popular Mycosynth lattice + March of the Machines combo which kills off all lands because of this rule if you don't do something to stop it.
And probably several other things I'm not thinking of. I have no idea which ones of those came before or after indestructibility, but my point is that if they had thought of ANY of these sorts of things at the time, even vaguely, it would have made sense to be careful.
Indestructible might not have existed, but regeneration sure did, and it would be very confusing to a lot of players how that would interact with regeneration, and creature problematic infinite loops because in theory you could create an infinite number of regeneration shields with infinite mana, and each time the creature tried to be destroyed because it was marked with 0 toughness and had 0 damage, it would be protected by the regen shield. This would be even worse with the old "indestructible' cards like glittering lynx, clergy of the holy nimbus or knight of the holy nimbus
There would also be issues with timing with regeneration shield. Say you cast sudden death on a creature that has a regeneration shield on it. I can't respond, my creature becomes an x/0, and now is attempted to be destroyed because it has 0 damage marked and 0 toughness. Regeneration happens. Now, can I respond before it dies with a giant growth? What if it had 2 shields on it, can i respond between the two shields?
And that's just for regen, I imagine there are many other examples even dating as far back as alpha.
TL;DR - This rule exists because having a creature with 0 toughness die as if it had been marked with 0 damage would create all kinds of headaches. Plus, as you said, with indestructible now it is a necessary rule nowadays, so what's the point in debating it?
Edit - Yes, I know you can't do things "infinite" numbers of times and have to specify an amount, but I am not sure how long that rule has existed.
Edit 2 - Also, this would create confusing interactions with protection and other damage prevention creatures. Can you prevent the 0 damage? If so, does the 0 toughness creature now get to live forever?
As far as most new players are concerned, a creature being destroyed and a creature dying from 0 toughness are the same things. All the "confusing points" that you brought up are only meaningful to people who already have an understanding of how the rules work, and should be able to determine what happens in those cases anyway.
1) It matters for wither, or infect, or anything else with -1/-1 counters (like quag sickness or cinderhaze wretch)
2) It also matters for non-counter enchantments or creatures that might give -toughness effects, such as Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite
3) It matters for cards with */* power/toughness, where the variable ends up being zero depending on game situation. For example, Serra Avatar + Phyrexian unlife
4) It matters for the ever popular Mycosynth lattice + March of the Machines combo which kills off all lands because of this rule if you don't do something to stop it.
And probably several other things I'm not thinking of. I have no idea which ones of those came before or after indestructibility, but my point is that if they had thought of ANY of these sorts of things at the time, even vaguely, it would have made sense to be careful.
...
Why isn't this already covered by the rules that says that any creature with damage marked on it equal to or greater than it's toughness is destroyed( 0 damage >= 0 toughness).
As far as most new players are concerned, a creature being destroyed and a creature dying from 0 toughness are the same things. All the "confusing points" that you brought up are only meaningful to people who already have an understanding of how the rules work, and should be able to determine what happens in those cases anyway.
I think you overestimate how well experienced players know all the nuances of the rules.
For example, during Theros Pro-Tour, Zac Hill, someone who worked on the game for a number of years, thought that Xenagos's first ability was a mana ability. He also got confirmation from a judge that it was, indeed a mana ability. (It's not a mana ability).
Ah sorry, my brain thought that was a signature or something.
Anyway, none of my examples would be covered by the rule that "any creature with damage marked on it equal to or greater than it's toughness is destroyed", so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
A -1/-1 counter is not "damage," nor is a -1/-1 effect like quag or elesh
And a creature that has its toughness set to 0 via a * rule doesn't necessarily have ANY "damage"
Unless you mean that everything just has zero damage marked on it all the time? That seems pretty questionable, and regardless, it would be extremely vague and I think unreasonable to expect players to just think up on their own, even if it is true. You would want to just explicitly write it out anyway, which would answer your question.
I think you overestimate how well experienced players know all the nuances of the rules.
For example, during Theros Pro-Tour, Zac Hill, someone who worked on the game for a number of years, thought that Xenagos's first ability was a mana ability. He also got confirmation from a judge that it was, indeed a mana ability. (It's not a mana ability).
And this brings me to one of the cons to having a separate state-based effect for 0-toughness creatures.
Every time you add an extra rule you get confusion. Normally, abilities meeting the criteria Xenagos would be considered a mana ability, except in this case there's an explicit exception to those rules for loyalty abilities.
When you have specific exceptions to rules like that, instead of letting things naturally follow the rules that already exist, this kind of confusion is the result.
Imagine a sheet of paper.
Now imagine a sheet of paper with "0" written on it.
Are these equivalent objects? No.
The language used is "marked" which implies some active event marked the damage down. It is totally ambiguous whether in Magic, the damage is "marked" on every creature every time the game state updates, even if no damage was done, or if damage is only "marked" when something actually sustains combat damage.
Unless there is a rule somewhere that specifies it happens at every state update?
As far as most new players are concerned, a creature being destroyed and a creature dying from 0 toughness are the same things. All the "confusing points" that you brought up are only meaningful to people who already have an understanding of how the rules work, and should be able to determine what happens in those cases anyway.
Sure, which is why it's important they learn the distinction. Like with regeneration. When a new player tries to regenerate a creature after dismember, you explain to them that it doesn't work and then they learn that dying from damage and dying from having 0 toughness are two different things. If the rules worked the way you suggest, you would have to explain to them "well, it works, but only once, then the creature dies again because it still is marked with 0 damage with 0 toughness. In fact you could regenerate it a million times and it wouldn't matter" which is way more confusing. Also, if you have some effect that triggers off of creatures tapping, you WOULD get a trigger if you had a creature with a regeneration shield if the rules worked the way you are suggesting, whereas you don't with the way the rules work now.
Also, new players were only a part of my post, and you didn't address the rest. What happens with damage prevention and creatures with perma-regeneration? Does clergy of the holy nimbus survive dismember the way you want the rules to work? What about glittering lynx?
The way the rules exist now is simply much better and removes a ton of confusing interactions.
And again, it wouldn't matter even if the rules were functionally equivalent.
Rules should be clear and unambiguous, and terefore requiring players to make two or three logical leaps between the written rule and how it actually affects gameplay would be poorly written rules.
So even if the two lines are redundant, they should both be there anyway, for clarity.
There's a difference between getting enough damage to kill you (which is what happens when, say, a 5/5 dragon gets 5 points of damage), as opposed to being simply too weak to continue living (which is 0 toughness).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why isn't this already covered by the rules that says that any creature with damage marked on it equal to or greater than it's toughness is destroyed( 0 damage >= 0 toughness).
I know that it matters with indestructible, but what about before indestructible creatures came out? Did wizards have indestructible in mind when they made this rule?
There would also be issues with timing with regeneration shield. Say you cast sudden death on a creature that has a regeneration shield on it. I can't respond, my creature becomes an x/0, and now is attempted to be destroyed because it has 0 damage marked and 0 toughness. Regeneration happens. Now, can I respond before it dies with a giant growth? What if it had 2 shields on it, can i respond between the two shields?
And that's just for regen, I imagine there are many other examples even dating as far back as alpha.
TL;DR - This rule exists because having a creature with 0 toughness die as if it had been marked with 0 damage would create all kinds of headaches. Plus, as you said, with indestructible now it is a necessary rule nowadays, so what's the point in debating it?
Edit - Yes, I know you can't do things "infinite" numbers of times and have to specify an amount, but I am not sure how long that rule has existed.
Edit 2 - Also, this would create confusing interactions with protection and other damage prevention creatures. Can you prevent the 0 damage? If so, does the 0 toughness creature now get to live forever?
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
1) It matters for wither, or infect, or anything else with -1/-1 counters (like quag sickness or cinderhaze wretch)
2) It also matters for non-counter enchantments or creatures that might give -toughness effects, such as Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite
3) It matters for cards with */* power/toughness, where the variable ends up being zero depending on game situation. For example, Serra Avatar + Phyrexian unlife
4) It matters for the ever popular Mycosynth lattice + March of the Machines combo which kills off all lands because of this rule if you don't do something to stop it.
And probably several other things I'm not thinking of. I have no idea which ones of those came before or after indestructibility, but my point is that if they had thought of ANY of these sorts of things at the time, even vaguely, it would have made sense to be careful.
As far as most new players are concerned, a creature being destroyed and a creature dying from 0 toughness are the same things. All the "confusing points" that you brought up are only meaningful to people who already have an understanding of how the rules work, and should be able to determine what happens in those cases anyway.
...
Compelling contribution to the conversation, good sir.
What you might have missed there, was me re-quoting myself reiterating the point that a creature with 0 toughness would die from 0 damage anyway.
And creatures with 0 toughness dying from 0 damage covers each and every example that you've laid out in your post
For example, during Theros Pro-Tour, Zac Hill, someone who worked on the game for a number of years, thought that Xenagos's first ability was a mana ability. He also got confirmation from a judge that it was, indeed a mana ability. (It's not a mana ability).
Anyway, none of my examples would be covered by the rule that "any creature with damage marked on it equal to or greater than it's toughness is destroyed", so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
A -1/-1 counter is not "damage," nor is a -1/-1 effect like quag or elesh
And a creature that has its toughness set to 0 via a * rule doesn't necessarily have ANY "damage"
Unless you mean that everything just has zero damage marked on it all the time? That seems pretty questionable, and regardless, it would be extremely vague and I think unreasonable to expect players to just think up on their own, even if it is true. You would want to just explicitly write it out anyway, which would answer your question.
How so?
And this brings me to one of the cons to having a separate state-based effect for 0-toughness creatures.
Every time you add an extra rule you get confusion. Normally, abilities meeting the criteria Xenagos would be considered a mana ability, except in this case there's an explicit exception to those rules for loyalty abilities.
When you have specific exceptions to rules like that, instead of letting things naturally follow the rules that already exist, this kind of confusion is the result.
Imagine a sheet of paper.
Now imagine a sheet of paper with "0" written on it.
Are these equivalent objects? No.
The language used is "marked" which implies some active event marked the damage down. It is totally ambiguous whether in Magic, the damage is "marked" on every creature every time the game state updates, even if no damage was done, or if damage is only "marked" when something actually sustains combat damage.
Unless there is a rule somewhere that specifies it happens at every state update?
Sure, which is why it's important they learn the distinction. Like with regeneration. When a new player tries to regenerate a creature after dismember, you explain to them that it doesn't work and then they learn that dying from damage and dying from having 0 toughness are two different things. If the rules worked the way you suggest, you would have to explain to them "well, it works, but only once, then the creature dies again because it still is marked with 0 damage with 0 toughness. In fact you could regenerate it a million times and it wouldn't matter" which is way more confusing. Also, if you have some effect that triggers off of creatures tapping, you WOULD get a trigger if you had a creature with a regeneration shield if the rules worked the way you are suggesting, whereas you don't with the way the rules work now.
Also, new players were only a part of my post, and you didn't address the rest. What happens with damage prevention and creatures with perma-regeneration? Does clergy of the holy nimbus survive dismember the way you want the rules to work? What about glittering lynx?
The way the rules exist now is simply much better and removes a ton of confusing interactions.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Rules should be clear and unambiguous, and terefore requiring players to make two or three logical leaps between the written rule and how it actually affects gameplay would be poorly written rules.
So even if the two lines are redundant, they should both be there anyway, for clarity.
Twitch channel
There's a difference between getting enough damage to kill you (which is what happens when, say, a 5/5 dragon gets 5 points of damage), as opposed to being simply too weak to continue living (which is 0 toughness).
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn