are there things the game does wrong when compared to RL MTG?

#11DujasPosted 7/20/2012 4:38:20 PM
From the most recent rules I have, which may not be current but are post-M10.

510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. If exactly one creature is blocking it, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature. If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. This may allow the blocked creature to divide its combat damage. However, it canít assign combat damage to a creature thatís blocking it unless each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures thatís being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage thatís actually dealt. An amount of damage thatís greater than a creatureís lethal damage may be assigned to it.

Example: The damage assignment order of an attacking Craw Wurm (a 6/4 creature) is Wall of Wood (a 0/3 creature) then Eager Cadet (a 1/1 creature). During the declare blockers step, the defending player casts Giant Growth targeting Wall of Wood, which gives it +3/+3 until end of turn. Craw Wurm must assign its 6 damage to the Wall.


This is similar to the example I just gave. The attacking player cannot kill the Eager Cadet.
#12DujasPosted 7/20/2012 4:52:32 PM
To expand on how paper Magic works, let's step through my earlier scenario. We'll start at the declare blockers step.

509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesnít use the stack. To declare blockers, the defending player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of blockers, the defending player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 715, ďHandling Illegal ActionsĒ).

Creatures A and B (both 1/1) are declared to block a 3/3 attacker.

509.2. Second, for each attacking creature thatís become blocked, the active player announces that creatureís damage assignment order, which consists of the creatures blocking it in an order of that playerís choice. (During the combat damage step, an attacking creature canít assign combat damage to a creature thatís blocking it unless each creature ahead of that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage.) This turn-based action doesnít use the stack.
Example: Craw Wurm is blocked by Llanowar Elves, Runeclaw Bear, and Serra Angel. The Craw Wurmís controller announces the Craw Wurmís damage assignment order as Serra Angel, then Runeclaw Bear, then Llanowar Elves.

The attacking player announces the damage assignment order as creature A, then creature B.

509.5. Fifth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

The defending player casts Giant Growth targeting creature A. With no responses, Giant Growth resolves. Creature A is now 4/4.

That takes care of the declare blockers step. Rule 510 covers the combat damage step that follows. To emphasize part of the rule I quoted in my last post:

If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. This may allow the blocked creature to divide its combat damage. However, it canít assign combat damage to a creature thatís blocking it unless each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage.

The 3/3 blocker cannot assign lethal damage to creature A, therefore it cannot assign any damage to creature B. This is different from Magic 2013.
#13final_lapPosted 7/20/2012 6:53:00 PM
I have never heard of combat damage resolving in a specific. Well except for first strike damage followed by non-first strike damage. Even before the rules change, back when combat damage went on the stack, all non-first-strike combat damage still resolved simultaneously.
#14Telvanni_guardPosted 7/20/2012 6:53:49 PM
This part...
"Example: Craw Wurm is blocked by Llanowar Elves, Runeclaw Bear, and Serra Angel. The Craw Wurmís controller announces the Craw Wurmís damage assignment order as Serra Angel, then Runeclaw Bear, then Llanowar Elves.

The attacking player announces the damage assignment order as creature A, then creature B."


And this part...
"If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. This may allow the blocked creature to divide its combat damage. However, it canít assign combat damage to a creature thatís blocking it unless each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage.

The 3/3 blocker cannot assign lethal damage to creature A, therefore it cannot assign any damage to creature B. This is different from Magic 2013."

So basically what you're saying this is saying is that when dealing combat damage, creatures don't actually deal their damage as a number amount but instead deal enough damage to a target to kill it before switching to the next.

Reading this, that sounds right.
And also very dumb.
.
---
GamerTag: Te1vanni Guard
"Telvanni you would disprove everyone. :D"- Saint_of_Misery
#15megamaster125Posted 7/20/2012 7:07:46 PM
I wasn't aware there was time between damage assignment order and applying combat damage where you could play instants. Huh.
---
There are no contradictions in the Bible. http://megamaster125.angelfire.com/rationalchristianity/
Pokemon Black FC - 2151-3329-2763
#16ProfessorBoboPosted 7/20/2012 9:46:19 PM
Wow, that stuff with the Giant Growth is messed up. I just looked up the latest rules (here: http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20120701.txt) and they have a similar example. Duels 2013 doesn't provide an opportunity to play anything after damage order is assigned. That's a pretty significant difference. That could be a big deal when blocking a 3/4 with a couple of 1/1s, but I can't think of any possible situations like that in Duels 2013. Maybe blocking that 3/6 black creature with a couple of 2/2s and the GG'ing. That's quite an edge-case, though.
#17final_lapPosted 7/20/2012 9:59:39 PM
you guys are making me feel like less of a MtG expert than I thought I was
#18DujasPosted 7/21/2012 1:18:51 AM
Telvanni_guard posted...
So basically what you're saying this is saying is that when dealing combat damage, creatures don't actually deal their damage as a number amount but instead deal enough damage to a target to kill it before switching to the next.


They choose damage assignment order in the declare blockers step. In the combat damage step, they choose how much damage to deal, but they have to abide by the order they've already chosen. There were other examples given in the rules I didn't include. Here's one.

Example: The damage assignment order of an attacking Craw Wurm (a 6/4 creature) is Wall of Wood (a 0/3 creature) then Eager Cadet (a 1/1 creature). During the declare blockers step, the defending player casts Mending Hands targeting Wall of Wood, which prevents the next 4 damage that would be dealt to it. Craw Wurm can assign 3 damage to the Wall and 3 damage to the Cadet, 4 damage to the Wall and 2 damage to the Cadet, 5 damage to the Wall and 1 damage to the Cadet, or 6 damage to the Wall.

Let's add to the example and say the Wall of Wood has already taken 1 damage. The Craw Wurm only needs to assign 2 damage to the Wall of Wood before it can assign damage to the Eager Cadet, or the player can assign all 6 damage to the wall depending on which he'd rather kill.

Still, I miss the times when you could actually split damage. There was one deck I had on Magic Workstation that kind of got hosed when the new rules came out. There were games when I'd have something like a Hearthfire Goblin with a Loxodon Warhammer equipped and Light from Within in play. 8/5 double striker with trample and lifelink anyone? But my opponent would have blockers pumped up by lieges (Deathbringer Liege is in the game I hear, similar pumping effect). Before the rule change I could assign enough damage to kill the lieges first, then reduced amounts of damage, reflecting the loss of toughness when the lieges would die, to kill as much as possible to maximize the chances of my goblin living. After the change, I'd have to assign extra damage to each creature before I could damage others.

The other rule change that hurt that deck was making lifelink static. Knight of Meadowgrain with Loxodon Warhammer used to be awesome...
#19ID15(Topic Creator)Posted 7/21/2012 10:05:55 AM
oh yea! these examples have brought up another thing I "think" is wrong. suppose you have a lord-type creature. In this, DotP 2013, If you were attacking with the lord-type and a bunch of creatures it was boosting and then the opponent blocks and kill the "lord", I don't understand why all my other creatures would lose their bonuses before the end of the combat step, thus doing less than I would have intentionally thought, it doesn't make sense b/c if all combat damage happens at the same time they SHOULDN'T lose their bonuses yet they do.

Does anyone have a clue on what I'm talking about?
---
We ALL have An Id in us.....
#20The DeadpoolPosted 7/21/2012 10:24:37 AM
Errrrr... They don't. Not in this game nor paper magic.

What happens is, if you attack with, saying Raging Goblin that's being pumped by a chieftain, and I block and kill the Chieftain, Raging Goblin does 2 damage... And then becomes a 1/1. IF I did 1 damage to it, then it becomes 1/1 with 1 damage on it (damage only wears off at the END OF TURN, not the end of combat) and it dies.
---
Being single is a balance between loneliness and happiness. You're lonely right before going to sleep and happy the rest of the day...