Protection From - is this a bug or a correct mechanic?

TheHunter

I hit my opponent’s Unchained Berserker (3/3, protection from white) with a 20/20 reinforced Gishath, and the Berserker only took 2 damage.
Didn’t the Gishath do 20 damage, so the Berserker takes 10 (halved for the protection)? If not, then ‘Protection from...’ becomes a massive game changer, you can stop a 1000/1000 super-buffed monster with a 3/3 weakling???

Mburn7

@Oktagon_Support @Tombstone sounds like protection calculated the 3 lethal damage that would have been dealt (due to trample) and halved that instead of halving the base and then calculating the trample damage from there.

Tell the team to check their order of operations.

Bil

I think it reflects properly what the interaction beetween protection and trample should be.

If you trample a 3/3 it takes 3 damage ... And then the damage is halved. If the 17 damage excess was taken by the player it seems fair enough.

Mburn7

Bil said:

I think it reflects properly what the interaction beetween protection and trample should be.

If you trample a 3/3 it takes 3 damage ... And then the damage is halved. If the 17 damage excess was taken by the player it seems fair enough.

The issue is, the definition of trample is that all excess damage past lethal damage to the blocking creature goes through to the defending player.  If the creature does not die from the damage, it means trample damage was assigned incorrectly.

There are two possible ways this can be fixed that I can think of:

1.  Factor in the halved damage when calculating how much damage is lethal damage (so 6 in this case) and assign damage accordingly (so Ghalta would deal 6 damage to the creature that gets halved to 3, then tramples over the remaining 14)

2.  Deal all damage to the creature first, then halve it, then calculate the remainder for trample damage (so Ghalta would deal 10 damage, 3 of it killing the creature and the remaining 7 trampling over)

Obviously option 1 is better because it leads to more damage trampling over, but I think it would be more complex to program (since there are extra calculations needed) whereas option 2 is much simpler, but makes Protection much more powerful against big trample creatures.  Either way, I'm fairly certain that the way it is currently working is incorrect and needs to be tweaked.  Especially because I highly doubt this specific interaction was tested while the mechanic was being designed, there should be room for some maneuvering.

TheHunter

Option 1 makes sense, I think you’re right the specific situation of a big trampler wasn’t tested. Ah well @Oktagon_Support have it now to review, thanks all.
Although I can propose a support for the next set, Urza’s Cockroach “Your creatures that would be destroyed by Trample instead become 1/1 and remain in play” 🤣

FindingHeart8

You can still kill a creature that has protection as if it didn't with abilities, it still needs fixing

WiLDRAGE

Mburn7 said:

Bil said:

I think it reflects properly what the interaction beetween protection and trample should be.

If you trample a 3/3 it takes 3 damage ... And then the damage is halved. If the 17 damage excess was taken by the player it seems fair enough.

The issue is, the definition of trample is that all excess damage past lethal damage to the blocking creature goes through to the defending player.  If the creature does not die from the damage, it means trample damage was assigned incorrectly.

This is actually incorrect.  The actual rule is this:

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 can’t assign combat damage to a creature that’s blocking it unless, when combat damage assignments are complete, 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 that’s being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that’s actually dealt. An amount of damage that’s greater than a creature’s lethal damage may be assigned to it.

The only exception to this rule has to do with Deathtouch:

702.2b. Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage, regardless of that creature's toughness. See rules 510.1c-d.

Both of these are implemented correctly.  In the case of a trampling creature with deathtouch, only 1 damage is currently being assigned to blockers and the rest tramples through.  For protection creatures, tramplers only assign damage equal to the remaining toughness of the blocker, like it should.

Mburn7

WiLDRAGE said:

Mburn7 said:

Bil said:

I think it reflects properly what the interaction beetween protection and trample should be.

If you trample a 3/3 it takes 3 damage ... And then the damage is halved. If the 17 damage excess was taken by the player it seems fair enough.

The issue is, the definition of trample is that all excess damage past lethal damage to the blocking creature goes through to the defending player.  If the creature does not die from the damage, it means trample damage was assigned incorrectly.

This is actually incorrect.  The actual rule is this:

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 can’t assign combat damage to a creature that’s blocking it unless, when combat damage assignments are complete, 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 that’s being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that’s actually dealt. An amount of damage that’s greater than a creature’s lethal damage may be assigned to it.

The only exception to this rule has to do with Deathtouch:

702.2b. Any nonzero amount of combat damage assigned to a creature by a source with deathtouch is considered to be lethal damage, regardless of that creature's toughness. See rules 510.1c-d.

Both of these are implemented correctly.  In the case of a trampling creature with deathtouch, only 1 damage is currently being assigned to blockers and the rest tramples through.  For protection creatures, tramplers only assign damage equal to the remaining toughness of the blocker, like it should.

Thank you for the rules import.  Either I have been playing paper MTG wrong all these years or I've never had this specific combination of things happen before to see the rule played out.

It is definitely counter-intuitive that a creature could survive blocking a trampler with trample damage still going through, however, even if it is technically correct (again, something I did not know when I made my original post)

WiLDRAGE

@Mburn7 No issues.  Trample is probably one of the evergreen keywords that has had its rules change the most throughout the years.

Stormcrow

WiLDRAGE said:

Both of these are implemented correctly.  ... For protection creatures, tramplers only assign damage equal to the remaining toughness of the blocker, like it should.

Well, it's implemented in a way that's consistent with paper Magic, but that doesn't automatically equal "correctly". Since Protection in PQ is implemented differently than Protection in paper, it's not necessarily logical to treat Trample against Protected creatures exactly the same way. In paper, all damage from the creature you're protected against is reduced to zero, so no amount of "extra" damage assigned to the target would ever be enough to kill it; assigning exactly the creature's toughness in damage is simply a way of determining the minimum amount of trample damage you're required to "waste" on what is in some sense an infinite-toughness creature.

That's not the case here; enough extra damage will kill the target. I see it as closer to something like having your trampler blocked by a Rootwalla when the opponent has two green mana free; the Rootwalla may only have two toughness but by assigning four damage to it and the rest to your opponent (perfectly legal unless they've changed Trample a lot since last I played paper seriously) you can be a lot more confident the Rootwalla will actually die, which unless you're swinging for fatal damage is probably a better outcome.

WiLDRAGE

Stormcrow said:

WiLDRAGE said:

Both of these are implemented correctly.  ... For protection creatures, tramplers only assign damage equal to the remaining toughness of the blocker, like it should.

Well, it's implemented in a way that's consistent with paper Magic, but that doesn't automatically equal "correctly". Since Protection in PQ is implemented differently than Protection in paper, it's not necessarily logical to treat Trample against Protected creatures exactly the same way. In paper, all damage from the creature you're protected against is reduced to zero, so no amount of "extra" damage assigned to the target would ever be enough to kill it; assigning exactly the creature's toughness in damage is simply a way of determining the minimum amount of trample damage you're required to "waste" on what is in some sense an infinite-toughness creature.

That's not the case here; enough extra damage will kill the target. I see it as closer to something like having your trampler blocked by a Rootwalla when the opponent has two green mana free; the Rootwalla may only have two toughness but by assigning four damage to it and the rest to your opponent (perfectly legal unless they've changed Trample a lot since last I played paper seriously) you can be a lot more confident the Rootwalla will actually die, which unless you're swinging for fatal damage is probably a better outcome.

I understand what you're saying but this game has always been very consistent as to how it assigns trample damage and the way it works currently with protection is in line with this.  Considering how neutered protection is even implemented, I don't think this unfair in any way.

As for your Rootwalla example, that doesn't work but not because of changes to trample but because there is no longer a window to cast spells or activate abilities once damage is assigned (much to the chagrin of Sakura Tribe Elder and Mogg Fanatic).  If you don't pump your Rootwalla after blockers are declared, you don't get to do it once damage is assigned.

Mburn7

Just putting it out there @Oktagon_Support we still haven't gotten any official confirmation if this is intended behavior or not.

Based on the conversations here I'm honestly still not sure one way or the other.