phlip wrote:Woland: is your problem with the way the rules are worded, or with the fact that a creature with Indestructible that has 0 toughness still dies? Because those are two different things to be arguing about, and I'm not sure which you're doing...
tl;dr: I'm upset because I honestly believe Wizards could do better than they have done.
My problem,
generally, is with the complexity of the rules involving damage.
My problem with Indestructible is this:
Imagine you are a new player, you have a passable understanding of the rules, but you don't know all of them, and you play something with indestructible. Before M14 (and I recognize that they have taken a step here, and I appreciate it), you would play a permanent with "indestructible." The following conversation would occur at some point:
A: "Um, that creature is dead."
B: "No it isn't, it's indestructible."
A: "Yeah, but it's still dead because of the counters I put on it."
B: "But it's indestructible."
A: "That's not what that means."
B: "Well what does it mean?"
A: "It means it cannot be destroyed."
B: "Then how can it be dead?"
A: "JUDGE!"
The presentation of the rules is complex, which encourages ignorance of the rules.
Ignorance of the rules leads to misplays, which punish the "misplayer."
The presentation of the rules encourage punishing new players.
I don't think that is a hallmark of good design.
Here's another problem with damage rules: types of damage to player.
This one actually happened to me on MTGO. I explained what I thought was a bug to an ORC, who agreed with me, and encouraged me to send the issue to Wizards, which I did. I was then told that the cards were working as intended. Watch this:
I play Elderscale Wurm onto the battlefield with 9 life. The card says:
When Elderscale Wurm enters the battlefield, if your life total is less than 7, your life total becomes 7.
As long as you have 7 or more life, damage that would reduce your life total to less than 7 reduces it to 7 instead.
My opponent played a 'Debt to the Deathless' for 10 mana, making X=6. Since I had 9 life (more than 7), the Eldersacle Wurm should have {I thought} taken my life total to 7, even though I would have taken 12 damage. Instead, I went to -3 and lost the game.
Debt to the Deathless reads, in relevant part:
Each opponent loses two times X life.
This is the response I got from Wizards:
I've reviewed the information that you provided, and determined that the cards involved functioned as intended. If you take a look at Elderscale Wurm's last ability, it says:
"As long as you have 7 or more life, damage that would reduce your life total to less than 7 reduces it to 7 instead."
This refers specifically to damage, which is a bit different from life loss. Damage to a player causes life loss, but the two are not identical. Debt to the Deathless specifically refers to life loss, but it does not deal damage. Since it caused you to lose 12 life rather than take 12 damage, Elderscale Wurm's ability could not protect you.
Now, I'm not trying to say that the Wizards rep was wrong; I know she was right. I know because I've looked into it. That's not my problem.
My problem is that the rules are poorly presented. If "damage" ≠ "life loss," how am I supposed to know that without calling a judge or reading the Comprehensive Rules, which Wizards say
I think it's okay to lose on a technicality if you've been out-technicality-ed. I don't think it's okay to lose, even once, because the rules are obtuse. That's just bad communication.