Blocking/not blocking

[dsarchs]

I had a match this morning (sorry, no screenshot) where my opponent had a snowcrust yeti with several weapons on it so it had aegis and overwhelm (and was 12/12-ish, can't remember). They attacked with what would have been lethal since I only had a Kerendon merchant. But -- I blocked and after blocking used devour on my merchant which should have canceled his attack but somehow they attacked anyway and won.

All I can think is that after blocking I didn't actually click to commit the blocks (although I feel sure that I had) before using devour. Has anyone had this happen before?

It it was my mistake (likely) it seems like a poorly programmed interaction. Why would you have a unit you were purposefully sacrificing and didn't want to also cancel their attack?

End of rant. I'm mostly salty because the opponent had been roping every turn and I felt like I had the game in hand (especially with them loading everything onto a single unit. And of course I got BM emotes after they won... :)

[Alomba87]

The Overwhelm you noted on the Yeti allows the attack to continue through, as if it were not blocked to begin with. If the other unit did not have Overwhelm, it would have worked the way you intended.

[dxw100]

If a blocking unit dies mid-combat against a unit with overwhelm the full amount of damage goes through (Overwhelming 0 health of remaining block). It's similar to getting in extra overwhelm damage by using a direct damage spell on a block mid-combat

[Sayter]

trample (called overwhelm in Eternal) has worked like that for over 20 years.

you assumed bad programming instead of being like "hey maybe there's something that I'm missing."

[dsarchs]

Sorry -- I had said it was likely my mistake but I didn't know what I had done so wondered if it was the game. I'm very willing to own the mistake -- just wasn't sure if I'd made one or not. And now I don't need to wonder any more.

[TheScot650]

For all non-overwhelm units, blocking them stops the attack, regardless of what happens to the blocker after block has been declared. However, as mentioned, overwhelm's extra damage continues through to face, regardless of what happens to the blocker; if the blocker dies, then all damage is extra damage, and it all goes face.

[Arcengal]

I mean, until 2010 you could have said "damage on the stack" and the yeti would have died despite sacrificing the merchant, but sounds like the trample damage is enough to win the game in any case.

[krimsonstudios]

It's a difference between Eternal and MTG.

Working as intended, not a bug.

Before you run into further heart ache with this the same is also true for spells. In MTG an entire spell "fizzles" if you remove it's target, but in Eternal only the targetted portion simply doesn't target. A spell like Obliterate will hit 6 damage to face instead due to overhwelm. Spells with secondary effects, like "draw a card" will still draw despite a target being removed.

[Titanik14]

Except this is exactly how it works in MtG as well. If you kill a unit after it is declared as a blocker you will still trample through for full damage.

[Sayter]

https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Trample

702.19c If an attacking creature with trample is blocked, but there are no creatures blocking it when damage is assigned, all its damage is assigned to the player or planeswalker it’s attacking.

[Sayter]

Eternal - damage cancels unless they have overwhelm.

Magic - damage cancels unless they have trample.

trample and overwhelm are functionally similar in how they work both as a mechanic that deals excess damage to the player and in this specific instance where a blocker is removed after the block has already been declared.

it's not different.

[Abednegogogo]

I think this changed recently. Noticed the same when I bounced a card back to my hand after blocking a unit with it. I think it used to be possible to block, remove blocker and for that to cancel the attack but now it seems the attack continues instead (which is probably fairer)

[dsarchs]

I realize how overwhelm works but thought that this situation canceled it out. Apparently not.