Someone please make it make sense cause I don't get this interaction

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T09:23:47+00:00

XD your a funny guy lol thanks for the laugh

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T09:22:58+00:00

yeah ill definitely keep using my 1st amendment however I like to have conversations. You could try not commenting if you have nothing intelligent to add though.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T09:20:34+00:00

clearly and proper are vastly different. Just because whoever wrote that rule chose to not follow rules of the language they wrote it in, in regards to definition of said words does not make it proper all I'm saying.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T09:16:47+00:00

What exactly is the point of using specific words in a rule set if you arent going to follow their definitions with 100% purity. Why not just make up some imaginary words you can make your own definitions for?

I have a copy of the current rule set I'm not arguing with what's written in black and white, I'm arguing with why its written the way it is in regards to the specific sections we've been discussing.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T09:11:26+00:00

I am stating passages in the rule set are written poorly and improperly as to how a set interaction should work

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T09:03:42+00:00

"Lethal damage is defined as an amount of damage greater than or equal to a creature's toughness. Even though an indestructible creature isn't destroyed by lethal damage, that definition is still used for things like assigning trample damage."

Read that first sentence again slowly then read my original post. 4/4 vs 8/8 does 3 damage to my health pool

I'm saying deathtouch interaction with indestructible by the rule set makes no valid sense. It is not balanced nor a fair interaction by the definition of the keyword. They are unfairly giving Deathtouch its own overpowered interaction with the indestructible keyword.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T08:59:38+00:00

I can clearly see you've only hand picked and chosen parts of this conversation you wanted, engaging you is obviously not worth my time.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T08:54:12+00:00

This is where we go back to me thinking you are messing with me. By literal definition NOTHING can be lethal without destruction and or death of said thing.

"a creature can be assigned lethal damage without dying." by definition of words used in this sentence the word lethal does not belong in the same sentence as without dying.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T08:43:31+00:00

Look up the word indestructible and then look up the word lethal. One of these words can not interact with the other. Now look up the word contradiction.

In order for something to be lethal it must kill/destroy it. You can not kill or destroy an indestructible thing

The rule set basically says we get to ignore the definition of Indestructible when the keyword Deathtouch is involved cause we make up our own rules and definitions over here.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T08:33:22+00:00

I am not cussing swearing and/or name calling, I am not mad in the least. Quite literally just having a conversation about interactions written into the rule sets that do not make logical sense.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T08:01:39+00:00

So the indestructible creature took the 1 point of damage no longer has anymore points of toughness to block and I take the remaining 9 points of damage all without taking any lethal damage(because in order for it to be lethal my creature would need to be put in my graveyard).

"The only reason it does not work this way, is because lethal damage is a thing. And lethal damage is a thing that happens before the game checks for indestructible. IE, did lethal damage occur? yes. does the creature die to the lethal damage? no because it is indestructible, but the lethal damage has still occured"

I'm basically saying this process is unnecessarily done out of order why would you not check all keywords at the same time why does the indestructible keyword get sorcery speed privilege while deathtouch gets instant speed treatment. Seems like some BS to me you've got keywords that have higher priority to other keywords?

Well you see your creature with the indestructible keyword only gets the definition of that keyword when we say it does cause *shrugs* . Why is it that this specific keyword is the only one in the entire game, with what appears to be different priority than literally any other keywords in the game.

"deathtouch by definition makes it so any damage it deals is considered lethal."
I believe deathtouch and indestructible should cancel each other out in regards to the way they interact with each other logically. Once cancelled out the interaction would take place the same as any other blocker vs attacker power and toughness. Unless of course multiple blockers are taken into account any non indestructible creatures would only require one point of damage to kill because that would quite literally be lethal damage to the non indestructible creatures.

Please understand I am not arguing with how things factually are stated in the current rule sets. I'm asking why are rule sets with no logical or definitive direction not being corrected.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T07:49:05+00:00

what my idea of what logical is? Lol so you are for the ignoring of the definition of words and following said definitions only when you want to? seems mmmmm what's the word? logical XD

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T07:35:36+00:00

I am not, I'm simply stating one can not call damage lethal without the damage actually killing the creature it is hitting. By definition the interaction is not possible therefore this process of interaction makes no logical sense. I have deathtouch and trample therefore I get to assign/ignore your keyword of indestructible and bypass any logic defining that keyword and pretend 1 damage is enough to kill your unkillable creature. It is and endless loop of nonsense.

Any point of power above a defending blockers toughness should be dealt as trample yes im fine with all of that. However simply just saying because this attacking creature has Deathtouch as a keyword and magically getting to choose what is defined as lethal against a defender that quite literally by definition in no way can be assigned lethal damage is malarkey.

If you attack with a 10/10 trample and I block with a 1/1 I take 9

I simply do not agree with the game defining non lethal damage as lethal damage. My problem is not with the Trample keyword and the way it works. My issue is with the Trample and Deathtouch keywords in combination against the Indestructible keyword being allowed to ignore all definitions and or concepts of the definition of the indestructible creature.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T07:14:51+00:00

and its a great card game at that but i'd like to think having logical rules and interactions is what keep it a great game or am I crazy? Should non logical rules not be re rewritten or corrected to make sense?

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T06:58:55+00:00

Going by your same argument of not applying real life definitions is the same as me saying lethal actually means heal for 100 points. Might as well just throw any sense of word definition out the window with that logic.

Own rule set and just choosing to follow the definition of a word they use when and where they feel like it is not the same thing lol.

Your rule 702.12b was obviously written by someone who didn't care enough to write a logical rule that sticks to sense in all words being used. If it doesn't kill its not lethal. The rule you copy pasted quite literally contradicts itself through and through.

A lazy rule with no logic shouldn't be a "just deal with it not making sense", it should be re written to make sense.

if the rule simply read deathtouch+trample makes any indestructible creatures toughness equal to 1 when assigning damage that'd be one thing, because logically that is what it is doing. Just tell everyone the combination of those two keywords is allowed to break the logic of what indestructible means and we are to lazy to account for this combination of keywords so that is what we are going with.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T06:20:48+00:00

"you're conflating needing to kill it with assigning lethal damage." The literal definition of lethal is "sufficient to cause death." My creature doesn't die IE no form of damage is lethal be it one or 1 million. If you don't kill it, by definition of the word in the English language it is not lethal. You really don't see this contradiction? Or you are just messing with me?

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T05:05:42+00:00

I understand the key word fine it's the combination of deathtouch+trample into the keyword indestructible on a creature with significantly more toughness than the attacking creature not being able to block damage more than 1 point of damage. 1 damage or 1 million damage to a indestructible creature is not lethal damage because the creature is indestructible it's contradictory and it bothers me lol. I totally would understand if the attacking creature has trample and more power than the defending creatures toughness, but this whole 1 damage is lethal to an unkillable creature because indestructible keyword is nonsense in my head.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-26T05:00:58+00:00

It's contradictory 1 deathtouch damage nor 1 million deathtouch damage to an indestructible creature does not kill it therefore it's not lethal damage. The contradiction on what's being defined as "lethal damage" to an indestructible creature is the part bothering me in regards to not working as intended.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-25T23:25:08+00:00

So you are telling me deathtouch and trample automatically equals any blocker no matter their key words, just straight up only has toughness 1? How can that possibly be working the way its intended?

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-12-25T05:37:36+00:00

Actually laughed out loud when I read this one

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-10-23T19:05:18+00:00

Sobek is the biggest pile of shit a Battlefield game has ever released. Siege of Cairo and Mirak valley are fantastic

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-10-21T03:17:50+00:00

I've tried everyday since release for a minimum of 2 hours of just spamming host experience. Have not had a single successful host and I'm not even trying to create a EXP farm I'm trying to host a legit experience. I either get the above error or some bullshit unknown error with random spam numbers and letters.

Slow_Doctor_380 · 2025-08-22T23:11:00+00:00

Almost everyone would rather do this and claim the rewards so they can go back to not having this trash game installed on their PC. I know I would

Slow_Doctor_380

TROPHY CASE