Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (
More info?)
Having to grab this post from Google because for some reason VIC hasn't picked
up any posts in _any_ group since 4AM, which is Not Right.
David DeLaney wrote:
> Worship -can't prevent damage-, at all, ever.
:In English, it certaintly can.
:In Magic jargon it can not.
And Magic jargon is what we're using here. It doesn't do anything at all to
the damage. It -looks at- what the damage does -to your life total-: "damage
that would reduce your life total to less than 1"... and changes what it does
to your life total. It affects how damage works; it doesn't prevent damage,
and can't be stopped by, say, Flaring Pain, and stops a Kickered Urza's Rage
from killing you.
:I tried to sidestep Magic jargon by using "avoid" rather than "prevent".
If you're talking about Magic, you need to phrase things in Magic jargon;
finding that your question doesn't work right unless you phrase it some
other way than Magic tells you to is a Danger Sign that your question is
perhaps about The Wrong Things, in general.
:If you would take 3 damage while at 2 life Worship will stop that
:from happening and instead "reduce" your life to 1.
No. _You will still be dealt 3 damage_. Something that later deals to you
damage equal to the amount dealt to you this turn will count the 3; Simulacrum
will count it for the life you gain and the damage Simulacrum deals; etc.
Worship says "That would have taken your life total from 2 to -1; instead,
it takes your life total from 2 to 1". You're still dealt the 3 damage; it
causes you, in this case, to lose 1 life instead of 3.
Worship can only cause you to _lose a different amount of life_. It can't
cause you to _gain_ life, ever.
:What verb would you like for the 2 (or 3 depending on how you phrase
:it) damage you didn't take?
YOU TOOK ALL THREE DAMAGE.
It changed your -life total- by 1, instead of changing it by 3.
This is why we _don't say_ Worship prevents damage, because its effect only
affects your life total and leaves the damage alone. The effect _looks at_
whether _that damage_ changed your life total - "reduced" it - to less than
1; if that damage was NOT responsible for that change, it doesn't fiddle
with your life total.
Worship _does not say_ "Damage that would reduce your life total that would
leave it at less than 1 changes it to 1 instead". It says "Damage that would
reduce your life total _to_ less than 1 reduces it to 1 instead". It
specifically _says_ it doesn't care about anything that doesn't reduce the
life total to a number less than 1, _from a number greater than 0_, because
it would have to be WORDED DIFFERENTLY to get the effect you're arguing for.
Note that this is _not at all_ a new question, either; it's been one of the
main FAQs for Worship ever since it appeared. We -know- how this works. And
we know how it works because it's worked for cards worded like this since
_Arabian Nights_.
> Worship -can't affect a life total that's already 0 or less-, at all, ever.
:Correct, not by the rulings.
:But have you found a _rule_ yet?
419.1a: "Most replacement effects use the word 'instead' to indicate what
events will be replaced with other events". Worship uses the instead to
indicate that it affects what happens to your life total, only; it has nothing
to do with preventing damage, so doesn't use "prevent" [419.1d].
SINCE it's not preventing damage, you then have to wonder why it asks about
damage at all: why is it not just worded "If your life total would become a
number less than 1, it becomes 1 instead"? Well, obviously-A it doesn't want
to have this happen when you lose or pay life. And obviously-B it says if
_the damage_ would reduce your life total to less than 1; if it _meant_
"If you are dealt damage, and your life total would become less than 1,
it instead becomes 1", it would SAY that. So it's _not_ just using the
presence of damage in the mix to see whether it applies, and it's _not_
just using whether your life total ends up below 1. What else is there,
you ask? The wording _says_ "damage that would reduce..." - ...so it must be
that _that particular damage_ has to be responsible for the life total
ending up at less than 1.
> I'm not sure how many more times I'm going to have to type this to get you
> to realize that repeating what -you're- saying, between the two of you, won't
> make it any more right,
:Or any less right.
It can't _be_ less right. Period.
> but every time you repeat it, I _have to reply and
> tell the onlookers that no, that's not correct_.
:Can you explain _why_ in such a way that it can be applied generically?
I've given about six different ways: all of them apply to all three cards
that do this. What's getting replaced? The life total change, with a
different life total change. What's looked at to see if this gets done?
Whether there's damage involved; whether the life total -ends up- less than
1; and, since it's NOT worded so as to NOT disconnect the life total change
from the damage, which it easily could be, whether THAT DAMAGE was responsible
for the life total ending up at less than 1.
I've said _that_ part before about four times now, by the way. If some _other_
damage has already taken the life total below 1, Worship would have dealt
with that at the time if it were there; if life loss or life payment took
the life total below 1, Worship won't do anything. WORSHIP DOES NOT LOOK
BACK INTO THE PAST AND UNDO THINGS THAT WERE ALREADY DONE; it cannot say
"damage originally took you below 1, so _this_ damage that's moving you
around while already below 1 is something I have to retroactively affect
the older damage with".
It _can't raise your life total_. It can't cause it to increase. It can
case it to become 1 instead of becoming something less than 1 IF IT STARTED
OFF MORE THAN 1.
:Seriously, cite the reason why one interpretation of the card became
:the official one while the other didn't,
I'VE ALREADY CITED THE REASONS SEVERAL TIMES.
_YOU ARE IGNORING THEM EACH TIME YOU ANSWER_.
Please stop doing so; go back and READ what I have WRITTEN, _think_ about it,
APPLY the principles involved, and let go of your conviction that you must
be right and Worship must be able to replace ANY change of life total that
ends up with the life total being less than 1.
The card _says_ it doesn't do that; it _says_ the damage being dealt RIGHT
NOW has to be what causes the life total to be less than 1. Just like with
Blood Lust; that card's effect can't make the toughness be 1 _unless its
own -4 takes it from 1 or more to 0 or less_. It won't change something
that's already below 1.
:There may well be such a reason, and it's far more productive to
😛roduce such that just repeat "It isn't so!"
Given you the reasons several times already; as far as I can tell you're
NOT READING WHAT I WROTE.
:As is, I have nothing other than "so and so at the company says so" to
:argue a new player away from the "incorrect" interpretation.
You've got the Rulings files for all the cards involved:
Ali from Cairo
Does not prevent damage, it prevents the damage from turning into loss of
life. So the full damage is dealt, but the full loss of life is not applied.
[D'Angelo 2000/02/25]
Does not affect damage if you are already at zero or negative life. You still
take it all. [WotC Rules Team 1996/06/27]
Blood Lust
The +4/-4 is applied when the spell resolves and will not lower the toughness
below 1. So, if a 1/1 creature has Blood Lust cast on it, it becomes a 5/1
creature. Later spells to modify toughness modify from this base, so a Giant
Growth would make it an 8/4 creature. [WotC Rules Team 1995/02/09]
The amount that Blood Lust lowers toughness is calculated as a continuous
effect, so it gets recalculated when necessary to reduce as much as it can (up
to -4) without reducing below 1. [Jordan 2003/08/21]
Sustaining Spirit
Does not prevent the damage. The damage was still dealt. It just changes the
effect of the unprevented damage. [D'Angelo 1999/08/01]
Does not affect damage if you are already at zero or negative life. You still
take it all. [Duelist Magazine #12, Page 32]
Worship
If this effect is applied when you lose life due to unprevented damage. All
the damage got dealt (for purposes of triggers), but the player's life total
is not reduced by the full amount of the damage. [WotC Rules Team 1998/10/18]
It reduces your life total to 1, not the damage to 1. [D'Angelo 1999/01/23]
It does not do anything to prevent or modify loss of life from anything other
than unprevented damage. A spell or ability that causes loss of life directly
is applied as normal. [D'Angelo 2003/09/08]
(Oddly enough, the Rulings file doesn't have the direct statement of the ruling
for Worship ... but note that you can infer it pretty directly from "is not
reduced by the full amount of the damage".)
All of these agree: what's doing the reduction to less than 1 has to be
-that thing happening right then-, not something else earlier on. Thus for
Worship/Ali/SS, it hsa to be -that damage- that would reduce you from 1 or
more to less than 1; for Blood Lust, it has to be _Blood Lust's -4_ that
would reduce the toughness to less than 1, not a previous toughness-reducing
effect. None of them clean up after anything else's mess.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram