Hi, I have a question what`'s first dmg or dead,s. I have a situation when i have Shadow Self on -8 hp and 2 other creatures on his neighborhood. Then my opponent play Ammonia Clouds. Do Shadow self take 9 dmg (3 for himself and 6 for neighborhood) or my opponent choose which creature get dmg first? If he choose shadow self. Shadowself is destroyed and another creature get 3 dmg for each?

All damage by ammonia cloud is dealt simultaneously to all creatures, so during this the 3+3 damage dealt to shadow selfs neighbors are dealt to shadow self.

I have a similar situation, but it involved Ammonia Clouds and Duma the Martyr (Destroyed: Fully heal each other friendly creature and draw 2 cards). I knew that damage was assigned simultaneously, but what about the order of destroying? For instance, the 3 damage was going to destroy several of my opponents' creatures along with Duma. Will they still be destroyed before Duma's destroyed effect heals them?

1 hour ago, Naga02 said:

I have a similar situation, but it involved Ammonia Clouds and Duma the Martyr (Destroyed: Fully heal each other friendly creature and draw 2 cards). I knew that damage was assigned simultaneously, but what about the order of destroying? For instance, the 3 damage was going to destroy several of my opponents' creatures along with Duma. Will they still be destroyed before Duma's  destroyed effect heals them?

Everything that would be destroyed would be destroyed at the same time, before Duma has a chance to heal them. Anything that would normally survive Ammonia Clouds would still heal from Duma, though.

3 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:

Everything that would be destroyed would be destroyed at the same time, before Duma has a chance to heal them. Anything that would normally survive Ammonia Clouds would still heal from Duma, though.

Not correct. Destroyed effects resolve immediately before the creature leaves play, so damage would be dealt to everything, then before creatures leave play, Duma heals all other friendly creatures, meaning that only he leaves play.

3 minutes ago, Saibrock said:

Not correct. Destroyed effects resolve immediately before the creature leaves play, so damage would be dealt to everything, then before creatures leave play, Duma heals all other friendly creatures, meaning that only he leaves play.

They’d still be destroyed though, getting healed after the fact (if even possible) doesn’t change that.

2 minutes ago, Palpster said:

They’d still be destroyed though, getting healed after the fact (if even possible) doesn’t change that.

I disagree. Once the damage is removed, there's nothing causing the creatures to be destroyed anymore.

13 minutes ago, Saibrock said:

Not correct. Destroyed effects resolve immediately before the creature leaves play, so damage would be dealt to everything, then before creatures leave play, Duma heals all other friendly creatures, meaning that only he leaves play.

Creatures: A B each with 2 power, Duma

Play cloud 3 damage to each creature

scenario 1

A: 2 pow, 3 damage : trigger destroyed abilities, discard

B: 2 pow, 3 damage : trigger destroyed abilities, discard

Duma: 3 pow, 3 damage: trigger destroyed abilities - there are no creatures to heal , discard

scenario 2

Duma: 3 pow, 3 damage: trigger destroyed abilities - there are no creatures to heal , discard

A: 2 pow, 3 damage : trigger destroyed abilities, discard

B: 2 pow, 3 damage : trigger destroyed abilities, discard

Well the damage is dealt simultaneously, but you do bring up a good point about order of operations. After all, not all creatures can leave play simultaneously; the active player would need to choose which order creatures leave play in. Therefore, depending on who played Ammonia Cloud, Duma might or might not be able to save his allies. If the active player is the one who controls Duma, he would choose to destroy him first, saving the rest of his creatures. If the active player is the opponent, he'll trigger Duma last, meaning Duma's controller will get 2 cards and nothing else.

Interesting, and not especially intuitive, interaction.

That timing makes sense to me. All damage is simultaneous, but the active player decides the order that creatures are removed from play due to being destroyed. The one remaining question is: if a creature has damage equal to its power but then has that damage removed before it can be removed from play, is it still destroyed?

The damage rules read "If a creature has an amount of damage on it equal to or greater than its power, the creature is destroyed." If we were talking about MtG the question would be whether this is a state-based effect (removing the damage undoes the "destroyed") or a triggered effect (once a creature has enough damage then "destroyed" is triggered, and removing the damage later doesn't matter). I don't see anything in the rules that makes this clear one way or the other.

8 hours ago, Saibrock said:

I disagree. Once the damage is removed, there's nothing causing the creatures to be destroyed anymore.

But they are already destroyed, his ability isn’t a magical walk back in time. They took damage equal or greater than their power, it this point they are all destroyed. Even if they are healed after this point it wouldn’t matter, they are already destroyed.

Edit: also see Armageddon Cloak where upon destroyed a vreature is fully healed and after that the cloak is destroyed instead , which tells us that while the creature was fully healed it was still destroyed.

On 12/4/2018 at 10:38 PM, Palpster said:

But they are already destroyed, his ability isn’t a magical walk back in time. They took damage equal or greater than their power, it this point they are all destroyed. Even if they are healed after this point it wouldn’t matter, they are already destroyed.

I certainly hope this ends up being the case. Retroactive healing is just messy. If the damage is simultaneous so too should the destruction be. Deciding which order Destroyed abilities trigger is fine, as long as those abilities can't effect other creatures that have already been destroyed too.

Thanks for the feedback all. I would tend to agree with karbarian and Palpster. Once the damage is assigned and greater than the creature's power, they are considered destroyed at that point and healing off the damage before it leaves play makes no difference. That's how we played it, but just wanted to be sure

Armageddon cloak stops things from destroying. Destroyed effects you already applied are still triggered, but destroyed effects after you apply armageddon cloak are stopped. Yes, you can save a Bad Penny with the Armageddon cloak. The active player may of course order them differently and decide whether she is healed or goes back to your hand.

it's not a rewind, it's a cancelling of future triggers.

I was leaning toward Duma working the same way. Destroyed effects crucially happen before the card leaves play, so they can change the state of the game, just like armageddon cloak does. It's less explicit than Armageddon cloak though, and there isn't anything that says that if a creature's damage drops below the threshold that it is no longer considered destroyed. So I think it's too late.