15 minutes ago, Palpster said:

Not at all, if they were both the same does an elusive creature that is dealt “no damage” actually receive 0 damage? That would mean she has taken damage, (0 is after all an amount of damage you claim) so is she now killed by a creature with poison?

No 0 damage is no damage, that’s literally the nature of 0. If I have a glass with 0 ounces of fluid it doesn’t have fluid in it. That’s my point 0 is how you quantify nothing. Thus a creature suffering 0 damage rather through armor or otherwise has not suffered damage.

I guess we will have to wait for a ruling to convince either side here but I’d be flabbergasted if they actually went with the way you’re proposing.

This thread is now:

Quote

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don"t. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

There is nowhere in the rules that says reducing power causes damage or that 0 power creatures die. To inforce a your creature has 0 power it’s now dead rule is make a whole new mechanism that does not yet exist in the game.

The rules for damage are:

1) when a creature receives damage place damage tokens on it equal to the damage take.

2) if a creature has armour it prevents that amount of damage each turn

3)if a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power it is destroyed

fundamental to this is the creature must have damage on it to be destroyed, 0 damage is an absence of damage therefore no matter the creatures power it is not destroyed as per the rules for damage.

I would until it’s FAQd suggest this one needs to be confirmed with the local marshals before play starts or else trouble will brew.

Just now, player3691565 said:

the creature mu  st have damage on it to be destroyed

this is you writing things that simply aren't there.

1 minute ago, Poposhka said:

this is you writing things that simply aren't there.

That’s not much different from saying that a creature with zero power is dead, since there is no text in the BRB that references having zero power.

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

That’s not much different from saying that a creature with zero power is dead, since there is no text in the BRB that references having zero power.

that's correct, but, forget zero power, the thing in the RAW is that "if a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed".

RAW, having damage physically on it sounds like a requirement for being destroyed. But now we’re just going around in circles.

2 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

RAW, having damage physically on it sounds like a requirement for being destroyed. But now we’re just going around in circles.

because you're making this a philosophical discussion about the definition of zero.

I have zero chickens on my head right now.

Well, not me specifically. I just see both sides of the equation. Literally speaking, a creature can either have damage tokens on it or not. That’s a 100% physical observation, no abstract theory required.

3 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

this is you writing things that simply aren't there.

Follow the rules as written:

“when a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature”

( damage is represented by tokens placed on a creature, no tokens placed no damage dealt)

“if a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed.”

( this statement is a clear requirement for damage to be “on” the creature before it can be destroyed, 0 damage is a null state and does not trigger this rule, the creature does not have damage on it so you can’t trigger the rule)

so the creature must have damage on it to be destroyed, where in the rules does it support a creature with 0 power being destroyed ? People are make a really big leap on this idea that 0 power + destroyed, is it common sense, maybe, does it follow the rules as written, not in my view.

Let’s make this easy.

Does this card destroy each creature with 0 damage on it? The rules don’t say “damaged = 1 or more damage,” after all.

9 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Let’s make this easy.

Will not make it easy because if someone defends the 0 power being an automatic death, then those creatures wouldn't even be on the battleline when Save the Pack resolves...

Guys, guys... can't you imagine it going either way? There is no action that subtract power from creatures for a turn. That could be a way to kill creatures while also reducing its damage output, but they haven't done that. There are normal cards that deal damage.

They made the game work with damage tokens and I could see them missing that specific interaction. Both sides are interpreting the rules. I think it's more logical to have a 0 power creature dying, but I also think they didn't designed to be that way just by looking at how the game works. Also the way they made the rules makes some people think that there needs to be some damage. Others will say "as much" for 0 is already nothing, so boom, dead.

So, this clarification was already sent to them? They normally respond?

1 minute ago, Mushra93 said:

Will not make it easy because if someone defends the 0 power being an automatic death, then those creatures wouldn't even be on the battleline when Save the Pack resolves...

You misunderstand my point. Those people are arguing that 0 = a trackable amount of damage (“track” is the word the BRB uses). If 0 is an amount of damage, then all creatures are technically damaged at all times, because they have 0 or more damage on them. The next logical step, then, is that Save the Pack would destroy all creatures, regardless of how many physical damage tokens are present.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

You misunderstand my point. Those people are arguing that 0 = a trackable amount of damage (“track” is the word the BRB uses). If 0 is an amount of damage, then all creatures are technically damaged at all times, because they have 0 or more damage on them. The next logical step, then, is that Save the Pack would destroy all creatures, regardless of how many physical damage tokens are present.

Oh, that was your point. Fair enough.

Actually very fair enough. Early on I mentioned in this thread that I was think about "power" and "health". But then I settled with the 0 power dying. Not you are swinging me back! haha!

5 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

physical damage tokens are present

This is importamt because I think that is what is relevant for them. A creature need to have damage and it's only represented by tokens.

I think the argument that is saying a creature with no damage has 0 damage would trigger things like Save the pack or Poison is disingenuous (not to mention irrelevant because the creatues would be dead if were right so they’d never be able to deal that damage) we’re saying 0 damage IS no damage. Only a positive number “is damage” but when someone says “how much damage has that creature taken” and you say “none” that’s the same as saying 0.

I get others disagree but let’s use that poison example. If no damage is not 0 then that means logically there is a state where 0 represents a number and thus a creature with 0 power and poison... what... kills a creature? Because if 0 isn’t no damage then it has be dealing some nebulas state of 0 damage. What if that same creature attacks another creature and then does it’s power in damage 0, and you play save the pack... ok so what happens?

-Either creatures it attacked to no damage in which case 0 damage and no damage is the same and thus those cards don’t trigger

or

-They took “0 damage”, something you can’t track with damage tokens and they are effected by those cards.

0 damage and no damage not only is the most common sense solution here it keeps players from having to deal with this weird nebulas state tracking creatures that took 0 damage as opposed to those that have no damage as if they’re two different things.

TLDR version:

If a creature reduced to 0 power attacks it deals damage equal to its power. If your position is that 0 damage and no damage aren’t the same then that creature must have damage tracked to separate it from creatures with no damage. This means effects like save pack and poison would work with 0 power creature hitting another.

Where as if 0 damage and no damage is the same 0 power creatures just die when reduced to 0 and you don’t get this over complicated mess.

TL;DR

Opinions that aren’t your own are a ”complicated mess.” Sometimes it’s nice to be ignored. 😉

—

Look, I made it simple. Does it have damage tokens on it? Then it’s damaged and possibly destroyed. No tokens? Not damaged, not destroyed. Easy peasy.

How many damage tokens are on the creature?
0.

So, how much damage has the creature taken?
0.

What's it's power?
0.

Is 0>=0?
Yes.

It's dead, Jim.

3 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

How many damage tokens are on the creature?
0.

So, how much damage has the creature taken?
0.

What's it's power?
0.

Is 0>=0?
Yes.

It's dead, Jim.

Going in circles again, friend. Can you scroll back up and answer the question I posed about Save the Pack? Honest request.

5 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Going in circles again, friend. Can you scroll back up and answer the question I posed about Save the Pack? Honest request.

You have a trackable number of elephants. You have no elephants, so your total number of elephants is 0. You are not an elephanted human. If someone were to announce "All elephanted humans, raise your hand," you would not raise your hand.

Not an answer to the question. If zero is an amount of damage, does Save the Pack destroy all creatures? Yes or no.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Not an answer to the question.

Of course it is. It's just not the one you want.

True, the rules do not define "damaged." Can we reasonable assume that "damaged" means "has damage tokens on it"? I believe so. So, will Save the Pack be the 0-chain board wipe you are suggesting it to be? No.

Now, as far as being destroyed, it does not say that the creature needs damage tokens on it to be destroyed, only that the amount of damage on it be greater than or equal to its power. All creatures without damage tokens have zero damage. And thus, if a creature also has zero power, it is destroyed.

A straw man only answers your own question, I was just being polite.

So how does it have damage “on it” if not actually on it? Or do they need to define what “on it” means? Honestly takes a very, very compelling argument to spin that - RAW or RAI - into something other than a literal interpretation.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Or do they need to define what “on it” means?

I don't know, Mr. Clinton, do they?

Let us presume that a creature has as much damage "on it" as the sum of numerical value on damage tokens "on it." Sound fair? I do hope so. So then, if a creature has 0 damage tokens upon its card, then it has 0 damage "on it."

I think you’ve got the appellations twisted. “Depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” sounds a heck of a lot like trying to justify how zero is a tangible number of tokens. Suffice it to say, there’s no need for me to ask what “0” is.

If we can reasonably assume that “damaged means having damage tokens on it ,” how should this be even the slightest bit different? What makes one more reasonable than the other, apart from argumentative convenience?

Can I suggest an analogue in support of not destroying a 0 power creature? I honestly don't care which way this goes, but it clearly needs an official ruling.

Quote from rulebook: "If a creature has as much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed and placed on top of its owner’s discard pile"

Analogue: If a bridge has as much or more weight on it as it has weight rating, the bridge is destroyed

Question: Does a bridge with a weight rating of 0, but which also has no weight on it, get destroyed?