What is the real difference between damage and indirect damage?

When a card says "deal 2 indirect damage…" how is that different than dealing 2 damage?

damage you deal is dealt by you where you choose

Indirect however is dealt where your opponent decides to put it

iv seen it assigned to burning zones and was wondering myself if that was legal xD

To clarify, if you deal 2 indirect damage to an opponent, the opponent gets to assign and apply the damage, not you. In other situations where damage is dealt, whether it is combat or non-combat damage, you assign the damage dealt to any valid target(s).

Note that a zone or unit CANNOT have more damage assigned to it than it has remaining hit points, so you can't assign more indirect damage to a unit or zone than it would require to destroy/burn it. In the case of non-indirect damage any excess damage is simply lost when the damage is applied.

Cheers,

H

are you sure about that is says in the rules that u are able to assign more damage to counter toughness and a wood elf unit in one of the latest sets needs more damage assigned to it then its remaining hit points in order to kill it and not have it return to their hand Bladesinger if i remember

Whoops, meant that you can't assign more INDIRECT damage to a unit or zone than it has remaining hitpoints. Was a bit distracted, so mixed up my wording with those two sentences.

So through my High Elf deck build , my units hit for 8 indirect damage , my opponent had a quest zone at 6 damage so assigned all 8 to that zone to burn it and consume the rest of my indirect damage . Is it a legal play ? I had thought 2 of my 8 would burn it and the last 6 get distributed somewhere else at his discretion .

thanks anyone !