Rule 306.7 shenanigans with Rakdos Charm
Asked by Quantumsandwich 7 years ago
I was looking up rules text to answer a different question, when I stumbled upon what I thought might be an interesting interaction.
I control a Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded with 1 loyalty counter. My opponent controls a Flying Men. We are both at 1 life. I cast Rakdos Charm choosing the third mode, hoping to win.
Rule 306.7 says "If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead."
Flying Men is a source my opponent controls, dealing noncombat damage to a player. If my interpretation of the rules is correct, is my opponent allowed to redirect the 1 damage from himself to my planeswalker, thereby not dying and killing my planeswalker in the process? This seems like something silly I'd like to be able to pull once in a blue moon.
"Opponent" means opponent of the player being dealt damage, so Rule 306.7 doesn't apply here. The player being dealt damage is being dealt it from a source they control. Additionally "controlled by the first player" means that the damage has to go to a planeswalker controlled by the player who would be dealt damage.
May 18, 2017 2:33 p.m.
Quantumsandwich says... #3
Neotrup, where is the rule that defines opponent as a the opponent of the player being dealt damage? As far as I was aware, opponent just meant a player other than yourself or your teammate.
May 18, 2017 2:42 p.m.
Let's look at rule 306.7 in from two perspectives. The first is that opponent simply means player other than yourself (or teammate):
Rule 306.7 says "If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead."
So anytime noncombat damage would be dealt to anyone, as long as the source is controlled by my opponent, it can be redirected, but if I control the source of the damage it could never be redirected. And from my opponent's perspective the opposite is true, swhich is contradictory.
The other perspective, which I was putting forth, is that opponent refers to opponent of the first player the first player mentioned.
Rule 306.7 says "If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead."
This means that if I cast Earthquake and both me and my opponent control a planeswalker, I (as the controller of the damage source) can't choose to redirect the damage being dealt to me, essentially sacrificing a planeswalker to survive a lethal spell I cast, but I could choose to kill my opponent's planeswalker instead of them, because I presumably wouldn't be doing them any favors by redirecting. This seems like a decent way to design rules, as opposed to the self contradictory form the first interpretation offered, so it seems more likely to be true.
May 18, 2017 3:01 p.m.
hyperlocke says... #5
As to the question asking were "opponent" is defined: It's right there in 306.7
306.7. If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead. [...]
This could be rewritten as
If noncombat damage would be dealt to Player A by a source controlled by Player B, Player B may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker Player A controls instead. [...]
As it is Player A's creature that deals the damage to Player A, Player B cannot redirect that damage. Not even Player A could. Rule 306.7 doesn't apply here.
Freezingfist says... #1
Since Flying Men is dealing damage to its own controller, I don't think this applies.
May 18, 2017 2:29 p.m.