Working with Negative Life

[Complete_Jank]

There a few cards in magic that allow your life to drop to or below zero life. While you are below zero life you are forced to lose half you life. What happens? Do you gain life?

Example:
You start your turn at 5 Life.

You play Angel's Grace. You are at 5 Life

Angel's Grace: Split second (As long as this spell is on the stack, players can't play spells or activated abilities that aren't mana abilities.)
You can't lose the game this turn and your opponents can't win the game this turn. Until end of turn, damage that would reduce your life total to less than 1 reduces it to 1 instead.


You play Spoils of the Vault naming Infernal Contract. You remove 15 cards and lose 15 life making your Life -10.

Spoils of the Vault: Name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal the named card, then put that card into your hand. Remove all other cards revealed this way from the game, and you lose 1 life for each of the removed cards.


You play Infernal Contract. Your Life becomes ???

Infernal Contract: Draw four cards. You lose half your life, rounded up.

[TorpidNinja]

It becomes 0. There are no fractions nor negative numbers when it comes to life totals (no matter how hard Unhinged tries to convince you.)

[Complete_Jank]

It becomes 0. There are no fractions nor negative numbers when it comes to life totals (no matter how hard Unhinged tries to convince you.)

I know for a fact that you are incorrect.

Life totals can go negative.

[TorpidNinja]

BZZZZ! Wrong.

104.2. If a creature's power or toughness, a mana cost, a player's life total, or an amount of damage would be less than 0, it's treated as 0 for all purposes except changing that total. If anything needs to use a number that can't be determined, it uses 0 instead.

[Mirrislegend]

I dont know or even have an opinion either way on this, but there is a flaw in the rule TorpidNinja quoted, as far as its application to these circumstances:


104.2. If a creature's power or toughness, a mana cost, a player's life total, or an amount of damage would be less than 0, it's treated as 0 for all purposes except changing that total. If anything needs to use a number that can't be determined, it uses 0 instead.

Given that, I say this is not quite resolved. Anyone else have any input?

[Cait_Sith]

Half of is 0. This is not adding or subtracting so the game sees it as 0.

[parallax]

You stay at -10.

Your negative life total is treated as zero when determining what half your life total is, then you lose half of that zero.

[Complete_Jank]

BZZZZ! Wrong.

104.2. If a creature's power or toughness, a mana cost, a player's life total, or an amount of damage would be less than 0, it's treated as 0 for all purposes except changing that total. If anything needs to use a number that can't be determined, it uses 0 instead.

Funny you are still wrong, but the rule you posted is the exact one we needed to answer this. Thanks.

Life can be less than zero as the below rules show, but the one you posted shows that the spell will cause 0 loss of life.

102.3b If a player’s life total is 0 or less, he or she loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based effect. See rule 420.)

420.5a A player with 0 or less life loses the game.

420.5b A creature with toughness 0 or less is put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can’t replace this event.

Life, Life Total
Life total is a sort of score. Each player starts the game with 20 life. Any increase in a player’s life total is considered to be gaining life. Any decrease in a player’s life total is considered to be losing life. A player whose life total drops to 0 or less loses. This is a state-based effect. See rule 420.5.

103.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 102.3a).

[cdr]

As the rule says, negatives are treated as 0 except for changing them. They are still tracked when they go below zero.

You apply simple math to negatives, same as positives. Half -10 is -5. Double -10 is -20.

[Complete_Jank]

As the rule says, negatives are treated as 0 except for changing them. They are still tracked when they go below zero.

You apply simple math to negatives, same as positives. Half -10 is -5. Double -10 is -20.


You can have less than zero life, but if the game has to make a check to see what your life is at for calculation purposes it uses "zero" Thus half of zero is zero. Simple math does work, but only after the rule is applied.

I had originally thought losing half your life while at -10 wou mean: (-10)-(-5)=(-5) Thus a gain of 5.

If it has to check to see how much life you have lost, it sees the negatives.

Flames deleted. Nice to see you're back to your old tricks. ~ Nightmare

Funny you just delete their posts, but remark how mine is a flame.
Comment added. Nice to see that new year hasn't changed you. ` Complete_Jank

[scrumdogg]

Goddamn corner cases....someone should Lich-slap you people :cool:

[cdr]

You did manage to stumble on a real corner case.

I was incorrect, in that it is currently being ruled that you lose 0 life to Infernal Contract while at a negative life total.

However, this is inconsistant with how Beacon of Immortality is currently being ruled, where it will double a negative life total.

My interpretation of Infernal Contract was based on Beacon of Immortality. In my opinion, they should both work the same, one way or the other.

[Complete_Jank]

Goddamn corner cases....someone should Lich-slap you people :cool:
Funny that you mention Lich, that is the real reason this question came up, but I didn't want to use it in the example, as it would be even more confuding.


I was incorrect, in that it is currently being ruled that you lose 0 life to Infernal Contract while at a negative life total.

However, this is inconsistant with how Beacon of Immortality is currently being ruled, where it will double a negative life total.

My interpretation of Infernal Contract was based on Beacon of Immortality. In my opinion, they should both work the same, one way or the other.

Beacon of Immortality
Cost: 5W
Card Type: Instant
Rules Text (Oracle): Double target player's life total. Shuffle Beacon of Immortality into its owner's library.

Official Rulings
none


Well, you are wrong again Akki.


Beacon of Immortality checks to see what your life is at then doubles it. When it checks, it sees that you are at negative life, and thus uses "Zero" life and then it adds that to your life total.

Your life would not change if you were at -10 and cast Beacon of Immortality.


Maybe Wizards forgot to update any official rulings to the Oracle, but I really doubt that.

[cdr]

Well, you are wrong again Akki.

Beacon of Immortality checks to see what your life is at then doubles it. When it checks, it sees that you are at negative life, and thus uses "Zero" life and then it adds that to your life total.

Your life would not change if you were at -10 and cast Beacon of Immortality.

Maybe Wizards forgot to update any official rulings to the Oracle, but I really doubt that.

Watch your attitude.

From Scott Marshall, the current official WotC NetRep:


The significant difference... is that Beacon of Immortality doesn't need to know what your life total is - it just doubles it. Infernal Contract needs to know what your life total is, so that it can calculate half of it (and round up).

> AFAIK, the ruling on Beacon of Immortality and a negative life total is
> that the Beacon will double the negative life total. So from -10 to -20.
>

Correct.

To be absolutely clear, straight from numerous official sources:

Beacon of Immortality will double a negative life total, because it does not say "gain/lose".

Infernal Contract will not change a negative life total, because it does say "gain/lose".

Also, there seem to be a lot of judges that agree with me that the distinction between the two is silly, so the way it is being handled may (hopefully) change sooner or later.

[Complete_Jank]

Watch your attitude.
Sorry, just figured all you Legacy adepts were complete stuck up asses, because that is how each of you have reacted in this thread. While my attitude may need to be watched, there are many others that need to correct theirs that have posted in this thread.



From Scott Marshall, the current official WotC NetRep:



To be absolutely clear, straight from numerous official sources:

Beacon of Immortality will double a negative life total, because it does not say "gain/lose".

Infernal Contract will not change a negative life total, because it does say "gain/lose".

I see no official rulings, and untill such each card uses a mathmatical formula that is a plug X in and solve.

2X=Life or X-RND(X/2)=Life

General Math and in conjunction with the Comprehensive rules would state as soon as you plug any negative life into the "X" it would instead be made a zero.


Also, there seem to be a lot of judges that agree with me that the distinction between the two is silly, so the way it is being handled may (hopefully) change sooner or later.

I agree with you on this, it should be change to reflect exact math. The times that someone would gain life instead of losing life to a spell because of the exact math of things would be practically non-existant, and would make it much easier to deal with everything in a exact mathmatical equation.

[cdr]

Sorry, just figured all you Legacy adepts were complete stuck up asses, because that is how each of you have reacted in this thread. While my attitude may need to be watched, there are many others that need to correct theirs that have posted in this thread.

You can believe what you will. Why you are so sure of yourself, I do not know. You don't seem to know much about the rules or where to get information about them. You're the one that asked the question in the first place. I just posted the correct interaction as repeated by multiple NetReps.

The answer to every question is not on Gatherer, nor can everything be.

Not sure I'll feel like responding to your posts in the future.

[Complete_Jank]

You can believe what you will. Why you are so sure of yourself, I do not know. You don't seem to know much about the rules or where to get information about them. You're the one that asked the question in the first place. I just posted the correct interaction as repeated by multiple NetReps.

The answer to every question is not on Gatherer, nor can everything be.

Not sure I'll feel like responding to your posts in the future.

Actually I post up questions more or less to have it documnted for others if they use the search engine.

If you notice in almost everyone one of my threads in this section, I provide what I believe the answer is. 99% of the time I am correct.

I know where to look up answers, and I know the rules deeper than many judges. I've had to correct them as well.

I would say you don't know much about the rules either, as what I've seen from you was incorrect, but I'd assume that since you are a Legacy Adept you know something, hopefully

Feel free not to respond to my posts in the future.

[Complete_Jank]

I'm pretty sure Chuck (Akki) is the most knowledgeable person I've ever encountered as far as rulings go. And I think it's quite an unreasonable stretch to say Legacy Adepts are stuck up. If you've ever met dave Price you'd say otherwise.

You obviously missed what was deleted by Mr. Nightmare earlier in this thread.

scrumdogg's post was less than polite, and had an attitude that said he was better than the topic and me. Akki's posts seem to support scrumdogg and the fact that he did nothing wrong.

I've blown off being a judge for far too long. I just would rather play than judge, so I don't consider it important to me. I didn't realize that being a judge was like being a priest and deserved so much respect. He obviously doesn't know everything, just like everyone else. I've had to correct many judges over the years, including telling them to look up recent rulings.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but when Akki and scrumdogg post what they do, of course I am going to have very little respect for them, and think less of them, because they had little respect for me in the first place. If they want to apologize, then fine I'll think differently. Just because scrumdogg's post was deleted doesn't mean it was never made. It is just the fact that most of you did not read it.

[Nightmare]

As a general comment on the way this thread has played out, here are some observations.

The posts up until my moderation were incorrect answers, not flames, which is why no one was reprimanded for flaming until Complete Jank. Wastedlife's post, on the other hand, was flames, which is why I deleted it with comments. Jank, your post actually had other relevant information in it, which is why I edited it rather than deleting it entirely.

Everyone on this site is free to reply to pretty much whatever threads they want (or don't want) to respond to. There's really no need to cop an attitude (this goes for everyone).

If you have no relevant information or answers to the questions posed, please refrain from adding your 2 cents. No one needs to hear from the peanut gallery.

[rmd83]

i usually play where you can go negative, only because i think it's unfair for people to play with cards like platinum angel or whatever then just use a card to go back up some life in response to a destroy artifact or burn spell. I've also played at tournaments where people would go into the negatives, so i'm pretty sure you can

[Locutus]

I see no official rulings, and untill such each card uses a mathmatical formula that is a plug X in and solve.

2X=Life or X-RND(X/2)=Life

General Math and in conjunction with the Comprehensive rules would state as soon as you plug any negative life into the "X" it would instead be made a zero.


Your formula is incorrect, because the game distincts between gaining/loosing life, and setting a life total. If an effect sets a life total to X, the formula is simply Life = X, where X can be any integer number. When an effect causes loss (or gaining) of X life, the formula is Life = OldLifeTotal + (or +) Y, where Y is 0 if X is below Zero, and X otherwise.

[Complete_Jank]

Your formula is incorrect, because the game distincts between gaining/loosing life, and setting a life total. If an effect sets a life total to X, the formula is simply Life = X, where X can be any integer number. When an effect causes loss (or gaining) of X life, the formula is Life = OldLifeTotal + (or +) Y, where Y is 0 if X is below Zero, and X otherwise.

I understand, but if you have negative life it uses "zero" instead of your actual life total.

If you have negative life and cast Sway of the Stars, your life becomes 7, as it does not matter what your life was before that.

[DeathwingZERO]

Actually, from what I read in the comprehensive rulebook listed with the example from the rule (cited below), the number actually does matter when trying to decide it's "real" place, like when using a fixed +/- number spell, or damage from combat (Healing Salve, for example). From rulebook:

"Example: If a 3/3 creature gets -5/-0, it deals 0 damage in combat. But to raise its power back to 1, you’d have to give it +3/+0 (3 minus 5 plus 3 is 1)."

This has related to life totals in tournament that I have played at, if only because of the inclusion of Platinum Angel in tournament play. I've seen many games where the Platinum controller would have their life well below 0 and have her get shot down, and lose, because the life total tracked all combat damage recieved while she was in play, and they were unable to get back up from that.

Using Sway of the Stars as an example doesn't really help your case, as it will change your life via gain or loss to hit 7, regardless of where you were before. Doesn't matter if you are at 50 or -50. This again falls under the rule, as Sway still has to "change" the life total in order to fix it at 7. So from what I understand with that, if you are technically at -10, you would gain 17 to hit 7, and if anything strange triggered from your life gain (for example Lich, etc), you'd go with that number, not 7.

Interestingly enough, I found some info on Lich's official rulings, which may help some understand the 0 and below issues:

10/4/2004 You can lose life and take damage, and thereby have a negative life total, while Lich is in play.

10/4/2004 If you are at somehow at negative life points when Lich comes into play, it will try to raise your life total to 0 by making you gain enough life to do so. This life gain, however, will be replaced by you drawing that many cards instead.

10/4/2004 You can't pay life, just like any player at less than one life can't pay life. You can pay zero life if you want.

I believe the reason for Infernal Contract working this way is because it cannot see a negative total being able to split in half, as it's less than 0. Either way, the second and fourth examples would be conflicting if that were not the case, as it clearly states you can lose life when at 0 or below, but you cannot pay more than 0 life, and pay was the original wording of IC. Maybe they just didn't catch that one up in rulings, since before Platinum Angel the idea of being at 0 life meant death as soon as SBE checks were made.

[Complete_Jank]

DeathwingZERO, you're beating a dead horse.

Basicly
If anything in the game is forced to use your life total to calculate something out, it uses 0.

If the game looks to see a difference or change between life totals whether your's at two diferent points of time, or your's and an opponent's, it will notice the difference in life.

The game will also know what your real life is at.

It's more complicated than that, but it is all above.


You are correct in most of what you said. However, It is possible and just as easy to calculate halves of negatives and all that other stuff, it is only because of the rule that has to be applied before you resolve contract for why there is no life lost.