Rain of Gore

Would damage dealt by a creature with lifelink via an activated ability (Brion Stoutarm) cause Rain of Gore's replacement effect to be applicable?

Likewise Pandemonium when a creature with lifelink also controlled by Pandy's controller enters the field?

Similarily, Blood Feud spell where a creature with lifelink controlled by Feud's controller is involved in the fight?

I'm thinking the answer is yes to all three.

Edited Todd Bussey (Jan. 19, 2013 08:00:03 AM)

Brion Stoutarm would fall under rain of gore's replacement effect because the Brion Stoutarm's activated ability is what gains the player life.
In the case of both Pandemonium and Blood Fued the creatures controller will gain life. The reason is the creature with lifelink is dealing the damage (lifelink triggers whenever the creature with lifelink deals damage) not Pandemonium or Blood Fued. However, for instance, if Pandemonium was worded "Whenever a creature comes into play, that creatures controller may have it deal damage equal to its power to target creature or player of his or her choice" then lifelink would not trigger. That is because if worded this way Pandemonium is what is doing the damage, not the creature itself.

Edit: I think I misunderstood the Brion Stoutarm question. Brion Stoutarm itself has lifelink which is why Rain or Gore applies. Whether or not the creature sacrificed to Brion Stoutarms activated ability has lifelink is irrelevant. The sacrificed creature is only part of the activation cost, it is not what deals the damage.

Edited Zane Mitchell (Jan. 19, 2013 10:30:57 AM)

Lifelink is not a triggered ability. It is an ability, however, and it does (usually) cause its controller to gain life - so it meets Rain of Gore's condition.

So, with Rain of Gore on the battlefield, a creature with Lifelink that deals damage would, in most cases, result in a corresponding loss of life instead.

Thanks - Scott Marshall, L5, NetRep

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Lifelink (…) is an ability, however, and it does (usually) cause its controller to gain life - so it meets Rain of Gore's condition.

So, with Rain of Gore on the battlefield, a creature with Lifelink that deals damage would, in most cases, result in a corresponding loss of life instead.

I disagree. Lifelink is just changing the effect of damage being dealt. Normally, damage would result in players losing life or be marked on a creature. With lifelink, the damage will result in the source's controller gaining life in addition to the other results of the damage. So it's not the lifelink ability itself that causes the player to gain life, but the damage. Rain of Gore does not apply here.

See also CR 119.3f: "Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source's controller to gain that much life, in addition to the damage's other results."

I am in love with that grammar technicality. However, I'm pretty sure the *intention* is that Lifelink is the cause.

I'm not sure how this could be reworded better, so I would interpret as follows: Lifelink is the underlying *cause* of the life gain because as an ability it grants this effect.

Edited Dominik Chłobowski (Jan. 19, 2013 10:59:50 PM)

The words “cause”, “causes” are not defined so they are to be used in their English sense.

I lean more in the direction of Mario's ruling (damage caused the lifegain); with Sacred Ground, when damage from an ability destroys the land, we don't say “the ability caused the destruction” because rather, “damage/game rules caused the destruction” so the land dies for real.

That's a completely different situation. The ability causes the damage, but not the destruction, and the damage doesn't cause the destruction either. The state-based action does afterwards.

Edited Dominik Chłobowski (Jan. 19, 2013 11:32:57 PM)

Thank you Petr. However, the difference is that the issue you mentioned is explicitly mentioned in the rules (CR 119.5: “Damage dealt to a creature or planeswalker doesn't destroy it. Likewise, the source of that damage doesn't destroy it. Rather, state-based actions may destroy a creature or planeswalker, or otherwise put it into its owner's graveyard, due to the results of the damage dealt to that permanent.”).

But even without this and without giving a special meaning or definition to the word “cause”, I still think that CR 119.3f is clear enough. Lifelink does nothing as long as the creature isn't dealing damage, that's for sure. When dealing damage, lifelink modifies the outcome of it, that is certain too. The conclusion must be therefore: The damage causes the player to gain life.

Your logic is slightly off in that your second point doesn't actually lead to your conclusion. However, I do like your Lifelink phrasing interpretation, so perhaps we can wait for an <O> now?

Edited Dominik Chłobowski (Jan. 19, 2013 11:41:29 PM)

Yes, let's wait. Let me just add one thing: We could also say that lifelink does nothing but make CR 119.3f (or 702.14b) applicable. Lifelink itself doesn't let a player gain life.

Originally posted by Dominik Chlobowski:

Your logic is slightly off in that your second point doesn't actually lead to your conclusion. However, I do like your Lifelink phrasing interpretation, so perhaps we can wait for an <O> now?

Scott Marshall (level 5 judge and NetRep who usually answers policy questions here and on the mailing list) has already provided an answer, which I would treat as {O} unless otherwise indicated. Personally, I find Mario's argument very persuasive–the wording of CR 119.3f is fairly straightforward and indicates that it is the damage itself which causes the lifegain–but unless the powers that be see fit to reverse themselves I would suggest you treat the question as settled.

After all, it is possible to interpret the word “cause” in the broad sense, so that it is possible for more than one thing to be the cause of the life gain. One could argue that both the damage and the lifelink ability are causes of the life gain, because without either of them no life would have been gained. If we are to accept Scott's ruling, I suggest that this is a plausible interpretation.

Edited Robert Hinrichsen (Jan. 20, 2013 05:26:49 AM)

No matter the correct interpretation, do you think it could be put in Gatherer? This seems exactly like the kind of rulings that should be there, if they are not directly in the CR.

In this, I would suggest to wait after GP Bilbao. Daniel kitachewsky is here and will properly provide an answer after that GP. This situation actualy happened at the GP Trials on Friday and he is aware of the thread here.

I would have a hard time arguing that the lifelink ability doesn't “cause” the life gain. There are many keyword abilities that turn on or off certain game rules rather than just being a placeholder for additional rules text, because they wouldn't work at all otherwise. The Comp Rules should enable the cards and their abilities, not the other way around.

This does seem like the kind of card that just slipped past notice when the 10th Ed. changes rolled around; I'm not aware of anything previously that wasn't a spell or ability that could cause lifegain, barring some odd rules variant. Odd, though, that a previously printed card, Doubling Season, made the distinction between ability and effect.

From the announcement of M10's rules changes:
“This is lifelink, which is now a static ability. Damage dealt by a source with lifelink causes that source's controller, or its owner if it has no controller, to gain that much life (in addition to any other results that damage causes).”

That would suggest that it is the damage, not the Lifelink ability, causing the life gain. I also suspect that this card interaction may have slipped through the cracks, until now; otherwise, we might have something in Gatherer already.

In any case, we won't get anywhere from here, until we get a final ruling. That will require getting the Rules Gurus involved, and/or the Rules Manager. Until that time, I'll go ahead and lock this thread.

Thanks - Scott M