Fix an argument

[The Chickens Revenge]

I'll set the scene:

I have lots of artifacts out and a megatog. I attack with the megatog. My friend blocks with a creture which can sacrifice itself. He sacrifices it after I have got the megatog's attack up to about 35 and claims the attack doesn't happen.
Is he right?
If he is that is a really stupid rule.

[gumshoes]

megatog is still considered blocked, so it deals damage to the creature which isnt there... but I believe megatog gets trample when you sacrifice an artifact to it, so megatog deals 35 damage, minus the creatures toughness, to the player...

if I would attack with a 6/6 with no abilites, and the player would block and then sac there creature, then the creature would be blocked and not deal damage...

[AKA:Battousai]

it was if I cast an overrun and attack with a bunch of elves, and my opponent doesn't declare any blockers but casts a fog patch what happens.

and the answer I got was, all attacking creatures are blocked theorecticly by an infinite ammount of 0/0 creatures because it doesn't specify anything beyond they are blocked. by what, I still don't know, but anyways.

all trample damage still goes through because there is nothing to deduct any damage because they are blocked by something without a toughness.

[The Chickens Revenge]

thank you. It's the small victorys which count.

[Halls of Death]

I just want to know this for the regionals. If I block something without trample with a ravenous baloth, can I sac. it when the damage goes on the stack to stop me taking any damage?

[AKA:Battousai]

this depends on the power of the creature but no

a blocked creature with trample still gets to trample over.

[BladeZero]

this depends on the power of the creature but yes a blocked creature with trample still gets to trample over.
I think what he's saying is that if he blocks, puts damage on the stack and then sacrifices the Baloth will he take all the damage or just what as assigned to him.

If that is the case, then you will only take what was assigned to you.

I can't be sure of what he meant though.