Most non-infinite damage you've ever dealt?
General forum
Posted on Oct. 13, 2022, 9:11 p.m. by TheOfficialCreator
Hi!
I thought of this thread I could make while reflecting on a few decks I've made in the past.
I've often considered ways that I could possibly cast Gleemax in a normal game without infinite combos. It seems fairly easy now with all the mana doublers and triplers in the game, but in this post I wanted to focus on damage, not mana, as there are so many unique ways to achieve absolutely ridiculous amounts of damage in MTG.
So what is the most amount of damage you've dealt in a game of MTG without using any form of infinite/indefinite combo?
My top is 2 to the power of (1.3 times 10 to the 95th power), done by using Sasaya's Essence combined with all my Forests on field (courtesy of Nissa, Who Shakes the World) plus a Yew Spirit. Unfortunately I could not ever find a way for a calculator to give me how much damage that is; rest assured it's over a googol. Well over.
Gidgetimer says... #3
Sorry, I misspoke I meant it is over a googol to the 3.9x10^92. The 5.2 came from me wondering how you made 5.2x10^95 mana because what you put forward would need 7.2x10^47 lands. or about turning 1/10 the atoms in the earth into lands.
October 13, 2022 10:10 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #4
900-something damage to myself, unintentionally. I was hiding behind Fog effects including Constant Mists against a horde of flying Slivers. I went for a big Hurricane to clear the board and my opponent hit it with Reflect Damage.
October 13, 2022 10:39 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #5
Does EMOTIONAL D A M A G E count? T_T
Because if not, I once tore my thumb open down to the split the nerve and vein on a table saw bla---
- oh mtg game damage, okay nvm
October 15, 2022 7:33 a.m. Edited.
So this was in a game of magic on Arena, but I had a game that had turned into a massive battlecruiser buildup between myself and the other token deck. I had lifegain going in addition to my legion of angels, and after my opponent miscalculated their damage and overcommitted to attack, I swung for some ~800 and some odd damage.
October 15, 2022 11:38 a.m.
I was also on Arena, and I had Hydra's Growth enchanting a creature. As neither of us could do anything, this creature sat there long enough to hit Arena's max integer value, which I believe is 2^64.
I ultimately gave it trample and op just took it.
After some quick research, it would appear to be this number: 9,223,372,036,854,775,807
October 16, 2022 3:48 p.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #8
Gidgetimer oh my lord, that's my bad. I calculated the mana generated based on n^n, where n = the number of lands; I should have used n^2 instead XP
Based on that, the actual number is 4.5*10^227 power, still over a googol googol but MUCH less than my initial calculation.
This is what I get for trying to shortcut on 6 hours of sleep o.o
October 16, 2022 3:57 p.m.
sanddeviljack says... #9
I was playing my Naya enchantress deck and my board was overflowing onto the next guy's playmat. I resolved a creature spell with a Soul Sister, on board. I followed that by tapping Serra's Sanctum for 24, plus the rest of my lands, and made 68 fungus beasts with Trudge Garden and 2 token doublers. Cathars' Crusade made the math really annoying (4@72/72, 4@68/68, 4@64/64, etc. down to 4@8/8), but since I had Hammer of Purphoros for haste, we shuffled up and played another game. Only just now calculated it out: 2720 just from the fungus beast tokens.
October 16, 2022 9:14 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #10
sanddeviljack You can simplify the math by responding to the Cathars' Crusade trigger to do the next Trudge Garden activation instead of putting all the activations on the stack at the same time or waiting for everything to resolve after each activation. It is a bit of more complex sequencing to make the math easier and the powers bigger. So it is your decision on if you want a little more complicated sequencing or a little more complicated math.
October 17, 2022 6:10 a.m.
sanddeviljack says... #11
Gidgetimer That makes sense. Nobody at the table thought of it at the time--wrapped up in the moment. But, yeah, that would have been 68*72 = 4896. Not exactly googols upon googols, but it would get the job done. :)
Thanks for the tip.
Gidgetimer says... #2
I feel like "rest assured it's over a googol" may be the understatement of the century. 2^333 is over a googol. So the number you are describing is over a googol to the 5.2x10^92
October 13, 2022 9:59 p.m.