As a designer, I'd rather write "Spells and abilities you control have Trample" and tell the Rules Manager to "make it work".

While I understand the feeling, I'm content enough with this version (which, yes, still requires some rule adjustments to make work).

Also if I gave spells tramples, then damage would start behaving differently if it's deal by creatures or spell to creatures with (more accurately that gain) protection: trample goes right through to the player (which I always resented as nonsensical, but that's the way the cookie crumble), but spells and abilities would simply be cancelled.

Hm? No, if I've got a 5/5 trampler and you block on a 3/3 with prot green, I still need to assign 3 damage to your creature and only get to trample over for 2, even though the 3 damage is going to be prevented.

If a trample creature becomes blocked by a blocker that then disappears, then it gets to deal all its damage to the defending player, but that seems fair enough.

FWIW I prefer the current wording because I always think of trample as the creature doing damage to the player it was attacking anyway, not to the player who controls the creature (even though in practice those are the same).

I feel like using trample on spells to mean "excess to controller" would be confusing -- if a creature with trample fights a creature, does it get to do excess damage to its controller? does a spell need the option to target a player in order for the faux-trample ability to work? I know what the rules say, but I feel like the actual examples would seem inconsistent. Whereas the current wording is fairly clear.

If you could revamp trample so it does work for creature damage the same way, I'd be ok with that but it would be a much bigger change.

Frankly, those all sound like sensible changes. Trample should work that way. Any damage beyond the target's toughness is dealt to the controller. And blocking becomes "Attacker fights this creature". And fighting becomes "yes, first strike etc. happen now"...

And yeah, 6th edition told us making big sweeping changes; even if they make things better; is a painful idea. So it'll never happen.

Heh. To that last point, I believe R&D are currently very glad that both 6ED and M10 rules updates occurred, even with all the consequential fallout. I wouldn't be surprised to see another such update happen sometime in the next 10 years. I... wouldn't be completely surprised to see fight reworked so that first strike applies in it, though I also wouldn't be surprised if they don't.

You misunderstand me, alex.

1/1 creature block 3/3 with trample, then gains protection: 2 damage still go through.

1/1 creature is targeted for damage by a spell with trample, gains protection: all damage is cancelled.

This is two different results, and yes I know they are different not because of trample, but it is still reason enough for me not to want o say "spells have trample".

Honestly, my beef is really more with how "lethal damage" is defined for trampling purposes: it has nothing to do either with damage being dealt (cf. protection) OR being sufficient to kill the creature (trample goes through as is a giant Growth never happened). The protection interaction is the most frustrating, and I'd fix it by decreeing that protection also prevent damage assignment.

Alternatively, I'd adjust the definition of "lethal damage" so that checking for "lethality" is done when damage is dealt, not when it's assigned, with the result that if a blocker survives trample damage doesn't occur (because damage turned out not to be lethal for all creatures).

You have to get through the entire process of assigning combat damage before anything can be dealt, so whatever doctrine you go by--whether you call it "lethal damage" or something else--has to inform you of what assignments are legal when you're actually in the process of assignment, no later.

Back before 6E, the trample rules were such that if you had a 9/9 trampler, and they blocked with a 1/1 and two 4/4s, you could assign damage as "ignore the 4 toughness, just dogpile everything on the 1/1" with the result that 8 damage would trample over. That was awful, and there's a reason that's not the rule anymore. Whatever perceived "solution" you try to provide has to take care not to bring back that same problem.

Protection is just a form of damage prevention. It would be infeasible to check for all forms of prevention and whatever else of replacement effects and damage and death avoidance. Including indestructible and Other odd stuff Like ogre enforcer. Once you make exception for one, you start questioning Other forms of preservation.

Jack V also brings up a good point about not accidentally spilling the damage. That is, normal damage and trampling damage must be kept distinct and understood at all times. Overloading the trample keyword would cause accidents. Does a creature's activated and triggered abilties also trample over? E. G. Dragonlord Atarka

Of course, people wanting direct damage to trample over is nothing new. One thing I thought of is called "overflow damage" for use with noncombat damage. Ex.

Instant
~ deals 3 overflow damage to target creature. (Any excess damage beyond lethal damage to the creature is dealt to its controller.)

Overflow damage should be used sparingly. It's (almost) strictly better than normal damage, which is 99.99% of all direct damage so far. But might work as one of a set's mechanic.