Incorporeal and damage

[Gabbi]

Incorporeal description states:

Incorporeal: This model ignores, and is ignored by, other models and terrain during any movement or push. Reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half.

Now, if my comprehension of English language doesn't fail me, "reduce all damage by half" means I have to subtract half damage from the damage total.
Since manual states that all roundings are made rounding up to the next integer, this means that 5 damages become 2.
(5/2=2.5, rounded up to 3, 5-3=2). So 1 damage becomes zero.
So, in the end, an Incorporeal model would always take half damage rounded down.

The only way this could not be (beside my eventual lack of comprehension of the language) is if in case of multiple math operations, rounding has to be made at the very last, once all operations are resolved. But the manual seems to state otherwise.

Small rulebook, page 20, inside the "math" box:

When the rules require a player to divide a number, the result is rounded up to the nearest whole number

So, since it clearly states that is the result of the division to be rounded up, my interpretation above seems correct.

What bugs me is that this may not be what the authors intended.
So, am I correctly interpreting the rule or am I stretching it ?

[solkan]

There's a much simpler explanation.  The FAQ answer

9) Q: The Incorporeal Ability allows a model to reduce all damage it suffers from Sh and Ml Actions by half. Is the damage rounded up or down? For example, if an Incorporeal model suffers 3 damage from an Ml Action, is the damage reduced to 2 or 1?

A: The damage is rounded up. So, an Incorporeal model suffering 3 damage from an Ml Action would reduce that damage to 2.

That's consistent with the authors not making a distinction between "reduce by half" and "halve".  Or "reduce to half" or "divide in half" or "divide by half" or number of horrifying ways that an English language person might state that while expecting the context of the situation to clarify for them. 

If you're studying how people use English across the world, then studying how people distinguish between those two phrases is probably interesting.  But what we have is the FAQ answer stating that the meaning of "reduce by half" is "halve".

Disclaimer:  The definition of halve on this laptop's dictionary includes the bullet point "reduce or be reduced by half".

That's how you get someone writing "reduce by half" meaning "divide by two" instead of "Set damage equal to damage minus one half of the damage".

 

[santaclaws01]

No. You take the damage, divide it by 2, then round up. That is how much damage you take. You don't take the damage, divide it by two, round that up then subtract the damage by that number. That is an incredibly convoluted process and I'm wondering why you thought it would be the case.

[Artiee]

Maniac-Eye.  You should start a new thread instead of Necroing a 1 1/2 year old thread. 

[Ludvig]

As said aobve: please start a new thread rather than posting in a thread over a year old. Things may change in that time.

The answer to your question: General timing p. 51. If triggers and abilities would resolve at the same time you resolve triggers first. Therefore you add crit strike before you halve for incorporeal.

[santaclaws01]

Thanks

That is an incredibly convoluted process and I'm wondering why you thought it would be the case.

Because is what the sentence "reduce all damage by half" seems to state to me, and in years of Warmachine I have grown the habit to read rules as written unless instructed otherwise

And you divide the damage by 2 to reduce it by half.

[Bengt]

 That is an incredibly convoluted process and I'm wondering why you thought it would be the case.

The wording of the ability is pretty convoluted.  And no matter how many times I read it I can't see any other interpretation.

However, the FAQ tells us to round to the benefit of the attacker. So the intent of the developer is clear.

[Gabbi]

And you divide the damage by 2 to reduce it by half.

The rule states that then I have to subtract that half (rounded up) from the whole damage. So, if I read rule as written, I still consider my interpretation correct, from a RAW point of view.

 

Nonetheless, I will play applying half damage rounded up as common sense seems to suggest and the following quote nails down.

 

However, the FAQ tells us to round to the benefit of the attacker. So the intent of the developer is clear.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[Da Git]

I agree with Gabbi in that the rules as written imply that you subtract the divided damage from the total.  So 3/2 becomes 1.5, rounded up to 2.  3-2=1damage.  However, as the FAQ points out, this is clearly not the case.  A better wording would have been "This model suffers half damage from Ml & Sh Attacks".

[Rob Lo]

I always have to do this weird few steps of math in my head when I deal with this. 

1. Reduce all damage this model suffers by half.
2. So if damage is five, half the damage is 2.5.
3. Always round up, so the 2.5 becomes 3.
4. Reduce the(all damage) 5 by the (half)3. So the damage should be 2. EXCEPT: Override all that because every other person tells me it's wrong, so it must be wrong, so whatever I think the right answer is, it's the other one..
5. So the damage I take is 3. 

The short answer is "Which number is worse for me.. that's how much damage I take"

[Astrella]

You don't round until you get your final result anyway, so even if you take reduce by half literally it's just 5-2.5 = 2.5 -> 3

[Therril_83]

You don't round until you get your final result anyway, so even if you take reduce by half literally it's just 5-2.5 = 2.5 -> 3

I do agree that the language of the book indicates the way that Gabbi interprates it, but I've also come to this quoted sollution as to still keep my math-mind sane and still follow the FAQed ruling.

[Gabbi]

There's a much simpler explanation.  The FAQ answer

9) Q: The Incorporeal Ability allows a model to reduce all damage it suffers from Sh and Ml Actions by half. Is the damage rounded up or down? For example, if an Incorporeal model suffers 3 damage from an Ml Action, is the damage reduced to 2 or 1?

A: The damage is rounded up. So, an Incorporeal model suffering 3 damage from an Ml Action would reduce that damage to 2.

That's consistent with the authors not making a distinction between "reduce by half" and "halve".  Or "reduce to half" or "divide in half" or "divide by half" or number of horrifying ways that an English language person might state that while expecting the context of the situation to clarify for them. 

If you're studying how people use English across the world, then studying how people distinguish between those two phrases is probably interesting.  But what we have is the FAQ answer stating that the meaning of "reduce by half" is "halve".

Disclaimer:  The definition of halve on this laptop's dictionary includes the bullet point "reduce or be reduced by half".

That's how you get someone writing "reduce by half" meaning "divide by two" instead of "Set damage equal to damage minus one half of the damage".

 

Excellent, thank you Solkan (and my bad for not properly checking FAQs).

I appreciate the philology (no sarcasm, honest) but let me say that variety of writing should be kept for narrative and poetry: rulebooks should be written in a consistent way as far as possible, to keep interpretation easy (and eventually help people non English native to not come up with weird questions). I have been said "That is an incredibly convoluted process and I'm wondering why you thought it would be the case." and I can reply that "Reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half." is an "incredibly convoluted" way to say the model suffers half damage.

 

[Dogmantra]

I agree with Gabbi in that the rules as written imply that you subtract the divided damage from the total.  So 3/2 becomes 1.5, rounded up to 2.  3-2=1damage.  However, as the FAQ points out, this is clearly not the case.  A better wording would have been "This model suffers half damage from Ml & Sh Attacks".

that wording is not the same though, it would allow incorporeal models to still halve damage that may not be reduced or prevented.

[Gabbi]

that wording is not the same though, it would allow incorporeal models to still halve damage that may not be reduced or prevented.

The wording I have quoted for Incorporeal ability is a word by word exact copy of the text on my Hungering Darkness card.

[Dogmantra]

The wording I have quoted for Incorporeal ability is a word by word exact copy of the text on my Hungering Darkness card.

Ah sorry if I was unclear, I was talking about Da O&F Git's proposed rewording of the ability. Fwiw I actually agree with you in terms of implications towards order of operations (since if it said "reduce by a quarter" you would subtract 1/4), although imo, being a big stickler for RAW, it's impossible to tell if you round or not, since it doesn't specify how you're supposed to work out half of the damage, whether you divide by two (and therefore round by RAW) or multiply by one half.

[solkan]

There's a much simpler explanation.  The FAQ answer

9) Q: The Incorporeal Ability allows a model to reduce all damage it suffers from Sh and Ml Actions by half. Is the damage rounded up or down? For example, if an Incorporeal model suffers 3 damage from an Ml Action, is the damage reduced to 2 or 1?

A: The damage is rounded up. So, an Incorporeal model suffering 3 damage from an Ml Action would reduce that damage to 2.

That's consistent with the authors not making a distinction between "reduce by half" and "halve".  Or "reduce to half" or "divide in half" or "divide by half" or number of horrifying ways that an English language person might state that while expecting the context of the situation to clarify for them. 

If you're studying how people use English across the world, then studying how people distinguish between those two phrases is probably interesting.  But what we have is the FAQ answer stating that the meaning of "reduce by half" is "halve".

Disclaimer:  The definition of halve on this laptop's dictionary includes the bullet point "reduce or be reduced by half".

That's how you get someone writing "reduce by half" meaning "divide by two" instead of "Set damage equal to damage minus one half of the damage".

 

Excellent, thank you Solkan (and my bad for not properly checking FAQs).

I appreciate the philology (no sarcasm, honest) but let me say that variety of writing should be kept for narrative and poetry: rulebooks should be written in a consistent way as far as possible, to keep interpretation easy (and eventually help people non English native to not come up with weird questions). I have been said "That is an incredibly convoluted process and I'm wondering why you thought it would be the case." and I can reply that "Reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half." is an "incredibly convoluted" way to say the model suffers half damage.

It's quite simple.  Writing rules in English is the devil's work, and no one will ever like how the rules are written. 

For comparison, see:  http://justindrawingdead.com/?p=286

 

Edited October 10, 2015 by solkan

[Gabbi]

(1) I'm going to just ignore your complaints, because they aren't helping you.  And I'll start over.  It appears that it was a mistake to try to explain why the rule and the FAQ are as they are.

(2) You had an answer about how Incorporeal works--how that "reducing by half" business works.  The answer to that question is the FAQ answer that you've already seen.

The rest of this isn't a discussion of the rules, it's a discussion of how people who work for other people who pay to get rules published in books have to deal with publishing words that describe rules.  That's not a rules discussion.

(2) Agree. But in that case, if you weren't interested in discussion outside rules, all your post beside the faqs link was superfluous. And the faq links wasn't really needed, as I had already stated on my post on Thursday at 1:10 PM that I had understood how the rule was meant to be played. In fact, my whole question here was made because applying rule strictly RAW seemed odd.

(1) I wasn't "complaining", really. I was posting my opinion here. an opinion you may not like, an opinion Justin may not like, but I believe it's a valid opinion, as much as yours. this may not be the right thread to post opinions, agree, but nonetheless you should avoid accusing me to complain just because I disagree with you.
point is, I thought the rule has to be applied RAW because it was oddly written in first place. Why write "Reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half" instead of "This model suffers half damage from Sh and Ml Attack Actions"? There must be some subtle difference to consider, I thought. That's why I thought in first place I had to read the rule as written. It would also been much shorter, so the point that you have to wrestle with space on cards here doesn't apply at all.
So, maybe, if you stop thinking I'm complaining for the sake of it, and try to get why I'm writing this, maybe next time we'll have a rule written in a less counter-intuitive way.

[santaclaws01]

(1) I'm going to just ignore your complaints, because they aren't helping you.  And I'll start over.  It appears that it was a mistake to try to explain why the rule and the FAQ are as they are.

(2) You had an answer about how Incorporeal works--how that "reducing by half" business works.  The answer to that question is the FAQ answer that you've already seen.

The rest of this isn't a discussion of the rules, it's a discussion of how people who work for other people who pay to get rules published in books have to deal with publishing words that describe rules.  That's not a rules discussion.

(2) Agree. But in that case, if you weren't interested in discussion outside rules, all your post beside the faqs link was superfluous. And the faq links wasn't really needed, as I had already stated on my post on Thursday at 1:10 PM that I had understood how the rule was meant to be played. In fact, my whole question here was made because applying rule strictly RAW seemed odd.

(1) I wasn't "complaining", really. I was posting my opinion here. an opinion you may not like, an opinion Justin may not like, but I believe it's a valid opinion, as much as yours. this may not be the right thread to post opinions, agree, but nonetheless you should avoid accusing me to complain just because I disagree with you.
point is, I thought the rule has to be applied RAW because it was oddly written in first place. Why write "Reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half" instead of "This model suffers half damage from Sh and Ml Attack Actions"? There must be some subtle difference to consider, I thought. That's why I thought in first place I had to read the rule as written. It would also been much shorter, so the point that you have to wrestle with space on cards here doesn't apply at all.
So, maybe, if you stop thinking I'm complaining for the sake of it, and try to get why I'm writing this, maybe next time we'll have a rule written in a less counter-intuitive way.

You were already told why is says "reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half" instead of "This model suffers half damage from Sh and Ml Attack Actions", because there are Attack Actions which state "This damage may not be reduced", which is intended to ignore Incorporeal. If Incorporeal was worded "This model suffers half damage from Sh and Ml Attack Actions", then it would not get around Incorporeal without specifically saying it ignores Incorporeal as well.

And it did sound like you were complaining that Malifaux isn't 100% Raw, even though it is and you are just misinterpreting what the RAW actually says.

[Gabbi]

You were already told why is says "reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half" instead of "This model suffers half damage from Sh and Ml Attack Actions", because there are Attack Actions which state "This damage may not be reduced", which is intended to ignore Incorporeal. If Incorporeal was worded "This model suffers half damage from Sh and Ml Attack Actions", then it would not get around Incorporeal without specifically saying it ignores Incorporeal as well.

And it did sound like you were complaining that Malifaux isn't 100% Raw, even though it is and you are just misinterpreting what the RAW actually says.

"This damage may not be reduced or halved".
(But I'm pretty sure that in the case, someone would jump up stating that "halving" IS "reducing", heh).

We could go on forever. I don't get it. I've got what I asked for (how should I play this rule? you know, it seems a bit odd to me and I'm also non native English speaker) almost instantly, in the first posts. Now, it seems that a few paladins in the defense of their beloved freaking game wants to delegitimize me from the right of having doubted and so asked, and thinking I was in the right of doubting because the rule actually didn't feel 100% clear as it is.

[Maniac-Eye]

Hi dudes. This is really exakt the Point i Played Falsett the Last Games. Ok now i will correct this. One addition question. In case of a critical Strike trigger, is da Addition After halve the dmg. Or before. 

 

Ex.:  dmg 3 + 1 dmg from critical strike on an Incorporeal Model. Suffers 3 dmg (3:2=1.5 rounded up 2 + critical strike)  or 2 dmg final (3+1=4:2=2 final)

In case of Math Order in the rulebook it is declared

Modifiers should be applied in the following order: Multiply, Divide, Add, and then Subtract 

 

[Maniac-Eye]

Nobody has an answer?? 

[Maniac-Eye]

Ahhh okay at this Point i Gas forgotten the Timing rule.  Thy for the answer. 

Okay Next Time i will make a new topic

[Gabbi]

Thanks

That is an incredibly convoluted process and I'm wondering why you thought it would be the case.

Because is what the sentence "reduce all damage by half" seems to state to me, and in years of Warmachine I have grown the habit to read rules as written unless instructed otherwise

[solkan]

It's quite simple.  Writing rules in English is the devil's work, and no one will ever like how the rules are written. 

For comparison, see:  http://justindrawingdead.com/?p=286

 

Well, I can stop reading here:

I'm going to just ignore your complaints, because they aren't helping you.  And I'll start over.  It appears that it was a mistake to try to explain why the rule and the FAQ are as they are.

You had an answer about how Incorporeal works--how that "reducing by half" business works.  The answer to that question is the FAQ answer that you've already seen.

The rest of this isn't a discussion of the rules, it's a discussion of how people who work for other people who pay to get rules published in books have to deal with publishing words that describe rules.  That's not a rules discussion.

[Gabbi]

It's quite simple.  Writing rules in English is the devil's work, and no one will ever like how the rules are written. 

For comparison, see:  http://justindrawingdead.com/?p=286

 

Well, I can stop reading here:

 

This entire argument is predicated on “ignoring” a restriction being different than “not needing to adhere to” a restriction. Although slightly different wording is used, they do indeed mean the same thing, and that’s the important part. Because they mean the same thing in the literal sense of the English language

 

As I strongly disagree. My opinion is that game rulebooks should use consistent wording as much as possible.
And this is possible. Warmachine manuals are near perfect in this. In over 5 years playing the game it happened just one time that I wasn't able to correctly apply the rules by simply reading them and applying strictly as written.
This also makes me a little sad as Malifaux seemed the game with the rulebook most close to Warmachine ones.
Please note that I'm only considering here how the rules are written, not judging the games themselves (and in fact, I'm enjoying Malifaux way more than Warmachine, these days ^^).

Anyway, not a real problem. I just take a mental note to check forums when some rule feels odd if read-as-written, as I cannot trust RAW 100% (and I totally refuse to RAI as it would be a bottomless pit of arguing, as anyone would have a different interpretation).
Also, I strongly disagree when Justin talks about two terms meaning the same in English in the part quoted above, as I would like to have consistent wording and I'm sure it would be the best way to lay down rules, but I understand that at some point real world kicks in and you have deal with reality (manpower, deadlines, etc. yest I've read the whole post). So once someone has honestly did his best, you cannot really blame him. And one thing for sure: Malifaux feels like a labor of love.

Once more, thank you (and I really mean thank you, even if I disagree with you to some extent, as you provided good points and interesting material).

On a side note, it seems the game is in the process of being translated in my language (Italian). I think I will not want to touch Italian stuff with a 10 foot pole. Given the basis, the translation process (in a language more suited to poetry than tech books) can only do worse.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Gabbi