Slate Ridge Mauler Frenzied Bear Hug

[decker_cky]

So when comparing wordings between last beta cards and the final rules, I noticed some wording which seems a bit odd.

 

The slate ridge mauler has frenzied:

 

Frenzied: While this model has 5 or fewer

Wounds remaining, its Ml Attack Actions

deal +2 damage.

 

Bear hug is a Ml attack action:
 

Bear Hug (Ml 6C / Rst: Df / Rg: 4)

 

 

 

Bear hug is a Ml attack action (though it doesn't have the Ml icon). Am I correct that bear hugs would cause 2 damage while the mauler is frenzied?

 

[Darguth]

Bear hug is a Ml attack action (though it doesn't have the Ml icon). Am I correct that bear hugs would cause 2 damage while the mauler is frenzied?

 

I would wager that it doesn't. I would think that unless the Action mentions a model suffering damage that adding damage doesn't do anything.  I mean, point to me where in Bear Hug a model suffers damage that could be enhanced?  It has a target, but no a "target suffers X damage" clause or anything similar, so there's nothing to enhance.

[T.N.T.-Tommy]

I'd say yes.

Ml ≠ Close attack (the claw marks)

Sh ≠ Projectile attack (the pistol)

Ml and Sh are the stats, Close and Projectile are the type of the attack ( I use the terms from the rulebook)

 

At least as written the Hug should deal damage. It fulfil all the criterias for frenzied once it activate.

[decker_cky]

I mean, point to me where in Bear Hug a model suffers damage that could be enhanced?  It has a target, but no a "target suffers X damage" clause or anything similar, so there's nothing to enhance.

 

That's just how damage is written in some cases, unless you're claiming burning doesn't do damage.

 

Burning +1: At the end of the turn, this model suffers +1 damage, then remove this Condition.

[Darguth]

That's just how damage is written in some cases, unless you're claiming burning doesn't do damage.

 

 

Except Burning specifically states that the Condition-holder suffers damage.  Frenzied is enhancing the damage of Ml Actions, but Bear Hug has no "suffers damage" clause to enhance.

 

The + indicator on Burning is because that's how stacking conditions works.  The + indicator in Frenzied, to me, indicates it's enhancing an existing source of damage.

 

It is worded slightly different, but consider how Critical Strike would work on Bear Hug.  It is a very similar effect, but since it is a Trigger is slightly more specific by claiming "when damaging".  I read Frenzied in much the same way.  "When damaging" it deals +2 damage, because if there is no original source of damage nothing within Frenzied tells you to deal damage by itself.

[Eyefink]

There was a similar question recently asked about Rasputina's spells and Bite of Winter. My opinion is that, in the same way that stats that don't exist can't be enhanced, damage that doesn't exist can't be increased. As in, it's never assumed that Attack Actions without a damage value deal 0 Dg, they just don't deal damage.

[Ausplosions]

Except it is not when damaging.

[Mydnight]

This is one of those that is kinda weird.  By the letter I think it would grant straight damage to a ML action, even if the action doesn't do damage already.  Whether or not this is intentional is another thing.

[Morgue]

I sort of hope it's intended. It's not like it doesnt make sense for a raging bear to hurt you when it squeezes you.

[Darguth]

Except it is not when damaging.

My argument is that it is, it's simply phrased differently.  To say something "deals +2 damage" is simple shorthand for "deal an additional 2 damage."  You can't deal an additional 2 damage when no damage source exists, the "when damaging" is implicit.

 

As noted Burning specifically says a model suffers damage and the damage simply stacks as the conditional value increases.  The "+X" notation there is inherently different than that included on Frenzied.

 

As noted above if a model gets +2 Cg but has a Cg -- naturally they don't become Cg 2.  You can't enhance something that doesn't exist.

[Spifferson]

I would argue that no damage is dealt as there is nothing to modify.

 

Page 46[b1] / 51[RM] -Damage and Wounds- paragraphs 2,3 & 4.

 

"In Malifaux, how much harm a model inflicts on another model as a result of an Attack or other Action or Ability is represented as the damage (Dg) value."

 

"Damage can be inflicted either in a static amount such as 4 damage, or in a variable amount through a damage flip."

 

"If damage is modified by a static value (such as the Armor ability, or a Trigger), the final damage after the damage flip is modified.

[baskinders]

My argument is that it is, it's simply phrased differently.  To say something "deals +2 damage" is simple shorthand for "deal an additional 2 damage."  You can't deal an additional 2 damage when no damage source exists, the "when damaging" is implicit.

 

As noted Burning specifically says a model suffers damage and the damage simply stacks as the conditional value increases.  The "+X" notation there is inherently different than that included on Frenzied.

 

As noted above if a model gets +2 Cg but has a Cg -- naturally they don't become Cg 2.  You can't enhance something that doesn't exist.

The problem I guess is that we have two types of values that use a shorthand +#.

 

We have statistics ie +2 Cg or +2 Wk, which can not add to something that doesn't already exist, and we have conditions i.e. Burning +2, Armour +1, which can be added to something that doesn't exist.

 

Damage is defined neither as a statistic or a condition as far as I can tell, hence the confusion as to whether a +# Dg can add to nothing.

 

I'm not sure either way, but am leaning towards it being in the statistic camp simply because it also uses the shorthand of a capital letter and a lowercase letter abbreviation after the +# just like stats, which isn't a very good reason…

[zFiend]

I'd say no damage. As it is +2.

 

 

 

As noted above if a model gets +2 Cg but has a Cg -- naturally they don't become Cg 2.  You can't enhance something that doesn't exist.

 

This.

[Cats Laughing]

I'm not sure either way, but am leaning towards it being in the statistic camp simply because it also uses the shorthand of a capital letter and a lowercase letter abbreviation after the +# just like stats, which isn't a very good reason…

 

Oh dear, not upper and lower case again...

 

Beyond that, this is a very interesting argument that I'm watching closely.

 

My gut would be that you need to have existing damage to add more, but I can see the other side of that where +# damage can be similar to +# burning and such that can be added where none preexists.

[Morgan Vening]

I think using Conditions as an example is a bad idea. Because it's not done in the same way.

 

You don't gain +2 Burning. You gain the Condition, "Burning +2".

 

The second paragraph of Conditions tries to explain that the Conditions value changes, and become one. So that a single removal (Shrug Off) removes all instances. And that the numerical values preceded by the positive sign indicate changes in the ability. The listed example of Armor showing that the reduction is modified by the value, but the minimum isn't.

 

The use of the positive sign seems to be a notational choice, rather than a direct arithmatical one.

[Wence]

I was initially inclined to agree that it wouldn't deal the +2 damage on an attack that doesn't do damage normally, but there would seem to be a precedent/redundancy with some of the other new abilities like the Guild Lawyers Fees +1 from Special Damages, which makes an attacking model take +1 damage after it damages something else.  Normally, a model wouldn't take damage when it is damaging something else (with the exception of another model's ability like Black Blood), but the intent seems very clear with this condition that it is meant to be a deterrent to attacking while a model is affected.

 

I'm not saying Frenzy and Bear Hug are intended to work this way, only that there seems to be a decent argument for the OP's position based on at least one other new rule that I can think of at the moment.  Until there's a clarification, I think it's a valid argument since Bear Hug is a Ml action and the +x damage has other instances where it seems to intend damage where none is normally generated.

[Spifferson]

^^ Fees +1 is a condition that is applied to a model and not a damage modifier. Therefore I see no precedent/simulairity with the Guild Lawyer's Special Damages attack action.

[Wence]

^^ Fees +1 is a condition that is applied to a model and not a damage modifier. Therefore I see no precedent/simulairity with the Guild Lawyer's Special Damages attack action.

Fees +1 applies a damage modifier with its condition that damages based on the same type of wording as Frenzy, a +x damage in response to something, when no damage would normally be dealt.  If you don't see the correlation I do, that's fine, but I'd take a closer look and give it a bit more thought.  

[Eyefink]

That's just how Conditions are worded, since it can stack. Regardless, I can see the argument either way.

[Morgan Vening]

Looking at the wording for Fees, it actually looks like it needs errata. It either applies a condition that deals a flat 1 damage, or it applies a condition that may be stacked and deals damage equal to the condition. Having it say Fees +1 and then say it deals +1 damage doesn't make any sense.

Actually, if you look under the Conditions section (pg52 BRB), it's actually clear, in a really murky sense.

 

Applied as per the example for Armor, "variables that are increased are noted with a + or - designator".

 

That means Fees as written, for a model with 3 stacks of Fees, would have the initial descriptor of the rule,

"Fees +1:After completing an Attack Action which dealt damage to another model, this model suffers +1 damage."

be read as

"Fees 3:After completing an Attack Action which dealt damage to another model, this model suffers 3 damage."

Note, that's 3 damage, not +3 damage. The ability as written would affect Armor twice (once for the original attack, and once for Fees)

 

The problem is that Wyrd chose to use a cumulative modifier rather than a static variable name, so as to show which abilities were stackable, and which ones weren't. This just seems to further complicate things, when they could have used a static variable name, like X. But then they'd also have to explain how that variable works, and it looks like that was more difficult.

[Eyefink]

I edited because I realized everything you said as soon as I typed it, sorry.