Yasunori, Hard to Kill, and Drawing Your Whole Deck

[Kharnage]

I have a nightmarish proposition. So, as we've previously determined somewhere, irreducible damage doesn't get "reduced" or "unsuffered" if it encounters hard to kill; the model simply can't fall below 1 HP. The model, as far as I understand, still "suffers" each point of damage, it just can't go below 1 HP.
I bring you now to Yasunori's fast action:
"This model may suffer any amount of damage. For each point of damage this model suffered from this Action, both players draw a card. If the opposing player must discard one or more cards due to the Maximum Hand Size, they must do so randomly."
Give him Hard to Kill from Silent Protector. Can he now choose to suffer 48 damage turn 1, never having to deal with the "costs that would put him at 0 health" clause, draw his whole deck, pick out the jokers and kings, and reshuffle? 

[Paddywhack]

Even with HtK I'm pretty sure the intent is that you only 'suffer' the amount of damage that you actually remove from your Health. Any other interpretation leads to ridiculous things like this. I'm pretty sure this is what they were getting at with rule about after Reduction. HtK isn't Reduction technically, but you still only actually 'suffered' your Health -1 after HtK kicks in. You didn't actually suffer 48 damage, which would go against the rule about you can't suffer more damage than your health anyway:

When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered. A model may not have its Health reduced below 0. If it would suffer damage that would bring its Health below 0 any additional damage is ignored. When a model reaches 0 Health it is killed.  

If the argument is that you suffer all the damage regardless of HtK, then at best, you suffer your full health to take you to 0 as anything past that is ignored, then have HtK kick in and put you back at 1 health. I still don't think that's the intended rule though. 

[Adran]

Well he didn't suffer 48 points of damage from the action, so he won't draw 48 cards. The card draw is based on the final amount suffered which is the number after all damage reduction and similar effects have kicked in. So if he was on 8 wounds, and had hard to kill even if you choose to suffer 48 damage, when you get to the card draw you actually only suffered 7 damage. 

[Kharnage]

1 minute ago, Adran said:

Well he didn't suffer 48 points of damage from the action, so he won't draw 48 cards. The card draw is based on the final amount suffered which is the number after all damage reduction and similar effects have kicked in. So if he was on 8 wounds, and had hard to kill even if you choose to suffer 48 damage, when you get to the card draw you actually only suffered 7 damage. 

Mmmmm, I'm not 100% sure that's the case.
Under damage it says "If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction."
As we know, Hard to Kill isn't damage reduction. It can't be, or irreducible damage would punch through it. How would you reconcile this? Doesn't matter, Hard to Kill still changes the amount of damage suffered? Would Hard to Kill also arbitrarily reduce the amount of healing a Drink Blood trigger would give? 

[Jesy Blue]

36 minutes ago, Kharnage said:

.... draw his whole deck, pick out the jokers and kings, and reshuffle? 

How are you picking out the high cards?   

[Kharnage]

2 minutes ago, Jesy Blue said:

How are you picking out the high cards?   

When I draw 48 cards, I must discard down to 6 cards when I've finished drawing. I will discard every card that isn't those cards. 

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Kharnage said:

"This model may suffer any amount of damage. For each point of damage this model suffered from this Action, both players draw a card. If the opposing player must discard one or more cards due to the Maximum Hand Size, they must do so randomly."

So what entry do you want in the FAQ/errata pool?

Option 1:  The sentence "A model can never choose to suffer damage this way if that damage would reduce their Health to 0 or below." gets errata'd to add "A model can never choose an amount greater than its remaining wounds, and can never choose to o suffer damage this way if that damage would reduce their Health to 0 or below."

Option 2:  An "ignoring ____" clause (or equivalent) getting added to that ability.

 

[Kharnage]

1 minute ago, solkan said:

So what entry do you want in the FAQ/errata pool?

I'd try to fix the specific rule rather than the general, just for a fear of breaking more things. Change Revel in Chaos to lead with "This model may choose to suffer any amount of damage, up to its current health -1. For each health suffered...." yadda yadda. Do you think that would be fine? 

[Jesy Blue]

31 minutes ago, Kharnage said:

When I draw 48 cards, I must discard down to 6 cards when I've finished drawing. I will discard every card that isn't those cards. 

.....ooooohhhh, your own cards.  I thought you were talking about your opponent's cards!

I was rereading that stat card like 20 times making sure I didn't miss something.

 

Carry on!

[Adran]

55 minutes ago, Kharnage said:

I'd try to fix the specific rule rather than the general, just for a fear of breaking more things.

You want to change. . "After damage reduction is applied" to

" the difference between it's health at the start of the damage and at the end of the damage". 

Or

" after damage reduction AND OTHER EFFECTS are applied"

Other wise you get the same problem with anything that lets you suffer damage. There is already a thread on ashes and dust and how much damage it can suffer. 

[solkan]

42 minutes ago, Adran said:

You want to change. . "After damage reduction is applied" to

" the difference between it's health at the start of the damage and at the end of the damage". 

Or

" after damage reduction AND OTHER EFFECTS are applied"

Other wise you get the same problem with anything that lets you suffer damage. There is already a thread on ashes and dust and how much damage it can suffer. 

The problem with the first attempt:  What's "the end of damage" and what are "other effects"?

• Model A attacks the Jackalope.  When you kill the Jackalope, it heals.

Same situation if you kill basically anything with a Demise(replace with another model) effect like McCabe, the Mounted Guard, etc.  In the most extreme circumstances, the difference is negative:

• Lucas McCabe (Relic Hunter) with 1 wound remaining gets hit by an attack that inflicts 1 damage.  After resolving damage, Lucas McCabe (Dismounted Hunter) has 5 wounds and is considered the same model, putting the difference at -4 at the end of damage application.

The Jackalope has a similar scenario which doesn't involve Replace, too.  Kill a wounded Jackalope, you do negative net damage at the of Demise(Eternal).  And that has consequences for the "healing based on amount suffered by other model" effects, if there are still those around....

The bit for Ashes and Dust (you're choosing an amount to suffer but you also have unavoidable damage reduction) really needs to be a separate issue.

The issue for Yasunori is that the limiting clause in the rule limiting how much damage a model can suffer doesn't deal at all with Hard to Kill's "No amount of damage can possibly kill me".  That was trying to put in a cap, and it doesn't quite cover all of the situations.  And that can be fixed by leaving the existing language in to cover the unexpected ways a model can try to kill itself, and add an explicit "And you still can't choose more than you have wounds remaining, even if that won't kill you" cap.  Because Yasunori probably isn't the only case where that applies.

 

[Adran]

18 hours ago, Kharnage said:

Mmmmm, I'm not 100% sure that's the case.
Under damage it says "If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction."
As we know, Hard to Kill isn't damage reduction. It can't be, or irreducible damage would punch through it. How would you reconcile this? Doesn't matter, Hard to Kill still changes the amount of damage suffered? Would Hard to Kill also arbitrarily reduce the amount of healing a Drink Blood trigger would give? 

Looking at the timing, damage reduction is step 3. Lowering the health is step 4. effects that happen after a model is damaged or after a model is reduced to a specific health is step 5.

I would imagine that hard to kill will have to kick in in step 4.

Step 5 would then let you calculate the amount of damage a modle suffered, before the healing timing steps of Demise kick in. There is probably something that breaks this as well, but I can't se anything at the moment.

Paddywhack quotes the rules for a good definition, "When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered."

Its twisting it a little but The amount of health lost in step 4 is a good fit for the amount of damage suffered.

 

I do feel like I have a wanted outcome, and am looking for ways for the rules to get me there, which isn't ideal.

[solkan]

I think it's important to remember that models like Lelu still have the Drink Blood trigger:

Quote

When resolving, this model heals an amount equal to the damage suffered.

on its Sharp Claws attack.

What the rules currently say is that if Lelu attacks a model with 1 wound remaining and Armor +2, and it flips 4 damage, "the damage suffered" is 2 (4-2).  Not 1.

Please don't break that mechanism while you're trying to duck-tape Yasunori's action.  Or accidentally make "Cannot be reduced below 1" suddenly render triggers like Drink Blood much less useful.  (Number of Neverborn models with the Drink Blood trigger:  10.)

 "cannot be reduced below 1" is not damage reduction.  Trying to make it so breaks stuff.

 

[Adran]

56 minutes ago, solkan said:

I think it's important to remember that models like Lelu still have the Drink Blood trigger:

on its Sharp Claws attack.

What the rules currently say is that if Lelu attacks a model with 1 wound remaining and Armor +2, and it flips 4 damage, "the damage suffered" is 2 (4-2).  Not 1.

Please don't break that mechanism while you're trying to duck-tape Yasunori's action.  Or accidentally make "Cannot be reduced below 1" suddenly render triggers like Drink Blood much less useful.  (Number of Neverborn models with the Drink Blood trigger:  10.)

 "cannot be reduced below 1" is not damage reduction.  Trying to make it so breaks stuff.

 

See I have always thought that in this case the damage suffered is 1 because "If it would suffer damage that would bring its health to below 0, any addition damage is ignored." (page 24).

I do agree that this issue is relying on the same language.

 

[Paddywhack]

2 hours ago, solkan said:

What the rules currently say is that if Lelu attacks a model with 1 wound remaining and Armor +2, and it flips 4 damage, "the damage suffered" is 2 (4-2).  Not 1.

 

How do you work that with the rule on page 24 though: "If it would suffer damage that would bring its health to below 0, any addition damage is ignored." (page 24). Not trying to make Drink Blood unusable, but how ignoring the damage seems like you should ignore it for all effects. On the flip side, why should those models get to heal more than the actual damage the model is able to suffer? To be clear, I'm OK with Drink Blood working like this if that's intended. Though I do think it a bit strange that model can heal say 5 health from a model with only 1 Health left. 

I'm not really sure how it's supposed to go, but I think things are murky enough that either Yasunari, Suffering Damage in general, and or Drink Blood (and similar abilities) might need a FAQ. Or even an errata in Yasunari's case. Just make it a defined amount instead of 'any' and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. 

If the amount a model Suffers is the amount after reduction, even if it is more Health than the model has (basically only 'ignoring' in terms of not saying their Health is now negative and not ignoring for the purposes of how much is Suffered), then the only real problem is as stated in the OP. In that case it would only be Yasunari (and any other similar abilities?) that would need an Errata to fix the problem. 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

Fairly certain this is not able to happen, as a model cannot choose to suffer damage if it would bring its health to 0 or below (Choosing to Suffer Damage, p. 33). HTK has no effect on this action, as you can only choose to suffer damage to 1 health left. At most you can choose to draw 8, but not sure if it's worth him dying in two attacks though.

I also agree with Adran, the lelu example has the model only suffer one damage because any damage past 0 health is ignored, or not suffered. So the model only suffers 1 damage, and lelu heals 1.

Also, Ashes and Dust's trigger has the "when trigger is declared" cause, so the trigger won't be affected by incorporeal's DR.

[solkan]

On 7/31/2019 at 11:42 AM, Paddywhack said:

How do you work that with the rule on page 24 though: "If it would suffer damage that would bring its health to below 0, any addition damage is ignored." (page 24).

That sentence says that models don't go negative.  Which is important for the Demise effects that heal killed models.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 11:42 AM, Paddywhack said:

Not trying to make Drink Blood unusable, but how ignoring the damage seems like you should ignore it for all effects. On the flip side, why should those models get to heal more than the actual damage the model is able to suffer? To be clear, I'm OK with Drink Blood working like this if that's intended. Though I do think it a bit strange that model can heal say 5 health from a model with only 1 Health left. 

It's a shenanigans based game.  And some of those shenanigans involve manipulating the damage process.

• Model X applies N damage to Model Y.
• You go through damage reduction, and determine that the model suffers N-m damage.
• You apply the damage and the model arrives at some wounds number remaining.

If you'll notice, soul stone usage says:

Quote

Reduce Damage: After damage is suffered by a model that can use Soulstones, it may spend a Soulstone to reduce that damage. The model flips a card, which can't be cheated, and reduces the damage it suffers by 1/2/3. This reduction occurs after all other reduction and can reduce damage to 0.

There are seven masters, and eleven henchmen with Hard to Kill, one Outcast generic upgrade, a Ten Thunders generic upgrade, and one of McCabe's upgrades that grant Hard to Kill.

Hard to Kill is not damage reduction.  Because how on Earth would it work if you tried to resolve Hard to Kill and then resolved soulstone damage reduction.  

 

They put the entry

Quote

If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction.

so that we shouldn't have to be having this big huge debate about how to figure out how much damage a model suffered for abilities like Drink Blood.

 

On 7/31/2019 at 11:42 AM, Paddywhack said:

I'm not really sure how it's supposed to go, but I think things are murky enough that either Yasunari, Suffering Damage in general, and or Drink Blood (and similar abilities) might need a FAQ. Or even an errata in Yasunari's case. Just make it a defined amount instead of 'any' and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. 

Yasunori's ability needs an errata, either to the "choosing how much to suffer" rules or to its ability.

On 7/31/2019 at 11:42 AM, Paddywhack said:

If the amount a model Suffers is the amount after reduction, even if it is more Health than the model has (basically only 'ignoring' in terms of not saying their Health is now negative and not ignoring for the purposes of how much is Suffered), then the only real problem is as stated in the OP. In that case it would only be Yasunari (and any other similar abilities?) that would need an Errata to fix the problem. 

See the statement on "the amount of damage suffered".

It doesn't say "the amount of health reduced/lost" or something else.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

34 minutes ago, solkan said:

Yasunori's ability needs an errata, either to the "choosing how much to suffer" rules or to its ability.

See the statement on "the amount of damage suffered".

It doesn't say "the amount of health reduced/lost" or something else.

The limit on choosing to suffer damage is already in the rules, and Yasunori's ability does not have any language that allows circumvention of the rule. I don't think any errata is needed.

[Kharnage]

Thread Necromancy! With the Errata in place such that according to their FAQ for irreducible damage "Hard to Kill prevents a model’s Health from being reduced and does not reduce damage.", meaning that Yasunori is considered to have suffered the full 48 damage, does this not mean that Yasunori can indeed draw your whole deck?

[santaclaws01]

3 minutes ago, Kharnage said:

Thread Necromancy! With the Errata in place such that according to their FAQ for irreducible damage "Hard to Kill prevents a model’s Health from being reduced and does not reduce damage.", meaning that Yasunori is considered to have suffered the full 48 damage, does this not mean that Yasunori can indeed draw your whole deck?

The necrotic decay question(1.7) "Whenever an effect is referring to the amount of damage a model suffered from an effect, it is always referring to the amount the model’s Health was lowered in Step 4 of Damage Timing"

The jury is still out on how the "can't choose to kill yourself" interacts with things like armor, incorporeal and hard to kill.

[Kharnage]

3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The necrotic decay question(1.7) "Whenever an effect is referring to the amount of damage a model suffered from an effect, it is always referring to the amount the model’s Health was lowered in Step 4 of Damage Timing"

Sure, but remember that Hard to Kill expressly does not change the amount of damage suffered. Hayreddin, if he had Hard to Kill, and 2 HP, could choose to suffer 2 damage, and go down to 1 hp, still getting the +2 damage, by my estimation. 
EDIT: According to the irreducible damage FAQ, by my reading of it at least, if an irreducible damage attack of 4 damage came at a 2 health HTK model, the model is considered to have suffered 4 irreducible damage, so if they had Drink Blood on the attack or something, they would heal 4, despite only reducing the target's HP by a single point.

[santaclaws01]

Just now, Kharnage said:

Sure, but remember that Hard to Kill expressly does not change the amount of damage suffered. Hayreddin, if he had Hard to Kill, and 2 HP, could choose to suffer 2 damage, and go down to 1 hp, still getting the +2 damage, by my estimation. 

The FAQ says it doesn't reduce damage, it doesn't say that HtK doesn't change the damage suffered. Damage suffered is now unequivocally the amount of health a model lost in step 4, which means HtK is accounted for.

[Kharnage]

3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The FAQ says it doesn't reduce damage, it doesn't say that HtK doesn't change the damage suffered. Damage suffered is now unequivocally the amount of health a model lost in step 4, which means HtK is accounted for.

Unless the App's rulebook is missing something that it should have, under "damage" on page 24, "If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction", which HtK is expressly NOT damage reduction.

[santaclaws01]

Just now, Kharnage said:

Unless the App's rulebook is missing something that it should have, under "damage" on page 24, "If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction", which HtK is expressly NOT damage reduction.

I know, and I just quoted the FAQ about what damage suffered means.

[Kharnage]

3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

I know, and I just quoted the FAQ about what damage suffered means.

Section 1, entry 7, had to go find it, but I accept this ruling. 

[santaclaws01]

1 minute ago, Kharnage said:

Section 1, entry 7, had to go find it, but I accept this ruling. 

I could've made it more clear it was from the FAQ instead of just referring to it as the necrotic decay question, but I'm curious what you thought the first thing I posted that you replied to was?