Drink blood

[Le gob]

How does the Drink blood trigger work in interaction with armor, soulstones, or other abilities mitigating damages.

If I flip 3 damages against an opponent with armor +1, do I heal 2 or 3 ?

Same question if he prevents 2 damage with a soulstone, do I heal 1 or 3 ?

[Paddywhack]

"If it would suffer damage that would bring its Health below 0, any additional damage is ignored." Rules manual P24.

I'm not sure what else 'ignored' means other than it doesn't exist. You ignore it, it didn't happen, it can't happen. and has no effect on the game. 

 

[solkan]

47 minutes ago, Le gob said:

How does the Drink blood trigger work in interaction with armor, soulstones, or other abilities mitigating damages.

If I flip 3 damages against an opponent with armor +1, do I heal 2 or 3 ?

Same question if he prevents 2 damage with a soulstone, do I heal 1 or 3 ?

Drink Blood:

Quote

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

That's covered in the rules, second paragraph of Damage:

Quote

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

"after damage reduction" means that if the target prevents 2 damage with a soulstone, you heal 1.  If you flip 3 damage against an opponent with Armor +1, you heal 2.

Note that that is different from how it was FAQ'd for M2E.  During beta, it got discussed back and forward and the developers decided to not to do it the the M2E way, and put it in writing in rules.

So you're going to heal less with Drink Blood in M3E, but you're still most often going to heal at least 1 because the damage reduction rules by default (including soul stone use) can't reduce below 1 without saying so.

[Mycellanious]

What if a model has 2 hp left, when an enemy hits him for 5 dmg suited for Drink Blood?

Pg 24 (digital) says that any damage over the models remaining hp is ignored, but is this ignored the game term meaning for all intents and purposes or just so that models cannot go to negative hp for the purposes of demise effects that heal?

[Kharnage]

13 minutes ago, solkan said:

(including soul stone use) can't reduce below 1 without saying so.

Wait, you do know that Soulstone use can reduce to 0, right? 

Edit: Listing relevant information, under "Damage Reduction" heading, under Damage: 

When a model that can use Soulstones suffers damage, it may spend a Soulstone to reduce that damage. The model flips a card, which cannot 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.

[Maniacal_cackle]

19 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

What if a model has 2 hp left, when an enemy hits him for 5 dmg suited for Drink Blood?

Pg 24 (digital) says that any damage over the models remaining hp is ignored, but is this ignored the game term meaning for all intents and purposes or just so that models cannot go to negative hp for the purposes of demise effects that heal?

That's how I play it.

[solkan]

56 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

What if a model has 2 hp left, when an enemy hits him for 5 dmg suited for Drink Blood?

Pg 24 (digital) says that any damage over the models remaining hp is ignored, but is this ignored the game term meaning for all intents and purposes or just so that models cannot go to negative hp for the purposes of demise effects that heal?

It just means that a model cannot go negative.  And it’s just like how an Hard To Kill model can suffer a million damage and only be reduced to 1 wound remaining.  Ignoring the damage or replacing it with some other amount that happens to be less isn’t damage reduction.

(For, among other reasons, Soulstone use occurs “after all other reduction”, and Hard to Kill happens after it does.)

Disclaimer:  I keep remembering the new Soulstone rules wrong.  Soulstones can reduce damage to 0, but they’re still “damage reduction” in this edition.

[Mycellanious]

3 hours ago, solkan said:

It just means that a model cannot go negative.  And it’s just like how an Hard To Kill model can suffer a million damage and only be reduced to 1 wound remaining.  Ignoring the damage or replacing it with some other amount that happens to be less isn’t damage reduction.

(For, among other reasons, Soulstone use occurs “after all other reduction”, and Hard to Kill happens after it does.)

Disclaimer:  I keep remembering the new Soulstone rules wrong.  Soulstones can reduce damage to 0, but they’re still “damage reduction” in this edition.

so you think that hitting a model with 2 hp for 5 dmg would result in healing 5 from Drink Blood?

[Ogid]

I always read it (the damage suffered) as the final damage dealed to the model after all reductions (this is clear in the rules) and assumed the damage ignored for H2K or reaching 0 Wds was ignored for all effects, including this one so no healing for the overkill damage (this isn't 100% clear, but I think it's this way). So:

13 hours ago, Le gob said:

If I flip 3 damages against an opponent with armor +1, do I heal 2 or 3 ?

2

13 hours ago, Le gob said:

Same question if he prevents 2 damage with a soulstone, do I heal 1 or 3 ?

1 (or 0 if he also has the Armor+1)

[Yore Huckleberry]

On 10/11/2019 at 7:38 PM, Mycellanious said:

so you think that hitting a model with 2 hp for 5 dmg would result in healing 5 from Drink Blood?

Edit: I’ve been persuaded, as per below comments. “damage suffered” can exceed remaining health because its calculated in step 3 of page 34. Reducing health is ONE consequence of suffering damage, takes place in step 4, and at that point you ignore additional damage FOR REDUCING HEALTH, but that doesn’t change the amount of damage that was suffered.

[solkan]

On 10/11/2019 at 6:38 PM, Mycellanious said:

so you think that hitting a model with 2 hp for 5 dmg would result in healing 5 from Drink Blood?

That is what the rules say happens.

After damage reduction, the model is suffering 5 damage.

What state the model ends up in after that isn't relevant.

 

[Yore Huckleberry]

6 hours ago, solkan said:

That is what the rules say happens.

After damage reduction, the model is suffering 5 damage.

What state the model ends up in after that isn't relevant.

 

Solkan, do you have a page reference or a ruling that would suggest the superfluous damage is not "ignored" for other game effects? I see you example about Hard to Kill above, but that's a specific rule that would over-ride a general one. It seems like the general rule is that superfluous damage is ignored for game effects, and I'm not clear why that wouldn't apply to this one?

[santaclaws01]

5 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

It seems like the general rule is that superfluous damage is ignored for game effects, and I'm not clear why that wouldn't apply to this one?

Because that's not the rule.

[Yore Huckleberry]

2 hours ago, Paddywhack said:

"If it would suffer damage that would bring its Health below 0, any additional damage is ignored." Rules manual P24.

I'm not sure what else 'ignored' means other than it doesn't exist. You ignore it, it didn't happen, it can't happen. and has no effect on the game. 

 

So, I hear @santaclaws01 and @solkan saying the rule doesn't work this way, but I'd still really like to actually see a ruling or a page reference.

I hear what Solkan wrote above that a model can "suffer" any amount of damage but sometimes another effect takes precedence, such as the restriction in going below wounds. But in the case of going below your wound count, the rules literally state that the damage is "ignored," and not that the damage "is not applied to wounds" or something like that. I'm still not seeing the case for damage being simultaneously ignored and suffered by the model.

Again, if there's a parallel ruling or an illustrative similar example or a page reference, I'm happy to be made aware of it and shift my position.

[Yore Huckleberry]

1 minute ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

 

I hear what Solkan wrote above that a model can "suffer" any amount of damage but sometimes another effect takes precedence, such as the restriction in going below wounds. But in the case of going below your wound count, the rules literally state that the damage is "ignored," and not that the damage "is not applied to wounds" or something like that. I'm still not seeing the case for damage being simultaneously ignored and suffered by the model.

 

Like, if the rulebook said "if a model suffers damage greater than its remaining wounds, its wounds are set to 0," then I would read Drink Blood as recovering 5 instead of 2. But against a rule that says the "damage is ignored," I don't see how the model is suffering it.

Edit: Hard to Kill, for example, simply says, "When this model suffers damage, if it has 2 or more health, it may not be reduced to below 1 Health." So in that circumstance, the damage is clearly all viewed as suffered at once, but the effect of receiving damage isn't able to reduce your Health below 1. But when a model receives damage equal to its Health, then the remaining damage is explicitly ignored.

It seems to me that the damage comes in as a single, indivisible amount (5), and the model then suffers that hit, but 3 of it is ignored by the death rule that calls for damage beyond remaining health to be ignored. It seems to me there's only one timing window for the damage to be ignored in, and that's the one in which it's being dealt.

[Paddywhack]

The only thing I can find is with Corrupted Idols where the specifically spell out that you can't suffer more damage than you have Health. It seems to back the intent that you don't get to benefit from something that doesn't actually take place. Sadly will likely need a FAQ to really make either side change their mind though. 

[santaclaws01]

26 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

So, I hear @santaclaws01 and @solkan saying the rule doesn't work this way, but I'd still really like to actually see a ruling or a page reference.

You want a page reference to the rule not saying something? The rule says the damage is ignored, not that the damage is ignored for game effects.

The real issue is that for effects like drink blood the rule is "If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction." And not something along the lines of "If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of health lost". So the fact that damage is ignored doesn't actually factor in, as Drink Blood doesn't care how much damage a model actually takes.


And again I wonder why suffer is used to mean two different things.

[Yore Huckleberry]

25 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

The only thing I can find is with Corrupted Idols where the specifically spell out that you can't suffer more damage than you have Health. It seems to back the intent that you don't get to benefit from something that doesn't actually take place. Sadly will likely need a FAQ to really make either side change their mind though. 

Okay, this is helpful. In the Corrupted Idols description the literal text is "A model in base contact with a Strategy Marker can take the Interact Action and suffer up to three irreducible damage, ignoring Hard to Kill. A model may not suffer more damage than its current Health."

So the question there is whether this is
1) a timely notification/reminder of a general game rule that applies here
2) a specific change to the general rules that only applies to Corrupted Idol interacts

So, rules-as-written, it simply offers it as a game rule, not a contextualized one. On the other hand, it's literally part of a strategy, so it may simply be creating that rule for that strategy, and specifically applying it only to that particular interaction.

It definitely seems like the intent in the CI example is to prevent a model from suffering damage beyond its health in order to achieve a greater benefit. On the one hand, this is when health is being used as a resource for an impact, and not when an extra benefit is being connected to dealing damage. On the other hand, it's a clear example of an effect being directly connected to the amount of damage suffered and that interaction being capped at the model's health.

I had been somewhat on the fence, but I think if I were a TO and got the question cold, this would persuade me that models don't suffer damage beyond their health because that damage is ignored.

Intriguingly, I think that if you DID target a Hard to Wound model with 2 health and deal 5, the model DOES actually suffer the full damage, since the effect changing the result is that Hard to Wound simply doesn't allow the damage to reduce the health below 1, rather than ignoring the damage directly.

[Paddywhack]

1 minute ago, santaclaws01 said:

The real issue is that for effects like drink blood the rule is "If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction." And not something along the lines of "If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of health lost". So the fact that damage is ignored doesn't actually factor in, as Drink Blood doesn't care how much damage a model actually takes.

And that circles back around to the argument that anything after 0 Health is ignored. The two rules can work together and cover different scenarios and the rule about suffered damage after reduction doesn't mean that is the only  way to alter the amount of damage suffered. They have the rule about reduction to help clear up any questions about armor, etc. and  have the rule about ignoring damage after 0 to cover instances when that happens.

So if you hit a 10wd Armor 1 model with 3 Damage we know it takes 2 after reduction. Without that line in the rulebook one could argue that it suffered '3'. The rule clears that up and we know it only suffers 2.

Another model that has 1 wound left and armor 1 is hit for 3 damage. Reduction reduces it to 2 damage then the other rule kicks in and we are told to ignore any damage that takes it below 0. It therefor only suffers 1 dmg to take it to 0 health.

Yasunari's Revel shows how another interpretation breaks the game and supports this theory (it can choose to 'suffer' 54 damage and draw the whole deck). If you only worry about reduction to count the amount 'suffered' and don't use the 'ignore damage that takes you below 0' rule, then Yasunari could 'suffer' 54 damage and draw all the cards in the deck keeping all the 13's while also forcing you redraw your hand. I'm pretty sure that wasn't intended. 

[Yore Huckleberry]

Okay: I've changed my mind: HERE is the relevant rules issue:

From page 34 of the Rulebook, the timing for damage dealing.

3. Apply damage reduction to incoming damage. Soulstone users can spend Soulstones to Reduce Damage. Any “when resolving” Triggers that reduce damage resolve at this point.
4. The model lowers its Health by an amount equal to the final damage amount.
5. Any effects that happen after a model is damaged or after a model is reduced to a specific Health, resolve at this point.

Step 3 implies that you reduce the damage, and then carry forward a damage-suffered amount.
Step 4 is a unique step in which the model lowers its health. Therefore the rule about ignoring additional damage applies narrowly here.
Step 5 specifically notes that the steps in which "a model is damaged" and "a model is reduced to a specific health" can be separate.

Given all of that, it's pretty clear that Drink Blood can use the adjusted value arrived at by step 3, while the "damage is ignored" rule only applies to the effect of lowering health.

For the record, I appreciate that @solkan basically said that above -- I just wanted someone to actually put out the clear reference of where the separate things were taking place.

[santaclaws01]

1 minute ago, Paddywhack said:

the rule about suffered damage after reduction doesn't mean that is the only  way to alter the amount of damage suffered.

Actually that's exactly what the rule says, because it tells us that the definition of damage suffered is the amount of damage a model suffers after reduction.

 

3 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

They have the rule about reduction to help clear up any questions about armor, etc. and  have the rule about ignoring damage after 0 to cover instances when that happens.

No, they have the rule about reductions to define what the term means, not to clear up any questions. Similarly, the rule for what to do about damage beyond 0 health just tells us that a model can't be damaged beyond 0 health. It is not there to "clear up" anything, it's just what the rule is.

 

5 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

So if you hit a 10wd Armor 1 model with 3 Damage we know it takes 2 after reduction. Without that line in the rulebook one could argue that it suffered '3'. The rule clears that up and we know it only suffers 2.

No, the rule doesn't clear it up, it defines it. If that line didn't exist we'd be back in 2e where no rule actually exists to define how it works.

7 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Another model that has 1 wound left and armor 1 is hit for 3 damage. Reduction reduces it to 2 damage then the other rule kicks in and we are told to ignore any damage that takes it below 0. It therefor only suffers 1 dmg to take it to 0 health.

No, the model suffered 2 damage, but only reduced it's health by 1 damage.

 

8 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Yasunari's Revel shows how another interpretation breaks the game and supports this theory (it can choose to 'suffer' 54 damage and draw the whole deck). If you only worry about reduction to count the amount 'suffered' and don't use the 'ignore damage that takes you below 0' rule, then Yasunari could 'suffer' 54 damage and draw all the cards in the deck keeping all the 13's while also forcing you redraw your hand. I'm pretty sure that wasn't intended. 

"A model can never choose to suffer damage this way if that damage would reduce their Health to 0 or below." That seems to take care of that game breaking interpretation fairly easily.

[Yore Huckleberry]

1 minute ago, santaclaws01 said:

Actually that's exactly what the rule says, because it tells us that the definition of damage suffered is the amount of damage a model suffers after reduction.

 

Right, so this is an explicit naming of the fact that you carry the value after step 3 as your defined "damage suffered."

 

[Paddywhack]

2 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

Step 3 implies that you reduce the damage, and then carry forward a damage-suffered amount.
Step 4 is a unique step in which the model lowers its health. Therefore the rule about ignoring additional damage applies narrowly here.
Step 5 specifically notes that the steps in which "a model is damaged" and "a model is reduced to a specific health" can be separate.

Given all of that, it's pretty clear that Drink Blood can use the adjusted value arrived at by step 3, while the "damage is ignored" rule only applies to the effect of lowering health.

Wait, what. Step 4 literally says 'lower by final damage amount'. Why isn't that the step that determines amount suffered? We're arguing about what constitutes the amount suffered. Drink Blood is a 'When Resolving' trigger, but it does not reduce damage. As such it doesn't resolve until Step 5. Page 12 of the rules manual actually says Step 5 of Action timing, which doesn't exist, so it's either Step 5 of Damage timing or E of Activation timing - both after step 4 has resolved.

[Paddywhack]

25 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

No, they have the rule about reductions to define what the term means, not to clear up any questions. Similarly, the rule for what to do about damage beyond 0 health just tells us that a model can't be damaged beyond 0 health. It is not there to "clear up" anything, it's just what the rule is.

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

I don't see that as a hard definition at all. It does not say something like "damage suffered equals the amount of damage after reduction". It simply says that when referencing the amount of damage suffered it has to take into account reduction - you can't use the amount suffered before reduction. Nothing in that line makes it seem like it is the final determination of the amount of damage 'suffered'. 

Along with Drink Blood not resolving until Step 5, which is after the step where you lower health and can't go below 0, why would the damage suffered be anything other than what is actually removed? There is no step that even says 'damage suffered'. Even Step 4 of Damage timing says 'damage amount'. So why isn't final 'damage suffered' not determined until Step 5?

Just going to have to wait for the FAQ. I think we're both entrenched in our interpretation. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

27 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Page 12 of the rules manual actually says Step 5 of Action timing, which doesn't exist, so it's either Step 5 of Damage timing or E of Activation timing - both after step 4 has resolved.

Small quibble. Resolving actions steps is on page 23, and step 5 includes 'when resolving' triggers. So that's what it is referring to.

The damage and heal trigger are separate effects as far as I can see, and step 5 instructs you to resolve them in the order they are listed. So you entirely resolve the damage, then the heal I believe.

[santaclaws01]

2 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

I don't see that as a hard definition at all. It does not say something like "damage suffered equals the amount of damage after reduction". It simply says that when referencing the amount of damage suffered it has to take into account reduction - you can't use the amount suffered before reduction. Nothing in that line makes it seem like it is the final determination of the amount of damage 'suffered'. 

You want to say something is game breaking but you're acting like a game rule isn't final. If the only place a term is defined says it is X, then game term means X and only X. Anything past that is an interpretation at best, and this certainty isn't at best.

8 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Along with Drink Blood not resolving until Step 5, which is after the step where you lower health and can't go below 0,

When resolving triggers do not resolve in step 5 of damage timing. 

10 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

why would the damage suffered be anything other than what is actually removed

Maybe because we are told that damage suffered means after reduction. A definition which has been repeatedly quoted verbatim as the only definition of the term that only mentions reduction as what changes the amount of damage a model suffers vs what it suffered.

12 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

There is no step that even says 'damage suffered'. Even Step 4 of Damage timing says 'damage amount'. So why isn't final 'damage suffered' not determined until Step 5?

It really doesn't matter what step between 3 and 6d it resolves in, because it doesn't care how much a model lowers it's health by, it cares about the damage after reduction is applied.