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 ?

[solkan]

24 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

"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'. 

I’m having a hard time trying to imagine what you think the necessary text would have to be for the “damaged suffered” to be determined by the amount after damage reduction.

The simplest conclusion is that it means what it says, as plain as possible.  So that once you’ve applied soul stone damage reduction, you know how much “damage suffered” is.

The alternative is that you take Drink Blood against a model with Demise(Enternal) or any other Replace or Heal on killed, throw up your hands, and never play again.

Why would you choose to give up and walk away?

 

[Yore Huckleberry]

6 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

 

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.

This is the key piece, and it’s why I was finally persuaded when I actually went to the attack steps. The trigger is based off of damage suffered (which equals damage dealt; there’s only one timing window for both and they’re identical). The definition that @solkanand @santaclaws01 keep using (damage suffered is after damage reduction) tells us when to get the damage: at the end of the reduction step.

But the “damage beyond remaining health is ignored” rule applies when you’re doing step 4: lowering health by the damage suffered. SPECIFICALLY: you have not yet done this at the end of step 3, so the definition of damage suffered is established at the end of step 3, and AT THAT TIME, nothing has occurred causing you to ignore additional damage. The damage suffered = 5.

(Then in step 4, you lower the health by the damage suffered: if this reduces it to zero, you ignore the remainder AT THIS TIME, because this is the only timing window that calls on you to compare them.)

 

It’s tight timing, but it’s persuasive and holds solid when you review it step by step.

[Myyrä]

On 10/12/2019 at 12:16 AM, 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.

I don't agree that model can suffer more damage than it actually loses health, because:

Quote

When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered.

and

Quote

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.

The rule says "would suffer", which implies that it doesn't actually suffer that much damage.

The part about damage reductions

Quote

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

is there only to clarify that damage reductions have to be taken into account as well.

Or that's my opinion at least. Anything else would directly contradict literally the first thing that is said under damage rules.

[Ogid]

I'm having a hard time following this one...

Why can drink blood not consider the Wds of the model and other effects like "Revel in Chaos" (Yasunori) consider it? Both uses the "damage suffered" wording.

[Adran]

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 10:08 AM, Ogid said:

I'm having a hard time following this one...

Why can drink blood not consider the Wds of the model and other effects like "Revel in Chaos" (Yasunori) consider it? Both uses the "damage suffered" wording.

In essence the question has moved to

Does something that is based on the "damage suffered" base it on the amount of Damage after Damage reduction has taken place, or the actual amount of wounds lost by the model.

This only differs in cases of Hard to kill, or death that I can see  as they are sources that change the amount of wounds lost, but aren't damage reduction.

[Paddywhack]

11 hours ago, Myyrä said:

is there only to clarify that damage reductions have to be taken into account as well.

Or that's my opinion at least. Anything else would directly contradict literally the first thing that is said under damage rules.

That's my read too. It's not a 'definition', its a reminder that you have to take into account damage reduction. It literally does not say that is the final step. 

Don't think anyone is changing their minds at this point. Waiting for a FAQ.... 

 

[santaclaws01]

16 hours ago, Myyrä said:

I don't agree that model can suffer more damage than it actually loses health, because:

and

The rule says "would suffer", which implies that it doesn't actually suffer that much damage.

The part about damage reductions

is there only to clarify that damage reductions have to be taken into account as well.

Or that's my opinion at least. Anything else would directly contradict literally the first thing that is said under damage rules.

So your argument is that if it didn't have the line that damage suffered means damage after reduction then a model that suffers 5 damage, reduces it by 3 would then still need to be lower their health by 5 because otherwise there would be a contradiction in the model not lowering their health by the amount of damage they suffered?

 

5 hours ago, Paddywhack said:

That's my read too. It's not a 'definition', its a reminder that you have to take into account damage reduction. It literally does not say that is the final step. 

It doesn't say it's a step period. It is telling you what the game means when it's asking you to determine how much damage a model suffered.

[Maniacal_cackle]

On 10/18/2019 at 9:38 AM, santaclaws01 said:

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.

He's not ignoring some game text, he's taking lots of game texts together. The rule book mentions 'suffer' 63 times. You can cherry pick some examples of the word suffer and say that one passage 'defines' the term, but if there are other passages that cast doubt on that, it is up for debate.

I doubt anyone here could reconcile all 63 appearances in the rulebook of the word 'suffer' very easily, so waiting for an FAQ seems like the most reasonable thing to do.

[santaclaws01]

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

He's not ignoring some game text, he's taking lots of game texts together. The rule book mentions 'suffer' 63 times. You can cherry pick some examples of the word suffer and say that one passage 'defines' the term, but if there are other passages that cast doubt on that, it is up for debate.

I doubt anyone here could reconcile all 63 appearances in the rulebook of the word 'suffer' very easily, so waiting for an FAQ seems like the most reasonable thing to do.

When only one of the uses of suffer is telling us what it means to determine how much damage a model suffered, it's in fact very easy to look at that one singular usage to tell us what it means to determine how much damage a model suffered.

[Maniacal_cackle]

9 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

When only one of the uses of suffer is telling us what it means to determine how much damage a model suffered, it's in fact very easy to look at that one singular usage to tell us what it means to determine how much damage a model suffered.

Sure, you can claim that passage is the clear-cut definition, but this passage is equally compelling:

Quote

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

Taken in isolation, your definition seems to indicate it is the amount of damage after damage reduction, and that amount only. Taken this paragraph in isolation, it refers to the amount of health the enemy's health moves.

If you take the two passages together, the understanding that amount of damage suffered = amount of health lost holds up pretty well.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Also worth noting that this passage

Quote

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

is tautological... "The amount of damage suffered is... the amount of damage suffered."

You can't actually make a full conclusion from this, as to understand this sentence, you must first understand how 'damage suffered' is defined. So it hardly seems an ironclad definition of what 'damage suffered' is.

[santaclaws01]

44 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Also worth noting that this passage

is tautological... "The amount of damage suffered is... the amount of damage suffered."

You can't actually make a full conclusion from this, as to understand this sentence, you must first understand how 'damage suffered' is defined. So it hardly seems an ironclad definition of what 'damage suffered' is.

It's not tautological, because it's telling us the the amount of damage a model is considered to have suffered vs the amount of damage a model suffers is different. If an attack causes a model to suffer 3 damage and had 1 armor, then without that rule Drink Blood would heal 3 health as the model would suffer 3 damage.

 

50 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Sure, you can claim that passage is the clear-cut definition, but this passage is equally compelling:

Taken in isolation, your definition seems to indicate it is the amount of damage after damage reduction, and that amount only. Taken this paragraph in isolation, it refers to the amount of health the enemy's health moves.

If you take the two passages together, the understanding that amount of damage suffered = amount of health lost holds up pretty well.

No it doesn't, that's telling you that you lower a models health based on the amount of damage the model suffered. It doesn't tell you that the amount of damage a model suffered is the same as how much health it loses.

[santaclaws01]

16 hours ago, Ogid said:

I'm having a hard time following this one...

Why can drink blood not consider the Wds of the model and other effects like "Revel in Chaos" (Yasunori) consider it? Both uses the "damage suffered" wording.

Because Revel In Chaos can't choose to suffer damage that would kill the model, so there's no choosing to suffer damage that would be getting ignored for taking it past 0. 

[Ogid]

4 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Because Revel In Chaos can't choose to suffer damage that would kill the model, so there's no choosing to suffer damage that would be getting ignored for taking it past 0. 

Ah, ok; because Revel in Chaos is a cost and for costs there is this rule:

Quote

 If a Trigger’s cost requires the performing model to suffer damage, that cost cannot be paid if doing so would reduce its Health to 0 or below. 

And in the damage part is the "ignored damage" versus "after damage reduction" which are applied in different points. From a RAW perspective it seems to be how you are describing...

[Myyrä]

9 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

So your argument is that if it didn't have the line that damage suffered means damage after reduction then a model that suffers 5 damage, reduces it by 3 would then still need to be lower their health by 5 because otherwise there would be a contradiction in the model not lowering their health by the amount of damage they suffered?

No. I'm saying that the line about damage suffered means damage after reduction is redundant, because because damage suffered is equal to the amount of health reduced.

[santaclaws01]

12 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

No. I'm saying that the line about damage suffered means damage after reduction is redundant, because because damage suffered is equal to the amount of health reduced.

Just because A=B doesn't mean that B=A.

[Myyrä]

11 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Just because A=B doesn't mean that B=A.

It actually does or you are misusing the symbol.

[santaclaws01]

3 hours ago, Myyrä said:

It actually does or you are misusing the symbol.

That's for math. For logic = doesn't mean both ways.

[Myyrä]

4 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

That's for math. For logic = doesn't mean both ways.

The internet does not seem to agree with you, so I can't help but think that you don't know what you are talking about. Please provide reference.

[Yore Huckleberry]

He means implication, not equivalence. The logic symbol is =>, not =, usually. A implies B does NOT mean that B implies A (although -B DOES imply -A, which is called the contrapositive).

But even with A=B, think of a square and a rectangle. A satisfying the conditions of a square means it’s a rectangle, but satisfying the conditions for a rectangle doesn’t mean it’s a square. Etc.

[Myyrä]

7 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

He means implication, not equivalence. The logic symbol is =>, not =, usually. A implies B does NOT mean that B implies A (although -B DOES imply -A, which is called the contrapositive).

Either that or any number of other non-symmetric relations.

7 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

But even with A=B, think of a square and a rectangle. A satisfying the conditions of a square means it’s a rectangle, but satisfying the conditions for a rectangle doesn’t mean it’s a square. Etc.

Now you just need to explain what squares and triangles have to do with the problem at hand.

[Ogid]

I think @santaclaws01 point is: 

The health reduced can be equal to damage suffered (damage after reduction); but it can also be lower if the damage is ignored for some game effect (hard to kill or not being able go lower than 0 Wds). Drink Blood take in count the damage suffered, not the number of Wds reduced.

Rules wise it's solid, maybe a bit unintuitive considering costs cannot be paid with more Wds than the model have but use the same wording "suffer damage".

[Maniacal_cackle]

I think once a debate reaches "implication vs. equivalence" stage, it is fairly safe to put it in the 'ambiguous enough for an FAQ' box 😂

[Ogid]

8 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think once a debate reaches "implication vs. equivalence" stage, it is fairly safe to put it in the 'ambiguous enough for an FAQ' box 😂

I think rules-wise it's clear.

Damage reduction is perfectly defined in the rules; there is a line explicitly covering how to apply a game effect that references "damage suffered" and nowhere there is a link between damage ignored and damage reduced...

It's a matter of apply what the rulebook states instead of adding words or "implications" until the rules fits how X player thinks it should be.

A FAQ won't hurt tho.

 

[Myyrä]

31 minutes ago, Ogid said:

I think rules-wise it's clear.

Damage reduction is perfectly defined in the rules; there is a line explicitly covering how to apply a game effect that references "damage suffered" and nowhere there is a link between damage ignored and damage reduced...

It's a matter of apply what the rulebook states instead of adding words or "implications" until the rules fits how X player thinks it should be.

A FAQ won't hurt tho.

 

It's so perfectly clear that I couldn't even understand what your stance on the question is.