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 ?

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, Myyrä said:

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

Let me try to break it down. Those quotes are from Damage reduction and Damage (pg 24):

Quote

Damage reduction always takes place after damage is determined, at which point the reduction amount is removed from the damage total. Irreducible damage ignores damage reduction from all game effects.

(... extra rules not relevants)

So damage reduction applied to damage using the relevant rules (Armor, Incorporeal, SS use...). This determined the final amount of final damage suffered. I'm going to call this X.

X = Final amount of damage suffered

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.

Here we are told to apply X to the model's health, reducing the health by X ammount. Unless a condition happens (bring it health below 0); in that case you apply X damage but then the aditional damage is ignored; reducing its health by Y instead. The model still took X damage, but the Wds were only reduced by Y.

Y= Amount of health reduced (without conditions Y=X)

Quote

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

Drink blood uses this "damage suffered" wording. We have to look for the right number for "damage suffered after damage reduction".

Ignored damage isn't defined as damage reduction, it's damage you don't apply to the other model for some rule (H2K) or game effect (not being able to go below 0); but that applies to the model, not to the damage itself; the damage is still X. And as this rule is making reference to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction instead of to the health lost by the other model, that number is X, not Y.

 

I can see the reasoning behind thinking it's Y because before looking at it with detail I also thought the right answer was Y. This is confusing enough to deserve a FAQ; not because there are multiple readings, but because it needs a careful reading of that part of the rules and the wording it's a bit unintuitive (damage suffered can be different to health lost)

[Myyrä]

2 hours ago, Ogid said:

Let me try to break it down. Those quotes are from Damage reduction and Damage (pg 24):

So damage reduction applied to damage using the relevant rules (Armor, Incorporeal, SS use...). This determined the final amount of final damage suffered. I'm going to call this X.

X = Final amount of damage suffered

Here we are told to apply X to the model's health, reducing the health by X ammount. Unless a condition happens (bring it health below 0); in that case you apply X damage but then the aditional damage is ignored; reducing its health by Y instead. The model still took X damage, but the Wds were only reduced by Y.

Y= Amount of health reduced (without conditions Y=X)

Drink blood uses this "damage suffered" wording. We have to look for the right number for "damage suffered after damage reduction".

Ignored damage isn't defined as damage reduction, it's damage you don't apply to the other model for some rule (H2K) or game effect (not being able to go below 0); but that applies to the model, not to the damage itself; the damage is still X. And as this rule is making reference to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction instead of to the health lost by the other model, that number is X, not Y.

 

I can see the reasoning behind thinking it's Y because before looking at it with detail I also thought the right answer was Y. This is confusing enough to deserve a FAQ; not because there are multiple readings, but because it needs a careful reading of that part of the rules and the wording it's a bit unintuitive (damage suffered can be different to health lost)

There is just one hole in this logic. Nowhere is it actually said that damage reduction is resolved at a different time than hard to kill or ignoring part of the damage because of health pool limitations. In fact if you look at the damage timing chart you will see:

1. ...
2. If there is a variable damage profile flip for damage (including any Accuracy Fate Modifiers). Any “when resolving” Triggers that increase or add damage resolve at this point.
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. ....

The only time when the model's health total changes because of the damage is at step 4. That means that the final damage amount there must include things like hard to kill and health pool limits. That final damage also happens to be the damage after damage reduction. Thus X=Y. ∎

[santaclaws01]

12 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

The only time when the model's health total changes because of the damage is at step 4. That means that the final damage amount there must include things like hard to kill and health pool limits. That final damage also happens to be the damage after damage reduction. 

This isn't necessarily true. HtK just sets a hard limit on how low a model's health can go, it doesn't need to actually change the final damage amount to work. The wording for overkill damage similarly works perfectly fine if that rule is applied in step 4, as it doesn't have to modify the final damage before step 4 to be able to work. 

 

Also, what do you do with any extra damage from HtK? It doesn't say the extra damage gets ignored, it says the model can't be reduced below 1 Wd. That means the model is still taking the damage, that damage is just unable to actually lower the model's health. And then how does that interact with overkill damage being ignored? A 2 Wd HtK model taking 6 damage isn't suffering damage that would reduce it to 0 Wds because of HtK. Does the overkill rule know that? Is 4 or 5 damage being ignored by it?

[Ogid]

This isn't really a timing issue; it's a concept issue.

Damage reduction is applied to the damage to determine X; then that X is applied to the Wds of the model, and that generates Y.

The fact something prevent the wds of the model to reduce more won't retroactively modify X; it just make X being different to Y.

In that timing list: X is determined at step 3 and Y at step 4.

The problem is it's counterintuitive: If a model with only 4 Wds get a hit of 6 damage (no damage reduction), it'll go directly to 0 Wds. If someone ask. "How much damage did that model suffer?" 4 could be legit answer. But if we go to the definition of that in the rules:

Quote

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

Then that's not the right answer, that model suffered 6 damage; 4 is the number of health it lost.

[Adran]

2 minutes ago, Ogid said:

This isn't really a timing issue; it's a concept issue.

Damage reduction is applied to the damage to determine X; then that X is applied to the Wds of the model, and that generates Y.

The fact something prevent the wds of the model to reduce more won't retroactively modify X; it just make X being different to Y.

In that timing list: X is determined at step 3 and Y at step 4.

The problem is it's counterintuitive: If a model with only 4 Wds get a hit of 6 damage (no damage reduction), it'll go directly to 0 Wds. If someone ask. "How much damage did that model suffer?" 4 could be legit answer. But if we go to the definition of that in the rules:

Then that's not the right answer, that model suffered 6 damage; 4 is the number of health it lost.

Except that the damage rules also tell us that it ignored 2 of that damage, and so actually only suffered 4 damage because that was sufficient to bring it to 0 wounds.

 

[Yore Huckleberry]

12 minutes ago, Adran said:

Except that the damage rules also tell us that it ignored 2 of that damage, and so actually only suffered 4 damage because that was sufficient to bring it to 0 wounds.

 

This is correct. Also, on the “concept” level: when Perdita shoots someone, she doesn’t shoot six bullets and four hit and drop the model and the last two drop: she shoots a bullet that does six damage. Armor reduces the strength of that to a four damage bullet, and Hard to Kill means the bullet can’t quite kill the model. But it’s a strength six bullet throughout.

And it really IS a timing issue: the rules are clear about when you reduce damage (step 3), and that damage suffered is the amount after reducing damage. Step four is after that, and is when you actually reduce health based on the damage suffered.

[Ogid]

23 minutes ago, Adran said:

Except that the damage rules also tell us that it ignored 2 of that damage, and so actually only suffered 4 damage because that was sufficient to bring it to 0 wounds.

Colloquially talking, yes it suffered 4 damage.

But using the game concepts cited above: it suffered 6 damage, 2 of it was ignored; so the model reduced its Wds by 4.

Drink Blood uses the damage suffered, not the number of Wds reduced.

8 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

And it really IS a timing issue: the rules are clear about when you reduce damage (step 3), and that damage suffered is the amount after reducing damage. Step four is after that, and is when you actually reduce health based on the damage suffered.

You are right here, they are in different steps. My point is that even if the points 3 and 4 of the damage timing were the same, this would be resolved in the same way.

[bedjy]

Well, the intent of the rule, is that the damage suffered can't be more than the life of the model suffering them. 
Sometimes, we can't know what was the intent of the designer, and some of these arguments are worth the effort. There the intent is obvious and the timing thing you're pointing at isn't that obvious. I think people can have fun arguing, but that's all for me.

[Adran]

2 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Coloquialy talking, yes it suffered 4 damage.

But using the game concepts cited above: it suffered 6 damage, 2 of it was ignored; so the model reduced its Wds by 4.

"If It would suffer damage that would bring its health below 0, any additional damage is ignored".

It means that the model never actually suffers the 6 damage. It was going to suffer 6 damage, and then the rules say, No you can't do that you only have 4 wounds.

Now this timing step might be after Drink blood has calculated  its "damage suffered therefore wounds healed", but the model in question never suffers 6 damage, any more than if this 4 wound model had Armour +1 and the initial damage was 7, it suffered 7 damage.

[Myyrä]

22 minutes ago, Ogid said:

But using the game concepts cited above: it suffered 6 damage, 2 of it was ignored; so the model reduced its Wds by 4.

By using narrow definitions of some game concepts while ignoring others, you mean? The rules do say: When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered.

[santaclaws01]

12 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

By using narrow definitions of some game concepts while ignoring others, you mean? The rules do say: When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered.

Interesting to see you say someone is using too narrow definitions considering your stance on Gunfighter and Bulletproof.

 

20 minutes ago, Adran said:

"If It would suffer damage that would bring its health below 0, any additional damage is ignored".

It means that the model never actually suffers the 6 damage. It was going to suffer 6 damage, and then the rules say, No you can't do that you only have 4 wounds.

Now this timing step might be after Drink blood has calculated  its "damage suffered therefore wounds healed", but the model in question never suffers 6 damage, any more than if this 4 wound model had Armour +1 and the initial damage was 7, it suffered 7 damage.

Here's the problem with using this to determine damage suffered as the rule is written currently.

Model A suffers 7 damage, with 4 Wds left, Armor +2 and HtK. At the current stage the model would be suffering more 4 damage, so 3 damage is ignored and now it's suffering 4 damage. But wait, the armor reduces it by 2, so now it has only suffered 2 damage. As the model is never being reduced to below 1 Wd, HtK doesn't come into effect. Obviously this isn't correct, so the overkill rule has to wait to determine if the model would suffer damage that would bring its health below 0. So now let's wait until after damage reduction is applied. The Model suffers 7 damage, and the armor reduces it down to 5. Well, we have damage after reduction, so we know how much damage the model suffered, but let's say we wait. So the 4 health HtK model is currently suffering 5 damage. Again, does the overkill rule apply now or later? Currently the model can't have it's health reduced below 1, so going off of that the overkill rule doesn't come into effect and the model suffers 5 damage but only 3 of that damage actually has an affect on the models health. Since HtK doesn't say that the extra damage is ignored that damage is still being applied, it just can't actually reduce the models health below 1. But if the model doesn't have HtK now 1 damage is being ignored. So does that mean that a model with HtK is suffering 2 more damage than the model that's being killed, even though the model with HtK actually lost less health? Or does the overkill rule not care about HtK, but in that case why does the overkill rule wait until after finding out how much damage reduction reduces the damage, but not wait for something like HtK to further modify that damage to determine if the model would be getting reduced to 0 health or not?

[Ogid]

1 minute ago, Myyrä said:

By using narrow definitions of some game concepts while ignoring others, you mean? The rules do say: When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered.

Lol. It's funny that's exactly what you are doing, not what I'm doing. This is the full rule:

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.

So damage suffered = to health loss, except in the case you opportunely leave out.

 

7 minutes ago, Adran said:

"If It would suffer damage that would bring its health below 0, any additional damage is ignored".

It means that the model never actually suffers the 6 damage. It was going to suffer 6 damage, and then the rules say, No you can't do that you only have 4 wounds.

Now this timing step might be after Drink blood has calculated  its "damage suffered therefore wounds healed", but the model in question never suffers 6 damage, any more than if this 4 wound model had Armour +1 and the initial damage was 7, it suffered 7 damage.

The problem is that use of damage suffered isn't supported by the rules. This is what rules Drink Blood:

Quote

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

I'm going to rename the above concept to make it clearer:

"Damage suffered" for the game means: "Force of the impact" (after damage reduction).

If the "Force of the impact" is higher than the Wds of the model, that model ignores part of the "Force of the impact" when reducing its Wds to never go below 0 Wds; but it doesn't modfy the "Force of the impact", the model just ignore part of it.

Drink blood doesn't take in count the Wds reduced, it take in count the "Force of the impact".

 

For this to be as you are defending other wording would be needed. This could be an overlook because these concepts are related and it's not hard to mix them up; but unless Wyrd say something about it; that's what the rules say. A model ignoring part of the damage/force of the impact doesn't retroactively modify it.

Something like this would be needed:

Quote

If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction or the number of Wds lost, whichever is lower.

The bolded text isn't part of the rules.

[Adran]

56 minutes ago, Ogid said:

 

So damage suffered = to health loss, except in the case you opportunely leave out.

 

 

The bolded text isn't part of the rules.

 the underlined text isn't part of the rules either. 

The two parts of the rules differ. 

I don't know how it would affect drink blood, but I'm sure the rules I told you are the rules written. 

There are potentially 3 different amounts of damage suffered for 1 attack,

the amount that the attack says it suffers. 

The amount it suffers after damage reduction

The amount it actually suffers.

They are all steps in the rules 

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

 the underlined text isn't part of the rules either. 

Ok... let's check 2 examples: 

• 6 damage after reduction, 8 Wds left, 6 damage suffered. 6 = 6 
• 6 damage after reduction, 4 Wds left, 4 damage suffered, 2 damage ignored. 6 = 4

Unless somehow 6 = 4 the underlined text is part of the rules.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

There are potentially 3 different amounts of damage suffered for 1 attack,

the amount that the attack says it suffers. 

The amount it suffers after damage reduction

The amount it actually suffers.

And you just solved it again!

As I already pointed 3 times in this page; we have this other rule stating which is the right damage to use.

Quote

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

[Adran]

16 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Ok... let's check 2 examples: 

• 6 damage after reduction, 8 Wds left, 6 damage suffered. 6 = 6 
• 6 damage after reduction, 4 Wds left, 4 damage suffered, 2 damage ignored. 6 = 4

Unless somehow 6 = 4 the underlined text is part of the rules.

 

Or the other text You dismissed as not in the rules instead of the text you added to the rules is the way.  

Or you read my answer and see damage suffered is a game term that has different values at different parts of the process. 

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

I think there are multiple potentially valid interpretations here, but one of them is being outright dismissed. I think it a pretty reasonable interpretation.

Situation:

• You hit a model for 5, but it only has 2 health left.

Claim:

• The model suffers 2 damage.

Reconciling this with the rules:

Quote

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

Here we have a self-referential statement, but it is satisfied. The damage suffered is after damage reduction (though not necessarily IIMMEDIATELY after damage reduction, as it does not say anything about that). In addition, since this is self-referential, it can't possibly be the sole defining characteristic of 'damage suffered.' We have to take it alongside other aspects of the rules.

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.

IF a model would suffer damage that would bring its health below 0, any additional damage is ignored. The above claim is compatible with this passage as well. If a model is hit for five, all but 2 of it is ignored (so it never happens). It is compatible with this claim as well.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Incidentally, another appealing aspect of this method of interpretation is I suspect it provides a clean solution to the Ashes and Dust conundrum.

If the "amount of health moved = final damage suffered", then the Ashes and Dust necrotic decay issue becomes smoother (although there still is the question of the cost, I would infer that the cost is referring to post damage reduction damage).

 

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Or the other text You dismissed as not in the rules instead of the text you added to the rules is the way.  

Why don't you try to elaborate more your point instead of writing tonge twisters and spamming? If you check my first answer of this thread you can see I changed my mind about how this works thanks to @solkan and @santaclaws01 arguments.

Give me a solid reasoning to work with and I will give it at least the benefice of the doubt.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Or you read my answer and see damage suffered is a game term that has different values at different parts of the process. 

I read it. If you had read mine you'd had seen that there is a line in the rules pointing to one of the damage steps you named, even using the exact same wording you used. Explaining why you think that line isn't enough would be a good first step.

 

45 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

IF a model would suffer damage that would bring its health below 0, any additional damage is ignored. The above claim is compatible with this passage as well. If a model is hit for five, all but 2 of it is ignored (so it never happens). It is compatible with this claim as well.

I think the key is here. The model ignore that damage, it doesn't reduce it to make it match his Wds. It was still hit by 5 damage but you can only reduce his Wds to 0, not beyond.

That rule is modifying how much damage that particular model takes, but it doesn't modify the damage itself. And the above claim is making reference to the damage itself (not to the damage taken by the model) to put a number to the game effects.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Ogid said:

I think the key is here. The model ignore that damage, it doesn't reduce it to make it match his Wds. It was still hit by 5 damage but you can only reduce his Wds to 0, not beyond.

That rule is modifying how much damage that particular model takes, but it doesn't modify the damage itself. And the above claim is making reference to the damage itself (not to the damage taken by the model) to put a number to the game effects.

It doens't modify the damage itself, but it does modify the damage SUFFERED.

Consider this scenario:

• You hit a model for 5 damage.
• That model has 2 wounds left and 1 armor.

Here I would say that the model was hit for 5 damage, and suffered 2 damage.

[santaclaws01]

26 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Incidentally, another appealing aspect of this method of interpretation is I suspect it provides a clean solution to the Ashes and Dust conundrum.

The "amount of health moved = final damage suffered", then the Ashes and Dust necrotic decay issue becomes smoother (although there still is the question of the cost, I would infer that the cost is referring to post damage reduction damage).

 

Neither resolution to this question changes anything about the Incorporeal and Necrotic Decay interaction.

[Ogid]

10 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

It doens't modify the damage itself, but it does modify the damage SUFFERED.

Yeah suffered by that model, however that damage was modified by ignoring it, not by reducing it. The above rule say we take in count the damage after damage reduction (not the damage taken by the model / amount of health it lost)

10 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Consider this scenario:

• You hit a model for 5 damage.
• That model has 2 wounds left and 1 armor.

Here I would say that the model was hit for 5 damage, and suffered 2 damage.

It was hit by 5 damage, 4 after applying damage reductions. As the model only has 2 Wds left: 2 of it was ignored and 2 of it was suffered by the model.

The above rules say we must use the damage after damage reduction; I'd say that's value is 4, not 2.

[Maniacal_cackle]

6 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Yeah suffered by that model, however that damage was modified by ignoring it, not by reducing it. The above rule say we take in count the damage after damage reduction.

As above, this condition is satisfied (the 'final' damage suffered of 'health moved two' is after damage reduction). Damage reduction isn't the ONLY factor taken into account, but we have satisfied the condition (take damage reduction into account).

6 minutes ago, Ogid said:

It was hit by 5 damage, 4 after applying damage reductions. As the model only has 2 Wds left: 2 of it was ignored and 2 of it was suffered by the model.

Well, this is how ambiguous it is. Even here in explaining, you are saying "2 of [the damage] was suffered by the model." If the model suffered 2 damage, you heal 2.

There isn't a separate "damage suffered" from the perspective of the drink blood model and from the perspective of the model hit. There's only one amount of "damage suffered."

[Myyrä]

4 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Yeah suffered by that model, however that damage was modified by ignoring it, not by reducing it. The above rule say we take in count the damage after damage reduction (not the damage taken by the model / amount of health it lost)

This rule says that: When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered.

No rule says that you do not take into account the other stuff that modifies the final damage total.

The only way what you suggest would work is if the rules are self-contradictory. I'll take the simpler explanation that doesn't require assumptions about contradicting rules any day.

[santaclaws01]

2 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

This rule says that: When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered.

No rule says that you do not take into account the other stuff that modifies the final damage total.

No rule says that the amount health a model loses can't be modified by things after you determine how much damage it suffered.

[Myyrä]

Just now, santaclaws01 said:

No rule says that the amount health a model loses can't be modified by things after you determine how much damage it suffered.

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