Blasts & Zero Damage

[Drowsheep]

Hey all!

 

i have a question that came up today during a game.

A model soulstoned and reduced a damage from an attack to 0–however there is a built in blast.
 

we collectively ruled that the blast still happens since its built in.  
 

however, the rules state that when a model takes 0 damage, it is as if they suffered no damage.

 

so, I am wondering if a blast shows up if all the damage has been reduced!

 

thanks!

[solkan]

15 minutes ago, Drowsheep said:

Hey all!

 

i have a question that came up today during a game.

A model soulstoned and reduced a damage from an attack to 0–however there is a built in blast.

Here's what the event sequence should look like for a damage flip with blasts on its damage track:

Step 1:  The target of the attack can spend a soul stone to add a to the damage flip.

Step 2:  Perform the flip to determine damage.  And resolve anything that increases or adds to the damage.

If you've got a Blast, place the blasts and everyone else covered by them joins in the sequence.  Note that at this point you've determined that the target is going to suffer X damage, and the other models are going to suffer Y damage, each.  

I'll admit that the wording in the rules where it talks about suffering a damage category is a bit strange.  Usually, when the rules talk about suffering damage, they're talking about numeric values, and if you reduce a numeric value of damage to 0 you don't take any damage.  "the target suffered weak/moderate/severe" isn't talking about that, though.  It's actually just referring to 'the category of the variable flip for damage was weak/moderate/severe'.

That's part of the reason why the Black Joker rules specifically call out not generating blast markers if you flip a black joker on the damage flip.  In order to prevent the blast, and that part of the damage, you pretty much have to get a Black Joker for the damage flip result or somehow stop the damage flip from happening.

Step 3:  Damage reduction.  Now each model gets to apply damage reduction to the damage it's receiving.  They're each receiving that damage independently, the target reducing damage to 0 doesn't change or prevent the 'Y damage' that the other models are going to receive.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

The blast should still happen, I think, as blast damage is simultaneous to the main damage.

You resolve them side by side. By the time you reduce the damage with soulstone use in damage timing (page 34 of the digital rulebook), you've already started resolving the blast damage.

So that's how I would play it barring a specific ruling elsewhere.

[Drowsheep]

Awesome; that’s pretty much how I ruled it!  I just wanted to get another brain on the situation to make sure we didn’t play it wrong!

 

Thanks!

[LeperColony]

It's a bit unfortunate that Wyrd uses the same term for both the damage that is being inflicted and the damage that is actually taken.  

[Flib Jib]

12 hours ago, LeperColony said:

It's a bit unfortunate that Wyrd uses the same term for both the damage that is being inflicted and the damage that is actually taken.  

And they were so close.... Seems like they could have used 'Wounds' and made it into a mechanic. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

11 minutes ago, Thimblesage said:

And they were so close.... Seems like they could have used 'Wounds' and made it into a mechanic. 

Yeah, or just "takes damage" and "suffered damage".

If it isn't reduced yet you're taking damage. If you've reduced it or applied it you've suffered it.

[Flib Jib]

On 2/20/2020 at 9:03 PM, solkan said:

Step 1:  The target of the attack can spend a soul stone to add a to the damage flip.

I really need to remember this; I keep forgetting this is a step.

[Drowsheep]

On 2/22/2020 at 11:55 AM, Thimblesage said:

I really need to remember this; I keep forgetting this is a step.

I feel like I'd rather save the stone to prevent damage after it's been flipped--but I suppose someone could do the math on when it's better to get a negative or not (by math, I mean at what level of damage is it worth it; at 2/3/4 it seems unlikely to waste a stone, but at 2/4/5(6?) is it worth it? I have no idea).

[santaclaws01]

11 minutes ago, Drowsheep said:

I feel like I'd rather save the stone to prevent damage after it's been flipped--but I suppose someone could do the math on when it's better to get a negative or not (by math, I mean at what level of damage is it worth it; at 2/3/4 it seems unlikely to waste a stone, but at 2/4/5(6?) is it worth it? I have no idea).

There's a few factors to take into consideration. The first is how many cards your opponent has in hand. If they have a some there's a solid chance they have a severe to cheat in. The second, like you said, is the difference between weak and severe. A difference of 2 your average damage reduction flip anyways, so it's probably better to spend it on reduction. Worst case scenario there is you reduce 1 less(unless you bj). Worst case on spending it for a negative is they double flip severe damage(or flip an RJ thanks to the extra card), which is a lot worse. Third is how hot either of your decks are at the time(if you've been keeping track). If your deck is hot and theirs isn't it might be better to go for the reduction. If theirs is hot and yours isn't, go for the negative flip.

[Adran]

6 hours ago, Drowsheep said:

I feel like I'd rather save the stone to prevent damage after it's been flipped--but I suppose someone could do the math on when it's better to get a negative or not (by math, I mean at what level of damage is it worth it; at 2/3/4 it seems unlikely to waste a stone, but at 2/4/5(6?) is it worth it? I have no idea).

Generally I would say you are most likely to want to spend the stone before the flip if they are on a straight flip and the moderate is 2 more, or the sever is 3 more. 

Or when you want to do both. 

I've lost games ( well 1 game) because I forgot to put a damage on a negative.