On damage triggers and wound prevention

[Cunning]

Until today I thought I had the rules regarding damage and wounds completely straight in my head but a ruling regarding poison has knocked this out of joint so some help would be appreciated.

When someone takes damage (say from a strike) this is affected by various factors (armour, halved on spirits if non magical). Once the total has been worked out this total is applied as wounds on the target. At this point any triggers that take effect on damage are applied.

Afterwards if the target has use soulstones they can prevent the wounds done with a flip. However even if the flip means no wounds are caused damage was still applied so the on damage trigger is not affected.

However it was today ruled that poison (an on damage effect) would not be applied if all the wounds were prevented.

I can't see why this would be the case as wounds and damage are clearly differentiated in the rules manual. Could an RM step through this for me and point out where I've made a mistake in the above?

Thanks.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

You have to view it as No Damage means just that, No Damage.

0 is still a numeral.

When you prevent, you prevent not to "0" but to "No Damage".

[Cunning]

But as far as I'm aware Damage and Wounds are keyword in malifaux. Preventing wounds does not prevent damage as they happen at different stages. Just as if abilities cause wounds then no damage is caused as that step is skipped completely.

My problem is not that no damage is different from 0 damage but that preventing wounds is nor the same as preventing damage.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Then I must not be understanding the question.

If my model prevents all the wounds done to it with a Prevention Flip, it has taken "No Damage".

If my model is stricken by a weapon that does "0" Damage (from the weapon's listing), my model has suffered "0 Damage and 0 Wounds would be applied. Damaging and wounding effects would still apply.

Does that help a little better? It's a hard disconnect between 0 Damage and No Damage I realize.

[Calmdown]

I think the question is less about the difference between 0 and none, and more that this seems to be contrary to rulebook rules:

What happens in between suffering damage and taking wounds?

We've always played it as a step-based process:

Something inflicts Dg (eg - most things)

That Dg is altered by anything relevant (eg armour)

The model suffers Wd equal to the final Dg total

Working example: Abilities that cause Wd directly, implicitly do not cause Dg, and are not affected by things like Armour.

As spending a soulstone specifically prevents Wd (rulebook), and is done at the "Wound step", then whether or not you use a soulstone is irrelevent to whether or not you have caused Dg. If I do 2 Dg to a target and it uses a soulstone to prevent the resulting Wd, then it may suffer 0 Wd but it has still suffered 2 Dg, right?

[Cunning]

Okay let me give an example.

Lelu hit's Hoffman with paired claws on a straight damage flip. He flips a 3 (low damage) and causes 2 damage. Hoffman currently has armour +1 from a construct in b2b so the damage is reduced to 1. No more modifiers are applied so 1 damage is done.

At this point poison (which is applied on damage) takes effect.

Next we resolved wounds.

Hoffman burns a soulstone to prevent wounds. He flips a 2 and prevents 1 wound(not 1 damage)

So he took 1 damage which cause 1 wound but the wound was prevented.

So damage taken = 1

Wounds caused = 0

As damage was still caused he recieves 2 poison counters.

The point is damage and wounds are distinct. Damage cause wounds but preventing wounds doesn't prevent damage.

Is this not the case as I have always been sure that the RM stated that it was?

[Fetid Strumpet]

That's how I always saw it Calmdown, and how, in this instance, I assumed things like poison worked. It wasn't totally clear and I saw a grey area of interpretation.

The ruling and distinction between 0 wounds and no wounds but getting around the dmg step...omg my brain hurts already and I usually get and enjoy looking at abstruse rules.

[ProdigalPunk]

I think part of the problem is this Black Joker = "No Damage" not Zero Damage. I get the idea behind it, but too many things in this game have duel natures. If you flip a severe on the Guild Captains gun, then the Black Joker, then the Black Joker reverts back to 0?

[Ratty]

When you are attacked, you Resolve Damage. Damage Resolution is the whole process from being hit to you models Wound Total being changed. In the Damage Resolution Phase you

• Work out how much Dg the Weapon has caused. including triggers and other bonuses.
  
• You take that value and modify it with Armour and Spirit etc. This gives you the final Dg total.
  
• You then change Dg to Wds.
  
• It's at this point you prevent Wds by spending soulstones.
  
• Any Wds remaining are applied to the model.
  

At the end of the Damage Resolution Phase any Wounds Taken is the amount of Damage a attack has caused. Even if this total is 0 Damage, the attack counts as damaging as it has went through the Damage Resolution Phase.

If a Black Joker is flipped for damage, "No Damage" is Caused and therefore Damage Resolution never happens and effects that work on Damaging therefore do nothing.

When you lower damage with Prevention, IE. by spending a Soulstone, if there are no Wounds left after Prevention you also count as having caused "No Damage" and the Damage Resolution is interupted and effects that work on Damaging do nothing.

[pgbsamurai]

Okay let me give an example.

Lelu hit's Hoffman with paired claws on a straight damage flip. He flips a 3 (low damage) and causes 2 damage. Hoffman currently has armour +1 from a construct in b2b so the damage is reduced to 1. No more modifiers are applied so 1 damage is done.

At this point poison (which is applied on damage) takes effect.

Next we resolved wounds.

Hoffman burns a soulstone to prevent wounds. He flips a 2 and prevents 1 wound(not 1 damage)

So he took 1 damage which cause 1 wound but the wound was prevented.

So damage taken = 1

Wounds caused = 0

As damage was still caused he recieves 2 poison counters.

The point is damage and wounds are distinct. Damage cause wounds but preventing wounds doesn't prevent damage.

Is this not the case as I have always been sure that the RM stated that it was?

I was under the impression that poison went off on a Hit, not on the application of damage.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I think it is that last statement that is so counter-intuitive that it makes my head hurt.

So you are saying that even though Dmg got through and was then converted to wounds a prevention flip that prevents WDs, if it prevents all wounds, now means that we go back a step and say that no dmg was caused even though we have already conveted that dmg into potential wounds?

Anyone have an Advil?

[Calmdown]

With Ratty's post it makes perfect sense.

Although it seems again like a case of 'explanation to fit the ruling', working backwards rather than a conclusion that can be drawn logically.

The problem arises because of this part:

"If any wounds were done, you caused damage"

Where damage was previously a keyword (Dg) and is now just a word.

Perfectly obvious working when you understand the intention but not in terms of rules as written.

[Cunning]

When you lower damage with Prevention, IE. by spending a Soulstone, if there are no Wounds left after Prevention you also count as having caused "No Damage" and the Damage Resolution is interupted and effects that work on Damaging do nothing.

This is the bit which confuses me. Originally it was damage prevention but since the rules manual it has been changed to wound prevention which lead me to believe these are 2 different things.

This is getting tricky, and I'd wager the only people who are going to treat a 0 damage flip (not from the Black Joker, but from damage tracks) as damaging the model are those who read these posts.

That's the problem with a lot of these rulings. They're counter intuitive and not easy to understand the reasoning so everytime it comes up the person who has actually read the official version will sound like they're clutching at straws.

Edited September 12, 2011 by CunningStunt

[jengland]

That's the problem with a lot of these rulings. They're counter intuitive and not easy to understand the reasoning so everytime it comes up the person who has actually read the official version will sound like they're clutching at straws.

I feel your pain. Seems everytime I play something comes up that just seems wrong or lackluster. Maybe it's just me but something just doesn't click sometimes. I love the game setting and mechanics but sometimes things just don't feel right. Does this make any sense?

[EvilGez]

Reading over the various "rulings", I am coming to the opinion that many of them are little more than an intereptation given by any other player. Yes the marshals have a great deal of experience, but the justifications and rulings seem off, particularly in regard to how the rules manual has been written.

I come here now just to find out what other people are having difficulties with, and their intrepretations to guide me when we encounter the issues in our scene.

In regards to this topic, I would say that if you flipped a card for damage, other then the black joker, and there were no armour style modifiers reducing the damage flip to zero, you have done damage. Wound prevention would stop the model suffering wounds, but they were still hit in the face with the weapon.

[Stonedog-7]

I'm not finding it all that confusing, Ratty's explanation seemed pretty solid

The only part that baffles me slightly is the logic behind

At the end of the Damage Resolution Phase any Wounds Taken is the amount of Damage a attack has caused. Even if this total is 0 Damage, the attack counts as damaging as it has went through the Damage Resolution Phase.

Surely it would have been easier to count Soulstone Wound Prevention as a final step in damage resolution and if the total was 0, then no damage was dealt... but then i'm not a rules marshall and don't study the rules interractions all that closely myself

That said, if that's the ruling then that's how i'll play it... worst case the occasional time when a damage does 0 with an "on damage" effect will get brushed over *shrug*

[Adran]

I'm not finding it all that confusing, Ratty's explanation seemed pretty solid

The only part that baffles me slightly is the logic behind

Surely it would have been easier to count Soulstone Wound Prevention as a final step in damage resolution and if the total was 0, then no damage was dealt... but then i'm not a rules marshall and don't study the rules interractions all that closely myself

That said, if that's the ruling then that's how i'll play it... worst case the occasional time when a damage does 0 with an "on damage" effect will get brushed over *shrug*

Basically if the rules were as you said it, the Performers poision ring is nearly completly pointless.

They are pretty much the only time you need 0 damage to be different from No damage. (Its also the only weapon apart from bash that I can think of with a 0 in the damage line, which is the only time 0 damage can be dealt )

Edit

Sorry didn't mean to necro, wasn't payign attention to which windo I was reading.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Adran

[i_was_like_you]

Basically if the rules were as you said it, the Performers poision ring is nearly completly pointless.

They are pretty much the only time you need 0 damage to be different from No damage. (Its also the only weapon apart from bash that I can think of with a 0 in the damage line, which is the only time 0 damage can be dealt )

Edit

Sorry didn't mean to necro, wasn't payign attention to which windo I was reading.

Yeah, the Performer's ring, by itself, does seem kinda pointless, now.

To me, the 0s seem less bothersome with this ruling than the 1s. 0 = no damage, nothing further happens. Fine. We may not like it, but we can roll with it.

When it comes to 1 Dg, though, if we're attacking a model that has Use Soulstone, now they can just prevent the Wounds, back up a step, not take Damage, and no longer receive Poison. Before, sure, we might get lucky and get the 1 Dg in there, that couldn't be reduced below 1 by armors or even object (once we get to the Wds step), which would be enough, even if the Wounds were prevented to at least get the Poison in there, which may, in itself, become a death sentence for that model (likely our goal with that choice of attack during this activation). With the added guarantee that there is only a 1 in 54 chance that the 1 Wd will not be negated by a Prevention Flip, Poison just got a lot harder to stick a model with.

Going with the Twisting Fates wording of Shrug Off (Latigo Pistolero) and Dispel Magic (Witchling Handler) and similar spells and abilities, the Ortegas and other models can already ditch Poison tokens with ease. It only costs one of them a 0 or a 1 to do so, and maybe 1 Wd if it has to activate to remove the token from itself.

So, it may be more balanced to have Wound Prevention rewind the clock to Prevent Damage a lot of times, but, being that it is counter-intuitive and gives crews with spells or abilities like Shrug Off even more of an advantage, some more deliberation may be in order.

[Tograth]

No, guys. read it again. 0 damage is not the same thing as No damage.

what this means is that if a performer flips a 2 for damage, they would inflict 0 damage, but their poison would go off. If they flipped a black joker, then they do No damage, and nothing further happens.

[Kadeton]

Yeah, the Performer's ring, by itself, does seem kinda pointless, now.

As an aside from the main discussion in this thread, I really don't get why anyone cares about the Performer's ring being somehow made worse by this ruling. Performers always have something more useful to do than scratch people with ring attacks. Even if you do waste an action on scratching someone, having them spend a Soulstone to prevent the poison is perfectly okay by me - that's one more Soulstone they don't have for preventing damage that actually matters.

On topic, I think the ruling is strange given the way the Rules Manual is worded, but it works once you get your head around it. The intent seems clear. It would be nice to get confirmation that this also applies to other ways in which damage can be negated (like Jack Daw's immunity) - even though it seems perfectly straightforward, some people are never convinced unless it's explicitly stated.

[i_was_like_you]

As an aside from the main discussion in this thread, I really don't get why anyone cares about the Performer's ring being somehow made worse by this ruling. Performers always have something more useful to do than scratch people with ring attacks. Even if you do waste an action on scratching someone, having them spend a Soulstone to prevent the poison is perfectly okay by me - that's one more Soulstone they don't have for preventing damage that actually matters.

On topic, I think the ruling is strange given the way the Rules Manual is worded, but it works once you get your head around it. The intent seems clear. It would be nice to get confirmation that this also applies to other ways in which damage can be negated (like Jack Daw's immunity) - even though it seems perfectly straightforward, some people are never convinced unless it's explicitly stated.

Speaking for myself, I wasn't referring to using AP to make a ring attack. I was referring to the trigger of Fatal Distraction for their spell Seduction which grants a melee or ranged Strike against the target. When it comes to prevent this Wound or suffer Poison which is going to kill that model as soon as it activates, I'd say it matters quite a bit. Sure, there are better uses for AP, such as just spamming Expensive Gift until their soulstone pool is bone dry, but, depending on the situation at the time, I'd probably rather kill the model with Use Soulstone so that I don't have to face it later.

As far as explicitly stating things, that's what rules are: Explicit statements that accurately explain a principle, such as how a model in a game may interact with other such models.

As far as Jack, well, until we hear further about it on yet another thread, here's the one I posted this thread's link to:

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26788

[Kadeton]

Speaking for myself, I wasn't referring to using AP to make a ring attack. I was referring to the trigger of Fatal Distraction for their spell Seduction which grants a melee or ranged Strike against the target. When it comes to prevent this Wound or suffer Poison which is going to kill that model as soon as it activates, I'd say it matters quite a bit. Sure, there are better uses for AP, such as just spamming Expensive Gift until their soulstone pool is bone dry, but, depending on the situation at the time, I'd probably rather kill the model with Use Soulstone so that I don't have to face it later.

Fair enough, I clearly use my Showgirls quite differently to you. I doubt I would ever bother using a Performer to Seduce a target that was only on 2 Wd - far better to nuke it to death with Colette for the free soulstone. It's a situation that might come up once in a hundred games, and with this ruling, you can now adjust your tactics so as to not rely on such a thing.

As far as explicitly stating things, that's what rules are: Explicit statements that accurately explain a principle, such as how a model in a game may interact with other such models.

No, that's more like an ideal of what rules should be. What rules actually are is an attempt to translate the designer's intent, which require interpretation (like all language) in order to be understood. There are always tradeoffs between clarity and brevity, accuracy and simplicity, accessibility and terminology, etc. People who read the letter of the rules as the intent of the rules are misleading themselves.

[i_was_like_you]

No, that's more like an ideal of what rules should be. What rules actually are is an attempt to translate the designer's intent, which require interpretation (like all language) in order to be understood. There are always tradeoffs between clarity and brevity, accuracy and simplicity, accessibility and terminology, etc. People who read the letter of the rules as the intent of the rules are misleading themselves.

Usually I see the opposite. As in, people think they know the intent of the rules, and take the intent to be the letter of the rules.

As I've said before regarding Malifaux, the fluff of the story does show us a pretty clear picture of what the intent is in some cases, but, for one reason or another, the final rulings are not only counter-intuitive, but completely defy what the characters have been shown to do. The abilities of each model are an interpretation of how the character has been envisioned. Sometimes those abilities prove to be far too powerful after being translated into in-game rules or after those in-game rules interact with other rules and other models and their abilities. It happens. Rush jobs at patching one model (or a handful of models with similar abilities) lead to even more problems, so patience is a must.

I think that adding in something like placeholder rulings until further deliberation yields a balanced and fair final ruling might be a good option to exercise.

[Kadeton]

As I've said before regarding Malifaux, the fluff of the story does show us a pretty clear picture of what the intent is in some cases, but, for one reason or another, the final rulings are not only counter-intuitive, but completely defy what the characters have been shown to do. The abilities of each model are an interpretation of how the character has been envisioned. Sometimes those abilities prove to be far too powerful after being translated into in-game rules or after those in-game rules interact with other rules and other models and their abilities. It happens. Rush jobs at patching one model (or a handful of models with similar abilities) lead to even more problems, so patience is a must.

I think that adding in something like placeholder rulings until further deliberation yields a balanced and fair final ruling might be a good option to exercise.

Interesting! I got in too late for the Book 1 fluff, it's not in print any more, so I don't know the differences between how the characters have been envisioned and how their rules work. But I hadn't thought of the design process working in that direction, it's a cool thought.

When the final rulings are counter-intuitive, wouldn't that suggest that to rule the other way would "prove far too powerful" - and not necessarily in that particular case, but perhaps in some other situation that uses similar rules? I feel that is the main cause of delays in rulings: having to check everything else that works in similar ways in order to make sure that nothing fundamentally breaks. After all, they can't rule one way on one situation and the other way on another if the mechanisms are the same... consistency in the rule set is actually more important (in my opinion) than any other consideration.

I totally agree with you that placeholder rulings would be very nice. I'd also personally like to see more discussion about why a particular ruling was made - what other situations were considered, what rules interactions came up in the discussion, and so on. Of course, no games company does that, but I can still dream.

[magicpockets]

No, guys. read it again. 0 damage is not the same thing as No damage.

what this means is that if a performer flips a 2 for damage, they would inflict 0 damage, but their poison would go off. If they flipped a black joker, then they do No damage, and nothing further happens.

Until a master wants to do a damage prevention flip, tries to reduce "0 wounds" to "no wounds", and the universe implodes killing us all...

[Cunning]

They really need to switch poison back to being on hit rather than on damage so they can put this whole messy business behind them.