*twitch*... "Damage" ... just want to make sure I understand this...

[Mr_Smigs]

I thought the Damage an attack causes, is the Dg on the attacking model's stat card... the Wd suffered is the end result of all the Dg modifiers...

that a model is given "Incoming Damage", then modifies it, and the result is "inflicted as Wounds"

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.

so.... Damage and Dg are two different things?

despite page 44 in the rules manual?

and suffering direct Wd loss, is considered Damage?

[Lucidicide]

so.... Damage and Dg are two different things?

despite page 44 in the rules manual?

and suffering direct Wd loss, is considered Damage?

I wouldn't say they are different things. Really, the only thing you need to do to see how it works is to say to yourself:

Anytime something is done after damage, what they are referring to is the Damage Resolution phase, NOT Damage itself.

[Dracomax]

I wouldn't say they are different things. Really, the only thing you need to do to see how it works is to say to yourself:

Anytime something is done after damage, what they are referring to is the Damage Resolution phase, NOT Damage itself.

With the proviso that damage prevention prevents damage, and therefore, rather than making it 0 damage, it makes no damage have occured at all.

[thaehl]

I wouldn't say they are different things. Really, the only thing you need to do to see how it works is to say to yourself:

Anytime something is done after damage, what they are referring to is the Damage Resolution phase, NOT Damage itself.

Bump, agreed.

[Mr_Smigs]

so... if it's affecting "damage" it really means the "damage resolution phase" unless it affect damage direction, in which case it doesn't....

huh?

what about triggers that add or change damage effects...

what about abilities that reduce damage, since they just mean the damage resolution phase, do they modify Wd damage as well, since that's damge...

what's the point of differentiating between Damage and WD inflicting attacks then?

[Lucidicide]

so... if it's affecting "damage" it really means the "damage resolution phase" unless it affect damage direction, in which case it doesn't....

huh?

what about triggers that add or change damage effects...

what about abilities that reduce damage, since they just mean the damage resolution phase, do they modify Wd damage as well, since that's damge...

what's the point of differentiating between Damage and WD inflicting attacks then?

Huh indeed! I said anything that says after damage.

Triggers that add or change damage effects usually specify a time.

Abilities that reduce damage don't mean the damage resolution phase since they don't say after damage. Armor affects incoming damage. Nothing about after damage.

You'll need to give me an actual example of something that says after damage that you don't think works if it means the damage resolution phase. I feel like your examples, vague as they are, don't specifically mention a timing.

And it's all about the timing.

And the point in differentiating between Dg and Wd is huge and vital. Dg and Wd are affected by different things and it adds a lot to the ways you can do damage.

Again, this whole "No Damage" debate all comes down to timing. Things that talk about "after damaging" are not referring to "Dg", they are referring to the Damage Resolution phase.

[Q'iq'el]

As far as I can tell, most of the triggers which add directly to Dg, go off "when damaging" and not "after causing damage" so it doesn't create any problems.

Triggers which give extra action go off after entire duel is completed by definition.

[Mr_Smigs]

OK, specifics..

since they're in there as Damage modifiers, can I choose to let armor reduce the base attack's damage to 1, then apply the critical strike enhancement?

are those bullet points (OP) a flow chart of actions?

where does Object fit into that flow chart?

what about the gunslinger's trigger that changes its Dg? is that before modifiers or after?

very specifically, it states, "when you are attacked" you go into damage resolution,

does this mean you cannot spend soul stones to do a damage reduction flip against Poison? (as you're not being attacked)

is there a notable difference between an ability like the Ice Golem's "after damaging" and the puppet fellow's "after resolving damage" effects?

how does Sub Zero interact with "no damage"?

for that matter, any "after damaging" trigger/ability, are they useless if the model does a prevention flip reducing damage to 0?

why, if after "step 1" of the "Damage resolution phase" the "damage to be done" is passed off to the defender to resolve effects...

are they not considered to have applied damage to the defender?

the defender wouldn't have to to prevention flips or use special abiliies if damage hadn't been passed to them,

"damage" values are changed, and that similarly wouldn't happen if "damage" wasn't given to the model...

how is it, this is not considered "doing damage"?

Edited November 23, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[Lucidicide]

Please note: not a Rules Marshal. Answering based on my understanding of the rulings. Thanks!

since they're in there as Damage modifiers, can I choose to let armor reduce the base attack's damage to 1, then apply the critical strike enhancement?

are those bullet points (OP) a flow chart of actions?

Yes, which also answers the Dg modifiers vs armor question. Armor cannot reduce incoming Dg before you know what it is, therefore all modifiers to Dg happen first.

where does Object fit into that flow chart?

Between 3 and 4. It functions like Armor, just at a different step and affecting Wds.

what about the gunslinger's trigger that changes its Dg? is that before modifiers or after?

Sorry, I don't know what trigger you're talking about off the top of my head. But, I would imagine it would be just like Crit Strike. All Dg from a weapon must be calculated first, see bullet point 1.

very specifically, it states, "when you are attacked" you go into damage resolution,

does this mean you cannot spend soul stones to do a damage reduction flip against Poison? (as you're not being attacked)

I'm not sure on the wording on damage prevention flips, but there are ways to take damage that aren't attacks (such as Leveticus hurting himself during the closing phase). It is my understanding that you can damage prevent any source of damage, but that may be incorrect. Someone else will have to weigh in.

is there a notable difference between an ability like the Ice Golem's "after damaging" and the puppet fellow's "after resolving damage" effects?

No.

how does Sub Zero interact with "no damage"?

Phone a friend? I can't look at the exact wording right now.

for that matter, any "after damaging" trigger/ability, are they useless if the model does a prevention flip reducing damage to 0?

Yes.

why, if after "step 1" of the "Damage resolution phase" the "damage to be done" is passed off to the defender to resolve effects...

are they not considered to have applied damage to the defender?

the defender wouldn't have to to prevention flips or use special abiliies if damage hadn't been passed to them,

"damage" values are changed, and that similarly wouldn't happen if "damage" wasn't given to the model...

how is it, this is not considered "doing damage"?

"To be done" -- it hasn't happened yet. The game is an abstraction of a process that has many potential inputs but only one possible output. As such, some language and timing seems odd, but really it flows pretty well.

Damage is passed to them, but it hasn't actually been done to them yet. It cannot be "done" until the damage resolution phase is completed.

So no, damage isn't applied once it 'leaves the weapon' because there are other factors that aren't really known just by the attack. For example, the magical power of a soulstone might actually save someone from taking the attack at all.

So although the attacker essentially gives damage to the defender, that damage isn't applied/done until the whole phase is over.

Hope that helps.

[Mr_Smigs]

if the puppet guy's slow is "after resolving damage"... doesn't that imply that it's activated separate of the damage resolution step? but still reliant on the model surviving the damage resolution step...

as opposed to the other's which are reliant on the model simply processing damage...

[Lucidicide]

if the puppet guy's slow is "after resolving damage"... doesn't that imply that it's activated separate of the damage resolution step? but still reliant on the model surviving the damage resolution step...

as opposed to the other's which are reliant on the model simply processing damage...

That makes sense, but I think it runs into a problem based on Ratty's answer. He said that "No Damage" actually aborts the damage resolution phase, so if you hit "No Damage" there would be no "after." The processes is interrupted before completion, and therefore there is no "after."

[Mr_Smigs]

then... why isn't it worded the same?

[Q'iq'el]

In my opinion there is a difference between "after damaging" and "after resolving the damage".

The former means the defender must get damaged, must go through the damage resolution and as the result of the process it must get damaged (even if it is 0 damage on entry -> no prevention -> 0 Wd on output). If the wound prevention flips turns the damage to "no damage" status, such a trigger won't go off.

The later means the defender must get damaged (so that there is damage resolution step), but whether it prevents the damage or not is irrelevant for the trigger (since it is applied after resolving the damage and not necessarily after damaging).

Edited November 23, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Lucidicide]

In my opinion there is a difference between "after damaging" and "after resolving the damage".

The former means the defender must get damaged, must go through the damage resolution and as the result of the process it must get damaged (even if it is 0 damage on entry -> no prevention -> 0 Wd on output). If the wound prevention flips turns the damage to "no damage" status, such a trigger won't go off.

The later means the defender must get damaged (so that there is damage resolution step), but whether it prevents the damage or not is irrelevant for the trigger (since it is applied after resolving the damage and not necessarily after damaging).

My inclination is to agree, but just because the phase can abort made me think maybe it wasn't "resolved."

[Mr_Smigs]

ok, so when an ability "causes damage"

it is really "initiating a damage resolution phase"

so... why does it matter if, after initiating the phase, the defending model does not suffer Wd reduction.

was "damage" not applied to the model (and by damage, going with the earlier posts, we read "damage resolution phase" )

the model experienced a "damage resolution phase"... so "damage" must have been applied.

why would the trigger not go off anyways?

[Lucidicide]

ok, so when an ability "causes damage"

it is really "initiating a damage resolution phase"

so... why does it matter if, after initiating the phase, the defending model does not suffer Wd reduction.

was "damage" not applied to the model (and by damage, going with the earlier posts, we read "damage resolution phase" )

the model experienced a "damage resolution phase"... so "damage" must have been applied.

why would the trigger not go off anyways?

Right, so this is probably where someone with a bit more authority than me can step in. The way I read Ratty's post is as follows:

There are three possible outcomes to an attack hitting:

1. A Black Joker is flipped for damage. Skip the damage resolution phase (and therefore there can be no triggers that work off of damage resolution).

2. Some amount of Dg is done, thus entering the damage resolution phase. Some of that Dg ends up as Wds on the defender.

3. Same as above, except a soulstone damage prevention flip reduces all Wds to 0, thus converting the result to No Damage.

As far as I view it, it is only #3 which is confusing.

Damage is not applied to the model until the damage resolution phase is completed. The damage resolution phase is not the application of damage, rather, it is the calculation to determine what damage should be applied. The final step in the damage resolution phase is the application of damage. As such, it is only if you successfully make it through the entire phase that any triggers, etc that come from the application of damage go off.

To me, the question is what something like "after resolving damage" means. Does that mean the successful progress through the damage resolution phase? If so, Ratty's post implies that if a damage prevention flip takes you to No Damage, then you don't successfully resolve damage because you stop moving through that phase.

However, if it is rather a more complete step in the attack process (I've resolved damage. It is No Damage.), then triggers that go off after resolving damage don't care about whether a damage resolution phase happened (and therefore would also happen if the Black Joker is flipped).

[Mr_Smigs]

see.. this is where I keep getting confused...

in this thread alone, there seems to be like four different definitions of the same freaking word.

Damage.

Is Damage

1. The Dg rating of the model (as listed in the Rules Manual)

2. The Reduction of wounds a model suffers as the result of an effect

3. The "Damage Resolution Phase"

4. the number, generated by the Dg rating of a model and other triggers that is passed off to another model during the "damage resolution phase"

or what?

i mean really, how do you explain this to a new player?

or do we just say "don't play against collette players until you've read the entire dissertation on damage and effects on the forums"?

[Lucidicide]

see.. this is where I keep getting confused...

in this thread alone, there seems to be like four different definitions of the same freaking word.

Damage.

Is Damage

1. The Dg rating of the model (as listed in the Rules Manual)

2. The Reduction of wounds a model suffers as the result of an effect

3. The "Damage Resolution Phase"

4. the number, generated by the Dg rating of a model and other triggers that is passed off to another model during the "damage resolution phase"

or what?

i mean really, how do you explain this to a new player?

or do we just say "don't play against collette players until you've read the entire dissertation on damage and effects on the forums"?

Honestly, I've taught many many people how to play this game, and I've never had a problem explaining how damage works. Most people understand that there are complexities in language and that one word can have multiple meanings (just look at your argument on reduction).

Overall, although the specific word Damage can be a bit confusing, the whole concept is not particularly confusing. In fact, it makes a lot of sense.

After an attack, you have an output X.

Take that output through process Y.

The outcome is Z.

X = Damage from weapon

Y = Damage resolution

Z = Damage applied to model

Damage is used in multiple places, and yet, the process itself is straightforward. You attack, figure out the damage, and apply that damage. Yes, there are further terms (like Wounds), and yes, the language could be cleared up.

But conceptually it's quite simple and straightforward. A bit of explanation clears it right up (for most people).

[Mr_Smigs]

but then, when is it considered "resolved"?

X Y or Z?

[Kadeton]

i mean really, how do you explain this to a new player?

I'll have a go at it...

1) Make a Damage flip with the spread listed on the card. The Damage flip is affected by twists from abilities like Hard to Wound.

2) Add any Damage modifiers from triggers like Critical Strike.

3) Subtract any Damage modifiers from relevant damage reduction, like Armor.

4) Convert the total Damage to Wounds.

5) If the target has an ability that affects the Wounds it suffers, apply it.

6) If the target has Use Soulstone, it has the option to reduce the number of Wounds inflicted with a Wound Prevention flip.

7) Reduce the target's Wd characteristic by the number of Wounds inflicted.

8) If one or more Wounds were inflicted, the target has been Damaged. Exception: If the Damage flip in step (1) was 0 damage, and no damage was negated in steps (5) or (6), the target has been Damaged.

9) If the target has been Damaged, apply any effects that occur "after damaging".

Hopefully that is sufficiently program-like for you. I'm sure I've missed things, but that's off the top of my head, and I don't think it's hard to understand.

Also, heaps of words have multiple definitions. Gaming, and game design, is not programming, however much you might like it to be! Ambiguity will happen, and interpretation will be necessary. It's a fact of life.

[Lucidicide]

but then, when is it considered "resolved"?

X Y or Z?

I would say the completion of Z.

However, I recognize the confusion this can bring in with something that says "after resolving damage."

Does this mean that you must make it through all of the steps (as flipping the Black Joker will skip Y and Z)?

I'm currently of the opinion that yes, resolving damage means figuring out what damage is (even if it is No Damage).

This is juxtaposed with after dealing damage, which actually requires an outcome in Z.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

I'll have a go at it...

1) Make a Damage flip with the spread listed on the card. The Damage flip is affected by twists from abilities like Hard to Wound.

2) Add any Damage modifiers from triggers like Critical Strike.

3) Subtract any Damage modifiers from relevant damage reduction, like Armor.

4) Convert the total Damage to Wounds.

5) If the target has an ability that affects the Wounds it suffers, apply it.

6) If the target has Use Soulstone, it has the option to reduce the number of Wounds inflicted with a Wound Prevention flip.

7) Reduce the target's Wd characteristic by the number of Wounds inflicted.

8) If one or more Wounds were inflicted, the target has been Damaged. Exception: If the Damage flip in step (1) was 0 damage, and no damage was negated in steps (5) or (6), the target has been Damaged.

9) If the target has been Damaged, apply any effects that occur "after damaging".

Hopefully that is sufficiently program-like for you. I'm sure I've missed things, but that's off the top of my head, and I don't think it's hard to understand.

Also, heaps of words have multiple definitions. Gaming, and game design, is not programming, however much you might like it to be! Ambiguity will happen, and interpretation will be necessary. It's a fact of life.

This is correct.

[Lucidicide]

This is correct.

Thanks Sketch!

If I might also borrow a moment for the "after resolving damage" question? This does not require that damage was done, correct? Just that a damage flip happened?

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Thanks Sketch!

If I might also borrow a moment for the "after resolving damage" question? This does not require that damage was done, correct? Just that a damage flip happened?

Also correct.

[Mr_Smigs]

I'll have a go at it...

1) Make a Damage flip with the spread listed on the card. The Damage flip is affected by twists from abilities like Hard to Wound.

2) Add any Damage modifiers from triggers like Critical Strike.

3) Subtract any Damage modifiers from relevant damage reduction, like Armor.

4) Convert the total Damage to Wounds.

5) If the target has an ability that affects the Wounds it suffers, apply it.

6) If the target has Use Soulstone, it has the option to reduce the number of Wounds inflicted with a Wound Prevention flip.

7) Reduce the target's Wd characteristic by the number of Wounds inflicted.

8) If one or more Wounds were inflicted, the target has been Damaged. Exception: If the Damage flip in step (1) was 0 damage, and no damage was negated in steps (5) or (6), the target has been Damaged.

9) If the target has been Damaged, apply any effects that occur "after damaging".

Hopefully that is sufficiently program-like for you. I'm sure I've missed things, but that's off the top of my head, and I don't think it's hard to understand.

step 8 is the only one still boggling my mind... but that's the whole "0 damage is damage" thing... which just isn't worth getting into a discussion here as others have it covered elsewhere...

and at what step is it considered "resolved"?

Also, heaps of words have multiple definitions. Gaming, and game design, is not programming, however much you might like it to be! Ambiguity will happen, and interpretation will be necessary. It's a fact of life.

this is why most rules manuals have an index of "game terms and their definitions" that are not open to interpretation.

like math modeling or programming, game design has to start with a standard set of definitions, a list of "givens" to avoid confusion.

when a ruling starts tweeking those definitions, they ripple through all the definitions and lead some of us to question what other definitions are wrong and need to be adjusted to match...

[Kadeton]

step 8 is the only one still boggling my mind... but that's the whole "0 damage is damage" thing... which just isn't worth getting into a discussion here as others have it covered elsewhere...

Agreed. It's just something that has to be taken as given in order for certain attacks to work properly.

and at what step is it considered "resolved"?

After Step (9) seems appropriate. Does it matter?

this is why most rules manuals have an index of "game terms and their definitions" that are not open to interpretation.

Everything is open to interpretation when it's communicated using language. Lists of common terms aren't like, for example, function definitions in programming.

like math modeling or programming, game design has to start with a standard set of definitions, a list of "givens" to avoid confusion.

when a ruling starts tweeking those definitions, they ripple through all the definitions and lead some of us to question what other definitions are wrong and need to be adjusted to match...

Yes, that's true. It's an ongoing process of interpretation and linguistic negotiation between the players and the designers.