Poison Ring vs Armor

[Mr_Smigs]

Armor "reduces damage to a minimum of 1"

the Ring does 0 damage...

since armor says it's a minimum of 1,

does that mean it enhances the ring's damage?

[Keegantir]

Reduce means lowers. 0 does not reduce up to 1.

[Lucidicide]

It does end up looking a bit strange, but I agree with Keegantir. Armor only comes into play if Dg > 1.

[Mr_Smigs]

It does end up looking a bit strange, but I agree with Keegantir. Armor only comes into play if Dg > 1.

that may be the intent. but not the wording of the rules.

armor clearly states that the damage is a MINIMUM of 1.

algebraically, if you reduce, by a negative, you can increase the value.

so reduce, isn't the operative word,

minimum is.

Armor makes damage >= 1.

[Kadeton]

No, I think "reduce" is definitely the operative word in this case.

You can't "reduce" by a negative amount. You can subtract a negative number from a number, but that won't "reduce" the original number - reduction only goes down (otherwise it's an "increase"). This is reinforced by the word "down" in the ability's description.

Also, did you seriously think that Armor was intended to change 0 damage to 1 damage? Come on.

[karn987]

No, I think "reduce" is definitely the operative word in this case.

You can't "reduce" by a negative amount. You can subtract a negative number from a number, but that won't "reduce" the original number - reduction only goes down (otherwise it's an "increase"). This is reinforced by the word "down" in the ability's description.

Also, did you seriously think that Armor was intended to change 0 damage to 1 damage? Come on.

I'm rather sure he doesn't think it was intended to work that way. It more seems to the point of Smigs is trying to point out an odd interaction with the rules taken at RAW.

But yes, I did get a good chuckle out of this thread as it had never actually occurred to me until now heh. But Common sense really should kick in here, you can't reduce 0 to 1. Though that other thread about damage, 0 and what counts as no damage really did sorta throw a major wrench into things. *rubs beard*

[Mr_Smigs]

Though that other thread about damage, 0 and what counts as no damage really did sorta throw a major wrench into things. *rubs beard*

bingo...

and even before that....

as the player I know who runs the girls asked...

"why is there even a weapon that does 0 damage in the first place?"

the intent of armor is clearly "will not negate all damage"

but the intent of the poison ring is also clearly "doesn't really do damage, but applies poison"

unfortunately, as written it causes a conundrum...

and it opens the argument that a model with the ability to perform damage prevention flips is immune to 0 damage weapons...

1. "If a damage prevention flip removes the damage to be done, then no damage is done and thus no effects..."

2. If i choose not to spend the soul stone, then 0 damage is prevented by the ability.

3. the ring does 0 damage.

4. 0 damage was prevented, this is the damage the ring would do. therefor no damage is done.

5. thus no poison.

but that's not the concern here.

the concern is the wording (as written) giving free damage to a model that is not intended (as written) to do damage.

how you define "reduce" has a lot to do with your perspective and background...

we could use the definition of "reduce" that implies lessening the complexity of the concept. splitting hairs between "no damage" and "0 damage" is pretty complex...

armor "reduces" this complexity by saying "this model never has to worry about 0 damage ratings... it either takes damage, or it doesn't."

Edited November 23, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[Ratty]

Not really

re·duce

[ri-doos, -dyoos] Show IPA verb, -duced, -duc·ing.

verb (used with object)

1. to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc.: to reduce one's weight by 10 pounds.

2. to lower in degree, intensity, etc.: to reduce the speed of a car.

3. to bring down to a lower rank, dignity, etc.: a sergeant reduced to a corporal

4. to treat analytically, as a complex idea.

5. to lower in price.

You can't reduce to a larger number, reduce != subtract. 0 is a smaller number than 1.

So says the Rules Marshal with 2 A-levels in maths, and who went to Cambridge for Engineering and Computing. If your going to make a mathmatical argument get your facts right.

[Mr_Smigs]

dude, right there, in your quote.

#4.

reducing in complexity.

and please, with your 2-A levels in math, from cambridge in engineering and computing...

explain what mathematical operations we use when "reducing" a number, like say "speed" .

Like say in the word problem "Jim is traveling at 44 miles per hour, if he reduces his speed by 20 miles per hour, how fast is he traveling?"

[karn987]

dude, right there, in your quote.

#4.

reducing in complexity.

and please, with your 2-A levels in math, from cambridge in engineering and computing...

explain what mathematical operations we use when "reducing" a number, like say "speed" .

Like say in the word problem "Jim is traveling at 44 miles per hour, if he reduces his speed by 20 miles per hour, how fast is he traveling?"

Come on Smigs... at this point your just arguing semantics for the sake of arguing.

You know the intention, I know your not crazy enough to really believe this is the way the rule was intended to work. You can not reduce 0 to 1 in this case.

If you can't stand not having the rules written in your book the way they are meant to be read, then get out a pen and change them. Or add sticky notes to pages where clarifications tweaked the RAW towards common sense.

But it's already obvious how this is supposed to work. So your just beating a dead horse with this and serving to help no one.

[Ratty]

dude, right there, in your quote.

#4.

reducing in complexity.

and please, with your 2-A levels in math, from cambridge in engineering and computing...

explain what mathematical operations we use when "reducing" a number, like say "speed" .

Like say in the word problem "Jim is traveling at 44 miles per hour, if he reduces his speed by 20 miles per hour, how fast is he traveling?"

This is not a fraction or complex equation therefore we can't use that definition. Nor is this Electrical Engineering where it means something different. Therefore you would use the most common definition IE 1. to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc.: to reduce one's weight by 10 pounds..

[mythicFOX]

Cannot quite believe we're having this conversation.

Anyone want to chip in for some dynamite for Smigs' bridge?

[Mr_Smigs]

If you can't stand not having the rules written in your book the way they are meant to be read, then get out a pen and change them. Or add sticky notes to pages where clarifications tweaked the RAW towards common sense.

there are times I do just that, with the sticky notes...

it's the "minimum of 1" and "damage 0" thing that keeps me boggled...

how can I have a 0 if the minumum the ability allows is 1?

isn't 0 less than 1 (engineering and complex math aside)?

but at this point, since it's become clear with the "let's blow up Smigs" comment getting by the filters, that there's really no positive direction this can go...

[Lucidicide]

So I would say the answer to this is simple.

Attack does 0Dg.

Check Armor. Can Armor reduce Dg? No. Armor doesn't apply.

0Dg converts to 0Wd.

Etc.

Armor doesn't say that attacks must do a minimum of 1 Damage. It says that it cannot reduce an attack below 1 Damage. If it attempts to reduce something below that, it fails (and thus normally would stop at 1Dg, but in this case, at 0Dg).

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

So I would say the answer to this is simple.

Attack does 0Dg.

Check Armor. Can Armor reduce Dg? No. Armor doesn't apply.

0Dg converts to 0Wd.

Etc.

Armor doesn't say that attacks must do a minimum of 1 Damage. It says that it cannot reduce an attack below 1 Damage. If it attempts to reduce something below that, it fails (and thus normally would stop at 1Dg, but in this case, at 0Dg).

This is simple and elegant.

As well as correct.

[Buhallin]

Words fail me.

[Lucidicide]

Words fail me.

And yet there they are and I understood your meaning!

The paradox is destroying my miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind!

[Dolomyte]

this reminds me of the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings when they were questioning him about the blowjobs.

"I'm sorry, could you define "is" for me"

[Adran]

and it opens the argument that a model with the ability to perform damage prevention flips is immune to 0 damage weapons...

1. "If a damage prevention flip removes the damage to be done, then no damage is done and thus no effects..."

2. If i choose not to spend the soul stone, then 0 damage is prevented by the ability.

3. the ring does 0 damage.

4. 0 damage was prevented, this is the damage the ring would do. therefor no damage is done.

5. thus no poison.

but that's not the concern here.

"

I know this wasn't your point but just to say, you've got this wrong.

2 should read

If you choose not to spend the soulstone then you prevent no damage.

0 damage - no damage = 0 damage

So 0 damage is still done, so the poison ring will still do poison.

I'm surprised that You of all people are struggling with the difference between 0 damage and no damage. After all the confusion is from people assuming the language.

[Mr_Smigs]

You of all people are struggling with the difference between 0 damage and no damage. After all the confusion is from people assuming the language.

well, that's just it...

i normally try to take things literally,

but the ruling that "0 damage" and "no damage" is not the same thing, shows there are times when the literal IS appropriate... despite what's been told on these forums time and again...

it breaks the standard "use the rules as intended" theme that we usually see...

and thus, causes confusion...

[nilus]

and thus, causes confusion...

Do we have a documented case of this causing confusion. Of any games where someone actually attempted to say that they do 1 damage to models with armor with a 0 dg attack.

[Mr_Smigs]

oh, yeah, totally.

played one last night where we wondered how 0 damage and armor interacted...

didn't you know, I document, record, and log all my games. just like everyone who plays malifaux and has an account on the forums and brings their issues here...

it's those poor bastards who don't partake in the forums that I feel sorry for, because since they'll never come here for a rules issue, they have to bow to the divinely inspired rulings passed down from the Rules Marshals, to the forumites, and preached to the rest of the players...

[Issalbotproto]

*bashes head on desk* If you have to wonder if 0 reduces to 1 you have a few wires loose, that's like saying divide by zero.

[Akujie]

I want to vote this for the best thread...ever!

[Stryder]

oh, yeah, totally.

played one last night where we wondered how 0 damage and armor interacted...

didn't you know, I document, record, and log all my games. just like everyone who plays malifaux and has an account on the forums and brings their issues here...

it's those poor bastards who don't partake in the forums that I feel sorry for, because since they'll never come here for a rules issue, they have to bow to the divinely inspired rulings passed down from the Rules Marshals, to the forumites, and preached to the rest of the players...

At least they don't have to put up with stuff like this...

[Keltheos]

it's those poor bastards who don't partake in the forums that I feel sorry for, because since they'll never come here for a rules issue, they have to bow to the divinely inspired rulings passed down from the Rules Marshals, to the forumites, and preached to the rest of the players...

You know, before the internet there were these things players used to decide rules questions/conflicts (which I don't really think this counts as, but whatever). Here's a list:

• Common sense
  
• A coin flip
  
• Gentlemanly agreement
  
• House rule
  

All of these are perfectly valid ways to cover a rules question and do not involve the internet. Of them, my favorite is the first one and should probably be applied to this particular issue.

Reduce to 1...I wish I could do that when my bank account hits 0.

/endpost-thanksgivingsnark

Edited November 28, 2011 by Keltheos