Organ Donor

[gnam]

Quick question...

If McMourning does 6 damage to a model with only 2 wounds remaining, how many Wounds does he heal?

I'm under the impression that since he did 6 Dg, he heals 6 Wds, but the question came up locally today and I'd like to get some clarification (and a rules reference if possible)

Thanks and Happy New Years to all!

[Oshova]

He deals 6 Dg, but only deals 2 Wds (as there are only 2 to remove). This means he only heals back 2 Wds.

You can't remove what isn't there.

[Kadeton]

Yep. While the ability does say that he heals as many Wounds as he does Damage, this is tied into the Damage Resolution mechanics. Thus, if the target has Armor, the Damage he does is reduced and he heals less. If the target makes a Wound Prevention flip, that reduces the "Damage" done as well (preventing it entirely if a Red Joker is flipped). Similarly, because the target has only two Wounds to lose and the rest are discarded, the attack only counts as doing two Damage.

Think of it as McMourning having less useful material to work with, because it's already been beaten, chopped, stabbed, etc.

[Parzival]

I am afraid I have to disagree...

As reference:

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13460&highlight=Organ+Donor

And that`s how I play it since it states "damage" and not "wounds" inflicted... He ignores armor anyway...

[minmax]

Looks like I was late.

Edited December 30, 2011 by minmax

[fritz the cat]

I've played it as total damage aswell. If it was based on the wounds suffered, would it not state wounds inflicted rather than damage?

[Kadeton]

As I said, this gets back into the whole damage resolution business that we went through a while ago on these forums. Yes, the wording of abilities often talks about damage, but the number of wounds the target takes is the amount of damage it is considered to have suffered as a result of the attack.

Reference in this thread, with clarification by Ratty. The relevant portion is "At the end of the Damage Resolution Phase any Wounds Taken is the amount of Damage a attack has caused."

[gnam]

The part that has me confused by this whole thing is the wording of organ donor that says "when this mode inflicts Dg with a melee attack, it heals an equal number of Wd."

The part that is throwing me off is the Dg, it's not written as damage but as Dg which implies, at least to me, that this is the Dg as shown on the weapon and spells.

A clarification would be nice if possible.

[Oshova]

I will admit that after reading it again the trigger's wording makes it looks like 6 Dg would heal 6 Wds. But that's not how other rulings have worked out (ie Poison).

For example, if you have a 6 litre bottle, but your water tank only has 2 litres in it. How can you put more than 2 litres into the bottle? With how I percieve Organ Donor as working, McMourning is cutting off pieces of the target to heal damage he has taken. A model that is low on wounds wouldn't necessarily have the rights organs/body parts to fulfill all of McMournings needs.

[gnam]

I will admit that after reading it again the trigger's wording makes it looks like 6 Dg would heal 6 Wds. But that's not how other rulings have worked out (ie Poison).

For example, if you have a 6 litre bottle, but your water tank only has 2 litres in it. How can you put more than 2 litres into the bottle? With how I percieve Organ Donor as working, McMourning is cutting off pieces of the target to heal damage he has taken. A model that is low on wounds wouldn't necessarily have the rights organs/body parts to fulfill all of McMournings needs.

We can't necessarily apply that logic, otherwise how would you explain McMourning getting body parts from hitting constructs?

Poison is a different beast as well, as it's worded differently than Organ Donor, so the same ruling doesn't necessarily apply. Hopefully a rules Marshall can clear this up when they're back from holiday.

[Oshova]

I was using the Poison ruling as an example of how following the wording doesn't always mean you're playing it right.

And what's to say that some of McMourning's creations aren't more machine than person, they are after all Constructs and not just Undead. He obviously just carries around a big bag of skin to cover them with to make them look like fleshy creations . . . or something . . . whatever happened to imagination? =p

[Kadeton]

Hopefully a rules Marshall can clear this up when they're back from holiday.

Not to sound like a broken record, but a Rules Marshal has already cleared this up.

"At the end of the Damage Resolution Phase any Wounds Taken is the amount of Damage a attack has caused."

Things literally cannot be clearer than that.

[gnam]

Not to sound like a broken record, but a Rules Marshal has already cleared this up.

"At the end of the Damage Resolution Phase any Wounds Taken is the amount of Damage a attack has caused."

Things literally cannot be clearer than that.

I'm not trying to be intentionally dense or argumentative, but Ratty's ruling in that posts says (I added numbering for clarity sake)

"

1. Work out how much Dg the Weapon has caused. including triggers and other bonuses.

2. You take that value and modify it with Armour and Spirit etc. This gives you the final Dg total.

3. You then change Dg to Wds.

4. It's at this point you prevent Wds by spending soulstones.

5. Any Wds remaining are applied to the model."

Organ Donor says:

"when this model deals Dg with a melee attack, it gains an equal number of Wds."

Using the ruling you are quoting above

1. McMourning deals 6 damage to a model that has 2 Wounds remaining.

2. McMourning ignores armor, for simplicity model is not a spirit. Final damage total = 6

2b. Organ Donor heals 6 as this is the damage total.

3. Damage changed to Wounds on target

4. Model spends Soulstone or not.

5. Model takes maximum 2 wounds as described on p.44 of rules manual.

Organ donor doesn't care about the amount of wounds that a model is taking, it only cares about how much damage McMourning is dealing, which is resolved in step 2 above.

Again, this is not the same ruling as "Damage Vs No Damage" that you are quoting.

[fritz the cat]

I'm not trying to be intentionally dense or argumentative, but Ratty's ruling in that posts says (I added numbering for clarity sake)

"

1. Work out how much Dg the Weapon has caused. including triggers and other bonuses.

2. You take that value and modify it with Armour and Spirit etc. This gives you the final Dg total.

3. You then change Dg to Wds.

4. It's at this point you prevent Wds by spending soulstones.

5. Any Wds remaining are applied to the model."

Organ Donor says:

"when this model deals Dg with a melee attack, it gains an equal number of Wds."

Using the ruling you are quoting above

1. McMourning deals 6 damage to a model that has 2 Wounds remaining.

2. McMourning ignores armor, for simplicity model is not a spirit. Final damage total = 6

2b. Organ Donor heals 6 as this is the damage total.

3. Damage changed to Wounds on target

4. Model spends Soulstone or not.

5. Model takes maximum 2 wounds as described on p.44 of rules manual.

Organ donor doesn't care about the amount of wounds that a model is taking, it only cares about how much damage McMourning is dealing, which is resolved in step 2 above.

Again, this is not the same ruling as "Damage Vs No Damage" that you are quoting.

This is kind of where I'm sitting. Not just because its advantageous for mcmourning, but by the specific wording of the ability vs the damage cycle. If it wasnt intended to be that way, thats peachy, I'd go either way, its still a good ability. But rather than assume one way or another. A specific ruling would be beneficial.

[Sandwich]

Wyrd really needs to clarify or alter the Damage-To-Wounds deal.

It causes too much confusion.

Even amongst incredibly veteran players.

[Kadeton]

Organ donor doesn't care about the amount of wounds that a model is taking, it only cares about how much damage McMourning is dealing, which is resolved in step 2 above.

Again, this is not the same ruling as "Damage Vs No Damage" that you are quoting.

The part I'm quoting doesn't say anything about damage vs no damage. It states, in a perfectly clear way, that the amount of damage an attack has caused is equal to the number of wounds it inflicted.

There is no way to misinterpret that statement to mean anything other than what it says: Damage is equal to Wounds inflicted, the end.

[gnam]

There is no way to misinterpret that statement to mean anything other than what it says: Damage is equal to Wounds inflicted, the end.

Sorry, but I disagree that this is the end, Damage being equal to Wounds inflicted is not the same as the Dg keyword that is being referred to by Organ Donor.

Even in the thread you are quoting there is a clear confusion around the use of Damage as both a keyword and as an English word.

[snord]

I can see the confusion and I can read Organ Donor both ways. As Gnam said, because 2 interpretations are plausible in this case, it would be great if we can get an official ruling.

I am fine with either, as long as it is clarified, but IMHO the interpretation Gnam is advocating will complicate things a lot more, since the interactions with existing damage reduction/wd prevention abilities will have to be clearly stated, as well as with any other eventual ability created in the future that reduces Dg/Wd.

OTOH, it seems to me that healing the same number of wounds it caused is simpler, more streamlined and still complies with both RAW and RAI.

My .02c.

[Fading Memory]

Damage is damage whether it is written as and abbreviation Dg or spelled out as Damage.

Effects and triggers that are dependent on the amount of damage done (or just damaging a model at all, Ex. Primal Reaction) are calculated after damage resolution, not before.

So following the order of Damage Resolution laid out by Ratty. A model with 2wd left hit for 6dg by Organ Donar can only take 2dg maximum. Therefore McMourning will only heal two wounds because the amount of Damage done is totaled at the end of Damage Resolution.

It may be possible for a model to prevent all the damage done to it during the Damage Resolution steps. If this happens, the model takes No Damage. There is a difference between No Damage and 0 Damage in this game.

[Kadeton]

Sorry, but I disagree that this is the end, Damage being equal to Wounds inflicted is not the same as the Dg keyword that is being referred to by Organ Donor.

Even in the thread you are quoting there is a clear confusion around the use of Damage as both a keyword and as an English word.

There is confusion about "damage", but only from people who don't seem to want to acknowledge what Ratty's clarification is directly stating. It's a shame that the terms get reused, yes, but it's still not that hard to get your head around.

And damage being equal to wounds inflicted is exactly the same as the Dg keyword that is being referred to by Organ Donor. Every time damage (or Dg) is mentioned in the context of an amount of damage that has been inflicted by a strike or spell, it refers to the damage resolution result, i.e. the number of wounds caused.

[gnam]

So in essence Damage -> Wounds -> damage, causing the entire sequence with Wounds ending up as redundant (with the exception of Object which prevents wounds)?

This doesn't make sense that they would intentionally design the game with two separate keywords, and then make them mean the same thing.

I know it's beating a dead horse for some people, but I'd still like to see a simple clarification to my original question. There are people on both sides of this discussion, and a final answer would be appreciated from someone official.

[Kadeton]

So in essence Damage -> Wounds -> damage, causing the entire sequence with Wounds ending up as redundant (with the exception of Object which prevents wounds)?

This doesn't make sense that they would intentionally design the game with two separate keywords, and then make them mean the same thing.

I know it's beating a dead horse for some people, but I'd still like to see a simple clarification to my original question. There are people on both sides of this discussion, and a final answer would be appreciated from someone official.

I agree, it was a bit of a silly decision from a game design perspective to reuse those terms. It would have been much better to simply update all the V2 cards to reference Wounds inflicted rather than Damage inflicted. Hindsight is an amazing thing.

I'd say I've done all I'm able to in the way of offering evidence, so I'll bow out. I hope you get whatever confirmation you're looking for, even if I don't understand why you need more than what's been offered. Peace.

[gnam]

Well, now that the holidays are officially over (:paralyzedpuppet), I'm hoping we can get someone to give us an official answer on this so we can put it to bed.

[Keltheos]

Guys, just a heads up.

We've had eyes on this during the holidays and now that we're all back at work we'll be getting you a good solid reply in the next day or two.

[Wolfgar]

I've seen rules marshals looking. I knew you guys were all watching out for us.

[Keltheos]

More stalking you all with the occasional point and laugh, but sure, 'watching'.