21 replies to this topic

[MadMagician]

 

Does this prevent Ku'gath's ability? To move damage you physically have to remove it from one card and place it on another card, but is there a distinction between this and just removing damage? 

[ktom]

Generally speaking, "move" and "remove" will be considered different mechanics. 

 

"Move" involves rearranging locations without changing the overall total. "Remove" involves actually taking away so that the overall total is lower. 

 

So ultimately, I would say that this does not stop Ku'gath's ability. To "remove" the damage from Ku'gath would mean the damage ends up nowhere, but instead, it ends up on another unit.

 

You might want to check with FFG to be sure, though. My premise that "move" and "remove" are considered different mechanics might not be accurate.

[MadMagician]

Generally speaking, "move" and "remove" will be considered different mechanics. 

 

"Move" involves rearranging locations without changing the overall total. "Remove" involves actually taking away so that the overall total is lower. 

 

So ultimately, I would say that this does not stop Ku'gath's ability. To "remove" the damage from Ku'gath would mean the damage ends up nowhere, but instead, it ends up on another unit.

 

You might want to check with FFG to be sure, though. My premise that "move" and "remove" are considered different mechanics might not be accurate.

I agree with this interpretation. I'll leave it at that unless this thread blows ups with lots of people disagreeing. 

[ktom]

By the way, I double-checked the following in the RRG:

 

"If a hale warlord has as much (or more) damage on it as it has hit points, it is defeated, and placed in its owner’s headquarters on its Bloodied side, exhausted. All damage tokens from the hale side are removed when a warlord is Bloodied, and excess damage from the warlord’s initial defeat is not applied to the Bloodied side. Any attachments on a warlord remain attached when it is Bloodied. If a Bloodied warlord has as much (or more) damage on it as it has hit points, it is defeated and its owner immediately loses the game."

 

Imagine how awesome this card would be if a warlord was flipped to its Bloodied side before being returned to the HQ! But, luckily for warlords, they will never be "at the same planet as attached unit" when damage is removed for them being Bloodied.

[MadMagician]

By the way, I double-checked the following in the RRG:

 

"If a hale warlord has as much (or more) damage on it as it has hit points, it is defeated, and placed in its owner’s headquarters on its Bloodied side, exhausted. All damage tokens from the hale side are removed when a warlord is Bloodied, and excess damage from the warlord’s initial defeat is not applied to the Bloodied side. Any attachments on a warlord remain attached when it is Bloodied. If a Bloodied warlord has as much (or more) damage on it as it has hit points, it is defeated and its owner immediately loses the game."

 

Imagine how awesome this card would be if a warlord was flipped to its Bloodied side before being returned to the HQ! But, luckily for warlords, they will never be "at the same planet as attached unit" when damage is removed for them being Bloodied.

 

Ragnar's back! lol

[dnapolitano]

Ok smart people.

 

Reanimating Warrior

Interrupt: When this unit would be destroyed by taking damage, remove all damage from it and move this unit to an adjacent planet instead. (Limit once per phase.)

 

You have Cato, Honored Librarian with Las-pistol attached and re-animating warrior at same planet.  Librarian attacks and does 6 damage to Warrior.

 

Here's my probably incorrect assessment: Warrior's interrupt triggers, damage is not removed due to las-pistol constant effect, Warrior moves to adjacent planet, then is destroyed.  Cato does not gain a resource.

 

Where am I wrong?

[ktom]

Almost right.

 

The wrinkle here is that Reanimating Warrior's ability is a replacement effect. It replaces putting the fatal damage onto the unit (and then killing it) with removing all damage from it and moving it to a new planet when (and instead of) the fatal damage would have been placed on the unit.

 

So, in your scenario, the Librarian attacks and 6 damage is assigned. When the "place damage" step is reached, the RW's interrupt and create their replacement effect. When the "place damage" step is resolved, the 6 damage from the Librarian is not put on the RW, no existing damage comes off the RW, and the RW runs away to an adjacent planet.

[Kaloo]

If the RW already had a damage on themselves before the Librarian attacked in the above example, would that be removed? I presume it wouldn't since the damage is removed at the planet it starts from

[ktom]

When the "place damage" step is resolved, the 6 damage from the Librarian is not put on the RW, no existing damage comes off the RW, and the RW runs away to an adjacent planet.

[Kaloo]

It would help if my eyes worked when I needed them

[Asklepios]

I disagree, ktom.

 

The interrupt reads:

 

Interrupt: When this unit would be destroyed by taking damage, remove all damage from it and move this unit to an adjacent planet instead. (Limit once per phase.)

 

Clearly the trigger is the act of being destroyed, and this is what is being replaced, not the placement of damage. During step 3 of dealing damage, we take damage, and the damage is placed on the unit. The unit is destroyed simultaneous to this happening.

 

At that stage the interrupt kicks in, and in place of being destroyed, we attempt to execute the replacement effect. Hot Shot Las Pistol blocks the removing all damage, then the unit moves.

Then, after the interrupt has resolved, the game will then notice again that the damage is still on the unit, so a new process of the unit being destroyed takes place. The interrupt is once per phase, so it can't heal and roll up again, it is instead destroyed.

[ktom]

“Instead”

See “Replacement Effects” on page 13 

 

Replacement Effects

A replacement effect is an effect that replaces the handling of one resolution with a different means of handling that resolution. Most replacement effects are interrupt abilities in the format of “when triggering condition would happen, do [replacement effect] instead.” After all interrupts to the original triggering condition have resolved and it is time to resolve the triggering condition itself, the replacement effect resolves instead. 

 

 

So, your description of what RW's interrupt does, and when, does not appear to be taking into account that it is a replacement effect, or the requisite timing of it as a replacement effect.

 

Because it uses the word "instead," RW's interrupt is a Replacement Effect. This means that the resolution of the interrupt does not do anything other than create the replacement effect. Once all other interrupts to the triggering condition (in this case, destroying the RW with damage) are triggered, the triggering condition itself resolves, but "instead" of destroying the unit with damage, it removes all damage on the unit and moves it to an adjacent planet.

 

The take-away here is that it is not the resolving interrupt that removes the damage or moves the unit. It is the resolution of "place damage" that does those things - transformed by the interrupt for that unit.

[Asklepios]

Interesting, but I do get what you're saying. I'm just saying that what is being replaced is the act of being destroyed, not the placement of damage.

 

That is to say, being destroyed is a consequence of the damage being placed, but the damage being placed is not what is being replaced.

[ktom]

Hmm. I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure how you separate the two.

 

As I understand it, if a unit has as much (or more) damage as HP, it is destroyed. There is no time between taking the last, fatal damage and being destroyed. That is, there is no game state or status in which a unit has as much or more damage as HP but is not destroyed/removed fro play. I think you would need such a state if you were going to interrupt the destruction separate from the placing of damage.

 

If RW's ability said "When this unit would be destroyed after taking damage...", I'd be more persuaded by your argument. But as is, I don't think there is a timing or triggering condition difference between "when damage would be placed" and "when a unit would be destroyed by taking damage." (Kind of like how there is really no timing or triggering condition difference between "when you would win a command struggle" and "when an opponent would lose a command struggle," for example.) Mechanically, I don't think the destruction is a "consequence" of the damage being placed so much as it is the reality of the damage being present. 

[honorsadam]

I would like to wade gently in here.

 

Perhaps we need to ask a slightly different question. Does the hot shot pistol prevent the RW trigger from resolving because it would not be able to remove damage? 

 

 

When the "place damage" step is resolved, the 6 damage from the Librarian is not put on the RW, no existing damage comes off the RW, and the RW runs away to an adjacent planet.

 

Done, hot shot effect is satisfied completely. and the RW effect that would remove damage has been nullified. the other effect (move to adjacent planet) is now able to be completed since it would still change the game state. 

 

The bigger question that I think is holding us up is what happens to the 6 damage from the librarian? If the remove damage effect from RW is NOT involved in the damage coming from the librarian, then where does it go? Is there any other precedent out there for another effect that would move a unit away from the planet between the damage assignment and damage taken steps? 

 

The only support I found in RRG is pg25 under "resolve damage" where is states if the defender unit leaves play, then no damage is dealt....but that was more to handle what happens if you kill a unit with a even or support card before the damage from the attacker gets to be ASSIGNED.(Think Firedrake Terminators being declared a defender from a rattling deadeye) But I could be convinced that it stretches to this. and the damage from the librarian just evaporates.

[jalf]

Didn't someone get confirmation from FFG when Szeras was first revealed, that for the purposes of his ability, moving damage was considered to be a form of damage removal as well? (And if that is the case, surely the same ruling would apply to the laspistol)

 

Or was that just a rumor or guesswork/something I'm imagining?

[honorsadam]

Didn't someone get confirmation from FFG when Szeras was first revealed, that for the purposes of his ability, moving damage was considered to be a form of damage removal as well? (And if that is the case, surely the same ruling would apply to the laspistol)

 

Or was that just a rumor or guesswork/something I'm imagining?

on pg 10 of RRG, it gives some specifics on Moving Damage, and this is in addition to the more general "move game object" entry. Sadly it does not come out and save "moved damage is not the same as removed damage". It only talks about how you ignore the normal steps of assigning damage to the unit that receives the moved damage.  

 

But....It doesn't describe the act of "moving" as removing the damage from one object and placing it on another either. and the general "move game object" entry on the same page also make no note that you remove things from one location to place them at a new location.

 

I generally agree and have up voted Ktoms post about how move and remove just have to be treated as two separate actions.  

[ktom]

The bigger question that I think is holding us up is what happens to the 6 damage from the librarian? If the remove damage effect from RW is NOT involved in the damage coming from the librarian, then where does it go? Is there any other precedent out there for another effect that would move a unit away from the planet between the damage assignment and damage taken steps? 

 

The 6 damage from the Librarian effectively goes away.

 

The replacement effect from RW changes the way the "place damage" step of dealing damage resolves from "put the 6 damage tokens on RW" to "remove all damage on RW and move it to an adjacent planet." 

 

So, since 0 damage is placed on the unit, no damage is considered dealt to the unit.

 

This is often the hard thing about conceptualizing replacement effects - what you expect to happen when a triggering condition resolves (in this case, placing 6 damage on RW) simply never happens. The replacement happens instead.

 

Another way to think (which is very abstract) is that you accomplish putting 6 damage tokens on the RW by removing all damage tokens on the unit (or not, since the Laspistol is involved) and moving it.

[ktom]

Or was that just a rumor or guesswork/something I'm imagining?

 

Could be. As I mentioned above, I don't recall a ruling saying this, but that doesn't mean there isn't, or couldn't be, one - which would change the whole use of the attachment. 

[Kumquat]

Hmm. I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure how you separate the two.

 

As I understand it, if a unit has as much (or more) damage as HP, it is destroyed. There is no time between taking the last, fatal damage and being destroyed. That is, there is no game state or status in which a unit has as much or more damage as HP but is not destroyed/removed fro play. I think you would need such a state if you were going to interrupt the destruction separate from the placing of damage.

 

If RW's ability said "When this unit would be destroyed after taking damage...", I'd be more persuaded by your argument. But as is, I don't think there is a timing or triggering condition difference between "when damage would be placed" and "when a unit would be destroyed by taking damage." (Kind of like how there is really no timing or triggering condition difference between "when you would win a command struggle" and "when an opponent would lose a command struggle," for example.) Mechanically, I don't think the destruction is a "consequence" of the damage being placed so much as it is the reality of the damage being present. 

 

Are we sure that it's not just destruction (placing the card face up on top of its owner's discard pile) that is replaced and the "by taking damage" text is to make it so only specific destruction conditions trigger the replacement effect?  To me it seems like it would be much simpler and more intuitive to just think of it as the unit takes the lethal damage and instead of being placed on the discard pile, the damage is removed (or not if hotshot laspistol present) and the RW is moved to adjacent planet.