When either of the conditions "Weaken" or "Doom" is applied during an attack (e.g. as the result of a surge ability), does the effect of that condition trigger during that same attack?

(i.e. When you attack a monster and succesfully Weaken it, is its defense roll for that attack immediately reduced by -1?

and

When you attack a monster and sucessfully Doom it, does it immediately suffer +1 bonus damage from Doom for any damage dealt by the attack?)

No, because for a condition to be applied, the target must also suffer damage from the attack, which means it must check for that result before applying.

No, because for a condition to be applied, the target must also suffer damage from the attack, which means it must check for that result before applying.

I get what you're saying, but that doesn't seem quite right to me.

The rule for applying conditions is that, after rolling defense dice, if the attack deals at least 1 damage then the target suffers the condition. But that's "dealing" not "suffering".

Damage is suffered by the target only after dice are rolled, range is checked, surges are spent and the total is added up.

Whether any damage is dealt or conditions are applied is determined at the "spend surges" step, isn't it? (e.g. Jain Fairwood can still take a condition without suffering damage due to her hero ability.)

Edit: As I understand it, attacking works like this: first, attack dice and defense dice are rolled simultaneously, then surges are spent, then "hearts" and "shields" are added up. If "hearts">"shields" then conditions are applied and any "hearts" not cancelled by "shields" are then suffered by the target as damage.

white wing is right

This is how the attack works

attack and defense dice are rolled at the same time. Then, surge are spend. If conditions should be applied, they are put aside. Then the attacker and defender adds shield and or damage. Finally, if the attacks deals damage, at the end of the attack, conditions are put.

So, no condition should affect the attack from which they are applied.

Even if you're taking this extra step of setting aside any conditions before dealing damage and then applying them, why does Doom not trigger? You've checked that the attack deals damage, so the target suffers both the condition and the damage.

Doom is triggered when damage is suffered and they happen simlutaneously here (or else the timing is indeterminate). Any timing conflicts are resolved in favour of the active (attacking) player, right?

What's your reference for the rule of applying conditions only after damage is suffered? The rules that I can see only specify it happening when, after defense dice are rolled, the attack deals damage (i.e. there are uncancelled "hearts").

Edit: Not that I don't get the logic of "check that it works, then apply it", I'm just wondering if there's something I've missed.

Asks FFG if our answers does not seems good to you.

The explanation is simple

1- attack

2- surge

3- apply damage

4- if damages are applied, then, after the resolution, apply effects of the attack from surge for example (in our case conditions)

Then, it's not at the same time. Why doing this ? Because there's many side effects that could change the heart/shield value before damages are applied. So, this way, each effect has his own happening time.

Sounds logical.

Yeah, I agree it's logical.

But logic doesn't always seem to count with FFG's rules though, haha .

sometimes it's a better idea to play more logical than solely to rules alone.

In the FFG unofficial FAQ, pg 9, there is an answer to this question, regarding weakened. The response is that "Weakened" is not applied until damage is dealt. Therefore, the condition does not take effect during the attack in which it is gained, since "damage dealt" has already been calculated to determine if "weakened" was applied at all. "Damage dealt" is not re-calculated after the condition is applied, so it does not alter the damage/shields of that attack. However, I think "Doomed" would apply during that attack. Here is my reasoning:

"Dealing damage" and "suffering damage" are distinct triggers. This is evidenced by the fact that even if Jain converts all of her damage from an attack into fatigue, she still gets conditions (the attack dealt 1 damage, she was just able to avoid suffering it as damage.)

"Doomed" (like other conditions) is applied when damage is dealt. The defender must now suffer the damage dealt. Since "Doomed" is applied, when the suffering of damage occurs, an additional damage is suffered.

Most conditions don't get to affect the attack they are inflicted during- even something like the "serpent dagger" doesn't do extra damage when you poison , because the trigger is "if the target is poisoned, the attack gains..." when you target in step 1, there is no poison, even if there is after you deal damage. Also, as Nathan points out in his response about "Weakened," after "damage dealt" is calculated, it is not recalculated for something that occurs during that same step.

Got a reply from Nathan Hajek on my question:

Strange. I don't like thoses specials strange cases. the game should be clear about thoses. Conditions are applied after attack's resolution.

But that's an official answer

This ruling seems to confirm my interpretation of attack structure rugal , Whitewing :

"As I understand it, attacking works like this: first, attack dice and defense dice are rolled simultaneously, then surges are spent, then "hearts" and "shields" are added up. If "hearts">"shields" then conditions are applied [this is the "dealing" damage part] and any "hearts" not cancelled by "shields" are then suffered by the target as damage [this is the "suffering" damage part] ."

If that is right then "Doomed" isn't a special case; it's precisely consistent with the rules as described. Nathan's ruling just clarifies that you don't re-calculate a step you've already completed (as for "Weaken").

As far as I can see, this interpretation gives us a consistent rationale for all cases. It even holds for Jain's hero ability and the Serpent Dagger.

I believe this gives us a clear precedent for precisely when conditions are applied during an attack: after calculating the damage dealt but before that damage is suffered by the target.

Strange. I don't like thoses specials strange cases. the game should be clear about thoses. Conditions are applied after attack's resolution.

But that's an official answer

I disagree. The text on condition abilities doesn't say " after this attack resolves , if the attack dealt at least 1 damage, the target is poisoned." It says, "If this attack deals at least 1 damage, the target is poisoned." There is nothing there that specifies you wait for the attack to resolve before applying the text. The trigger occurs, and the result follows. Since the trigger is "dealing damage" (and there is no text stating otherwise,) then the effect is applied when the damage is dealt.

Exactly. This is a consistent ruling, not a special case or exception.

Some examples of how this ruling works:

Suppose that the target of an attack has the following ability: "Each time you would suffer any amount of damage, suffer 1 less damage (to a mimimum of 0)."

Suppose the attack deals 1 damage (after defense is rolled) and has "Stun".

According to the ruling, the target suffers no damage but is stunned. The attack dealt 1 damage, so the condition was applied. Then, when the target suffered that damage it was reduced to 0.

Suppose the attack deals 1 damage (after defense was rolled) and has "Doomed".

The target takes no damage but is doomed. The attack dealt 1 damage, so the condition was applied. Then, when the target suffered that damage it was reduced to 0. Since "Doomed" is triggered when 1 or more damage is suffered, no additional damage is applied by "Doomed".

Some examples of how this ruling works:

Suppose that the target of an attack has the following ability: "Each time you would suffer any amount of damage, suffer 1 less damage (to a mimimum of 0)."

Suppose the attack deals 1 damage (after defense is rolled) and has "Stun".

According to the ruling, the target suffers no damage but is stunned. The attack dealt 1 damage, so the condition was applied. Then, when the target suffered that damage it was reduced to 0.

Suppose the attack deals 1 damage (after defense was rolled) and has "Doomed".

The target takes no damage but is doomed. The attack dealt 1 damage, so the condition was applied. Then, when the target suffered that damage it was reduced to 0. Since "Doomed" is triggered when 1 or more damage is suffered, no additional damage is applied by "Doomed".

Actually, in the second case it would depend on who has control of the turn. Since both abilities trigger when damage is suffered (the same trigger), whoever has priority (control of the turn) gets to decide on which order effects resolve. Thus, they could choose for it to reduce damage first, then have doom apply (so no damage suffered), or have doom apply first (increase to 2, then reduced by 1) for 1 damage.

Some examples of how this ruling works:

Suppose that the target of an attack has the following ability: "Each time you would suffer any amount of damage, suffer 1 less damage (to a mimimum of 0)."

Suppose the attack deals 1 damage (after defense is rolled) and has "Stun".

According to the ruling, the target suffers no damage but is stunned. The attack dealt 1 damage, so the condition was applied. Then, when the target suffered that damage it was reduced to 0.

Suppose the attack deals 1 damage (after defense was rolled) and has "Doomed".

The target takes no damage but is doomed. The attack dealt 1 damage, so the condition was applied. Then, when the target suffered that damage it was reduced to 0. Since "Doomed" is triggered when 1 or more damage is suffered, no additional damage is applied by "Doomed".

Actually, in the second case it would depend on who has control of the turn. Since both abilities trigger when damage is suffered (the same trigger), whoever has priority (control of the turn) gets to decide on which order effects resolve. Thus, they could choose for it to reduce damage first, then have doom apply (so no damage suffered), or have doom apply first (increase to 2, then reduced by 1) for 1 damage.

Not quite true. Yes, the active player determines timing conflicts but the timing of Doom's trigger and the ability I described are not exactly the same. Doom's trigger is "when you suffer" but the ability's trigger is "when you would suffer". That means that the effect of the ability is triggered immediately before damage is actually suffered .

Since the triggers are not simultaneous, the decision on whether the damage is reduced is up to the player who has that ability (and whether he can opt-out of using it), not the active player.

Not really, when you would suffer is the same time you do suffer. If you haven't suffered the damage yet, it's not yet the time at which you would suffer. The two events are simultaneous.

whatever, this is a complicated case for nothing.

I will still play as if conditions are given to the target only after the full resolution of the attack, a better simplier way to avoid thoses situations.

Not really, when you would suffer is the same time you do suffer. If you haven't suffered the damage yet, it's not yet the time at which you would suffer. The two events are simultaneous.

Again, close but not quite right. Yes, they may be simultaneous but not necessarily so. Suffering implies that you would suffer but would suffer does not imply that you do suffer (since when you would suffer, you might instead avoid suffering).

"Would suffer" is a necessary precondition for suffering but "would suffer" does not necessarily imply suffering. So there are situations where you would suffer but then do not suffer but there are no situations where you do suffer when you would not suffer.

It's just like on the OL card "Trading Pains" (Punisher I):

"Play this card on a hero when he would recover any amount of damage. In response to this card, the hero may choose to reduce the amount of damage he recovers.

Another hero of your choice within 3 spaces of that hero suffers damage equal to half (rounded up) the damage recovered."

You play that card when he would recover, not when he does recover since he might then choose not to recover. The second part of the card only has an effect when damage is actually recovered by the first hero. And for it to do so, the card must already be in play when the hero recovers that damage, therefore the card has to have been played before the damage is actually recovered. If you wait until a hero recovers damage before you play "Trading Pains", you've already missed your opportunity for its effect to trigger.

When an attack deals damage, normally you would suffer it, but you might not if you have a relevant ability.

I'm not trying be a pedantic troll here.

I'm just trying to be as accurate and rigorous as I can out of respect for the fact that the whole point of this discussion is about technicalities and that presumably we're here because we're interested in getting to the bottom of what the game mechanics actually are. That's why I'm trying to reason through the implications with structured arguments and examples wherever possible.

At the end of the day though, if it doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter. It's a game; do it your way and play it for fun.

Not really, when you would suffer is the same time you do suffer. If you haven't suffered the damage yet, it's not yet the time at which you would suffer. The two events are simultaneous.

Again, close but not quite right. Yes, they may be simultaneous but not necessarily so. Suffering implies that you would suffer but would suffer does not imply that you do suffer (since when you would suffer, you might instead avoid suffering).

"Would suffer" is a necessary precondition for suffering but "would suffer" does not necessarily imply suffering. So there are situations where you would suffer but then do not suffer but there are no situations where you do suffer when you would not suffer.

It's just like on the OL card "Trading Pains" (Punisher I):

"Play this card on a hero when he would recover any amount of damage. In response to this card, the hero may choose to reduce the amount of damage he recovers.

Another hero of your choice within 3 spaces of that hero suffers damage equal to half (rounded up) the damage recovered."

You play that card when he would recover, not when he does recover since he might then choose not to recover. The second part of the card only has an effect when damage is actually recovered by the first hero. And for it to do so, the card must already be in play when the hero recovers that damage, therefore the card has to have been played before the damage is actually recovered. If you wait until a hero recovers damage before you play "Trading Pains", you've already missed your opportunity for its effect to trigger.

When an attack deals damage, normally you would suffer it, but you might not if you have a relevant ability.

Again, the events are still simultaneous. In the example you provide, the hero is going to recover hit points. You react by playing the punisher card, so he can retroactively reduce the amount of hit points he recovered. The event of the card taking effect and the recovering occur simultaneously, it just so happens that he recovered less than he was going to initially, even if it's reduced to 0. The act of recovering still occurs at the same time the punisher card takes effect. Note that you follow the general rule of reading from top to bottom on the card. The player reducing the amount of hit points recovered is part of the effect of the card, before the damage is applied. You still play the card when hit points are recovered, and the hit points are recovered simultaneously with the effects of this card.

It still works just fine with it played simultaneously. Let's say the hero has Trading Pains resolve after the hit points recover: he recovers hit points, then trading pains resolves. He opts to reduce the amount of hit points recovered retroactively, and then his buddy suffers damage equal to half the hit points recovered.

Right, but in playing it retroactively you're treating it as though the recovery never actually happened. You revert to the game state that existed immediately before the hero started removing damage tokens from his hero sheet and replay from there with the new trigger being taken into consideration.

In reality, yeah, of course the OL player is going to be playing the card when a hero recovers (unless the hero is bothering to declare that he is about to heal and then gives the overlord time to play the card). But the game itself treats the OL card as coming into effect prior to the healing actually taking place.

The hit points which the hero in your example chooses not to recover are treated as though he never recovered them at all. (e.g. if there were a Bard in the game with that skill (I can't remember its name) that allows heroes to recover additional health (or fatigue), then that effect is not triggered if the hero chooses not to recover any damage. Even though it might have been triggered initially when he started removing damage tokens from his sheet, that trigger is retroactively eliminated. Even though, in reality, it happened, the game treats it as never having happened in the first place.)

This is the distinction I'm getting at here.

The trigger "When you blah ..." is treated as being operative during blah , or else it's the very next thing you resolve after resolving blah .

The trigger "When you would blah... " is treated as being operative immediately prior to blah . Maybe you're already in the middle of carrying out blah when the ability is played : You stop blah-ing and treat it as though you haven't actually blah-ed yet and then you carry out blah with the ability now in effect.

You're absolutely right that it actually happens retroactively in practice. The whole reason for that is that you have to treat it as though it had already come into effect when you started doing whatever it is you've just done.

... and maybe you end up not actually blah-ing at all.

After all, if "when he would recover" is just the same as "when he recovers", and a hero chooses to retrospectively not recover , then the OL would be retrospectively prevented from playing the card since the trigger on which he played it was retroactively eliminated. If "would recover"="recover" then since no hero "recovered" damage, the OL cannot have played the card in the first place.

Whitewing, I have to agree with Yongelbang on this one. "would suffer" or "would recover" implies a definite sequence- a restrictive "about to do X, but X has not yet occurred." For example, lets say the bard ends his turn, and has a song token on "song of mending," (at the end of his turn, nearby heroes recover 1 wound) and has purchased the skill "concentration." (exhaust when a hero recovers at least 1 wound- that hero recovers an additional wound.)

If, at the end of the bard's turn the OL plays "Trading Pains" (to in response to "song of mending,") the Bard can only exhaust "Concentration" (that is, the trigger will only be satisfied) if the hero decides to recover the 1 wound. If he chooses not to recover the wound from "Song of Mending" to avoid the penalty from "Trading Pains," then the triggering condition of "Concentration" (a hero recovering at least 1 wound) will not have been met, and so the Bard can't exhaust the card. In other words, the trigger "a hero would recover wound" has been met, but "a hero recovers wound" has not been met. To me, that means they must necessarily be different triggers.