Got a question about damage.

Is all units that was applied enough damage destroyed immidetly after damage appliation?

Yesterday we played a game Orks vs Dwarfs. There was combat and we assigned damage. Then was damage appliation phase, damage was applied and after damage was applied he played Stubborn Refusal (Action: move all damage from one target unit to another target unit in any players coresponding zone) to transfer all damage just applied to his unit to my other unit, so in fact he dalt me additional damage (all that I gave him, he transfered to me). I said it is impossible, because I understand, that if damage is applied, unit is destroyed and this damage can't be transfered.

But maybe this is possible and Units are not destroyed after the very last actions playing phase (when damage is already applied to units)? This would change game totaly in situations like this.

Anyone can anwser (Preferably official anwser ?

You're unlikely to get an official answer unless you directly email the developer.

Anyway I see it like this:

According to page 7 a unit which has damage equal to its current HP is immediately placed in the discard pile. Now if the card entering the discard pile went on the stack then Stubborn Refusal (And Valkia) could move the damage before this action resolves. However page 15 mentions that only actions labelled with the Action keyword can be responded to. Also on page 14 it notes that actions can only be taken after damage is resolved and units are immediately removed before actions take place.

Yeah. I noted those pages in Rulebook. I tried to manage this question myself, however it can be judged in both ways.

In my oppinion such action is impossible, cause units are destroyed after damage is applied. But... heh

Shame that no one officialy answers those questions here:(

I honestly don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. In Magic where almost everything goes on the stack then yeah that would be how it worked but in W:I it explicitly says that the stack only applies to actions that are labelled explicitly as 'Action'. A unit being discarded through damange is not an Action. There really is no room for interpretation.

Ok. Let's assume that this is correct.

Thanks for the answer:)

Just taking the relevant section from the rulebook (page 13, relevant sections in bold):

--------------------------------------------------------------

Both players now apply the assigned damage to the cards to which it has been assigned. At this point, effects like Toughness (see Toughness, page 16) kick in and cancel damage before it reaches the target. Any damage tokens thus cancelled are returned to the pool in the centre of the play area. Any unit that has as many (or more) damage tokens on it as it has hit points is destroyed (and discarded).

[skip section on damage to capitals]

After all damage has been applied, both players have the opportunity to take actions (including playing tactic cards). Once both players have passed consecutively, the battlefield phase is over.

--------------------------------------------------------------

You don't get to play actions until after you've removed the destroyed units.

I was just about to say that. Yes, no actions until after the units that have been assigned damage equal to or greater than their hit points is applied and then placed into the discard pile. That is official as ChaosChild just illustrated in the rules. There is no other interpretation of that section.

So now you have three different page references in the rulebook that back up that units cannot be saved once they're hitting the discard pile. I hope your friend can accept all that evidence.

dormouse said:

and now you can go and reread rules.

After all damage has been assigned, both players have the opportunity to take actions (including playing tactic cards). Once both players have passed
consecutively, play proceeds to the next step.

Maybe you confused steeps Assign and Apply damage? Or friend of original poster wanted play Refusal after assign but before apply steep.

Bubi said:

Seems pretty clear to me; he wanted to play Stubborn Refusal after applying damage, not after assigning it. And all the rules that TheForsakenOne and I have quoted state that you can't do that.

Besides, if you played Stubborn Refusal after assigning damage but before applying it than it wouldn't have the same effect. It only moves damage that has already been applied, so it wouldn't move the damage from the current combat.

Thanks for your answers guys!

Seems I was right, and such action is impossible.

What's most important, now i know what is the timing of different things happening at the end of battle phase.

And this will affect several common situations and probably questions from other players like:

- Can heal effect tactic card save my unit from being destroyed? - No. Cause they will be destroyed before you have the chance to heal them.

Penek said:

I'm going to pretend there was no condescension in this reply and that it was because I was not as clear as I could have been...
The rules state after damage is assigned each player gets to take actions. I said once damage that HAS been assigned (as in past tense, that section has already been done) there is no more opportunity to respond/take actions when the damage has been applied and when they hit the discard pile.

Penek said:

As my esteemed colleague ChaosChild said, Stubborn Refusal cannot be used to move damage that has not yet been applied. If you read the section in entirety that you quoted from you would see that damage assigned is not even placed on the units or capitol it is placed "near" them. Until the damage has been applied no damage has been received yet and therefor no damage can be moved, canceled, or otherwise affected if the effect calls for a target unit that is has been damaged.

This means the only possible way Stubborn Refusal can prevent a unit from being killed and sent to the discard pile before damage is applied is if the Target Unit already has damaged from a previous Battle Phase and by moving that damage to another target it lowers the total amount of damage that it would have when all damage is applied to below its hit point total.

This section of the rules is actually pretty clear if you read it straight through. If you are looking for it to support a position you have already assumed to be correct then it can understandably get a little confusing, especially if you read it in pieces or just a small section.

Your friend is entirely CORRECT (Edit: see last sentence).

The Battlefield phase has 5 steps:

1) Declare Target

2) Declare Attackers

3) Declare Defenders

4) Assign Damage (place it next to cards)

<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action ("pause" referred to below)

5) Apply Damage (place on cards, potentially killing them)

You can use Actions after EVERY step. That means you can use Stubborn Refusal after step 4, before step 5 begins.

Of course, after APPLYING (step 5) your friend may have missed the boat if he was trying to do it then.

EDITED yet again for clarity: The confusion appears to stem from the distinction between Assigning and Applying. I think it is obvious that Assigning is simply a "pause" to permit exactly this sort of action. Otherwise, there would be no need to have an Action between Assigning and Applying... both those steps could have been merged into one. That "pause" is there to play such cards.

Hurdoc said:

Okay now sight where in the rules it actually allows for this. Until you can give at least a quote from the rules to substantiate this, it is merely your opinion. I say the "pause" and opportunity for actions/responses in the Battle phase after damage is assigned is for cards like Grudge Thrower Assault which read, "Play during combat after damage as been assigned. Action: Destroy one target attacking unit." If you are going to insist on using "logic" instead of the rules then answer how damage can be moved from one unit to another when no damage has actually been placed on the target unit yet? Logic dictates that such damage can only be moved after it has been applied since the rules clearly state "Damage tokens are placed near the card(s) to which the damage is being assigned, and if any damage reaches the capital, damage tokens are placed next to the attacked section, but not yet applied," and therefor there is no damage on the target unit to be moved.

Now if you don't like this interpretation, I suggest you send it to Nate (or if you do like it just to be safe), but as far as I can see it from what is written in the rules this is the most correct ruling with the information we have.

Frankly, I'm surprised there could be any other interpretation. Your interpretation removes a major gameplay mechanic from the game and gimps it severely. Do I get an apology when I'm proven right?

Absolutely, but first you have to explain how you move damage from one unit to another before it has been applied to the first unit.

dormouse said:

dormouse said:

Upon rereading your post, I just realized how antagonistic you were being. Perhaps I was too naive initially to notice your condescension. If you want to use your "logic", how does damage stay next to a unit and not on it? Does the damage exist in the aether? Are the arrows suspended in the air?

It is obvious that Assigned damage already IS damage. For all intents and purposes the unit has been struck. It's only on the side of the card to permit card effects to move it around or dispel it before it actually gets APPLIED.

I think this one does need to go to Nate & I am going to try and summarize the confusion if I can.

Stubborn Refusal allows an Action to move All Damage from one target Unit to another Unit in any Player’s corresponding zone.

I believe the argument can be resolved simply by errata for the card that specified whether it is Assigned damage or Applied damage.

I am on the fence because of the following:

On one Hand..I agree that Assigned damage is not on the Unit but Near it, so that would suggest it needs to be Applied damage, with Stubborn Refusal played after damage is Applied .

On the other Hand…The rules clearly state that “players have the option of taking actions after each of these 5 steps, and play does not proceed to the next step until both players have consecutively passed the opportunity to take actions.” My issue is that after damage is Applied I have no target unit and damage tokens because the Unit is in the Discard Pile and the Damage Tokens are back in the central pool.

@dormouse: dormouse, I see your point about damage being Near the Unit and not on the Unit after the Assign Damage Step. But in your preferred scenario you are not playing Stubborn Refusal after the Apply Damage Step, you are interrupting it. As after the Apply Damage step you have no target unit or damage as they are discarded and returned to the pool respectively.

ChaosChild said:

ChaosChild said:

Because it has been applied. To put it another way, the word ASSIGN means the same thing as inflict or apply in plain Englsih. Honestly, I would have worded step 4 as Assign or Apply (either would do) and step 5 as Damage resolution... this wording was a poor choice on the part of the rules transcriber because Apply and Assign have such similar meaning in this context.

Can we keep this thread civil please, I believe (I am prepared to be corrected) that there IS ambeguity in the rules here. Personally I want to learn and enjoy the game and not get involved in Flame Wars. I find these discussions and forums very useful and informative and they should stand as an authority on the game, I would like them to stay that way if possible!

I'm in the camp that since the damage has been assigned TO units, damage is damage, assigned applied or whatever, and its target for Stubborn Refusal.

Just because its placed 'next to' a unit after being assigned doesn't mean its not damage 'to' a unit. its just not damage that has been applied. but again, damage is damage...

its a bit weird, agreed. If it helps, I recall asking nate about this at gencon, and he confimed my move.

Hurdoc said:

Actually, assign and apply mean 2 different things in English, and obviously mean 2 different things in this game otherwise they wouldn't be 2 different steps.

Just to quote from the rulebook again, this time the summary on page 14:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Battlefield phase
• Active player declares attackers, and decides which of his opponent’s zones they are attacking.
• Actions may be taken by either player.
• Defending player declares defenders.
• Actions may be taken by either player.
• Damage is counted and assigned, without yet being applied.
• Actions may be taken by either player.
• Damage is applied and its effects resolve. Characters leave play if they are out of hit points. Burn tokens are placed on the capital if necessary.
• Actions may be taken by either player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relevant text is in bold, assigned damage has not yet been applied.

Now it's quite possible that "move all damage from one target unit to another target unit" includes assigned damage as well as applied damage (doesn't quite make sense to me but...) in which case playing Stubborn Refusal after step 4 would work.

I'm in the camp supporting the idea that damage is not yet damage received until it is placed (or applied) on a target. Plain English aside, the usage of the term assign seems to me, just directing your fury at a target. Following this line of reasoning, your fury bears a fruit called damage, when it has contact with its intended victim (or in game terms, when damage tokens are placed on the unit/capitol after all damage cancellation effects have taken place, see below for explanation).

Let us look at the rulebook for clarification (page 13):

5. APPLY DAMAGE
Both players now apply the assigned damage to the
cards to which it has been assigned. At this point,
effects like Toughness (see Toughness, page 16) kick
in and cancel damage before it reaches the target .
Any damage tokens thus cancelled are returned to
the pool in the centre of the play area. Any unit that
has as many (or more) damage tokens on it as it has
hit points is destroyed (and discarded).

It seems to me damage is damage, but until it is placed on a target, it is existing in a vacuum. There are two phases damage tokens go through in its short life (really three, but we will ignore that last part for the purposes of this discussion) as illustrated above: (1) before reaching target and (2) after being placed on target unit and unit surviving the damage. Now, one can argue that damage is still damage before it reaches its intended target, but it hasn't affected the target in any way since it didn't touch him at this time. I say this, because if enough damage touches down on a unit to equal his hit point it will meet a rather terminal condition, thus we can say damage that is on it briefly before it being discarded along with the unit card, has had a lethal impact on this unit. Same with effects that bank on having damage tokens on your unit or capitol: until the damage token is placed on the intended target you will not see any benefit or penalty associated with said ability. Can we then not say assigned damage is an inert damage vector that has no effect until it has been assigned as inflicted damage on target? Is a directed damage token still damage when it is not yet (inflicted) on the target?

I say this, because Toughness and others of its ilk can and will cancel assigned (inert) damage, but will not touch damage made real, damage that can fuel other abilities, abilities such as from Big ‘Uns. On the other hand, cards like Stubborn Refusal I’m reading seem to work with not cancelling any perceived damage thrown at his boys, but shifting applied (real) damage around. The meaning I’m getting from reading between the lines is that assigned damage can be cancelled before it becomes inflicted or applied damage. The two effects therefore seem to be one of cancellation which deals with assigned damage and redirection which deals with applied damage. The two effects are both executed in step 5, yet the timing is different: cancellation effects like Toughness are executed before damage reaches the target, thus preventing damage tokens fom becoming damage on unit, while redirect effects like Stubborn Refusal are executed after damage reaches the target. The two effects are differentiated for a reason: they both prevent possible damage on target, but are executed in a different fashion with a different timing, maybe because one is simply damage wannabe damage tokens, while the other is actual damage waiting to grow into a terminal condition? Assigned damage tokens have to survive a trial by fire, called cancellation, before they can mature into full-fledged damage.

Of course, definition of what damage is, is not quite spelt out in the rulebook. However at least in my mind, assigned damage tokens are not damage inflicted on target, percisely because that state has no associated game effects linked with damage, such as abilities gained from having a damaged unit or capitol.

The problem i have with your approach Ruvion is how the card works mechanically.

If you cannot play Stubborn Refusal until the damage is applyed and put on the card - therefore cannot play it until the Apply Damage step is resolved, then your Unit is in the discard pile and the damage is back in the central pool. So what is the target of your Stubborn Refusal card?

Kevin

Remember Kevin, some units may survive due to Toughness or other cancellation effects, tactic cards played, or there simply wasn't enough damage tokens to go around. Then the dwarven forces can have their revenge via Stubborn Refusal, Scout keyword, and what not. Remember even scouts have to survive in order for them to do their discarding gimmick. I think it's the same for Stubborn Refusal. I think Starscream's philosophy in life reflects best revenge mechanic such as this (Stubborn Refusal, Scout, etc), namely that you gotta be alive first before you can have yer revenge.

On hindsight, Orcs and Dwarves are well matched in that: Orcs are equipped to deal insane amount of damage in order to shut down any attempt at grudge bearing assault, while Dwarves are well equipped to survive such an onslaught so that their revenge can bear fruit. It is the unstoppable force meets the immovable object conundrum.