The "Followers of Mork" card { Text reads: Shaman Forced : After this unit enters play, each player takes 2 indirect damage. (Players allocate their own indirect damage.) }

Is this "indirect damage" the type of damage refered to by the rules on page 17 under "Non Combat Damage". I'd say yes. What do y'all say?

TK

Yep. Tim, did you ever play Spellfire? Just wondering - your name sounds familiar.

Yes, my kids and I went nuts over "Spellfire" way back when. Loads of fun.

TK

Also looking for an answer to this one.

It may be easy to overlook a single word amidst of a deluge of words unrelated to the topic on hand, but Wytefang answered this one:
Indirect damage falls under Non-Combat damage. I'll quote the relevant section (page 17):

Non Combat Damage
Outside of combat, some card effects also deal
damage to units or to a player’s capital. When these
effects resolve, this damage is first assigned and then
applied to the target in a manner similar to the way
damage is handled in combat. The one exception to
this rule is the Counterstrike keyword (see Counterstrike,
page 16). Counterstrike damage is always
applied as soon as it is assigned.

I take this to mean any card effects that deal damage outside of combat , which includes indirect damage under the usual timing (see below) mentioned by Followers of Mork (because damage is inflicted when it enters play, which usually entails a timing that is outside of combat). The sole exception to this rule being the Counterstrike keyword. If Followers of Mork card was to enter play during combat, then I would think that indirect damage would be considered combat damage; it may also be the reason why it's called indirect damage as opposed to non-combat damage. Aside from technicality which makes the following absurd, it's kinda weird dealing non-combat damage during combat...the term indirect damage makes more sense, both legally and semantically, in light of this predicament.

*NOTE to fang: don't get distracted oi! Your confusing players here.

There is another possible interpretation here, that combat damage is specifically damage dealt (meaning assigned and applied) by units attacking and defending and all other damage is non-combat damage. In this interpretation tactics that do damage as well as any ability that does damage, even during the player action steps in the battlefield phase, would still be non-combat damage.

With this card, can the indirect damage be applied to both units and/or their capital? Or is it just one nor other?

Thanks.

You can assign it in any way you want.

But none of this tells what INDIRECT damage means. Why do Followers of Mork deal INDIRECT damage, but, say, Flames of Tzeentch just deal damage. Are we to assume that INDIRECT damage ALWAYS means damage assigned by the player suffering it?

Bitva made a correct guess, IMHO and dormouse spotted the right sense.

IMHO. :-)

COMBAT DAMAGE is the damage inflicted by Units during combat. Stop.

NON-COMBAT damage is ALL other damage. The difference between "deals 2 damage" and "take 2 indirect damage" is that the FIRST is assigned/applied to a target, the second is "taken" from the POOL and assigned/applied from the "passive" player.

The fact that the rules specify that thing about COUNTERSTRIKE, is not to make a distinction between combat or other damages...Is because COUNTERSTRIKE is the ONLY type of damage that is ASSIGNED as soon as it is APPLIED.

For other Damages, rules explain, you have to follow the Assign/Apply double step.

This make sense, to me.

bitva said:

Good question - does "indirect" somehow mean something different? Will we be seeing this word in future expansions? It seems kind of unnecessarily confusing...

I said it before.

The INDIRECT word is needed to clarify that the damage is not "directly" assigned/applied to a Unit/Capital, but it's a pool of damage that each player (or the one targetted by the effect) has to apply/assign by their own.

On my previous post I explain the rest.

let's see it this way. for people that play other ccg's lets say that assigned/applied damage(combat damage and non-combat damage,also known as direct damage) is the normal damage and the indirect damage is the "put damage on" type. this means that if u choose to deal indirect damage ("put x damage on") warrior priest they cannot redirect it.

in the same way, the shrine+ pestilence combo that the chaos players are trying to get work, i disagree. pestilence deals non combat damage,even played on Battlefield phase (this is a tactic) making no activation from the shrine. Combat is always the occurance between unit-unit or unit-capital, only that creating combat damage.

existenz said:

Hi,

I don't agree with your oppinion.

1. the rulebook states at page 17 that counterstrike is the only damage type which is not assigned before applied, therefore warrior priest could redirect any damage except counterstrike. This also mean that toughness is ineffective against counterstrike too.

2. The shrine wording says "during combat" not "combat damage". Also, page 12 declares that "engaging in combat" is basically equal with the Battlefield phase steps (1-5), however page 16 directly mentions "combat damage" in the deswcription of Counterstrike and Scout keywords... but also mentions "survive combat" which coud not be combat damage (sincs a Scout could be killed by tactics too)

Based on those above I believe tht "during combat" and "combat damage" are two different things, and that's why the Chaos combo works.

I've already repeatedly said what I think about Chaos's Nurgles and I repeat it: if it refers with combat damage, si BAD WORDED, cause the card clearly states "during combat", as Cain-hu perfectly stated.

Anyway, a couple of clarifications:

- Counterstrike is APPLIED as soon it is ASSIGNED. It doesn't mean that Warrior Priest cannot redirect it....It means that there's no step between the two assign/apply step, but they happens, for all game purposes. Otherwise, we'd have read something different about it.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Again, if it's different, we have an unclear wording

- About Counterstrike vs Toughness. I'm not being active in this discussion cause I've some doubts about it. Rules are pretty unclear about this issue.

I understand your point, that works perfectly if our interpretation of Toughness is: "Toughness kicks in to cancel damage before it's applied BUT ONLY if it has been assigned", but the fact is that i'm not sure it's so.

Or, better: it can be, but Counterstrike, as above, states that the damage is APPLIED AS SOON it's assigned. It means that we have a "same-time" assign/apply step, with no opportunity to take actions in between...This fact, lets me think that Toughness could work cause, actually, we ASSIGNED damage, even if it's suddenly applied.

That's the biggest reason why we need a FAQ. We have lots of unclear wording issues: if about Counterstrike we read: "Counterstrike is not assigned" and about Toughness: "Toughness needs assign step", we'd have never had these troubles.

Whenever the unit with the
Counterstrike keyword is declared as a defender, it
immediately deals uncancellable damage equal to this
numeric value.

I was tired, sorry... I forgot the uncancellable...

I was tryin' to focus on the wrong part of the sentence