With the Bloodthirster unit card it has an ability that reads:
Daemon: Damage cannot be canceled.

Does this mean that just the 5 damage assigned by the Bloodthirster is uncancellable or is all damage assigned uncancellable by all sides. The effect does not seem to stipulate combat or noncombat damage types only that it prevents damage cancellation.

Since it reads: Damage cannot be cancelled.

And then, it reads Forced, after you turn begins, each player must sacrifice a unit in this corresponding zone.

I believe that the 5 damage cannot be cancelled. But the forced effect of sacrificing a unit can be cancelled. If they wanted to include the unit sacrifice as uncancellable, then they would have put that language in the Forced rule of this card, not before the keyword.

The damage reference means that while he is in play all damage cannot be canceled.

How do you know if the Damage cannot be cancelled is only referring to the damage done by hammers. The Forces action is a card effect, and I think it could be cancelled. Anyone know the official answer?

Toqtamish said:

I agree. Bloodthirster says "Damage cannot be cancelled" referring to damage in general. Doesn't matter who's dealing it or where it's coming from.

The official answer is just as Toqtamish said. Bloodthirster has a Constant Effect, "Damage cannot be cancelled." We know precisely how to play this because the rules define and explain Constant Effects clearly on page 15:

Constant Effects
Card effects that do not have a bold trigger are considered constant effects. Constant effects continually affect the game state, as long as the card is in play and any other specified conditions are met.

So we know that as long as Bloodthirster is in play that Damage (all damage since the effect provides no limitation at all) cannot be cancelled. We also no that the word "Cannot" is sacrosanct, it is to be viewed as absolute and cannot be overridden by other effects. Essentiallyit means you aren't even allowed to try to bypass, override, ignore the effect it is in reference to.

bloodthirster sais "damage cannot be cancelled" i read the card as if the damage from the bloodthirster cannot be cancelled, otherwise wouldnt there be "all damage cannot be cancelled" on the card?

Nope.

Because "Damage cannot be canceled" is an absolute as it is. It says "DAMAGE" and you don't need "ALL".

A possible text for you version would be: "Bloodthirster deals uncancellable damage." or "Damage dealt by Bloodthirster is uncancellable" or, again, "Damage dealt by this Unit cannot be canceled"

The wording on Daemon is confusing and there should be a better way to stipulate that it is a Global Effect. I understand that it is a Constant Effect, but the wording leaves room for interpretation. Only after playing multiple games and really getting a feel for the game, would a player be able to interpret the Daemon's effect as global (unless they are Dwarf biased ).

So what does this mean in terms of gameplay?

• Toughness is negated
• You cannot cancel damage via card effects/actions (such as the neutral support that cancels 1 to your Capital each turn)
• Tactics cards that cancel damage are useless
• You can still redirect damage
• You can still heal damage via damage counter removal effects/actions

Uncancellable = you can't cancel it.

Toughness cancels damage when kicks in...So, it doesn't work with BT in play.

Every other "canceling" effect, doesn't work.

Heal and Redirect are a different concept, thus, not involved in the BT effect.

"Damage cannot be canceled" means just what you read.

Actually after you read the Constant Effects section of the rule book there is absolutely no reason why someone should interpret Damage cannot be canceled as anything but what it is. It is only the fact that the statement is on a unit rather than a support or a tactic that has people second guessing the rules. Unless you think if a support card said Damage cannot be canceled it would be refering to the damage from the support card...

It happens, people get a feeling that a card and its effect say something and interpret it that way and can't let go of it. It is obviously so in the We'z Bigga threads. Rather than looking at how the cards are written with cost, requirements and then effects people started assuming this one card was written completely different. You even have someone arguing now that the ruling is not based on the rules or the card text but on designer intent, despite that most people chiming in agreed how it worked.

Sometimes it is hard to let go of a position held about how the rules should work, even when the developer endorses one way and explains why. IT's why I try not to get invested in a rule working one way or another. I simply read the rule book and the card and try and figure out what a literal interpretation of the card means. I'm usually, but certainly not always, right when I do this. The times I'm wrong (Sadistic Mutation is a prime example), I embrace, broadening my understanding of the rules and the game, and use it to make, hopefully, better judgments in the future.

The key to understanding why this Constant Effect is global is because it has no limiter on it. If it affected damage only inflicted by or on the daemon, Bloodthirster, then it would have said so, Damage to/caused by Bloodthirster may not be canceled (you'll notice every other card with text refers back to itself by name, a dead give away).

The important thing is not whether you were right or wrong, but understanding the game better.

dormouse said:

QFT.

Pardon the confusion on my post, but I was not disagreeing with the "ruling". I was simply making an observation that the text could be misinterpreted.

DB_Cooper, I think you misunderstood my question. It was rhetoric used as a segue into a list of things that occurs when the Daemon is in play.

FiendishDevil said:

Sorry.

Anyway, I was just tryin' to clear things up.

I hope they step up with the card texts in the future . I'm sure I'm not the only one who's pissed about having to "interpret" cards rather than just read and do as they say. I can imagine how hard it would be for someone who isn't atleast decend with the english language. There isn't even that many cards in the core set and still so much confusion </moaning>

Actually the card text for most of the cards is just fine. Most of the confusion comes from people not understanding the rules or trying to force the card text to conform to their knowledge of other games. 99% of all rulings and clarifications from Nate fit with the way the majority of players thought things were supposed to work from just reading the rules and the card and doing exactly what the text says. I think we may have had 2, maybe three questions that honestly couldn't be figured out.

And just real quick, the title of this thread bugs me. Bloodthirster is te name of the unit. Daemon is what the unit is. Daemon has nothing to do with the ability and serves no more purpose in including it than the flavor text quote by Gurni Thorgrimson.

dormouse said:

Well that's what I mean, the texts should be written so that you shouldn't have to figure them out. It's like using open source software; all the tools are there, but the interface sucks so that you have to use a lot of time learning it.

I disagree. You'll notice on most questions, there are a number of people piping in with more or less the same statement and often times rules being quoted. A player not reading or remembering the rules is not the fault of FFG, nor is it an indication of poorly written rules. These rules were written to cover the couple hundred cards in the CS as well as the thousands of cards in the future. There is no way humanly possible to create rules clear, precise, and memorable enough that no one is going to have questions. There is no game with even a touch of subtlety of intricacy that does not have questions on the occasional point. If you expectations are that the rules and cards should be written in a fashion that they never cause question, your expectations are unreasonably high. You'll find that can happen in simple board games like Candyland, but even Monopoly causes numerous questions from players who are not familiar with the game and W:I is FAR more complicated with more moving pieces than Monopoly.