Is the damage dealt by Nurgle's Pestilence assigned to its targets? More generally, for any card that says "... takes [blank] damage..." is the damage assigned? I'm wondering about this with respect to cards like Warrior Priests.

All damage is assigned. There are some effects that can force a redirect of assigned damage, but no damage is delivered in this game without being assigned (as of now) but damage from counterstrike is also immdedately applied with no player action window in between.

Dormouse, damage transfer is not damage assigned, right? If I Stubborn Refusal damage from a unit onto Warrior Priest, it could not be redirected, right?

That is a very good question... I would say that moving damage is not assigned, that it is moved as applied damage directly to the other unit. You may want to send this to Nate just to verify though.

I will do so. Incidentally, other cards do this too, for example, one of the Chaos Heroes, Valka (sp?, dont have cards in front of me).

very interesting question, with lots of potential strategic applications/potential rules arguments. I would think it was assigned and applied like any other damage, but I have no certainty there.

So looking at applications of that.

If it goes how I believe, then it plays like any other type of damage, and can be canceled and redirected as normal

If it goes how Dormous suggests, what happens if...

a) it hits a target that can redirect damage

b) hits a target with toughness.

according to the rulebook, "Whenever a unit with the Toughness keyword is assigned damage, the Toughness keyword cancels its numeric value of that damage before the damage is applied ."

If redirected damage is NOT assigned , than toughness never triggers... doesnt seem quite right but who knows.

Also, if I look at Dormous's nice turn summary, it states, in order :

2.5. Apply Damage.
A. Any cancel for damage is applied here.

Implying that the rulebook is incorrect, and that Damage Cancel Effects, like toughness, are actually applied in the APPLY DAMAGE phase, not the ASSIGN damage phase, differing from the rulebook.

Maybe I forgot some distant rule clarification that has already resolved this...

Let us know if you get an answer!

heres from the rulebook

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.

This gives us the answer for pestilence and other cards.

It doesnt clear up redirected damage , though it does suggest that there is only "one exception to this rule is the Counterstrike keyword", so all other damage would have to be assigned and then applied. But the rulebook is vague and I can see this going both ways.

Cancel damage according to the rule book does actually happen in the beginning of the Apply Damage step, Page 13 first paragraph -

"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."

Sounds like the statement "Whenever a unit with the Toughness keyword is assigned damage, the Toughness keyword cancels its numeric value of that damage before the damage is applied." is incorrect, or at best unclear.

It should say "Damage cancellation triggers after damage is assigned, but before it is applied, at the beginning of the APPLY DAMAGE phase"

Great Flowchart, BTW. Now we just need to start collecting all these questions we players are frequently asking into some sort of list of often queried conundrums... we could call it an OQC. Hmmm... Maybe Ill go ask the designers if they would be interested in creating an official OQC.

The question is whether or not moving damage is dealing damage. If it is then it goes through the exact same assign/action/apply/action. If it isn't then moving damage appears to step outside of the assign/action/apply/action sequence.

I've already sent this question off to Nate about transfering damage, and I specifically asked about redirection (Warrior Priests) and toughness (dwarven units).

Hurdoc said:

I'm wondering the interest of having a "Rules questions" forum if every single question has to be sent by mail to the game designer for clarification. Can't some FFG staff simply log in and post "official-stamped" answer ?

Last, with already 2 other CCGs/LCGs designed and running for several years, how may WH:I rules be so unclear in their written ?

Martin_fr said:

i agree... it wouldnt take long for sum1 from FFG to check this secton of the forums and post a reply...
its not like theres 50questions a day to answer...

very common concerns voiced by many, and argued against by one or two. As it is, nothing we do seems able to change the choice by the designers to not respond to the forums or post public answers to individual questions, requiring individuals to either sift through hundreds of forum posts searching for an answer to a specific rule interpretation, repost a question on the forum and wait for assistance from a player (not designer) or keep resending the same questions to the FFG rule question service. All of the rule interpretations I have learned require trusting the hearsay of the players on this forum, as I have yet to see any official ruling on anything. Supposedly a FAQ will be created at some unspecified time in the future, though I have seen no official announcement. I sent some questions last week. but have not had a response yet. Anyone know the typical time for a response?

It is not up to the desiner or developers, apparently there is a policy at FFG about posting on forums in an official capacity. At one point they did a few FFG employees aa few years ago used to be active forum members. That was maybe two years ago.

You can dislike it (I certainly do), but there is nothing you can do about it. Complaining about it here isn't likely to make you feel better, lacking any form of cartharsis, but if you want to send an email to the Spaniard (assuming you can find his email address), or to whatever feedback form is on this sight for general inquiries, you might make more head way.

As to sending everything to Nate... that suggestion is almost always my suggestion when a player argues against what has already been clarified by Nate but they won't believe it, or when they refuse to apply the rules and card text as written. This is one of those rare occasions where we don't have a clear statement in the rules and nothing that can be quoted which supports one interpretation over another.

Given thatthere are over six million card permutations the rules do cover most of the questions that come up. I'm not going to sweat half a dozen with no clear ruling.

dormouse said:

At least it allowed me to know I wasn't the only one "worried" (a bit too strong of a term) by FFG policies. So, I feel better now, as it seems to be something I'll have to live with, as long as I wish to play this game.

I'm fine with the way its done. FFG is usually great in putting out FAQs and answering questions, so I can just wait until its posted on the website.

Martin_fr said:

Actually that was a good point I hadn't stopped to consider.