I know, it's a weird question, but can the Dianoga suffer more than 20 damage? It should be obvious that no, it cannot, but I can't support that in the rules.

It seems to hinge on whether or not the Dianoga is a figure, in my mind. If it is a neutral figure, it falls upon this sentence in the Rules Reference: "A figure cannot suffer <damage> in excess of its Health." But the mission card doesn't say the magic word "figure" on it. But the card does use the term "defeated", which refers only to figures in the rules reference.

However, under attacking an object: "If an object suffers <damage> equal to or greater than its Health...". This shows that objects suffer damage beyond their health total. Of course, the Dianoga's mission card doesn't say it's an object either!

This matters since, in the mission, you get damage tokens equal to the damage it suffered. You can sneak a few extra points off of the Dianoga if it is an object and not a figure.

Has this been officially ruled anywhere? I've asked my group about it, and one of them said it was ruled at Worlds as not taking more than 20 damage, and he remembers it came up at GenCon too. But I can't support it looking at the rules, and seeing on this forum people have said it's an object (how can you tell?).

This kind of stuff should be in the FAQ.

Thanks,

Paul

It's not a figure, it's an object.

You can't overkill it for extra points.

Agreed that FFG needs more detailed FAQs.

All tokens are objects unless explicitly specified to be figures. (And you could not attack neutral figures.)

The rules are a bit lacking there, but you can assume extra damage is ignored for both figures and objects.

A figure or object can have suffered damage over its Health only when the amount of Health is reduced due to an effect or effect expiring (Command Card Adrenaline expires during end of round, or MHD-19 depleted his Systems Upgrade reward card).

I guess my issue is with the rules, then. Not only are they "lacking", I believe I put forward a decent argument that objects can suffer damage beyond their health, according to the rules as written. I agree it probably wasn't INTENDED to be that way, but I can't support that using rules citations.

Is there something in the rules that says that all tokens are objects? I could have missed that. If not, it needs to be in the FAQ.

Similarly, objects being unable to suffer damage beyond their health, like figures, needs to be FAQed as well. Or they errata the rules reference to add "and objects" to the line about figures not being able to suffer damage beyond their health.

I'll play that the Dianoga stops at 20 damage, but if someone asks me why, I'll tell them there's nothing in the rules that says it does, just that everyone collectively agrees that it should. Which is not a great way to play - IA is getting more popular (it had about 100 players at Worlds!), so it should have a solid base for the rules.

Paul

Mission rules can allow a figure to attack objects, such as doors or tokens.

Objects refer to elements on the map that are not figures. Doors, crates, and terminals are all considered to be objects.

· Most mission tokens are considered to be objects, unless the mission rules use the token to represent a figure.

(For a first edition of a game, the rules have hold up pretty well. There are known holes in there though, which are slowly but surely being covered by rulings and FAQs.)

I read the Dianoga situation as since it is health 20, and the mission says "attacking player claims tokens equal to damage the dianoga suffered". It can not "suffer" more than 20 damage, but that may be a simplification of that mission's objective statement.

I think what pheaver is getting at is that according to the RRG, page 6;

Attacking Objects

Mission rules can allow a figure to attack objects, such as doors or

tokens.

• Mission rules specify how much Health the object has. Any

<Damage> it suffers is placed on or adjacent to the object. If an object

suffers <Damage> equal to or greater than its Health, it is destroyed

and removed from the map. If the object is a door, it is

considered to have opened.

Seeing as the Dianoga is an Object, not a Figure, it clearly states that it can suffer damage greater than it's health (text in red by me for emphasis).

So if the Dianoga suffers 7 damage in the killing blow, but only required 4, it still suffered 7 damage.

By rules as written, I think pheaver has a point. (even though I also think that this is not rules as intended for this particular issue)

I think what pheaver is getting at is that according to the RRG, page 6;

Seeing as the Dianoga is an Object, not a Figure, it clearly states that it can suffer damage greater than it's health (text in red by me for emphasis).

Yes, I knew what he was referring to. Technically the rule you quoted does not state an object can suffer damage in excess of its health from an attack, the rule quoted tells what happens if an object has suffered damage equal or in excess of its Health. I already listed a few cases when a figure can have suffered damage in excess of its Health even when a figure cannot suffer damage over its Health from an attack.

Also note the difference between "has suffered" (the number of damage tokens the figure/object has) and "suffers" (the amount of damage token added).

However, the rules also technically do not limit the damage an object can suffer from an attack, which is the real issue.

Handling damage suffered from an attack in the same way for objects and figures is still an easy interpretation, and it is also thematic. How could you damage a door or some other object more than it takes to destroy it? The extra damage just dissipates when the object reaches its point of destruction.

When the rules say suffered equal or more damage than health, they are clarifying that, for instance, a Door with 5 Health is destroyed (considered open at 5 health); just as if a character reaches 0 health the character is considered knocked out.

the wording of 'equal to or more' is common in gaming circles because rules lawyers will squeak: Ït doesn't say equal, therefore at 5 Health the door is still closed", therefore when an object is damaged with equal to or more than it's starting health it is considered destroyed.

If I am shooting at a Stormtrooper, I need to inflict equal to or more than its health to remove it, it doesn't suffer 100 damage it only suffers enough to remove it from play. Same too witht he Dianoga.

I read the Dianoga situation as since it is health 20, and the mission says "attacking player claims tokens equal to damage the dianoga suffered". It can not "suffer" more than 20 damage, but that may be a simplification of that mission's objective statement.

Always seemed pretty cut and dry to me. Not sure why it is an issue. It says 20 health, so all players who do damage share in those 20 damage tokens. I never thought about any differently than a door.

I think what pheaver is getting at is that according to the RRG, page 6;

Attacking Objects

Mission rules can allow a figure to attack objects, such as doors or

tokens.

• Mission rules specify how much Health the object has. Any

<Damage> it suffers is placed on or adjacent to the object. If an object

suffers <Damage> equal to or greater than its Health, it is destroyed

and removed from the map. If the object is a door, it is

considered to have opened.

Seeing as the Dianoga is an Object, not a Figure, it clearly states that it can suffer damage greater than it's health (text in red by me for emphasis).

So if the Dianoga suffers 7 damage in the killing blow, but only required 4, it still suffered 7 damage.

By rules as written, I think pheaver has a point. (even though I also think that this is not rules as intended for this particular issue)

This is incorrect. It has 20 health, there for it suffers 4 damage, and the rest passes through it, to some object behind it, or something.

I think what pheaver is getting at is that according to the RRG, page 6;

Seeing as the Dianoga is an Object, not a Figure, it clearly states that it can suffer damage greater than it's health (text in red by me for emphasis).

Yes, I knew what he was referring to. Technically the rule you quoted does not state an object can suffer damage in excess of its health from an attack, the rule quoted tells what happens if an object has suffered damage equal or in excess of its Health. I already listed a few cases when a figure can have suffered damage in excess of its Health even when a figure cannot suffer damage over its Health from an attack.

Also note the difference between "has suffered" (the number of damage tokens the figure/object has) and "suffers" (the amount of damage token added).

However, the rules also technically do not limit the damage an object can suffer from an attack, which is the real issue.

Handling damage suffered from an attack in the same way for objects and figures is still an easy interpretation, and it is also thematic. How could you damage a door or some other object more than it takes to destroy it? The extra damage just dissipates when the object reaches its point of destruction.

I get that there is a difference between "has suffered" and "suffers", which is an excellent point.

I guess it really comes down to what the exact wording on the Dianoga mission text is;

The dianoga can be attacked (Health: 20, Defense: 3 <block>).

After an attack targeting the dianoga is resolved, the attacking player claims tokens equal to the <damage> the dianoga suffered.

When a player defeats the dianoga, he gains 5 VPs.

Then, each player gains VPs equal to the number of tokens he claimed.

The object (dianoga) can suffer damage in excess of its health (as shown by the RRG).

When determining the damage suffered, do you simply stop counting when you hit 20?

So in my example the dianoga will suffer 7 damage.

But when I collect tokens it only suffered 4?

Even though it should suffer 7 as per the rules? (regardless of this being in excess of its health)

EDIT: also, to clarify; I'm not arguing because I agree or disagree with either side. I'm genuinely curious as to what the outcome of this is because it doesn't seem very clear cut to me...

Yeah, I don't think anyone here believes it should score points above the 20 health, but it certainly seems like it can be read that way. It's just a loophole that could use closing, that's all!

If damage and strain were suffered one token at a time, that would also resolve this issue. (I have a pending question about how multiple strain is applied, all at once or one at a time.)

When you apply each damage (from for example 7 damage) one at a time, at one point the object or figure has suffered damage equal to its Health, becomes destroyed/defeated and cannot suffer more - the excess damage is discarded because there is no target on the map anymore. Heroes - which can be defeated but remain on the board as wounded - need the extra rule that damage that was not applied from the attack is discarded.

The clinching issue really is in the final attack destroying the object.

That attack, as implied by rules as written, can cause the target to suffer damage in excess of it's health.

I don't think damage is applied one at a time, because then the clause about objects suffering damage in excess would be superfluous.

It definitely seems like either the RRG could use a clarification about objects and damage, or in the very least an official ruling on Dianoga.

I don't think damage is applied one at a time, because then the clause about objects suffering damage in excess would be superfluous.

There is quite a lot of superfluous and repetitive text in the RRG.

(And the clause is not about an object suffering damage in excess, it is about an object having suffered damage equal or excess of its Health. )

Well, the exact wording is;

Mission rules specify how much Health the object has. Any

it suffers is placed on or adjacent to the object. If an object

suffers equal to or greater than its Health, it is destroyed

and removed from the map. If the object is a door, it is

considered to have opened.

So the text doesn't explicitly say suffering or having suffered, but rather suffers.

I felt grammatically my term was closer to the issue at hand than yours;

We are suffering (present) (edit, upon reflection we were suffering would be past tense and therefore shoots my argument in the foot a little. never the less we are discussing the immediate moment when the Dianoga suffers damage)

He suffers (present)

Having suffered I/He (past)

The suffers in the RRG text is referring to the damage as the Object suffers it. (suffers implies in it currently happening, as does suffering)
You are talking about damage the Dianoga has suffered in the the past (having suffered implies it's already happened)

If you would like I can re-phrase my statement to the following;

I don't think damage is applied one at a time, because then the clause about when an object suffers damage equal to or greater than it's health would be superfluous.

Then again, back to the actual issue at hand. The Dianoga should clearly not suffer damage in excess of it's health, but the wording leaves it open for pedants such as myself to say that "actually it does..."

So, another place which should have "has suffered". There were two other in the core that are fixed in the FAQ. (Failsafe and Temptation, just by chance happened to be reported by me.)

("Suffers 20" damage would mean 20 damage from one attack, which is obviously impossible (in skirmish).)

("Suffers 20" damage would mean 20 damage from one attack, which is obviously impossible.)

OR IS IT*?!?!?!?

*I know that's a campaign roll