I was a little confused by the wording of the Non Combat Damage section of the FAQ. I submitted the following question to FFG.

My question is in regards to the Non Combat Damage section of the new FAQ. The first part says:

"Non Combat Damage is the term for
all damage generated besides combat
damage. Non Combat Damage is
always applied as soon as it is assigned
before any other actions can be taken."

So as I read this if used my Nurgle's Scorcerer special ability, i would immediately assign AND apply my one point of damage to the target unit. The opposing player would not be able to play any actions BEFORE the damage was applied.

However, the next paragraph says:

"Any cards that could prevent the
damage to the unit like Steelâ?Ts Bane
(CC 6) which reads â?oAction: Cancel the
next 10 damage that would be dealt to
one target [High Elf] unit this turn.â??
would need to be played in response to
the pl ay of Nurgleâ?Ts Pestilence in order
to cancel any of the damage."

This appears to directly contradict the previous paragraph by allowing the opposing player to "play an action" BEFORE the damage is applied.

So does the opposing player have an opportunity to play actions in response to a Non Combat Damage effect that would prevent the damage from being applied?

*********************************************************************Here is the answer***************************************************************************

The purpose of the non-combat damage section of the new FAQ is to highlight the fact that non-combat damage, once generated is immediately applied as soon as it is assigned before any actions can be taken. However, the point of the example was to highlight the fact that there was still an action window before the damage was generated for people to use damage cancel effects (like Steel's Bane).

So, for your example using Nurgle's Sorcerer's ability, you would play the action. In response to you playing an action, I could then play steel's bane (or some other damage cancellation effect). My steel's bane would resolve before your damage is generated through your ability resolving and would be able to cancel the damage that your Nurgle's Sorcerer would generate.

However, what I cannot do is pass any responses to you playing Nurgle's Sorcerer's action, wait for you to assign damage, and then between the Assign Damage and Apply Damage window, play Steel's Bane to cancel the damage. It is essentially getting rid of that specific window to play actions.

Hope this helps.

James Hata

If my opponent plays a card or uses an ability that hurts my unit, I can respond by canceling the damage BEFORE it is delt, but not AFTER it is delt? Is that what he is saying?

That is the way of LIFO. It is one of the reason I've always disliked it, it requires an abstraction of normal event sequencing that defies logical progression of cause and effect, action reaction. The explaining of LIFO to non-CCG players of the M:tG variety games is always difficult, and usually ends up, with "I know it is weird but it was what the developers decided, but everything else about the game is fun..."

It is also why I wish Eric had stuck with the much more tactical and logically consistent Thrones and Cthulu method of predictive/pre-emptive actions and then tactical responses. If you want to do something before I do a thing... well you must do that thing before I do mine. Though I should note there are cancels in these games as well, but they cancel the action being played as it is being played not canceling the effect before the effect has happened.

It is not hard to understand. You are responding to the card and not the effect. Someone is using a card, in response, I will use my steels bane (Which says the "next" damage). If it were the other way around, the card would be almost pointless. If it were not this way, there would be no way to stop half of the effects in this game and you would basically be playing solitair and seeing who "got there" first. The "LIFO" thing adds interaction. For those who don't know what LIFO is, it stands for Last In, First Out. MtG went to just calling it "the stack". Basically, you play an effect/card, it goes on the stack, someone else can play an effect/card in response and it goes onto the stack on top of the other cards, thus it is a stack of effects/cards. You resolve them from top to bottom. Its very easy.

I will note that for clarification, the rules should have made the exception for the combat window being opened and not the other way around. It is confusing to a lot of players when the non-combat damage is described rather than combat damage opening a window before it is actually dealt.

The thing though is that damage cancel does not cancel the effect it cancels the damage (as the cards read). If it were intended to cancel the effect it should read closer to 'Cancel Target damage dealing effect.'

The key I believe is really in the wording, Gate of Sigmar and Contested Fortress both read "Cancel 1 damage to your capital each turn." As constant effects they will initiate the moment one damage is assigned. Master Rune of Valaya and Steel's Bane, both actions read in a fashion that would allow for them to cancel damage that is assigned/applied after they have resolved so could be played in response, resolve first, and have no logical inconsistency.

Steel's Bane reads, " Action: Cancel the next 10 damage that would be dealt to one target High Elf unit this turn." The important word there is next, what ever damage it is played in response to would get 10 of it canceled. I'm curious if it creates a lasting effect. IOW if the damage effect it was played in response to did four points, would that unit still be under the effects of Steel's Bane for another six points of damage or the turn ends, whichever happened first?

Master Rune of Valaya reads, "Action: Cancel all damage assigned during the battlefield phase this turn." I have a similar question here, does it create a lasting effect that continues to cancel all damage assigned during the battlefield phase that turn or does it just cancel all damage that is assigned in the action chain following it's resolution? I may have to send these off to James. What does everyone else think?

I thought MTG did use LIFO for it's instants? I haven't played it in a while though.

dormouse said:

The way that Master Rune of Valaya and Steel's Bane read, they would indeed have lasting effect.

In Steel's Bane though, a player could respond to the Steel's Bane by hitting the targeted unit with something before the bane would resolve. Like if a player could snipe the targeted unit in response to the Steel's Bane, if the snipe damage was enough to kill the unit, it would die.

when steel bane is played you can aswell kill/move the unit as an answer (if you are in combat already, corrupt is useless) , or simply play "mob up"

yes you can do what you want in response if it´s legal

Rapid response from James.

Here is my question as I worded it, "Hey James, I have a question regarding damage canceling as a response to non-combat damage. Specifically the cards Steel's Bane, Master Rune of Valaya, and Gifts of Aenarion.

Steel's Bane reads, "Action: Cancel the next 10 damage that would be dealt to one target High Elf unit this turn." The word in question is next. What ever damage it is played in response to would get 10 of it canceled. I'm curious if it creates a lasting effect. IOW if the damage effect it was played in response to did four points, would that unit still be under the effects of Steel's Bane for another six points of damage or the turn ends, whichever happened first?

Master Rune of Valaya reads, "Action: Cancel all damage assigned during the battlefield phase this turn." I have a similar question here, does it create a lasting effect that continues to cancel all damage assigned during the battlefield phase that turn or does it just cancel all damage that is assigned in the action chain following it's resolution?

GIfts of Aenarion reads, "Action: Cancel all damage that would be dealt to your capital until the end of the turn. For each damage thus canceled, gain 1 resource." This one seems extremely clear that it is intended to create a lasting effect. Does the difference in wording between these cards imply that they operate differently regarding lasting effects or is it just standard wording deviation due to the design process?"

And the official clarification, "Hi Damon,

All of those cards operate similarly. Their effects do last until the end of the turn, and it is just a wording deviation."

So there you go. Once those cards have resolved they continue to cancel damage, which is why they work as responses even though there has yet to be any damage assigned for them to cancel.