5 minutes ago, Mushra93 said:

Since it's Garfield you could imagine a 2 power creature receiving -2 will be alive but won't deal any damage on fights, just like a 0/2 creature in MTG. 

Interesting that you'd bring up MtG. The closer MtG analog would be the creature being reduced to 0/0, and a 0 Toughness creature in MtG is destroyed.

^In today's edition of not actually relevant to the question.

4 minutes ago, dbmeboy said:

The closer MtG analog would be the creature being reduced to 0/0, and a 0 Toughness creature in MtG is destroyed.

Oh yes, forgot to mention that possibility too. But in Magic is more clear because they are separate values.

But yeah, like I said, a creature with 0 power in Keyforge is probably considered dead just like a 0 toughness creature in Magic. It's just a little bit confusing just as some other interactions in Keyforge

In actual mathematical terms, this debate is whether the empty set (or null set) is the same as zero. It isn't. In game terms, we are asking whether undamaged and having an amount of damage equal to zero are distinct and different.

The problem is resolvable, however, since the two ideas are practically equivalent when using a token system rather than a numerical system of damage tracking. The tokens don't have a numeral on them to indicate damage; you just count how many tokens there are on the card. For that case, a lack of tokens means zero damage.

Quote

DAMAGE

Damage a creature has taken is tracked by placing damage tokens on the creature. If a creature has an amount of damage on it equal to or greater than its power, the creature is destroyed . Damage on a creature does not reduce its power.

0 damage tokens >= 0 power means it's destroyed

I would go with the reduced to zero power = dead side of the debate.

However, there are some mitigating factors:

Magic and hearthstone both use the 0 health = dead approach.

Yugioh does not. You can have creatures with zero or reduced to zero stats, who only die when they take damage of any kind.

This looks to be yet another thing that needs either an errata or FAQ. Or maybe a comprehensive rulebook like Magic has, all 500 pages of it.

Just now, ornithologist said:

Magic and hearthstone both use the 0 health = dead approach.

Yugioh does not. You can have creatures with zero or reduced to zero stats, who only die when they take damage of any kind.

don't compare this game to other cardgames, that way leads madness.

there is no "health" in this game, there's power and damage . If a creature has an amount of damage on it greater or equal to its power , it is destroyed.

You might have noticed I agreed with how you would play it. But, FFG has a bad tendency of having most rules be rules as written, but a few rules as intended. They are normaly not very clear on which is which. Worse, most of their games have many edge cases (like this one) where the meaning is not obvious and can in fact be counter intuitive. Thats why people compare it other games that tend to have that edge case solved.

King of the Crag is literally the only card in the set that lowers the power of something. Also, its in Brobnar the faction with only three creatures who would hit zero from it. I'd say that makes it likely that FFG didn't really consider that scenario where a creature has zero power. In fact, I would bet that in the next set they release a 0 power creature to make it more confusing for the lot of us.

Regardless, I still would play it as a a zero power creature dies. It's the most common sense way to read the interaction. But FFG and common sense do not always appear together.

1 hour ago, Poposhka said:

don't compare this game to other cardgames, that way leads madness.

there is no "health" in this game, there's power and damage . If a creature has an amount of damage on it greater or equal to its power , it is destroyed.

That’s just a semantic distinction. It’s a fair observation to point out that if - if - FFG says a creature can stay alive with zero power, then it wouldn’t be the first game to do so. Pretty strong counter-argument for the people who otherwise can’t wrap their minds around it.

if you're gonna wait for an official ruling on every single little nitpick you have with FFG games, you will be waiting for a very long time.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

That’s just a semantic distinction. It’s a fair observation to point out that if - if - FFG says a creature can stay alive with zero power, then it wouldn’t be the first game to do so. Pretty strong counter-argument for the people who otherwise can’t wrap their minds around it.

sure, but what's your solution? don't play the game until they clarify, or follow Rules As Written?

Just now, Poposhka said:

if you're gonna wait for an official ruling on every single little nitpick you have with FFG games, you will be waiting for a very long time.

That’s the thing, though. You can’t have a competitive environment where any one of these nitpicky things is debatable. FFG is the king of casual mountain, and people love the fact that they don’t do comprehensive rules a la Magic... but then they try their hands at a competitive card game, and you need a 100 page document or this is what you get. FFG can’t have it both ways, and neither can the players.

3 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

sure, but what's your solution? don't play the game until they clarify, or follow Rules As Written?

If you want me to show you written rules that cover this scenario, I can point you at a rulebook... just not KeyForge’s.

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

If you want me to show you written rules that cover this scenario, I can point you at a rulebook... just not KeyForge’s.

So you don't think that this excerpt from the rules would cover this scenario? if not, why?

Quote

If a creature has an amount of damage on it equal to or greater than its power, the creature is destroyed.

I can read it both ways. If I were a TO I’d tell you it dies as a state-based action, but that’s not an FFG rule. We're effectively back to RAI v. RAW, and the rules don’t specifically say.

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

I can read it both ways. If I were a TO I’d tell you it dies as a state-based action, but that’s not an FFG rule. We're effectively back to RAI v. RAW.

Okay, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. Meanwhile I'll be playing on top of casual mountain .

1 hour ago, Poposhka said:

So you don't think that this excerpt from the rules would cover this scenario? if not, why?

I don’t, no, because I don’t consider no damage taken the same as 0 damage taken.

and a lot of people here seem to disagree, that’s fine, I can see their point as well. We’ll wait for an official ruling.

11 minutes ago, Palpster said:

I don’t, no, because I don’t consider no damage taken the same as 0 damage taken.

and a lot of people here seem to disagree, that’s fine, I can see their point as well. We’ll wait for an official ruling.

At this point I’m just trying to understand your position. To me no damages is quantified as 0. I don’t understand the difference between saying “this creature has no damage” and “this creature has 0 damage”, if you took a picture of two cards in either of these states it would be impossible to tell which was which. How do you differentiate the two?

10 minutes ago, Palpster said:

I don’t, no, because I don’t consider no damage taken the same as 0 damage taken.

I genuinely cannot understand how you could exercise such elaborate mental gymnastics without trying to be purposefully obtuse. At some point during this reasoning you had to ask yourself "Maybe I am just trying to be difficult for the sake of being different?", right?

1 minute ago, Poposhka said:

I genuinely cannot understand how you could exercise such elaborate mental gymnastics without trying to be purposefully obtuse.

Well, let’s look at it from your perspective. It’s power, not health, right? In every game I’ve ever played when you’re reduced to 0 health you’re dead. Health is effectively the same as life, yeah? The question that arises here is whether power is a measure of livelihood, strength, or both. If it’s strength only, which the term power generally represents, then it’s fair to say that a powerless creature isn’t necessarily a dead one. It can’t do any damage, and it can’t suffer any, but there’s nothing to say a weak creature can’t just sit there.

how many references to "health" or "hit points" do you find in the rules or the playing cards? zero. You're injecting things into your interpretation of the rules that don't exist. There is no concept of health, there is no concept of hit points. There is power and damage .

To be fair, I completely understand where you might be coming from - I too come from other games, tabletop and video, where hit points and health bars are central to the game, but once you consider that health is not a part of KeyForge, it made sense.

That being said, I could absolutely see FFG making a clarification about this, if only to alleviate the confusion some feel due to this.

17 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

I genuinely cannot understand how you could exercise such elaborate mental gymnastics without trying to be purposefully obtuse. At some point during this reasoning you had to ask yourself "Maybe I am just trying to be difficult for the sake of being different?", right?

Not at all, if they were both the same does an elusive creature that is dealt “no damage” actually receive 0 damage? That would mean she has taken damage, (0 is after all an amount of damage you claim) so is she now killed by a creature with poison?

10 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

how many references to health do you find in the rules or the playing cards? zero.

Exactly! A creature couldn’t possibly survive having no health... but there is no health in this game. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that a powerless creature could still be alive, however.

I mean, I see where people are coming from. Null and zero are different concepts.

For instance:

Q - Does the creature have damage?

A - No (null)

vs:

Q - How much damage is on the creature?

A - 0

I still disagree with the null interpretation, but I see where it's coming from. Problem is, rule reads as such: If a creature has an amount of damage on it equal to or greater than its power, the creature is destroyed.

Looks to me like the question to evaluate is:

Q1 - What is the amount of damage on the creature?

Q2 - Is that amount greater than its power?

Answering either of those questions with null does not make sense.

(The competing interpretation asks Q1 Is there an amount of damage at all? and if null stops instead of continuing through the rest of the comparison).

2 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Exactly! A creature couldn’t possibly survive having no health... but there is no health in this game. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that a powerless creature could still be alive, however.

oh come on, now you're in metaphysics and philosophy territory.