1 hour ago, twinstarbmc said:

I don't know, Mr. Clinton, do they?

Let us presume that a creature has as much damage "on it" as the sum of numerical value on damage tokens "on it." Sound fair? I do hope so. So then, if a creature has 0 damage tokens upon its card, then it has 0 damage "on it."

Would you consider that creature “undamaged”?

and if so, how does a creature that is “undamaged” get destroyed because it has “damage tokens on it...”

I really think there should be a clarification about this. I understand both arguments and by now I think most of us here can see it too. Hopefuly they can make an observation saying if a creature reaches 0 power by any means is dead.

Yeah, no damage equal 0, but the rule also says a damaged creature have tokens on it. Can a non-damaged creature die because it has no power? Can a 0 power creature be considered damaged? Because the rule refers that a creature is destroyed if has as much or more damage on it as it has power. If the power it's 0, does it still need to be damaged somehow?

Obvioulsy 0 means no damage, otherwise Save the Pack would kill everything.

I think I asked in this thread about them aswering those ruling questions. Where they answer those questions? You guy have been along for more time here, so can you tell me if they take too long to clarify stuff like this?

16 hours ago, RobertK said:

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.

Well, this conversation has gone a little off the deep end, but I can contribute here. The tokens do have different numbers on them. There are 1, 3, and 5 value tokens. Also, while it is true a lack of tokens does mean zero damage, as I stated before zero is precisely the number needed to kill a zero power creature.

3 minutes ago, dperello said:

Also, while it is true a lack of tokens does mean zero damage, as I stated before zero is precisely the number needed to kill a zero power creature.

"If a creature has an amount of damage" A creature that got shrinked to 0 has been damaged? Because if you consider 0 an amout of damage, than one can think all creatures are damaged by a default of 0. Then Save the Pack is a complete board wipe.

Again, someone has sent this question for clarification?

You know, I'm beginning to feel for poor old Brad Andres. If these are the types of questions he's getting submitted it's no wonder he hasn't answered any of my rules questions yet. The poor man is probably constantly passing out from banging his head against a wall.

1 minute ago, dperello said:

You know, I'm beginning to feel for poor old Brad Andres. If these are the types of questions he's getting submitted it's no wonder he hasn't answered any of my rules questions yet. The poor man is probably constantly passing out from banging his head against a wall.

I mean, I think I've seen you complain in other topics about poor wording when you don't think something is clear. And for some people that seemed clear. Forgive me if it was not you.

Now this is clear for you and you act like is so obvious. You really think this cannot lead to confusion? Some stuff might be clear for one person and dubious for another and vice versa...

9 minutes ago, dperello said:

You know, I'm beginning to feel for poor old Brad Andres. If these are the types of questions he's getting submitted it's no wonder he hasn't answered any of my rules questions yet. The poor man is probably constantly passing out from banging his head against a wall.

FFG keeps falling for the idea that less rules is better.

13 minutes ago, Mushra93 said:

"If a creature has an amount of damage" A creature that got shrinked to 0 has been damaged? Because if you consider 0 an amout of damage, than one can think all creatures are damaged by a default of 0. Then Save the Pack is a complete board wipe.

Again, someone has sent this question for clarification?

All these answers can simultaneously be true.

Q - What is the amount of damage on this creature?

A - 0

Q - Does the creature have damage tokens?

A - No

Q - Is the creature damaged?

A - No

Q - Is the amount of damage tokens equal or greater than the power of 0?

A - Yes

Being damaged or not is a binary condition. A creature either has 1 or more damage or it doesn't. Whether damage was dealt is binary. 1 or more damage tokens were placed, or they weren't. The amount of damage is a numerical value that is compared to the numerical value of the creature's power. 0 damage is equal or greater than 0 toughness *and* 0 damage is not damaged. These are not conflicting statements.

39 minutes ago, Mushra93 said:

"If a creature has an amount of damage" A creature that got shrinked to 0 has been damaged? Because if you consider 0 an amout of damage, than one can think all creatures are damaged by a default of 0. Then Save the Pack is a complete board wipe.

Again, someone has sent this question for clarification?

As I pointed out in my example however if you defend the point that a creature with 0 damage is different than saying a creature has no damage or is undamaged then you’ve created a scenario where it’s possible for a creature to deal 0 damage to a creatuee and you’d then have to differentiate creatures whom have suffered an attack from a 0 power creature and those that haven’t.

Ie When you Fight with a creature it deals damage equal to its power. Thus if you state that a 0 damage creature doesn’t immediately die by having damage equal to its power (ie that 0 damage is undamaged) then that means that creature lives, can attack, and by definition of fighting do 0 damage making a creature suffer 0 damage which would make them different than a creature who was undamaged.

The only way around this is it 0 damage and no damage mean the same thing. This would prevent poison or saver the pack board wipes because all creatues with 0 damage would be undamaged. This seems the most logical as it prevents blatantly silly innevabilites.

I think this argument has been run into the ground and no further points are to be made. No one is going to change their mind if they've already made it up. I believe both are valid points of view and a rules clarification is necessary if the argument has reached this point. However much you sympathise for the person who has to answer this question, it seems to be a valid question. I will ask for clarification and let people know if/when I receive a response and include the correspondence.

1 minute ago, TwitchyBait said:

you’d then have to differentiate creatures whom have suffered an attack from a 0 power creature and those that haven’t

But what seems to be the condition is not if the creature was attacked, it is if it was delt damage and/or have damage token on it.

Assuming a creature with 0 power can stay alive, it will deal no damage. Like you guys are saying, right? 0 damage = no damage, therefore a creature that fought a 0 power would be left undamaged!

There are 2 different points being made here (and I can agree with both): One of them is if a creature need to suffer actual damage (have tokens) to be destroyed. Other is the point you are defending. I'm kindda defending the other interpretation just because I don't think is that clear as some of you guys think it is and that might bring confusion to a lot of people that are not even included in this forum.

18 minutes ago, Mushra93 said:

But what seems to be the condition is not if the creature was attacked, it is if it was delt damage and/or have damage token on it.

Assuming a creature with 0 power can stay alive, it will deal no damage. Like you guys are saying, right? 0 damage = no damage, therefore a creature that fought a 0 power would be left undamaged!

There are 2 different points being made here (and I can agree with both): One of them is if a creature need to suffer actual damage (have tokens) to be destroyed. Other is the point you are defending. I'm kindda defending the other interpretation just because I don't think is that clear as some of you guys think it is and that might bring confusion to a lot of people that are not even included in this forum.

You can’t say the creature with 0 power would fight and not deal damage because it not only flies in the face of the fight rules but because you’ve already proposed the premise that 0 damage and undamaged are different because if they where the same the creature would be dead (ie those of us saying 0 damage is undamaged).

Ok we’re getting somewhere. So we have a 0 power creature that’s alive. This is only possible if 0 damage and undamaged are different things because if they’re the same then an undamaged creature with 0 power would have 0 damage killing it.

So now that we’ve established the basis of what the “undamaged and 0 damage are different” side is saying let’s go look at the fight rules:

“Each of the two creatues deals an amount of damage equal to its power”

Uh oh, so if a 0 power creature fights another creature it deals 0 damage. Since we’ve established the only way for it to be alive is to say undamaged and 0 damage are separate then the creature it fought is now damaged for 0.

Thus if this creature had poison what it Fought is dead, if you used a board wipe that effected damage creatues? It would also die. This means every time a 0 power creature engaged in a fight you’d have to differentiate all the creatures it or another 0 power creature fought from those they hadn’t as the entire basis for their argument is that the two are now have intrinsically different damage states.

Or you could say 0 damage is undamaged and thus those fights would never occur, the tracking wouldn’t need to be done, and the effects differentiating those that fought a 0 power over those that didn’t would also be gone because no 0 power creature would be able to attack as they would die once hitting 0.

In short holding to the basis that 0 damage and undamaged are somehow different oppens up a big can of worms.

1 hour ago, Mushra93 said:

I mean, I think I've seen you complain in other topics about poor wording when you don't think something is clear. And for some people that seemed clear. Forgive me if it was not you.

Now this is clear for you and you act like is so obvious. You really think this cannot lead to confusion? Some stuff might be clear for one person and dubious for another and vice versa...

The difference is I was right... 😘 No, of course you're right, everyone will interpret things differently, and something that will appear perfectly clear to one person won't make any sense to someone else. However, not all questions are created equally. Of course there's some ambiguity here, but is anyone genuinely confused by this particularge situation? Or is it more likely someone is, for whatever reason, enjoying being just a little obtuse? And whether I myself am guilty of such things or not, it doesn't change the fact that Brad has my sympathy.

14 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

because you’ve already proposed the premise that 0 damage and undamaged are different

Where did I said that? I just said a 0 power creature will deal NO DAMAGE, therefore leaving the opposing creature undamaged. Then you use the fight exemple, but I'm pointing exactly that! A 0 power creature won't deal 0 damage as a tracking mark, 0 damage will be just nothing.

The concept of 0 damage is equal to "no damage" like you guys have been saying, right? So why the 0 damage need to be tracked if 0 is none?

21 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

Uh oh, so if a 0 power creature fights another creature it deals 0 damage

It will be no damage at all. It will not mark the opposing creature as damaged by an amount of 0. The damage never happens because 0 is 0, its nothing. Where is the need of tracking a 0 damage if 0 is no damage? The creature will be left undamged and that is the consequence of being hit by 0.

0 damage and undamaged are not creature "states" to be compared. Undamaged is a state for a creature, 0 power just means a crature will cause no damage at all. Never said they were comparable situations.

There will be NO such thing like creature A is undamaged and creature B is damaged by 0. Damaged by 0 never happens because it leave a creature undamaged

18 minutes ago, dperello said:

The difference is I was right... 😘 No, of course you're right, everyone will interpret things differently, and something that will appear perfectly clear to one person won't make any sense to someone else. However, not all questions are created equally. Of course there's some ambiguity here, but is anyone genuinely confused by this particularge situation? Or is it more likely someone is, for whatever reason, enjoying being just a little obtuse? And whether I myself am guilty of such things or not, it doesn't change the fact that Brad has my sympathy.

Like I said: I get both argument and that's why I'm curious for clarifications and I think there must be one in the rulebooks so people don't get confused. I don't go as far to assume "hey, are you guys really confused by this?" There are people from different languages playing, even the ones from the same can see some ambiguity like you said. Ambiguity is not good and must be clarified if possible.

1 hour ago, Mushra93 said:

Where did I said that?

There are two sides here,
-one says 0 damage and no damage mean exactly the same thing, that a creature with 0 power dies since it's damage is 0 which is the same as having no damage.
-the other says they're separate that 0 damage and no damage are not the same thing and as such a creature with no damage would survive if brought to 0 power.
This second scenario is the only one that allows for the creature to fight as obviously it would die with the former position.
If we look at the fight rules it says a creature deals damage equal to it's power, it's power in this instance would be 0 and thus it would deal 0 damage. If you hold that a creature with 0 power would deal no damage then you are maintaining the first position where it would be dead because you are now switching to the position of 0 and no damage being the same thing. You can't swip swap back and forth and have a consistent position, either 0 and no damage are the same and the creature dies or they aren't it can fight thus dealing 0 damage.

What you're doing here is going
"0 damage and no damage aren't the same thing thus the creatures damage is not equal to or greater than it's power meaning it lives."
Then you switch gears and go "when it deals damage equal to it's power of 0 it deals no damage because 0 damage is no damage"
That's contradicting the first position directly because you're saying 0 damage and no damage aren't and are the same thing.

" The damage never happens because 0 is 0, its nothing. "
Fighting says a creature deals damage equal to it's power, period. Thus if a creature has 0 power and attacks it has, by the fight rules, dealt 0 damage (since 0 is equal to it's power) and if you claim that 0 damage IS nothing, then the creature is dead because it's power (0) is equal to it's damage (nothing) which you've already established nothing and 0 are the same when you said, and I quote a gain "because 0 is 0, it's nothing".
I don't get how this could be any clearer.

1 hour ago, TwitchyBait said:

be any clearer

We just got stuck into a conversarion about 0 and stuff. In the end the confusion is if a creature with power reduced to 0 without taking damage will dy by default or if it still requires to receive token damage "on it". Anyway, I truly understand what you are saying and I think it is the correct call, but I hope there is a note on the rulebook.

*wall of semi-intelligible text*

”How could this be any clearer?!?”

XD

9 hours ago, Mushra93 said:

"If a creature has an amount of damage" A creature that got shrinked to 0 has been damaged? Because if you consider 0 an amout of damage, than one can think all creatures are damaged by a default of 0. Then Save the Pack is a complete board wipe.

Again, someone has sent this question for clarification?

No, but they also have zero health.

They dead.

26 minutes ago, Derrault said:

zero health

Technically there is no health in this game, only power. But yeah, I agree it's the logical conclusion

10 hours ago, Mushra93 said:

"If a creature has an amount of damage" A creature that got shrinked to 0 has been damaged? Because if you consider 0 an amout of damage, than one can think all creatures are damaged by a default of 0. Then Save the Pack is a complete board wipe.

Again, someone has sent this question for clarification?

I have, m'lord. I will report back as soon as the messenger pigeon arrives.

4 minutes ago, Mushra93 said:

Technically there is no health in this game, only power. But yeah, I agree it's the logical conclusion

Well, not literal health as a game term, no, but if it has as much damage (none) as power (none) it’s destroyed, so it might as well be a literal game term.

53 minutes ago, Derrault said:

No, but they also have zero health.

They dead.

17 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Well, not literal health as a game term, no, but if it has as much damage (none) as power (none) it’s destroyed, so it might as well be a literal game term.

You have a gun, the only source of your combat power. I take away that gun; you are now powerless. Do you die?

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

You have a gun, the only source of your combat power. I take away that gun; you are now powerless. Do you die?

If my living or not solely depends on whether or not I have suffered as much damage as I have guns, yes.

9 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

You have a gun, the only source of your combat power. I take away that gun; you are now powerless. Do you die?

This is probably the best analogy I've read for this side of the argument. Although, ammunition might be better than guns.

As an aside to the argument, I would love a faction that was based around 0 power creatures that could reap equal to their power, with ways to enhance their power. I would prefer that 0 power creatures be allowed to exist because of this, but it in no way impacts the argument.