2 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?

If those terms has meaning in real life and there were a similar rule, then yes. But they don’t and that was a terrible non corrolary.

Lets be fair, The common sense ruling is that 0 Power equals destroyed. However, we already know that FFG has ruled cards against the common sense logic:

I Present:

Common sense says that this is the controlling players choice regardless of turn, however the offical ruling says it is the active players choice. Worse, this is a known typo. We know the common sense ruling was the intention when it was made. With this offical ruling, I cannot just assume all edge cases like (0 power = death) should go the common sense route. My meta is playing it as 0=dead , but we are aware that it might change.

10 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

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

You living or not depends solely on whether or not you have damage on you. Did removing the gun impose damage on you? Suppose you do not currently possess a firearm; are you damaged right now?

14 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Let’s make this easy.

Does this card destroy each creature with 0 damage on it? The rules don’t say “damaged = 1 or more damage,” after all.

12 minutes ago, ornithologist said:

Lets be fair, The common sense ruling is that 0 Power equals destroyed. However, we already know that FFG has ruled cards against the common sense logic:

I Present:

Common sense says that this is the controlling players choice regardless of turn, however the offical ruling says it is the active players choice. Worse, this is a known typo. We know the common sense ruling was the intention when it was made. With this offical ruling, I cannot just assume all edge cases like (0 power = death) should go the common sense route. My meta is playing it as 0=dead , but we are aware that it might change.

More common sense to ponder, since we're on a fresh page. I haven't gotten nearly enough replies yet... how convenient.

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

You living or not depends solely on whether or not you have damage on you.

I can't. I can't keep doing this. Threads like this are sucking the enjoyment out of what should be a fun game. I've lost sleep over how asinine some of these discussions have been. I quit. Goodbye.

Just to recap, is the issue here that people are stuck with the "on it" part of the damage rule?

Because every creature by default has 0 damage "on it" the moment it enters play.

This only reason the creatures survive is because they all have a power greater than 0.

2 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

I can't. I can't keep doing this. Threads like this are sucking the enjoyment out of what should be a fun game. I've lost sleep over how asinine some of these discussions have been. I quit. Goodbye.

Considering you have been repeating the same thing for the last 3 pages and we enjoy this, it might be for the best.

1 minute ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Just to recap, is the issue here that people are stuck with the "on it" part of the damage rule?

Because every creature by default has 0 damage "on it" the moment it enters play.

This only reason the creatures survive is because they all have a power greater than 0.

"on it" is a part of the rules, if all creatures have damage on it the moment it enters play, then you have fallen into the Save the Pack trap.

26 minutes ago, debiant said:

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.

It’s not a good argument the second you look at the fight rules. A 0 power creature would do 0 damage. As I’ve pointed out 3 times now this would mean you’d have creatues who are damaged with “0 damage” and creatures who are “undamaged”.

The only way around that is to say those two states are the same at which point they’re dead for having the damaged state equal to their power.

5 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

It’s not a good argument the second you look at the fight rules. A 0 power creature would do 0 damage. As I’ve pointed out 3 times now this would mean you’d have creatues who are damaged with “0 damage” and creatures who are “undamaged”.

The only way around that is to say those two states are the same at which point they’re dead for having the damaged state equal to their power.

Why is that a problem? A creature that fights with a creature with 0 power would be undamaged, and the 0 power creature will receive damage equal to the power the other guy had.

Edit - Deal 2 damage with a creature with 2 armor, the Armored Creature is still undamaged, how is this any different?

7 minutes ago, Talamare said:

Why is that a problem? A creature that fights with a creature with 0 power would be undamaged, and the 0 power creature will receive damage equal to the power the other guy had.

Why would the creature be undamaged? If a 0 power creature would do 0 damage and 0 damage is undamaged then the creature would never do damage because you’ve just admitted 0 damage and undamaged are the same. If they’re the same then all undamaged creatures with 0 power die immediately when reaching 0 power. That’s the point.

This is what I just went over with the other poster, the only way for a 0 power creatue to survive is to suggest that an undamaged creature does not have 0 damage on it meaning those two states are different and then you need to contest with all the problems that brings ie its the only way for save the pack problem, a 0 power poison, tracking 0 damage vs undamaged etc.

15 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Just to recap, is the issue here that people are stuck with the "on it" part of the damage rule?

Because every creature by default has 0 damage "on it" the moment it enters play.

This only reason the creatures survive is because they all have a power greater than 0.

Also, FFG is notoriously inconsistent when it comes to taking rules as written vs intended vs literal void where a rule needs to be.

26 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

I can't. I can't keep doing this. Threads like this are sucking the enjoyment out of what should be a fun game. I've lost sleep over how asinine some of these discussions have been. I quit. Goodbye.

24 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Just to recap, is the issue here that people are stuck with the "on it" part of the damage rule?

Because every creature by default has 0 damage "on it" the moment it enters play.

This only reason the creatures survive is because they all have a power greater than 0.

15 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Let’s make this easy.

Does this card destroy each creature with 0 damage on it? The rules don’t say “damaged = 1 or more damage,” after all.

I'm approaching John McEnroe status here.

- "Answer my question, jerk!" 😋

28 minutes ago, Talamare said:

"on it" is a part of the rules, if all creatures have damage on it the moment it enters play, then you have fallen into the Save the Pack trap.

Your undamaged creature that just entered play.....how much damage does it have on it?

I'll give you a hint the answer rhymes with hero.

Ok, I'll bite:

No, Save the Pack does not destroy creatures with 0 damage.

I think we all can agree that a creature with 0 damage on it is undamaged/not damaged (if there's anyone out there who doesn't agree, sorry for speaking for you, but I don't think this is actually a controversial definition).

However, there is no conflict between the statements:

-This creature is undamaged.

and

-This creature has 0 damage.

A creature can both be undamaged and have an amount of damage (0) equal to its power (0). Those statements do not conflict.

2 minutes ago, dbmeboy said:

A creature can both be undamaged and have an amount of damage (0) equal to its power (0). Those statements do not conflict.

And how do you track damage?

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

And how do you track damage?

Generally? By placing damage tokens on creatures. And a creature can both have 0 tokens on it and have no tokens on it. One is referencing a binary state (damaged vs undamaged) one is referencing the amount of damage (0,1,2,3,...).

3 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

And how do you track damage?

I dunno how do you track 0 damage on a creature......maybe by the creature having 0 damage tokens on it?

10 minutes ago, dbmeboy said:

Ok, I'll bite:

No, Save the Pack does not destroy creatures with 0 damage.

I think we all can agree that a creature with 0 damage on it is undamaged/not damaged (if there's anyone out there who doesn't agree, sorry for speaking for you, but I don't think this is actually a controversial definition).

However, there is no conflict between the statements:

-This creature is undamaged.

and

-This creature has 0 damage.

A creature can both be undamaged and have an amount of damage (0) equal to its power (0). Those statements do not conflict.

Yep. This is why I’ve been giving the same example to different posters for two pages now because the “save the pack” dilemma ironically only effects those arguing that 0 damage creatures can survive because as per the fight rules a creature does damage equal to its power and if 0 and undamaged are different then save the pack would effect any creature that fought with a 0 power creature as they stated 0 damage and no damage are different.

4 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I dunno how do you track 0 damage on a creature......maybe by the creature having 0 damage tokens on it?

That would be undamaged. Zero isn't just a number, it's the absence of value.

"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."

Seems pretty literal to me.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

That would be undamaged. Zero isn't just a number, it's the absence of value.

Again, having 0 damage and not having damage/being undamaged are not conflicting statements.

Your turn to answer my question: what is the amount of damage on an undamaged creature?

7 minutes ago, dbmeboy said:

Again, having 0 damage and not having damage/being undamaged are not conflicting statements.

Your turn to answer my question: what is the amount of damage on an undamaged creature?

I have wonderwaaagh blocked, so not sure if they can see my posts (and conversely I only see theirs when someone quotes them) but it might be beneficial to just retain their logic here when they say 0 is the absence of value that would mean the creatures power once reduced to zero is an absence of value and thus equal to their damage, an absence of value thus killing them.

And yet they conflict for the purposes of resolving this issue.

An undamaged creature has no damage on it. A damaged creature has one or more damage tokens on it. A creature must be damaged before it can be destroyed, as I continue to illustrate with Save the Pack.

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

A creature must be damaged before it can be destroyed.

What’s your reference for this? All I can see is that the amount of damage must be equal or greater than the power, nothing requiring that amount to be greater than 0.

Can you answer the question though: what is the amount of damage on an undamaged creature?

1 minute ago, dbmeboy said:

What’s your reference for this?

Save the Pack. There's also an implied timing in the "damage" section of the rule book, which we have yet to discuss.

Just now, WonderWAAAGH said:

Save the Pack.

Save the pack destroys damaged creatures. It does not create a general game rule that a creature must be damaged to be destroyed.