I just finished a game in which crucible online play was incorrect. This was a big issue, and quite heavily misunderstood.

Here is the short view of the situation. I had a Champion (Sanctum power 6 with 1 armor and taunt) next to Shadow Self (whose ability states that damage dealt to non-spectre neighbors are dealt to shadow self instead). Champion attacked a Power 1 mob with Poison.

Crucible incorrectly killed the Shadow Self. This is completely against the rules of keyforge.

---------------------------------------------

Here is the quote from the rulebook about armor. " For example, if a creature has two armor and is dealt one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor, leaving the creature with one armor for the rest of the turn " You can clearly see that the damage is absorbed and not dealt when it hits armor.

The Champion's 1 armor should have absorbed the 1 damage. Crucible put the 1 damage on Shadow Self, and killed the Shadow Self due to poison on damage that should have never been dealt anywhere.

----------------------------------------------

Here's another person's opinion of the rules
ARMOR
Some creatures have an armor value to the right of the card title. Armor prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature would take each turn. For example, if a creature has two armor and is dealt one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor, leaving the creature with one armor for the rest of the turn.

Do you notice how this quote states that the armor prevents an amount of damage???? HELLO? How do you think this means the 1 damage goes to Shadow Self?

The 1 armor of Champion prevents the 1 damage from ever being dealt. No damage is ever dealt to Champion, so Shadow Self never takes a proc.

---------------------------------------------

How can you all argue that the shadow self would take place before armor is used? Armor stops that damage from ever happening. That damage was prevented before Shadow Self ever took effect, because there was NEVER any damage dealt to champion. This is absolutely clear in my opinion.

------------------------------------------

Here's a little more look into the glossary term of Armor, and I believe that it also shows with clarity that crucible is incorrect in this case.

"Some creatures have an armor value to the right of the card title. Armor prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature would take each turn. For example, if a creature has two armor and is dealt one damage, that damage is absorbed by the armor, leaving the creature with one armor for the rest of the turn. If the creature is later dealt three more damage during that turn, one damage is absorbed and the other two damage are dealt to that creature."

Read the last line of this quote, and notice what it does not say. This clearly states that one is absorbed and the other 2 are then dealt. With this terminology, the 1 damage would be absorbed by the armor, and zero damage dealt to the creature.


Does anyone have any logical refutation to this? It's 100% clear in my opinion as how the rules are written.

It does sound like a bug. Best bet would be to determine how to submit a bug report. I don't know that this is cause for outrage...

I do think it's a bug, but it could also be a change in crucible.

This was working before, because I've gotten some great combinations with shadow and sanctum out.

My favorite little 2 turn combo is first player Shadow self, then second turn put a bulwark down on each side. The game correctly did damage at that time. This was new in the mechanic that I saw (or just bugged). Before, if someone would hit my bulwark with damage, it would have to go through the 2 armor on bulwark, then deal with 4 armor on shadow self. Then, finally that damage went onto shadow self. This makes it much more advantageous to attack the Shadow Self directly, but it's difficult to deal with early in the game.

What's confusing me is seeing the amount of people that actually think ALL damage goes directly to Shadow Self automatically. That's exactly what the card doesn't say. If the text read that way, I would agree....... yet, NOPE.

If the rules about armor said that damage was dealt to Armor first, then that would be different ....... because it uses the word absorbed.

It's like the cards that read "heal 4 damage from a creature" . If there's no damage on that creature, then there's no damage to be healed. No damage ever got to the champion in this situation because of the armor, so the creature was never damaged.

Here's another way to look at it. Just think of the cards that target all damaged creatures. Would that champion have been damaged? NOPE, because the damage was absorbed, and there was never any point of damage done to the creature. It would be correct to target this creature as an "undamaged creature", because it has no damage counters on it, and has never had one.

Of course, I can also see how these things are listed as simultaneous actions. In that case, the attacking player should be able to choose the sequence of actions.

If I am interpreting this wrong, then that is a pretty big change in the rules, and that makes poison much more dangerous. I don't think that is the intent of the rules, nor do I think it makes sense..... but, still waiting on official errata I guess.

Not cause for outrage? There's a huge misunderstanding with armor and damage across the community. I think it's a big deal. Am I outraged? No. Do I think that it's important? Yes. That is a major mechanic.

I think it's important to find out this answer for tournament play. I've seen this come up quite often.

I agree this is an incorrect play of the applied damage. You should have soaked the damage leaving both the knight and shadow alive.

That being said, there is a clear interpretation the other was as well that is plausible... As the armor is absorbing the damage, it is not adding damage to the armored creature. But the damage is still being applied in some form. The Shadow self it kind of an all encompassing ability. It doesn't specify damage tokens, just damage in general. It attracts ALL the bullets, not just the ones that would have pierced your armor. It wants to leave your armor undamaged too! I won't be surprised it FFG rules that the way the crucible is interpreting it is correct.

The simple way to visualise damage here it to put one token in front of the Champion, that is the damage being dealt.

The damage is dealt to Shadow Self instead. Slide the damage over.

Apply damage.

Armour on the other creature does not matter, to prevent damage the creature with armour would have to be dealt damage.

1) Whether or not it's intended, your post reads, as others have stated, a bit rage-y.

2) If you think you have found a bug on The Crucible, the best place to report that is on that website, which is not in any way, shape, or form, affiliated with FFG. Bugs for The Crucible can be reported either in the #development channel of the Keyforge Lounge Discord server, or submitting an issue on Github: https://github.com/jeremylarner/keyteki/issues
Jadiel seems to be relatively responsive and is quite good at explaining why things get interpreted the way they are. If an official FFG ruling comes in, The Crucible usually gets updated relatively quickly.

I think crucible online got it right, but it's definitely worth an official clarification.

Both of your rules quotes talk about armor preventing damage when damage is dealt to the armored creature. In your example, no damage is ever dealt to the armored creature because the damage is dealt to Shadow Self instead. Since no damage is dealt to the armored creature, no damage is prevented by armor.

I said I agree with how you interpreted it. And that is how I have played it in the past. But the more I think about it, I think it was played correctly. It absorbs all damage, not overflow damage not prevented by the armor.

The big caveat is in the rulebook where it says that " Armor prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature would take each turn"

That damage was prevented before the champion even took the damage. There was no damage dealt to the creature at all

29 minutes ago, blinkingline said:

1) Whether or not it's intended, your post reads, as others have stated, a bit rage-y.

2) If you think you have found a bug on The Crucible, the best place to report that is on that website, which is not in any way, shape, or form, affiliated with FFG. Bugs for The Crucible can be reported either in the #development channel of the Keyforge Lounge Discord server, or submitting an issue on Github: https://github.com/jeremylarner/keyteki/issues
Jadiel seems to be relatively responsive and is quite good at explaining why things get interpreted the way they are. If an official FFG ruling comes in, The Crucible usually gets updated relatively quickly.

First off, the crucible is not the place to discuss official interactions and mechanics. Period.

Second, I saw a huge misunderstanding of how this works, in several different outlets online.

The important thing here is the rules, and how the rules works. Who gives two craps about crucible? I don't at all... it's not official and it doesn't matter at all. What does matter is the rule and the mechanics that happens. That is the important part.

Crucible matters none, but tournament play and the rules are much more important.

1 minute ago, KFMixer said:

The big caveat is in the rulebook where it says that " Armor prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature would take each turn"

That damage was prevented before the champion even took the damage. There was no damage dealt to the creature at all

Ah, but you see there is also the counter argument. It prevents "an amount of damage", where the Shadow self absorbs all damage. It could go either way. As I said, I previously played it the way you describe, but in thinking about it, I changed my own mind haha.

It seems to me it's working as written in the rules.

Go through the steps one at time.

You fight, Then you resolve Armor effects (I split the armor section into two parts to help with clarification)

FIGHT

Any ready creature of the active house may fight. When a creature

is used to fight, its controller chooses one eligible creature controlled

by the opponent as the target of the attack. Each of the two creatures

deals an amount of damage equal to its power (the value to the left

of the card’s title) to the other creature. All of this damage is dealt

simultaneously.

DAMAGE AND ARMOR

When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens

equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature. If a creature has as

much or more damage on it as it has power, the creature is destroyed and

placed on top of its owner’s discard pile.

If a creature has an armor value

(to the right of the card’s title), the armor prevents that much incoming

damage each turn. (For more details, see “Armor” in the Glossary.)

When doing these things in game I think people tend to take shortcuts. If I have a creature that deals 5 damage to another creature that has 2 armor, I just get out 3 damage tokens and place that damage on the creature with armor because 2 got absorbed.............however based on the wording of the rules, when you fight both creatures deal damage simultaneously and it should be equal to the amount of damage dealt 5, then you apply armor effects, ignoring 2 of it. The problem here is that Shadow Self absorbs the damage during "damage is dealt" and before "armor is applied"

It does not appear to me that damage being dealt and armor being applied occur simultaneously, so it doesn't look like active player gets to decide

It could very well have not been intended to work this way, but, based on wording of the rules, it looks like it is working correctly and Shadow Self would die in this situation.

Here's how it plays out according to the steps in the rules.

Your champion 6p/1a attacks 1p poison creature

"Each of the two creatures deals an amount of damage equal to it's power............simultaneously"

Your champion deals 6, 1p poison creature deals 1 poisonous damage

Shadow Self is dealt damage instead

Armor applies......but too late because the damage was dealt to Shadow Self and it dies.

Don't use the word absorb, because that is an armor word, where shadow self is dealt the damage that the creature takes.
Of course we know the question, does shadow self take the damage that the attacked creature sustains, or all damage that it's attacked with. There's a big difference between those two, and I can see arguments for both in the way the cards are written.

Something like this needs an official ruling, in my opinion.... because too many stores will interpret it differently.

I still hold fast that shadow self would only redirect damage that a creature has taken. This is because the rules state "If a creature has an armor value (to the right of the card’s title), the armor prevents that much incoming damage each turn." The fact that that damage is PREVENTED, tells me that it never even hits the creature.

You see, even when looking at how the rulebook talks about it, it says it two different ways. The first, it says that it is prevented (quoted above). That is the explanation when it's talking about character cards and what things are. The second comes from the glossary of Armor, "that damage is absorbed by the armor,"

So, we see this listed as both "the armor prevents that much incoming damage" and "that damage is absorbed by the armor".

Of course, I put a ton of value into the term PREVENTED, because that means that it didn't even happen. That's the difference of the terminology. To me, prevented speaks about happening before damage is dealt because it's prevented from even happening, when the terminology of absorbed is a bit unclear if that is before damage or not. Of course, people will have different opinions and you changed your opinion in the span of several replies to this thread 😃

To me, it doesn't matter WHO is right or not, but I just want to know the rulings so that we can play that way across the board. If I was a tournament director or marshall, I would rule in favor of the term "prevented", because that is clear vernacular.

The definition of prevent or prevented tells the tale (imho). This means that something is stopped or kept from happening. Using this exact terminology from the rulebook, then the armor stops that 1 damage from happening, or the armor kept the 1 damage from happening.

9 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Here's how it plays out according to the steps in the rules.

Your champion 6p/1a attacks 1p poison creature

"Each of the two creatures deals an amount of damage equal to it's power............simultaneously"

Your champion deals 6, 1p poison creature deals 1 poisonous damage

Shadow Self is dealt damage instead

Armor applies

The rulebook states that armor prevents damage. This means that it stops it from happening.

So, are we suggesting that the Shadow Self's ability then trumps armor? I personally don't think so, but I could see where someone gets that interpretation.

As for me, I feel that the damage never happens, because the armor prevents that damage from ever happening (written at the top of page 7).

I don't think it matters because the rules state that damage is dealt, then armor effects are used to calculate how much damage is placed on the creature with armor.

What is changing this is Shadow Self is taking the damage dealt before armor effects. It looks like "golden rule" territory and Shadow Self would die.

Again, I don't know intent, but, as written it seems clear to me. But, please share the response once you get an official answer.

Here's also where I see the flaw in that logic

" When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens

equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature."

Here they are clearly saying that "dealt damage" is the end damage that goes onto the creature. They really need a separate term to mean damage that was assigned to a creature, because that is what we are discussing. Is shadow self responsible for all damage assigned to a creature, or just the damage that the creature received?

If you look at this little quote that I pulled from your reply, then you could make the argument that damage dealt to a creature wouldn't happen until damage tokens would need to be placed onto the creature. This would allow for armor and constant abilities to mitigate that damage first.

" When a creature is dealt damage, place an amount of damage tokens

equal to the amount of damage dealt on the creature  . 

If a creature has an armor value

(to the right of the card’s title), the armor prevents that much incoming

damage each turn."

So, by the rulebook, the amount of damage dealt to the creature is the amount of damage tokens that you put onto it, but armor PREVENTS this incoming damage. If the damage was prevented, and no damage tokens would be put onto the creature, then how is there damage that shadow self redirects? This is why I think this is a bug, and a misunderstanding of the rules and terminology by many people. If something is prevented, then it NEVER HAPPENED. Such is the definition of prevented, it was stopped.

3 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I don't think it matters because the rules state that damage is dealt, then armor effects are used to calculate how much damage is placed on the creature with armor.

What is changing this is Shadow Self is taking the damage dealt before armor effects. It looks like "golden rule" territory and Shadow Self would die.

Again, I don't know intent, but, as written it seems clear to me. But, please share the response once you get an official answer.

No, that's absolutely incorrect. The damage was prevented by the armor. Or, are you just ignoring what the term prevented means?

Prevented doesn't mean that the damage still goes through, and we act as though it happens as usual.

Rofl, clearly you aren't concerned with being right.

How about you go and ask for an official response?

If the damage was prevented, then how is it there for Shadow Soul to redirect?
Yep, I can see where both interpretations come from, but I feel the "prevented" definition is more powerful and hard standing than reasons.

If the rules state that something is prevented, then why should any mechanics down the line affect it? The damage didn't happen, it was prevented right in the beginning.

19 minutes ago, KFMixer said:

...we know the question, does shadow self take the damage that the attacked creature sustains, or all damage that it's attacked with. There's a big difference between those two, and I can see arguments for both in the way the cards are written.

This right here is a good question and a valid concern. I agree this interaction is ambiguous. Intent is also hard to determine in this case. If you look at more than just the hard facts in the rule book it is still fuzzy. This one I believe will require a ruling on from FFG. Its one that no amount of discussion will work to obviate doubt.

The rest of your posting has obscured this. You are very hostile in your posting. This leads others to at best find you presenting arguments that you may not be intending to present. At worst it just makes you come off as a misanthrope who will argue about what the color blue actually is.

For clarity you should probably ask about additional scenarios involving Shadow Self adjacent to creature with armor.

What if I attempt to play 3 punches vs the armor creature? Does armor apply before Shadow Self takes the damage?

Just now, Ishi Tonu said:

For clarity you should probably ask about additional scenarios involving Shadow Self adjacent to creature with armor.

What if I attempt to play 3 punches vs the armor creature? Does armor apply before Shadow Self takes the damage?

Its a good question. My guess is that armor is not applied but I can certainly see both sides of this one...

Help us Brad Andres! You are our only hope...

2 hours ago, KFMixer said:

The big caveat is in the rulebook where it says that " Armor prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature would take each turn"

But that creature isn't being dealt any damage as it is dealt to Shadow Self instead .

1 hour ago, Amanal said:

The big caveat is in the rulebook where it says that " Armor prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature would take each turn"

But that creature isn't being dealt any damage as it is dealt to Shadow Self instead .

They did not say "Armor prevents an amount of damage equal to the armor value that the creature IS DEALT each turn", notice how they say "would take". To me, that talks about a middle ground between damage being attributed to the creature, and before damage is allocated to the creature. I know that it's splitting hairs, but I also think that the intent of the rule is that armor would take off first. Here again, I have no grounds of which to claim that I know the intent of what they meant the card to do ..... but, I "feel" that the intent was that the card was not meant to super-cede armor, but I'm saying that from an admittedly biased viewpoint.