PDA

View Full Version : 'Suffer damage' and 'would suffer damage' confusion



Ector
12-09-2010, 07:56 PM
Many Russian players (including me) are completely confused with the difference between "suffer damage" (apparently triggers on actually taking some damage) and "would suffer damage" (apparently triggers on the need of making a damage roll). The source thread is here: https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?7863-Durgen-s-Blast-Armor, and I'm starting a new one to get a complete official answer and clarification.
Guys, English isn't our native language, but it's obvious that when we see the words "when X happens" and "when X would happen", X should mean the same thing in both cases :) And people are telling me that Durgen's Blast Armor works when he would take a damage roll (not actually take damage), and Enliven works when it takes some damage points.
If the described picture is really true, IMHO, the errata should be immediately made for Blast Armor: "If Durgen would suffer blast damage roll" or something. It's completely confusing now!

Barazhufatufafa
12-09-2010, 08:17 PM
I think the intention is that if something triggers on 'would suffer damage', it does so even if something prevents that damage occuring. However, if it triggers on 'suffers damage' the damage actually needs to occur.
In the example given of Durgen's Blast Armour, it is fairly obvious. If he is elligible to suffer blast damage (whether from a damage roll, or even from some source which automatically applied points of damage in the form of blast damage), his Blast Armour ability kicks in instead. It doesn't need the word 'roll' because it doesn't require a damage roll. Any source which could potentially apply blast damage to him instead is affected by his Blast Armour.

Ector
12-09-2010, 08:22 PM
Look, if "suffer damage" = "take some damage points", then "would suffer damage" = "would take some damage points", right? :) At least it should mean that to avoid confusion.
I'm still waiting for the official ruling here. Does anybody know how to get it?

dragonforcehair
12-09-2010, 09:18 PM
i think it's just a timing thing.
if it says "would take damage", the effect triggers before it actually takes damage (possibly allowing the model to be saved or take less damage).
if it says "suffers damage", it happens after damage has resolved.

e.g.
if an effect said "when this model suffers 1 or more damage points, it may move 1"", then that move happens after it takes the damage, so if it dies, it doesn't move.
if an effect said "when this WOULD model suffer 1 or more damage points, it may move 1"" then the move happens BEFORE the damage.
The only difference here would be the placement of the dead model, but does this clear it up?

at least that is my understanding. please someone tell me if i am wrong.

Orbax
12-09-2010, 09:36 PM
Doesnt Epic Madrak of Trolls work like that? If he would take damage (roll to see if it beats arm) instead of him taking damage, he sacrifices a trollkin next to him? If there are no trollkins he takes the damage normally? It seems like its an interaction where after you beat their ARM and figure out how much damage youd do, but before marking, you do whatever. Im sure the timing rules at the back of the book cover it somewhere.

Moknim
12-09-2010, 10:17 PM
eMadrak states "when this model is damaged..." very different from "would be damaged..."

Orbax
12-09-2010, 10:20 PM
touche` next time ill get out of bed instead of trying to remember :p

Mod_Redphantasm
12-09-2010, 10:27 PM
Look, if "suffer damage" = "take some damage points", then "would suffer damage" = "would take some damage points", right? :) At least it should mean that to avoid confusion.
I'm still waiting for the official ruling here. Does anybody know how to get it?

That's exactly what it does mean.

A model "suffers damage" when it takes one or more damage points.

A model "would suffer damage" is when a model would have a damage roll against it.

For Durgans Blast armor. His ability activates if he "would suffer damage" because hit by an AOE that causes blast damage. In this case, any blast damage that hits him "would cause him to suffer damage" By the ability he does not suffer this damage, and gains focus.

The only time that "official" rulings come down is when there is a genuine issue of rules interaction. You rarely see infernal on the boards these days.

Kenton
12-09-2010, 11:56 PM
A model "suffers damage" when it takes one or more damage points.

A model "would suffer damage" is when a model would have a damage roll against it.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

English IS my first language and this one confuses me. Perhaps I'm bad at it? The use of "would" in the second sentence is what confuses me. It's just too definite for this use. Replace it with "could" and it becomes understandable for it to be interpreted as you suggest.

I interpret "would suffer damage" to mean exactly that, has had it's ARM exceeded by a roll. I guess it's about the definition of damage as much as anythng. If damage is checking off boxes (as I suspect most would think) then "would" is confusing. If "damage" is the result of any attack then "would" is fine.

However the rules refer to single points of damage from corrosion, etc and not to "wounds or boxes".


For Durgans Blast armor. His ability activates if he "would suffer damage" because hit by an AOE that causes blast damage. In this case, any blast damage that hits him "would cause him to suffer damage" By the ability he does not suffer this damage, and gains focus.

As in the above example Durgan would only "suffer damage" when the blast damage roll exceeded his armour. The damage suffered would be the excess. At this point he would receive a point of FOC.

By using damage as a term to describe crossing off boxes for single point effects PP have effectively defined the term "damage" in two ways. This is not helpful.

Unless of course would really does mean "has ARM exceeded by a blast damage roll" as then it makes perfect sense.


The only time that "official" rulings come down is when there is a genuine issue of rules interaction. You rarely see infernal on the boards these days.

This is true.

Ector
12-10-2010, 12:22 AM
A model "suffers damage" when it takes one or more damage points.

A model "would suffer damage" is when a model would have a damage roll against it.This is terribly confusing for sure and, IMHO, deserves the Infernal's attention.


For Durgans Blast armor. His ability activates if he "would suffer damage" because hit by an AOE that causes blast damage. In this case, any blast damage that hits him "would cause him to suffer damage" By the ability he does not suffer this damage, and gains focus.How about the last part of the sentence? "When the model would suffer blast damage, it gains 1 focus point instead of suffering the damage". By your wording, "suffering damage" is "taking 1 or more damage points", so the replacement effect should work only if Durgen takes some damage.

Fobos13
12-10-2010, 12:26 AM
heh, 1 small question, lets look to the whole rule, not only first part:


A model "suffers damage" when it takes one or more damage points.
right? term = suffer(s)(ing) damage

and the rule quote:

, it gains 1 focus point instead of suffering the damage.

so, instead of what we can put 1 foc on Durgen?

Barazhufatufafa
12-10-2010, 04:04 AM
heh, 1 small question, lets look to the whole rule, not only first part:


right? term = suffer(s)(ing) damage

and the rule quote:


so, instead of what we can put 1 foc on Durgen?

instead of 'taking one or more damage points' as is the normal procedure for suffering damage.

Fobos13
12-10-2010, 04:22 AM
instead of 'taking one or more damage points' as is the normal procedure for suffering damage.
So, there must be a roll, exeeding armour value of Durgen - just enought, to give him this "one or more damage points"

Mod_Faultie
12-10-2010, 04:48 AM
You don't need to exceed Durgen's armor value anymore than a slammed model automatically takes damage exceeding its ARM when "It then suffers slam damage as described below." Likewise, structures do not automatically take damage by existing, merely because they "suffer blast damage and collateral damage", and if you'll look at the example for an AOE in Primal, you'll note that you "Measure this distance in the deviation direction from the center of its original target to locate the point of impact. Models under the template suffer blast damage and are subject to the attack’s special effects." "Suffer blast damage" in all cases means a damage roll is made against them.

"Suffer" is ill defined, unfortunately. Blast Armor works such that when Blast Damage would interact with Durgen, he gets a Focus instead. Just keep playing it like that, and you'll be fine.

[Edit] As a note, every instance of the phrase "suffer blast damage" or "suffers blast damage" in Primal refers to models being effected by or subjected to a blast damage roll (2d6+1/2POW). See: Trenches, Structures, Deviation Example. Further, both Throw and Slam damage use a similar wording ("The thrown model is then knocked down and suffers throw damage", "It then suffers slam damage as described below"). The intent seems rather clear.

Aetou
12-10-2010, 05:16 AM
You can't read "would suffer damage" as "would take a damage roll" or "would take damage points" as there are the possibilities of both suffering blast damage without a damage roll being made and also for damage to not actually be inflicted due to other rules, like sufficient armour. Basically, "would suffer damage" is deliberately more inclusive than the phrases you're trying to replace it with.

The phrase is better glossed along the lines of "would normally (i.e., in the absence of other special rules) have a damage roll made against it or would normally take automatic damage." That's far from perfect, but the situation really isn't as complicated as some people are trying to make it.

Ector
12-12-2010, 10:21 PM
It may be not as complicated, but it's still terribly confusing, in both parts. Firstly, it's virtually impossible to believe that game rules can state that "suffer damage" = take some damage points, but "would suffer damage" = take a damage roll. That's inconsistent and must be fixed. And, secondly, nobody clearly described "instead of suffering the damage" clause.

IMHO, there are two ways to fix the case:
1). Errating the ability to include the word "roll" both into the first and the second parts of the sentence.
2). Changing rulings to the logical "would suffer damage" = would take some damage points.

Orbax
12-13-2010, 10:25 AM
So i searched for the word "would" in the field test pdf and it is 99% used to mean that there is an effect or rule in play that blocks the action. Such as
- "if a model would be placed outside of the play area, the model is placed as the edge of the play area instead"
- "If a model would land on top of another model, used the least disturbance rules"
- "If a model would be affected by a second instance of an effect, the second instance is not applied and does not change anything about the first instance, including its expiration."
- "Additionally, when a model is already base to base with another and would move toward it, it is considered to contact that model again."

so to mean that means "If the model would suffer damage then x" it means there is some rule or effect that blocks it from happening. Like having a deviated AOE land on you when you have Bomb Shelter which means you cannot take damage from blasts. Or being slammed into by cavalry when you have whatever that ability is called that says you cannot take damage from impact attacks.

That seems to trigger on a narrow band of things that would absolutely cause damage to you, but you have some reason to not take it.

Macallan
01-10-2011, 12:56 PM
I see no clear question in the first post. Please re ask you rule question if necessary.