dormouse said:

dormouse said:

Upon rereading your post, I just realized how antagonistic you were being. Perhaps I was too naive initially to notice your condescension. If you want to use your "logic", how does damage stay next to a unit and not on it? Does the damage exist in the aether? Are the arrows suspended in the air?

It is obvious that Assigned damage already IS damage. For all intents and purposes the unit has been struck. It's only on the side of the card to permit card effects to move it around or dispel it before it actually gets APPLIED.

I think this one does need to go to Nate & I am going to try and summarize the confusion if I can.

Stubborn Refusal allows an Action to move All Damage from one target Unit to another Unit in any Player’s corresponding zone.

I believe the argument can be resolved simply by errata for the card that specified whether it is Assigned damage or Applied damage.

I am on the fence because of the following:

On one Hand..I agree that Assigned damage is not on the Unit but Near it, so that would suggest it needs to be Applied damage, with Stubborn Refusal played after damage is Applied.

On the other Hand…The rules clearly state that “players have the option of taking actions after each of these 5 steps, and play does not proceed to the next step until both players have consecutively passed the opportunity to take actions.” My issue is that after damage is Applied I have no target unit and damage tokens because the Unit is in the Discard Pile and the Damage Tokens are back in the central pool.

@dormouse: dormouse, I see your point about damage being Near the Unit and not on the Unit after the Assign Damage Step. But in your preferred scenario you are not playing Stubborn Refusal after the Apply Damage Step, you are interrupting it. As after the Apply Damage step you have no target unit or damage as they are discarded and returned to the pool respectively.

ChaosChild said:

ChaosChild said:

Because it has been applied. To put it another way, the word ASSIGN means the same thing as inflict or apply in plain Englsih. Honestly, I would have worded step 4 as Assign or Apply (either would do) and step 5 as Damage resolution... this wording was a poor choice on the part of the rules transcriber because Apply and Assign have such similar meaning in this context.

Can we keep this thread civil please, I believe (I am prepared to be corrected) that there IS ambeguity in the rules here. Personally I want to learn and enjoy the game and not get involved in Flame Wars. I find these discussions and forums very useful and informative and they should stand as an authority on the game, I would like them to stay that way if possible!

I'm in the camp that since the damage has been assigned TO units, damage is damage, assigned applied or whatever, and its target for Stubborn Refusal.

Just because its placed 'next to' a unit after being assigned doesn't mean its not damage 'to' a unit. its just not damage that has been applied. but again, damage is damage...

its a bit weird, agreed. If it helps, I recall asking nate about this at gencon, and he confimed my move.

Hurdoc said:

Actually, assign and apply mean 2 different things in English, and obviously mean 2 different things in this game otherwise they wouldn't be 2 different steps.

Just to quote from the rulebook again, this time the summary on page 14:

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

4. Battlefield phase
• Active player declares attackers, and decides which of his opponent’s zones they are attacking.
• Actions may be taken by either player.
• Defending player declares defenders.
• Actions may be taken by either player.
• Damage is counted and assigned, without yet being applied.
• Actions may be taken by either player.
• Damage is applied and its effects resolve. Characters leave play if they are out of hit points. Burn tokens are placed on the capital if necessary.
• Actions may be taken by either player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relevant text is in bold, assigned damage has not yet been applied.

Now it's quite possible that "move all damage from one target unit to another target unit" includes assigned damage as well as applied damage (doesn't quite make sense to me but...) in which case playing Stubborn Refusal after step 4 would work.

I'm in the camp supporting the idea that damage is not yet damage received until it is placed (or applied) on a target. Plain English aside, the usage of the term assign seems to me, just directing your fury at a target. Following this line of reasoning, your fury bears a fruit called damage, when it has contact with its intended victim (or in game terms, when damage tokens are placed on the unit/capitol after all damage cancellation effects have taken place, see below for explanation). 

Let us look at the rulebook for clarification (page 13):
 

5. APPLY DAMAGE
Both players now apply the assigned damage to the
cards to which it has been assigned. At this point,
effects like Toughness (see Toughness, page 16) kick
in and cancel damage before it reaches the target.
Any damage tokens thus cancelled are returned to
the pool in the centre of the play area. Any unit that
has as many (or more) damage tokens on it as it has
hit points is destroyed (and discarded).

It seems to me damage is damage, but until it is placed on a target, it is existing in a vacuum. There are two phases damage tokens go through in its short life (really three, but we will ignore that last part for the purposes of this discussion) as illustrated above: (1) before reaching target and (2) after being placed on target unit and unit surviving the damage. Now, one can argue that damage is still damage before it reaches its intended target, but it hasn't affected the target in any way since it didn't touch him at this time. I say this, because if enough damage touches down on a unit to equal his hit point it will meet a rather terminal condition, thus we can say damage that is on it briefly before it being discarded along with the unit card, has had a lethal impact on this unit. Same with effects that bank on having damage tokens on your unit or capitol: until the damage token is placed on the intended target you will not see any benefit or penalty associated with said ability. Can we then not say assigned damage is an inert damage vector that has no effect until it has been assigned as inflicted damage on target? Is a directed damage token still damage when it is not yet (inflicted) on the target?

I say this, because Toughness and others of its ilk can and will cancel assigned (inert) damage, but will not touch damage made real, damage that can fuel other abilities, abilities such as from Big ‘Uns. On the other hand, cards like Stubborn Refusal I’m reading seem to work with not cancelling any perceived damage thrown at his boys, but shifting applied (real) damage around. The meaning I’m getting from reading between the lines is that assigned damage can be cancelled before it becomes inflicted or applied damage. The two effects therefore seem to be one of cancellation which deals with assigned damage and redirection which deals with applied damage. The two effects are both executed in step 5, yet the timing is different: cancellation effects like Toughness are executed before damage reaches the target, thus preventing damage tokens fom becoming damage on unit, while redirect effects like Stubborn Refusal are executed after damage reaches the target. The two effects are differentiated for a reason: they both prevent possible damage on target, but are executed in a different fashion with a different timing, maybe because one is simply damage wannabe damage tokens, while the other is actual damage waiting to grow into a terminal condition? Assigned damage tokens have to survive a trial by fire, called cancellation, before they can mature into full-fledged damage.

Of course, definition of what damage is, is not quite spelt out in the rulebook. However at least in my mind, assigned damage tokens are not damage inflicted on target, percisely because that state has no associated game effects linked with damage, such as abilities gained from having a damaged unit or capitol.

The problem i have with your approach Ruvion is how the card works mechanically.

If you cannot play Stubborn Refusal until the damage is applyed and put on the card - therefore cannot play it until the Apply Damage step is resolved, then your Unit is in the discard pile and the damage is back in the central pool. So what is the target of your Stubborn Refusal card?

Kevin

Remember Kevin, some units may survive due to Toughness or other cancellation effects, tactic cards played, or there simply wasn't enough damage tokens to go around. Then the dwarven forces can have their revenge via Stubborn Refusal, Scout keyword, and what not. Remember even scouts have to survive in order for them to do their discarding gimmick. I think it's the same for Stubborn Refusal. I think Starscream's philosophy in life reflects best revenge mechanic such as this (Stubborn Refusal, Scout, etc), namely that you gotta be alive first before you can have yer revenge.

On hindsight, Orcs and Dwarves are well matched in that: Orcs are equipped to deal insane amount of damage in order to shut down any attempt at grudge bearing assault, while Dwarves are well equipped to survive such an onslaught so that their revenge can bear fruit. It is the unstoppable force meets the immovable object conundrum.

Fair point Ruvion, thanks. I am now squarely back on the fence again so I have submitted a rules question to get a definitive answer.

I got evens on both answers, blowed if I know!

Kevin.

Well, at least we all agree on one thing, we should send this question on to Nate. I'm happy to defer judgement until he tells us I'm right.

EDIT: spelling

Incidentally, Ruvion makes some good points and comes close to convincing me, though not quite.

The entire damage phase could have been reduced to one step, "Damage Resolution", with Toughness and other effects simply reducing damage at that step. The fact that the game mechanics do NOT work that way means that there are effects meant to be played in between, and Stubborn Refusal is one of them.

Hurdoc, I do not think the important issue is whether someone is right or not. For example, Eric Lang, Nate French, and co. may decide to change their original ruling, whichever it may be, to favor my interpretation of the rules, as mentioned by dormouse in a previous post. The concern now is, which direction will FFG take this game to? I hope for all concerned that it is a decision which result in positive gaming experience for all involved.

Hurdoc said:

One of the problems with combining assigning and applying damage into one step is this: If attacker goes first, as it is now, then defender would have some or all of his units dead before he has a chance to retaliate.

So, its official and I have to eat some 'humble pie' e-mail from Nate French Follows....

Hi Kevin,

After the "Assign damage" step, the damage is not yet on the unit, and
therefore not yet eligible for Stubborn Refusal.

Once you move on to the "apply damage" step, If the applied damage is
enough to destroy the unit, the unit will be destroyed before any
actions can be taken.

This means that Stubborn Refusal cannot be used to prevent terminal
damage. It can move damage off of an already wounded unit that is
still in play. (A Mountain Brigade that is alive with 5 damage on it,
for example.)

Nate French
Game Design and Development
Fantasy Flight Games