Define Combat Damage

[OberonViking]

Specifically thinking about armour here, which most seem to say "Recharge/Reveal to reduce Combat damage..."

Does that mean I can use armour to reduce:
Force damage from the Enchanter before the encounter?
Fire damage from the Enchter after the encounter?
Acid damage from Black Fang
(I think these are an obvious No)
Ranged damage from the Scout before the encounter?

[Tracker1]

Of all the types of damage you described above, the revel/recharge ability will only work for the scout, since it is ranged combat damage. All the other types of damage are specific type of damage that can only be reduced with cards that say they reduce all damage or damage.

[OberonViking]

That's what I thought.

On double checking I see the Scout says Ranged Combat damage, so that is pretty clear.

[Fromper]

I still find it odd that the phrase "combat damage" is never explicitly defined. Yes, it's implied that it's the damage that results from losing a fight, but it never actually says that. That's one of those things I'd like to see in the glossary section of Rulebook v2.0.

[agraham2410]

If you look on the second power of the armour cards its banish to reduce Damage to zero. The type of damage is not specified where as in the first power it is specificly combat damage. So for the second power the armour can save from these attacks but at the cost of the armour its self. (Unless you are proficent with that type of armour that is)

[RemiBureau]

I think that for heavy armor proficient characters, being able to ignore pre-combat damage is the most useful the armors are so far in my group. We win most of our combats so far, so actual combat damage is minimal, but the 1d4-1 acid damage from Black Fang or equivalent from Nualia can really mess-up your strategy if you roll a 4, and I guess things are only gonna get worst as we move up towards AP 6.

So heavy armor proficiency is a must for those who can have it. It allows you to cycle your deck if you have 2-3 heavy armors in there, and it allows you to ignore pre-combat damage without losing that magic plate mail!

[Mike Selinker]

Fromper wrote:

I still find it odd that the phrase "combat damage" is never explicitly defined. Yes, it's implied that it's the damage that results from losing a fight, but it never actually says that. That's one of those things I'd like to see in the glossary section of Rulebook v2.0.

Gonna happen.