Can the damage prevention from frostbite reduce structural damage from a monster that I used it against in combat? The card simply says it reduces the "Damage" by one from a monster with no specific damage type. In the rulebook it says that Structural damage cannot be reduced by cards that reduce damage to players, but this seems to be to prevent characters from wearing armor for a ship to me. Is there a definition of "Player damage" that can apply to the Frostbite's damage reduction since it does not say combat or any other flavor of damage that normally would be considered damage to a player?
ryvi wrote: Can the damage prevention from frostbite reduce structural damage from a monster that I used it against in combat? The card simply says it reduces the "Damage" by one from a monster with no specific damage type. In the rulebook it says that Structural damage cannot be reduced by cards that reduce damage to players, but this seems to be to prevent characters from wearing armor for a ship to me. Is there a definition of "Player damage" that can apply to the Frostbite's damage reduction since it does not say combat or any other flavor of damage that normally would be considered damage to a player? I'd say no. Frostbite does not and cannot prevent structural damage to a ship. Only damage to a player.
Theryon Stormrune wrote: ryvi wrote: Can the damage prevention from frostbite reduce structural damage from a monster that I used it against in combat? The card simply says it reduces the "Damage" by one from a monster with no specific damage type. In the rulebook it says that Structural damage cannot be reduced by cards that reduce damage to players, but this seems to be to prevent characters from wearing armor for a ship to me. Is there a definition of "Player damage" that can apply to the Frostbite's damage reduction since it does not say combat or any other flavor of damage that normally would be considered damage to a player? I'd say no. Frostbite does not and cannot prevent structural damage to a ship. Only damage to a player. Can you outline an argument as to why you think this or is this just an opinion? The rules don't clarify that structural damage can only be reduced by cards that say "Reduce structural damage" only that cards that reduce damage to a player will not reduce structural damage. The problem is that the damage on Frostbite is not specific. I'd like rules clarifications for when this pops up again.
ryvi wrote: Theryon Stormrune wrote: ryvi wrote: Can the damage prevention from frostbite reduce structural damage from a monster that I used it against in combat? The card simply says it reduces the "Damage" by one from a monster with no specific damage type. In the rulebook it says that Structural damage cannot be reduced by cards that reduce damage to players, but this seems to be to prevent characters from wearing armor for a ship to me. Is there a definition of "Player damage" that can apply to the Frostbite's damage reduction since it does not say combat or any other flavor of damage that normally would be considered damage to a player? I'd say no. Frostbite does not and cannot prevent structural damage to a ship. Only damage to a player. Can you outline an argument as to why you think this or is this just an opinion? The rules don't clarify that structural damage can only be reduced by cards that say "Reduce structural damage" only that cards that reduce damage to a player will not reduce structural damage. The problem is that the damage on Frostbite is not specific. I'd like rules clarifications for when this pops up again. The part of your statement that I emphasized is the argument you are looking for. :)
I think ryvi has a point here.
Frostbite wrote: While displayed, damage dealt by that monster is reduced by 1. Pirate Captain wrote: After you act, the Pirate Captain deals 2 Structural damage to your ship. Looks to me like it should apply.
Nefrubyr wrote: I think ryvi has a point here.
Frostbite wrote: While displayed, damage dealt by that monster is reduced by 1. Pirate Captain wrote: After you act, the Pirate Captain deals 2 Structural damage to your ship. Looks to me like it should apply.
See my last post. The rule he quoted clears it up nicely.
csouth154 wrote: ryvi wrote: Theryon Stormrune wrote: ryvi wrote: Can the damage prevention from frostbite reduce structural damage from a monster that I used it against in combat? The card simply says it reduces the "Damage" by one from a monster with no specific damage type. In the rulebook it says that Structural damage cannot be reduced by cards that reduce damage to players, but this seems to be to prevent characters from wearing armor for a ship to me. Is there a definition of "Player damage" that can apply to the Frostbite's damage reduction since it does not say combat or any other flavor of damage that normally would be considered damage to a player? I'd say no. Frostbite does not and cannot prevent structural damage to a ship. Only damage to a player. Can you outline an argument as to why you think this or is this just an opinion? The rules don't clarify that structural damage can only be reduced by cards that say "Reduce structural damage" only that cards that reduce damage to a player will not reduce structural damage. The problem is that the damage on Frostbite is not specific. I'd like rules clarifications for when this pops up again. The part of your statement that I emphasized is the argument you are looking for. :) "While displayed, damage dealt by that monster is reduced by one." The card is not clear as to the limits of its damage reduction. The argument does not apply since it does not specify where the damage goes and what type of damage it is. The card is probably worded poorly to save space in the text box, but I'd like to know if the intent of cards that reduce untyped damage is meant to be usable for Structural damage or if we define that as preventing damage to players.
ryvi wrote: csouth154 wrote: ryvi wrote: Theryon Stormrune wrote: ryvi wrote: Can the damage prevention from frostbite reduce structural damage from a monster that I used it against in combat? The card simply says it reduces the "Damage" by one from a monster with no specific damage type. In the rulebook it says that Structural damage cannot be reduced by cards that reduce damage to players, but this seems to be to prevent characters from wearing armor for a ship to me. Is there a definition of "Player damage" that can apply to the Frostbite's damage reduction since it does not say combat or any other flavor of damage that normally would be considered damage to a player? I'd say no. Frostbite does not and cannot prevent structural damage to a ship. Only damage to a player. Can you outline an argument as to why you think this or is this just an opinion? The rules don't clarify that structural damage can only be reduced by cards that say "Reduce structural damage" only that cards that reduce damage to a player will not reduce structural damage. The problem is that the damage on Frostbite is not specific. I'd like rules clarifications for when this pops up again. The part of your statement that I emphasized is the argument you are looking for. :) "While displayed, damage dealt by that monster is reduced by one." The card is not clear as to the limits of its damage reduction. The argument does not apply since it does not specify where the damage goes and what type of damage it is. The card is probably worded poorly to save space in the text box, but I'd like to know if the intent of cards that reduce untyped damage is meant to be usable for Structural damage or if we define that as preventing damage to players. I really don't see how "cards that reduce damage to a player will not reduce structural damage" fails to resolve this.
Consider this: they depend on the rule I (and the OP) quoted above to keep them from having to print "this card cannot reduce structural damage" on every card that can reduce any kind of damage a player might take.
csouth154 wrote: Consider this: they depend on the rule I (and the OP) quoted above to keep them from having to print "this card cannot reduce structural damage" on every card that can reduce any kind of damage a player might take. While possibly true, the cards would simply just need to be have an errata to say player damage instead of plain damage to work out that way.
ryvi wrote: csouth154 wrote: Consider this: they depend on the rule I (and the OP) quoted above to keep them from having to print "this card cannot reduce structural damage" on every card that can reduce any kind of damage a player might take. While possibly true, the cards would simply just need to be have an errata to say player damage instead of plain damage to work out that way. Or they could take the much easier and more reasonable approach of letting the quoted rule in question do the talking. There is honestly only one way that rule can reasonably be interpreted.
csouth154 wrote: Consider this: they depend on the rule I (and the OP) quoted above to keep them from having to print "this card cannot reduce structural damage" on every card that can reduce any kind of damage a player might take. Actually nobody has directly quoted the relevant rule yet. It says:
p17 wrote: Cards that reduce damage only to characters do not affect Structural damage. Emphasis mine. Nothing about Frostbite limits it to damage to characters; it is a blanket reduction of any damage dealt by the monster.
That's a really good point Nefrubyr. I was reading it that way, but not quoting it that way.
Nefrubyr wrote: csouth154 wrote: Consider this: they depend on the rule I (and the OP) quoted above to keep them from having to print "this card cannot reduce structural damage" on every card that can reduce any kind of damage a player might take. Actually nobody has directly quoted the relevant rule yet. It says:
p17 wrote: Cards that reduce damage only to characters do not affect Structural damage. Emphasis mine. Nothing about Frostbite limits it to damage to characters; it is a blanket reduction of any damage dealt by the monster. Hmm. Well, if that is the exact quote, that leads to the question: is there ANY card whose language makes it explicitly clear that it ONLY reduces damage to characters? I think the answer is no. This seems like a case for use of common sense interpretation.
Certain cards affect you and actually say 'you' and/or have an implied 'you'. When you use an armor, for example, it's to reduce damage dealt to you. That seems quite explicitly clear to me that it only reduces damage dealt to a character, since a character isn't a ship and a ship isn't a character.
Based on the text shown above, Frostbite, on the other hand, affects the monster, so all damage dealt by that monster, regardless of the type, is reduced. It's not reducing damage done to you, it's reducing damage the monster does. It's irrelevant whether the monster is doing damage to you, someone else, or something else.
"Cards Do What They Say. Read any card as it is encountered or played,
and do what it says as soon as it makes sense. Let the card tell you what
to do, and don’t impose limitations that aren’t there." I think this rule pretty much solves it. I'm going to apply the damage reduction to structural damage unless stated officially that it wasn't the intent. Thanks guys :)
Firedale2002 wrote: Certain cards affect you and actually say 'you' and/or have an implied 'you'. When you use an armor, for example, it's to reduce damage dealt to you. That seems quite explicitly clear to me that it only reduces damage dealt to a character, since a character isn't a ship and a ship isn't a character.
Based on the text shown above, Frostbite, on the other hand, affects the monster, so all damage dealt by that monster, regardless of the type, is reduced. It's not reducing damage done to you, it's reducing damage the monster does. It's irrelevant whether the monster is doing damage to you, someone else, or something else.
That's true. Well, I'm sure we'll find out, one way or the other.
csouth154 wrote: Hmm. Well, if that is the exact quote, that leads to the question: is there ANY card whose language makes it explicitly clear that it ONLY reduces damage to characters? I think the answer is no. This seems like a case for use of common sense interpretation. Yes, the exact quote is: "While displayed, damage dealt by that monster is reduced by 1."
Yes, there are cards that make it explicitly clear that it only reduces damage to characters. Pretty much all armor and similar cards say "reduce ... damage dealt to you..." You means your character, not your ship or anything else.
I think the better questions is are there any other cards that have the language "dealt by that monster." I think this is a special case. ANY types of damage dealt by the monster are reduced by 1.
Case, Sea Drake: "After you act, the Sea Drake deals 1 Structural damage to your ship."
The Sea Drake is dealing this damage, so if you used Frostbite against him, it is reduced by 1. The frost weakened him. He isn't strong enough to bust up your ship during the fight.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Edit: ninja'd by Firedale. Hopefully my explanation is still helpful.
Mirror Image talks about Monsters in particular dealing damage. But it also says that damage has to be dealt to you.
As is, I'd agree with pluvia33. Not only does it fit the rules, but it makes sense with the theme of what Frostbite seems to do.
I would say that frostbite reduces damage, the pirate captain causes structural damage. by definition these are not the same. The context of damage is to a character. Structural damage is to a ship. Cards do what they say. Cards don't do what they don't say. The rulebook is clear that structural damage is not damage. It is not per say damage with a structural trait. It is something else entirely.
Brin Londo wrote: I would say that frostbite reduces damage, the pirate captain causes structural damage. by definition these are not the same. The context of damage is to a character. Structural damage is to a ship. Cards do what they say. Cards don't do what they don't say. The rulebook is clear that structural damage is not damage. It is not per say damage with a structural trait. It is something else entirely. Can you please give us a rules excerpt of where the rulebook says structural -damage- isn't -damage- ? If there is indeed such a rule, I've looked over it and cannot find it.
The only bit I can find where it relates structural damage and damage is in the rulebook where it says it is damage, and it says it is a special type of damage, and that this damage it doesn't damage characters, and that this damage only damages ships.
Everything I find says Structural Damage is Damage...
Everything that is ___ Damage is a type of Damage, and anything that reduces ALL damage should reduce ALL damage.
As it's been said and you quoted, cards do what they say. This specific card seems to say it reduces damage a monster does, and so it should reduce damage a monster does as long as said damage doesn't say it cannot be reduced.
Firedale, i probably should have looked closer. I'm sure you are correct.
Unofficially:
Damage = damage. If we'd wanted to stop Frostbite from reducing Structural damage, we'd have said "to a character." These cards are fine.
Now, if you tell me there's a card in Runelords that unintentionally can reduce Structural damage to a ship, I want to know about it.
Just checked my RotR (first print), all damage reduction either specifies damage dealt to you, or to pick a player and reduce damage top that player.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
To elaborate on what Mike said: sometimes we want an effect like "the monster you hit with this spell is less effective at dealing damage", and sometimes we want an effect like "the character you hit with this spell is protected from damage". These often produce a similar outcome, but not always. Thus, sometimes we prevent damage dealt by a bane, and other times we prevent damage dealt to a character. The first stops Structural damage, and the second doesn't. This is intentional.
It's not an accident that we put some cards that *can* reduce Structural damage in the set with Ships. It might be an accident if we put cards in RotR that effectively reduce Structural damage, and we'd like to hear about those.
Thanks for playing!
Not having thought about structural damage and frostbite, reading through this thread I was like "wow, I really how that's how it works." Super cool! Love the confirmation that this was intentional.
Recent threads in Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion
|
