Since Blackfang's damage is Acid damage, it is not combat damage. In general, armor CAN be used to reduce any type of damage, but only with the ability that requires the armor to be banished/buried (unless of course it states otherwise as a few armors do). When it refers to combat damage, that is damage dealt to you by a monster when you fail a check to defeat the monster. (Note: it doesn't have to be a combat check, only a check to defeat)
Captain: it's possible for Combat damage to have other traits added to it (eg Gogmurt deals Fire Combat damage of a failed check to defeat, and I believe the Scout deals Ranged Combat damage)
But yes, if it doesn't say Combat damage and it's not part of the damage on a failed check to defeat, then it's not Combat damage.
Captain: it's possible for Combat damage to have other traits added to it (eg Gogmurt deals Fire Combat damage of a failed check to defeat, and I believe the Scout deals Ranged Combat damage)
But yes, if it doesn't say Combat damage and it's not part of the damage on a failed check to defeat, then it's not Combat damage.
With regards to Gogmurt, has there been a ruling on that? His power says that all damage dealt by him is fire damage, so I suppose its possible that his power supersedes the normal case of dealing combat damage. I could also see an argument for it being both combat damage and fire damage, though (I haven't seen any official ruling on this but I certainly don't read every forum post either ;) )
In general, though, I completely agree with what you said. The key to the OP's question is that to use a wooden shield to reduce any damage at all, it must be combat damage, which Blackfang's acid attack will never be.
Captain: it's possible for Combat damage to have other traits added to it (eg Gogmurt deals Fire Combat damage of a failed check to defeat, and I believe the Scout deals Ranged Combat damage)
But yes, if it doesn't say Combat damage and it's not part of the damage on a failed check to defeat, then it's not Combat damage.
With regards to Gogmurt, has there been a ruling on that? His power says that all damage dealt by him is fire damage, so I suppose its possible that his power supersedes the normal case of dealing combat damage. I could also see an argument for it being both combat damage and fire damage, though (I haven't seen any official ruling on this but I certainly don't read every forum post either ;) )
In general, though, I completely agree with what you said. The key to the OP's question is that to use a wooden shield to reduce any damage at all, it must be combat damage, which Blackfang's acid attack will never be.
Yes, and it looks like I was wrong. (That'll teach me to not look at the FAQ first.)
Under There's a bunch of stuff I don't understand about checks:
Take damage, if necessary. If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals an amount of damage to you equal to the difference between the difficulty to defeat the monster and your check result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage. For example, if the difficulty to defeat a monster is 10 and the result of your check is 8, the monster deals 2 Combat damage to you. See Taking Damage, below. Remember that players may not play more than one of each card type during a check, so if you previously played a spell to affect the check, you may not play a spell to reduce damage.
Since Gogmurt says "All damage from Gogmurt is Fire damage." (no modifiers), you're right and he only deals Fire damage, not Combat damage. Which means that you can only use the Shield of Fire Resistance and Hide Armor of Fire Resistance to reduce the damage if you want to use something that isn't bury.
So this means the only Combat damage that's modified is Ranged Combat damage at the moment. (Goblin Commando and Scout)
As far as I can recall, there is only one card to talks about reducing ranged combat damage, which is "arrow catching stud leather" or something like that. I suppose someone could make the argument that "ranged combat damage" may not mean the same thing as "combat damage" (ie they may be different types of damage) but that would be a very poor choice of wording if it were really the case.
We may well see more with "ranged combat damage" in future releases too I guess.
Damage is damage. Combat damage and a combat check are two different things.In fact, for the sake of clarity, I just remove the 'combat' from check all together.
A check is a check is a check. Consider it it's own little world with no types, just dice and numbers.
I think this may cause slightly MORE confusion actually. The type of check definitely matters, as it often has an effect on what cards can and can not be played during that check.
With regard to damage, the standard seems to be that it can occur in basically one of three ways:
1) Failing a check to defeat a monster (this includes most henchmen and villains) results in combat damage, even if it was not a combat check you failed.
2) Failing a check to defeat a barrier (this does not ALWAYS result in damage, as not all barriers deal damage). This is usually not a combat check, but the barrier will generally specify what type of damage is dealt (they CAN deal combat damage, but some may not).
3) Damage dealt before or after an encounter. The damage is specified by the encounter, but as a general rule (so far) it is often NOT combat damage.
Now, again, with regards to a card like Gogmurt, he would normally deal combat damage in a check to defeat him that is not successful. However, due to his power which states that he ONLY deals fire damage, I *think* the correct interpretation would be that he deals fire damage instead of combat damage in the case of failed checks.
1) Failing a check to defeat a monster (this includes most henchmen and villains) results in combat damage, even if it was not a combat check you failed.
This actually does not seem to be the case. As Vic said in This Thread, it's only combat damage if you are making a combat check. He also says that it's the monster that triggers the damage, not a combat check. You can fail a non-combat check to defeat a monster and you will still take damage from it following the standard rules for taking damage (subtract your result from the check goal), but it will not be considered combat damage. In most cases, it should say what kind of damage the failed check results in, like mental damage for a Siren. But some monsters don't specify the damage they do when you use a non-combat check, such as with Iesha Foxglove and some other villains. If it doesn't, I would think the damage would be considered "untyped" and the only way to reduce it would be with abilities that cancel all types of damage. This still seems to be a bit of a weird area in the game.
From the FAQ section entitled, "There's a bunch of stuff I just don't understand about attempting a check, especially when I can and can't play cards. Can you help?"
Take damage, if necessary. If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals an amount of damage to you equal to the difference between the difficulty to defeat the monster and your check result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage. For example, if the difficulty to defeat a monster is 10 and the result of your check is 8, the monster deals 2 Combat damage to you.
Also note this sentence in the FAQ's "THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU PLAY THE GAME" located under (ironically enough) "If It Isn’t Called Something, It Isn’t That Thing."
A Ghost deals Combat damage when it damages you, even if you failed a Divine check to defeat it.
So no, you don't take "untyped" damage; it defaults to Combat unless the card specifically states says otherwise. Bulldozer is correct.
In the past, Vic has said this:
I'm pretty sure there are a couple of barriers that don't specify the type of damage though. That is where the generic damage comes from.If the damage is coming from failing a Combat check, it's combat damage. I believe that everything else in the game that deals damage specifies the type of damage it deals—there's no such thing as generic damage.
In addition, the current version of the FAQ says specifically:
"If It Isn’t Called Something, It Isn’t That Thing. ... A Ghost deals Combat damage when it damages you, even if you failed a Divine check to defeat it."
And finally, if you go here I think you'll see the real solution ;)
Part of the confusion in this thread seems to be a referral back to rather old posts (Sept. 13th is after only a few weeks after the game was released) that occurred before the current interpretation of the rules really firmed up.
Side note: I can't wait for rule-book 2.0! I'm hoping they'll send a preliminary one with future play-test stuff at least so the play-testers can help clean up any remaining issues.
From the FAQ section entitled, "There's a bunch of stuff I just don't understand about attempting a check, especially when I can and can't play cards. Can you help?"
Take damage, if necessary. If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals an amount of damage to you equal to the difference between the difficulty to defeat the monster and your check result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage. For example, if the difficulty to defeat a monster is 10 and the result of your check is 8, the monster deals 2 Combat damage to you.Also note this sentence in the FAQ's "THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU PLAY THE GAME" located under (ironically enough) "If It Isn’t Called Something, It Isn’t That Thing."
A Ghost deals Combat damage when it damages you, even if you failed a Divine check to defeat it.So no, you don't take "untyped" damage; it defaults to Combat unless the card specifically states says otherwise. Bulldozer is correct.
Lol... not only did you beat me to the punch, you said it better than I did! I concede defeat to you sir! Please have mercy!!
Yeah, I saw just about all of those (mainly the taking damage section and the ghost example) while browsing the revised rulebook PDF and the FAQ and felt a little silly. Guess that's what I get for taking too much stock in forum discussion without putting it all in context. Hopefully everything gets cleared up in "Rulebook 2.0" as now I am also anxiously anticipating it....
Chief Technical Officer
|
1) Failing a check to defeat a monster (this includes most henchmen and villains) results in combat damage, even if it was not a combat check you failed.This actually does not seem to be the case. As Vic said in This Thread, it's only combat damage if you are making a combat check. He also says that it's the monster that triggers the damage, not a combat check. You can fail a non-combat check to defeat a monster and you will still take damage from it following the standard rules for taking damage (subtract your result from the check goal), but it will not be considered combat damage. In most cases, it should say what kind of damage the failed check results in, like mental damage for a Siren. But some monsters don't specify the damage they do when you use a non-combat check, such as with Iesha Foxglove and some other villains. If it doesn't, I would think the damage would be considered "untyped" and the only way to reduce it would be with abilities that cancel all types of damage. This still seems to be a bit of a weird area in the game.
My understanding at that point was incorrect.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Side note: I can't wait for rule-book 2.0! I'm hoping they'll send a preliminary one with future play-test stuff at least so the play-testers can help clean up any remaining issues.
On that topic, the next revision of the rulebook (which is maybe a month away) will only have a couple minor changes compared to the November 12 version. We're talking a few sentences revised here and there, with the biggest changes being tweaks to the metarules.
As for the playtest, we'll be sending *just* the new rules specific to Skull & Shackles, and telling you to use them in conjunction with the Nov. 12 rulebook.
The next major change to the rulebook will likely be when Skull & Shackles is released in August, and the biggest changes there (in addition to new S&S rules) will probably be mostly in some reorganization.
From an RPG standpoint (I know, this isn't the RPG game), it is unclear why a shield wouldn't be effective in stopping or reducing fire damage, e.g..
Actually, in Pathfinder RPG a shield or piece of armor doesn't help at all in reducing fire damage unless it's magical with fire resistance added to it. And I believe armor with fire resistance does exist in the card game as well.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
When I tested and edited the game, I had a faulty understanding of how combat and Combat damage were related; I believed they were at least very closely intertwined, if not directly related. In fact, they're only loosely related.
If I had it to do over again, Combat damage would have a different name, but that ship has sailed.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think Physical damage could have been better, but i think for compatibility purposes it will stay as it is.
Yep—that's the "ship has sailed" part. We will be changing some things for S&S based on what we've learned from RotR, but existing terminology usually can't change without messing up compatibility with existing cards.
2) Stop putting "If you defeat this henchman, you may immediately attempt to close the location" on the henchman cards (or at least make it "If this henchman was not summoned and you defeat it, you may immediately attempt to close the location."
I think this could and should be removed in S&S. It would not affect compatibility, just removes some confusion. The rules already state "When you defeat a henchmen from a location deck, you may immediately attempt to close that location." Directly after this the rules explain that if a "summoned henchman doesn't come from the location deck, defeating it doesn't allow you to close a location." (p. 17)
The Golden Rule on page 2 states, "If a card and this rulebook are ever in conflict, the card should be considered correct."
Having "If you defeat this henchmen, you may immediately attempt to close the location" written on all the henchmen cards so far DOES make it super confusing when you apply the Golden Rule... makes you think that somewhere down the line a henchman card will not have the above text on them. Ultimately this would make the earlier henchmen less powerful as they would allow you to close locations easier if summoned. I don't think this is the plan, or the intention, so in all reality the text never should have been added in the first place.
The only reason I wouldn't have Paizo remove said text in future APs is because people would probably have a fit if all the henchmen cards in the first AP were not errata-ed to have their texts removed, as well, in the POD DriveThru printing.
Gogmurt does not deal combat damage. All his damage is purely fire damage because of his power. Not fire-combat damage. So you'll need a shield of fire resistance or an armor that says "all damage". The wooden shield won't help.
Take Damage, If Necessary. If you fail a check to defeat a monster, it deals an amount of damage to you equal to the difference between the difficulty to defeat the monster and your check result. Unless the card specifies otherwise, this damage is Combat damage.
This is clearly an example of a card specifying otherwise. So instead of combat damage he deals fire damage. Put another way, his fire damage is not a trait added to the combat damage, it is a different type of damage all together than combat damage.
Bringing things from earlier in the post in this thread all together: Ranged combat damage is a type of combat damage. It is combat damage with the ranged trait added to it. This means armor that reduced combat damage will also reduce ranged combat damage. The Arrow Catching Studded Leather armor has three separate powers. The first is to recharge it and reduce combat damage by 1. The second is to recharge it to reduce ranged combat damage by 3. The third is to banish/bury it to reduce all damage to 0.
So against the Scout's before the encounter effect of 1d4-1 ranged combat the Arrow Catching Studded Leather armor can reduce all the damage he deals (since its 3 max). But against a regular combat check, like against a skeleton, it would only be able to reduce the combat damage by 1 if recharged. And against any of the damage in those situations, as well as against any damage from Gogmurt, it could be banished/buried to reduce all the damage to 0.
@SaulSimonTan - if you'd like a second opinion, I'd say that the answer is (a), it's Fire Damage and everything @Hawkmoon269 says above is correct.
Or a third. It's Fire damage only.