Let's say I run into a barrier, say, the Collapsing Sphinx, that "deals 1d4 mental damage that may not be reduced" to me for daring to examine it. But I'm at the Tarworks, where "all damage dealt to [me] is fire damage." (I think it's the Tarworks; please correct me if I'm wrong)
Does that make it "1d4 fire damage that may not be reduced" or "1d4 fire damage"? My gut says the mental damage becomes fire damage that cannot be reduced.
As we all know, mental damage is "damage that may not be reduced." I've seen it so many times that I've wondered why they haven't just put "mental damage may not be reduced" in the rulebook, because it's implicit at this point. Then the cards could just say "mental damage" and not need to specify that it may not be reduced.
I suppose my question is: Does replacing mental damage mean the damage still may not be reduced or does it become "reduceable"?
Alas, you end up with Fire damage that may not be reduced; your gut is correct.
Is it really always the case that mental damage can't be reduced? I agree that it's almost always the case, but are there truly no exceptions?
I always thought that force and mental damage could never be reduced, but I'm 100% sure I saw at least one card that dealt force damage that could be reduced, even though I can't remember where.
I always thought that force and mental damage could never be reduced, but I'm 100% sure I saw at least one card that dealt force damage that could be reduced, even though I can't remember where.
At the very least, we have the Shield of Force Resistance which would imply there should be *many* instances of preventable Force damage.
As we all know, mental damage is "damage that may not be reduced." I've seen it so many times that I've wondered why they haven't just put "mental damage may not be reduced" in the rulebook, because it's implicit at this point. Then the cards could just say "mental damage" and not need to specify that it may not be reduced.
This is probably in the same camp as "All Undead are immune to Mental and Poison", "All Giants deal damage to everyone at their location", etc.. - Lone Shark prefer not to make general assumptions about traits, and would rather have the card-specific rules on the card, rather than making players search through the Rulebook. Also, this way it's more intuitive to just omit the template for the occasional exception, instead of putting on text like "This Undead is NOT immune to Mental and Poison".
(That said, I too would prefer if any "unbreakable" templates (i.e. "no exceptions, ever!") were ALSO in the Rulebook, as that would make it easier for us to spot errors in the card, instead of wating on dev-initiated FAQs, like the one for Rasping Rifts Portal. Understandably, however, Lone Sharks seem committed to pretty much "never say never"...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought that force and mental damage could never be reduced, but I'm 100% sure I saw at least one card that dealt force damage that could be reduced, even though I can't remember where.
Lady of Valor, Rite of Heraldry, Occluding Field, Vicious Trident, Vicious Double-Axe +1, and Chaos Stone deal Force damage that may not be reduced.
Into the Mountains, Lucrecia, Khalib, Magic Ray Fusillade, and Sign of Wrath (among others) deal Force damage that may be reduced.
Other than the errataed Rasping Rifts Portal, there are only two non-irreducible Mental damages that I know of: the Hu-Hazhong in scenario 0-2D Who Rules Hell Harbor and the Uthiggmaru power from scenario 0-3D Going Under. I might ask Vic and Chris to fix those some day if we have further cause to reissue Season of the Shackles, but for now I think they're fine.
Alas, you end up with Fire damage that may not be reduced; your gut is correct.
Alas, it must be Greek Fire then I suppose.
:P