Spell damage and Soak

[plutonick 0]

I need a verification on this

Spell damage is reduced by Soak right? Only defense that is not calculated in the die pool when casting spells (unless the card specifically mentions that DEF is included)?

[Fresnel2 2]

Normally.

Most spell deal damage. This is reduced by Damage Reduction (Toughness + Soak) to give a number of wounds.

Some spell deal wounds directly. Example 'Burning Blood'. Damage Reduction is not subtracted from these effects.

[dvang 10]

To and Soak apply to all damage unless specified otherwise on the action.

[Fresnel2 2]

dvang said:

 

To and Soak apply to all damage unless specified otherwise on the action.

 

 

Which is indicated if the card uses the term wounds rather than damage. Damage is mitigated by damage reduction (toughness + soak + talents + career abilities) to given wounds. Cards that cause wounds bypass this mitigation.

Some cards instruct that soak is ignored. The damage reduction would then just be Toughness + Talents + Career abilities.

[plutonick 0]

Fresnel said:

dvang said:

 

To and Soak apply to all damage unless specified otherwise on the action.

 

 

Which is indicated if the card uses the term wounds rather than damage. Damage is mitigated by damage reduction (toughness + soak + talents + career abilities) to given wounds. Cards that cause wounds bypass this mitigation.

Some cards instruct that soak is ignored. The damage reduction would then just be Toughness + Talents + Career abilities.

 

I suppose the editors of Gathering Storm missed this because I recall reading 'Lightining strucks for 1 wound ignoring Toughness and Soak, which is redundant

[Cwell2101 0]

no they did not. People keep asking the same questions every week about damage, wounds and mitigation.

Repetition *is* needed

[Fresnel2 2]

In my opinion a key weakness in the clarity of the WFRP3 ruleset is the complete lack of formula stated in a mathematical way.

Everything formula is stated in wordy text without a accompanying math formula. I am left wondering why this decision was taken. There is a general non-math theme to WFRP3, which perhaps serves to differentiate (pun intended) it from WFRP2.

However, which is clearer?

1)

"The target’s Toughness, the soak value of its armour or equipment, or the effects of special abilities or talents may reduce the damage it takes. These numbers are combined to calculate the target’s damage reduction.
 
The target’s damage reduction is subtracted from the attack’s damage potential. If the difference is a positive number, that number indicates how many normal wounds are inflicted. For each critical damage effect triggered during the attack, one of the inflicted normal wounds is placed face up as a critical wound."

2)

"The target’s Toughness, the soak value of its armour or equipment, or the effects of special abilities or talents may reduce the damage it takes. These numbers are combined to calculate the target’s damage reduction.

Damage Reduction = Toughness + Soak + Talents + Special Abilities
 
The target’s damage reduction is subtracted from the attack’s damage potential. If the difference is a positive number, that number indicates how many normal wounds are inflicted. For each critical damage effect triggered during the attack, one of the inflicted normal wounds is placed face up as a critical wound.

Wounds = Attack Damage Potential - Damage Reduction (minimum result 1)

*******************

Formula allow each term to be neatly and unambigously defined. For instance, Attack Damage Potential, could has been defined earlier.

[plutonick 0]

In reply to Cwell2101

First, TGS was published months ago. Second the rules were not clear to begin with. Third by publishing redandand info, people got even more confused. It could have been phrased better in TGS so as not to cause confusion.

 

The reason people ask the same questions over and over is because they should not be forced to search a 'tough to navigate' forum in order to get answers to questions they shouldn't have in the first place.

[Cwell2101 0]

my answer wasn't meant to offend or attack in anyway. I do apologise if taken as such.

And yes, it was not really clear at 1st that "Wound" and "Damage" wording on cards need to be differenciated (i got it from the errata/FAQs if i remember correctly)

[plutonick 0]

No offense taken. I just love wfrp and have spent a lot of money in it. But I get frustrated sometimes when ambigiouties creep at during play time. Ambigiouties such as wonds/damage.