DvN SPOILER: Devouring Jelly

[HomelessJoe]

Same. Quite happy with the answer. Thematically makes it seem much more realistic.

[ringkichard]

The rules of the corrode token is causing the damage, not the jelly's attack.

Another example:

I vampiric strike my giant wolf spider. His attack gains the vampiric trait but regardless of how it rolls, it will never gain life from the damage caused by it's taint ability, it is not part of the attack. 

Same thing here with the jelly. The corrode token checks to see if the targets armor would be reduced to zero and, if it would, deals 1 point of damage. It does not add 1 point of damage to the attack. Even if it rolls 2 corrode tokens, it checks the first token, then the second, and deals 1 point of damage, then 1 point of damage. Each point is independent of the attack and would not trigger the jelly's reconstruct ability

You're making your case based on the idea that the rule that causes surplus corrode tokens to instead become damage is "on the token" and not "on the creature". This seems like a wierd distinction to me. The rule is in the manual / codex. The name of the ability is on the creature and on the token used to track the condition the ability may cause.

I think the better way of looking at this question is "is this an effect of the attack or an effect of the condition?" I.e., is the 1 point of direct damage like the push effect of a Whirling Spirit (a consequence of the attack), or is it like the daze condition caused by removing a sleep marker (a consequence of the rules for the condition).

Going by the spoiled codex text in the Acid Ball article:

Corrode

Condition Marker

Corrode is an acid condition. For each Corrode condition marker on an object, it receives Armor -1. Objects can never have Corrode markers on them, which would reduce their armor to below zero. Extra markers are destroyed.  If an object with zero armor would gain a Corrode condition marker, each marker it would receive instead becomes one point of direct acid damage. Incorporeal objects are immune to Corrode.

To me that sounds like the condition never happens and instead the ability causes the effect of  +1 direct damage.

Which is why it seems to me like the direct damage is an effect of the attack, not an effect of ending the condition, and why it should trigger "attack and damage" abilities.

[Kharhaz]

I think the better way of looking at this question is "is this an effect of the attack or an effect of the condition?" I.e., is the 1 point of direct damage like the push effect of a Whirling Spirit (a consequence of the attack), or is it like the daze condition caused by removing a sleep marker (a consequence of the rules for the condition).

Great example!

Selesius uses her push attack against Tarok and rolls a secondary push effect!

Selesius' owner pushes Tarok into an arena wall which triggers a bash effect. That bash effect is not subject to the +2 from Selsius' attack. As the damage is from the push codex.


pg 26 v2

Direct Damage

[/b]
"Some effects cause direct damage. This damage is placed directly on the target creature. It is not an attack, and cannot be prevented or avoided. Armor and other traits, effects, and abilities cannot modify or reduce direct damage.

Exception: If an object has Immunity to a damage type, it is not affected by direct damage of that type."


So to bring it back around

Jelly attacks zombie. Rolls 5 blanks and a 12 effect die. the attack misses and the zombie receives 2 corrode condition markers. The first marker checks to see if the target has armor, and deals 1 point of direct acid damage. The second marker checks to see if the target has armor, and deals 1 point of direct acid damage.

[sIKE]

The first marker checks to see if the target has armor, and deals 1 point of direct acid damage. The second marker checks to see if the target has armor, and deals 1 point of direct acid damage.

Just for the sake of clarity, and both markers are then discarded.

[ringkichard]

Yes, in this example, when you resolve step 4 of the attack, the dice you rolled in step 3 do no damage. Then the first corrode effect of the jelly's attack does one point of direct damage instead of putting on a corrode marker, and then the second corrode effect of the jelly's attack does one point of direct damage instead of putting on a corrode marker.

Now we check triggers and discover that the jelly has both attacked and damaged the zombie in step 4. This is where I think the reconstruct ability happens.

Importantly, I'm arguing that the Jelly caused the damage with its attack, and that the direct damage from the attack is damage from the jelly.

This is unlike bashing into a wall because bash is a separate attack received by the bashed creature, and is resolved in a separate attack sequence. But direct damage is not an attack, it's an effect, and in this case it happens within the attack that causes it, like the push effect itself.

If the attack and damage trigger is only checked in the middle of step 4, after the dice rolled in step 3 do no damage, but before effects from the attack are resolved, then I can see that the "attack and damage" clause might fail, but usually Mage Wars checks continuously and the direct damage caused during the remainder of step 4 is still part of the same attack, and direct damage is still damage.

I guess I'm taking "attack and damage" literally. Did it attack? Did the attacked creature receive any damage during the attack? I realize that this is unusual, especially if you're used to MtG which has a separate concept of "attack damage" thats different from all other sources of damage, but as far as I know, Mage Wars doesn't have that concept.

[jacksmack]

Im on the other side of the fence ringkichard.

(To me) There is no difference on the possible extra damage from corrosive, burn or rot... and surely we dont want a rot bat with vampirism to leech life during the next upkeep when the rot effect applies.
I realize that the rot effect occurs much later than the corrode effect.

This slime has an attack of 5 dice - this attack can heal / recontruct the slime.
2/3 of the time the attack of the slime leaves an effect on the defender. Whatever this effect does it will not heal or reconstruct the slime. The effect will either corrode armor or health - the slime is not really associated with this effect anymore and therefor it will not heal / reconstruct from it either.

I dont see how leaving some acid on something will make it heal / reconstruct - thematically speaking.

Thats how i see it

[Moonglow]

I'm with Jack, the corrode damage is an effect of a condition marker, which seems like its always been seperate from the attack dice/creature action.  Else it gets too complicated and hard to track - perhaps not in this instance but others would where the damage happens in the upkeep phase.

[HomelessJoe]

Agreed, it's an effect of the attack, not part of the attack which allows the jelly to regen.

[echephron]

I'd like to see the jelly be arcane 2 water 1 or for someone to tell me why the harpy is hybrid while this is not.  encourage some druids to pick it maybe.

[DeckBuilder]

I'd like to see the jelly be arcane 2 water 1 or for someone to tell me why the harpy is hybrid while this is not.  encourage some druids to pick it maybe.

Nice idea! If the cards are not yet at the printers, they may well listen...

I view the Harpy as a lost opportunity. It should have been range 1-2 1 die psychic 4+ pull 1. That would have been the perfect finesse tool for Air Wizards. Its ranged attack is so situational (get past non-intercepting guards, a creature with defence on 1 life, what other benefit?). In the same set as Gargoyle, they paled in comparison.

[echephron]

Pulling(7+ effect) Harpy would have been cool instead of the scream thing its got going on..

[ringkichard]

I think harpy was supposed to be a counter to Forcemaster.