Magma Golem

[Super Sorcerer]

ב"ה
The description of a Magma Golem is really confusing.
Let say that it the same zone of the Magma Golem there is a Flaming Hellion (flame immune), an Invisible Stalker (burnproof) and a Knight of Westlock.
The only clear thing is that the knight of westlock take damage from the burn.
It say "Magma Golem's Burn conditions damage all other creatures in its zone.".
so-
1) It doesn't say that the magma golem itself doesn't take the damage, just like any other creature with burn. so should the golem take the damage as well?
2) It does't say anything about the golem's special rule being a flame effect, or that burns deal flame damage, so are the invisible stalker and the flaming hellion take the damage?

If there is anywhere in the rules something that imply that flame conditions deal flame damage, it would make sense the most (and that would mean that the golem and hellion don't take damage while the stalker and the knight do take damage).

[Zuberi]

I'm surprised to notice that you are correct and Burns still do not deal Flame damage. There was a conversation during testing about this very thing, and Burn was supposed to be updated to deal Flame damage instead of untyped. In fact, the Academy rules have the updated rules for Burn (found in the Warlock set), but Academy is also a separate and distinct rule set. Arcane Wonders has not yet updated Burns in Arena to deal Flame damage. I assure you though, they are supposed to.

So, with that in mind, both the Golem and the Hellion should be immune to the damage. The Stalker would take damage though because Burnproof doesn't actually make you immune to Burns or their Effects, it just prevents you from having them on you. That's how it's supposed to work. If you want to play by the Rules as Written though, then until the codex entry for Burn is updated I guess it would damage all of the above.

[jacksmack]

Maybe flame immunity doesnt make you immune to magma?

there is fire, and then there is FIRE!


The wording *others* means it will not damage itself.

[Halewijn]

wow... if this is the case, magma golem went from "below average" to "horrible"...

I'm fairly certain that the rules-as-intended were that in your example only the invisible stalker and the knight of westlock take damage.

I believe the hotter the golem (more burns) the more the surrounding creatures get damaged by the heat it releases. (flame damage)

[wtcannonjr]

I think RAW covers this situation. Here is the logic.

The Codex defines Burn as a Flame condition. The Magma Golem states it has Immunity to Flame damage. The Codex defines Immunity to damage types as "immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage." Therefore, the Magma Golem is not effected by Burn conditions. In fact it could not even receive one.

I interpret the rest of effect wording to descibe the mechanic used to represent damage from the heat given off by the Magma Golem itself.

So based on this logic I say 1) No damage to Magma Golem and 2) no damage to Flaming Helion due to Flame Immunity, but Invisible Stalker takes damage because Burnproof only prevents him from having a Burn condition himself and he is not immune to Flame damage.

[jacksmack]

Magma Golem does not have flame immunity.


The text says that is immune to flame damage... but thats different... he does not have it as a trait, so he can burn.
And he can be targetted by flame spells - Adremelachs touch can be used on him and ignite as well.


The promo versions states that the damage it does to all other creatures in zone as flame damage.

The version from lost grimoire does not specify this. So with the current wording it will damage everything because burn deals direct damage - without 'flame' mentioned.


Edit:
Or actually no.

Immunity
This object is immune to all attacks, damage, conditions, and effects of the
specified damage type, including critical damage and direct damage. It
cannot be targeted or affected by spells or attacks of the specified type.

Burn is a flame condition and creatures with the flame immunity trait will not take damage from it even if the burn is on the magma golem.

[Zuberi]

Untyped direct damage is neither Flame Damage nor a Flame effect, jacksmack. You had it right the first time. However, like I said before, Burns are supposed to deal Flame damage. That's not me guessing at the rules as intended, that comes from actual discussions with Arcane Wonders. Read the entry for Burns in the Academy Warlock rulebook. That's what Burn is supposed to look like. The Arena version just hasn't been updated yet, but I am 100% positive that this is an oversight which will be corrected in the near future.

So, if you want to take advantage of this oversight as a rules lawyer, then technically yes Burn currently is written as doing untyped direct damage and would hurt everything including the Golem. However, I guarantee you that this is temporary and would recommend playing using the Burn entry from the Academy Warlock rules, making both the Golem and the Hellion immune to such damage, because that's what's going to end up being the rule.

[Coshade]

Just wanted to confirm what Zuberi is saying. It was a discussion we all had as playtesters and was a mere oversight that will hopefully be remedied.

[ClockWork]

"Magma Golem's Burn conditions damage all other creatures in its zone.".

Even if flame conditions do in fact still deal non-typed direct damage, this quote says "all other" not all. If Magma Golem takes damage for his/her burn conditions, you are failing to follow the instructions on his card.

[Zuberi]

But you are following the instructions for a burn condition. I'm not able to double check the card at this moment, so I admit I may have made a mistake, but I'm pretty sure it doesnt say that the ability replaces the normal effect of burn (because its not supposed to matter). Thus it would be in addition to the normal effect, causing damage to the golem. Again, this is NOT the intended way for it to function and if you think the golem shouldnt take damage then that is closer to the way its supposed to function, so go ahead. I'm just trying to cover all angles.

[Super Sorcerer]

ב"ה

"Magma Golem's Burn conditions damage all other creatures in its zone.".

Even if flame conditions do in fact still deal non-typed direct damage, this quote says "all other" not all. If Magma Golem takes damage for his/her burn conditions, you are failing to follow the instructions on his card.

There are 2 damaging effects here - the normal burn rules, and the golem special rules.
the golem take damage from the standard burn rules, and the other creatures take damage from the golem special rules.

[ClockWork]

I would still agree damaging the Magma Golem with his own burn condition is a violation of his special rules. Magma Golem does say not  "all creatures", "also damages", or "in addition".

"All other creatures" feels pretty clear to me.

But what if 2 Magma Golems are in the same zone?

[Zuberi]

That's fair. We're not going to get an official answer whether it replaces the normal Burn rules or is in addition to them, because it isn't supposed to matter. Again, I recommend playing with the rule that Burns deal Flame damage, because they're supposed to and will receive an update to that effect in the near future.

[wtcannonjr]

That's fair. We're not going to get an official answer whether it replaces the normal Burn rules or is in addition to them, because it isn't supposed to matter. Again, I recommend playing with the rule that Burns deal Flame damage, because they're supposed to and will receive an update to that effect in the near future.

Don't all flame conditions automatically deal flame damage by association? Similar to poison conditions always dealing poison damage. It seems the distinction of direct or critical damage is separate from the damage type association.

[Zuberi]

That's fair. We're not going to get an official answer whether it replaces the normal Burn rules or is in addition to them, because it isn't supposed to matter. Again, I recommend playing with the rule that Burns deal Flame damage, because they're supposed to and will receive an update to that effect in the near future.

Don't all flame conditions automatically deal flame damage by association? Similar to poison conditions always dealing poison damage. It seems the distinction of direct or critical damage is separate from the damage type association.

Where are you getting this "association" from? It's just like with spells like Ghoul Rot. It may have had the Poison subtype, but it had to receive errata before it actually dealt Poison damage. Conditions can also have a subtype without actually dealing that type of damage.