Low health creature with burns receives freeze tokens - will it die?

[jacksmack]

What happens
If a living creature has 10 health with 6 damage and 2 burn conditions on it when it receives 2 freeze conditions from beam of frost.

From the codex elementalist:
A creature with Freeze conditions rolls 1 less die on non-spell attacks. At the end of a creature’s activation, remove 1 Freeze condition from them, if possible. Each Freeze condition on a living creature is also considered 2 damage that cannot be healed. If there are ever Freeze conditions on an object with Burn conditions, remove 1 of each. Repeat this process until there are only Freeze or Burn markers remaining. This is a frost condition and has a removal cost of 2. In Arena, Freeze also grants the Lumbering trait to the affected creature.


So in step 6 of the attack sequence (damage and effects) the freezes are added.
This should kill the creature right here and now before we start removing 1 of each (burn/freeze).


Is this correct? Also i'm wondering if this is intended or not.

[DaveW]

The new conditions only cause the burns to go away... they never otherwise impact the target creature... so the creature is not killed. In fact, it is better off in that there no longer are any burns on it.

Think of the application of a freeze condition first looking to see if it can be applied to the creature, but before it can cause any other effects, it is cancelled against an existing burn.

[zot]

I concur with the removal taking place before considering death. since the freezes don't really stick so to speak.

[Puddnhead]

Both zot and DaveW have valid points, but I'm not sure there is actual space in the rules for this interpretation.  The check for whether to remove a Burn or Freeze happens only if there is a game state where both are on the same object.  There is no step between adding a condition and applying its effects.  They happen simultaneously. This isn't necessarily a problem except for the clause in the rules that very clearly states that a creature is destroyed as soon as Life = Damage.

It makes more reasonable sense (and I think this is the way DaveW, zot and, frankly, everyone wants to interpret the rules) to have the rules say: "Only apply Freeze to a target that has no Burns and only apply Burns to a target that has no Freezes. If it should occur that both Freeze and Burn would be on the same target, remove a condition from the target until you cannot remove or apply any more conditions--then proceed as normal to add conditions if there are any left to add."

HOWEVER!  This is NOT how it is worded. It is worded that the conditions ARE applied before you check to remove any. Therefore, from where I sit (which has been wrong many times) I would say the creature would die before you remove conditions.

[Zuberi]

I agree with Puddnhead regarding rules as written. It seems clear with the current wording that the Freeze conditions do get applied. Removal doesn't happen until after both conditions are on the object, and as soon as the Freeze conditions are added to the creature, it dies.

[DaveW]

I guess I think of it as a kind of Extinguish situation... you wouldn't kill a creature if hit with an attack with Extinguish before removing a burn, would you?

What's the difference? Perhaps the Freeze condition just needs to be reworded?

I would think that the damage from the Freeze would only apply if the creature was actually cold / frozen... when it has burns on it, certainly that can't be the case.

I know what you are saying... the stupid way it was written is just... stupid... so why not just fix the condition?

[zot]

I believe it was intended that the burns and freezes cancel whenever they meet. so in that case the creature would live. but certainly zuberi has it as it currently reads.

[Zuberi]

The issue is entirely with the wording and how that affects the timing. Extinguish specifically says that it happens during the roll dice step, before damage and effects are applied. Freeze says that it happens after an object has both Freeze and Burn conditions on it.

Regarding intent, I wish I could give more insight here. Feels like I should be able to since I was part of the team to design the condition, lol. But between there being so much time since the condition was discussed, and the fact that final design is still the sole discretion of Arcane Wonders (so I can't just say how I think it should work and confuse you guys thinking that's for sure how it should), I'm not certain what the final intent was.

If we did want it to behave like you guys are suggesting, it would need to say something along the lines of "If (this condition) would ever be applied to an object with (other condition) on it, remove that many of (other condition) instead of applying (this condition)." The point being that it needs to say the removal happens before / instead of the application of the new condition.

[DaveW]

Is it possible to believe that you apply one Freeze before the other... such that there would be at one time two burns but only one freeze... and thus have the one freeze match off against a burn?

You still have the same issue though with a creature two away from death and a burn when a freeze lands though.

[Zuberi]

RAW all effects happen at the same time, so both Freezes applied at the same time.

[DaveW]

Just another thing to have to house rule, I guess.