Long One - Inflict, Allocate, Suffer

[Vextol]

This one's long but I'd love some clarification moving forward.  Can anyone enlighten me on the exact nature of these terms?  It seems like GW was trying to make a move in a certain direction with all the terminology but it still isn't clear to me.

1. Inflict-Is it the generic pre-allocated damage caused by attacking units?  So it's more of a perspective terminology?  I inflict, you allocate?  This is the new school 'dealt'?  So for example, Nagash uses soul Stealer.  It doesn't matter if it actually kills anyone, he still inflicts the damage so he still gets to heal. 

                 I know it reads as though the damage has to go through, BUT, I present situation 2.

2. Allocate-wounds that have not been saved but have not officially been converted to damage? Can I allocate as much damage as I want to a unit?  If so, abilities that trigger on allocation, do they only trigger up to the point that they are dead? Do I follow through with 'allocation' the whole way to 'suffer' on each wound and then readdress each other wound individually?  Magma dragon for example.  If I overkill a magma dragon do I do damage based on damage inflicted or damage allocated?  Basically, he takes 100 damage.  Do I roll 100 dice or max of 20 dice (he has 20 HP)?

3. Suffer-Damage that is dealt and shows up if you look at how much damage a model has done to it.  The confusion here seems to be that someone like Nagash above would bypass ALL saves, including those like a plague bearer has because his damage is not allocated, it's suffered.  This means done. You have the damage and you are taking it.

Exceptions to suffer seem to be healing, which often calls out allocated damage

And abilities that use 'Allocated and not Negated' which seems to come up only for wounds that have occurred on the same phase/turn

That could just read "each wound suffered this turn" unless I'm not understanding the difference correctly.  Also, the FAQ indicates that suffer and inflict are the same thing ?

I've read the FAQs.  I've read everything.  But I'm still lost on confidently interpreting the meaning behind these terms.

[EMMachine]

When reading the term "allocated" in the rules I have the feeling that it's refering to the wound dice next to the model.

A Model of the Mournfang Pack has a wound characteristic of 6 wounds. If a model has taken damage this damage is allocated to the model. If the unit has 5 wounds allocated to a model and gets another wound alocated the model is slain (most healing abilities refering to allocated wounds).

I'm not a native english speaker but when I look at suffered and inflicted (and what words are used as german translated its an active/passive case) and both are referring to units.

Let's take the burning blood example. The rule is referring to the melee weapon so the melee weapon does inflict the damage (if makes the damage). If the rule would refer to the target the target would suffer the damage (the unit gets the damage).

In the end the unit suffers the wounds and these wounds are getting allocated to the models of that unit.

[NemoVonUtopia]

On page 7 of the rules online under allocating wounds it states that inflicted refers to the damage caused by successful attacks and then that damage is allocated to the target. In regards to your magma dragon question, it says "...keep on allocating wounds to that model until it is slain..." so you would only roll 20 dice.

Suffered seems to have 2 meanings in the rulebook. Under the mortal wounds section and elsewhere it refers to units suffering mortal wounds which are then inflicted then allocated, so it seems like that is their way of saying that a unit takes damage from mortal wounds.

But on page 14 of the online rulebook under damage tables it defines wounds that have been suffered as allocated wounds that have not been healed.

 

So in the context of the core rulebook I believe that inflicted is the amount of damage done to a unit, allocated is the damage that the units owner assigns to the unit that is not ignored by some ability, and suffered is the amount of wounds the unit currently has taken factoring in any healing.

Now that is just from the rulebook so I dont know if the usage is consistent throughout all the warscrolls.

[Vextol]

26 minutes ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

So in the context of the core rulebook I believe that inflicted is the amount of damage done to a unit, allocated is the damage that the units owner assigns to the unit that is not ignored by some ability, and suffered is the amount of wounds the unit currently has taken factoring in any healing.

Inflict = amount of damage done to a unit before special saves are taken, pre allocation, post suffering? 

And nagash says the units "suffer" damage. This is present tense and an action, not a status as it would be if it only referred to damage on a unit currently. 

I'm worried this will end up being a dead end. 

[NemoVonUtopia]

2 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Inflict = amount of damage done to a unit before special saves are taken, pre allocation, post suffering? 

And nagash says the units "suffer" damage. This is present tense and an action, not a status as it would be if it only referred to damage on a unit currently. 

I'm worried this will end up being a dead end. 

Yah, I think that inflict and suffer are pretty much synonymous, from my brief look at the rulebook and some warscrolls it seems like suffer is used when dealing with mortal wounds but one of Nagash's abilities inflicts mortal wounds so I dont think there is much distinction between the two terms.

This is all assuming that GW has specific game relevant definitions for these terms or just using plain English. Or maybe they recently started making a distinction so the older warscrolls might be worded differently.

Whenever I come across weird wording I try to talk it over with my opponent before a game so we are both on the same page.

[Sleboda]

Ouch.

Just ... Ouch.

They really need consistent term use and a proper glossy. I'm lost on this one.

[grungolah]

I conclude that inflict/allocate/suffer are all the same thing: when wounds and mortal wounds have bypassed the save and ready to be subtracted from the wound attribute.  Wound negation  is a special rule (not a core rule that I recall) , and interrupts the subtraction. 

 

When in doubt,  I remind myself that the core rules are only a few pages long.   It's not designed to trick us. 

[Vextol]

11 hours ago, grungolah said:

I conclude that inflict/allocate/suffer are all the same thing: when wounds and mortal wounds have bypassed the save and ready to be subtracted from the wound attribute.  Wound negation  is a special rule (not a core rule that I recall) , and interrupts the subtraction. 

 

When in doubt,  I remind myself that the core rules are only a few pages long.   It's not designed to trick us. 

I appreciate the conciseness of this but counter with I believe you are nuts ?

In all seriousness though, they are definitely different. The FAQ even goes so far as to attempt to differentiate them it just doesn't clarify things well enough to be useful. 

I don't know if there is a right answer other than GW needs more consistency with their wording. They need a term for potential wounds that have gotten past armor saves (should be allocated) and wounds that have been actually damaging (should be suffer).  

If they need the counter part from attacker viewpoint, it should be something like wounds scored (need to be allocated) and wounds inflicted (those that cause a wound to be suffered). 

That's my two bit coins anyway. 

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

If you read the rules carefully, it goes like this:

-Allocate mortal wound -> damage equal to the number of mortal wounds -> allocate wounds equal to the damage inflicted

-Allocate a wound -> damage equal to the number of wounds allocated -> allocate wounds equal to the damage inflicted

By the way the rules read, a mortal wound is treated like a regular wound, after it has been allocated.  Since a model can only have so many wounds allocated to it, allocating a "mortal wound" does nothing by itself in particular - it inflicts damage which you allocate out as individual wounds.

[Vanger]

It is important to make a distinction between normal damage and mortal wounds.

Normal damage is inflicted after an unsuccessful Save roll and then allocated.

Mortal Wounds on the other hand are suffered, implying that there is no possibility to make a Save roll against them.

Web Rules, page 7: "Some attacks, spells and abilities inflict mortal wounds. Do not make hit, wound or save rolls for mortal wounds. Instead, the damage inflicted on the target is equal to the number of mortal wounds that were suffered. Allocate any mortal wounds that are caused while a unit is attacking at the same time as any other wounds caused by the unit’s attacks, after all of the unit’s attacks have been completed."

1. You cannot allocate more damage to a model, than it's current wounds remaining. So If Nagash rolls a 6 and kills a model with 5 wounds, he heals only 5.

2.  You keep inflicting and allocating damage to the model/unit until you either run out of damage or you killed said model or unit. In theory you would roll separately after each separate damage is inflicted and allocated, but in practice you roll a bunch of dice, see how much was allocated and then you roll the amount of dice to see if you inflict more (if there is someone left you can allocate damage to).

3.1. Disgustingly Resilient can be used against Mortal Wounds , it even states in the rule. Nagash does not have any special rule or ability that would allow damage inflicted by him to ignore any type rule.  His Hand of Dust is another matter, because it states that the model is slain. No damage is allocated that could be saved or negated.
Healing does not have anything to do with how damage is inflicted.  In theory you mark how many wounds a given model is allocated to. In practice most people only mark how many wounds a model has left.  In any case, according to the rules, by healing a model, you remove allocated wounds.

3.2.  There is a difference. Negating a wound comes after wound allocation.  The difference between a Save and negating wounds is, that if you Save before damage is determined. Even if it would have caused 1 or 6 wounds. Abilities like Disgusting Resilient or DoK Fanatical Faith allegiance ability are used against all the wounds allocated.

[grungolah]

If the difference is the presence of the adjective  "mortal", the verb is irrelevant, isn't it?   If they introduced a card that "piles on 2d6 mortal wounds" I hope we would not require a new thread to determine their meaning.

"After Slayer Bob's melee weapon  kicks em in the teeth with an unmodified Wound roll of 6..."  We know,  right? Dish out the wounds, make saves. 

[Vextol]

20 hours ago, grungolah said:

If the difference is the presence of the adjective  "mortal", the verb is irrelevant, isn't it?   If they introduced a card that "piles on 2d6 mortal wounds" I hope we would not require a new thread to determine their meaning.

"After Slayer Bob's melee weapon  kicks em in the teeth with an unmodified Wound roll of 6..."  We know,  right? Dish out the wounds, make saves. 

I don't follow this. 

On 7/12/2018 at 7:23 AM, Black_Fortress_Immortal said:

By the way the rules read, a mortal wound is treated like a regular wound, after it has been allocated.  Since a model can only have so many wounds allocated to it, allocating a "mortal wound" does nothing by itself in particular - it inflicts damage which you allocate out as individual wounds.

This actually is not the case.  Wounds and mortal wounds remain differentiated up until the model suffers damage.  This is why all special saves say "wounds and mortal wounds".  It was also verified  by the iron Jawz faq. 

On 7/12/2018 at 8:04 AM, Vanger said:

Web Rules, page 7: "Some attacks, spells and abilities inflict mortal wounds. Do not make hit, wound or save rolls for mortal wounds. Instead, the damage inflicted on the target is equal to the number of mortal..... 

I appreciate the long interpretation however if you read nagash's soul stealer spell, it uses inflict, suffer and allocate ALL in the same ability and not in a way as outlined by the rules. 

If Nagash has wounds allocated to him, this spell can heal that damage, except nagash has special abilities that allow him to stop all forms of damage allocated (normal and mortal).  The fact that he needs to heal "allocated" wounds puts him in an error state because he should still be attempting to block these allocated wounds with either his death allegiance ability or Morikhane. 

The damage his spell deals is a suffered damage, which, from the faq, would be damage that is allocated and not saved meaning this damage bypasses all forms of saving because it's "suffered" damage. 

I think the terminology is just not consistent.  It could be, but it's not.  Allocate should be the wounds in a "wound pile" that affected units may or may not be able to impact prior to suffering.  Suffer should be when a model is actually damaged.  Inflict should be the attackers viewpoint of how much was suffered to the attacked unit.  I believe this is the intent of the rules but the Warscrolls frequently do not reflect this. 

There are so many impacted Warscrolls that it is unlikely they will address this issue but there's always hope. 

[Vanger]

6 minutes ago, Vextol said:

I appreciate the long interpretation however if you read nagash's soul stealer spell, it uses inflict, suffer and allocate ALL in the same ability and not in a way as outlined by the rules. 

If Nagash has wounds allocated to him, this spell can heal that damage, except nagash has special abilities that allow him to stop all forms of damage allocated (normal and mortal).  The fact that he needs to heal allocated wounds puts him in an error state as far as the FAQ is concerned. 

The damage his spell deals is a suffered damage, which, from the faq, would be damage that is allocated and not saved meaning this damage bypasses all forms of saving because it's "suffered" damage. 

I think the terminology is just not consistent.  It could be, but it's not.  Allocate should be the wounds in a "wound pile" that affected units may or may not be able to impact prior to suffering.  Suffer should be when a model is actually damaged.  Inflict should be the attackers viewpoint of how much was suffered.  Abilities that heal damaged models should never say heal "wounds allocated" they should always say "wounds suffered". 

Allocate is a  present tense action, something being done that is in the moment.  "Suffer" should be a state or condition of something that has been completed.  Healing spells should never address wounds allocated, they should always address wounds suffered

There are so many impacted Warscrolls that it is unlikely they will address this issue but there's always hope. 

For starters , Nagash only has one ability that interacts with damage caused to him and the black plates of Morikhane only negates mortal wounds.

"Morikhane: Each time a mortal wound is allocated to Nagash, roll a dice. On a 4+ the mortal wound is negated. [...]"

compare this with the plaguebearers ability:

"Disgustingly Resilient: Roll a dice each time you allocate a wound or mortal wound to a model in this unit. On a 5+ the wound is negated."

It was you even who pointed out the Ironjawz FAQ, saying that abilities only negate  those types of wounds, mortal wounds the rule mentions.
With that out of the way, let's have a look at Soul Stealer.

"[...] it suffers D3 mortal wounds. If the total is at least double the unit's Bravery, it suffers D6 moral wounds instead. For each mortal wound inflicted on the target, heal 1 wound that has been allocated to the caster."

How does the FAQ, again, which you refer to, contradict Soul Stealer?

"In the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules, the term ‘suffered’ or ‘inflicted’ refers to a wound that is allocated to a model and has not been negated or healed."

So yes, the ability bypasses Save rolls, not because it uses "suffers" but because it causes mortal wounds. And if Nagash has any wounds already allocated to him (that 3+ Save and 4+ granted by Morikhane against mortal wounds make him tough, but not invulnerable), then he heals a number of them according to Soul Stealer.

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

23 hours ago, Vextol said:

This actually is not the case.  Wounds and mortal wounds remain differentiated up until the model suffers damage.  This is why all special saves say "wounds and mortal wounds".  It was also verified  by the iron Jawz faq. 

Yes, it is.  Read the bottom part where it says after being allocated, it's treated as a normal wound.  You get no save against a mortal wound when it's allocated, since it just bypasses the hit/wound/save sequence.  This is the case.  Read under mortal wounds where it says you take "damage" from the mortal wounds, and then read under "damage" in the combat rules - you allocate regular wounds equal to the amount of damage taken.

[Vextol]

On 7/13/2018 at 8:59 AM, Vanger said:

So the ability bypasses Save rolls, not because it uses "suffers" but because it causes mortal wounds. And if Nagash has any wounds already allocated to him (that 3+ Save and 4+ granted by Morikhane against mortal wounds make him tough, but not invulnerable), then he heals a number of them according to Soul Stealer.

I was never talking about armor saves.  I said "All forms of saving".  Suffer, by your (Faqs) definition mean not negated. So, say Nagash attacks Nagash with the spell "soul stealer".  Typically he would have a "special save" (Morikhane) against these mortal wounds.  However, soul stealer doesn't say 'allocate' d3 mortal wounds, it says "suffer" d3 mortal wounds.  

Because "suffer" means "not negated" Morikhane could not intervene because this of course would be potential negation.  Had the wounds been allocated Morikhane could help but they aren't allocated, they are suffered. This is the issue with inconsistent wording. 

2 hours ago, Black_Fortress_Immortal said:

Yes, it is.  Read the bottom part where it says after being allocated, it's treated as a normal wound.  You get no save against a mortal wound when it's allocated, since it just bypasses the hit/wound/save sequence.  This is the case.  Read under mortal wounds where it says you take "damage" from the mortal wounds, and then read under "damage" in the combat rules - you allocate regular wounds equal to the amount of damage taken.

This may be how its written, but it is definitely not the case.  The are a tremendous number of abilities (special saves) that interact with mortal wounds after they are allocated, including the ability above. Damage is universal, wounds are not. 

[grungolah]

 "not negated "  means nothing more that the "wounds left after all previous saves"

You rolled 20 wounds and made 5 saves.   15 dice are still on the table.   "not negated"

 

You roll your resilience save and succeed 5 more times.  10 dice left.  "not negated"

 

 

Keep it simple 

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

3 hours ago, Vextol said:

I was never talking about armor saves.  I said "All forms of saving".  Suffer, by your (Faqs) definition mean not negated. So, say Nagash attacks Nagash with the spell "soul stealer".  Typically he would have a "special save" (Morikhane) against these mortal wounds.  However, soul stealer doesn't say 'allocate' d3 mortal wounds, it says "suffer" d3 mortal wounds.  

Because "suffer" means "not negated" Morikhane could not intervene because this of course would be potential negation.  Had the wounds been allocated Morikhane could help but they aren't allocated, they are suffered. This is the issue with inconsistent wording. 

This may be how its written, but it is definitely not the case.  The are a tremendous number of abilities (special saves) that interact with mortal wounds after they are allocated, including the ability above. Damage is universal, wounds are not. 

I think your confusion comes from a basic understanding of the English language.

[Vextol]

13 minutes ago, Black_Fortress_Immortal said:

 

[Vextol]

1 hour ago, grungolah said:

 "not negated "  means nothing more that the "wounds left after all previous saves"

You rolled 20 wounds and made 5 saves.   15 dice are still on the table.   "not negated"

You roll your resilience save and succeed 5 more times.  10 dice left.  "not negated"

Keep it simple 

Hmm.   I kind of see that, except then when do "suffered wound" abilities activate?  So when does nagash get to finally heal if he attacks a group of say, plague bearers being buffed by a harbinger of decay (I know it can't but assume it can so they have 2, 5+ saves). 

Nagash rolls to do 6 wounds with soul Stealer.  This is six dice "not negated".  They roll for their save one.  Now there are 4 wounds left "not negated".  They roll for save two.  Now there are 3 dice left "not negated" .  Does nagash heal 6, 4, or 3 wounds? 

Edit: I don't think I agree with your interpretation.  I believe suffering happens at the end of a specific damage sequence and I think this is supported by the DC for arkhan the Black's curse of years. 

Q: With Curse of Years, are rolls that may negate the mortal wounds inflicted by the spell taken immediately after the wounds are caused, but before you roll the dice again to see if any more mortal wounds are suffered by the target unit? If yes, do I get to roll for additional mortal wounds for wounds that were negated? A: Yes to the first question, and no to the second question.

Although even in the commentary 'allocate' and 'suffer` seem to be used synonymously ?. 

[michu]

In my opinion 3 wounds. Plaguebearers suffered 3 wounds, so that's the amount Nagash can heal.

[Vextol]

3 minutes ago, michu said:

In my opinion 3 wounds. Plaguebearers suffered 3 wounds, so that's the amount Nagash can heal.

I agree. 

[grungolah]

36 minutes ago, michu said:

In my opinion 3 wounds. Plaguebearers suffered 3 wounds, so that's the amount Nagash can heal.

That makes sense, thematically,  but odds are independent and multiplicative in most cases.   You will find no statistical difference in most cases

[Kadeton]

I feel like GW's use of terms for this is actually relatively consistent, just very confusing. It doesn't follow the normal rules of grammar with regard to tense.

'Inflict' and 'suffer' are just transitive and intransitive ways of saying the same thing. "This unit inflicts 10 wounds on that unit" and "That unit suffers 10 wounds" are always equivalent.

You 'allocate' the wounds that the unit is suffering to models in that unit. During that process, abilities like Disgustingly Resilient can negate some of those wounds.

Here's where the GW magic happens. Once you start talking about what happened in the past tense, you are not talking about the same 'wounds' as you were when you were using the present tense. You can only talk about the final result, not anything that led up to it:

A unit suffers 5 mortal wounds.
5 mortal wounds are allocated to models in the unit. As each mortal wound is allocated, a roll is made to see if it is negated. 2 mortal wounds are negated.
* Now we shift to the past tense *
3 wounds have been allocated.
3 wounds were suffered (or inflicted).

So the upshot of this tense-chicanery is that "The unit suffers 5 mortal wounds," and "The unit suffered 3 mortal wounds," are both accurate statements about the process above, even though they don't agree by any normal grammar. In the same vein, "I allocate 5 wounds to this model," and "3 wounds have been allocated to this model," can both be true.

So in Soul Stealer, we see that the target unit suffers some mortal wounds (present tense, before any negation). Then, Nagash heals a number of mortal wounds that have been allocated (past tense, after negation) equal to the number of wounds inflicted (past tense, after negation).

The wording in Daemonic Boons ("was allocated and not negated") does seem unnecessary in this context, since any wound that has been allocated was by definition not negated. But I suspect this is an instance where they felt they weren't able to use the consistent phrase (note "was allocated" rather than "has been allocated") and included the extra qualifier to make double-sure that the intent came through.

So anyway, that's what I think GW was trying to do here - they created consistency, but in doing so they broke grammar.