My Dwarf Wizard D'Arcane cast Firestorm while he had Firestarter attached, so my whole party suffered Burning the next round. It was supposed to be Burning 2 for Firestorm, +2 for Firestarter. But check out this section of the log: Updating Firestorm Thudric took 4 Fire damage. Updating Firestorm D'Arcane is wearing armor - Rusty Armor reduced damage to D'Arcane by 3. D'Arcane discarded Rusty Armor. D'Arcane took 0 Fire damage. Other team members faced 4 damage, but D'Arcane appears to have suffered some number less than that, else Rusty Armor wouldn't have been able to prevent it all with Armor 3. I'd guess Firestarter just plain doesn't count if you own the card Burning you, which is not what the text on Firestarter suggests. Edit: Just checked with ordinary Mail, which reduces damage by 2 instead of 3. As would be expected if Firestarter just plain didn't count, it prevented all Burning damage to D'Arcane.
Firestarter and whatnot don't activate (don't actually add the damage) unless you take damage to begin with. If you play a weak fire attack and it's completely absorbed by armor it works the same way. So it's not that Firestarter didn't count, it's that firestarter seems to modify damage taken, not damage inflicted. If 0 damage is taken, Firestarter doesn't think it has anything to modify.
I think this is probably correct, although I could be persuaded that that's not the way it should work.
That is perfectly logical, and it's something I personally could handle in a game (since I'm used to a million different rule systems), but I think people more commonly expect a "damage bonus" to always add on to the damage. That is, no conditionals like "Did the first 2 points of damage get through? Sorry, can't do a damage bonus until we run this check on the first 2 points!"
Currently wording is, "whenever a burning card you control burns add 2 damage" So to leave as is the wording just needs to be more like Vulnerable E.g "whenever a card with burning you control deals damage add 2 to that damage" I'm happy either way, but I was like Sir Knight, current wording made it sound like Bruiser where the damage is boosted before prevention attempts --edit-- Actually wait this makes Firestarter worse than Spark Generator because that adds the extra 2 damage regardless of if armour blocks the original cards amount. I think?
I've left it as is and clarified the rules. Feel free to continue discussing if you think it should change though!
Does this not make Firestarter a very very useless card? Don't other Cards like this increase the damage even if reduced by armor?
No, it's actually still pretty nice. The burns from different attacks stack, so you could say, ember spray, burning hands, and sizzling bolt a guy, and he'd take up to 6 extra damage. With reliable armor it won't do much, but with armors that can fail, it can end up getting through. Add in the fact that a lot of burning attacks are AoEs or multitarget like firestorm and you can do some terrible things to people.
Uh huh, just noticed the double-post. I already responded to the non-several-months-old thread over here.
