The card currently says that when this card deals damage, you take 3 damage. It should be changed to say that if this card is not blocked, you take 3 damage. The first explanation is confusing to how it interacts with Nimbus or Force Field, dealing 0 damage but still taking the 3. Other cards do not work this way such as Martyr's Blessing. Thanks
Very loosely speaking, this is the scenario (for a more detailed breakdown of every step of an attack see the "Anatomy of an Attack" in the FAQ & Glossary). Damage causing card is played. Opportunity for the card to be canceled (blocks, dodge etc.) If not canceled, the card applies its damage ("does damage"). Damage received is increased or decreased by applicable cards (vulnerable, armor, force field, etc). The final amount of damage is taken by the target. (this is the damage value that trigger's Martyr Blessing). The important steps here are 1, 3, and 5. Basically cards are played, the card does damage and then the character takes damage. The damage done and the damage taken do not have to be the same amount (and often aren't) and if the second number is 0 it doesn't mean the first did not occur. So as long as damage is being done, the secondary part of Backbiting Strike takes effect whereas for Martyr Blessing to take effect the damage taken value must be above 0. Now why can't it just be changed to the wording you suggested? Well first, it's consistent with other wording in the game so you'd need to find all the cards with that type of wording and change them at once which while feasible, is no small task. Secondly, there are non block cards (dodge, jump back, etc) that can prevent an attack from even reaching step three so you can't just say "not blocked" and thus it becomes difficult to find a way to phrase it that is clear, short enough to fit on the card, and completely accurate.
Oh, I understand the way it works now. How are you supposed to know that from simply reading the cards? Maybe saying if this attack hits then you take 3 damage would be better. If it doesn't matter if the card does any damage or not, why refer to damage on the card?
The attack does hit. Its damage is x + whatever effects. Backbiting Strike does 4 damage to the target. Force Field or Impenetrable Nimbus reduce the damage to 0. Note that 0 damage is not "no damage" (Winds Of War vs. Telekinesis, Touch Of Death vs. War Cry; yeah, it's really confusing). Backbiting Strike does "0" damage and thus 3 is dealt to the character who used it. If it is blocked, the attack deals no damage. So, your character doesn't take any damage from using Backbiting Strike.
0 damage is no damage. That is what 0 damage stands for. Plenty of lots of cards that trigger when you take damage don't trigger if that damage is 0. I understand the point you guys are trying to make. I actually sat there and thought about it. I considered the way Martyr's blessing and Sparkling armor work. I figured this would work the same. Maybe just adding the word immediately in front would help? To make it more clear that you will still take the damage even if it is reduced to 0 at a later date. (Or screw it, I don't care. I'm just trying to help someone else avoid the frustration I felt as a new player watching my guy die from dealing no damage with this attack. I sure as hell know how it works now and won't be forgetting it.)
Did you know that doing 0 damage does trigger the ouch sound effect(there are different ouch sound effects for different characters).
Yeah! @Jasfmpgh, War Cry and Telekinesis don't make the ouch sound when used so they deal no damage (it's more like they don't deal damage). Hit someone with Force Field and they make the ouch sound, that's 0 damage. So, it is different.
I mean Backbiting Strike can, and probably should, just say "You take 3 damage."* (Maybe with a qualifier for damage type.) Just because the card as written follows the gameic logic of Card Hunter doesn't mean it's clear, and this exact same confusion has resulted in multiple threads on these forums. *You don't need to have "unless blocked/canceled" wording because most cards don't work if blocked/canceled.
Relevant discussion: http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/backbiting-strike-damages-user-against-toughness.7337/ I still think the wording on Backbiting Strike and Bungled Bolt should include "unless blocked or avoided". Their effects feel much more detached from the attack than with things like Pressing Bash and Scouting Run, and it still seems genuinely surprising that they work this way if you don't have a deep understanding of the game mechanics.
http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/feedback-backbiting-strike.7104/ To sum it up, i ask for unconditional selfdamage to justfiy backbiting strikes negative value, making items like double edged sword possible.
