It could indeed be slightly clearer but I thought the inference of that very passage is that if an attack does Fire/Frost/Shock then it is, indeed, also a Magical attack. Again, could be clearer.
In that example, if resistant to Magic (but not Fire), you’d gain the bonus Red die to armour but still take the Burning Token. Whereas if you were resistant to Fire, you’d gain both the bonus Red die and the chance to avoid the Burning Token.
Why do you gain a red die against Fire breath Shout, just being Magic resistant?
On the assumption that, as it’s a Fire attack, it’s also Magical. It may be an incorrect assumption but that’s basically the crux of this discussion.
Spells do Magic Damage (by their rules), and they can add an additional damage type (by their cards).
Shouts, by their rules, do the damage type written on their cards.
There is no rule you could say the Fire Damage type add the Magic damage type (it could be written in its paragraph).
Magic damage type just says it is usually paired with another Damage type, not mandatory.
Until now, I have not seen Magic or Magic Damage in any card. Just the elements.
If it would be that way, is Fire Breath Shout now a Magical attack? Could it be the only Magical Shout then? 
Agreed and it’s more an extrapolation on my part of the wording of the Magic keyword rather than it being an explicitly obvious rule. Personally I’d be quite happy for there to be non-magical effects that would also be, say, Fire damage (from just, you know, ‘regular’ fire). I also don’t mind Shouts not being inherently magical but I also don’t mind if it’s altered so that they are.
Again, Blood Magic does Magic Damage without an elemental association.
Well Frost Breath, Ice Form, Storm Call etc. would potentially also be Magical by that (very potentially flawed) logic. No idea.
Are Magic Damage written on their cards?
No but they’re spells so they inherently have the Magic Damage type added to their rules (pg.51 of the new rulebook).
Yes, but again, I have not seen “Magic” or “Magic Damage” in any card.
We play with inherent rules, so Magic Damage is “invisible” in the cards, by a rule wich says Spells are, not because of the Spell card
Ok. Does that matter if every single spell has it anyway?
Well, I said I have not seen Magic Damage in any card, and it is the truth. You said “Again, etc”, and that was not the question… wich is fine at rules level, not refined for a user level. It is easier when you are playing or starting the game, when you use a card, not to figure out if something has 2-3-4 things inherently…
It matters when you want to associate an element to a Magic Damage type, the inherent things create this confusion.
There is nothing you can take to associate Magic to Fire, just the logic. If you do it, you leave Unrelenting Force as non Magical while the rest are Magical…
If every single card specifies when it does X or Y or both Damage types, just putting a single word in there, you could know now if Fire breath does Magic and Fire, just Fire, etc. And you would avoid any question about all this.
Just for the sake of being totally clear with a rulebook, cards and game.
I’ve evidently misunderstood what you were actually suggesting there but yes, it doesn’t explicitly say ‘Magic Damage’ on the cards because there’s no reason that it should. They’re spells, their damage is Magic Damage as per the rulebook. I don’t think I’ve seen ‘Magic Damage’ on a card either but I wouldn’t expect to as it’s not really necessary.
Not sure I can necessarily agree there; card space is often at a premium so it’s generally better practice to short-hand things with keywords and to build rules like ‘all spell damage is also Magical Damage’ into the main rulebook. There’s no need to put ‘Magic Damage’ and ‘Enchanted’ on every single spell card when a single line in the rulebook can cover that.
What I do agree with is that it could be made more transparent in the rulebook itself if all Elemental damage is also Magic Damage (for Spells it’s a moot point but it’s important for Shouts).
I just think there are still some work to do here to refine everything.
Same happens with the elements, I still need to figure out how the Frost/shock work against Adversaries .
I just hope they solve this in a future.
Sorry but that is the same pretext as always…
You cannot say that when Fire occupies a single line, and you would have space at its right to add “, Magic”, it is totally blank there…
Not really necessary, I aggree, but better? It could be
When this inherent rule is added to the rulebook, then you could totally avoid the writing of Magic in a single card, of course.
And talking about space, there is no reason to add Bandits or Draugr, or any Faction in there , when they say the cards to play them are out there (or the annex to play Draugr) and you don’t need specifications about Factions, when you need to buy their cards to play the models, and you get the Faction card with those cards. The rulebook is wasting pages
Oh absolutely there could be a bit of tidying up and clarification (mainly for Shouts) but I don’t think it’s a huge undertaking in this instance, just a couple of lines here and there.
Spoilers, they don’t. Yet. Hope springs eternal (they appear to at least be maybe possibly, if the stars align, considering maybe thinking about it).
Sure but you can’t take that for granted on every card that’s going to be produced. This particular example (Spells and Magic Damage) is a non-issue for me given the written rules are clear for once.
I know this was tongue in cheek (I am too on it to be fair) but I kind of agree; which factions’ rules made it into the rulebook does seem a bit arbitrary if there’s a scramble for page space. I’d probably still want some in there just as an example if nothing else, plus the full write up of Neutrals given they need a bit more clarification on where they fit.
The argument would be:
If you have the rulebook is because you have bought the Core (most of the people), so you have the initial Faction cards, then you don’t really need anything about that in the rulebook, you already have examples in the Core. You are wasting a page.
If you don’t have bought the Core, but you have bought a Bandits set, you would need their cards to play, so you have their Faction cards. You are still wasting a page (and that’s premium😅)
And what would happen with some Enchanted weapons if, as you said, you associate all the elemental damage type to the Magic Damage type?
You would need some new rules, don’t you think? You would add a red die (if you have Magic resistance) against a Sword when it does Fire damage.
Well that’s exactly what I think would happen in that scenario yes. I’m not convinced it isn’t what happens now. Doesn’t need a new rule as such. Just need confirmation on whether Elemental damage is inherently Magic Damage (which it might or might not be).
We need to be clear here that Elemental damage is not inherently Magic damage. Wading through Lava and Fire Pits, for instance, inflicts Fire Damage (and may inflict burning) but wouldn’t be Magical. Some spells do have elemental damage types - Flames, Shock etc - but that is effectively an extra damage type added to a Magic attack.
Thanks Gavin, that was basically all I needed confirming for my queries other than Shouts. Are they intended to be Magic Damage attacks or are they ‘just’ Enchanted as currently seems to be written?