<p>You've got your causality reversed.  Taking 1 mental damage causes you to lose 1 from a mental trait.  Losing 1 from a mental trait does not cause you to take 1 mental damage.  (Similar to how in MtG, damage causes loss of life, but loss of life is not damage.)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-29T12:27:42.967Z
2018-07-29T12:27:42.967Z
Cadrac
<p>"Lose one sanity" instructs you to reduce one specific stat, which is quite different from taking one point of mental damage, and so are the situations were both occur. While taking damage results in stat loss, I don't think stat loss is damage. The existence of a difference between the two is supported by the game using both "lose 1 from a mental trait" and "take 1 point of mental damage" in different circumstances.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-13T11:21:56.407Z
Where could I find occurrence of "lose 1 from a mental trait"?
SylvainB
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-13T15:40:31.810Z
Scenario 44 mentions both "lose 1 point in a mental trait" and "take 1 point of mental damage". In the same table of effecst, even!
ikegami
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-12T15:14:37.097Z
2015-06-12T19:52:44.597Z
2015-06-12T19:52:44.597Z
ikegami
<p>So I happened to be in possession of those 3 items:</p>

<ol>
<li><strong>The Idol</strong> : once during your turn, you can add 2 dice to your roll, but lose 1 Sanity in the process</li>
<li><strong>The Skull</strong> : anytime you should take mental damage, you can take the same amount of physical damage instead</li>
<li><strong>The Armor</strong> : Anytime you take physical damage, take 1 damage less of it</li>
</ol>

<p>You can guess what I'm getting to: with this combination, I was able to use the idol on each turn without losing Sanity or any trait points whatsoever.</p>

<p>The only problem is that this interpretation of the rules implies that <strong>"lose X [Mental trait]"</strong> equates to <strong>"take X mental damage"</strong>. In a way it is true, because <em>technically</em>, by losing 1 point of Sanity, you are "taking <em>damage</em> to one your <em>mental</em> traits". In other words, if you lose enough of said trait, you'll die. So you are being "damaged".</p>

<p>But on the other hand, <strong>"take (X) mental damage"</strong> is an explicit request mentioned on cards and rules ; and precise naming conventions are fairly important in a game like Betrayal. (such as the difference between <em>players</em>, <em>heroes</em> and <em>explorers</em>)</p>

<p>What is your opinion on that matter?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-12T13:49:36.863Z
I'm inclined to say that using the Idol *costs* 1 sanity, not that you take 1 sanity damage. Similarly in MtG paying health as a cost doesn't count as taking damage. This interpretation fits thematically with the cards, too, I think. It doesn't make sense that you get to Idol for free all the time. The Skull / Armor combo is a good one, though, especially for the tougher characters.
mfoy_
<betrayal-at-house-on-the-hill>
Does "lose 1 Sanity" count as "taking mental damage"?
SylvainB
# Does "lose 1 Sanity" count as "taking mental damage"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-06-12)

So I happened to be in possession of those 3 items:

1. **The Idol** : once during your turn, you can add 2 dice to your roll, but lose 1 Sanity in the process
2. **The Skull** : anytime you should take mental damage, you can take the same amount of physical damage instead
3. **The Armor** : Anytime you take physical damage, take 1 damage less of it

You can guess what I'm getting to: with this combination, I was able to use the idol on each turn without losing Sanity or any trait points whatsoever.

The only problem is that this interpretation of the rules implies that **"lose X [Mental trait]"** equates to **"take X mental damage"**. In a way it is true, because *technically*, by losing 1 point of Sanity, you are "taking *damage* to one your *mental* traits". In other words, if you lose enough of said trait, you'll die. So you are being "damaged".

But on the other hand, **"take (X) mental damage"** is an explicit request mentioned on cards and rules ; and precise naming conventions are fairly important in a game like Betrayal. (such as the difference between *players*, *heroes* and *explorers*)

What is your opinion on that matter?

**Tags:** betrayal-at-house-on-the-hill

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm inclined to say that using the Idol *costs* 1 sanity, not that you take 1 sanity damage. Similarly in MtG paying health as a cost doesn't count as taking damage. This interpretation fits thematically with the cards, too, I think. It doesn't make sense that you get to Idol for free all the time. The Skull / Armor combo is a good one, though, especially for the tougher characters.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-06-12. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

"Lose one sanity" instructs you to reduce one specific stat, which is quite different from taking one point of mental damage, and so are the situations were both occur. While taking damage results in stat loss, I don't think stat loss is damage. The existence of a difference between the two is supported by the game using both "lose 1 from a mental trait" and "take 1 point of mental damage" in different circumstances.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Where could I find occurrence of "lose 1 from a mental trait"?  
> **username_3**: Scenario 44 mentions both "lose 1 point in a mental trait" and "take 1 point of mental damage". In the same table of effecst, even!  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-07-29. Score: 1

You've got your causality reversed. Taking 1 mental damage causes you to lose 1 from a mental trait. Losing 1 from a mental trait does not cause you to take 1 mental damage. (Similar to how in MtG, damage causes loss of life, but loss of life is not damage.)


---

