Am I misreading the effect-cancelling part of Warforged Juggernaut’s Crag of Steel power, or is it meant to be extremely limited?

Warforged Juggernaut‘s Level 20 Daily Power is Crag of Steel; a stance that gives you a bunch of stuff, but the part of the power I’m interested in here is:

“Until the stance ends, you gain resist 5 to all damage, and whenever this reduces an attack’s damage to 0, you also negate that attack’s effect on you.”

The way I’m reading this, in order for this to kick in: an attack must do damage, which must be less than 5, AND also deal an effect.

An attack that just deals an effect isn’t ignored because the stance doesn’t “reduce the attack’s damage to 0″ – it already was 0 (or rather, there was no damage/null/etc.)

I can’t envision any other way of triggering the text in question;

  • Resistance doesn’t stack.
  • If a different resistance is higher and negates the attack it doesn’t count because it’s “whenever THIS [Resist 5] reduces an attack”.
  • Temporary hit points are just me taking the damage somewhere else…
  • ???

At best, I can see it synergising with a handful of specific powers that otherwise reduce attack damage by mechanics other than resist, but those are few and far between (and generally reduce the damage by a not significant enough amount to negate 90% of a reasonable opponent’s damage.)(And my party hasn’t picked any of the dozen specific paragon paths/backgrounds that get them.)

Overall, this means, I can’t really see an occasion where this text would actually kick in. It’s good for negating level 1 creature’s attack effects if they happen to roll a 1 on their damage dice… as a level 20 Daily.

(Don’t get me wrong, the rest of the power is fine. Resist 5 is fine. Free damage is good. Resist forced movement is good. It’s just an unlikely enough confluence of events for that power to trigger that.. it feels like I’m missing something?)

TL;DR: Am I mis-reading this part of the Crag of Steel power or is it just not going to come up in normal level-appropriate fights?

What is meant by the Polymorphism definition?

Based on many tutorials that I have read, the following is the definition of Polymorphism:

Polymorphism is the ability of an object to take on many forms.

Now let’s assume that we have an Animal parent class, and a Dog and a Cat child classes.

Is the above Polymorphism definition means that an Animal variable can have many forms in the sense that an Animal variable can be an Animal or it can be a Dog or it can be a Cat, or does it mean something else?

Is Baba Lysaga meant to have resistance to magic?

In the Curse of Strahd campaign, the description of Baba Lysaga (pages 228/229) includes the following text for one of her features/abilities:

However, within the stat block iteself, there is no mention of her resilient skin and resistance to magic. In fact, the name of the feature that protects against divination magic is slightly different, too:

Is there errata or clarification somewhere as to whether or not this character is supposed to have some additional defenses within her stat block? The CR11 suggests that she’s meant to be tougher to kill.

Variant Half-Elf: is this meant to be Keen Senses AND another trait?

The Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide says:

Some half-elves in Faerûn have a racial trait in place of the Skill Versatility trait. If your DM allows it, your half-elf character can forgo Skill Versatility and instead take the elf trait Keen Senses or a trait based on your elf parentage:

Emphasis mine. The traits based on parentage are things like swim speed for aquatic elves or magic for drow parents. But here’s the thing. Skill Versatility is

You gain proficiency in two skills of your choice.

while Keen Senses is

You have proficiency in the Perception skill.

Why would one ever pick Keen Senses over Skill Versatility (with Perception and another skill)? Is this a design oversight, or a typo where it’s meant to be “and”, or is there something about these traits that I’m missing?

What is meant by the term “concatenation of two q’s denotes a break between two edges in Turing Machine T”? [Universal Turing Machine Encoding Scheme]

I’m studying the topic of universal turing machine encoding and the first line says we can write the turing machine encoding in the form of syllables like


where q’s are representing states and c’s are characters

M denotes either left or right move

I’ve understood what these lines mean but what does qxqz mean? or what does qxqx mean? I’m quite confused there’s no read/write or tapehead movement what does this all stand for?

Can some one please explain what is meant by “5 level lower” with Kineticist Archetype Elemental Purist’s Limited Buffer feature?

Can some one please explain what is meant by “5 levels lower” with Kineticist Archetype Elemental Purist’s Limited Buffer feature?

So far I get that you just get it and it benefits later at level 11. Isn’t it?

Is Move/Action Order Meant to Be Restricted?

I would like to confidently know whether the order in which the free movement and the non-movement action should be taken (i.e. move+act vs. act+move) is meant to be restricted in the base ruleset.

The Core book’s main statement on free movement seems to boil down to a highlighted phrase:

if there’s nothing preventing you from doing so, you can move one zone in addition to your action for the exchange.

For some time (for reasons which are tangential for this question, and in retrospect were flimsy) I used to believe that the order is meant to be fixed. Some discussions led me to become inclined to believe that the order is meant to be free.

Recently, in my campaign, there was a situation where mixing up the order could’ve benefited an NPC enemy, but I refrained from using such tactics because I didn’t want to risk turning the exchange into a rules discussion and losing the pacing of the conflict, as I wasn’t sure all players adhere to the same default assumption. I would like to be ready for the next time it may come up:

I would like to know whether there is any official evidence that would unambiguously resolve the matter in one direction or another. Such evidence can be from non-third-party rulebooks, FAQs, other authorial comments, author-approved examples etc. A third-party statement is only valid evidence if it either quotes the makers of the system, or has been written in direct consultation with the makers specifically on the matter of such mechanics.

What is meant by a full abstract model of a lambda-calculus like language?

The simply typed lambda-calculus with numbers and fix has long been a favorite experimental subject for programming language researchers, since it is the simplest language in which a range of subtle semantic phenomena such as full abstraction arise.

I tried to find a definition for full-abstract model but I haven’t found such. This quote is from Pierce’s TAPL book. Note that there is also a related question: What is a "model" of lambda calculus? on the site that has not been answered.

Is ‘the bombe’ technically a computer?what is technically meant to be a computer?

Some say that ‘the bombe’ created by Alan Turing is technically not a computer despite decrypting the codes.

Why is it so? Is ‘the bombe’ technically a computer?

First of all what is technically meant to be a computer?, When even olden mechanical machines like step reconer or hollerith tabulating machine is often regarded as computer but not ‘the bombe'(correct me if I am wrong)