Why is “deal 6 damage” a legit phrase?This is a thing not to worry aboutUsage Of The Determiner “This”“x thinks it's people”--why “people” and not “a human”?'Such volume' or 'such a volume'?a state nationalism — why do we need an article?can't understand : WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTIONIs this sentence grammatically complete?Can I use “to bring it”?How to ‘guess’ if a noun is countable or uncountable?Why can not a verb of “To gulp the glass of water with such thirst” be seen?

Would people understand me speaking German all over Europe?

Can machine learning learn a function like finding maximum from a list?

What are the cons of stateless password generators?

How to litter train a cat if both my husband and I work away from home all day?

Why didn't General Martok receive discommendation in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine?

A conjectural trigonometric identity

Numerically Stable IIR filter

How to calculate points under the curve?

How do discovery writers hibernate?

Why does Latex make a small adjustment when I change section color

Typesetting numbers above, below, left, and right of a symbol

Gold Battle KoTH

How to innovate in OR

Just how much information should you share with a former client?

Introduction to the Sicilian

Can square roots be negative?

Why is “deal 6 damage” a legit phrase?

Prepare a user to perform an action before proceeding to the next step

Planting Trees in Outer Space

Was Donald Trump at ground zero helping out on 9-11?

Adding a (stair/baby) gate without facing walls

How to remove rebar passing through an inaccessible pipe

Academic progression in Germany, what happens after a postdoc? What is the next step?

What does 「ちんちんかいかい」 mean?



Why is “deal 6 damage” a legit phrase?


This is a thing not to worry aboutUsage Of The Determiner “This”“x thinks it's people”--why “people” and not “a human”?'Such volume' or 'such a volume'?a state nationalism — why do we need an article?can't understand : WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTIONIs this sentence grammatically complete?Can I use “to bring it”?How to ‘guess’ if a noun is countable or uncountable?Why can not a verb of “To gulp the glass of water with such thirst” be seen?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








15















Hearthstone Fireball Card



I mean, if damage is countable, it should be




Deal 6 damages.




If it’s not countable, then this sentence should be wrong.



Such as saying something like




I drank 5 water.




So... am I missing something here?










share|improve this question
































    15















    Hearthstone Fireball Card



    I mean, if damage is countable, it should be




    Deal 6 damages.




    If it’s not countable, then this sentence should be wrong.



    Such as saying something like




    I drank 5 water.




    So... am I missing something here?










    share|improve this question




























      15












      15








      15


      1






      Hearthstone Fireball Card



      I mean, if damage is countable, it should be




      Deal 6 damages.




      If it’s not countable, then this sentence should be wrong.



      Such as saying something like




      I drank 5 water.




      So... am I missing something here?










      share|improve this question
















      Hearthstone Fireball Card



      I mean, if damage is countable, it should be




      Deal 6 damages.




      If it’s not countable, then this sentence should be wrong.



      Such as saying something like




      I drank 5 water.




      So... am I missing something here?







      grammar countability






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 8 mins ago







      Hao Wu

















      asked 20 hours ago









      Hao WuHao Wu

      2891 gold badge2 silver badges9 bronze badges




      2891 gold badge2 silver badges9 bronze badges























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          38














          It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.



          It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:




          Deal 6 points of damage.




          (And damage here is a mass noun.)



          In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)






          share|improve this answer




















          • 2





            So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?

            – Hao Wu
            20 hours ago






          • 3





            Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.

            – Jason Bassford
            19 hours ago






          • 6





            If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.

            – Ruther Rendommeleigh
            11 hours ago






          • 5





            @Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".

            – stellatedHexahedron
            10 hours ago







          • 2





            @RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."

            – David Richerby
            10 hours ago


















          10














          Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.



          In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.




          In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property] is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.



          So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.



          That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).




          As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).





          share
































            -4














            Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:



            6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)


            These games say:



            6 damage


            It depends on how the word is defined.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor



            Simon Baars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.
















            • 13





              We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.

              – alephzero
              10 hours ago







            • 6





              This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.

              – David Richerby
              10 hours ago











            • @alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.

              – Rich
              4 hours ago











            • @Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.

              – Blorgbeard
              3 hours ago














            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "481"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f219984%2fwhy-is-deal-6-damage-a-legit-phrase%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            38














            It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.



            It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:




            Deal 6 points of damage.




            (And damage here is a mass noun.)



            In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)






            share|improve this answer




















            • 2





              So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?

              – Hao Wu
              20 hours ago






            • 3





              Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.

              – Jason Bassford
              19 hours ago






            • 6





              If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.

              – Ruther Rendommeleigh
              11 hours ago






            • 5





              @Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".

              – stellatedHexahedron
              10 hours ago







            • 2





              @RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."

              – David Richerby
              10 hours ago















            38














            It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.



            It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:




            Deal 6 points of damage.




            (And damage here is a mass noun.)



            In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)






            share|improve this answer




















            • 2





              So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?

              – Hao Wu
              20 hours ago






            • 3





              Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.

              – Jason Bassford
              19 hours ago






            • 6





              If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.

              – Ruther Rendommeleigh
              11 hours ago






            • 5





              @Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".

              – stellatedHexahedron
              10 hours ago







            • 2





              @RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."

              – David Richerby
              10 hours ago













            38












            38








            38







            It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.



            It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:




            Deal 6 points of damage.




            (And damage here is a mass noun.)



            In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)






            share|improve this answer













            It's domain specific, and not something that would be said outside the context of a game like this.



            It's almost certainly an elided form of the following:




            Deal 6 points of damage.




            (And damage here is a mass noun.)



            In the same way that headlines take liberties with the omission of articles and other grammatical structures, so too is this game using a shortened form of English that's understood in its own context. (With that font size, it looks like the full sentence might not fit within the space allowed by the card.)







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 20 hours ago









            Jason BassfordJason Bassford

            24.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges52 bronze badges




            24.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges52 bronze badges










            • 2





              So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?

              – Hao Wu
              20 hours ago






            • 3





              Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.

              – Jason Bassford
              19 hours ago






            • 6





              If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.

              – Ruther Rendommeleigh
              11 hours ago






            • 5





              @Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".

              – stellatedHexahedron
              10 hours ago







            • 2





              @RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."

              – David Richerby
              10 hours ago












            • 2





              So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?

              – Hao Wu
              20 hours ago






            • 3





              Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.

              – Jason Bassford
              19 hours ago






            • 6





              If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.

              – Ruther Rendommeleigh
              11 hours ago






            • 5





              @Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".

              – stellatedHexahedron
              10 hours ago







            • 2





              @RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."

              – David Richerby
              10 hours ago







            2




            2





            So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?

            – Hao Wu
            20 hours ago





            So technically the phrase itself is wrong, but it's acceptable in a certain environment or context?

            – Hao Wu
            20 hours ago




            3




            3





            Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.

            – Jason Bassford
            19 hours ago





            Yes, you can look at it that way. Or you could say that in the grammar of the game it's perfectly fine.

            – Jason Bassford
            19 hours ago




            6




            6





            If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.

            – Ruther Rendommeleigh
            11 hours ago





            If I recall correctly, one popular card game (MtG) defined "damage" as a unit, so, in this context, "6 damage" would be correct and saying "6 points of damage" was explicitly discouraged. The card shown in the Q belongs to a game that is heavily inspired by MtG.

            – Ruther Rendommeleigh
            11 hours ago




            5




            5





            @Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".

            – stellatedHexahedron
            10 hours ago






            @Arcanist Lupus there are words whose plurals are the same as their singular. This includes many animals, such as "elk", "deer", and "fish" (which can be pluralized as either "fish" and "fishes"), as well as miscellaneous words like "aircraft". Since "damages" in common parlance is used not as a plural, but to indicate financial context, it makes sense that the plural of the emerging countable meaning which abbreviates "point(s) of damage" would be "damage" and not "damages".

            – stellatedHexahedron
            10 hours ago





            2




            2





            @RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."

            – David Richerby
            10 hours ago





            @RutherRendommeleigh All SI units get pluralized; electrical and otherwise. Don't confuse "this is a five-ohm resistor" with "its resistance is five ohms."

            – David Richerby
            10 hours ago













            10














            Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.



            In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.




            In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property] is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.



            So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.



            That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).




            As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).





            share





























              10














              Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.



              In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.




              In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property] is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.



              So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.



              That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).




              As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).





              share



























                10












                10








                10







                Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.



                In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.




                In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property] is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.



                So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.



                That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).




                As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).





                share













                Generically, because it's established gaming jargon. While the answer by Jason Bassford is almost certainly correct about the origins of this particular bit of jargon, it's gotten to the point now that it's just accepted jargon, so it's what almost everybody uses.



                In a number of cases, the jargon for a particular domain is essentially a distinct grammatical and lexical dialect from the base language it's used in, and should be analyzed as such since it quite often just doesn't make sense otherwise.




                In this particular case, the construct [verb] [number] [attribute or property] is in widespread use in many types of games as a way of concisely expressing a numerical change in state of some specific value within the context of the game. The verb indicates the particular direction of the change (positive or negative), the number is largely universally a positive, and the attribute or propperty indicates what is being changed.



                So, in your example, 'deal 6 damage' means that whatever entity is being targeted takes six points of damage, but expresses that without needing nearly as many words.



                That kind of concise communication gets really important in a lot of cases because space is often limited when relaying information like this, so fewer words means you can use a bigger font, and therefore make it more easily readable (this is less of an issue in a digital context though than it is with physical games).




                As mentioned above, the origins of this phrase are almost certainly exactly what Jason Bassford outlined in his answer. Exactly pinpointing it's origin is somewhat difficult, but I'd be willing to bet that it developed first as verbal shorthand among players of tabletop RPGs (like Dungeons & Dragons) and then got slowly inherited by other gaming contexts (many gamers tend to play more than one type of game). It's long-since become standard phrasing in TCG's and CCG's, likely because of Magic the Gathering (which goes a step further and uses similar phrasing to indicate changes in certain non-numeric properties as well), and that's probably where the usage in your particular case came from (pretty sure the picture is a card from Hearthstone, which took heavy inspiration in a lot of ways from MtG, just like most other TCG type games).






                share











                share


                share










                answered 9 hours ago









                Austin HemmelgarnAustin Hemmelgarn

                3751 silver badge5 bronze badges




                3751 silver badge5 bronze badges
























                    -4














                    Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:



                    6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)


                    These games say:



                    6 damage


                    It depends on how the word is defined.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor



                    Simon Baars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    • 13





                      We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.

                      – alephzero
                      10 hours ago







                    • 6





                      This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.

                      – David Richerby
                      10 hours ago











                    • @alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.

                      – Rich
                      4 hours ago











                    • @Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.

                      – Blorgbeard
                      3 hours ago
















                    -4














                    Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:



                    6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)


                    These games say:



                    6 damage


                    It depends on how the word is defined.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor



                    Simon Baars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    • 13





                      We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.

                      – alephzero
                      10 hours ago







                    • 6





                      This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.

                      – David Richerby
                      10 hours ago











                    • @alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.

                      – Rich
                      4 hours ago











                    • @Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.

                      – Blorgbeard
                      3 hours ago














                    -4












                    -4








                    -4







                    Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:



                    6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)


                    These games say:



                    6 damage


                    It depends on how the word is defined.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor



                    Simon Baars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    Many games consider damage a unit. Just as we would say:



                    6 kilogram (instead of kilograms)


                    These games say:



                    6 damage


                    It depends on how the word is defined.







                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor



                    Simon Baars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.








                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer






                    New contributor



                    Simon Baars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.








                    answered 11 hours ago









                    Simon BaarsSimon Baars

                    1174 bronze badges




                    1174 bronze badges




                    New contributor



                    Simon Baars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.




                    New contributor




                    Simon Baars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.












                    • 13





                      We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.

                      – alephzero
                      10 hours ago







                    • 6





                      This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.

                      – David Richerby
                      10 hours ago











                    • @alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.

                      – Rich
                      4 hours ago











                    • @Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.

                      – Blorgbeard
                      3 hours ago













                    • 13





                      We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.

                      – alephzero
                      10 hours ago







                    • 6





                      This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.

                      – David Richerby
                      10 hours ago











                    • @alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.

                      – Rich
                      4 hours ago











                    • @Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.

                      – Blorgbeard
                      3 hours ago








                    13




                    13





                    We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.

                    – alephzero
                    10 hours ago






                    We don't normally say "6 kilogram" in English - except in situations where "six-kilogram" is grammatically an adjective. "He can lift a 150-kilogram weight" is OK, but "He weighs 150 kilograms". The standard abbreviation "kg" does not indicate whether the unabbreviated word is singular or plural. Using "kgs" as an abbreviation is wrong.

                    – alephzero
                    10 hours ago





                    6




                    6





                    This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.

                    – David Richerby
                    10 hours ago





                    This is wrong. The BIPM is quite clear that the names of SI units are pluralized; it's the symbols that aren't.

                    – David Richerby
                    10 hours ago













                    @alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.

                    – Rich
                    4 hours ago





                    @alephzero Nonsense. We say "6 kilo of fish" and "10 mile per hour". The prevalance of pluralizing units is not the reason for this answer being incorrect. It's simply that "damage" is not a unit.

                    – Rich
                    4 hours ago













                    @Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.

                    – Blorgbeard
                    3 hours ago






                    @Rich that sounds like regional dialect - I feel like I may have heard it (on TV), but never seen it written that way. Although also yeah, damage is not a unit anyway.

                    – Blorgbeard
                    3 hours ago


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f219984%2fwhy-is-deal-6-damage-a-legit-phrase%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                    Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                    199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單