Dumb luck and incorporeal

[Davi]

If Rami shoots the Hungering Darkness(incorporeal) and uses the 'dumb luck' trigger flips severe how much damage does Rami take? is it 4 or 2?

dumb luck says "this model suffers damage equal to half of the amount the target suffers" and incorporeal "reduces all damage this model suffers from sh and ml Attack actions by half"

[Ikvar]

Its always half of what the target suffers, so if the target has a way to reduce dmg by half, you only get half of that dmg aswell- in other words, Rami would suffer 2dmg

[Dracomax]

Also, my reading based on the way that those rules read, the damage taken would be rounded up for Rami, and rounded down for incorporeal.

I say this because the book say always round numbers up(except with movement).

Say Rami flips 7 damage on his attack(yeah, I know it can't happen, but for the sake of example, 1 damage of his sever just dissapeared. Ophelia must have hidden it somewhere to keep him in his place.) Since Incorporeal reduces the damage by half, the amount reduced (3.5) would be rounded up to 4, meaning the incorporeal model would take 3 damage.

Unless anyone can see flaws in the reasoning.

Now, Rami has to take half of the damage that the Incorporeal model took(1.5) but this gets rounded up to 2.

[Davi]

So if it was against something with armour 2, inflicting 8 damage reduced by the armour to 6 Rami would take 3.

what is the physical reason for the state of the enemy having an effect on how much damage Rami takes?

[Dracomax]

Well, the reason is because the rules say so.

But the fluff reason is probably something like this: He's a gremlin, and so isn't as competent with a gun as he thinks he is. Every so often, he hits things badly through sheer dumb luck. At this point, he starts celebrating, waving his gun around, and shoots himself in the foot, coincidentally for exactly half as much damage as what his critical hit dealt.

[hypoking]

Also, my reading based on the way that those rules read, the damage taken would be rounded up for Rami, and rounded down for incorporeal.

I say this because the book say always round numbers up(except with movement).

Say Rami flips 7 damage on his attack(yeah, I know it can't happen, but for the sake of example, 1 damage of his sever just dissapeared. Ophelia must have hidden it somewhere to keep him in his place.) Since Incorporeal reduces the damage by half, the amount reduced (3.5) would be rounded up to 4, meaning the incorporeal model would take 3 damage.

Unless anyone can see flaws in the reasoning.

The designers do. One of the few things we have dev fiat on in m2e is incorporeal. They say you still round up the damage taken. Doesn't make much sense but there you have it.

[Dracomax]

Yeah, that's poorly written then.

[madjackdeacon]

But the fluff reason is probably something like this: He's a gremlin, and so isn't as competent with a gun as he thinks he is. Every so often, he hits things badly through sheer dumb luck. At this point, he starts celebrating, waving his gun around, and shoots himself in the foot, coincidentally for exactly half as much damage as what his critical hit dealt.

I kinda view it as Gremlins are notoriously bad shots, and them hitting something at all is pure dumb luck and probably only grazed the poor soul on the other end of the weapon. The half damage comes from the ricochet as the round bounces off a rock, an anvil, etc. and returns tumbling and almost spent of it's kinetic energy.

[Mike3838]

The designers do. One of the few things we have dev fiat on in m2e is incorporeal. They say you still round up the damage taken. Doesn't make much sense but there you have it.

"Dev fiat"? This came up in a game today. Has there been an official ruling / clarification?

[Derkus]

Since Incorporeal reduces the damage by half, the amount reduced (3.5) would be rounded up to 4, meaning the incorporeal model would take 3 damage.

I am confused by what you are saying here... if you round up to 4 (which is true) why would the incorporeal model only take 3 damage?

The Half damaged the gremlin takes should be 50% (rounded up) of the final damage inflicted on the target model (which is the number of wounds the model looses, not any other part of the equation).

My thought on why it is like this (as it was in 1.5) is simply for game balance. If armor or other effects are reducing the actual damage inflicted, the cost (in wounds) is adjusted accordingly. If risk was greater than reward, then the ability would be terrible in some cases.

[Mike3838]

Dracomax is saying that if a model takes 7 damage, and the Incorporeal rule says "reduce damage by half", how much do you reduce *by*?

3.5

Round that up to 4, and so only 3 damage gets through.

That's how we played it tonight, but it felt wrong

[hypoking]

Because according to RAW the spirit/incorporeal model doesn't take half damage, they prevent half the damage they would suffer. Meaning that unless you take thumb screws to the English language the bigger bit gets taken away from the smaller bit. Anyway, here's a link to the discussion in question.

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?45779-M2E-%28beta%29-questions/page2

[Ausplosions]

Dracomax is saying that if a model takes 7 damage, and the Incorporeal rule says "reduce damage by half", how much do you reduce *by*?

3.5

Round that up to 4, and so only 3 damage gets through.

That's how we played it tonight, but it felt wrong

What?

This makes no sense.

Edit: Wait. Got it.

I see what your trying to say, but that is not how it works.

7 damage is reduced to 3.5 which is rounded up to 4, the Incorporeal model takes 4 damage.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Ausplosions

[Mister Shine]

Here is the answer by RAW

The damage is the thing being halved, so it is rounded up.

"Reduction" is an action, not a quantity which can be halved. So if an incorporeal model suffers 3 damage from an Ml action, that damage is reduced by half. 3/2 = 1.5 damage which is rounded up to 2 damage. The spirit suffers 2 damage.

Hope that clears it up.

Admittedly, there is obviously room for confusion and this is totally a valid FAQ question, which is likely where it will end up. But we're not releasing an FAQ before releasing...the game.

So take 4 damage

[hypoking]

Part of the confusion, Aus, is that the rule doesn't actually say 'reduce to' like your implying. It says reduce by...

Why are we arguing this again? I think this is the only M2E question we have a definitive answer on. Why? Just why?

[Irall]

Say, I have a question,but I dont want to create another thread for it: Do Poison stack ?

For exemple , The Brewmaster use is "Swing o' Shine" Attack Action again a target, giving him Poison +2. If he do it once more, do it raise de poison to +4?

[Mason]

7 damage is reduced to 3.5 which is rounded up to 4, the Incorporeal model takes 4 damage.

That's pretty much how we've been playing it here. Even the new people we've been demoing the game to have just automatically assumed that's how it works.

[Ausplosions]

Yes, hence the +

[Mason]

Say, I have a question,but I dont want to create another thread for it: Do Poison stack ?

For exemple , The Brewmaster use is "Swing o' Shine" Attack Action again a target, giving him Poison +2. If he do it once more, do it raise de poison to +4?

Yes, everything with +X stacks with itself. Burning, Poison, Focus, etc.

[Irall]

Yes, everything with +X stacks with itself. Burning, Poison, Focus, etc.

.....Ok, Sudently, The Whiskey Golem , Finger and The Brewmaster sound VERY dangerous!

[Derkus]

Why are we arguing this again? I think this is the only M2E question we have a definitive answer on. Why? Just why?

Well I think the answer to that question is that either not everyone understands, or that they are bad at math . I completely follow Mr. Shines quote from Justin, and that is how I understood it... but it is not the math that Dracomax posted... hence my confusion.

[Dracomax]

The problem is that, the way that incorporeal is written says something competely different than what the devs say it should be read as. Anyone reading the ability and not seeing the dev clarification(which I grant is an absolute rule) will have to figure out exactly how it works, and by the rules of English, if you follow the steps using a strict adherence to what the ability says, then you will get it wrong. Given that it will be November before any Errata or Faqs go up, and even then, new players may not know to look for them, this is a bad thing that really shouldn't happen.

It's too late to fix the cards, book, and model already produced, but Wave 2 Really ought to have the ability reworded. "Reduced to" would work, but still doesn't parse cleanly. Honestly, it should probably be reworded to something like "This Model takes half damage from SH or Ml attacks." on all future models, with a statement in the eventual official Errata to the effect that all instances of incorporeal should be changed to that effect.

Hence my reply on being told the official rule: that's just badly worded, then.

[Domime Nox]

I, as a new player, am failing to see the big confusion whether it is reduced to, or reduced by if you run basic math, but then round at the end there is no confusion. Like in the example several posts back the model takes 7 damage, split in half is 3.5. So 3.5 is not taken, and 3.5 is taken. Now that we have worked that out NOW you round, so 4 was reduced and 4 was taken, and the model that takes half of what was taken takes 2. Sure it would 'imply' 8 damage, but that's irrelvant because that was after rounding which is already messing with the numbers. Why would I split the damage in half, then only round 1 of them, and apply the remainder to the other? That's not in the book anywhere.

[Ausplosions]

Exactly.

I think the occasions of people seeing it this way will be few and far between and not worth changing wordings.

[Mike3838]

Why would I split the damage in half, then only round 1 of them, and apply the remainder to the other? That's not in the book anywhere.

Why would you round both of them to 4, and then only apply "Damage = 4" and throw away "Reduced = 4"? You clearly can't apply both (which would be paradoxical), and also not in the book is any description of how to choose which one to apply.

Exactly.

I think the occasions of people seeing it this way will be few and far between and not worth changing wordings.

You think the occasions of people reading the actual words on the card and taking them at face value will be few and far between...?

Take away pre-concieved rememberances of how it works in M1E, and look at the natural wording of the ability - "Reduced by" has a meaning, and it leads to only one way to interpret the calculation.

Since this interpretation disagrees with the intent, it could do with changing.