WEiRD sKeTCH

and if they manage to get an armor effect afterwards (before the Cut Away effects are removed)

do they still calculate from armor -4?

No. They calculate the positive first, then the negative. The final result cannot go below 0.

poke...

still wondering,

if the rider has their armor cut away, then shifts to where they don't have the same armor rating, what happens?

EG: Rider had Armor 4 from 2 sources.

Ridger given Armor -4

Rider changes arrangment, to where it only has Armor 1., but still has the Armor -4 effect...

what happens?

Armor 0

Thanks Sketch!

If I might also borrow a moment for the "after resolving damage" question? This does not require that damage was done, correct? Just that a damage flip happened?

Also correct.

Hitting a model is resolved with the Attack Duel not the Damage Resolution.

In both of your examples, they trigger off of being "Hit".

I'll have a go at it...

1) Make a Damage flip with the spread listed on the card. The Damage flip is affected by twists from abilities like Hard to Wound.

2) Add any Damage modifiers from triggers like Critical Strike.

3) Subtract any Damage modifiers from relevant damage reduction, like Armor.

4) Convert the total Damage to Wounds.

5) If the target has an ability that affects the Wounds it suffers, apply it.

6) If the target has Use Soulstone, it has the option to reduce the number of Wounds inflicted with a Wound Prevention flip.

7) Reduce the target's Wd characteristic by the number of Wounds inflicted.

8) If one or more Wounds were inflicted, the target has been Damaged. Exception: If the Damage flip in step (1) was 0 damage, and no damage was negated in steps (5) or (6), the target has been Damaged.

9) If the target has been Damaged, apply any effects that occur "after damaging".

Hopefully that is sufficiently program-like for you. I'm sure I've missed things, but that's off the top of my head, and I don't think it's hard to understand.

Also, heaps of words have multiple definitions. Gaming, and game design, is not programming, however much you might like it to be! Ambiguity will happen, and interpretation will be necessary. It's a fact of life.

This is correct.

So I would say the answer to this is simple.

Attack does 0Dg.

Check Armor. Can Armor reduce Dg? No. Armor doesn't apply.

0Dg converts to 0Wd.

Etc.

Armor doesn't say that attacks must do a minimum of 1 Damage. It says that it cannot reduce an attack below 1 Damage. If it attempts to reduce something below that, it fails (and thus normally would stop at 1Dg, but in this case, at 0Dg).

This is simple and elegant.

As well as correct.

Newb question: If my opponent's model is paralyzed, and my model melee strikes or casts a spell at it, it still gets a defensive/resist flip right?

Yes it does.

Jazz Hands!!!

or

Stop! Teddy Time!!

I did a quick search on this, but being at work I don't have too much time to comb through other threads. My question is, Hunter allows a model to see "within and across 6" of obscuring terrain" (I may not have the wording exactly right...again, at work.) My question is regarding the "across" part of the phrase.

The rulebook states that a model can see 3" into or out of obscuring terrain, but cannot draw LOS completely across a piece of obscuring terrain. So my question is, when Hunter says that someone like Samael can draw LOS "...across 6"..." does that mean he can draw LOS completely through a piece of obscuring terrain, as long as at least one of those sight lines passes through 6" or less of the terrain? Thanks.

No.

Hunter just increases the range of LoS into and out of terrain from 3" to 6" and it allows the model with Hunter to ignore Cover.

Self Loathing doesn't generate a Strike, it just generates a Damage Flip at with the Weapon.

And since Chimeric Assault doesn't do any damage unless he's performing a Strike, it would be better to choose his Shillelagh.

I've never thought to do this until I read this thread, but what about the Viks?

Is there anything to prevent one Vik from draining souls on the other one? I don't think there would be.

One could sacrifice the other, yes.

The rules about not killing or sacrificing yourself still only applies to definite situations, correct? As I recall, in the past you could do something as long as it wasn't guaranteed to kill you.

Also correct.

Is this 100% a ruling now that a model can never kill/sac itself unless its ability specifically was it can? Sorry to be pedantic but it is frustrating when its not in the rules manual an then RMs rule one way then the other. There's a thread on here about Ramos (iirc) sacrificing himself where a RM has stated he can sac himself.

Correct.

Intresting i knew models could not kill themselves but thought sacrifice was allowed. As he put it above kirai self sac is a common tactic listed here on boards

A Common Tactic that seems to be incorrect.

But the question still stands. Can a master voluntarily sac themselves for a SS?

So yes you can then

No you may not.

A model may NOT intentionally perform any Action or Ability that would kill or sacrifice itself unless the ability used allowed it.

Which is why some of Leveticus' Actions state that he MAY kill himself with specific actions.

This was ruled ages ago and many times since.

Read the post in which I called the guy an idiot.

He basically slates all of us in that thread, telling us we're "using semantics" to "poke holes in the rules" and trying to "break the game".

Honestly, that's the attitude that should be resulting in bans. We're trying to understand rules, and trying to make sure we know how things work. The rules forum is there to ask questions. Why should we have to deal with people clogging up the thread with what essentially amount to attacks on our character? How is that attitude valid?

Please do feel free to explain why you think that is ok.

That's enough.

Which is why the thread was locked. Bringing it up again will result in this post being locked as well.

Done.

NBMaster,

If this particular rule was so obvious and clear, could you explain how one of the Rules Marshalls managed to make an incorrect ruling in this very thread that was later retracted? There's definite ambiguity and as the OP proves, people can interpret it two ways.

Mike

Pobody's cuddleect.

Because Rasputina really needed a cuddle?

I understand the reasoning and am not arguing against the ruling, just noting that this is actually a cuddle for Rasputina, as you're now forced to cycle through good cards while a Biting Chill target is at 1 wd, unless you can cheat down to fail the cast or flip something low.

It's not a huge cuddle, but it is one.

I also wonder how many other models are affected by an auto-trigger "Must" ruling?

It's not a "cuddle". It's a clarification. How exactly were you playing it?

Overpower automatically Triggers and you are only allowed one Trigger per Duel.

The Overpower is "mandatory" aka: MUST. And it will be the only Trigger that may be used. You may not Surge with Biting Chill.

For the 2 crews do they need to be of different factions or are they able to be the same?

They can be of the same Faction if you so choose.

And I'm guessing this is in regards to the Henchman Application?

The diagram on page 36 is correct.

It does make sense that the Henchmen shouldn't have all of the options available to Masters.

You should make that your sig.

so there's no chance in hell they'll ever be available for Henchman ?

They are. For Collodi.