Jump to content

Vader21

Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Acceptable

About Vader21

  • Rank
    Peon
  • Birthday 02/21/1980

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. True, however the wording of the incorporeal for most of the people i talked to considered it to be preventing dmg coming from another model , as it seemed intention is to make it weaker as opposed to armor and shielded since it also grants benefits with unobstructed movement. Not until i saw a comment on some youtube video did i even consider it would possibly take its own action into account. It was sort of a common sense.
  2. Necrotic decays may suffer is in itallics as it is a cost of a trigger , second one is dmg from attack. Paying cost happens before attack is resolved. I don't know but i see a whole lot of a difference there.
  3. No he is armor +2 and shielded +2 . Shielded reduces dmg by one not by value of condition which is +2 at start and is reduced by one each time it reduces dmg. You can however apply reduction from armor and then from shielded reducing the dmg of say 3 dmg attack effectively to 0 .
  4. I give up neither I nor more than half of community agree with you , so util FAQ comes out we will treat cost (written in italics) of a trigger as dmg that cannot be prevented . We being our gaming community. Clause in the rules that you keep reffering to is so that things like blasts and ricochet are reduced by incorporeal. However common sense is that your own model cannot be target from it's own attack action and hence cannot prevent dmg from cost of a trigger on it .
  5. Richochet exact wording is choose another model within 3 inches and placing blast markers also targets other models which it touches for recieving the dmg not for resolving duel . I'm sorry english isn't my native language and this examples you picked out of context are nitpicking and not constructive when it's pretty obvious what i meant. Which was that the source of dmg is another models attack action and its triggers. Also section about paying cost for trigger (itslics) states if the model has to suffer dmg for the can oay it as long as it wouldn't result in it going to 0, nowhere does it refer to as beeing dmg from attack .
  6. Paying cost for trigger from it's own action is not an attack action targeting model using its own attack , why is that so hard to comprehend.
  7. So, blast dmg and richochet are part of other models attack action that end up targeting model with incorporeal even as a secondary target, placing blasts and choosing target for richochet is still targeting i don't se what is confusing in what i said.
  8. In every other occasion outside the case of A&D your interpretation of incorporeal would be beneficial and most of us think the intention was to make incorporeal weaker as it was allready superior to armor as it gave terrain and model ignoring thus limiting its preventing to only dmg caused by attack actions (And their triggers) that target the model with incorporeal
  9. Why wouldn't it reduce blasts that are result of another models attack action, every member of our gaming community and more than a half of forum community simply treats incorporeal as preventing attack coming from another model , if you feel masohistic enough to overlap blasts with your own model then feel free to suffer the full dmg .
  10. Taking damage from dumb luck wasn't paying the cost of a trigger but was literally taking dmg from an attack caused by a trigger.
  11. Well in that case entierty of my playgroop agrees that incorporeal affects only attacks directed at the model. And forums are literaly split 60/40 in favour of that same opinion so untill faq comes we will be playing it that way i guess.
  12. Those are not the costs of triggers plus there are ways for models to give out suits like hoffman with power tokens. Putting ability like incorporeal on a model that then interferes with the trigger is on no other model. Not to mention modes like peacekeeper allready have min of 3 and can go to up to 5 so there absolutely no logic in that. Not to mention that A&D if the case that incoporeal works on cost of a trigger cannot even declare that trigger when it is on 2 HP because it cannot choose to suffer 2 dmg to increase dmg by 1 even if it wouldnt kill it . I posted the question here because i wanted an answer from a formal moderator or wyrd staff memeber , i got plenty of split opinions in faction part of the forum. I do however appreciate your opinion and your interpretation of following to the letter rule that is ambiguous . Action Triggers are tied to specific Actions and can only be used with that Action. They are found below an Action’s effect and are subject to all game effects that affect the Action (such as Incorporeal or +flips to damage) The famous quote from rulebook. Paying cost for triggers effect (italics) i dont find to be taking dmg from attack action which is targeting another model and that model at that time has not yet suffered any dmg because cost was not yet payed.
  13. Just a pure gaming question then, why would wyrd ever put a trigger on a model that it cannot use to its full potential ......that makes no sense whatsoever.
  14. Ashes and dust can suffer up to 2 dmg in order to increase dmg from it's attack by up to 2 . Incorporeal states that it reduces dmg this model suffers from attack actions (i always assumed it was from opponents attacks not from it's own sources of dmg ) So is the cost in italics affected by incorporeal resulting that A&D can never increase it's dmg by 2 also resulting it being unable to even use the trigger when at 2 HP to even increase dmg by 1 since it cannot declare 2 dmg when at 2 HP ?
  15. Suffering up to 2 dmg is in italics hehnce it's cost not damage from attack action . Also wording about triggers being a part of attack is meant so that you actually add all dmg sources before applying dmg reduction so that it doesn't happen that you take 2 dmg from attack and reduce it by one and then take additional dmg from trigger and then apply separate dmg reduction to the dmg from trigger reducing it to 0, instead you take 2 from attack and one from trigger reducing it by one and taking 2 in total . If wyrd wanted to complicate things they woud give it armor . (in case no one noticed no model with necrotic decay trigger has armor) Sure saying it takes irreducible dmg would clear things up adding additional word to the text that is already crowded and totally unnecessary. Saying wording from incorporeal somehow affects your own attacks is pure wishful looking for something that isn't there . Goal of M3E was to simplify things not to add hidden layers of complication only a few see , and until someone officially from wyrd tells me i'm wrong Ashes and Dust will be successfully suffering 2 dmg if they chose so . Also limiting dmg reduction only from attack actions (oponents) is already weakening the effect incorporeal has compared to armor or shielding purely to not be overpowered since it already allows models to ignore terrain and other models .
×
×
  • Create New...