The adaptive can opener

[ArD]

In accordance with Improved harness card friendly constructs within 6 of the Hoffman with upgrade may not have their Armor ignored and may reduce damage regardless of any enemy efects that state otherwise.

If we target the Hoffman's friendly model having ignore armor(PK, Guardian, Joss, etc.) with Obey CA and make this model to perform attack action against Hoffman/construct within 6, will the Armor be ignored?

Ignor armor is not an enemy effect, couse the attacking model is still friendly to Charlie, so my consideration that it is possible to open hard cans with Obey. 

Am I correct?

[santaclaws01]

So long as it isn't an enemy effect attempting to ignore armor, then yes, the armor can be ignored.

[Angelshard]

As santaclaws01 said, if the ignore armour is from the attack of a friendly model Then you can ignore, obey doesn't affect the attack or change the allegiance of the model, so yes you'd ignore the armour.

[Adran]

I read the initial post as it may not have its armour ignored.... and it can reduce damage regardless of enemy effects that state otherwise. But I don't have the actual text to hand

[Durza]

The wording is friendly models may not have their armour ignored and may reduce damage regardless of enemy effects, so if the effect says ignore armour then the armour still works, but if it says cant be reduced then it would go through the armour.

[santaclaws01]

20 minutes ago, Durza said:

The wording is friendly models may not have their armour ignored and may reduce damage regardless of enemy effects, so if the effect says ignore armour then the armour still works, but if it says cant be reduced then it would go through the armour.

Bolded for emphasis.

[trikk]

 

7 hours ago, Durza said:

The wording is friendly models may not have their armour ignored and may reduce damage regardless of enemy effects, so if the effect says ignore armour then the armour still works, but if it says cant be reduced then it would go through the armour.

Bolded. So if Guild has something that doesn`t allow reduction you can Obey to skip Armor (like the Queller) but you can`t use the Explot Design Flaw trigger as it ignores Armor directly. The "regardless of enemy effects" is an add-on to the "may reduce damage" and not ""may not have their armor ignored"

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, trikk said:

 

Bolded. So if Guild has something that doesn`t allow reduction you can Obey to skip Armor (like the Queller) but you can`t use the Explot Design Flaw trigger as it ignores Armor directly. The "regardless of enemy effects" is an add-on to the "may reduce damage" and not ""may not have their armor ignored"

I was reading the "regardless of enemy effects" as an addition to both the armor and can't be reduced, although I agree it's not clear.

[trikk]

Just now, santaclaws01 said:

I was reading the "regardless of enemy effects" as an addition to both the armor and can't be reduced, although I agree it's not clear.

Yes. Its a bad way of writing rules. You don`t know if the "modifier" applies to the second part or to both parts.

[SunTsu]

On 21/12/2017 at 5:04 PM, trikk said:

Yes. Its a bad way of writing rules. You don`t know if the "modifier" applies to the second part or to both parts.

I guess it's referring to both parts. Although it could be written better, I think that in case it would reference just one clause the writing would was much more specific. Now we're splitting the hair. But reading it in plain English I think it's obvious you understand it referring to both the statements.

[trikk]

7 hours ago, SunTsu said:

I guess it's referring to both parts. Although it could be written better, I think that in case it would reference just one clause the writing would was much more specific. Now we're splitting the hair. But reading it in plain English I think it's obvious you understand it referring to both the statements.

If you look at this thread it isn't really obvious

[Freman]

Which is why the "may not be reduced" wording is too vague and shouldn't be in the game.

Armour, Bulletproof, Incorporeal, and Defence Triggers may all "reduce damage" in some way. Prior to this vague wording models were pretty clear. Usually they "ignored armour" sometimes they "ignored incorporeal" very little ignored defensive triggers, and almost nothing ignored bulletproof. Now models ignore all those things with one wording "damage may not be reduced".

[SunTsu]

On 29/12/2017 at 9:31 AM, trikk said:

If you look at this thread it isn't really obvious

It's just plain English. I mean, it could be theorically either ways. But this is a rule, so if the designer intent would be to split the effect in two very different parts, he/she would wrote it in a very different way, making clear there were two different "rules". Here you have a single sentence that refers just to armour. Nothing more.

14 hours ago, Freman said:

Which is why the "may not be reduced" wording is too vague and shouldn't be in the game.

Maybe it would be possible to write it better. But here imvho the intent is really clear: let armour (and just armour) works in every situation without being bypassed by any effects.

If it would be written just as "armour can't be ignored", we know... someone for sure would argued that effects that ztates "this damage can't be reduced" woulb be not affected by this rules, because damage reduction is not ignoring armour...

On the other hand, writing "this model may reduce damage regardless enemy effects" would affect even different abilities (bulletproof, some triggers, etc).

I think the intetion of the rule is to always allow damage reduction with armour.

If the intention is this, I think it would be written better as: "Friendly models' armour may not be ignored (by enemy models) and may always reduce damage regardless of enemy effects".

If, instead, the intention would be let it working in a broader way, it would be written better as: "Friendly models' armour may not be ignored (by enemy models). Friendly models may always reduce damage regardless of enemy effects."

The way this rule is worded is not perfect. But the sentence is written in a way that it's safe to assume the true intentin was the first one (let armour and only armour working always). Sure a faq/errata would be appreciated...