Improved harness

[Sergey Loginov]

Hoffman new upgrade, Improved harness. Can some thing Ignor this rule?

1. Poison. 

2 Some other rule that says "may not reduce damage". 

3. Or "Smell Weakness: Until the end of the turn, enemy models within 6" which are targeted with an attack action lose Armor and Hard to Wound abillities and conditions for the duraction of the attack action"

4. Another rules?

[santaclaws01]

8 minutes ago, 7thSquirrel said:

I agree with @WWHSD on this one though. 

Hoffman player: "you cannot ignore this thing I have" (cannot ignore)
Aracnist player: "are you sure you have this thing?" (lose armor)

They have removed it, they are not circumventing (i.e. ignoring it) it. There is nothing to ignore if it has been removed.

As a counter point:

Burn Out: You can't ignore this damage
Thousands strong: Now I'm taking the damage

I.e. the damage is still being taken, just by a different model, but we know how that got ruled.

[Squirrelich]

Just now, santaclaws01 said:

As a counter point:

Burn Out: You can't ignore this damage
Thousands strong: Now I'm taking the damage

I.e. the damage is still being taken, just by a different model, but we know how that got ruled.

Full abilities (or at least cards they are on so I can look it up?) and FAQ ruling? I'm not familiar

[Squirrelich]

1) "Each question is about an individual situation and does not apply to other situations."  (not really applicable so feel free to ignore this point. I just love that the devs try so hard, and in vain, to make people remember this sentence)

2) I am NOT ignoring your armor. You are free to use all the armor you have. To WWHSD's type of arguement, if I give you a condition which said "reduce this models armor by -1", would that be 'ignoring' your armor? I'm changing how much armor you have (just happens to be changing it to 0), not ignoring the effect of the armor your have

[Squirrelich]

17 minutes ago, 7thSquirrel said:

To WWHSD's type of arguement, if I give you a condition which said "reduce this models armor by -1", would that be 'ignoring' your armor? 

If you answer "yes, I should get the armor printed on my card cause you are ignoring it" does that mean if you put a +1 armor condition on your own model am I free to ignore that armor cause it is not on your card?

[Squirrelich]

Side note on my opinions cause it came up earlier: large arachnid is definitely trying to ignore armor with its condition ("Torn to shreds: This models may not reduce damage with the Armor Ability or condition"). Improved Harness 110% trumps that and the target gets full damage reduction from armor. 

[santaclaws01]

25 minutes ago, 7thSquirrel said:

Side note on my opinions cause it came up earlier: large arachnid is definitely trying to ignore armor with its condition ("Torn to shreds: This models may not reduce damage with the Armor Ability to condition"). Improved Harness 110% trumps that and the target gets full damage reduction from armor. 

Torn to shreds is a condition on the model with armor, so not an enemy effect. Any condition given to a model becomes an effect generated by that model.

[Squirrelich]

3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Torn to shreds is a condition on the model with armor, so not an enemy effect. Any condition given to a model becomes an effect generated by that model.

lol, why are we on opposite sides of the fence both times?

Adaptive Armor: Friendly Constructs within 6 of this model may not have their Armor ignored and stuff...
Adaptive Armor: Friendly Constructs within 6 of this model may not have their Armor ignored and may reduce damage regardless of any enemy effects that state otherwise.

So you read the "and" as a continuation of the conditions rather than a part 2 of two separate effects. I guess I can see that and will mull it over.

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, 7thSquirrel said:

I agree with @WWHSD on this one though. 

Hoffman player: "you cannot ignore this thing I have" (cannot ignore)
Aracnist player: "are you sure you have this thing?" (lose armor)

They have removed it, they are not circumventing (i.e. ignoring it) it. There is nothing to ignore if it has been removed.

Did you read Santa's quote from the FAQ Answer 50? "Ignore refers to any way to avoid the game effect, be it through redirection, Conditions, or other game rules."

This looks like an effect that somehow avoids the armour.

[Squirrelich]

what armor?




I think we're at Mexican Standoff at this point  I'll bow out until a new data point becomes available

[Ludvig]

1 minute ago, 7thSquirrel said:

what armor?




I think we're at Mexican Standoff at this point  I'll bow out until a new data point becomes available

Removing armour is covered by the word "ignore" since that refers to any damn way the game can think of to not let you have it according to one faq. You may be right though, this is getting nowhere. Let's hope for an faq.

[WWHSD]

To totally derail this, Improved Harness protects all sources of damage reduction from being ignored, right? Not just Armor?

If I'm reading it correctly, a  Cyborg Monster Hunter would be able to reduce the damage from an enemy model that cost 7 or more with their "Something to Prove Ability" even if that model had an attack that prevented damage reduction. 

[santaclaws01]

9 minutes ago, 7thSquirrel said:

lol, why are we on opposite sides of the fence both times?

Adaptive Armor: Friendly Constructs within 6 of this model may not have their Armor ignored and stuff...
Adaptive Armor: Friendly Constructs within 6 of this model may not have their Armor ignored and may reduce damage regardless of any enemy effects that state otherwise.

So you read the "and" as a continuation of the conditions rather than a part 2 of two separate effects. I guess I can see that and will mull it over.

Yeah, I read it as all 1 statement, otherwise just saying that their armor cannot be ignored would be all that need be said if it wasn't specifically against enemy effects. If something just says the damage can't be reduced, I don't think anyone would really argue that that somehow isn't ignoring armor.

[Squirrelich]

 

3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Yeah, I read it as all 1 statement, otherwise just saying that their armor cannot be ignored would be all that need be said if it wasn't specifically against enemy effects. If something just says the damage can't be reduced, I don't think anyone would really argue that that somehow isn't ignoring armor.

well as @WWHSD just said right before you, if it is two parts you get to cover your bases on ignoring armor and then on non-armor damage reduction too. So there are different effects.

[WWHSD]

Just now, Ludvig said:

Removing armour is covered by the word "ignore" since that refers to any damn way the game can think of to not let you have it according to one faq. You may be right though, this is getting nowhere. Let's hope for an faq.

There's nothing in Improved Harness that stops an ability or condition from being taken away. That's exactly what Smell Weakness does. It's closer to Johan removing the condition than it is Joss ignoring the armor.

When Joss is attacking a model, only his attack ignores the armor. When a model in the Smell Weakness aura is being attacked it ceases to have armor. Any effects that key off of the model having armor would stop working. If Hoffman had an ability that read "Friendly models within 6 that have the Armor condition or ability get a  to Df duels" they'd get the  against Joss but wouldn't get it while in the Smell Weakness aura since they no longer have armor. 

[Gnomezilla]

15 minutes ago, 7thSquirrel said:

I think we're at Mexican Standoff at this point

I’m not sure what you’re implying, but let me assure you I’m not interested....  

[Squirrelich]

9 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

There's nothing in Improved Harness that stops an ability or condition from being taken away. That's exactly what Smell Weakness does. It's closer to Johan removing the condition than it is Joss ignoring the armor.

When Joss is attacking a model, only his attack ignores the armor. When a model in the Smell Weakness aura is being attacked it ceases to have armor. Any effects that key off of the model having armor would stop working. If Hoffman had an ability that read "Friendly models within 6 that have the Armor condition or ability get a  to Df duels" they'd get the  against Joss but wouldn't get it while in the Smell Weakness aura since they no longer have armor. 

Better example might be Blessed of December. Trigger on her attack:
Go for the Throat: When damaging, if the target does not have the Armor Ability or Condition, target suffers +1 damage

 

(1) Small Weakness: Until the end of the Turn, enemy models within 6 which are targeted with an Attack Action lose the Armor and Hard to Wound Abilities and Conditions for the duration of the Attack Action.

Adaptive Armor: Friendly Constructs within 6 of this model may not have their Armor ignored and may reduce damage regardless of any enemy effects that state otherwise.

edit: maybe?  in retro I think you were going for something different. Carry on

[Ludvig]

15 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

To totally derail this, Improved Harness protects all sources of damage reduction from being ignored, right? Not just Armor?

If I'm reading it correctly, a  Cyborg Monster Hunter would be able to reduce the damage from an enemy model that cost 7 or more with their "Something to Prove Ability" even if that model had an attack that prevented damage reduction. 

No matter how you read it that would be the outcome since it isn't specific about only being able to reduce with armour. As if monster hunters needed a buff.  

I would argue that they are the same sentence so they both only apply to enemy effects, if you obey a construct in Hoffman's crew with an armour ignore trigger I think that model can ignore the armour since the ignoring is done by a friendly model.

[WWHSD]

9 minutes ago, 7thSquirrel said:

Better example might be Blessed of December. Trigger on her attack:
Go for the Throat: When damaging, if the target does not have the Armor Ability or Condition, target suffers +1 damage

 

(1) Small Weakness: Until the end of the Turn, enemy models within 6 which are targeted with an Attack Action lose the Armor and Hard to Wound Abilities and Conditions for the duration of the Attack Action.

Adaptive Armor: Friendly Constructs within 6 of this model may not have their Armor ignored and may reduce damage regardless of any enemy effects that state otherwise.

edit: maybe?  in retro I think you were going for something different. Carry on

That's pretty much the same idea. If something were to give the Blessed a condition that allowed it to ignore armor it wouldn't benefit from the extra damage from that trigger. Smell Weakness does let that trigger work because the target doesn't have Armor. 

I'm wondering if this particular interaction is why Smell Weakness removes Armor instead of ignoring it. The Blessed and the Acolytes are all part of the same thematic crew. 

[Ludvig]

9 hours ago, WWHSD said:

There's nothing in Improved Harness that stops an ability or condition from being taken away. That's exactly what Smell Weakness does. It's closer to Johan removing the condition than it is Joss ignoring the armor.

When Joss is attacking a model, only his attack ignores the armor. When a model in the Smell Weakness aura is being attacked it ceases to have armor. Any effects that key off of the model having armor would stop working. If Hoffman had an ability that read "Friendly models within 6 that have the Armor condition or ability get a  to Df duels" they'd get the  against Joss but wouldn't get it while in the Smell Weakness aura since they no longer have armor. 

I really like this line of reasoning, I think ou may have sold it to me at least.