Necrotic Decay need a fix

[KID55]

Current wording is: this model may  suffer up to 2 damage. When resolving, target suffer +1 damage per damage suffered when declaring this trigger.

Current "suffered" damage it's damage AFTER all reductions.

Now we take Ashes and Dust. He has incorporeal. And he only increase his damage by 1. Because he choose to suffer 2 damage, incorporeal reduce it to 1, and in final he "suffered" 1 damage. And can increase his damageline only by 1.

Possible solution - change wording to: this model may  suffer up to irreducible 2 damage. When resolving, target suffer +1 damage per damage suffered when declaring this trigger.

[Jesy Blue]

.... down the rabbit hole of whether the trigger that is damaging you is part of the Attack Action or not.

[trikk]

Or remove Incorp from Ashes  

[KID55]

2 hours ago, Jesy Blue said:

.... down the rabbit hole of whether the trigger that is damaging you is part of the Attack Action or not.

That's a part of action

[lusciousmccabe]

Or you could argue that since you're choosing how much damage you want to suffer then prevention effects aren't relevant. 

So if Ashes and Dust chooses to suffer 2 damage it'll take 3 reduced to 2 in order to suffer the required amount.

[KID55]

58 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

Or you could argue that since you're choosing how much damage you want to suffer then prevention effects aren't relevant. 

So if Ashes and Dust chooses to suffer 2 damage it'll take 3 reduced to 2 in order to suffer the required amount.

This is unclear solution. Irreducible damage simple and clear.

[CrimsonWraith]

Just to stir the pot.... Marlena... it’s “damaged suffered” not “damage suffered by this model”

[KID55]

1 minute ago, CrimsonWraith said:

Just to stir the pot.... Marlena... it’s “damaged suffered” not “damage suffered by this model”

In case of Marlena it's still 2 damage suffered: 1 to Leveticus, 1 to Marlena, for example.

[solkan]

4 hours ago, lusciousmccabe said:

 

Or you could argue that since you're choosing how much damage you want to suffer then prevention effects aren't relevant. 

You could, but then the rulebook ambushes you with text.  Damage, paragraph two:

Quote

If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction.

[Adran]

4 hours ago, lusciousmccabe said:

Or you could argue that since you're choosing how much damage you want to suffer then prevention effects aren't relevant. 

So if Ashes and Dust chooses to suffer 2 damage it'll take 3 reduced to 2 in order to suffer the required amount.

This seems to make perfect sense in the current rules. I am restricted to the amount of damage suffered. I know how much damage reduction I have. So I can deal a larger number than the amount I'm restricted to, because it will be reduced and I still meet the requirements. 

The end result is identical to what you suggest as an errata, except without having to errata because it's legal in the current rules. 

[Thangoruin]

This is already covered on the card; Incorporeal doesn't reduce damage from Triggers. It could maybe use an FAQ, but Black Blood confirms that damage from Attacks and Triggers are different things.

[lusciousmccabe]

2 hours ago, solkan said:

You could, but then the rulebook ambushes you with text.  Damage, paragraph two:

(Don't know why this quote is missing)

Yeah, so since the trigger says you may suffer up to two damage that's up to two damage after whatever damage reduction you may have.

In other words, it doesn't say you may deal two damage to yourself, then calculate damage suffered and add bonus damage equal to that. Since it uses suffer/suffered throughout that doesn't seem to be an issue.

[Thangoruin]

7 minutes ago, lusciousmccabe said:

Yeah, so since the trigger says you may suffer up to two damage that's up to two damage after whatever damage reduction you may have.

In other words, it doesn't say you may deal two damage to yourself, then calculate damage suffered and add bonus damage equal to that. Since it uses suffer/suffered throughout that doesn't seem to be an issue at all.

My this logic, Marlena can't reduce the damage Leveticus suffers from Channel and Freikorpsmann can't use Shielded to reduce the damage from Equipment training.

By overcomplicating this you're breaking interactions (way more than I just mentioned) when the simple answer is Incorporeal does not reduce Necrotic Decay damage.

[lusciousmccabe]

Yeah, sorry. I now realise that the game terms suffer and suffered are absolutely not different tenses of the same thing. Don't know why they ever moves away from the damage/wounds terminology from 1st Ed.

[CrimsonWraith]

9 hours ago, KID55 said:

In case of Marlena it's still 2 damage suffered: 1 to Leveticus, 1 to Marlena, for example.

It would seem so, but nobody plays it that way, and it has been argued heavily.

I would play towards the side that doesn't break the game.

Plus, the extra damage is a cost.(p48) "These costs must be paid when the trigger is declared or no portion of the Trigger may resolve." It is something payed for, not caused by the action. It is also stated as not a portion of the trigger.

But probably most importantly, if you just take the damage, ignoring incorporeal, without passing the wound, you don't have to argue anything, and you can get on with the whole point, which is playing the game. At least until Wyrd gives us a ruling.........

[KID55]

2 hours ago, CrimsonWraith said:

It would seem so, but nobody plays it that way, and it has been argued heavily. 

 

I play in that way.

[Adran]

11 hours ago, Thangoruin said:

This is already covered on the card; Incorporeal doesn't reduce damage from Triggers. It could maybe use an FAQ, but Black Blood confirms that damage from Attacks and Triggers are different things.

Its entirely possible to take damage from a trigger that isn't taking damage from an action.

Largely when you are looking at resistance triggers. So the fact that Black blood specifies both does not mean that damage from a trigger is not also sometimes damage from an action. If Ashes and dust takes damage from its trigger, it is damage from its deadly claws action, which is an attack action. Incorporeal does reduce damage from triggers as long as the trigger is part of an attack action.

9 hours ago, lusciousmccabe said:

Yeah, sorry. I now realise that the game terms suffer and suffered are absolutely not different tenses of the same thing. Don't know why they ever moves away from the damage/wounds terminology from 1st Ed.

I remember the confusion that caused. I don't think any of the editions really have been any clearer on this matter. Sure, it would give an easy answer to this question, but putting rules like that in the core rule book seems to tempt designers to use them, and as soon as you put this ability on a model with Object you would have ended up with the same question, and probably had lots of confused questions when people try to understand that wounds caused is not the same as damage done.

[Thangoruin]

I found actual evidence in the book so I retract my position that Incorporeal doesn't reduce the damage taken from the cost of Necrotic Decay.

p.12
"Action Triggers are tied to specific Actions and can only 
be used with that Action They are found below an Ac-
tion’s effect and are subject to all game effects that affect 
the Action (such as Incorporeal or flips to damage)."

So with that, Incorporeal definitely reduces the power of Ashes and Dust's Necrotic Decay trigger; if this isn't intended then it should probably be "Irreducible damage."

[Maniacal_cackle]

I'd still interpret it as incorporeal not applying.

The damage that the model suffers is in italics on the trigger; it is a cost. If a model is paying a cost, it's not suffering damage from the attack, but just paying a cost. Nor is the damage coming from the trigger. As the damage isn't coming from an attack action or trigger, it doesn't get reduced.

Compare this to, for example, a stitched together using gamble your life. There the model deals damage to itself with a tactical action, so is damaging itself with its own action.

Quote

In addition to the suit needed to declare them, some Triggers have an additional cost that is listed in italics after their name. These costs must be paid when the Trigger is declared or no other portion of the Trigger may be resolved. If a Trigger’s cost requires the performing model to suffer damage, that cost cannot be paid if doing so would reduce its Health to 0 or below.

 

[Kharnage]

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

As the damage isn't coming from an attack action or trigger, it doesn't get reduced.

It's literally coming from the verbiage in a trigger, on an attack action. I'm not sure how much more that could possibly apply. Let's say they *wanted* it to interact with incorporeal's damage reduction from attacks, how could they have possibly worded that differently to improve the interpretation? 
I'm not saying that I'm super excited about him getting to deal 4 damage min for 1 health spent, but that's how that reads. In the same way that most damaging attacks read "Target suffers 3/5/6 damage", a cost saying "this model may suffer up to 2 damage" on an attack action would interact with Incorporeal in exactly the same way. If they wanted it to cost like what we wanted it to, it would say irreducible damage. 

As for Gamble Your Life, the damage suffered is not a cost. It is an effect. You can kill yourself with it. AND it's a Tactical Action, so Incorporeal, if it somehow had it, wouldn't apply. It would fully damage Ashes and Dust, for example. However, Armor, can and does reduce the damage it suffers from Gamble Your Life, even though it's damaging itself.  I'm not actually sure what meaning this comparison had.

[Raimu]

55 minutes ago, Kharnage said:

It's literally coming from the verbiage in a trigger, on an attack action. I'm not sure how much more that could possibly apply. Let's say they *wanted* it to interact with incorporeal's damage reduction from attacks, how could they have possibly worded that differently to improve the interpretation? 
I'm not saying that I'm super excited about him getting to deal 4 damage min for 1 health spent, but that's how that reads. In the same way that most damaging attacks read "Target suffers 3/5/6 damage", a cost saying "this model may suffer up to 2 damage" on an attack action would interact with Incorporeal in exactly the same way. If they wanted it to cost like what we wanted it to, it would say irreducible damage. 

As for Gamble Your Life, the damage suffered is not a cost. It is an effect. You can kill yourself with it. AND it's a Tactical Action, so Incorporeal, if it somehow had it, wouldn't apply. It would fully damage Ashes and Dust, for example. However, Armor, can and does reduce the damage it suffers from Gamble Your Life, even though it's damaging itself.  I'm not actually sure what meaning this comparison had.

How can A&D deal min 4 suffering 1 damage? The trigger checks "suffered" damage, which by rulebook is damage after all damage reduction effects. So when you choose to suffer 2 damage and reduce damage by 1 with incorporeal then attack will do min 3 damage.

[Kharnage]

"If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction. " Page 24, under Damage.
Actually, @Raimu, you're right. I stand corrected. So it could only ever deal 1 extra damage with Necrotic Decay, expressly because of Incorporeal. That makes Ashes and Dust less scary.

[Raimu]

18 hours ago, Adran said:

This seems to make perfect sense in the current rules. I am restricted to the amount of damage suffered. I know how much damage reduction I have. So I can deal a larger number than the amount I'm restricted to, because it will be reduced and I still meet the requirements. 

The end result is identical to what you suggest as an errata, except without having to errata because it's legal in the current rules. 

"Suffered" damage is damage after damage reduction, yes. But when text says "suffer" - it is before reduction effects (like it says on any attack action "Target suffers 1/2/3 damage", for example). You can't decide to "suffer" more damage than written on the card, if it says "Suffer 2 damage" then it is maximum 2 damage before reduction. By your logic I can choose my 1/2/3 attack to be 3/4/5 because I know how much reduction target has (it's an abstract example where 1/2/3 attacks hit model with armor +2 for example)

[Adran]

55 minutes ago, Raimu said:

"Suffered" damage is damage after damage reduction, yes. But when text says "suffer" - it is before reduction effects (like it says on any attack action "Target suffers 1/2/3 damage", for example). You can't decide to "suffer" more damage than written on the card, if it says "Suffer 2 damage" then it is maximum 2 damage before reduction. By your logic I can choose my 1/2/3 attack to be 3/4/5 because I know how much reduction target has (it's an abstract example where 1/2/3 attacks hit model with armor +2 for example)

looking more, I think you are right. So unless there is something that Costs are different to normal damage (and at the moment I don't think there is), Ashes and Dust is limited to only being able to increase his damage by 1.

[Maniacal_cackle]

7 hours ago, Kharnage said:

Let's say they *wanted* it to interact with incorporeal's damage reduction from attacks, how could they have possibly worded that differently to improve the interpretation? 

Just don't put the suffering damage in italics.

I don't see the model taking damage from the trigger directly. The model is taking damage from choosing to pay a cost.

As an example:

What if a trigger pushes you into some hazardous terrain? Are you taking damage from the action or from the terrain? It stemmed from the action, but I wouldn't say incorporeal applies.