Necrotic Decay need a fix

[Kharnage]

14 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

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.

The fact that Incorporeal ignores hazardous terrain aside, a better example would be "a trigger gives you stunned, and Pandora uses Misery to damage you, did the trigger damage you?" The answer is no, because there is an outside effect, not in the words of the trigger, that damaged you, Misery in my example. But there's also no text in Stunning Strike triggers that says the model suffers damage. The Trigger, the words inside of the Trigger text, say that the model can choose to suffer damage. That is pretty straightforwardly suffering damage from a Trigger. A Trigger, that is part of an action. The "Actions or Triggers" verbiage on Black Blood is so that things like the Amalgam "Unmade" defensive triggers, despite not being actions, still provoke Black Blood. Ergo, Incorporeal can reduce damage from attack actions, including the part of their own attack action, the Necrotic Decay Trigger. At which point, he can choose to suffer 2 damage, reduced by 1, to 1 damage actually suffered as per Page 24, which is all he pumps into his damage track as bonus.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the trigger has the "when declaring" clause Would this not allow it to side-step the reduction caused by incorporeal? "Paying costs" states that when an action is declared, the cost is already considered paid. So, the trigger considers the two damage as paid when it is declared. Since the cost does not reference the target, the damage would be suffered in the "pay costs" step, and would be reduced by one because it is suffering it from an attack action. So +1 damage would be "free", and +2 would cost only 1 health to be suffered. The trigger does not follow the damage suffered rules as per p.24 because of the "when declaring" clause pointing to a time before Ashes and Dust even suffers the damage from the trigger's cost. 

Alternatively, triggers being a separate action from the attack action makes it possible that they are non-attack actions. In which case Ashes and Dust suffers full damage and the trigger resolves as read. I think the upper interpretation is more correct, since there is no explicit statement on if a trigger is the same type of action as the action that triggered it (ie. and attack actions triggers are all generated as attack actions themselves) or a generic action. With a bonus action only being able to cause another bonus action to occur if stated explicitly, it is made impossible for a bonus action trigger to also be a bonus action and strengthens the argument for triggers being generic actions. Either way, I think the real question is not if Ashes and Dust does the damage equal to the damage suffered, but if Ashes and Dust loses health equal the chosen amount or the chosen amount minus 1.

[CrimsonWraith]

The problem with your first interpretation is that the trigger references damage suffered not taken. If it reduces the damage it isn’t suffered. Thus -1 damage suffered => 1 less damage bonus.

However, I am inclined to agree with your second point, the cost is not caused by the action and thus not reduced.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 8:36 AM, CrimsonWraith said:

The problem with your first interpretation is that the trigger references damage suffered not taken. If it reduces the damage it isn’t suffered. Thus -1 damage suffered => 1 less damage bonus.

However, I am inclined to agree with your second point, the cost is not caused by the action and thus not reduced.

I would offer the counter-point that the trigger references damage suffered "when declaring" and not just plain damage suffered. As the declare step considers costs to be paid, the ability should register the damage suffered at the point of trigger declaration vice after costs are paid. 

Personally I think the second interpretation is better, as it counterbalances the pluses and minuses of the trigger better.

[Vader21]

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 .

[katadder]

As its a cost to pay and written in italics I would say incorporeal doesnt stop this. 

[Zebo]

In M2E nobody seemed to have a problem with Gremlins avoiding Dumb Luck damage by discarding the Stilts. Everyone I asked agreed on damage from a trigger being damage from an attack action, so not sure why now there's so many people arguing that own damage from Necrotic Decay is not reduced by Incorporeal. 

Or maybe I'm not understanding well the thread. 

[Vader21]

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.

[Zebo]

Necrotic Decay wording: this model may suffer up to 2 damage. 

Dumb Luck wording: this model suffers damage equal to half of the amount the target suffers. 

A part of one being optional and the other being mandatory, I can't see why one is considered to be from an attack action and the other not. 

[Bakunin]

My complaint is it makes Necrotic Decay work differently for different models, which feels like it goes against the idea of having the same trigger across different models. Hayreddin can add 0-2 damage with Necrotic Decay, why not Ashes and Dust? It doesn't seem like it'll break anything as long as it takes 2 damage to add 2 damage. 

[KID55]

"Clear wording" they said, "Simple rules" they said. 2 pages of disputes... Goddamn, one simple word - irreducible, can solve ALL PROBLEMS. But...

[Vader21]

On 8/15/2019 at 12:54 AM, Zebo said:

Necrotic Decay wording: this model may suffer up to 2 damage. 

Dumb Luck wording: this model suffers damage equal to half of the amount the target suffers. 

A part of one being optional and the other being mandatory, I can't see why one is considered to be from an attack action and the other not. 

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.

[Zebo]

I would bet that paying cost forms part of the action paid. 

[Adran]

52 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

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.

Its hard to compare across editions, as M2E didn't have costs in the same way. You pay the cost during the action, granted not at the time you would resolve the effects of the action if it was successful, but its still during the action.  (its step 2dIV rather than step 2e in the detailed timing charts).

Its hard to argue that a model that takes damage during an action, from something that the action says is not taking damage from the action. You can try arguing that it isn't intended, but there are several models with triggers that can't get the full effect of the trigger, (Lots of the models with Critical strike that aren't soulstone users and don't have a  built in can never reach the +2 damage, but the limit is still there). I have no idea if the intent was to limit Ashes and dust to only being able to do +1 damage, or if this was an entirely unseen interaction (I don't remember seeing it during beta, but my memory isn't the greatest)

[Vader21]

5 hours ago, Adran said:

Its hard to compare across editions, as M2E didn't have costs in the same way. You pay the cost during the action, granted not at the time you would resolve the effects of the action if it was successful, but its still during the action.  (its step 2dIV rather than step 2e in the detailed timing charts).

Its hard to argue that a model that takes damage during an action, from something that the action says is not taking damage from the action. You can try arguing that it isn't intended, but there are several models with triggers that can't get the full effect of the trigger, (Lots of the models with Critical strike that aren't soulstone users and don't have a  built in can never reach the +2 damage, but the limit is still there). I have no idea if the intent was to limit Ashes and dust to only being able to do +1 damage, or if this was an entirely unseen interaction (I don't remember seeing it during beta, but my memory isn't the greatest)

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.

[Kharnage]

26 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

common sense

But really, there's nothing that prevents it from reducing damage from even its own attack actions, and thus the damage it will deal from the "damage suffered" component. For the same reason that Hayreddin can't stone out of his Necrotic Decay damage, Ashes and Dust reduces its own damage track naturally. 

[Adran]

55 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

 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.

Malifaux players have form for twisting the rules in unexpected ways. It's why things like deliver a message has to have rules to stop you killing your own models to deny points, and so many actions are enemy only, because in the past players have used them in strange and unexpected ways ( pine box taxi springs to mind) so I look at the exact words carefully. I'd like an answer for this more for the effects on shielding than knowing if ashes can do +1 or +2 damage maximum.