Incorporeal and cost of triggers

[Vader21]

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 ?

[santaclaws01]

Action Triggers are part of their action and are subject to everything that affects the action(page 12, Action Triggers). Incorporeal reduces damage from all Attack Actions, with no mention of it caring how that Attack Action is damaging the model. Necrotic Decay is a trigger on an Attack Action. Any effect that references damage suffered refers to damage after reduction(page 24, Damage, Paragraph 2).

 

A&D has to suffer 2 damage to deal +1 damage when using Necrotic Decay.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

This was the topic of another thread recently, and had three competing opinions.

1. The trigger goes off of how much damage suffered after damage reduction.

2. Since the trigger states "damage suffered when declaring" vice only "damage suffered" like most triggers, it does the amount of damage chosen and A&D suffers one less than the chosen amount. 

3. Since trigger is considered a separate action from the attack action, it is possible that it is not an attack action itself and is unaffected by incorporeal.

I personally think that the most correct is option #2, as the declare step considers cost paid already paid not what you paid in the pay costs step. So you declare how much damage you will suffer as additional payment, the trigger references the declared amount (already considered paid), trigger is paid for and A&D suffers the declared amount -1 for incorporeal, and the target suffers damage equal to the amount in the declare step. Option #3 is less gamey and probably going to cause less argument since the pros and cons of the trigger are evenly counterbalanced. Option #1 just seems the most wrong to me because of the "damage suffered when declaring" clause. Most other abilities only reference damage suffered, so I think this gets around the usual count damage suffered after damage reduction. If the trigger only said "equal to damage suffered", I would agree with #1 being most correct.

[Ogid]

I don't know... I'd make more sense to me that Incorporeal is talking about reducing the damage by 1 when the model is the target, not when he is paying a cost of his own attack... but with that wording it could be both.

[Vader21]

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.

[santaclaws01]

48 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

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.

The trigger is thematic to the crew. Also, how many models do you think have Infect or Blaze or Crit Strike or Pummel(or w/e the rams for positives trigger is), or any other triggers that give a bonus based on suits that the model has no way of reaching the built in cap.

[Vader21]

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.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

9 hours ago, Vader21 said:

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 .

There are tons of things that are ambiguous, and when moderators respond to rules, they usually do it without modhats (aka, is not official).

I think these issues are dealt with through errata or FAQ? Or so I hear.

In the meantime, I just talk to my playgroup about any ambiguities and get agreement on how we will play it. As long as everyone is on the same page, you can handle ambiguities however your group likes.

[Adran]

11 hours ago, Vader21 said:

 

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 .

Just to say that Wyrd won't give formal rulings on the forums. Any answers given by a moderator are their opinions, and other than our time spent playing malifaux, we have no special knowledge. This forum is to get rules questions asked and answered by the consensus of the forum users primarily. 

Questions in the faq aren't always from this forum, and not all questions here will receive ( or need) faq answers. 

[santaclaws01]

12 hours ago, Vader21 said:

Those are not the costs of triggers

This matters why?

12 hours ago, Vader21 said:

plus there are ways for models to give out suits like hoffman with power tokens.

That is a very small portion of the models with triggers like that.

12 hours ago, Vader21 said:

Putting ability like incorporeal on a model that then interferes with the trigger is on no other model.

No, but it's literally no different than putting a trigger on a model that would never be able to get the maximum value out of said trigger for any reason.

12 hours ago, Vader21 said:

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.

Some models are better than other models at certain things. 

12 hours ago, Vader21 said:

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 .

If it wouldn't kill it then you can take the damage.

[Vader21]

19 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

There are tons of things that are ambiguous, and when moderators respond to rules, they usually do it without modhats (aka, is not official).

I think these issues are dealt with through errata or FAQ? Or so I hear.

In the meantime, I just talk to my playgroup about any ambiguities and get agreement on how we will play it. As long as everyone is on the same page, you can handle ambiguities however your group likes.

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.

[santaclaws01]

4 hours ago, Vader21 said:

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.

So you're going to have Ricochet and Blasts not reduced by incorporeal?

[Vader21]

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 .

[Vader21]

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

[santaclaws01]

7 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

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 .

You just said you're going to be interpreting incorporeal as only reducing damage from attack actions directed at the model.

[Vader21]

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.

[Vader21]

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.

[Adran]

If I were to write an errata, then I would say that suffering damage  paying a cost is not subject to damage reduction, hard to kill and so forth, but rather you just lower the wounds by that amount. ( although I'd probably use different words). 

4 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

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.

Your phrase was that you were only going to apply incorporeal if the model was targeted. And targeted has a set definition in malifaux which wasn't what you meant. 

[santaclaws01]

17 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

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.

Placing a blast is definitely not targeting, and Ricochet isn't an attack action directed at the model but the trigger targeting it.

[Vader21]

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 .

[santaclaws01]

2 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

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 .

Blasts very explicitly do not target any models. Target is a game term with a specific meaning in reference to the rules. Blasts do not target.

3 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

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.

1, it wasn't obvious what you meant, and 2, you continue to insist that blasts actually do target models despite being repeatedly told that that is not the case.

4 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

Which was that the source of dmg is another models attack action and its triggers.

Then say that initially or correct yourself after I respond based on what you actually said instead of continuing to argue for what you said?

6 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

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 .

So? The cost is for a trigger. Triggers are subject to all effects that affect their action. Incorporeal affects Necrotic Decay's action.

[Vader21]

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 . 

 

[santaclaws01]

27 minutes ago, Vader21 said:

your own model cannot be target from it's own attack action and hence cannot prevent dmg from cost of a trigger on it .

Except nowhere in the rules is there any an indication that Incorporeal cares what model the damage is coming from.