Does Soldnerkapitan on Von Schill Iron Heart let you ignore negatives to the damage flip?

[Azahul]

This was mentioned in the Outcast sub-forum, I thought I'd see out an actual ruling on it. Can a model shooting into a melee involving Von Schill Iron Heart ignore any negatives to the damage flip? The logic being that the negative flip is part of the attack action, and it says to ignore any negative flips...

 

Card below for reference:

[Trample]

No. The attack action and the damage flip are two separate events. The ability to ignore negatives applies only to the attack action. The damage flip occurs as a result of a successful attack action. 

[solkan]

12 minutes ago, Azahul said:

This was mentioned in the Outcast sub-forum, I thought I'd see out an actual ruling on it. Can a model shooting into a melee involving Von Schill Iron Heart ignore any negatives to the damage flip? The logic being that the negative flip is part of the attack action, and it says to ignore any negative flips.

The rules don't say this as explicitly as they did in the previous edition, but if you look at the Actions rules:

Quote

Any Action that requires a duel will have a Stat. This is what the model adds to the card it flips in the duel (in this case, 5). It may also have a Fate Modifier, which impacts the flip for that Action, and/or a suit, which is added to the model’s final duel total.

In other words, if a fate modifier talks about an action, it's a fate modifier for the action's duel.  That's why Focused has to say what it does in order to apply to both the duel and the damage flip:

Quote

Focused +X: Before performing an opposed duel, this model may lower the value of
this Condition by one to receive a  to the duel (and any resulting damage flip this model makes). Modesl cannot have more than Focused +2 at any time. Canceled by Distracted.

contrasting with Distracted:

Quote

Distracted +X: This model’s Actions that target an enemy model suffer a  to their duel. After resolving such an Action, the value of this Condition is lowered by one. Canceled by Focused.

While Focused and Distracted cancel each other out, they aren't complete opposites in effect.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

1 hour ago, Trample said:

No. The attack action and the damage flip are two separate events. The ability to ignore negatives applies only to the attack action. The damage flip occurs as a result of a successful attack action. 

The Action’s duel and the Action’s effect (damage flip) are separate effects, but both are parts of an Attack Action. Since it doesn’t specify “duel only”, how do you justify ignoring negatives during step 4 but not ignoring them for step 5 while resolving an Attack Action?

[Da Git]

I think hoping for Soldnerkapitan to ignore to damage flips is wishful thinking. The ability is the exact same as the Sandworm's (aside from keyword limitations) and no one I have heard of has been clamouring for that to ignore negatives to damage.

As an aside, I think having it ignore negs would be absolutely broken when models like Hannah & Arik exist in keyword with that 2/4/6 (up to 6/8/10 with a full power Hannah!). No way should you be able to guaranty that.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

7 hours ago, Da Git said:

I think hoping for Soldnerkapitan to ignore to damage flips is wishful thinking. The ability is the exact same as the Sandworm's (aside from keyword limitations) and no one I have heard of has been clamouring for that to ignore negatives to damage.

As an aside, I think having it ignore negs would be absolutely broken when models like Hannah & Arik exist in keyword with that 2/4/6 (up to 6/8/10 with a full power Hannah!). No way should you be able to guaranty that.

Not wishful thinking, just using the ability as written. If an Obey’s control lasts for all 6 steps of resolving an Action while only specifying that the Action is controlled, I don’t see why you wouldn’t ignore negatives for all 6 steps of resolving an Action when Soldnerkapitan, or Sand Worm, has the same specification. Saying that only ignoring negatives apply to the duel requires more deviation from what is written to what is interpreted. Action =/= duel in the rulebook.

—Edit—

To illustrate the congruency issue more: if a positive or negative to an Action only applies to the duel, why does Serene countenance have to specify “to the duel” at the end?

[solkan]

2 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Not wishful thinking, just using the ability as written. If an Obey’s control lasts for all 6 steps of resolving an Action while only specifying that the Action is controlled, I don’t see why you wouldn’t ignore negatives for all 6 steps of resolving an Action when Soldnerkapitan, or Sand Worm, has the same specification. Saying that only ignoring negatives apply to the duel requires more deviation from what is written to what is interpreted. Action =/= duel in the rulebook.

—Edit—

To illustrate the congruency issue more: if a positive or negative to an Action only applies to the duel, why does Serene countenance have to specify “to the duel” at the end?

See Focused and Distracted.

You’re trying to insert the meaning “to all flips during the Action” somewhere it doesn’t exist.

 

[muraki]

2 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Not wishful thinking, just using the ability as written. If an Obey’s control lasts for all 6 steps of resolving an Action while only specifying that the Action is controlled, I don’t see why you wouldn’t ignore negatives for all 6 steps of resolving an Action when Soldnerkapitan, or Sand Worm, has the same specification. Saying that only ignoring negatives apply to the duel requires more deviation from what is written to what is interpreted. Action =/= duel in the rulebook.

—Edit—

To illustrate the congruency issue more: if a positive or negative to an Action only applies to the duel, why does Serene countenance have to specify “to the duel” at the end?

As everyone else has said, you're trying to get more than it is made for.  Distracted + focused are great examples.  As for why not everything is written exactly the same, because english is an imperfect language and the game is written by developers not language scholars.  As for the serene countenance example, it could be because it was part of the m3e push when some of the terms were still new, it could be a different dev writing the description, or it could be because people were afraid someone would try and rules lawyer it like this if they didnt write it more specifically.

[fire5tone]

44 minutes ago, muraki said:

As everyone else has said, you're trying to get more than it is made for.  Distracted + focused are great examples.  As for why not everything is written exactly the same, because english is an imperfect language and the game is written by developers not language scholars.  As for the serene countenance example, it could be because it was part of the m3e push when some of the terms were still new, it could be a different dev writing the description, or it could be because people were afraid someone would try and rules lawyer it like this if they didnt write it more specifically.

But the action is more than the duel, whether intentional or not it would seem that you ignore negatives on damage too

 

The problem with the focus and distracted example is that distracted specifically mentions only the duel, and focus specifically adds damage as well but neither prove that something that doesn't specify damage doesn't include damage especially if it's only "the action"

 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

2 hours ago, solkan said:

See Focused and Distracted.

You’re trying to insert the meaning “to all flips during the Action” somewhere it doesn’t exist.

 

Focused says “Before performing an opposed duel”, no mention of Action. Distracted says “Action suffers a minus to the duel”, not “Action suffers a minus”. I could say that you are also inserting “to the duel” into Soldnerkapitan when it doesn’t exist. The ability does seem like it should be only duels, but does not limit to only the duel as written. I’m not pulling other rules from anywhere to infer what is happening, I’m just reading the rules as written and going through resolving the action in a vacuum.

[santaclaws01]

Predatory instincts gives either a or  to an action to give the other to its damage flip. Does literally nothing if modifiers that apply to the action also apply to it's duel.

Entropic Siphon specifies duel and damage flip.

Grit (Frantic) specifies duel and damage flip.

They're clear when they want something to be able to affect a damage flip.

Yes it's not explicitly stated anywhere that modifiers that apply to an action don't also apply to any resulting variable flips. No it will never be FAQ'd the way you're arguing it will work.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

57 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Predatory instincts gives either a or  to an action to give the other to its damage flip. Does literally nothing if modifiers that apply to the action also apply to it's duel.

Entropic Siphon specifies duel and damage flip.

Grit (Frantic) specifies duel and damage flip.

They're clear when they want something to be able to affect a damage flip.

Yes it's not explicitly stated anywhere that modifiers that apply to an action don't also apply to any resulting variable flips. No it will never be FAQ'd the way you're arguing it will work.

Predatory Instinct always read as a typo to me. You have to read it as “to that Action’s duel” instead of as written for it to even make sense.

I’m not arguing for it to work or be FAQ’d to work a specific way, I agree that it should be the duel only for balance purposes. I’m saying the way it is written leaves whether it is duel only or duel and damage flip to personal interpretation.

If it is supposed to be a duel only, it should be specified. If it is supposed to be duel and damage flip, it should also be specified.

—Edit—

Generalizing a rule interpretation from a different rule which is worded differently usually seems frowned upon in other threads pertaining to rules. The support for that here doesn’t make much sense to me.

[Adran]

9 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Predatory Instinct always read as a typo to me. You have to read it as “to that Action’s duel” instead of as written for it to even make sense.

I’m not arguing for it to work or be FAQ’d to work a specific way, I agree that it should be the duel only for balance purposes. I’m saying the way it is written leaves whether it is duel only or duel and damage flip to personal interpretation.

If it is supposed to be a duel only, it should be specified. If it is supposed to be duel and damage flip, it should also be specified.

—Edit—

Generalizing a rule interpretation from a different rule which is worded differently usually seems frowned upon in other threads pertaining to rules. The support for that here doesn’t make much sense to me.

I think you've been caught in the fact "we know" it shouldn't work that way, and therefore are trying to find rules to support that. I know that I often end up doing that, because I realise that the reason I play a rule one way is because that was how it was worded in the first/second edition, and whilst the wording has changed, I don't think the intent did. That's not a very good argument for anyone starting in 3rd, but it might help explain some of these things, people didn't pick them up in playtesting because they "knew" the rules stopped it, except that rule got re-worded and no one realised that change. 

Certainly somewhere in the previous 2 editions there was the rule that modifiers to the action only applied to the actions duel unless otherwise specified (So focus doesn't help with terrifying duels and so forth). Those exact words don't appear in 3rd, but likewise there is nothing in 3rd that ruled against it.