Cut Away

[Mr_Smigs]

Cut away is cumulative...

so a model with Armor 1 gets hit with Cut away 3 times...

is it now Armor -1...

what does that mean?

...

if you subtract a negative, it becomes positive... so the model would take an extra wound... ?

[Mr_Smigs]

I'm curious what pretense from the game are you using to suggest a stat effect can have a negative number as an end result? I can't find one nor have I dealt with one. Cut away would be the first.

but cut away is not a stat effect, it's an ability effect.

why can't it be "unique"

[Ratty]

Evasive/Bulletproof etc only apply the Armor at resolution.. When you cast the spell they are not giving the model any addition Armor. The spell says it only affects models with Armor +1 which the model doesn't have at the time the spell is cast. If the model has had it's Armor reduced to 0 it doesn't have Armor +1 so the spell has no effect. IE you can't reduce Armor to -1.

[Mr_Smigs]

Evasive/Bulletproof etc only apply the Armor at resolution.. When you cast the spell they are not giving the model any addition Armor. The spell says it only affects models with Armor +1 which the model doesn't have at the time the spell is cast. If the model has had it's Armor reduced to 0 it doesn't have Armor +1 so the spell has no effect. IE you can't reduce Armor to -1.

but your post:

In which case the Armor +3 is granted by an effect generated by the Power Cycle. So the model would have Armor +1 and the Power Cycle effect on it, which would give it Armor +4 in damage resolution.

A model should never have more than one Armor +# ability on the card, all other Armor modifiers will come from one effect or another.

said that Armor, granted by an Effect isn't actually changing the armor, but the Effect, and isn't calculated until damage resolution.

which conflicts with your newest ruling.

[JuJubee]

It doesn't conflict. A model with bulletproof/evasive has no natural armour. When cutaway is cast the model has NO armour. When a model with one of the afore mentioned abilities is hit with a ranged attack or blast respectively the ability grants the effect of armour at damage resolution. Since cutaway is not doing damage the model doesn't have armour. It's not that hard to understand or grasp.

[Mr_Smigs]

It's conflicting with the statement that an Effect that grants Armor is separate from the actual Armor ability until resolution.

basically

In which case the Armor +3 is granted by an effect generated by the Power Cycle. So the model would have Armor +1 and the Power Cycle effect on it, which would give it Armor +4 in damage resolution.

would, logically, become

In which case the [COLOR=Red][I][B]Armor -1[/B][/I] [/COLOR] is granted by an effect 

generated by the [I][B][COLOR=Red]Cut Away[/COLOR][/B][/I]. 

So the model would have [B]Armor +1[/B] and the [I][B][COLOR=Red]Cut Away 

[/COLOR][/B][/I]effect on it, 

which would give it [B]Armor +0[/B] in damage resolution.

but the ruling he posted in this thread says that the armor change is calculated before damage resolution.

which is it?

1. at resolution all effects are stacked,

or

2. all effects are applied immediately when generated.

????

[Fading Memory]

There is no such thing as Armor -1, never was, never is, never will be. Once the model has been reduced to 0 Armor it no longer has Armor and cut away can no longer be casted on it.

Cut Away cannot be casted to affect Bulletproof or Evasive.

Cut Away can only affect the Talent that is titled Armor. Bulletproof and Evasive are not titled Armor.

[Mr_Smigs]

There is no such thing as Armor -1, never was, never is, never will be. Once the model has been reduced to 0 Armor it no longer has Armor and cut away can no longer be casted on it.

Cut Away gives the ability Armor -1

so your first statement is wrong.

If the ability said it "Reduced the value of Armor by 1, to a minimum of 0" then it might support your statement,

alas, it does not.

[Fading Memory]

Evasive/Bulletproof etc only apply the Armor at resolution.. When you cast the spell they are not giving the model any addition Armor. The spell says it only affects models with Armor +1 which the model doesn't have at the time the spell is cast. If the model has had it's Armor reduced to 0 it doesn't have Armor +1 so the spell has no effect. IE you can't reduce Armor to -1.

No i am not wrong Ratty has said so /\ look up and read the quote.

But I do have a question for you Mr_Smigs. Why do you nit pick rules and beat them to death. Rule Marshals tell you yes you can do things or no you cannot and you argue with them. I don't get it. If you are going to argue every single ruling they make, why play the play the game? Why play when you have issues with the game? Take the rulings for as they are, if you getting a ruling and ask why is the ruling the way it is, that's one thing but you seem to have too many issues with the way things are played out.

[Mr_Smigs]

No i am not wrong Ratty has said so /\ look up and read the quote.

first, he says REDUCE. not that Armor -1 doesn't exist. Ratty says in that post you cannot REDUCE to Armor to -1

and as you've seen, asssuming you read the next few posts.

I already responded to that with a previous ruling of Ratty's that conflicts with that ruling.

But I do have a question for you Mr_Smigs. Why do you nit pick rules and beat them to death.

the short of it,

I nit pick when i find a conflict in rulings, or a flaw in the definitions.

the long of it, read the link in my sig.

the really long of it, PM me.

...

see, here, it comes into a couple of rulings all around armor...

1. A model's full damage reduction isn't calculated until the attack is resolved. (Thus when Bulletproof, Evasive, Armor, and similar abilities all "give Armor")

2. Some Effects do not resolve immediately. (Slow for example) even though they are considered added immediately for other effects.

3. An effect that "gives Armor" is not Armor as an ability itself, but...

4. Can be affected by effects that target Armor (in Ratty's commentary in this thread...)

5. Effects that cancel each other out are both on the model until the effect needs to be resolved (EG: Slow and Fast, Paralysis and Reactivate)

6. An ability on a model cann't be "Ended" unless a special rule says to take it off (ruled for Spellbreaker)

now,

no where have they said Armor cannot be negative.

people have assumed

1. Armor is a Stat. (But the book defines armor as an Ability not a Stat)

2. Cut Away removes the Armor ability. (But, the spell itself says the model "gains Armor -1")

so when I posted the initial question,

It was using the logic presented above,

which lead to the initial question of "what happens when the Armor ability totals out to be a negative"?

and later "Can you stack Cut Away effects for resolution later to have a model unable to benefit from later application of Armor at a later time?"

Now, Ratty has said, quite clearly

you can't reduce Armor to -1.

but, the rest of his commentary conflicts with the idea that Armor modifying effects do not apply until damage resolution. (His previous ruling on the matter, as I understood it)

and thus why I had to ask a few follow up questions to understand how/why this resolves differently from other abilities.

[Fading Memory]

Now that I understand your career background and some of your gaming background it all makes sense now. With my English and Teaching background, you might find it surprising I don't question things more.

I'm "in charge" teaching and promoting Malifaux at the local gaming store (waiting to finish my Marcus crew before I apply, 1 model to go). My friend and I keep up with rulings, and postings on a daily basis, so we are always "In the know." I can see how the constant evolution of the game can turn some people away from the game. I do agree some aspects of the rules can get confusing at times.

What part of Michigan do you play at?

I do always read your questions because I know they wont be simple ones.

[Mr_Smigs]

ok, a little off topic.

Now that I understand your career background and some of your gaming background it all makes sense now. With my English and Teaching background, you might find it surprising I don't question things more.

here (Malifaux community), not so much. In my experience, the bulk of the Malifaux players I've met would rather play the game than argue a rule... (which is one of the reasons I keep playing, I ask them how they expect the interaction to work and we go with it, usually)

but I've seen too many good game groups (including a malifaux group) walk away from a good game because of one rules troll who net-decks their way to victory using exploits that were not intended in the game.

that is, kind of the point of just about every discussion I start... I see something that could be read differently and turned into a overpowered tactic,

and ask questions until the rules are show to be inline with the existing logic of the game.

I'm "in charge" teaching and promoting Malifaux at the local gaming store (waiting to finish my Marcus crew before I apply, 1 model to go). My friend and I keep up with rulings, and postings on a daily basis, so we are always "In the know." I can see how the constant evolution of the game can turn some people away from the game. I do agree some aspects of the rules can get confusing at times.

i know a lot of people that were chased away from WARMACHINE for the same reason... and that game has a freaking flow chart (and still has powers that ignore it...)

last year (right before Rising Powers came out) I even heard a Malifaux player say he refused to acknowledge any "it's on the forums rulings" unless the TO could prove it right then and their because of the "in the know" players constantly pointing out that his understanding of the rules wasn't the standard...

What part of Michigan do you play at?

[Mr_Smigs]

poke. still wondering.