Clockwork Rider Cut Away

[Mr_Smigs]

Ok,

given

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.

so... does Power Cycle give armor before resolution?

In the same thread, Ratty said you could Cut Away a model with Armor from Power Cycle.

If the model has Power Cycle, and has had all 3 points of Armor Cut Away (Effectively, by other rulings about abilities/effects stacking until they need to be resolved, the model has Power Cycle: Armor +3 and 4 instances of Armor -1)

what happens when it uses Power Manipulation to move it's Power Cycle back 2 turns (where it not longer has Armor +3)?

What does having Armor -3 do?

we are past checking If it has armor, and already to the point where it does have the effect.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[Dolomyte]

If he does not have armor, he cannot have armor -1.

I dont understand why your not getting this. You cannot have Armor (-1) or any variation whatsoever. At the very best, you can reduce a model to 0 armor, if it loses its armor ability after you cut away, the cut aways become useless.

No armor, No cut away. NEVER negative armor.

say it with me

No armor, no cut away, NEVER negative armor.

[Mr_Smigs]

If he does not have armor, he cannot have armor -1.

I dont understand why your not getting this. You cannot have Armor (-1) or any variation whatsoever. At the very best, you can reduce a model to 0 armor, if it loses its armor ability after you cut away, the cut aways become useless.

No armor, No cut away. NEVER negative armor.

say it with me

No armor, no cut away, NEVER negative armor.

where does it say this? (I've seen comments that a model shouldn't have Armor -1, but not that it's impossible, and all the marshal rulings have been very specific cases... one of which is cited here...)

I'm not saying "What if you're targeted with Cut Away after losing armor?"

I'm saying "What happens when you lose your Armor ability AFTER having the Cut Away effect applied to the model?"

really, yes, the previous question of "Why, when Armor modifications are applied at Resolution, are cutaway modifications applied immediately...?" but this does relate to that.

see, in a previous ruling about Hoffman and Armor,

it was determined that the model does not have Armor X,

it actually has Armor, Power Cycle, Cover, and whatever else comes into effect,

until damage is determined.

this implies that Cut Away is an effect in that stack until it needs to be calculated.

but no ruling on if that is the case has been given.

so, going off the understanding that the model does not calculate the total of its Armor modifiers until it is attacked,

AND including the ruling that a model with an ability that grants the ability of Armor CAN gain multiple "Armor -1" effects...

what happens when an ability that grants Armor, but is not directly Armor, is negated AFTER the fact that the Armor granted has been used to stack Armor -1 effects?

i'm "not getting this" because of other related rulings implying that you cannot change an ability, only cause it to not resolve the same.

[Q'iq'el]

I think the reason is that if the spell or talent says it "reduces armor", then it reduces the actual value of the "armor" ability on the card.

Should a spell or a talent apply a named unique effect to the target model, and one of the consequences of that effect would be reducing armor (among other things), then it would arguably come into play only when you determine the Wds and affect other kinds of armor as well.

Still, as far as rules clarity goes, it is a big change for the worse. Before, the way I was playing, all the armor stacked up and parts of it were not applicable to certain types of attacks or damages. Now we have to treat anti-armor effects differently than the armor-bonus effects and that is kind of inconsistency that may seem very logical to players understanding the system well (at least I get why it's been ruled that way), but is quite off-putting for people new to the game.

I'd even dare to say we have more and more of this kind of complications with recent rulings, which is a bit of shame, because RM made things simpler and it's getting a bit muddy again (but that's just a general impression, perhaps wrong).

[Mr_Smigs]

I think the reason is that if the spell or talent says it "reduces armor"' date= then it reduces the actual value of the "armor" ability on the card.

but, that's not what Cut Away says it does.

Cut Away says the model "gains Armor -1"

it Gains an Armor ability, with a value of -1. directly conflicting with the comment that "you cannot have an armor of -1"

Should a spell or a talent apply a named unique effect to the target model, and one of the consequences of that effect would be reducing armor (among other things), then it would arguably come into play only when you determine the Wds and affect other kinds of armor as well.

see above. this is what's causing all my confusion in the first place. when Ratty pointed out that a dozen different abilities that all "give Armor" don't count until the resolution of damage for considering what the model's Armor is...

then saying that a model with multiple "gives Armor" abilities counts as having Armor for the sake of Cut Away...

Still, as far as rules clarity goes, it is a big change for the worse. Before, the way I was playing, all the armor stacked up and parts of it were not applicable to certain types of attacks or damages. Now we have to treat anti-armor effects differently than the armor-bonus effects and that is kind of inconsistency that may seem very logical to players understanding the system well (at least I get why it's been ruled that way), but is quite off-putting for people new to the game.

I'd even dare to say we have more and more of this kind of complications with recent rulings, which is a bit of shame, because RM made things simpler and it's getting a bit muddy again (but that's just a general impression, perhaps wrong).

exactly. and thus our pursuit for clarity.

[Mr_Smigs]

ok... still wondering how this "Give Armor -1" and a model losing it's normal Armor stat afterwards interacts...

[Mr_Smigs]

poke...

still wondering,

if the rider has their armor cut away, then shifts to where they don't have the same armor rating, what happens?

EG: Rider had Armor 4 from 2 sources.

Ridger given Armor -4

Rider changes arrangment, to where it only has Armor 1., but still has the Armor -4 effect...

what happens?

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

poke...

still wondering,

if the rider has their armor cut away, then shifts to where they don't have the same armor rating, what happens?

EG: Rider had Armor 4 from 2 sources.

Ridger given Armor -4

Rider changes arrangment, to where it only has Armor 1., but still has the Armor -4 effect...

what happens?

Armor 0

[Mr_Smigs]

and if they manage to get an armor effect afterwards (before the Cut Away effects are removed)

do they still calculate from armor -4?

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

and if they manage to get an armor effect afterwards (before the Cut Away effects are removed)

do they still calculate from armor -4?

No. They calculate the positive first, then the negative. The final result cannot go below 0.