Eye of the Storm and Electroleap

[2LiveIs2Die]

Please do not answer unless you are directly citing rules, I do not want this to be mindless argument 72 about this topic or a hearsay rules thread.

Eye of the Storm // While in Nemoʼs control area, friendly models gain an additional die on electrical damage rolls. Eye of the Storm lasts for one turn.
Electroleap // When a model is hit by a weapon with Electro Leap, you can have lighting arc to the nearest model within 4 inches of the model hit, ignoring the attacking model. The model the lighting arcs to suffers an unboostable POW 10 electrical damage roll.
Page 64 prime // The point of origin for an effect or attack is the location or model from which the attack or effect originates. Typically this is the model causing the effect or making the attack, but not always."
Page 64 prime // Finally, some non-AOE attacks, such as ashes to ashes and chain lightning, have special rules that allow them to damage models besides the attack's target. The origin of the damage in those cases is the model or point from which you measure the range to other models. For example, the origin of damage for ashes to ashes is the spells origin, but the origin of damage for the other model's affect by the spell is the target model. Similarly, when lightning generated by Chain Lightning arcs to another model, the immediately previous model struck by the lightning is the origin of damage.

Does nemo's feat affect electroleap damage rolls made by friendly models?

Although it has to be a model making the damage roll to gain the die, and the ability that creates the damage roll is a friendly model, the model from which the attack or effect originates is not that model, as in the example of ashes to ashes, it is the model that was hit by the model with electroleap. Yes, you do roll the dice for the damage because of an ability on your model, but that does not mean that your model is making the damage roll. Just like in Chain Lightning, when lightning arcs to the next model the point of origin for the damage for that model is not nemo, it (for each model) was the previous model hit by lightning. I have seen an argument for "it's like the arc node ability" which is wrong, the channeling ability specifically says you move the point of origin but remain the spell caster.

Another way to answer this is does moving the point of origin for a damage roll from an effect (such as any of the above stated) mean that your model is no longer making the damage roll? This would have a more clear effect on things like prey, nemo's feat, etc. This would also have an impact on weather or not you can boost subsequent chain lightning damage rolls beyond the first, per boosting rules on page 75 it says "this model can spend 1 focus to boost any of its attack rolls or damage rolls...", so if it is not a damage roll from that model, you don't get the ability to boost. And if I am not mistaken it would also have the same effect as boosting the admonisher bouncing on the menoth battle engine.


I am looking for clarification, and I can't seem to find an answer in the book, please post if you have found one. Similarly don't post just to continue arguing something we don't have an official answer for.

[twilightmelfina]

I had thoughts on this as well. I played my first game recently with the new Nemo and did roll 3 dice on electroleap damage rolls. But what you're saying does make sense because the electroleap is not an attack and is generated by the model's ability (ie. stormguard). Nemo's feat could use some clarification and whether generated damage rolls (like electroleap from stormguard and the Stormwall) are able to roll 3 dice.

[TheIronclad]

We were given an official answer from several PP staff at Lock and Load and yes electro leaps benefit from the feat.

[2LiveIs2Die]

We all know its intended to work with all damage. Why get so technical on it.

Because reading rules > hearsay.

[Northern Ronin]

It sounds extremely like the Bethyne Feat interaction with Eruption of spines, which they ruled to be affected by the feat. I doubt any infernal will make a ruling on a model that is unreleased, so give it a week, then let start demanding blood.

[2LiveIs2Die]

Can you find that ruling for me? That would probably be enough to convince me for now.

[Pixl]

Yes it does as it says additional die not boosted. They are two different things.

Boosted vs. Additional dice, small rule book pg 8 explains the difference between the two.

There is nothing to prevent a roll to get an additional dice, you just can't boost it.

[2LiveIs2Die]

This has nothing to do with boosted vs additional.

[Northern Ronin]

Can you find that ruling for me? That would probably be enough to convince me for now.

Yeah I think so;

I didn't read through the entire thread, but it ends with Mauldin ruling in favor of it, 90% sure this is the correct thread.
http://privateerpressforums.com/show...on%2C+Bethayne

[2LiveIs2Die]

Is bethaynes feat say "models" gain boosts?
or just "damage rolls are boosted"?

[Edwars]

Please do not answer unless you are directly citing rules, I do not want this to be mindless argument 72 about this topic or a hearsay rules thread.

Eye of the Storm // While in Nemoʼs control area, friendly models gain an additional die on electrical damage rolls. Eye of the Storm lasts for one turn.
Electroleap // When a model is hit by a weapon with Electro Leap, you can have lighting arc to the nearest model within 4 inches of the model hit, ignoring the attacking model. The model the lighting arcs to suffers an unboostable POW 10 electrical damage roll.
Page 64 prime // The point of origin for an effect or attack is the location or model from which the attack or effect originates. Typically this is the model causing the effect or making the attack, but not always."
Page 64 prime // Finally, some non-AOE attacks, such as ashes to ashes and chain lightning, have special rules that allow them to damage models besides the attack's target. The origin of the damage in those cases is the model or point from which you measure the range to other models. For example, the origin of damage for ashes to ashes is the spells origin, but the origin of damage for the other model's affect by the spell is the target model. Similarly, when lightning generated by Chain Lightning arcs to another model, the immediately previous model struck by the lightning is the origin of damage.

I believe you have answered your own question with your own quotes.

My thinking is thus

1. Electro leap is an effect of the weapon
2. Therefore the attacking model is POINT OF ORIGIN of the attack.
3. However the model struck by the melee attack is the ORIGIN OF DAMAGE for the electro leap attack
4. Thus as the friendly model is the point of origin of the electro leap attack, while in Nemo's control range it will gain boosted electro leap damage rolls.

[Rynth]

We all know its intended to work with all damage. Why get so technical on it.

Because there are a series of unresolved issues surrounding electro-leap(and similar abilities) and what qualifies as an attack. No one doubts that it is supposed to apply to electro leaps, but knowing why this works might help to solve several outstanding issues and future issues.(ie. Model w/ Prey gains electro-leap. Electro leap hits a Prey'ed model, does the damage roll receive Prey's +2).

My thinking is thus

1. Electro leap is an effect of the weapon
2. Therefore the attacking model is POINT OF ORIGIN of the attack.
3. However the model struck by the melee attack is the ORIGIN OF DAMAGE for the electro leap attack
4. Thus as the friendly model is the point of origin of the electro leap attack, while in Nemo's control range it will gain boosted electro leap damage rolls.

Applying your logic:
1. Sorscha casts Fog of War(concealment in CTRL area).
2. Model w/ Blessed(ignore spells that add to DEF/ARM) attack's something in Sorscha's CTRL area.
3. Concealment isn't usually ignored, but since the source of Concealment is a spell it is ignored in this case.

Why is Eye of the Storm checking that far back in the "what caused this" when nothing(or almost nothing) else does?

Again, keep in mind I know that Eye of the Storm is intended to work w/ Electro Leap, I'm just curious as to the why(assuming it is something more than "because we said so").

[Edwars]

Because there are a series of unresolved issues surrounding electro-leap(and similar abilities) and what qualifies as an attack. No one doubts that it is supposed to apply to electro leaps, but knowing why this works might help to solve several outstanding issues and future issues.(ie. Model w/ Prey gains electro-leap. Electro leap hits a Prey'ed model, does the damage roll receive Prey's +2).


Applying your logic:
1. Sorscha casts Fog of War(concealment in CTRL area).
2. Model w/ Blessed(ignore spells that add to DEF/ARM) attack's something in Sorscha's CTRL area.
3. Concealment isn't usually ignored, but since the source of Concealment is a spell it is ignored in this case.

Why is Eye of the Storm checking that far back in the "what caused this" when nothing(or almost nothing) else does?

Again, keep in mind I know that Eye of the Storm is intended to work w/ Electro Leap, I'm just curious as to the why(assuming it is something more than "because we said so").

However, using your example:
1. The spell grants CONCEALMENT, which is not in itself a spell effect.
2. Blessed ignores SPELL EFFECTS, for instance arcane shield which is a spell whose effect is +3 ARM.

In thus case, while concealment is the result of a spell. The fact it is not itself a spell effect, means that it is not ignored by blessed.

As to why we are checking so far back in the attack sequence, the question has been asked "hearsay, says X, but I don't know why"

Going this far back is WHY I think the Nemo's feat affects electro leaps.

[Josh]

I think your page 64 refrence, and specifically the chain lightning/ashes example are for the direction of the damage only. If the damage was actually from the last model hit, then if you were to chain lightning blood trackers and it arced to their prey you would add +2 to the dmg, that doesn't seem likely.

[Mod_Plarzoid]

This question has been asked in multiple threads, so let's just stop arguing and let the Infernals do their job. Have patience - these decisions are not made lightly, and thus are not made quickly. Especially on a model not yet released.

[RedWynd]

I'm probably putting my hand into a fire on this one, but something has not yet been said that I think is very important to this particular ability. I think the question on this feat should not be whether Electro-Leap is damage from an attack or effect, but whether it is friendly or not.

When a damage roll is made, one of the players will roll that damage, depending on the source. If it is a Rain of Death, or Eruption of Spines, or Electro-Leap, it has to fall into one of two categories: enemy or friendly.

I think we all can agree that if a Cygnar player attacks with a Stormblade Infantry and chooses to use the Electro-Leap ability, then they will roll the dice to determine the Electro-Leap damage. The model which was attacked, which then becomes the 'origin of damage' (NOT the 'point of origin', please see Prime pg. 64), is not the one causing the damage, therefore they do not roll the dice to determine the Electro-Leap damage.

With 'you' being the Cygnar player in this sentence: You roll the dice for the Electro-Leap, not your opponent, therefore the damage from the Electro-Leap is friendly to you, but enemy to your opponent, regardless of it stemming from an attack/effect or not.

I have tried to make this post as rules-oriented as possible, but it is difficult to find any ruling on what is enemy damage and what is friendly damage (probably because it seems like common sense).

[Northern Ronin]

Is bethaynes feat say "models" gain boosts?
or just "damage rolls are boosted"?

Exact wording on her feat is "Friendly Faction Models gain Boosted Magic Attack rolls and Magic attack damage rolls" (or at least the relevant stuff). It was ruled that her Eruption of Spines fell under this for the added bursts, despite them not having been attacks, or from a 'model' per say, the work similarly enough to electro leap to support a logical leap that this feat also affects Electro Leaps. The intent feels like it backs this idea as well, which to me means it should be played this way until infernals rule otherwise, rather than vice versa. Of course they can always trump that with whatever their ruling comes out to be, but I'd give it a few weeks yet, with a Mod posting in here, I'd assume they're well aware of the problem in wording, and are selecting how they wish to fix it and if it works as intended (which ever way is intended).

[PG_Zeddy]

Any word back on this guys??
I hate to bump a rule thread but would be good to know how I am ment to rule this at present

[Rynth]

We'll know shortly after they know. Until then the best we can do is just make a local ruling and consistently apply it or not play effected models.

[Karl Eller]

I don't see why it wouldn't. Even though the model causing electroleap is no longer the Point of Origin, it's still the model that is causing the damage (similar to channeling spells).

[Wishing]

I have tried to make this post as rules-oriented as possible, but it is difficult to find any ruling on what is enemy damage and what is friendly damage (probably because it seems like common sense).

I entirely agree with this. Even though we like to pretend this isn't the case, a lot of the rules of the game are written on a basis of common sense. You can break down any rule system written in normal english by going "but *technicallly*..." to enough of an extreme. At some stage, you have to interpret intent, and if this stage fails, you ask the developers "is this what you meant?" and they can then reply "yes, that is what we meant". And that's as far as it goes.

To me, common sense says that the wording of EotS is meant to indicate that it applies to all electrical damage rolls that your models ultimately cause, whether directly or indirectly, and therefore is friendly damage rolled by you ("you" being the invoker of the feat). The rules on p. 64 are meant to indicate that an electro-leap secondary damage roll physically comes out of the target of the original attack, but this in no way changes that it is still friendly damage caused by the weapon with electro-leap. This has already been explained by developers in person, but is not yet in official writing (I guess), and the reason it is not spelled out in detail in the rulebook or on the card is that it is deemed as common sense. My 2c.

[SirMythos]

Page 64 prime // Finally, some non-AOE attacks, such as ashes to ashes and chain lightning, have special rules that allow them to damage models besides the attack's target. The origin of the damage in those cases is the model or point from which you measure the range to other models. For example, the origin of damage for ashes to ashes is the spells origin, but the origin of damage for the other model's affect by the spell is the target model. Similarly, when lightning generated by Chain Lightning arcs to another model, the immediately previous model struck by the lightning is the origin of damage.

I think this is the main problem, which lead you in the wrong direkten. In this case, the origin for the damage is a physical point on the field, while the point of origin for the attack is still der model with electroleap. The origin of damage comes into play, when you have do deal with shields and so on. On page 64 is an example of an AOE, where die origin of damages changes (to the point of impact), while the point of origin still remains at the model, causing the AOE attack.

Therefor the model with the electroleap on it is still the origin for the attack (as a channeling warcaster with the point of origin), while the origin of damage comes from the first model hit. This model is then importent, if shields or so on apply.

[poeticruse]

Don't bump threads.

Non contributing posts in this thread have been deleted.

Everyone, including the OP is asked to remain civil and polite while posting in the rules forum.

I am checking on this before responding.

[2LiveIs2Die]

I entirely agree with this. Even though we like to pretend this isn't the case, a lot of the rules of the game are written on a basis of common sense. You can break down any rule system written in normal english by going "but *technicallly*..." to enough of an extreme. At some stage, you have to interpret intent, and if this stage fails, you ask the developers "is this what you meant?" and they can then reply "yes, that is what we meant". And that's as far as it goes.

To me, common sense says that the wording of EotS is meant to indicate that it applies to all electrical damage rolls that your models ultimately cause, whether directly or indirectly, and therefore is friendly damage rolled by you ("you" being the invoker of the feat). The rules on p. 64 are meant to indicate that an electro-leap secondary damage roll physically comes out of the target of the original attack, but this in no way changes that it is still friendly damage caused by the weapon with electro-leap. This has already been explained by developers in person, but is not yet in official writing (I guess), and the reason it is not spelled out in detail in the rulebook or on the card is that it is deemed as common sense. My 2c.

If common sense worked over rules than you wouldn't be able to ignore shield guard as easily as you can, the rules are written as they are and the only thing you can do is to follow them.
Also, it does not matter if it is friendly damage, it matters if it is a friendly model. That is why the feat does not work with electroleap as it is currently worded. The damage is friendly, I'm not arguing that, but the damage is not coming from a friendly model. A simple errata to his feat would clarify it. We can talk about intent all day, but if you put something down on the table you should play by the rules, not by what you think it should be (ie shield guard ruling).

[Sheer_Falacy]

If common sense worked over rules than you wouldn't be able to ignore shield guard as easily as you can, the rules are written as they are and the only thing you can do is to follow them.
Also, it does not matter if it is friendly damage, it matters if it is a friendly model. That is why the feat does not work with electroleap as it is currently worded. The damage is friendly, I'm not arguing that, but the damage is not coming from a friendly model. A simple errata to his feat would clarify it. We can talk about intent all day, but if you put something down on the table you should play by the rules, not by what you think it should be (ie shield guard ruling).

It is coming from a friendly model. The origin of the damage is not the same as the model causing the damage. From the rules page 64, "The point of origin of an attack or effect is the location or model from which the attack or effect originates. Typically, this is the model causing the effect or making the attack, but not always". The origin changes with each bounce, but the model causing the damage is always the model with electro-leap, chain lightning, or whatever.

For that matter, the origin of damage for AOE attacks, other than the model directly hit, isn't a model at all - it's just a location. By your logic, blast damage wouldn't benefit from the feat either.

There's not much point in debating it. It's already been argued, and the arguments go in circles. The infernals are looking into it, and will have an answer, and if some people think that that answer is wrong without errata, well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Trivially ignoring shield guard happens because the ability explicitly says that it's trivial to ignore. That's a debate that does not belong in this thread at all, though.

[2LiveIs2Die]

I wouldbe more inclined to agree with that agument if you quoted a rule supporting it

[Sheer_Falacy]

I wouldbe more inclined to agree with that agument if you quoted a rule supporting it

You quoted the rule supporting it in your first post.

Proof by contradiction:

- You believe that the feat only works if the origin of damage is a friendly model, and that damage is only boostable if the origin of damage is a friendly model
- For AOE attacks, the origin of damage for non-direct hits (typically blast damage) is the point of impact (page 64, next to last paragraph on the left)
- By your logic, blast damage could not benefit from the feat and would be unboostable (using focus)

Blast damage is absolutely boostable, and does benefit from the feat. The rule is the same either way - the origin of damage is not related to the model making the damage roll. Heck, with your rules, channeled direct hits wouldn't be boostable (using focus, at least) either - those would have both point of origin and origin of damage being the node.

[2LiveIs2Die]

I'm not talking about blast damage, and aoes are different from the sources I cited for things such as ashes to ashes.


Finally, some non-AOE attacks, such as ashes to ashes and chain lightning, have special rules that allow them to damage models besides the attack's target.

[Sheer_Falacy]

I'm not talking about blast damage, and aoes are different from the sources I cited for things such as ashes to ashes.


Finally, some non-AOE attacks, such as ashes to ashes and chain lightning, have special rules that allow them to damage models besides the attack's target.

Are you talking about origin of damage or not? That paragraph is entirely about origin of damage. The previous paragraph, about AOEs, is also entirely about origin of damage. Either they both apply or neither applies.

What else are you talking about, if not origin of damage?

[Wishing]

If common sense worked over rules than you wouldn't be able to ignore shield guard as easily as you can, the rules are written as they are and the only thing you can do is to follow them.

The shield guard issue is different from this issue though, as I see it. The problem with shield guard is that the developers cannot currently work out a good mechanic that lets the rule work the way they intend it to, so the mechanic we have at the moment is in a state of limbo. It's got nothing to do with common sense.
The electro-leap issue here, if there is one, is that we have a mechanic that works just fine, but you are complaining that it is not specific enough, because if you look at it from a certain way, you can interpret it to not benefit from eye of the storm. It's not that the rule doesn't work as intended, it's that you feel that it is not clear enough. The point I am trying to make is that, yes, the rules would be better if they specifically spelled out what friendly damage is and how it interacts with buffs of this nature. Your request to make the rules regarding this clearer is entirely reasonable. But it's not a rule problem unless you specifically choose to make it a problem yourself. The way to not have it be a problem is to read the rule at face value with intent in mind, rather than specifically trying to deconstruct it by taking other rules out of context.

I am sure you will reply by saying that it is a problem because people can have different interpretations of intent, and good rules should never be able to be interpreted in multiple ways. While this is true, this attitude just makes playing wargames like these much less fun and much more frustrating in my experience.

[poeticruse]

Don't bump threads.

[poeticruse]

Electro leap works with eye of the storm. Electro leap is a damage roll made by the model with electro leap. This overrules the previous ruling and understanding, and means that abilities like prey will apply on electro leap.


Please remember that electro leap is part of one of our broadest unresolved rules interactions, having to do with type and source of damage, and this ruling is limited to the narrowest interpretation of what I've written here.


The "origin of damage" rules quoted throughout this thread are, as several posters have noted, not relevant to this discussion. Origin of Damage tells you the spatial source of incoming damage for resolution of effects that interact with that. They do not tell you anything about which model, if any, is making a damage roll.


Lastly, several posters above and in other threads mention direct conversations with Privateer Press staff at the Lock and Load Convention. Such conversations are not official rules clarifications; even the developers and infernals make mistakes or statements out of context and we ask that our face to face conversations not be posted as rules precedents. In this case the 'rumor' was correct, but that will not always be the way, and we on the rules team prefer the official documentation to be the master source for rules information, supplemented by the rules forum.

[Crate123]

Nice to have it in writing, thanks a lot for the help Poeticruse.

[ChaosE]

Hmm, would this logic apply to Crevasse as well? In other words, when generating the spray after killing the target model, you are NOT restricted to the dead model's arc of sight, but to the caster's instead? I believe current understanding says that you are limited to the dead model's arc, but I always thought that was a bit weird. If Mohsar/Baldur remains the source of the attack, and the dead model the origin, should the spray then be targeted from the origin, but to a target within line of sight of the source?

I hope piggy-backing this is appropriate. It seemed relevant to the ruling that's being discussed.

[Bishop84]

I think you missed a good portion of what poeticruse said. The "origin of damage" and the "model making the damage roll" are two different things. In the case of Crevasse, the spray is made using the boxed model as the origin of damage, and the origin must have LOS to target something. The warlock casting the spell is still the one making the damage roll. It works the same as simply arcing a spray attack through an Arc Node or Channeler.

[Obeisance]

So Beyond Death now works against Electroleap, as its a damage roll made by an enemy model?

[Damokles]

Sounds weird to me.

Wouldn't that mean, that Lightning Tendrils on Morraig would give the electroleap Flank (and if it kills an enemy model it's triggering cleave)?

[JosephKerr]

Wouldn't that mean, that Lightning Tendrils on Morraig would give the electroleap Flank (and if it kills an enemy model it's triggering cleave)?

Electro Leap isn't a melee attack, so it doesn't trigger Cleave or Flank.

[Sheer_Falacy]

So Beyond Death now works against Electroleap, as its a damage roll made by an enemy model?

Was there ever a ruling that it didn't? It certainly seems like it should.

[Obeisance]

Electroleap didn't originate from a model. It was just a damage roll from nowhere.

I could be wrong, though. I haven't played Cryx in 7+ months now.