View Full Version : Siege's feat & transferring damage

05-08-2012, 06:11 AM
1) Siege feats, catching a Warlock and a Warbeast in the area.

2) Warlock is hit by its first enemy attack. ARM is halved under Siege's feat. Warlock chooses to transfer damage to its warbeast, which is also in the feat area.

3) Warbeast takes damage from transfer.

4) If the Warbeast is then directly attacked by an enemy model, is its ARM halved? Or has it already suffered damaged this round, triggering the end of Siege's feat effecting it?

The wording on Siege's feat says that "ARM is halved the first time a model takes damage this turn". If damage has been transferred to it by its controlling warlock, has it already "taken damage from an enemy attack"?

05-08-2012, 06:15 AM
The feat would expire from the beast: when the warlock transfers damage to it. https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?60220-Siege-Feat-Question&highlight=siege+transfer

05-08-2012, 09:41 AM
Both the Warlock and the Warbeast are considered to have "taken damage" that turn - because the warlock still suffers the damage it has transferred.

05-11-2012, 03:40 PM
Both the Warlock and the Warbeast are considered to have "taken damage" that turn - because the warlock still suffers the damage it has transferred.

i've read the linked thread, and the thread linked in that, and agree that that appears to be the case... but why? i dont see how 'suffers damage' can be interpreted to mean *both* 'is hit by an attack' and 'takes damage'.

what i'd certainly agree is that 'suffers damage' is a silly way to phrase the feat - because it implies that if, say, a power 10 gun hits an arm 18 model, then you'd roll for damage as though it was arm 18, then if you rolled 9 or more (enough to deal damage) THEN you halve its armor, add 9 damage, and breach expires, and that otherwise breach doesnt expire. i'd definitely agree that that's wrong :P

So in any 'normal' situation, 'suffers damage' is taken to mean 'has a damage roll made against it' - but now, because you transfer the damage, its taken to mean 'takes damage'.

just seems really weird to me :/

05-11-2012, 03:52 PM
"Suffers damage" can happen in other ways than having a damage roll. Damage transfers such as from warlock to warbeast but also in cases like Backlash (on satyxis raiders) or walking into a Scather cloud. It doesnt matter that armor doesnt factor in to these damage applications, you still take damage while within Siege's control area.

Obviously my situations cant happen in a 1v1 game.

05-11-2012, 06:17 PM
The next time each enemy model suffers damage while in Siege's control area, halve its base ARM stat when calculating damage from the damage roll. Breach last for one turn.

- Does this trigger on "suffers damage"?

- Does this, in any way, shape, or form, specify how or where the damage comes from?

- Does this specify that the enemy model MUST suffer a damage roll for this to trigger?

- Does this specify that the enemy model must be hit by an attack?

1) Check to see whether the model suffers damage.
2) The next time and the next time only that the enemy model suffers damage, halve its base ARM stat. You halve its base ARM stat regardless of whether the ARM stat is used when determining damage, because that's what the feat says.

So, for example, if your Trencher Sniper uses the Sniper rule to deal 1 point of damage to a model instead of rolling for damage, you halve the ARM stat for that model during the attack, and Breach effectively expires for that model.

This is the way it works. Trust us! ;)

(If you want tactical advice on how to deal with it, the Cygnar forum would be a good place to discuss.)