PDA

View Full Version : Shield Guard



Mr_Smigs
07-24-2012, 07:30 PM
When the new Shield Guard kicks in

since the model Targeted is not the model Hit

does this mean Criticals can never activate?

wazatdingder
07-24-2012, 07:48 PM
The model suffering the damage changes, I do not see how this would effect crits at all. The ruling removed "target" from the language to prevent "I can't see you so it doesn't work" shinanigans.

solkan
07-24-2012, 07:48 PM
Once per round, when a friendly model is directly hit by a ranged attack during your opponent’s turn while within 2 ̋ of this model, you can choose to have this model directly hit instead. This model is automatically hit and suffers all damage and effects. This model cannot use Shield Guard if it is incorporeal, knocked down, or stationary.

Which critical effects are you concerned about that happens to the target rather than the directly hit model?

Mr_Smigs
07-24-2012, 07:56 PM
my handy rule book says the "target model" suffers the critical effect, if the doubles and the attack hits....


so, if a Mule score a Crit Devestation, on a warcaster, and the Devout takes the hit... where is the pie plate centered and who gets the POW 15 throw?

Mod_Neldar
07-24-2012, 08:05 PM
Centered on warcaster and the jack takes the punch.

I think.

wazatdingder
07-24-2012, 08:06 PM
Have you read your own sig? :p

I would argue that the intent is that the shield guard model becomes the "target", but that's just my opinion.

solkan
07-24-2012, 08:19 PM
my handy rule book says the "target model" suffers the critical effect, if the doubles and the attack hits....

so, if a Mule score a Crit Devestation, on a warcaster, and the Devout takes the hit... where is the pie plate centered and who gets the POW 15 throw?

Don't you think that's covered by the

This model is automatically hit and suffers all damage and effects.
clause?

drachenfels
07-24-2012, 09:28 PM
yup the "and effects" would include any critical

Wishing
07-25-2012, 03:28 AM
Agreed. "This model is automatically hit" just means that you don't have to roll again to hit the new target, it doesn't cancel out the fact that you rolled a critical when you originally rolled to hit, and the critical effect has now become an effect which is transfered to the new target. "This model suffers all damage and effects" means that you treat the Shield Guarding model as if it was the original target in every way, so the blast template is centered on it and the critical effect originates from it, etc. Even though the text doesn't spell this out in detail, that is definitely the intent the way I read it.

Gamingdevil
07-25-2012, 03:41 AM
"This model suffers all damage and effects" means that you treat the Shield Guarding model as if it was the original target in every way, so the blast template is centered on it and the critical effect originates from it, etc.

Blast templates are no longer moved when a hit is transferred as Macallan ruled recently (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?109592-Sac-pawn)

Ger
07-25-2012, 03:48 AM
That may be outdated with the new wording. Maybe?

scout's honor
07-25-2012, 04:07 AM
I would argue that the intent is that the shield guard model becomes the "target", but that's just my opinion.
I would argue the exact opposite, to be honest. The Shield Guard model is not intended to become the target, it's just intended to take the hit and that's it.

solkan
07-25-2012, 04:31 AM
Agreed. "This model is automatically hit" just means that you don't have to roll again to hit the new target, it doesn't cancel out the fact that you rolled a critical when you originally rolled to hit, and the critical effect has now become an effect which is transfered to the new target. "This model suffers all damage and effects" means that you treat the Shield Guarding model as if it was the original target in every way, so the blast template is centered on it and the critical effect originates from it, etc. Even though the text doesn't spell this out in detail, that is definitely the intent the way I read it.

I disagree with you on whether the AOE template gets moved. The point of impact for the AOE attack isn't determined by what the AOE attack directly hit, so there's no reason that the point of impact should change under the new wording.

The AOE template and the spray templates are mechanics of the attack, not effects on the target.

Wishing
07-25-2012, 04:32 AM
Blast templates are no longer moved when a hit is transferred as Macallan ruled recently (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?109592-Sac-pawn)

The linked thread seems to be about sacrificial pawn, not about shield guard. I don't have the text of sacrificial pawn to hand to compare the texts between the two abilities, but even if they are identical, you can't necessarily draw conclusions based on a ruling for one ability onto another ability.

Based on the text Solkan quoted, it seems 100% clear to me that the intent is that the shield guard model takes the entirety of the hit instead of the model it is protecting, and the entirety includes blast templates and any other possible attributes of the attack. If that is not the intent, that really needs to be explained.

Spray templates (which are mentioned in the linked thread) obviously wouldn't be moved because sprays are placed on the table in relation to the model that is shooting, not the model that is hit.

Crate123
07-25-2012, 04:36 AM
The linked thread seems to be about sacrificial pawn, not about shield guard. I don't have the text of sacrificial pawn to hand to compare the texts between the two abilities, but even if they are identical, you can't necessarily draw conclusions based on a ruling for one ability onto another ability.

Based on the text Solkan quoted, it seems 100% clear to me that the intent is that the shield guard model takes the entirety of the hit instead of the model it is protecting, and the entirety includes blast templates and any other possible attributes of the attack. If that is not the intent, that really needs to be explained.

Spray templates (which are mentioned in the linked thread) obviously wouldn't be moved because sprays are placed on the table in relation to the model that is shooting, not the model that is hit.

Its the same wording so I would be really surprised if they didnt do the same thing. The ruling obviously means that the shield guard takes the hit and nothing more. Thats one of the things that changed when the shield guard stopped being the target.

Wishing
07-25-2012, 04:38 AM
I disagree with you on whether the AOE template gets moved. The point of impact for the AOE attack isn't determined by what the AOE attack directly hit, so there's no reason that the point of impact should change under the new wording.

The AOE template and the spray templates are mechanics of the attack, not effects on the target.

Maybe I'm confused, so help me out. You say that the point of impact of the AOE isn't determined by what the attack hits. Is it not? I thought it works as so: "I target model A", then roll to hit model A, and if you hit, then you place the AOE over it. If you miss, then you place the AOE somewhere else. To me, that means that the point of impact of the AOE is very much determined by whether the attack hits and who it hits. Totally unlike a spray, which is placed prior to the attack and never moves whether it hits or not, and which therefore would not be moved by shield guard.

I know I shouldn't be posting without having a rulebook to quote, but I got sucked in, sorry...

vintersbastard
07-25-2012, 05:10 AM
The linked thread seems to be about sacrificial pawn, not about shield guard. I don't have the text of sacrificial pawn to hand to compare the texts between the two abilities, but even if they are identical, you can't necessarily draw conclusions based on a ruling for one ability onto another ability. Why not? We are arguing rules as written, after all, not rules as intended.



Maybe I'm confused, so help me out. You say that the point of impact of the AOE isn't determined by what the attack hits. Is it not? I thought it works as so: "I target model A", then roll to hit model A, and if you hit, then you place the AOE over it. If you miss, then you place the AOE somewhere else. To me, that means that the point of impact of the AOE is very much determined by whether the attack hits and who it hits. .
While I agree with you, Macallan did not; and it was already pointed out in the other thread that this seems somewhat incongruent with the whole "shift hit away from target, then place AOE" order in the Appendix.

Wishing
07-25-2012, 05:21 AM
Why not? We are arguing rules as written, after all, not rules as intended.

Because infernal replies to questions where there are multiple possible answers are frequently based on the infernals asking the developers what the intent is. The intent and the answer may not be the same for two different abilities, no matter how similarly they are worded. See the recent debate about electro-leap for an example, where the infernals specifically say that the ruling only applies to electro-leap and not to any other similar ability.

Rynth
07-25-2012, 05:39 AM
If the two wordings are the same then lets take the entirety of Mac's ruling.


You do not move the AOE.

The intent of Sac Pawn is that one model suffers the damage and effects instead of another model. There are no other intended impacts (like moving AOEs or Sprays or LoS issues or anything else).
The original target will remain under the template. It will suffer no effect from the AOE.
Emphasis mine.

So, in the case of Critical Devistation:
1. The target is hit
2. Shield Guard model say "I'll take the damage and effects."
3. AOE does not move off of the target.
4. Models under the AOE that are not the target are thrown. Shield Guard model is thrown.
5. Original target looks around and wonders where his friends went.

He does specify that this is the intent of Sac Pawn. As we've seen recently sometimes rules that look applicable in multiple scenarios to varying rules only apply in the specific ruled upon cases; so this is all speculation.
Who other than the developers truly knows how to play Warmachine/Hordes? ;)

Mustakrakish
07-25-2012, 06:01 AM
Lets put this "if this is the wording then blah blah" to bed


Sacrificial Pawn {Unit} - When this model is directly hit by an enemy ranged attack, you can chose to have one friendly, non-incorporeal {Unit} model within 3" of this model directly hit instead. That model is austomatically hit and suffers all damage and effects.


Shield Guard - Once per round, when a friendly model is directly hit by a ranged attack during your opponent?s turn while within 2˝ of this model, you can choose to have this model directly hit instead. This model is automatically hit and suffers all damage and effects. This model cannot use Shield Guard if it is incorporeal, knocked down, or stationary

return to debate.

Wishing
07-25-2012, 06:08 AM
Who other than the developers truly knows how to play Warmachine/Hordes? ;)

I'm sure different developers have their own interpretations too. :D

Edit: Thanks very much Mustakrakish. They do look pretty identical in wording, just that one gives away the hit and the other one takes it. I think that for completeness' sake we do need them ruled on separately, but if the intent is that AOEs don't move with the hit then fair enough.

vintersbastard
07-25-2012, 06:12 AM
Because infernal replies to questions where there are multiple possible answers are frequently based on the infernals asking the developers what the intent is. The intent and the answer may not be the same for two different abilities, no matter how similarly they are worded. Huh? So you're saying that two abilities that share the exact same wording (that's as similar as it gets) can work differently because the devs screwed up? I'm fairly certain that does not fit with the time they spent on the process of rewording Shield Guard.


See the recent debate about electro-leap for an example, where the infernals specifically say that the ruling only applies to electro-leap and not to any other similar ability.IIRC, that was mostly because there are no other abilities that are as similar in their wording; thus every kind of comparison had to involve a lot more deduction.

Wishing
07-25-2012, 06:35 AM
I'm just saying that you cannot quote a ruling on rule A as an authoritative ruling on rule B. The intent is probably the same, but assuming without asking is not authoritative.

Valander
07-25-2012, 07:00 AM
If two abilities have identical text, then they necessarily work the same way.

If a model with Shield Guard takes the hit that was from a critical hit, it will suffer all effects from the attack (which is what the test says), which does include critical effects. AOEs follow the same ruling as for Sacrificial Pawn, since the only functional difference between it and Shield Guard is how to determine which model takes the hit; everything else is the same.

magi
07-25-2012, 07:05 AM
Thanks Valander.

jandrese
07-25-2012, 07:09 AM
So in the Mule case above, if the Shield guard model is also under the template, it will be thrown twice?

Mr. Golden Deal
07-25-2012, 07:44 AM
I wouldn't think so, the model would already be thrown and the same effect can't be resolved multiple times. The 'model hit is thrown' is coming from the same source.

Valander
07-25-2012, 08:10 AM
I wouldn't think so, the model would already be thrown and the same effect can't be resolved multiple times. The 'model hit is thrown' is coming from the same source.
Only thrown once, correct.

New questions should get new threads, though. ;)