PDA

View Full Version : New Siege Clarification



NotInKansas1911
07-24-2012, 07:30 PM
From the July Errata (http://files.privateerpress.com/op/errata/errata.pdf)

Replace the text of Breach with the following:

The next time each enemy model suffers a damage roll while
in Siege?s control area, halve its base ARM when calculating
damage. Breach lasts for one turn.

Specifically Siege feat. So there is no more popping breach after transfers? If a beast has damage transferred to it, it can still be hit with a breach attack? Is this an overturn of the infernal ruling?

Just wanting to clarify again since this always comes up.

wazatdingder
07-24-2012, 07:45 PM
I believe it is just a more clear writing of how the feat has been ruled to operate so that we quit arguing with infernals that their rulings are wrong. :) The old way could have been read that damage must happen for the feat to take effect. This states that a damage roll must happen.

NotInKansas1911
07-24-2012, 07:50 PM
I believe it is just a more clear writing of how the feat has been ruled to operate so that we quit arguing with infernals that their rulings are wrong. :) The old way could have been read that damage must happen for the feat to take effect. This states that a damage roll must happen.

How it reads it sounds like there is no more popping Breach off of warbeasts from damage transfers is what I'm getting at. If the warbeast didn't suffer the damage roll (just the damage transfer), I can still take a breach attack on it later in my turn.

That's opposite the previous ruling on the old text.

I'm hoping this is the case ^_^. Siege will be better against Hordes if this is true.

Mr. Golden Deal
07-24-2012, 07:53 PM
It also seems to stop things like automatic points of damage (cortex damage from the Lancer) from triggering Breach uselessly.

tuttleboy
07-24-2012, 10:21 PM
Also stops the silly Defender Hammer from doing its one point to the cortex and the damage roll not benefiting from the feat.

DemonCalibre
07-24-2012, 11:17 PM
Actually this was done to stop a Loop Hole with Cassius.

Wurmwood automatically transfers it's damage to Cassius in effect it can not be damaged, which means under the old wording, Breach would never expire from the tree(as it would never take damage). Infinite Breach on Cassius is no good.

vintersbastard
07-25-2012, 02:02 AM
Actually this was done to stop a Loop Hole with Cassius.

Wurmwood automatically transfers it's damage to Cassius in effect it can not be damaged, which means under the old wording, Breach would never expire from the tree(as it would never take damage). Infinite Breach on Cassius is no good.You do know that the actual ruling (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?44512-Breach-vs-Wurmwood-s-Sympathetic-Link&p=678983&viewfull=1#post678983) was that Breach expires, right? In fact, it meant that Breach expired on Cassius as well as Wurmwood when Wurmwood got damaged. With the new wording, Cassius remains affected by Breach until he himself suffers a damage roll.

Indeed, the OP has grasped the relevant change to the older rulings.

Nion
07-25-2012, 06:53 AM
I believe it is just a more clear writing of how the feat has been ruled to operate so that we quit arguing with infernals that their rulings are wrong. :) The old way could have been read that damage must happen for the feat to take effect. This states that a damage roll must happen.
It's actually the opposite of previous rulings in regards to non-roll damage, like transfers.

Valander
07-25-2012, 06:55 AM
Indeed, rulings made previously to any errata that changed wording do not always carry over. Sometimes, a ruling gets incorporated into the errata (so its redundant), sometimes the ability is changed so the interpretation no longer applies.

Breach now expires when it says it does, which is on a damage roll.