Dude, settle down!

There is no use getting all bent out of shape about this.

First, your point about using SHIELD to bump up damage before a Running Shot is easily solved by anyone who can read a PAC. You don't need erratas, clarifications, or FAQs for that. If you are all frustrated because someone simply misunderstood a PAC awhile back, just take a breath and realize that was then, this is now.

Okay?

The current ruling involving Armor Wars, 1 damage, and Armor Piercing is that damage reducers attempt to reduce the damage. They can't, because of the Armor Piercing, but the attempt is good enough to trigger the Armor Wars BFC. Like I said, not everyone agrees with this interpretation, but that's the way it is and I must admit that I can see where they are coming from with that interpretation.

By all means, go over to the WK boards and ask hair10 to verify this. Or at the very least, do a search for some old threads on the matter (oh boy, are they out there). The point is, this is the ruling, and you getting hopping mad over it isn't going to change anything. For the time being, Armor Wars and Armor Piercing are a pretty potent combo... for one round of a tournament.

You seem adept at not reading what was written. I didn't say this happened once. I didn't say it happened just "awhile back". I didn't say no one had a rulebook, or a PAC, or a FAQ, or anything else handy at the time.

I said JUDGES have ruled, with the PAC, FAQ, and rulebook right in front of them, as recently as the Sinister pre-release with over 30 experienced players on hand, that the above "before move" SHIELD pump was legal. A room with pushing 40 players, many of them familiar final table faces at WW convention events, and not a one could definitively conclude what to you and me seems patently obvious. I've said that this ruling continues to be made, and continues to be attributed to the head rules arbitrator at the time, and has been so *continuously* for over 4 years despite the wording seeming to be quite clear. Because, sadly, it isn't actually *explicit* (even though, we agree, it shouldn't have to be).

Now if *that* issue is so obvious and yet still has top tier players scratching their heads, what do you think a ruling that relies on some undocumented "attempt to reduce damage" fuzzy logic will do? Something that both common English usage and technical English usage can only draw a conflicting conclusion based on what is actually written. Its not an issue of agreeing with or disagreeing with the ruling, its an issue of being able to support it with the documents at hand, and that task is simply not reasonably possible.

(guess my edit crossed your response, so...) If he has found the question so common that he has had to put so much work into answering it, why isn't it in the FAQ? Am I supposed to believe, contrary to my dealings with him, that Hair10 is such a stubborn arse that he'll intentionally make more work for himself in constantly answering the same question to avoid somehow being thought of as "admitting" the issue is unclear and adding a couple lines to a document and put the issue behind him? I think he's more practical than that. For most product manufacturers the conclusion drawn from the same question being repeatedly asked of their support staff is to put the answer in the next product manual. I think Hair10, if not WizKids staff in general, would conclude this is the logical action.

And you seem adept at being condescending, but everyone has their talents...


Believe whatever you want. As I've stated, if you really doubt me, then go over to the WK boards and have a look for youself. Until such time, there really isn't anything else I can add to this conversation. Have a good day.