I know this is an old question but I'm still alittle stumped about the answer.

The old Vet Ultron---188--12 move 10 range three arrows--MOE team ability--

If I put armour piercing on him and do three consecutive EE blasts--will the spalsh damage also get through armour to do a point along with the original damage?

example:
Veteran Ultron with AP fires EE on three characters ( FI, FII and FIII) all with toughness--what happens?


VU-----------FI
FII
FIII

Do they take 1 point each for the EE and ignore the splash damage or do each of the end guys take 2 through the toughness and the middle guy gets 3?

When you multi-attack with EE and Armor Piercing is on, the splash damage will go through the toughness.

I'm not sure, but I don't know if AP makes any difference in this case... I think you add the splash damage, giving the the guy in the middle 2 damage (after toughness) and the other two one each (as it is one attack)...

You're going to want to tack on Shellhead as well. And if you use ICWO always Oracle up his Defense. His attack is high enough that he doesn't need it to hit.

However....

Do yourself a favor and include some Probability Control. I got cocky with him and thought I could go without... I missed 2 times in a row with a 15 attack, then again with a 14 attack in consecutive turns. By the 4th he was toast.

Armor Piercing and Shellhead are all you really need, but Oracle and Protected are helpful as well.

I would also definitely put Shellhead on him if you could. His DV drops like rock after one good hit.

Fortitude is always a good option, too. He needs those damage reducers...

No, EE & splash is treated as a single attack with a Damage Value equal to the # of successful attacks the target is affected by.

In the above example, FI and FIII would have damage 2, and FIII would have damage 3.

AP ensures damage will not drop below 1. FI and FIII, whether they have Toughness, Invulnerability, or Impervious, would still take 1 click each. FII may take 2 clicks if all he is Toughness; with Invulnerabilty or Impervious, the fig takes 1 click.

If Armor Wars BFC is in play, each fig would take 1 additional click if they have a damage reducing power.

If a Cit Hit is rolled, each fig takes an additional click which could be reduced by Damage Reducers.

I thought it worked like this now:

The target takes 1 unreducible pt of damage for EVERY EE it is hit with, whether directly or splash with Armor Piercing in play (no matter the damage-reducing power in play).

I believe there has been a rule change since EE use to deliver one big damage (when Enhancement or Shield TA use to modify the damage).

Sort of, on the last one. Remember, Armor Wars bumps the damage up *if it was actually reduced* (as per the card and FAQ). The Armor Piercing feat says "may not be reduced below 1". So if you hit a figure for a base of 1 damage with Armor Piercing, since that damage will not actually have been reduced (regardless of whether the target had any damage reduction powers, as the feat took precedence and prevented that reduction), Armor Wars will not kick in - all you'll get is 1 damage.

On the other hand, if the figure took splash damage, say just 1 time plus being the initial target, they will have taken 2 base damage (Energy Explosion PAC), reduced to 1 by damage reduction powers (Armor Piercing keeping it at least at 1), at which point Armor Wars kicks in (as the damage was indeed reduced) and kicks the damage back up to 2. Sadly, a 3 way splash still just yields 2 damage in this case.

Basically Armor Wars + Armor Piercing pays off if the initial damage being dealt is greater than 1.

No.

EE is a single attack (one attack roll compared to all DVs) and all the damage is dealt simultaneously. That's why it says, for multiple targets, damage is equal to the number of overlapping effects.

If damage was dealt separately each time, a figure with damage reducers would never have to worry about EE (even Toughness would reduce the 1 point, dealt separately, each time).

EE still "delivers one big damage". What prevents the use of SHIELD and Enhancement these days is that the damage is defined (and set in stone) by the power. From the Danger Room PAC:

ENERGY EXPLOSION (OPTIONAL): Give this character a ranged combat action; its damage value becomes 1 until the attack has been resolved. For each target hit by the attack, compare the result of the attack roll to the defense value of each character adjacent to the target to determine if the attack also succeeds against them. Ignore the hindering terrain modifier resulting from characters adjacent to the target when determining if the attack succeeds against additional characters. Each character successfully hit is dealt damage equal to the number of times it was hit by this attack (characters adjacent to multiple targets can be hit more than once by this attack). A critical hit with this attack automatically hits the target(s) and any characters adjacent to the target(s), and deals 1 additional damage to all characters hit. Powers that allow a character to evade attacks are rolled only once after this character’s ranged combat action resolves. If a character evades, it evades all hits by this attack. This power cannot be used to target blocking terrain or objects.

First, the damage is defined as 1, and stays 1 until the end of the action (first bolded portion). The only way this is changed is if the target(s) are hit multiple times by the attack (second bolded portion) or if a critical hit is rolled (third bolded portion).

This is incorrect. The official ruling is that the attempted reduction of damage is enough to trigger the Armor Wars BFC, so a figure with 1 damage and Armor Piercing will deal 2 damage to anyone with damage reducers if Armor Wars is in play.

It´s not a ruling I agree with, but it is the official way to go.

Yes, Hair10 made such a ruling at a tournament. Problem is:

A) its not in the FAQ (and there has been plenty of time to put it there, the ruling dates back to at least April)

B) the BFC, feat, and FAQ wording directly contradicts that ruling. The FAQ states "if the damage dealt was reduced" - a net result effect, not just a "if the damage reducing power was applied to the damage" attempt to reduce. The feat clearly states the damage "may not be reduced below 1" - preventing the reduction of a 1 damage attack that would trigger Armor Wars from ever happening in the first place.

As has been stated before, until its in the FAQ or the rules, its not official. And until then, wording of those two documents clearly prevents that ruled Armor Wars effect. As much as I'm not keen on ignoring a higher judges ruling, given just the FAQ (all I could officially use) there is no way I could echo Hair10's ruling in a tournament and get anyone to buy it, and I'm not about to ever try.

He hasn't entered it into the FAQ because it is one of those things he doesn't feel needs clarification. Just like how fliers can no longer fire out of base contact (once Icons came out). Just because the FAQ doesn't come right out and say, "Listen everyone, remember how the Universe rules said fliers could shoot at anything they wanted, even when adjacent to an opponent? Well, they can't anymore," doesn't mean that it isn't true.

In other words, AP +AW = 2 damage dealt from 1 damage in some situations. Feel free to ignore that in your own games, but if you ever play an invitational or other such event, you will have to deal with it.

Once again, its the FAQ that is the problem - because the FAQ explicitely *contradicts* the ruling. Your example is flat out incorrect, as its not some issue of the FAQ not saying something, its an issue of it actually saying something.

As for the "doesn't need clarification", somehow I doubt that. I've met many rules arbitrators that take an arrogant "I don't need to change the wording to convey accurate meaning by the normal standards of English usage, you're supposed to read my mind to know what I really meant". But in my dealings with Hair10 he has mostly shown himself willing to support cleaning up FAQ wordings to resolve ambiquities. I highly doubt the change hasn't been made by active choice of "he didn't think its necessary".

Care to show me where it contradicts this? Here's the Heroclix FAQ entry for Armor Wars:

Armor Wars
Q: How does Armor Wars work?
A: After an attack is successful and damage has been dealt, if the damage dealt was reduced (such as by a damage reducing power) then an extra click of damage is dealt to the character. This extra 1 damage is “after the fact” so it is not reduced by damage reducers or other means.
Q: What happens if both players play the Armor Wars Battlefield Condition? How much damage is dealt after the attack is resolved?
A: 1 damage is dealt for each copy of Armor Wars in play, subject to the Rule of 3. If two players both played Armor Wars then the damage dealt as a result of Armor Wars would be 2.
Q: If Armor Wars is in play and Incapacitate is used will the target of a successful attack be given a token and dealt 1 damage due to Armor Wars?
A: No. Damage must be dealt and then reduced in order for Armor Wars to be used. The 0 damage from Incapacitate would never be reduced.

Nothing contradictory there. How about the Marvel errata and clarifications? Nope, Armor Wars doesn't even have an entry. So, where is this supposed contradiction?

I know a lot of people don't agree with the ruling (heck, I am one of them), but it is very clear where the ruling comes from. There is no real contradiction at all, just two ways of looking at it (and only one of the ways is correct according to the current ruling of the RA).

He does a great job clearing things up... but he has also many, many times said that he isn't going to bother repeating himself and/or rule on something that we can figure out for ourselves based on the documentations and forum rulings. And he has ruled on this. Many times. More than I've seen him talk about just about any other topic you'd care to mention (with possible exception of some Pulse Wave timing issues).

The information is out there; you just need to look for it.

Clearly stated, "if the damage dealt was reduced" - was the damage reduced? It started at 1, its still 1, where is the reduction? Answer - THERE WAS NONE. SIMPLE PLAIN ENGLISH. By no rational reading of the definition of "reduction", including in HeroClix rules (with doesn't define the term either, so no special exception can be found there), does it mean or include absolutely no change in a value. No reduction, no extra click.

Then there is the feat card itself "may not be reduced below 1" - "may not be" means IT ISN'T REDUCED. Not "reduce it, but don't really lower the value" , but MAY NOT. So the reduction itself wasn't allowed to happen in the first place. Again, by no rational definition of "may not" can one conclude "do it anyway" or (by some even weirder logic) "don't do it, but treat it like you did it".

So when confronted with the printed FAQ and the wording of the card, all a judge has to fall back on is "Hair10 said so" and then finally "because I said so". And there is the problem - if I had a buck out of the rule arbitrator's pocket everytime I've heard "Bro Mags said" or "Hair10 said" and it ended up *they didn't say that*, I'd be getting my Super Nova case for free. At every major event I've been to since IC hit the streets, including the last pre-Release, I've had *at least* one player or even a judge claim you can SHIELD pump before the move on a Running Shot, then move, then attack. And that player/judge has said "Hair10 (or Bro Mag, or...) ruled it". The FAQ says no, the rulebook says no, and EVEN HAIR10 SAID NO. I now carry around a judges forum print out where Hair10 specifically said the above *isn't* legal, just to finally put the false rulings and false attributions to Hair10 to rest. But I still hear the claims anyway, BECAUSE IT ISN'T IN THE FAQ WHERE IT BELONGS. What all this means is that claims "so and so said" are at best take it on faith, and at worst are outright false. The Rulebook and the FAQ are concrete sources, so care should be taken that ambiquities be cleared up there and NOT left to hand wavy second hand quotes.

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.