Blast damage vs Intercept Driver

Warcaster
,
1

Blast Weapons
Blast weapons unleash explosive attacks that can damage multiple models.

When a blast weapon hits its target, resolve the attack against the target as normal. Additionally, when a blast weapon hits its target, the two models closest to the target that are also within 2” of it suffer blast damage rolls equal to the POW of the weapon. If multiple models are equal distant from the target, randomize between them to determine which two models suffer the blast damage.

When a blast weapon misses its target, the target still suffers a blast damage roll equal to the POW of the weapon.

Blast damage is explosive damage. Blast damage is also considered to be damage caused by the type of attack and damage type of the attack causing blast damage. For example, if a ranged weapon with kinetic damage type does blast damage, that damage is considered to be caused by a ranged attack and is both kinetic and explosive damage.

Intercept Driver: When a friendly model is targeted and hit by an enemy attack while within 5" of this model, this model can spike once to be hit instead of the model originally targeted.

If a model is targeted and hit by a blast weapon, and then another model uses intercept driver to be hit instead, what happens? Notably the intercept driver does not become the target of the attack, and is only hit by the attack, but blast damage triggers off of the target being hit. Also of note is warcaster does not have the language that warmachine does where models that take blast damage are also “hit” by the attack.

is it:
a) The intercept driver model is hit and blast damage is taken from their base, not the original target’s, so the 2 closest models within 2" of the model using intercept driver receive blast damage rolls.

b) The targeted model was still hit by the attack before intercept driver was used but did not suffer the damage roll, thus it stays as the “center” of the blast and if the intercept driver model was within 2" it could be eligible to take a blast damage roll.

c) The targeted model is no longer hit because the intercept driver model is “hit instead”, therefore the target cannot be hit by the attack, and no blast damage rolls result from the attack at all.

At the time we played it as b, but on reflection I’m not sure that’s the correct interpretation.

2

Edited because I had a bizarre failure to read/comprehend.

I believe the answer is D:
The model using Intercept Driver implicitly becomes the target and is hit, causing it to function normally. You just swap the Intercept Driver model for the original target.

If the answer were not this, then you’d end up with a blast attack that ultimately does not function at all. No one would suffer damage if there was not an implicit target change.

The phrasing “hit instead” really implies “and the first hit is treated like it never happened”, otherwise it would be phrased differently.

Assuming that is correct (which…like…if I say “I will give you $5 instead of $1,” you wouldn’t expect me to hand you $6), if the answer were not C, then:

  • Blast attack says “hits its target,” which it did not, so the quote-unquote “direct hit” would never happen. You did not hit the target, so you can never “resolve the attack against the target as normal.”

  • The blast also wouldn’t happen, because the blast weapon didn’t hit its target.

  • The blast also didn’t miss its target, because attacks can only result in either a hit or miss. We already know it had to hit, otherwise Intercept Driver wouldn’t function. :slight_smile: But if the target didn’t change, then you can’t resolve the “misses its target” portion.

So: all options are exhausted. Either the answer is D, or using Intercept Driver really should be rewritten to say “Look, you’re invincible, okay?” :stuck_out_tongue:

3

I am in the camp of

  • I want it to be A (move the explosion to the new target)
  • My first read was B (since the explosion triggers off the target, while the intercept moves the hit)
  • I can see the argument that C is correct: key is the target was not hit, which is a condition of triggering blast damage.

I think B is still right though: with both blast and Intercept Driver triggering off “Hit”, I think it comes down to resolving Active player (ie attacker) effects first: the blast will resolve off the targeted model before Intercept Driver takes effect.

There is also an awkward self-reference issue in disallowing “When a blast hits its target” because the blast hasn’t hit the target, but allowing “When a friendly model is targeted and hit” - considering both use basically the same trigger (hits target). I think the only resolution is to use active effects first.

4

Whoops, hang on. I somehow misread what his C was. Let me edit mine.

5

Full disclosure: it has been pointed out to me that my interpretation may also mean that other effects such as corrosion would resolve on the original target, before allowing Intercept Driver to take effect. I feel like this isn’t right, but a possible consequence of me using active player to solve it.

It is possible that blast’s trigger “when a blast hits its target” ticks the box before Intercept Driver allows you to “be hit instead of the original target”. This allows the blast to resolve first.
Then the corrosion effect could cause “a model hit by this effect” to trigger on the Interceptor - since he is “hit instead of the original target”.
There is a subtle difference between blast’s trigger and continuous effect wording.

To be honest, I think an official ruling would be in order :slight_smile:

6

this does come with some strange and fun interactions of its own, like vengeance sequencer or impulse reciprocator would trigger from intercept driver, speaking as an ISA player, I like that interpretation :). I’m not sure that’s correct either because those rules specifically call out targeted and hit, and intercept driver only specifies that the intercepting model be “hit instead”, which implies the two are separate concepts.

Vengeance Sequencer: When the warjack is targeted and hit by an enemy attack, immediately after the attack is resolved the warjack can make one attack.

Edit: Another funky consequence of intercept driver implicitly changing the target is now sprays will now move to the intercept driving model, but if nothing is simultaneous as stated by PP, then that means the spray could move midway through resolving, depending on when the attacker decides to resolve the attack roll on the model targeted.

7

The intended answer is A, but I agree that is not quite answered by the rules.

Intercept Driver should read, “When a friendly model is targeted and hit by an enemy attack while within 5” of this model, this model can spike once to be become the target and be hit instead of the model originally targeted."

5 Likes
8

Thanks so much for the official response! How would the corrected rule interact with the spray rules? Would the spray line change when intercept driver is used, or would the attack roll intended for the original target just be transferred to the intercept driver model?

1 Like
9

I believe the spray line would change, yes.

2 Likes
10

Thanks again for the clarification, just want to make sure I’m reading the rules right,

image

The red model is targeting model B with a spray, and model A has Intercept Driver, model C is an innocent bystander.

I’m assuming you resolve rolls sequentially, in the order determined by the active player per pg22 of the rulebook. So if the attacking player resolved A, C, then B, if the defender decides to use intercept driver for the attack roll on B, would A and C suffer two spray attack rolls since (as far as I understand) the spray rules would trigger again for the intercept driving model?

11

That feels messy.
It could be fixed by making Intercept Drive need to be used before the resolution of the spray attacks begin (assuming that doesn’t make the mess worse).

12

Yeah, the confluence of “any order” resolution and the fact that the target changing changes the line of the spray, makes for a murky situation here.

You either have to undo prior rolls, or have the unituitive result of basically free multiple attacks.

Neither is attractive.

It might be easier to just add some wording to Sprays that says if an effect changes the target, the line is not redrawn, but the new target suffers the damage and effects instead, and any other models suffing attack rolls based on the original target still suffer them as normal.

1 Like
13

Or do like in Warmachine, where some effects that would change the target can be used against “non-spray attacks”.

1 Like
14

Hey, thanks for this ruling.
You quoted a (potential?) rule change here. Have there been any thoughts on how PP intends to roll out errata style changes like this?
Should we play now as if the rule reads as you’ve quoted it?

2 Likes