Burning damage with Sonnia and Pandora

[nccomicschris]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Malifaux/comments/4tfj39/rule_question_explosive_chain_reaction/

 

So the question came up on Reddit (see link) and it says you resolve end of turn effects in a chosen order but if both players have effects ending then player 1 gets to resolve theirs first. (Big book pg 35)  In the situation at hand Sonnia's burning dmg would not be applied until after Pandora resolved her end of turn effects. Does this mean that she wouldn't take burning until next turn or that it would still happen at the end of this turn just in an odd order?

[Kadeton]

 

Except you're not anymore. Your opponent is. You have already resolved all your conditions and the upkeep step is over for you. If a model gets reactivate during the upkeep step, the upkeep step isn't immediately put on hold for that model to take another activation.

That's not how the Upkeep step works. The resolution timing applies if (and only if) it would affect the outcome (Core p.35). There's no "Player 1 Upkeep" that ends before "Player 2 Upkeep" begins. All Conditions have to be resolved, even if they were applied during the same Upkeep step.

 

And if the original poison was poison +1 that was reduced to 0, so removed, and a further poison condition was added to the model, also at the poison +1? Would you then take the poison twice because it was 2 different conditions?

Yes. Conditions are independent of each other. They don't "remember" whether another Condition with the same name has previously been resolved on that model.

 

I would like the rule to be consistent over these 3 scenarios. If you can resolve Poison more than once on a model, in which of these cases should you do so? And why?

I would like that too, but the rules don't support it. Fortunately, there are very few ways to gain Poison during the Upkeep step, so it will probably never happen to you.

In your examples, you would resolve Poison twice in Case 2. I'll break down the scenarios:

1) You have Poison +2. You take 1 damage and reduce the Poison value to +1. The Poison condition is resolved.

2) You have Poison +1. You take 1 damage, reduce the Poison value to 0, and remove the Condition. The Poison condition is resolved. Something applies Poison +1. The new Condition has not been resolved. You take 1 damage, reduce the Poison value to 0, and remove the Condition. The Poison condition is resolved.

3) You have Poison +2. You take 1 damage and reduce the Poison value to +1. The Poison condition is resolved. Something applies Poison +1, which per the stacking rules increases your Poison value to +2. The Poison condition has already been resolved.

 

EDIT- following on from Santa Claws, does it matter if the source of the poison is yours (as player 1) or your opponents.

No, Conditions don't remember who applied them (except for the Wisp's Whispers in the Night). The order of resolution (if it would affect the outcome) is determined by the owner of the model. However, the owner of the source of the Poison might affect which scenario you end up in. Here's a hypothetical example:

Your Witchling Stalker and the opponent's Poison Gamin have been fighting. Your Witchling has Poison +1 and three Wds remaining, and the Gamin has Burning +3 and one Wd remaining. They're 1" apart.

If you are the First Player: Your Witchling takes 1 damage and removes Poison. The Gamin resolves Burning, dies, and inflicts 1 damage and Poison +1 on your Witchling. Your Witchling takes 1 damage from the second application of Poison and dies. (As per your Scenario 2)

If your opponent is the First Player: The Gamin resolves Burning, dies, and inflicts 1 damage and Poison +1 on your Witchling. Your Witchling takes 1 damage, reduces Poison to +1, and survives with one Wd remaining. (As per your Scenario 1)

It's unfortunate that this produces different outcomes, but that's the point of the timing rules: they are only applied in cases where the outcome is affected by the order of resolution, so the result will obviously be different depending on who is First Player.

[Adran]

The question is effectively

" If a model gains a condition in the upkeep step, and it has already passed its time for resolving conditions, does it resolve it?"

I would say the answer is No. if the order of resolution matters, player 1 resolves their conditions first in the order of their choosing. The Player 2 resolves their conditions iun an order of their choosing. You dont then go back and check player ones models again.  (As Ludvig says, any other way would mean poison doesn't work). 

We have discussed it before, I'll try and hunt up the discussion

[Ludvig]

I don't think that the answer is clearly stated by the rulebook so different people with argue for different ways of resolving it. 

The argument for burning staying is that if you could resolve effects several times poison would not work as intended so you "must" by definition only be allowed to resolve once per model and upkerp phase.

[nccomicschris]

Inferno to me would happen first as  it is in effect up until the end of turn.  Then end of turn resolves and because burning would be put on Pandora before end of turn she would take the dmg.

[nccomicschris]

9 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

I don't think that the answer is clearly stated by the rulebook so different people with argue for different ways of resolving it. 

The argument for burning staying is that if you could resolve effects several times poison would not work as intended so you "must" by definition only be allowed to resolve once per model and upkerp phase.

 

3 minutes ago, Adran said:

The question is effectively

" If a model gains a condition in the upkeep step, and it has already passed its time for resolving conditions, does it resolve it?"

I would say the answer is No. if the order of resolution matters, player 1 resolves their conditions first in the order of their choosing. The Player 2 resolves their conditions iun an order of their choosing. You dont then go back and check player ones models again.  (As Ludvig says, any other way would mean poison doesn't work). 

We have discussed it before, I'll try and hunt up the discussion

I agree with both of you on how this resolved as far as that goes but I think the burning would apply before see below quote. I realize this is counter to my original post but after reading Sonnia's card again have changed trains of thought.

 

3 minutes ago, nccomicschris said:

Inferno to me would happen first as  it is in effect up until the end of turn.  Then end of turn resolves and because burning would be put on Pandora before end of turn she would take the dmg.

 

[Adran]

I don't have sonnia card to hand, but from what I can remember the conditioon lasts until end of turn. And when the condition is removed it deals damage (it doesn't add buring. It just does damage)

The order of resolving the conditions clearly matters here. 

As such we have to follow the rule book which tells us that Player 1 resolves their conditions first. Pandora currently has no conditons. So she is now done. Then Player 2 goes. 

Player 2 chooses to start with Sonnia. She resolves her inferno condition, doing 3 damage to all those models. She then does all that burning only to nmodels from the death of the specialist, the stalker and the purifying flame. 

If Sonnia has wanted, (and lets say the stalker had 4 wounds)she could have chosen the stalker to resolve its condiditons before Sonnia, so that when the specialist and the puryfying flame explode, it doesn't die, its there on 1 wound and Burning +4

[Ludvig]

You fail to state who is the first player on the turn. Either every guild models resolves everything first or pandora resolves her effects even before inferno does damage.

[nccomicschris]

Sorry this is assuming Pandora is first player. It just seems winning initiative becomes very important against condition heavy crews.

[Adran]

29 minutes ago, nccomicschris said:

Sorry this is assuming Pandora is first player. It just seems winning initiative becomes very important against condition heavy crews.

It only matters if you give conditions in the end phase, which is actually very rare. 

In the example, if Sonnia had done her Inferno, and then the witchling stalker activated and dispells the condition, then Pandora toke 4 damage and has burning +5. Then when you reach the upkeep step, she takes the 5 damage and dies regardless of who the first player was. 

[nccomicschris]

3 hours ago, Adran said:

It only matters if you give conditions in the end phase, which is actually very rare. 

In the example, if Sonnia had done her Inferno, and then the witchling stalker activated and dispells the condition, then Pandora toke 4 damage and has burning +5. Then when you reach the upkeep step, she takes the 5 damage and dies regardless of who the first player was. 

That makes since, I'm a neverborn player so I'm obviously ok with this making sonnia harder to play but just seems like a weird way of taking dmg. I do however realize just how odd of a situation this is so it makes since it doesn't fit a mold.

[Ludvig]

It can actually be very advantageous for Sonnia to have a model not resolve burning so she can ignore LoS and blast the living crap out of your crew behind terrain the next turn.

The same is true for Samael, having something out of LoS but within 12" of him could spell doom for it the next turn if it gets burning after it resolved consitions.

[SunTsu]

 

You fail to state who is the first player on the turn. Either every guild models resolves everything first or pandora resolves her effects even before inferno does damage.

I'm not so sure about this way to resolve this situation.

The fact is that the rules have some holes somewhere and people have to fill these in a way. In this case the RAW is missing something completely, but the RAI is enough clear,  trying to keep things intuitive and simple without any unuseful complications.

So, the ruleset don't define a precise time chart for resolving effects, giving a general time to how to solve possible hypothetical conflicts (so hypothetical that at the time of writing rules authors didn't provide any exemple). But...

Rules say a player can choose the order of resolution of effects, but never states that you have to resolve the effects on a single model before passing to another, and never says that the resolution step for a model is once-in-a-phase without possibilities to move between models. Also, rules never says that an effect that is stated to be resolved in the phase x, can be delayed if it is applied in the same phase itself. On how the rules are written, I am under the impression that the only thing that surely rules prescribes is that the effects NEEDS to be solved the phase they intended to be solved in. It seems to be illegal to close a phase without resolving any effect that is designed to do something in that phase only for a timing issue.

About the burning, it needs to extinguish the condition giving damage in the end phase of any turn. It doesn't matter if you gain the condition in the same phase or before, and it doesn't matter if that model resolved some effects on it before, also if it was another burning. Nothing in the rules prevent it to be done more than once.

About a possible poison problem, I don't see any. In fact if a model got a damage from poison, and then get poison again, it fulfilled yet for that phase the poison condition to get a damage and lower the condition, so no further instances are required. Instead, since the burning condition needs to be extingued completely applying damages, you need to solve that condition before ending the phase.

[santaclaws01]

 

I'm not so sure about this way to resolve this situation.

The fact is that the rules have some holes somewhere and people have to fill these in a way. In this case the RAW is missing something completely, but the RAI is enough clear,  trying to keep things intuitive and simple without any unuseful complications.

So, the ruleset don't define a precise time chart for resolving effects, giving a general time to how to solve possible hypothetical conflicts (so hypothetical that at the time of writing rules authors didn't provide any exemple). But...

Rules say a player can choose the order of resolution of effects, but never states that you have to resolve the effects on a single model before passing to another, and never says that the resolution step for a model is once-in-a-phase without possibilities to move between models. Also, rules never says that an effect that is stated to be resolved in the phase x, can be delayed if it is applied in the same phase itself. On how the rules are written, I am under the impression that the only thing that surely rules prescribes is that the effects NEEDS to be solved the phase they intended to be solved in. It seems to be illegal to close a phase without resolving any effect that is designed to do something in that phase only for a timing issue.

About the burning, it needs to extinguish the condition giving damage in the end phase of any turn. It doesn't matter if you gain the condition in the same phase or before, and it doesn't matter if that model resolved some effects on it before, also if it was another burning. Nothing in the rules prevent it to be done more than once.

About a possible poison problem, I don't see any. In fact if a model got a damage from poison, and then get poison again, it fulfilled yet for that phase the poison condition to get a damage and lower the condition, so no further instances are required. Instead, since the burning condition needs to be extingued completely applying damages, you need to solve that condition before ending the phase.

You, Player A could resolve and effect on Model X resolve a different effect on Model Y, then finish up by resolving their last effect on Model X, but after that point, Player A is done with their upkeep step. And I find it hard to imagine that just because they didn't give an example that they just forgot about effects like Inferno, or Explosive Demise etc...

[Ludvig]

Poison doesn't say you suffer a maximum of one damage per upkeep phase. It says that when you resolve the upkeep effects the model suffers 1 damage and lowers it poison value by one. If you can and must infact resolve consitions several times it would lead to ou resolving for one damage. Doing another model. Resolving for one damage again. Moving on, coming back etc. until the poison was completely gone and had caused all its damage. That would lead to it just being an extremely more potent version of burning since it would ignore armour, htk etc. but otherwise function the same. From the wording on that ability it seems apparent that one model cannot resolve consitions several times.

[SunTsu]

 

Poison doesn't say you suffer a maximum of one damage per upkeep phase. It says that when you resolve the upkeep effects the model suffers 1 damage and lowers it poison value by one. If you can and must infact resolve consitions several times it would lead to ou resolving for one damage. Doing another model. Resolving for one damage again. Moving on, coming back etc. until the poison was completely gone and had caused all its damage. That would lead to it just being an extremely more potent version of burning since it would ignore armour, htk etc. but otherwise function the same. From the wording on that ability it seems apparent that one model cannot resolve consitions several times.

No, no rule permit you doing this. The manual is precise about the effects that contains +x (that sums togheter), and those that contains just "x" that is an exact and absolute value. So the poison specify that, in the end phase a model suffer exactly 1 damage and lower the condition exactly by 1. If you come back to that model in the same phase, the condition resolution is fulfilled and you can't do it again 1 damage, because the single damage the resolve the condition for that phase is already be assigned. This is not so explicitly said in the rules, but it's enough clear.

We see that rules in Malifaux have some "dark corners". I don't know if it is a simple mistake or a design choice (to be more "easy" and attractive to casual players). But we can't solve the missing phrase "just 1 damage per phase" by building a new chapter of rules writing a new timechart and finally, to let it works, say that a condition will be solved in the next end phase: this is something that rules explicitly forbid when it's written that a condition HAVE to be solved in the end phase. If a model get burning +3 in the end phase of turn 1, by rules it have resolve that burning in the end phase of turn 1, not turn 2.

When we deals with "dark corners" we should approach it with a 'less disturbance' like method, because we haven't the power to create or modify existing ruleset.

 

[Ludvig]

From page 34 big book: "In the unlikely event that the order in which multiple effects ending would affect the outcome, then the affected model's owning player determines the order in which they are resolved. If models from both players are affected, the First Player's models will resolve their effects first."

My interpretation is that "model's" used in the above passage is the singular if the word, so you choose the order to resolve the effects on one model. It doesn't give you permission to bounce between models since it doesn't use the plural. 

If my witchling dies and changes how much burning damage Pandora takes I'd say there's a pretty big stake as to how to resolve the order. In that case you refer to this passage stating that one player resolves their models (plural) first. 

[SunTsu]

 

From page 34 big book: "In the unlikely event that the order in which multiple effects ending would affect the outcome, then the affected model's owning player determines the order in which they are resolved. If models from both players are affected, the First Player's models will resolve their effects first."

I don't know if your interpretation is right. Personally I think that in the missing of a clear flow chart and time table, you can choose models as you like.

But surely the rule you quoted don't authorize any player to left effects unsolved at the end of the End Phase. I think you can agree about this.

[Ludvig]

@SunTsu I'm with you 100% on the condition rules needing a lot more clarity.

I can't agree on that last part since models will be left with poison on them quite often so obviously models are allowed to end turns with conditions on them. If they aren't allowed that you would need to remove any poison left on a model after doing the normal poison thing since poison doesn't specifically state that it ignores the normal part of the rules where no model is allowed to end the turn with a condition on it (that you are implying is somehow apparent from the current text).

I am also pretty sure this question will never gain concensus except about that part of the rules needing a serious clarification  

[SunTsu]

 

@SunTsu I'm with you 100% on the condition rules needing a lot more clarity.

I can't agree on that last part since models will be left with poison on them quite often so obviously models are allowed to end turns with conditions on them. If they aren't allowed that you would need to remove any poison left on a model after doing the normal poison thing since poison doesn't specifically state that it ignores the normal part of the rules where no model is allowed to end the turn with a condition on it (that you are implying is somehow apparent from the current text).

I am also pretty sure this question will never gain concensus except about that part of the rules needing a serious clarification  

When I said no player is allowed to left effects after the end phase, I was referring to effects that needs to be resolved in that phase, obviously. It's normal that paralyzed/slow/fast will remain untouched because rules specifically said so. The same about poison, that is resolved making a single point of damage and lowering condition by one, with this fulfilling the resolution condition about poisoned models.

Others conditions, like burning, don't prescript that the effect may remain unsolved after the End Phase without a specifically explicit rule (like the Rail Golem). If there isn't a rule like that in act, players are forced to resolve burning before ending the phase because rules states in this way. Otherwise it will results in a rule breaking.

So, finally in this case, you start to resolve player1 effects as she/he pleases, then pass to the player2 effects. As soon as a player1 model gains a new effect you have to resolve it before continuing with the player2,until all resolutions are completely fulfilled. Then, and only then you can close the phase and go with the scoring phase. This is the state of the art with the ruleset we have right now.

Then, if wyrd will be so glad to clarify this, both with a simple clarification or with a deeper rule addendum with a completely new flowchart and time table, it will be welcome. ;-)

[Ludvig]

@SunTsu Seems legit. Could have been clarified but likely will not be until the next edition.

[Ludvig]

I wonder if I could find a way to abuse this with Sonnia and reincarnation. If you are plauer 2 for the turn you might make a lot of unresistable pings of 1 damage followed by 1 burning at the cost of your own witchlings.  

[Adran]

 

No, no rule permit you doing this. The manual is precise about the effects that contains +x (that sums togheter), and those that contains just "x" that is an exact and absolute value. So the poison specify that, in the end phase a model suffer exactly 1 damage and lower the condition exactly by 1. If you come back to that model in the same phase, the condition resolution is fulfilled and you can't do it again 1 damage, because the single damage the resolve the condition for that phase is already be assigned. This is not so explicitly said in the rules, but it's enough clear.

We see that rules in Malifaux have some "dark corners". I don't know if it is a simple mistake or a design choice (to be more "easy" and attractive to casual players). But we can't solve the missing phrase "just 1 damage per phase" by building a new chapter of rules writing a new timechart and finally, to let it works, say that a condition will be solved in the next end phase: this is something that rules explicitly forbid when it's written that a condition HAVE to be solved in the end phase. If a model get burning +3 in the end phase of turn 1, by rules it have resolve that burning in the end phase of turn 1, not turn 2.

When we deals with "dark corners" we should approach it with a 'less disturbance' like method, because we haven't the power to create or modify existing ruleset.

 

I've you're going to use the rules, then you need to get the wording correct. No where in the rules manual does it state exactly 1

From the rules manual

Poisoned

Sometimes models are poisoned by low-down cowards who don’t want a fair fight.

Poison is noted with a value (usually +1) when it is applied to a model. During the Upkeep Step, any model with the Poison Condition suffers 1 damage that may not be reduced or negated. After the damage is dealt, lower the value of the Poison by 1, removing the Condition if the value hits 0. It should be noted that the damage is not increased by the value of the Poison Condition. The Condition is considered to read:

Poison +1: At the end of the turn this model suffers 1 damage, then lower this model’s Poison Condition value by 1.

So

I would very much like to see an argument where you explain why a model that has taken 2 damage from Burning +2  and then has burning +1 (from some other source) would need to take burning damage again, but a model with Poison +2 has taken 1 point of damage, and reduced its condition to poison +1 but doesn't need to re-resolve poison. 

Because your current argument doesn't work. Burning has told me to take 2 damage. I've taken that 2 damage. Poison has told me to take 1 damage I've taken 1 damage.

What difference between the 2 conditions means that I should now take 1 damage from burning but not 1 more damage from poison? Does it make a difference in your argument if a new poison condition was added to the model?

 

For completeness- the text for burning.

Burning +1: At the end of the turn this model suffers +1 damage, then remove this Condition.

 

[Kadeton]

 

I would very much like to see an argument where you explain why a model that has taken 2 damage from Burning +2  and then has burning +1 (from some other source) would need to take burning damage again, but a model with Poison +2 has taken 1 point of damage, and reduced its condition to poison +1 but doesn't need to re-resolve poison.

In the case of Burning, they're two separate instances of the Condition. You have Burning +2, you take two damage and you remove the Condition. That Condition has been resolved. Then, another model applies a new Condition: Burning +1. That Condition hasn't been resolved yet, and you're in the phase of the turn where Conditions are resolved, so you resolve it.

In the case of Poison, it's one instance of the Condition. You take 1 damage and reduce the Condition value by one. That Condition has now been resolved. Even if (somehow) an additional Poison +1 were applied, that wouldn't be a new Condition - per the stacking rules, it would just increase the value of the existing Condition, which has already been resolved.

[santaclaws01]

 

 That Condition hasn't been resolved yet, and you're in the phase of the turn where Conditions are resolved, so you resolve it.

 

Except you're not anymore. Your opponent is. You have already resolved all your conditions and the upkeep step is over for you. If a model gets reactivate during the upkeep step, the upkeep step isn't immediately put on hold for that model to take another activation.

[Adran]

 

In the case of Burning, they're two separate instances of the Condition. You have Burning +2, you take two damage and you remove the Condition. That Condition has been resolved. Then, another model applies a new Condition: Burning +1. That Condition hasn't been resolved yet, and you're in the phase of the turn where Conditions are resolved, so you resolve it.

In the case of Poison, it's one instance of the Condition. You take 1 damage and reduce the Condition value by one. That Condition has now been resolved. Even if (somehow) an additional Poison +1 were applied, that wouldn't be a new Condition - per the stacking rules, it would just increase the value of the existing Condition, which has already been resolved.

 

And if the original poison was poison +1 that was reduced to 0, so removed, and a further poison condition was added to the model, also at the poison +1? Would you then take the poison twice because it was 2 different conditions?

3 scenarios

1 You are on Poison +2. You resolve the poison condition, take 1 damage and are on poison +1

2 You are on Poison +1. You take 1 damage and. remove the poison condition because its been reduced to 0. Something gives you poison+1 in the end step. 

3 You are on Poison +2 you resolve the condition and take one damage and are on Poison +1. Something gives you poison+1 in the end step which adds to your current condition making it poison +2. 

 

I would like the rule to be consistent over these 3 scenarios. If you can resolve Poison more than once on a model, in which of these cases should you do so? And why?

 

EDIT- following on from Santa Claws, does it matter if the source of the poison is yours (as player 1) or your opponents. 

 

I feel my interpretation of the rules (once per model)i s valid for all these cases.