Jump to content
  • 2

Mad Heberdasher vs To behold another world


Averlorn

Question

This question recently came up on the FB page and it seems that there are still understandment problems: 

Sandeep is the acting model and he deals severe damage to Seamus (and so Seamus becomes paralyzed)

Seamus discards his upgrade to reduce the damage to 0. 

Is he now still paralyzed or not? In my opinion yes. Seamus upgrade clearly states AFTER damaging, discard thsi upgrade and reduce the damage to 0. As per timing rules on the p.51 of the brb, given that these actions are done simultaneousely, the acting model (in this case Sandeep), makes his actions and abilities first. 

The paralyze, being not a trigger but an ability coming from his To behold another world upgrade. 

 

However, a counterargument is that, as per FAQ, 0 damage counts as no damage done, which seems also to be legit (however, here again the wording on Seamus upgrade states AFTER daamging....)

Could anyone help? :-)

 

Thank you in advance; 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 4

Just a note.   From the FAQ in November.

 

103) If Sandeep has the To Behold Another World Upgrade and flips Moderate or Severe damage, does the target gain Paralyzed if the damage is completely prevented or reduced to zero (0)?

No, it doesn’t gain Paralyzed. To Behold Another World requires the target to suffer damage, which a model taking 0 damage is not (see FAQ #17). For example, if Seamus discarded his Mad Haberdasher Upgrade to reduce the damage to 0, he would not be Paralyzed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6

The FAQ would be relevant if there was an 'After damaging' trigger involved, or if the rules used time travel (which they don't).

Because both effects are abilities that specify the same timing, General a Timing applies and the Attacker's ability resolves before the Defender's ability.

Which means:

1.  Sunburst is resolved and applies Paralyzed

2.  Fancy Haberdasher applies and the damage is reduced to 0.

so you end up with Seamus considered to not have suffered damaged, with the Paralyzed Condition, and a Hat Marker on the table.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4
1 hour ago, Kbonn said:

 Get off this "its not a trigger so it works different"  

NO, it does not, the requirements are the same.  It requires damage to be done, if damage is not done, it cannot work.

Yes, it does. An after damaging trigger has a specific timing for after step 5, which means it would happen after Seamus takes off his hat. Hell, even even two triggers with similar wording can have different timing. Just look at "After Succeeding" vs "After an attack action succeeds against this model". One uses a defined game term that gives you a specifc timing slot, the other doesn't, meaning it happens as soon as possible. That is the same with this. "after a target suffers damage" is not an after damaging trigger, so it does not have the same timing as it. Instead, it has the timing of immediately after the target suffers damage. Seamus' ability also has that same timing, and because the two abilities have the same timing, we defer to the general timing rules which state that the active model resolves their abilities first. So we go to resolve Sandeep's ability, which is contingent on the model having suffered damage. So we have to ask the question of whether or not Seamus has suffered damage at the time of Sandeep using his ability, to which the answer is unequivocally yes, as Seamus has not resolved his ability yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3

This is a tricky on as it includes an after damaging ability rather than a trigger, and a damage prevention ability which timing suggests happens after damaging, rather than at the normal damage prevention time. 

Its worth pointing out that Triggers resolve in a different order to abilities, so we can't  just use Trigger timing (page 51 vs page 26). And also After damaging is a specific timing in triggers, but its not clear if after damaging abilities happen after step 5, or during step 5 when damage is dealt. 

Looking at other similar things  they have a "when suffering damage.." timing which allows them to happen at that instant, rather than waiting until the end of the step, and don't have this problem. 

I expect if this makes an FAQ, it would be no paralyse, as that is the only real way to resolve the Hat without time travel of suffering damage and then un-suffereing that damage, but that's not quite how the Hat is currently written. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3

The "To Behold Another World" upgrade gives Sandeep the following ability:

Quote

Sunburst: After a target suffers damage from this model's Gada Attack Action, if the damage was Moderate or Severe, the target  gains Paralyzed

As has been noted above this is an ability just like the Fancy Haberdashery so the general timing applies which mean Sandeep's ability happens first and Seamus gets paralyzed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3

Fancy haberdashery "After this model suffers damage, this model may reduce the damage to 0. If it does ..."

Sunburst: "after a target suffers damage from this models GADA attack action, if the damage was moderate or severe the target gains paralysed"

According to the general rules we should do Sunburst before we do Fancy Haberdashery  as they are both abilities which happen after x suffers damage and the acting models abilities go first. 

Which means that when we should do sunburst, Seamus is a model that was damage by Gada, and so it gains paralysed. After that happens we would resolve the haberdashery, and undamage Seamus. But nothign tells us to unparalyse him. 

This is a very different timing to abilities such as armor, and soulstone prevention which can reduce it to 0 before Paralyse is added. 

13 minutes ago, Four_N_Six said:

I think that's the proof that he doesn't gain paralyze.  His upgrade allows him after damage to reduce the damage to zero, while Sandeep's ability specifically says "after the target suffers damage."  So it isn't after damaging, and the target must specifically suffer the damage in order to gain the paralyze.  Based on the wording for Sunburst, I would assume the paralyze is the last thing to occur.  If damage is reduced to 0, then you aren't suffering anything, so timing in regards to abilities and triggers shouldn't matter.

The hat would also happen after "after damaging triggers" so not prevent them either on its current wording. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3
29 minutes ago, Kbonn said:

Damage on the stack is not damage dealt.   You cannot prevent/reduce damage that hasn't been successfully inflicted.   

 

Or do you guys think you should stone to prevent damage, or use haberdasher before damage is actually flipped?   Do you guys understand the logical flow of how action/reaction works in this game, it should be obvious that the damage is never done.  In ever other case, "after damaging" triggers are not able to be used if there is no damage suffered.  Get off this "its not a trigger so it works different"  

NO, it does not, the requirements are the same.  It requires damage to be done, if damage is not done, it cannot work.

 

For everyone complaining about "time traveling rules", if the models never suffers the damage, how can you claim that it did?

But the Upgrade itself tells us that damage has to be done before you can use it. It says after suffering damage, not When suffering damage (Which is what I think the hat should say, but its not what the Hat does say). Those are 2 different time points, and the rest of the game follows those as different times.   

And Its not a trigger. It does work differently. Those are what the actual rules tell us.

If they were both triggers, then this wouldn't be an issue because defenders triggers resolve before attackers triggers. But acting models abilities happen before defending models abilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2
On 26/10/2016 at 0:52 PM, Fetid Strumpet said:

I disagree. Wyrd has stated M2E is more intent based than specifically mechanistic rules wise. Therefore, given the FAQ entry on what counts as suffering dmg I will be ruling in all events I run that any effect that prevents dmg completely will therefore prevent the paralyzed.

Ok, so what's the intent in say "Dumb Luck trigger that states it inflict half the damage the target SUFFERS is based on the damage flip and not the effectively damage applied to the model"? I mean, in a case if you reduce the damage to zero a model suffers no damage, in the other one that same model suffered damage... There are conflicting and opposite intents in the wyrd faqs, and no one can say which is the "real" one... All we have are rules, and rules says it works different from how you think it would.

I agree that Malifaux is much more intent-oriented then other wargames, but if we will base everything on intents we can put rules in a trash and simply play without...

 

On 26/10/2016 at 4:12 PM, Kbonn said:

Damage on the stack is not damage dealt.   You cannot prevent/reduce damage that hasn't been successfully inflicted.

Or do you guys think you should stone to prevent damage, or use haberdasher before damage is actually flipped?   Do you guys understand the logical flow of how action/reaction works in this game, it should be obvious that the damage is never done.  In ever other case, "after damaging" triggers are not able to be used if there is no damage suffered.  Get off this "its not a trigger so it works different"  

NO, it does not, the requirements are the same.  It requires damage to be done, if damage is not done, it cannot work.

Ok, this is what we call "common sense".

Now, in Malifaux, common sense is useful much more than many others wargames, since the ruleset in our game is less structured and more common-sense oriented than others.

BUT... this doesn't mean that common sense have to overule everything. In this situation we are experiencing the lack of a time flow chart with multi steps and checks to let the cross-interactions between abilities and similia smooth and easy. So, if the rules would have defined the terms "before damaging", "while damaging" and "after damaging" we would have experienced much less incertainty than this.

So, your reasoning essentially is "If I cancel the damage suffered, the damage really never happened". This is backed by the faq "Suffers zero damage is not suffers damage". This is common sense, and it's normal that your brain struggle with something that try to modify this point of view.

But, a game like Malifuax cannot be only based on common sense. There are arguments in a game that can be view from a perspective or another, it depends just from game design considerations and arbitrary decisions. So, the precisation that if a model suffers 0 damage it don't suffers damage is a choice of game design. But the opposite would be also legit. Finally there are many games in which suffering zero damage ISN'T the same of DON'T suffers damage at all. The same with push/move 0" is considered to be moved or not.

Now, here we have a problem about this scenario, since:

- there are not different steps in timing and both these abilities happens at the very same moment;

- the order of resolution will affect the outcome in a very different way;

- we have no specific rule to handle this very specific situation;

- we can't determine exactly which was the game design intent.

So, looking at the rules, there is a section that says: In the unlikely event that two or more abilities/effects happening at the same time have an outcome that will depend on the order of resolution, then follow these rules. Rulebook, page 46:

Quote

General Timing
Most Abilities grant a passive effect, some of which have their effect when a model suffers damage or is killed. Whenever any Ability
happens at the same time as any Triggers, the Triggers are resolved first. If two Abilities happen at the same time, resolve them in the following order:
1. The Acting Model resolves its Abilities.
2. The Defending Model (if there is one) resolves its Abilities.
3. Any other models controlled by the First Player resolves all of their Ability effects in any order the First Player chooses.
4. Any other models controlled by the Second Player resolves all of their Ability effects in any order the Second Player chooses.

Now, here we have exactly 2 abilities that resolves at the same time. So, do you think we have to follow these rules? Or can we cut away the page and burn the rules? Because if we don't apply it in this situation, I can't understand why ever Wyrd would have been written at all this General Timing rules....

So, if we will decide to ignore it, we can safely throw the entire rulebook off and play with our homemade rules. But if we decide to use Wyrd's ruleset we have to do as follows:

1. Sandeep flips/cheat a moderate/severe damage against Seamus

2. Both models in the after damaging step (a bit undefined in the rules but here is it) will activate abilities

3. The acting model (Sandeep) goes first per general timing rules. Seamus is suffering moderate/severe damage? Yes. So he gets paralized too.

4. The defender goes second. Seamus is suffering any damage? Yep! So he can use its hat and reduce the damage to zero.

5. Since the damage was reduced to 0, it is cancelled and FROM NOW ON Seamus is not considered anymore as a model that suffered damage. But no rules allow you to remove the paralized condition. Not the Seamus hat, that just cancelled the damage. Not the Sandeep rules, that applied condition in an absolutely legal way since at the moment ability kicked in Seamus effectively suffered damage. Not the general rules, since explicitly says in general timing section that when the order of resolution counts you have to resolve in this way.

We can't go back cancelling paralize because it explicitly violate the general timing rules (again, we would burn that rules away if we don't consider it, and going back cancelling effects effectively means that those rules would be meaningless and useless at all), and because if we decide that this is how it works we will come immediately to a paradox: if you claim to cancel the paralized, you're saying that Seamus never suffered damage in step 3, so it would neither suffered damage in step 4 (that for general timing rules is AFTER the step 3), and so it would never had the possibilities to use the hat, and at this point would arrive Dr. Who in person and brings all of us in a different weird reality... ;)

Practically, what you're asking guys is: OR rewriting general timing flow chart rules in an arbitrary way (that is a thing we can't do), OR throw that rules in the trash (that is a thing we can do, but we will not result in playing Malifaux any more).

 

So, here are the rules and as they works at the moment. We can debate if there was a mistake in writing Seamus hat rules and if the intent was this. We can claim an errata or think that this was exactly the intent. But, by a rules perspective, it's meaningless. Here there isn't uncertainty of how rules works at the moment about this specific scenario.

 

On 26/10/2016 at 8:07 PM, Oshova said:

There is no reason for further debate on this issue. We may as well just call Sandeep the winner of all Malifaux and move on with our lives.

Please, don't take it on personal. It's a game after all... ^_^

Really, if you don't agree about the logic of the rules as I exposed and you think I did a fatal logical rules big mistake you can point it out and we will discuss about it. But we're not making Sandeep's advocates. We're just speaking about rules... :D

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1
13 minutes ago, Shadowdragon said:

 

Really, the only problem with this situation is whether reducing the damage to 0 negates after damaging abilities as it does triggers. It doesn't cover this anywhere in the rulebook so the only way to properly resolve this is to get a reply from someone at Wyrd. Otherwise, the best we can do is make an assumption based on how triggers work and the entry in the faq that states when damage is reduced to 0 no damage is done. So, until Wyrd says otherwise I'm going to assume that abilities work the same as triggers, because there's nothing that says otherwise.

 

The rulebook does cover this situation--this sort of situation is one of the reasons the General Timing callout exists.

You have two abilities where the order of evaluation matter that would otherwise happen at the same time, and one of them (the one with the hat) would prevent the other if it happened first.

Note that you're using the wrong word, triggers, for the two effects in question.

More importantly, the reason why the hat would prevent an After damaging -Trigger- being resolved is precisely because of the rules language saying to resolve that specific class of -Trigger- After Step Five.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 24/10/2016 at 9:41 PM, Shadowdragon said:

People still seem to think that "suffers damage" means "when you mark off damage on the target's card". "Suffers damage" means "when the damage flip is made".

No.

The problem is exactly that rules don't specify in a precise way what "Suffer damage" means and when it happens. At the moment is more plain english that a rules term. Rules gives some specific flowchart about "suffering damage" (like the triggers timing rules). But that's all. Overmore, there are some rules and faqs that conflict between them about this argument.

Considering the faq about Dumb Luck trigger, "suffering damage" means "when the damage flip is made" as you said.

But if you look at the faq about "If you suffers 0 damage counts as you suffered damage?" the answer is "no", and is the opposite of the previous. Infact, if you flip savere on damage and the opponend prevent/reduce in some way (via soulstone or other) all the damage, it will count as no suffering any damage at all....

In the first case the suffering damage time is locate at the damage flip, in the second situation it is at the effective application of the damage at the model wounds.

So, I really think that the best would have some different steps for this. Let's say "before damaging", "when damaging" and "after damaging". But to do this wyrd would have rewrite many abilities and releasing many erratas, because they would have consideri and/or decide each single ability in which phase they want to made it active.... so I don't think it will be the solution they will take. Even if, by a game design point of view, it would be the best.

At the moment, by RAW, rules support the way the hat protect from damage but not from paralized in this specific scenario, due to the recalling of the general timing abilities. Maybe this was not the intention, or maybe it was, who knows? But it is how it works at the moment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -2

I suppose I'd need to know the exact wording on Sandeep, but if it says "after damaging," then I would say no paralyze.  We've always played it in my groups that if you prevent with a soulstone, and end up preventing all damage, then "after damaging" abililties don't occur because no damage was suffered.  Seamus' hat is the same effect as a soulstone prevention flip, it just guarantees to prevent all damage.

So my vote goes for no damage, no paralyze, and a hat in play.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -2

 

Really, the only problem with this situation is whether reducing the damage to 0 negates after damaging abilities as it does triggers. It doesn't cover this anywhere in the rulebook so the only way to properly resolve this is to get a reply from someone at Wyrd. Otherwise, the best we can do is make an assumption based on how triggers work and the entry in the faq that states when damage is reduced to 0 no damage is done. So, until Wyrd says otherwise I'm going to assume that abilities work the same as triggers, because there's nothing that says otherwise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -4

What happens when a defensive trigger reduces damage to 0, or the use of a soulstone, or an ability like the Oxfordian Mage's shield? I would love to know if there's a general answer that applies to every situation like this, rather than just for this combination of upgrades. Is that even possible or will it always be more of a case by case kind of thing?

@Solkan But according to the rules for triggers you missed a step. I know the rules are for triggers, but it sets precedence for how abilities should work as well, and why should abilities work any different.

According to the rules for triggers:

1.  Sunburst is resolved and applies Paralyzed

2.  Fancy Haberdasher applies and the damage is reduced to 0.

3. Since damage is now 0 after damaging effects are retroactively negated (so in a way the rules do actually use time travel)

so you end up with no damage, no paralyze, and a hat marker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -4

People still seem to think that "suffers damage" means "when you mark off damage on the target's card". "Suffers damage" means "when the damage flip is made". First you work out the "suffers damage" part of the attack, then you actually apply the damage and effects from the attack. So you make the damage flip and resolve the attacker's abilities, then you resolve the defender's abilities (which can retroactively effect the attacks damage and effects), then any remaining damage and effects are applied. Otherwise Seamus would never be able to use Mad Haberdasher because every time he reduces damage to 0 he wouldn't be "suffering damage" therefore he wouldn't be able to use Mad Haberdasher. The game is full of things that are essentially "time travel" where one effect retroactively affects or even completely negates another effect (armour, immunities, defensive triggers, etc).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -4

Damage on the stack is not damage dealt.   You cannot prevent/reduce damage that hasn't been successfully inflicted.   

 

Or do you guys think you should stone to prevent damage, or use haberdasher before damage is actually flipped?   Do you guys understand the logical flow of how action/reaction works in this game, it should be obvious that the damage is never done.  In ever other case, "after damaging" triggers are not able to be used if there is no damage suffered.  Get off this "its not a trigger so it works different"  

NO, it does not, the requirements are the same.  It requires damage to be done, if damage is not done, it cannot work.

 

For everyone complaining about "time traveling rules", if the models never suffers the damage, how can you claim that it did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -5
51 minutes ago, PositronMike said:

The "To Behold Another World" upgrade gives Sandeep the following ability:

As has been noted above this is an ability just like the Fancy Haberdashery so the general timing applies which mean Sandeep's ability happens first and Seamus gets paralyzed.

I think that's the proof that he doesn't gain paralyze.  His upgrade allows him after damage to reduce the damage to zero, while Sandeep's ability specifically says "after the target suffers damage."  So it isn't after damaging, and the target must specifically suffer the damage in order to gain the paralyze.  Based on the wording for Sunburst, I would assume the paralyze is the last thing to occur.  If damage is reduced to 0, then you aren't suffering anything, so timing in regards to abilities and triggers shouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -10

In MY opinion, it is all about the time-line:

1: Attacks,        - Sandeep hits

2: Damage,       - Sandeep damages Seamus  moderate or severe,  and hits his Sunburst trigger

3: Triggers,

     Attacker:      -Sandeep applies the Paralyzed Condition of the Sunburst trigger

     Defender:     -Seamus, no triggers at all..

4: Abilities,

      Attacker:     -Sandeep, nothing at all

      Defender:    -Seamus, Fancy Haberdashery, reduce the  suffered damage to:0   and stay paralyzed..

 

No Time Travel at all, just reduce the dealt damage to zero.

If Seamus had used a SS to prevent the damage and if he had been lucky enough to prevent the damage down to zero, no Paralyze at all...

Greetz:

Tobi aka Frozen Feet

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information