Hard Cover, Movement Triggers, Timing, Damage Flip

[chris_havoc]

Hi all,

Tried to find a thread addressing this directly but couldn't.

The Scenario:

A Witchling Stalker is targeted by a  Attack, Triggers Drawn to Pain, and is pushed into Hard Cover. Timing wise, is the damage flip affected by the new LoS drawn?

Rules:

Cover: "A model will gain the benefits of cover from a () Attack when any LoS line between the Attacking model and the target model can be drawn through any terrain with the soft or hard cover traits that is within 1” of the target model.

Terrain with the soft cover trait will grant soft cover which imposes a  to the 
Attack flip of any () Attack Actions

Terrain with the hard cover trait will grant hard cover which imposes a  to the Attack and damage flip of any () Attack Actions."

Drawn to Pain: "After failing an 
opposed Df duel but before suffering 
damage, push this model 4” towards the 
Attacker."

Interpretation:

RAW: It seems relatively clear that the Push into cover will result in the Witchling Stalker benefiting from Hard Cover for the damage flip. At least as far as the rules listed above suggest. Is this correct?

RAI: It seems strange that this would be the case as the Attack has already hit the model and cover seems like it should apply at the point of targeting. Now I am aware that RAW vs. RAI, the first should always be given precedence but I wonder if this is an oversight given how unintuitive it feels.

[Ludvig]

The way I'm reading it you only the check range and LoS at certain points of the resolution and cover only exists in relation to the lines drawn when determining LoS. If it were otherwise a push could make the attack fail after the duel has been resolved which I believe is not the case unless the ability actually says you recheck it like some abilities specifically do.

It's like a pulse that affects several models at the same time. You can't recheck after som of those have died to try and affect more models, you check the LoS once at the declaration and then start resolving against the models that you determined where affected.

[Ludvig]

2 hours ago, chris_havoc said:

The wording makes it clear that cover is passive or automatic considerations like determining LoS for an Aura. In other words, an Aura is triggered whenever LoS in relation to a target is an issue not only at the point of declaration. Thus LoS is passive and automatic.

P.35: "It is during this step that the model declares a target. Unless specified by the Action,
the target must be in range, and the model must have Line of Sight to the target."

"Any Action that has a target will also require that the acting model is able to see
the target. A model’s Line of Sight (LoS) represents what it can see on the table. A
model either has LoS, or it does not (No LoS)"

Nothing in that part says that you only need LoS only for the targeting and not the entire action either.

I don't think I can give you anything more solid than what I have given, the rules don't always hold up to that level of scrutiny. From my understanding they were written for two consenting adults to have a good time, not for two enemies to try and wrest a small advantage from each other's bloody fingers. The design philosophy was kind of "make love, not war". I think, that's why we have such a wonderful community.

There is a decent possibility it was even intended the way you are arguing. Although I believe the rules say you can check range at any point but I don't think they explicitly state that you are allowed to check LoS at any point so it could be argued that you need explicit permission if you want to stoop to their level. I would double-check that there is no such statement first, I'm not 100% on that part.

[Ludvig]

2 hours ago, chris_havoc said:

Please prove me wrong. I am playing devil's advocate in this situation because I have a feeling a player in our local group may exploit this and it's a very annoying loophole. 

Have you read the rules for this forum btw?  

5) The devil doesn't need an advocate
If everyone agrees how a rule works, including you, don't suggest alternate ways the rule could be interpreted to take the contrary view 'for the sake of argument'. There's no need to try and create cosmic balance of discussion and this is confusing for new players.

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, chris_havoc said:

Sorry I can't read. Anyway, there is genuinely a dispute in my meta so thought bringing it up here might help. I think the issue raises a lot of weird interactions that are proof enough that one should go with RAI in this situation. That is the gist of what I am getting here.

Oh, it sounded like a hypothetical situation in one of your comments. If someone is actually arguing that you're not the devil's advocate.

On page 40 it actually says you may measure LoS at any time now that I rechecked it. It's in the list of things about checking LoS.

Might be the case that we have all been underestimating how useful that kind of trigger is. It should't become an issue all that often but I guess getting hard cover against a model with blasts or something is good. Unless you have tons of hard cover it won't do much difference most games and a model that is shooting unfocused doesn't lose too much from an extra negative.

[Dogmantra]

Hmm, well After Failing is specifically after the entire action has resolved. "But before suffering damage" is the awkward part. Personally I would parse it as either delaying the application of damage until After Failing, or maaaybe slotting the trigger in at the last moment before suffering damage. Both of which happen after the damage has been flipped.

[Myyrä]

I'm not trying to be the devil's advocate or anything here, but I think @chris_havoc is right.

The rules don't specify timing for checking cover, so cover always works when the model is in cover. Line of sight is checked when the action is declared, because that is the requirement for declaring the action, but model being in cover usually isn't.

I'd say this situation is similar to target changing mid action, like for example Dreamer redirecting the attack to a different target. If the new target is in hard cover, the damage flip would suffer . I don't see how this situation is any different.

Also, arguing whether the trigger is supposed to work like that is completely besides the point here.

[Ludvig]

I'm not sure how clear the RAW is, drawing LoS and determining cover is done before the duel is flipped for. What makes you sure that you go back and recheck cover?

[santaclaws01]

As Ludvig said, LoS and cover were already checked, and the trigger doesn't call for rechecking it. Compare this to the Butterfly Jump ability on a Wandering River Monk which says you need to re-target the model after the 3" push it gets supports that changes in a models position won't affect an already successfully declared action.

[chris_havoc]

I think the language is pretty clear (or unclear if this wasn't the intention).

"when any LoS line between the Attacking model and the target model can be drawn" 

There is no specified timing, so it seems that cover is not triggered upon targeting but throughout the action. So, at every stage of an Attack Action, if cover could be applied, it should be. So it seems like the Stalker would get cover after being shot.

[Ludvig]

22 minutes ago, chris_havoc said:

I think the language is pretty clear (or unclear if this wasn't the intention).

"when any LoS line between the Attacking model and the target model can be drawn" 

There is no specified timing, so it seems that cover is not triggered upon targeting but throughout the action. So, at every stage of an Attack Action, if cover could be applied, it should be. So it seems like the Stalker would get cover after being shot.

Everything on page 40 seems to indicate that you check for LoS and cover at the point of targeting when you also measure for range. The sequence specified on page 40 heavily implies to me that you draw the LoS lines once and check for cover while targeting. I don't see how you are allowed to draw those LoS lines again later during the action so you determine cover, range, LoS at the targeting stage and then you don't go back to check it. Some trigger specifically have you recheck it at a later time but without anything specifically asking you to recheck I don't see why you would do that. That would radically change a lot since if you pushed out of LoS the attack would now be illegal and auto fail.

[chris_havoc]

The wording makes it clear that cover is passive or automatic considerations like determining LoS for an Aura. In other words, an Aura is triggered whenever LoS in relation to a target is an issue not only at the point of declaration. Thus LoS is passive and automatic.

P.35: "It is during this step that the model declares a target. Unless specified by the Action,
the target must be in range, and the model must have Line of Sight to the target."

"Any Action that has a target will also require that the acting model is able to see
the target. A model’s Line of Sight (LoS) represents what it can see on the table. A
model either has LoS, or it does not (No LoS)"

Targeting requires Line of Sight not the other way around. It's a condition for targeting and so a passive/general state between models. So, because cover is tied to LoS in its definition and not only when targeting it would seem that you don't check it once, it must be considered at every step in the sequence of the attack. Thus it's not so much an issue of cover but LoS and declaring targets. So the Stalker could "Butterfly Jump itself" in the RAW.

My point is:

1. Because Triggers like Butterfly jump say this explicitly, it does not mean that this is not the case implicitly. Though it does highlight intention and so does the passage you point to on P.40 but it remains inexplicit.

2. Declaring a target does not make it explicit that the LoS to the target at this stage is the LoS that should be taken into consideration for the remainder of the Action.

3. LoS is not the cause of the issue, it should remain a passive/automatic thing otherwise Auras and Pulses cease to function among other things.

4. Declaration of a target SHOULD but DOESN'T say explicitly that the range and LoS drawn at this point in time are the only ones considered for the Attack Action sequence unless stated otherwise (a la Butterfly Jump).

EDIT:

Please prove me wrong. I am playing devil's advocate in this situation because I am worried it may be exploited and it's quite unintuitive. 

[chris_havoc]

Sorry I can't read. Anyway, there is genuinely a dispute in my meta so thought bringing it up here might help. I think the issue raises a lot of weird interactions that are proof enough that one should go with RAI in this situation. That is the gist of what I am getting here.

[chris_havoc]

1 hour ago, Dogmantra said:

Hmm, well After Failing is specifically after the entire action has resolved. "But before suffering damage" is the awkward part. Personally I would parse it as either delaying the application of damage until After Failing, or maaaybe slotting the trigger in at the last moment before suffering damage. Both of which happen after the damage has been flipped.

I was so excited that you found the answer I forgot the wording of the Trigger. Seems only in a case of wording like this would this take place? After failing before damaging seems kinda contradictory reading the sequence but Triggers specifically override other rules, right?

[WWHSD]

I suspect the wording on this is to make Explosive Demise always happen after the 4 inch push and not give the controller of the Stalker the option to resolve the push and the explosion in the order of their choosing.

 The Drawn to Pain trigger needs to be declared before you know whether or not the Stalker will take enough damage to be killed and once it's been declared neither the trigger or Explosive Demise contain optional effects.

[Thottbot]

you've already drawn LOS and range when you did attack, when the push and the damage comes it's exactly like normal, no cover save because you already attacked.

[Clement]

Dreamer I think is a bad example since it doesn't change the target, just moves all the effects.  Trixiebelle or Burt might be a better example there.

[Myyrä]

3 hours ago, Clement said:

Dreamer I think is a bad example since it doesn't change the target, just moves all the effects.  Trixiebelle or Burt might be a better example there.

Doesn't really matter. They would benefit from cover either way.