Additional attacks from triggers and models dying

[Math Mathonwy]

I'm stupid and blind and can't find the thread that was just about this thing.

If the attacking model gets an additional attack from a trigger against the same model, do you perform that attack if, as a result of the first attack

1) the defender is dead

2) the attacker is dead?

[scarlett fever]

Wasn't it this, Killjoy's Onslaught?

 

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/101785-killjoys-healing-ability/

 

So you resolve Triggers before Action is considered resolved, therefore before a model reduced to 0 wounds is considered dead, from memory.

[Csonti]

Yes to both.

 

 

 

When an Action causes another Action to occur, the new Actions are considered part of the original Action. The original Action is not considered resolved until the new Actions are also resolved.

[The Godlyness]

Uhh after damaging only stops the defender from being removed. If killjoy triggers onslaught but dies to ironsides counter punch. and dies the attacker is no longer there to make the second attack.

(Her trigger is the only thing I can find thst goes off before after damaging) So when her trigger resolves no model to attack back.

Black blood could kill lady j or coppelius in which again no trigger. But otherwise the second attack is made even if the defender is dead.

[zFiend]

How about a Blessed of December attacking Lynch and cheating the attack flip and dying due to only having 2 wounds left, does it get to take the attack that comes from it's trigger. We played it today as it could. 

[scarlett fever]

You mean Hold Em? That happens after resolving the Attack Action therefore I would say yes, you get the trigger.

[Csonti]

Uhh after damaging only stops the defender from being removed. If killjoy triggers onslaught but dies to ironsides counter punch. and dies the attacker is no longer there to make the second attack.

(Her trigger is the only thing I can find thst goes off before after damaging) So when her trigger resolves no model to attack back.

Black blood could kill lady j or coppelius in which again no trigger. But otherwise the second attack is made even if the defender is dead.

Active model's trigger resolved first before defending model's trigger or any kind of ability. So Killjoy just swings again.

[zFiend]

You mean Hold Em? That happens after resolving the Attack Action therefore I would say yes, you get the trigger.

 

Yeah that's what I thought as well but we weren't sure so we diced it and it went so that he got the trigger, it missed though but good to know we played it correctly.

[AnythingBut]

Active model's trigger resolved first before defending model's trigger or any kind of ability. So Killjoy just swings again.

Really? Page 32 of the large rulebook (the very last paragragh) States "if two triggers would resolve at the same time the defenders trigger is resolved first.

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

To add to this are abilities also resolved in the same order? Ie defender first?

We had a warpig kill an ice gamin and use it's eat your fill ability to heal all wounds. The ice gamin explodes on death dealing 2 damage. We played that the defenders ability went first (as that's the order the book stated triggers went in so we assumed abilities were the same) meaning the gamin did two damage and then the warpig healed up to full. Was this right?

If so and the pig only had two wound left, would it therefore be dead before having chance to heal from eat your fill if defenders abilities go first?

[Csonti]

Heh, that's what you get when you use the last beta version of the rulebook. This word is one of the few changes they made before printing. My bad!

[Justin]

Heh, that's what you get when you use the last beta version of the rulebook. This word is one of the few changes they made before printing. My bad!

 

Heh. Yeah, it was. Cause otherwise it gets weird. *eyes thread suspiciously*

[AnythingBut]

Heh. Yeah, it was. Cause otherwise it gets weird. *eyes thread suspiciously*

Any insight as to if I played the ice gamin vs warpig abilities right from my previous post? Not trying to repeat the locked thread, so steering it away. I found the rule about triggers but couldn't see one for abilities.

I assume it would go like this

1 - defenders triggers

2 - attackers triggers

3 - defenders abilities

4 - attackers abilities

In that order?

[Justin]

Any insight as to if I played the ice gamin vs warpig abilities right from my previous post? Not trying to repeat the locked thread, so steering it away. I found the rule about triggers but couldn't see one for abilities.

I assume it would go like this

1 - defenders triggers

2 - attackers triggers

Apply damage (or lack there of)

3 - defenders abilities

4 - attackers abilities

In that order?

 

The answers to this and more on pg. 46 of the core rulebook in the general timing call out box (bottom left).

[AnythingBut]

The answers to this and more on pg. 46 of the core rulebook in the general timing call out box (bottom left).

Ah so it is! Thanks for the page number, I swear I miss more call out boxes than I notice, my fault.

So abilities are controller before defender, the opposite to triggers.

1 - defenders trigger

2 - attackers trigger

3 - attackers abilities

4 - defenders abilities

5 - all other effected abilities by the player who won initiative

6 - all other effected abilities by the player who went second this turn.

Thanks

[scarlett fever]

edit; removed foolish response to keep from confusing people

[scarlett fever]

I guess my question is does the abilities/triggers order rule trump the RAW card text in terms of timing (with the exception of the call-out box for trigger timing (after damaging etc..).

 

edit;

 

what a stupid question, I think my head was going around in circles on this, of course you still follow the card text then timing if the effects happen at the same time, I need to step away...