Teddys "Peekaboo" and Kirais "Malevolence"

[Mr Janje]

A Little unsure on the timing of this one guys and the rulebook confuses me even more!


If Teddy hits Kirai and Damages her, what takes happens first?

Teddys Peekaboo trigger to push her 4" away and then Push into Base?

OR

Kirais Malevolence Ability to summon The Grudge into Base to Base contact with Teddy?

The Rulebook says that Attacking models abilities happen first, but as mine is a trigger does that count as an ability?


Sorry if this is clear cut in the Rulebook!

[DocSchlock]

Malevolence will go first, since it occurs when Kirai suffers damage during the Attack.

 

Peekaboo will then go off after the Attack has resolved, since "after damaging" triggers go off either after the Action resolved, or before the model damaged is removed, whichever comes first (pg 26 of the small rulebook).

[Mr Janje]

Awesome Cheers!

Not sure my Teddy and Pandora crew needed any more help in games...

But sure why not !

[Bengt]

 

Malevolence will go first, since it occurs when Kirai suffers damage during the Attack.

 

Peekaboo will then go off after the Attack has resolved, since "after damaging" triggers go off either after the Action resolved, or before the model damaged is removed, whichever comes first (pg 26 of the small rulebook).

 

 

Both are after damaging.

 

"Malevolence: After a friendly Living or Undead model within  6 suffers damage..."

 

So per General Timing (p46) Peekaboo goes first as it's a Trigger and Malevolence is an Ability.

[Ausplosions]

Defenders triggers happen first.

[The Godlyness]

My question is if she does summon Ikiryo what does it matter. You push though incorporeal models. And 4 " is plenty room to go though her. 

[Math Mathonwy]

My question is if she does summon Ikiryo what does it matter. You push though incorporeal models. And 4 " is plenty room to go though her.

Because of the base sizes involved and because a push of 4" might not end up moving a model for 4" (if it hits an obstacle).

[The Godlyness]

Meh it's a push in any direction. So if unless Kirai is surround by walls I would not be two concerned. 

 

But call out box. Malevolence is an ability that happens. After a friendly Living or Undead model within a6 suffers damage. So it's after suffering damage.  So an after damaging trigger would happen first.  Page 46.. Whenever any Ability happens at the same time as any Triggers, the Triggers are resolved first. 

 

So push first then place Ikiryo. 

[Math Mathonwy]

Meh it's a push in any direction. So if unless Kirai is surround by walls I would not be two concerned.

Not necessarily walls but other models as well. This is especially pertinent if there are models with Pounce which there very well might be.

[Mr Janje]

Well its more of the fact I want to try and keep away from Ikiriyo and force her to either charge, or push myself out of Charge range.


So, I push THEN Ikiriyo is summoned?

[DocSchlock]

Woah, woah, woah.

"After damaging" triggers are after a model is damaged and the Action has resolved. "After suffering damage" is after suffering the damage during the action, ala Black Blood.

After damaging is not equal to after suffering damage. These are two different timings. "After damaging" means "After the Action resolves, as long as the Action did 1 or more points of damage to the target." while after suffering damage means exactly as it sounds.

"Malevolence: After a friendly Living or Undead model within   6 suffers damage..."

Not after damaging. It's after suffering the damage, which is a step during Action resolution itself. You would be able to use that ability even if Kirai or the friendly model was killed by the damage.

EDIT 2:
Notice the wording of Now You See Me on Colette or Nice Shot on Ironsides.

EDIT 3:
Knock It Off! on the Lightning Bug pretty explicitly shows that suffering damage is a separate step during Action resolution.

[Myyrä]

To be honest, no one really knows the timing for almost any abilities apart from after succeeding/failing/resolving/damaging triggers. Anyone who claims to know something is either lying or Justin. (And Justin might be lying too.)

[Adran]

After Damaging, and After Suffering Damage are the same time, just one is from the attacking model and one from the defending model.

(Justins Blog)

[The Godlyness]

Woah, woah, woah.

"After damaging" triggers are after a model is damaged and the Action has resolved. "After suffering damage" is after suffering the damage during the action, ala Black Blood.

After damaging is not equal to after suffering damage. These are two different timings. "After damaging" means "After the Action resolves, as long as the Action did 1 or more points of damage to the target." while after suffering damage means exactly as it sounds.

"Malevolence: After a friendly Living or Undead model within   6 suffers damage..."

Not after damaging. It's after suffering the damage, which is a step during Action resolution itself. You would be able to use that ability even if Kirai or the friendly model was killed by the damage.

EDIT 2:

Notice the wording of Now You See Me on Colette or Nice Shot on Ironsides.

EDIT 3:

Knock It Off! on the Lightning Bug pretty explicitly shows that suffering damage is a separate step during Action resolution.

 

 

Please quote that page if you would.  Cause I Wil point you to Page 32.   After Damaging triggers happen after step 5.  Step 5 is when damage happens.  If you do some digging there was a thread about timing. I think it was s Colette battle report. 

 

When damaging happens during step 5 ie black blood critical strike. To name an ability and a trigger.  For after damaging I could name a lot. And on a defensive side I can show you squeal , Colette's now you see me trigger and a myriad of others.  Malevolence is an after suffering damage ability.  Which is after step 5. This is all in the opposed duel.  

 

You are prolly looking at page 30 the 3 step process that just exists. 

[The Godlyness]

To be honest, no one really knows the timing for almost any abilities apart from after succeeding/failing/resolving/damaging triggers. Anyone who claims to know something is either lying or Justin. (And Justin might be lying too.)

Or can parse words And read.  Or lying. I like lying also.  Makes me seem I like I can a weave an intricate web of them with the rules.  Also Justin did explain this. But just his opinion. (According to the rules ruleds ....sadly. ) 

[DocSchlock]

 

After Damaging, and After Suffering Damage are the same time, just one is from the attacking model and one from the defending model.

(Justins Blog)

His blog says no such thing. In fact, it says the following:

"Reducing damage is different than preventing damage, etc. When the rules use a specific game term, they are speaking very strictly about that term, and that term will be defined in the book. However, when the rules use the English language, they are referring to the literal definition of that language, but the exact phrasing isn’t as important (this is why “ignoring” a restriction is the same thing as “not needing” a restriction)."

- Justin's Blog

 

The game term is "after damaging", which is why "after damaging an enemy model" and other offshoots still work. There is no game term in the rulebook for "after suffering damage," thus we revert to common English. You suffer damage while resolving the Action's effects (Step 5) so "after suffering damage" would occur in Step 5.

"Df/Wp © Dissolution: After suffering

damage from an Ml Attack Action, the

Attacking model suffers 2 damage after

resolving the current Action."

My only evidence is Dissolution, which wouldn't need a timing if "after suffering damage" was timed at the same time as "after damaging." Malevolence doesn't contain any language that references the resolution of an Action.

[The Godlyness]

Notice all the defensive triggers say after suffering damage Which then do something. Dissolution is one of many. No defensive trigger could say "after damaging from a ml attack do xyz" since you are on the df you can't use your melee or ca or Sh.

So it has to say after suffering damage. Which then we have an attackers trigger of after damaging.

After Damaging does have the same time as After suffering damage. But in triggers case. Defensive triggers go first. But when abilities have the same timing as triggers. Then the triggers happen first.

So malevolence is an ability that happens after I damage you. So my after damaging trigger would happen first. If I don't damage you (ie black joker) then neither my after damaging trigger nor your after suffer damage ability would go off.

Malvoence is not a "when damaged" ability (ie black blood) which happens during step 5.

[Adran]

This is hardly the only example in the rules (NOTE: speaking about the Silurid/Lilith debate), it’s just the one the forums have latched onto for the moment. For example, a model which is inflicting damage usually “deals” damage. A model which is taking damage usually “suffers” damage. Ideally, these would have been the exact same term. But it would have lead to weird sentences like this:

“When another model is suffering damage, this model may discard a card to force the target to suffer 1 additional damage.”

Compare this to:

“When another model is suffering damage, this model may discard a card to deal 1 additional damage.”

You can see the economy of space there, if nothing else. And, before people pick this apart and start trying to show how they could have used the exact same wording while saving space AND making sense, keep in mind this is only one example. You would have to do that hundreds of times, no two the same, and screwing it up even slightly means nobody understands the rule.

The dealt/suffer wording in regards to damage is just one example. And it’s one which could have a weird rules interpretation, if the RAI route is taken.

 

Is actually the paragraph I was refering too.

[DocSchlock]

Explain to me how Molly's trigger works then:
 

Df/Wp © Masterful Dead: After this model

suffers damage, it may discard two cards to

reduce the damage to 1.

So Molly takes enough damage to kill her, is removed from the game, then after Step 5, discards 2 cards to reduce the damage to 1? Aren't damage reductions inside Step 5, since that's when damage is suffered? Should we use logic to determine that "after .. suffers / suffering damage" is not "after damaging"?

It's the same wording as Malevolence - "after ... suffers damage ...".

Edit: To combat a growing acidity on these forums, please know I'm not trying to be a tool or anything. I enjoy rules debates, and I'd love to be proven wrong, but I still haven't seen a convincing argument one way or the other. I'm arguing my point based purely on my viewpoint and scant evidence that's hard to prove or disprove, given what is defined in the rulebook.

[The Godlyness]

I will give you a step by step. And then I will give you how it flows in a game

Molly loses an opposed duel. Declares masterful undead. Damage from the attacking model flipped. (3) she takes 3 damage reducing her to 0 wounds. Now since she is the defender her after suffering damage kicks in and damage of 3 is actually only 1 leaving her at 2 wounds left. Then attackers after damaging attack happens. It seems blocky as hell to take the three then actually only take 1. But in the technical world it's what actually happens.

Flow of a game between people. Molly loses the duel declares masterful dead. They flip damage You discard 2 cards you take one and then continue on your merry way.

[DocSchlock]

 

 

It seems blocky as hell to take the three then actually only take 1. But in the technical world it's what actually happens.

 

That's what doesn't convince me. If we treat "after .. suffers damage" as not equal to "after damaging," the blockiness goes away.

Is there any rule that would explicitly break or not work if my consideration of the timing would be correct?

[The Godlyness]

If Malvoence said when suffering damage this would not be a debate. It would happen during step 5 and all is well. Just like black blood happens before any after damaging/succeeding/resolving triggers. But since it is an after damaging trigger.

See if I can show this in a different light.

I have to damage you to have my trigger go off.

You have to suffer damage for my after damaging trigger to work.

So After you suffer damage (step 5 is when you suffered it ) my after damaging trigger happens first. Page 46 call out box triggers first then abilities. Which then I resolve. (Ie peekaboo)

So after my after damaging trigger your after suffering damage ability is then done and resolved.

I guess I want to say as soon as you suffer damage. My trigger takes precedence over your abilities.

And yes I understand how blockyNess makes your head hurt. Look at a guild Austringers distract trigger.

Technically you flip and apply damage then you go back and not take damage After you already flipped cards.

Which in play people just go I declare distract discard 2 cards and don't flip. Which is much easier.

[DocSchlock]

 

 

Molly loses an opposed duel. Declares masterful undead. Damage from the attacking model flipped. (3) she takes 3 damage reducing her to 0 wounds. Now since she is the defender her after suffering damage kicks in and damage of 3 is actually only 1 leaving her at 2 wounds left. Then attackers after damaging attack happens. It seems blocky as hell to take the three then actually only take 1. But in the technical world it's what actually happens.

This wouldn't work. "After damaging" triggers don't move forward unless the model would be removed from the table, which only happens when a model is killed, not reduced to 0 wounds. She would be killed before the damage reduction would apply. I don't think a model can get unkilled. Other death-prevention effects work on "when reduced to 0 wounds" before the model is killed or "if this model would be killed" or some such.

I'm not familiar with Distract: it is something like "after succeeding, this attack deals no damage and the target discards two cards instead"? Because yeah, that doesn't work with the timing system at all. It would need to say something like "After this model wins the duel, this attack deals no damage and the target discards two cards."

I completely, 100% understand how you've come to that interpretation of how "after suffering damage" applies in the course of the game. I'm disagreeing that it in fact does work that way.

I see it as:

Target

Duel

flip for damage

Suffer damage (reduce, prevent, record)

When suffering / after suffering

reduce to 0 wounds

Kill

End Action, resolve "after success / resolving / failing / damaging" triggers

There is no difference in timing for when and after in this case, or if there is, when would go first.

Look at the text of Pounce:

When an enemy model ends a push

or move within this model’s engagement

range that is not part of a Walk or Charge

Action, this model may immediately take a

1 AP Ml Attack Action against the model

without spending AP.

"When" is interchangeable with "after" in this instance. There would be no timing change: after and when occur at the same exact time. It's just a style choice.

Black Blood wouldn't have any change in timing if it said after instead of when. Malifaux doesn't support simultaneous events: you would record the damage, then Black Blood would go off, which technically is after suffering it. "After" is not a loaded word in Malifaux, it's "after" when combined with "succeeding / damaging / resolving" (other tenses included). I don't think suffering combined with "After" is a valid combination to trigger the post-Step5 timing, but I'm open to being wrong. I do know that Molly's trigger works 100% fine if I'm correct and doesn't work at all if I'm wrong.

[The Godlyness]

In your process you have suffer damage (reduce prevent record)

By record do you mean lower the wound count on the model? And if so wouldn't thst mean it is reduced to 0 wounds then? And in doing so kill it so any when damaging abilities (ie black blood ) can not go off since the model is no longer on the table?

And how does critical strike get factored into your process. (When damaging trigger)

[solkan]

I think Docschlock's point is that "after X" in the context of the rules means "as soon as you find out that X happens, _____" subject to the qualification that triggers get resolved before abilities, and that the effects have to be sorted into an order to get resolved.

 

The point being that that meaning of "after" fits one of the meanings of the word "when", and isn't necessarily what someone expects the word "after" to mean.

[DocSchlock]

-Start wall of text-

Malifaux doesn't support simultaneous steps at any point, so damaging has to be in a certain sequence. Unfortunately, the rulebook doesn't point out what that sequence is, but we can tease it out from looking at model rules.

 

Reduce to 0 Wounds logically comes before a model is killed, since the requirement to become killed is to have 0 wounds. 0 wounds -> killed. When a rule looks for Reduce to 0 Wounds, we can logic out that the steps would be Reduce to 0 Wounds -> *use any rules that go off on reducing to 0 wounds* -> kill the model -> place markers -> remove the model. "After killing" would be Reduce 0 -> *reduce stuff here* -> kill -> *after killing here, including dropping markers* -> remove the model. "After damaging" is Reduce -> 'reduce stuff' -> kill -> 'after killing AND after damaging here, resolved in priority order' -> remove the model.

"When killed / After killing" noticeably is not defined in the rulebook, so it must occur at the earliest possible time, which would be when the model becomes killed but before the model is removed, otherwise Explosive Demise wouldn't work.

So, let's talk about suffering damage.

Let's look at Abuela's Matriarch rule:

After this model is

damaged by an enemy model, target friendly

Family model within 12” and LoS suffers 1

damage and pushes 3" towards this model to

reduce the damage dealt to this model by 1.

It's obvious the intent of this rule: shunt 1 damage from Abuela to another Family model. Since it doesn't say "heal" (instead it says "reduce") we can assume this rule is supposed to work inside the action.  If we go with this occurring after Step 5 or right before a killed model is removed, this would lead to situations where a killed model would heal 1 damage, which is not supported in the rules. If this would instead occur after suffering damage, but before checking for 0 wounds, this would keep Abuela alive and the rule working normally.

Suffering damage is not simultaneous with Reduce to 0 Wounds.

I posit that the order is something close to:

Flip for damage
Reduce damage
Prevent damage
"Suffer" damage (record it)
When damaged / after suffering damage / anything that keys off the defender being damaged unless it states that the rule waits for the resolution of the action or another timing
Check to see if the damage reduced the model to 0 wounds, if so move to Reduced to 0 Wounds
Anything that works off Reduced to 0 Wounds
If the model is still at 0 wounds, move to Killed
Model is killed
"After damaging / killing / when killing / etc" here if needed
Remove the model
end of Step 5
After succeeding / resolving / damaging normally here -- there is no other trigger that is defined to go here

This isn't comprehensive -- I'm missing "If this model would become killed / damage / reduced to 0 Wounds" timings, but you get my point. It allows all the defensive triggers & abilities in the world to work -- all of Colette's DF triggers work fine for ALL damage, which Now You See Me wouldn't & Molly's Trigger & Abuela's Trigger & Kirai's Malevolence -- without creating "blocks" in the rules.

Critical Strike is when damaging from the Attacker's perspective and doesn't really change anything. CS could have been rewritten to "This attack deals +1 damage to the target for each ram in the final duel total" - so the "when damaging" is extraneous to begin with. Most instances of When are exchangeable with After, but context is key since these are not game-defined. Critical Strike wouldn't make sense if it took place after damaging, so it takes place when damage is dealt. Also note, there are multiple abilities that interchange "when damaging" for "while damaging" -- completely stylistic choice that maintains the same intent.

For example:

Mechanical Adorations: When a friendly

Showgirl ends a Walk Action within 6" of this

model, this model may be pushed into base

contact with the Showgirl.

Exchanging when for after would not make any difference in this ability, nor would it change the timing.
 

Black Blood wouldn't matter if it was when or after, it would have the same meaning to the defender, since you can't simultaneously record damage AND use an ability. One must occur before the other, and logically, you can't do something when you're damaged before you actually become damaged, so Black Blood must occur after suffering the damage, which in this case, is the same as saying "when this model suffers damage". It's just like the pulse itself -- the Active Player decides in what order to mete out the Black Blood damage, potentially triggering other effects in an order of his choosing. The pulse isn't simultaneous at all.

I want to make a note of something else, Dreamer's Safe in My Bed:

Df/Wp (M) Safe In My Bed: After an Attack

Action succeeds against this model, discard a

card to make target friendly Nightmare within

a3 suffer the effects of the Action instead as

if it had been the target, including any Triggers.

The Dreamer would need to discard before any damage flip is made, even though it has an "after .. succeeds (-ing)" clause, because "after succeeding" is game-defined as "after Step 5 only if the model with this trigger succeeded on the duel". The Dreamer didn't succeed, meaning he can't use the game-defined term and must treat it as common English. This is an important distinction, and shows that the game-defined term is contextual itself.

I'm still wondering: are there any examples of rules that wouldn't work at all given my timings?

There are definite rules issues in the game:
Austringers blatantly do not work (if that is indeed their text) in the given timing system without applying common sense. Datsue Ba's Weigh Sins / Killing Summon combo needs FAQ'd given that we don't know if an already killed model can be killed again or if the second action counts as killing an already killed model in order to summon.

Rat Kings Spray of Filth doesn't say whether you measure the pulse from the killed model or from the Rat King.

If the intent was for "after suffering damage" to have the same timing as "after damaging", it should have been noted in the rulebook as a game-defined term. It's too much of a stretch to believe they are equivalent in timing unless FAQ'd.

While it would be great to get a final timing table or something at some point, but I know that would probably cause more issues for Justin in the future.

/end wall of text / graduate thesis - breathes in and stops reading too much into things