The timing of 'After' & Killed models getting unkilled

[DocSchlock]

I was recently gravely mistaken about the timing of "after suffering damage", which apparently occurs at the same time as "after damaging / succeeding / resolving". Thanks to Adran, The Godlyness, and Justin for putting me back on the right track, no matter how stubborn I tend to be.

But I still have a few questions -- new ones though!

I'm wondering if I'm also mistaken about other after triggers, like "after killing".

Rules Question:
Does "After killing" take place at the same time as the other game-defined "after" triggers, after Step 5? If I were a new player (not saying I'm not; only played for a year), how would I know this?

Secondly, there are situations where the timing of "After suffering damage" will lead to defensive triggers reducing damage dealt to models already killed by that damage beforehand (Abuela's Matriarch & Colette's Now You See Me & Molly's Masterful Dead).

Rules Question:
Can killed models become unkilled by a defensive trigger that goes off before they are removed (since "after suffering damage" will have the same timing as "After damaging", it will happen right before the model is removed), even if they are already considered killed? I assume the answer is no, but the wording of the triggers makes me think they should be usable against all damage - not that this is a correct assumption. I'm honestly unsure how to play these triggers in case of fatal damage now -- I can't predict the intent.

Example:
Molly gets hit with an attack and she declares Masterful Dead. The attacks deals her fatal damage in Step 5. Before removing the model, "after damaging" and "after suffering damage" triggers are resolved in priority order, with Molly's Trigger occurring first, allowing her to discard 2 cards and reduce the damage to 1, which is non-fatal. But the only reason this trigger is occurring now is due to her being killed by the damage the trigger is reducing. So what happens?

[solkan]

Have you read through this previous thread?

 

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/103272-timing-of-when-killed-and-after-killed-abilities-and-triggers/?hl=unkilled#entry758768

[Myyrä]

Have you read through this previous thread?

 

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/103272-timing-of-when-killed-and-after-killed-abilities-and-triggers/?hl=unkilled#entry758768

TBH in my opinion that thread only revealed Godlyness's opinions on the timing. I just noticed that thread was going nowhere and gave up on it. It was too bloated and complicated for anyone to follow.

[zFiend]

It did just that.

[DocSchlock]

More than anything, I'm just wondering how other people play these rules in their games. If those triggers handle all damage, including fatal, how do you deal with the time warp that causes (and the slight paradox of resolving a trigger at a timing that now is never reached)? I'm in a position to help new players often, and I really don't want to have to use the old GW line of "Well, this is what the rules says, but this is how it really works in play." Makes me cry a little inside.

I always treat "after killing" as "after the model becomes killed, but before it's removed" but I'm definitely uncertain of how correct this is - in fact, I think I'm wrong. Is "after killing" supposed to mean "After damaging where the target was killed"? That would tie it to "after damaging" timing.

^ There is slight precedence for that - "after dealing / inflicting severe damage" triggers. I believe those are just "after damaging" triggers worded "After damaging as long as the target suffered 1 or more points of damage and severe damage was flipped".

[The Godlyness]

I do So love my opinions here have more

Wanna know the timing of after killing(ed) it's easy before you remove the killed model. Its the same time you would place corpse/scrap or any other effect. Since that is the time the model has no point of return. Ie no abilities or triggers or act of god save(ed)s it from death. Until you do that it's still alive.

For instance. Sybelle Complys killjoy the damage from bleeder lash reduces killjoy to 0 wounds. He is not at this point killed. He then wacks a model killing it and healing 2/3/4 still not killed since now he has more than 0 wounds.

Now here is where you are getting hung up. And I understand. The back tracking from lack of a better word "healing" from damage for triggers like masterfull dead or Colette's now you see me. You, like me see how it's an inconvenience.

But in the flow of the game it is inconsequential. I declared my trigger long before the damage flip (ok so it's right before) you and I know what it does can read it. So if either are declared flip damage and take your 1 or 0 wounds.

You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Could it be worded better sure. Could it be written in 85 steps with a flow chart to back it up why not. But ask yourself is it truly necessary?

I do love my opinions.

[rgarbonzo]

Sorry have to disagree there, quote "When a number of points of damage is taken by a model, it reduces its current Wounds by that amount. If the model is reduced to 0 (zero) or fewer wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed." Even though KJ could heal 2/3/4 he would still be dead...

[The Godlyness]

Comply is an after damaging trigger....

[rgarbonzo]

Right Sybelle Complys KJ to attack and kill something, even if he heals 2/3/4, he still hit zero wounds and has been killed, no amount of healing will stop him from being killed.

[The Godlyness]

By that logic Colette could not use death defying. Since she heals from 0 wounds.

So we can either say killjoy lives or Colette dies. What a conundrum *laughs evily*

[rgarbonzo]

Death Defying is a specific break of the reduced to 0 = killed rule. Has no bearing on Sybelle complying a dead KJ.
 

"Death Defying: When this model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it may be placed in base contact with target friendly model with a cost of 5 or more within 8". Sacrifice the target and then heal an amount of damage equal to the target's remaining Wounds plus one."

[The Godlyness]

What?

Df/Wp () Death Defying: When this model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it may be placed in base contact with target friendly model with a cost of 5 or more within 8". Sacrifce the target and then heal an amount of damage equal to the target's remaining Wounds plus one.

I see no break. It is clearly reduced to 0 wounds. As is killjoy. Colette heals and carrys on her merry way. In my very specific instance killjoy heals and carrys on his merrier way.

[rgarbonzo]

Killjoy has no specific call ouit on what happens when he is reduced to 0 wounds other than he is killed like every other model in the game. Colette, on her trigger, can be placed and sac a target to heal. Colette is specific, Killjoy is not, therefor to me Killjoy is dead Colette is not. 

[Sevorin]

Agreed with rgarbonzo on this one.

[The Godlyness]

I think you see killed as a status effect or condition or even model state. Its not. "....Removed from game as killed" Until the process of removing it happens it's not killed. Being reduced to 0 wounds sets in motion a myriad of events Abilities triggers and so on. As If a model is not at 0 wounds why are you removing it? After comply resolves the model that was at 0 is not now. So why is a 2+ wound model being removed? Is there a rule I missed somewhere?

[zFiend]

I do love my opinions.

There is no doubt about that..

[Kadeton]

I thought "Killed" was generally recognised as a distinct model state? It marks that the model will be removed as killed as soon as you get around to doing that in the course of resolving actions and abilities.

 

Colette gets around it because her trigger kicks in when she's reduced to 0 but before she becomes killed as a result. Killjoy just gets reduced to 0 and killed, and will still be removed as killed once the resulting actions have been resolved.

 

This interpretation is also essential for the functioning of abilities like Leveticus which occur after the model is killed and revert that state before the model is removed (Bete Noire even more so).

[Myyrä]

If the model is reduced to 0 or fewer Wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed.

Wounds (Wd): This is the amount of damage a model can suffer before being killed.

This is pretty much everything rulebook says about models being killed. It can be interpreted in (at least) two ways. It can be taken to mean that, when model reaches 0 wounds it becomes tagged killed, which would mean that model healing after that would not help it. (Colette might be interpreted as an exception.)

The other possible way to interpret it is that, while model is in 0 wounds it counts as killed, which would mean that when it's no longer in 0 wounds it's no longer killed.

The different interpretations affect all kinds of stuff, including the timing of "when reduced to 0" and "when killed" triggers. I have no idea which one is right.

[The Godlyness]

Let's do a simple push trigger with a simple corpse counter.

We all know that After Damaging happens before the model is removed.

You win the duel flip damage Which reduces a model to 0 wounds. Do you:

A: immediately drop a corpse marker where the present model is. Then resolve the push before removing the model

B: resolve the after damaging trigger pushing the target. Which now a corpse marker is placed in this new position. Then remove the model.

[Csonti]

 

When a model with the Living or Undead Characteristic is killed, the model's controller places a Corpse Marker in base contact with the model before it is removed.

 

Marker placement specifically mentions when to do that. So I think this is not a good example that helps to solve the above debate.

[Myyrä]

Marker placement specifically mentions when to do that. So I think this is not a good example that helps to solve the above debate.

After damaging triggers are also resolved before the model is removed.

[Csonti]

Yes, but the debate is about killed/unkilled and why should Colette defy death meanwhile Killjoy is killed when he heals back from 0 during the same Action.

Maybe I'm mistaken but I think Godlyness would like to prove with his example that if the trigger comes first then the killed status only happens at the end, when you lay down the Corpse Marker - so that Killjoy could be saved from death with his healing. But the wording of the marker placement doesn't back (nor deny) this logic, therefore it looks indifferent in this matter.

[The Godlyness]

Yes marker placement and death effects (finish the job exploding things ) happen before the model is removed. But what is stopping them from happening immediately when model hits 0.

You are clearly doing the effect before removing it. Why not resolve them before the trigger?

Simple the model is not killed till the trigger is resolved. Its at 0 wounds but the process of removing it to count as killed is just that a process.

Again my amazing opinion.

[zFiend]

Again my amazing opinion.

Dude you seriously have a fitting forum name and avatar picture. I can't stop laughing at these punchlines in the end.

[Ludvig]

Nevermind, my comment solved nothing.

[moxypoo]

@OP:  This is a situation where the rules could be written in a tighter form a legalese, but I think it's very clear how these situations are meant to work as Godlyness points out.  Situations with triggers and abilities that override death seem to be an exception to the game state of "killed."  So think of it like this: your model was reduced to 0 Wds and its game state immediately becomes 'killed' due to this statement from the rulebook:

 

Rulebook: If the model is reduced to 0 or fewer Wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed.

 

However, the model has a trigger or ability that alters the killed state to "killed, but something happens first."  You perform the "something," and the game checks whether the model is still in the "killed" state (i.e. reduced to 0 or fewer Wds).  If if the model is in the :killed" state, then you drop corpse/scrap markers, remove the model, etc.  If is model is not in the "killed" state anymore, then the "killed" state is removed and the model lives (for now...mwuahahah!).

 

 

Before typing up that explanation, I was sure the Sybelle/Killjoy example would not work how Godlyness explained it, but now I'm not so sure.  My gut says that it feels wrong, but I can't come up with a good rules argument against it.  I'll have to ponder that for awhile and reread the arguments in this thread...