zero wounds, removed from play and witchling stalkers

[wopr1986]

I'm confused as to when exactly a model is removed. There may be a mistake on pull my finger for sonnia too.. so as I'm sure you've guessed by now this is too do with summoning stalkers.

On PMF (tactics and tips section) it says sonnias burning trigger on flameburst can let you use violation of magic to summon a stalker but the trigger states that after damaging all models gain burning +1. So is the enemy model damaged to 0 wounds but still in play then burning applies then it would be removed?

Same for witchling stalkers "all models damaged by this model gain the burning +1 condition so if I hit for lethal is the model still in play at 0 wounds then gets burning then is removed?

We had a game on Tuesday where this came up and I just said it doesn't work that way for the sake of time (I was sonnia so it was to my detriment) but some clarity would be sweet.

[Ludvig]

Not sure I agree.

 

Burning (p52)

"During the Upkeep Step any model with the Burning Condition suffers an amount of damage equal to the Burning value. The effect is then removed"

 

Damage and wounds (p46)

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

 

According to this, the immediately during the damaging step happens before removing the burning. In fact the model might even be removed without the burning ever being removed, it's just not on the table anymore so it can't have a condition.

 

Also, according to the very discussion we had above the model counts as suffering damage/being currently reduced to 0/burning for the entire duration of resolving triggers and abilities (in case of death during the damaging step) so regardless of timing of immediately and removing burning you would count as burning for an extended period of time while checking for any abilities.

[Makrar]

This is Justins post on the subject

 

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/102067-july-faqerrata/page-2#entry741384

 

 

Why isnt this in the faq yet? 

[Ludvig]

Not enough likes in the world for that link. Thank you Makrar!

[dgraz]

Other than this being put in the FAQ because the guy that wrote the book telling you how it works isn't technically an "official ruling"....does that solve the issue?

[Math Mathonwy]

So which one of these is it:

1. Removing the model is delayed until after damaging trigger is resolved with its normal timing. This would also mean that removing the model would happen after "after succeeding/resolving/failing" triggers are resolved if they go before the "after damaging" trigger.

2. Removing the model is delayed and "after damaging" trigger is moved up so that it is resolved after step 5, but before other "after" triggers.

3. Removing the model is not delayed and after damaging trigger is instead moved up and resolved during step 5, when you would normally remove the model.

[The Godlyness]

Let's look at the trigger.

After damaging: These effects happen after Step 5 and only if the target suffers 1 or more damage from the Action. These effects are resolved before the damaged model is removed if it was killed by the damage.

So option 3 is immediately wrong.

Option 1 is easy. The only after failing triggers I can find are on attack actions. (Ie guardian's shield press. ) so if they declare that they are not declaring after damaging or success or resolving. If the attacking model declares after success then again can't declare after damaging. If the defender declares it uhh it does not go off since they did not succeed. And after resolving happens after....resolving which is after after damaging. Ie if I declare onslaught the action has not been resolved till after onslaught has.

So option 1 and option 2 are the same yes?

[Tapdancer]

we have a link to the post from the guy who literally wrote the book, giving a definitive answer. Why are people debating the point?

[LunarSol]

we have a link to the post from the guy who literally wrote the book, giving a definitive answer. Why are people debating the point?

 

It's an issue of parsing the words of the rule not quite filling the mechanical timing of the intended mechanic.  The intention of the rule is that if you hit an enemy and bring it to 0 wounds with the damage that you also use to trigger the burning condition, you can summon a Witchling.  The issue is that consuming flames probably needs to say something super corner case like "if the target would receive damage" to make the interaction clearer (but probably not outside the realm of debate sadly).

[Math Mathonwy]

we have a link to the post from the guy who literally wrote the book, giving a definitive answer. Why are people debating the point?

You can stop reading if this offends you somehow, you know. Personally, I do understand how the Stalker interaction works since Justin said that you do get the Stalker but I am having difficulty getting the general rule from that that would be applicable across the board.

[The Godlyness]

@math have you seen the dumb luck ruling in the faq lol.

[mythicFOX]

We're heading off the rails here. The rules question that was asked has been answered. We now seem to be sniping at each other while digging for rules loopholes, which isn't productive.

I'm locking this before anyone gets into trouble.