A little bit of everything ...

[surly]

Some questions that came up in our local gaming group so far:

 

1) Dreamer and his Upgrade Dreams of Pain, the Upgrade states that you have to name a Nightmare. When do you have to name it, before or after flipping the card? Say you have a 11 in hand and want so summon Lelu, then you flip a 10, so you decide to go with a "free" Stitched Together instead.

 

2.1) How does damage prevention work with the Nexus of Power Upgrade? Say you are at full life and get hit for 7 damage. You use a soulstone to prevent some damage, will you get healed for an additional 2 life thanks to the upgrade? Or can it only restore life you lost earlier?

2.2) Again, Nexus of Power. You have 10 life total but have already lost 5 of them. You get hit for 7 damage again and used a soulstone which prevented 2 damage. You also have the Nexus of Power upgrade attached, will you life with 2 life, or are you dead?

 

3) Lady Justice hits and wounds So'mer who triggers Loudest Squeel. Lady J has the Vendetta Upgrade attached which triggers Onslaught.

What happens first, can So'mer push away with his Squeel or can Lady J hit him again first?

(Our guess: the player who's on turn decides what goes first)

 

4) Similar situation, Viktoria of Blood has only 1 Wound left and hits and kills a model with Black Blood. She triggers Into the Fray, can she heal first, or does she receive the damage before?

 

6) Just to be sure, Poison and Burning can be prevented using a soulstone, correct? (or at least a part of it when it comes to burning sometimes)

 

7) To interact with a sheme marker you have to get in base contact with it. So what if your opponent puts a model with 40mm or 50mm on top of the marker? (Can you even move over markers?)

 

8) Again we're pretty sure about this one, just to be on the safe side: say you activated Dreamer, then transformed him into LCB, then sacrificed LCB just to transform back into Dreamer. However, Dreamer can not activate again this turn, correct?

 

 

Thanks a lot, wish you all a nice weekend

[Mike3838]

I have to admit this is still clear as mud to me.

I'm getting the impression that the resolve order is:

Defender Trigger

Attacker Trigger

Attacker Ability

Defender Ability

If that's true, it's easy to remember and work through. Is it true?

Given that, where does the Heal from the Cleave action (mentioned just above in Godlyness' last post) fit in? It's not a trigger or an ability - it's part of the attack action itself.

[surly]

Trying to say viktorias Into the fray goes first means the enemy is killed. and the killed model is removed and is not there to do BB. Which is nonsense. So BB has to go first regardless if it is reduced to 0 by the damage and killed.

Although the initial question came from me and I may be wrong, I don't see why "gets killed" and "is removed from play" happen at the same time. Best example would be Bete Noirs ability Drawn to Death where she gets placed in contact with a killed model.

So in case of Black Blood your model gets killed but you simply measure the 1" blast before removing it. At least that's how I would understand it, but again, I may be wrong.

[Myyrä]

Trying to say viktorias Into the fray goes first means the enemy is killed. and the killed model is removed and is not there to do BB. Which is nonsense. So BB has to go first regardless if it is reduced to 0 by the damage and killed.

Some people in Tengu trap thread just invented MTG style ability stack in Malifaux. Black blood could use that.

[The Godlyness]

Mtg has 400 pages of rules. But there is not doubt how it works. Malifaux needs about 50.

[Myyrä]

On a more serious note: Is there some reason black blood has to work when model is killed, and does that reason somehow stop applying if after killing ability is resolved first?

[The Godlyness]

Pretty sure everyone who is anyone who plays malifaux would cry foul if someone said I killed your model but it's ability does not go off since I killed it.

On the second part of your question if a model is killed it is removed from play. Immediately (albeit immediately is used loosely here) you do when killed/after killing abilities drop appropriate markers and remove the model.

You can't do black blood since it is not a when killed ability. Its a when suffering damage. So if the model is killed its gone. And no model is around to make a from.

So in the spirt of malifaux and of black blood It has to "motivate" first before it is killed. Mainly cause you damaged it to kill it.

Also there is this paragraph:

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 or fewer Wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed.

I read that as 2 sentences. You reduce the wounds first. Then check to see if killed. I see a pause. I see where black blood works.

Cheers.

[Mason]

<mod hat on>

 

I'm just bopping in here quick to remind everyone to be civil to your fellow posters, even if you strongly disagree with what their interpretation of the rules. 

 

<mod hat off>

[The Godlyness]

*looks around* who was being uncivil?

[Myyrä]

*looks around* who was being uncivil?

I hope no one. I would like to point out that this post is not meant as an attack against person either. I'm just trying to make an argument here.

Pretty sure everyone who is anyone who plays malifaux would cry foul if someone said I killed your model but it's ability does not go off since I killed it.

This is rather obvious logical fallacy, but I'll let it slide here, because I'm not trying to argue that black blood doesn't work when model is killed.

On the second part of your question if a model is killed it is removed from play. Immediately (albeit immediately is used loosely here) you do when killed/after killing abilities drop appropriate markers and remove the model.

You can't do black blood since it is not a when killed ability. Its a when suffering damage. So if the model is killed its gone. And no model is around to make a from.

"When" and "after" are used pretty much interchangeably when describing timing of abilities and triggers. (If there is a difference, it most certainly is not clear to me.) Black blood could be interpreted as an "after damaging" ability, which would mean that it is indeed resolved before removing the model. Considering how much stuff actually happens between model being reduced to 0 wounds and actually being removed from play that word immeadiately doesn't seem to hold much meaning anyways.

So in the spirt of malifaux and of black blood It has to "motivate" first before it is killed. Mainly cause you damaged it to kill it.

Also there is this paragraph:

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 or fewer Wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed.

I read that as 2 sentences. You reduce the wounds first. Then check to see if killed. I see a pause. I see where black blood works.

I suppose you can read it like there is some sort of pause between the two scentences, but it's quite far from being the only way to read it.

I'm fairly sure rules don't actually say that Viktoria of Blood can't heal before suffering damage from black blood. They don't really say that she can either though. They don't actually tell very much anything about timing of abilities and triggers.

[Ausplosions]

I was in complete agreement that black blood goes off first since it is a defender trigger, 

 

 

Please. Please. Please. Stop saying it is a Defender Trigger. It is an Ability, not a trigger, and therefore calling it a trigger is confusing and not at all helpful. 

[The Godlyness]

"When" and "after" are used pretty much interchangeably when describing timing of abilities and triggers. (If there is a difference, it most certainly is not clear to me.) Black blood could be interpreted as an "after damaging" ability, which would mean that it is indeed resolved before removing the model. Considering how much stuff actually happens between model being reduced to 0 wounds and actually being removed from play that word immeadiately doesn't seem to hold much meaning anyways.

 

 

When is during step 5. After is always after step 5.

 

http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/104154-teddys-peekaboo-and-kirais-malevolence/page-2

 

The first sentence if Malevolence was a when suffering it happens during step 5. since it is after suffering it happens after step 5.

 

Black blood is most certainly a When damaged

Black Blood: All models without Black Blood within  1 suffer 1 damage when this model suffers damage."

 

That is a Very important distinction.

 

If being killed was an abilty i could make up a reason of how you could stack black blood first then going into "The Death Process" (when killed effects like exploding dropping markers and removing the model at the end) and how the way Into the fray is worded you most certainly would heal first since you are the acting model then i could do my black blood and then die.

 

But killed is just that killed do "The Death Process"

 

But i would really like to see how you would explain this to your opponent especially if they are newer.

 

"so my vik heals before your black blood goes off since i killed your model"

"But i took damage so shouldn't my abilty go first?"

"nah man this is the only abilty in the whole game that is not a after killing or a when killing"

"huh"

"yep its the loop hole that makes black blood null and void. but only if its the first model i kill this turn"

"yeah,,,,,,sure lets keep playing......"

 

Cue awkwardness especially if vik was on one wound and no SS. Much hot. Much wow. So good. angry opponent/ Confused opponent

 

Into the Fray: The first time this model kills another model during it's activation, this model may heal 1/2/3"

 

In my twisted mind it seems that if viktoria "motivates" Into the fray first then the model with BB has already been removed. and then trying to "motivate" BB from the damage caused can not happen since there is no model to BB  from.

 

So to me i read it as flip damage add/subtract static modifiers, Deal damage, Suffer damage,Prevention flip, if +1 damage is suffered "motivate" BB, check if at 0 wounds, if killed,"motivate" Into the fray, Do "The Death Process"

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Ludvig]

As Myyrä says it isn't very clear if damaging and killing are supposed to be interpreted as separate steps with a pause inbetween. While my gut feeling would be inclined to see damage as a separate step from killed, I can't really find it mentioned in the book.

 

If we accept that Abilities have the same timing conditions as triggers, we can use the text there: "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". 

 

Especially that last sentence would point towards interpreting After Damaging and After Killing as occuring at the same time and meaning something like when killing damage is dealt. It could also be to counteract that under damaging it says "immmediately removed" when you reach 0 wounds. It is not explicitly stated but sort of assumed by the calrifying sentence that the two are happening at the same time. 

 

If there was a separate moment in time when damage was dealt but before the kill happened then the rulebook could maybe be expected to be more explicit in stating this? I personally think there would be a distinct benefit to stating that there are discreet steps such as: flip damage, apply bonuses to damage, reduce, prevent, apply After Damaging effects, check if model is killed etc. and that these steps could never backtrack. I don't think the rulebook ever states that there is a very rigid timing for start this step/end this step after an action has succeeded.

 

It is also kinda weird that you cannot find "Killed" in the Index or described at any greater length, espcially since many abilities trigger on that timing. It just seems to exist under the "Damage and wounds" heading on p46 if I am not mistaken?

 

My interpretation of the above would be: anything saying killed is really saying "after killing damage is dealt" and times at the same time as After Damaging. In this case the attacker heals (from any abilities/triggers requiring a kill, not just Vic) and after that black blood damages everyone within 1 inch. I think this leads to some wonky stuff that seems counterintuitive but seems to be most according to the rules.

 

Am I missing something?

[Bengt]

In my twisted mind it seems that if viktoria "motivates" Into the fray first then the model with BB has already been removed. and then trying to "motivate" BB from the damage caused can not happen since there is no model to BB   from.

I don't understand why you keep harping on about how being killed would stop Black Blood from going of if damage and killing were simultaneously. There is plenty of precedence that you don't actually remove the dead model "immediately" if there is bookkeeping left to be done. Explosive Demise has the same grammatical structure as Black Blood and you are obviously intended to perform that Ability before "immediately" removing the dead model.

[The Godlyness]

I keep harping it for the reason that only if a Rule or Ability says stick around before removing the model.

 

Let me explain. and be clear

 

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.

Explosive Demise 2: All models within p2 suffer 2 damage when this model is killed (not sacrificed).

Finish the Job: When this model is killed, it may place a Scheme Marker in base contact with itself before it is removed.

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.

 

These are just samples of rules or abilities that happen when a model is killed.  Now if a model has no when killed abilities is not living or a construct and the attacker does not declare an after damaging trigger the model is Immediately removed from the table when it hits 0 wounds. as per the page 46 of the rule book.

 

and as i previously stated if Killed was an abilty you could just say you stack that BB goes first then killed.  But its not. heck killed is just killed. has no definition except common sense says to remove the model when it is killed. when a model gets decapitated we are told to kill it, so sure just kill it but what does that mean. nothing says remove it unless it is at 0 wounds see. Sacrifice is explained that you remove the model.

 

and on the book keeping plenty of things dont get resolved when model is killed.

 

also

 

Black Blood: All models without Black Blood within 1 suffer 1 damage when this model suffers damage.

Explosive Demise 2: All models within 2 suffer 2 damage when this model is killed (not sacrificed).

 

if i used a black blood shaman to give a model with explosive demise Black blood. i would sure as hell "motivate " Black blood when i am damaged and then if i am killed from the damage explode.

 

Exploding first then going back to Black blood is quite ass backwards.  

Killing an enemy and then doing damage is quite ass backwards.

 

And i'm done here. Play Things how you want. i cant nor won't nor actually care to stop you.

[Ausplosions]

Godlyness. Your posts are very very difficult to follow. There is just a little too much sarcasm in them to be able to accurately read them.

Are you saying Black Blood does or does not work on Killed?

[The Godlyness]

Black blood goes off then the model is killed.

into the fray goes after Black blood.

 

if vik is at one wound and within 1" of its target which has Black blood and deals enough damage to kill it would die before into the fray goes off.

 

damage->Black blood->killed->into the fray.

damage->black blood-vik is killed due to Black blood.->target is killed->no model is around to do into the fray since vik was killed.

 

Hope that explains my position quite clearly

 

Now can i leave?

[Mike3838]

if vik is at one wound and within 1" of its target which has Black blood and deals enough damage to kill it would die before into the fray goes off.

 

damage->Black blood->killed->into the fray.

damage->black blood-vik is killed due to Black blood.->target is killed->no model is around to do into the fray since vik was killed.

 

An alternative would be:

 

damage -> target has fulfilled two conditions at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (when the damage card was turned over) i.e. it has both been damaged (Black Blood) and it is now dead (Killed). Both things resolve simultaneously. -> Black Blood (Vik takes 1 damage)  -> You don't remove Vik straight away (that would imply NON-simultaneous effects - a contradiction!) -> Vik gets to do her attack -> THEN move forwards (both the BB model and Vik are removed as dead)

 

 

Or another alternative, applying the logic from earlier (and I'm not certain myself if this is true) of Defender Trigger -> Attacker Trigger -> Attacker Ability ->Defender Ability:

 

damage -> target has fulfilled two conditions at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (when the damage card was turned over) i.e. it has both been damaged (Black Blood) and it is now dead (Killed). ATTACKER ABILITY goes first -> Vik gets to do her attack -> DEFENDER ABILITY goes second -> Black Blood -> THEN move forwards (both the BB model and Vik are removed as dead)

 

 

Now can i leave?

 

I'm afraid your obstinate refusal to admit that an alternative interpretation might *conceivably* even *exist* isn't all that helpful to this discussion, so probably for the best

[The Godlyness]

And I am back.

Obstinate refusal is correct when some one is playing something wrong.

Somehow somewhere people believe that when a model is killed it is not Removed until all effects are resolved. This is incorrect. Unless an ability says don't remove the model before do X effect you immediately remove the model. For instance in you first alternative scenario as soon as vik hits 0 wounds from black blood she drops a corpse marker and is removed as per the rules of page 46. Rules from the rule book not my opinion not my personal view.

In your second scenario you are killing the model with black blood first (ie removing it ) and since black blood is not an ability that says when killed do this. It does not go off. (Since no model is in play to from)

Or if you ignore that then vik heals from into the fray then you go back to damage and she takes 1 damage from black blood And continues on her merry way.

Which for some reason killing a model and then doing damage makes no logical or even common sense. <- that is my opinion.

Now can I leave with out be called back in here. Put my foot out the door and with your words you draw me back in. Maybe I should just start putting my hands on my ears and scream lalalalaa with everybody else.

[Math Mathonwy]

I have to admit that you really dominate these conversations on the vagaries of timing. I would like to read how other people play these things but invariably the threads turn into you discussing with someone posting long posts that meander in many directions with me reading the exchange increasingly confused. This is further accentuated by your writing style which is very difficult to follow (at least to a non-native speaker such as myself). This isn't your fault and I'm not accusing you of anything, but just that I find it strange that I have very little idea of how other people (aside from you) play these things.

I do disagree with your assertion that this is somehow a clear matter and that your way is the obviously only right one.

[Adran]

An alternative would be:

 

damage -> target has fulfilled two conditions at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (when the damage card was turned over) i.e. it has both been damaged (Black Blood) and it is now dead (Killed). Both things resolve simultaneously. -> Black Blood (Vik takes 1 damage)  -> You don't remove Vik straight away (that would imply NON-simultaneous effects - a contradiction!) -> Vik gets to do her attack -> THEN move forwards (both the BB model and Vik are removed as dead)

 

 

Or another alternative, applying the logic from earlier (and I'm not certain myself if this is true) of Defender Trigger -> Attacker Trigger -> Attacker Ability ->Defender Ability:

 

damage -> target has fulfilled two conditions at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (when the damage card was turned over) i.e. it has both been damaged (Black Blood) and it is now dead (Killed). ATTACKER ABILITY goes first -> Vik gets to do her attack -> DEFENDER ABILITY goes second -> Black Blood -> THEN move forwards (both the BB model and Vik are removed as dead)

 

 

 

I'm afraid your obstinate refusal to admit that an alternative interpretation might *conceivably* even *exist* isn't all that helpful to this discussion, so probably for the best

 

The rule book does tell us that NOTHING happens at the same time.

IF things would happen at the same time, then we have a set list of the order things are done in, but they are all done one at a time.

 

The question here is IS "after Damaging" the same time as "after killing"?

 

If the answer is yes, then we can follow the list. (Attacker ability before Defender ability, so heal before damage)

 

If no then we need to look at what goes first. Logically, I would have to say that after damaging would have to happen before After Killing.

In which case the Black blood would happen before the heal. And if it reduced Vik to 0 wounds and killed her, she wouldn't get to heal.

 

Unfortuantly I don't know the answer.

[Ausplosions]

I have to admit that you really dominate these conversations on the vagaries of timing. I would like to read how other people play these things but invariably the threads turn into you discussing with someone posting long posts that meander in many directions with me reading the exchange increasingly confused. This is further accentuated by your writing style which is very difficult to follow (at least to a non-native speaker such as myself). This isn't your fault and I'm not accusing you of anything, but just that I find it strange that I have very little idea of how other people (aside from you) play these things.

I do disagree with your assertion that this is somehow a clear matter and that your way is the obviously only right one.

Agreed.

The Hyperbole and editorialism of Godlyness posts makes it extremely difficult and painful to read his posts.

The weird tangents and "exclamations" you put in hide your point in a wall of sarcasm and hyperbole.

I'm not saying you are wrong. But I have no idea if you are right...

[zFiend]

I have to admit that you really dominate these conversations on the vagaries of timing. I would like to read how other people play these things but invariably the threads turn into you discussing with someone posting long posts that meander in many directions with me reading the exchange increasingly confused. This is further accentuated by your writing style which is very difficult to follow (at least to a non-native speaker such as myself). This isn't your fault and I'm not accusing you of anything, but just that I find it strange that I have very little idea of how other people (aside from you) play these things.

I do disagree with your assertion that this is somehow a clear matter and that your way is the obviously only right one.

 

 

Agreed.

The Hyperbole and editorialism of Godlyness posts makes it extremely difficult and painful to read his posts.

The weird tangents and "exclamations" you put in hide your point in a wall of sarcasm and hyperbole.

I'm not saying you are wrong. But I have no idea if you are right...

 

Agreed on both accounts.

[Lucidicide]

Hey, guess what?

 

Locked.

 

Wasn't very civil, and certainly wasn't going to get more so.