Focus and Slug trigger against a Hard to kill model.

[wizuriel]

So a quick questions on how this works. I had cranky focus and use the slug trigger to attack a model with hard to kill.

 

Focus gives me a positive on my next actions attack and damage flip

 

slug is a trigger that after damage I can make a x/y/z damage flip afterwards (can't be cheated)

 

and hard to kill is if you have 2 or more wounds if you suffer damage you can't go below 1 wound.

 

 

 

So the way we worked this out.

 

Cranky got positive on the attack and damage flip

Hard to kill went off keeping my opponent at 1 wound.

Slug then went and since it was triggered from the attack it still gets positive to the damage flip

opponent dies a shotguny death.

 

Just wanting to know if this is right since my opponent thought that either slug shouldn't get the positive damage flip or that hard to kill should wait for both damage flips and then apply afterwards.  

[The Godlyness]

What's with the attitude? Dude, seriously.

It's the reaction to me posting rules it seems. I could post a model with a walk(WK) of 5 can move up to 5" in clear spaces. Post a page number with the rule.

And an argument would come up saying nope it can't do that lalalalaa.

True mother (Nekima's upgrade) does not grant grow or Mature abilities. Clear cut. Nope argument about how it does.

So my attitude is the continuation of people putting their heads in the sand. That's why I post the rules and page numbers and then leave. But then random comments bring me in the thread. I can't convince you. I can't change how you think. I don't care to.

What I do care about is how the game is played and that it is played as correctly as it can be.

Cheers.

[Lucidicide]

I will lock this thread faster than a Gremlin thrown by Mancha Roja if ya'll don't tone it down a notch.

 

I am not a rules marshal and am not able to speak officially on rules. However, I would say Slug does NOT benefit from Focus. The fact is, Focus applies to the action's duel and its damage flip, which the trigger is NOT. Is it a part of the action? Yes, it's a nested event within the action. That does not make it the action's damage flip, however (as has been said, this would mean things like Trigger Happy would also benefit from Focus, which I believe no one would argue).

 

The language on Slug that says "cannot be cheated" is precisely BECAUSE there is no accuracy modifier from the damage flip. You flip one card and take what you get. Nothing else can apply to this, unless somehow you have a twist to all FLIPS, which is not being provided by Focus.

 

And seriously, the next thing in this thread that is slightly negative or sarcastic about someone, and it's done. The fact that this thread is both indicative of the current rules discussions and evidence of why people no longer want to participate in discussions is a problem. I am happy to take action.

[Math Mathonwy]

However, I would say Slug does NOT benefit from Focus. The fact is, Focus applies to the action's duel and its damage flip, which the trigger is NOT. Is it a part of the action? Yes, it's a nested event within the action. That does not make it the action's damage flip, however (as has been said, this would mean things like Trigger Happy would also benefit from Focus, which I believe no one would argue).

"Trigger Happy: After damaging, immediately perform a Collier Pistol Attack against the same target. This Action may not declare Triggers."

That is a separate Action. Completely different from Slug.

What is an Action's Damage flip? This has not been defined but one would think that it is a Damage flip that results from the Action in question. Slug fits this criterion. Trigger Happy results in another Action, so it does not fit that criterion.

As for the accuracy modifier, Focus bonus flip is not the same as an Accuracy modifier. You should not mix the two up.

[Kadeton]

Hmm, I'm not sure I see the connection between Slug and Trigger Happy that would allow for the "Focus doesn't apply to that, so it can't apply to this" train of thought. Trigger Happy allows the character to take an extra action, with its own opposed duel and damage flip. My reading of Slug would be that the Action now includes two damage flips (one of which may not be cheated). I'm not sure why damage flip modifiers (including Focus and Accuracy) wouldn't be included in that resolution.

[Lucidicide]

"Trigger Happy: After damaging, immediately perform a Collier Pistol Attack against the same target. This Action may not declare Triggers."

That is a separate Action. Completely different from Slug.

What is an Action's Damage flip? This has not been defined but one would think that it is a Damage flip that results from the Action in question. Slug fits this criterion. Trigger Happy results in another Action, so it does not fit that criterion.

As for the accuracy modifier, Focus bonus flip is not the same as an Accuracy modifier. You should not mix the two up.

 

I didn't mix the two up. I'm saying there is no accuracy modifier for Slug (as it's an independent flip), thus the reason it has the language about no cheating. I'm extrapolating that to say that Focus wouldn't apply to that flip -- it's an independent damage flip.

 

I can appreciate how Trigger Happy provides an additional action where Slug is not, but the reference was more about whether Focus applied to nested events within the original action (which both Slug and Trigger Happy are). I think you both raise a valid point, but I just don't see Slug as the 'action's damage flip', I see it as the 'trigger's damage flip.'

 

I see how it could go either way; I just don't think that Slug benefits from Accuracy or Focus.

 

Edited to add: Slug does say After Damaging, which in terms of general timing structure implies to me that it 'outside' the normal damage flip stage and is an additional damage flip. Accuracy, for example, says "whenever a damage flip is the result of an Opposed Duel..." which you could take either way, but I see the Slug flip as a result of the damage. Anyway... gray area.

[thebarbalag]

I think there's a little too much complication being thrown at the idea of "an Action's damage flip" which is actually a very simple idea, so simple, in fact, that not much is said about it within the rules.

 

If the results of an Action (everything after the : excluding triggers) has a damage spread in it, then that is the Action's damage flip.

 

Triggers may do two things involving damage flips 1) they may modify the damage spread by either granting +# damage, adding Fate modifiers, or changing the spread outright, like Dumb Luck does, or 2) they may provide an additional damage flip - Slug, actually, does both. 1) it removes the Blast from the damage spread for the Action's damage flip, and 2) provides a second damage flip that, while definitely a result of the Action, is not the Action's damage flip - that was already done (necessarily so, as Slug is an "after damaging" trigger).

[rgarbonzo]

 

(1) Sawed-Off Shotgun (Sh 5 / Rst: Df / Rg: z6): Target suffers 2/3 /4     damage.

  Slug: This Attack places no blast Markers. After damaging, perform a 2/3/4 damage flip against the target which may not be cheated. This model may not take the Sawed-Off Shotgun Action again this Turn.

 

 

 

Slug generates another damage flip, which may not be cheated, because it does not gain the benefits of focus or cover or anything else. It is simply flip a card and do X damage to a model. Focus would apply to the actions damage flip which in this case is a modified 2/3/4 damage spread. The trigger then activates and generates another 2/3/4 damage spread to the affected model.

[Dirial]

I can get behind that it might be intended this way. As said before, I'm totally ready to be convinced. But if it works that way, then I would like to see it in the FAQ, because all the rule citations posted in this thread maybe hint at the intention, but nowhere can a definition of an action's damage flip be found, or why a trigger's damage flip isn't one although a trigger is part of the action.

 

I still maintain the point that the most definite answer there is in the rules is the definition of triggers as part of the action which only modify the action's outcome instead of being seperate. Until someone can cite a rule that proves why this isn't true for damage flips, I still think the point is at least debatable.

 

So, I politely ask for this to be answered in the FAQ. Please?

[Therril_83]

I think some are thinking of this in too much of a direct way instead of a generalized way.

 

Let's break this down in to an equation of sorts.

 

We have an Attack Action (let's refer to this as X) that may or may not result in a damage flip (Y), and may or may not have a trigger (Z).

If we now say that the model benefits from Focus, a rule that defines it grants a bonus to an Action's attack and damage flip, I think noone argues that this is X and Y, but the question is, is it also Z?

 

If it applies to one intance of Z, it must apply to all instances of Z, can we agree on that?

 

If it only applies to certain types of Z, then we need a whole sub set of rules defining what types of Z are affected by conditions and other game effects. We have no such sub set of rules in the current edition to my knowledge, so we are forced to assume that they apply equally to all Z.

 

So, if we argue that Z does get the bonus of the Focus-condition, then if Z is 'Slug' as this thread started with, then it would get a  to the damage flip. But if Z is 'Trigger Happy' then it would apply to another set of Attack Flip and Damage Flip.

 

 

For what it's worth, I believe the trigger is not affected by Focus.

[Dirial]

I think some are thinking of this in too much of a direct way instead of a generalized way.

 

Let's break this down in to an equation of sorts.

 

We have an Attack Action (let's refer to this as X) that may or may not result in a damage flip (Y), and may or may not have a trigger (Z).

If we now say that the model benefits from Focus, a rule that defines it grants a bonus to an Action's attack and damage flip, I think noone argues that this is X and Y, but the question is, is it also Z?

 

If it applies to one intance of Z, it must apply to all instances of Z, can we agree on that?

 

If it only applies to certain types of Z, then we need a whole sub set of rules defining what types of Z are affected by conditions and other game effects. We have no such sub set of rules in the current edition to my knowledge, so we are forced to assume that they apply equally to all Z.

 

Okay, to stay in your language, my question would be: Is Z something different from X, or a modification, let's say, Z=2X+1? By that logix, a modification of X (say   to damage flips) would also modify Z.

 

Also, if it applies to all instances of Z, it doesn't have to have any consequences: A   to damage flips doesn't have to give a   to generated actions, as that is not what the condition says. Likewise, if I Obey a model to take an action and Obey profits from Focus, the generated action doesn't get Focus. To take an action is the effect of Obey, as would it be the effect of the Peacebringer if you use it with Trigger Happy.

 

Thus, there would be no need for a sub set of rules, just a clarification how far Z=2X+1 is true, or why it isn't.

 

My point being: Triggers are part of the action and just modify the action's outcome. If they produce a damage flip, why wouldn't it be modified by modifications of the action's damage flip? If that's the way it's supposed to work, then it needs a clarification.

[Math Mathonwy]

I can get behind that it might be intended this way. As said before, I'm totally ready to be convinced. But if it works that way, then I would like to see it in the FAQ, because all the rule citations posted in this thread maybe hint at the intention, but nowhere can a definition of an action's damage flip be found, or why a trigger's damage flip isn't one although a trigger is part of the action.

 

I still maintain the point that the most definite answer there is in the rules is the definition of triggers as part of the action which only modify the action's outcome instead of being seperate. Until someone can cite a rule that proves why this isn't true for damage flips, I still think the point is at least debatable.

 

So, I politely ask for this to be answered in the FAQ. Please?

I highly concur with Dirial! I fully understand the interpretation that Focus wouldn't affect Slug but I really don't see it as the only possible interpretation and, going by RAW, I would be inclined to to say that it would affect. But I can really see this ruled either way in the FAQ.

[Therril_83]

Okay, to stay in your language, my question would be: Is Z something different from X, or a modification, let's say, Z=2X+1? By that logix, a modification of X (say   to damage flips) would also modify Z.

That's the entire thing, we know that there are three "unknowns" in the equations, some of them may be the same thing, for example X=Z, we don't know that. but what we DO know, is that there are three unkowns.

If Z is indeed equal to X, then the entire discussion is resolved, as we KNOW that X benefits from focus. Likewise, if we find out that Z=Y, then we KNOW that Y benefits from focus, and we get the benefit.

But the entire question stems from the fact that we don't know what Z is, and hence my reasoning in the previous post. Because if we knew that "a damage flip in a trigger is the same as the damage flip of an action" (and I'm not saying either it is or it isn't) then this would be clear as night and day. But we don't know that. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

In your example of Obey, I think it doesn't at all fit the equation. If you benefit from Focus when taking the Obey-action, you are getting a   to the Attack flip (X), but the action has no resulting damage profile (Y), so there would be no effect there. There is also no trigger (Z) that would or would not benefit depending on this discussion. There is an effect of the spell, but the rules for Focus is quite clear in that it affects Attack Flip and Damage Flip, not effects. It says nothing for triggers, which is why we are having this discussion, but again, Obey has no triggers (atleast not on any model that I can think of at the top of my head) and triggers are what we are discussing here. 

[Dirial]

Therrill, I get what you are saying.

 

I made the example of Obey because it's the same thing as Trigger Happy IF the text of the trigger is just added to the text of the action when it is triggered (which is my point). Therefore, the action's outcome would be something like "make a damage flip and take another action". The additional action would not profit from Focus for the same reason as the action produced by Obey. Thus, and that's the only reason I mentioned Obey, there's no reason to assume a sub set of triggers for this to work.

 

Further, you postulate that we have 3 unknowns, and that we don't know what Z (in your example ) is. To reiterate my point: We don't know what Y is, that's true. But we have a definition of Z. It's a modification and part of X. What I mean is: We need a definition of Y to solve this problem, because the definition of Z (while somewhat fuzzy) means, in my eyes, that the modification of X changes Z. At least till someone finds a rule that I forgot which states that in the case of Y, Z is not dependent of X.

 

Was my argument understandable? I'm not sure anymore.

[zFiend]

X = Fire

Z = Wind

Y = Earth

Add in the missing component of the forums, Love.

It comes up to = Captain Planet!

We are getting a new master!

[The Godlyness]

Easy way to get a   to the slug trigger.

 

Take papa loco give Abula/ old cranky dynamite. problem solved.

 

this algebra you guys just spewed out makes my head hurt. i am but a simple man.

[Therril_83]

Actually, I think you are mixing up my definitions slightly Dirial.

X is not the action itself, X is only the Attack Flip, which is rarely affected by the triggers (since the flip has already occured when the trigger is called)

I fully agree that Z (the trigger) is a modification/ammendment to the Action, but that doesn't quite help us in this case.

 

The definition of Focus gives us two things. First it modifies the 'Actions Attack Flip', and any Attack Action has only 1 Attack Flip, that we can agree on I think? secondly it modifies the 'Actions Damage Flip'. And this is the part where we have different views.

 

My interpretation is that an Action can only have 1 Damage Flip as well, many action doesn't have any, but there are none that have more than 1.

There are some, like 'Slug', that generates an additional Damage Flip, and there are some, like 'Dumb Luck', that alters the Damage Flip. My interpretation is that when a trigger causes a damage flip, that would be the Triggers Damage Flip, and not the Actions Damage Flip. I think this is supported by the language of the rules, I have no where seen a wording saying something like "The Actions Damage Flips", there is always a singular form used.. albeit this itself is a pretty weak proof.

If this interpretation is indeed true, then Focus only affects that single damage flip that belongs to the action. Anything else that is resultant from the triggers, weather it's more damage flips, new actions, or other things, do not get the benefit.

The triggers damage flip does still belong to the Action, so the language is partly a barrier here I think. But I suppose it could be called "The Actions Triggers Damage Flip", if we need a longer, more explaining name..

 

So to iterate, I only see an Attack Action as ever having 1 Attack Flip and 0-1 Damage Flip. Focus only affects those two flips and nothing else.

[Dirial]

Oh, that's right, I mixed those two up.

 

Okay, I think the main arguments have been traded, and there's no real way to resolve this. We need a definition of the action's damage flip, and if a trigger's damage flip is included in said definition. At the moment, the (to my eyes) best arguments are:

 

1. The attack's damage flip is always in singular, and thus should only describe the 0-1 damage flip the action's own text mentions.

2. Triggers are part of the action, and thus damage flips directly produced by triggers are also the action's damage flips.

 

All other arguments and rule citations can be interpreted in both mentioned ways. Now, FAQ, please?

 

Thanks for the discussion, guys!

[Lucidicide]

 

Now, FAQ, please?

 

For the record, comments like this don't make anything more likely to go in the FAQ. We read the rules discussions and make decisions based on our own perceived need, not on people asking us to do it. After all, this could result in a gigantic FAQ that addressed almost anything.

 

I understand you want it. I'm not saying whether it'll be in one way or another. What I am saying is -- asking is a waste of space. The thread existing is asking by dint of its existence.

[Therril_83]

Very good summary Dirial, I think that hits the essentials perfectly.

[Dirial]

For the record, comments like this don't make anything more likely to go in the FAQ. We read the rules discussions and make decisions based on our own perceived need, not on people asking us to do it. After all, this could result in a gigantic FAQ that addressed almost anything.

 

I understand you want it. I'm not saying whether it'll be in one way or another. What I am saying is -- asking is a waste of space. The thread existing is asking by dint of its existence.

 

Got it. Really, I just wrote it to make clear that I don't think it can be resolved without FAQ, not because I want it immediately. I think your handling of rules questions is very good at the moment, and hope you go on the same way. Cheers!