"Due to"

[Jehenna]

Hello eveybody! This phrase "due to" keeps bugging me as what it means doesn't seem entirely clear. I have noticed it in two types of places.

 

The first is in Obey for Perdita, Zoriada etc. "A model which performed an Attack due to Obey may not be targeted by Obey again during the same Activation." So a model which simply does an attack can't be targeted again the same activation. But what if the model charged instead, a tactical action that in itself causes two attack actions? Remember that som models can make (1) charges, Rooster riders and War pigs for example.

 

The second is in Mithridization and Embalmed, Rafkin and Flesh Constructs/Guild Autopsies respectively. "When this model would suffer damage due to the Poison Condition, instead, it heals 1 damage." So it heals 1 instead of taking 1 damage from the poison condition. But there are stranger situations that can arise. Expunge from McMourning that causes a model to suffer damage "equal to it's its current Poison condition value". The A Sip of Wine trigger from Performers have the same phrase.

 

In both cases there are odd situations where it isn't obvious if the ability/action works. Had it said "from" instead of "due to" the effect had been clear and neither situation had been affected. But "due to" is a vaguer phrase than "from" and in both cases only one step has been added.

 

Obey -> charge -> attack actions from the charge

Expunge -> check poison damage -> do ordinary damage from Expunge

 

I interpret this as both effects come into play in these situations. No charging twice with a War Rooster with Zoraida and no easy killing of Guild Autopsies with Performers.

 

However, during previous rules questions for Embalmed/Mithridization I have seen, a majority of players have been adamant that "due to" means the same as "from" and the Autopsy would indeed take it's poison value in damage. Wouldn't this mean that the War Rooser can indeed charge several times with Zoraida? That most people have been so certain is what causes me the most confusion so I would love to hear other opinions.

[Dirial]

I do agree with Jehenna that if a Charging Rooster makes Attack actions due to Obey, then similarly the poor Poisoned model takes damage due to Poison when Expunged. If it didn't have Poison, it wouldn't take damage. They both have a similar one step leap. According to natural language, I think that the two cases are similar.

 

I don't agree. I have explained how I come to that interpretation (Expunge being possible without Poison). If you want to discuss possible other interpretations, you're free to do so. I don't really see the purpose, although I'm a really patient and understanding person.

[lusciousmccabe]

I do agree with Jehenna that if a Charging Rooster makes Attack actions due to Obey, then similarly the poor Poisoned model takes damage due to Poison when Expunged. If it didn't have Poison, it wouldn't take damage. They both have a similar one step leap. According to natural language, I think that the two cases are similar.

 

It's not really the same leap though. Obey->Charge->Attack is a direct chain of causation, so I think it's fair to say the attack is due to the Obey. With Expunge it's more like Expunge[count poison]->damage, so you take damage due to Expunge based on your poison count. You could phrase it the other way around but I don't think that would make that much sense.

 

You could say argue the damage is due to both Poison and Expunge I'm not aware of any other instances of damage having multiple sources. If the damage were from poison then McMourning couldn't claim any kills from Expunge and I think it's deliberately worded in this way to avoid that scenario. 

 

I don't really agree with it from a standard English perspective either. If it's Michael's birthday and his cousin Kyle decides to punch him for every candle on the cake then Michael will be hurt due to being punched, not due to the cake having candles. If Michael decides he's had enough of Kyle's shit later in the evening and throws him out a window then Kyle will be injured due to being thrown out a window, even though there's an intermediary step of hitting the ground.

 

[Lucidicide]

Never going to one of your birthday parties #scared

[asrian]

 

I don't really agree with it from a standard English perspective either. If it's Michael's birthday and his cousin Kyle decides to punch him for every candle on the cake then Michael will be hurt due to being punched, not due to the cake having candles. If Michael decides he's had enough of Kyle's shit later in the evening and throws him out a window then Kyle will be injured due to being thrown out a window, even though there's an intermediary step of hitting the ground.

Now this is my type of shindig!

[Math Mathonwy]

I don't agree. I have explained how I come to that interpretation (Expunge being possible without Poison). If you want to discuss possible other interpretations, you're free to do so. I don't really see the purpose, although I'm a really patient and understanding person.

Without Poison Expunge certainly is possible, but damage from it isn't. Maybe you forgot the wording we're discussing? "When this model would suffer damage due to the Poison Condition, instead, it heals 1 damage." Expunge causes damage due to the Poison condition.

[Nicodemic]

Without Poison Expunge certainly is possible, but damage from it isn't. Maybe you forgot the wording we're discussing? "When this model would suffer damage due to the Poison Condition, instead, it heals 1 damage." Expunge causes damage due to the Poison condition.

It is doing damage based on the amount of poison, not from poison itself doing anything other than existing.  So i see it that since Embalmed specifically calls out "The Poison Condition" as the effect that would activate this ability then  "The Poison Condition" as is defined in the book would be the only thing that can activate it when the poison condition is triggered.

 

i'm going to double check the Conditions part of the book when i get home.

 

also i love my new sig

[lusciousmccabe]

^^ Hopefully neither of those guys gets into Malifaux and hears that I blabbed.

 

Without Poison Expunge certainly is possible, but damage from it isn't. Maybe you forgot the wording we're discussing? "When this model would suffer damage due to the Poison Condition, instead, it heals 1 damage." Expunge causes damage due to the Poison condition.

 

Expunge causes damage to targets that have the Poison condition, but the damage isn't due to the condition itself. If you follow on that line of reasoning you could say that a Guild Autopsy who is (1) charged by a Canine Remains and hit twice heals instead of taking damage, because it could only be charged that way due having the Poison condition.

 

You only say A happened due to B if B actually caused A. If there's some other contributing factor C, you wouldn't say A happened due to C because it's not the direct cause of A. For example you might say "Work picnic canceled due to poor weather", you wouldn't say "Work picnic canceled due to picnics not really being that much fun in a hurricane". The event that caused the cancellation is the weather, the fact that picnics aren't feasible in that type of weather is an aside. 

 

With Obey you have A causing B causing C, so I can see the logic of A causing C. With Expunge you have A causing B if C, which isn't the same situation. 

 

And sorry for the poor algebra