reduce yo 0 wounds and being killed

[AoS]

Is this the same timing? I'll give you an example:

Viktoria of blood hit izamu and reduce him at 0 wounds, (killing him?).

When victoria kills, she can do a healing flip, but when izamu is reduced to 0 wounds he make an attack and he is sacrificed.

I can't find a good definition of "being killed" in the rulebook.

If "reduce to 0 wounds" and "being killed" happens at the same time, victoria would use her hability first.

When is a model killed?

[Redbeard]

There are two ways you can be removed from the table permanently: killed or sacrificed. You can be neither of those things until you are removed from the table.

 

Izamu's ability happens before he is removed from the table, at which point he is sacrificed and removed. Although the wording is poor, that does not change how the ability works.

 

I understand the question and confusion, but that doesn't change the actual functioning. You may not like the answer or agree with it, and I can't point to a specific passage in the rules... but if you tried to play a game or asked a judge at a tournament, the ruling would be the same: Vik can't heal because Izamu is never killed; he's sacrificed.

[Rob Lo]

I don't think anyone is saying he is both at any particular moment. He goes to zero wounds and is killed, which then fires off both model's abilities. The acting models abilities happen first. "If a model is reduced to 0 or fewer wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed." Any thing (trigger/ability/extra wording that's part of the action text) that is "when reduced to 0 wounds" or "killed" will all fire in whatever order they're supposed to fire.

 

The possibility to change a death state from killed to sacrificed is not new, it comes from a number of sources. Myth mentioned many of them, Karina's upgrade even has a discard to Sacrifice a model that would be killed. The only difference with Izamu's is when that change happens. His ability does happen, he does get sacrificed instead of killed. The problem is that it happens at a very different (and clearly spelled out) point in the order of when things happen, and that point is much later than when other similar timings happen. Other things happen before he gets switched to sacrificed, and those other things happen to fire the abilities that call for things to be killed, because until you get to that one specific sentence in his ability, he is killed.

[CanYaDigIT]

The death state is instead and not change. You cant sacrifice a killed model.

[Shadowfane]

 

So, that brings us back to Viktoria. Her ability goes off when she kills another model. This is different from a model going to 0 Wds... except that we have an FAQ entry that says it isn't. That makes it extremely clear that a model being reduced to 0 Wds, and a model being killed, have the exact same timing point, as based on the rulebook.

 

This is where the argument breaks down.  You don't have an FAQ that states they are the exact same timing point,full stop, you have an FAQ that states that, for that particular case, it works in the way you say, and not for any other case, until those other cases get their own FAQ clarifying it.

Along with a statement that specifically says you can't apply that FAQ to anything else.

[AoS]

You are gonna need to get faqed the hole game...

Ok, just in the case in which both habilities would have the same timing, (imagine that is in a faq) is fine the rest of the reasonning?

[Rob Lo]

The death state is instead and not change. You cant sacrifice a killed model.

 

 

Then Izamu's ability is incorrectly worded and would need to say "When reduced to 0 wounds but before being considered killed and before all other models abilities or triggers are considered, Take this Action and sacrifice Izamu"

 

Understand, I only play Ressers, I'm perfectly fine with Vik not healing or Sonnia not getting a stalker or whatever. But when both of the things involved are Abilities, and both happen at what I think is the same point, I can't help but see it as do them in the proper order, and the proper order is acting model first.

 

If there is a stage of Reduced to Zero Wounds, but not yet considered dead or sacrificed, I don't see that anywhere. Because that's the only way the reduced to zero wounds ability would fire without the when killed ability also firing. All I see is a line in the book that says that zero wounds is killed. Those are the same timing, that's not in the FAQ, that's in the rules.

 

If there is one thing I find frustrating about this game I've spent 80% of my game playing time on in the last two years, it is all of the timing questions. Is this the same as that, does it all happen at once or in little mini steps. I know it can never be perfect and frankly I don't want to have to read the rules that were made perfect, because they'd be written by actual lawyers. All we can do is look to the rules, and where they're lacking, look to the FAQ. Yes, each answer only ever covers its individual question, but they are also clues for direction of how things should be handled, and by that I mean, do TOs never look to the FAQ and the rulings it has laid down when making on the spot decisions?  If one answer says "X" and "Y" are the same time for cards A and B, but I'm not supposed to take that to mean that "X" and "Y" are also the same time for two other cards, that's insane.

[CanYaDigIT]

Sonnia would be able to summon a stalker. Hers reads when a model is reduced to zero wounds. Vik would not get to heal, she has to kill the model.

[AoS]

Explosive demise happens when a model is killed and has the same timing as the Sonia hability which is when reduce to 0 wounds in the faq question. Now you have viky who activate her hability the first time she kill, and izamu which activate his ability when reducing to 0 wounds.

Don't know if you can apply the faq, but is the same scene.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I think you are all over looking the most simple explanation of why this doesn't work. Ignore the timing issues for the moment, which I still don't believe function the way you interpret them.

 

You are overlooking the game definition of Sacrificed: Effects that sacrifice models remove them from play, but the model does not count as having been killed. Sacrificed models do not drop Markers.

 

Even if your timing argument was correct, which it isn't, your argument doesn't work because of how the rules define Sacrificed. If you are sacrificed you do not count as having been killed. Viktoria cannot claim he was killed because if the model is sacrificed the rules themselves say it cannot count as having killed it. If you argue you can because of timing, then we are back to allowing automatic VP against Leveticus when he kills himself, because even though his ability says he isn't killed, you have to let him be killed before his ability which functions on being killed fires and changes the state. Being sacrificed essentially, just like Bete and Leveticus' abilities, retroactively changes any state they possessed before.

 

No you cannot gain heal off a melee attack which kills izamu, if Izamu's player wishes to use A Warrior's Death, and no you cannot count as having been both killed and sacrificed.

[AoS]

That's not how we say it works. At the moment in which viktoria reduce him to 0 wounds he is killed, (I'm gonna avoid the timing discusion), so viktoria resolve her ability because Izamu is not sacrificed yet, and then Izamu activate his ability and sacrifice himself, and this is when the model do not count as killed, but not before.

There is no problem on this first the model is killed and then the model is sacrificed, he is not killed and sacrificed at the same time un any moment, al legal I think.

[AoS]

I mean the moment in which viktoria has the chance to use her ability Izamu is not sacrificed, I don't think that is legal to avoid the timing order just because the second ability in the timing is in contradiction, (which i think is not), with the first.

[Fetid Strumpet]

In which case my argument that Corpse Markers and VP can be scored off Leveticus works because his ability never states he doesn't count as killed. His ability needs a window of being killed in order to function, but never states he never counts as having been killed. So Leveticus is reduced to 0 hp and instantly counts as being killed, thus all effects which fire off his being killed instantly fire. Vp generation does not have to wait for his ability to finish firing because there are no timing rules for that type of VP gain. The same for Marker generation. If you EVER count as having been killed you get markers and VP and Leveticus has to count as killed for his ability to fire and never retroactively changes the state of having been killed.

 

So you are arguing that all effects that do not specifically, in the exact english wording, state that you never counted as being killed, still allow a state of being killed to exist before they go off? That's going to break a lot of the game.

[CanYaDigIT]

IZAMU IS NOT KILLED IN THE SITUATION, KILLED AND REDUCED TO 0 WOUNDS ARE DIFFERENT.

[solkan]

As far as the "Reduced to 0 wounds means that it's immediately killed", examples of abilities that make exceptions to that:

 

Death Rattles: When this model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it may immediately take the (1) One With the Night Action before counting as killed. If the Action succeeds, this model is not killed.

 

 

A Warrior's Death: When this model is reduced to 0 Wounds by an enemy   Attack, this model may immediately take a (1)   Attack Action against the enemy model. This Attack ignores range and LoS restrictions. After completing this Action, sacrifice this model.

 

In both cases, if the model were "immediately killed", it wouldn't be on the table to perform the action that the ability is granting.  So it should be clear that you need to resolve the "Reduced to 0" abilities before you attempt to consider the model killed.

[AoS]

Mate you score vp at the end of the turn, in that moment leve is not killed, and you let the marker before the model is removed from playa as killed.

Solkan faq cuestión is not like that, but anyway, in the izamu card don't say before being killed, and un the other is explained, maybe if it is not explained "before it is killed" we have to guess that it is.

[CanYaDigIT]

Look. The card says when it is reduced to 0 wounds. That is not the same as when the model is killed. One may trigger the other, they may count as at the same time for a particular ability, but it isnt the same and a model cannot be both killed and sacrificed.

[AoS]

That may be correct, and there is the missunderstood. I still want an oficial clarification saying that I cannot aply the faq situation to this.

[Rob Lo]

Okay, I'm really trying to see it this way. I'm just trying to figure out the step by step flow through the rules that gets there, and how that flow through the rules would be different if Izamu's 'then sacrifice this model' weren't in there, to compare it to other timing things (perhaps even violation).

 

In general, not having to do with any above specifics, are you saying it is, Stage 1) Model starts with 4 wounds left and takes 5 wounds damage after any and all reduction and prevention Stage 2) model is reduced to zero wounds.. fire any and all things that would apply for '0 wounds', then Stage 3) model is considered killed.. firing any and all things that reference "when killed", such as basically being interrupted by something like Karina's upgrade or Bete's "before counting as killed"? What does the any and all things part include? Triggers? Abilities?

 

I see a lot of arguments that seem to suggest that because the end result of izamu's ability is sacrifice, a lot of things that would be done before getting to that part of the sentence are ignored or somehow known to not be done,completely trumping "Acting Models abilities go first". If that 'sacrificed' clause were gone, and instead it said anything else, like "This model then drops two corpse markers instead of one", would these things happen in the (what I thought up until now) normal way of Acting model abilities first?

 

Does it really come down to you do things in the proper order except when something 4 steps ahead will say "You shouldn't have done that" (or what I see as "from this point forward you can't do that kind of stuff"), or am I just reading way too much into the steps (it is the warning in the FAQ after all) and we're not supposed to consider things written in sentences in a row to be carried out in that order? 

 

Because really, if a thing can change a model from alive to killed, or alive to buried, or burning to not-burning, it's not much to say that Izamu's specifically can change his killed to sacrificed, even after following the order of operations you do for every other model in the game, that in this case let him be considered killed long enough for a 

[AoS]

In fact I notice a thing about the faq example. In the faq they could say that violation of magic happens first because reduce to 0 wd is before killed, but no, and in both cases the summoning goes first. But instead they say that when a model is killed is the same timing that when reduce to 0 wounds and then they look into the general timing. I think that they talk generally enough to think that we can apply it in our situación.

[CanYaDigIT]

I know you really want this to be the case but it is not.

[AoS]

I don't "want to", I really believe it is.

I play arcanist, I'm not affected in game.

[tomjoad]

This is the most wildly and willfully misinterpreted rule I've come across yet in Malifaux. AOS, if you are just trolling here, I kind of have to applaud you for keeping it up for 4 full pages.

[Lucidicide]

This is the most wildly and willfully misinterpreted rule I've come across yet in Malifaux. AOS, if you are just trolling here, I kind of have to applaud you for keeping it up for 4 full pages.

 

If this is the most misinterpreted rule you've come across, you don't spend much time on the boards :-P

 

That said, limit the personal attacks (such as calling someone a troll). The only known troll that you can accuse around here is me. :-D

[benjoewoo]

While the rules consider reducing to 0 wounds and being killed pretty much the same, there is, based on certain cards' existence, necessarily a differentiation in timing.

 

Before reading what I say below, I ask you look at this link: http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/102260-the-definition-of-killed/.

 

There, someone focuses on a similar problem with Collette and other various models, as Colette has an ability that was intended to avoid being killed. A Wyrd person (I'd say employee but not sure--made by Aaron who's post is coincidentally above mine) makes several statements saying that abilities could trigger during the window between reduction to 0 wounds and removal from the table, as a model retains a "killed" status prior to removal from the table, during which other abilities relying on a killed status could trigger. However, He clarifies at the bottom of page 1 that a better wording for interpretation would be that being killed is a status during the time between reduction to 0 wounds and removal from play, but the status is confirmed once removed from play, at which point a corpse/scrap marker is placed, depending on the model.

 

Viktoria of Blood's ability reads as follows: "Into the fray: The first time this model kills another model during its activation, this model may heal 1/2/3 damage."

 

Izamu's ability reads as follows: "A Warrior's Death: When this model is reduced to 0 Wounds by an enemy melee Attack, this model may immediately take a (1) melee Attack Action against the enemy model. This Attack ignores range and LoS restrictions. After completing this Action, sacrifice this model."

 

I omitted the symbols in Izamu's ability because I copied it from above.

 

Under an interpretation allowing Viktoria of Blood to heal prior to Izamu's sacrifice, Izamu's text regarding being sacrificed serves no purpose in the game other than to give dual killed and sacrifice triggers, which would be more problematic and unlikely the intended effect of the ability. 

 

Izamu's ability at face value is to make a farewell attack and change his status from being killed to being sacrificed to avoid letting other models trigger abilities from it being killed or utilize the corpse marker that would be left behind. There is no serious doubt that's what it is meant to do. Viktoria of Blood's ability is at face value an added benefit that triggers when a model is specifically killed by her during her activation. The logical interaction is that Izamu's ability trumps Viktoria of Blood's ability by sacrificing Izamu so that Viktoria of Blood does not get her heal flip. 

 

If Viktoria of Blood were to be able to trigger prior to Izamu's ability, then that would necessarily mean, unless a specific clarification ruled otherwise, that the sacrifice related text on Izamu's ability only serves to prevent placing a corpse counter. However, even then, there would be a great status duality argument that would allow for him to drop a corpse marker anyway and maintain a dual killed and sacrifice status. It would also mean that if you somehow had two models that triggered abilities off a model being killed and sacrified, then both of those models could resolve their effects because Izamu would hand them both if the model's controller chose to trigger the ability. 

 

This type of rules interaction goes against what the rules say without explicit text to that effect, so it doesn't really fall in line with the concept of cards overriding rules, and requires reading Izamu and Viktoria of Bloods' abilities in a very narrow scope for Izamu and very wide scope for Viktoria of blood, rendering Izamu's text regarding being sacrificed largely non-effective, non-intuitive, and rarely relevant. Without better card text support or an actual official ruling, the logical play would be not allowing Viktoria of Blood to heal.

 

TL;DR and EDIT NOTE; if you've been reading my post you've likely seen it change as I edit it. I've edited it for clarity, and because I think my most salient point is really that there is a logical outcome argument to be made despite any ambiguities in the rules regarding whether a model is killed for a certain time frame or when it is considered killed during any time frame. Common sense/logic based interpretations of what is a fairly clear intended effect should trump so that players are not as required to carry a growing FAQ/Errata sheet in addition to a rules manual and stat cards.

[Ludvig]

Sorry for the wall and the caps. Its meant as emphasis, not screaming but Im on my phone so cant put it in italics.

I find the really troublesome part or this that the FAQ actually makes a broad statement that reducing to 0 and killing is the same timing. It looks like everyone arguing against this rules interaction does so because they do not see the two as the same timing. I know I would interpret this as Izamu triggering first off the 0 wounds and seeing that as a different timing than killed. I can however see the argument made on the other side in this thread.

If the two are in fact the same timing which the FAQ seems to use as a basis for the other interaction this leads to an awkward situation. And the FAQ basically says that you should interpret those timings as the same which is impossible to disregard if the designers of this game thinks that's how it should be resolved. So then we go: Both models have abilities timed with this exakt same timing point (reduced to zero/killed). Timing on p 46 says resolve the acting models ability first. Vik is acting so we resolve her ability first. Vik heals from her ability, make flips for that etc. NOW Izamu gets to resolve his ability AFTER Viks is completely done and flips have been made. His ability changes his state FROM THIS POINT IN TIME since we can't go back and put Viks card back in her control deck, Viks ability is already resolved. From this point in time she does not count as killing Izamu and doesn't get reckoning points for example.

Markers are not specifically timed but are placed "before the model is removed" (p49) which sounds like "dead last, after resolvibg all triggers and other effects" to me. They can resonably be said to be placed after you have determined how the model leaves play.

VP are not affected either way since they are calculated at the end of the turn and by that time the kill has been retroactively nullified by the sacrifice.

Now if the timing is not the same than everyone is happy since 0 wounds is first and Izamu goes first without conflict. If the timing is the same we have this mind****.

The solution seems to be to rewrite that FAQ entry.