Nix's "Hollow" vs Crossroads Seven

[Kirillych]

1) How works Nix's "Hollow" (Until the start of this model next Activation, friendly models within aura 5" are immune to damage dealt by aura, pulse and blast effeects) against Wrath's "Empty Rage" (...all models within aura 3" which suffer damage from Ml Attack Actions suffer +1 damage)?

2) How works Nix's "Hollow"(Until the start of this model next Activation...) against Sloth's "Lazy Sunday" (Enemy models which start their activation within aura 3" must discard a card or suffer 2 damage or gain the Slow Condition) when Nix activates within 3" of Sloth and in previous turn "Hollow" was manifested?

3) Wtat happens with Nix's friendly models within "Hollow" ability range, when they activates within 3" of Sloth?

[Bengt]

51 minutes ago, solkan said:

Hollow ends before Lazy Sunday is evaluated.  This holds both by common Engish, and the General Timing in that the Acting Model (Nix) would resolve its effect (the expiration of Hollow) before resolving Sloth's Aura.

A model's controller chooses the order Start of Activation effects are resolved, page 36. So Nix' controller can chose to resolve Sloth's Aura before Hollow.

[Myth]

8 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

I buy the argument that it is baked into the ml damage. What I don't see is how "... friendly models within  5 are immune to damage dealt by ,  and  effects." can be taken to not include damage from Wrath's aura.

It doesn't say you are immune to damage caused only directly by auras, it says you are immune to damage suffered as an effect of being in an aura, pulse or blast. Auras pulses and blast are by definition only areas for where something affects other models on the board. If the effect of a rule is damage you are immune to that damage if you are also within Nix's aura. That's the way I see it at least, others seems to be taking a very different stance.

I think it does say you are immune to damage caused directly by auras - that is what "damage dealt" means. I think it would need much broader wording if it made you immune to all the damage-relevant effects of Auras, including ones that modify other effects or attacks on the board. Wrath's Aura, ultimately, does not deal damage to the target in the Aura. It just means that when other models attack that target, those attacks deal extra damage. As the 'dealing' of damage is coming from other sources, not from the Aura, Hollow does not apply.

Count me in as another for whom it is pretty cut and dry that Hollow would not protect against Wrath's aura.

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Kirillych said:

1) How works Nix's "Hollow" (Until the start of this model next Activation, friendly models within aura 5" are immune to damage dealt by aura, pulse and blast effeects) against Wrath's "Empty Rage" (...all models within aura 3" which suffer damage from Ml Attack Actions suffer +1 damage)?

Hollow doesn't do anything, because it's not damage from an aura, pulse or blast effect.  The damage is from the Ml attack, the same way that Sebastion's Induction ability changes the poison damage and Induction isn't causing the damage.

1 hour ago, Kirillych said:

2) How works Nix's "Hollow"(Until the start of this model next Activation...) against Sloth's "Lazy Sunday" (Enemy models which start their activation within aura 3" must discard a card or suffer 2 damage or gain the Slow Condition) when Nix activates within 3" of Sloth and in previous turn "Hollow" was manifested?

Hollow ends before Lazy Sunday is evaluated.  This holds both by common Engish, and the General Timing in that the Acting Model (Nix) would resolve its effect (the expiration of Hollow) before resolving Sloth's Aura.

1 hour ago, Kirillych said:

3) Wtat happens with Nix's friendly models within "Hollow" ability range, when they activates within 3" of Sloth?

The model chooses one of the three effects of Lazy Sunday and applies it, following all of the appropriate rules.  One of the possible consequences is that it ends up following the immunity rules and ignoring two damage.

Note that it's possible to construct a situation where the model is unable to do any of those things--its controller has no cards, it's immune to damage caused by auras, and it's either immune to Conditions or already has the Slow Condition. 

[Ludvig]

You should be immune to the damage from Wrath's aura in question 1. 

To find out if you are suffering damage from an aura effect you should ask yourself how much damage you would have suffered if you were too far away for the aura to modify the damage you just suffered.

I could see why Sebatian's ability might cause an argument with its wording but Wrath's ability doesn't have that kind of wording.

[Kirillych]

Thanks!

[Ludvig]

I'm still confused about question one. Both Solkan's comment and mine have been downvoted. The damage in wrath's ability is suffered as an effect of being in an aura so if a model is immune to aura damage it shouldn't suffer that damage in my eyes. It doesn't specify that it is a part of the ml attack like Sebastian's poison ability does so I don't see why it shouldn't be considered damage caused by an aura. Even if it would be baked in with the ml damage it is clearly being suffered due to an aura. Anyone care to comment on that?

[Adran]

13 hours ago, Ludvig said:

I'm still confused about question one. Both Solkan's comment and mine have been downvoted. The damage in wrath's ability is suffered as an effect of being in an aura so if a model is immune to aura damage it shouldn't suffer that damage in my eyes. It doesn't specify that it is a part of the ml attack like Sebastian's poison ability does so I don't see why it shouldn't be considered damage caused by an aura. Even if it would be baked in with the ml damage it is clearly being suffered due to an aura. Anyone care to comment on that?

The aura is not the source of the damage. The aura changes the amount of damage that is done by the acting model. It is 1 source of damage, which  will matter for things like, Armor, Bk Black blood and Hard to kill. If the model is killed by the attack then it is the attack that killed it, not the aura, because the aura has not damaged the model. 

 

[Ludvig]

43 minutes ago, Adran said:

The aura is not the source of the damage. The aura changes the amount of damage that is done by the acting model. It is 1 source of damage, which  will matter for things like, Armor, Bk Black blood and Hard to kill. If the model is killed by the attack then it is the attack that killed it, not the aura, because the aura has not damaged the model. 

 

Even it is baked into another source I should clearly not suffer it if I have a rule that makes me not suffer damage due to auras? 

If we are going by very strict wordings without flexibility then the wording of Wrath's ability doesn't clearly specify that the +1 dmg is caused by the ml attack so how do I know the source? Would the ability need to be worded "models that suffer damage from a ml attack suffer +1 damage from this aura" to work as Ithink? My default mode for assigning damage would be that if it isn't clearly specified the damage is part of the current ability that I'm resolving.

How can you tell without a doubt that the +1 is to be considered baked into the ml damage and not just one extra point of damage caused by the active rule in question?

If this rule is an example of something that is not considered damage from an aura then damage immunity from auras seems very lackluster. After all, if I suffer damage due to a misery aura I could argue that the damage comes from failing a Wp duel so aura immunity doesn't cover it. Misery gives damage to models fulfilling a certain condition in a certain aura. Wrath's ability gives damage to models fulfilling a certain consition in an aura. None of them emmanate solely from being in the aura but from being in the aura and fulfilling something else to proc the auras effect. Why are they different?

[Rabbitknight]

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Ludvig said:

Even it is baked into another source I should clearly not suffer it if I have a rule that makes me not suffer damage due to auras? 

If we are going by very strict wordings without flexibility then the wording of Wrath's ability doesn't clearly specify that the +1 dmg is caused by the ml attack so how do I know the source? Would the ability need to be worded "models that suffer damage from a ml attack suffer +1 damage from this aura" to work as Ithink? My default mode for assigning damage would be that if it isn't clearly specified the damage is part of the current ability that I'm resolving.

How can you tell without a doubt that the +1 is to be considered baked into the ml damage and not just one extra point of damage caused by the active rule in question?

If this rule is an example of something that is not considered damage from an aura then damage immunity from auras seems very lackluster. After all, if I suffer damage due to a misery aura I could argue that the damage comes from failing a Wp duel so aura immunity doesn't cover it. Misery gives damage to models fulfilling a certain condition in a certain aura. Wrath's ability gives damage to models fulfilling a certain consition in an aura. None of them emmanate solely from being in the aura but from being in the aura and fulfilling something else to proc the auras effect. Why are they different?

Compare Wrath's aura to Misery. The + there means modifying an existing source. If it were a separate source it would be something along the lines of: "A model that suffers damage from a ML attack within A3 suffers 1 damage." Which would be a whole new source.

[Ludvig]

21 minutes ago, Rabbitknight said:

Compare Wrath's aura to Misery. The + there means modifying an existing source. If it were a separate source it would be something along the lines of: "A model that suffers damage from a ML attack within A3 suffers 1 damage." Which would be a whole new source.

I buy the argument that it is baked into the ml damage. What I don't see is how "... friendly models within  5 are immune to damage dealt by ,  and  effects." can be taken to not include damage from Wrath's aura.

It doesn't say you are immune to damage caused only directly by auras, it says you are immune to damage suffered as an effect of being in an aura, pulse or blast. Auras pulses and blast are by definition only areas for where something affects other models on the board. If the effect of a rule is damage you are immune to that damage if you are also within Nix's aura. That's the way I see it at least, others seems to be taking a very different stance.

[Rabbitknight]

If the source of the damage is the Ml attack, then there is no damage from an aura source. It's really that straightforward. The aura itself is not dealing any damage, just changing the amount of damage ml attacks do. 

[solkan]

26 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

I buy the argument that it is baked into the ml damage. What I don't see is how "... friendly models within  5 are immune to damage dealt by ,  and  effects." can be taken to not include damage from Wrath's aura.

It doesn't say you are immune to damage caused only directly by auras, it says you are immune to damage suffered as an effect of being in an aura, pulse or blast. Auras pulses and blast are by definition only areas for where something affects other models on the board. If the effect of a rule is damage you are immune to that damage if you are also within Nix's aura. That's the way I see it at least, others seems to be taking a very different stance.

Please explain which model kills the target, if you believe both models are causing it to suffer damage--one because of the attack and the other because of the aura.

For instance, are you going to give Rafkin is within 6 of an enemy Guild model with Poison that is suffering damage.  A Death Marshal shoots and hits the poisoned model, and it dies.  Who killed the model?

 

[Ludvig]

32 minutes ago, solkan said:

Please explain which model kills the target, if you believe both models are causing it to suffer damage--one because of the attack and the other because of the aura.

For instance, are you going to give Rafkin is within 6 of an enemy Guild model with Poison that is suffering damage.  A Death Marshal shoots and hits the poisoned model, and it dies.  Who killed the model?

 

The death marshal counts as killing it on the basis of it dealing the damage. Actually the damage from Rafkin's ability is caused by a second source in the same way that multiple sorrows cause multiple small damage sources. If the model dies from the last tick, Rafkin gets credit.The extra damage is an effect happening because it is in an area defined by an aura or pulse as part of an ability or attack. The aura or pulse itself is just a range for an abilities effect as per the rulebook. From p.60 of the online rulesmanual: "The aura icon (a) appears as part of a range for some Actions or Abilities. When an aura is present, then the Action or Ability affects an area." The bit about the +1 from the attack near Wrath would however mean that the model doing the Ml attack gets credit for the extra damage. The damage is still caused by something that is part of an effect using an aura though so Nix makes you immune in my opinion.

I take it to mean that auras and pulses describe areas affected by abilities or attacks. Nix makes you immune to any damage that is described as an effect of being in such an area, the area itself isn't doing the damage but the ability or action generating that area is and that is what Nix makes you immune to.

 

 

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, Rabbitknight said:

If the source of the damage is the Ml attack, then there is no damage from an aura source. It's really that straightforward. The aura itself is not dealing any damage, just changing the amount of damage ml attacks do. 

Auras never deal direct damage as far as I know, they are a range measurement to see wether the ability which deals damage to you has range or not. Sorrows have an ability called misery. If you fail a WP duel MISERY deals damage to you because you are within the range where the ability has an effect. That range is specified by a  to clarify that it needs LoS and interacts in certain ways with other rules.

[Ludvig]

Sorry, I've edited way to much in my last three answers. Please have a readthrough again, I might take a break for the night, see you tomorrow!  

[Myth]

I do understand what you are getting at. I think the key is that a blst is part of an attack, and thus subject to the rules for that attack plus the rules for being a blast. An attack being boosted by an aura, however, is not part of an aura, in the same way that an attack being boosted by a condition is not, itself, a condition. If I am immune to damage from conditions, and a model attacks me while having a condition that causes it to do +2 damage with attacks, I still take all of that damage.

[Ludvig]

10 hours ago, Myth said:

I do understand what you are getting at. I think the key is that a blst is part of an attack, and thus subject to the rules for that attack plus the rules for being a blast. An attack being boosted by an aura, however, is not part of an aura, in the same way that an attack being boosted by a condition is not, itself, a condition. If I am immune to damage from conditions, and a model attacks me while having a condition that causes it to do +2 damage with attacks, I still take all of that damage.

Argh! Phone ate my reply

 

I believe your example has little relevance since you are arguing about rules affecting the attacker and cobdutions who work very differently from auras.

Wrath's aura doesn't have any effect on the attacker. It does have a damagibg effect on the defendibg model if it is in the area defined by the aura.

What I am arguing that I would appreciate to see disproven is that the definition of aura is always just a measrement of range for an ability or action so that in fact no damage is ever caused directly by the aura measurement but always by an ability or action whose range of effect is defined by an aura. Take a look at the definition if aura from the rulebook, quoted it above somewhere but on my phone and not doing so well atm.

Thanks in advance to both Myth and Solkan (as well as anyone else) for continuing this discussion

[Myth]

14 hours ago, Ludvig said:

What I am arguing that I would appreciate to see disproven is that the definition of aura is always just a measrement of range for an ability or action so that in fact no damage is ever caused directly by the aura measurement but always by an ability or action whose range of effect is defined by an aura. Take a look at the definition if aura from the rulebook, quoted it above somewhere but on my phone and not doing so well atm.

See, I don't think you can separate an aura from the ability is part of by saying it is 'just' a range measurement. Misery is an Aura that causes damage, not 'an Ability that causes damage which happens to use an Aura'.

It is the same exact situation with Attacks. An attack which has a range of 2 is considered a "Attack". An Ability or Action which has an 3 as a range is considered an " effect". That is simply the shorthand the game uses, rather than constantly writing out, "Any Attack which has a range" or "Any Attack or Ability which has an range" when referencing such things.

Look at, say, Lightning Bugs. It says they reduce the damage they take from all and effects by 1. If a Pulse never actually does direct damage (but is only a measurement for some other Ability that is dealing the damage), then their Ability would never actually work at all, right?

[Ludvig]

8 hours ago, Myth said:

See, I don't think you can separate an aura from the ability is part of by saying it is 'just' a range measurement. Misery is an Aura that causes damage, not 'an Ability that causes damage which happens to use an Aura'.

It is the same exact situation with Attacks. An attack which has a range of 2 is considered a "Attack". An Ability or Action which has an 3 as a range is considered an " effect". That is simply the shorthand the game uses, rather than constantly writing out, "Any Attack which has a range" or "Any Attack or Ability which has an range" when referencing such things.

Look at, say, Lightning Bugs. It says they reduce the damage they take from all and effects by 1. If a Pulse never actually does direct damage (but is only a measurement for some other Ability that is dealing the damage), then their Ability would never actually work at all, right?

My whole argument is that they would reduce the damage from any effect using the above icons and that Nix should too. I am the one advocating a broad application of the term damaging "effect" as in more or less any effect the aura has on me that ends up meaning damage.

If a model had a pulse that said "all models within  immediately resolves it's poison condition as if it was the end of the turn" I would argue that the lightning bug should reduce that since the damage is coming from the effects of a pulse. If I haven't completely misunderstood all of you you have been arguing that the damage wasn't caused directly by the pulse itself but by poison so the bugs wouldn't reduce it.

 

 

[Myth]

59 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

My whole argument is that they would reduce the damage from any effect using the above icons and that Nix should too. I am the one advocating a broad application of the term damaging "effect" as in more or less any effect the aura has on me that ends up meaning damage.

If a model had a pulse that said "all models within  immediately resolves it's poison condition as if it was the end of the turn" I would argue that the lightning bug should reduce that since the damage is coming from the effects of a pulse. If I haven't completely misunderstood all of you you have been arguing that the damage wasn't caused directly by the pulse itself but by poison so the bugs wouldn't reduce it.

Right, that seems to be the divide here. From my perspective, there are Auras that can directly cause damage, and then there are Auras that can indirectly cause damage. Hollow specifically refers to Auras that deal damage, and so only works on those.

Misery directly deals damage when the right conditions are met. Wrath's Aura does not - instead, it just gives a modifier to any attacks that target people within the Aura. Those Attacks are what are, ultimately, dealing the damage. Similarly, if an Aura existed like you described, the Aura itself is not what would be dealing damage to the Lightning Bug. Instead, the Lightning Bug is taking damage from a Condition, even if the Aura is what caused the Condition to trigger early.

Actually, let's compare to a similar situation with attacks:

Kaeris Trigger - Engulf: "After applying Burning, the target suffers damage equal to its Burning Condition Value and then removes the Burning Condition."

Eternal Flame - Flaming Detonation: "Target model with the Burning Condition immediately resolves the Burning Condition as if it were the end of the turn."

Note that these two effects operate very similarly. However, there is a key difference. With the Kaeris trigger, it is Kaeris herself who is dealing damage to the model, and simply is calculating the amount of that damage based on the value of the Burning on the target. If the model is killed, Kaeris counts as the one who killed them. A model that reduces damage from Conditions would still take full damage from Kaeris, since the Condition is not actually dealing the damage.

The Eternal Flame, on the other hand, is causing their Burning Condition to immediately be processed, as if it were the end of the turn. A model that reduces damage from Conditions would be able to successfully use that protection against the Eternal Flame's attack, since it is simply causing the Condition to trigger, not dealing the damage itself.

Same thing with Auras. If an Aura caused your Poison to trigger an additional time, the Poison is what is damaging you, not the Aura. If an Aura caused a Poisoned model to simply take damage when activating, then the Aura is what is causing the damage (and thus Hollow would apply.)

 

[Ludvig]

@Myth Very good example! 

I will probably have to adjust to what seems like the overwhelming majority opinion. Cheers for sticking through with me! 

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, Myth said:

I think it does say you are immune to damage caused directly by auras - that is what "damage dealt" means. I think it would need much broader wording if it made you immune to all the damage-relevant effects of Auras, including ones that modify other effects or attacks on the board. Wrath's Aura, ultimately, does not deal damage to the target in the Aura. It just means that when other models attack that target, those attacks deal extra damage. As the 'dealing' of damage is coming from other sources, not from the Aura, Hollow does not apply.

Count me in as another for whom it is pretty cut and dry that Hollow would not protect against Wrath's aura.

But damage seems like it can be a part of multiple sources/rules to me.

Take incorporeal: It says "Reduce all damage this model suffers from Sh and Ml Attack Actions by half."

On blasts from p. 61 of the online booklet we have the following explanantion of how blast damage is dealt: 

"If a blast  is part of a damage flip (which is usually the case) place one Blast Marker for each blast symbol (b) in the Damage Severity flipped. The blast deals diminished damage to models who aren’t the original target. The damage dealt by a blast from a damage flip is one step lower than the damage flipped for the initial blast. An Attack with a 2/3b/4b that deals Moderate damage, for instance, would place one Blast Marker (due to the one b on the Moderate damage), and deal 3 damage to the original target, and 2 damage to each other model within the blast."

I thought the concensus was that blasts were considered part of the attacks to which damage track they were associated and thus reduced accordingly if they had originated as a part of the damage flip on a Sh or Ml attack action. Thus you can be suffering damage BOTH from a blast and a Sh action so being incorporeal would make you halve the blast damage but if you were in Nix's aura you wouldn't suffer damage at all since the damage was dealt by a blast effect. It seems to me that people arguing that Ml damage dealt as part of an aura is not aura damage, then why is blast damage dealt by a blast that happens to be part of an attack action considered damage from that attack? In my eyes you are all arguing that the damage is solely from a blast since it can only have one source.

If damage is dealt EITHER by an attack OR by a    effect and cannot be considered dealt by both, then any damage suffered due to being hit by a blast should deal full damage to incorporeal models since that damage is actually dealt by the blast according to the book (if we go by things needing to be extremely specific in what it grants immunity to). Concensus as far as I know is that's not how you do it. Yet it says specifically that the blast deals the damage in the above case and incorporeal doesn't specifically have wording to make you immune to blasts placed as part of attack actions. 

Seems to me that if Nix doesn't make you immune to extra damage dealt specifically by being in the aura (yet considered caused by the attack for the purposes of who gets credit for the kill) then Incorporeal doesn't halve blast damage oridinating from Sh and Ml attack actions since you only consider the direct source when refencing immunities and rules interactions. 

 

Edit: This whole post is probably off, getting too tired. I'll leave it here for the purposes of mocking me