triggers timing (again)

[gertermit]

Dear friends!

We know, that the Df triggers resolve before Attacking model's triggers. 
And we know, that model removes from the game after "after damaging" 
attacking triggers. So, can we resolve Df trigger before removing a model, 
if this model died during the attack?

[whodares]

29 minutes ago, gertermit said:

wow! that's an excellent point! thnx! i totally missed it

 

27 minutes ago, gertermit said:

that's true, i had a bad example, but sometimes it could matter, as i think. when it matter where to place corpse marker, as you said, or a "headmarker" in headhunter.

that's really weird, if you can use df trigger ONLY if the attacker has his after damaging trigger 😃

 

22 minutes ago, gertermit said:

I really doubt you would find it in the rules, i tried 😃 or in faq

 

17 minutes ago, gertermit said:

also, i have another idea with dead models processing triggers - francois lacroix, doing his "loosing trigger"

after damaging, he suffers one damage and immediately takes this action again. since we remove the model after all after damage triggers, he can use this trigger much more times, that wounds he has

of course, only if dead models can process triggers

Please keep it to one post. every forum in the world allows multiquote. There's also an edit button for this.

[solkan]

12 minutes ago, gertermit said:

Dear friends!

We know, that the Df triggers resolve before Attacking model's triggers. 
And we know, that model removes from the game after "after damaging" 
attacking triggers. So, can we resolve Df trigger before removing a model, 
if this model died during the attack?

Please note the last sentence of “After damaging”:

Quote

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.

If there is an After Damaging Trigger in effect, the Killed Defender is not removed until the trigger(s) have been resolved during “After Step 5”.

[gertermit]

5 minutes ago, solkan said:

If there is an After Damaging Trigger in effect

so, if the attaking model has the after damaging trigger, the defender has his time to resolve his trigger. and if the attacker doesn't has any, the killed defender just removing without any Df triggers?

pretty tricky...

[Ludvig]

50 minutes ago, gertermit said:

so, if the attaking model has the after damaging trigger, the defender has his time to resolve his trigger. and if the attacker doesn't has any, the killed defender just removing without any Df triggers?

pretty tricky...

It matters what timing the defense trigger uses. A lot of them have timings that will let them resolve earlier.

[Adran]

45 minutes ago, gertermit said:

so, if the attaking model has the after damaging trigger, the defender has his time to resolve his trigger. and if the attacker doesn't has any, the killed defender just removing without any Df triggers?

pretty tricky...

You missed one important point. Triggers happen when they say they happen. It's only if they happen at the same time that you have to go to the defenders trigger go first. So some attacker Triggers go before defending Triggers anyway.

[gertermit]

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

timing the defense trigger uses

most of them happen after Step 5, so, it's the same time

let's have this example: smbd attacks the bayou gremlin, who has High Pitched Squeel, "after resolving ... attack action ... push this model"

after resolving happen after Step 5, like almost every trigger AND like after damaging trigger. and df triggers resolves before attack triggers if they happen at the same time (after Step 5 in this example). so, can we say that it resolves before the model is removed (even if bayou gremlin is killed)? or it can resolve ONLY if the attaker has after damaging trigger?

[Ludvig]

57 minutes ago, gertermit said:

most of them happen after Step 5, so, it's the same time

let's have this example: smbd attacks the bayou gremlin, who has High Pitched Squeel, "after resolving ... attack action ... push this model"

after resolving happen after Step 5, like almost every trigger AND like after damaging trigger. and df triggers resolves before attack triggers if they happen at the same time (after Step 5 in this example). so, can we say that it resolves before the model is removed (even if bayou gremlin is killed)? or it can resolve ONLY if the attaker has after damaging trigger?

Yes but the gremlin will be dead so it seams reasonable to not resolve it. Technically I think you are allowed to resolve it there is just no model left to push.

You declare the trigger at the declare trigger step so anything declared will resolve if possible it's just that most triggers require the model to be left on the table.

[gertermit]

12 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

reasonable to not resolve it

i think, sometimes it may be important.

4 example - dig they graves, where you can push your dying model away from the enemy scheme marker. also some models have abilities that work when someone is killed near them.

 

16 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

triggers require the model to be left on the table

that's why i'm interesting - can i resolve df trigger before removing the model

 

17 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Yes

yes to what exactly?

[Adran]

If you have an after succeeding or after resolving trigger, then no it wouldn't resolve if the model was killed. Because they are killed during step 5

Exactly how the timing goes if you have an after damaging trigger and an after resolving trigger and the model is killed is unknown. My best guess is you delay the removal of the killed model so yes it would then get to activate a trigger it couldn't normally. 

For what it's worth you would still be killed in the same spot, even if you moved before you were removed. 

[Ludvig]

It messes with where you place the corpse if you get to push which I guess could be good. 

Are we sure dead models can't process triggers? I haven't reread the rules in ages. They are declared and sort of "loaded into the machine" at the declaration step, right now my deranged mind is thinking it's mostly because you don't have a point to measure from that they rarely resolve.

[Ludvig]

59 minutes ago, gertermit said:

i think, sometimes it may be important.

4 example - dig they graves, where you can push your dying model away from the enemy scheme marker. also some models have abilities that work when someone is killed near them.

 

that's why i'm interesting - can i resolve df trigger before removing the model

 

yes to what exactly?

The model still died near the marker so the opponent would score anyway. 

I said yes since I agree with your whole paragraph about resolving both the after resolving and damaging trigger before removing the model. The thing is that the model was still killed where it was when the damage was dealt, not where it was when you removed it so it matters very little if you push or not.

A lot can happen between the model counting as killed and it being removed.

[gertermit]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

For what it's worth you would still be killed in the same spot, even if you moved before you were removed. 

wow! that's an excellent point! thnx! i totally missed it

 

A lot can happen between the model counting as killed and it being removed.

that's true, i had a bad example, but sometimes it could matter, as i think. when it matter where to place corpse marker, as you said, or a "headmarker" in headhunter.

that's really weird, if you can use df trigger ONLY if the attacker has his after damaging trigger 😃

Are we sure dead models can't process triggers? I haven't reread the rules in ages.

I really doubt you would find it in the rules, i tried 😃 or in faq

 

dead models can't process triggers?

also, i have another idea with dead models processing triggers - francois lacroix, doing his "loosing trigger"

after damaging, he suffers one damage and immediately takes this action again. since we remove the model after all after damage triggers, he can use this trigger much more times, that wounds he has

of course, only if dead models can process triggers

[gertermit]

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

A lot can happen between the model counting as killed and it being removed.

that's true, i had a bad example, but sometimes it could matter, as i think. when it matter where to place corpse marker, as you said, or a "headmarker" in headhunter.

that's really weird, if you can use df trigger ONLY if the attacker has his after damaging trigger =)

[gertermit]

2 hours ago, Ludvig said:

Are we sure dead models can't process triggers? I haven't reread the rules in ages.

I really doubt you would find it in the rules, i tried 😃 or in faq

[gertermit]

2 hours ago, Ludvig said:

dead models can't process triggers?

also, i have another idea with dead models processing triggers - francois lacroix, doing his "loosing trigger"

after damaging, he suffers one damage and immediately takes this action again. since we remove the model after all after damage triggers, he can use this trigger much more times, that wounds he has

of course, only if dead models can process triggers

[gertermit]

yep, sorry. how can i delete posts?

[Ludvig]

I don't see why the Loose Trigger trigger on Francois would be any different than Rasputina keeping her target alive to blast from it with her trigger to attack again from a weirdness perspective. I can't find anything in the rulebook about dead models not being able to declare triggers or take actions (Izamu has an action that requires him to take an action after he is dead so that is definitely possible within the confines of the game). On page 32 (big book) it says after damaging triggers are resolved before the damaged model is removed. In the sentence before it does seem to take for granted that the trigger is damaging the target but it's hardly crystal clear. The main problem is going to be convincing your opponent/TO.

[Adran]

56 minutes ago, gertermit said:

also, i have another idea with dead models processing triggers - francois lacroix, doing his "loosing trigger"

after damaging, he suffers one damage and immediately takes this action again. since we remove the model after all after damage triggers, he can use this trigger much more times, that wounds he has

of course, only if dead models can process triggers

Dead models can process triggers. But I think the model needs to be on the table at the time the trigger would trigger unless it says otherwise. So yes francois can take that last shot that he has killed himself to make, but only because the rules tell us that after damaging trigger will happen before the model is removed. The don't say the same for after resolving, succeeding, or failing, so normally they won't happen I'd the model is killed. 

 

Edit -MOD HAT I am on my phone, but I'll look at the thread on a pc to see if it needs tidying up. 

[gertermit]

Just now, Adran said:

So yes francois can take that last shot

not only the last shot - he can take a lot of them, if he managed to damage target every time

[Adran]

1 minute ago, gertermit said:

not only the last shot - he can take a lot of them, if he managed to damage target every time

Well he can take lots, but only one after one of the model dies. So he can do it until he is on 0 wounds, after which he can't do it any more, or he can do 1 attack against a model on 0 wounds, and he will fail to damage because you can't damage a model on 0 wounds. 

[gertermit]

5 minutes ago, Adran said:

you can't damage a model on 0 wounds

and he fails to damage himself? yeah, i got it now

[solkan]

I think there’s a simple, clear (it pretty much has to go one way or the other, and doesn’t depend on the model’s position) case concerning defensive triggers:  Sub Zero.

“Sub Zero (:tome:) After this model suffer damage from an Ml Attack, immediately end the Attacker’s Activation.”

If the Defender declares Sub Zero, and the Defender suffers damage, the Attacker’s Activation ends whether the Defender survives or not.  

[gertermit]

eeerm, and why the other triggers shouldn't resolve if defender is killed then?

"after suffering" doesn't has the special rule about removing the model like "after damaging"

either any df triggers can resolve even if defender is killed, or sub zero resolves only if he survived (or there was attacking after damaging trigger, as we find out earlier)

[SunTsu]

That's an old question about triggers timing. And it's a black spot in the rules that Wyrd would be better to fix in some way.

There is even an unofficial timetable that try to fill these gaps in the rules: https://schemesandstones.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/the-master-timing-chart/

I remember a topic about Seamus's hat damage reduction to zero and Sandeep's ability to paralize when damaging, that was ruled in favor of Seamus (the question was: Seamus can reduce damage to zero if it suffered any damage by discarding the upgrade, Sandeep paralyze the model that suffered damage from his attack, so Seamus gets no damage but it's paralyzed? The answer is no, he gets no paralyze at all). No triggers here, but similar timing issues...

Finally, as shown in many others discussions, the way that Wyrd uses to ruling and interpreting these situation is that things are not so strongly logical and words dependent, but it takes a certain degree of flexibility (in my previous example, if Seamus can uses his upgrade so means he suffered damage, and so he is also paralyzed by Sandeep... But Wyrd said that kind of logic it's not the right way).

So,here we have a situation where an hole in the rules create a strange situation. In my personal opinion, the way to solve it is to minimize the problems in the output of the game. In many passages, it's clear that the timing of "after damaging" it's essentially the same of "after succeding", "after resolving", etc. The most strange, counterintuitive, and disrupting output froma game perspective, imvho, would be if the rules should let some triggers working only if the opponent have an after damaging trigger, while doesn't work if opponent haven't...

So, finally it's enough clear that, despite the fact that the rules said that killed models are removed immediately, it implicitly refers to a simple situation where there aren't any effect to be resolved. But if there are some "after..." kind of effect, the effective removal is delayed to let that effects taking place. So, effectively, the models removal is one of the last thing to do in a timing perspective.

So, fixed we are on a black spot and that we are waiting (from a very long time really at the moment...) for an official answer by Wyrd, in the end my call would be to reduce to minimum the weirdness of rules output in the game by adopting what the common sense and the real meaning of the rules seems to suggest...

Just my two cents...

[Adran]

11 hours ago, solkan said:

I think there’s a simple, clear (it pretty much has to go one way or the other, and doesn’t depend on the model’s position) case concerning defensive triggers:  Sub Zero.

“Sub Zero (:tome:) After this model suffer damage from an Ml Attack, immediately end the Attacker’s Activation.”

If the Defender declares Sub Zero, and the Defender suffers damage, the Attacker’s Activation ends whether the Defender survives or not.  

I think "after this model suffers damage" is not the same as "after damaging". But I can't find anything either way to confirm

("After this model fails" is the same as "after failing", but "after an action succeeds against this model" is not the same as after failing) 

Assuming my above is correct, then Sub Zero would resolve during step 5. And I think we have that ending an activation stops everything else from happening. (I'm hoping I'm not just remembering old rules)

 

9 hours ago, SunTsu said:

So,here we have a situation where an hole in the rules create a strange situation. In my personal opinion, the way to solve it is to minimize the problems in the output of the game. In many passages, it's clear that the timing of "after damaging" it's essentially the same of "after succeding", "after resolving", etc. The most strange, counterintuitive, and disrupting output froma game perspective, imvho, would be if the rules should let some triggers working only if the opponent have an after damaging trigger, while doesn't work if opponent haven't...

So, finally it's enough clear that, despite the fact that the rules said that killed models are removed immediately, it implicitly refers to a simple situation where there aren't any effect to be resolved. But if there are some "after..." kind of effect, the effective removal is delayed to let that effects taking place. So, effectively, the models removal is one of the last thing to do in a timing perspective.

I'm going to say that your simple situation doesn't agree with the rules we have. Only "After damaging" triggers have the stick around clause, which does make it much more complicated. With out that clause, dead models would clearly all go away before any of those triggers happen. And I'm sorry if its strange. I'd love it to be cleared up, but it hasn't been.