Butterfly Jump and Disengaging Strike

[Kharnage]

Important question for all those Neverborn players to have answered.
Butterfly Jump: After resolving an enemy Attack Action targeting this model, this model may move up to 3".

Disengage: Can only be declared while engaged. One enemy model engaging this model (opponent’s choice) may take a y Attack targeting this model; neither model can declare Triggers as a result of this Attack. After resolving the Attack (if any), this model pushes up to its Mv in inches. If the attack is successful, instead of its normal effects, reduce this model’s Push distance by 2/4/6 inches (using the Accuracy Fate Modifier of the Action). This flip receives a + for every other enemy model engaging this model.

So my model, let's say, Nekima with Inhuman Reflexes, disengages from a Desolation Engine. The Desolation Engine takes its attack, hits, flips severe on the reduction value, and reduces her move by 6! She doesn't move! Once his attack resolves, she Butterfly Jumps 3 inches out of melee since his Disengaging Strike resolved against her. Has this been resolved correctly?

[Morgan Vening]

31 minutes ago, Kharnage said:

Important question for all those Neverborn players to have answered.
Butterfly Jump: After resolving an enemy Attack Action targeting this model, this model may move up to 3".

Disengage: Can only be declared while engaged. One enemy model engaging this model (opponent’s choice) may take a y Attack targeting this model; neither model can declare Triggers as a result of this Attack. After resolving the Attack (if any), this model pushes up to its Mv in inches. If the attack is successful, instead of its normal effects, reduce this model’s Push distance by 2/4/6 inches (using the Accuracy Fate Modifier of the Action). This flip receives a + for every other enemy model engaging this model.

So my model, let's say, Nekima with Inhuman Reflexes, disengages from a Desolation Engine. The Desolation Engine takes its attack, hits, flips severe on the reduction value, and reduces her move by 6! She doesn't move! Once his attack resolves, she Butterfly Jumps 3 inches out of melee since his Disengaging Strike resolved against her. Has this been resolved correctly?

I would say so, as per the rules. The key argument against it would be that an "enemy attack" as stated in Disengage, doesn't count as an "enemy attack action" as required by Butterfly Jump.

Now, that might not be how BJump is intended to work, in which case it probably needs clarification. But part of M3E's design principle was to not have convoluted nitpicky rules issues, and defining "enemy attack" and "enemy attack action" as two different things, is probably too nitpicky. Especially as there's no way to resolve an "enemy attack", as resolving an attack is covered in "Resolving Actions", and that's pushing the difference so hard, it'd make diamonds.

[santaclaws01]

6 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

I would say so, as per the rules. The key argument against it would be that an "enemy attack" as stated in Disengage, doesn't count as an "enemy attack action" as required by Butterfly Jump.

Now, that might not be how BJump is intended to work, in which case it probably needs clarification. But part of M3E's design principle was to not have convoluted nitpicky rules issues, and defining "enemy attack" and "enemy attack action" as two different things, is probably too nitpicky. Especially as there's no way to resolve an "enemy attack", as resolving an attack is covered in "Resolving Actions", and that's pushing the difference so hard, it'd make diamonds.

Find me a way to make a  attack against a model that does not use an attack action.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Off the Rails?

[Adran]

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

Find me a way to make a  attack against a model that does not use an attack action.

The disengage action?

It really doesn't follow the rules for attack action created by another effect because M3 has elsewhere avoided  Actions within Actions. It uses what appears to be an attack to do something different to what the action would normally do. It is an opposed duel using stats on the cards, but the originator of the action loses ties.

The action you are resolving is the disengage action, which is your tactical action, not an enemy action. The Disengage explanation does refer to the attack as an action though (in the current beta rules) when it tells you to use the accuracy fate modifier of the action.

[santaclaws01]

3 hours ago, Adran said:

The disengage action?

It really doesn't follow the rules for attack action created by another effect because M3 has elsewhere avoided  Actions within Actions. It uses what appears to be an attack to do something different to what the action would normally do. It is an opposed duel using stats on the cards, but the originator of the action loses ties.

The action you are resolving is the disengage action, which is your tactical action, not an enemy action. The Disengage explanation does refer to the attack as an action though (in the current beta rules) when it tells you to use the accuracy fate modifier of the action.

It creates an interesting spot in the rules thanks to the Actions Generated by Effects paragraph, but also no such thing as just an Attack in the rules. The closest is that in the description of Actions on pg 4 "Actions are special Attacks...", and Blast symbol where it says "This represents a type of Attack". One of which points to Attacks implicitly being an action, and the other doesn't really apply as is a modifier to the damage flip and not a type of attack action.

The attack taken via the disengage action itself not being an action also has a lot of other implication. Things that can't be used if it's not an action: Protected, Terrifying, Incorporeal(in the case of Wicked which needs disengage to be an action to even work in the first place), Distracted, Serene Countenance, Manipulative, any number of model specific abilities. There's also the rabbit hole of how do you declare an Attack? The rules tell us how to resolve an action, which is; Declare, pay costs, target, duel, apply results. If this non-action attack has a cost associated with it it now doesn't have to be paid as it isn't an action so doesn't follow the rules for declaring an action. Also how do special restrictions work for something that isn't an action? Every special restriction that could be relevant(once per turn/activation, X-only, non-x only) all specify that the action can only be declared under their individual conditions, but no action is being declared so it's fine.


 

 

4 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Off the Rails?

Which specifically says for the rail golem to take a  action so I'm not sure what you're trying to point out here.