Jump to content
  • 0

Jack Daw's Undying Ability


Mycellanious

Question

A question was raised in my game vs Jack Daw recently

Undying:      When this model suffers damage, it may discard a card. If it does so, the damage this model suffers is changed to 1 irreducible damage.

Consider Breath of Fire:     Target suffers 2/3/4 damage. Models damaged by this Action gain Burning +1.

and the Blaze trigger:          Models damaged by this Action gain Burning +1 for each  in this Action's final duel total (to a maximum of Burning +2).

 

My opponent argued that if Jack Daw were hit by Breath of Fire and discarded a card for Undying, that Jack would not take burning from either Breath of Fire or the Blaze trigger. He argues that because Undying is changing the damage (as opposed to reducing) what is doing the damage to Jack is the Undying ability, not the Breath of Fire action, and therefore Jack was not damaged by Breath of Fire. Another possible interpretation is that when Jack changes the damage he overrides what is on the card, so Target suffers 2/3/4 damage. Models damaged by this Action gain Burning +1  ---> Target suffers 1 irreducible damage. I don't think my opponent agrees with this 2nd interpretation, but I'm gonna ask about it anyway while im here. 

I do not think either interpretation is correct, because the damage is still coming from the attacking model, and if the irreducible damage were to kill Jack the attacker would receive kill credit (I believe, I think but my opponent would disagree). If the wording for Undying were "Prevent all damage done to this model, then it suffers 1 irreducible damage" then I could agree with the first interpretation, but it doesnt say that. As for the second interpretation, I do not think that Undying changes what is on the card; it changes the incoming damage to 1, but anything else that happens still happens. 

I think the real sticking point for us, is if Jack uses Undying, is he still considered damaged by the Breath of Fire action (or w/e action is triggering Blaze), and if not, then would an attack still get kill credit if that 1 irreducible damage is what kills Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 5

The damage is changed from whatever he would have suffered (and only the damage he is slated to suffer, nothing else), to 1 irreducible damage. As far as Jack Daw is concerned, Breath of Fire now reads "Target suffers 1 irreducible damage. Models damaged by this action gain Burning +1." Undying doesn't change anything else about the action other than the damage he's set to receive. For example, if Jack Daw used Undying on Cojo's Ferocious Claws, he would still get pushed up to 2 inches, because the only thing that changes is the 2/4/6 damage into 1 irreducible. 
The way your opponent wants it to read is
"When this model would suffer damage, it may discard a card to suffer no damage, even if irreducible, and then suffers 1 irreducible damage from this ability"
Which is not how it reads. He gains the burning. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
18 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

My opponent argued that if Jack Daw were hit by Breath of Fire and discarded a card for Undying, that Jack would not take burning from either Breath of Fire or the Blaze trigger. He argues that because Undying is changing the damage (as opposed to reducing) what is doing the damage to Jack is the Undying ability, not the Breath of Fire action, and therefore Jack was not damaged by Breath of Fire.

It's only changing the amount of damage inflicted, and then making it irreducible, not changing the source of the damage.

I'll admit that looking at the way Damage Timing is specified, it's confusing if you look at the Damage Timing chart when you try to figure out who a "Target suffers 2/3:blast/4:blast:blast" interact.

If Jack Daw is standing near a model that gets hit with a Blast, you'd expect Undying to apply (to the damage Jack Daw is scheduled to suffer) on Step 4.  (Because that's the step that matches the Damage rule's description "When a model suffers damage, it loses Health equal to the amount of damage it suffered."). And I don't think anyone wants to claim that Jack Daw can't apply against a flipped blast.

And, for a damage flip with blasts in it, Step 3 is when a bunch of non-target models suddenly have to  join in on the damage timing chart.  Because they weren't involved in the first two steps.

If you target Jack Daw with that same "Target suffers 2/3B/4BB" attack, wouldn't you expect it to apply at the same timing step?

I think this was a case of trying to get all of the timing points specified, written out for a single model, and not taking into consideration flipped blast results.

Disclaimer:  Yeah, I am basically arguing that the "irreducible" in that ability is mechanically redundant because you're changing the damage after you've gone past the point where you use damage reduction.  But I think it's a case where the redundancy is trying to prevent people trying to claim that they could do so after changing the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information