Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
LeperColony

Terrifying and Protected/Take the Hit

Question

Suppose a non-ruthless model is attacking Archie.  Archie is within 2" of a friendly Ashigaru with Grave Spirit's Touch (and so has Terrifying).

Terrifying has "after an enemy model targets this model" timing.

Take the Hit (on the Ashigaru) has "after an enemy model targets a friendly model within :aura 2" timing.

Both abilities have "after an enemy model targets" timing, so by rule they are simultaneous effects.  Therefore, the controller should get to pick the order in which they're resolved?

So is the following sequence legal?

Enemy targets Archie.

Archie's controller chooses to resolve Archie's terrifying.

Enemy passes.

Archie's controller chooses to resolve Ashigaru's Take the Hit.

Ashigaru is now the target.

Enemy has to take a terrifying? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Take the hit changes the target, so there is an argument to be made that...

1. You are past the step where you would take the terrifying check (and take the hit ignores targeting restrictions, and terrifying takes place in the targeting restrictions step).

2. The enemy didn't target the Ashigaru. The Ashigaru changed itself to the target, but the enemy never did the targeting. Therefore the "after an enemy targets" doesn't apply.

So in the absence of some clear rule to indicate you take both terrifying checks, I would lean towards not taking them both.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

1. You are past the step where you would take the terrifying check (and take the hit ignores targeting restrictions, and terrifying takes place in the targeting restrictions step).

Although it's very natural to think of Terrifying as a targeting qualification, it's actually not.  Terrifying doesn't take place in the targeting restrictions step.  It happens after you've targeted. 

This contrasts with an effect like Challenge, which is a targeting restriction.  In fact, you'd have to discard for Challenge before taking a Terrifying test.

Terrifying seems to happen between steps 3 and 4, because it only triggers after the model has been targeted.  So the model is the target. and any other effects based on being targeted would occur.

If Terrifying said "when an enemy model" instead of "after an enemy model," then the timing you propose would work.

6 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

2. The enemy didn't target the Ashigaru. The Ashigaru changed itself to the target, but the enemy never did the targeting. Therefore the "after an enemy targets" doesn't apply.

If you become the target, does that mean the enemy model "didn't target" you?  I'm not sure about that, but it may be true.  I worry that's much too fine a distinction, if some enemy effect forces you to target something, does that mean you "didn't target" the model, but instead an enemy forced you to?  

6 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

So in the absence of some clear rule to indicate you take both terrifying checks, I would lean towards not taking them both.

My main objection is I think it would be broken to require two Terrifying tests.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well, perhaps a more coherent response then:

Like how there is only one period of time for 'start of activation' as per FAQ, the same likely applies here.

If terrifying and take the hit are done after targeting, then by the time you resolve them, it is too late to add any new "after targeting" effects. The window to generate new "after targeting" effects is presumably closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

As a follow up question, could you wait to Take the Hit until you see the result of the Terrifying?

Check simultaneous effects on page 34, but from memory, this is the default.

The active model (attacker) makes the terrifying check, then you resolve take the hit (and the decision to discard is part of resolution in this case *I think*)

This is part of a general assumption framework I use to make things easier, but exact timing of things like that still aren't clear for abilities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
43 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Like how there is only one period of time for 'start of activation' as per FAQ, the same likely applies here.

If terrifying and take the hit are done after targeting, then by the time you resolve them, it is too late to add any new "after targeting" effects. The window to generate new "after targeting" effects is presumably closed.

The issue with this analysis is "At the start" is clearly only a single period in time.  Namely, "at the start."  There's no way to extend that window.  The model can't have two starts of its activation (though it can have two activations to start, but that's not the same thing).

Terrifying says "after."  If an effect changes a target, the window for "after" the new model has been targeted is after the effect that changes it occurs, so far as I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Not if you read Take the Hit as saying "go to step 4 and apply the effects to the Ashigaru instead of the original target", which I think is basically the intent.

I don't know of any clear answer under the rules, other than having to take two terrifying checks is clearly unreasonable, so with ambiguous rules I'd say no to two checks.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
30 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Not if you read Take the Hit as saying "go to step 4 and apply the effects to the Ashigaru instead of the original target", which I think is basically the intent.

I don't know of any clear answer under the rules, other than having to take two terrifying checks is clearly unreasonable, so with ambiguous rules I'd say no to two checks.

I think that's a fair way to resolve it.  I certainly don't think Terrifying needs to be any better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
37 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

don't know of any clear answer under the rules, other than having to take two terrifying checks is clearly unreasonable, so with ambiguous rules I'd say no to two checks.

So you get to ignore it completely? That doesn't seem right either. You should have to take one of them. I'd say it's the one on the model you actually end up targeting. I agree the timing is less than clear though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

So you get to ignore it completely? That doesn't seem right either. You should have to take one of them. I'd say it's the one on the model you actually end up targeting. I agree the timing is less than clear though. 

I think you still have to take one.

Logically I think it should be on the Ashigaru, but going by the sequencing I think you would take the original terrifying check (which feels silly to me, but feels the most compatible with the rules).

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think you still have to take one.

Logically I think it should be on the Ashigaru, but going by the sequencing I think you would take the original terrifying check (which feels silly to me, but feels the most compatible with the rules).

If we go by a general principle that you should only have to take one Terrifying test, I think ultimately the person controlling the Terrifying models should get to choose.

But what's the mechanical framework for it?

 

Let's say Model A has a Terrifying 11 and Model B has Terrifying 12 and Take the Hit, so you'd rather B's Terrifying test applied.  In that case, I think you could generate Take the Hit and resolve it as a simultaneous effect with A's Terrifying.  If you choose to resolve TtH first, then A's Terrifying doesn't apply anymore (arguably).  

But if you prefer to have A's Terrifying instead of B, then you resolve A's Terrifying before TtH, then apply the hit to B?

I think someone who believed there should be two Terrifying tests could find definite issues with this framework, but if we proceed along the assumption that you shouldn't have to take multiple, then I think it works well enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think you still have to take one.

Logically I think it should be on the Ashigaru, but going by the sequencing I think you would take the original terrifying check (which feels silly to me, but feels the most compatible with the rules).

I agree. Unfortunately, there isn't a good break down of the Targeting step. I would think that you don't have to take a Terrifying check until you know who your target actually is. If your opponent wants to use Take the Hit, that changes the target, so the original 'target' wasn't really targeted, so shouldn't get their terrifying. Instead you use the Terrifying on the model that is actually taking the hit. That seems to me the possible intent. However, simultaneous effects could make it that you do in fact have to take 2 terror checks. And while we might think it's OP, there can be an argument made for it in the rules. I don't believe that was the intent myself. 

I swear there was a place that talked about changing targets and how it affected manipulative, etc. but can't for the life of me find anything. Maybe I'm thinking 2E? 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information