Blasphemous Ritual, Shield Bearer and Corpse Candle

[LeperColony]

If a shield bearer uses Blasphemous Ritual, targeting a Corpse Candle, then under the Corpse Candle's Walking Dead ability, it would be killed.

Who counts as killing the Corpse Candle?  The rules say that a model counts as having been killed by the model that generated the action or ability that killed it.  So did Blasphemous Ritual kill it, or the Walking Dead?

[Adran]

It's been asked before, and you'll get people on both sides. My view is the walking dead ability is what killed the candle, because that is the ability that tells you the model is killed in those circumstances. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

I agree with Adran, things get real messy when you don't stick to the principle of "the source is the card with the text (if applicable), relevant terrain or condition, or the model taking the action (if the text is in the rulebook)."

So I play it as getting one pyre marker.

It is super ambiguous, though, so your playgroup may choose to do it another way.

[Taxidermied]

The Corpse Candle is the source of the Walking Dead ability and as such the Shield Bearers Funeral Pyre ability does not apply in my opinion.  This also Stops Vincent dropping a ridiculous 3 pyre markers off a single Corpse Candle using Cremation.  

[Maniacal_cackle]

As an additional consideration, see this from the FAQ:

Quote

Blade Rush – Is damage from Blade Rush treated as damage from the Charge Action?

a) No. The damage from Blade Rush is generated by the Ability as a result of taking the Action, not the Action itself.

It seems pretty clear that the source of something doesn't 'chain.' So even if the shieldbearer was the ultimate origin of what is happening, it is the Walking Dead ability that is removing it.

[LeperColony]

2 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

It seems pretty clear that the source of something doesn't 'chain.'

I don't know if I agree with this as a theory of rules construction in Malifaux.

Montressor hits the Midnight Stalker and brings it to 0 Health.

Midnight Stalker declares his Demise.

Unfortunately for him, he is within the Carrion Effigy's Aura of Decay, so he cannot heal and dies.

Who has killed the Midnight Stalker?  If you say Montressor, you're chaining the cause through the Carrion Effigy's ability.  If you say the Carrion Effigy, he never did any damage or brought the enemy model to 0 health (in other words, he never "killed" the Midnight Stalker as described in the rules).

Also, if a model creates an effect that causes a target to take falling damage, that model counts as killing the target, even though (so glad I get to say this), it's the fall that killed ya.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

3 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

I don't know if I agree with this as a theory of rules construction in Malifaux.

Montressor hits the Midnight Stalker and brings it to 0 Health.

Midnight Stalker declares his Demise.

Unfortunately for him, he is within the Carrion Effigy's Aura of Decay, so he cannot heal and dies.

Who has killed the Midnight Stalker?  If you say Montressor, you're chaining the cause through the Carrion Effigy's ability.  If you say the Carrion Effigy, he never did any damage or brought the enemy model to 0 health (in other words, he never "killed" the Midnight Stalker as described in the rules).

Also, if a model creates an effect that causes a target to take falling damage, that model counts as killing the target, even though (so glad I get to say this), it's the fall that killed ya.

 

For the carrion emissary example, the Midnight Stalker dies in step 6 of Montresor's damage.

A more fitting example might be if someone has an aura that says "after a model takes damage from a melee attack, deal one damage to it." If a model died from that, it'd die from the aura (not the attack).

I must confess I'm not familiar with the falling damage ruling. I would have assumed it counted as neutral death (same as if hazardous terrain kills you when you're pushed into it). Do you have a source for that? Feels like an M2E thing?

[Adran]

2 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

I don't know if I agree with this as a theory of rules construction in Malifaux.

Montressor hits the Midnight Stalker and brings it to 0 Health.

Midnight Stalker declares his Demise.

Unfortunately for him, he is within the Carrion Effigy's Aura of Decay, so he cannot heal and dies.

Who has killed the Midnight Stalker?  If you say Montressor, you're chaining the cause through the Carrion Effigy's ability.  If you say the Carrion Effigy, he never did any damage or brought the enemy model to 0 health (in other words, he never "killed" the Midnight Stalker as described in the rules).

 

Montresor.

If you follow the damage timing on page 34  after a model is reduced to 0 wounds its treated as killed and goes through the killed timing. The first part of this is where his demise would go off, but if the demise doesn't prevent the model dying, then the model is still killed by who bought it to 0 wounds.

The killed process starts before the demise happens, and its part of the healing rules that would remove the killed status from the Midnight stalker, normally before anything else triggers on a models death. Since he never gets to use those rules, he just retains the killed status from Montressor from reducing him to 0.

The fact the effigy prevented the heal has no alteration on who caused the kill as far as the rules are concerned

[Adran]

7 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I must confess I'm not familiar with the falling damage ruling. I would have assumed it counted as neutral death (same as if hazardous terrain kills you when you're pushed into it). Do you have a source for that? Feels like an M2E thing?

Its in the FAQ section 1 q 9

[LeperColony]

3 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I must confess I'm not familiar with the falling damage ruling. I would have assumed it counted as neutral death (same as if hazardous terrain kills you when you're pushed into it). Do you have a source for that? Feels like an M2E thing?

It's in the March 2020 FAQ, Section 1, Question 9.

4 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

For the carrion emissary example, the Midnight Stalker dies in step 6 of Montresor's damage.

Good to know!

5 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

A more fitting example might be if someone has an aura that says "after a model takes damage from a melee attack, deal one damage to it." If a model died from that, it'd die from the aura (not the attack).

Well, that wouldn't be a chain.  It would just be a clear additional but separate damage from another source.

But if it said "when this model takes damage from a , it takes +1 damage."  Then it's no as clear.

[Adran]

2 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

It's in the March 2020 FAQ, Section 1, Question 9.

Good to know!

Well, that wouldn't be a chain.  It would just be a clear additional but separate damage from another source.

But if it said "when this model takes damage from a , it takes +1 damage."  Then it's no as clear.

I don't know of an ability  worded like this, probably to avoid this situation, but my reading is that this damage would be added to the attack damage in step 2. And you would then treat it all as damage from the attack. (Granted step 2 on page 34 only talks about triggers adding the damage but thatt because I think the only thing in the game that gives +1 damage is either the action itself, or a trigger). You need to total all the damage before you can start to apply damage reduction which is step 3

[santaclaws01]

4 hours ago, LeperColony said:

Well, that wouldn't be a chain.  It would just be a clear additional but separate damage from another source.

And with the Corpse Candle being killed it's a clear but separate effect caused by Walking Dead, because if Walking Dead didn't have that clause, the Corpse Candle wouldn't be killed.

[Maniacal_cackle]

I must admit the falling damage ruling has thrown me.

I'll have a think!

[santaclaws01]

On 6/19/2020 at 5:16 PM, Maniacal_cackle said:

I must admit the falling damage ruling has thrown me.

I'll have a think!

Don't apply FAQ ruling to other situations unless it's either exactly the same or the ruling gives a general response(like with the question on Nekima defining Another)