Hazardous auras and ability triggering.

[Icebeard]

Ok! Two friends are currently mid game, (Monk vs big hat) and a new question came up. 

 

Does hazardous damage caused by auras like : 

Or 

Work and effect abilities like : 

And 

 

I. E, does hazardous aura count as damage done by the model creating said aura? This would also be relevant to certain schemes and strategies. 

[Adran]

The model will suffer hazardous damage. But as far as it is concerned the damage is not from the model that made the terrain. 

So neither lovely day or brutal sensei will apply. 

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

I'm not sure that it helps. Firstly neither are special rules, and secondly neither are really preventing anything. So it doesn't support either rule. 

Ok, let me elaborate:

Special rule: An ability creating a hazardous terrain effect.

Conflict: Core rule A says the model with the ability does get the kill; Core rule B says hazardous terrain effect doesn't get the kill... Rule C says in case some special rule create confilct doesn't overule do.

Ok, technically rule C is for special rule vs special rule and in this case is an special rule making 2 core rules to rule different things; but this is about looking for solutions and between flipping a coin and applying rule C to the case. I think the second option is better.

Maybe later this get ruled like in second edition, but so far the above rules are the ones we got.

[Mycellanious]

Hazardous damage is not attributed to any model. Damage from Hazardous Auras is considered damage from Hazardous Terrain

It would affect What  Lovely Day because the model was Moved, but would NOT affect Brutal Sensei because no model was Moved and no Action was resolved. 

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, Mycellanious said:

It would affect What  Lovely Day because the model was Moved, but would NOT affect Brutal Sensei because no model was Moved and no Action was resolved. 

You've got the question mixed up.

As for the question, the best answer is flip a coin. The relevant section being:
 

Quote

Killed models are always considered to be killed by the model that generated the Action or Ability that killed them (as well as by that model’s Crew). If a model is killed by another effect (such as a Condition or Hazardous Terrain), it is not considered to have been killed by any player, model, or Crew.

Is inherently contradictory for actions and abilities that generate a hazardous terrain aura, as both statements equally apply because it is an action or ability that killed them, but it is also hazardous terrain that killed the.


If we wanted to look to last edition for a hint, the ruling was that hazardous auras give credit to the model that generates the aura, but that's not an official ruling for 3e.

[Paddywhack]

14 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Is inherently contradictory for actions and abilities that generate a hazardous terrain aura, as both statements equally apply because it is an action or ability that killed them, but it is also hazardous terrain that killed the.

If we wanted to look to last edition for a hint, the ruling was that hazardous auras give credit to the model that generates the aura, but that's not an official ruling for 3e.

I have always wondered about that. The first sentence implies that if it's created by an Action or Ability, it counts. The second references Hazardous, but not the source. It feels like they may have been referencing just general Hazardous terrain there. The old ruling may or may not apply. 

I've been playing that it doesn't count, as that seems to be most people's read. I am however as confused as you by the rules quoted. 

[Ogid]

Both ways it makes sense... until this get ruled a good tiebreaker may be the "Breaking the rules" box in pg 3 of the rulebook:

Quote

If two special rules directly contradict each other, rules that prevent something from happening take precedent over rules that allow something to happen.

[Adran]

5 minutes ago, Ogid said:

Both ways it makes sense... until this get ruled a good tiebreaker may be the "Breaking the rules" box in pg 3 of the rulebook:

I'm not sure that it helps. Firstly neither are special rules, and secondly neither are really preventing anything. So it doesn't support either rule. 

( I never liked the M2e ruling on hazardous auras so I'm sticking with models killed by hazardous terrain don't count as killed by anything as the more specific rule. Plus the other way what a lovely day with a hazardous aura seems a loop until death, which seems a bit too good, or bad depending on your view. ) 

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

7 hours ago, Adran said:

I'm not sure that it helps. Firstly neither are special rules, and secondly neither are really preventing anything. So it doesn't support either rule. 

( I never liked the M2e ruling on hazardous auras so I'm sticking with models killed by hazardous terrain don't count as killed by anything as the more specific rule. Plus the other way what a lovely day with a hazardous aura seems a loop until death, which seems a bit too good, or bad depending on your view. )

This was awesome, but then realised it doesn't loop.

You can only take hazardous damage once per action, so it would go:

• hazardous damage
• Push to the model that did it
• No more hazardous damage as it already took hazardous for this action.

I think? I'm unsure, as from memory normally you wait to do hazardous until everything else has happened.

[Adran]

7 hours ago, Ogid said:

 

Conflict: Core rule A says the model with the ability does get the kill; Core rule B says hazardous terrain effect doesn't get the kill... Rule C says in case some special rule create confilct doesn't overule do.

 

I couldn't work out a way to phrase them that part was allowing something and part was preventing something. This one seems to work, but then it gives me the results I want .

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

This was awesome, but then realised it doesn't loop.

You can only take hazardous damage once per action, so it would go:

• hazardous damage
• Push to the model that did it
• No more hazardous damage as it already took hazardous for this action.

I think? I'm unsure, as from memory normally you wait to do hazardous until everything else has happened.

I'm away from rules, so I'm not 100% sure because as you say it's sort of part of the same action, but is also after the action is finished.

[Ogid]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

I couldn't work out a way to phrase them that part was allowing something and part was preventing something. This one seems to work, but then it gives me the results I want .

Glad to help!

However as said above, this is still a patch; being nitpicking rule C isn't meant to be applied exactly like that, but it's a way to solve it extrapolating the logic used in the rulebook to solve very similar rule interactions.

The point being that this case deserves a FAQ entry imo.

[Maniacal_cackle]

One thing to note is the FAQ tells us that if you push someone into taking falling damage, then you get the kill credit.

The same may apply to hazardous terrain.

Note that doesn't necessarily mean that you get credit for damaging/generate effects that are 'after damaging'.

But sheds some light at least.

[Adran]

57 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

One thing to note is the FAQ tells us that if you push someone into taking falling damage, then you get the kill credit.

The same may apply to hazardous terrain.

That would need the rules erratad because they explicitly say models killef by hazardous terrain don't count to either crew.

Currently if I push a model off a cliff I get the credit. I push a model into a pit trap, neither the model that pushed it or the model that put the pit trap down will get credit for the kill. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

26 minutes ago, Adran said:

That would need the rules erratad because they explicitly say models killef by hazardous terrain don't count to either crew.

Currently if I push a model off a cliff I get the credit. I push a model into a pit trap, neither the model that pushed it or the model that put the pit trap down will get credit for the kill. 

Well, as Santaclaws points out, the rules contradict themselves there. Although I've always assumed that the hazardous terrain thing overruled it, I can see the other side after reading through this.

[Adran]

2 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Well, as Santaclaws points out, the rules contradict themselves there. Although I've always assumed that the hazardous terrain thing overruled it, I can see the other side after reading through this.

My argument would be they don't contradict themselves. The ability/action makes an area hazardous. The hazardous is what kills them, not the ability. It's like if I set you on fire you die to the burning so it's not my fault you died ( note this is not a valid legal defence in our world!) Even though I set you on fire. 

It's like being killed at the end of the game if you are buried. I buried you, but it's the game that killed you. 

[Ogid]

52 minutes ago, Adran said:

It's like if I set you on fire you die to the burning so it's not my fault you died ( note this is not a valid legal defence in our world!) Even though I set you on fire.

lol

Weeell... it shouldn't, but with a good lawyer and enough influence/money I wouldn't rule it out unfortunately 🙈

[Mycellanious]

7 hours ago, Adran said:

I couldn't work out a way to phrase them that part was allowing something and part was preventing something. This one seems to work, but then it gives me the results I want .

I'm away from rules, so I'm not 100% sure because as you say it's sort of part of the same action, but is also after the action is finished.

The Hazardous rules specify "once per Action or Ability" so some thing Mei Feng's Bonus Action, which is an Action that Moves you, would only cause 1 damage, however if she declared her Trigger and used Constant Motion she would take a 2nd damage because this second push is from a separate Ability. 

However, I dont think this applies to What A Lovely Day, since each push is a separate application of the Ability. Its not "once per Ability per Activation," so if Mei Feng took damage from Constant Motion as above, then used Breath of Fire and used Constant Motion again, she would take another 2 damage. 

Georgy takes 1 damage. This triggers What a Lovely Day to push. This Ability causes him to take 1 damage from Hazardous. However, I believe that What a Lovely Day would NOT trigger again, because the ability is to push towards the damaging model, and as per our current understanding damage from Hazardous Auras does not count as damage from the model generating the Aura. So of Georgy takes damage from Vent Steam, he can't push towards Mei Feng because he wasn't damaged by Mei Feng. 

[Ogid]

2 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

The Hazardous rules specify "once per Action or Ability" so some thing Mei Feng's Bonus Action, which is an Action that Moves you, would only cause 1 damage, however if she declared her Trigger and used Constant Motion she would take a 2nd damage because this second push is from a separate Ability. 

However, I dont think this applies to What A Lovely Day, since each push is a separate application of the Ability. Its not "once per Ability per Activation," so if Mei Feng took damage from Constant Motion as above, then used Breath of Fire and used Constant Motion again, she would take another 2 damage. 

This part may be tricky, so just checking that everyone is in the same boat.

In Resolving Actions (pg 23 rulebook), there are 6 steps; but only 5 of them are listed as part of the action so it seems that all those "after resolving" triggers and effects are indeed not considered part of the action (I also read it like it); however I've also seen players that does consider them as part of the action. 

so... does most of the people agree those effects and abilities that triggers there are not part of the action or are there divided opinions here?

[Maniacal_cackle]

3 hours ago, Ogid said:

This part may be tricky, so just checking that everyone is in the same boat.

In Resolving Actions (pg 23 rulebook), there are 6 steps; but only 5 of them are listed as part of the action so it seems that all those "after resolving" triggers and effects are indeed not considered part of the action (I also read it like it); however I've also seen players that does consider them as part of the action. 

so... does most of the people agree those effects and abilities that triggers there are not part of the action or are there divided opinions here?

This has come up before. Apparently it is a typo.

Which comes back to: malifaux rules aren't perfect, do what feels appropriate xD

[Ogid]

14 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

This has come up before. Apparently it is a typo.

Ty, I had forgotten this one. This also seems to be indirectly covered in the FAQ (as it includes after resolving effects and if damage is considered from the action, so would be the movement)

Quote

5. If a model suffers damage from a Trigger, is that damage considered to also be from the Action that generated the Trigger?

a) Yes. Effects from Triggers are additional effects of the Action. Thus, Abilities such as Incorporeal that modify the effects of certain Actions would also modify the effects of their Triggers.

Then in the above  Mei Feng case, it'd be 1 damage per action, not 2.

[Mycellanious]

3 hours ago, Ogid said:

Ty, I had forgotten this one. This also seems to be indirectly covered in the FAQ (as it includes after resolving effects and if damage is considered from the action, so would be the movement)

Then in the above  Mei Feng case, it'd be 1 damage per action, not 2.

Nope, it would be 2 damage, not 3! The bonus action pushes her, the Trigger drops a Scrap Marker, then her front-of-card Ability Constant Motion activates, "Whenever this model declares a trigger is may Push 2" after resolving the current action"

[Ogid]

3 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

Nope, it would be 2 damage, not 3! The bonus action pushes her, the Trigger drops a Scrap Marker, then her front-of-card Ability Constant Motion activates, "Whenever this model declares a trigger is may Push 2" after resolving the current action"

I think in that case it'd be only 1 damage. The "Constant Motion" happens in the "after resolving" part of the action, which is resolved in the step 6 of "Resolving actions"; the FAQ says that step is still part of that action, hence the hazardous damage could only trigger once.

Is it like that or am I missing something?

[Maniacal_cackle]

5 hours ago, Ogid said:

I think in that case it'd be only 1 damage. The "Constant Motion" happens in the "after resolving" part of the action, which is resolved in the step 6 of "Resolving actions"; the FAQ says that step is still part of that action, hence the hazardous damage could only trigger once.

Is it like that or am I missing something?

That sounds right, although I haven't mapped it all out completely.