Damage to multiple models & Demise

[Rex4r]

There are 5 models: Attacker and 4 enemy models (Defender and 3 other models (A, B, C) with 1 wound each).

The Attacker attack the Defender and deal damage with . Models A, B, C are under  Marker and should be damaged.

Model A has Demise(Explosive) and Models B and C in 2"  from Model A.
 

Quote

Damage Timing: If multiple models suffer damage at the same time, resolve the damage timing of each model completely one at a time.

The owner of enemy models choose to resolve damage on Model A first.

In step 6.a. of Damage Timing Demise should be resolved.

Quote

Damage Timing: When a model suffers damage, it follows the timing structure below. If any model suffers damage asa result of an effect generated during this timing structure, the damage timing for that model is resolved after completely resolving all (6) steps of the initial damage timing, in the order in which the damage was generated

After resolve damage timing of Model A, Demise should deal damage to Models B and C.

 

Question: who kills Models B and C (Attacker or Model A) and why?

P.S. A similar situation can occur with and Shockwave, Black Blood and other abilities, that deal damage after suffering damage.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Yes, Adran summed it up.

The Sequential Effects section makes me think this.

I think "in the order in which the damage was generated" in the first paragraph of damage timing lines up well with sequential effects as well.

Although I can see the other argument.

[Adran]

13 minutes ago, Rex4r said:

But why do you ignore the first paragraph of the rules?

Blast generate 3 Damage Timings: for A, for B, for C.

The rule above says that Damage Timings from Demise resolve right after A's Damage Timing resolved.

Actually, the more I look at it, it seems you are ignoring the rules for sequential effects, see the bolded line. 

SEQUENTIAL EFFECTS
Sometimes, an effect will create additional effects as it resolves. In these cases, fully resolve the initial effect before moving onto any additional effect. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated, after any effects which had been previously generated have resolved.

The blast damage steps have already been generated. So any newly generated effects have to go to the back of the queue (with the exception that actions are always at the very back of the queue)

[Adran]

I think you have followed the path correctly, and model A killed the models. 

 

The only possible issue is Sequential effects. Is the damage timing of the initial effect completely resolved? You could definitely say no, because there is still blast damage out there to resolve, so the damage timing of the demise might have to be delayed until all the damage of the blast is resolved. Or you could say yes, because you have resolved that particular  damage package. 

I would do it as you have, but its not 100% clear. 

 

EDIT - In Further looking, it seems clearer than I thought, and Blast damage ought to all be resolved before any of the demise damage caused by the blast damage. 

So I'm changing my answer to the models are all killed by the attacker

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

They errata-ed the rules to deal with this issue since it used to get discussed a lot.

See page 34 of damage timing, where now you only resolve damage on one model at a time. Since you do it sequentially, I agree with the above analysis Model A kills everything before demise damage is resolved, but after demise itself is resolved). I think that the original attacker does the killing.

[Maniacal_cackle]

[Adran]

11 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Model A kills everything before demise damage is resolved, but after demise itself is resolved).

I think this sentence isn't what you mean it to be...

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Adran said:

I think this sentence isn't what you mean it to be...

Oh damn, Model A isn't the attacker.

Okay, I think the attacker got the kills xD

[solkan]

As far as I can tell, the errata was made to make sure that damage timing wasn’t nested/recursive, partly because of effects that could heal a killed model getting triggered.

It should otherwise be the same sequence.

If a blast is going to damage A,B, and C, and A’s damage results in 1 and 2 being damaged, the sequence should be:  A, 1, 2, B, C.

Because the last sentence says that A’s damage timing is resolved independently of B’s.

 

[Rex4r]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Okay, I think the attacker got the kills xD

But why?

Model A should suffer damage from blast first because of 

Quote

If multiple models suffer damage at the same time (such as from a Shockwave or Blast), resolve the damage timing of each model completely one at a time.

Damage Timing start for Model A
1. SS for  damage flip - skip
2. Damage flip - skip
3. Damage reduce
4. The model lowers its Health to 0
5. After damage effects - skip.
6. Health = 0 - kill
6.a. Heal/Replace - skip
6.b. After killing triggers - skip
6.c. Any effects that resolve after the model iskilled (such as placing Corpse or ScrapMarkers) resolve at this point - resolve Demise here
6.d. The killed model (its model, Stat Card, and any Upgrades) is removed from the game
Damage Timing end for Model A
Start Demise resolving

Right after resolving Model's A Damage Timing it's explode and deal damage to Models B and C because of

Quote

If any model suffers damage asa result of an effect generated during this timing structure, the damage timing for that model is resolved after completely resolving all (6) steps of the initial damage timing, in the order in which the damage was generated.

And from this point of view, the order is as follows:
1. Blast deals damage to Model A.
2. Model's A Demise(Explosive) deals damage to Model B.
3. Model's A Demise(Explosive) deals damage to Model C.
4. Blast deals damage to Model B (but cannot, since it is already killed).
5. Blast deals damage to Model C (but cannot, since it is already killed).

Model A is the killer of Models B and C

[Maniacal_cackle]

21 minutes ago, Rex4r said:

But why?

Model A should suffer damage from blast first because of 

Damage Timing start for Model A
1. SS for  damage flip - skip
2. Damage flip - skip
3. Damage reduce
4. The model lowers its Health to 0
5. After damage effects - skip.
6. Health = 0 - kill
6.a. Heal/Replace - skip
6.b. After killing triggers - skip
6.c. Any effects that resolve after the model iskilled (such as placing Corpse or ScrapMarkers) resolve at this point - resolve Demise here
6.d. The killed model (its model, Stat Card, and any Upgrades) is removed from the game
Damage Timing end for Model A
Start Demise resolving

Right after resolving Model's A Damage Timing it's explode and deal damage to Models B and C because of

And from this point of view, the order is as follows:
1. Blast deals damage to Model A.
2. Model's A Demise(Explosive) deals damage to Model B.
3. Model's A Demise(Explosive) deals damage to Model C.
4. Blast deals damage to Model B (but cannot, since it is already killed).
5. Blast deals damage to Model C (but cannot, since it is already killed).

Model A is the killer of Models B and C

I think it is...

1. Attacker generates damage on A, B, C.

2. You can't resolve damage on multiple models simultaneously, so you resolve damage on A first.

3. This creates demise damage (but damage resolves in the order it was generated - the blast damage on B and C was generated before this damage).

4. Model A done.

5. Attacker damage on B was the next thing generated, so resolved.

6. Etc.

7. Resolve attacker damage on C.

8. Etc.

9. Resolve demise damage on B (too late, it is already dead).

[Rex4r]

5 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think it is...

1. Attacker generates damage on A, B, C.

2. You can't resolve damage on multiple models simultaneously, so you resolve damage on A first.

3. This creates demise damage (but damage resolves in the order it was generated - the blast damage on B and C was generated before this damage).

4. Model A done.

5. Attacker damage on B was the next thing generated, so resolved.

6. Etc.

7. Resolve attacker damage on C.

8. Etc.

9. Resolve demise damage on B (too late, it is already dead).

But why do you ignore the first paragraph of the rules?

Quote

If any model suffers damage asa result of an effect generated during this timing structure, the damage timing for that model is resolved after completely resolving all (6) steps of the initial damage timing, in the order in which the damage wasg enerated

Blast generate 3 Damage Timings: for A, for B, for C.

The rule above says that Damage Timings from Demise resolve right after A's Damage Timing resolved.

[Adran]

8 minutes ago, Rex4r said:

But why do you ignore the first paragraph of the rules?

Blast generate 3 Damage Timings: for A, for B, for C.

The rule above says that Damage Timings from Demise resolve right after A's Damage Timing resolved.

Because he views the Initial damage timing is that of the Blast damage.

The rules actually say resolve the demise damage after the initial damage in the order it was generated. 

So if the Initial damage is the following steps (In the order of the Defenders choice)

Defender

 on A

 on B

 on C

And when you generate new damage steps, they will be added to the bottom of the list

So you end up with an order something like

Defender

 on A

 on B

 on C

Demise A on B

Demise A on C

Demise B on C

 

[Rex4r]

9 minutes ago, Adran said:

Because he views the Initial damage timing is that of the Blast damage.

The rules actually say resolve the demise damage after the initial damage in the order it was generated. 

So if the Initial damage is the following steps (In the order of the Defenders choice)

Defender

 on A

 on B

 on C

And when you generate new damage steps, they will be added to the bottom of the list

I see next rule:

Quote

If multiple models suffer damage at the same time (such as from a Shockwave or Blast), resolve the damage timing of each model completely one at a time.

According to this rule each model has its own Damage Timing.
And "initial damage timing" for damage from Demise it's A's Damage Timing.
 

By what rule damage from Blast it's one Damage Timing for all damaged models?

[Maniacal_cackle]

Yeah, in my view, you first have to deal with simultaneous effects (blast damage).

We resolve those one at a time.

Then demise happens.

Now sequential effect rules come into play - you have things that didn't happen at the same time but are still resolving.

You resolve all the original stuff first (blast damage), and then you resolve the stuff that happened as a result of that (demise damage).

[Rex4r]

2 minutes ago, Adran said:

Actually, the more I look at it, it seems you are ignoring the rules for sequential effects, see the bolded line. 

SEQUENTIAL EFFECTS
Sometimes, an effect will create additional effects as it resolves. In these cases, fully resolve the initial effect before moving onto any additional effect. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated, after any effects which had been previously generated have resolved.

The blast damage steps have already been generated. So any newly generated effects have to go to the back of the queue (with the exception that actions are always at the very back of the queue)

Oh.. you are right, thanks. Totally forgot about sequential effects.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

I want to point out that Demise effects are fully resolved during part 6c. If the Demise(Explosive) effects are placed after model B & C’s in the queue, then you resolve the damage for Model B & C prior to fully resolving Model A’s damage timing as it will not resolve 6d until after B & C’s damage timing. That doesn’t seem to fit with resolving damage timing completely before moving on to the next Blast damage effect.

[santaclaws01]

5 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I want to point out that Demise effects are fully resolved during part 6c.

No they aren't. They're generated there, and queued up to resolve later.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

3 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

No they aren't. They're generated there, and queued up to resolve later.

Ok, so how do you finish completely resolving the damage timing without resolving the Demise? Model gets removed 6d in order to go to the next damage timing. Demise will resolve with no model on the table…

6c also says “after dying effects resolve now” not “after dying effects are generated now”.

[Adran]

11 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Ok, so how do you finish completely resolving the damage timing without resolving the Demise? Model gets removed 6d in order to go to the next damage timing. Demise will resolve with no model on the table…

6c also says “after dying effects resolve now” not “after dying effects are generated now”.

 P34 SEQUENTIAL EFFECTS
Sometimes, an effect will create additional effects as it  resolves. In these cases, fully resolve the initial effect before moving onto any additional effect. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated, after any effects which had been previously generated have resolved.

And

Damage Timing (from errata) P34
When a model suffers damage, it follows the timing structure below. If any model suffers damage as a result of an effect generated during this timing structure, the damage timing for that model is resolved after completely resolving all (6) steps of the initial damage timing, in the order in which the damage was generated.
 

 

In 6 C you resolve the demise, but not the damage the demise causes, that is the sequential effect. So you work out which models are going to be damaged by the demise, but don't reduce their health at this point. That gets resolved after you have completed the damage process you are in the middle of. 

(If you don't queue up this damage separately, you could end up with an infinite loop between 2 demise explosive models). 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

5 minutes ago, Adran said:

 P34 SEQUENTIAL EFFECTS
Sometimes, an effect will create additional effects as it  resolves. In these cases, fully resolve the initial effect before moving onto any additional effect. Additional effects are then resolved in the order they were generated, after any effects which had been previously generated have resolved.

And

Damage Timing (from errata) P34
When a model suffers damage, it follows the timing structure below. If any model suffers damage as a result of an effect generated during this timing structure, the damage timing for that model is resolved after completely resolving all (6) steps of the initial damage timing, in the order in which the damage was generated.
 

 

In 6 C you resolve the demise, but not the damage the demise causes, that is the sequential effect. So you work out which models are going to be damaged by the demise, but don't reduce their health at this point. That gets resolved after you have completed the damage process you are in the middle of. 

(If you don't queue up this damage separately, you could end up with an infinite loop between 2 demise explosive models). 

So Demise’s effect is resolved, but the damage for the effect gets loaded to the back of the damage queue is what you are ultimately saying is happening? I get it if that’s the case. The addition of sequential effects is confusing in the answer since the damage timing rules cover it completely.

[Adran]

Just now, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

So Demise’s effect is resolved, but the damage for the effect gets loaded to the back of the damage queue is what you are ultimately saying is happening? I get it if that’s the case. The addition of sequential effects is confusing in the answer since the damage timing rules cover it completely.

The sequential effects mattered to the original question but possibly didn't help explain to you why your view was wrong. 

The damage timing section covers it all for your question. I added it in later on in an edit when I remembered it was there (which is why the sequential effects was there originally, I do sometimes forget to check the errata 😳)

 

[santaclaws01]

4 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

The addition of sequential effects is confusing in the answer since the damage timing rules cover it completely.

The damage timing rules cover effects generated by a single damage resolution. They don't cover already generated damage resolutions on top of newly created damage resolutions + other generated effect.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

4 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

The damage timing rules cover effects generated by a single damage resolution. They don't cover already generated damage resolutions on top of newly created damage resolutions + other generated effect.

Sure it does; “in the order in which damage was generated”. Otherwise, you are saying that an effect which causes damage generates a secondary effect of damage (instead of just generating damage like Adran eluded to). In which, case you’d have to apply that same logic to an Action’s effects and resolve the damage after all other effects of an Action (which honestly fixes a lot of Actions wording…).

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Sure it does; “in the order in which damage was generated”. Otherwise, you are saying that an effect which causes damage generates a secondary effect of damage (instead of just generating damage like Adran eluded to). In which, case you’d have to apply that same logic to an Action’s effects and resolve the damage after all other effects of an Action (which honestly fixes a lot of Actions wording…).

I'm just gonna level with you. I have no idea how you got to any of these conclusions from me saying that the rule for damage timing only applies how it says it applies and not to everything else currently waiting to resolve.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

21 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

I'm just gonna level with you. I have no idea how you got to any of these conclusions from me saying that the rule for damage timing only applies how it says it applies and not to everything else currently waiting to resolve.

Sequential effects deals with effects. Damage is generated by effects, which is covered by damage timing and explicitly stated there. If you use sequential effects to order damage, then effects would generate a damage effect, and not damage (nitpicky, but for good reason stated later). I suppose I don't like that using sequential effects you would resolve 2 separate effects for any effect which causes damage; an effect that says "model x suffers 2 damage", and then resolve "this model suffers 2 damage" as a sequential effect at the end of the chain. The 2 damage was supposed to have resolved in the first effect. Without using sequential effects and only using damage timing; "model x suffers 2 damage resolves" but the damage resolution (note not damage effect resolution) is sent to the end of the generated damage chain. The latter I can agree with because it makes sense even if the damage timing rules don't quite explicitly say "after other generated damage". The former option doesn't make sense because you are applying how damage resolves differently in this scenario vs (for example) resolving actions.

An example of damage being a sequential effect in a regular action with "Target suffers 2/3/4 damage and this model draws a card". If damage is a sequential effect, "Target suffers 2/3/4 damage" would resolve, "this model draws a card would resolve", and then "this model suffers 2/3/4 damage" would resolve. I do not think this is currently done for actions (looking at the issue raised with Luminary's immolate recently), so it doesn't make sense to do it for only this specific scenario.

To be clear, I was agreeing with Model A suffering damage. However, I just wanted to express that using sequential effects to "help" order damage was confusing because it creates inconsistency in the rules, and just using damage timing rules to back-up the reason for Model A taking damage would be much more clear. Maybe damage timing could use a small addition to clarify sequential damage, but I think it is clear enough as long as a distinction between effect and damage is kept consistent.