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.

[Adran]

Honestly, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. In the case of target suffers2/3/4 damage and draw a card, the damage is resolved before you draw a card. Any effects caused by the damage are resolved before you draw the card. 

The problem only comes about when you have more than1 effect generated before you resolve an effect ( so simultaneous damage and sequential damage, or multiple cases of sequential damage created during a damage step. )

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Honestly, I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. In the case of target suffers2/3/4 damage and draw a card, the damage is resolved before you draw a card. Any effects caused by the damage are resolved before you draw the card. 

The problem only comes about when you have more than1 effect generated before you resolve an effect ( so simultaneous damage and sequential damage, or multiple cases of sequential damage created during a damage step. )

I guess I don’t get why you ignore the “resolve now” in 6c, by calling the damage an “effect”, but fully resolve damage without calling damage an “effect” during action resolution. Using sequential effects seems like a convoluted process of interpreting rules uniquely to avoid the Demise loop to me. Especially since the rules seem to indicate Actions/Abilities generate effects, and effects can generate damage, which is why using a rule for effects seems weird for resolving damage. The two are presented differently in the rules. Again not arguing that the attacking model doesn’t get the kill, just saying that it seems much clearer only quoting the damage timing rules to say Demise damage is after the already generated damage to Model B & C.

[Adran]

Sorry I have confused.

For the question you asked, the damage timing rules are the clearest for why you don't resolve the damage from the demise effect during the resolving the damage of the action. I wish I had just explained it that way but I was still thinking about the initial question in which sequential effects was important. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

I think the idea of the damage errata (and sequential effects) is you cant resolve damage while in the middle of another bit of damage.

This came up. lot when M3E was released, and they errata-ed it.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Sorry I have confused.

For the question you asked, the damage timing rules are the clearest for why you don't resolve the damage from the demise effect during the resolving the damage of the action. I wish I had just explained it that way but I was still thinking about the initial question in which sequential effects was important. 

I don’t think sequential effects is actually important for the resolution of damage posed in the question. An attack that places blasts first resolves damage timing on the target (model A). Then once the damage flip is complete you place blasts and generate damage (because some attacks don’t give blast on all flip results). Any models touching blast markers besides the initial target suffer damage simultaneously (models B & C), which is resolved after the target’s damage timing and before any sequential effects because the damage is all part of the same effect. Target dies and has Demise(Explosive), Demise is resolved in step 6c and generates simultaneous damage on adjacent models (models B & C). The target is then removed and generated damage from that initial effect is all resolved in order (Blast then Demise pulse), then any sequential effects are resolved.

I only see sequential effects coming into play if an effect is generated that is not resolved during damage timing, like an effect that triggered off of card draw that occurred when a model in range was killed.

[santaclaws01]

5 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Sequential effects deals with effects. Damage is generated by effects,

"The most common effect of an Action is damage, which is explained on page 24."

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

50 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

"The most common effect of an Action is damage, which is explained on page 24."

Huh, where is that in the rules? Still can solely use damage timing rules for damage generated during damage timing resolution (so both the Blast and Demise pulse damage) for the original question, and have attacking model gain kill credit and not have a Demise loop.

Edit: Nvm found it, brain kept skipping that last line for resolve effects. Thanks!

[santaclaws01]

21 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Huh, where is that in the rules? Still can solely use damage timing rules for damage generated during damage timing resolution (so both the Blast and Demise pulse damage) for the original question, and have attacking model gain kill credit and not have a Demise loop.

It's at the end the apply results step in the resolving actions timing chart. There are also many other places in the rulebook that refer to damage as an effect without outright calling damage an effect.

You can solely use the damage timing rule for new damage effects if it's the only effect being resolved. If you have multiple effects that are already generated then you need to take a step back and look at sequential and simultaneous timing.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

28 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

It's at the end the apply results step in the resolving actions timing chart. There are also many other places in the rulebook that refer to damage as an effect without outright calling damage an effect.

You can solely use the damage timing rule for new damage effects if it's the only effect being resolved. If you have multiple effects that are already generated then you need to take a step back and look at sequential and simultaneous timing.

I see what you are saying more clearly now, and it brings about an issue with the resolving actions statement as well as the above. Damage timing states “suffering damage as a result of an effect”. If damage is an effect, suffering damage and following damage timing is a result of an effect… not an effect. So if an effect that causes damage resolves during damage timing, like during 6c, the suffering of that damage is not an effect.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

8 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I see what you are saying more clearly now, and it brings about an issue with the resolving actions statement as well as the above. Damage timing states “suffering damage as a result of an effect”. If damage is an effect, suffering damage and following damage timing is a result of an effect… not an effect. So if an effect that causes damage resolves during damage timing, like during 6c, the suffering of that damage is not an effect.

 

The sequential effects section talks about resolving effects generating new effects.

That's pretty much exactly what this is.