Pere, Obey and Stupid Luck

[Murphy'sLawyer]

So a player brought up an interesting question in another thread about Pere Ravagé being Obeyed and using his Stupid Luck Trigger while Obeyed.

Now it is true that when you Obey a Model you can use their triggers and we also know you can not Obey a Model to take an action that will Kill or Sacrifice the Model.

Here though the action being made is the attack which does not cause either, and the trigger is not the obeyed action. So my feeling is the RAW would allow one to use the trigger while Obeyed.

Did I miss something here?

[demkoenig]

Well, referencing my earlier post in another thread, if it doesn't make sense, then it shouldn't work.

So, if you can't Obey a model to make it kill or sacrifice itself, then you couldn't activate a trigger that would kill the model.

Granted, I'm not a Rules Marshall, and I by no means blame you for how you understand the topic; however, I would just like to evoke a spirit of "common sense" rule reading over a lot of the "hyper-technical" rule reading I tend to see here.

In summary, I would guess, that you couldn't use a Trigger during an Obey action that would kill the Obeyed model, because that makes sense with the fact that you can't Obey the model to kill itself. I hope this helps and I look forward to a Rules Marshall ruling and I by no means have any disrespect for your thoughts or understanding of the rules.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

I see and understand what you are saying here and have thought about that. It has always been ruled that if there is only a "chance" of an action killing or sacrificing a model it can be taken. Becuase there is a chance of it failing. Now the action being taken is the attack, which could fail and you do not get the trigger automatically, so it can be taken.

The trigger though is the issue. It is not an action and even if it was it is not the action being obeyed and only is a reaction to an action that could have failed.

Do you see the issue? RAW would allow you to use it, but is this the RAI?

I play Pere and will feel the wrath of this ruling but I am for fair rulings

Edited September 16, 2011 by Murphy'sLawyer

[ProdigalPunk]

I would say it is RAI

[demkoenig]

I do see the issue and I appreciate your civil manner of discourse.

So, looking at one example of Obey from Perdita

"The Action selected may not cause the model to be

killed or sacrificed as part of the action."

I would read "part of the action" to cover Triggers.

[Ragman]

Under performing a simple duel in the rules manual on page 27 under triggers it states "The model may now declare that it is using one Trigger that it has met the suite requirements for."

As obey states that "The Action selected may not cause the model to be killed or sacrificed as part of the action."

It would seem that you could make the attack however even if you met the Trigger requirements you may not choose to activate the Trigger as it would cause the model to be killed or sacrificed as part of the action.

[Hookers]

you can do things that would kill or sacrifice a model if it has a chance of failure.

so you can cast "oopsie" even if it would kill him because you could always black joker or otherwise fail to cast the spell. the trigger, however, is guaranteed, once the suit requirement has been met, to sacrifice the model and therefore may not be taken during an obeyed action.

this literally just came up in a game i played against nyx tonight while he was in town

[Murphy'sLawyer]

So from reading the posts here my question makes me wonder what a Trigger is considered? Is it considered an action, and if it is an action is it a separate action from an attack?

@Demkoenig there is no reason not to be civil here. Your point is a very good one and it had crossed my mind and made me pause. Also when discussing something we are not one hundred percent sure on it is stupid to not consider an opposing view.

Besides if I am wrong here I still win. Go Pere!

[Hookers]

So from reading the posts here my question makes me wonder what a Trigger is considered? Is it considered an action, and if it is an action is it a separate action from an attack?

no, its part of the action. if you onslaught, you are not making a separate action (hence no wounds from alps) it is just another strike generated from the first action.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Ok, so this is where I see it getting difficult Hookers, so let's look at this.

If a trigger is part of an action and there is a chance that this action may fail will it be legal to take?

This is why I am just waiting for a Marshal ruling becuase it is not clear if you read it by RAW when it is logically followed through. Since the Trigger is not an action in its self we can't just make our own ruling on it. This needs a little more clarification. Though I do respect and know you are an experienced player Hookers, so no disrespect at all here.

(Just looking at it from all angles that one can take and I am not trying to be purposely difficult. I also am not trying to sway any Marshal's ruling and will accept their ruling. It is just a whole RAW vs RAI thing.)

Edited September 16, 2011 by Murphy'sLawyer

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Just to save a back and forth I am also going to lay out the other side of the argument in a way that I have thought of it in my head.

A trigger is not an action but it is still an ability that is triggered by an action and there fore is separate from the action.(Thus separating it from the ebb and flow of chances) so even though it is not directly the action being Obeyed it is still an ability that Guarantees the destruction of the model and there fore can not be used.

I know this what you all were trying to say and I see the logic. It would satisfy the RAW but it is not directly obvious and there fore it becomes an RAI which should be ruled on by a Marshal.

Solid logic and can easily be understood, so I do respect all the responses so far.

[Ciaran]

RAW the trigger belongs to the action, and is not seperate from it, so this example is good. Also, a while ago it was ruled that a Trigger is a part of the action that triggered it. Following that logic any trigger from an Obeyed model is fine. As far as RAI, the ruling was made pre-RM, and has not been countermanded anywhere that I can find. It appears as that explanation was folded into the RM and is still the way the logic behind the way the game is played.

I'm on my tablet, and not easily able to copy/paste, it's in the thread Zora Obey and triggers.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Wow, 8 hours and this is already getting lost at the bottom of the page.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

So is this being discussed or is the silences the answer?

I have a thread in the Outcast forum waiting on this ruling to be clarified. If it is being discussed jury give a heads up.

[Ciaran]

So is this being discussed or is the silences the answer?

I have a thread in the Outcast forum waiting on this ruling to be clarified. If it is being discussed jury give a heads up.

It was ruled on a while ago, the trigger is attached to the action.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Thank you.

Your response looked like it was the answer but I just wanted to make sure before running with it.

[Hatchethead]

no, its part of the action. if you onslaught, you are not making a separate action (hence no wounds from alps) it is just another strike generated from the first action.

O RLY?

I had no idea. I've always assumed the new Strike was a Strike action all by itself... but I can see how that wouldn't be the case.

[psychocamel]

Going from (one of) the infamous alp thread(s): a strike action is when you spend 1 action point to perform the attack: strike.

It's a very specific thing. It's why when Lilith uses whirlwind she strikes everybody but does not perform strike actions. She instead performed a whirlwind action that hit everybody.