Exececutioner vs STD or Interrupts

[Akujie]

Alright, so I know this has been asked a couple times before, and resolved, but for the life of me I can't find the ruling.

So fatty McExecutioner walks up to a model (papa loco, a Belle, Snow Storm, Von Schill, etc. etc.)

Fatty then sticks his oversized claws through said model, wiggles them a little bit and they are reduced to 0 wounds.

Said Victim then procs an interrupt, either STD or some sort of boom or damage that reduces Fatty to 0 wounds.

Fatty still has his STD action which maybe he can spend to rewack the model in question?

So how does the interrupt chain work on this scenerio...or are they different? I remember the ruling for exec A hits exec B kills B, then B kills A with STD, then A kills B with STD all pans out as A lives and his LTJ goes off, while B looks for employement in the afterlife. I know there was also a really nifty interrupt chain posted by the rules marshalls at some point that detailed how it all worked, so looking for that if someone's forum searching is better than my own.

2nd question, in the above mentioned questions, does the Exec STD action affect his ability to get LTJ off or not, i.e. if he kills papa loco, papa loco booms to kill him, does him rehitting papa loco change the interrupt game?

Ok so that got wordy, thanks in advance for rehashing old topics.

[goblyn13]

A battle of Two Executioners (Ex1 and Ex2)

• Ex1 attacks
  
• Ex1 deals enough damage to ex2 to bring executioner 2 to 0 wounds.
  
  • Ex2 triggers StD (lol)
    
  • Ex2 attacks and deals enough damage to Ex1 to bring Ex1 to 0 Wounds
    
  • Ex1 triggers StD
    
    • Ex1 Attacks again doing nothing, Ex2 is already at 0 wounds
      
    • Ex2's state is checked
      
    • Ex2 is killed and removed from the game
      
      • Ex1 triggers LtJ
        
      • Ex1 Heals to full completing LtJ
        

      [*]Ex1 Attack is complete

    [*]Ex1's StD is complete

    [*]State Check on Ex1

    [*]Ex2's attack is complete

    [*]Ex2's StD is complete

Edited September 22, 2011 by goblyn13

[Akujie]

Thanks! so pretty much replace any STD model in that formula and it still works, correct? Same for interrupts like Papa Loco?

[Mr_Smigs]

and here I thought we weren't supposed to be able to explain rules like a program code...

[Akujie]

Its a nifty chart for sure, very clear and easily understandable, unlike all that computer mumbo-jumbo (j/k, but most code is like greek to me)

[Hatchethead]

A battle of Two Executioners (Ex1 and Ex2)

• Ex1 attacks
  
• Ex1 deals enough damage to ex2 to bring executioner 2 to 0 wounds.
  
  • Ex2 triggers StD (lol)
    
  • Ex2 attacks and deals enough damage to Ex1 to bring Ex1 to 0 Wounds
    
  • Ex1 triggers StD
    
    • Ex1 Attacks again doing nothing, Ex2 is already at 0 wounds
      
    • Ex2's state is checked
      
    • Ex2 is killed and removed from the game
      
      • Ex1 triggers LtJ
        
      • Ex1 Heals to full completing LtJ
        

      [*]Ex1 Attack is complete

    [*]Ex1's StD is complete

    [*]State Check on Ex1

    [*]Ex2's attack is complete

    [*]Ex2's StD is complete

Oh noz! Shouldn't we have one final bullet ...?

• Ex1 Attack is complete
  

... thus completing the initial attack, ending the action? Without the final bullet, this thing churns on for eternity, howling for resolution, an unfinished work of art, Mozart's Requiem.

I kid. But seriously, I love this example. One action and three interrupts. I still (on rare occasion) use it to explain just how complex certain interactions can be. It's complicated enough to get the point across without being ridiculous.

[Fastenhate]

So...if I understand this correctly an executioner can survive all the pulses, black blood, etc. reations if he targets the original target again because that causes it to check its state?

[Fastenhate]

clarify my question--

...that causes it to check its state (and trigger Love the Job healing him completely).

[Cadilon]

I hate to stir this pot again because I've been down this road before. But....

How do you reconcile this walkthrough with this thread and this post:

Step 1: Executioner kills Electrical Creation.

Step 2: Electrical Creation activates Unstable, generating its pulse and doing 2 Dg, enough to kill the Executioner.

Step 3: Executioner activates Slow to Die as a response to being killed. Nothing to kill, dies. Executioner is removed from play.

Step 4: Now that Unstable is resolved, Electrical Creation is removed from play.

Step 5: Love the Job cannot activate, because there is no Executioner left to heal.

And that's an official Ruling.

This ruling would seem to indicate that the first executioner would die before using LTJ. I personally agree with the way its walked through in this thread, but Zee seemed to think differently.

[sephiroa]

I hate to stir this pot again because I've been down this road before. But....

How do you reconcile this walkthrough with this thread and this post:

This ruling would seem to indicate that the first executioner would die before using LTJ. I personally agree with the way its walked through in this thread, but Zee seemed to think differently.

yep, bee on the same thread,, thats why this ruling kinda makes my head spin, because its totally different, how can you hit something, if it has 0 wounds?

[Cadilon]

Everyone seems to get caught up in the STD. Thats fine, I guess. It gets complicated.

But, as a player who takes the Executioner in 90% of my games, its the unfair loss of LtJ that really gets me. He has this ability that heals all wounds when he kills an enemy model. Why does he lose this important ability when he killed another model FIRST, but in its death throws that model does dmg and kills the Ex? Obviously the ruling I quoted walks through the rule reasons why this is so, but to me it just doesn't seem fair somehow.

[Hatchethead]

Having 0 wounds and being killed are two different things. THAT SAID, the current wording of Slow to Die supports Cadilon. "After this model is killed ..." Slow to Die wouldn't kick in until after a state check has declare it killed.

... right?

HOWEVER, it has also been said that Slow to Die is being reworded, as per this thread.

The important bit:

Expect a new Slow to Die wording, which states the model takes a (1) Action instead of being killed, then dies after the Action if still confirmed death. This makes Slow to Die different from other abilities triggering from death in that the model is not yet dead during Slow to Die.

Ultimately, this makes a "slowly dying" Executioner much different from an "already dead" Electrical Creation. You can't attack what it already dead, but you can attack a model with 0 Wds (though it's pointless), assuming it hasn't had a state check and hasn't been declared dead by the game.

[Hatchethead]

Note: I think Ropetus means to say the model would take a (1) Action after being reduced to 0 wounds (before the state check occurs, the one that would declare it dead) and is then killed after the Action if still at 0 wounds (following the state check).

Otherwise, the new wording wouldn't change much ... would it?

/aneurysm

EDIT: Considering both Zee's and goblyn's rulings, there appears to be a disconnect between when "0 wounds" becomes "killed" becomes "removed from game". I think a rewording of StD would solve the problem, allowing two 0 wound Executioners to wail on each other until one is declared dead by a state check (allowing the other to heal), while a killed/removed Electrical Creation (disappearing in a puff of Unstable) would leave a 0 wound (but not yet killed) Executioner with no one to hit and no way to heal via LtJ.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Hatchethead

[Q'iq'el]

I hate to stir this pot again because I've been down this road before. But....

How do you reconcile this walkthrough with this thread and this post:

This ruling would seem to indicate that the first executioner would die before using LTJ. I personally agree with the way its walked through in this thread, but Zee seemed to think differently.

I thought those are two different cases, because in case of Electrical Creation, the EC is removed after Executioner's STD ends (which means he doesn't heal during STD and that means Love for the Job can't save it).

But now I see that the Executioner vs. Executioner ruling is wrong. It has Executioner 2 removed before its initial Slow to Die ends. That cannot be right..

You cannot remove Executioner 2 until its initial Slow to Die ends.

That means the Executioner 1 cannot trigger Love for the Job before his own Slow to Die ends.

So in a case where Executioner 1 attacks Executioner 2 and both kill each other, Executioner 2 is the one who will always stay alive.

Here is the proper sequence:

I Executioner 1 uses Executioner's Claws to Strike Executioner 2 and kills it.

II Executioner 2 starts Slow to Die (interrupting the duel) and Strikes Executioner 1 with his Executioner's Claws. He kills Executioner 1.

III Executioner 1 starts Slow to Die (interrupting Executioner 2's Slow to Die and the Strike Duel), and Strikes Executioner 2 with the same weapon. Executioner 1 is still at Wd 0.

IV Executioner 1 Slow to Die ends. Executioner 2 still hasn't been removed, as his STD is interrupted, but not finished, so Love for the Job conditions haven't been fulfilled and Executioner 1 couldn't heal during his Slow to Die action. Executioner 1 thus dies from his wounds and is removed from play.

V Executioner 2's Love for the Job conditions have been fulfilled, with the removal of Executioner 1, so it heals all Wounds.

VI Executioner 2's Slow to Die ends. He has healed to full wounds during his Slow to Die action, so he isn't removed from play.

This is, IMO, the correct sequence and it is perfectly in line with Electrical Creation ruling as well. Goblyn13, please review the mistaken ruling in this thread or point out where my fix is based on wrong premises.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Q'iq'el