Jack Daw and Drag

[Twisted Metal]

I hope this is a simple question. Can jack Daw be dragged by abilities such as chainspear and mounted combat?

[Fading Memory]

I hope this is a simple question. Can jack Daw be dragged by abilities such as chainspear and mounted combat?

Jack Daw can only receive damage from spells, mgical weapons, and focused strikes.

He cannot be dragged by Mounted Combat as it is not a focused strike [and cannot be focused, only (1) Strike actions can be focused)

So Chainspear can push Jack Daw if the Strike was used as a (1) Strike that was focused.

[fritz the cat]

can he not be targetted at all? or only not damaged? because otherwise could you use this to gain the benefit of the movement without the risk of damage?

[Fading Memory]

The Oldest of Magics says "This model is immune to wounds it suffers unless they are inflicted by spells, mgical weapons, or Focused Strikes.

Focus is a two action that gives a melle Strike or ranged Strike on the Attack and Damage Flips.

Mounted Combat is a not a Focus Attack so Jack Daw cannot be hurt by it.

If the Mechanical Rider Focus Strikes a Ranged Chainspear Strike, Jack Daw can be pushed.

With Jack Daw's Undying ability when he suffers wounds it is killed unless the player who hired it discards two cards. He still suffers wounds, even though two cards were discarded. The two cards were discarded so he didn't die; they did not prevent the wounds from happening.

[magicpockets]

^^This is all wrong I'm afraid

Jack Daw takes damage as normal by anything, and any abilities or triggers which relies on damage as a condition still work. The damage then converts to wounds which don't affect him if from the wrong source or which he can ignore by discarding a card or soulstone if from magic etc.

For example, Nix hits JackDaw in melee with a normal attack, does four damage, gives JackDaw a blight counter (as this is on damaging defender), the damage convers to wounds which don't affect him as not magical etc.

This exact example came up in a game with Ratty two days ago. Hope that helps. MP

[aka_hazard]

The Oldest of Magics says "This model is immune to wounds it suffers unless they are inflicted by spells, mgical weapons, or Focused Strikes."

The triggers for mounted combat state '...after damaging...' not after wounding so I would say he is affected by the drag trigger.

Strike is made and damage is calculated.

'Drag' is triggered.

Any wounds caused by the damage, if it is not a focused strike, are ignored due to Oldest of Magics.

The key point, as I see it, is that the Oldest of Magics does not give immunity to damage just the wounds caused by the damage. This would exclude none wounding effects such as drag.

Ninja'd by MagicPockets!

[i_was_like_you]

^^This is all wrong I'm afraid

Jack Daw takes damage as normal by anything, and any abilities or triggers which relies on damage as a condition still work. The damage then converts to wounds which don't affect him if from the wrong source or which he can ignore by discarding a card or soulstone if from magic etc.

For example, Nix hits JackDaw in melee with a normal attack, does four damage, gives JackDaw a blight counter (as this is on damaging defender), the damage convers to wounds which don't affect him as not magical etc.

This exact example came up in a game with Ratty two days ago. Hope that helps. MP

But what about this?

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24756&fb_source=message

0 Damage versus no damage, and effects like poison are retroactively ignored if damage that would convert to wounds is prevented in some way, most likely from a soulstone user's prevention flip. So if poison can't happen this way, why would other effects, such as blight, paralyzed, drag, etc., affect a model in such a case? Mind you, it took a moment to find this thread, as there are several others just like it that all seem to contradict one another.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

But what about this?

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24756&fb_source=message

0 Damage versus no damage, and effects like poison are retroactively ignored if damage that would convert to wounds is prevented in some way, most likely from a soulstone user's prevention flip. So if poison can't happen this way, why would other effects, such as blight, paralyzed, drag, etc., affect a model in such a case? Mind you, it took a moment to find this thread, as there are several others just like it that all seem to contradict one another.

Different phase.

Take 4 damage

Convert dmg to wounds.

Jack daw takes 4 wounds

Check if source is magical

Nope not magical wounds covert to -

Now I'm missing like 10 other steps but as you can see Jack daw takes the 4 damage. Since he does I can drag him.

[magicpockets]

^^ That's right - even in your poison example the damage is taken (hence poison applied) just no wounds are caused. FYI "damage prevention flips" are now actually "wound prevention flips" in practice, which is where the confusion may have come from

[Kadeton]

Different phase.

Take 4 damage

Convert dmg to wounds.

Jack daw takes 4 wounds

Check if source is magical

Nope not magical wounds covert to -

Now I'm missing like 10 other steps but as you can see Jack daw takes the 4 damage. Since he does I can drag him.

According to the linked thread, though, taking No Wounds from an attack retroactively means you took No Damage.

I don't think it's the best ruling, but it is an official one...

[Lucidicide]

What ever happened with the Slow thread where they talked about models immune to Slow still taking Slow but not being affected by it? I stopped looking, but I feel this is similar.

If Jack Daw is immune to Wds not caused by X, does he take the Wds, they just have no effect on him? Or is he unable to take the Wds?

If he takes the Wds and they do nothing because he's immune to them, then he has taken damage for triggers that are based off damage.

If he can't take the Wds because he's immune to them, then triggers off damage can't work.

[magicpockets]

According to the linked thread, though, taking No Wounds from an attack retroactively means you took No Damage.

I don't think it's the best ruling, but it is an official one...

I can see what you mean and yes it's an official ruling. I think it totally breaks the process outlined in the Rule Book, but when has that ever mattered.....

[Fading Memory]

Forgive my first few posts It was late and now after reading the Ruling by Ratty I need to rethink things.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Fading Memory

[Twisted Metal]

Wow I guess it wasnt such a simple question afterall. I myself am on the fence about it. On one hand I know that damage does not = wounds. On the other I dont want to use a loop hole on something that wasnt intended.

[Cunning]

According to the ruling it only counts as no damage if wound prevention reduces the wounds caused to 0. No mention of any other reason wds caused is reduced to 0.

So I would say as ruled that damage can still me caused to Jack and on damage triggers still apply.

[Q'iq'el]

According to the ruling it only counts as no damage if wound prevention reduces the wounds caused to 0. No mention of any other reason wds caused is reduced to 0.

So I would say as ruled that damage can still me caused to Jack and on damage triggers still apply.

I'd assume that anything which uses some special rule to nullify Wd after taking Damage is mechanically identical to Wd prevention flip.

As for Poison, I don't think it should be brought in the argument. It's an effect of its own and it applies according to its own rules (undefined in the Rules Manual - there are only special rules on some models and the ruling on the forums).

Other on-damage effects are perfectly comparable though.

[Cunning]

I'd assume that anything which uses some special rule to nullify Wd after taking Damage is mechanically identical to Wd prevention flip.

As for Poison, I don't think it should be brought in the argument. It's an effect of its own and it applies according to its own rules (undefined in the Rules Manual - there are only special rules on some models and the ruling on the forums).

Other on-damage effects are perfectly comparable though.

Assuming, hmmm. I really wouldn't assume until a ruling is made. So far as the rules go you'd be wrong so I wouldn't make any assumptions about you being right or wrong.

[Q'iq'el]

Assuming, hmmm. I really wouldn't assume until a ruling is made. So far as the rules go you'd be wrong so I wouldn't make any assumptions about you being right or wrong.

Let's call it informed assumption.

Damage caused -> Wound prevention removes it entirely -> counts as no damage.

Damage caused -> Oldest of Magics removes it entirely -> counts as no damage.

There are analogies. Sure, the ruling can go other way, but if there are delays when rulings are being made, that's precisely because the designers and the marshals need to check all the other rules affected by the ruling - I'm pretty sure they must have taken other such cases into consideration, when they made the ruling.

[Kadeton]

Let's call it informed assumption.

Damage caused -> Wound prevention removes it entirely -> counts as no damage.

Damage caused -> Oldest of Magics removes it entirely -> counts as no damage.

Call it extrapolation.

If those two situations were ruled to be somehow different, it would be pretty crazy.

[Twisted Metal]

There are analogies. Sure, the ruling can go other way, but if there are delays when rulings are being made, that's precisely because the designers and the marshals need to check all the other rules affected by the ruling - I'm pretty sure they must have taken other such cases into consideration, when they made the ruling.

I kind of figured that that would be the reason why a RM hasn’t chimed in yet. Im ok with either outcome but I would at least like to know either way.

[i_was_like_you]

Let's call it informed assumption.

Damage caused -> Wound prevention removes it entirely -> counts as no damage.

Damage caused -> Oldest of Magics removes it entirely -> counts as no damage.

There are analogies. Sure, the ruling can go other way, but if there are delays when rulings are being made, that's precisely because the designers and the marshals need to check all the other rules affected by the ruling - I'm pretty sure they must have taken other such cases into consideration, when they made the ruling.

As in, they used other rulings as precedent, much like our legal system does?

Not to sound too harsh, but if that were the case, I think all of these rulings would be neatly packaged with citations going back to ruling 1.A.3.b on model X when interacting with model Y's ability Q. Sure, it'd sound boring, but official rules are supposed to. [Example: http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20110930.pdf ]

I know that may be a lot to ask, considering the Rules Marshals are doing this on a voluntary basis. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good rulings that we get to see. The problem is, rules adjudication, as in, at a tournament environment, can and probably should be handled by Rules Marshals / Tournament Organizers / Henchmen. Actual, official rulings themselves, though, should only be handled by Wyrd employees who would avoid posting in the forums themselves, and would instead just post rulings with citations to the actual rule, ability, spell, etc., and / or interaction(s) of such in a format similar to the original FAQs.

Someone had said something to the effect of when we try to explain the rulings to people, we sound crazy. Well, it's true. Learning a new game should be easy. Mastering it is the hard part. But just when we think we've gotten a rule or ruling figured out, it changes.

"Which page is that on so I can look it up?"

"It's on x, y, and, again, on z, but they won't help you because the ruling online says the following..."

Yeah, we're supposed to flip to determine outcome when there is a question on it, but when the question has already been resolved and our opponent is calling bs, well, do we just say, "So-and-so said so," or do we have to flip for it regardless, and then try to explain it afterwards? If the resultant flip-based decision caused either of us to lose, both of us going off of what we thought was the correct way it functioned and how we've played it a million times, we're likely to be in the wrong mindset to either explain it to the other person or to listen to the other person explain it to us.