whitefire Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 OK Seamus terrifying 14 up Necrodic Maching terrifying 14 up Enemy activates within both terrifying auras. Model runs off table and Seamus was the last terryifying check that the model went through. Frame for murder was on that model. Is it sacrificed by Seamus or sacrificed outright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Lucidicide Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Frame for Murder shouldn't work. Seamus made the model run, which in turn caused the model to be sacrificed. Seamus did not cause the sacrifice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ausplosions Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 And unless the model was already at the board edge, it is not sacrificed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Lucidicide Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 And unless the model was already at the board edge, it is not sacrificed. This man speaks the truths of the ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Kalkris Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 I'd like some more confirmation here. The terrifying on Seamus made the model lose the Morale Duel, so wouldn't that mean that Seamus's own effect (and by extension Seamus himself) killed the model? ~Lil Kalki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ryu Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Depends on how you interpret "sacrifice" but I think it's pretty clear in the rulebook p. 57: "If the model was already touching the table edge when it was forced to make a fall back move, it is sacrificed instead." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Kalkris Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 Depends on how you interpret "sacrifice" but I think it's pretty clear in the rulebook p. 57: "If the model was already touching the table edge when it was forced to make a fall back move, it is sacrificed instead." This is valid. My question is, regarding this, does the terrifying model count as having sacrificed the model losing the morale duel on the table edge? ~Lil Kalki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 MudgeBlack Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 Just my opinion here but Frame for Murder requires the model be killed or sacrificed by the master, and it was Seamus' aura that caused the sacrifice, I, personally give the VP to my opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ausplosions Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 I would say yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mordeqai Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 In my opinion, it'd work like tokens. If a model dies from Poison Tokens, there is no definitive killer. The model just simply dies, from a neutral cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 xKoBiEx Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Kill Protege says "killed." Killed and Sacrificed are two distinct things. An official answer would probably be needed in order to credibly take the VPs for the scheme. Frame for Murder does say Sacrificed, but says "by" opposing master. I'm not sure this is precise enough to take the VPs for running your own model off the board through an opposing Terrifying zone. In the case of Kill Protege, it would probably be a lot easier to actually kill the model than to make it flee to the board edge and then make it flee off the board by being in your melee zone. Another model with a push effect would have you in the perfect position to push you off the board when you are trying to run that method of chain morale failures. For Frame for Murder, it is often easier to make the opposing master have to kill your minion by sitting on his lap until he does. Edited February 17, 2013 by xKoBiEx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Golden Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 In my opinion, it'd work like tokens. If a model dies from Poison Tokens, there is no definitive killer. The model just simply dies, from a neutral cause. I disagree, the model was sacrificed through an indirect means, but the effect was caused by Seamus. A poisoned model can die from poison tokens up to 3 turns after it was last hit by the model with poison. In the case of poison, there was an errata that made this the rule because it was a little too powerful. In this case, your further Cuddling an ability that isn't really that powerful to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Adran Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Personal opinion is that the sacrifice isn't from McMorning, its from a game rule, so its not McMorning that is sacrificing the model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Thaarup Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 It is stil not the terror effect that kills the model. It is leaving the area that make the model to be sacrificed. The terrorfying effect contributed to the lose of the model, but it did not finish it off. I guess the same argument could be used if you wounded a model and then later on another attack killed the model. The first attack did not kill it even though it did help... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Kadeton Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 This seems like a really clear cause-and-effect relationship. Cause: Terrifying. Effect: The model is sacrificed. It doesn't matter how many steps are in the chain between the Terrifying test and the sacrifice effect - if the Terrifying model hadn't forced the test, the model would not be sacrificed, so the sacrifice is a direct result of the Terrifying model's ability. The only reason that tokens don't work like that is that they're specifically called out as an exception - "Tokens don't remember who applied them." There's nothing to "remember" in the Terrifying case, so I can't see any reason why there would be an exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Gruesome Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) This seems like a really clear cause-and-effect relationship. Cause: Terrifying. Effect: The model is sacrificed. Cause: The Model leaves the Table. Effect: The model is sacrificed. Terrifying is NOT causing the sac, leaving the table is. Was he terrified? Sure. Did he need to be terrified to leave the table? No. You can leave any time. That's how I play it until a rules marshal says otherwise. Edited February 18, 2013 by Gruesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Thaarup Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 The Frame for Murder scheme gives vp for "If the noted model was killed or sacrificed by an opposing master during the encounter, you scor 1 vp". The question is if Seamus sacrificed the enemy model. He did not. He caused it to fall back and after that the model got sacrified. Seamus did not sacrifice the model. Would it not be the same as Seamus causing a model to fall back through dangerous terrain/firewall/ or something similar and die/get killed? In both cases Seamus did not do the actual killing or sacrifice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 xKoBiEx Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Further to this, I believe that someone asked a question on whether they got VP for killing a model which fled into hazardous terrain and died. The answer ended up being no but I cannot find the link. I am stuck in the camp of no VP for FfM but I wouldn't argue the play in a friendly game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Kadeton Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Cause: The Model leaves the Table. Effect: The model is sacrificed. A model never leaves the table as a result of failing a Terrifying check. When it fails the check, there is a condition: if it is not on the edge of the table, it falls back. If it is already on the edge of the table, it is sacrificed. Even if it did leave the table, that would be an effect, not a cause. It would happen only in response to failing the Terrifying check. ---------- Post added at 12:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 AM ---------- The question is if Seamus sacrificed the enemy model. He did not. He caused it to fall back and after that the model got sacrified. Seamus did not sacrifice the model. That logic seems very akin to saying "Seamus did not kill the model. He reduced it to 0 Wds, and after that the model died." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Thaarup Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 That logic seems very akin to saying "Seamus did not kill the model. He reduced it to 0 Wds, and after that the model died." Not really. Terrifying caused the model to Fall Back. Fall back (plus table edge) caused the model to be sacrificed. Two steps. In your example Seamus reduced model to 0 Wounds. 0 Wounds = killed. One step. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Kadeton Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 Hypothetical question: If our Seamus hit and killed a Seishin, and that Seishin was instead sacrificed due to Fragile Connection, did Seamus sacrifice that model, or kill it? (I'm not using this to back up my argument at all, I think that saying anything further would be arguing in circles. I'm just trying to identify similar situations and see if people still feel the same way about them.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ausplosions Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 Yes Seamus would have sacrificed the seishin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 The Godlyness Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 seishins model state becomes killed then it talent fragile connection kicks in and it is counted as sacrificed Seamus get the kill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ausplosions Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 What? The Seishin is not Killed.. It is Sacrificed. Seamus gets credit for a sacrifice, not a Kill... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
whitefire
OK Seamus terrifying 14 up
Necrodic Maching terrifying 14 up
Enemy activates within both terrifying auras.
Model runs off table and Seamus was the last terryifying check that the model went through.
Frame for murder was on that model. Is it sacrificed by Seamus or sacrificed outright.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
23 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.