Falling Damage, Model Killed, and "Kill Credit"

[Nephalumps]

Odd situation:

Mei Feng is fighting a Silurid on top of a building. Mei Feng uses the Tremor trigger (from her Seismic Claws upgrade) on a Tiger Claws attack to knock the Silurid off of the building. The Tiger Claw damage softens it up enough so that the falling damage kills the Silurid.

The Silurid was nominated as the "sucker" model for Frame for Murder.

My question: in this situation does Mei Feng count as the model that killed the Silurid?

We played it as "yes," since the Silurid died as a result of falling damage, which was the result of a push generated by one of her attacks.

Did we interpret the situation correctly?

[Jonas Albrecht]

I think in a similar situation, with no rules on linking actions to "causes", I would have ruled that the falling damage was separate from Mei Feng's action, making it invalid for the Scheme.

[zFiend]

I would say you played it correctly.

[mperry1701]

I would have played it that falling killed him so no scheme points. Much like when models are killed from burning or poison damage we play it that the condition killed him not the model that caused the condition. Hopefully this stuff make the first FAQ as it's not well defined in the book as far as I can see.

[Jonasty]

I think it would be credited to Mei Fang. Her action directly caused the fall so to me that would indicate she was responsible for it.

---------- Post added at 09:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 AM ----------

I would have played it that falling killed him so no scheme points. Much like when models are killed from burning or poison damage we play it that the condition killed him not the model that caused the condition. Hopefully this stuff make the first FAQ as it's not well defined in the book as far as I can see.

The only difference I see in these 2 instances is that the conditions mentioned occur at the end of the turn so it makes sense that it isn't from a specific model. If 2 different models give 1 the burning condition, you don't assign which burning is from which model. But in the posted example, the fall is directly caused in the same activation from the enemy model. At least that's my thought.

[mperry1701]

I can see it both ways. I would say no in my opinion as the model didn't do the damage but would be happy to play it the other way. I think this needs to be FAQed.

[Jonasty]

Agreed on the FAQ and some official ruling.

[Hagisman]

If its caused by an opponent's move then yes.

However, purposefully jumping off a bridge to kill the sucker yourself is a "that guy" move.

[dgraz]

In the context of RAW surrounding all of those kinds of abilities.......I agree that it would NOT count as a kill for Mei. Just like Poison and Burning...these things don't remember where they came from...they just are.

[hypoking]

I'd say no. Unlike conditions which can arguably be attributed to specific models and tend to be the direct result of certain actions falling damage is inflicted by the game state and is at best an indirect result of anything a player or their crew does.

Hagisman also brings up an interesting point as, hypothetically at least, a sufficiently tall ledge could circumvent the friendly fire clause on vendetta.

[Buddhanutz]

Well, think of the same situation under a different circumstance. What if the scheme was assasinate. The image of that playing out makes it a little easier to see that Mei should get the credit for the kill. She jump kicks the model off the ledge, which means she assisinated him. Right?

I am eager to see what the final ruling is.

[hypoking]

Assassinate doesn't care who does the dirty, just that they end up dead. Which means the conversation is moot.

Lets extrapolate on the idea that Mei deserves credit for the kill. What if she pushes him into hazardous terrain and he dies immediately, does she still get credit for the kill? what if she pushes the model off a hill onto hazardous terrain, the fall weakening the model just enough so that the damage from entering the hazard finsihes it off? What if she pushes him into hazardous terrain and it dies at the beginning of its activation? What if she pushes a model into hazardous terrain generated by another model's ability?

[zFiend]

Assassinate doesn't care who does the dirty, just that they end up dead. Which means the conversation is moot.

Lets extrapolate on the idea that Mei deserves credit for the kill. What if she pushes him into hazardous terrain and he dies immediately, does she still get credit for the kill? what if she pushes the model off a hill onto hazardous terrain, the fall weakening the model just enough so that the damage from entering the hazard finsihes it off? What if she pushes him into hazardous terrain and it dies at the beginning of its activation? What if she pushes a model into hazardous terrain generated by another model's ability?

She does the push, she gets the kill. The assassinate scheme was a good reference.

[hypoking]

That wasn't entirely my point. Assassinate may not care who holds the knife but the likes of frame for murder and vendetta do care. They care very much.

Edit: New fun scenario. Ramos and Mei are on top of a tall column. Mei swings on Ramos and misses, Ramos triggers repulsion and shoves Mei off to her death. Mei's responsible for setting the whole chain off in the first place and the whole things resolves as a result of her attack so did she just off herself? Does Ramos get credit for it instead?

Edited September 6, 2013 by hypoking

[Malicte]

Chalk me down as a "no". As I see it the Mei Feng claw damage and fall damage are two separate sources, even if they originate from the same action. Thus, since Mei Feng didn't do that damage, it wouldn't count for the scheme.

[PierceSternum]

However, purposefully jumping off a bridge to kill the sucker yourself is a "that guy" move.

Have you ever played anyone in chess that sacrificed a piece for better chances at winning the game?

If so, were they "that guy" ?

[dgraz]

Have you ever played anyone in chess that sacrificed a piece for better chances at winning the game?

If so, were they "that guy" ?

Agreed. Killing your own models has been a viable tactic for a long, long time.

[Ausplosions]

Gravity did it.

[r4st4f4n]

Gravity did it.

Best advocate ever xD

[dgraz]

Gravity did it.

In the Library. With the Candlestick.

[Hagisman]

Have you ever played anyone in chess that sacrificed a piece for better chances at winning the game?

If so, were they "that guy" ?

Partially agreed, allowing a piece to be taken by your opponent is not a "That Guy" move. Your opponent has the option to take the piece if he wants to open himself up in doing so.

In Chess sacrificing is usually done to get your opponent to move their piece to where your sacrifice is. Letting them have the small victory now, while you secure the long term victory.

In Frame for Murder jumping off a building has no chess move, it is essentially just taking the piece off the board without your opponent doing anything.

Honestly in the end I wouldn't mind if the Malifaux devs decide that jumping off a building is alright for Frame for Murder, because that sounds hilarious and very Malifaux-y. Especially if you are allowed to target your own models with attacks. Seeing McMourning killing a Death Marshall on his own team would be hilarious.

[ork56]

I'd say no. Unlike conditions which can arguably be attributed to specific models and tend to be the direct result of certain actions falling damage is inflicted by the game state and is at best an indirect result of anything a player or their crew does.

But the OP stated that she used a trigger to push it off the building, that sounds like an active choice to me and should get kill credit.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------

Edit: New fun scenario. Ramos and Mei are on top of a tall column. Mei swings on Ramos and misses, Ramos triggers repulsion and shoves Mei off to her death. Mei's responsible for setting the whole chain off in the first place and the whole things resolves as a result of her attack so did she just off herself? Does Ramos get credit for it instead?

Ramos gets credit, again it is his choice to trigger repulsion, knowing the likely result.

Also if the push/drag into hazardous terrain causes death immediately, then credit to the active model. If the pushed mini survives until later, then that is a different situation.

[dgraz]

I would agree that it would make sense for the pushing model to get the credit..........however, this is a game and for the health of the game certain things need to be abstracted. Hey, the LoS rules don't make perfect sense either, but the idea is to take these things that create wonky situations and try to make them simple. Is the fix going to make everyone happy? No...that's impossible, all they can do is the best they can do.

[Kuldaj]

Even though I am new. I would have to say, that yes she would get the credit. Her attack directly caused the fall, which caused the damage, and it was all immediate. It wasn't like the damage took awhile to kick in or what not for some reason. I think the immediate chain of damage should be taken into account for this.

If a model hit another, and the poison caused the kill two turns later, and the original model had not taken any action to finish the model itself then no. But then again, I think unless you are doing it to you own models, any damage caused by your opponents model should count towards points in some way if that model dies. Not well the burning killed it, I know you caused it, but you get nothing for your effort, even though you took me to 1 wound and the condition you caused finished me.

I have played enough Wargames to know that in almost all of them, this would be considered a victory/score/objective.

[Gorbad]

Not well the burning killed it, I know you caused it, but you get nothing for your effort, even though you took me to 1 wound and the condition you caused finished me.

What if the model got burning on it from both players? What burning damage takes precedence for killing the model? And how far do you go? Does getting pushed into hazardous terrain and the model dying that way count? Does pushing it into it, and then it activating next turn and dying count? Does the friendly player pushing it out and then into it to kill it without activating count? It was after all there as a result of a previous enemy action and would die and (lets assume) count for scheme purposes if activated.

Speculative situations for sure, but if you allow some forms of indirect damage to count, where do you draw the line?

[Kuldaj]

I would honestly say for simplicity sake, if it dies during the activation of another model, and that model did anything to it, that model should get credit.