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?

[ork56]

That seems a concise summary to me.

So in the pull/push from hazardous terrain, the active mini should get credit, as it actively caused the kill.

Otherwise you might get an issue where a mini was destined to die at turn end from burning/poison whatever and it was killed during the turn, you would be arguing that 'it was going to die anyway' so no credit-which is clearly wrong.

[i_was_like_you]

It's a question of intent. In this case, Mei Feng certainly intended to kill the Silurid, the Silurid died as a result of her action, and, yeah, she should probably get the credit for the kill.

However, in a court of law, with a good lawyer (Better call Saul), she would probably be acquitted, or at least able to plead down. That is, if Silurids count as people, not just as Swampfiend Beasts, and as such are afforded the same kinds of protection under the law.

That's not to say that the Spawn Mother couldn't still come after Mei with a civil suit to seek some recompense for her loss.

[Dracomax]

Well, in a guild court of law, Mei Feng walks free because she killed one of those filthy never born, and why are you even bringing this case into my court and wasting our time, you waste of space. Because I'm in a good mood today, I'm only sending you to the mines for the next 10 years as punishment.

Guild law is kind of arbitrary.

Personally, I see arguments both ways. I think somewhere, it should be defined what types of damage give credit. My gut says that if it happens on a model's activation, then the activating model(the one using AP, for the pedants with obey) should get credit.

[mpangelu]

Well, as it happened... this is something that I think will transfer from 1.5. While yes, actions by one model ended up in the result of the death of another model; the model was not the direct cause. It could have been the butterfly that flapped its wings on the opposite side of the world. Or the other model for not having wings to fly.

In 1.5 the big WTF moment was a model dies of a Poison tick. The poison was put on by a different model. Yet the poison is what killed him and therefor no one got credit even though the poison was placed on it by that enemy model.

A model dying through falling damage or a condition will not result in the model that affected the model with the falling damage or condition with recognition for the kill. Doesn't make sense to me, but that is the way it is.

Those looking for more specific reasoning. All of the conditions specify that they receive blah blah from the condition. Falling says the model suffers. There is no originating source other then these listed.

Edit: Specifying issues with this type of stuff is, what if multiple models inflict a model with poison or burning.. which one did it? which order? these are one of those things that were ruled this way for simplicity sake.

Edited October 14, 2013 by mpangelu

[ork56]

A model dying due to being actively pushed off a building is a very different case from that model dying due to damage inflicted by various conditions.

[sssk]

What about Kaeris' "pick up and drop" ability, which places a model nearby and inflicts falling damage?

#CatAmongPidgeons

[Fetid Strumpet]

My personal take, if your model actually causes the dmg then you get credit. If your model does something that causes something or some other rule effect to kill the target, you don't get credit. Much simpler and easier to understand, and encourages tactical play.

If you are standing on a ht 9 building and I cast Lure on you via my Rotten Belle, and you walk off the edge and take 9 dmg from the fall I personally would not expect to get credit for killing your model, because I didn't, the fall did. If I need to get credit for killing your model, rather than just having him be dead, it means I better figure out a way to get something of mine up to the top of that Ht 9 building and kill him the old fashioned way. If I just want him dead, then I'll lure him off.

Anything else and we really begin splitting hairs about what constitutes credit. If Meio Feng dmgs a model, and as part of the attack she can push the model, and the model falls three inches into a burning wood, that then kills the model, personally I'd say Mei Feng does not get the credit because SHE did not make the kill. She caused it, but in this instance it wasn't HER dmg that did the kill.

I look at it as a style thing, you want VP for something you have to do it in a specific way.

[mpangelu]

A model dying due to being actively pushed off a building is a very different case from that model dying due to damage inflicted by various conditions.

I know what your saying. But the push didn't kill the model. The fall did. I understand common sense and cause and effect. I'm saying for this game, for simplicity sake, those ways of thinking are suspended.

---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------

What about Kaeris' "pick up and drop" ability, which places a model nearby and inflicts falling damage?

#CatAmongPidgeons

In her case, the falling damage is part of the actual action. Not a subsequent possible side effect.

[Spifferson]

Gravity did it.

Its always bringing me down.

[Thaarup]

My personal take, if your model actually causes the dmg then you get credit. If your model does something that causes something or some other rule effect to kill the target, you don't get credit. Much simpler and easier to understand, and encourages tactical play.

If you are standing on a ht 9 building and I cast Lure on you via my Rotten Belle, and you walk off the edge and take 9 dmg from the fall I personally would not expect to get credit for killing your model, because I didn't, the fall did. If I need to get credit for killing your model, rather than just having him be dead, it means I better figure out a way to get something of mine up to the top of that Ht 9 building and kill him the old fashioned way. If I just want him dead, then I'll lure him off.

Anything else and we really begin splitting hairs about what constitutes credit. If Meio Feng dmgs a model, and as part of the attack she can push the model, and the model falls three inches into a burning wood, that then kills the model, personally I'd say Mei Feng does not get the credit because SHE did not make the kill. She caused it, but in this instance it wasn't HER dmg that did the kill.

I look at it as a style thing, you want VP for something you have to do it in a specific way.

The problem with going that route is that not every crew/master work in a direct way, which would handicap some crews/masters. An example would be the current form of Collodi who has no direct attack abilities. Some crews work with a lot of direct damage like most Guild crews and for an example some Neverborn crews work with manipulation instead.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Which is countered by the fact that Collodi doesn't actually have to be the one doing the killing blow. Hire something or things that can. To me, your argument sounds like complaining that Leveticus and Seamus by their very design are difficult to kill, and therefore the assassinate scheme is no fair when it comes up against them and they should be as easy to kill as raspy in such case.

You get a scheme POOL and you get to see what that pool is before picking your master. Firstly, if you are dying to take a kill credit scheme, pick a master and crew that can successfully do so. Secondly, if you are dying to take a master with no direct attack actions, don't pick a kill credit scheme, its going to be very rare you won't be able to not take one. Thirdly if you just have to take a non aggressive master, and just want to take a kill credit scheme, hire models that can accomplish such.

I see no valid argument that because a particular master doesn't have a direct attack that somehow the whole definition of how kill credit gets assigned needs to change.

[JimTullis]

Fetid Strumpet

As far as I can tell only Make Them Suffer and Frame For Murder care who killed what.

Make Them Suffer needs you to have a Master or Henchman who can perform Direct Attacks and Frame For Murder needs your opponent to have the same. And as has been said, there will be other choices in the Scheme Pool.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Or, hire a henchmen that is Killy. I don't think she's anywhere close to being done, but however she ends up Nekima is going to end up a beatstick. Hire her, or barbaros, or bad juju if a kill scheme comes up and your master of choice can't seal the deal.

Or you know, pick a different scheme.

[Kuldaj]

I don't know.. I would hope there would be some official ruling on this. And honestly the community is kind of worrying me as a new player. With a lot of these rule question threads, it seems denying credit is the theme.

Honestly I would think that while "over-time affects" would be hard to keep track of, and thus make it difficult, it could easily be monitored with different color counters and such to denote who has afflicted who with what condition.

But with immediate actions, the credit should definitely go to the figure that it currently activated. Otherwise I think it is really a cheap ploy to deny your opponent well earned tactical points. Because otherwise it is basically saying, screw the fact that you thought of a tactical way to kill my figure, the fall did it. I know you hit it down to X wounds, and I know you pushed it off with the intent to kill it, but I am not giving you points, so I can make sure I win.

Just seems like it cheapens the game and makes it so that players who play more tactically will just simple lose to players who play high damage bruisers.

[JimTullis]

Kuldaj,

There are only 2 schemes out of 19 where you get points based on Who Killed a model.

All other instances give you full credit for Dead Models regardless of who or what killed them.

AND you will know if those schemes are in your pool before you choose your Master and Crew.

So Tactical Players will only lose Scheme Points to "players who play high damage bruisers" if they choose one of the 2 schemes in question AND choose to play a Tactical Master and Henchman anyway.

[Dracomax]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the credit issue currently revolves around the following:

1. Obey—does it count for the model using obey, or the obeyed model?
   
2. Falling—lures, obeys, and specific model rules such as Kaeris'. Is it the same for all three?
   
3. Condition based—burning, poison, unnatural wasting. Most agree thewse should not.
   
   

Aome, all, or none of these should give credit to the active player. I don't think we are going to reach a consensus at this point; it is probably up to the designers to release a FAQ, and until they do, we will have to decide based on our personal preferences, and the TO for tournaments. After 5 pages of back and forth, with the general mood being "no, but this particular iteration should..." I just don't see us moving forward.

[ork56]

It seems that NOTHING other than the initial directly caused Ml/Sh/Ca damage will count.

It is a very odd view that many are taking, but if it ends up that way, so be it.

As for another talking point, why should extra damage from triggers (which kills the model) count? After all, it wasn't the active mini, it was the suit on the card causing the trigger; ie a game effect not a model action.

[solkan]

Keep in mind that there are models that explode upon death.

Throw an exploding model into a damage aura that someone else set up, and watch the explosion cause a chain reaction killing other models.

Why should the throwing model get the credit instead of the exploding model, or the model that setup the damage aura?

That's what makes "the active model" criteria an arbitrary standard.