FAQ request: kill credit

[Csonti]

Since in some missions it is an important factor I would like to get an official clarification about what kind of attacks and effects earn a "kill credit" for a model.

We had a game with Make them Suffer and there were situations when we need to stop and talk about the case.

Examples:

- Zoraida hits his doll, the damage is transfered to the Sewn Fated enemy and dies.

- Z obeys a Waldgeist and the attack kills the enemy model.

In both cases we ruled that Z doesn't get the credit but the rulebook has nothing concrete about this.

Thanks!

[Barbagianni]

Same thing happened to me (well, my opponent) with collodi and his 'puppetty' actions. We actually decided that the credit goes to the model dealing damage...but sewn fate is a different situation.

[Dracomax]

Honestly, I'd have ruled the other way, but I can see the logic.

I really see 3 Possibilities:

1. Kill Credit goes to the active model—in this case Zoraida, as she is the model activating, and the damage is caused because of her abilities
   
2. Kill credit goes to the damaging model—the Waldgeist/voodoo doll, because theya re the ones who deal the actual damage—this could allow obey to give points to the other side
   
3. Nobody gets credit—it is indirect damage like falling, poison, or burning. Less likely on the waldgeist than the voodoo doll.
   

Personally, I like number 1, because it is simple. If an activating model's actions cause damage, they get the credit. I also see why that might not be the case though, so a FAQ entry would be nice.

[Sannop]

Honestly, I'd have ruled the other way, but I can see the logic.

I really see 3 Possibilities:

1. Kill Credit goes to the active model—in this case Zoraida, as she is the model activating, and the damage is caused because of her abilities
   
2. Kill credit goes to the damaging model—the Waldgeist/voodoo doll, because theya re the ones who deal the actual damage—this could allow obey to give points to the other side
   
3. Nobody gets credit—it is indirect damage like falling, poison, or burning. Less likely on the waldgeist than the voodoo doll.
   

Personally, I like number 1, because it is simple. If an activating model's actions cause damage, they get the credit. I also see why that might not be the case though, so a FAQ entry would be nice.

+1

[Csonti]

Honestly, I'd have ruled the other way, but I can see the logic.

That's why I ask for a FAQ clarification. It is certainly not clear right now. I could argue for hours in defence of BOTH interpretation.

[Barnaberible]

Is there an acctual ruling for any type of indirect kill credit in M2E yet? (lure/push-falling, poison, burning etc)

Personally I always thought the 1.5 ruling of 'you didnt kill that model the poison did' was a bit lame. Id like to see all death accredited to the model that caused the death / gave the condition etc

[Dracomax]

Well, poison/burning there is logic in not giving credit to the model. first, multiple models can give it out to the same model at the same time, so that it becomes nightmarish to track, and because 90%(made up statistic) of the time, damage from them is taken at the end of the round, keeping track of who had burning/poison is already annoying without having to add who put it there.

I don't think there has been a direct ruling, but I don't believe that it (condition damage not being attributed to the model that put it on) is going to change, simply because doing otherwise needlessly complicates the game.

[Barnaberible]

Well, poison/burning there is logic in not giving credit to the model. first, multiple models can give it out to the same model at the same time, so that it becomes nightmarish to track,

This is a very good point

[Ausplosions]

Well, poison/burning there is logic in not giving credit to the model. first, multiple models can give it out to the same model at the same time, so that it becomes nightmarish to track, and because 90%(made up statistic) of the time, damage from them is taken at the end of the round, keeping track of who had burning/poison is already annoying without having to add who put it there.

I don't think there has been a direct ruling, but I don't believe that it (condition damage not being attributed to the model that put it on) is going to change, simply because doing otherwise needlessly complicates the game.

Yup.

[Guy in Suit]

Very few strats/schemes actually require you to kill things anymore. And if they are schemes, don't pick them

[Dracomax]

Very few strats/schemes actually require you to kill things anymore. And if they are schemes, don't pick them

Well, that doesn't really solve the problem of the rule being unclear. it just avoids using the rule. seems like a bandaid.

[solkan]

I think the "It's too indirect, no one gets credit" approach is simpler.

You hit someone with poison, the poison kills them later. You throw the model off a cliff, the ground kills them.

[Thaarup]

I think the "It's too indirect, no one gets credit" approach is simpler.

You hit someone with poison, the poison kills them later. You throw the model off a cliff, the ground kills them.

You hit them with a sword, the sword killed them. You shot them with a gun, the bullet killed them

[Fenton Crack]

Perhaps if "kill credit" was simply given to a model that used a stat line that specifically says "deals damage" got the kill?

This would then include attacks of most sorts that do real time damage, and even abilities like "Catalyst", but would not give credit for deaths from falling of the normal resolution of conditions such as Poison and Burning, and would prevent credit for fall damage. It could get dicy with damage from Obey actions, as you would not get credit for the kill for obeying someone off a building or obeying one enemy model to attack another, and even obeying a friendly model to attack an enemy would have the kill credit going to the model that was "obeyed," rather than the "controlling" model, which could be good or bad depending on strats or schemes, as some specify models being killed by one type of model or another.

I know this approach may have philosophical issues as to excluding kills that some feel were "earned", but I feel it would be compensated by more definitive clarity.

[Dracomax]

I actually don't care how the question is resolved. I just want a clear, consistent rule that lets you quickly determine if a given action counts or not. If the rule is that it must be an attack action, and must deal damage from a statline/ability, but credit goes to the active model, that's fine. If it is something else, that is fine. just make it clear and consistent. Right now, it needs clarification.

[PicklesGrr]

Well, that doesn't really solve the problem of the rule being unclear. it just avoids using the rule. seems like a bandaid.

& since one of the strats has this rule you cannot just avoid it.

I would rather the effect became if enemy models were killed or sacrificed rather than if you kill or sacrifice them, though it's still not clear for eg Frame for Murder. Would catalyst from McMourning count for example?

Edited October 11, 2013 by PicklesGrr