Sonnia's violation of Magic

[sinistralsimia]

So as I read it "When an enemy model with the Burning condition within (10 aura) of Sonnia is reduced to 0 wounds, Sonnia may spend a Soulstone or ......)"   As I read it this means that if a witchiling stalker attacks my Bayou Grem(not burning yet), he hits doing 5 damage and adding burning.  As I read it,  he is reduced to 0 wounds while not burning.  Therefore not an available to be resurrected.  Thoughts.

[dgraz]

I believe it's the other way around. The damage is applied, then the condition, then if the model is at 0 Wds it is removed.

[Joel]

The burning is applied first, so Sonnia would be able to make a witchling stalker in this situation

[Spifferson]

I'm not sure how or if it will effect the original question.

Burning should be applied after the damage as any damage reduction abilities that reduce the damage to 0 would negate the Stalkers 'searing mark' ability.

Damage has to be dealt for burning to be applied. However i'm not sure on the timing of calculating the damage total/applying the damage/applying the condition.

[Spifferson]

The burning is applied first, so Sonnia would be able to make a witchling stalker in this situation

 

As a known "power gamer" (booo, hisssss) and a sonnia player I think you should provide some rules quotes and page numbers.

[Dracomax]

Well, the Burning is part of any damage. It is not seperate, so it is neither added before nor after, but at the same time. as such, a stalker can be made.

[monkeyking68]

For the witchling stalker, his Burning condition falls under the "After damaging" timing.  At least this is how we play it.

 

Page 26 of the little rule book has general timing for effects (specifically under "After damaging"). 

[Makrar]

For the witchling stalker, his Burning condition falls under the "After damaging" timing.  At least this is how we play it.

 

Page 26 of the little rule book has general timing for effects (specifically under "After damaging"). 

 

Which is different to what is written on the witchling stalker card.

 

All models damaged by this model gains the Burning+1 condition.

 

Also page 26 is for triggers and searing mark is not a trigger

[monkeyking68]

Which is different to what is written on the witchling stalker card.

 

All models damaged by this model gains the Burning+1 condition.

 

Also page 26 is for triggers and searing mark is not a trigger

 

I agree, but it technically says "common timing terms used in triggers."  It is also the only place that I found in the rules that remotely comes close to resolving this.

[Makrar]

For me i think the burning is applied at the same time as any damage is dealt (due to the lack of anything telling us to do it afterwards) and as such a witchling can be made if the model dies.

 

However i hope this is added to the next FAQ as this seems to be a very common question

[Spifferson]

Yes I hope it is included in the FAQ as there seems to be a good split on the issue.

FWIW the local sonnia player plays it that the model dies without gaining the burning condition.

 

Damage and Wounds

"If a model is reduced to 0 or fewer wounds it is immediatly removed from the game as a kill."

 

Searing Mark: All models damaged by this model gain the burning +1 condition.

 

"damaged" is past tense implying that damage has been done. In my view if you have to check and see if damage is done then the dg and condition are not being applied at the exact same time. I hate to make inferences from other rules but next to nothing in the game outside of opposed flips happens at the exact same time.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

As a separate yet related issue. If a model can be reduced to fewer than 0 wounds, Sonnia's -Reincarnation- upgrade should be errata'd from "reduced to 0 wounds". Or a model with less then 0 wounds could use an FAQ to equal 0 wounds as this opens up another can of worms.

[dgraz]

I don't have my book on me, but I do have the very last beta file of the book from the first wave.......under Opposed Duels, under triggers, the last bullet point says:

 

•After damaging: These effects happen after step

5 and only if the target suffers 1 or more damage

from the Action. These effects are resolved before

the damaged model is removed if it was killed by

the damage.

 

Then, later, there is a Call-Out box on General Timing which says:

 

Most Abilities grant a passive effect, some of

which have their effect when a model suffers

damage or is killed. Whenever any Ability

happens at the same time as any Triggers,

the Triggers are resolved first. If two Abilities

happen at the same time, resolve them in the

following order:

1. The Acting Model resolves its Abilities.

2. The Defending Model (if there is one)

resolves its Abilities.

3. Any other models controlled by the

First player resolves all of their Ability effects

in any order the First player chooses.

4. Any other models controlled by the

Second player resolves all of their Ability

effects in any order the Second player

chooses.

 

 

Between those two, I'm pretty sure the intent is that abilities/triggers are resolved before a model is removed from the table.

 

This boils down to the same thing as the argument about Lilith being able to see a Silurid.

[Dracomax]

Even aside from that, the witchling burning isn't a trigger. it doesn't follow trigger timing. It is added onto any damage, as part of the damage. It always takes effect before the model is killed, because before the model is killed, the damage is applied.

 

Also, for those not native to English, or those who need a brush up, the "ed" in damaged would make it past tense, except it is part of a verb phrase, specifically, "is damaged" which makes it present tense. Again, implying it takes place at the same time as the damage.

[Aramoro]

Even aside from that, the witchling burning isn't a trigger. it doesn't follow trigger timing. It is added onto any damage, as part of the damage. It always takes effect before the model is killed, because before the model is killed, the damage is applied.

 

Also, for those not native to English, or those who need a brush up, the "ed" in damaged would make it past tense, except it is part of a verb phrase, specifically, "is damaged" which makes it present tense. Again, implying it takes place at the same time as the damage.

 

I disagree entirely that Burning is added to the Damage, it's explicitly a separate effect as you have to suffer damage before you are given burning, if you suffer 0 damage then you will not go on fire. So you need to work our if the model is Damaged before applying burning to it, if the model gets reduced to 0 wounds whilst working out the damage then it will get removed from play as per the rulebook. That happens before the burning would be applied so that effect fizzles effectively. 

[Dracomax]

ANd I disagree with your disagreement. the way the rule is worded, it isn't a seperate effect. it may be added by a seperate ability, but the burning itself is part of the damage.You get a witchling if you spend the cards or stones.

[Ryoken]

In a different thread, we had talked about arguing the rules based purely on grammar vs intent.  Intent had won out the argument and was said to be the way to go.  I do not think the game was designed to have a Witchling cheat its damage down to make sure the target gets the burning condition then have a second action or another model kill the target.  That sounds pretty bass ackwards to me.  

 

I think the intent of the rule was to allow the Witchling to synergize with Sonnia by killing targets and spawning more Witchlings.  

 

For those arguing about the timing of this rule because "If a model is reduced to 0 or fewer Wounds it is immediately removed from the game and killed" please note the page and rule DGRAZ mentioned about General Timing (Page 46 of the big rule book right under Damage and Wounds).  I will provide an example to make it a bit easier to understand:

 

Witchling Stalker attacks a Death Marshal.  Death Marshal is reduced to 0 wounds.  The acting model (Witchling) applies Burning from the Searing Mark Ability (note rule #1 under General Timing).  The Death Marshal then gets to use an ability (Rule #2).  It activates the Finish The Job Ability and drops a Scheme Marker before being removed from play.  Since the target has burning now, Sonnia can create a Witchling Stalker.  

 

I am not really sure this rule is needed in the FAQ, but I suppose it might help.  Follow the steps in order even if the steps might not be applicable every time, this will solve a lot of rule timing issues.

[Thaarup]

I don´t think this single example needs a FAQ either and it have been a topic before (and answered multiple times) ...but as there have been a few cases around the "General Timing" and how it is understod maybe a rewrite or a better explained rule set with multiple examples could be a better answer.

Must admite I am often confused by it myself so would appreciate such a "add-on" in the errata/FAQ section. 

[Dracomax]

Werll, given that it is actually a question that has been asked frequently(about 1/month since the arsenal packs were released) It should probably be addressed in the FAQ. That is, after all, what an FAQ is. I would suggest that at some point the FAQ needs to be seperated from the errata, since the FAQ is merely a clarification of rules, and not an actual change to them. The FAQ will grow, and it will eventually be fairly large, simply because new questions will be asked frequently. People saying "this doesn't need to be added to the FAQ" simply because they can clearly see the answer are, IMHO, missing the entire point of an FAQ. It isn't (or at least, should not be) about whether the answers can be figured out elsewhere. It is about whether enough people are misinterpreting or confused with the rule to justify answering it directly.

 

That being said, I would have no objections if the general case were represented there, with the specific(witchling interaction and order of operations) being either an example or easily derivable from it. The issue with that is that people will still tend to be confused with specific interactions. Still, having the general rule be spelled out and giving better examples of what is and what is not in any given step, with a reasoning of why, will allow other players to answer those questions with enough authority and justification to convince most people.

[The Godlyness]

Food for thought, there is an upgrade in the game that does one thing. To say that this upgrade does nothing makes you ponder why it was included in the first place. Then any reasonable person would say maybe i have been playing this wrong the whole time and then goes about their business. And then plays it right.

Witching stalkers give burning when damaging. Not after damaging. How are you reduced to 0 wounds. When you have suffered damage to reduce you to that number. So in the Op question the model suffered 5 damage which ip so facto also applies burning. Model has then suffered enough damage to be reduced to 0 Bam stalker.

[Aramoro]

Witching stalkers give burning when damaging. Not after damaging. How are you reduced to 0 wounds. When you have suffered damage to reduce you to that number. So in the Op question the model suffered 5 damage which ip so facto also applies burning. Model has then suffered enough damage to be reduced to 0 Bam stalker.

 

That is incorrect, by the words on the card they apply burning strictly after they have inflicted damage, otherwise they don't know to apply burning. You must have applied the damage to know you have damaged the model, having damaged a model tiggers Searing Mark . I've you're going to throw in some Latin to appear clever, try to get it right as well. 

 

If this works then does that mean that when Collodi kills a model with Pull the Strings he can use the My Bidding Trigger to make them perform an action before they are removed from the table? 

[Dracomax]

So what you are saying is that by the rules on the card, damage is applied after damage is dealt, otherwise they don't know to do damage.

 

It's pedantry, pure and simple. and demonstrably false.

[The Godlyness]

Weird collodi's is a trigger. Searing mark is not how did i ever confuse the two. For that matter anyome have the exact wording on searing mark.

[Dracomax]

having damaged a model triggers Searing Mark .

This right here is the issue. It doesn't trigger searing mark. searing mark is not a trigger, and does not follow the timing of triggers, nor any of the trigger rules.

 

It is an ability. it is always on. burning is always applied when damage is dealt. not after. when. It's concurrant with the damage.

[Aramoro]

This right here is the issue. It doesn't trigger searing mark. searing mark is not a trigger, and does not follow the timing of triggers, nor any of the trigger rules.

 

It is an ability. it is always on. burning is always applied when damage is dealt. not after. when. It's concurrant with the damage.

 

You're confusing the word trigger with a Trigger, I did not. I can phrase it differently if you have trouble understanding what I was saying with that troublesome trigger word in there. 

 

You have to have Damaged a model to apply burning, until you know that you have certainly damaged the model you cannot apply burning. So burning happens strictly after damage. It must be that way round or how else do you know to apply Searing Mark. You surely accept that if you do 0 damage then you do not apply burning? So Damage must have been applied before you can apply burning. 

[dgraz]

This right here is the issue. It doesn't trigger searing mark. searing mark is not a trigger, and does not follow the timing of triggers, nor any of the trigger rules.

 

It is an ability. it is always on. burning is always applied when damage is dealt. not after. when. It's concurrant with the damage.

And as Ryoken said, you follow the General Timing rules all the time.....even if all of the steps aren't always applicable. In this case, Searing Mark is an ability that gets applied in it's step....then you check to see if the defender has an ability...if yes, then you do it, if not, then you don't do anything, and then you remove the model.

 

It's really quite simple as has been shown and I agree with Dracomax that anything beyond this point is just semantics and pedantry.

 

I also agree that the General Timing should be called out in the FAQ....saying something like Ryoken said...you follow all the steps.....and putting this question in as an example would solve the entire problem. I'm generally against adding silly things that are easily answered (like this) in the FAQ, but in this case there should be something.

 

And I think it's funny that Aramoro can respond rudely while focusing on Triggers....while completely ignoring the General Timing on ABILITIES (which Searing Mark is) that I pointed out.

[Aramoro]

And I think it's funny that Aramoro can respond rudely while focusing on Triggers....while completely ignoring the General Timing on ABILITIES (which Searing Mark is) that I pointed out.

 

The general timing doesn't seem to have anything on this. You quoted something from the Beta rulebook that After Damaging affects will be applied before the model is removed. Which is why I asked about Collodi's trigger, which is an After Damaging effect. 

 

If we're saying that abilities can be applied after a model is reduced to 0 wounds but before it's removed from the table then surely that works in the same way and Searing Mark applying burning before a model is removed.