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.

[Mathias1877]

I would say that calculating the amount of damage is the step that is causing confusion, but please correct me if I am wrong with timings. As I understand it you calculate final damage total (so reductions from armour etc) then apply that damage to the target. So searing mark would occur after determining final damage total not after applying damage. 

[The Godlyness]

So confused with you. If a master uses a soul stone to prevent the weak damage of a stalker it has suffered 0 damage. Now if it has taken any damage at all it gains burning. And if it kills you you have died while having the burning condition. So if a stalkers attack is lethal that means it did damage which mean the enemy is on fire. Unless you arr saying the model is reduced to 0 wounds before it actually received damage. Some weird state one must be in to be dead but not dead like a certain cat. It's not trigger so it is not applied to after,before failing succeeding it does it.

If you want the timing I would say its applied before you check model state but after it was delt damage. It can do that since its an ability not a trigger.

[dgraz]

The general timing doesn't seem to have anything on this. 

How does it not have anything on this? It's exactly this. When someone points at a specific rule and you just ignore it so you can keep arguing....that makes me think that you're just trolling at this point.

 

It's an ability....it gets checked before the model is removed. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

I'm sure the General Timing call-out is in the regular Rulebook just like it was in the Beta book.....if you want to get hung up on that bit to further the sillyness, I'll go get my book and point you to the page.

[Fenton Crack]

I am sure everyone is merely passionate about their positions, but it can appear to the outside observer as outright hostility.

Debate away guys, but it's just a game, and while everyone may be taking it as spirited debate, lurkers and new players may misinterprete otherwise.

Not trying to sound like a paternalistic ass, flame me if you will, just seems like the rule forums are getting less friendly in tone.

[dgraz]

General Timing - Page 46.

 

Also, just to appease you, I haven't seen any debate on Collodi's Trigger....unless there is something else that I have missed to tell me I'm wrong about it.....I WOULD say that Collodi's Trigger would go off first......considering the Trigger steps I quoted, and the 'Actions causing Actions' Call-out box on page 38.

 

Not that it applies here since that is a Trigger and Searing Mark is an Ability.

[Dracomax]

I think what happens is that every rule argument that lasts more than about 5 posts tends to degenerate into "I'm right: same reasons I've already given" "no, I'm right. Same reasons I've already given" "someone put it in the FAQ" and it seems very rare that anything which has strong disagreements seems to have anyone move even a bit towards the other side.

 

So, The rules forum is like politics.

[dgraz]

it seems very rare that anything which has strong disagreements seems to have anyone move even a bit towards the other side.

 

 

Especially when you know you're right! (that goes for both sides)

[The Godlyness]

edited

[dgraz]

On collodi's trigger its done after damage is done and models state is checked if the model is alive certainly it does a 1 ap action. If a model is killed how ever its not around to take that action.

Hahaha.....time for a new thread (or point me to the old one) because the Actions causing Actions call-out says that the original action isn't considered resolved until the new one is.

[The Godlyness]

Maybe I am right. Isn't when a model is reduced to 0 and the models state becomes killed they are immediately removed? so even if your action is not resolved yet the model is missing?

If you flurry a model (prime example of an action causing actions) you make you duels blah blah but if you kill the model on the first or second attack you don't flip for the subsequent attacks. Unless i have been playibg this horribly wrong. Might cycle cards i guess but if the first action kills the model that model is removed is it not?

[Dracomax]

Maybe I am right isn't when a model is reduced they are immediately removed so even if your action is not resolved yet the model is missing?

Um. Sorry. I'm not sure I parse that sentence. COuld you please rephrase it?

[dgraz]

If you flurry a model (prime example of an action causing actions) you make you duels blah blah but if you kill the model on the first or second attack you don't flip for the subsequent attacks. Unless i have been playibg this horribly wrong. Might cycle cards i guess but if the first action kills the model that model is removed is it not?

Flurry allows you to make 3 SEPARATE (1) Actions. So each attack is resolved before the next.....that's completely different from what is being discussed here.

[The Godlyness]

Onslaught. Then if you kill it with the first strike would you flip cards for a second strike even though the first one killed it.

[Morgan Vening]

I think the main point of issue is the use of the word "Immediately". I've been searching, and I can't seem to find it, but wasn't there a discussion about "Immediately" not being the same as instantaneously, but rather after any automatic effects, but before anything optional can be added?

 

I think it had to do with Actions being caused by Actions. Or maybe I'm just misremembering something.

 

EDIT: Because if you remove the model "immediately" after taking damage, how can you then place a corpse/scrap marker before removing the model?

[The Godlyness]

you can place corpse or scrap makers because under markers it says before the model is removed place the appropriate marker.

 

but under damage

 

When a number of points of damage is taken by a model, it reduces its current Wounds by that amount. If the model is reduced to 0 or fewer Wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed.

 

so for Collodi the model is dead before it can perform the action.

 

making a new forum for this.

[Ratty]

you can place corpse or scrap makers because under markers it says before the model is removed place the appropriate marker.

 

but under damage

 

When a number of points of damage is taken by a model, it reduces its current Wounds by that amount. If the model is reduced to 0 or fewer Wounds it is immediately removed from the game as killed.

 

so for Collodi the model is dead before it can perform the action.

 

making a new forum for this.

UM..

1) Only I can make new Forums

2) A whole new forum may be overkill for this discussion.

[The Godlyness]

Topic* make a new topic* 

[Aramoro]

I think the main point of issue is the use of the word "Immediately". I've been searching, and I can't seem to find it, but wasn't there a discussion about "Immediately" not being the same as instantaneously, but rather after any automatic effects, but before anything optional can be added?

 

I think it had to do with Actions being caused by Actions. Or maybe I'm just misremembering something.

 

EDIT: Because if you remove the model "immediately" after taking damage, how can you then place a corpse/scrap marker before removing the model?

 

This is really my sticking point on it. When the damage is done then the active player get to apply his effects, in this case add burning from Searing Mark. If the model is reduced to 0 wounds by the attack then does the active player get to apply the affect from Searing Mark? I don't see how he can as the model gets removed immediately after the damage is applied. 

 

DGRAZ brought up the example of triggers in his post earlier, from page 26 of the little book. Where you wait to resolve all the pending effects before removing the model. But as people keep pointing out Searing Mark is not a trigger and doesn't work the same way, It's not really clear how it works to me really.

[dgraz]

I also pointed out the ABILITIES under General Timing which solves your 'sticking point'.

[Aramoro]

I also pointed out the ABILITIES under General Timing which solves your 'sticking point'.

 

It doesn't quite as I see the timing breakdown as this

 

1) Stalker Does Damage

2) Remove the model if it's on 0 wounds

3) Apply the effect of Searing because the Stalker did damage the model.

 

I don't see anything from page 51 which will stop the model being removed immediately before the active player gets to apply the effects of his ability. 

 

It would work exactly as you describe if there's a step between doing damage and applying damage where Searing jumps in and applies burning. I genuinely don't know if there is or not. 

[Morgan Vening]

I know I'm probably being a bit repetitive, but there's at least one other step in there.

 

1) Stalker Does Damage

1.5) Place a Corpse/Scrap Marker if the model is on 0 wounds, if appropriate.

2) Remove the model if it's on 0 wounds

3) Apply the effect of Searing because the Stalker did damage the model.

 

The FAQ will be out in a week. Hopefully they'll do a complete rundown of the steps of resolving attacks, and all the weird exceptions that arise.

[Eyefink]

It doesn't quite as I see the timing breakdown as this

 

1) Stalker Does Damage

2) Remove the model if it's on 0 wounds

3) Apply the effect of Searing because the Stalker did damage the model.

 

I don't see anything from page 51 which will stop the model being removed immediately before the active player gets to apply the effects of his ability. 

 

It would work exactly as you describe if there's a step between doing damage and applying damage where Searing jumps in and applies burning. I genuinely don't know if there is or not. 

 

 

Except that there's a clear definition on pg 26 of the Manual that designates After Damaging timing as resolving after the model takes damage, but before it is removed from the table, as already pointed out by Dgraz. If Abilities resolve after Triggers resolve, then they would slot right in; it doesn't makes any sense to parse them out.

[Aramoro]

Except that there's a clear definition on pg 26 of the Manual that designates After Damaging timing as resolving after the model takes damage, but before it is removed from the table, as already pointed out by Dgraz. If Abilities resolve after Triggers resolve, then they would slot right in; it doesn't makes any sense to parse them out.

 

Well kinda what I want to know, it either works exactly like a trigger so the model will hang about for the effect to resolve or it's something different. The other guys were maintaining that it doesn't work anything like a trigger. Can we break the timing down to something like this?

 

1) Apply Damage

2) Apply After Damaging Triggers

3) Apply Abilities

4) Remove the model

 

Does that sound reasonable?

[Tuttleboy]

1) Apply Damage

2) Apply After Damaging Triggers

3) Apply Abilities

4) Remove the model

I think if you switch 2 & 3 you'll have it right and that's the way I've been playing it.

[entropolous]

We have kind of veered off of the original question a bit, in that Sonnia's Violation of Magic ability states "When an enemy model with the Burning condition within (10 aura) of Sonnia is reduced to 0 wounds...".   The model in question is reduced to 0 wounds in the apply damage step, and burning is applied in a following step (either 2 or 3 in the above order of operations), so in my mind, a witchling stalker would not be able to be summoned.

 

The rest of the discussion does have merit though, in regards to the Onryo's Persecuted ability: 

Persecuted: When this model suffers damage

from an enemy model, all enemy models

within p2 gain the following Condition until

the end of the Turn: "Adversary: Spirits gain

+ to Attack flips targeting this model."

 

If aramoro's order of operations is correct, then a dying onryo would be able to use the presecuted ability.