|
2 years ago ::
Aug 13, 2011 - 1:34PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2011
|
Jittery: Whenever this creature is attacked, it takes 5 psychic damage.
1) When does this damage occur?
a) before attack roll? b) before assigning attack damage? c) as a part of attack damage (if any)? d) after assigning attack damage? e) after resolving all effects of the attack?
2) If the jittery damage causes a trigger, such as: damaged/becomes bloodied/destroyed, who's to blame?
a) Kobold Miner? b) The attacker but not the attack itself? c) the attacker and the attack?
Brass Golem's pinning strike damage line has
... AND Bloodied target is Staggered
3) Has there been a ruling about whether this applies if the victim gets Bloodied by this attack, or if it should be bloodied when targeted (as in "Bloodied target") ?
Far from certain here: I feel that since its not a targeting limitation, but a conditional effect in the damage line, it's resolved as things stand when rosolving that particular point.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2011 - 10:10AM
#2
|
|
|
Damage occurs when the attack is actually determined (ie., the creature is hit or missed).
Since all parts of damage are resolved before moving to the AND, I don't understand why a ruling is necessary for the golem outside of the existing rules. That said, the answer is yes, if the original damage bloodies the target, then yes, it is bloodied, and would be staggered.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2011 - 12:44PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2011 - 1:07PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2011
|
...I don't understand why a ruling is necessary for the golem outside of the existing rules...
You are quite right here. Until very recently I just plainly had had a wrong impression about how to resolve this. My bad. When I was shown & realized for myself the correct way, I apparently wasn't quite ready to let go of my folly easily, so I wrote the question with a tone that was not my (conscious) intention. Sorry and thank You for the confirmation.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 15, 2011 - 4:38AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2005
|
So that would be resolved prior to assigning the damage from the attack itself.
The guilty parties & probable causes then ... are the attackers or attacks themselves to blame?
The wordings "destroy" , "destroys with  attack", "causes to become bloodied" etc on various cards
paint very fine distinctions - where's the line in case of jittery ?
The damage doesn't come from the attack, but from the creature itself.
Say a kobo miner with 5hp is attacked by Cerebrilith's  and
(hit or miss) dies because of Jittery. Is the miner considered destroyed by that
i e Does the Cerebrilith get to trigger Psychic Cleave?
No, because the damage that destroys the miner, is caused by (an ability) of the miner itself, so the recharge doen't work here. And the same goes with your other questions. 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 15, 2011 - 11:27AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2008
|
So Jittery comes before the damage line?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 15, 2011 - 1:58PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2011
|
So that would be resolved prior to assigning the damage from the attack itself.
The guilty parties & probable causes then ... are the attackers or attacks themselves to blame?
The wordings "destroy" , "destroys with attack", "causes to become bloodied" etc on various cards
paint very fine distinctions - where's the line in case of jittery ?
The damage doesn't come from the attack, but from the creature itself.
Rules page 7: "destroyed by"-type triggers: ... or other effects (eg pushed to fire) ...
This would lead me to believe that the damage need not come from the attack. Of course there is a difference terrain effect vs. creature's power, but that distinction is rather fine given that by criteria on page 7 the kobold can't be shifted the blame for the kill (or suicide, as it would be) .
Also, in case of Rask "this creature causes an enemy to become bloodied" no limitation is placed on the mechanism of "causing".
Thus I find the statement that "jittery"&damage thereof is not caused by attacking Rask problematic.
That is: unless it is stated somewhere that only damage caused directly by creature qualifies. "Pushed to fire" contradicts rather than reinforces this view.
Having stated my aesthetic dissatisfaction on the matter, I must admit this ruling is probably easiest & best in gameplay sense. One more "here be dragons" white spot on the game map clarified (and, lo, there still be dragons when white spot is coloured).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 15, 2011 - 3:12PM
#8
|
|
|
So that would be resolved prior to assigning the damage from the attack itself.
The guilty parties & probable causes then ... are the attackers or attacks themselves to blame?
The wordings "destroy" , "destroys with attack", "causes to become bloodied" etc on various cards
paint very fine distinctions - where's the line in case of jittery ?
The damage doesn't come from the attack, but from the creature itself.
Rules page 7: "destroyed by"-type triggers: ... or other effects (eg pushed to fire) ...
This would lead me to believe that the damage need not come from the attack. Of course there is a difference terrain effect vs. creature's power, but that distinction is rather fine given that by criteria on page 7 the kobold can't be shifted the blame for the kill (or suicide, as it would be) .
Also, in case of Rask "this creature causes an enemy to become bloodied" no limitation is placed on the mechanism of "causing".
Thus I find the statement that "jittery"&damage thereof is not caused by attacking Rask problematic.
That is: unless it is stated somewhere that only damage caused directly by creature qualifies. "Pushed to fire" contradicts rather than reinforces this view.
Having stated my aesthetic dissatisfaction on the matter, I must admit this ruling is probably easiest & best in gameplay sense. One more "here be dragons" white spot on the game map clarified (and, lo, there still be dragons when white spot is coloured).
I don't agree with Thekk in this case, for all the reasons you point out.
The attack does 'cause' the damage, as per page 7.
Here is a a more standard example:
If an attack applied 15 fire damage AND dazed to a creature with vulnerable 10 fire, would an amulet of the titans protect it from the dazed portion? Is the critical extra 10 points of damage caused by the attack itself, or rather by the creature's vulnerability to the attack?
Without the attack, there is no vulnerable.
Similarly, without the attack, there is no jittery.
|
|
|
