Welcome to Steamforged Games Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

MechMage

Escaping Fate off a Parting Blow

29 posts in this topic

It was made clear in this thread that Swift Strikes can not generate a dodge off of a parting blow, but Escaping Fate is several degrees removed from the attack that causes it.

For example, if Veteran Siren (or Angel under the effect of the Slippery Fish big league plot card) with one hit point remaining declares a parting blow on Veteran Ox and takes a damage result so that after the attack is resolved, Lashing Out deals one point of damage to Siren.  Escaping Fate allows Siren to avoid the Taken Out Condition, but does it allow her to make a 4" dodge?

Suppose instead of Veteran Ox, Veteran Siren makes a parting blow that takes out Mainspring, Flask, Vileswarm or Compound.  Does Overheat or Noxious Death differ from Lashing Out in some way that causes Escaping Fate to behave differently?

Spinsane and MilitaryCoo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine all these questions can be answered with a slight little timing step. My suggestion would be this:

 

1. Declare intention to make and advance causing a parting blow

2. Move model to edge of parting blow range

3. Resolve the parting blow, no repositions can be used.

4. Resolve any after effects of the parting blow (reanimate, lashing out, Between a Rock, Team player etc.) 

5. Continue moving player if still eligible. 

 

If this sequence then gets used for describing a parting blow, and every step is part of a parting blow then Escape Fate's dodge cannot be used, but Back to the Shadow's can as it is not included in the steps of a parting blow (see other thread). It also simplifies everything and makes it so much smoother. 

 

I love how corner case the examples are though. And there are more questions that can be asked regarding the whole issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2017 at 0:27 PM, MechMage said:

It was made clear in this thread that Swift Strikes can not generate a dodge off of a parting blow, but Escaping Fate is several degrees removed from the attack that causes it.

For example, if Veteran Siren (or Angel under the effect of the Slippery Fish big league plot card) with one hit point remaining declares a parting blow on Veteran Ox and takes a damage result so that after the attack is resolved, Lashing Out deals one point of damage to Siren.  Escaping Fate allows Siren to avoid the Taken Out Condition, but does it allow her to make a 4" dodge?

Suppose instead of Veteran Ox, Veteran Siren makes a parting blow that takes out Mainspring, Flask, Vileswarm or Compound.  Does Overheat or Noxious Death differ from Lashing Out in some way that causes Escaping Fate to behave differently?

It doesn't matter if it is one degree removed or twenty a parting blow can't cause a reposition 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Thething said:

It doesn't matter if it is one degree removed or twenty a parting blow can't cause a reposition 

This depends whether 'causing' is transitive in Guild Ball. If a parting blow causes trait A to trigger, and trait A causes trait B to reposition a model, whether the parting blow 'Causes' trait B is not defined in the rulebook. If it is transitive, you get into weird situations where an actual normal attack (say, Countercharge off a Jog from Between A Rock..) cannot cause a reposition because it occurred off a chain reaction from a Parting Blow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong I am often but if a parting blow causes damage then damage causes swift strikes can't happen because a partying blow caused the damage one degree of removal, then this sinaro can't happen no matter how many degrees of removal from the partying blow otherwise where do we draw the line 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a pretty simple rule of thumb, any reposition that would occur while the departing model is still mid-advance wouldn't occur.

So in all the cases above, since they take place in the middle of the advance, the repositions wouldn't be allowed; this is relatively confusing, especially when we consider Granite's jog, but that would be my way of playing it...

1. Mallet moves, triggering a PB.

2. Damage is caused to Mallet, which triggers Granite's Between a Rock...

2.1 She jogs in Counted-Charge range of Tenderiser

2.1.1Tendwriser charges, and Granite Counter-attacks

3. Once these two attacks are resolved, Mallet finishes his move.

Any reposition - dodge or push - that occurs during steps 2, 2.1 or 2.1.1 would therefore be invalid...

 

That's how I see it anyway, since it's the only way thag seems to fit the recent ruling / interpretation...

 

Arkin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 to 2.1.1 none of the results are triggered from a parting blow attack. You can choose any results applicable including repositions and character plays from playbook results as they are charge and counter attack results.

You are right in the order of activation though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stephen78 said:

2 to 2.1.1 none of the results are triggered from a parting blow attack. You can choose any results applicable including repositions and character plays from playbook results as they are charge and counter attack results.

You are right in the order of activation though

What about things like Flask exploding off a PB? If his desth, by causing damage, triggers Clone, what happens? Is the dodge, caused by clone, triggered by Flask's Overheat, caused by a parting blow, invalid or not?

Edit: As pointed out, Overheat is a trait, so wouldn't trigger Clone. Fair enough, so let's just stretch the imagination a bit, then. Chisel casts Feel My Pain on Vitriol, attacks her and she pops Clone on her Counter-attack. Chisel then figures she might as well not bother and runs off causing a PB, which in turns triggers Feel My Pain. What happens? Does Clone pop? Does it allow a reposition?

if not, how come, and what is then considered triggered by a PB vs not triggered by a PB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says nothing about it being during the parting blow it says a parting blow can't trigger it period shouldn't matter that the parting blow is over the parting blow caused the damage the should not be eligible to trigger a reposition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stephen78 said:

Clone only works on attack or character play. Flask blowing up is a trait so doesn't trigger it

Fair enough, I edited my post. What about Chisel's Feel My Pain then?

- Chisel attacks Vitriol, pops Feel My Pain

- Vitrial counter-attacks, pops Clone

- Chisel runs off, causing a PartingBlow

- Vitriol hits, triggering Clone

- the attack triggers Feel my Pain, causing damage to Vitriol

Can Clone cause a reposition, or is this considered to be "caused by a PB" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, very well. In my haste, I unnecessarily derailed this discussion...

The question regarding Escaping Fate remakns valid, however. If a parting Blow triggers Overheat, Lashing Out, Feel My Pain, or any other Trait or Play that causes damage, which in turn triggers Escaping Fate, is EF considered to have been triggered by the PB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, the only reason that a Parting Blow does not trigger Granite's "Between a Rock and a..." trait is because there is an outstanding ruling that a Parting Blow is not an Attack (despite the fact that the Parting Blow rules literally states that it is an Attack *grumble grumble*). If not for that then a PB would trigger "Between a Rock and a..." because PBs only forbid Repositions and "Between..." causes an Advance (which is not a Reposition).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Khift said:

As an aside, the only reason that a Parting Blow does not trigger Granite's "Between a Rock and a..." trait is because there is an outstanding ruling that a Parting Blow is not an Attack

Have you got a reference for that? Because if so that contradicts this ruling where parting blows and counter attacks are both attacks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Henry said:

Have you got a reference for that? Because if so that contradicts this ruling where parting blows and counter attacks are both attacks. 

 

I do.

And yes, this does directly contradict the Wrecker ruling. Doing a Parting Blow is declaring an attack for the purposes of Wrecker but not for the purposes of counter-attacking. Parting Blows just one of those parts of the rules that only works because Steamforged says it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no, there is no contradiction.

The Pb ruling says declaring a PB does not equate declaring an attack.

Per the attack sequence, declaration of a Counter-attack occurs at step 1.1 after the declaration. One could assume (and here maybe @TheLieutenant might want to edit his previous ruling?) that the Parting Blow process skips the whole declaration and, like a charge, goes straight to step 2 of the Attack Tkming sequence?

On the other hand, Rolerball says Wrecker cannot make attacks. 

+Edit: Prematurely hit submit by mistake...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Spinsane said:

Actually, no, there is no contradiction.

The Pb ruling says declaring a PB does not equate declaring an attack.

Per the attack sequence, declaration of a Counter-attack occurs at step 1.1 after the declaration. One could assume (and here maybe @TheLieutenant might want to edit his previous ruling?) that the Parting Blow process skips the whole declaration and, like a charge, goes straight to step 2 of the Attack Tkming sequence?

On the other hand, Rolerball says Wrecker cannot make attacks. 

+Edit: Prematurely hit submit by mistake...

I don't find it to be nearly as cut and dried. The problem is that the only possible way to interpret both rulings to be correct is to invent new rules -- and there's not been an errata so that can't be. Therefore, since making both ruling simultaneously correct involves doing something that hasn't been done then there is a direct contradiction between the rulings.

Either it is an attack, in which case Wrecker can't make Parting Blows but they can be counter-attacked, or it is something other than an attack, in which case you can't counter-attack them but Wrecker can make them. Any other interpretation, even your own, involves inventing rules that aren't in the rulebook and you even admit that in your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Khift said:

Any other interpretation, even your own, involves inventing rules that aren't in the rulebook and you even admit that in your post.

I'm not inventing any rule - unless my understanding of Lawyer's Guild rulings is off - I'm just trying to find some logic behind those rulings (and I admit, my previous logic doesn't add up once analysed any further)...

Maybe they'll come up with a simple errata that adds Parting Blows to the list of exclusions on page 43 (no counter-attacks against counter-attacks or parting blows.). Until then, however, we do have a ruling to follow that prohibits CAs on PartingBlows, whether they're regular attacks or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Khift said:

I don't find it to be nearly as cut and dried. The problem is that the only possible way to interpret both rulings to be correct is to invent new rules -- and there's not been an errata so that can't be. Therefore, since making both ruling simultaneously correct involves doing something that hasn't been done then there is a direct contradiction between the rulings.

Either it is an attack, in which case Wrecker can't make Parting Blows but they can be counter-attacked, or it is something other than an attack, in which case you can't counter-attack them but Wrecker can make them. Any other interpretation, even your own, involves inventing rules that aren't in the rulebook and you even admit that in your post.

Counterattacks are made when an attack is 'declared' which is also when you spend influence on them.

Parting blows don't pass through this step.

You can't counterattack them for this reason.

 

Wrecker is prevented from making  - not declaring - attacks. That means even attacks which aren't declared as Attacks (such as a charge, parting blow or counterattack) are unavailable to Wrecker.

I don't see any problems here. @TheLieutenant even specifies in the post you linked that it's the Declaration of a parting blow that matters for the ruling.

Arkin and MilitaryCoo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what Khift is saying. A parting blow is an Attack. By definition of declaring a parting blow you are declaring an Attack. Except TheLieutenant says that isn't the case. So one interpretation is that a parting blow is an Attack, following the attack rules, but is not an Attack for what actions and responses can follow on from it, thus preventing counter attacks and Between a rock... .

The other interpretation is that a Parting Blow is an Attack, following all the attack rules and allowing everything that follows from an attack, but is not equivalent to declaring an attack. This second interpretation is the way I think most people play it. This way of playing is in line with the rules clarifications that we've had with no contradictions, prevents counter attacks and allows Between a rock... to trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Henry said:

I see what Khift is saying. A parting blow is an Attack. By definition of declaring a parting blow you are declaring an Attack. Except TheLieutenant says that isn't the case. So one interpretation is that a parting blow is an Attack, following the attack rules, but is not an Attack for what actions and responses can follow on from it, thus preventing counter attacks and Between a rock... .

The other interpretation is that a Parting Blow is an Attack, following all the attack rules and allowing everything that follows from an attack, but is not equivalent to declaring an attack. This second interpretation is the way I think most people play it. This way of playing is in line with the rules clarifications that we've had with no contradictions, prevents counter attacks and allows Between a rock... to trigger.

TheLieutenant's ruling was that you declare a Parting Blow and not an Attack. This means that a Parting Blow is not an Attack (or else declaring a Parting Blow would be declaring an Attack), it just uses the Attack rules to resolve. But in other cases it is considered an Attack for other purposes.

The problem with the latter interpretation, in my opinion at least, is that it contradicts the rulebook which states that a Parting Blow "is an Attack". It doesn't say that it is sometimes an Attack, there's no qualifier on there, it just says that it Is. I had previously interpreted that as Parting Blows use the Attack rules to resolve but are not technically an Attack, but then the whole Wrecker ruling well... wrecks that.

 

45 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

Counterattacks are made when an attack is 'declared' which is also when you spend influence on them.

Parting blows don't pass through this step.

The problem is this isn't true. This is not in the rulebook at all and is just a case of a mutually imagned rule. You can check it if you don't believe me -- the Parting Blow rules never state to skip the Declare Attack step of the Attack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, Khift said:

TheLieutenant's ruling was that you declare a Parting Blow and not an Attack. This means that a Parting Blow is not an Attack

It is not an Attack, but it includes an Attack.

Declaring a charge is not declaring an attack, but an attack results from the charge.

 

I can see your logic, but it's flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MilitaryCoo said:

It is not an Attack

The core rulebook, page 36, says "A Parting Blow is an Attack". It doesn't get any clearer than that. The absolute most charitable way I can interpret this sentence is 'you resolve a Parting Blow as an Attack' but even that is stretching it extremely thin.

I don't know what more to say. You can disagree with the core rulebook, but that doesn't make you right. The only way your logic works is through doublethink.

I do apologize for derailing the thread, this isn't super applicable to the original post just to the followup examples, although there's not much more to be said about the original issue except to wait for that ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Khift said:

TheLieutenant's ruling was that you declare a Parting Blow and not an Attack.

Agreed, this is what TheLieutenant said.

2 hours ago, Khift said:

This means that a Parting Blow is not an Attack (or else declaring a Parting Blow would be declaring an Attack)

Disagree, this is not what TheLieutenant said. He has made a clear distinction in that ruling that when declaring a Parting Blow you are not declaring an Attack. He has not overruled the core rule that a Parting Blow is an Attack.

Similar ruling have been made with regards to declaring a charge being an Attack but not being the same as declaring an attack.

As the only distinction made so far by rules clarifications is in regard to declaration of an Attack/Parting Blow but not what actually is an Attack then this has no effect upon the Wrecker ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now