Fel Hammer Elemental Unbound and The Unmasked's training, what happens? - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Fel Hammer Elemental Unbound and The Unmasked's training, what happens?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilGardenGnome View Post
    I have another way of explaining my issue with the Fel Hammers: They aren't a rank 2 unit, but they have rank 2 costs.

    Look at Union Workers. With one wound, they're comparable (though a bit weaker) to a Fel Hammer who isn't Furying. One less die on the attack, 1" less movement, and a little easier to kill. If they get damaged (and they have a leader for exactly this), they match the non-furied Hammer even more closely (same damage, same movement), with a higher likelihood of hitting but less average damage (extra strike, fewer overpowers, no re-roll). For the Hammer to clearly get better it has to risk dying in the process as Unleash Fury has a decent chance of dealing one damage, and the reprisal if it doesn't kill the target will likely kill the Hammer. (It's like the old Loony Toons joke, "It's a great trick, but I can only do it once.")

    Now, let's compare the Hammer to Shael-Han's Bear. Both are rank 2, but the Bear, for the same risk, ends up with Unstoppable (2) and Overpower (1) while lacking Offensive Expertise. So it's hitting more often and matching the Hammer for damage. Additionally, the bear is harder to hit and doesn't have an Overpower (though it does suffer opponents backlashes). This means that, most of the time, the Bear is clearly better and only really suffers in specific situations.

    Now, the counter to this is that the Hammer explodes. That's fine, but I'm hurting my morale in doing so, even when I take out a high value target. Let's hope my opponent doesn't take it out at an inopportune time. As a result, this translates to a lot of risk in taking the Hammers, even if you intend to have them die kamikaze style. Alternatively, our counter examples have no risk in fielding them, and less risk in activating their abilities.

    For me, that means the Fel Hammers really feel like a Rank 1.5 unit. Alternatively, you can take Thesh to better manage the will checks, but he's a rank 2 leader himself. The outlay is just too high for Hammers as they exist.

    So, I have a few ideas, with any one of these making them much more attractive:
    1. Add Unstoppable (+1) to Unleash Fury (Kind of OP)
    2. Add Offensive Master (1) to Unleash Fury (Not a fan as this feels quite OP)
    3. Increase the Elemental Unbound magic attack to 2 dice

    Of those, I think 3 is the most balanced. By making it a 2 die attack, you at least give them the chance to hit something with any resilience. Since those are the likely targets you're sending your heavy hitters against, your opponent has to consider whether or not to actually target the Hammer. If you want to be REALLY mean, you can also let them make a free attack if the enemy disengages (I am NOT recommending this), as it then becomes a serious threat to important units.
    Really, I think just having them roll a single will check (where failure means 1 damage) would fix them. That way using Elemental Fury is still a real risk, but they can no longer kill themselves unless they're already wounded

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jake richmond View Post
    Really, I think just having them roll a single will check (where failure means 1 damage) would fix them. That way using Elemental Fury is still a real risk, but they can no longer kill themselves unless they're already wounded
    Well, yeah, if you want to keep it simple.

    I agree with this.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CMON Mr. Black View Post
    A model is removed the moment it suffers Damage equal to its HP. In this situation it would be reduced to 0 before the Training would allow it to do its thing.
    Mr. Black, I'm having trouble reconciling the answer you provided here (quoted above) with an older answer you provided in the FAQ thread here: http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...l=1#post785440

    In this thread, you say a model dies at 0 wounds before any triggered ability would resolve. In the other you appear to say the opposite.

  4. #24

    Default

    I don't think it's the opposite.

    A failed will check kills the model, that happens before anything else can trigger off of that failed will check.
    The model's death triggers Elemental Unbound, resolve it before the model is removed.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilDave View Post
    I don't think it's the opposite.

    A failed will check kills the model, that happens before anything else can trigger off of that failed will check.
    The model's death triggers Elemental Unbound, resolve it before the model is removed.
    Both are triggered by wound loss. Im not seeing a qualitative difference in wording that explains different results.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paradox1 View Post
    Both are triggered by wound loss. Im not seeing a qualitative difference in wording that explains different results.
    Since everything is triggered by wound loss, it's the timing of the wound loss that determines which ability triggers first (or doesn't). Maybe making a flow chart with timing of which effect happens first would help you understand better?

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chinkster View Post
    Since everything is triggered by wound loss, it's the timing of the wound loss that determines which ability triggers first (or doesn't). Maybe making a flow chart with timing of which effect happens first would help you understand better?
    Given the answer in post 2 of this thread, I doubt it.
    http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...=1#post816674p

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paradox1 View Post
    Given the answer in post 2 of this thread, I doubt it.
    http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...=1#post816674p
    "A model is removed the moment it suffers Damage equal to its HP. In this situation it would be reduced to 0 before the Training would allow it to do its thing."

    That what it means.

  9. #29

    Default

    If that's what it means, then the fel hammer can't make a magic attack and the ability is a dead letter because the fel hammer is killed the moment it reaches 0 wounds.

  10. #30

    Default

    The ability's trigger specifically mentions that it happens when the model is killed.

    When this model is killed, all models in contact without the Fel Warrior Trait suffer a [1] magic attack.
    So what is wrong with the following process?

    Check to see if the model is killed.
    If it is, resolve the Elemental Unbound and remove the model.

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilDave View Post
    The ability's trigger specifically mentions that it happens when the model is killed.



    So what is wrong with the following process?

    Check to see if the model is killed.
    If it is, resolve the Elemental Unbound and remove the model.
    I think he would like to write his own game rules where he will get ALL the benefits of the model's abilities with none of the negatives

    (Notice how he's not satisfied with the answers given by the game's actual designer?)

  12. #32

  13. #33

    Default

    So now that we're hopefully beyond childish attacks, back to the question at hand.

    The original question was what order effects resolved in.
    Quote Originally Posted by paradox1 View Post
    A fel hammer has 1 wound remaining. It begins its activation and takes a Will Check to Unleash Fury. It fails that check and loses its last wound.


    However, it also benefits from the Unmasked's training ability, which allows it to move 3" and make a 1 die melee attack when it fails a will check.


    The question is, in what order are these effects resolved?
    Can it take the 3" move and attack (as part of resolving the failed will check) first?
    Or would it suffer its last wound and be killed before the training takes effect?
    The provided answer simply stated that the model lost its last wound before the training took effect, without further explanation.
    Quote Originally Posted by CMON Mr. Black View Post
    A model is removed the moment it suffers Damage equal to its HP. In this situation it would be reduced to 0 before the Training would allow it to do its thing.
    The rules at issue are Unleash Fury and the Unmasked's training. I've added some bolding to relevant parts of the rules.
    Unleash Fury: At the start of this model’s activation it may choose to gain Elemental Fury until the end of this activation. If it does so, at the end of its activation, it must make a Will Check(2). For each failure it suffers 1 damage.
    Training: If this model fails a Will Check, or is hit, but not killed, by a Will Attack, it may move up to 3” and make a [1] melee attack.
    Both abilities trigger off of failed will checks. The model used Unleash Fury. It must make a Will Check. If it fails, two effects happen.
    a. It suffers a wound for each failure.
    b. It may move 3" and make an attack.

    Nothing here suggests which order these should resolve in, so let's look at Will Checks.

    Willpower Check
    When a model performs a Willpower Check it must roll a number of dice equal to the Rate listed under that action. Each result equal to or less than the model’s Willpower stat is a success. All Willpower Checks describe their effect based on the number of successes.
    Nothing here about losing wound effects taking place before other effects. So what we have are two abilities, both of which occur when the model fails a will check. They apparently happen simultaneously. Black provided no indication of where, if at all, the rules deal with this issue. He simply provided answer. That's all well and good, but if a similar situation arises, we have no guidance. I don't have Mr. Black at my elbow while we play.

    Now, when resolving a deepman vs a fel hammer, Black provided this sequence
    http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...l=1#post785440
    Quote Originally Posted by CMON Mr. Black View Post
    The attack would need to fully resolve before the Deepman makes its move, this would include removing the Felhammer because it reached 0 HP, which would in turn trigger its ability.

    So order of resolution here would be:

    1. Attack 1 from Deepman completes, killing Fel Hammer.
    2. Fel Hammer is reduced to 0 HP, and is killed, triggering its ability.
    3. Once effect has resolved, Deepman will perform the Inspire move/attack.
    1. Completion of attack (in this case), including killing the model
    2. Then reduced to 0 wounds and killed.

    In my original question, we're dealing with a failed will check, which causes a loss of wounds and a 3" move and attack. If you apply the wound and kill it before it can move and attack, then the effects are not simultaneous and the implication is wound loss takes priority, but for no apparent reason than designer's whim.
    If the move and attack occur, then wound loss occurs, it's not truly simultaneous either. However, it does permit both validly triggered effects to occur, which seems to be a more correct solution, if the last quote above is a valid ruling. Certainly, it is not something that the rules deal with expressly.

    Thus, I question his answers because they appear inconsistent, rather than out of a desire to have my cake and eat it too. I want to play correctly, but I also want to understand how the game works so that we play correctly. I am, afterall, working pretty hard at building a local community for this game.

  14. #34

    Default

    The big thing to notice is the "Is not killed". The wounds are applied, killing the model. As the model has died, it explodes. As a result, you cannot have both situations occur as the check occurs, "at the end of it's activation".

    You cannot fail and live, and fail and die, at the same time. Also note that the will check is at the end of it's activation, NOT when it activates Unleash Fury.
    Last edited by EvilGardenGnome; 10-07-2016 at 01:52 PM.

  15. #35

    Default

    No. Those are two independant clauses. "And not killed" refers to "hit by a will attack." It does not refer to "fails a will check."

  16. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paradox1 View Post
    No. Those are two independant clauses. "And not killed" refers to "hit by a will attack." It does not refer to "fails a will check."
    Parsing the commas, the "but not killed" applies to both the failed and hit clauses. I've enough experience as an editor, prof, and writer to stand by that position.

    EDIT: "is not killed" to "but not killed"

  17. #37

    Default

    A lawyer, editor, and research attorney, I disagree. There's one comma too many for your reading.

  18. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paradox1 View Post
    A lawyer, editor, and research attorney, I disagree. There's one comma too many for your reading.
    I think this is a (admittedly rare) occurrence where the Oxford Comma is causing a problem. Looking at the original item:

    Training: If this model fails a Will Check, or is hit, but not killed, by a Will Attack, it may move up to 3” and make a [1] melee attack.


    The first comma is indicating a list of situations (failing a will check, being hit by a will attack), while the second and third commas are extracting the "but not killed" as a modifier on the phrase.

    Without the Oxford Comma, and smoothing out the clauses, the line would look this this (in my opinion):
    Training: If this model fails a Will Check or is hit by a Will Attack, but not killed, it may move up to 3” and make a [1] melee attack.
    Really, it does come down to how you parse the clauses. This should definitely receive an edit for clarity, but I'll stick to my interpretation until we receive that edit or an explicit errata.

  19. #39

    Default

    The "but not killed" is a nonrestrictive clause within the will attack clause.

  20. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paradox1 View Post
    The "but not killed" is a nonrestrictive clause within the will attack clause.

    Why don't you just play the game and interpret the rules the way you want to?

    You're not going to get any satisfaction here. If an answer from the game's own designer isn't going to satisfy you, nothing will.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->