Step 7 of the attack is calculate damage. Defeat occurs when a figure has suffered damage equal to its health. Parting shot's trigger is "when you have suffered damage equal to health, but before you are defeated, you may interrupt, blah blah, then you are defeated." The attack resolves after step 7. Conditions are applied after the attack resolves.

If the figure is defeated during the attack, the attack still resolves, and conditions and keywords are still triggered after the attack. There might be some weird fringe situations that need additional rulings, but the normal flow makes sense. Parting shot would trigger before stun gets applied, making stun (or bleed) a pretty useless surge cost if you know the attack will defeat the figure...

In related news it looks like if there's ever a "while attacking/defending" ability that removes dice then you'll be able to use it after seeing the result.

Yes, that would be valid. Paul and Todd and the alpha- and beta-testers need to see that such a thing doesn't happen accidentally.

(The timing for abilities that manipulate the attack and defense dice pools is generally "when declaring an attack".)

I thought about this whole thing this weekend and came to a conclusion that would make some sense: As long as any "after the attack resolves" effects are not dependent on the original target being on the map, then everything works perfectly. This would make the point of no return in "Steps Of An Attack" Step 2: Roll Dice , since an attacker and a defender have been established and have rolled dice. Basically, if you rolled dice, then the attack will "resolve" after Step 7.

If the above statement holds to be true, then Stun inflicted during the attack itself would not stop a Hired Gun from using Parting Shot, while still allowing "after attack" effects.

Not being able to apply blast to a target that is killed would be a huge turn around in some of the missions I've had. It would also make me re think how I stack my Storm Troopers.

I don't understand what you guys are arguing now?

Havoc Shot adds Blast 1 to the attack.
That's it. It's resolved at the end just like any other Blast ... which has already been ruled that it can trigger from a defeated figure (eg... the door ruling).

As for my previous example, I made a mistake with my definition of "conditions" even though I swear I read it somewhere.... but the rest of the post stands.

For any conditions, and for keywords like blast and cleave, the target must suffer damage... which only happens in Step 7.

I guess you could argue that Blast and Cleave could be applied instantly once a target suffers damage in step 7. But conditions are after the attack resolves which is after Step 7 which is after where parting shot would interrupt.

Of the top of my head I can't think of a situation where triggering blast INSIDE step 7 rather than directly after it would make a difference, since the dead/alive state of the target doesn't matter.

You can't even argue that Blast, Cleave and Conditions are resolved as soon they are triggered. They are resolved after the attack resolves. (See the Reference cards.) It has also been ruled several times.

Like I said previously, the target being defeated by the attack has no effect on Blast, Cleave and Conditions. (Except a defeated target is not eligible for receiving conditions and a defeated attacker not eligible for beneficial condition or performing Cleave.)

(I think Fizz was talking aloud getting de-confused about starting attacks but not getting to resolve them. If the target is defeated during step 7, you have certainly resolved an attack and must perform Blast, Cleave and Conditions and any abilities with that trigger.)

And I was arguing just that Havoc Shot can be triggered during steps 6 or 7, because it is still "while attacking". (Triggered != resolved.)

I thought about this whole thing this weekend and came to a conclusion that would make some sense: As long as any "after the attack resolves" effects are not dependent on the original target being on the map, then everything works perfectly. This would make the point of no return in "Steps Of An Attack" Step 2: Roll Dice , since an attacker and a defender have been established and have rolled dice. Basically, if you rolled dice, then the attack will "resolve" after Step 7.

If the above statement holds to be true, then Stun inflicted during the attack itself would not stop a Hired Gun from using Parting Shot, while still allowing "after attack" effects.

We were talking about this on our newest episode and I *might* have called you Fizz Flop there. Sry

I thought about this whole thing this weekend and came to a conclusion that would make some sense: As long as any "after the attack resolves" effects are not dependent on the original target being on the map, then everything works perfectly. This would make the point of no return in "Steps Of An Attack" Step 2: Roll Dice , since an attacker and a defender have been established and have rolled dice. Basically, if you rolled dice, then the attack will "resolve" after Step 7.

If the above statement holds to be true, then Stun inflicted during the attack itself would not stop a Hired Gun from using Parting Shot, while still allowing "after attack" effects.

We were talking about this on our newest episode and I *might* have called you Fizz Flop there. Sry

Being able to admit fault, or to be able to process new information to change one's opinion or ruling on something, should be viewed in a positive light. It means that one has the wisdom to analyze the data in front of them and make the best decision, not just defend a viewpoint blindly.

If one is criticized for fixing a mistake, or changing their opinion on something, then we denigrate the value of intellectual discourse while simultaneously incentivizing stalwart and stubborn thinking.

You can make up for it by having me on one of your podcasts sometime.

Being able to admit fault, or to be able to process new information to change one's opinion or ruling on something, should be viewed in a positive light.

Welcome to the club. In time you tend to build a 'world-view' of the game, which does also help with the details, but no amount of experiece makes you impervious to overlooking a word here or there and forgetting things and ending up with the wrong interpretation. But there are knowledgeable people to keep you grounded and (usually) help to come to a consensus. (Also, knowing that Paul and Todd rule from rules as written helps to arrive to the same conclusion 99% of the time.)

It certainly took me a while to get the door rules in order in my head, and just recently I needed to figure out how objects in blocking spaces are supposed to work (prompted by the terminals in blocking terrain in The Battle of Hoth). As a bonus the study of the rules and previous rulings also confirmed how line of sight rules exactly work with figures in blocking terrain. (Basically you can draw LoS into the blocking space with the figure or object, but not through the space.) I was fortunate enough to get confirmation for my interpretations from the designers.

But, enough about me.

I'll certainly listen the episode with you as a guest.

Being able to admit fault, or to be able to process new information to change one's opinion or ruling on something, should be viewed in a positive light.

Welcome to the club. In time you tend to build a 'world-view' of the game, which does also help with the details, but no amount of experiece makes you impervious to overlooking a word here or there and forgetting things and ending up with the wrong interpretation. But there are knowledgeable people to keep you grounded and (usually) help to come to a consensus. (Also, knowing that Paul and Todd rule from rules as written helps to arrive to the same conclusion 99% of the time.)

It certainly took me a while to get the door rules in order in my head, and just recently I needed to figure out how objects in blocking spaces are supposed to work (prompted by the terminals in blocking terrain in The Battle of Hoth). As a bonus the study of the rules and previous rulings also confirmed how line of sight rules exactly work with figures in blocking terrain. (Basically you can draw LoS into the blocking space with the figure or object, but not through the space.) I was fortunate enough to get confirmation for my interpretations from the designers.

But, enough about me.

I'll certainly listen the episode with you as a guest.

Thanks for that, a1bert, you're one of a select few on these boards who keep me on my toes and "honest". Above all else, my goal is to keep things in order and correct, even if it means that on occasion, I have to eat some crow to do it. IA is the game that got me back into miniatures gaming/model painting after a 10 year hiatus, and I absolutely adore this game. When I am dedicated to something, like I am with IA, none of my efforts are half-assed. It's all full-assed here.

Being able to admit fault, or to be able to process new information to change one's opinion or ruling on something, should be viewed in a positive light.

And it certainly should come across that way in the podcast (releasing today or tomorrow). It's all in good fun

We <3 you and Pasi and Clipper. Believe me

You can make up for it by having me on one of your podcasts sometime.

Contact me! Discord is probably the best way (especially since we now use it to record), but email to [email protected] should also do the trick.

We'll figure something out

Email sent. You'll have a bad feeling about this...

For anyone still in doubt about "parting shot", I got thid reply from Paul Winchester:

"Conditions are applied after the attack resolves. “Parting Shot” triggers when the Hired Gun suffers enough damage, which, in this case, would occur during Step 7 of the attack. So, the Parting Shot would trigger before the stun could be applied.

Thanks!

Paul Winchester"

For anyone still in doubt about "parting shot", I got thid reply from Paul Winchester:

"Conditions are applied after the attack resolves. “Parting Shot” triggers when the Hired Gun suffers enough damage, which, in this case, would occur during Step 7 of the attack. So, the Parting Shot would trigger before the stun could be applied.

Thanks!

Paul Winchester"

Thanks for sharing the answer. It seems in line with some of the points already made in this thread and it is nice to have it settled.

I'll admit to having made the opposite call when this became relevant in one of my campaigns half a year ago.

I think the ruling is in not only in line with the RAW, it is also balancing in its own sense not to be able to override the defining skill of a figure on a whim. On the flip side it leaves one corner case very much alive and kicking in the Campaign game: Hired Guns with Arc Blasters and Experimental Arms (Technological Superiority). It's a toxic combo that can potentially AoE stun several Rebel Heroes several times a round (both on their own activation and when killed off) and it's next to impossible to avoid one-shoting them should you try to attack them once to stun them, before attacking them a second time to kill them, and even if you could, it would ruin your action economy almost as much as the Arc Blasting Hired Guns already do. They're a dirt cheap, two points per figure, dirty trick of the Imperial Player that will be close to unmanageable with this clarification and my advice would be for local groups to either house rule this combo or - even better - for IPs to try to resist using it at all.

I'm not sure I would call it a corner case when it's just a clever combination of abilities and has nothing unclear or really odd in about how it works.
Being a powerful combo and being a corner case are quite different things.

And it's not that much more powerful than Royal Guards with Experimental Arms or any Stormtrooper group with Arc Blasters if rebels play smartly.

1) rebels have the first activation and take out the Hired Guns, with a bit of blocking one rebel gets stunned from Parting Shot

2) rebels ignore them and go for objectives - with a bit of blocking one rebel gets stunned, but then you're back to the same dilemma next round.

(Depending on the situation, it may be a good idea to take out one Hired Gun and leave the other, so Experimental Arms and Arc Blasters can't be reused.)

The best defense would be MHD-19 with Combat Override picking up and throwing Shock Grenades.

Or just kill them at range.

Hired guns struggle to hit anything past range 3/4. 3 is their average and it becomes 4 with a surge.

Not sure if you've seen another official email response Fizz,

But here's the response I got from Paul