For a moment i thought not:

But someone said that Earendil is triggered several times for multiple players:

What you think?

You can only initiate the Response once per triggering event, so if Azain kills multiple enemies, then you can trigger him multiple times. Song of Earendil in a 4 player game can trigger up to three times, once per player raising their threat.

Then, Azain can be used 3 times (in 4 players game) when he just kills 1 enemy, isnt?

Then, Azain can be used 3 times (in 4 players game) when he just kills 1 enemy, isnt?

The response is to killing an enemy, so unless Azain can kill more than one enemy in a single attack he triggers once.

Song of Earendil triggers multiple times because there are multiple triggering events (3 different "other" players raising their threat).

Oh! I see... i didn't notice that: Earendil responses are for multiple effects.

Ok thanks

What if Azain have Sword-Thain and Firefoot, would spill damage trigger the effect again? Is "excess damage" still counts as part of the attack?

What if Azain have Sword-Thain and Firefoot, would spill damage trigger the effect again? Is "excess damage" still counts as part of the attack?

This isn't a 100% clear, open-and-shut case, but I'm about 85% certain that the answer is no. Firefoot's excess damage is not counted as part of the attack. Firefoot has you "assign" damage, which (among other things) bypasses the enemy's defense. The only way to "participate in an attack that destroys an enemy" is to go through the standard attack steps, which includes counting the enemy's defense.

Now, if it turns out that everybody disagrees with me, I'd be quite happy to play it the other way. But I'm pretty sure that this is right: the only damage that's assigned from the attack is the damage that's assigned as part of the normal attack rules (take ATK strength, subtract enemy DEF, deal that much damage).

What if Azain have Sword-Thain and Firefoot, would spill damage trigger the effect again? Is "excess damage" still counts as part of the attack?

This isn't a 100% clear, open-and-shut case, but I'm about 85% certain that the answer is no. Firefoot's excess damage is not counted as part of the attack. Firefoot has you "assign" damage, which (among other things) bypasses the enemy's defense. The only way to "participate in an attack that destroys an enemy" is to go through the standard attack steps, which includes counting the enemy's defense.

Now, if it turns out that everybody disagrees with me, I'd be quite happy to play it the other way. But I'm pretty sure that this is right: the only damage that's assigned from the attack is the damage that's assigned as part of the normal attack rules (take ATK strength, subtract enemy DEF, deal that much damage).

You are 100% correct and this really is clear open and shut.

Azain's ability requires that he attacks and destroys an enemy (with or without other characters participating).

Firefoot in no way initiates or starts another attack so even if you destroy an enemy with the "spill over" damage from firefoot Azain definitely did not attack and destroy that enemy so you will not be able to trigger his ability a second time.

This is very straight forward.

You are 100% correct and this really is clear open and shut.

Azain's ability requires that he attacks and destroys an enemy (with or without other characters participating).

Firefoot in no way initiates or starts another attack so even if you destroy an enemy with the "spill over" damage from firefoot Azain definitely did not attack and destroy that enemy so you will not be able to trigger his ability a second time.

This is very straight forward.

Nice, i knew it will trigger the effect cos its still the same attack and same damage, just "spills" to another crature, 100% giving another legit response (as its Azains attack that killed it) Azain can trigger if player have tactics (or Elrond) resource!

Cool combo!

Jokes aside, my premise was that its 1 attack killing 2 creatures, but it triggers not "when destroys an enemy" as i thought, but when he participates in attack. And damage assigned is probably not considered part of that attack anyway.

What if Azain have Sword-Thain and Firefoot, would spill damage trigger the effect again? Is "excess damage" still counts as part of the attack?

This isn't a 100% clear, open-and-shut case, but I'm about 85% certain that the answer is no. Firefoot's excess damage is not counted as part of the attack. Firefoot has you "assign" damage, which (among other things) bypasses the enemy's defense. The only way to "participate in an attack that destroys an enemy" is to go through the standard attack steps, which includes counting the enemy's defense.

Now, if it turns out that everybody disagrees with me, I'd be quite happy to play it the other way. But I'm pretty sure that this is right: the only damage that's assigned from the attack is the damage that's assigned as part of the normal attack rules (take ATK strength, subtract enemy DEF, deal that much damage).

You are 100% correct and this really is clear open and shut.

Azain's ability requires that he attacks and destroys an enemy (with or without other characters participating).

Firefoot in no way initiates or starts another attack so even if you destroy an enemy with the "spill over" damage from firefoot Azain definitely did not attack and destroy that enemy so you will not be able to trigger his ability a second time.

This is very straight forward.

No it isn't.

"Excess damage dealt by this attack is assigned to the chose enemy."

Therefore Azain participated in an attack that killed enemy A, and an attack that killed enemy B. It just happens to be the same attack. So maybe you can trigger Azain twice.

If Azain attacks a Captain enemy in Morgul Vale and the damage gets assigned to Morgul Bodyguard, then should Azain trigger? I think so. And I don't see much difference between that and Firefoot.

Just to add: If Firefoot said something different, like "Exhaust Firefoot to deal X damage to that enemy, where X is the amount of excess damage dealt by this attack" then I'd agree. But it doesn't say that. You are actually assigning the damage from the attack directly to a different enemy.

Yes it is. The trigger for Azain is 'participates in an attack which destroys an enemy'. Only one attack means only one trigger, no matter how many enemies you may kill with that one attack.

Now, if it was phrased something like "After an enemy is destroyed by Azain's attack," then yes, killing two enemies with the same attack would mean two triggers, but as it is it's counting the attacks, not the enemies.

Yes it is. The trigger for Azain is 'participates in an attack which destroys an enemy'. Only one attack means only one trigger,

Yes, I believe you have the correct reasoning now. I had issue with the previous reasoning:

Firefoot's excess damage is not counted as part of the attack.

even if you destroy an enemy with the "spill over" damage from firefoot Azain definitely did not attack and destroy that enemy so you will not be able to trigger his ability a second time.

This is very straight forward.

damage assigned is probably not considered part of that attack anyway.

because based on the wording I do think the Firefoot damage is part of the attack.

Doesn't "After attached hero attacks alone" resolve after the attack has resolved though, hence it can't be part of the attack because the attack is over?

Just to add: If Firefoot said something different, like "Exhaust Firefoot to deal X damage to that enemy, where X is the amount of excess damage dealt by this attack" then I'd agree. But it doesn't say that. You are actually assigning the damage from the attack directly to a different enemy.

I'm not so sure about this. To excerpt the Core rules:

To resolve an attack against an enemy, a player follows these 3 steps, in order.

1. Declare target of attack, and declare attackers.

2. Determine attack strength.

3. Determine combat damage.

As Firefoot or Azain's Response do not really do these things, can you really say that the secondary enemy has been "attacked"? I am sympathetic to those who said that it's just assigning damage as a collateral effect of the attack, rather than a part of the attack.

Another situation where this matters:

Seastan's viewpoint contends that triggering Firefoot to assign damage to this tentacle would trigger its Forced effect. I read the situation differently: What does Firefoot do? There's a conditional trigger ("after attached hero attacks alone"), a cost ("exhaust Firefoot"), and an effect. What's the effect? "...choose a non-unique enemy engaged with you. Excess damage dealt by this attack is assigned to the chosen enemy." It would be different if the effect were worded, "... make an attack of strength X against a non-unique enemy engaged with you (ignoring its defense), where X is the excess damage dealt by the initial attack." But as is, you're choosing an enemy and assigning damage to it, not attacking it. The fact that the amount of damage is directly related to something that happened in an earlier attack seems not relevant to me.

I think the fact that Firefoot happens to use the phrase "this attack" is more a "clarification" rather than an indication that the damage dealing is supposed to be considered a part of the attack proper.

I think the assigning damage from these effects is not part of the attack. My reasoning is that it is a response, and while it does "assign excess damage from this attack" as others have said, it does not state it is an attack, or an extension of the attack, it only calculates the amount you get to assign from the attack result.

I would say the same ruling applies to the Morgul Bodyguard - if you attack a captain, and you had an effect like "When you attack an enemy give them -2 shield." If you attacked a Captain, even though the Morgul Bodyguard takes the damage, the attack was not against the Morgul Bodyguard, so you would lower the Captain's defense and apply it towards the attack. If you killed Morgul Bodyguard vicariously through an attack on a Captain, you would not be able to trigger Azain's ability. The attack target is not changed, you simply change where the damage goes.

Consider it similar to Song of Mocking in reverse. If I attach Song of Mocking on Gloin and steal damage that would have been dealt to another character that doesn't make Gloin the defender of the attack.

Azain not triggering on the bodyguard still doesn't feel right to me. Sappidus might be right with the key distinction being the word "after" on Firefoot. Maybe it's worth an official response.

Azain not triggering on the bodyguard still doesn't feel right to me. Sappidus might be right with the key distinction being the word "after" on Firefoot. Maybe it's worth an official response.

To be fair, while I agree with him, NathanH is the one who highlighted that wording.

It seems reasonable enough. If you attack a Captain while the Bodyguard is in play, your attack fails. The Bodyguard blocks it completely. You might kill an enemy as an result of the attack, but that doesn't mean you've "attacked and destroyed an enemy"; it means that an enemy sacrificed itself to negate your attack. Granted, you probably made the attack with the express intention of indirectly killing an inconveniently-placed Bodyguard, but that doesn't matter as far as the text is concerned.

It seems reasonable enough. If you attack a Captain while the Bodyguard is in play, your attack fails. The Bodyguard blocks it completely. You might kill an enemy as an result of the attack, but that doesn't mean you've "attacked and destroyed an enemy"; it means that an enemy sacrificed itself to negate your attack. Granted, you probably made the attack with the express intention of indirectly killing an inconveniently-placed Bodyguard, but that doesn't matter as far as the text is concerned.

But the text on Azain doesn't say "attacked and destroyed an enemy". It says "participates in an attack that destroys an enemy". That text does not require the attack to have been targeted at that enemy, only that an enemy was destroyed as a result of the attack. With Firefoot, I was uncertain if that counted*. But with the Bodyguard, who is redirecting the damage from the attack, it seems clear to me that the attack destroyed the Bodyguard , so it would trigger Azain.

* But since Azain can only trigger once per attack no matter how many enemies that attack destroys, as PocketWraith correctly pointed out, Firefoot turns out to be a moot point: if you're triggering Firefoot, then Azain has already managed to trigger his response by destroying the first enemy.

I wonder though... If you attack an indestructible target and deal more damage than it has hit points, can Firefoot still redirect the excess damage and kill a different enemy?

I wonder though... If you attack an indestructible target and deal more damage than it has hit points, can Firefoot still redirect the excess damage and kill a different enemy?

Since Firefoot requires a non-unique enemy, and all enemies with Indestructible are also unique, it's a moot point. But if there ever was an indestructible non-unique, I think that this BGG thread would become relevant. In it, the question came up of whether you can place excess damage beyond Durin's Bane's total HP (since he's indestructible). And the response from Caleb Grace was "You can place more than 27 damage on Durin's Bane."

Therefore, I conclude that when you're attacking an indestructible target, there is no such thing as "excess" damage. "Excess" damage is the damage tokens you have left to place when the enemy is destroyed. So even if FFG ever releases a non-unique indestructible enemy, Firefoot will not be able to trigger off attacks against that enemy.

Since Firefoot requires a non-unique enemy, and all enemies with Indestructible are also unique, it's a moot point.

I think you may have gotten a bit crossed up here: Firefoot just requires the enemy that it itself is targeting to be nonunique, not the originally-attacked enemy. So the situation can indeed come up in extant scenarios.

FWIW, the term "excess" hasn't really been defined in this context AFAIK, so until an official ruling, I can see going either way. Sympathetic to "no such thing as excess damage on an Indestructible enemy", though.

In the case of enemies with comparable abilities like the Hill Troll though, excess damage is defined in parenthesis as "damage that is dealt beyond the remaining hit points of the character damaged by its attack" - so there's a case to be made, counterintuitive though the idea seems.

Just to add: If Firefoot said something different, like "Exhaust Firefoot to deal X damage to that enemy, where X is the amount of excess damage dealt by this attack" then I'd agree. But it doesn't say that. You are actually assigning the damage from the attack directly to a different enemy.

I suspected this was not the case (that you are assigning damage from the attack) and that it was firefoot that is doing the damage and the source of the second enemy being damaged so I sent in a rules question:

"Hi Caleb Lets say I have the ally Azain Silverbeard in play with Sword-thain and Firefoot attached. He attacks an enemy and destroys it, the excess damage from firefoot then destroys a second enemy. Was that second enemy destroyed by the effect on firefoot or because of the way it is worded is this enemy considered to be destroyed by Azain's attack as well? Would you for example be able to use Foe-hammer using the enemy destroyed by the spillover damage as the target? (let say Azain has a weapon attachment as well). Many Thanks in advance"

"Hi Psychorocka,

The second enemy in that situation was destroyed by Firefoot’s effect. Only the enemy that Azain attacks is considered to be destroyed by Azain.

Cheers,

Caleb"

So the second enemy being destroyed in the original hypothetical situation of Azain with Firefoot trying to use his ability twice is not destroyed by Azain let alone the attack but is destroyed by Firefoot itself.