Do you need to "do damage" (as in have a damage that gets reduced) in order to stun someone while performing the attack in the CC Set for Stun?
Edited by hypnosis11
Set for Stun
Stun is a condition keyword which requires the target to suffer damage from the attack for the Stunned condition to be applied to the target after the attack resolves.
Stunned is a condition. There is no requirement to receiving a condition (other than only being able to have one of each condition). See also Shocking Palm of 0-0-0 .
Otherwise the "Then, the target becomes Stunned." would not do anything, which would be very strange, would it not? This is not in any way dependent on the previous part doing anything. There doesn't need to be any damage that was reduced.
("Perform an attack. The attack misses and the target becomes Stunned." would've done almost the same thing, but not quite.)
Edited by a1bertSo if I'm hearing your right, you could use R2 to shoot from 15 spaces away with Set to Stun and the defender will become Stunned?
Probably not intended, but I can't interpret the wording otherwise. Stunned always gets assigned.
I understand that idea, I see the "if then" statement combined. Why wouldn't they say "Perform an attack. The target becomes stunned and the attack deals no damage." It seems weird that they would make things more wordy on purpose. And yes, it should have said "If this attack deals at least 1 damage, reduce it to 0 and the target becomes stunned," but there seems to be no reason why "then" would be there if not to connect the "If."
It's not an if-then-else structure. It is "if X do Y" and "afterwards, Z". "Then" is a sequencer, not part of the conditional.
Edit:
Why wouldn't they say
Because Clipper wasn't yet tech editor?
Interesting. Certainly makes the card more useful.
On 9/13/2018 at 9:18 PM, hypnosis11 said:So if I'm hearing your right, you could use R2 to shoot from 15 spaces away with Set to Stun and the defender will become Stunned?
Seriously? Why no one has used this card ever then?
It seems pretty clear to me that it is intended that you only do the effects on the card if the target would have suffered damage.
If the target would suffer 1 or more damage: Reduce that damage to 0. Then they become stunned.
They just wrote "then" to follow it on from the previous sentence.
There are so many other ways you would write it if it was supposed to always stun the opponent.
19 hours ago, Hacendator said:Seriously? Why no one has used this card ever then?
most likely people didn't bother to re-read the old cards... until now
besides, in skirmish you want to be killing enemy figures, Stun is always at a lower priority
On 9/16/2018 at 10:29 AM, DTDanix said:There are so many other ways you would write it if it was supposed to always stun the opponent.
There are also better ways they could have written it if they wanted to make the stun conditional on damage in the first place.
"If the target would suffer 1 or more damage, reduce the damage suffered to 0 and the target becomes stunned."
I agree, but "If condition, do this and that." is pretty close in English to "If condition, do this. Then do that."
The main difference is "that" happens either at the same time as "this", or sequentially after "this".
Lots of cards have follow on statements in the form: "Then, x happens." The ruling is usually that you can do everything that follows then, even if you didn't do whatever preceded it.
Example:
"looking for a fight"
Use during your activation to gain 1 dmg token. Then, either move up to 1 space or push an adjacent small figure up to 1 space.
If you already have 2 power tokens, you skip the first part but you still do everything after "Then".
To be fair I agree that the intent is probably different than @a1bert 's interpretation, but based on other cards his interpretation makes sense.
Another example:
"Rebel Graffiti"
Technically you could play this card at the end of your activation while you are adjacent to hostile figures. In that case you don't get to gain 2 VPs. However, you can still redraw the card.
On 9/16/2018 at 2:29 AM, DTDanix said:It seems pretty clear to me that it is intended that you only do the effects on the card if the target would have suffered damage.
If the target would suffer 1 or more damage: Reduce that damage to 0. Then they become stunned.
They just wrote "then" to follow it on from the previous sentence.
There are so many other ways you would write it if it was supposed to always stun the opponent.
Phrasing is usually intentional when it comes to abilities, and in context, the 'then' word represents sequence not conditional. You do the first. Then you do the second. The second is not dependent on the first being successful, but must occur after you attempt the first. If they meant the second to be dependant on the first, they wouldn't have separated it with a period.
I asked FFG two days ago about this in order to get a definitive answer and Todd answered today, backing a1bert's reasoning.
Quote
Hi Victor,
Set for Stun does not require the attack to have done damage to reduce (or even have sufficient accuracy) in order to apply the Stun.Without a conditional clause (“if the attack did not miss” or something like that) this reads to me like two separate abilities. The figure becomes Stunned as long as it was a valid target for the attack.Thanks for the question!
2 minutes ago, viktr said:I asked FFG two days ago about this in order to get a definitive answer and Todd answered today, backing a1bert's reasoning.
Weird, but okay.
So you can't On the Lam away from the stun since the target doesn't change and that's the only requirement is that there is a target.
3 minutes ago, hypnosis11 said:So you can't On the Lam away from the stun since the target doesn't change and that's the only requirement is that there is a target.
I guess you can On the Lam but after that you would get stunned no matter what (since the condition is applied even if the attack misses).
Edited by viktr1 minute ago, hypnosis11 said:So you can't On the Lam away from the stun since the target doesn't change and that's the only requirement is that there is a target.
Is the FAQ for collateral damage relevant in this case?
"During an attack, if the attacker's line of sight to the target space changes or if the defender moves, the attacker must then re-declare a target space. If none of the defender's spaces are eligible, the attack misses, there is no target space, and abilities that refer to a target space have no effect."
set for stun refers to target, not target space.
Just now, viktr said:I guess you can On the Lam but after that you would get stunned no matter what (since the condition is applied even if the attack misses).
Yep, that's what I meant, you CAN OTL, you CAN'T escape the stun.
In the current rules, while On the Lam allows to break line of sight and forces the attack to miss and there is no target space, there is still target. So there is nothing preventing the target of the attack to become Stunned.
(Without the additional rule about it, losing line of sight during an attack would make the target invalid and thus the whole attack would be cancelled. The rule changes that so that the attack misses and thus the attack gets resolved.)
Edited by a1bertSo you need to make enough damage/pierce to pass 1 through for the stun to apply, but you stop before the Accuracy step to check if the stun is applied?
So the only defense against this is a high amount of blocks or an X ?
It sounds like they're saying the card actually says this:
Perform an attack: Ignore the damage step. The target is stunned.
47 minutes ago, DTDanix said:It sounds like they're saying the card actually says this:
Perform an attack: Ignore the damage step. The target is stunned.
Pretty much. The only thing that separates this card from saying; "Stun a figure in LoS" is that it's an attack. Most figures only get one of those a round...
Oof.. hoping for a FAQ entry soon on this... because this means anyone can throw a small attack against any figure and auto-stun that figure, especially if no spies on opponent's side and negate already used... It feels incredibly game changing and cheap. I'll be using it in the next 2 store champs I'm attending >_> shame on me.