1) Im new to this game and just want to make sure, if I trigger a "card action" and in response the opponent uses a tactic that kills the card that triggered the action, the initial effect still applies right?

Specific example: Valkia the bloody spends 2 resources to move 2 dmg on her to a corrupted unit. Opponent responds using flames of tzeentch and dealing 2 dmg to valkia (valkia has 4 hp). Resolving the action chain: the flames will deal 2 dmg totalling 4 dmg on vlakia, killing her. Does her effect still happends (moving 2 dmg to another unit)? Does she survive the chain of events?

2) If a unit is assigned indirect dmg equal to their hp, does it open and action window to use actions before the dmg is applied right? After the dmg is applied the unit is dead, and is remover instantly or does it open another action window?

Another quick one:

3) Big 'Uns: "Battlefield. Your damaged units gain toughness 1." It applies to all my units across all zones right?

Last one:

4) If a greatsword enters play or moves to another zone, does it trigger it's own ablility? Ive seen controversial answers to this question and wanted to make sure as well.

I've just spend some time reading the FAQS again and you can ignore question 4... The answer is yes...

In question 2, the dmg is applied right after its assigned, without possibility of other action. But the FAQ doens't say anything about the timing of the destroyed card and when it moves to the discard pile. Can some one answer the example above so that those questions can be answered?

1) Yes, see FAQ 1.4 p. 4 “After card effects are triggered (usually by paying a cost or meeting a timing requirement and declaring its use), they exist independently of the source. Destruction or removal of the source at that time will not affect the resolution on the card effect."

2) There is an action window between the Assign Damage and Apply Damage steps during the Battleship phase. Note however that if damage is dealt by a card effect, this means that there is no action window and the damage is applied as soon as it is assigned. The only way to influence this is by having a relevant effect that would influence the damage application already active before the indirect damage was dealt, e.g. as a constant effect such as a keyword (e.g. toughness). At any time the damage on a card equals or exceeds the HP, the card is immediately discarded. This can happen not just through dealing additional damage, but also e.g. through actions that lower the HP. The discard does not require an action window.

3) Yes, the action applies to all units in all zones, but under the condition that Big ‘Uns is sitting in the Battlefield zone.

Hmm, so in the example above of Valkia the bloody, does the dmg gets moved to another unit even if she gets killed by a response action? Because in this case I`m not really sure... the card will get discarded after she dies, and there will be no dmg left on her to move... but the effect of her action is independent from the source... I dont know...

I would say yes, the damage is moved even though Valkia has been killed by Flames when this action actually resolves. Her action (move X damage to selected target corrupted unit, in your case 2 damage) is already on the chain. The resolution of this action can only be stopped if the action itself is cancelled or if the corrupted unit that was targeted is somehow removed from the play before (since it's existence will be checked again at the point when Valkia's action is resolving).

I don't think this is correct. If Valkia is killed in response to her ability, there is no damage left to move. There was a similar ruling recently on damage redirection that indicates there must still be damage left to redirect, i.e. if 2 redirect effects trigger off of 1 point of damage, only one of them can resolve successfully. That logic seems to apply to Valkia as well.

Entropy42, you mean that when the action of Valkia finally resolves, Valkia is checked again for the damage and since there is none (because there is no Valkia anymore), the action fizzles? I don't know the other ruling regarding damage redirection, but I thought the only time a check is made at the trigger of an action and again at the point of resolution refers to targeting.

The way I always tried to 'visualize' the concept of an effect existing independent of its source in the LIFO model was to think of it as something being in progress already. For example, an arrow shot at me (action 1) will still hit me even if I kill the shooter on seeing that he shot at me (action 2). I thought what is put on the action chain in the case of Valkia is the moving of the 2 damages, and that resolves as the damage is 'on the way' already, so to speak. For other actions, I think there is no check at resolution about the state of the source, why is there one for Valkia?

That being said, my experience with this game is very limited so I am happy as usual to take direction from you

I'm on Entropy42's side.

In my opinion, move damage only can move the damage that already applied, and then if the applied damage the same as its HP, it destroy immediately, so it can't trigger its action.

Then in this case, Valkia destroyed in an action chain, when Valkia resolve its action, it already destroyed , so there is no damage can be moved.(because Valkai already put into discard pile and no damage token on it)

tako said:

The ruling about damage redirection is this:

Q. What if I have Protective Spites on a Warrior Priest, and he is about to be dealt 1 damage?

A. Both effects trigger simultaneously. So if you choose to use the Spites first, no redirection will happen . If you choose to use the redirection, and there is only one token of damage, then you would redirect the point of damage [but don't] remove a token from the Spites like you would if there was more .... the effect triggers and then fizzles since it no longer has any damage to act on.

I figure if you can't redirect damage after the damage is gone, you probably can't move damage after the damage is gone. If the thing that kills Valkia was instead something that heals her, I don't think it would make any sense to let her Action move damage that has already been healed. Hopefully this explanation makes some sense.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but the second action isn't healing Valkia, it's adding more. So, the damage that was to be redirected is definitely still there, but Valkia isn't. I'm picturing the Mike Teevee scene in Willy Wonka. Why isn't the original movement of Valkia's damage already in little pieces in the air travelling towards the target when she gets her final wounds? Therefore, she still dies but the damage that was already being transmitted reassembles in its proper place?

Mestrahd said:

Yep, that's how I pictured it too. Nice one with Willy Wonker! I imagine that when something is on the action chain, it is not waiting to start, it has already started. That's why removing the source makes no difference, but removing the target would. Similarily, if through some card effect the amount of damage on Valkia would increase after her action was triggered but before it resolves, I would not think this additional damage would then be included in the move, only the damage that was on Valkia when the action was triggered and which is so to speak 'on the way' already.

Entropy42 said:

Yes, I can see your point here... I guess it comes down to what happens to the damage on Valkia at the point her action is triggered. Is it a) already 'on the way', in which case even a destruction of Valkia would not effect the move. Or is it b) just marked for the move, in which case her action would fizzle if for some reason the damage on her or herself would disappear. For me, a) is more consistent with the rule that actions exist independently of their source once triggered. However, this does lead to some other inconsistencies. If a) is the right logic, what would happen e.g. if a subsequent action would remove the target? Would Valikia still have the damage that would have moved had the target remained valid (i.e. would it travel back)?

Someone to the rescue, please...

The damage is not removed when the effect is triggered, unless removing that damage is the cost of triggering the effect (it isn't, cause it doesn't say "to") Your example is a good way of thinking of it. If the target is removed in reaction to the Action, it is not a free heal for Valkia.

The effect still exists independently of the source, in the sense that killing her doesn't cancel the effect, but the things the effect acts on (Valkia, her damage, and the target) all still have to exist or there is no way to resolve it and it fizzles. Another analogy would be moving an attachment with Visit the Haunted City. If that action is initiated, and before it resolves the original unit, attachment, or target unit are removed, the effect can't resolve and fizzles. The attachment is not in "packets floating through the air" while waiting for the effect to resolve.

Ok, I can see that this makes sense. I guess it is difficult to judge sometimes that in some cases you have to go back and check the condition of the source again whereas in other cases even the source itself be removed will not affect the action resloving. But since this comes down to what type of action is concerned, I hope I can figure it out.

Thanks for the clarification.

One more about redirection:

I have White Lion Vanguard and opponent has 1HP unit in a corresponding zone. When I play Loremaster of Hoeth and assign 2 damage to White Lion Vanguard is there an action window for the redirection effect to trigger and kill opponent's unit in the corresponding zone (before my opponent assigns her indirect damage)?

Tnx and cheers!

No. If you played the Loremaster, you assign the IDD first, but none of the damage resolves until your opponent assigns her damage as well.

Excuse me, I have a question in response to the first question in this thread:

I had a break of nine month. I can remember some of my first games (in 2010). In these games, someone told me, that actions on the chain wouldn´t resolve successful, if the source of the action had left (except those cards, that sacrifice theirselves as a part of their costs). After reading this threat i believe, that this isn´t/wasn´t correct!?! Actions resolve if conditions (Valkia as an example for not resolving because of missing damage-tokens sounds good for me) allowed them, right?

Thx...

To quote the FAQ:

After card effects are triggered
(usually by paying a cost or meeting a
timing requirement and declaring its
use), they exist independently of the
source. Destruction or removal of
the source at that time will not affect
the resolution on the card effect. This
also applies to Constant Effects and
Keywords that have a trigger condition,
as well as Forced Effects and Actions.

For example: A unit with Horrific Mutation
attacks a zone with a unit that has the
Counterstrike keyword and 1 remaining hit
point. The unit with Counterstrike defends,
which gives it -1 hit point and leads to it being
destroyed. However, the Counterstrike effect
existed independently of the source when the
unit was declared as a defender, and so the
unit will steal deal its Counterstrike damage.

Mallumo said:

Thanks so far. I understand that example (the "steal" in the last line should be a "still", i believe) in the FAQ.

Only to complete it for me: If i have a "Mining Tunnels" on the board, play a development from my hand, then announce the action on the tunnel and my opponent destroy the "Mining Tunnels" in response...am i allowed to draw a card for "Mining Tunnels" when the chain resolves? Or is there a differnce between actions, force effects and constant effects?

Effects in W:I have been cleaned up a bit in the past 9 months (mostly FAQ v1.4).

Now, Actions, Forced, and Triggered Constants all still exist if their source is destroyed. The targets of the effects, however, still have to be valid (which is why Valkia doesn't get to transfer damage that no longer exists).

For the mining tunnels example specifically, yes, you would still draw a card.

Entropy42 said:

I am not sure I like that because in the given example the damage has effectively doubled suddenly but I guess it's the easiest and most clear ruling.

Alex

Entropy42 said:

That´s nice to hear. I had some funny and exhausting discussions in a german forum nine month ago (about some parts of the wording in the printed rule book). FAQ 1.4 clarifies many of the points, that i criticised once...amused me! ^^

Thanks for the answer.