PDA

View Full Version : Watcher and Psychoactive Gas



Seikishi
10-15-2015, 09:33 PM
Here's a question. Suppose Sturm & Drang has watcher up and an enemy warbeast advances within 6 inches of him. Watcher then triggers and a Splatter Boar in his battlegroup makes a normal ranged attack against the warbeast. As part of this attack he chooses psychoactive gas. The enemy warbeast is hit and then fails his subsequent threshold check and has to immediately frenzy.

How would this be handled? Would it be treated as an activation inside an activation? But then the warbeast would activate twice that turn one of which was a frenzy. This can usually only be done during Arkadius' feat because it has specific wording. Would it follow the rules for frenzy as part of the original activation? But some of the frenzy targets require sacrificing movement which it can't do because it already moved. Would it then have to sacrifice it's action per the frenzy rules? Is there any precedent for activating a model while it's already activating? Counter charge is the closes I could think of, but counter charge doesn't prevent a model from activating normally that turn while frenzy does.

solkan
10-15-2015, 10:21 PM
The outcome is going to be one of two options:

1. The model can't activate because it's already activating, so attempting to activate it to perform a frenzy activation does nothing.
2. The model activates recursively, and the recursive activation is a frenzy activation.
Personally, I'm leaning towards #2 because the frenzy activation in question isn't being caused by the controlling player, and is essentially an out-of-turn frenzy.

The result isn't going to be some sort of crazy Frankenstein "Attempt to retroactively apply the frenzy rules to the activation already in progress."

DarkLegacy
10-16-2015, 05:22 AM
Checking...

RabiTampa
10-22-2015, 06:09 AM
I'm just double checking with the ruling on this interact. this is kind of big for the thornfall alliance

DarkLegacy
10-22-2015, 06:10 AM
Do not bump threads.

DarkLegacy
01-21-2016, 10:38 AM
As the errata is now out, the question asked here can't happen, so I'm going to leave this closed with the answer of "Read the errata document from January 2016 or later".