Immediately after the attack is resolved vs. after the attack is resolved

[fiery notch]

Yesterday I got into the situation where Enliven and Retaliatory Strike happens to be on one model.
An attacking model resolves it's attack and then what comes first?
We played it like the retaliatory strike comes first and the Enliven movement triggers. The Attack killed one model of the unit leaving a spot for the defender to move out of melee range of all engaging models.
What is the correct timing here?
Retaliatory Strike then Enliven movement or vice versa?

[fluid crescent]

The timing chart, a.k.a. Appendix 1: Timing, has your answer. 🙂

Steps 12, 13, and 14 cover the "after the attack is resolved" special rules:

Here's the text of Enliven:

Here's the text of Retaliatory Strike (from the Vengeful spell on Butcher 1):

It sounds like, in your example, that both effects are on the same model. The inactive player -- the player whose turn it is not -- has a model get hit by an attack, and you're asking which rule resolves first, correct?

In your case, because both special rules are triggered "after the attack is resolved", and because you are the inactive player, both resolve in Step 13. We need to look at the Triggers section for guidance:

As you can see, you get to choose which one to resolve first.

Bear in mind that the next sentences from Triggers become very important, though:

So you resolve one special rule, check to see if any conditions have changed, and then resolve the other special rule.

Which means, in very practical terms:

If you choose to resolve Enliven first, and move so that the enemy model is not in your melee range any longer, you cannot trigger Retaliatory Strike. This is because, when you re-check the trigger conditions, you see that, although they're still valid, you no longer satisfy the requirements for making a melee attack, namely "the model must be in the weapon's RNG."

You can choose to trigger Retaliatory Strike first, make your attack, and then Enliven away, though!

[fiery notch]

Thanks for the clarification. But still I don’t get the immediately vs. not immediately.
Enliven triggers on immediately after and retaliatory strike is after the attack is resolved.
So with the look on the timing table it still think that Enliven triggers before Retaliatory Strike.

[weak swan]

I think it was answered on the old old forums but I asked a similar question in the past and the answer then was that the phrase immediately does not alter an effects position on the timing chart which is why I agree with Michael's answer

[void pebble]

Also both effects say immediately anyway

[fiery notch]

That’s not is correct. Retaliatory Strike says “…after the attach is resolved …can immediately make a melee attack”

[void pebble]

Not sure what the disagreement is on that point but either way, they're both step 13

[fiery notch]

That’s interesting to know. A pity that this wording found the way into Mk 4.

[tough pawn]

as stated Michael answered the question correctly

[fluid crescent]

The timing chart is almost always the final answer to everything. When in doubt, check the timing chart. 🙂

[fiery notch]

I'm no native english speaker and I'm trying to be as clear as possible:
Enliven:
The key phrase is “immediately after the attack is resolved,” meaning it triggers before other effects that simply state “after the attack is resolved.” However, it does not involve making an attack, so it would resolve in Step 12 if it were an active player effect or in Step 13 if it is on the inactive player’s model.
Retaliatory Strike:
It triggers “after the attack is resolved” and involves making an attack, so it would normally resolve in Step 14 if it were an active player effect, but in Step 13 if it is on the inactive player’s model.

My key point is this:
If we are just a Warmachine Wednesday away of clarifying rules and if this wording is in this rules since the days of printed rules then please remove this word immediately if it is not necessary for the timing. 🙂

[fluid crescent]

I think I understand your intent. However, I don't think a change is needed. I will provide two reasons in support of that statement:

1. The rules are written in a somewhat relaxed, conversational tone. The developers are not writing for a (to use a silly example) nuclear safety engineer's equipment instruction manual, where utmost precision and accuracy is required at all times. 🙂 Even without looking at the timing chart, the rules provide a fairly clear, intuitive understanding of how the game works.

----> In your particular rules question example, you should interpret "immediately" to mean "You can't save this action and bank it until some random, arbitrary point in time 3 turns in the future." Basically, a plain reading should convey "You have to do this after the attack is resolved, and if you don't do it then, you lose the chance." But, the rules are written with brevity and clarity in mind, so "immediately" conveys the intent fairly well.

2. The Appendix 1: Timing rules and the Trigger rules explain exactly how things work if there is any confusion related to point 1. In this case: both rules trigger at the same time, so you choose the order in which they resolve. Because Appendix 1: Timing does not have any special explanations concerning rules that say "immediately", you sort of need to de-emphasize the "immediately" in the rule, which was written for "intuitive" understanding purposes.

Hopefully, that helps. 🙂