Lynch and valid target

[SurreyLee]

Okay a situation arose last night i'd welcome comment on. 

 

Lynch attempted final debt last night which states that "target with the brilliance condition suffers damage equal to the hands in this models hand". He initially targeted Burt Jebson who, via slippery, wanted to pass the attack onto Gracie who didn't have the brilliance condition and therefore wouldn't suffer any damage.

 

Two views of ruling.

 

1. Gracie isn't a legal target because she doesn't have brilliance so can't have the attack passed on via slippery....or

2. The fact that Gracie doesn't have brilliance doesn't matter for the process of targeting in the first place so can in fact have the attack passed on which subsequently would cause no damage.

 

Thoughts and points of ruling would be useful....

 

I think it boils down to does a target need brilliance to be a valid target or not.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Dirial]

I'd go with 1. Slippery specificly points out that only legal targets are possible, and Final Debt demands a target with Brilliance.

[Patzer]

Lynch can see through Burts' futile attempts of trickery.

[asrian]

I normally would go with "it passes off to another person and Lynch is just out of luck", but as Burts wording is "another legal target" and Lynch can only target models with Brilliance with the Final Debt attack, I'd have to go with Dirial and Pantzer™ and say answer #1. 

[Patzer]

I normally would go with "it passes off to another person and Lynch is just out of luck", but as Burts wording is "another legal target" and Lynch can only target models with Brilliance with the Final Debt attack, I'd have to go with Dirial and Pantzer™ and say answer #1. 

Good boy!

[Myyrä]

I normally would go with "it passes off to another person and Lynch is just out of luck", but as Burts wording is "another legal target" and Lynch can only target models with Brilliance with the Final Debt attack, I'd have to go with Dirial and Pantzer™ and say answer #1. 

Lynch can target any model with the attack (within the normal constraints of choosing a target), the attack just doesn't do anything to models without brilliance.

[solkan]

Lynch can target any model with the attack (within the normal constraints of choosing a target), the attack just doesn't do anything to models without brilliance.

 

From the FAQ for Self Harm:

 

5) Q: Can Pandora take the Self Harm Action against a model without a z Attack? (Same question for

Self Loathing and y Attacks).

A: Yes. The Attack would simply be unable to deal damage. Self Harm selects a z Attack on the target and applies the damage, but does not require the target to have a z Attack. Attacks that require the target have a certain trait in order to target are generally worded, “Target model with a z Attack...” Self Harm is not worded in this way.

 

According to that, "target with the brilliance condition" certainly looks like it's an attack that requires a certain trait to target.

 

So what's the difference that makes Lynch's ability able to target useless things?

[Myyrä]

From the FAQ for Self Harm:

 

According to that, "target with the brilliance condition" certainly looks like it's an attack that requires a certain trait to target.

 

So what's the difference that makes Lynch's ability able to target useless things?

The purpose of this Frequently Asked Questions document is to address questions on individual situations which players

may find confusing. These are not changes to the rules, simply clarifications for the convenience of Malifaux players. Each

question is about an individual situation, and may not necessarily apply to other situations.

The rules of the game are found in the rulebook and in the errata.

[enderwiggin]

There's no rule that lets impossible actions occur unless you want to point one out that I've missed.

Games are inherently permissive, otherwise the actual amount of ridiculous situations would be many times higher.

 

Also, the Self Harm quote is a valid example of "Exception proves the Rule", it explicitly states what the normal restrictions are and then (as per the quoted FAQ bits as well) matter-of-factly states why the standard rule isn't applied to itself for this situation.

[Kadeton]

The "target with the Brilliance Condition" form of reference requires that the target have Brilliance in order to be valid.

[Dirial]

The "target with the Brilliance Condition" form of reference requires that the target have Brilliance in order to be valid.

 

My interpretation as well. I think I see where Myyrä's interpretation comes from, but this is the usual wording for a requirement.

[Kadeton]

I think the flaw in Myyrä's interpretation is that it means there is no way to word an attack so that it can only validly target models with specific Conditions. The "target with the Brilliance Condition" format is the Condition-based equivalent to a "target friendly model" affiliation requirement or a "target Construct" characteristic requirement.

[lusciousmccabe]

Brilliance is actually a characteristic so it's actually the exact same as "target undead model" or "target living model" just worded slightly differently.

 

For the attack to be passed off to someone without brilliance it would have to be phrased like "target a model within 10", if the target has the brilliance characteristic it suffers...", but it's not written that way.

[Kadeton]

Indeed, good catch. The same basic conditional format applies to Conditions, Abilities and Characteristics. Some use a shorthand form where appropriate in natural language, like "target Beast" instead of "target model with the Beast characteristic", but they are semantically equivalent.

[zFiend]

I agree with interpolation number 1.

[Myyrä]

1) Final Debt (Ca 7 / TN: 11 / Rst: Df / Rg 10): Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic suffers an amount of damage equal to the number of cards in this model’s controller's hand.

The attack merely states what happens, when target model has brilliance characteristic. The wording doesn't demand the characteristic or forbid using it against targets without the said characteristic. Rulebook does not mention any restrictions to choosing targets beyond range and LoS either. Is there something in the rules that I have missed, that would support the interpretation 1?

[Kadeton]

The selection is "Target (model with the Brilliance Characteristic)".

 

You seem to be looking for an attack that reads "If target model has the Brilliance Characteristic, it suffers an amount of damage..."

[Myyrä]

The selection is "Target (model with the Brilliance Characteristic)".

 

You seem to be looking for an attack that reads "If target model has the Brilliance Characteristic, it suffers an amount of damage..."

You seem to be looking for an attack that reads: "Target a model with Brilliance Characteristic. It suffers..."

[Kogan Style]

You seem to be looking for an attack that reads: "Target a model with Brilliance Characteristic. It suffers..."

 

I agree. The sentence does not read (explicitly) that the target model must have Brilliance to be a legal target. It implies that the attack would be wasted if the model did not have the Brilliance characteristic since the characteristic is required in order for damage to be taken. 

[Dirial]

The wording could probably be better. I suppose it's meant to mean that you can only target Brilliant models, but it could be read either way.

[lusciousmccabe]

1) Final Debt (Ca 7 / TN: 11 / Rst: Df / Rg 10): Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic suffers an amount of damage equal to the number of cards in this model’s controller's hand.

The attack merely states what happens, when target model has brilliance characteristic. The wording doesn't demand the characteristic or forbid using it against targets without the said characteristic. Rulebook does not mention any restrictions to choosing targets beyond range and LoS either. Is there something in the rules that I have missed, that would support the interpretation 1?

 

How is that not a demand exactly? There is no conditional clause in there, the target is stated as having the Brilliance Characteristic. 

 

If you're saying that actions simply require Line of Sight and range I don't agree. Tactical actions for instance only require line of sight if they have the word Target in them, so clearly that's a requirement featured in the text of the action.

 

Or are you saying that you can target anything and then just resolve the parts of the action that meet the requirements? Because that would enable a whole lot of silly non-sense.

[Kogan Style]

No its stated that a target model with the brilliance characteristic would suffer damage.

 

A target model without the Brilliance characteristic wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that it can not be targeted. So people could obey Lynch to cast Final Debt on a model without brilliance to stop him using it that turn.

[Myyrä]

How is that not a demand exactly? There is no conditional clause in there, the target is stated as having the Brilliance Characteristic. 

 

If you're saying that actions simply require Line of Sight and range I don't agree. Tactical actions for instance only require line of sight if they have the word Target in them, so clearly that's a requirement featured in the text of the action.

Final Debt is not a tactical action, it is an attack action. Attack actions require target and LoS unless otherwise mentioned.

Or are you saying that you can target anything and then just resolve the parts of the action that meet the requirements? Because that would enable a whole lot of silly non-sense.

Do you have an example?

[Fetid Strumpet]

I agree with Myyra. While the action can be implied to require brilliance to target, RAW it doesn't require it. The action reads that te target model with brilliance suffers a particular effect. The action doest say, "target a model with brilliance. If successful do X." What the action does it list the effects which happen if it affects a model with brilliance.

I see no reason, given the wording, that it can't be passed off to another model without brilliance. The way the ability is worded there isn't a targeting requirement, only a requirement for effect.

[Guy in Suit]

All conditions must be true in the target clause for something to be a legal target.  This is clear and consistent throughout the rule set. 

[Kadeton]

Do you have an example?

 

One off the top of my head:

 

Marcus, with the Pack Leader upgrade, targets an enemy non-Beast model with Darzee's Chaunt. Since the model isn't a Beast, the Chaunt has no effect, but all of Marcus' Beasts within 6" of the target get to make a free melee attack due to Smell Fear.