Sparks 0 action actually really good

[Adran]

Drawing Line of Sight (page 40)
Any Action that has a target will also require that the acting model is able to see
the target. A model’s Line of Sight (LoS) represents what it can see on the table. A
model either has LoS, or it does not (No LoS).

The action needs you to have line of sight to the target scrap marker for you to take the action. (As well as line of sight to the target model) If you can't see the scrap marker (becasue it doesn't exist) you can't take the action. 

[lame0]

52 minutes ago, Adran said:

Drawing Line of Sight (page 40)
Any Action that has a target will also require that the acting model is able to see
the target. A model’s Line of Sight (LoS) represents what it can see on the table. A
model either has LoS, or it does not (No LoS).

The action needs you to have line of sight to the target scrap marker for you to take the action. (As well as line of sight to the target model) If you can't see the scrap marker (becasue it doesn't exist) you can't take the action. 

The rules don't require me to have both targets. Literally the only requirement for an attack action is los and to be in range of "a target" In fact it doesn't even have to be a legal target (ie if an action requires the target to be a construct I can still attempt the action it'll just fail). What makes this even more clear to me is that the resolving actions section ends with "these duels are handled now, after Ap is spent and targets are declared". In the paragraph prior to that it states "It is during this step that the model declares a target." I cant find a single place in the rules that says if an action could have multiple targets it must select all of them for the action to be declared/ resolved / or be considered a success. 

Also note its not super clear in either direction but because multiple target actions are not really talked about the only clarity is that an attack action must declare a (singular) target be in range and have los. 

Edit: In terms of the model I don't think many people would call: ca 6 / tn 12 / Rst: Wp push an other gremlin 5" in any direction, game breaking in any way. Its a cool interaction that could make him borderline playable because having a half decent (0) action means you could consider playing him even though he doesn't have reckless.  

[Adran]

FAQ

138. Does a model need to have the Brilliance Characteristic to be a valid target for Jakob Lynch’s Final Debt?
Final Debt states, “Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic...” so, yes, the target must have Brilliance to be valid.

 

You can't declare invalid targets. 

 

page 38

Attack Actions require a target and LoS (see pg. 40).

 

I think the leap that you have to declare a valid target is reasonable (although I will say isn't explicitly stated). You can't just flip cards for no reason. and without a valid target you shouldn't get to the duel anyway. 

 

The rules say you have to have a target, and that target has to be in Line of sight.

The text of the action calls for 2 targets. No where in the rules does it say you don't need line of sight to both targets either.

I am happy with the view that if somethign is called a target in the text of the action, you have to meet the requirements of that target. If more than 1 thing is called a target, then I think you need to meet those requirements for all targets. 

[lame0]

27 minutes ago, Adran said:

FAQ

138. Does a model need to have the Brilliance Characteristic to be a valid target for Jakob Lynch’s Final Debt?
Final Debt states, “Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic...” so, yes, the target must have Brilliance to be valid.

 

You can't declare invalid targets. 

 

page 38

Attack Actions require a target and LoS (see pg. 40).

 

I think the leap that you have to declare a valid target is reasonable (although I will say isn't explicitly stated). You can't just flip cards for no reason. and without a valid target you shouldn't get to the duel anyway. 

 

The rules say you have to have a target, and that target has to be in Line of sight.

The text of the action calls for 2 targets. No where in the rules does it say you don't need line of sight to both targets either.

I am happy with the view that if somethign is called a target in the text of the action, you have to meet the requirements of that target. If more than 1 thing is called a target, then I think you need to meet those requirements for all targets. 

Yeah I guess more than anything the gray area is if in fact the second target must be declared. I'm not stating that your interpretation isn't correct, but its not clear. Since the rules do not dictate that I must meet the requirements in terms of targets printed action, but instead need to declare a single target in range and in LoS then obviously there is a conundrum. (Any gremlin is legal target so that doesn't really matter.)  So how is something like this decided then? Before a game? With a TO?

Not that I want to rules lawyer for no reason but I am obviously hoping that Sparks might actually see the table -_-.

[Adran]

You want the action to say "discard a scrap marker within x" of target to turn target into a construct". If that was how it was worded, then your plan works. 

The action tells us that the scrap marker is also a target. The only reason to add that to the action is that Sparks also needs LOS to the scrap marker to do the action. 

As to how you resolve it. If you think its going to come up in a game, explain how you think it works with your opponent. If they are happy with your interpretation, then go with it. If they aren't and you can't agree flip a card, and use that to decide on the interpretation. Or ask the TO at an event before the event starts how they want to rule it. Do thios before you build crews and it shouldn't matter which way. And then you both know how you are playing the ruels

[Dogmantra]

Hrm, I was the one who initially said that it would probably be fine to use it if there wasn't a marker because I figured that it was target the model -> apply the effects, and the discarding a target scheme marker is an effect (I do still agree with the reasoning that you are allowed to do an action that won't do anything), but I do find the argument that you have to declare all targets to start with pretty compelling. In which case I would generally err on the side of the most conservative interpretation which means no action if you've got no scheme marker.

[lame0]

11 minutes ago, Adran said:

You want the action to say "discard a scrap marker within x" of target to turn target into a construct". If that was how it was worded, then your plan works. 

The action tells us that the scrap marker is also a target. The only reason to add that to the action is that Sparks also needs LOS to the scrap marker to do the action. 

As to how you resolve it. If you think its going to come up in a game, explain how you think it works with your opponent. If they are happy with your interpretation, then go with it. If they aren't and you can't agree flip a card, and use that to decide on the interpretation. Or ask the TO at an event before the event starts how they want to rule it. Do thios before you build crews and it shouldn't matter which way. And then you both know how you are playing the ruels

Yeah it's a shame. It might work but

1) discussing Sparks before a game just ruins the tech an then they expect him.

2) discussing rules before a game is never fun (part of the reason way back in 40k 5th edition I quit orks because so many of the rules were up to interpretation) 

personally I like discussing a rule online to get a clear opinion but when it doesn't end up clear usually it isn't worth the brain damage to try and play it. 

I hope they make an faq to clear up these interactions and hopefully it lands in Sparks favor because gosh he needs it.

[Treehouse]

For what it's worth, as it has been mentioned,.Pandora is different because it says 'select' not target, hence you target the model then select (or fails to.select), but the trigger to paralyze applies anyway.

 

Not sure if that helps in the discussion, though. 

[Adran]

On 23/08/2017 at 1:47 PM, lame0 said:

Yeah I guess more than anything the gray area is if in fact the second target must be declared. I'm not stating that your interpretation isn't correct, but its not clear. Since the rules do not dictate that I must meet the requirements in terms of targets printed action, but instead need to declare a single target in range and in LoS then obviously there is a conundrum. (Any gremlin is legal target so that doesn't really matter.)  So how is something like this decided then? Before a game? With a TO?

Not that I want to rules lawyer for no reason but I am obviously hoping that Sparks might actually see the table -_-.

I know its been a while but do you think someone ought to be able to complete the action without LOS and range to the target Gremlin, as long as they have LOS and range to the target scrap marker? 

Afterall, I've met your requirements to have 1 legal target, and the fact I don't meet the second doesn't matter to you. I could "target" Sommer 20"away behind a huge building and still have the effect. My Action suceeded, I had a valid and legal target of a scrap marker in range and LOS, and the second Target wasn't in Range or LOS but that doesn't matter.

(Obviously I think it does matter, and whilst you can do actions that do nothing, you do need to meet all the targetting requirements for all the targets to actually do the action. 

[lame0]

4 hours ago, Adran said:

I know its been a while but do you think someone ought to be able to complete the action without LOS and range to the target Gremlin, as long as they have LOS and range to the target scrap marker? 

Afterall, I've met your requirements to have 1 legal target, and the fact I don't meet the second doesn't matter to you. I could "target" Sommer 20"away behind a huge building and still have the effect. My Action suceeded, I had a valid and legal target of a scrap marker in range and LOS, and the second Target wasn't in Range or LOS but that doesn't matter.

(Obviously I think it does matter, and whilst you can do actions that do nothing, you do need to meet all the targetting requirements for all the targets to actually do the action. 

if you are declaring both targets then both need to fulfill the requirements in the action like anything else. The question I had is if you actually need to declare two targets and as far as the rules go they say only one target is needed. Tbh I don't want to beat a dead horse since I think I've discussed this enough to point out it's not super clear but can see some people are of different option than me. 

So if all you had was a scrap marker targeted it would literally do nothing except discard the scrap marker.