Lack of models for summoning - summon fails or not?

[Sagrit]

Hello all.
Here is a first part of a question - if a player declare a summoning action and he has no legal model to place on the table, does it count as summon fails or not? Rulebook wording is :
 

Quote

If it is not possible to place the model because of other models or terrain, the effect that caused the summon fails

But it's not because of terrain and other models, it's because player have no model at all

And here is a second part of a question: 
Please take a look at Toshiro's "Eternal Guardian" action (on "Command the graves" upgrade". The wording is:

Quote

Summon a Komainu in base contact with target Scrap marker, then discard the marker

What if a player have no Komainu model at all, but he wants to use this ability to discard a Scrap marker? 

I see 3 argumentation here:
1) Player can't summon because he has no model, so the summoning fails and no scrap marker discarded.
2) Player can't summon because he has no model, so the summoning fails but he can discard Scrap marker, because it's a part of an Action and action doesn't failed.
3) Player can't summon because he has no model, but summoning is not failed according to Rulebook and he can discard Scrap marker.

Rulebook, FAQ or any Wyrd Staff clarification post would be great. Thank you

[Ludvig]

If proxies are allowed you use a proxy. If proxies aren't allowed and you don't have the model I would go with option 4: you need to have the model you are trying to summon to take the action. The discard is a cost to limit the summoning, the action isn't intended to deny others their markers.

You aren't allowed to charge if you can't end up in the specified place so you shpuldn't be allowed to summon if you don't have the models to create the desired board state after the summon.

[santaclaws01]

This really isn't a rules question so much as a playing question. The game assumes you have the models or markers necessary to perform an action if it calls for placing them. As far as the game is concerned the TN was met so the action succeeded. It is 100% up to the players in the game or the TO with how to proceed from there.

[solkan]

The summoning rules list two different ways for the summoning to fail:

• Not able to place the model (due to terrain or models)
• Exceeding the rare limit

It's a really small stretch to put "not able to place the model (due to not being able to produce a suitable figure)" in the first category.

Then again, it's not really a rules question because:

• The rules in Gaining Grounds require you to have all of your models.
• A "suitable figure" could potentially be anything with the proper base size, depending on the context, including a base with the name written on it.

 

[Sagrit]

*double post, pls delete*

[Sagrit]

2 hours ago, solkan said:

• The rules in Gaining Grounds require you to have all of your models.

This is what i was lookig for, thank you!
It is actualey a rules question because i can imagine a situation when a player declare a summon action just to discard a marker even if don't  have a proper model for summoning (check Toshiro's action above). Yes it is pretty dirty and sounds like rules abuse, but i would like to have a good answer on "show me in rulebook" question

 

But what about second part of the question, about multiply consequences of an Action? If a player declares Toshiro's "Eternal Guardian" Action and he somehow can't place a summoning model (for example because of terrain or other models), is he allowed to discard a Scrap marker or not? The question is because of wording : 

Quote

Summon a Komainu in base contact with target Scrap marker, then discard the marker

Discarding a marker - is it a result of summoning, or is it a result of an action? In first case player can't discard, because summoning failed. In second case he can discard because Action is sucessfull even if one of consequences is failded (summon).

My opinion - marker can't be discarder if summoning fails because it's a result of summoning, not a second consequence of an Action. Again, it's not a situation on  the table. But it's a situation that theretically could happen and i'm looking for a good argumentation  

[solkan]

3 hours ago, Sagrit said:

This is what i was lookig for, thank you!
It is actualey a rules question because i can imagine a situation when a player declare a summon action just to discard a marker even if don't  have a proper model for summoning (check Toshiro's action above). Yes it is pretty dirty and sounds like rules abuse, but i would like to have a good answer on "show me in rulebook" question

 

But what about second part of the question, about multiply consequences of an Action? If a player declares Toshiro's "Eternal Guardian" Action and he somehow can't place a summoning model (for example because of terrain or other models), is he allowed to discard a Scrap marker or not? The question is because of wording : 

Discarding a marker - is it a result of summoning, or is it a result of an action? In first case player can't discard, because summoning failed. In second case he can discard because Action is sucessfull even if one of consequences is failded (summon).

My opinion - marker can't be discarder if summoning fails because it's a result of summoning, not a second consequence of an Action. Again, it's not a situation on  the table. But it's a situation that theretically could happen and i'm looking for a good argumentation  

To the best of my knowledge, "summoning effect" is just an unfortunately elaborate way of referring to the summoning itself, and doesn't refer to everything else.  So if you didn't have room to summon a Kaimanu you would still follow the rest of the instructions in the action.  I do not, however, have anything I can quote to you to support this.

If you had to argue someone in person, I'd suggest that there are a lot of places where an effect asks a person to do the impossible, so you just do what you can and then continue.  For example, if an effects says you have to discard more cards than you have, you discard what you have and continue.

 

[Sagrit]

The problem is that it's not clear what is the effect of the Action.
1) Action pass TN and 2 things happens:
- summon Kamainu (sucessfully or not)
- discard a marker

or 

2) Action pass TN and 1 thing happens:
- summon Kamainu 
- if sucessfully summoned, then discard a marker

[Adran]

The action says

"Summon a Komainu in base contact with target Scrap marker, then discard the marker." 

I think that means if you don't do the first part, you don't do the second part. 

But its probably safer to just say you need to have the models you are summoning

[Ludvig]

The rules interaction is irrelevant since gg calls for you being immediately disqualified for not conforming to the basic rules of the tournament. Can't certain "then" effects happen? I think Mah has an faq to her push that says that.

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

The rules interaction is irrelevant since gg calls for you being immediately disqualified for not conforming to the basic rules of the tournament. Can't certain "then" effects happen? I think Mah has an faq to her push that says that.

Yeah, the way it's worded the removal isn't dependent on the model being summoned, it's just sequential.

[Sagrit]

16 hours ago, Ludvig said:

Can't certain "then" effects happen? I think Mah has an faq to her push that says that.

About Mah Tucket Action - there are 2 sentences in the action and FAQ sais:

Quote

136) Can Mah Tucket target herself with the Let Mah Handle This Action? Yes. The first push into base to base has no effect, but the second push still functions.

So now we know, that if the Action contains 2 sentences it would be 2 unrelated effects.

But still not clear about "then"  

[solkan]

2 hours ago, Sagrit said:

About Mah Tucket Action - there are 2 sentences in the action and FAQ sais:

So now we know, that if the Action contains 2 sentences it would be 2 unrelated effects.

But still not clear about "then"  

I think you're placing the wrong burden of proof.

Suppose the rule said "Target model suffers two wounds, then is pushed 2"."  With no proof that "X, then Y" is cause and effect, you have to proceed as it isn't cause and effect.

In other words, you've got at least two main options:

1.  The token discard is a result of the summoning.

2.  The summoning is a side effect of the token discard.

that require conjecture, but how the rules are written is

3.  The summoning and token discard are the result of a third process (the action).

Edit:  But, more importantly you're also making the unsupported claim that if the text says

"X, then Y" that X has to succeed before Y happens, rather than that X just has to happen (whether X succeeds or fails) before Y happens (whether Y succeeds or fails).

 

[Sagrit]

Quote

"X, then Y" that X has to succeed before Y happens, rather than that X just has to happen (whether X succeeds or fails) before Y happens (whether Y succeeds or fails).

I got your idea. But i don't see any proof, or disproof in Rulebook or FAQ about how it should be played...
"X, then Y" - Y happens only if X succeeds
or
"X, then Y" - both X and Y happens if Action succeeds

I think we have to look for specific models Actions and FAQ clarification about them, but still i don't found any yet

[santaclaws01]

5 hours ago, Sagrit said:

I got your idea. But i don't see any proof, or disproof in Rulebook or FAQ about how it should be played...
"X, then Y" - Y happens only if X succeeds
or
"X, then Y" - both X and Y happens if Action succeeds

I think we have to look for specific models Actions and FAQ clarification about them, but still i don't found any yet

Malifaux is written in plain English. "X, then Y" is not a conditional statement in plain English, and because there is nothing in rules stating that effects must succeed before the next effect in an action happens, we based how it works on what it means in plain English.


If you want an example of a conditional statement, look at Hoffman and Sloth, both of which have an action that says "do X, if X happens, do Y"

[Sagrit]

Sounds logical enough for me, thank you  

Official wording from Wyrd Staff in FAQ or at least in Forum post would be still great, just to have a proof. 

[Adran]

10 minutes ago, Sagrit said:

Sounds logical enough for me, thank you  

Official wording from Wyrd Staff in FAQ or at least in Forum post would be still great, just to have a proof. 

They don't do rules in forum posts. Its too complicated to keep the rulings up to date. (Its hard enough finding where things have been discussed, it was too hard to find all the forum rulings when  they used to do that).

 

[Ludvig]

19 minutes ago, Sagrit said:

Sounds logical enough for me, thank you  

Official wording from Wyrd Staff in FAQ or at least in Forum post would be still great, just to have a proof. 

Not likely to happen, they don't give official answers on the forum posts and this is such an obvious and rare situqrion that it is highly unlikely to make it into the faq. The rules lawyers who frequent this place is the probably as official as this will get. In tournament play trying to do it gets you disqualified for failing to bring the models and most models that can do thia could just sumlon anothrr model.

[Adran]

I've just been through the last 100 pages of the rules forum, and 

Is the nearest I can find to your question before. I'm sure we have discusses what do x then do y means, btu I can't find it.