Dark protection (mlh) vs shooting into melee

[katadder]

A model that has used errand for the master and has Dark Protection (cannot be targeted by enemy models for attacks unless within 3") is in combat. When shooting into that combat and randomising what happens if the model under Dark Protection is the randomly assigned target? 

He is still being targeted as you have to take into account terror and cover so can he be the target of this? Or does he just get to be a target for the random shot?

 

[Dogmantra]

I think the real answer is that there's not enough information in the rules to make a solid ruling. The randomisation rules don't require models to be legal targets in order to flip cards for them - it specifically calls out range and LoS as not being required, but it also doesn't say anything about other requirements still being required. It also then says that whoever flips the lowest card "becomes the target" which is contradicted by the specific rule that prevents the model from being the target of attacks from enemies more than 3" away.

I guess you could lump MLH in with things like Terrifying, which happen after you've determined the target (and say that the action just fails) but the difference is that you're not allowed to target the MLH model, rather than having a failure clause when you target it.

Personally I would want to just skip out on flipping a card for the MLH model, and I suspect that it will work like that if FAQed, but then who knows. Definitely one for the FAQ though.

[santaclaws01]

7 hours ago, displaced said:

@Ludvig that's a bad argument. The ruleset is permissive, so MLH cannot cause actions to fail. Do you not see the dissonace in citing an ability that has been FAQ'd and arguing you can do things that are not printed on a card?

 

The rules being permissive has nothing to do with this.

We have 1 rule telling us to make a model the target of the action(randomization)

We have another rule telling us a model can't be targeted outside of 3"(Dark Protection)

When we have two rules conflicting each other, we look at the Breaking the Rules callout box(page 19), which tells us that the more specific rule takes precedence. The more specific rule in this case is Dark Protection.

So, since Dark Protection trumps randomization, we are left in a position where you are trying to declare an illegal target. Normally, if you try to do this the other player will let you know and you just change what action you're performing/who you're targeting. However, since randomization requires cards to be fliped, you can't just take back the declaration, so you're left in a position where you're trying to take an illegal action and you can't undeclare it. You are trying to argue that at this point you should just take the illegal action. We are saying that the action fails like any other time an illegal action is attempted and you can't go back.

And in an attempt to completely kill the "MLH doesn't say it can cause actions to fail so it can't" argument, let's look at the ruling for Charge and By Your Side on Sidir(faq #11 in the 10T portion).
 

Quote

If a model is targeted by a Charge Action and Sidir uses By Your Side to intercept it, but would not be within range to be Charged, what happens? Sidir successfully uses By Your Side and is placed into base contact, becoming the new target. Then, if the Charging model cannot end the Charge within range of Sidir, the Action ends with no further effect (note that the AP has already been spent).

No where in the By Your Side text does it say it can cause actions to fail, and even presents the same situation where he can be targeted regardless of range and LoS. However charge has extra targeting restrictions other than Range and LoS, and By Your Side can be used to make it so that those targeting restrictions can't be fulfilled. And so what happens when Sidir is placed outside of a model's charge range? It is turned into an illegal declaration and there is no easily going back to change declaration. The charge fails.

[solkan]

2 hours ago, Dogmantra said:

I think the real answer is that there's not enough information in the rules to make a solid ruling. The randomisation rules don't require models to be legal targets in order to flip cards for them - it specifically calls out range and LoS as not being required, but it also doesn't say anything about other requirements still being required. It also then says that whoever flips the lowest card "becomes the target" which is contradicted by the specific rule that prevents the model from being the target of attacks from enemies more than 3" away.

I guess you could lump MLH in with things like Terrifying, which happen after you've determined the target (and say that the action just fails) but the difference is that you're not allowed to target the MLH model, rather than having a failure clause when you target it.

Personally I would want to just skip out on flipping a card for the MLH model, and I suspect that it will work like that if FAQed, but then who knows. Definitely one for the FAQ though.

This sounds like it would have to work:  You don't flip for models that cannot be the target of the attack.  And if you're down to a pool of 1, you choose that model without flipping (per the "don't randomize" ability FAQ).

Note that range and line of sight are explicitly ignored, but not other rules that could prevent the targeting being legal.

 

[santaclaws01]

You randomize onto the model with Dark Protections, can't target it because you're outside of 3", and the action fails. The only difference between this and any other time you would try and target an illegal model is that you can't unflip cards like you can just change an action declaration(because no one is that much of an a-hole).

[Kbonn]

I don't have all the relevant wording currently to cut and paste, but I will do my best to make the case with what I have.

 

1)  Actions:

Quote

The player begins an Action by announcing to her opponent what Action the model is taking. This is done for clarity, and because some models might react to certain Actions. The most common reaction is a disengaging strike, which will prevent a model from moving out of engagement range. 

The model also spends the AP required to perform the declared Action. If the model does not have enough AP required for the Action, no AP are spent and the Action is ended without any further effect. 

The model also declares any variable in the Action. This depends on the Action, as some Actions have different variables, or affect multiple targets. 

It is during this step that the model declares a target.

This is what I believe MLH is referring to.  Unless I am within the 3" I cannot choose a model with Dark protection as a target at this step.  Similar to needing LOS to the model that would be the target (unless the action specifically has an exception for LOS).

2) Randomizing projectiles:

Quote

When a model wants to perform a Projectile (􏰂) Attack Action targeting a model which is engaged with one or more models which are also within 2" of the target, it must randomize the target. This happens before any duels that models being targeted might require (such as Terrifying). The Attacker chooses a temporary target to determine LoS and Range, but does not make any duels required to target the model. 

The Attacker flips one card for each model within 2" of the target model, including the target model itself. The model with the lowest value is now the target of the Attack. In the case of a tie for lowest, the acting model chooses between the models tied for lowest. 

If this randomized target has any abilities that require a duel (such as Terrifying) the Attacker must now perform those duels. 

When firing into an engagement it is possible to hit targets that aren't technically within LoS or range to the Attacker, or to even hit models that aren't engaged (but are within 2" of the target model). Cover is determined as normal. 

As you can see here, randomizing into combat allows models that could not be targeted at the declaration of the attack.  Both Range and LOS are given here as explicitly not mattering.  I would put forward that this is because you aren't targeting the model, but it becomes the target through another process that directly tells you it works even if you couldn't legally make the declaration at the initiation of the action.  This is the closest ruling we'd have to MLH, and I think it follows the same logic. 

 

You could even argue it directly answers the question (excepting range, specifically), since you need to be "in range" of 3" to target a models using MLH.

[Adran]

4 hours ago, displaced said:

Abilities that cause actions to fail are expressly worded to do just that. (Manipulative, Butterfly Jump for eg). If that means that the Dark Protection needs errata rather than FAQ then so be it

Those abilities all force you to re check target as part of the ability. That's why they tell you what happens. Dark protection doesn't force a retarget so the ability itself never causes an illegal target so it doesn't normally need to say. 

[Rillan]

U still randomize but when u find out randomized target has Dark Protection it's action fail since u shoot out of 3'' buble 

[bluepanther]

On 4/28/2018 at 8:01 PM, solkan said:

This sounds like it would have to work:  You don't flip for models that cannot be the target of the attack.  And if you're down to a pool of 1, you choose that model without flipping (per the "don't randomize" ability FAQ).

Note that range and line of sight are explicitly ignored, but not other rules that could prevent the targeting being legal.

 

You do flip for models that can not be the target. When you randomize you flip for all models within 2” regardless of range and LoS.

[Adran]

On 4/29/2018 at 1:01 AM, solkan said:

This sounds like it would have to work:  You don't flip for models that cannot be the target of the attack.  And if you're down to a pool of 1, you choose that model without flipping (per the "don't randomize" ability FAQ).

Note that range and line of sight are explicitly ignored, but not other rules that could prevent the targeting being legal.

 

I think you're thinking of (I know I was)

21. When shooting into an engagement, what if every model which would be randomized has a rule which
states a card is not flipped for it? For example, if Santiago is shooting into an engagement between a
friendly Family model and a Doppleganger and no other models are within 2"?
If there are no models within 2" of the target (including the target) which may have a card flipped for them
when shooting into an engagement, then the target is chosen normally without any randomization.

But that doesn't talk about models that can't be the target, just models that can't be randomised onto. 

The game doesn't really do very well at illegal targeting, the only thing I can think of is Sidir, which does invalidate the action, I'd probably go that way as a ruling, but can easily see an official ruling going just about anyway.

[Angelshard]

The closest resolution to the rules, that I can think of, is that you declare your target and flip for randomization, if the target is illegal you have to retake the action (as you can't perform an illegal action) and target again, but the flipped cards are still discarded as the action was legal when they were flipped.

Keep doing this until you hit a legal target. 

This is a horrible way to resolve it though

[Erik1978]

They have an example in the errata of a model that doesn't count as a target when randomizing (Doppleganger?), and if that only leaves 1 target, you don't randomize at all. I would agree with solkan that this is similar. Don't flip for the protected model at all, that's what I will rule at my events anyway. Until further notice. :)

[Adran]

44 minutes ago, Erik1978 said:

They have an example in the errata of a model that doesn't count as a target when randomizing (Doppleganger?), and if that only leaves 1 target, you don't randomize at all. I would agree with solkan that this is similar. Don't flip for the protected model at all, that's what I will rule at my events anyway. Until further notice.

That's the FAQ answer I quoted, which unfortunately looks at the wording of not flipping a card when randomising, which is different. 

[Da Git]

RAW, I'd probably say the action fails as the Dark Protection model becomes the target, but is untargetable so the action fails.

Rules as I'd like them to be, the Dark Protection model takes the bullet as "bad things happen" and s/he was never supposed to be the target and just got in the the way as Fate decided it wasn't his or her day!

[Artiee]

First for those reading that don't know every model/upgrade ability/action.  Because I had to search the web it so I could pull up the card to read it.   Dark Protections is  a condition from  the Res upgrade  My Little Helper under the ability "An Errand For Master".

Rules doesn't prevent you from flipping on the Dark Protection model.   Nor does Dark Protection state that if targeted with a action outside 3" the action fails.  It just simply state it can not be targeted [..] unless [..] within 3".     This does looks like a it should be FAQ. 
 IMO the fair way to play is, you flip for random including Dark Protection. If Dark Protection gets the lowest model, he can not be the target so go with the next lowest card.  

[Erik1978]

So why flip for the dark protected model, if you ignore the card anyway?

[Artiee]

5 minutes ago, Erik1978 said:

So why flip for the dark protected model, if you ignore the card anyway?

It's another way to burn cards.   Just like Lenny would have to do a Horror duel even though he ignores paralyzed.

[Kbonn]

Hold on.   There is a difference between "targetting" a model, IE a declared action.  And randomization resulting in the model "becoming a target".   MLH states that the model cannot be "targetted" not that it cannot become a target.

[Dogmantra]

1 hour ago, Kbonn said:

Hold on.   There is a difference between "targetting" a model, IE a declared action.  And randomization resulting in the model "becoming a target".   MLH states that the model cannot be "targetted" not that it cannot become a target.

Do you have rules text to back this up? Malifaux tends to use synonyms fairly freely and it can be a trap for players used to games that are more strict about game terms.

[santaclaws01]

11 hours ago, Kbonn said:

I don't have all the relevant wording currently to cut and paste, but I will do my best to make the case with what I have.

 

1)  Actions:

This is what I believe MLH is referring to.  Unless I am within the 3" I cannot choose a model with Dark protection as a target at this step.  Similar to needing LOS to the model that would be the target (unless the action specifically has an exception for LOS).

2) Randomizing projectiles:

As you can see here, randomizing into combat allows models that could not be targeted at the declaration of the attack.  Both Range and LOS are given here as explicitly not mattering.  I would put forward that this is because you aren't targeting the model, but it becomes the target through another process that directly tells you it works even if you couldn't legally make the declaration at the initiation of the action.  This is the closest ruling we'd have to MLH, and I think it follows the same logic. 

 

You could even argue it directly answers the question (excepting range, specifically), since you need to be "in range" of 3" to target a models using MLH.

Range and LoS are explicity called as as being ignored because if they weren't you wouldn't be able to attack the model. If you weren't actually targeting them then Manipulative and Terrifying wouldn't work, Slippry and Trixie's version of it wouldn't work, Butterfly Jump wouldn't work etc.


Randomization rules for reference, bolding for emphasis. 

Quote

When a model wants to perform a Projectile (z) Attack Action targeting a model
which is engaged with one or more models which are also within 2” of the target,
it must randomize the target. This happens before any duels that models being
targeted might require (such as Terrifying). The Attacker chooses a temporary
target to determine LoS and Range, but does not make any duels required to target
the model.
The Attacker flips one card for each model within 2” of the target model, including
the target model itself. The model with the lowest value is now the target of the
Attack. In the case of a tie for lowest, the acting model chooses between the models
tied for lowest.
If this randomized target has any abilities that require a duel (such as Terrifying)
the Attacker must now perform those duels.
When firing into an engagement it is possible to hit targets that aren’t technically
within LoS or range to the Attacker, or to even hit models that aren’t engaged (but
are within 2” of the target model). Cover is determined as normal.

 

[displaced]

Dark Protection does not allow the model to ignore the randomization rules, nor does it cause actions to fail. Given this, what happens if we have a Dark Protection'd Archie engaged with a Watcher, and I choose to shoot at the watcher with my big guild gun?

[Artiee]

5 hours ago, displaced said:

Dark Protection does not allow the model to ignore the randomization rules, nor does it cause actions to fail. Given this, what happens if we have a Dark Protection'd Archie engaged with a Watcher, and I choose to shoot at the watcher with my big guild gun?

That is the discussion.   IMO.  The way I play it is since Dark Protection does not allow the model to ignore the randomization rules, you flip to random.  If Dark Protection is the lowest, then you go to the next lowest.   

[Kbonn]

@santaclaws01 Your bolded portion doesn't seem relevant to me.   MLH wording never states that the model can't end up becoming a target somehow, simply that it may not be targeted.

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, Kbonn said:

@santaclaws01 Your bolded portion doesn't seem relevant to me.   MLH wording never states that the model can't end up becoming a target somehow, simply that it may not be targeted.

If it becomes a target by any method means it was targeted. This is just English.

[Kbonn]

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

If it becomes a target by any method means it was targeted. This is just English.

This is not correct.   Target is being used in two ways.  One to describe the choice being made by the action player.    In another way to describe the model that will suffer the effects of the action.    These two things are not the same.    You cannot rationally claim that I targeted model X, if I targeted model Y and, through a random process, Model X suffered the effects.   These are simply game terms being used to describe "missing".   If I(a person in real life) try to shoot person A, but miss, and hit Person B, who was fighting with person A.  Did I "target" person B?  Or did person B simply suffer the effects of my action?

Trying to appeal to the real world only makes your argument weaker, not stronger.   Your only avenue to being correct is to argue that MLH wording refers to any and all version of what "target" could mean,  even though I think it is obvious that it does not.    

 

The entire reason why we have the randomization rules is to in game terms describe how likely you are to MISS YOUR TARGET.   We know from both real news stories and TV shows/Movies that shooting the wrong target in this way is a pretty common event.

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, Kbonn said:

 You cannot rationally claim that I targeted model X, if I targeted model Y and, through a random process, Model X suffered the effects. 

I can when the rule used to have model X suffer the effects instead of model Y specifically calls out as model X becoming the target instead of model Y.
 

1 hour ago, Kbonn said:

If I(a person in real life) try to shoot person A, but miss, and hit Person B, who was fighting with person A.  Did I "target" person B?  Or did person B simply suffer the effects of my action?

This has literally no bearing on anything. The toss action doesn't literally toss a model, it just pushes them. If you were engaged with a model and it started to walk through/around a wall you would try to attack it as it left, but per the rules that only happens if the model leaves your engagement range in the same action as it's leaving LoS. A flying model can fly through a wall that it can't fly to the top of or around in the same action. Want me to go on?
 

1 hour ago, Kbonn said:

Trying to appeal to the real world only makes your argument weaker, not stronger

So literally what you just did? The entire basis of your argument that you can target a model without it being targeted?

 Also, I wasn't arguing for the real world, I was arguing the English definitions of the words being used because they are not game terms and arguing for what the rules tell us to do, which is to target the model.
 

1 hour ago, Kbonn said:

Your only avenue to being correct is to argue that MLH wording refers to any and all version of what "target" could mean,  even though I think it is obvious that it does not. 

And yours is to just ignore the what the rules tell us to do. There is absolutely 0 wiggle room with the randomization rules explicitly telling us to target the model that was randomized onto.

 

1 hour ago, Kbonn said:

We know from both real news stories and TV shows/Movies that shooting the wrong target in this way is a pretty common event.

And another real world argument after saying they only weaken your argument.