Allandrel

Glad to see a resolution to Let Mah Handle This. Much as I would like an errata'd to "target other friendly model," Justin's explanation for limiting this to a FAQ ruling makes sense. One of the reasons I dropped CCGs was the frequent need to reference a database for one out of every ten cards in your deck to see what it "currently" said.

In the case of Let Mah Handle This, simply changing the target to "other friendly model" would solve the issue. Given how carefully Malifaux is written, and how deliberately combo-intensive it is, I'm hesitant to call counterinutitive-but-technically-legal plays "exploits" along the lines of abusive a video game glitch.* Lots of these plays are actually intended, or came up during testing and were found to be perfectly acceptable. *Speaking of fighting games, didn't the now-universal combo mechanic originate as an exploit of a weird engine flaw in a Street Fighter game? The FAQ states that if a model is pushed, moves, etc. 0", then no push or movement is considered to have occurred. (Just like how taking 0 damage means the model took no damage.) As such, when a model with a Wk - would be pushed its Wk in inches, a push of 0" means that no push actually occurs. So there is not any real difference between "Injection does not push the model" and "Injection pushes the model 0." As for the question of "does this mean that the rest of the action fizzles?:" As I outlined in the first post, there is nothing in the rules that would cause this. It is entirely dependent on the wording of the rest of the action. The use of "then" in injection reads to me as a (redundant) description of the order in which the effects are resolved, effectively the same as if the action put the push and the placing the scheme marker in separate sentences (as gaining Poison +2 is). But that is subject to interpretation and could probably have been written more clearly. Plus, the push is "up to" the target's Wk. If you targeted a modle with Wk 4, and decided to push it 0", then no push occurs. Does that mean you cannot then place the Scheme marker? Continuing with Injection, the final effect, "The target gains Poison +2" will, by the rules as written take effect even if the target could not be pushed and scheme markers cannot be placed near it. In order for that effect to fizzle, it would need to read something like "if the target was pushed, it gains Poison +4." There are quite a few, and there is frequently some other reason to take such an action even if part of its effects, or even all of its effects, cannot resolve. That's a big part of how Malifaux, and similar games, work. Such a house rule would prevent many intended interactions. Much, much better IMHO to errata specific actions that prove problematic in this way (such as, again, adding "other" to the targeting restrictions on Let Mah Handle This).

The point is not whether a model can push into base contact with itself. It is whether a model can be targeted by an action that includes effects that cannot resolve against that target. I keep seeing the argument made "If you cannot resolve an action's effects against a target, then it is not a legal target and you cannot take the action." But this is not anywhere in the rules for declaring an action, which are quite clear. The rules for targeting do not include "target that this action's effects could successfully resolve on," UNLESS that is spelled out in the action itself. This was illustrated in the FAQ: You CAN target a model with an action whose effects are unable to resolve on the model, so long as it meets the listed target restrictions. You perform the action and resolve each of the effects. If one or more effects cannot resolve, that does NOT prevent you from taking the action - it just means that those effects that cannot resolve do not resolve.

Because of how involved Malifaux's rules are, and out of a desire to avoid misunderstanding, when I encounter an unclear area in the rules I look to lay out all the different permutations. It's also why I will probably never be professionally published - I can't edit for brevity to save my life. Yes, looking over the FAQ again I see that. I was thinking that a model with its Close ranges reduced to 0 has no targets in range because of this: "The range of all (Close) Actions a model has is considered 0 while it is affected by the Paralyzed Condition, and will therefore not engage enemy models." - M2E, p. 52, emphasis added. Not "and will therefore only engage enemy models in base contact," but "will therefore not engage enemy models." Furthermore, the rules state that the inability to engage enemy models is a direct consequence of having Close Actions' Range considered 0, rather than a separate effect. But on the other hand, we have the FAQ stating that a model in base contact is considered to be 0" away. I think we really need a FAQ addressing whether an Action with 0 range means "nothing is in range" (as the Paralyzed rules seems to indicate), or "Range 0 means only models in base contact are in range" (in which case Paralyzed ought to be re-written for clarity).

Short version: What happens if a model that is not paralyzed takes an action outside of its activation, and gains Paralyzed during that Action? Long version: Paralyzed states that the model cannot declare actions DURING ITS ACTIVATION, including (0) Actions. In addition, a model that gains the Paralyzed condition DURING ITS ACTIVATION loses all of its AP, may not take any more actions, and ends its current action without effect. (Thus moving straight to the "End Activation" Step, when it removes Paralyzed.) But so far as I can tell, the only effect that Paralyzed has on a model OUTSIDE of its Activation is treating the range of all Close (Claw symbol) actions as 0 while Paralyzed, leaving it unable to engage enemy models. (IIRC, a FAQ established that this includes models in base contact, as 0 range means the action does not have range to anything.) And there are plenty of effects that have a model perform an action outside of its activation. It seems pretty simple when the active model use an effect (like Obey) on an already-Paralyzed model: The Paralyzed model's Close Attacks all have 0 range, leaving those actions with no targets in range. But everything else will function as normal. Okay, so that one is clear enough. But on to the big question again: What happens if a model that is not paralyzed takes an action outside of its activation, and gains Paralyzed during that Action? I'll use an example to get across what I'm referring to: Example #1: I have Zoraida and Bad Juju. My opponent has a Ronin that is 6" from both Zoraida and Bad Juju. The Ronin has not made any Horror duels due to Bad Juju's Terrfying yet this turn. It is Zoraid's Activation. I target the Ronin with Obey and succeed. I have the Ronin target Bad Juju with Collier Pistol. The Ronin has to make a Horror duel due to Bad Juju's Terrifying. The Ronin fails the Horror duel and gains the Paralyzed Condition. What now? The rules for Paralyzed causing a model to end its current action without effect only apply when a model gains the Paralzyed condition during its activation, and it is currently Zoraida's Activation, not the Ronin's. So that rule will not apply. So far as I can tell, the rest of the action still resolves normally, and the Ronin will remain Paralyzed until the end of its next Activation. Here's an example that follows on the first, and is a bit more complicated, but that I think works the same way: Example #1: As above, except that the Ronin is within 6" of Zoraida and 1" of Bad Juju. Again, the Ronin has not made any Horror duels due to Bad Juju's Terrfying yet this turn. It is Zoraida's Activation. I target the Ronin with Obey and succeed. I have the Ronin target Bad Juju with Daito (an action with Close range). The Ronin has to make a horror duel due to Bad Juju's Terrifying. The Ronin fails the Horror duel and gains the Paralyzed Condition. Now, my initial response is that, even if gaining Paralyzed does not end the Action (as outlined above), it does change the range of the Ronin's Daito action to 0, meaning that Bad Juju is not longer in range, and THAT would end the action. But does it? After all, effects like Terrifying are resolved AFTER targets are declared, which is when you check targeting restrictions like range. You check once, and that's it. Range could change, something might move in a block LOS, it doesn't matter - all that matters is whether the target was legal at the time that you declared the target. Is this right? It seems logical according to the rules for Paralyzed and resolving Actions. And from a balance standpoint, it is a sound drawback to the "Obey someone to get them Paralzyed" combo illustrated above - attacking your own Terrifying model still risks damaging that model and may force you to cheat further to avoid that damage.

But as it stands, there is no such standard. And rulings on actions like Self Harm have established that you can declare an action targeting a model that the action's effects cannot apply to. If an action tells you to do something that is impossible, the effect just doesn't resolve. That's all there is to it. The reason why you can't resolve an effect isn't as important as whether or not you can resolve it. There's not really any difference between Mah Tucket targeting herself or targeting a model that she is already in base contact with - in both cases, you cannot perform the push, so no push occurs, but you can still take the action.

I went a bit overboard outlining my reasoning as a result of the discussion that lead to this post. Mostly because the two "not actually in the rules" assumptions that I addressed were driving me crazy. Thanks for the patience of those who read through the whole thing. I can definitely see the logic that the discard is required to target, and would thus determine whether The action could be clearly worded so that targeting is not conditional on the discard, e.g. "Target friendly model with 6" and line of sight. This model may discard a card to..." But of course, word count is at a premium, so that may not have been the intended effect. The action does not seem too weak or too strong either way. As I outlined above, my take on it is simply: That part of the action does not resolve, so on resolving the rest of the action's effects, which also may not resolve if they are worded so that they on dependent on the earlier effect.

Here's an issue that came up regarding Mah Tucket's action "Let Mah Handle This," though it applies to many, many other actions besides. "(0) Let Mah Handle This: This model may discard a card to be pushed into base contact with target friendly model within 6" and LOS. Push the target model up to 6" in any direction." The question is: can Mah target herself with this action? And if so, what happens? The claims made (which I will outline my disagreement with) were: 1. Mah Tucket cannot target herself with this action. 2. Even if she could target herself with it, the second push would not resolve. There seem to be a few assumptions behind this that are not actually in the rules: Assumption #1: If you an action's effects will have no effect on the target, then you cannot declare the action. Not so. The only requirements for a target to be valid are that it be within range of the action, within LOS of the acting model, and that a model cannot target itself with an Attack Action. Other effects may be part of the action, such as "target friendly model," "target other friendly model," "target Undead model," "target model with the Burning condition," etc. But that's it. If the target meets like listed requirements, you can still perform the action even if it does not actually DO anything. e.g., "Target model gains Burning +1." You can still target a model that is immune to Burning. or "Push target model into base contact with this model." You can target a model that cannot be pushed into base contact with the acting model because of intervening objects, in which case the push would end upon coming into contact with whatever stopped the push. You can still target a model that cannot be pushed. No push occurs, but you still took the action. You can still target a model that is already in base contact with the acting model. No push occurs, but you still took the action. You can still have the acting model target itself (a model obviously cannot be in base contact with itself). No push occurs, but you still took the action. Assumption #2: When resolving an action's effects, if you cannot resolve one effect, the action ends and no other effects described later in the action's text are resolved. This is not anywhere in the rules. Many actions have multiple effects that are contingent on each other being resolved successfully, but this is solely a due to the wording of those effects. That's why actions have phrases like "This model may do X to do Y," or "This model may do X. If it does, do Y." e.g., "This model may discard a target to heal 2 damage." If you do not discard a card, no healing occurs. Other times the nature of Y is such that it clearly cannot be resolved unless X was successfully resolved, e.g., "Target suffers 1/2/3 damage. This model heals an amount of damage equal to the amount of damage inflicted." If no damage was inflicted, then no damage is healed. or "Flip a card for each model within (Pulse)3 of the target. All models which receive a Crow suffer 2 damage." If a model did not have a card flipped for it, it cannot suffer damage. If an action just states "Do X. Do Y," and nothing about Y requires that X successfully resolved, then they are separate effects. e.g., "(1) AIEEEE! It Burns!!! (Ca 6 / Rst: Df / Rg 6): Target suffers 1/2/3 damage and gains Burning +1. Push the target 2" towards this model. Push this model 4" in any direction. Each of these four effects is separate, and is not contingent on each other. They ARE each (separately) contingent on the opposed Ca vs. Df duel succeeeding, but that is part of the rules for actions with duels. If you perform this action against an enemy target that prevents all of the damage with a soulstone, is immune to burning, and cannot be pushed by enemy models, you STILL push the acting model 4" in any direction. So back to the action in question: "(0) Let Mah Handle This: This model may discard a card to be pushed into base contact with target friendly model within 6" and LOS. Push the target model up to 6" in any direction." Th action has one variable: the target. The target must be a friendly model, within 6" of the acting model, and within LOS of the acting model. Whether you can actually push the acting model into base contact with the target doesn't matter. There may be impassable terrain or another model in the way, or the acting model might be subject to an effect that prevents it from pushing, but it does not matter - if the target is a friendly model within 6" and LOS of the acting model, it is a valid target. A model is friendly to itself, is within 6" of itself, and always has LOS to itself. So the acting model may target itself with LMHT. Whether LMHT will actually do anything is irrelevant. There's no duel required, so we move on to the effects: Sentence #1: "This model may discard a card to be pushed into base contact with target friendly model within 6" and LOS." This is one of those "Do X to do Y" sets of effects. If the acting model discards a card, it is pushed into base contact with the target. If the acting model does not discard a card, it is not pushed. It may not be possible to push the acting model into base contact with the target. If there is an impassible object intervening, then the acting model is pushed until it comes into contact with the impassible object, then the push stops (per the rules for pushes). If the acting model cannot be pushed at all (some effect prevents it from being pushed, it is already in base contact with the target, or IS the target), then no push occurs. Sentence #2: "Push the target model up to 6" in any direction." This is a simple "Do Z" effect. There's nothing written in this effect that requires that the acting model was successfully pushed into base contact with the target, or even pushed at all. So it resolves regardless of how the first push resolved. Here are some ways that LMHT could have been written: Alternative 1: "(0) Let Mah Handle This: This model may discard a card to be pushed into base contact with target other friendly model within 6" and LOS. Push the target model up to 6" in any direction." By making the action "target other friendly model," the acting model would not be able to target itself. Thus, the action would require another friendly model within 6" and LOS in order to be declared at all. Alternative 2: "(0) Let Mah Handle This: This model may discard a card to be pushed into base contact with target friendly model within 6" and LOS. Then, if this model is in base contact with the target model, push the target model up to 6" in any direction." This would make the second push contingent on the acting model winding up in base contact with the target - either because the first push was successful, or because the acting model was already in base contact with the target when it declared the action. With this variant, the acting model could still target itself, and would thus have the option to discard a card, but neither push would occur, as a model cannot be in base contact with itself. Alternative 3: "(0) Let Mah Handle This: This model may discard a card to be pushed into base contact with target friendly model within 6" and LOS, then push the target model up to 6" in any direction." This would make the action "Do X to do Y followed by Z." So both pushes would be contingent on the acting model discarding a card. However, the second push would still occur regardless of whether the first push was successfully executed or not. Thus, the acting model could target itself and discard a card to push 6" in any direction. Thoughts? Is there a ruling that I'm not aware of, or a flaw in my reasoning?

Take my money.

Thanks for pointing out another distinct specified duration. That would seem to indicate that the effects that do not specify a duration are not a simple oversight. In the absence of a ruling, this is probably something to discuss before every game. Yeah, while the rules just refer to removing the condition, I'm going to suggest this to my opponents until we get a ruling. Basically treat removal of Defensive as "reduce the Defensive Condition's value by the amount just added." Complicated, clunky, and not spelled out by the rules, but it avoids having different effects cause the condition to end much earlier or later than they were supposed to.

(Edited to include additional sources of the Defensive Condition that others have pointed out.) I was studying Shenlong's crew and realized there is some inconsistency when it comes to the duration of the Defensive Condition: The Defensive Condition is defined in the rulebook as "Defensive +1: This model gains to all Df duels." It does not have a specified duration, so it would fall under the default "removed at the end of the Turn" rule. Some effects apply the Defensive Condition without specifying a duration either, so it would again default back to "removed at the end of the Turn." These effects include (restricting my list to Ten Thunders cards): - The "Slow Water Eternal Voice" ability granted by the Low River Style upgrade, as mentioned in the original post, - the Monk of Low River's "Rapid Timeless Voice" ability, - Shenlong's "(1) Burn Like Fire" attack action. (Note that the duration of the target's Defensive Condition would not matter, since mechanically it is being applied to Shenlong by the "Burn Like Fire" action, not by whatever source had previously applied Defensive to the target.) - the Wastrel's "Swagger" ability. BUT most other sources that I can find that applies the Defensive condition does so with the specified duration of "until the model's next Activation." This includes (again, restricting my list to Ten Thunders): - The "(#) Defensive Stance" general tactical action, - Shenlong's "(0) Mastery" tactical action, - the Peasant's "(1) Provide for the Temple" tactical action, - the Ten Thunders Brother's "Df (Tomes) Bend As The Willow" trigger, - the "To Positions!" ability granted by the "Blot the Sky" Upgrade, In addition, there is the Guardian's "(0) Protect" action, which gives a target model the Defensive +2 Condition "until the start if this model's next Activation, or until this model is removed from play." (Note that the "next activation" here is the Guardian's next activation, not that of the model receiving the Defensive Condition as with other effects.) So we have a stacking condition that defaults to the "end of turn" duration, and 1) Some effects apply it without specifying a different duration 2) Some effects apply it with a specified duration different from the default duration. Is this intended? If so, since stacking conditions are treated as a single condition, what happens when a model receives the Defensive Condition from both categories of effects? What duration applies? The duration of the most recent condition applied to the stack? (This could result in the condition applying indefinitely.) The next one to occur? Or do we "split" the stack for purposes of duration even though there is nothing in the rules to support "splitting" a stacked condition this way? This definitely needs a ruling or errata.

Cool, I'll get to work on some Guildies tonight. I can also do proofreading and clarity editing.

Same problem as BACMS, all I know is Guild. When can we start claiming non-Master write-ups? Because I really want to cover Francisco.

Stephen Sommers' Van Helsing, basically a love letter to Universal movies like House of Frankenstein. Just about every character in it could easily fit into Malifaux, and it has some really gorgeous set design. Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, basically a love letter to Hammer movies like The Devil Rides Out. The film's versions of Ichabod Crane and the Headless Horseman could be slotted right into Malifaux's setting.

I played my first game with Sonnia yesterday against a Ramos crew, and ran in to trouble because my opponent managed to charge Sonnia with Howard Langston on turn two. She turned out to be more survivable than I expected due to Absorb Magic and the Governor's Proxy, but I had no way to get her out of melee, so that she spent the game fencing with Howard instead of burninating things. I like the suggestion of Francisco, and will probably use him next time I run Sonnia. His "Enfrantate a Mi!" can get Sonnia out of a bind like I experienced, and El Mayor has been great in every game I have used him in.

I'm a bit unclear as to whether certain efects will "trip" Hazardous Terrain's effects, and exactly when the damage is resolved. The M2E manual (p. 60) states that hazardous terrain "deals damage to models that Activate while within it, or enter it (if they are pushed, moved, or placed within the terrain)." Most situations seem pretty cut-and-dried, but there are a few that have caused my group some confusion: 1) A model starts the turn in hazardous terrain, and is pushed so that it is still in the hazardous terrain. My reading: No damage, since it did not enter the terrain from the push. It will suffer damage when it Activates later in the turn. 2) A model starts the turn in hazardous terrain, and is pushed so that it is no longer touching the hazardous terrain. My reading: As above, no damage. This would be the way to "rescue" a model from hazardous terrain so that it will not suffer damage upon Activating later in the turn. 2) A model starts the turn in hazardous terrain, and is pushed out of the hazardous terrain. Then it is pushed a second time, this time into the hazardous terrain. My reading: The first push does not "trip" the hazard, but the second does, causing damage. 3) A model starts the turn in oddly-shaped hazardous terrain (e.g., a hazardous river with a twisty course), and a push moves it of of the terrain and then back into it. My reading: Because the model left the terrain and then entered it, it "trips" the hazardous terrain and suffers damage. 4) A model that was not in hazardous terrain is now in hazardous terrain without having moved or been pushed or placed (e.g., the terrain was created under it, or Jaakune Ubume moved to within 3" of it, etc.). Our reading: No damage, because the model was not moved, pushed, or placed. The model will suffer damage when it Activates later in the turn. 5) Incorporeal: Because an Incorporeal model ignores terrain during any movement or push, it would only suffer damage when placed in hazardous terrain, or when Activating within hazardous terrain. 5a) Because an Incorporeal model ignores terrain during any push, The Drowned's "Undertow" trigger (on Drag Under) will not push an Incorporeal model. (This seems pretty clear from the "terrain that it considers hazardous" language.) 6) Flight: Because a model with Flight ignores terrain while moving, it will only suffer damage when pushed into hazardous terrain, when placed in hazardous terrain, or when Activing within hazardous terrain. Have I got all this right?

My play group is a little confused over the placement of multiple blast markers. According to the M2E manual, page 50, second paragraph under "Blasts:" (a) "A blast is placed by the Attacker so that it is touching the target's base, but not overlapping it." and, ( b ) "If multiple blasts are generated (such as <blast><blast>), each blast must be placed so that it is touching, but not overlapping, at least one other Blast Marker." My group's reading was that (a) applies to all blasts, and ( b ) only to the second and subsequent blasts, but that does not seem to be how most people play it. It appears that most people read (a) as only applying to the initial blast. It may be clearer if I describe the results: If (a) applies to all blasts, you wind up with a "ring" of blasts around the target, each touching, but not overlapping, both the target and another blast. If (a) only applies to the first blast, you can place a "chain" of blasts that starts with one blast touching, but not overlapping, the target and the others arranged willy-nilly so long as all the blasts form a contiguous chain. (Though they obviously could still be placed in the "ring" formation if desired.) A simple reading of the rules indicated the "ring" to my group, but we've seen references to blast "chains" extending away from the target to get at models more than 50mm away. Any help?

So the sale runs through Monday? But I don't get paid until Tuesday...

Please add me: Player: Allandrel (real name Patrick) Country: USA State: Ohio City: Columbus Store: http://theguardtowergames.com/

That's the solution I would favor, since it also seems odd that Lady Justice can Riposte against a Ml attack that is well out of her Close range, like Hannah's Ghost Censer or Yamaziko's Yari (both Close 3). So simply adding "made by a model within 2" to Riposte would take care of it.

Terrifying forces a Morale duel, using Wp against a target number equal to the Terrifying ability. So a model affected by Terrifying is making a Wp duel.

If we're talking sneaky loopholes based on exact wording, it still doesn't work. It would need to say "AP +1," not "+1 AP."

Page 20 of the RM is pretty clear. Effects of the same name do not stack unless a) indicated otherwise in their description, or the effect is listed as [name] +/-, such as Armor +1, even if they have the same name. Conduct Aether could presumably stack if it was listed as "target gains AP +1," but it isn't. (And I don't think any abilities that grant AP are listed that way.)

Thanks

Ah, thanks! I missed that despite reading the "once per activation" change to Pull the Strings right next to it.