Allandrel

Please add me:

Player: Allandrel (real name Patrick)

Country: USA

State: Ohio

City: Columbus

Store: http://theguardtowergames.com/

Perhaps Riposte should have range/los requirement?

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.

Not quite right. A Willpower Duel is still a Duel. That means that if you're just doing a flip against Willpower (as is the case with Terrifying -> XX) that's not a Duel. Unless I'm mistaken. I'm getting rusty D:

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.

I can confirm from the card sitting in front of me that Conduct gives "+1 AP" so although it is a sneaky loophole against the intended use, it could work as OP suggests.

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

3) it was changed to towards, not directly towards.

---------- Post added at 08:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 AM ----------

3) it was changed to towards, not directly towards.

I would suggest downloading the model clarifications page, the FAQ and the Errata from the Malifaux website.

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

#1) Hard to Kill refers to the model suffering Dg. Does this mean that effects that inflict Wd directly (e.g., Coppelius' The Dying Dream) bypass it?

#2) Hard to Wound affects damage flips. Does that mean that effects that deal damage without a flip (e.g., Papa Loco's "Take Ya With Me!") bypass it?

Played some more games, getting a much better feeling for how the game works.

I have a few questions about how some of the "death effect" abilities interact:

#1) Interaction of Coppelius' The Dying Dream and the Executioner's Love the Job: The Dying Dream inflicts Wd "before (Coppelius) leaves play" and Love the Job heals the Executioner "when an enemy model... is removed from play."

So is this timing correct?

1. Executioner deals damage with an Executioner Claws Strike, reducing Coppelius' Wd to 0 (or successfully Decapitates him, either way Coppelius is killed by the Strike).

2. The Dying Dream inflicts 4 Wd on the Executioner.

3. Love the Job heals the Executioner of all wounds and Coppelius is removed from play.

#2) Follow on from #1, what if the Wd inflicted by The Dying Dream reduced the Executioner to 0 Wd? Do you resolve the Executioner's Slow to Die Action (including possible healing if he kills another model with it) before finishing resolving Coppelius' death? If the Executioner fails to heal himself, will he die before the Love the Job healing from killing Coppelius occurs?

#3) Does Not Die!: Does this ability set the Stitched Together's Wd to 1 even if it was killed by an effect other than having its Wd reduced to 0? (e.g., Seamus uses Slit Jugular on an unwounded Stitched Together).

#4) Regarding effects that occur when a model is killed or kills another model: Am I correct in understanding that if a model is killed but saved by Slow to Die or It Will Not Die the model is not considered to have been killed at all for any effects other than the ones that saved it?

For example, is this correct?

1. An Executioner kills a Stitched Together with an Executioner Claws Strike. 2. Does Not Die! goes into effect, setting the Stitched Together's Wd to 1.

3. Since the Stitched Together is not killed after all, Love the Job does not go off.

4. During the Resolve Effects step, the Stitched Together is sacrificed by Does Not Die!

#5) Following on from #4, Does Not Die! sacrifices the Stitched Together, not whatever effect would have killed it. Does that mean that a Stitched Together sacrificed by Does Not Die! is not considered to have been killed/sacrificed by an enemy model for purposes of Strategies like Slaughter or Schemes like Frame For Murder or Kill Protege (making the Stitched Together a very poor choice for those Schemes)?

#6) Executioner vs. Executioner: I just want to make sure that we got everything right here:

1. Executioner Bob (Wd 9) hits Executioner Dave (Wd 9) with an Executioner Claws Strike, dealing 4 Dg and triggering Decapitate.

2. Dave takes 4 Wd, reducing his Wd to 5.

3. Dave can't/won't discard control cards, so Decapitate kills him.

4. Dave's Slow to Die goes off, giving him a 1 AP action.

5. Dave makes an Executioner's Claws Strike against Bob, dealing 6 Dg and triggering Decapitate.

6. Bob takes 6 Wd, reducing his Wd to 3.

7. Bob can't/won't discard control cards, so Decapitate kills him.

8. Bob's Slow to Die takes effect, giving him a 1 AP action.

9. Bob can't use the action to attack Dave, since Dave has already been "killed" pending the outcome of his Slow to Die action. So Bob uses his action to perform an Executioner Claws Strike on Guild Guard Alice (Wd 6), dealing 4 Dg and triggering Decapitate.

10. Guild Guard Alice takes 3 Wd (due to her Armor +1), reducing her Wd to 3.

11. Alice can't/won't discard control cards, so Bob's Decapitate kills her.

12. Bob's Love the Job goes off from killing Alice, healing his Wd back up to 9, and Alice is removed from play.

13. Bob has not negated Dave's Decapitate effect, so he is still killed.

14. Dave's Love the Job goes off from killing Bob, healing his Wd back up to 9, and Bob is removed from play.

15. Dave has not negated Bob's Decapitate effect, so he is still killed.

16. Dave is removed from play.

Yes, this happened.

I'm trying to get some clarification on the timing with Collodi and his marionettes.

1) Holding the Strings reads "Friendly Marionettes within 6" may immediately activate after this model's activation ends."

Collodi's Dolls reads "If this model starts its activation further than 8" from a friendly Collodi, immediately Push this model directly toward a friendly Collodi until it is no further than 8" away."

Since Holding the Strings causes the marionettes to simultaneously activate, do you resolve Collodi's Dolls immediately, or when you resolve each individual activation? Given the way the marionettes pull Collodi all over the place this can obviously have a big effect on how they play.

2) Collodi's (0) Doll Friends reads "One friendly Doll within 6" of Collodi activates after this model's activation ends."

Since Holding the Strings says marionettes "immediately activate after this model's activation ends," does that mean that the subject of Doll friends is considered to activate separately after the marionettes' simultaneous activation?

3) Regarding Collodi's Dolls, the rules for pushing a model "directly towards" something state that it stops if it touches anything it cannot move over (blocking terrain, another model's base, etc.), even if the effect would push it further.

So if a Marionette's direct path to Collodi is blocked, say 10" from Collodi, how does this affect the limitation that the marionette cannot be moved further than 8" from Collodi?

Is the marionette able to move at all until its direct path to Collodi is no longer blocked, or can it move so long as its move takes it closer to Collodi?

3) (2) Mend Puppets: Do you make a single Healing flip and apply it to all friendly Dolls within 4", or make a separate Healing Flip for each affected model?

Thank you! Water won't stay in if there is a big hole in the middle!

Another company, Back to Base-ix makes blank bases with an extra-deep hollow for water effects and the like. They give you about 2-3mm more depth to work with, which is especially good if you want partially submerged objects on your base.

And a sixth by interacting with an Arcane Apparatus.

Ok that makes more sense now, had at first considered that it could ONLY be sacrificed on it's re-activate but then consider that sacrificing is not quite the same as killing?

Sacrificing and killing are two distinct effects. There are quite a few abilities and spells where the distinction is important, and Does Not Die is a good example.

Unnatural purpose is not listed as an effect and therefore does not end in the end effects stage.

The purpose it receives is based purely on its wounds remaining at time of activation (after regeneration) . This then does not change until it next activation or by the Adjust Purpose spell, regardless of turn. Unless I have missed something.

That's my reading as well. It also means that a Paralyzed Dead Rider will not check for Unnatural Purpose changes when given the "forfeited" activation, just as it would not regenerate or resolve Poison.

Sorry for taking that long to post again. Had to resolve some other issues first.

No problem at all. Especially given how much you're putting in to this discussion.

(In case of a blast spell where the blast touches yourself you could count as attacker and defender simultaneously I think but thats a different story.)

I don't even want to think about that one...

OK now back to the case of the spell Shriek.

The spell is resisted via the Df stat. So the target model is the defender in a Df duel, not in a Wp Duel so Immune to Influence is not protecting it.

One of the results of the spell is that it the target may have to perform a Wp -> 11 Morale Duel. Page 52 of the 1.5 rulebook classifies 2 different Morale Duels

The Morale Duel caused from Shriek is not the Resist Duel so we have to evaluate again if the targeted model does count as defender. I would clearly treat it as the first point a Simple Wp -> Tn Duel. Being a Simple Duel it doesn't grant you being a defender and now also none of the points on page 21 directly relate to the Morale Duel. So for having to perform a Morale Duel you are not counting as defender.

If I understand your argumentation correctly you say that you count as defender till all effects of the spell (which is an attack) are resolved. So you would still counts as defender during the Morale Duel because you are targeted with an attack and you would perform a Wp Duel during the attack.

There was a pretty detailed discussion of pre-measure with lots of things I never thought about:

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?33445-Pre-Measure

Thanks for pointing that discussion out to me! While I've been wargaming for 20 years, I'm new to Malifaux so it's good to see input on how pre-measuring affects this game.

I would like to see the game go with pre-measuring. I have seen opponents spend a minute or so starring at the board trying to figure out in their head if they are within range to do whatever attack they have planned.

It would take seconds to measure and continue with the activation. I think people feel that someone is going to measure a half dozen different measurements on each models activation and that would delay the game. I do not beleive that would be any where near the norm. I think it would fall on average of measuring one or two distances and then making a decison.

It beats the starring at the board for what seems like at least 30 secs trying to guess the range.

This has been my experience as well. I've played Warhammer and Warhammer 40k for 20 years, and both games got quite a bit faster when they changed to allow pre-measuring.

I have seen many players spend a lot of time trying to estimate ranges, using all sorts of "tricks" and aids. Whereas measuring ranges to half a dozen potential targets takes just a few seconds.

Obviously, though, this can vary depending on people's playstyles.

I wouldn't say it makes range particularly easy unless you're measuring vertically or horizontally directly along the grid - most players can't calculate square roots in their heads in order to triangulate the distance to other points.

You actually don't need to calculate the square root, just keep in mind a list of squares. For example, if the hypotenuse squared is 61", its length is more than 7" (squares to 49), but under 8" (squares to 64).

Players with experience in other wargames can generally judge distances by eye very accurately in any case (I know that I have no trouble judging anything up to 12" with an accuracy of about 1/8", though it gets progressively less accurate after that).

One thing I suggest everyone try at some point is playing Malifaux with full pre-measuring. It really doesn't give any unfair advantage (in fact, it removes the unfair advantage of one player being able to judge distances very accurately) and makes the game feel more tactical.

Yeah, I've found that I generally enjoy games that allow pre-measuring a lot more - games that disallow it (like the earlier editions of the Warhammer games) lead to a lot of people memorizing the dimensions of their arms and hands, terrain pieces, etc. such that allowing pre-measuring actually sped gameplay up.

I'm working on a TerrainLinx Malifaux setup, and was considering this issue for whether to print up gridded or gridlesstiles. I really prefer gridded because those are more useful for other purposes like RPGs. But my main thought was that it wouldn't really matter. (Heck, even if Terraclips tiles were gridless, you still know their dimensions.)

...it can be super daunting to jump into it with a bunch of questions about which you have opinions, and find that those opinions disagree with the general consensus, or worse, the game's creators.

Yeah, I understand there's some issue with Tannen's Pitiful and Immune to Influence interacting in a way the designers did not intend that effectively prevents non-Ruthless models from targeting him.

It's true that the system is perhaps more strongly coded than most, but unfortunately it's still a very long way from being strictly defined.

True. I'm keen on finding things which are strictly defined - for example, the difference between simple and opposed duels. The rules states that they are two different types of duels, and that Casting Duels and Resist Duels are both simple duels, but I keep being told that Resist Duels are opposed duels in direct contradiction to the manual.

There's literally nothing wrong that I can see with your chain of logic, except for two things:

• It assumes that there is only one possible interpretation of the rules cited (the one you've presented); and,
  
• It disagrees with what we know of the way the game is meant to be played, according to the Rules Marshals.
  

So have the rules marshals stated that Casting Duels and Resist Duels are simultaneously simple and opposed duels? Because I have not been able to find that in the manual, errata, or FAQs, but it seems to be how people play.

Everything you've said has been very well stated (and polite!) and you've constructed your argument well. The issue is that there's a different, equally valid argument (from the perspective of the rules on the page) which happens to better reflect the designers' intent, and also happens to be the way that most people play the game.

Thanks. But I cannot find any valid argument for Resist Duels being opposed duels, since the rules on the page explicitly define them as simple duels, and they use the resolution sequence for simple duels, not that for opposed duels. So the argument that the resisting model is a defender based on the rules for opposed duels does not seem to have any basis.

Me too. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to give you a more satisfying answer, but at this point the only definitive resolution is for one of the Marshals to descend from on high and declare "THIS IS HOW IT IS MEANT TO BE PLAYED." I've enjoyed the discussion nonetheless.

Me too.

Malifaux does not allow pre-measuring, but the Terraclips tiles have a 1" grid. Combined with Malifaux's "top-down" measuring, this allows players to calculate the range between two points very easily.

Does this cause problems for people?

Would you object to your opponent using other pieces of gridded terrain (such as Terraclips' sibling Terrainlinx)?

I don't think there's anything wrong with your logic per se. Unfortunately, there are some cases where game logic doesn't necessarily mesh with the assumptions of common interpretation, and I think this might be one of those situations.

Yeah, it's probably because I am initially learning the game on my own from the manuals rather than as joining an established group. So I have no assumptions of common interpretations to go on.

If you won't be satisfied until a clear reasoning is laid out with full references, I don't think anyone can help you with that - the Rules Manual is neither exhaustive or objective enough to support an unassailable argument either way. All I can do is state the way that the rules actually do work according to the players' best collective understanding, and attempt to provide a general case structure by which you can extrapolate to other scenarios.

That does appear to be the issue. I've been gaming for over twenty years, and usually end up as the rules reference guy. And it can be quite common for conventions of play to be thought of as part of the rules, which is why I'm so concerned about the rules as written.

Another part of it is that Malifaux's complex rules interactions seems to place a lot of emphasis on distinct terminology, more like a CCG than most minis games. For example, I've played Games Workshop games for twenty years, where "target" just sort of means "whatever the effect is affecting, roll a D6 for it if you aren't sure." And I played Legend of the Five Rings for ten years, where the rules about what constituted targeting changed about once a year until they finally (eight years in) started templating card text so that something only targeted if it used the word "target." Malifaux's rulebook appears to go for a strict definition of targeting (which will be vital to keep straight when I build a Hamelin the Plagued crew).

In this case, that structure is this:

• In the duels required to determine whether a model is affected by an attack, that model is the defender.
  
• In duels resulting from the effects of an attack, the affected model is not a defender unless those effects are themselves attacks.
  

I don't think that's actually stated in the rules explicitly (and neither is the opposite case) so I can't reference it - that's just my understanding of how the game is played.

And my understanding is not based on how the game is played in any area, but on how the rules appear to read - hence coming here for clarification.

And it appears to me that defender is defined explicitly, in two different contexts:

* A model that is the target of an attack, or that is potentially affected by the attack (RM, p.18). This definition is not specific to duels, but to attacks overall, including strikes, spells, and even actions that do not involve duels (like a Steampunk Arachnid's Self-Destruct).

* During an Opposed Duel, the model that is being acted on (RM, p.29). This definition is specific to Opposed Duels, which are separate from the rules for Simple Duels.

(For Shriek, the Morale duel is the result of an attack but is not itself an attack, so the affected model is not treated as a defender for that duel.)

Based on my reading of the rules, I initially thought that references to being the defender in a duel meant that only Opposed Duels would qualify (and Shriek does not involve any Opposed Duels). But Ratty and others brought my attention to the first definition, which can apply even when there is no duel to be made (again, Steampunk Arachnid's Self Destruct has defenders but no duels).

So outside of Opposed Duels, status as a defender is not dependent on being in a duel. The target of an attack is the defender as soon as they are selected as a target, before any duels begin. Since nothing specifies that they cease to be the defender once part of the attack sequence is finished, I concluded that they remain the defender until the are no longer being targeted or potentially affected by the attack.

Anyway, I can understand your frustration with this stuff (I've always thought it silly that I2I models are affected by Morale, personally) but I've found that quite often in gaming, you have to take obscure or creative interpretations in order to make the rules reflect the way that the people who write them expect the game to be played. C'est la vie.

Feel free to ignore me and wait for someone with authority (Ratty, most likely) to weigh in again if that will be more satisfying.

I like discussing rules because it can help all parties get a better understanding of them.

---------- Post added at 05:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 AM ----------

@Allandrel

I really love the way you explain your arguments. Very good basis for a discussion.

Thanks!

@Kadeton

I have to strongly disagree with your opinion that rules should be discussed based on the common understanding of the players. You can always have the common understanding as an input for a discussion but never as a basis for making decisions. This is so because you should be able to play Malifaux in a different town or country with people you have never met before and who may have a completly different common understanding of the rules. In such cases you need simple arguments based on what is written. (And in some cases sadly you need internet access because the forum decisions are not quite often updated to a printable version.)

One thing that I've noticed in twenty years of gaming is that people can often blur play conventions with the rules as written. A few months ago some members of my Star Wars RPG group were surprised when I pointed out that a rule we had been playing with for six years was not actually part of the official rules, but just a practice that we had adopted because it made some parts of the game less frustrating.

@Immune to Influence and Shriek

Immune to Indluence grants you immunity only for as long as you are the defender in Wp Duels.

I would second Allandrel that you are the defender for the whole Opposed Duel provoked by Shriek. (Page 29, Malifaux 1.5) But I still think that the Immune to Influence models have to make the Wp->12 Duel.

But there is no Opposed Duel involved in Shriek. There are normally three Simple Duels: a Casting Duel by the attacker, a Resist Duel by the target, and a Morale Duel by the target.

This is so because You don't defend with WP against the effect that causes you to make that Wp Duel. You defend with Df versus Shriek so you are not immune to this.

And when you perform that Wp->12 Duel you are for that simple Duel not the defender because this is a new Duel. Simple Duels don't have a defender. Thats the same reason why Immune to Influence models have to make Terrifying duels, because they are not the defender in such duels.

That's why I initially thought that ItI would not help in Resist Duels - they are Simple Duels, so there is no defender in the duel. But there is a defender in the attack, which is why ItI applies to the Resist Duel. And why it seems like it would apply to other Wp Duels forced by an attack.

Being the defender is connected to the Duel you are performing not a given time span till everything is resolved. In the Opposed Shriek Duel you are the defender. In the simple Wp->12 Morale Duel you are not the defender because in simple Duels there are no defending models.

But Casting Duels and Resist Duels AREN'T Opposed Duels. They are Simple Duels.

RM, p. 51 "Casting Spells"

A model must win a simple Ca>Casting Cost Casting Duel to cast a spell.

RM, p. 53 "3. Resist Duels"

A model must perform a simple Resist Duel (stat>caster's casting total) if it is affected by a successfully cast Spell with a Rst stat indicated.

I've seen several people refer to Resist Duels as "a special type of Opposed Duel," or "effectively an Opposed Duel," but the rules clearly differentiate between simple duels and opposed duels, and Casting Duels and Resist Duels are both explicitly stated to be simple duels.

---------- Post added at 05:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 AM ----------

Sadly, there is no such thing (and cannot ever be such a thing) as "simple arguments based on what is written." All natural language is interpreted - there is no such thing as inherent meaning, or unambiguous statements, because that's not how language actually works. Everything relies on common understanding to a greater or lesser extent.

Very much agreed. Especially in game systems where a broadly-understood word ("target," or "within" vs. "wholly within") may have a specific meaning to that game system. Which is part of why I get so hung up on "but what does this word mean in this game."

It's near dawn here in the U.S., so I hope to continue this discussion tomorrow evening.

I (and a lot of other people) missed your underlying question the first time through. Sorry!

No problem, I tend to write walls of text. (I also tend to become the walking rules encyclopedia for any game my group plays.)

The question about why some duels in an attack have a defender and some don't is a good one, and (as I understand it) it basically comes down to effects.

When you're subject to an attack, defending against that attack makes you the defender - I think we're all on the same page with this one, including that performing a Resist duel makes you a defender against that spell.

Okay, I see that we are not on the same page here.

Based on my reading of the rules on RM p.18, it is not performing a Resist Duel that makes you a defender against that spell.

It's the fact that you are targeted by or potentially affected by an attack:

RM, p.18 "Attacks:"

Attacks can come from multiple sources:

* Attacks with the (melee) icon are melee attacks, while attacks with the (ranged) icon are ranged attacks.

* Spells with a (melee/ranged) icon in their Rg.

* Spells that require a Resist Duel (see Magic, p.51).

* Strikes with melee/ranged Weapons (see Combat, p.39).

* Actions that inflict Dg or Wd on another model, or require an Opposed Duel.

RM, p.18: "The defender of an attack is either the direct target when a target is required, or any models potentially affected by the attack."

Two examples:

A Steampunk Arachnid's (1) Self Destructis an action that inflicts Dg on another model. Thus it is an attack (5th definition), and any model potentially affected by it is a defender of that attack.

Potentially affected models are defenders, even though there is no duel involved.

Sonnia Criid's (1) Flame Burst is a spell with a (ranged) icon in its Rg (2nd definition), a spell that requires a Resist Duel (3rd definition), and an action that inflicts Dg on another model (5th definition). Any one of these qualifies it as an attack. Therefore the direct target and any other models potentially affected by it (if it generates blasts) are defenders of that attack - even though only the target be will required to make a Resist Duel.

So an attack may require a Resist Duel, but still have defenders that will not be required to make a Resist Duel.

If you fail to defend against the attack, you are then subject to its effects. At this point, however, the attack is done, and you're no longer the defender (you could be called the "victim").

I don't see the basis for this. As I outlined above, making an opposed duel or resist duel is not what makes the affected model a defender. Being targeted or potentially affected by an attack is.

Furthermore, in a Strike Attack, "F. Apply Duel Results" is part of the Strike Attack Sequence. This includes inflicting damage and "additional effects of the Duel, such as Triggers" (RM, p.43).

Same with the Casting Sequence and "4. Apply Spell Effects." It's part of the sequence for resolving a spell, and if that spell is an attack, any model targeted by it or potentially affected by it is a defender of that attack.

When looking at Shriek, for example, it's a spell with a resist, so therefore an attack.

Right, and therefore any model targeted by it or potentially affected by it is a defender of that attack.

If you fail to defend, it has two effects: a 2/2/6 damage flip, and (if the target is Living) a Wp -> 11 Morale duel. Since that Morale duel is an effect of the attack, you are no longer defending against the attack itself - so you are not a defender.

I hope that makes sense!

Not really. The Wp>11 Morale Duel is an effect of the attack - so any model potentially affected by it is the defender of that attack. They would continue being the defender until the attack could no longer potentially affect them, which would be once the attack is fully resolved.

In the case of Sonnia Criid's Flame Burst, there would only be one defender right up until Step 4, at which point if blasts are generated any other models potentially affected would become defenders (even though they do not make a Resist Duel).

Does this make sense?

Dear God.

We all know the intention of the rules.

Please re-read my first post. I am new to the game, and I want to get a good grasp on the rules.

I do not know what "we all know," I know what is written in the manuals, FAQ, and errata. That's why I am here asking for help.

I would not play a game with anyone arguing that ItI does not ignore Wp resist duels...

Please re-read my first and second posts.

My initial post was questioning WHY people say that ItI/Stubborn apply to Wp Resist duels, because of my confusion on when a model is considered the defender.

Several people have helpfully explained, showing that I was focusing on the use of "defender" in the rules for duels, but that a model is also considered the defender while an attack is being resolved against it. Thus meaning that the model is the defender in all duels forced by the attack, not just opposed duels.

I understood that, and said so in my second post.

It work the way it has been explained to you.

Why?

Because it does.

"Because it does" is not an answer. "Because the resisting model is being affected by an attack and is therefore a defender" is. Which was helpfully explained to me back on the first page and, again, confirmed as understood in my second post.

Stop trying to rules lawyer a different meaning or use for ItI/defender/simple duel interactions...

As I wrote in my first post, I am new to the game and trying to understand it, not to rules-lawyer it.

My current understanding is:

A model being potentially affected by an attack is the defender.

Therefore, the model is treated as the defender during all steps of the attack, including simple duels such as resist duels.

A model with ItI/Stubborn receives the benefit of that ability when it is the defender, and would therefore receive the relevant immunity/stat bonus to Wp Resist duels.

My thanks again to the people who clarified this for me.

So let me re-state my unresolved question one more time:

Why are people claiming that ItI/Stubborn do NOT apply to other simple Wp duels forced by an attack, such as Madame Sybelle's Shriek and Hamelin the Plagued's Haunting Melody?

Where is this in the rules?

Sometimes I hate this game.

Because someone asking for help in learning the rules requests an explanation or citation?

A spell with a resist is an attack, therefore there is a defender.

So a model that is currently being attacked is treated as the defender during ALL duels forced by that attack, right?

Going back to Madame Sybelle's Shriek, it is an attack that forces the defender to make two Simple Duels: a Df Resist Duel and a Wp>11 Morale Duel. So logically the target is the defender during BOTH of these Simple Duels.

But people keep saying that the the defender is only treated as the defender against one of those Simple Duels (the Resist Duel), but not the other, with no rules quotes to back it up. Where is the distinction?

Consider Santiago Ortega - he is armed with two Peacebringers, both of which clearly have blades attached. But only his "Peacebringer" weapon is paired, his "Peacebringer Blade" weapon is not.

Fluff-wise, I figure that Santiago doesn't bother with fancy dual-wielding in melee.