Lady Sonia confiscated law and the malifaux child

[SurreyLee]

Sorry if this has come up before but I've had a trawl and couldn't find anything on the tourney.

Sonia casts her 0 action and takes +2 ca for the turn. As the +2ca applies to her stat, does the malifaux child suffer its -3ca to the 7 (original cost to cast flame wall for example) or the 9 (taking into consideration the increase from confiscated law.

Thanks in advance

[LordFezzington]

Sonia casts her 0 action and takes +2 ca for the turn. As the +2ca applies to her stat, does the malifaux child suffer its -3ca to the 7 (original cost to cast flame wall for example) or the 9 (taking into consideration the increase from confiscated law.

I wonder why you're asking this?

 

Obviously interested in this for selfish reasons. I would say as her Ca is now 9, the Child would be at Ca 6, but could see it being argued either way...

[Godgolden]

The Child wouldnt get the benefit of the condition on the leader.

 

But it is ambiguous, lacks any sort of 'printed stat number' etc.

[wizuriel]

I would say the child gets it. Confiscated Lore gives Sonnia a condition that increases her CA by +2 to the end of the turn. When the child uses one of her abilities Sonnia's CA would still be 2 higher and since the child's CA is based on hers it should be on the 9 imo. 

[Kadeton]

I would have assumed the opposite case - the Child copies the printed ability and the Condition doesn't come with it.

[Ausplosions]

The child is copying the Action, not the models stat. No bonus.

[SurreyLee]

But the child does use the stat from which to take its -3ca from. If Sonia acted first, the rule on her card says add +2 to the ca thereby making the ca9.

The child then casts a 1ap ca action with a minus 3 to it. There is nothing about the child copying the printed ability.

If at that point the ca is 9 because Sonia has increased it, then could it not be argued the increase applies?

The only reason I can find to argue against it, and it's slim, is that Sonia's action to increase her ca states "this model" but even then the child is casting from that models stat.

[Dirial]

The child is copying the Action, not the models stat. No bonus.

 

This. Just read it again. Child copies the action. Then the action suffers -3 Ca.

 

The action reads something like Flame Wall (Ca 7/.../etc), so the Child's Ca would be 4 with a . The condition to get +2 Ca doesn't get copied.

[zFiend]

Aus and Dirial has it correct.

[SurreyLee]

Don't get me wrong, I don't play Sonia and wanted to make sure no one hit me with it...8).

We did play it this way too but vowed to look at it afterward.....

Sorry Lord Fezzington, it seems the consensus is against it...

Thanks all.

[wizuriel]

Just like you doesn't say you copy an ability, you cast her spell. "Cast one of this crew's leaders Can actions with an AP cost of 1. This action suffers -3Ca".

Other abilities like power loop that reference other model stats say to use printed values.

 

Even if you copy the ability I don't see why you would suddenly ignore the condition. Confiscated lore gives her a flat +2 to all her CA's. For all intents and purposes for anything referencing the spell it should read as 7+2 not just 7. Confiscated lore could have been +2 to duels using your choosen stat in which case it wouldn't work, or Just like you could have said to use -3ca for the printed value in which case it wouldn't work; but, neither ability says that. 

[SurreyLee]

So you are saying it would apply?

I think it is a little ambiguous and while it may seem overpowered you are as a balance having to activate Sonia early to make use of it. I still think it could be argued both ways.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I don't believe it works.

 

Confiscated Lore grants Sonnia a condition: Quick Study, which gives says "This model has +2 to the chosen stat."

 

Just Like you on the Malifaux Child uses one of it's Leader's Ca Actions, but the child is not being modified by the condition, and the Confiscated Lore condition only applies to Sonnia, when Sonnia uses her actions. If you argue otherwise, then you likewise have to argue that the copied action copies every condition that applies from Sonnia. 

 

So for example if Sonnia were hit by Yin's Gnawing Fear ability, which gives, again for emphasis, This model a negative twist to Ca Duels, that the Child would have to be affected by it as well when using Just Like You. I personally find that to be a non-starter.

[dgraz]

I don't believe it works.

 

Confiscated Lore grants Sonnia a condition: Quick Study, which gives says "This model has +2 to the chosen stat.".

"Until the end of the turn." Any other ability that gives a numerical change to a state makes it as if the new number is the printed stat. If it said +2 to cast actions it would be more clear....but it specifically says stat. That makes it much more ambiguous.

I don't know the answer but I could see it going either way.

[dgraz]

And I disagree about yin ....that specifically says to duels which isn't what is being copied...The stat is used...which has been changed.

[Fetid Strumpet]

If you are arguing that a condition applied to a model, which specifies this model in its description's effects are copied by another ability, then all abilities that are worded the same also apply.

 

If you argue that the condition literally changes the action from 6Ca to 8Ca as opposed to the action remaining 6Ca and getting +2 when Sonnia uses it due to the effects of the condition, then you must also assume that any condition that modifies a model's action will also be copied.

 

Yin's ability says the model suffers a negative twist during a Ca or WP duel, which would according to the argument Sonnia's confiscated lore affects her Ca stat directly then Yin's would do the same, essentially putting the negative twist into the spell description.

 

The base question is whether you copy the effects of conditions on the original model when you copy their actions, and I would argue no you don't.

[SurreyLee]

The condition adds plus 2 to the stat though not necessarily the action. You could add the 2 and not cast anything that turn. Regardless of taking the action the stat has been increased from 7ca to 9ca.

The child then copies the action which we've established gets plus 2ca.....

The condition changes the action not the ability to affect the action. If that makes sense.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Sonnia however doesn't have a cast stat, the cast stat is located on the action. Remember they specifically removed the cast stat so that Ca actions could have variable ca numbers.

 

If you argue that the condition modifies the cast stat on the action, then you necessarily have to argue that any condition that affects such things must also modify the action. Your position posits that the confiscated Lore ability changes the text of the Ca action from 6Ca to 8Ca, or at least to Ca6 +2, and so therefore is susceptible to copying. Whereas I argue it does nothing of the sort. The action remains 6Ca, and when Sonnia, and only Sonnia uses the action the effects of the condition kick in and give her a +2 to her cast.

 

If you argue the former position then you must accept Yin's Condition, as well as anything else that effects Ca must also modify the Ca action itself, because the wording of how it is applied is exactly the same in each case. Both effects are the result of conditions on the model, That effect "This model." If Confiscated Lore is a condition that specifically looks for CA actions on Sonnia's card, and modifies them to the extent that, mechanically, the text changes and can then be copied, all other conditions will behave the same.

 

I think ultimately we will see how the developers choose to run with this, as I think ultimately it depends on how they perceive how conditions interact with the cards. I would certainly rule that the effect was not copied at any event I ran, but I wouldn't argue if it was ruled another way at an event I didn't run, as the TO would have final authority outside an FAQ entry, and who knows if the developers feel this requires such clarification.

[dgraz]

Sorry Fetid. Your argument doesn't even make sense to me and from what I can understand of it, I don't agree. About the only thing I do agree with is that we need to see how the developers are going to view it.

 

I think this is one of those things that can go around and around and is probably worthy of an FAQ entry ....which is something I rarely recommend.

[SurreyLee]

Sorry to have opened can of worms but I am inclined to agree with dgraz here. I should also reiterate that I'm not a Sonia player and actually would rather the lesser rule applied but my interpretation now leads me to think the higher ca for the child would apply.

I would also welcome input from the designers.

Is there a way of flagging queries like this for their attention?

[Kadeton]

Post in the Rules Forum. (They've probably seen it already, but that's the most direct way.)

[SurreyLee]

Post in the Rules Forum. (They've probably seen it already, but that's the most direct way.)

Thanks Kadeton