Nested Obey-likes and control of models

[HalcyonSeraph]

I almost dread posting this because it's such a bizarrely complex issue and there's no inkling at all of the answer. I expect it will need to be FAQed but the first step there is discussion here so here goes. The general queston is "how complete is control over a model during an action controlled by the opposing player"? 

 

I'll give a few of the most impactful examples:

 

Example 1: Player A's Madame Sybelle uses her Comply trigger to force Player B's Hamelin to take an action. The action she chooses is to have Hamelin use Obey himself, commanding a nearby Flesh Construct to attack Hamelin. This attack would inflict Poison, and Hamelin's Nihilism is optional, meaning his controller can choose to take the Poison. Given the timing of the Obeys and attacks, who gets to decide whether or not to allow the Poison? Player A or Player B?

 

Example 2: Same thing, except instead of a Flesh Construct, Sybelle orders any model with Obey (lets say Zoraida) to Obey Sybelle herself, to then attack Zoraida again. She gets the instant-kill trigger. Who decides whether or not to discard two cards to cancel the instant-kill? 

 

I read it as Obeylikes giving you control of an action, which would obviously give you control of the nested actions if you Obey and Obey. However, I'm not of the opinion that that gives you control of defensive abilities that happen to be triggered during those actions. I have no citation for this in the rules, its just a gut feeling, mainly because allowing it would allow Sybelle to pull off two-card unstoppable instant-kills on any model with an Obey-like. Plenty of people I have talked to see it the other way, though that you are controlling the model during this time window and get to make any decisions that model would get to make. 

[hypoking]

Convoluted as all hell but yeah, it should work as outlined. The player controlling the model would make all decisions for it defensively until the action is resolved, and its not resolved until everything wraps up.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Convoluted as all hell but yeah, it should work the way you are describing it. The player controlling the model would make all decisions for it defensively until the action is resolved.

 

Well that is one option: That an action is a unit of time, a window during which you effectively own the model completely and make all decisions for it. 

 

The other option is that an action is a specific thing, like an attack or an Obey, and any decisions not directly stemming from that action are made by the original owner. 

 

The issue is there is zero evidence for either of those options over the other. There's nothing but "I think"  and gut feelings for one way or the other. 

[hypoking]

One for the faq I suppose.

[Kadeton]

I have no citation for this in the rules, its just a gut feeling, mainly because allowing it would allow Sybelle to pull off two-card unstoppable instant-kills on any model with an Obey-like.

 

I concur with others that you control the model during the Action, not merely the Action itself, which gives you control over defensive choices.

 

Models with Obey should be extra careful around Sybelle. However, "two-card unstoppable instant-kills" is overstating it a bit - Sybelle's player still needs to engineer that situation, and the opponent should be able to avoid it through tactical play.

[Math Mathonwy]

The visual is completely awesome, though:

*whipcrack*

"Make me punish you more!"

"Oh, mistress! More!"

*whipcrack*