Let Mah Handle This, Targeting, and Contingency of effects

[Allandrel]

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?

[Bengt]

My first thought: that was a really long post.

 

Seriously thought: I think Mah can target herself with the result that she pushes herself 6" in any direction. The only thing I see as ambiguous is whether she then have to discard a card, i.e. is the discard a cost for the first push or is it a cost for the entire action.

[Myyrä]

There is apparently such a thing as explaining a rules question too well...

RAW I'd say Mah can discard a card to target herself and get 6" push. I suspect this might not be intended, but that's what the action says.

I have been trying to get an answer to the question: What happens when a part of the action can't be resolved? Haven't had much luck.

Edit: @Bengt: I'd say she has to discard a card, because she isn't allowed to target anything unless she does.

[zFiend]

There is apparently such a thing as explaining a rules question too well...

Yeah.. Damn.

But yes, as the action doesn't say target other I'd say Mah can target herself. Probably not the intention though but that's as it's written.

[Bengt]

Edit: @Bengt: I'd say she has to discard a card, because she isn't allowed to target anything unless she does.

Good point. Target is null for the second stage if she didn't discard a card and Malifaux will throw an exception!

[Allandrel]

There is apparently such a thing as explaining a rules question too well...

 

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.

 

 

RAW I'd say Mah can discard a card to target herself and get 6" push. I suspect this might not be intended, but that's what the action says.

 

...

Edit: @Bengt: I'd say she has to discard a card, because she isn't allowed to target anything unless she does.

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.

 

 

I have been trying to get an answer to the question: What happens when a part of the action can't be resolved? Haven't had much luck.

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.

[Kadeton]

Looks like an oversight to me (target should be "other") but that's the way it is. I can't see anything wrong with Mah targeting herself and pushing, except that it feels dodgy and will potentially cause an (apparently very lengthy) argument. Probably best to explain it to your opponent before the game.

[zFiend]

Kinda like metal gamins should have other written on their protection.

[solkan]

The part I can't get past is this one:

"This model may discard a card to be pushed into base contact with target friendly model within 6" and LOS."

 

If the model targets itself, you get a declaration of the impossible:

 

This model may discard a card to be pushed into base contact with itself.

 

Is there a "No declaring an action that starts with the impossible" standard?  A declaration that's mechanically impossible seems like it should be a line you're not supposed to cross, rather than clauses that end up being redundant or cancelled by other rules.  You may as well start about asking about targeting models in other games, or something...

 

Edit:  I should probably have written "mechanically invalid", rather than "impossible".

 

Charging a model in another game is mechanically invalid.  Pushing a model into base contact with itself is mechanically invalid.

 

Attempting to declaring an action that's mechanically invalid (or containing a mechanically invalid component) should be treated as nonsense in most cases.  And that should rule out Mah using "Let Mah Handle This" on herself.

Edited May 4, 2015 by solkan

[Allandrel]

Is there a "No declaring an action that starts with the impossible" standard?  A declaration that's mechanically impossible seems like it should be a line you're not supposed to cross, rather than clauses that end up being redundant or cancelled by other rules.  You may as well start about asking about targeting models in other games, or something...

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.

[solkan]

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.

Nope, you misunderstand the distinction between mechanical jibberish and a valid action.

"Push this model into base contact with itself" is mechanical jibberish, the same way that "charge the Caskuda" is mechanical jibberish.

That's beyond declaring an action with a target the effects cannot apply to.

[Math Mathonwy]

Nope, you misunderstand the distinction between mechanical jibberish and a valid action.

"Push this model into base contact with itself" is mechanical jibberish, the same way that "charge the Caskuda" is mechanical jibberish.

That's beyond declaring an action with a target the effects cannot apply to.

I'm sorry but I can't see the difference, either. Discarding cards that you don't have in your hands is to me just as silly as pushing into base contact with yourself. Both are perfectly valid actions but due to circumstances (having no cards in hand/targeting yourself) they become impossible.

[Kadeton]

I agree that there's a distinction that could be drawn between an instruction that is situationally impossible (such as discarding a card with no cards in hand) and one that is fundamentally impossible (such as pushing a model into base contact with itself). If you prefer, you could also think of it as a distinction between specifically impossible and generally impossible.

 

However, while such a distinction could be constructed, it's not inherent to the game or mentioned in the rules, so basing any kind of argument around it is very shaky indeed. I think Allandrel put this very succinctly: The reason why you can't resolve an effect isn't as important as whether or not you can resolve it.

[Bengt]

Nope, you misunderstand the distinction between mechanical jibberish and a valid action.

"Push this model into base contact with itself" is mechanical jibberish, the same way that "charge the Caskuda" is mechanical jibberish.

That's beyond declaring an action with a target the effects cannot apply to.

Why wouldn't you be able to charge a Caskuda? Assuming you are playing Infinity 2nd ed...

[Dirial]

Why wouldn't you be able to charge a Caskuda? Assuming you are playing Infinity 2nd ed...

 

Well, if they play Infinity on the neighbouring table, and your Cg is high enough....

[papa smurf]

So I'm going to drop this here.

Q: Can you define the terms “base contact” and “base to base contact”?

A: They both mean the same thing: “When the bases of two or more models are physically touching.”

How doth one push into oneself?

[Myyrä]

So I'm going to drop this here.

Q: Can you define the terms “base contact” and “base to base contact”?

A: They both mean the same thing: “When the bases of two or more models are physically touching.”

How doth one push into oneself?

I believe no one here was confused about whether Mah can push into base contact with herself.

[Allandrel]

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:

Q: Can Pandora take the Self Harm Action against a model without a (Close) Attack? (Same question for Self Loathing and (Projectile) Attacks).
A: Yes. The Attack would simply be unable to deal damage. Self Harm selects a (Close) Attack on the target and applies the damage, but does not require the target to have a (Close) Attack. Attacks that require the target have a certain trait in order to target are generally worded, “Target model with a (Close) Attack…” Self Harm is not worded in this way.

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.

[The Zinc Lich]

Stuff like this does sort of make me shake my head. It's pretty obviously a rules oversight from Wyrd, but their minimal errata stance means that it probably won't be fixed. It doesn't make a lot of thematic sense for the action, really. The ability moves Mah to a friendly model, then moves that friendly model. What we are doing is pedantically arguing the meaning of "target" so Mah can get a new ability: "(0): discard a card, push Mah Tucket up to six inches in any direction."

 

While I don't think that it is a particularly game breaking new ability, it is nonetheless not something she was meant to have, and she only has it because of ambiguous wording. Unfortunately, RAW reading of it does mean she can target herself with it, so I will have to let it slide if someone tries it against me. I will just be rolling my eyes every time that it does, same as I do when Metal Gamin start with the flaming headbutt exploit.

 

Really, that's what we are talking about here: exploits. In the past, I played a lot of fighting games, and I can't think of one I played that did not have some sort of weird game engine flaw that could be exploited to add more tools to characters' arsenals. The community, as a whole, accepted all but the most egregious of these because, in the end, once the game is out, the author's intentions only carry so much weight. Until we get clarification from a Wyrd rep, I'm afraid that Mah has a (0) push.

 

Somewhat amusingly, we're having a similar fight in the Guild forum ( http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/108287-guild-mcmouning-core-crew/ ). There is argument over whether or not an action continues to function after one of the clauses is rendered impossible. A score of - is not a score of zero, it represents a models' total lack of ability in that area. The argument goes that you can't push - inches, so the rest of the ability fizzles out. In McMourning's case, I am comfortable saying that Injection simply results in a 0-inch push, but it does bring up an interesting conversation to have:

 

How do people feel about house ruling that you can't take actions that result in impossible clauses? It would kill this interaction, and (maybe) Injecting traps. Are there any other cases like this?

[zFiend]

Good post Zinc.

[Math Mathonwy]

I think that these FAQ entries are sort of relevant:

Q: Can Pandora take the Self Harm Action against a model without a zAttack? (Same question for

Self Loathing and yAttacks).

A: Yes. The Attack would simply be unable to deal damage. Self Harm selects a zAttack on the target and applies the damage, but does not require the target to have a zAttack. Attacks that require the target have a certain trait in order to target are generally worded, “Target model with a zAttack…” Self Harm is not worded in this way.

Q: Can Tara use her Temporal Shift Action when she has zero cards in hand?

A: Yes. The discard portion of the Action is an effect, not a cost.

In other words, you can do "impossible" things (discarding cards that you don't have), they just don't do anything yet the other parts of the effect go off as normal.

[Allandrel]

Stuff like this does sort of make me shake my head. It's pretty obviously a rules oversight from Wyrd, but their minimal errata stance means that it probably won't be fixed. It doesn't make a lot of thematic sense for the action, really. The ability moves Mah to a friendly model, then moves that friendly model. What we are doing is pedantically arguing the meaning of "target" so Mah can get a new ability: "(0): discard a card, push Mah Tucket up to six inches in any direction."

 

While I don't think that it is a particularly game breaking new ability, it is nonetheless not something she was meant to have, and she only has it because of ambiguous wording. Unfortunately, RAW reading of it does mean she can target herself with it, so I will have to let it slide if someone tries it against me. I will just be rolling my eyes every time that it does, same as I do when Metal Gamin start with the flaming headbutt exploit.

 

In the case of Let Mah Handle This, simply changing the target to "other friendly model" would solve the issue.

 

 

Really, that's what we are talking about here: exploits. In the past, I played a lot of fighting games, and I can't think of one I played that did not have some sort of weird game engine flaw that could be exploited to add more tools to characters' arsenals. The community, as a whole, accepted all but the most egregious of these because, in the end, once the game is out, the author's intentions only carry so much weight. Until we get clarification from a Wyrd rep, I'm afraid that Mah has a (0) push.

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?

 

 

 

Somewhat amusingly, we're having a similar fight in the Guild forum ( http://wyrd-games.ne...ning-core-crew/ ). There is argument over whether or not an action continues to function after one of the clauses is rendered impossible. A score of - is not a score of zero, it represents a models' total lack of ability in that area. The argument goes that you can't push - inches, so the rest of the ability fizzles out. In McMourning's case, I am comfortable saying that Injection simply results in a 0-inch push...

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."

 

 

but it does bring up an interesting conversation to have:

 

How do people feel about house ruling that you can't take actions that result in impossible clauses? It would kill this interaction, and (maybe) Injecting traps. Are there any other cases like this?

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).

[Ferossa]

How do people feel about house ruling that you can't take actions that result in impossible clauses? It would kill this interaction, and (maybe) Injecting traps. Are there any other cases like this?

 

I'm in favour of this as official errata. Given Wyrd's minimal errata stance, I'd rather see common-sense errata in the Wave 3 book that corrects or explains some of these issues, instead of the errata updates we get now.

 

The wording on the models is precise enough that it's fairly easy to tell when a word is left out by oversight or formatting. It does a disservice to Wyrd's hard work and the courtesy they show us in allowing an open beta to then take to the forums and pedantically nitpick the three things they missed so you can get a free ability.

[The Zinc Lich]

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?

 

Yes, Street Fighter 2 is responsible for the "combo" system that we take for granted nowadays (technically, it is responsible for the idea of "linking", but this isn't a fighting games thread). You know what else originated in Street Fighter 2?

 

Guile's handcuff glitch

 

Look, the fact is that, barring tournament judges disagreeing, you have successfully argued that Mah's Let Mah Handle This exploit is, in fact, legal. With the wording on Temporal Shift the way it is, I guess the official ruling on broken clauses is that the rest of the ability resolves as normal. I'm fine with that; I haven't seen any uses of the exploit that really dramatically change game balance, and I don't want to throw out a bunch of rules that work well for one that sounds a little bit fishy.

 

I understand Wyrd's reluctance to errata wording. Doing so would mean they need to print out new cards, and there will be confusion between people who have the original cards and those that have new ones. It also means that people that frequent the website will have a different set of rules known than those that just want to play out of the box. Errata-ing is really a last resort option in something like a tabletop game, so the real question is, does Mah's new (0) push her power level too high up the curve?

 

Let's be honest with ourselves, Mah hasn't really been blowing up the tournament scene. She is, in fact, the only Gremlin master that I haven't seen people swapping stories about how awesome she is. A six inch push makes her faster and, for all intents and purposes, impossible to pin down in melee, but it costs her a card to do so. If the ability had been printed on her card as it works now, I wouldn't have batted an eye.

[Ferossa]

Look, the fact is that, barring tournament judges disagreeing, you have successfully argued that Mah's Let Mah Handle This exploit is, in fact, legal. With the wording on Temporal Shift the way it is, I guess the official ruling on broken clauses is that the rest of the ability resolves as normal. I'm fine with that; I haven't seen any uses of the exploit that really dramatically change game balance, and I don't want to throw out a bunch of rules that work well for one that sounds a little bit fishy.

 

I want to toss in my 5c from the perspective of someone who spent quite a few years running tournaments at her local game store:

 

This is an exploit that will get a judge called on you. Is a 6" push worth losing 15-20 minutes of a timed game?

 

Ultimately, that's why I'm against obvious exploits. It's unreasonable to expect most of the fans to read all the rules questions on the forums, especially when it's pretty obvious it's grammatical oversight. While some rules interact in strange ways, this is not one of them.

 

As a fandom, we need to consider how the use of exploits  affects the playerbase and the meta, not just our individual games. This is the kind of pedantic rules bullshittery that drove people AWAY from tabletop wargaming and made selling it to new players an uphill battle.

[Math Mathonwy]

If it is errataed, I certainly won't shed a tear (of things that Mah needs, an Action that allows her a Push at the expense of discarding a card is at the very bottom of the heap - since she already has that ability! (as well as about a bazillion other ways to Push and get out of an Engagement)) but if it is not errataed, I really hope that it is ruled to work as that is consistent with how other abilities in this game work and will lead to far less confusion than the opposite ruling.