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?

[enderwiggin]

Did you mean "how other abilities in this game work" to use just the two abilities you mentioned above as a standard?

Open Spoiler

 

 

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.

 

Then do keep in mind that those are literally just explaining the question, in the first case the action can be attempted it just ends in automatic failure because conditions aren't met (much like Horror tests that immune models are forced to take, the flip doesn't matter).

In the case of the second, it's again not allowing an impossible action, but explaining that that one ability portion of wording -in that case- is not a cost, simply clarifying as an FAQ is supposed to. Neither are setting an uncommon precedence for other rules interactions when read literally.

[papa smurf]

There is always this rule.

6) Beware the 'each situation' trap

Remember each FAQ entry is about an "individual situation, and may not necessarily apply to other situations."

So saying the faq sets a precedent for any rule but what it is actually explaining is unlikely true.

[Justin]

Let me explain what is going to happen here, to save some yelling on Monday when you see it. The following entry is being added to the FAQ:

Q: Can Mah Tucket target herself with the Let Mah Handle This Action?

A: No.

That's it.

While I agree that in all technicality she could target herself with this Action if the above were not to exist, I don't think errata is the proper place for this ruling, even though that's basically what it is. Here is why:

From an intuitive, common sense, and even fluff stand point, the interpretation that she can target herself makes little, if any, sense. As such, I find it highly unlikely that a new player who just opened a Mah box is going to try to go that route. The kind of player who would attempt that interpretation is already highly familiar with the rules, and therefor will have seen the FAQ (and if they miss it I doubt they would have seen an errata anyway.) Should a new player become adept enough at the rules to ask whether Mah can target herself, it is far more likely they will check the FAQ before any errata, making the answer easier to find.

Finally, we generally use errata to change cards in ways which cannot be derived from the cards themselves. For example, if you had the old Nexus of Power upgrade, there is no way to guess at its current legal wording without the errata. Whereas with this Action, nobody even thought of using it on Mah herself for almost a year. So in this case the FAQ lines up with an intuitive understanding of the game.

Further, if we errata the card, new players who pick up Mah and are diligent enough to check her errata will have to do some research/thought into how adding an extra word even changes the Action, where the FAQ is incredibly clear.

So, while this is, in all intents and purposes, an errata, I think for the sake of practicality it works better as an FAQ.

...and that's why we can't generalize all situations.

Explanation given. Begin disagreement.

[Myyrä]

I approve of the answer and the reasoning behind not making it an errata.

[papa smurf]

...and that's why we can't generalize all situations.

Explanation given. Begin disagreement.

*Justin drops the Mic and walks off stage*

[The Zinc Lich]

And this is why Justin is my favorite person.

[Ferossa]

[speaks wisely.]

 

Could you include this in the Wave 3 book? It makes a good example, and specifically this:

 

From an intuitive, common sense, and even fluff stand point, the interpretation that she can target herself makes little, if any, sense. As such, I find it highly unlikely that a new player who just opened a Mah box is going to try to go that route. The kind of player who would attempt that interpretation is already highly familiar with the rules, and therefor will have seen the FAQ (and if they miss it I doubt they would have seen an errata anyway.) Should a new player become adept enough at the rules to ask whether Mah can target herself, it is far more likely they will check the FAQ before any errata, making the answer easier to find.

 

It gives a clear understanding of how the rules are meant to be read and played, and it points new players in the appropriate direction when they have a question.

[Myyrä]

Could you include this in the Wave 3 book? It makes a good example, and specifically this:

 

 

It gives a clear understanding of how the rules are meant to be read and played, and it points new players in the appropriate direction when they have a question.

That seems like a terrible idea. IIRC Justin has written in his blog, that when in doubt assume the rules work as written. Trying to divine how rule was intended to work or how a new player would read it will just lead to endless arguments that can't possibly be solved.

 

If something about how to interpret the rules should be written in a rulebook it should be along the lines: Don't let arguing about rules ruin a perfectly good game. Save the arguments for after the game.

[enderwiggin]

I can't find fault with that explanation Justin. I would still like a resolution on partially/fully impossible actions/effect (depending how a reader defines that to themselves) to be more in line with what was suggested earlier and simply fail/turn into a pass action action, but that's another topic for another day it seems.

 

Thank you for your input on this one here though at least.

[Myyrä]

I can't find fault with that explanation Justin. I would still like a resolution on partially/fully impossible actions/effect (depending how a reader defines that to themselves) to be more in line with what was suggested earlier and simply fail/turn into a pass action action, but that's another topic for another day it seems.

That would be an awesome ninja buff to Missingno after the wave 3 beta has already finished.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Exactly how would that buff Lizzy?

[Myyrä]

Exactly how would that buff Lizzy?

Apart from the fact that she is the model that makes the largest number of abilities and actions partially impossible to complete, you mean? In no way.

[Ferossa]

That seems like a terrible idea. IIRC Justin has written in his blog, that when in doubt assume the rules work as written. Trying to divine how rule was intended to work or how a new player would read it will just lead to endless arguments that can't possibly be solved.

 

If something about how to interpret the rules should be written in a rulebook it should be along the lines: Don't let arguing about rules ruin a perfectly good game. Save the arguments for after the game.

 

That's pretty much what I'm talking about. Something like:

 

In case of a rules dispute:

1) Play it as written/roll a die/rock, paper, scissors.

2) Finish the game.

3) Friendly debate.

4) Check the FAQ

5) Ask the Wyrd forums.

 

What I want to see is an official method for resolving rules disputes that takes sportsmanship into account AND highlights the work Wyrd and the community do to keep the game balanced and fun. Most players don't know about the FAQ. I'm one of about four people in my area (out of the forty to sixty who play) who posts on the forums at all. Players, especially new players, need to know about and feel comfortable accessing these resources.

[Myyrä]

That's pretty much what I'm talking about. Something like:

 

In case of a rules dispute:

1) Play it as written/roll a die/rock, paper, scissors.

2) Finish the game.

3) Friendly debate.

4) Check the FAQ

5) Ask the Wyrd forums.

 

What I want to see is an official method for resolving rules disputes that takes sportsmanship into account AND highlights the work Wyrd and the community do to keep the game balanced and fun. Most players don't know about the FAQ. I'm one of about four people in my area (out of the forty to sixty who play) who posts on the forums at all. Players, especially new players, need to know about and feel comfortable accessing these resources.

Now that is actually a really good suggestion.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Still not seeing your argument. I know you don't like lizzy, but with her rules being split it isn't exactly rocket science to figure out how they work. She works the same way regardless of wether ender's suggestion was taken up or not. So I'm not seeing how her interaction with the rules would change in any way, let alone be a "ninja buff" to her as you term it.

[Justin]

That's pretty much what I'm talking about. Something like:

 

In case of a rules dispute:

1) Play it as written/roll a die/rock, paper, scissors.

2) Finish the game.

3) Friendly debate.

4) Check the FAQ

5) Ask the Wyrd forums.

 

What I want to see is an official method for resolving rules disputes that takes sportsmanship into account AND highlights the work Wyrd and the community do to keep the game balanced and fun. Most players don't know about the FAQ. I'm one of about four people in my area (out of the forty to sixty who play) who posts on the forums at all. Players, especially new players, need to know about and feel comfortable accessing these resources.

A bit late for book 3 unfortunately.

[Ferossa]

A bit late for book 3 unfortunately.

 

All that means is Book 3 is coming out sooner than I thought. *tents fingers*

[Myyrä]

All that means is Book 3 is coming out sooner than I thought. *tents fingers*

That probably means that it will come out at gencon as everyone? was expecting. It would need to be in print by now to be ready by then reliably.

[Ferossa]

That probably means that it will come out at gencon as everyone? was expecting. It would need to be in print by now to be ready by then reliably.

 

Because independent printers are notoriously reliable and Gencon never has printing errors. 

 

If it's too late to include anything now, that means Wyrd got in ahead of the summer rush. The people in charge of printing and assembling the books won't be rushed in the way that makes print accidents happen. After years of experience with independent publishers, I consider the first print run a beta, at best. The more narrow the genre, the more you see printing errors pop up around big events as creators rush to get their work to print.

 

It's a sign of Wyrd's overall business competence. Good for them.

[Lucidicide]

And this is why Justin is my favorite person.

I'll remember this. /evil stare

[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.

[sharpobjects]

That's pretty much what I'm talking about. Something like:

 

In case of a rules dispute:

1) Play it as written/roll a die/rock, paper, scissors.

2) Finish the game.

3) Friendly debate.

4) Check the FAQ

5) Ask the Wyrd forums.

 

What I want to see is an official method for resolving rules disputes that takes sportsmanship into account AND highlights the work Wyrd and the community do to keep the game balanced and fun. Most players don't know about the FAQ. I'm one of about four people in my area (out of the forty to sixty who play) who posts on the forums at all. Players, especially new players, need to know about and feel comfortable accessing these resources.

 

#1 should be, each player flips a card from their deck to determine which players interpretation will be used for the duration of the game. The player with the highest value card chooses. 

 

This is not a dice game. We use a deck of cards. 

 

I agree completely with #2 - #5.

[Math Mathonwy]

As for the ruling, fair enough. I think it sets a bit of a weird precedent (essentially adding the word "other" into an ability in a FAQ as opposed to actually doing it in the rrata) but it isn't a big deal. Were I given the option to change exactly one thing in Malifaux this wouldn't make the top ten list

But I wish to comment on two things in Justin's post (neither of these are in any way an argument against the ruling).

Should a new player become adept enough at the rules to ask whether Mah can target herself, it is far more likely they will check the FAQ before any errata, making the answer easier to find.

I think that people pay far more heed to the Errata than to the FAQ, personally.

Whereas with this Action, nobody even thought of using it on Mah herself for almost a year.

No one asked whether it could be done on the rules forum, you mean.

[Bengt]

Still not seeing your argument. I know you don't like lizzy, but with her rules being split it isn't exactly rocket science to figure out how they work. She works the same way regardless of wether ender's suggestion was taken up or not. So I'm not seeing how her interaction with the rules would change in any way, let alone be a "ninja buff" to her as you term it.

He is talking about other models that have talents that let them push or place and then do something else, e.g. By Your Side. A blanket statement that you have to complete every part of a talent would make Lizzy better.

[enderwiggin]

I'm sure most of them can be argued to work only when fully done anyways, to be honest. I think the mindset that the impossible-to-complete should be ignored is a dangerously lazy viewpoint to get in the habit of using rather than trying to work it out by the RAW.

 

 

By your side, since you used it as an example, wouldn't work if you weren't within 5" and LOS it's something on the card you cannot ignore. With or without Lizzy's influence.

On the flip side, with/without Lizzy you can ignore the placement effect if you met the first requirements (range + LOS) because it uses the word "may". In this case you don't have to place to garner the effect and simply with/without a placement occurring couldn't make the action impossible to complete.