Paralyzed and Actions performed outside of a model's Activation

[Allandrel]

Short version: What happens if a model that is not paralyzed takes an action outside of its activation, and gains Paralyzed during that Action?

Long version:

Paralyzed states that the model cannot declare actions DURING ITS ACTIVATION, including (0) Actions. In addition, a model that gains the Paralyzed condition DURING ITS ACTIVATION loses all of its AP, may not take any more actions, and ends its current action without effect. (Thus moving straight to the "End Activation" Step, when it removes Paralyzed.)

But so far as I can tell, the only effect that Paralyzed has on a model OUTSIDE of its Activation is treating the range of all Close (Claw symbol) actions as 0 while Paralyzed, leaving it unable to engage enemy models. (IIRC, a FAQ established that this includes models in base contact, as 0 range means the action does not have range to anything.)

And there are plenty of effects that have a model perform an action outside of its activation.

It seems pretty simple when the active model use an effect (like Obey) on an already-Paralyzed model: The Paralyzed model's Close Attacks all have 0 range, leaving those actions with no targets in range. But everything else will function as normal.

Okay, so that one is clear enough. But on to the big question again:

What happens if a model that is not paralyzed takes an action outside of its activation, and gains Paralyzed during that Action?

I'll use an example to get across what I'm referring to:

Example #1: I have Zoraida and Bad Juju. My opponent has a Ronin that is 6" from both Zoraida and Bad Juju. The Ronin has not made any Horror duels due to Bad Juju's Terrfying yet this turn.

It is Zoraid's Activation.
I target the Ronin with Obey and succeed.
I have the Ronin target Bad Juju with Collier Pistol.
The Ronin has to make a Horror duel due to Bad Juju's Terrifying. The Ronin fails the Horror duel and gains the Paralyzed Condition.

What now? The rules for Paralyzed causing a model to end its current action without effect only apply when a model gains the Paralzyed condition during its activation, and it is currently Zoraida's Activation, not the Ronin's. So that rule will not apply.

So far as I can tell, the rest of the action still resolves normally, and the Ronin will remain Paralyzed until the end of its next Activation.

Here's an example that follows on the first, and is a bit more complicated, but that I think works the same way:

Example #1: As above, except that the Ronin is within 6" of Zoraida and 1" of Bad Juju. Again, the Ronin has not made any Horror duels due to Bad Juju's Terrfying yet this turn.

It is Zoraida's Activation.
I target the Ronin with Obey and succeed.
I have the Ronin target Bad Juju with Daito (an action with Close range).
The Ronin has to make a horror duel due to Bad Juju's Terrifying. The Ronin fails the Horror duel and gains the Paralyzed Condition.

Now, my initial response is that, even if gaining Paralyzed does not end the Action (as outlined above), it does change the range of the Ronin's Daito action to 0, meaning that Bad Juju is not longer in range, and THAT would end the action.

But does it? After all, effects like Terrifying are resolved AFTER targets are declared, which is when you check targeting restrictions like range. You check once, and that's it. Range could change, something might move in a block LOS, it doesn't matter - all that matters is whether the target was legal at the time that you declared the target.

Is this right?

It seems logical according to the rules for Paralyzed and resolving Actions. And from a balance standpoint, it is a sound drawback to the "Obey someone to get them Paralzyed" combo illustrated above - attacking your own Terrifying model still risks damaging that model and may force you to cheat further to avoid that damage.

[Hateful Darkblack]

As far as I can tell, that's what the rules say right now. I don't know, but I kind of hope there'll be an FAQ that says that if you fail the Horror Check, the action fails, even off-turn.

[papa smurf]

Next post long explanation on how whirlwind can make you hit targets out of los If the target blocking it dies. Lets beat that horse next.

Or my favorite how after succeeding triggers happen after step 5 not before. Some Jack daw players still think they get to add +1 damage to the attack before the curse is actually applied.

Also give me a detailed explanation of what an "Acting Model" is.

[Dirial]

Hrhr, I get a bit of a sarcastic vibe going on...

 

Yeah, you've read the rule correctly, even if it's somewhat strange. Add that ending an activation doesn't necessarily end the current action (like Godlyness once argued) and those rules get a little clunky.

[Paradigm]

Nice write up there Allandrel. This is just the kind of situation where all the special rules of Malifaux start interacting in strange ways. From a read-as-intended point of view I'd like to believe that being forced by Obey to attack a terrifying creature and fail the flip should end your actions just as it would if you were to attack the same creature during your own activation. However, putting some effort into deciphering the rules makes it pretty clear that things appear to work just like you say. The results are weird, but it seems to be common practice to play it according to your conclusions.

 

Me and my friends had a similar argument before. My Misaki had stalked Nicodem, and was later paralyzed by a Crooked Man. While Misaki was still paralyzed, Nicodem took a walk action. Thus the question if Misaki could follow Nicodem as per the rules of stalk arose. It does sound strange that a model that is physically paralyzed for just about every purpose would be able to suddenly get up and ignore its condition simply because it's not technically it's activation. However, the rules on the matter only state that the afflicted model generates no AP and has its range reduced to 0. The walk generated from Stalk is not during your activation and requires neither AP or melee range. Thus we decided that Misaki could follow Nicodem, however counter-intuitive it sounds.

[lusciousmccabe]

But so far as I can tell, the only effect that Paralyzed has on a model OUTSIDE of its Activation is treating the range of all Close (Claw symbol) actions as 0 while Paralyzed, leaving it unable to engage enemy models. (IIRC, a FAQ established that this includes models in base contact, as 0 range means the action does not have range to anything.)

I think the FAQ says the opposite if anything.

 

Q: If two models are in base to base contact, and an Ability pushes one of them exactly 3” away, how much distance is considered to be in between the two models? Are they considered to be within 3” of each other?

A: As base to base contact is considered to be exactly 0” apart, the models would be exactly 3” apart after the push and therefore still within 3” of each other.

 

There is the section on moving that says a 0" move doesn't count as anything, but that seems less directly applicable.

 

From a read-as-intended point of view I'd like to believe that being forced by Obey to attack a terrifying creature and fail the flip should end your actions just as it would if you were to attack the same creature during your own activation. However, putting some effort into deciphering the rules makes it pretty clear that things appear to work just like you say. The results are weird, but it seems to be common practice to play it according to your conclusions.

 

I think it would probably be simplest if the Obey itself just failed, although that has more serious implications from a balance perspective. You would think that paralyzed models can't take actions, but apparently it's just harder for them to punch things.

[Allandrel]

Because of how involved Malifaux's rules are, and out of a desire to avoid misunderstanding, when I encounter an unclear area in the rules I look to lay out all the different permutations. It's also why I will probably never be professionally published - I can't edit for brevity to save my life.
 

 

I think the FAQ says the opposite if anything.

 

Q: If two models are in base to base contact, and an Ability pushes one of them exactly 3” away, how much distance is considered to be in between the two models? Are they considered to be within 3” of each other?

A: As base to base contact is considered to be exactly 0” apart, the models would be exactly 3” apart after the push and therefore still within 3” of each other.

 

There is the section on moving that says a 0" move doesn't count as anything, but that seems less directly applicable.

Yes, looking over the FAQ again I see that. I was thinking that a model with its Close ranges reduced to 0 has no targets in range because of this:

"The range of all (Close) Actions a model has is considered 0 while it is affected by the Paralyzed Condition, and will therefore not engage enemy models." - M2E, p. 52, emphasis added.

Not "and will therefore only engage enemy models in base contact," but "will therefore not engage enemy models." Furthermore, the rules state that the inability to engage enemy models is a direct consequence of having Close Actions' Range considered 0, rather than a separate effect.

But on the other hand, we have the FAQ stating that a model in base contact is considered to be 0" away.

I think we really need a FAQ addressing whether an Action with 0 range means "nothing is in range" (as the Paralyzed rules seems to indicate), or "Range 0 means only models in base contact are in range" (in which case Paralyzed ought to be re-written for clarity).

[Myyrä]

I think we really need a FAQ addressing whether an Action with 0 range means "nothing is in range" (as the Paralyzed rules seems to indicate), or "Range 0 means only models in base contact are in range" (in which case Paralyzed ought to be re-written for clarity).

I think we really need an errata that changes the wording on the original rule. Instead of this range nonsense it could just say: "Paralyzed model has no engagement range and it cannot perform disengaging strikes."

[lusciousmccabe]

I think they shouldn't be able to make disengaging strikes but should keep the engagement range.

 

Seems pretty arbitrary that none of the ranges for any other actions or abilities are changed, you can still fire your pistols or invoke eldritch nonsense but paralysis gives you these little T-Rex arms that  can only hit someone right on top of you.

 

No disengaging strikes would be much more consistent with paralysed model not being able to take actions themselves, and we can just assume that Obey gets around it because an external force is manipulating their body, or something.

 

Think that's kind of a separate question to the double paralysis thing though.

[Kadeton]

You could just change it to "A paralyzed model cannot perform Actions" and save everyone a lot of confusion. Asking for changes to the core rules is a largely pointless exercise, though.

[Shadowdragon]

You could just change it to "A paralyzed model cannot perform Actions" and save everyone a lot of confusion. Asking for changes to the core rules is a largely pointless exercise, though.

 

This is how I always thought paralyzed worked, but I guess by the letter of the rules I was wrong. I like "cannot perform Actions" a lot better though. Easier to understand and does what the Condition is supposed to do.

[Myyrä]

It seems you can read the rules correctly. Good job. (The long version is too damn long.)