Lynch and valid target

[SurreyLee]

Okay a situation arose last night i'd welcome comment on. 

 

Lynch attempted final debt last night which states that "target with the brilliance condition suffers damage equal to the hands in this models hand". He initially targeted Burt Jebson who, via slippery, wanted to pass the attack onto Gracie who didn't have the brilliance condition and therefore wouldn't suffer any damage.

 

Two views of ruling.

 

1. Gracie isn't a legal target because she doesn't have brilliance so can't have the attack passed on via slippery....or

2. The fact that Gracie doesn't have brilliance doesn't matter for the process of targeting in the first place so can in fact have the attack passed on which subsequently would cause no damage.

 

Thoughts and points of ruling would be useful....

 

I think it boils down to does a target need brilliance to be a valid target or not.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Adran]

Those of you who think that "Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic" is a targeting restriction: What would you say happens, when a model without Brilliance characteristic becomes the target? Most redirecting triggers and abilities don't really concern themselves with the legality of the new target like slippery does. Would the new target suffer damage or not?

 

If the limits are just a targetting critera (which I think they are), then if something else becomes the target after the checks for legal target have happened, then they will have to take the damage. As thats the effect of the action, and there isn't a reason for them to not take the effects of the action.

 

We know models that aren't a legal target for a  (due to line of sight and/or range) can still take the attack if they become the target due to randomisation.

[NeilH]

Had the sidir 'by your side' situation happen against Lynch in a private tournament last year. After a long discussion we ruled that he'd take no damage. As the Lynch player it seemed pretty fair to me, even though it probably cost me a win.

[zFiend]

We know models that aren't a legal target for a  (due to line of sight and/or range) can still take the attack if they become the target due to randomisation.

 

That's a good argument.

[NeilH]

As for the Slippery debate, I'd be unhappy if a TO decided in favour of being able to pass off final debt to a target without Brilliance.

[NeilH]

Doesn't randomization specifically allow for an illegal target become a legal target?

Slippery does no such thing as far as i'm aware, you still need los and range so Brilliance shouldn't be any different.

[trikk]

I believe the Brilliance part is a targeting restriction as it is a requirement for effect. But this is pure "trikk-logic" and I know me and my mates would play this way. So you have to have Brilliance to be a valid target and you have to have Brilliance to take damage.

[papa smurf]

Final debt stats: This action may only target models with the brilliance characteristic and or condtion. Target suffers blah blah blah.

The first sentence could be made the last and it would do the same. But this is the only way to make this 100% unambiguous. Or a faq lol. But I doubt it's getting a rewrite.

[Kadeton]

Those of you who think that "Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic" is a targeting restriction: What would you say happens, when a model without Brilliance characteristic becomes the target? Most redirecting triggers and abilities don't really concern themselves with the legality of the new target like slippery does. Would the new target suffer damage or not?

 

In my opinion, if the attack selected a valid target, its effects should be resolved, regardless of whether another ability changed the target after the fact.

[MrDeathTrout]

If the limits are just a targetting critera (which I think they are), then if something else becomes the target after the checks for legal target have happened, then they will have to take the damage. As thats the effect of the action, and there isn't a reason for them to not take the effects of the action.

 

We know models that aren't a legal target for a  (due to line of sight and/or range) can still take the attack if they become the target due to randomisation.

 

 

Well stated.  I completely agree.

[NeilH]

Thats missing the point. For the same reason a target out of los or range can't become a target for slippery, neither can a model without Brilliance. All 3 things make the model an illegal target?

[Dirial]

Thats missing the point. For the same reason a target out of los or range can't become a target for slippery, neither can a model without Brilliance. All 3 things make the model an illegal target?

 

Yeah, Slippery does state legal target, but e.g. By Your Side does not. What then?

[NeilH]

I think by your side is the bigger debate. I've played it as no damage, but can see both sides to that arguement.

[NeilH]

Not that it makes any difference, but the thought of Sidir jumping in to take a hit that actually then doesn't become a hit is weird. But is correct in my opinion.

[Adran]

Thats missing the point. For the same reason a target out of los or range can't become a target for slippery, neither can a model without Brilliance. All 3 things make the model an illegal target?

Slippery needs a legal target, and the view here is that a model without Brilliance is not a legal target.

 

Myyra asked a slightly different question, in which the target re-direction can't have been Slippery (because that requires a legal target), but one of the other target redirection abilities in the game. Everyone since he asked except you has been answering his question,

[NeilH]

Another slippery scenario, a Wendigo tries to devour Burt, I take it he can only pass the attack on to a ht1 or paralyzed model?

[NeilH]

Answered the by your side question, but am catching up on the original.

[NeilH]

Is that ok?

[Adran]

SLippery effectively goes hrough the targetting process that the original attack would have, so if the original attack couldnt have made it a legal target, the Slippery can't move it to them.

 

So No, Burt couldn't try and shove Gracie into the wendigos mouth, because Gracie isn't Ht 1 or Paralsised, and so not a legal target, and because of this, can't becoem the target following Slippery

 

If Sidir By your sided Luna,  then Wendigo could devour him, since By your side doesn't retain the targetting restrictions. and once you get past the targetting restrictions there is nothing to stop him

[Ludvig]

I have played Sidir a bit different depending on opponents. Still can't figure out what seems most logical. What his action should really have is some sort of "this model is considered a legal target for any requirements of the action" or similar.

[lusciousmccabe]

Those of you who think that "Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic" is a targeting restriction: What would you say happens, when a model without Brilliance characteristic becomes the target? Most redirecting triggers and abilities don't really concern themselves with the legality of the new target like slippery does. Would the new target suffer damage or not?

 

If the redirect doesn't care about legality then the new target should take the damage, Brilliance or no. The damage isn't contingent on the target having the characterisitic, so if you can legally pass it off to something without Brilliance they'll suffer the full effects, imo.

[zFiend]

If the redirect doesn't care about legality then the new target should take the damage, Brilliance or no. The damage isn't contingent on the target having the characterisitic, so if you can legally pass it off to something without Brilliance they'll suffer the full effects, imo.

 

[Myyrä]

If the redirect doesn't care about legality then the new target should take the damage, Brilliance or no. The damage isn't contingent on the target having the characterisitic, so if you can legally pass it off to something without Brilliance they'll suffer the full effects, imo.

So you are saying that an action that causes Target model with Brilliance characteristic suffer damage also causes Target model without Brilliance characteristic to suffer damage?

[enderwiggin]

An action that causes a new "(ignoring targeting restrictions) Target model without Brilliance characteristic to suffer damage"... Yeah, I guess if you ignored targeting restrictions that'd work, but I'd probably give the opponent the chance to take the action back if they thought it was going to auto fail.

[Myyrä]

An action that causes a new "(ignoring targeting restrictions) Target model without Brilliance characteristic to suffer damage"... Yeah, I guess if you ignored targeting restrictions that'd work, but I'd probably give the opponent the chance to take the action back if they thought it was going to auto fail.

No ability actually explicitly says that you should ignore targeting restrictions. By your side gives permission to ignore LoS and Range, but that's it. I would (and I have) give my opponent a chance to take back an action that can't possibly do anything. Although it would still put by your side on cooldown...

[Kadeton]

So you are saying that an action that causes Target model with Brilliance characteristic suffer damage also causes Target model without Brilliance characteristic to suffer damage?

 

An ability that requires that the target be a model with the Brilliance characteristic doesn't care if some other ability changes the target after it's been declared.