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.

[lusciousmccabe]

Do you have an example?

 

Obey a master to trigger failed Wp duel abilities.

Use Lawyer Special Damages on a Master to poison them, but not apply fees condition.

Use Issue Command on an Austringer to give them focus/defensive/interact action with trigger. Same for non-Minion models and enemies.

Menace non-Living models to push towards them, or possibly not push and just give them a Horror duel depending on how you read it.

Use Bigger Hat Than You to discard your own hand after targeting a non-Leader model.

Target a model 10" away with Take a Swig. Fail Horror Duel, be Paralysed.

Paralyze and enemy model with Launch'm.

Give a master permanent Brilliance with the Trigger on Heed My Voice.

 

I could go on, but I find being so deliberately obtuse unpleasant. Also, I'm not sure I appreciate the distinction between a model that can be legally targeted but the action automatically fails and one that can't be legally targeted in the first place. 

[lusciousmccabe]

That Action, IMO, as read on the card specifies a Beast must be the target. 

 

"Target Beast" is not the same as "Target model with the Beast Characteristic"

 

As Katedon mentioned they're interchangeable. I'd guess that in Lynch's case "Target Brilliance model" isn't used because it sounds a bit weird.

[Myyrä]

Obey a master to trigger failed Wp duel abilities.

Use Lawyer Special Damages on a Master to poison them, but not apply fees condition.

Use Issue Command on an Austringer to give them focus/defensive/interact action with trigger. Same for non-Minion models and enemies.

Menace non-Living models to push towards them, or possibly not push and just give them a Horror duel depending on how you read it.

Use Bigger Hat Than You to discard your own hand after targeting a non-Leader model.

Target a model 10" away with Take a Swig. Fail Horror Duel, be Paralysed.

Paralyze and enemy model with Launch'm.

Give a master permanent Brilliance with the Trigger on Heed My Voice.

 

I could go on, but I find being so deliberately obtuse unpleasant. Also, I'm not sure I appreciate the distinction between a model that can be legally targeted but the action automatically fails and one that can't be legally targeted in the first place.

I don't see how any of those interactions is problematic and I'm fairly sure you interpreted several of them wrong. The rulebook for example expressly forbids taking actions against models that aren't within range.

[Guy in Suit]

Well if you can't see what is in front of your nose we can't help you.   Its in the book, if all conditions are not met, a target isn't legal.  Burt's ability specifically says legal target.

[Dirial]

Well if you can't see what is in front of your nose we can't help you.   Its in the book, if all conditions are not met, a target isn't legal.  Burt's ability specifically says legal target.

 

To be fair, he says Brilliance isn't a condition for the targetting but for the damage. In this line of thought, Gracie would be a legal target, just not take damage.

 

I disagree though, although the wording isn't conclusive, I think.

[lusciousmccabe]

I don't see how any of those interactions is problematic and I'm fairly sure you interpreted several of them wrong. The rulebook for example expressly forbids taking actions against models that aren't within range.

 

Like I said, willful misinterpretation isn't my strong-suit.

 

Take a Swig doesn't have a range. It says "Target model within 2" heals 1/2/3" in the action description. By your rationale it can be used against any model on the board, but it will only heal them if they're within 2" and line of sight.

 

Target X implies X is the qualifier to target it, Target model with X implies any model can be targeted but only implies effect if X. At least that's how I read it.

 

I'm not sure there's much of a distiction between the two, it's like a red car vs a car that's red.

 

I think a characteristic mentioned in a target line is basically short-hand for a model with that characteristic anyway. It's not like there are other beasts for Marcus to target that aren't models for example. 

 

That would be my undertanding of it anyway. 

[Gremlin guy]

I'm not sure there's much of a distiction between the two, it's like a red car vs a car that's red.

There is a distinction though, I'll use your example to show it

Target red car gets the speeding ticket condition

Target car that is red gets the speeding ticket condition.

In the first one you only target red cars. In the second one, you target cars and red ones get the speeding ticket.

I don't know how wyrd writes its rules well enough to say which is correct for the brilliance example so I'll stick with red cars and speeding ticket conditions.

[MrDeathTrout]

The wording seems vague any poorly worded bust as SOLKAN pointed out in the Pandora’s Self Harm question in the FAQ is states “Attacks that require the target have a certain trait in order to target are generally worded, “Target model with a z Attack...”  The beginning for Final Debt matches up word for word “Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic“.

 

MYYRA points out that the FAQ says “These are not changes to the rules, simply clarifications for the convenience of Malifaux players. Each question is about an individual situation, and may not necessarily apply to other situations.” and that “The rules of the game are found in the rulebook and in the errata.“  I agree with this, but since we are not sure how to interpret the language, I think this is a clarification issue not a rule issue which is the domain of the FAQ.

 

Saying that RAW Final Debt does or does not require Brilliance for a legal target is putting the cart before the horse.  The text that is being interpreted is RAW for this abilities targeting requirement. How it is interpreted is RAW for Final Debt.

 

It seems to me the game designers made it very clear in the FAQ that in general when they say “Target model with X” they intend it as a requirement.  To me that means whenever you see that text it should be taken as a requirement, unless there is specific text to the contrary.  Is there anything in the text of Final Debt, the rules, or the FAQ that justifies an exception other than it could be interpreted another way? 

[Dirial]

There is a distinction though, I'll use your example to show it

Target red car gets the speeding ticket condition

Target car that is red gets the speeding ticket condition.

In the first one you only target red cars. In the second one, you target cars and red ones get the speeding ticket.

I don't know how wyrd writes its rules well enough to say which is correct for the brilliance example so I'll stick with red cars and speeding ticket conditions.

 

Might be because I'm no native speaker but I don't see the difference that clear. Also, Malifaux uses fluent English, or at least often do. Target Brilliance-having model sounds really awkward. The problem to me seems that effects and requirements both are listed after the duel stats. They are just mish-mashed, thus the confusion.

[zeeblee]

A lot of this depends on the technical order of operations.  Such as in Warhammer 40k, you can declare a target as the target for your shooting action, then you resolve whether or not that action succeeds.  Thus you can technically target something that is out of range, and then in the following step see that you wasted a squad's action via the range issue. 

 

So if Malifaux also contains a generic "declare target" step that is separate from "is target legal?" then Myyra is correct.

 

Otherwise it points more to a model requiring the Brilliance characteristic (not condition, as that's usually Under The Influence) to be legally targeted; though still technically unclear.

[lusciousmccabe]

 

There is a distinction though, I'll use your example to show it
Target red car gets the speeding ticket condition
Target car that is red gets the speeding ticket condition.

In the first one you only target red cars. In the second one, you target cars and red ones get the speeding ticket.

I don't know how wyrd writes its rules well enough to say which is correct for the brilliance example so I'll stick with red cars and speeding ticket conditions.

 

 

I would read both of those as only targeting red cars. To target all of them for me it would have to say target car gets the speeding ticket if it is red.

 

Maybe it's a dialect thing?? 

 

A lot of this depends on the technical order of operations.  Such as in Warhammer 40k, you can declare a target as the target for your shooting action, then you resolve whether or not that action succeeds.  Thus you can technically target something that is out of range, and then in the following step see that you wasted a squad's action via the range issue. 

 

So if Malifaux also contains a generic "declare target" step that is separate from "is target legal?" then Myyra is correct.

 

Otherwise it points more to a model requiring the Brilliance characteristic (not condition, as that's usually Under The Influence) to be legally targeted; though still technically unclear.

 

You select targets during the declare actions step, there doesn't appear to be a separate check legality step from what I can see.

 

There is a section on page 38 that says:

"(1) Take a Swig: Target model within 2" heals 1/2/3 damage... The Take a Swig action shown above does not require a duel; the model simply declares the action and a target model within 2" and LoS to make a healing flip."

 

Which suggests that you have to check the targeting criteria of the action at this stage to see if you can declare it. So you can't use an action on a model that doesn't fulfill the targeting requirements (unless they decided to use a different convention for tactical actions that don't require duels ), which at least leaves us with just the linguistic problem in this scenario.

 

[lusciousmccabe]

Curse you English language!

[Ludvig]

Target (non master model) and/or (model with whatever condition) simply must be a targeting restriction. Trying to read it in any other way seems fishy to me.

For example!

Dashel:

(1) On year feet:

Target friendly minion gains reactivate. Sacrifice the target at the end of the turn.

Woo, so I can automatically sacrifice enemies, neat! I can even use it on your master...

[Ludvig]

Also: since we already know that attack actions with gun symbols by default require targets it seems really unnecessary for it to say "target model with ..." when it could just as easily say "If the target has the brilliance...". Why even mention target again? This coming from a company constantly struggling to keep wordig short since they run out of card space. That's how I see it at least.

[lusciousmccabe]

I don't know, the whole Under the Influence/Brilliance thing eats up a ridiculous amount of cardspace for the sake of clarity at the same time. I think they mention target in most attacks just so it reads better, although they actually leave out the model part for most simple attacks which is kind of confusing if you want to be super literal about things. 

[Myyrä]

Target (non master model) and/or (model with whatever condition) simply must be a targeting restriction. Trying to read it in any other way seems fishy to me.

For example!

Dashel:

(1) On year feet:

Target friendly minion gains reactivate. Sacrifice the target at the end of the turn.

Woo, so I can automatically sacrifice enemies, neat! I can even use it on your master...

There is a difference between target as a verb, target as a noun and the target that has been mentioned earlier.

[Kalkris]

*sigh*... Grammar Pedant to the rescue, I suppose...

 

If the characteristic in question was called "Brilliant", or if shorthand for "target model with the Brilliance characterstic" was "target Brilliant model", this entire thread would not exist in spacetime. Brilliance is a clunky word. It may be a noun like Beast, but unlike Beast, with its "target Beast model" as available shorthand, it is beyond clear that the developers didn't think "target Brilliance model" was acceptable (likely due to grammatical awkwardness), so they chose to put "target model with the Brilliance characteristic" instead.

 

There are multiple ways of saying certain things in this game. If this line of thinking were wrong, I could target Guild Austringers with Lucius's Issue Command action, because there is no model with the Austringer characteristic and Lucius's Issue Command can only target non-Austringer Minion models (I tried so hard to change the card's wording for that action, too, and here I am, showing you people why they're justified in the decision they made...).

 

~Lil Kalki

[Patzer]

Haha... these rules queries suck.

[Myyrä]

There are multiple ways of saying certain things in this game. If this line of thinking were wrong, I could target Guild Austringers with Lucius's Issue Command action, because there is no model with the Austringer characteristic and Lucius's Issue Command can only target non-Austringer Minion models (I tried so hard to change the card's wording for that action, too, and here I am, showing you people why they're justified in the decision they made...).

I'm not aware of any rule that says that actions can't refer to specific models instead of characteristics.

[enderwiggin]

If you actually want to get to raw RAW brass tacks, the colon itself needs to be mentioned. I'll quote wiki for now

"The most common use of the colon is to inform the reader that what follows the colon proves, explains, defines, describes, or lists elements of what preceded it."

 

So yes, by RAW you basically need LOS and Range, but equally by RAW you consider what follows to be a continuation of explanation for a reason, that being that they define the action being done.

Not a single action stands on its own in this game without being defined by the latter text. This is also consistent with the FAQ (take every example singularly), Justin ([url="...can't generalize in all situations."[/url)], and the basic premise that a game is inherently permissive to begin with.

 

In this case, the ability states "Target model" not "Targeted model" as a separated past tense, which tends to be standard in this game tbh.

 

 

Fwiw, it's messy, and I think this could have been worded better in hindsight. I also don't think the ability needs yet another (however small) Cuddle after being restricted already. I would also say that I am biased and have a dog in the fight since he's one of my more favorite Masters, but that I can see this being on that pedantic edge to the point that if it came up in-game before discussing it I'd probably dice off for resolution.

[Gremlin guy]

Target Brillianced model. Problem solved. B-)

[Kalkris]

I'm not aware of any rule that says that actions can't refer to specific models instead of characteristics.

Yeah, but "Austringer" isn't a model either. Issue Command references Austringer here, not Guild Austringer. This was another of my offered suggestions when this came up in Beta (and was promptly ignored/overlooked).

 

But either way, we are talking about Brilliance? Final Debt reads exactly as it should with the restriction being that the model needs to have the Brilliance characteristic before it can be targeted by the action. For the life of me, I cannot see how a model without the brilliance characteristic can be targeted by Final Debt.

 

At the very least, consider RaW and RaI. RaI (read as intended), it is clearly meant to mean that the model must have Brilliance - otherwise that restriction wouldn't say so. RaW (read as written), I still fail to see how this is an issue. If a model cannot be targeted by Final Debt, it is an invalid target for a Brilliance-conditioned Burt Jebsen's Slippery trigger, since it says "legal target".

 

~Lil Kalki

[papa smurf]

What about 52 pickup.

52 Pickup: At the end of this model's Activation, this model may reveal any number of Aces from its hand. If it does so, the revealed Aces and this model's discard pile are shuffled into this model's Fate Deck. After shuffling, target model with the Brilliance Characteristic within 6” suffers 2 damage for each Ace revealed in this way.

I can definitely use this ability just to shuffle if I choose too. The target model with brilliance part might not affect anything.

But choosing a target is fine and dandy. Nothing is restricting choosing a target with out brilliance. Nothing would happen though if the target does not have brillance.

Meh. It could be either to be honest.

[Ludvig]

Where did the target as verb cone from? "Target brillianced model" or "target model with the brilliance condition" aren't distinguishable from each other. Both of those phrases describe atttibutes of the noun "target" who is the "passive subject" (don't know if this is the english term) of the phrase.

The phrase "Target brillianced model suffers x dmg" Would also allow me to choose any model but just do dmg against models with brilliance if I want it to. It's just not

[Ludvig]

It's just the convention of wording wyrd has chosen.