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.

[Bengt]

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).

The use of model names is pretty lax. Molly's stat card identifies her as "Molly Squidpiddge" but her upgrades only say "Molly", the same is true for Kirai, Colette, Somer, Ophelia and Perdita. Viktoria is called on "of Ashes" on the stat card and "of Ash" on the upgrade. I admit this bugs me, but it's not exactly ambiguous.

[lusciousmccabe]

*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.

 

Additional Grammar Pendantry: it should really say "Beastly model" to be full correct, but I think Beast looks normal enough as an adjective that they get away with it. 

 

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.

 

52 Pickup is slightly different in that the whole first part doesn't require a target. If you did elect to do the shuffling (for some reason) you'd probably have to target one of your own models in range though, since that part isn't a may. 

 

 

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.

 

Yeah, Target is used in the same sense in both those those phrases. It's a verb in "Target a model", and this rule might be a bit clearer if it was phrased that way, but it isn't. 

[Ludvig]

 

 

Yeah, Target is used in the same sense in both those those phrases. It's a verb in "Target a model", and this rule might be a bit clearer if it was phrased that way, but it isn't. 

 

I still can't see people's point.

 

Compare:

1 "Target red model suffers 1 dmg"

2 "Target model that is red suffers 1 dmg"

3 "Target model suffers 1 dmg if it is red"

 

We all know that sentence 1 is supposed to be read "You must target a red model. It suffers 1 dmg. This is how restrictions are worded, with just the word "target" and an attribute like friendly, beast, living etc and then the effect. If we didn't know this was the case in this game, we could read sentence number 1 as meaning: "Target any model. If the target is red it suffers 1 dmg"

 

There is nothing making phrase nr 1 more restrictive than phrase nr 2 and yet everyone is accepting nr 1 but not nr 2? This isn't just a question of "In a vaccuum, can this phrase be the least bit ambiguous". We all agree that in a vacuum both 1 and 2 can be ambiguous and mean both. We also know that this games designer choose way number 1 to be the default way of stating a targeting restriction.

 

The real question here is: "Is wording number 2 more likely to mean the same as number 1 or number 3? I argue that it should mean the same as number one since a description of a noun can be tagged on both before and after it in the english language.

 

Edit: Actually, apologies to the good people who designed this game. I see a lot of discussions om ambiguity  I don't think the wordings are ambiguous in this (and a few other) case(s). The problem is that we players love to create ambiguity to further our own models, and I am also guilty of this at times. Good job Wyrd, love you guys for making this game!

Edited May 20, 2015 by Ludvig

[Kadeton]

Yeah, I'm still struggling to see any distinction. A red model is a model that is red. A model that is red is a red model. A target model that is red is a target red model.

 

Conditional logic generally relies on "if". The game rules aren't going to help here - this is just standard English grammar.

[Justin]

Edit: Actually, apologies to the good people who designed this game. I see a lot of discussions om ambiguity  I don't think the wordings are ambiguous in this (and a few other) case(s). The problem is that we players love to create ambiguity to further our own models, and I am also guilty of this at times. Good job Wyrd, love you guys for making this game!

 

It's cool, we're used to it.

[enderwiggin]

*Puts on Professor spectacles*

 

At least they aren't like GW with their horrible grasp of language ability that can fluctuate from sentence to sentence.

---

 

Best rule writers are the Magic The Gathering card writers, imo, and even they screw up. But that fan lot knows their language rules by golly!

[SurreyLee]

So, after all the discussions, is it concensus that in this scenario Lynch can target Burt, who has Brilliance, but Burt can't pass off the attack to Gracie via Slippery as Gracie doesn't have Brilliance.

 

It seems that this is the case and in keeping with the Pandora clarification in the FAQ.

[Dirial]

So, after all the discussions, is it concensus that in this scenario Lynch can target Burt, who has Brilliance, but Burt can't pass off the attack to Gracie via Slippery as Gracie doesn't have Brilliance.

 

It seems that this is the case and in keeping with the Pandora clarification in the FAQ.

 

Consensus would be a little far-fetched, just because the opposition to this rule doesn't repeat their argument over and over...

[zFiend]

Wow. This thread escalated.

[papa smurf]

*Puts on Professor spectacles*

 

At least they aren't like GW with their horrible grasp of language ability that can fluctuate from sentence to sentence.

---

 

Best rule writers are the Magic The Gathering card writers, imo, and even they screw up. But that fan lot knows their language rules by golly!

I think justin had a blog about how writing rules is generally a nightmare. Magic has like 400pages of rules to explain every rules interaction ever. Malifaux does not need this. Just some tightening here some brush up there. Maybe a polish on this or that.

But no the consensus is not burt can't pass it off. It's a mix. It can be read either way.

[papa smurf]

Question if he targeted dreamer or kirai with it and they passed it off would they suffer it? I don't beilve so since they new target doesn't have brilliance.

[Bengt]

I think justin had a blog about how writing rules is generally a nightmare. Magic has like 400pages of rules to explain every rules interaction ever. Malifaux does not need this. Just some tightening here some brush up there. Maybe a polish on this or that.

When you are officially sanctioning tournaments with large cash prices I guess there is a certain demand for absolutly unambiguous rules.

[Dirial]

The issues I have are:

 

2. Because the way I see things:

     a. Car A is red

     b. Car B is black with a red stripe

     c. My phrasing means A is red and B is black

     d. Your phrasing means A is red, and B is also red because it contains red

 

I don't get this comparison at all. Where does the red stripe come in? Models cannot have both the Brilliance condition and not have it. We are dealing in absolutes here. A car is either red or it isn't.

 

The issues I have are:

 

1. I just want to see an official line that states "phrasing A" and "phrasing B" mean the same thing.

 

In the above FAQ question, there is the following official wording:

 

"Attacks that require the target have a certain trait in order to target are generally worded, “Target model with a z Attack...” "

[trikk]

"Attacks that require the target have a certain trait in order to target

are generally worded, “Target model with a z Attack…”"

 

combined with

 "Final Debt (Ca 7   / TN: 11   / Rst: Df / Rg 10): Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic suffers an amount of damage equal to the number of cards in this model’s controller's hand."

I was convinced by multiple arguments in this thread but this one proves to me that you can`t target a model without Brilliance which would make Gracie an illegal target and disallow slippery

 

I assume other meaning would be put into "If the target has the Brilliance Characteristic"

[Dirial]

As said, it's not encouraged to generalize FAQ answers, but I find that pretty convincing too, at least about RaI.

[Ludvig]

Consensus would be a little far-fetched, just because the opposition to this rule doesn't repeat their argument over and over...

 

Ouch! Point taken. 

 

Hopefully this qualifies as a new argument. Not sure if I can convince anyone who is still doubtful or if this is just gonna mess with my head even more, I might have been playing this wrong.

 

Black Blood Shaman (Crossroads, p 156)

Tactical

(1) Black Blood Pustule (Stats irrelevant for this discussion)

"Target friendly model with the Black Blood Ability suffers 1 damage, ignoring the Black Blood ability. Enemy models within (1) of the target model suffer 2 damage."

 

Lynch upgrade "Woke up with a hand" (Core Rules p 272)

Attack

1) Final debt (Some stats)

"Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic suffers an amount of damage equal to the number of cards in this model's controller's hand."

 

I have always read both "with the X ability" to be targeting restrictions.

[r4st4f4n]

And, by the way, the dress is White and Gold! u.u No, wait, sorry...

[Allandrel]

*Puts on Professor spectacles*

 

At least they aren't like GW with their horrible grasp of language ability that can fluctuate from sentence to sentence.

---

I remember some years ago, when talking to one of GW's designers in person, I brought up a rules issue with two similar but differently-worded rules in a book he wrote. There was a situation where it appeared that one of the rules would be in effect but the other would not, due to the difference in wording.

He was quite surprised and confused that people thought there was any difference between the two rules. He literally did not understand why people would conclude that, if two rules (in the same book, mind you) were written differently, they must be different rules, and the difference between them must be meaningful.

This is why I love designers that use templating in their rules.

[enderwiggin]

Ouch! Point taken. 

 

Hopefully this qualifies as a new argument. Not sure if I can convince anyone who is still doubtful or if this is just gonna mess with my head even more, I might have been playing this wrong.

 

Black Blood Shaman (Crossroads, p 156)

Tactical

(1) Black Blood Pustule (Stats irrelevant for this discussion)

"Target friendly model with the Black Blood Ability suffers 1 damage, ignoring the Black Blood ability. Enemy models within (1) of the target model suffer 2 damage."

 

Lynch upgrade "Woke up with a hand" (Core Rules p 272)

Attack

1) Final debt (Some stats)

"Target model with the Brilliance Characteristic suffers an amount of damage equal to the number of cards in this model's controller's hand."

 

I have always read both "with the X ability" to be targeting restrictions.

 

Arguing the same point in different ways is fine, that's how discussion is made and understanding born from the efforts.

[Dirial]

Ouch! Point taken. 

 

Wasn't really directed at anyone. I just pointed out that the argument not going around in circles isn't the same thing as having reached a consensus. A majority shouting down a minority isn't consensus, either. That's all.

[zFiend]

A majority shouting down a minority isn't consensus

 

This. 

[Patzer]

I was going to rant. Now I am going to do something constructive instead. Moderators, please lock this (very irritating) thread.

[Myyrä]

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?

[Patzer]

I am agnostic in the matter, until the FAQ addresses it. (As of now) If I were a TO, I would rule it that the new target isn't a valid legal target. Otherwise it seems to imply that, for example, a Blackblood Shaman could use Blackblood Pustule on a non-blackblood model and still be able to get the triggers off, or let Marcus target a non-beast model with Darzee's Chaunt to make it fail a Willpower duel which will trigger Smell Fear. It just doesn't seem to follow. If I was a player in a tournament, I would ask and go with that. In a friendly game, depends on how my opponent would want to rule. If she or he wanted to a non-brillance new target to be legal, I would say ok, fine.

 

EDIT. Sorry! I was still in the Burt-discussion! I am with Dirial, no damage!

[Dirial]

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?

 

Good question. What of the ever famous By Your Side? I'd say no damage.