Will o' the Wisp and Voodoo Doll

[JarnabyBones]

Will o' the Wisp can put a lure condition on a target model that says "When this model takes a walk action it must walk towards the model that applied this condition"

My question is, if I use this on a voodoo doll then the doll and the hemmed target both get the condition; but does the hemmed target walk towards the Wisp or the Doll? Who counts as having applied the condition?

 

ive gotten 2 (3 after comments below) primary and conflicting answers to this question:

1. The Wisp counts as having applied both instances of the condition as the hemmed condition simply adds an addition target. Both targets must walk towards the wisp.

2. The Wisp counts only for applying to the voodoo doll. The doll counts as applying to the hemmed target. The Doll must walk towards the wisp, the hemmed target must walk towards the doll.

3. The Hem Condition is responsible for putting on the Wisp Lure so the hemmed target doesn't have to walk towards anything since no "model" applied the condition.

 

Can anyone provide a definitive answer?

Edited August 29, 2016 by JarnabyBones
New option proposed

[edopersichetti]

I think several people are just overthinking this. The rule says that the hemmed model gets the same condition as the doll, so to me it is very clear that the hemmed model gets the condition as if it was the doll, and thus, it walks towards the Wisp...

I love rules, but one also has to understand the principle and the intent behind them. The doll is designed to pass conditions onto enemies circumventing the need to target them directly. The condition applied by the Wisp is a "lure", forcing the model to walk towards it. It may be poor wording, but to me it's clear that the model walks towards the Wisp.

[Kadeton]

Definitive? No.

A rules-pedant answer might be that the Whispers in the Night condition is applied by the model with the Sewn Fate condition, i.e. itself. It would therefore have to end its next Walk as close as possible to itself, which would effectively mean it could walk anywhere. That seems to go against the spirit of those abilities to me.

If I were adjudicating, I would say the model has to walk towards the Wisp. That seems the simplest and most reasonable outcome of the interaction, following the principle of "don't break the game".

[Bengt]

The relevant wording is: "Whenever an enemy Voodoo Doll gains a Condition, this model gains the same Condition."

So it's the Hemmed condition that applies any conditions to the hemmed model, not any model. Whether this means the model can't walk anywhere or walk wherever it wants is an interesting question.

[mythicFOX]

<modhat>

I've removed a comment which was reported to us, and was highly unwise from this thread. 

</modhat>

[Bengt]

 

Sure, having an official ruling is important, but is there really anyone who thinks the intent of the Wisp's lure was to allow a model to walk closest to the doll, or worse, to itself (?!?)

In my meta, we will all play with the ruling mentioned above, as the wording is ambiguous and this is the solution that makes the most sense. But Wyrd is an amazing company and I'm sure an FAQ will come out soon and fix the whole thing (I'm used to years of playing Warhammer and this sort of situations would arise every second day, without GW showing the least sign of care about it...)

I don't think it's a given that a talent does something in every possible scenario. Subsequently I don't think it would be weird if it is FAQ:ed that the Wisp Lure thing doesn't work if you cast it on a Voodoo Doll, there are still plenty of other opportunities to use the action, i.e. casting it directly on the enemy models (which I think is the primary intended use of it ).

[Kadeton]

 

To argue one version of a rule based on how you interpreted the objective wording of the rules is fine, you're right that there is an inherent ambiguity. But to argue an interpretation of a rule based on a guess about intent imo means that people are no longer playing from the same set of rules. I think if both players agree on the intent of the rule before a casual game then you can pick whichever interpretation is your favourite, since you can agree on intent, but for a blanket rules question about every possible instance of this interaction, I don't think intent is a useful metric.

That's basically why this section of the forum exists - so that everyone can discuss their interpretations (and the implications thereof) and try to come to some sort of consensus, or at least reach a majority decision. I don't think (or perhaps I hope it's not the case that) anyone here is presenting their interpretation as inarguable - they're expressing their opinion on the "correct" way to play an ambiguous rule, giving their reasoning, and seeing who agrees with them (via the upvote/downvote system).

I know that some people really hate that method of deciding on how the rules should be played, but it's really not that bad. If the community gets it totally "wrong", an answer usually gets added to the FAQ to correct us.

 

Besides, I'm not sure the intent of Sewn Fate is as clear as it's been made out to be, for example, kills pretty unambiguously are not credited to any model if they're the result of Sewn Fate, so why would this condition be credited to any model if it's the result of Sewn Fate?

Semi-flippant answers: Because conditions aren't the same as kills. Because the Wisp's condition already breaks the established pseudo-rule about conditions not having "memory", so all bets are off. Because to do otherwise would break the established narrative trope that "What happens to a voodoo doll also happens to the person it represents".

Do you think the intended interaction in this case is that the condition would do nothing?

[Four_N_Six]

I believe it would be the Wisp, but I don't know the exact wording on Hem.  I thought it said "When this model gains a condition, the hemmed model gains the same condition."  It would have to specifically say that the Voodoo Doll gives the condition to the hemmed model in order for the Doll to count for having given the condition.

[Ludvig]

 

The relevant wording is: "Whenever an enemy Voodoo Doll gains a Condition, this model gains the same Condition."

So it's the Hemmed condition that applies any conditions to the hemmed model, not any model. Whether this means the model can't walk anywhere or walk wherever it wants is an interesting question.

It must surely mean that the model needs to walk either towards the wisp or towards the doll.

[JarnabyBones]

 

The relevant wording is: "Whenever an enemy Voodoo Doll gains a Condition, this model gains the same Condition."

So it's the Hemmed condition that applies any conditions to the hemmed model, not any model. Whether this means the model can't walk anywhere or walk wherever it wants is an interesting question.

Well great... now theres a 3rd option... editing the post above

[Ludvig]

No model counts as killing when a condition kills something but in this case it seems like the ability forces you to determine which model was responsible for applying the condition.

[Dogmantra]

Damage dealt by the Sewn Fate condition doesn't count as being applied by a model for the purposes of e.g. Reckoning. If a model hit a Voodoo Doll, and Sewn Fate caused damage to be dealt to an enemy model, killing it, that would not count towards the two kills required for Reckoning to score because the kill wasn't by the friendly model.

IMO, that means that applying a condition via Sewn Fate should work the same as applying damage, and it counts as originating from the condition and not from a specific model. In which case a model that gains this condition from a Voodoo Doll can freely walk around since there is no model it must end closest to.

This is one of those cases where it's probably going to get FAQed and will end up working that it needs to walk towards the wisp or doll, but at the moment, I say it doesn't work like that.

[JarnabyBones]

 

I suppose until an official ruling I'll just make sure I agree pre-game with an opponent as to how to handle it.

I appreciate the ruling in the meantime, Angst Bunny!

[Adran]

I'm going with 3. Neither the Wisp or the Doll have applied the condition to the hemmed model. 

You can walk where ever you like to remove the condition. the only advantage the Wisp has of putting it on their own voodoo doll rather than going straight for the hemmed enemy is that the enemy  can't charge until its walked. 

 

And whilst playtesters may appear like gods amidst us meer mortals, they might not actually see every interaction, or might even think something is obvious how it works, so not bring it up. 

So you could well be the first person to see this interaction and think there is a problem with it. 

[Myyrä]

I find it really mature to bitch about people who can't defend themselves.

[Dogmantra]

 

I love rules, but one also has to understand the principle and the intent behind them.

Going by the idea of intent is a good idea in theory but I don't think it's practical. Until Aaron or Justin or whoever was responsible for that action's design and text comes in and says "this is what I meant it to do, this is how it works now" (via an FAQ), then there's no way of actually knowing what the intent of the rule was. To be a fair game, everyone should be playing with the same objective ruleset, and if you're using intent rather than actual wording to measure that, then people are no longer playing the same game.

[Kadeton]

 

Going by the idea of intent is a good idea in theory but I don't think it's practical. To be a fair game, everyone should be playing with the same objective ruleset, and if you're using intent rather than actual wording to measure that, then people are no longer playing the same game.

Expecting the "actual wording" to provide an "objective ruleset" is obviously flawed - if the rules were unambiguous, there wouldn't be any discussion to have. "Going by the intent" is the only thing you can possibly do once it's been demonstrated that there are two or more semantically valid interpretations of the rules as written. It's honestly not that difficult to accurately guess the designers' intent in most cases.

[edopersichetti]

 

Going by the idea of intent is a good idea in theory but I don't think it's practical. Until Aaron or Justin or whoever was responsible for that action's design and text comes in and says "this is what I meant it to do, this is how it works now" (via an FAQ), then there's no way of actually knowing what the intent of the rule was. To be a fair game, everyone should be playing with the same objective ruleset, and if you're using intent rather than actual wording to measure that, then people are no longer playing the same game.

Sure, having an official ruling is important, but is there really anyone who thinks the intent of the Wisp's lure was to allow a model to walk closest to the doll, or worse, to itself (?!?)

In my meta, we will all play with the ruling mentioned above, as the wording is ambiguous and this is the solution that makes the most sense. But Wyrd is an amazing company and I'm sure an FAQ will come out soon and fix the whole thing (I'm used to years of playing Warhammer and this sort of situations would arise every second day, without GW showing the least sign of care about it...)

[Dogmantra]

 

Expecting the "actual wording" to provide an "objective ruleset" is obviously flawed - if the rules were unambiguous, there wouldn't be any discussion to have. "Going by the intent" is the only thing you can possibly do once it's been demonstrated that there are two or more semantically valid interpretations of the rules as written. It's honestly not that difficult to accurately guess the designers' intent in most cases.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

What I mean is that the ruleset is objective in that the words themselves are inarguable - what's the first sentence on page 34 of the big rulebook? There is one objective answer. What was the designer thinking when they wrote that sentence? There is no objective answer. You can guess at the intent, but not everyone will guess or interpret intent in the same way, and there's no way of knowing who is right or wrong until Justin or Aaron or whoever comes in and says "this is what I wanted" (at which point IMO that becomes RAW). To argue one version of a rule based on how you interpreted the objective wording of the rules is fine, you're right that there is an inherent ambiguity. But to argue an interpretation of a rule based on a guess about intent imo means that people are no longer playing from the same set of rules. I think if both players agree on the intent of the rule before a casual game then you can pick whichever interpretation is your favourite, since you can agree on intent, but for a blanket rules question about every possible instance of this interaction, I don't think intent is a useful metric.

Besides, I'm not sure the intent of Sewn Fate is as clear as it's been made out to be, for example, kills pretty unambiguously are not credited to any model if they're the result of Sewn Fate, so why would this condition be credited to any model if it's the result of Sewn Fate?

[edopersichetti]

 

I don't think it's a given that a talent does something in every possible scenario. Subsequently I don't think it would be weird if it is FAQ:ed that the Wisp Lure thing doesn't work if you cast it on a Voodoo Doll, there are still plenty of other opportunities to use the action, i.e. casting it directly on the enemy models (which I think is the primary intended use of it ).

It could be, I guess until there is an official FAQ everything is possible, but it would look weird to me. I like to think at the doll as "everything that happens to the doll, happens to the hemmed model". The doll takes 2 damage? The hemmed model takes 2 damage. The doll burns? The hemmed model burns. The doll walks towards the Wisp? The hemmed model walks towards the Wisp.

I believe this makes the most sense and was as intended by the designers...but I definitely look forward to that FAQ now!

[edopersichetti]

 

That's basically why this section of the forum exists - so that everyone can discuss their interpretations (and the implications thereof) and try to come to some sort of consensus, or at least reach a majority decision. I don't think (or perhaps I hope it's not the case that) anyone here is presenting their interpretation as inarguable - they're expressing their opinion on the "correct" way to play an ambiguous rule, giving their reasoning, and seeing who agrees with them (via the upvote/downvote system).

I know that some people really hate that method of deciding on how the rules should be played, but it's really not that bad. If the community gets it totally "wrong", an answer usually gets added to the FAQ to correct us.

Semi-flippant answers: Because conditions aren't the same as kills. Because the Wisp's condition already breaks the established pseudo-rule about conditions not having "memory", so all bets are off. Because to do otherwise would break the established narrative trope that "What happens to a voodoo doll also happens to the person it represents".

Do you think the intended interaction in this case is that the condition would do nothing?

Lol I just replied to a comment above and then read yours, and I noticed that we essentially said the same thing "What happens to a voodoo doll also happens to the person it represents". Good to know I'm not the only one that thinks this way

[Dogmantra]

 

That's basically why this section of the forum exists - so that everyone can discuss their interpretations (and the implications thereof) and try to come to some sort of consensus, or at least reach a majority decision. I don't think (or perhaps I hope it's not the case that) anyone here is presenting their interpretation as inarguable - they're expressing their opinion on the "correct" way to play an ambiguous rule, giving their reasoning, and seeing who agrees with them (via the upvote/downvote system).

Oh yeah, I mean this is me discussing my opinion too, but arguing a slightly more philosophical route as to why I disagree with the argument from intent. I hope no one thinks I'm trying to shut them down, I'm trying to share why I don't agree (and hopefully get them to agree with me.

 

 

Do you think the intended interaction in this case is that the condition would do nothing?

I don't know what the intended interaction is. If it didn't ever come up during playtesting, it could be that there was no intended reaction because it never crossed the designer's mind. If it did, then it wasn't changed or clarified, so I would assume their intent was whatever their reading of the text is. I agree the "whatever happens to the doll happens to the hem target" is a pretty compelling narrative, but there are quite a few exceptions that imo make it too inconsistent to be a guideline for how to interpret the rules in this case (e.g. healing isn't transferred)

[SurreyLee]

On 9/2/2016 at 3:48 AM, edopersichetti said:

I think several people are just overthinking this. The rule says that the hemmed model gets the same condition as the doll, so to me it is very clear that the hemmed model gets the condition as if it was the doll, and thus, it walks towards the Wisp...

I love rules, but one also has to understand the principle and the intent behind them. The doll is designed to pass conditions onto enemies circumventing the need to target them directly. The condition applied by the Wisp is a "lure", forcing the model to walk towards it. It may be poor wording, but to me it's clear that the model walks towards the Wisp.

In my opinion it is straight forward. Hem gives the sewn fate condition. This is the only condition the Voodoo Dolls gives out. When the VD gains a condition and model with the Sewn Fate condition gains the same condition. The VD at this point is redundant as it does nothing else to hand over the second condition. I'd argue it's not even Sewn Fate that give the second condition as it's not acting in any way, other than being a conduit for the next condition. 

I agree totally that the model would, in this instance, walk towards the Wisp