Trixiebelle vs Flurry

[Rostislav]

A model declares Flurry on Trixiebelle .
Trixiebelle uses "Don't fight over me boys" to change the target for the first attack action.

Where must other 2 attacks be directed - to Trixiebelle  or to a new target?

[looka]

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

 This action doesn't have a target because of how the word is used.

maybe I'm a little confused by the English grammar , because it is not my mother language. 
But "...this model may make 3 Ml Attack Actions with an AP cost of 1 against A single target."
I think this article points to the non-objective nature of the target, if flurry declare a target, maybe there should be an article "the"?
"...this model may make 3 Ml Attack Actions with an AP cost of 1 against the target." ????

[Ludvig]

@looka not my mother tongue either so I am not 100% but since it says you need a single target for all three within the context of this action and because the "declare actions" step states that you explicitly need to declare any variables like targets this works together to make this action need to choose which model it's targeting for the flurry in my eyes.

 

[Myyrä]

1 minute ago, looka said:

maybe I'm a little confused by the grammar of English, because it is not my mother language. 
But "...this model may make 3 Ml Attack Actions with an AP cost of 1 against A single target."
I think this article points to the non-objective nature of the target, if flurry declare a target, maybe there should be an article "the"?
"...this model may make 3 Ml Attack Actions with an AP cost of 1 against the target." ????

The rules aren't consistent in their article use when referring to the target of the action. It can just as easily be "target", "a target" or "the target".

[looka]

7 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

The rules aren't consistent in their article use when referring to the target of the action. It can just as easily be "target", "a target" or "the target".

"target" - verb
"a target" - noun and indefinite
 "the target" - noun and definite

" because of how the word is used."

[Myyrä]

Just now, looka said:

"target" - verb
"a target" - noun and indefinite
 "the target" - noun and definite

" because of how the word is used."

I guess I should have been more clear. What I meant is that they aren't consistent when using target as a noun. It's also used as a verb, but that has very little to do with this.

[looka]

1 minute ago, Myyrä said:

I guess I should have been more clear. What I meant is that they aren't consistent when using target as a noun. It's also used as a verb, but that has very little to do with this.

but in this case it is а indefinite noun in the end of description and we know what declare target is in the 1 step of the Action resolving (37page) and it is before Resolve Results of the action. 
If if there is no target - we can`t  identified target and and should use the article "а"

[Myyrä]

15 minutes ago, looka said:

but in this case it is а indefinite noun in the end of description and we know what declare target is in the 1 step of the Action resolving (37page) and it is before Resolve Results of the action. 
If if there is no target - we can`t  identified target and and should use the article "а"

Like I said, there are other actions that refer to the target of the action as "a target". Molemen, for example, have one: (0) Tunneling: Place this model in base contact with a target friendly Scheme Marker within 8”. Thus, the article use doesn't really prove anything.

[Ludvig]

There are a bunch of ways actions state that they need a target: Target a model with, target suffers, target a model, against a target model, against the target etc. They are functionally the same. The difference is stuff like the clarficiation mentioned above where it says "you don't need to randomize targets" that is clearly not saying the action has a target but just clarifies an interaction. 

[GrudgeMonkey]

Correct me if I am wrong but Flurry is a tactical action. Don't Fight Over Me Boys works on attack actions. Since Flurry is a tactical it can target Trixie and does not qualify for Don't Fight Over Me Boys. However since it generates 3 (1) AP melee attacks against the target, each of those melee attacks is resolved as a separate attack and then can be shifted with Don't Fight Over Me Boys. She can use it against each of the three attacks as long as she has some poor gremlin around to get smacked instead of her.  

[Kadeton]

9 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I don't see anything about Flurry that has you pick a target. It just specifies that you take three 1 AP attacks against the same target. That target is set when you declare  the first attack.

I mean, that's basically the crux of this whole conversation. There isn't anything that suggests that the target is set when you declare the first attack, rather than when you declare Flurry, either.

In general, actions that mention a target require you to declare that target, so that's the logic I'd apply here by default... but it's very hazy wording.

[trikk]

23 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Charges and Flurry are different. The Charge action has you declare a target, move towards the target and then you may take 2 1 AP attacks against it.

Flurry just lets you take 3 1 AP attacks against a single target. It doesn't declare a target as part of the action.

As Kadeton said. The debate is whenever it does or does not require a target but I'd say you can't flurry without a target.

[Rostislav]

 I think that this question must be in FAQ.

Many players in my community think that actions like Flurry/Rapid fire/Furious casting doesn't require an initial target and I failed to change their opinion.
 

[trikk]

17 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

It is clear that taking an attack action requires one to declare a target. If there's nothing that sets the target before the first attack action then it follows that one would be set then.

There's nothing about Flurry that requires a target. It's an action that affects the only the model taking the action.

The target being set when one takes the Flurry action requires players to be playing by rules that aren't actually written in any rule book.

Why should the interpretation that requires players to play by inferred rules be way to go with this? 

There is. You can take 3 Ml attacks against that target. Thats why you select him.

 

Which rules that are stated are not in the rulebook?

[Kadeton]

25 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

It is clear that taking an attack action requires one to declare a target. If there's nothing that sets the target before the first attack action then it follows that one would be set then.

There's nothing about Flurry that requires a target. It's an action that affects the only the model taking the action.

The target being set when one takes the Flurry action requires players to be playing by rules that aren't actually written in any rule book.

Why should the interpretation that requires players to play by inferred rules be way to go with this?

I'm not sure why that needed a larger font size, lol.

Attack actions need a target, yeah. Tactical actions also often need a target. Is the target of a Charge action "affected" by it, or only by the Ml attacks that it causes? After all, it only causes the acting model to move.

The basis for whether an action needs a target is not its type, but whether or not it uses the word "target" in describing its effects. Given that Flurry's effect is to cause the model to make three Ml attacks "against a single target", it's perfectly reasonable within the existing rules framework to expect that target to be declared when taking the Flurry action. The only reason that's not 100% ironclad in this case is because of the slightly weird way that the action is worded, which opens it up to the possibility of other interpretations.

[trikk]

If the wording was "against a single model" I would agree with you. But it says "against a single target" which suggests you have to pick it when declaring.

[Ludvig]

Just now, trikk said:

If the wording was "against a single model" I would agree with you. But it says "against a single target" which suggests you have to pick it when declaring.

This. The wording asks for a target in the tactical so why wouldn't you choose the target when declaring the tactical?

[Platov]

3 hours ago, trikk said:

If the wording was "against a single model" I would agree with you. But it says "against a single target" which suggests you have to pick it when declaring.

Following that logic, if you flurry manipulative model, you should take WP duel 4 times. Seems not legit to me.

[trikk]

3 minutes ago, Platov said:

Following that logic, if you flurry manipulative model, you should take WP duel 4 times. Seems not legit to me.

Manipulative only works on Attack Actions, so no.

[Thottbot]

3 hours ago, Ludvig said:

This. The wording asks for a target in the tactical so why wouldn't you choose the target when declaring the tactical?

following that logic, why does it need to say single, it's redundant then. because "take three actions against target" would do the same thing.

[Platov]

3 minutes ago, trikk said:

Manipulative only works on Attack Actions, so no.

Manipulative is not the point of my statement. WP duels for Challenge then? Terrifying? Should you pass these dueld before you take flurry tactical against the target(With said abilities)?

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, Platov said:

Manipulative is not the point of my statement. WP duels for Challenge then? Terrifying? Should you pass these dueld before you take flurry tactical against the target(With said abilities)?

Yes. Why not?

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, Thottbot said:

following that logic, why does it need to say single, it's redundant then. because "take three actions against target" would do the same thing.

It would do the same thing yes. How does this help the current discussion? There are tons of abilities that could br worded in a slightly different way and still work the same.

Targeting restrictions are expressed in various ways too, when stuff don't require targeting they usually don't use the word target.

I can think of several wordings that would make it clear that the tactical itself doesn't require a target but now we are stuck with the wording we have.

[WWHSD]

1 hour ago, trikk said:

Manipulative only works on Attack Actions, so no.

Then use Challenge for Ironsides or Barbaros instead.

If Flurry needs a target then if you would need to pass a Wp duel to use Flurry. If it fails the AP is spent and the Flurry fails. If you pass it you need to take a Wp duel for each of the three attacks.

[Ludvig]

13 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

But it doesn't ask for a target. It affects the model that took the action and allows them to take three 1AP attack so long as all of those attacks are against the same target.

I still don't see why the target declaration needs to be done during the Flurry action.

Page 37 big book, declaring actions:

"The model also declares any variable in the Action. This depends on the Action, as some Actions have different variables, or affect multiple targets."

(2) Flurry

This model may discard a card. If it does, this model may take 3ml Attack Actions with an AP cost of 1 against a single target.

Any variable of a flurry includes which target you are going to declare those attacks against. If it asked you to name any model the tactical wouldn't have a target but the first attack would. Now it has a variable that needs to be declared. That variable of the action is called target and we happen to know that target is a keyword used in certain abilities, for instance Trixie's.

 

[Ludvig]

Since the part about targeting isn't specific in stating how a target must be expressed but seems to allow for a wide range of wordings to all mean that your action declares a target I don't see why this is not a targeting?