Asura Roten and Decaying Aura.

[feagaur]

If Asura Roten has the decaying aura upgrade does it mean that any models that use her attacks through Residents of Rottenburg are affected by Bane.

Residents of Rottenburg: Freindly undead models in 12” and LoS May take Ml actions printed on this models stat card, but they can only take one action printed on the stat card once per activation and cannot declare triggers.

Bane: Enemy models may not use Soulstone to prevent damage caused by this models attack actions and abilities.

The way I read it a friendly model using Residents is using Asura’s attack which is affected by Bane. Also, Bane states the action or ability is covered not ‘This Model’? 

Does Bane need to be worded such that it says ‘actions and abilities of This Model’ instead?

[Angelshard]

Friendly models using her attack won't benefit from bane.

It confers an ability to her, not to the attack action.

[Angelshard]

 

13 hours ago, solkan said:

You're claiming that "this models Actions and Abilities" means something elaborate and baroque like "Actions and Abilities resolved by this model."

 No I'm claiming that when you copy the attack you only copy that specific text and the rest of the card is void. Since Bane isn't written as part of the attack it isn't copied.

You're claiming that copying a specific action somehow means you also copy other effects and abilites that affect the action and not just that text.

So a nurse giving Asura Hallucinogens would mean that all models using Residents of Rottenburg also get the +2 damage. 

 

As for Behold my Glory it says:
This model gains the following Trigger to all of its attack actions.

It clearly states that the effect is part of the action. And, as I wrote, I don't think that trigger should be copied either, with an ability like residents, as residents says printed on the base card and the added effect is from an upgrade and therefore not printed on.
 

[Kadeton]

On 12/27/2017 at 7:34 AM, solkan said:

You're claiming that "this models Actions and Abilities" means something elaborate and baroque like "Actions and Abilities resolved by this model."

That doesn't seem especially elaborate or baroque, to be honest. It seems completely straightforward and obvious. If a model is taking an Action, it is that model's Action, regardless of whose stat card it is printed on.

17 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

Your counter example isn't valid because as another pointed out that is completely different as the nurse applies a condition, it isn't functioning as an ability printed on an upgrade.

What's the difference, out of interest? Bane and Hallucinogens use the same phrasing ("this model's Actions") to apply their effect. I'm not sure why one being an Ability and the other a Condition would mean one might apply and the other not - where's that expectation coming from? Abilities and Conditions are broadly interchangeable, except in obscure edge cases. If Bane applied to copied attacks, I can't think of any reason why Hallucinogens wouldn't apply also.

Personally, I would play it that effects applied to "this model's Actions" do not apply when other models take those Actions. As Strumpet notes, there is no "hard" evidence for this. It's merely the safest option (i.e. the one most likely to be supported by an official ruling in future, if any), since it's the least powerful and prevents any unintended interactions.

[Angelshard]

No it isn't. It's an ability. When another model uses her attack they only get the text in that attack. Nothing else. It doesn't matter that the ability affects her attacks, it's still not part of the action and so it cannot be copied with the action.

If they wanted to put the effect on the attack it would be written like Behold My Glory for Titania.

"This model gains the following trigger to all of its attack actions." Except it would be effect and not trigger.

And even then I'm not certain it would work as residents only allows you to take the action as written on the base card.

 

[thewrathchilde]

I do not think that the benefit from bane would be transferred. Bane states "Enemy models may not use Soulstones to prevent damage caused by this model's Attack Actions or Abilities" (underline added). Residents states "Friendly Undead models within 12" and LOS may take MI Actions printed on this model's stat  card, but they can only take one Action printed on this model's stat card per Activation and cannot declare Triggers".

Based on the wording of Bane it seems clear (at least to me) that the wording is possessive and the benefit only applies to actions taken by this model (Asura Roten). When a Friendly Undead model  within 12" take the action it is the Friendly Undead model making the attack not Aura Roten. As mentioned in earlier replies upgrades that modify a printed action or attack generally state when the Action gains the ability or trigger- for example The Dancing Blade (Colette Upgrade) states "This model's The Saber Trick Action gains the following....". Bane does not state that Undead Minions or Hand from Below gain the the ability that there damage may not be prevent- it states this model's attack actions. So the benefit from Bane is not an effect of Undead or HfB it is an effect of actions taken by Asura Roten. When another model takes UM or HfB they are the model taking the action not Asura Roten so the benefit from Bane wouldn't apply. 

 

[Angelshard]

@Fetid Strumpet I will freely admit that I'm basing this on my reading of Residents of Rottenburg. As I wrote earlier, I read this as using a specific bit of text and voiding the rest of the card. 
The reason I added in Titanias upgrade is because there, like Misakis The Storm, it at least says that the attack action itself is changed, not that the model merely recieves an additional ability.

Also I have yet to see a single reason as to why you would read more into an ability than what is explictly written. I know that Wyrd have used incomplete text at other times to save space on a card. But in those instances you can find the full rule in the rulebook or it refrences another condition of the same name (flicker and push towards as examples). Here there's nothing to indicate that the action being copied should include any other abilities or effects on the original model.
As for Hallucinogens I'm with Kadeton, in that I cannot see why an ability and a condition with the same wording shouldn't be equally valid. There is nothing in the rules, about copying actions, and no inherent difference in the value of a condition vs an ability to argue that abilities affect the copied action but conditions do not.

[feagaur]

1 hour ago, Angelshard said:

Friendly models using her attack won't benefit from bane.

It confers an ability to her, not to the attack action.

Although the ability is conferred to Asura (as all abilities are), it is written in a way that suggests that the effect is on the attack rather than on her. So a model using her attack would benefit from the effect of Bane.

[solkan]

On 2017/12/24 at 12:43 AM, Angelshard said:

No it isn't. It's an ability. When another model uses her attack they only get the text in that attack. Nothing else. It doesn't matter that the ability affects her attacks, it's still not part of the action and so it cannot be copied with the action.

Please provide citations and proof of this claim.

You're claiming that "this models Actions and Abilities" means something elaborate and baroque like "Actions and Abilities resolved by this model."

On 2017/12/24 at 12:43 AM, Angelshard said:

If they wanted to put the effect on the attack it would be written like Behold My Glory for Titania.

"This model gains the following trigger to all of its attack actions." Except it would be effect and not trigger.

Citation needed, please.  

 

[Fetid Strumpet]

How did they resolve the Sonia confiscated lore malifaux child issue as a pressident? 

[Ludvig]

7 hours ago, Fetid Strumpet said:

How did they resolve the Sonia confiscated lore malifaux child issue as a pressident? 

That is a very different wording. Confiacated lore gives a condition to the model that increases the stat on the model, doesn't mention action at all.

[Fetid Strumpet]

You're not citing. Your stating feelings about how it should work, which isn't a valid argument.

Now to be fair I agree with the upshot of your stance. I also agree Bane shouldn't be able to be copied, and I will rule as such, but I  at least admit I'm basing my assumptions on moves the company has taken in the past and not validly backed up hard text rules analysis, which is what it feels to me like you are trying to claim.

From a RAW perspective we don't currently have a leg to stand on in hard evidence. Your counter example isn't valid because as another pointed out that is completely different as the nurse applies a condition, it isn't functioning as an ability printed on an upgrade. Do you have hard rules citation evidence to back up your opinion that your interpretation is based on RAW? Or will you at least admit that you don't have hard justification and instead are basing your opinion on perceived intent?