Dark protection (mlh) vs shooting into melee

[katadder]

A model that has used errand for the master and has Dark Protection (cannot be targeted by enemy models for attacks unless within 3") is in combat. When shooting into that combat and randomising what happens if the model under Dark Protection is the randomly assigned target? 

He is still being targeted as you have to take into account terror and cover so can he be the target of this? Or does he just get to be a target for the random shot?

 

[displaced]

@santaclaws01 

23 hours ago, displaced said:

Dark Protection does not allow the model to ignore the randomization rules, nor does it cause actions to fail. Given this, what happens if we have a Dark Protection'd Archie engaged with a Watcher, and I choose to shoot at the watcher with my big guild gun?

 

[Ludvig]

MLH doesn't say it isn't allowed to cause actions to fail. Sidir's by your side doesn't explicitly mention failing but the faq makes it clear it can make actions fail. I don't see how this is different. I'd say that if you randomize onto a model that can't be targeted from where you are you fail and move on. The rqndomizatio rules only let you ignore the range of the action and LoS, it doesn't mention ignoring every targeting restriction in the game.

[displaced]

@Ludvig that's a bad argument. The ruleset is permissive, so MLH cannot cause actions to fail. Do you not see the dissonace in citing an ability that has been FAQ'd and arguing you can do things that are not printed on a card?

 

[Ludvig]

47 minutes ago, displaced said:

@Ludvig that's a bad argument. The ruleset is permissive, so MLH cannot cause actions to fail. Do you not see the dissonace in citing an ability that has been FAQ'd and arguing you can do things that are not printed on a card?

 

An faq instead of errata basically means that the action doesn't need to change wording to make it clear how it was intended to work but since people keep asking the designers offered a clarification. That's how I've always seen it. Errata is for actually changing the action since it was written in a way that made playing it raw have unintended sideffects.

[Adran]

48 minutes ago, displaced said:

@Ludvig that's a bad argument. The ruleset is permissive, so MLH cannot cause actions to fail. Do you not see the dissonace in citing an ability that has been FAQ'd and arguing you can do things that are not printed on a card?

 

The rules just say you can't do illegal actions, and there are very few ways to get into an illegal action that isn't just you doing something illegal by choice. Sidir is one, this is another, so without this appearing in an faq we are guessing, so basing one off another is as good as anything.

[displaced]

Abilities that cause actions to fail are expressly worded to do just that. (Manipulative, Butterfly Jump for eg). If that means that the Dark Protection needs errata rather than FAQ then so be it

[Ludvig]

13 minutes ago, displaced said:

Abilities that cause actions to fail are expressly worded to do just that. (Manipulative, Butterfly Jump for eg). If that means that the Dark Protection needs errata rather than FAQ then so be it

There is rules precedent for abilities making actions fail, some of them mentioning it explicitly and others not mentioning it but all making it possible. We won't get 100% sure without an official answer but to me it seems reasonable that this ability that is similar to several abilities that makes actions fail should work the same way. I can't add much more than that, I think.

To me this feels kind of like how the rulebook is super hazy on end of turnscoring but an ability on an Asami upgrade (I think it's Asami) clarifies how the base rules actually work in regards to end of turn scoring. Ability clarifications apparently work as an obscurr extension of the base rulebook.