Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Da Git

Protect - enemy only?

Recommended Posts

So my opponent and I were discussing the Protect ability and some of the craziness that can occur when using a friendly model to attack the Protect model and then redirecting it to another friendly model by discarding a card to ignore targeting restrictions.

For example: A Guardian uses the Toss action on Hoffman, then Hoffman discards a card to redirect the attack to any friendly model ignoring all targeting restrictions. So now the Guardian can toss Peace Keepers, the Brutal Emissary or even (and most amusingly) himself!

Another example would be if an enemy model obeys a model to attack the Protect model and it discards a card to redirect the attack back onto the obeyed model. Who controls the flips?!

Therefore, I think that Protect, like Take the Hit, should have an enemy attack only clause in there.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Da Git said:

So my opponent and I were discussing the Protect ability and some of the craziness that can occur when using a friendly model to attack the Protect model and then redirecting it to another friendly model by discarding a card to ignore targeting restrictions.

For example: A Guardian uses the Toss action on Hoffman, then Hoffman discards a card to redirect the attack to any friendly model ignoring all targeting restrictions. So now the Guardian can toss Peace Keepers, the Brutal Emissary or even (and most amusingly) himself!

Another example would be if an enemy model obeys a model to attack the Protect model and it discards a card to redirect the attack back onto the obeyed model. Who controls the flips?!

Therefore, I think that Protect, like Take the Hit, should have an enemy attack only clause in there.

Guardian can Toss himself even 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, trikk said:

Guardian can Toss himself even 😛

I know (see para.2 last word, might not have been clear). But it's crazy right!

This is probably the biggest reason to make it enemy only. But it would be good to try and remove these gimicky targeting yourself interactions and for future proofing anyway.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think just adding something into the targeting rules making the "can't attack yourself" be a restriction that can never be ignored or make it name it something other than a targeting restriction would work.

Not a fan of the idea of protected not working just because a friendly model gets attacked, but if that becomes too abusable then it can change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

I think just adding something into the targeting rules making the "can't attack yourself" be a restriction that can never be ignored or make it name it something other than a targeting restriction would work.

Not a fan of the idea of protected not working just because a friendly model gets attacked, but if that becomes too abusable then it can change

You can toss a Peacekeeper/Pale Rider with Guardian. Or a Cerberus with Cojo. Those are the first abuses we found and it's in the beta. Imagine Wave 3 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make new target to be LEGAL for all targeting restrictions. Hoffman's crews will become more demanding to positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nikshe said:

Just make new target to be LEGAL for all targeting restrictions. Hoffman's crews will become more demanding to positions.

So you want to make protected literally useless?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want players to planning their games. If you think that switching a deadly attack into the nearest poor Watcher is useless - well, think about it again.

Also I think Take the Hit should be remade to be legal for restrictions.

 

 

Or, at least, yes, rewrite Protected similar to Take the Hit - "when an enemy model..."

This will be pretty illogical anyway but at least it will not be a cheat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nikshe What you're missing is that if you change it so the new target has to obey all legal restrictions you won't be able to shift very many attacks. If I attack your master with a Rg 0" attack you can only shift it to another model that is in base contact with my model. If I shoot at your master you cannot shift the attack to any model that is out of range. If I charge your master you cannot shift the attack to any disguised model.

These are just some examples.

Personally I'm not sure it's that big an issue, Yes it's a bit wonky, but is it abusable? I mean you do need to have Hoffman close and pitch a card to throw a model, are there other horrible implications I'm missing? If it does need a fix the simplest solution would be to add enemy only, it's they only way to really proof it against most of the abuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

I think just adding something into the targeting rules making the "can't attack yourself" be a restriction that can never be ignored or make it name it something other than a targeting restriction would work.

Easier to change than that.  According to the rulebook, “targeting restrictions” are a subset of “Special Restrictions”.  So Protected et al should use that term instead.  I mean, look the callout box on page 23, all of the examples for Special Restrictions are targeting restrictions.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, trikk said:

This would still be wonky.

"Target enemy leader" would be unprotectable for example.

1.  Those words, “Target enemy leader”, appear nowhere in the cards.  

2.  If they did appear, they would be specified as Special Restrictions for the action and ignored when you ignore Special Restrictions.  And it would be specified “Target enemy leader only”.  :)

That was the whole point of adding the italics to the actions, so that we wouldn’t have the M2E “is it a targeting restriction or just an effect that only applies to X” debate.

Edit:  Or, honestly, I’m expecting that there’s going to be a FAQ entry stating that “targeting restrictions” are the Special Restrictions that restrict what an action can target.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trikk said:

So if we ignore the special restrictions then Guardian can still Toss a Peacekeeper, correct?

Because the words “Target a model with lower Sz than this model” are a targeting restriction, and clearly a Special Restriction.

Disclaimer:  I don’t care whether Protect should be able to set up this situation.  I’m just here to argue about what a “targeting restriction” is and/or what it should be called because there are a few different effects that reference them.

If Protected isn’t supposed to be used on friendly attacks, that can be addressed by “When this model is targeted by an enemy Attack Action, ...” or something similar.  Which makes Hoffman vulnerable to Obey attacks by his crew.

Or reword Toss so that the effect text checks the Sz instead of relying on the Special Restriction text to stop the Tossed Peacekeeper Scenario.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mei Feng is already supplexing freight trains without benefit of Protected, is why I’m less fussed about this than I would otherwise be.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nikshe said:

I want players to planning their games. If you think that switching a deadly attack into the nearest poor Watcher is useless - well, think about it again.

So all the other player needs to do is slightly adjust their model's position so that no other model other than the master is within range/LoS. Additionally any trigger that says to target the same model with a new action couldn't be protected off.

 

 

3 hours ago, Nikshe said:

Also I think Take the Hit should be remade to be legal for restrictions.

So it would be infinitely better as the model would still become the target, but then the action doesn't have a legal target so it fails and an action was wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...