Unburying Planted Roots and similar, Corrupted Idols interaction

[benjoewoo]

2 Questions:

 

1. Assume the strategy is Corrupted Idols as stated in the Gaining Grounds Season 0 document. Zoraida obeys an opposing bandido to use the At Gunpoint action on a qualifying model in Zoraida's crew that is also base to base with an idol marker. The model in Zoraida's crew is then forced to take the interact action  to move the idol marker. Who takes the damage? A search did not yield any relevant results--unsurprising given how new the GG Season 0 document is.

2. Assume a death marshal buries Bad Juju. When Bad Juju unburies, does he get placed in the owner's deployment zone or is he kept buried because Planted Roots says he cannot be moved by an enemy effect? A search on this forums showed one thread discussing this but the answer was an after thought on this issue with no further discussion.

For reference, I originally was going to have the questions ordered in reverse, but my thoughts for question 2's answer as I understand it are very long, and I think the relatively easier question 1 answer will guide discussion and finding (hopefully) a solid ruling for question 2. It may seem backwards because I posted the questions in reverse order originally, so Question 1 now refers to tracing without a detailed discussion of why I assume it is there, but that shouldn't be too difficult to search down into Question 2's thoughts.

Question 1 thoughts

I think the answer is Zoraida. Corrupted Idols now checks, via tracing, what model is controlling the model that takes the interact action to place a strategy marker within X". The model that controls the action has to take the damage, so for example Zoraida using obey on an opposing death marshal to move an idol marker would result in Zoraida taking the damage. This interaction is only possible if the game "traces" control of the model.

 

I'll preemptively refer to the thoughts that models override rules and rules apply consistently to create a default situation until otherwise changed, typically by a model(s). If a Zoraida obeys a Bandido to take the "at gunpoint" action on a qualifying model that Zoraida's crew that is also base to base with an idol marker, causing the model from Zoraida's crew to interact to move the idol marker, who takes the damage? I believe the answer is Zoraida, because the game initially traces the model controlling the model that ultimately took the interact action to the bandido, and the game traces control of that model to Zoraida. I think ruling this way may seem to contradict the text on the bandido that it controls the action taken by the model that is being controlled by the "at gunpoint" action, but it shouldn't because that action is controlled by Zoraida, and control is necessarily traced to Zoraida from the interacting model.

 

I think ruling the other way also essentially negates in some situations--because obey like effects s are not particularly rare in the context of malifaux--what the change to corrupted idols was trying to prevent. Additionally, ruling the other way seems to arbitrarily cut the traced chain of control without a good reason why. If it's a strong argument to say the bandido is controlling the model that ultimately took the interact action to move the idol marker, it's just as strong to say Zoraida is in control because both Zoraida and the bandido's actions that cause a model to take an action include the text that the action is controlled by "this model." The games rules provide only that the controlling model takes the damage, so there is no rule book source of change in control--this interaction must be governed by the models barring an FAQ/errata.

 

Question 2 thoughts

This one will be a doozy. I'm writing this in a different format because it'll probably be easier to discuss and refer to subsequently this way.

 

Premise 1. The rulebook and various models "trace" effects to their source. The rulebook's discussion of conditions that cause damage shows this explicitly because the damage "source" is typically the condition, not the ability/action that placed poison on the model. This is important for discussions on whether VP is scored when a model dies from poison.

Premise 2. Models "trace" effects to their source. Using models with "Evasive" (the ability to ignore damage froim shockwaves, blasts, and pulses) as examples, they trace the source of the damage--I believe people here/on the Wyrd forums have ruled/indicated their ruling that if a pulse causes a TN 14 WP duel that does damage (e.g. Nothing Beast's Accelerate time which causes 2 damage and grants Fast), even if an Evasive model fails the duel, they will not suffer the damage because the damage from the failed duel was caused by a pulse.

Premise 3. If tracing is present, it must be present consistently. This premise is more from logic rather than example, because to say tracing can be present inconsistently detracts from the informative and guiding nature of rules/model action or ability applications.

Premise 4. Models override the rules when in conflict. This is an explicit rule in the rule book.

Premise 5. Where models have publicly available (for review) different wordings on comparable abilities, different applications must be applied to give effect to the distinct wordings barring typographical errors. This is a tenet of reading comprehension so that reading rules, actions, abilities, etc. have consistency as opposed to whatever the moment dictates is the better resolution. It also helps prevent resorting to TO discretion on rulings, a positive thing for game reliability and playability.

Premise 6. Where at least one model's ability conflicts with another model(s)' ability(s), the restrictive ability supercedes the permissive one. This has been a tenet of ability/action application in Malifaux for some time. It was explicit in M2E, but the M3E rule book does not make mention of this particular rule now. That being said, it logically should still apply because otherwise situations in which these interactions arise (basically every interaction for such restrictive abilities) could never resolve or would require TO ruling intervention, bringing instability to the game.

Premise 7. Where other publicly available (for review) intentional design elements or interactions provide circumstantial support for the way a discussed interaction would go,the discussed interaction should attempt to resolve so as to reinforce those design elements or interactions. Another reading comprehension tenet for stability and consistency in the game.

Conclusion. Planted Roots, which reads in relevant part: ""This model cannot be moved by enemy effects..." provides that if the effect moving the model with that ability is sourced from an enemy model, then the model may not be moved at all, no exceptions.

This compares to abilities like Laugh Off, which are similarly worded but are permissive in allowing the model with the ability to achieve a similar effect. In application, should you unbury a model with Laugh Off, the model may allow the unbury according to the unbury's effect, which would allow for first placement in the default area, and if non-legal according to the rules, then the owner of the model placing the model within the deployment zone.

With Planted Roots and similar mandatory abilities, however, there is no such permission, the effect is mandatory at all times. Initially you attempt to place the model according to the unbury effect, but Planted Roots overrides it as it is the restrictive ability vs. the ability attempting to change the game state. You then attempt to place the model in the deployment zone per the rule book, but the model with the ability (and the rulebook) trace the source of the unbury to the model that generated the unbury effect. That model is still an enemy (per section on friendly or enemy, this can never change), and the source of the unbury is still connected because the rules have not overridden this fact, only changed who controls the place. Thus, Planted Roots should apply to prevent the unbury in the deployment zone for source of the unbury effect, which is what the explicit text of that ability cares about--not who controls the unbury placement OR owns the model.

Planted Roots additionally overrides the rule book in this case because the rule book only changes the place for a contextual placement--I have not brought up the rules are looking at just physical placing, but placing at all--they were pretty clearly written with the idea there was no legal physical placement, but are worded for where model interactions come into play as well. The rule book only explicitly provides that in such a case the initial placement is not legal, then you resort to the deployment zone, switching control of the place to the owner of the model. (1) This did not change the source of the unbury effect, as mentioned, so Planted Roots should still apply. And (2) the design element to change the controller of the unbury effect was very likely to prevent the (relatively) automatic decision by the original controller of the unbury effect simply placing the model in the farthest reaching corner/area of the deployment zone to effectively achieve a relative insta-kill.

For example, see how long it takes for your average Mv 5 model to get back to the center and be effective after being placed in the furthest corner of corner deployment on turn 2. Barring built in movement actions/abilities, e.g. Leap or Incorporeal, or help from other models, e.g. Lure, it'll take about 2 turns (4 walk actions for 20" of movement, putting you at 8" outside of your deployment zone assuming you can straight light walk for maximum distance). The game at turn 2 is now top of Turn 5 and your model can finally be relevant again at the end of the game. This example can get more extreme in other deployment types, so it was logical the design element swapped the control so as to keep bury/unbury mechanics from being too powerful given their relative rarity.

This matters because there may have been a distinction in who controlled where the model unburied--if the player who owned the model with Planted Roots generated the unbury effect, then the placement would be legal in the first instance before referring to the deployment zone. But, if the unbury effect was sourced from the enemy model that initially buried the Planted Roots model, Planted Roots has application.

Additionally, this ruling is in line with the design element for Planted Roots vs. Laugh Off. Planted Roots is on a 6 SS cost minion model. Laugh Off is typically on higher priced models that are usually higher in station, e.g. Fuhatsu, a 9 SS henchmen model. Laugh Off is currently (though this could in theory change) strictly better than Planted Roots because you can choose to take the same interaction path as Planted Roots or you can allow the qualifying move effect to resolve so that you can achieve better position, e.g. shooting range or as this discussion implies, avoiding effective (and ultimate) death by being buried. Malifaux as a game is an inherent game of risk (heavy elements of chance via 54 card fate deck, many mechanics to stack odds, etc.), so this makes sense in line with how the game is designed--you bring a model that has a silver bullet type defensive ability, it can backfire if I counter that ability with another relatively esoteric interaction. 

Concluding thoughts

I think the questions are important because at least for how corrupted idols scores, zoraida can circumvent the intent of the strategy text change if the ruling goes the other way a little more easily than intended, or really any obey vs. obey type interactions. 

Question 2 is particularly interesting to me because it'll be informative on whether the rule book and any other official documentation in M3E will be interpreted by the TO community, now that we know the TO golden rule is back in at least GG season 0. Specifically, whether the rules will be interpreted more readily with implied rulings than not.

Any rules reference input appreciated. I think this discussion is informative because answering one provides insight to answering the other.

[Ogid]

2 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

@ogid What is the support for your thought that the enemy unbury effect stops being an unbury effect when you fail to complete the initial bury?

The definition of friendly and enemy is this one:

Quote

Friendly models, Markers, and terrain are those that have been hired into your Crew, and those Summoned, Dropped, or Created by your Crew.

Enemy models, Markers, and terrain are those that have been hired into the opponent’s Crew, and those Summoned, Dropped, or Created by the opponent’s Crew.

Every Ability, Action, and Trigger on a model’s Stat Card and Attached Upgrades treats the use of “friendly” and “enemy” from its point of view

Basicaly, The effects of the enemy Abilities, Actions and triggers are enemy effect.

Then we go to the card, in this case a death marshal:

Quote

...When the target Activates, it must attemp a TN 13 Wp duel. If it passes, or if this model is killed or Buried, Unbury it into base contact with this model.

The above is an enemy effect because it belongs to a model hired by the other player. If you try to execute that unbury and for reason it fails, the enemy ability ends there, there is no more instructions. Then we go to this other rule:

Quote

If the model cannot be Placed, the owner of the model instead places it anywhere inside their Deployment Zone.

This rule doesn't belong to an enemy model, it's a general rule as the one describing how to move a model. So it's not an enemy effect.

[Ogid]

4 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

but where is the change in characteristic from enemy unbury effect to rule book unbury effect? The rule you cite for placing in the deployment zone is a modification of any given unbury effect.

As said above, if it's not in the enemy card it isn't an enemy effect. That effect it's not a modification of an unbury effect, It's a different effect. Where is it specified the rulebook unbury "inherits" the friendly or enemy status?

Imagine the buried model were Misaki; she would have 2 unbury options when he activates; the enemy unbury and her own unbury; if for some reason both were illegal then that rulebook rule would trigger. Would it then be an enemy or a friendly effect?

4 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

s far as I know, with the exception of designed scenario schemes and strategy markers, nothing in the game is neutral--everything, even terrain, is defined in terms of friendly or enemy. Even the strategy markers are defined partially in reference to friendly and enemy by virtue of who controls their placement (idols), or where they are moved or manipulated (plant, turf war). Reckoning also specifies friendly/enemy for scoring VP.

That's because the game references to effects relevant for the gameplay. But there are some of them: Condition damage, falling damage, Hazardous terrain damage... and there are probably more.

4 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I think the game necessarily tracks the enemy/friendly status of the unbury effect, even while providing the modified placement, and I'm having trouble seeing how you get by that given the game's fairly constant reference to friendly/enemy statuses.

This is probably the problem. For some reason you think it should work like this and are reading the rules with your asumptions in mind; but that tracking isn't supported by the rules beyond coming from the enemy card.

A bury effect usually has an unbury effect asociated with the same "source". For example, Misaki can bury and unbury herself. The death marshal bury and unbury and enemy. But because the bury effect was caused for an enemy it doesn't mean all unbury effect would "inherit that". Each unbury effect may come from a different source. For example, Misaki may be buried by the Marshal and Unbury with her own; or she may bury herself and be unburied by Aionus.

In this case the rulebook unbury is not referenced in the enemy card, nor implied anywhere that "inherits" the source of the last bury/unbury effect.

4 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I don't think resolving question 2 to say that bad juju is perma-buried effectively is a "break the game" resolution. The player hiring bad juju could also hire a model that unburies. Alternatively, the player must weigh opportunity costs in hiring bad juju once the opponent declares not only a faction, but a master who will have access to bury mechanics. There's also an element of balance in that models with Laugh Off, which seems strictly better than Planted Roots, are balanced to be able to dodge this issue while models with Planted Roots cannot, so crew composition becomes more relevant. I don't think it's game breaking to have players consider these elements in tactical play if the ruling logically favors this particular bury interaction.

Well, perma-bury something with 0 ways to bring it back is game-breaking imo.

Every effect that trap a model in a bury state has a way to unbury it; being it passing a TN, killing a model or breaking an Ice Pilar to name a few. An effect that just remove a model with no way to recover it is clearly not intended.

It's so game breaking that the developers created that "security check" extra rule to be sure that it won't happen.

[Ogid]

No worries, neither am I trying to be confrontational, I just disagree with your point. About the above:

2 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time vs. the Evasive ability is such an example. If you don't track source, then Evasive does not prevent the damage from it. If you do track source, Evasive does prevent the damage.

In this case Accelerate Time is an action that generate an effect, that action is in the card of a hired model, every model hired/summoned by the other player will consider that effect as an enemy effect. This doesn't need tracking because it's a direct effect from an action.

On the other hand the friendly/enemy attack doesn't interact with Evasive, evasive only care about the kind of the attack, not the source. It would reduce the damage from an allied shockwave or blast.

2 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

With regards to your misaki example, it would resolve as follows: (1) active player resolves their at start of activation effects; (2) non-active player resolves their at start of activation effects. (1) would resolve first because the Misaki model, on activation, would unbury within range of a smoke marker, provided at least one was in play. (2) would become non-relevant by result of that. Provided that no shadow marker was in play, Misaki would be placed by its owner in the owner's deployment zone, barring something prevented such from happening. If something doesn't, then Misaki places as such according to the rules on her card because as described, the resolving action was (1), a friendly effect. Provided she can't, for some reason, she would stay buried--I can't think of how you'd accomplish this but it may somehow be possible. It's essentially order of operations here and tracking keeps it tied to the source of the model.

In this case both unbury clauses are affecting Misaki. She may order the effect affecting her at the start of her activation so she may decide to unbury with her own ability or be placed by the enemy model. If a place fails then the rulebook unbury will trigger.

However there is nothing in the rules that support your claim that the rulebook unbury inherit the friendly or enemy condition. If you don't believe me, then try to find and cite the part of the rules that enable that. If that rules doesn't exit, then maybe this doesn't work as you are thinking.

2 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Damage caused by the rule book, e.g. falling as you cited and conditions as more than one person has referenced, have rules stating they do not give credit, e.g. poison. Even if they did,  the GG 0 and rule book strategies and schemes are worded so you generally could not score off that. The one exception I can think of is Take Prisoner, which could potentially have the end of game VP denied by saddling the model with poison to kill it, thus avoiding the "killed by a friendly model" requirement for that situation. I don't believe the rule book exhaustively states for each source of damage caused by "neutral" sources, e.g. fall damage, does not give credit, but the rule book states that for at least conditions per page 25 of the E-rule book under the definitions for "Killed Models," models do not count for killing the model. The exception to this rule is on the conditions section on page 29 of the E-rule book where the rule book provides that if something dies to a condition caused by another model, e.g. Catalyst on McMourning, then the model generating that ability/action would count as killing the model. The interactions of these definitions and exception require tracking--if you can't track, these sections don't affect the game state.

The exception of the pg29 happens because these effects are cause by abilities/actions in the friendly/enemy card using the condition (a "neutral" effect) to deal damage in a way that it's not "neutral" anymore. Again there is no tracking, just a direct effect from an action/ability printed in a model card using a condition already in a model.

2 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

As to the break the game comment, I think you're taking the look at the very end of the interaction, after the counter-play and pro-active choices have been made. If you choose to hire models that can have this done to them, you did it knowing your opponent has chosen not only a faction, but specific leader with access to those mechanics. If you choose to hire a model that could be perma-buried anyway, you accept the risk of counter play because you want the benefits that model(s) can bring. M2E has a number of examples--a number of the old schemes and strategies, including the always available scheme Claim Jump, were literally unable to be scored if your opponent picked a particular master, e.g. Hamelin, and you had less knowledge then, but it was part of the risk of planning your games and hiring the crews you did to play into that/counter play it. 

The play/counterplay is a great part of this game. But as @santaclaws01 covered above; this would turn models with this ability useless.

Most factions have bury mechanics, there are even crews builts around that, but there is only a few models that may unbury (none of these are in the factions with models with planted roots). So unless you think Bad Juju, the NVB Emissary and the Waldgeist are a joke from the developers and the right call is never pick them, this have to work differently.

The fact that for this permabury thing that non-stated tracking and source inheritance is needed, it's a hint this is not how that is suposed to work.

2 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Additionally the security check is an alternative likely originally thought in case the initial placement was illegal for physical placement, e.g. juju being 50mm is potentially much more restricted in where he can place, especially given the clarified terrain set ups GG 0 brings up. As that's not explicit in the rules though, the rule book covers those situations an situations where model interactions prevent each other from being buried with a blanket modification of the original ability. The check just doesn't matter unless a model is attempting to unbury a model, and this game doesn't generate its own unbury effect by default, so it changes an existing one--I don't think anyone is disagreeing as to the first part, but we are getting hung up on whether it's a modification or a new effect. It's kind of a "the rules activate at this point in time" argument, but that seems an artificial and arbitrary divide because for a game like Malifaux, the rules are always in effect. You can't take walk actions without the rules telling you that you can--the models just tell you how far to prevent you from walking an unlimited distance in one action.

The rulebook unbury has a "trigger" or event that cause it, that trigger is an unbury being illegal. That doesn't mean it inherits anything or that unbury is a continuation of the effect of the card. The (friendly/enemy) effect of the card is the part written there, what happens after would need a different wording to be considered a friendly or an enemy effect.

Also it's logical the rulebook doesn't generate unbury effects by default (at the start/end of a turn for example) because there are buries that can last long (for example a model failing TN after TN in the Death Marshal case or a model in an Ice Pilar in Thoons case) or Killjoy when the pact holders die.

However if permabury something would be OK for the developers. What would be the point of that rulebook unbury in the first place? If a model can't be placed, then it should remain buried the rest of the game it that's a balanced thing. If that's ok for models with Planted roots, it should be also ok for the rest of the models... However that rule is there to prevent that, another hint permabury something isn't intended.

2 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Another note is even if this interaction may seem distasteful, if it is the right conclusion to maintain stability of the game, similar to M2E's true infinite combo with Mei Feng, it should be ruled as such until it is changed or clarified via FAQ/Errata. Otherwise players undermine the usefulness of the same and the authoritative sources and we're back at playing kitchen gaming Malifaux instead of a one rule set game.

I agree here, the rules should be applied rigorously. That's why I think this doesn't work like you think it works.

As you said above, this isn't phylosophy or arcane theory. If you can cite the part of the rules that say these effects inherits the source, then it'd work like that. Before trying to keep defending your point of view as you think it should work, try to find the rules that support your claims and use them to support your point.

[Myyrä]

I agree with 1. The game rules say that that the player's control extends recursively

Quote

If a controlled Action generates additional Actions, the controlling player controls the generated Action, as well.

It makes the most sense that the controlling model would also follow the same logic.

As for nr. 2, I'll just say that any theory that requires that many assumptions, is very suspicious.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Forum guideline: Where there are several ways to interpret the rules; the one that doesn't break the rest of the game will be right.

Bad juju just being effectively killed by bury effects seems to break the game somewhat and doesn't seem at all intended. That alone sets the bar pretty high for that argument - you'd need a pretty persuasive/ironclad case to convince me on that one.

[Maniacal_cackle]

There is also a simpler explanation for Bad Juju being immune to the unbury. He may simply be immune to the bury effect in the first place (he is moved off the table).

That just requires one premise (that burying a model counts as moving it).

[benjoewoo]

@Myyrä I could have just written something that wove all the premises in. Fewer premises would be preferable, to be sure, but more does not by itself indicate truthfulness or falseness--that would make discussing anything complex almost impossible.

Also the citation on player control I don't think hits the discussion for Q1 on point--there's no doubt the player is controlling all 3 actions, but which model has to take the damage is the question.

@Maniacal_cackle Right I don't think there's a question bad juju could be buried. To your citation regarding breaking the game, I think you break the game more if the game doesn't operate to have bad juju perma-buried until a model friendly to bad juju unburies him. I'm unsure if you read everything I posted because while you say you want a persuasive argument you didn't address any particular point I made--but I go over why essentially the rule book maintains that if an enemy effect buried bad juju and provides for how bad juju would unbury, the unbury effect will fail initially and then the rulebook's supplemental method of placing the model in the owner's deployment zone doesn't change that characteristic, necessitating the conclusion bad juju stays buried until it is unburied by a non-enemy effect, i.e. a friendly effect.

Both of you have basically said it's a high bar--I don't think that's a concept in the type of rules interpretation called for in this game because otherwise there are non-rules factors going into the decision. While GG Season 0 definitely preserves the TO golden rule to override any given rule, I think it would be a weak argument to make that "this fails because no TO will agree." It may just be the reality, but artificial and detracting from game consistency/stability. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Well, for specific issues.

Premise 1: things are traced back to their source. 

There is not consensus on this. Often people play that Zoraida's ensorcel trigger creating a charge allows the subsequent attack to declare triggers (as it was generates by charge, not ensorcel).

This comes up all the time. Cremating corpse candles is another.

Premise three: tracing must be present consistently.

Again, no. Lots of rules seem to operate on different principles. There is no reason to think the rules succeed at the goal of consistency (though it is a laudable goal).

Premise 5: consistency in the meaning of words.

Again, no. This is a desirable property of rules sets, but Malifaux has not yet achieved this. There are inconsistencies with word use all over the place.

Etc.

I think you have laid out what is desirable for a perfect game system and imposed it on an imperfect set of rules.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Also sorry for the short replies. I am on my phone, so may appear a bit terse!

[benjoewoo]

4 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Well, for specific issues.

Premise 1: things are traced back to their source. 

There is not consensus on this. Often people play that Zoraida's ensorcel trigger creating a charge allows the subsequent attack to declare triggers (as it was generates by charge, not ensorcel).

This comes up all the time. Cremating corpse candles is another.

Premise three: tracing must be present consistently.

Again, no. Lots of rules seem to operate on different principles. There is no reason to think the rules succeed at the goal of consistency (though it is a laudable goal).

Premise 5: consistency in the meaning of words.

Again, no. This is a desirable property of rules sets, but Malifaux has not yet achieved this. There are inconsistencies with word use all over the place.

Etc.

I think you have laid out what is desirable for a perfect game system and imposed it on an imperfect set of rules.

At least for premise 1, I think that's one of the main issues of Question 2. That being said,  I think they have to--otherwise evasive would not work to stop damage from blasts that caused simple duels that could result in damage. As for the charge specific ruling, while I think that could use clarification, I don't think it's an "on point" example for showing why tracing to source is important--it's more of a "are traits cumulative" question.

 

For premise 3, could you please cite an example? I think you acknowledge it's what the rules should be attempting to achieve--I think that's enough to say the premise is true in how it should be applied, otherwise it's not a goal worth pursuing.

 

For premise 5, same thoughts as for premise 3 above. I do think Malifaux can sometimes be inconsistent, but at least in M3E I haven't seen any glaring examples. If you could cite one I'd love to look.

And yes, I'm laying out concepts for "perfect" rules interpretations in an environment created by people--mistakes are likely if not guaranteed to exist. That being said you have to still pursue the ideal because otherwise the enterprise is a failure from the start and Malifaux is always a kitchen gamer rule set game.

 

No worries on sounding terse--you're addressing my points which is very appreciated and I want to have more of a discussion.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Premise three.

Traceability is an implied rule, so expecting consistency is an extra big ask.

But since you asked for an example, see discussions on what qualifies as an 'effect.' It seems to encompass everything under the sun, which makes things that refer to 'effects' pretty confusing.

[benjoewoo]

Before I respond--what do you mean by traceability being implied as a rule?

Also for that example--effects encompassing everything under the sun--could you refer to an example where it's wonky, to highlight where the word "effects" can be ambiguous?

[solkan]

So...

Quote

A model in base contact with a Strategy Marker can take the Interact Action and choose to suffer up to three irreducible damage, ignoring Hard to Kill. If this Interact Action is controlled by another model, the model which controls the Action must choose to suffer the irreducible damage instead of the model taking the Action.

Zoraida declares Obey targeting Guild Lawyer A.  Then Guild Lawyer A declares an Obey on Guild Lawyer B, the action chosen and controlled by Zoraida.

When Guild Lawyer B declares an Obey, there are two "chosen and controlled by this model" clauses active.  So which model actually chooses the action?  It's the model at the start of the control chain.

Before Season 0, since all of the models are controlled by the same player, it's basically irrelevant specifically which model it is.  With Season 0, you're better off just asking the direct question:

If you have a control chain, for the paragraph

Quote

A model in base contact with a Strategy Marker can take the Interact Action and choose to suffer up to three irreducible damage, ignoring Hard to Kill. If this Interact Action is controlled by another model, the model which controls the Action must choose to suffer the irreducible damage instead of the model taking the Action.

which model suffers the damage?  The answer to that question is almost certainly going to be the model at the end of the control chain.  They wouldn't have bothered changing the wording on the strategy if you were supposed to just add one level of indirection to the Obey domination.  

[benjoewoo]

4 minutes ago, solkan said:

So...

Zoraida declares Obey targeting Guild Lawyer A.  Then Guild Lawyer A declares an Obey on Guild Lawyer B, the action chosen and controlled by Zoraida.

When Guild Lawyer B declares an Obey, there are two "chosen and controlled by this model" clauses active.  So which model actually chooses the action?  It's the model at the start of the control chain.

Before Season 0, since all of the models are controlled by the same player, it's basically irrelevant specifically which model it is.  With Season 0, you're better off just asking the direct question:

If you have a control chain, for the paragraph

which model suffers the damage?  The answer to that question is almost certainly going to be the model at the end of the control chain.  They wouldn't have bothered changing the wording on the strategy if you were supposed to just add one level of indirection to the Obey domination.  

I agree with the result but am unsure as to that reasoning because there's no citation to the rules.

[benjoewoo]

A quick correction to one of my earlier posts--TO golden rule is no longer in the game, so the dialogues here and other venues where similar discussions are had are very important for being informative on how niche rulings should/may go.

[Ogid]

Uff, it'd be better if 2 question that different like this one are splitted in 2 threads; discusing both in the same is a bit cumbersome.

About 1: "The model which controls the Action" refer to the model directly controling that interact action. In this game there isn't much "memory" beyond 1 step of an obey chain/trigger (for example, a charge generated by a trigger may generate an attack that declare triggers or an onslaught attack from a Charge through model won't get the to damage). It'd need a different wording to be the original model.

About 2: If a placement from bury/summoning is a movement or not is something discused in other threads, but asuming it is. If a bury effect fails, then the "security clause" from the bury rules triggers:

Quote

If the model cannot be Placed, the owner of the model instead places it anywhere inside their Deployment Zone.

So it'd be placed by its owner in his own deployment zone.

[Myyrä]

8 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

A quick correction to one of my earlier posts--TO golden rule is no longer in the game, so the dialogues here and other venues where similar discussions are had are very important for being informative on how niche rulings should/may go.

What is this golden rule you are referring to? No rule with that specific name has existed before in Malifaux, and it can mean different things in different game systems. If you mean the rule that says TO is the final arbitrator in all rules questions it's still in the GG document:

Quote

If any rules disputes arise and cannot be settled among the players, the TO and any designated rules judges are the sole authority on the rules at Gaining Grounds events, and they are expected to be fair and equitable in their decisions. Their decision(s) at an event is final.

 

[Myyrä]

Okay, now for the question 2. I will not point out all the problematic logic in benjoewoo's initial post to keep this readable and because faulty logic doesn't automatically mean he's wrong, but I could if I wanted to and there's quite a bit of it.

So, to get to my actual point, I'll first quote the revant rules here:

Quote

A Buried model can only be returned to the table via an Unbury effect. When Unburying a model the controller of the Unbury effect places the model back on the table as described by the effect. If the model cannot be Placed the owner of the model instead places it anywhere inside their Deployment Zone.

Quote

Planted Roots: This model cannot be moved by enemy effects and is unaffected by Severe Terrain. At the start of this model's Activation, if it is in Severe Terrain, this model Heals 1.

Unbury either is or isn't a movement effect. This is a tautology, so I don't have to justify it any further.

There are three types of movement effects: move, push and place. Those are all the types of movement listed in the rules.

If unbury is a movement effect, it has to be a placement, because it quite obviously isn't a push or a move. Also, Waldgeist would be immune to unbury effects generated by enemies. However, that would also mean that the underlined part of the unburying rules is in fact generating a new unbury effect, because it's creating a new place effect targeting a buried model, and Waldgeist isn't immune to core rules. Hence, Waldgeist is placed by it's owner to the deployment zone.

If unbury isn't a movement effect, Waldgeist is not immune to being unburied by an enemy effect. However, the placement effect generated by the unbury cannot be completed legally, because the placement is still part of the original ability or action. Hence, Waldgeist is placed by it's owner to the deployment zone.

∎

[benjoewoo]

8 hours ago, Myyrä said:

What is this golden rule you are referring to? No rule with that specific name has existed before in Malifaux, and it can mean different things in different game systems. If you mean the rule that says TO is the final arbitrator in all rules questions it's still in the GG document:

 

Could you please refer me to its location in the GG document? I was unable to find it searching "arbitrator," "ruling," "rules questions," "rules qu," and similar. The GG Season 0 document is searchable so it should show up, but maybe I'm just being dumb in how I search. I'm not trying to be facetious here, I actually want to find the reference if that rule is still in the GG Season 0 document--it essentially just answers both questions with, "if there is no clear definitive rules argument, ask TO before an event."

 

@Myyrä The section you refer to in the rulebook is part of the issue Maniacal and Ogid pointed out earlier, namely whether what the rulebook provides the "security check," as Ogid puts it, in the game as an entirely new rule book effect or is a modification of the original effect that caused that rule to be applicable.

Myyrä, I think your post indicates you view the rule book security check as the rule book generating a new effect by implication. The rule book does not have a default unbury effect that players or models can cause/enact in play to unbury their own models. This means models must provide a source of an unbury mechanic for any model to unbury after it is buried. 

The rule book, then, can only modify model(s)' unbury effects, and must do so by explicit text because otherwise there's either no (1) rule to guide play; or (2) no reference for change to the interaction as initially indicated by the models. The rule book only provides that if the model cannot be initially be placed by the unbury effect, be it for any reason such as no legal location to physically place the model or for another model's interaction such as Planted Roots, then the owner then controls the placement in the owner's deployment zone.

This only changes where the player can place the model, but not that the effect is still being generated by an enemy model--such a change would require explicit text stating the effect is now from the rule book instead of the model because we know the rule book does not by default provide a way for players/models to unbury models. 

We can think this because the game must keep track of source, otherwise relatively easy rulings like Evasive applying to prevent damage from the Nothing Beast's Accelerate Time action (simple duel that causes a pulse that subsequently generates a simple duel for enemy models that causes damage on failing the duel) would not work. As an extension to how Ogid answered question 1, if the game only looks at one step, then the game would have to result in Evasive not applying to prevent damage from Accelerate Time as it would look directly to what caused the damage, which would have been a simple duel and not the pulse that generated the simple duel--looking to the originating pulse would be a 2nd step and to see it otherwise is an arbitrary cut in causality unless supported by a rules citation.

 

@Ogid Could you please provide a rules citation for how we know the game only tracks 1 step for purposes of control for Question 1? If there is such a rule then Question 1 may be answered very easily. Specifically I'd like to review the citation to see what is considered a "step" for purposes of tracking, because abilities like Evasive could be more complex depending on what is defined as a "step" for tracking purposes.

 

As much as I'd like to find the "right" answer for RAW (rules as worded), the answer to 1 is likely dependent on the TO and the probable answer to 2 from TOs at any events is likely "place in deployment zone," even if the arguments otherwise cannot be contested via rules citation(s). If these rulings are wrong, though, by logic, it is informative, especially to newer players, on a mechanic that's relatively easily accessible in some factions. Until a FAQ entry that clarifies the interaction comes out, I'd like to figure out how the RAW works because it furthers competitive nature of tournaments and higher levels of play to find what "should" be the consistent ruling. It also encourages people to understand more on how to read the rule book (like myself, who did not actively participate in the beta testing).

[Ogid]

34 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

@Ogid Could you please provide a rules citation for how we know the game only tracks 1 step for purposes of control for Question 1? If there is such a rule then Question 1 may be answered very easily. Specifically I'd like to review the citation to see what is considered a "step" for purposes of tracking, because abilities like Evasive could be more complex depending on what is defined as a "step" for tracking purposes.

That unfortunately isn't well defined in the rulebook. An example is the rule that says an action generated by a trigger cannot generate triggers. However there is nothing stopping a charge generated by a trigger to generate an attack that generates triggers. Or models with the charge through only having the positive flip applied to the first attack that charge generates, not to other triggered by an onslaught/swift action trigger for example.

Quote

If this Interact Action is controlled by another model, the model which controls the Action must choose to suffer the irreducible damage instead of the model taking the Action.

In this case the wording points toward the model damaged is the one controling the interact action, not any model further in the obey chain. A model one step behind would be controling the model controling the interact action, not the interact action. I see it can be read in more than one way tho.

 

34 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

This only changes where the player can place the model, but not that the effect is still being generated by an enemy model--such a change would require explicit text stating the effect is now from the rule book instead of the model because we know the rule book does not by default provide a way for players/models to unbury models.

This is probably the wrong asumption here. The enemy effect is the enemy trying to unbury the model; when that fails, the enemy effect ends. Then we go to the general rule that says what happens when an unbury fails, that rule isn't generated by the enemy model but by the rulebook itself. The model is even placed by its owner (so there is no interaction with the other player).

I called it before the "security check" because it was added to avoid scenarios like the one presented here, models that cannot be unburied being trapped forever. If an unbury fails, that clause will always trigger unless it is explictly stated otherwhise (like in the Grave Golem Unearth)

Quote

Unearth: At the start of this model's Activation, if it is Buried, Unbury it into base contact with a Corpse Marker, then remove that Marker. If this model cannot be Unburied in this way, it is killed.

[benjoewoo]

@Ogid I'll address your third point because I think it's more direct of a discussion--I'm unsure how to read the other two in that the first isn't a rules reference based explanation and the second one sounds like you more or less agree with myself, at least on a reasonable/possible interpretation level.

 

With regards to your third point, why is what I said an assumption as opposed to a logical inference based on how the rule book works? Yourself and Myrra have indicated I'm making assumptions, but each "premise" and similar thoughts in this discussion are based on examples that indicate something is the case (making them logical inferences)  or a methodology that should be more favorable to take than the alternative for consistent rules interpretation?

 

I'm not saying I don't make assumptions--rules interpretation methodology is a set of assumptions on how you interpret rules--but the particular point you bring up is not an assumption as each step I bring up is based on something that exists or doesn't exist in the rule book, leading to what I think is a logical conclusion based upon the presence or absence of something. 

As for the unbury text you're referring to, the rule book changes the enemy unbury effect to the extent the owner of the model places the model in the owner's deployment zone. There are two definite explicit changes: (1) owner of model controls the place; and (2) location of the place. You're saying there's an additional change in the source of the unbury effect, but there's no rule citation in your post to support that--please tell me how you get to that step because I think we agree the rule book does not by default provide a method to unbury, meaning if you unbury it's currently a model generating the unbury effect--which must be the case until otherwise changed.

[Ogid]

29 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

I'm unsure how to read the other two in that the first isn't a rules reference based explanation and the second one sounds like you more or less agree with myself, at least on a reasonable/possible interpretation level.

That case is not very clear, so these answers have some uncertainty. The first one is more a consistency check. It's like saying "everything works like this, so this probably would also". Maybe this case is different. The second one is an strict reading of that bit. The model controling the action is the model controling directly that model imo. But as I said, it's not 100% clear yet.

32 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

As for the unbury text you're referring to, the rule book changes the enemy unbury effect to the extent the owner of the model places the model in the owner's deployment zone. There are two definite explicit changes: (1) owner of model controls the place; and (2) location of the place. You're saying there's an additional change in the source of the unbury effect, but there's no rule citation in your post to support that--please tell me how you get to that step because I think we agree the rule book does not by default provide a method to unbury, meaning if you unbury it's currently a model generating the unbury effect--which must be the case until otherwise changed.

The most important thing here is the "it can be moved by enemy effects". An enemy effect is generated by an enemy action/ability/trigger. The enemy effect ends when it try to execute the unbury effect stated in the enemy card. Stuff happening after that isn't an enemy effect.

[benjoewoo]

@ogid What is the support for your thought that the enemy unbury effect stops being an unbury effect when you fail to complete the initial bury?

[Myyrä]

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Could you please refer me to its location in the GG document? I was unable to find it searching "arbitrator," "ruling," "rules questions," "rules qu," and similar. The GG Season 0 document is searchable so it should show up, but maybe I'm just being dumb in how I search. I'm not trying to be facetious here, I actually want to find the reference if that rule is still in the GG Season 0 document--it essentially just answers both questions with, "if there is no clear definitive rules argument, ask TO before an event."

It's the callout box titled the rules of the game on page 2. Search for dispute if you want to search for something.

[benjoewoo]

19 hours ago, Myyrä said:

It's the callout box titled the rules of the game on page 2. Search for dispute if you want to search for something.

Got it. Thanks! I was expecting the verbatim wording you had posted so didn't see it and was pulling at my hair a little bit because it was eluding me.

 

@ogid I agree with your citation of the text as far as where you located them--but where is the change in characteristic from enemy unbury effect to rule book unbury effect? The rule you cite for placing in the deployment zone is a modification of any given unbury effect.

I don't see how you get from the death marshal text, which I think we both agree is an enemy unbury effect (in reference to bad juju), to a neutral effect that is not friendly or enemy. As far as I know, with the exception of designed scenario schemes and strategy markers, nothing in the game is neutral--everything, even terrain, is defined in terms of friendly or enemy. Even the strategy markers are defined partially in reference to friendly and enemy by virtue of who controls their placement (idols), or where they are moved or manipulated (plant, turf war). Reckoning also specifies friendly/enemy for scoring VP.

I think the game necessarily tracks the enemy/friendly status of the unbury effect, even while providing the modified placement, and I'm having trouble seeing how you get by that given the game's fairly constant reference to friendly/enemy statuses.

As a side note, someone cited that where a rules interpretation would break the game, that interpretation should be disfavored. I don't think resolving question 2 to say that bad juju is perma-buried effectively is a "break the game" resolution. The player hiring bad juju could also hire a model that unburies. Alternatively, the player must weigh opportunity costs in hiring bad juju once the opponent declares not only a faction, but a master who will have access to bury mechanics. There's also an element of balance in that models with Laugh Off, which seems strictly better than Planted Roots, are balanced to be able to dodge this issue while models with Planted Roots cannot, so crew composition becomes more relevant. I don't think it's game breaking to have players consider these elements in tactical play if the ruling logically favors this particular bury interaction.