Exclusive Interview

[Pergli]

Sorry for the newbish question but its my first time really looking into Guild. There are several interactions with Nellie and interacts that I just need some clarification on:

1. Headline: Secret's Exposed
- The trigger says "must" take the Interact Action.
- Combined with Exclusive Interview, you can force an opponent to drop a friendly scheme marker.
- Can this be done within 4" of a friendly scheme marker? 
- I think yes because it says "must" and the cards overrule the Rulebook. Otherwise it would say, Target takes the interact action. Not sure why the word "must" would be in there otherwise?

2. Plant Evidence
- Nellie can heal after she resolves the interact action
- Does this count for exclusive interview since the action is controlled by Nellie?

3. Breaking News
- Says after an enemy model resolves the interact action but Exclusive Interview counts the model as "friendly". Would this cancel out the Breaking News action?

I'm sure there are a few more but that is what I could think of off hand!
 

[Cursed25]

1. removing schemes is also an interact action! if you can't drop marker because of the 4'' rule, you have to chose another possible interact action like to remove scheme markers in bsb even if there's none

 

2. yes I'm pretty sure she would heal

 

3. yes it cancels breaking news if within range of exclusive interview

[4thstringer]

I never thought of the idea that she could heal off of an exclusive interview interact.  To me, Nellie isn't resolving an interact, so that's a no to me.

 

But the undercover reporter making her interact would heal her 2.

[solkan]

2 hours ago, Pergli said:

1. Headline: Secret's Exposed
- The trigger says "must" take the Interact Action.
- Combined with Exclusive Interview, you can force an opponent to drop a friendly scheme marker.
- Can this be done within 4" of a friendly scheme marker? 
- I think yes because it says "must" and the cards overrule the Rulebook. Otherwise it would say, Target takes the interact action. Not sure why the word "must" would be in there otherwise?

You're trying to ignore the third paragraph of 'Breaking the Rules':

Quote

If two special rules directly contradict each other, rules that prevent something from happening take precedent over rules that allow something to happen.

In other words, a statement that you 'must' take the Interact Action doesn't do anything if there's an equal statement (either the italics in Interact, or something like Insignificant or the result of the Disengage action) that says 'No'.  Abilities like 'Don't Mind Me' which say 'This model may tae the Interact Action while engaged or if it has taken the Disengage Action this Activation' are necessary for that.  That's also why Headline:Secret Exposed ends with the words 'even if engaged'.  Out of all of the things that can prevent the model taking the Interact Action (Insignificant, being engaged, having Disengaged, etc.), the trigger is saying that one of them gets vetoed.

I also think you're trying to misinterpret the first two paragraphs:

Quote

Models in Malifaux have many unique rules that override the core rules. When a special rule explicitly contradicts the core rules, follow the special rule rather than the core rule.

For instance, an Action that states it does not require Line of Sight is allowed to disobey the normal Line of Sight rules, and it may therefore choose a target in range even if it cannot see it.

The Interact Action has multiple options embedded in it:

Quote

Do one of the following: 1) Drop a Scheme Marker into base contact with this model and not within 4" of another friendly Scheme Marker, 2) remove all Scheme Markers in base contact with this model, or 3) resolve a specific rule that refers to an Interact Action.

A statement that the model 'must' or 'can' take the Interact Action isn't specifying anything about which (if any) of those options the model must do or can do.

More significantly, if the enemy model is within range of Exclusive Interview, the journalist makes the between options in Interact.  Outside of the range of Exclusive Interview, the enemy model makes the choice.

Why does it say 'Target must tae the Interact Action' instead of 'Target takes the Interact Action'?  It's the same reason that Investigative Journalism says 'Target must reveal a card in its Control Hand and ...'.  It's purely stylistic reasons, to emphasize that it isn't optional.

So what you end up with Interact being is a three option version of the "This or that" choice that the rules talk about.  The player controlling the Interact action chooses between any of the options that can actually be performed.

 

[Adran]

1 Headlines secrets exposed - The enemy must take an interact action. If they do so within 8" of Nellie then she will get to gain focused and a card (breaking news), but the enemy will control the action so decide which interact choices to make (drop a marker which will be friendly to them, remove all markers in base contact or a game specific interact). If they are within 2" of Nellie then she will control the action and count the model as friendly. This means she won't get Breaking news, but she will choose what type of interact action is taken. She will still have the other restrictions, such as a scheme marker can't be dropped with in 4" of another friendly scheme marker.

2 No I don't think this does count as Nellie resolving an interact action just because she is controlling the action (Its like a modle with obey is controlling the action after the obey, but they don't count as resolving an action for things like Hazadous terrain).

3 Yes. I believe the friendly and enemy state are mutually exclusive, so if you are told that you count as friendly, you no longer count as enemy for that time.

[Yore Huckleberry]

12 hours ago, 4thstringer said:

But the undercover reporter making her interact would heal her 2.

Unfortunately the Undercover Reporter’s “Confusion in the Ranks” ability is minion only. The other option (Alison Dade’s “One More Question!”) is enemy only. I’m not sure there’s any good out of activation interact/heals for Nellie, outside of like The Jury’s obey action (edit: actually, that doesn’t work either: The Jury’s obey is non-master only).

[zavros]

I think you can still attempt to drop a scheme marker, it would just not happen according to step 5 of Resolving Actions. The cannot drop within 4" of another scheme is part of the effect, and is not a cost or requirement to perform the chosen action. 

I never realized Breaking News/Chasing a Story would not trigger if you used exclusive interview, it seems really counter-intuitive to what the crew is doing seeing as how Exclusive Interview is not optional. 

[4thstringer]

1 hour ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

Unfortunately the Undercover Reporter’s “Confusion in the Ranks” ability is minion only. The other option (Alison Dade’s “One More Question!”) is enemy only. I’m not sure there’s any good out of activation interact/heals for Nellie, outside of like The Jury’s obey action (edit: actually, that doesn’t work either: The Jury’s obey is non-master only).

DAMN FOILED AGAIN

[Yore Huckleberry]

Just now, 4thstringer said:

DAMN FOILED AGAIN

Other things that (alas!) foil Nellie:

- An enemy model can, in an Exclusive Interview aura, take the interact action in base contact with your scheme marker. Because the rules force an either/or and you cannot drop a marker, you must (control the action and make them) pick up the marker.

It's hard to compare Nellie to Collette. Even the best tech surprise of the crew -- the Undercover Reporter's unbury mechanic -- pales in comparison to Collette's Presto Change-o ability, in terms of repositioning utility over 5 rounds. Reporters are really good on Corrupted Idols and probably have some good play at denying Power Ritual or achieving Detonate the Charges, but in general you're getting more denial out of slow and distracted than you are out of their interaction control game.

[4thstringer]

2 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

Other things that (alas!) foil Nellie:

- An enemy model can, in an Exclusive Interview aura, take the interact action in base contact with your scheme marker. Because the rules force an either/or and you cannot drop a marker, you must (control the action and make them) pick up the marker.

It's hard to compare Nellie to Collette. Even the best tech surprise of the crew -- the Undercover Reporter's unbury mechanic -- pales in comparison to Collette's Presto Change-o ability, in terms of repositioning utility over 5 rounds. Reporters are really good on Corrupted Idols and probably have some good play at denying Power Ritual or achieving Detonate the Charges, but in general you're getting more denial out of slow and distracted than you are out of their interaction control game.

Nellie messes up a few of colettes good tricks too in my experience. Don't mind me isn't as good if we can control their interact, and if they drop markers to give distracted, it also gives us focus and cards.   And guild has attacks that can attack buried models (though I haven't actually utilized that against her yet.)   

Even the undercover reporter ends up being a pretty good take into colette, because he seriously threatens her armored stuff.  

[zavros]

6 minutes ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

Other things that (alas!) foil Nellie:

- An enemy model can, in an Exclusive Interview aura, take the interact action in base contact with your scheme marker. Because the rules force an either/or and you cannot drop a marker, you must (control the action and make them) pick up the marker.

I'm not sure about this, what forces you to choose option 2? There's nothing in Resolving Actions that specifies you have to choose certain options over others, you should be able to choose option 1 which then fails in step 5  if you want to keep your scheme marker there. The can't place within 4" is not an italicized cost or requirement, its an effect of the action that is checked at step 5.

You can declare actions which will fail, the most notable example is wrastlers from infamous, they can charge and declare an attack on no one, pick up a non-scheme marker as part of the cost for declaring the attack, then fail the attack as it has no targets. 

[Yore Huckleberry]

7 minutes ago, zavros said:

You can declare actions which will fail, the most notable example is wrastlers from infamous, they can charge and declare an attack on no one, pick up a non-scheme marker as part of the cost for declaring the attack, then fail the attack as it has no targets. 

I'm not sure you're right, here:

From the Rulebook, p 33:

Some effects within the game provide a model with a choice, such as “discard a card or gain Stunned.” In cases such as this, the model making the choice may choose either option, provided they have the capability to resolve that option. In the case above, if the model had no cards in its Control Hand, it could not choose to discard a card; if the model already had the Stunned Condition (or could not gain it for some reason), it could not choose to gain Stunned. If a model cannot resolve either option, the effect is ignored.

Interact reads, p 22:

Do one of the following: 1) Drop a Scheme Marker into base contact with this model and not within 4" of another friendly Scheme Marker, 2) remove all Scheme Markers in base contact with this model, or 3) resolve a specific rule that refers to an Interact Action.

So you could not choose "3" if there is not some specific rule that refers to an Interact Action, and you cannot Drop a Scheme Marker into base contact and not within 4" (if there is another such marker there), and you would be forced to remove all Scheme Markers. Of note: you CAN choose option 2 at any time, because "zero" is a legitimate "number of scheme markers." (Note: this is not a "failing" action)

My sense is that the "This or That" rule from page 33 requires of you to choose an option that you "have the capability to resolve," and you do not have the "capability to drop a scheme marker in base contact and not within 4" of another model" if there are no such models.

Wrastlers can take an attack with no target that explicitly fails in step 3: targeting (page 23 of the rules: "If the Action requires a target, the target must be declared at this step. The target must be within the Action’s range as well as within LoS of the model taking the Action, unless specified otherwise. If an Action has no legal target, it fails; skip steps 4 and 5."), but it isn't governed by the This-or-That rule that requires you to choose an action you are capable of completing in the Interact action, so it may be legal while choosing an incapable-of-completing interact choice is not.

[Irritated Walrus]

When you "drop" a scheme off a trigger it is different than "dropping" a scheme. Markers cannot be dropped within 4" of one another. They can be dropped within 4" if  trigger tells you to drop a marker. Its a nasty little detail that I over looked when playing against TT Akaname Trash Can Demons that shat those things all over the place for Detonate Charges. 

Remember, if a marker is dropped from something other than the interact action, it can ignore the 4' rule. 

[solkan]

3 minutes ago, Irritated Walrus said:

When you "drop" a scheme it is different than "placing" a scheme. Markers cannot be "placed" within 4" of one another. They can be "dropped" within 4". Its a nasty little detail that I over looked when playing against TT Akaname Trash Can Demons that shat those things all over the place for Detonate Charges. 

I think you've gotten lost somewhere.

Interact specifies 

Quote

Drop a Scheme Marker into base contact with this model and not within 4" of another friendly Scheme Marker

The 4" restriction on that particular Scheme Marker drop only exists in Interact, and only applies when you're performing that option in Interact.  Unless you've got a special rule saying specifically otherwise (I don't think one actually exists, but it could), it is not possible to use that clause of Interact to Drop a Scheme Marker within 4" of another friendly Scheme Marker.  

There's no universal "No Scheme Marker can be dropped within 4" of another Scheme Marker" rule.  If you look at something like the Union Miner with its False Claim action "Drop two Scheme Markers within range", that action can stack Scheme Markers to the ceiling if the player wants to.

Likewise, an Ice Dancer (has the Ice Skating ability which lets them place a Scheme Marker (or other things) that they moved through) after ending movement.  If an Ice Dancer wants to pile Scheme Markers to the ceiling by placing them on top of other scheme markers,  they sure can.

There is a restriction on where a Marker can be put if the effect uses the word Create, but that only specifies that Created Markers cannot overlap other markers.

 

[Irritated Walrus]

1 minute ago, solkan said:

I think you've gotten lost somewhere.

Interact specifies 

The 4" restriction on that particular Scheme Marker drop only exists in Interact, and only applies when you're performing that option in Interact.  Unless you've got a special rule saying specifically otherwise (I don't think one actually exists, but it could), it is not possible to use that clause of Interact to Drop a Scheme Marker within 4" of another friendly Scheme Marker.  

There's no universal "No Scheme Marker can be dropped within 4" of another Scheme Marker" rule.  If you look at something like the Union Miner with its False Claim action "Drop two Scheme Markers within range", that action can stack Scheme Markers to the ceiling if the player wants to.

Likewise, an Ice Dancer (has the Ice Skating ability which lets them place a Scheme Marker (or other things) that they moved through) after ending movement.  If an Ice Dancer wants to pile Scheme Markers to the ceiling by placing them on top of other scheme markers,  they sure can.

There is a restriction on where a Marker can be put if the effect uses the word Create, but that only specifies that Created Markers cannot overlap other markers.

 

You are completely right. I think I may have been getting game systems between editions or other rules confused. 

[Yore Huckleberry]

25 minutes ago, Irritated Walrus said:

Remember, if a marker is dropped from something other than the interact action, it can ignore the 4' rule. 

Also I never use the four foot rule when I interact, finding it prohibitive to my diabolical plans! ;D

[Irritated Walrus]

Just now, Yore Huckleberry said:

Also I never use the four foot rule when I interact, finding it prohibitive to my diabolical plans! ;D

Lol, I am a mess today. Typos galore. 

[Yore Huckleberry]

3 minutes ago, Irritated Walrus said:

Lol, I am a mess today. Typos galore. 

Happens to all of us! I've got to admit that I'm charmed by the idea of a four foot rule, though ... I'm going to hunt down a misprinted rulebook and show it to opponents during tournaments when they try to set up Harness the Lay Line or something.

[4thstringer]

Malifaux's 4' rule is if you can smell your opponent from 4' away, you automatically win.

[Higgybeans]

So I know this is old news, but I was just reading the guild book and confused myself to check. Then I looked at the March FAQ and...

Exclusive Interview – If a model takes the Interact Action while within 2” of a friendly model with Exclusive Interview, does 
it still count as an enemy model for the purposes of that model’s Chasing a Story Ability, if any?
a) Yes. Exclusive Interview makes the alignment of the model both friendly and enemy for the duration of the Interact Action, 
thus effects that resolve exclusively for enemies and for friendlies would both resolve (though the Action is still only considered 
enemy-controlled). If the model drops a Marker, it is friendly to the player controlling it.