Zoraida's Wicked Plan

[Kharnage]

So as per the rulebook, concerning control;

"...When this happens, the 
controlling player makes all decisions for the model, including flipping cards, Cheating Fate, declaring Actions, and so on.

If the controlled model Cheats Fate, the controlling player must do so from their own Control Hand. If the controlled model uses a Soulstone or discards a card, Pass Token, or other resource, the controlling player must discard the appropriate Soulstone, card, Pass Token, etc. If the controlled model would gain a resource (cards, Pass Token, etc.), the controlling player gains that resource. If a controlled Action generates additional Actions, the controlling player controls the generated Action, as well."

I obey a henchman model to disengage from Hinamatsu. Hinamatsu hits, deals big damage (since I control both the attack and the defense flip, this should be easy) and the obeyed model is still under Zoraida's control at the point of damage.

My question is this; can Zoraida now deliberately choose not to stone the damage, as that is a decision the model makes? 

[santaclaws01]

Yup. You can also guarantee the onslaught(assuming it wasn't from Ensorcel) during which you will still have control of the target.

[Adran]

Yes she can choose not to damage prevent with soulstone. 

[Kharnage]

8 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Yup. You can also guarantee the onslaught(assuming it wasn't from Ensorcel) during which you will still have control of the target.

Actually... for ensorcel, the disengage action declared no trigger, right? I'm pretty sure you can double onslaught, since you're obeying the victim, and the attacker is just taking attacks. 

[Adran]

17 minutes ago, Kharnage said:

Actually... for ensorcel, the disengage action declared no trigger, right? I'm pretty sure you can double onslaught, since you're obeying the victim, and the attacker is just taking attacks. 

But the attack from hinamatsu is the result of a trigger. It's basically the same argument as to why you can't declare triggers on an ensorcelled charge because the errata says it will effect all generated actions.

So no you can't declare a trigger on the attack if the ensorcelled action was disengage.

[Ogid]

2 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Yup. You can also guarantee the onslaught(assuming it wasn't from Ensorcel) during which you will still have control of the target.

The last time this was asked the answer was different; by that time it was argued that during the onslaught attack the model is controlled by its owner, and then the ensorcer trigger kicks in and Zoraida regains control during another action.

 

[Adran]

56 minutes ago, Ogid said:

The last time this was asked the answer was different; by that time it was argued that during the onslaught attack the model is controlled by its owner, and then the ensorcer trigger kicks in and Zoraida reains control during another action.

 

The text is "if the controlled action generates additional actions the controlling player controls the generated action as well. "

Due to the unique nature of the disengage action this leads to a few strange possibilities.

Firstly, if I obey my model to disengage from your model, I get to control the disengage strike, because my controlled action has generated an additional action. Following on from that, the disengage strike generates a new action, so it would still be controlled by the Obeyer. Its assumed here, I think, that its the obeyed model that is taking the generated actions, but its not the case in the rules question here, so the rules don't fully cover the situation. As a default I don't think the loss of control should happen until the chain of actions ends, but its not strictly written as such.

(This also kicks into some of the other questions Kharnage has asked about disengage and onslaught, such as does the onslaught attack happen before or after the disengage push happens. Disengage is a strange action with unique situations that aren't quite covered in the rules, and I really wish wicked didn't allow triggers to stop most of those peculiarities).   

 

[Ogid]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

he text is "if the controlled action generates additional actions the controlling player controls the generated action as well. "

Due to the unique nature of the disengage action this leads to a few strange possibilities.

Firstly, if I obey my model to disengage from your model, I get to control the disengage strike, because my controlled action has generated an additional action. Following on from that, the disengage strike generates a new action, so it would still be controlled by the Obeyer. Its assumed here, I think, that its the obeyed model that is taking the generated actions, but its not the case in the rules question here, so the rules don't fully cover the situation. As a default I don't think the loss of control should happen until the chain of actions ends, but its not strictly written as such.

Yep, this is a tricky interaction...

My reading: The controlling player controls the new generated actions (and hence would remain in control of the model, if it is the one doing those actions; which is what usually happens), but I think this rule is asuming those actions are also performed by the controlled model (tho this is NOT stated anywhere, your reading is RAWer than mine). For example, if you obey your own model to disengage from an enemy model with Wicked, I think it doesn't make sense the obeying model take control of both flips in that case. However I'd go with the RAW here.

So with that in mind... What Disengage does is: It generates a new action taken by the enemy model that attacks the first one, it adds a new "after resolving" effect (the push) and it changes all effect from the original attack to reducing that push distance. Wicked just take back all original attack effects instead of reducing the push. However in this case the model taking the action is the enemy one, not the one being obeyed...

So... the obeying model is controlling the new generated action (his own model hitting the controlled model); however that's a new action where he is not controlling the obeyed model but his own model so he shouldn't be the one taking the flips and decisions for the other models (hence it'd return to his default controller, it's owner)... And the Onslaught is the same case, the controlled model is the one taking the action, not the target of it; hence its owner should be the one flipping (unless control rules asumes the controlling player remains in control of the controlled model the whole time and it's not a per action thing)

I'm starting to think the obeying player don't have control of both flips in this scenario... But it's true it's not a straightforward interaction and this is a quite unique case not well described in the rules... I think this is clear FAQ material.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

(This also kicks into some of the other questions Kharnage has asked about disengage and onslaught, such as does the onslaught attack happen before or after the disengage push happens. Disengage is a strange action with unique situations that aren't quite covered in the rules, and I really wish wicked didn't allow triggers to stop most of those peculiarities).

If my reading is right and what disengage does is creating a new action with an special "after resolving" effect; the onslaught attack would be after; because it'll be a new action taken after resolving all effect from the first one (which includes "after resolving" effects).

[Adran]

13 minutes ago, Ogid said:

If my reading is right and what disengage does is creating a new action with an special "after resolving" effect; the onslaught attack would be after; because it'll be a new action taken after resolving all effect from the first one (which includes "after resolving" effects).

Strictly as written the push is not an after resolving effect. It is part of the resolving the disengage action that is just effected by the outcome of the "attack". Disengage is the only generated action that happens during another action, and everywhere else the rules are written to have the action happen after the initial action ends. And 99% of the time that works. Its these very narrow corner cases where it cause problems.

(they changed the rules from last edition to this edition to end actions before there was a new action which was to avoid this sort of issue I think).

[Ogid]

13 minutes ago, Adran said:

Strictly as written the push is not an after resolving effect. It is part of the resolving the disengage action that is just effected by the outcome of the "attack". Disengage is the only generated action that happens during another action, and everywhere else the rules are written to have the action happen after the initial action ends. And 99% of the time that works. Its these very narrow corner cases where it cause problems.

(they changed the rules from last edition to this edition to end actions before there was a new action which was to avoid this sort of issue I think).

The disengage action is not very clear tbh... it's not worded, nor anywhere it's instructed to be played like that; but for consistency I think it works better if it's played as if this action is generating a full new action with special rules and an special after resolving effect that may go off even if there is no attack (it literaly says "After resolving the attack (if any), this model pushes up to his Mv in inches.") instead of this weird action within an action with no clear timings that mess things up.

But yep, it's not clear. This is something that should get specified in a later FAQ; specially because it does generate problems when Wicked enters in play; knowing when that push should be played is important for those models as it does interact with their triggers. Here happens with Hinamatsu, but the Grootslang has triggers that may reposition the model trying to flee (those happening after or before the push may be the difference between the model being able to leave the engagement range or not for example).

[solkan]

15 hours ago, Adran said:

if the controlled action generates additional actions the controlling player controls the generated action as well.

If you find someone who doesn't play that as "If the controlled action generates additional actions -for the controlled model or that would be controlled by the controlled model-, the controlling player controls the generated actions as well", please tell people about it.  

In other words:

- Chain obey through enemy models is expected to work.

- "Obey -> Disengage -> Controll of all disengaging strikes generated by the other player's models" isn't the proper outcome. 

 

[Adran]

3 hours ago, solkan said:

 

In other words:

- Chain obey through enemy models is expected to work.

- "Obey -> Disengage -> Controll of all disengaging strikes generated by the other player's models" isn't the proper outcome. 

 

It's such a corner case that it rarely comes up. I honestly think most people don't play it like that, largely because they haven't thought about the rules, not because they don't think it's right. 

It probably isn't intended, Although if obey gave you a very slight bonus during a disengage action I very much doubt that it would change much. ( you don't get to choose not to have a strike, you do just get to flip the card and cheat both sides).

I was going to say I don't think anything else let's you generate actions you wouldn't control, but I think that the runaways with call for help could, although I think cases where you can control the runways to do a bonus action are very rare.