Gwisin - Vengeance and Take the Hit (and Manipulative)

[Paddywhack]

Thought I'd bring this over here as I'm reading a lot of differing opinions on discord and the forums about this interaction. There are those that feel the FAQ applies and Vengeance does not happen, and others that say that Vengeance is not covered by the FAQ and will happen. 

Here is the FAQ:

12. * If a model has multiple Abilities that resolve after it is targeted (such as Terrifying (X), Protected (X), or another model’s Take the Hit Ability) can it resolve more than one?*

a) Yes. When a model is targeted all effects that would resolve are generated at the same time and can be resolved in any order (as per Simultaneous Effects on Pg 34). However, some effects may change the target of the Action, in which case that new model is not targeted and as such those effects aren’t generated a second time. Additionally, abilities such as Manipulative that affect Actions that target “this model” only apply to those Actions that are still targeting that model. For example, if a model with Take the Hit changes the target of an Action to itself, it would not benefit from any of the initial target’s Abilities such as Manipulative that require the Action to target “this model”, nor could it benefit from more of its own abilities that resolve when it is targeted (such as Terrifying).

It seems that the World Series Vassal has ruled that Manipulative of the new TTH model would happen and by extension, so would Vengeance. It's long, so I won't copy it all here, but here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MAzIgYPIJAIJvitegXtiUxSYpe-odMu7DkWiNMLBE1U/edit#heading=h.9m8bihl7g5kn

I think I fall on the side of the FAQ taking precedence as it pretty clearly states the new model is "not targeted" and Vengeance says 'Action that targeted'. I'm not sure about manipulative as it uses the word 'target', but it uses it as a verb so seems to mean the initial Targeting step.

I think what we need is a capital Target to cover the initial step of targeting a model and how that applies throughout the Action vs the lowercase 'target', which just tells us who is going to suffer effects of the Action. 

It sure seems like this one is going to be a 'discuss ahead of time and agree' until Wyrd gives a FAQ for their FAQ.  

[Maladroit]

I would say the FAQ is clear on Vengeance (model not targeted, no Vengeance) but arguable for Manipulative, which as you say uses the term target instead.

I guess the difference between the use of the different words targeted and target are a problem here. FAQ is pretty clear that the model Taking the Hit etc. becomes the target, but isn't targeted. Maybe the FAQ could have been written in a way they didn't intend - we've seen it before (another springs to mind) and both Vengeance and Manipulative should work the same way as the VWS has ruled.

Alternatively, Wyrd meant to differentiate between abilities that trigger because of the process of choosing the target (like terrifying or maybe Vengeance) which is a deliberate act by the opposing model (targeted), and abilities that trigger because of some innate quality of the model being affected (like black blood).

Edit to add: your point about the verb vs noun versions of target is interesting though. "I target this model" can produce targeted in the past tense, while "I choose to become the target" cannot.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Maladroit

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

I think the FAQ was trying to address a timing issue more than what “targets” vs “targeted” means. Considering that the ability doesn’t trigger until after damage is dealt, the Gwisin is the current target of the action while taking damage. So it was still targeted by the action, just not “targeted” for the sake of an ability which only triggers in the declare targets step, like terrifying. I think you would need to prove that TTH somehow changes the target of the action without changing the target, which either breaks TTH or the action resolution.

[Maladroit]

7 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I think the FAQ was trying to address a timing issue more than what “targets” vs “targeted” means. Considering that the ability doesn’t trigger until after damage is dealt, the Gwisin is the current target of the action while taking damage. So it was still targeted by the action, just not “targeted” for the sake of an ability which only triggers in the declare targets step, like terrifying. I think you would need to prove that TTH somehow changes the target of the action without changing the target, which either breaks TTH or the action resolution.

Could well be the correct interpretation. However - I think "trying to address" is the problem there. Unfortunately/or deliberately they wrote that the model taking the hit is "not targeted . . .". So I would argue it is the other way around, what needs to be proved is that the model, by choosing to become the target, was targeted. And yes that does lead to a weird situation, but it isn't something that is irreconcilable. It isn't as bad as the whole "another" saga, which I think the vast majority of us thought could not have been intended, but was what was written at the time.   

[santaclaws01]

32 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I think you would need to prove that TTH somehow changes the target of the action without changing the target, which either breaks TTH or the action resolution.

That's not what's happening. The FAQ is basically just turning "targeted" into a game term. In this case it means whatever was chosen by the attacking model in step 3 is what was targeted. Anything that changes the target after that does change the target, but the new target was never "targeted" by the attacker.

[Maladroit]

8 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

That's not what's happening. The FAQ is basically just turning "targeted" into a game term. In this case it means whatever was chosen by the attacking model in step 3 is what was targeted. Anything that changes the target after that does change the target, but the new target was never "targeted" by the attacker.

Basically: "to target" (verb) is not a synonym of "the target" (noun) and so are different terms?

[Maniacal_cackle]

My take is that they basically were doing the same thing as they did with the start of activation FAQ:

When you hit the start of activation (or targeting) step, you generate all effects, resolve them, and new stuff doesn't get generated that would normally happen at start of activation (or targeting) step.

But then they threw in this sentence in a messy way: "However, some effects may change the target of the Action, in which case that new model is not targeted and as such those effects aren’t generated a second time"

So there is a strong case for a strict reading of the FAQ that if translated to Vengeance, Vengeance doesn't apply.

That said, the Waldo's Weekly DOES seem to think it works, so I imagine the models were designed with it working and no one raised it in playtesting?

[SEV]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

That said, the Waldo's Weekly DOES seem to think it works, so I imagine the models were designed with it working and no one raised it in playtesting?

The FAQ seems clear to me... I think the mistake is probably from the person writing WW...

Also, if wyrd just release quick rules focus with each new release that would solve that kind of problem (yep I'm like a broken record at this point).

[Maniacal_cackle]

5 minutes ago, SEV said:

The FAQ seems clear to me... I think the mistake is probably from the person writing WW...

Also, if wyrd just release quick rules focus with each new release that would solve that kind of problem (yep I'm like a broken record at this point).

Well, keep in mind that the start of the FAQ is just about simultaneous effects.

If you view simultaneous effects as applying to the whole ruling, then vengeance couldn't possibly be related to the FAQ (it is like 3 steps later in the process).

[Maniacal_cackle]

For additional context, though, my view is a bit skewed because...

• I always thought that start of activation worked based on simultaneous effects (and you couldn't generate new ones).
  • FAQ then confirmed this.
• I always thought double terrifying didn't work with take the hit because of simultaneous effects (and then you don't generate new ones).
  • FAQ appeared to confirm this to me.

So I'm of course going to go in with some confirmation bias here.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

How have people been playing Protected(Urami) and passing off being the target with current Kirai? Does a Urami Minion’s vengeance ability currently do damage when it is the target due to Protected? I don’t see why the answer to that won’t carry over to the Gwisin.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

How have people been playing Protected(Urami) and passing off being the target with current Kirai? Does a Urami Minion’s vengeance ability currently do damage when it is the target due to Protected? I don’t see why the answer to that won’t carry over to the Gwisin.

 

It'll be the same answer for sure. Most people are playing it that you don't get vengeance since the FAQ, but I'm not sure.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

10 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

For additional context, though, my view is a bit skewed because...

• I always thought that start of activation worked based on simultaneous effects (and you couldn't generate new ones).
  • FAQ then confirmed this.
• I always thought double terrifying didn't work with take the hit because of simultaneous effects (and then you don't generate new ones).
  • FAQ appeared to confirm this to me.

So I'm of course going to go in with some confirmation bias here.

Technically nothing prevents simultaneous effects from generating new effects, so double terrifying was possible prior to the FAQ with some interesting logic. 

I always played double terrifying as not possible since the enemy model only declared the first target.

The language for targeted or not should only pertain to effects resolved in Step 3 of resolving an action, and only to the declared target. Step 4+ , it’s whatever model who flips a card or to whom the Action’s effects will be applied. The FAQ says just that prior to attempting to read between the lines or create context. Any more than that requires bridging logic gaps to make something work or not work. For example, saying targeted (simply the past tense of target) is now Targeted.

If the FAQ did create a game term fir targeted, Kirai can deal vengeance damage when hit with a blast off of a model she use Protected(Urami) to change target. She was targeted and was dealt damage, but this seems horribly out if place in the rules.

[Maladroit]

42 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

. . . . 

If the FAQ did create a game term fir targeted, Kirai can deal vengeance damage when hit with a blast off of a model she use Protected(Urami) to change target. She was targeted and was dealt damage, but this seems horribly out if place in the rules.

Not illogical from a story point of view though. Kirai was targeted by a Guild Captain(?) and Francis took the hit for her, then Kirai (the original target) extracted Vengeance.

Or from a real life perspective, someone throws a water balloon at you, hits someone else, but you get splashed - you'd still take revenge. Well you might be very nice and wouldn't, but I would.

But I don't disagree that the rules could do with some cleaning up.

[Zombified Kiwi]

I feel like the main selling point of the model is the ability to jump in the way and then grudge the person who hit it.

It doesn't make much sense to me that if almost every model in the keyword has an ability that hurts you back for hurting them the ability would turn off because the model in question took the hit for someone else.

"and become the new target of the attack action" and "after resolving an action that targeted and damaged this model" just mentions being targeted.

It doesn't say anything about being the initial target.

[Morgan Vening]

10 hours ago, ThreeBatts said:

I feel like the main selling point of the model is the ability to jump in the way and then grudge the person who hit it.

It doesn't make much sense to me that if almost every model in the keyword has an ability that hurts you back for hurting them the ability would turn off because the model in question took the hit for someone else.

"and become the new target of the attack action" and "after resolving an action that targeted and damaged this model" just mentions being targeted.

It doesn't say anything about being the initial target.

While I don't necessarily disagree, the biggest question for me, is how was it playtested? Is the Defense 5, 7 Health, Incorporeal, Vengeance 2 balanced by allowing Vengeance to apply, or is it balanced with it not being allowed?

Because it's a hella potent model, especially as a summons for Kirai1, if it does. It's still a good model for 6SS if it doesn't.

I guess I'm less interested in if it works, than how it was intended to work.

[Maniacal_cackle]

24 minutes ago, Morgan Vening said:

While I don't necessarily disagree, the biggest question for me, is how was it playtested? Is the Defense 5, 7 Health, Incorporeal, Vengeance 2 balanced by allowing Vengeance to apply, or is it balanced with it not being allowed?

Because it's a hella potent model, especially as a summons for Kirai1, if it does. It's still a good model for 6SS if it doesn't.

I guess I'm less interested in if it works, than how it was intended to work.

It is fully possible everyone in the play test made different assumptions and it was played multiple ways xD

But we may never know, as technically those into he playtest are under an NDA, so we may not find out til the next FAQ what the designers intend.

[Zombified Kiwi]

16 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

It is fully possible everyone in the play test made different assumptions and it was played multiple ways xD

But we may never know, as technically those into he playtest are under an NDA, so we may not find out til the next FAQ what the designers intend.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Adran]

On 8/21/2021 at 12:16 AM, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I think the FAQ was trying to address a timing issue more than what “targets” vs “targeted” means. Considering that the ability doesn’t trigger until after damage is dealt, the Gwisin is the current target of the action while taking damage. So it was still targeted by the action, just not “targeted” for the sake of an ability which only triggers in the declare targets step, like terrifying. I think you would need to prove that TTH somehow changes the target of the action without changing the target, which either breaks TTH or the action resolution.

 

On 8/21/2021 at 3:22 AM, Maniacal_cackle said:

Well, keep in mind that the start of the FAQ is just about simultaneous effects.

If you view simultaneous effects as applying to the whole ruling, then vengeance couldn't possibly be related to the FAQ (it is like 3 steps later in the process).

For what its worth (probably about 2 minutes of your time to read these thoughts, and no more) I don't view the whole answer as subject to simultaneous effects, because if it was, then the Terrifying question ought to give the other result of allowing 2 tests. 

The FAQ starts off looking at timing and that you can do multiple effects off the same "Triggering" effect, in this case targeting(not a surprise, I don't really think anyone thought otherwise, they were just unsure about the order, especially when things changed during that stage), but very quickly leaves timing effects and goes into the difference between Targeting and being the target, which gives a different answer. 

Just because Model A targets model B, leading to model B being the target, does not mean that every time that model B is the target of the attack it was targeted by model A (even when Model A is the attacker). 

If it was just a timing question, and My statement above was false then Terrifying should work on both models because every time a Model targets with an attack action it ought to be subject to the chance of Terrifying. Since the FAQ explicitly says it doesn't work on both, and actually does tell us that the statement above is true ( It tells us that the new model was NOT targetted and gives that as the reason effects like Terrifying aren't generated, not because the timing window is wrong), then I think its fairly safe to assume that it is NOT a timing issue.

The manipulative issue is a little more complex, but ultimately I believe it is still based on the difference between being the target (Noun I think) and targetting (verb), and if the ability is referring to the verb then an ability that changed the target(noun) won't change Target (verb).

(If we changed every instance of target (noun) to "defender" then it would be clear that the words are different and which applies to which. Try that when reading the abilities and it should help work out the way the FAQ rules. Lets just look at the relevant abilities with this change

Manipulative: If this model has not yet Activated this Turn, enemy Attack Actions that target this model suffer a - to their duel. (No change, Target is a verb)

Take the Hit: After an enemy model targets a friendly model within a2 with an Attack Action, this model may discard a card to Place itself into base contact with the friendly model and become the new target  defender of the Attack Action (ignoring range, LoS, and targeting restrictions).

Protected (X): After this model is targeted by an enemy Attack Action, it may discard a card to change the target defender to a friendly X model within 2" of this model (ignoring range, LoS, and targeting restrictions).

Vengeance +1: After resolving an Action that targeted and damaged this model, the Attacking model suffers +1 damage. (No change, Target is a verb)

On a strict reading of the FAQ I think its clear that Take the hit doesn't then let you use vengeance from the Gwisin (although if you blast back onto the original target it would work) because it explicitly states that the new model is not targeted. And any arguments about if it should or not are about if the intent of the FAQ is wrong, which we can't easily determine.

I was pretty sure that the intent of the another FAQ was wrong, but until Wyrd changed the FAQ, I was of the opinion that the right way to play is by the rules they have written and not what I think they should have written. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

59 minutes ago, Adran said:

 

For what its worth (probably about 2 minutes of your time to read these thoughts, and no more) I don't view the whole answer as subject to simultaneous effects, because if it was, then the Terrifying question ought to give the other result of allowing 2 tests. 

The FAQ starts off looking at timing and that you can do multiple effects off the same "Triggering" effect, in this case targeting(not a surprise, I don't really think anyone thought otherwise, they were just unsure about the order, especially when things changed during that stage), but very quickly leaves timing effects and goes into the difference between Targeting and being the target, which gives a different answer. 

Just because Model A targets model B, leading to model B being the target, does not mean that every time that model B is the target of the attack it was targeted by model A (even when Model A is the attacker). 

If it was just a timing question, and My statement above was false then Terrifying should work on both models because every time a Model targets with an attack action it ought to be subject to the chance of Terrifying. Since the FAQ explicitly says it doesn't work on both, and actually does tell us that the statement above is true ( It tells us that the new model was NOT targetted and gives that as the reason effects like Terrifying aren't generated, not because the timing window is wrong), then I think its fairly safe to assume that it is NOT a timing issue.

The manipulative issue is a little more complex, but ultimately I believe it is still based on the difference between being the target (Noun I think) and targetting (verb), and if the ability is referring to the verb then an ability that changed the target(noun) won't change Target (verb).

(If we changed every instance of target (noun) to "defender" then it would be clear that the words are different and which applies to which. Try that when reading the abilities and it should help work out the way the FAQ rules. Lets just look at the relevant abilities with this change

Manipulative: If this model has not yet Activated this Turn, enemy Attack Actions that target this model suffer a - to their duel. (No change, Target is a verb)

Take the Hit: After an enemy model targets a friendly model within a2 with an Attack Action, this model may discard a card to Place itself into base contact with the friendly model and become the new target  defender of the Attack Action (ignoring range, LoS, and targeting restrictions).

Protected (X): After this model is targeted by an enemy Attack Action, it may discard a card to change the target defender to a friendly X model within 2" of this model (ignoring range, LoS, and targeting restrictions).

Vengeance +1: After resolving an Action that targeted and damaged this model, the Attacking model suffers +1 damage. (No change, Target is a verb)

On a strict reading of the FAQ I think its clear that Take the hit doesn't then let you use vengeance from the Gwisin (although if you blast back onto the original target it would work) because it explicitly states that the new model is not targeted. And any arguments about if it should or not are about if the intent of the FAQ is wrong, which we can't easily determine.

I was pretty sure that the intent of the another FAQ was wrong, but until Wyrd changed the FAQ, I was of the opinion that the right way to play is by the rules they have written and not what I think they should have written. 

That all makes sense and can totally see the noun/verb argument - except it still takes making a distinction that Wyrd didn't explicitly make.

So every option involves inference.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

 

If it was just a timing question, and My statement above was false then Terrifying should work on both models because every time a Model targets with an attack action it ought to be subject to the chance of Terrifying. Since the FAQ explicitly says it doesn't work on both, and actually does tell us that the statement above is true ( It tells us that the new model was NOT targetted and gives that as the reason effects like Terrifying aren't generated, not because the timing window is wrong), then I think its fairly safe to assume that it is NOT a timing issue.

The issue here is that an action only has one targeting step.

If you attack model A and model B takes the hit, you do the targeting step for model A and then the target swaps to model B. But model B doesn't get a targeting step (because you are already past that step). But model B is now the target (targeted by the action).

So it is a different inference (although yes I admit that one sentence out of context does make it a tricky inference to make). I'm pretty comfortable with assuming sloppy wording on FAQs though when considering the wider framework of how it works xD

Another point is that FAQs can only be generalised so far. That is an FAQ about a specific issue (terrifying) which tries to not break too many things.

All that said... Would be really nice if they address it (either through the card or another FAQ).

[Adran]

4 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

That all makes sense and can totally see the noun/verb argument - except it still takes making a distinction that Wyrd didn't explicitly make.

So every option involves inference.

The issue here is that an action only has one targeting step.

If you attack model A and model B takes the hit, you do the targeting step for model A and then the target swaps to model B. But model B doesn't get a targeting step (because you are already past that step). But model B is now the target (targeted by the action).

So it is a different inference (although yes I admit that one sentence out of context does make it a tricky inference to make). I'm pretty comfortable with assuming sloppy wording on FAQs though when considering the wider framework of how it works xD

Another point is that FAQs can only be generalised so far. That is an FAQ about a specific issue (terrifying) which tries to not break too many things.

All that said... Would be really nice if they address it (either through the card or another FAQ).

The fact an action only has 1 targeting step is irrelevant as far as I can see because none of the steps that matter reference the targeting step. 

Those abilities don't get activated in the targeting step, they get activated when a model targets a model. Those are 2 very different circumstances and if the abilites said they happen at the end (beginning would be awkward as you don't have a target at that point)of the targeting step, that is a set time point, but they don't, they say when a model is targeted. 

If an ability happens when a model takes damage, then it happens every time the model takes damage, not just once during the resolve action or ability step, and then never again. (Its not a perfect example as a comparison but it is better that "at the start of the activation" as an example, if a model took 2 lots of damage during the resolve actions step, then both times the "when damages/ing" abilities would apply.

Wyrd Explicitly made the distinction that the new target was not targeted. Every argument for Take the hit and Vengeance to combine that I have seen has to deliberately ignore that text. I'm probably very locked into my viewpoint now (which was formed prior to the FAQ being released but probably because I thought the rules shouldn't allow 2 terrifying tests for 1 action and this was the only justification for that I could see) so could miss something that others see, but I can't see another way to read that line of the FAQ and apply it other than the way I have above.

There is some sloppy wording out there (place gets used occasionally in the rules when they don't mean Place, which causes issues when the FAQ talks about placing an object, and we don't know if they mean the rules version of Place, or the physical action of positioning which would include drop and create as well as movement effects), but I try and assume the wording isn't sloppy, unless that physically breaks something, because any other way forces you to start every game with a complete discussion on what rules you actually play because you don't know what is actually sloppy wording. 

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just reread the targeting rules and you're right, it never explicitly says that is the step when you resolve 'after targeting' stuff! Weird.

[Paddywhack]

So it seems like there are two camps:

1. FAQ covers this and Vengeance (and other 'Targeted' abilities) do not happen as the new model was never 'Targeted'.

2. FAQ does not cover this as Vengeance (and some argue Manipulative) don't happen in the 'Targeting' step (though as noted, there are no instructions about what effects happen in the target step).

I think I'm going to play as #1 until otherwise corrected by Wyrd. The FAQ clearly states the model is not 'targeted' and those abilities require the model to be targeted. It is also the less harsh of the interpretations as Gwisin are pretty nasty for their points already. You certainly don't need to use TTH to get good use of them or need Vengeance on TTH to make them worth taking.

#2 seems to be adding some timing steps and inferring some intent. Now maybe it would be better if those were defined, but they currently aren't in the rules. 

From a fluff perspective I see it as I've made my mind up to attack Kirai and start swinging, the Gwisin jumps in as I'm mid swing. I never intended to hit the Gwisin, it decided to take the hit for Kirai so it's Vengeance ability doesn't hurt me.  

[Maniacal_cackle]

Note this has implications for onslaught, coordinated attack, and quick reflexes.

Presumably camp 1 has onslaught targeting (same target) as having to target the original model (not the one that took the hit?)

And quick reflexes can target the take the hit model?

Or am I not understanding the noun/verb distinction?

[Maladroit]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Note this has implications for onslaught, coordinated attack, and quick reflexes.

Presumably camp 1 has onslaught targeting (same target) as having to target the original model (not the one that took the hit?)

And quick reflexes can target the take the hit model?

Or am I not understanding the noun/verb distinction?

This is going to be a whole "another" can of worms in a minute - except this time it will be "different". 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

12 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Note this has implications for onslaught, coordinated attack, and quick reflexes.

Presumably camp 1 has onslaught targeting (same target) as having to target the original model (not the one that took the hit?)

And quick reflexes can target the take the hit model?

Or am I not understanding the noun/verb distinction?

All of those use targeting. If there is a noun/verb distinction for vengeance, then there should be a gerund distinction for “targeting”. That means those triggers would use the current target as the object. Conveniently, this would be the same for both camps so the complexity of the issue is not as broad as it could be.

 

—Edit— 

Maybe gerund isn’t the right term. However, to use those triggers, wouldn’t you follow something similar to: this action currently targets X and the trigger will continue to target X? Unless the argument is that what the action targets and the target of the action are different entities?