Unclean Influence

[James Dyson]

When Hamelin uses Unclean Influence effecting X Malifaux Rats, and the first rat chooses to use Tangle Together, what happens to the rest of the generated actions?

A- lost due to the rats being replaced into the Rat King, or 

B - the Rat King can now take X-1 actions, as the generated actions are carried over into the Rat King.

I can't find a clear definition of 'lasting game effects'.

[SEV]

On 6/15/2022 at 2:35 PM, Adran said:

I can't remember where previous discussion on the topic ended, but you are missing option C the rat king takes 1 action because the effects don't stack. ( I'm fairly sure the replace rules have changed since any previous discussion, but no idea I'd the change would affect the answer. ). 

The option C is how I see it working. It definitely should be FAQ that way... Even righ now, I'm not convinced by the explanation that all the actions are transfer to the new rat king... As far as I'm aware of, the rules are not explicit on how it should works and I'm not buying the supposed RAW interpretation over a common sense interpretation.

[santaclaws01]

33 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Those are both Area Effects, models never become a target of those.

Not the question I was asking. I'm asking what reasoning is there to exclude those types of effects when designing this rule. When the RAW is broken we have to try and look at RAI to figure out how it's supposed to work. Now we can all agree that the RAI for this specific interaction is incredibly unlikely to favor a Rat King taking up to 11 actions in a row, but does that mean we also have to break potentially break the RAI for other effects? It's fine to just go "this specific interaction is unintended and dumb, let's ignore it" and leave it at that. Hell Wyrd has done it themselves with FAQs when an errata would require hitting too many cards(We Are Legion), and we've also seen the consequences of what happens when a ruling is made because of a specific interaction but is for all interactions of that type (the first Enraged By Insolence and the word "another" FAQ). So I'll ask again. Why should those effects not transfer?

29 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

It seems like the way to go is either ignore wording in the replace rules to transfer all effects, or use a liberal definition of target and effect to follow the replace rules to a word.

No, it's realizing that the wording is very obviously not using target as a game term, and interpreting it as any effect currently affecting a model is an effect targeting/choosing that model. And again, the inclusion of things that no amount of contorting can ever be described as effects makes it clear that section of the replace rules is talking about the transferring over the current game state of the model and acting like nothing changed.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

8 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

So I'll ask again. Why should those effects not transfer?

The answer is the same, but I’ll give more explanation. Assuming RAI wants a model that was targeted or chosen for effects to transfer, Actions are the only thing that generates an effect in the rules that does either of those. The abilities you mention are not generated from an action, so there was no target or model chosen to resolve the effect.

Do all effects from Actions transfer? I don’t think so as not all Actions target or choose. So we can pare down further to effects of actions that contain “target” or “choose” in the effect text. I think the only grey area left is whether or not a currently resolving effect transfers. My opinion is that only resolved effects which are existing until a future point in time should transfer, but there is no RAW or indications of RAI towards either.

[santaclaws01]

13 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

I think the only grey area left is whether or not a currently resolving effect transfers. My opinion is that only resolved effects which are existing until a future point in time should transfer, but there is no RAW or indications of RAI towards either.

So firstly, unclean influence isn't a currently resolving effect. It is an already resolved effect, an effect which generates an action.

Going into the broader do currently resolving effects transfer or not, if they didn't then models that replace on death/0 wounds and are unable to heal/healing doesn't save them would not count as being killed by any effect and it gets really sticky for resolving effects that just kill a model. If the killed effect doesn't transfer over then the replaced model just wouldn't die.

[Azahul]

So I played a game last night using this ruling (the MWS at least seems convinced that stacking the actions on the Rat King is the correct way to play). It was certainly impactful, though the reality with Hamelin is that it isn't always easy to have a bunch of rats lined up for it. On the turns where I was able to pump out Rat Kings though it was like the Mindless rule was being switched off, giving me full (Fast) Rat King activations back to back (or in the middle of) Hamelin's own turn. A similar vibe to the Mech Rider in a sense, though Hamelin's own AP are extremely high impact.

 

That said, it mostly felt like a win more benefit. Hamelin's dream activation is always activating with a bunch of Vermin nearby and an enemy model or two to punch. This didn't change that, nor does it change the fact that savvy opponents can avoid that scenario.

 

In terms of actual impact it did allow me to kill the Dreamer (who was out of stone) with a two Focus King who otherwise would not have been able to make any attacks at all. The other turns it came up there wasn't a good target for the King so it was of fairly minor benefit. But still definitely a high impact change make no mistake.

 

Obviously I know we aren't making this decision based on the relative power level of this ruling. And I want to emphasise the caveats that a) this is a one game sample against an opponent who knows Hamelin well and could see the move coming, and b) I didn't tailor my list to take any crazy advantage of the rule. No rats were hired so I was crutching on four rats/turn from Benny turns 1-2 and then Voracious Rat auras each turn after that.

[SEV]

@Azahul This is anecdotal at best...We're not trying to assess the power level of the interaction, but it it works at all rule wise.

It shouldn't. I respect the MWS comity hard work (and ruling for their own tournament)... But I think they hit and miss on this one.

[Azahul]

15 minutes ago, SEV said:

@Azahul This is anecdotal at best...We're not trying to assess the power level of the interaction, but it it works at all rule wise.

It shouldn't. I respect the MWS comity hard work (and ruling for their own tournament)... But I think they hit and miss on this one.

Oh, 100% anecdotal. Nevertheless if the MWS makes a ruling that's essentially the standardised version of the game most people with exposure to that scene are going to play even in their home metas, so if that is their ruling and no one can change their minds then it probably stands until an official FAQ.

[Maniacal_cackle]

5 hours ago, Azahul said:

Oh, 100% anecdotal. Nevertheless if the MWS makes a ruling that's essentially the standardised version of the game most people with exposure to that scene are going to play even in their home metas, so if that is their ruling and no one can change their minds then it probably stands until an official FAQ.

I rule differently for local tournaments vs world series tournaments, so even for individuals it varies quite a bit xD

[Azahul]

51 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I rule differently for local tournaments vs world series tournaments, so even for individuals it varies quite a bit xD

I don't need to be playing a different game in different settings so whatever happens in my meta is on you

[Moinetbeard]

isn't this whole thing covered by the rules for simultaneous effects on page 34 or the rulebook?

[James Dyson]

2 minutes ago, Moinetbeard said:

isn't this whole thing covered by the rules for simultaneous effects on page 34 or the rulebook?

The biggest question is not whether these are simultaneous effects (they are), but whether they're 'lasting game effects' for purposes of Replace.

I can Unclean Influence and have X rats take an action, with the last action be Tangled Together, and get all my actions.

But if I Tangle together first, does the action those other rats would take disappear or does it transfer to the new Rat King.  And if it does transfer, does it stack?

[Moinetbeard]

I see what you're saying and i do agree that the rules around the terminology of what a "lasting effect" is should be firmed up, but I don't think that's what the issue is here:

You don't generate an action until you resolve the effect of the shockwave on each rat. Because of the rules for simultaneous effects you choose a rat one at a time to resolve and resolve all of the effects. So for example, you choose rat A (of A, B, C, D) to resolve first and the effect of the shockwave generates an action. if rat A chooses to tangle together using that action then the other rats have not been chosen to resolve effects at that point ergo have not generated an action. In this case once Rat A concludes it's action (and turned into the rat king, removing Rats B, C and D in the process) there are no further rats within the shockwave to continue to resolve it's effect on.

 

I think the issue seems to be that people are taking the term "simultaneous effects" literally, when in the rules it isn't literal at all - you resolve them fully, one at a time. You don't generate an action on a rat, leave it unresolved and then jump to another rat to resolve another effect there.

[solkan]

51 minutes ago, Moinetbeard said:

I think the issue seems to be that people are taking the term "simultaneous effects" literally, when in the rules it isn't literal at all - you resolve them fully, one at a time. You don't generate an action on a rat, leave it unresolved and then jump to another rat to resolve another effect there.

You most certainly do generate an action, leave it unresolved, and continue because of the way the action resolution sequence was restricted.  Or are you saying that you’ve been trying to resolve that pulse as

• push rat
• immediately resolve action
• push rat
• immediately resolve action

All of the rats subject to that pulse end the resolution of Unclean Influences with queued action (and remember that declaring what they’re going to do is part of resolving an action, so they aren’t even committed to any particular action yet).

 

[James Dyson]

29 minutes ago, Moinetbeard said:

I see what you're saying and i do agree that the rules around the terminology of what a "lasting effect" is should be firmed up, but I don't think that's what the issue is here:

You don't generate an action until you resolve the effect of the shockwave on each rat. Because of the rules for simultaneous effects you choose a rat one at a time to resolve and resolve all of the effects. So for example, you choose rat A (of A, B, C, D) to resolve first and the effect of the shockwave generates an action. if rat A chooses to tangle together using that action then the other rats have not been chosen to resolve effects at that point ergo have not generated an action. In this case once Rat A concludes it's action (and turned into the rat king, removing Rats B, C and D in the process) there are no further rats within the shockwave to continue to resolve it's effect on.

 

I think the issue seems to be that people are taking the term "simultaneous effects" literally, when in the rules it isn't literal at all - you resolve them fully, one at a time. You don't generate an action on a rat, leave it unresolved and then jump to another rat to resolve another effect there.

The issue is that per page 34 of the digital rulebook, section "Actions generated by Effects" (attached, highlighted for emphasis) that isn't how you'd resolve Unclean Influence (I wish it were, that'd be way more cut and dry!)

It'd go:

- Select Rat A

- Rat A may move up to 3", and may take a non- bonus action.  It chooses to do both.

 - Because Rats B, C and D are in range of Unclean Influence, before you can take Rat As action, Unclean Influence must be fully resolved.  Which means Rats B, C and D all get to move up to 3" and choose to take a non- bonus action

- now that Rats A, B, C and D have all chosen whether to move up to 3" and take a non- bonus action (and for sake of simplicity, we'll say that you didn't hit the Trigger on Unclean Influence), Unclean Influence finally resolves

- you can now take the generated actions on Rats A, B, C and D.  You can take them in the order of your choosing due to simultaneous effects.

Hence why this isn't as cut and dry as I'd like it.  Since the language of 'completely resolved' is listed there, all actions are by nature sequential and not 'nested' inside each other.

There are four pending actions that the Hamelin player can resolve in the order of their choosing.  

If these are 'Lasting Game Effects', then Rat A using Tangle together first allows the subsequent Rat King to complete the actions that the original models chose to take.  

If these actions are not 'Lasting Game Effects', then obviously there are no subsequent actions to take.

Hence my question on what the definition of 'lasting game effects' is!

[Moinetbeard]

hmm ok I can see what is being said and you're right. As you've said, it's the terminology around what constitutes a "lasting effect" that needs fully defining (for what it's worth i would expect it means any effects not covered by conditions, tokens or upgrades which are already covered in the rules, so i guess abilities such as on the archivist's trigger for font of knowledge would count as a "lasting effect" and is what the devs had in mind).

 

Has this come up in any major tournaments yet? It would be interesting to see how TOs rule on it - i think it's fairly clear that having a rat king with a giant load of AP to use was not the intention of the developers.

[Azahul]

4 hours ago, Moinetbeard said:

hmm ok I can see what is being said and you're right. As you've said, it's the terminology around what constitutes a "lasting effect" that needs fully defining (for what it's worth i would expect it means any effects not covered by conditions, tokens or upgrades which are already covered in the rules, so i guess abilities such as on the archivist's trigger for font of knowledge would count as a "lasting effect" and is what the devs had in mind).

 

Has this come up in any major tournaments yet? It would be interesting to see how TOs rule on it - i think it's fairly clear that having a rat king with a giant load of AP to use was not the intention of the developers.

To my knowledge it hasn't been used yet, but the MWS committee ruled the actions would transfer over.

 

Worth noting too that it doesn't matter if the generated actions count as a "lasting" game effect, merely a game effect, since all effects are said to transfer over. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Ooooo, here is an interesting one if you DONT let the actions transfer over because they don't choose or target the original model...

Bonus actions are once per activation, but this limitation doesn't choose or target. So under that interpretation, this would mean that you reset the bonus action limitation every replace.

So coryphee duet could infinitely replace, effectively giving it infinite movement 🤣

Less exciting is that you could charge, replace, charge if these limitations don't transfer over.

[Azahul]

23 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Ooooo, here is an interesting one if you DONT let the actions transfer over because they don't choose or target the original model...

Bonus actions are once per activation, but this limitation doesn't choose or target. So under that interpretation, this would mean that you reset the bonus action limitation every replace.

So coryphee duet could infinitely replace, effectively giving it infinite movement 🤣

Less exciting is that you could charge, replace, charge if these limitations don't transfer over.

Isn't that covered by the fact that replacing mid-activation only gives you whatever actions were remaining to the original model?

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

35 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Ooooo, here is an interesting one if you DONT let the actions transfer over because they don't choose or target the original model...

Bonus actions are once per activation, but this limitation doesn't choose or target. So under that interpretation, this would mean that you reset the bonus action limitation every replace.

So coryphee duet could infinitely replace, effectively giving it infinite movement 🤣

Less exciting is that you could charge, replace, charge if these limitations don't transfer over.

“Once per” are restrictions, and are separate from effects. I would say they transfer over as part of Replace(7), not because of Replace(4).

[Azahul]

But also worth noting in any case is that the rules for Bonus actions are phrased more like an additional part of the action limit than a restriction. There isn't an italicised once per activation clause, rather some body text saying "a model can only declare one Bonus Action per activation". Even if you don't agree that restrictions are carried over in Step 7, I can't see any way to argue that Bonus Actions would be exempt since they are an action that either is or is not remaining to the activating model.

[Maniacal_cackle]

8 minutes ago, Azahul said:

But also worth noting in any case is that the rules for Bonus actions are phrased more like an additional part of the action limit than a restriction. There isn't an italicised once per activation clause, rather some body text saying "a model can only declare one Bonus Action per activation". Even if you don't agree that restrictions are carried over in Step 7, I can't see any way to argue that Bonus Actions would be exempt since they are an action that either is or is not remaining to the activating model.

That's not how bonus action rules work - they're not part of the action limit on page 21.

You get two actions per activation (which is what gets transferred in step 7).

Additionally bonus actions don't have anything to do with action limits - they are simply something a model can declare once per activation.

However, when you replace, you become a NEW model, so why would the limitation apply?

Personally I just transfer over all the effects/limitations... But for people who don't do that, what text in which step are you using to justify transferring over bonus action limits?

[Azahul]

Just now, Maniacal_cackle said:

That's not how bonus action rules work - they're not part of the action limit on page 21.

You get two actions per activation (which is what gets transferred in step 7).

Additionally bonus actions don't have anything to do with action limits - they are simply something a model can declare once per activation.

However, when you replace, you become a NEW model, so why would the limitation apply?

Personally I just transfer over all the effects/limitations... But for people who don't do that, what text in which step are you using to justify transferring over bonus action limits?

A bonus action is an action.

 

You can declare one bonus action each activation.

 

The replacing mid-activation rules say that you continue that activation using any remaining actions.

 

Where in the rules are you generating fresh bonus actions?

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Azahul said:

A bonus action is an action.

 

You can declare one bonus action each activation.

 

The replacing mid-activation rules say that you continue that activation using any remaining actions.

 

Where in the rules are you generating fresh bonus actions?

Perhaps you're mixing up editions.

You don't generate bonus actions.  You can take them freely as long as  you haven't hit the limit. You can take multiple bonus actions in an activation as long as they're on different models.

The only thing that stops you from spamming bonus actions is that there is a limitation that a model can only use a bonus OPA.

[Azahul]

Just now, Maniacal_cackle said:

Perhaps you're mixing up editions.

You don't generate bonus actions.  You can take them freely as long as  you haven't hit the limit. You can take multiple bonus actions in an activation as long as they're on different models.

The only thing that stops you from spamming bonus actions is that there is a limitation that a model can only use a bonus OPA.

I can hardly mix up editions when I've only ever played this one.

I think you're too far into the weeds trying to make this interpretation not work. There may be valid reasons that it doesn't, but the bonus action rules and replace rules are very explicit.

 

Bonus actions: "a model may only declare one bonus action per activation". Page 22

Replace rules, clause 7: "If this Replace occurred during an original model's activation, one new model instead continues that activation using any remaining Actions."

 

We all agree that a Bonus Action is an Action, right? And that you get one per Activation? If a model uses that Action, there is no Action remaining for the new model. If a model uses a Bonus Action, there is no Bonus Action remaining.

 

I get that this part of the rules is finicky but this particular niche works fine regardless of which interpretation of Clause 4 you subscribe to.

[Maniacal_cackle]

35 minutes ago, Azahul said:

And that you get one per Activation?

I think this is the point of difference, in that the rules actually say a model may only declare one bonus per activation.

There's nothing that makes you 'get' a bonus action to spend.

But I think that's probably just an unresolvable difference, though it does also point to how fragile the replace rules are. And doesn't address all the other once per activation issues that will arise from not transferring them.