Using Alpha & Override Edict to sacrifice enemy models.

[Rathnard]

Okay, so the short version of this question is; can you use Alpha (from Marcus) or Override Edict (Hoffman) to (1) Dance Apart an enemy Corphee Duet, resulting in it being sacrificed with no single Corphee being placed?

I picked through the rules and I'm quite sure you that you can, but I want to be sure of this since the last thing I'd want to do is cheat my opponent because I'm using a spell the wrong way.

I'll put up my arguement from the other thread below. The Corphee Duet is addressed halfway down, but there's some other relevant examples of the things that could be done with an Alpha & sacrifice/summon type actions;

---

...the only rule relevant to enemy-controlled models that I could find in the Rules Manual is on Page 13:

Models able to summon, place or otherwise generate additional models cannot do so when controlled by an opposing player. Those effects are ignored while the model is under an opposing players control.

There's another sentence about opponent controlled models (specifically summoning) but it's basically saying the same thing.

What's interesting is that apart from the usual "can't use talents/spells that would inflicts Wds on itself if it would reduce it's Wds to 0" (pg 44), there's no reference in the main rules manual about being unable to deliberately sacrifice/kill an enemy model you control. That condition is found on Obey...but not Alpha or Overide Edict.

So the most obvious benefit for Marcus is that he can Alpha enemy models to use their sacrifice type actions with impunity. For instance Arachnid Swarms can be detonated, and Nix can sacrifice himself with Drain Essense.

Less obvious is the summoning. As per the rules manual you can't use Alpha to summon models, so an Alpha'd Ratcatcher will not get his rats back from Voracious Rats when he uses Slaughter Rats. But here's where it gets interesting. Since you only ignore the summoning/placing effect of the spell/action, it means that the other effects of that spell/action still take place. So if an Alpha'd Nicodem uses Arise, he'll sacrifice all the corpse counters in range but won't summon any mindless zombies.

Now onto the Corphee Duet. This is actually a little tricky so lets go through this bit by bit;

1. "Sacrifice this model."

No problem there - it's perfectly allowable as per the rules for Alpha.

2. Replace it with two Corphee in BTB contact before this model is removed from play.

I'm pretty sure this comes under the "or otherwise generate additional models" clause on pg 13 (see above), and thus the Corphee would not be placed. The remaining effects relate to what happens with those two Corphee so while they technically still occur, there are no Corphee for them to affect.

So in short, an Alpha'd Corphee Duet using Dance Apart will be sacrificed. Full stop. No exceptions.

-----

It's pretty strong, but considering what Marcus has to go through to actually Alpha a Corphee Duet, and considering what other Masters can do with two soulstones, two high cards and an entire activation, I don't beleive it's entirely unfair either.

[minmax]

I know that override edict can't. Override allows the controller of the model to activate him. It does not make you the controller of the model.

[dgraz]

Wowsers. Please see the quote in my sig.

[Hookers]

is it bad that I don't see anything wrong with this?

see my avatar

[dgraz]

is it bad that I don't see anything wrong with this?

see my avatar

touche

[osoi]

I would say you are right Rath, and it does require a lot to pull off.

[goblyn13]

As per the rules on pg 13:

(1) Dance Apart: Sacrifice this model. Replace it with two Coryphée in base contact before this model is removed from play. Any effects on this model are applied to each Coryphée. Any Wds on this model are distributed as evenly as possible between the two Coryphée. Neither Coryphée may take the Dance Together Action this turn.

Since this is a SINGLE action you can't perform half an action. You perform the whole action or not at all. Therefore as outlined on pg 13

Models able to summon, place or otherwise generate additional models cannot do so when controlled by an opposing player. Those effects are ignored while the model is under an opposing players control.

Since you can't perform the replace you are unable to perform the action.

[Rathnard]

Since this is a SINGLE action you can't perform half an action. You perform the whole action or not at all. Therefore as outlined on pg 13

Where's the rule on that? My understanding is that the action in question has multiple effects (sacrifice the duet, replace with 2 corphee etc). As far as i can tell, ignoring one effect doesn't negate the other effects of the spell, otherwise why not say on pg 13 that opposing models can't use actions that summon or place new models?

Want to say more but Im typing on a phone. Will get back to this later.

[Buhallin]

Since this is a SINGLE action you can't perform half an action. You perform the whole action or not at all.

...

Since you can't perform the replace you are unable to perform the action.

Wow. This is 1) New to me, and 2) Seems very risky.

Are you really saying that unless you can complete every part of an Action, you cannot take that action?

So as a possible example, a Shikome can't receive Slow, which would mean that a Rattler's Constrict couldn't target it at all, because you can't perform the full action? That's a quick look, I'm sure there would be a ton of others.

[osoi]

I thought each sentence was a distinct part to every action, that you fulfill that prior to moving onto the next so in this case you sacrifice the duet then next step replace but as you cant (because of page 13) the rest of the action fizzles.

[Q'iq'el]

I think there's some deeper confusion going on here. I needed quite a bit of time to set my own knowledge of the rules here. I'm not sure I know the answer, but there are certain things we can do to make it more clear:

1.

First and foremost, the Ignore and Immune are defined on the page 19. Those are game terms, so we have to interprete them according to the rules, not our understanding.

As far as I remember Immunities are always against type of duels while effects of spells are always being ignored.

The rules on the page 19 put those two terms into one bag, but more importantly the wording of the third paragraph suggests that an ability to ignore an effect may have broader meaning and prevent entire weapon or ability from working.

The example given is Perfect machine and it suggests that ability to ignore effects targeting constructs prevents the use of spells, abilities, triggers and weapons with such effects to target the model with Perfect Machine rule. (i.e. they can't go off partially when targeting a construct with Perfect Machine rule.).

*Though the intention seems clear, that paragraph could use with more specific example, because the mechanic isn't entirely obvious.

2.

Secondly, Page 13 tells us that summoning, placing and other types of generating models are effects that are being ignored when the model is under opponent's control. Taking the broad application of the term "ignore" from the page 19, we could assume we're dealing with a case where entire ability or spell is actually unusable.

3.

We also know that if the spell fails, most commonly due to not meeting its CC value, none of the effects goes off and players don't have to execute the effects involving additional payment (sacrificing counters, discarding cards etc.).

What may be forgotten is that the procedure for determining if the spell succeeded is more complex (page 53) and factors other than not meeting CC value can fail the spell just as well:

a) determine if the player meet the CC value.

determine if he meets any additional requirements.

Failing to do fails the spell just as entirely as failing at a).

Now what may these additional requirements be? "Sacrifice a counter", "Discard a Soulstone", "Discard two Control Cards" are clear examples of spell effects that are also requirements - if you cannot execute them, spell fails.

"Summon a model" or "place a model" may seem to be different category, but really it isn't - you are supposed to place the model and if you lack the model, or if there's not enough free space to place it, the spell fizzles. I know some think the player should pay the entire cost of the spell in such case, because he has already met the CC, but that isn't the truth - according to page 53 the spell has failed and in accordance to the past rulings, other effects won't proceed either.

So if Colette is trying to do her Trick of the Hat but there's no place to place the Mechanical Dove, or if Ramos wants to Scatter his Arachnid Swarm but then he discovers he has only 2 Steampunk Arachnids left, they won't "pay" for the spells, the spells will fizzle just as if they didn't manage to meet their CC value. Colette won't discard her Soulstone and Ramos won't sacrifice the Arachnid Swarm.

I assume this works exactly the same under Alpha or Obey, when the controller finds himself unable to summon or place a model - the spell just fizzles, as the requirement hasn't been met. This of course is just a conjecture.

Between page 13, 19 and 53, I'd assume that "ignoring" Placement Effects results in not meeting the requirements of a spell and falls into the category of "broader application" on the page 19, but I think it could be spelled much more clearly.

And to tie up some lose ends: Shikome isn't immune to Slow nor she ignores Slow. Her ability uses its own terms and states that she is "never affected" by Slow or Paralyze, which presumably is her own special rule and cannot be connected to the game terms from page 19. In other words, Rattler wouldn't be prevented from using Constrict on her, merely the Slow wouldn't apply.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[lastakodo]

3.

We also know that if the spell fails, most commonly due to not meeting its CC value, none of the effects goes off and players don't have to execute the effects involving additional payment (sacrificing counters, discarding cards etc.).

This didn't sound right to me since I recently reread the rules manual and remember that additional payment must be made before you flip to cast (per rule book pg 52 casting a spell step 1).

However having read closer I agree with what you've posted as being the correct sequence (pg 53 casting a spell step 2D confuses the issue a bit and I'll be starting a new thread about it to not derail this one.)

[Rathnard]

The rules on the page 19 put those two terms [ignore & Immune] into one bag, but more importantly the wording of the third paragraph suggests that an ability to ignore an effect may have broader meaning and prevent entire weapon or ability from working.

The example given is Perfect machine and it suggests that ability to ignore effects targeting constructs prevents the use of spells, abilities, triggers and weapons with such effects to target the model with Perfect Machine rule. (i.e. they can't go off partially when targeting a construct with Perfect Machine rule.).

*Though the intention seems clear, that paragraph could use with more specific example, because the mechanic isn't entirely obvious.

I entirely agree, and at this point I feel that Alpha could be interpreted either way. As you say, p19 talks about effects sometimes referring to an entire ability/spell. But then in the very next paragraph it says that "Multiple effects can be found in the same event", using Lure as an example of having elements of a spell effect, movement effect and a melee effect.

So going back to p13, we know that models under control via Alpha will ignore any summon/place effects. So the question is how you apply pg19 to this? Do you ignore just the summon/place effect in the "Dance together" event (paragraph 4), or do you ignore Dance together entirely on account of it including a summon/place effect (paragraph 3)?

2.

Secondly, Page 13 tells us that summoning, placing and other types of generating models are effects that are being ignored when the model is under opponent's control. Taking the broad application of the term "ignore" from the page 19, we could assume we're dealing with a case where entire ability or spell is actually unusable.

Not necessarily. As above, the very next paragraph talks about multiple effects in the same event, which we could argue that Dance Together is. Hence we've still got nothing to definitively say whether you ignore the entire action, or just the replace effect.

Right now, I'm learning towards only the replace effect being ignored, mainly because I feel that it should otherwise be quite clear if a rule allows you to ignore an entire action/spell. For instance in the case of Perfect Machine, it's the spell itself that targets constructs, hence Perfect Machine can ignore the spell effect, which in itself includes the additional effects listed in that spell.

It's not watertight reasoning, I know, which is why I still think it could be interpreted either way.

3.

We also know that if the spell fails, most commonly due to not meeting its CC value, none of the effects goes off and players don't have to execute the effects involving additional payment (sacrificing counters, discarding cards etc.).

What may be forgotten is that the procedure for determining if the spell succeeded is more complex (page 53) and factors other than not meeting CC value can fail the spell just as well:

a) determine if the player meet the CC value.

determine if he meets any additional requirements.

Failing to do fails the spell just as entirely as failing at a).

Now what may these additional requirements be? "Sacrifice a counter", "Discard a Soulstone", "Discard two Control Cards" are clear examples of spell effects that are also requirements - if you cannot execute them, spell fails.

"Summon a model" or "place a model" may seem to be different category, but really it isn't - you are supposed to place the model and if you lack the model, or if there's not enough free space to place it, the spell fizzles. I know some think the player should pay the entire cost of the spell in such case, because he has already met the CC, but that isn't the truth - according to page 53 the spell has failed and in accordance to the past rulings, other effects won't proceed either.

...

I assume this works exactly the same under Alpha or Obey, when the controller finds himself unable to summon or place a model - the spell just fizzles, as the requirement hasn't been met. This of course is just a conjecture.

Between page 13, 19 and 53, I'd assume that "ignoring" Placement Effects results in not meeting the requirements of a spell and falls into the category of "broader application" on the page 19, but I think it could be spelled much more clearly.

Right, so you and I both know that we're not talking about a spell (ie Dance Apart) here, but with little else in the rules manual to guide us, it seems the logical place to go.

At some point we need to draw a line between 'additional requirements' and the successful spell effect. Now p53 refers to Additional Requirements being found in the first sentence and include taking Wds, sacrificing models sacrificing/discarding soulstones/counters and anything else listed under AR: [requirement].

No matter how you cut it, the only thing that could be considered an additional requirement for Dance apart is the first sentence - "Sacrifice this model." - which is still fine under a model affected by Alpha. If nothing else, the the rest of the effects not found in that first sentence, and thus could only be interpreted as the ability effect, rather than any spell or "action" requirement.

Even if we're assuming that summoned and placed are the same thing, using pg 55 to justify not being able to use Dance apart is pushing it. For one, it only talks about the model not being summoned if it's base doesn't fit where it needs to be placed, which is a far cry from what we're talking about with Dance apart.

Also, Pg 13 is much clearer about controlled enemy models summoning other models - it says the exact same thing, but includes place/"generate more models" effects and specifically defines it as ignoring those effects.

And finally, we have nothing in the book that says that the entire spell fails if you can't fulfil a specific spell effect. Not even under summoning models, pg 55. At best, it will fail if you cannot meet the additional requirements, but it should be clear that if anything it's the sacrifice effect, not the replace effect in Dance Apart that would be interpreted as an additional requirement... assuming we can even apply the rules for spells to it.

I suppose what I want from this is not necessarily an official ruling one way or another, but rather the reasoning as to why it actually is that way (regardless of whether I'm right or wrong). Because at this point, the arguement seems to come down to whether to apply paragraphs 3 or 4 under Game Effects, pg 19, both of which seem to contradict each other when trying to apply Alpha vs Dance Apart.

[tenabrae]

I tihnk what Goblyn was trying to say is you can't just ignore part of an action when it's convenient. Dance Apart tells you to place models, the rules for controlling other models say you aren't allowed to, so you can't take an action that would require you to even if it's only part of the effect.

He's not saying you always have to complete every step of an action for that action to succeed in part, just that you can't voluntarily choose not to perform part of an action.

[Rathnard]

He's not saying you always have to complete every step of an action for that action to succeed in part, just that you can't voluntarily choose not to perform part of an action.

By the same logic, Zoraida couldn't cast Repulsive if there's even one model (friendly or enemy) with Immune to Influence in that .

Nobody's voluntarily choosing not to perform part of Dance Apart. Rather we're using the action, then either the entire acton fails (if we assume pg 19, paragraph 3) or just the replace effect fails (paragraph 4). Whichever way the rules are supposed to go, the player has no choice in the matter.

goblyn13's response seems to be based on the logic that failing to perform part of the action effect results in the entire action, both before and after that paricular effect, failing. But so far I've yet to find anything backing that up in the rules manual.

[LoboStele]

I dunno guys. With a spell like Colette's Discharge Soulstone, you have to meet the CC first (which might include playing a card from your hand and/or adding a Soulstone to it). Then you have to discard a Soulstone. Then your opponent gets to do their Resist. If the opponent Resists, THEN the spell fizzles. But you've already paid the costs, and done half of the effects of the spell. At that point, you don't do anything further.

I don't really know that referring to Dance Together as a spell is even remotely close. I think the example of an Arachnid Swarm trying to Scatter is probably your best correlation. Swarm declares it's (1) Action to Scatter. Then starts to Summon small Arachnids into base contact with it before it is removed from play. However, you find that there isn't enough space to fit 3 Arachnids, or the Ramos player only has 2 individual Arachnid models left. So do you only place 2 of them, or do you place none at all?

Certainly good questions worth asking, but I don't know that comparing it to a spell is really the right thing. Besides, it's 100% possible to get 50% of the way through a spell, and THEN it fizzles, but you've still marched through part of it.

[Sliver Chocobo]

As per the rules on pg 13:

Since this is a SINGLE action you can't perform half an action. You perform the whole action or not at all. Therefore as outlined on pg 13

Since you can't perform the replace you are unable to perform the action.

I think I see where your coming from,

Placing the Copyree is part of the cost of the spell, short of like when you discard a card to rapid fire, just because you no cards in your hand, doesn't mean you still get the shots. Is this right or am I total wrong here?

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

By the same logic, Zoraida couldn't cast Repulsive if there's even one model (friendly or enemy) with Immune to Influence in that .

And that's a fallacy as well. As do not target, she can cast that just fine if there's one model within that has Immune to Influence.

All steps of the action must be able to be completed in order to even attempt it. Much like actions that say, discard X Soulstones. Summon X models. You cannot chose to have them just discard the X Soulstones.

Goblyn is correct.

[JacktheRipper]

Also, if you Alpha a rat catcher and kill all of the rats around them, they would still repop from voracious rats. You aren't performing an action to do it. It's just a reaction that occurs around the model regardless of it's controller. Alpha wouldn't stop it from happening, in my opinion.

[Necromorph]

Agree with dgraz and his sig. I also agree with the RM's, but I won't get into the jargon that they and others have already said. In the end, that quote by keithos pretty much sums it up.

The ability (and other abilities like Obey) were designed to have an enemy model (or friendly in the case of Obey) to do an action/or activation. The intention of that is to either make them attack, move off of an objective, cast a debilitating spell on, etc...typically on their own models. The point is turn the enemy against themselves...not to find little loopholes to make models commit suicide. Granted, it's perfectly reasonable that that could happen, but they obviously tried to prevent this in the wording for Obey and the wordings of the above referenced pages.

It really doesn't matter if they "missed a loophole" when they designed the rule, the rule was not intended to be used/abused in that way, and if a ruling is made on it then it is an attempt to stop an abuse/prevent further abuses to the rule...not to screw someone out of some little secret treasure they found. Out of all of the Masters I would probably complain least if Marcus had the ability to suicide certain models, but it's quite obvious that the rule wasn't intended for suicidal antics.

[Rathnard]

It really doesn't matter if they "missed a loophole" when they designed the rule, the rule was not intended to be used/abused in that way, and if a ruling is made on it then it is an attempt to stop an abuse/prevent further abuses to the rule...not to screw someone out of some little secret treasure they found. Out of all of the Masters I would probably complain least if Marcus had the ability to suicide certain models, but it's quite obvious that the rule wasn't intended for suicidal antics.

One thing to keep in mind about me is that in the real world I'm a research scientist. I can't just take something at face value and go "okay, that's what happens then". I have to understand why it works that way, which is why I've pursued it in this thread and continue to pursue it, rather than stop at Goblyns reply and left it as is.

I'll admit, I was hoping that this would be a legitimate option for Marcus to kill a Corphee Duet, but I'm interested in playing the rules right, not abusing the rules to rules-lawyer my way into beating my opponent. The latter is not fun and has no honour to it.

And that's a fallacy as well. As do not target, she can cast that just fine if there's one model within that has Immune to Influence.

We're not talking about targetting though (certainly Dance Together involves no targetting). Part of the Repulsive spell involves each model in range making a Wp resist. If one model ignores Wp duels then a part of the spell is being ignored. Perhaps the fact that it's a spell resist makes it different, but what about an action/spell where a Wp duel or Wp resist within a is part of the spell/action effect itself (EDIT: Molly's Reveal Phillip)? How is that different?

All steps of the action must be able to be completed in order to even attempt it. Much like actions that say, discard X Soulstones. Summon X models. You cannot chose to have them just discard the X Soulstones.

Fair enough. I'm happy to stick with that ruling, but as above (Scientist ), I want to understand exactly how this ruling works.

Your second sentence in the quote is talking about making a choice, but this has nothing to do with choosing to ignore certain parts of a spell. With Alpha vs Dance Apart, you're simply following the rules pertaining to controlling enemy models, much like you're following the rules pertaining to Immune to Influence when you cast Repulsive.

Even under timing (pg 6), it states that you must resolve each sentence in an effect's description before moving onto the next (which works great with flurry etc), but there's nothing stating that if some of the effects in an action are impossible, you can't complete the entire action.

So if the ruling is "you can't use an action if elements of it can't be completed", we're back to actions like Molly's Reveal Phillip, where one model with immune to influence in that makes that action impossible.

On a related note;

Could Nix use Drain Essense on himself? The first effect sacrifices him, the second effect heals him. Both effects can theoretically be done in and of themselves (Alpha or not), but the heal effect only loses it's target once you resolve the sacrifice.

Necromorph; If the intent was to prevent Alpha'd models killing themselves, then pg 13 would have specified sacrifice actions as well as summoning/placing etc. That's not any more of a loophole than obeying a Mature Nephilim to Charge Lilith is a loophole. Regardless of the ruling on Dance together, Marcus can still cast Alpha on Molly or a Steampunk Arachnid swarm, and use Detonate or Philosophy of Uncertainty to Sacrifice that model. The issue at hand is not whether you can suicide a model you've Alpha'd, but what happens with actions in which one or more effects are ignored.

JacktheRipper; An Alpha'd Ratcatcher still wouldn't bring back his Rats after using Slaughter Rats because Alpha would prevent Voracious Rats from occuring. It's a summon effect, but it's still seperate to the Slaughter Rats trigger so irrespective of this thread, Slaughter Rats itself doesn't become impossible.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Rathnard

[Hookers]

There is a difference between "ignoring part of the duel" because a certain model will not suffer the effects and not being able to complete part of the text of the spell or ability

like why you can't use (2) Ya'll Watch This in melee. the text says you make a ranged strike, then do everything else. However, if you were able to make the ranged strike, but failed in the duel to hit, then a model would not be suffering the effects of the duel yet you would still complete the rest of the ability and do 2 Df to models within 2"

[Buhallin]

Y'all Watch This has been consistent with our general understanding of multi-sentence effects - you do them in order, and if you fail to do one of them (or just can't) then it stops at that point. That's the understanding that started Rath down this thought process: First, sacrifice. Done. Now, place two Coryphee. Can't do that, we abort and don't do anything else.

This is different, though. The pre-check means that you have to pre-approve the entire action to do it at all. That means that (for example) Sonnia couldn't use Violation of Magic at all on a target that was surrounded, even just to get the damage, because the summoning would fail. It also raises some questions about how possible it has to be - Can I cast it on a surrounded model that wouldn't be killed by the wounds, because we know the summon wouldn't happen so it's OK? What if the model might have some option to keep it from being killed by the damage? What if triggers or effects might change the situation, potentially opening up room where there wasn't before?

Requiring pre-approval also means that you have to, by the rules, back up actions rather than letting them fizzle. I cast Arise My Sweet when I'm out of Belle models. Under the previous understanding, I curse as the spell fizzles. With the new system I should never have been allowed to do it at all, because I knew I couldn't complete the action. So to do it "right" we'd have to back up the cards, flips, etc. That's not a good thing to promote.

The pre-approval certainly doesn't fit our previous understanding of the rules, and I'm not sure all the implications have been considered.

[tenabrae]

Violation is a different case... there's no rule saying you can't perform part of the effect (in that case placing the model) you'll simply fail to place it at the point where you should. You couldn't Obey a model to cast it because part of it may require placing a model, thus contravening the rule we're talking about here.

Edited June 8, 2011 by tenabrae

[Buhallin]

there's no rule saying you can't perform part of the effect (in that case placing the model) you'll simply fail to place it at the point where you should.

There is a rule saying you cannot perform part of the effect - you must have sufficient room to place a summoned model, or you cannot summon it.

WEiRD sKeTCH]All steps of the action must be able to be completed in order to even attempt it.

At the point when you would cast Violation of Magic, could you complete the summoning? If there is no room for the Stalker to be placed, then the answer is no, and you cannot attempt the action at all.

[tenabrae]

There is a rule saying you cannot perform part of the effect - you must have sufficient room to place a summoned model, or you cannot summon it.

The semantic, and in this case extremely important, difference... is that there's no rule stopping you trying to place the model, there's a rule that prevents you actually placing it (needs room) so you can use the effect freely, and later fail to complete a part of it. This is the same as the example given earlier where you can fail to actually cast a spell, or choose a trigger you then fail to accomplish because the spell didn't work well enough.

In the Obey example, there's a rule specifically stopping you from being allowed to place a model (can't make models) which negates the entire effect from being attempted.