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.

[Buhallin]

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

Which part of that is open to a semantic difference? Must be able to be completed does not make any qualification for why you couldn't complete it, or at what stage of the process it would fail. Can you complete the placement? Yes or no. If the answer is no, you cannot attempt the action.

I understand what you're saying, but you're basically inventing the semantic distinction you're hanging your argument on. If you can point to that distinction somewhere in the rules, great, but as far as I know it doesn't exist.

or choose a trigger you then fail to accomplish because the spell didn't work well enough.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the issue at hand. The trigger goes off successfully, and creates an effect which will often have a requirement, such as "after damaging target model..." It's no different than any other ability with those restrictions, except that it's temporary.

[tenabrae]

Which part of that is open to a semantic difference? Must be able to be completed does not make any qualification for why you couldn't complete it, or at what stage of the process it would fail. Can you complete the placement? Yes or no. If the answer is no, you cannot attempt the action.

In your example, you do complete all steps of the action, you attempt to place a model, and fail because there is no room.. the rules allow for this by telling you you can't place it if there's no room... they don't stop you performing that step, they alter the outcome of that step.

The controlling models rule on the other hand tells you that you aren't allowed to try to place the model, thus negating the effect because you can't perform that step at all (the difference between trying and failing, and not being allowed to).

I'm going to leave it there, not because I think you're being argumentative, but because if that doesn't convince you, I don't know how to reword it

[Q'iq'el]

I don't see any difference between not being able to place model, not having a spare model or not being the owner (in game terms) of the model you control though obey or alpha. All those 3 prevent some or all Placement Effects from being possible and all 3 mean the spell fails and no cost is being paid.

A resistance or no-target spells are different, because you can succeed in casting the spell fully and then the opponent can ignore or resist it.

It's a bit like the difference between Dg and Wd when making an action which may kill the model - you are allowed to take the former, because even though you may be sure it will kill you, you are not sure in gaming terms. You are sure in gaming terms that the X amount of Wd will kill your character, so you cannot do it.

I think spells and abilities follow identical logic - requirements stated in the manual (having models to place, having place to place the models, the model performing the action belonging to your crew) are known requirements for the spell to succeed - known in gaming terms. You cannot ignore any of them, you check them in the second step of the duel (after you meet the CC value) and if any of those fails, you fail at casting the spell.

When it comes to the checks, resist chances and immunities your opponent may have, if you don't do the opposed duel directly, they are unknown in gaming terms and are verified after the casting has been finished. They may stop the spell, but they don't fail it.

[Buhallin]

(the difference between trying and failing, and not being allowed to).

I understand that this is the distinction you're making.

What I'm asking is what the source or justification for this distinction is. So far, there isn't one that I can find - not in the rules, not in the abilities, and not in what Sketch has said. All you have to do is quote a rule, and I'll be convinced

[Q'iq'el]

I understand that this is the distinction you're making.

What I'm asking is what the source or justification for this distinction is. So far, there isn't one that I can find - not in the rules, not in the abilities, and not in what Sketch has said. All you have to do is quote a rule, and I'll be convinced

Check out page 53 for the exact wording of the "F. Caster Determines Success" section. (which would also mean you check if the model fits before you complete the casting, rather than after, like Tenabrae suggests).

Because the placement requirements are part of the rules for Placement Effect, they are "additional requirements" the wording mentions.

Whatever happens after that step is completed (resists, freshly discovered immunities etc.) are checked after this step ends, so they cannot affect the successful casting of the spell anymore.

As far as Abilities that are Actions go, the general definition is on page 12. It sends us to the page 33 for the description of the mechanic. Neither page 32 nor page 33 contains any clear definition of requirements for Abilities, other than the need to spend AP.

However, if a Specific Action (that's the game term for the Abilities we speak about) has requirements, one would assume they must be met before the Action can be performed. That's somewhat logical and follows the Casting Duels per analogy. If all requirements are not met, the Action fails as a whole (again per analogy). If action fails before it is completed (i.e. meets all the requirements), you don't execute any of its effects (you still pay AP for it). That is both in accord with older ruling on this forum (IIRC) and seems to be pretty proper case of indirect reasoning.

Unfortunately it is not spelled out in the Specific Actions section, so we have to rely on the forum ruling in the end.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Rathnard]

This will be short but I've got a more detailed post coming once Im at home rather than on a phone.

Dance apart is not a spell and thus has no additional requirements. By the timing rules on pg 6, you resolve each sentence before progressing to the next. Ignoring that effect, such as the replace effect in dance together while affected by Alpha, means that the effect can't be resolved and the rest of the action fails.

Adding a rule where an action becomes impossible if one or more effects in the action would be ignored introduces a few problems, one of which would be actions that cause Wp duels.

I want to break the rules issue down again and go through some examples, but not while Im typing on a phone.

[Buhallin]

Check out page 53 for the exact wording of the "F. Caster Determines Success" section. (which would also mean you check if the model fits before you complete the casting' date=' rather than after, like Tenabrae suggests).[/quote']

I don't think this is relevant.

Placing the Stalker created by Violation of Magic is not an additional requirement.

You're making a rather large logical leap here, and considering the success of every effect as a requirement. That's essentially what Sketch said, but it introduces a ton of "How would you resolve it if..." uncertainties that the sentence-by-sentence-until-you-fail interpretation didn't. It also doesn't address Rathnard's multi-effect situation. To add one to his example, what if I have Nino and Perdita next to each other, and target Nino with Undead Psychosis? The extra :crows means it hits Perdita as well, except she's not valid, because of Immune to Influence. So in this case, because I can't complete the full requirements, it fails.

Continuing down the same path, a lone model is now no longer a valid target for Undead Psychosis. Because it requires a :crows in the cast, Undead Psychosis must always affect at least two targets. If a model doesn't have any other models within 3", there's no second model for me to affect - therefore that part fails, so I shouldn't be able to cast it at all. I'm not 100% sure, but that might even meet tenabrae's standard - the core rules prevent me from targeting a model out of range, so I know there's no valid second target before I even cast the spell.

[Q'iq'el]

Adding a rule where an action becomes impossible if one or more effects in the action would be ignored introduces a few problems, one of which would be actions that cause Wp duels.

I think you shouldn't throw non-targetted abilities to the same bag as targeted ones. Their mechanic is completely different and the execution order differs to.

As always, timeline is crucial in Malifaux - you cannot compare Actions and Spells that do not have similar timeline.

In case of a , the spell first goes off, then you check what is affected. For example you execute Arise, you measure the pulse, you remove all the counters, and then you start summoning Mindless Zombies. At that point the action has already been successfuly executed - it cannot fail if you have less Mindless Zombies than Corpse Counters.

Same for an Wp based pulse attack - it first goes off, then you check which models are in range and affected.

A directly targeted ability will require you to pick the target first, check the range and only after that check if all the requirements are met. In such a timeline you know if your ability or spell failed before you start applying effects. Once you discover some requirements are not met, it fails altogether.

Immunities are yet another bag of mechanics in this case, because they prevent you from even targeting the model with an immunity willingly, which doesn't happen in case of area effects at all. A drastic difference which kicks in even before we start the debate about the mechanics of failure in Malifaux.

I.E. apples and oranges.

[Rathnard]

Dance apart isn't a targeted action. In fact i don't think any examples Ive used for this rules issue involve actually targeting a model.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Rathnard

[Justin]

Man, I should read this rules manual thingy.

It keeps coming up.

[Q'iq'el]

¥You're making a rather large logical leap here, and considering the success of every effect as a requirement.

That one part is assumed, as I understand it, by posters questioning Sketch' judgement. I don't see how that happens though.

Success of every effect is not the same thing as its requirement.

A free space and an available model are clearly requirements of a placing effect. A placement of a model is its success, right?

So if you have no space, you fail due to not meeting a requirement, not the other way around.

Not meeting the requirements always causes a failure. An effect not being applied doesn't always mean the ability or spell failed (it can happen due to the opponent resisting or ignoring the effect).

Obviously Placing the Stalker as a result of Violation of magic is not the requirement of the spell, a free space is the requirement of the placing effect though. More importantly, the wording of the spell makes clear it can succeed even if placing doesn't work. Why?

Because you can only check if the enemy model was killed or not after determining the success of the spell. In other words, Placing Effect cannot be qualified as a requirement for the spell to succeed due to how the spell works.

In a case of an action, there's no determining of success or failure. You either perform it or not. If you cannot meet the requirements for placing a Coryphée Duet, you cannot take the Dance Together action - I think that lies at the bottom of Sketch' interpretation.

In a way it is a situation similar to immunity to influence or morale duels. If the model you try to target is immune to the duel you require it to perform, you cannot perform the opposed duel. That inability prevents you from voluntary targeting in the first place. It wouldn't prevent you from executing the pulse or putting up an Aura though.

I'm not sure if I said it before, but it is a bit like the distinction between Dg and Wd - you can take an action you know would kill you, if it causes Dg, because in gaming terms you don't know if it would kill you or not. Just like in gaming terms you can't know who'd be hit by an aura or pulse. You cannot take an action causing Wd in such circumstances, because you know it will kill you in gaming terms. You also know you force an opposed duel against immune target or perform Dance Together on a controlled model, in gaming terms, in advance to taking the action, so you cannot take that step willingly.

Even then non-targeted actions (pulses, auras, blasts) would behave differently than Dance Together - in the later case the action is a set of effects that take place together or don't take place at all. In the former case the action is the pulse and the effects are the results of the pulse rather than the action itself.

Continuing down the same path, a lone model is now no longer a valid target for Undead Psychosis. Because it requires a :crows in the cast, Undead Psychosis must always affect at least two targets. If a model doesn't have any other models within 3", there's no second model for me to affect - therefore that part fails, so I shouldn't be able to cast it at all. I'm not 100% sure, but that might even meet tenabrae's standard - the core rules prevent me from targeting a model out of range, so I know there's no valid second target before I even cast the spell.

Undead Psychosis is a bit like Violation of Magic. The wording of the spell determines the sequence of events and if some requirements or effects fall out of timeline to the point, later on, where they can't affect the success, they don't matter anymore.

Let's see:

1. Pick up a target for Undead Psychosis.

2. Check the range.

3. Flip the card and check if you meet CC and suit requirements (automatically met).

4. Determine the success - there are no additional requirements, so meeting the CC alone means a success.

5. -> Now you get an out-of-regular order special step of adding extra targets per each :crows in your Total. Not having extra targets doesn't prevent you from casting the spell on original target, because at that point you've already succeeded

6. Then you pass to making resist duels for all the targets.

Since it is a special rule on a model, it overrides the basic rules at certain points of the timeline. Doesn't mean other spells or abilities would.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Q'iq'el]

Dance apart isn't a targeted action. In fact i don't think any examples Ive used for this rules issue involve actually targeting a model.

True, which make the matter somewhat simpler I think. Because it is not something you target, nor an AoE, there's no success->effect stage at all. You either execute all the effects, or you don't execute it at all.

In an ability where you can determine the success before you apply effects, it may happen that some effects are ignored or not applied afterwards, without affecting the success. Dance Apart or Dance Together doesn't success until you complete all the effects, so all the requirements and restrictions for all the effects matter.

And other examples you gave, IIRC, involve AoE, where ability or spells is the pulse/aura/blast going off. After that point if some effects don't work (or they work on some models and don't work on others) is not relevant, because getting the pulse off or setting the aura up is the action. More importantly, as I edited in in my previous post above, before the Pulse goes off, you don't know (in gaming terms) who will be affected and what will succeed. That uncertainty (in gaming terms) allows you to perform the action even though you may know as a player, than an immune model will be caught in the pulse. You have no such uncertainty when it comes to Dance Together or Dance Apart.

This is a fundamental difference in mechanic and that is why we shouldn't compare those or assume the ruling on one group affect the other.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Q'iq'el]

One more thing - take a look at Timing rules on page 6.

As I said, the issue is all about timing and that is probably where we should've looked first.

The rules for timing contain two important points:

1. All the effects are executed simultaneously.

2. But the effects that must occur are executed before the effects that may occur.

Now in case of Undead Psychosis adding additional targets is a step and I'm not at all sure if it is an effect, but if it is one, it is one that may occur because the condition for it to occur is unrelated to the success of the spell (the presence of the additional crows in the Total is the condition).

In case of Violation of Magic, the summoning of a Stalker is clearly an effect and one that may occur because the condition for it to occur is unrelated to the success of the spell.

In case of Arise summoning Mindless Zombies is the effect that may occur, while sacrificing all the counters in the range of the pulse is the effect that must occur.

In case of Reanimator both discarding the counters and summoning the model must occur. Drawing of the cards may occur as it depends on the model being placed and on the base size of the model (factors other than the successful cast of the spell).

In case of Dance Together & Dance Appart, all the effects must occur. There seems to be no external condition that would allow us to qualify one of the effects as an effect that may occur.

I don't see this distinction in any other place in the Rule Manual, but it affects timing and timing is involved in every single action you take in Malifaux - that means you must be able to divide the effects into these which may occur and these which must occur every single time you perform an action. It probably has a lot to do why certain abilities cannot be taken if you cannot execute all the effects (because all the effects must occur) and the abilities that can partially succeed (when all the effects that must occur succeed and then there are some effects that may occur).

I have to think some more about all the repercussions, but it is a problem partially related to the issue of how the mode of targeting changes the timeline (if you have no target, then presence of the model in AoE range is a condition for the effect to be applied, which means such an effect is an effect that may occur, right?).

P.S. Have I mentioned the Malifaux is likely the game with the most complex system of rules on the market? Not sure if it is a good or a bad thing.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Rathnard]

Okay, so after yet more reading here is how I'm breaking this down as I understand it so far.

A. Dance together is not a spell, and does not involve summoning models. So anything from the Magic section (whether it's additional requirements or the summoning rules) doesn't apply.

B. As per the controlling enemy models rules (p13) a model under control of an enemy player "cannot summon, place or otherwise generate additional models". Those effects are ignored.

C. As per pg 19, A single event (eg. Dance together) can consist of multiple effects (eg. in this case, a Sacrifice effect and a Replace Effect). Also mentioned is that some ignore references to effects have a broader application such as restricting an ability (note: actions are not abilities) or only affecting/ignoring certain types of models.

D. Ignoring Effects are also described on p19. Something that ignores X effect "cannot be affected or modified by X when resolving the effect. It might (or might not) be worth noting that models with immune to X can still be targetted by X, it's just that X will not affect or modify that model, and any duels duels requiring X will simply not occur.

E. The Timing rules (pg 6) state that you must complete each sentence in an effects description before moving onto the next. So to (2) Flurry, you need to discard a card before performing the three strikes. Likewise, to Dance Together (never mind Alpha for the moment) you first need to sacrifice the model before replacing it with two Corphee.

F. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules manual stating that you cannot initiate an action if part of that action will be ignored.

G. (And this is new!) As per timing on pg 6, "if an effect causes another effect to activate while it's being resolved, pause the first effect, completely resolve the triggered effect, then return to the first effect at the point it was paused." This last point, my friends, could be the key to how Dance Apart works!

So moving onto Alpha. From my interpretation of all of the above rules, an Alpha'd Corphee Duet can initiate Dance Apart (F). Dance Apart primarily consists of a sacrifice effect and then a replace effect that occurs before the model is removed from play. So we start with the sacrifice effect, being the first sentence (E). The second effect © is triggered while the sacrifice is still occuring (G), but is ignored (D) on account of Alpha (. Thus the event does not continue (E). Since the sacrifice effect was interupted, it can't resolve either and so the Corphee Duet remains unsacrificed!

At no point in the above process is the player choosing to ignore anything - it's all within the constraints of the rules.

*Whew* That took some time! So going purely by the rules, you can attempt to Dance Apart an Alpha'd Duet, but the action will fizzle midway through sacrificing the model while you try and replace it with two Corphee.

So am I right in the above interpretation? I'm a little sad that Marcus won't have that option for stopping Duets, but I feel as though it actually makes sense within the rules spelt out in the Rules Manual, which is a big relief for my borderline OCD personality.

[ukrocky]

Sorry to sort of dig this back up but what's the final ruling...?

[Q'iq'el]

Sorry to sort of dig this back up but what's the final ruling...?

Posts #7 and #18 contain final rulings - they're from Marshalls after all.

The rest of the thread is pretty much us players trying to figure out why.