Spellbreaker

[Ubijcsa]

Can Perdita Ortega end auras with her spellbreaker spell?

Example:

Jack Daw does Severed Ties spell then Perdita Ortega casts Spellbreaker on Jack Daw.

1. It is not possible, cause aura is not an effect, it's a kind of range.

2. The aura end cause it's the spell's effect too.

[Dolomyte]

Tough question. I want to say that she can not end an aura, but I have no reason for saying that. Thats just my gut reaction

[notmikehill]

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16692&highlight=perdita+spellbreaker

Here is a link to some Peridita Q&A's and strategy. From the looks of this thread, Spellbreaker can end any game effect on a model, so Severed Ties would be gone if she cast Spellbreaker.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Not only that, but since nearly anything in the game is an effect, that gives Pedita a Resistless 18" turn off switch.

And people think the Ortegas have no tricks...

[notmikehill]

Don't like that model being terrifying? -bam spellbreaker

Don't like having blight counters? -bam spellbreaker

[Jonas Albrecht]

Don't like that model being terrifying? -bam spellbreaker

Don't like having blight counters? -bam spellbreaker

"Hi, it's Perdita with Spellbreaker, you're gonna be in a great mood all day!"

[Mr_Smigs]

huh... so.. can she shoot "reactivate" off a model?

[Jonas Albrecht]

huh... so.. can she shoot "reactivate" off a model?

Yep.

[Dolomyte]

wait what? she can remove terrifying with spellbreaker? like the ability? that seems wrong.

Edit, there is no resist. you people are crazy, there is no way it can remove talents. im sorry for being rude about it, but no god damn way

Edited August 30, 2011 by Dolomyte

[Mr_Smigs]

wording is strangely contradictory...

Discard all counters on the model,

but counters carried by the model may not be discarded?

but RAW (rules as written)

"end all effects on the model"

Effects are "anything that changes the state of a model"

Terrifying is specifically mentioned as something that is an effect, so that's discarded most definitely...

looks like a model loses all Spells and Talents when shot by Spellbreaker..... sexy.

[Dolomyte]

wording is strangely contradictory...

Discard all counters on the model,

but counters carried by the model may not be discarded?

but RAW (rules as written)

"end all effects on the model"

Effects are "anything that changes the state of a model"

Terrifying is specifically mentioned as something that is an effect, so that's discarded most definitely...

looks like a model loses all Spells and Talents when shot by Spellbreaker..... sexy.

No, they do not. it has no resist, there is no way to defend against it, I'm going to start a $$$$$$$$ing rampage if it even remotely gets ruled that way.

[Q'iq'el]

wait what? she can remove terrifying with spellbreaker? like the ability? that seems wrong.

Edit, there is no resist. you people are crazy, there is no way it can remove talents. im sorry for being rude about it, but no god damn way

There's a difference between Terryfying a talent and Terryfying as an effect of a spell or ability giving other models the talent.

Or to put it in more general terms effects can be talents, but not all talents are effects.

IMHO it's similar to the Hoffman's ability to copy reactivate - IMO he can copy reactivate that has been given to a construct via a spell or ability (as that's an effect), but he cannot copy a natively held reactivate talent.

I also think that Spellbreaker can only remove reactivate that is an effect, not one that is a "native" talent.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Jonas Albrecht]

No, they do not. it has no resist, there is no way to defend against it, I'm going to start a $$$$$$$$ing rampage if it even remotely gets ruled that way.

Yup. This is a case of RAW creating an unintended power. Spellbreaker was finalized before the Rules Manual. Now we've got a Spell that can remove all effects from an enemy model. With the RMs wide definition of what an Effect is, the spell gets an enormous boost in power.

So what we're gonna end up seeing is either a Resist getting added, or simply changing the spell to only effect Friendly models.

[Mr_Smigs]

Yup. This is a case of RAW creating an unintended power. Spellbreaker was finalized before the Rules Manual. Now we've got a Spell that can remove all effects from an enemy model. With the RMs wide definition of what an Effect is, the spell gets an enormous boost in power.

So what we're gonna end up seeing is either a Resist getting added, or simply changing the spell to only effect Friendly models.

or a rewording that just says "Remove all game effects generated by spells currently applied to target model"

granted, there's that unspoken "effect only lasts until the closing phase" part that's kinda important...

but being able to shut down 3 models' abilities (including damage, as it "changes the state of a model") for a turn, is kinda over the top

Q'iq'el there is no difference. read the rules manual definition of "game effect".

[Dolomyte]

There's a difference between Terryfying a talent and Terryfying as an effect of a spell or ability giving other models the talent.

Or to put it in more general terms effects can be talents, but not all talents are effects.

I'm with you on this one Q, which is a rare situation for me to be in. everyone else is it strips talents as well, due to the rules manual definition of effects. Rules marshalls need to step in before a well meaning player actually plays this the wrong way.

[nilus]

I'm with you on this one Q, which is a rare situation for me to be in. everyone else is it strips talents as well, due to the rules manual definition of effects. Rules marshalls need to step in before a well meaning player actually plays this the wrong way.

I believe the intent was to remove and additional effect on a model. It was not intended to strip off abilities on a models card, just additional abilities granted by spells or talents outside of whats on the card.

[Dolomyte]

I believe the intent was to remove and additional effect on a model. It was not intended to strip off abilities on a models card, just additional abilities granted by spells or talents outside of whats on the card.

I also agree, thats not what the other people are saying. at least its not what they say they are saying

[Jonas Albrecht]

I believe the intent was to remove and additional effect on a model. It was not intended to strip off abilities on a models card, just additional abilities granted by spells or talents outside of whats on the card.

And it's probably best to play it that way, but the spell needs some rewording.

[greyseerco]

So for the whole counters thing, since the only counters are scrap and corpse and everything else is Tokens (poison, fire, etc), yet it says Carried Counters cannot be discarded and the only way to get them is to Carry them.

I think the Spell needs to say "Discard all Tokens and ...."

As for the whole effects issues - I agree there is definately a loop-hole here that needs to be closed, if the interpretation here stands.

But I think we are reading something incorrectly.

Pg 19 RM

"Effect is a game term referring to anything that changes a model's state."

So I am trying to understand how Terrifying on a model change's that model's state. - It doesn't that model is always terrifying (sans a spell that cancels that ability - which then spellbreaker could remove)

So casting spellbreaker on a model with Terrifying does not remove Terrifying from that model as that model's state is not changed by having Terrifying.

Spellbreaker removes all Effects - something that is on that model that changes THAT specific models state.

So I am not seeing how Spellbreaker could remove Terrifying.

Now, I could see it removing the bonus activation from Reactivate (as that was a change in its current state during a previous activation).

[Jonas Albrecht]

I also agree, thats not what the other people are saying. at least its not what they say they are saying

The problem is that RAW means that you can remove Effects, and under the RM, Effects covers a wide, poorly defined area.

[Q'iq'el]

I'm with you on this one Q, which is a rare situation for me to be in. everyone else is it strips talents as well, due to the rules manual definition of effects. Rules marshalls need to step in before a well meaning player actually plays this the wrong way.

"Everyone else" may be misreading the rules in the Rules Manual I'm afraid. IIRC, an effect is defined as something which modifies the model's status.

A Talent you get from the start on your card isn't a modification, ergo it isn't an effect.

Exactly identical talent you receive as an effect of a spell or ability is a modification, ergo it is an effect.

Spells and abilities that steal, remove, copy or otherwise affect effects can touch only the later category of "talents".

Those that can touch anything on the card (like Hex) can affect both groups.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Jonas Albrecht]

So I am trying to understand how Terrifying on a model change's that model's state. - It doesn't that model is always terrifying (sans a spell that cancels that ability - which then spellbreaker could remove)

Yeah, one has to look at a model's state as it enters play as neutral. Anything it gains is an Effect. So Terrfying wouldn't be one, but an activated Southern Charm would be.

[Mr_Smigs]

But I think we are reading something incorrectly.

Pg 19 RM

"Effect is a game term referring to anything that changes a model's state."

for the record "a model's state" is yet to be defined

So I am trying to understand how Terrifying on a model change's that model's state. - It doesn't that model is always terrifying (sans a spell that cancels that ability - which then spellbreaker could remove)

in the example, it shows that terrifying is an effect that changes another model's state.

So casting spellbreaker on a model with Terrifying does not remove Terrifying from that model as that model's state is not changed by having Terrifying.

again, terrifying is something that does change a state.

arguably, not the state of the model it is currently radiating from, but it is an "effect" as it changes another model's state.

Spellbreaker removes all Effects - something that is on that model that changes THAT specific models state.

incorrect. changed "a" model's state. doesn't say it has to be the target model.

So I am not seeing how Spellbreaker could remove Terrifying.

Now, I could see it removing the bonus activation from Reactivate (as that was a change in its current state during a previous activation).

it's all in how "a model's state" is defined.

which we've been waiting for a ruling on for a while.

[Q'iq'el]

in the example, it shows that terrifying is an effect that changes another model's state.

Doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

If you have an ability, Terrifying, you apply the effects of that ability to other models. These effects are on the model you affected, not on the model that is Terryfying.

You could use Spellbreaker to remove falling back from a model that failed the duel caused by Terrifying, as that is an effect applied on the victim.

Terrifying itself is an effect only if the model had no such ability to begin with, but received it as an effect of another spell/ability.

it's all in how "a model's state" is defined.

which we've been waiting for a ruling on for a while.

No, it isn't waiting for a ruling and you probably won't get one. You are simply bending the rules.

An effect, from the very beginning of Malifaux, is something which places or removes a rule on the character's card (or modifies its stats). A modification of model is always a modification of the target model. A spell may have multiple effects and may modify both the target and the caster at the same time, but it will always be stated on the spell, which model it affects and ONLY THAT MODEL has it's status modified.

In other words, read the spell and follow its instruction. If it gives Terrifying talent to someone, that's a modification of status, ergo the Terrifying is both a talent and an effect. If there's no such external source, but the talent is on the card from the start, it isn't an effect, period.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Mr_Smigs]

Doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

If you have an ability, Terrifying, you apply the effects of that ability to other models. These effects are on the model you affected, not on the model that is Terryfying.

? what part of "anything that changes the state of a model" does this not apply to?

No, it isn't waiting for a ruling and you probably won't get one. You are simply bending the rules.

odd, i have a thread just below this one asking "what is the state of a model" and there's no response.

could you point me to the ruling?

An effect, from the very beginning of Malifaux, is something which places a rule on the characters card.

nope. rules manual disagrees with you.

you are thinking "stats" of a model. not state.

[Q'iq'el]

? what part of "anything that changes the state of a model" does this not apply to?

That part where you take a spell you cast, you look at its effects and you apply them one by one to the models you are told to apply them. Once you applied them, these models have their status changed. If there's a lasting effect applied to them, that effect can be altered by other spells. If the effect was immediate, nothing can change it. This too is in the Rules Manual.

If there was no spell (or ability/trigger/action) and no applying, there was no change of status.

You're trying to bend the rule which is perfectly clear, by taking it out of context. Rules you should learn are types of effects and how applying effects works in case of spells and in case of abilities. Effects do not exist outside that context.

When people say "almost everything in Malifaux is an effect", they mean almost everything applied by a Talent or Spell to the target model.

odd, i have a thread just below this one asking "what is the state of a model" and there's no response.

could you point me to the ruling?

nope. rules manual disagrees with you.

you are thinking "stats" of a model. not state.

No. People ask questions as they learn the game. That doesn't mean there must be a ruling for everything. Learn and play.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Q'iq'el