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.

[Mr_Smigs]

That part where you take a spell you cast,

stop there. Game Effect. First sentence. NOT limited to spells.

You're trying to bend the rule which is perfectly clear.

if it was perfectly clear, this conversation would not have started.

you seem to be relying on the old edition, not the new.

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

how can you learn the definition of something that isn't given?

if you learn it wrong, just because that's how everyone plays it, it does not change the fact that you learned it wrong.

you are right, there doesn't have to be a RULING for everything,

but the game is based on DEFINITIONS, and when a DEFINITION is used in a RULE, then the DEFINITION needs to exist for the RULE to work as expected without open ended interpretation.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[Q'iq'el]

stop there. Game Effect. First sentence. NOT limited to spells.

Of course. I should've said "talent or spell", but I've said that in all the other places. There could also be some special rules on terrain affecting models, if you want to be very pedantic about the argument. Still, there must be something that affects the model for an effect be applied to it. It's basics. Perhaps do not cut out a shortcut out of the context of an entire post to dismiss the rest?

if it was perfectly clear, this conversation would not have started.

you seem to be relying on the old edition, not the new.

I'm relying on understanding all the rules on the effects in the Rules Manual, not on one sentence taken out of context.

I'm also afraid you'll never get definition for everything when you deal with human language - it's not programming. It operates with signifiers and signifiants and their relation changes on the go. Model's status is the state it is in at the moment you consider its status. It doesn't need a definition, because that's what it says.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Mr_Smigs]

Of course. I should've said "talent or spell", but I've said that in all the other places. Perhaps do not cut out a shortcut out of the context of an entire post to dismiss the rest?

still. not limited to "talents or spells"

"anything"... "ANYTHING"

I'm relying on understanding all the rules on the effects in the Rules Manual, not on one sentence taken out of context.

so, you are deducing your definition from piecemeal comments here and there through the text....

whereas I am looking at a straight flow of logic.

you are using RAI (Rules as Intended)

I am using RAW (Rules as Written)

running a game on good intentions only works until you visit a different venue.

there is further problem here...

as "anything" that changes the "state of the model" is an "effect"...

Tokens (or Counters as is assumed earlier) also are "effects" as they change the model ... again, depending on what the "state" is...

so why does Spellbreaker mention them separately?

Edited August 30, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[Jonas Albrecht]

We have two competing schools of thought here.

School A: A model is essentially a blank card, and that each listed Talent (note, spells never change a model's state unless cast) changes the state of the model. Under this definition, 'Dita could indeed blast Terrifying off of a model.

School B: A model's neutral state is the state of the model when it begins the game. All printed Talents are a part of this neutral state, and the only Talents that are Effects are the ones that require activation, or are gained throughout the course of play. Under this definition, Lady Ortega is SOL if she wants to remove Terrifying.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Jonas Albrecht

[Q'iq'el]

still. not limited to "talents or spells"

"anything"... "ANYTHING"

Yes, but that "anything", as I've already *pointed out* to you, is something which has the in-game ability to give effects to other models. There's limited set of such rules - some on the models, some on the terrain, some on the special effects active during the encounters.

The printer of the cards, the designer of the rules or other out-of-game factors are not among those.

so, you are deducing your definition from piecemeal comments here and there through the text....

No, I've just read the rules manual.

whereas I am looking at a straight flow of logic.

Your logic is flawed.

you are using RAI (Rules as Intended)

I am using RAW (Rules as Written)

No, I'm afraid. You're using a sentence out of context. I'm using understanding of the rules as a system. It's neither RAI or RAW.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Mr_Smigs]

sigh... I've done this run before but let's get it in here as well...

Flow of Logic (adjusted for this discussion)

Spell Breaker says "end all effects

effect in the definitions can only be found as game effect

game effect says anything that changes the state of a model.

state of a model is not defined.

the rest of the Game Effects section talks about

Immunity to ...

Direct reference....

Broad application...

and

Multiple Effects from one event (another undefined term)

now, while the term "effect" and "event" may be used, over and over in the book,

this does not change the fact that they lack definition

use of a word does not imbue definition.

a word's definition defines it's proper use.

use of a word does not mean it's following the proper definition.

example:

I can call myself a Rules Henchman.

it does not make me one.

you can claim that "effect" is limited to a select collection of talents, spells, and unique terrain features...

that does not make it true.

no where, in the Game Effects does it give a specific list of "effects" quite the opposite (there is use of the term et cetera... paragraph 3, last sentence.)

and next page, it even clarifies that Ongoing Effects (like terrifying) are effects.

as is Armor (in their example there)

leading to all talents falling into the Effect catagory..

Edited August 30, 2011 by Mr_Smigs

[Q'iq'el]

It's about how the language works and about the ability to read complex rule sets. It's something you are supposed to learn in high-school in most countries (so is the curriculum typically designed). It's also a subject which is currently a hot-topic among educators, because there's a serious disfunction visible in many countries, when it comes to ability to read and write rules among the wider population. This is considered one of the failures of the modern education system, though not all countries are equally affected (actually I think american system is one of the better when it comes to this, but I may be off here).

It's not easy to explain, but let me try.

Rule system is build from definitions, you are right. Rule system as a whole is also one big definition. Words which in normal language have general meaning and can have multiple or changing signifiants (entities the words point to), have signifiants pointing only to the entities within the system, when it comes to reading the rules.

To use a common joke, when the instruction manual says "press any key" it doesn't mean you should go outside and call the elevator or press a key on your sister's cellular phone. Those keys and buttons could be considered "any key" in general speech and thus become the signifiants of the term "any key", but they are not within the system created by the instruction manual. An instruction manual references only the object it describes - the keyboard and the device it belongs to.

This is identical in case of any game with a ruleset. The ruleset contains multiple rules for abilities, actions, spells etc. and describe them as affecting other models and giving them effects. Those are not "disjointed" rules, but parts of the entire system - the definition as a whole. In a rule system such as Malifaux (often described as permissive) things can be done only in the way described in the manual, so no effect can appear from nowhere - effects exists only where the rules explicitly state something creates an effect or affects a model. I'll try to add page numbers later, as I can't look through the Rules Manual right now, but you can find several examples of such rules.

Word "anything" on the page 19 does not has as its signifiant "anything" general speach would reference, but "anything" within the rule manual, that can give an effect. There's only a limited subset of rules that can place effect on a model and thus only this subset can be referenced by the word "Anything".

Talents which are printed on the cards, are described in the basic rules section and are not described as effects or as something given or received, therefore you cannot argue they are referenced here.

As I said, this is mostly an over-simplification of the linguistic issues involved, but from my long miniature gaming experience great number of "loopholes" discovered by unscrupulous players comes from them ignoring the basic convention of rules-reading, applying external signifiants to the internal signifiers and then claiming the ruleset is broken. No, it isn't. In all such cases it is either a willful misreading of the rules, or a misreading caused by lack of the competence on the reader's part.

The later is quite common, because rules are very complex and games are played by young people in general (who might not even be in the age where one has completed all the courses related to the problem). This is also the reason why manuals are disappearing from our lifes - since people cannot read them and won't read them, why bother making them (and paying for them)?

To expand on this, the flaw in your logic flow comes from the fact that you ignore the convention. A convention for computer programming or mathematic equation (esp. a proper logical sentence) would be completely different, so is not applicable. In here it is the custom which provides you with the way to understand the terms and how they are defined.

So:

Anything is in fact quite a strict term, despite it being counter-intuitive (anything that changes the model status means any rule that explicitly says it affects models).

Model status is explicitly understood as a state the model is in before it gets changed. It, counter-intuitively, isn't a strict term, but rather a general pointer towards all the different states the models may find themselves in the moment they are changed.

Change is the defining characteristic of an effect.

! What is the most difficult here is the circular referention. It would be prohibited in logics and it wouldn't work very well in Law (happens sometimes due to incompetent lawmaking), can be completely normal in games rules and work OK. What I'm speaking about is the fact, that mutliple rules in game speak about affecting models (changing them), but don't call that an effect. The definition of an effect says, that any of these rules ("anything") which would change a model's status (general pointer an any status of any model at any time which gets changed) would be an effect. Therefore, every of these rules defines the way to apply an effect. Both these rules and the rule for effects explain and circularly reference each other. It works, because it is a closed system.

And mind you convention for rules reading and writing is relatively simple to master. It's the literature where things get so complex quantum physicians would get lost. The enthralling game of tilting signifiant as some literary theorists call it. It's almost like wave-particle duality.

Last but not least, most players never come to making such complex analyses, because they instinctively understand the convention. We learn it when we are told to read the rules and when we fail exams for breaking the rules (or see other fails) or when a composition teacher tells us to write a set of rules. etc. etc.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Dolomyte]

It's about how the language works and about the ability to read complex rule sets. It's something you are supposed to learn in high-school in most countries (so is the curriculum typically designed). It's also a subject which is currently a hot-topic among educators, because there's a serious disfunction visible in many countries, when it comes to ability to read and write rules among the wider population. This is considered one of the failures of the modern education system, though not all countries are equally affected (actually I think american system is one of the better when it comes to this, but I may be off here).

It's not easy to explain, but let me try.

Rule system is build from definitions, you are right. Rule system as a whole is also one big definition. Words which in normal language have general meaning and can have multiple or changing signifiants (entities the words point to), have signifiants pointing only to the entities within the system, when it comes to reading the rules.

To use a common joke, when the instruction manual says "press any key" it doesn't mean you should go outside and call the elevator or press a key on your sister's cellular phone. Those keys and buttons could be considered "any key" in general speech and thus become the signifiants of the term "any key", but they are not within the system created by the instruction manual. An instruction manual references only the object it describes - the keyboard and the device it belongs to.

This is identical in case of any game with a ruleset. The ruleset contains multiple rules for abilities, actions, spells etc. and describe them as affecting other models and giving them effects. Those are not "disjointed" rules, but parts of the entire system - the definition as a whole. In a rule system such as Malifaux (often described as permissive) things can be done only in the way described in the manual, so no effect can appear from nowhere - effects exists only where the rules explicitly state something creates an effect or affects a model. I'll try to add page numbers later, as I can't look through the Rules Manual right now, but you can find several examples of such rules.

Word "anything" on the page 19 does not has as its signifiant "anything" general speach would reference, but "anything" within the rule manual, that can give an effect. There's only a limited subset of rules that can place effect on a model and thus only this subset can be referenced by the word "Anything".

Talents which are printed on the cards, are described in the basic rules section and are not described as effects or as something given or received, therefore you cannot argue they are referenced here.

As I said, this is mostly an over-simplification of the linguistic issues involved, but from my long miniature gaming experience great number of "loopholes" discovered by unscrupulous players comes from them ignoring the basic convention of rules-reading, applying external signifiants to the internal signifiers and then claiming the ruleset is broken. No, it isn't. In all such cases it is either a willful misreading of the rules, or a misreading caused by lack of the competence on the reader's part.

The later is quite common, because rules are very complex and games are played by young people in general (who might not even be in the age where one has completed all the courses related to the problem). This is also the reason why manuals are disappearing from our lifes - since people cannot read them and won't read them, why bother making them (and paying for them)?

You dont need to be a dick and try to say your smarter then everyone when making a point Q, it makes those of us even on your side in this debate despise ourselves for being there.

[Mr_Smigs]

So:

Anything is in fact quite a strict term, despite it being counter-intuitive (anything that changes the model status means any rule that explicitly says it affects models).

Model status is explicitly understood as a state the model is in before it gets changed. It, counter-intuitively, isn't a strict term, but rather a general pointer towards all the different states the models may find themselves in the moment they are changed.

Change is the defining characteristic of an effect.

and you totally ignored that "Armor +1" is listed as an "ongoing Effect" on page 20. In the effects section.

yes, a complicated relation of multiple sections.

one of those sections explicitly stating that model talents are effects.

so you're back to effects ending in the initial statement of the power.

side note:

and you're back to "rules as intended" (by the definition i'm familiar with)

"reading complex rules sets and figuring out what they mean" is (IMO) Rules as Intended.

you're entire spiel basically boils down to "you can't use logic, this is English. logic means nothing in english."

and "use common sense."

[the rest of this rant has been removed]

suffice to say, it's thinking like that, that causes these problems in the first place. not everyone interprets the rules the same, thus they need clear, and complete definitions to remove interpretation.

[Q'iq'el]

You dont need to be a dick and try to say your smarter then everyone when making a point Q, it makes those of us even on your side in this debate despise ourselves for being there.

Heh. Why getting so defensive? This is a complex rules. I'm a professional in exactly this. I'm sharing some of the knowledge in the simplest possible terms. It is a difficult subject, so I may be hitting my "educator" tone, but that can't be helped and is not intended to put the people off.

[CRC]

and you totally ignored that "Armor +1" is listed as an "ongoing Effect" on page 20. In the effects section.

No, it isn't.

It says that the effect "Armor +1" stacks. It doesn't say that all "Armor +1"s are effects.

You can be inherently "Armor +1", or you can have the externally applied effect "Armor +1". The latter of these can be spellbroken. The former cannot.

Edited August 30, 2011 by CRC

[Q'iq'el]

and you totally ignored that "Armor +1" is listed as an "ongoing Effect" on page 20. In the effects section.

No, I'm not. [edit: actually CRC is right, I think - here too are cases of inherent Armor +1 and received Armor +1]. There's nothing illogical here in gaming terms. Another thing would be an Armor applied by another model or terrain, but this too is complex - if it were applied by an aura or soft cover for example, it'd immediately get reapplied. If it was applied by a pulse for the rest of the turn, then Spellbreaker could remove it for good.

There are multiple spells and abilities in the game which apply the effect of the same name. For example (+1)Fast is defined as an "ability", which applies effect Fast on the model and also is listed among "actions" for the ease of reading. No different to armor.

Terrifying on the other hand is an ability that enforces a duel and applies "falling back" effect on the model. It's a case of ability applying an effect with a different name.

It has little to do with the crux of our misunderstanding - the fact that you are breaking the linguistic convention in which the ruleset is being written.

I'm sorry if I sound dismissive or "a dick", as Dolomyte put it, but the brutal thing is this is customary. I never could get organic chemistry back in high-school, because of the sheer amount of custormary and conventional definitions which seemed entirely useless outside of that particular field (which was of no interest to me). Unlike physics, which I was interested deeply in, as I could see its universal relevance much better. That's a matter of personal talents and something we need to accept.

In case of language, customs are something we learn and accept as whole and what will rear its ugly head every now and then - sometimes because of our failures, sometimes because there's actual mistake in rules writting, and sometimes because the relations between rules is very complex.

Here, it is a case of very complex rules. If you wrap your head around them wrongly, you need to take a step back and start from scratch.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Mr_Smigs]

linguistic convention?

it's a rule set.

a series of instructions and definitions.

yes. we seem to have a very different view of how instructions and definitions should be written.

I expect well defined statements (ideally, ones that work as IF-Then statements to show a flow of logic)

and expect a rule set to follow a flow of logic without gaps.

I honestly don't know how you expect instructions to be given.

Ongoing Effects also mentions "Emotional Stress" (in addition to Armor, and spell caused effects)

How is Emotional Stress different from Terrifying? (in your definitions?)

from what I can see:

1. It is ongoing (by definition on page 20)

2. It affects another model, not the one it is on.

as it is an "Ongoing Effect" it is an "Effect" and thus it would be Spellbroken.

Armor +1 is in the same collection of examples under the stacking of Immediate and Ongoing effects. Armor, therefore is an Immediate or Ongoing effect. either way, it would be Spellbroken.

please,

Armor is a talent which auto-applies Armor effect on the model. There's nothing illogical here in gaming terms.

how is it not ended by Spell breaker?

[Q'iq'el]

I do not have definition for onoing Emotional Stress at hand, but I think Terrifying isn't that hard to grasp - it says what it does. After you apply the changes to the target, you know there's an effect on the target (because there was a change). You don't apply the change on the owner of the talent (be it model or terrain) so you cannot say you deal with an effect on this side.

As far as Armor goes, I think it always is an ongoing effect. There are however, different ways in which it can be applied:

- It can be a Talent on the card (an ability, exactly speaking). The ability self-applies the effect to the model. You can remove the effect, you can't remove the ability (unless you Hex it off), therefore the effect gets reapplied immediately.

- It may be a result of an aura or interaction with the terrain (hard cover). In this case too the ongoing effect could be removed, but would be reapplied instantly.

In both above cases I'd allow Spellbreaker to be cast, if someone insisted, and I'd also argue the effect got reapplied immediately and therefore the Spellbreaker was wasted. edit: The reason for this being that the application of the effect is governed by its own set of conditions. If the model is in range of the hard cover feature and not 3x higher than the feature, for example. Dispelling the effect doesn't affect the conditions for granting the effect, so you get the effect back immediately (as the conditions are still valid).

The third possible case is another object casting a spell or using ability which gives armor for the duration of the effect. That too would be an ongoing effect, but the fire-and-forget character would mean there's now an independent ongoing effect called "Armor +1" applied to the target's card.

This last one effect can be dispelled and done with for good.

I'm sorry if I was too hostile in my response. I do not mean that there's no logic involved in the process of ruleswriting or that logic doesn't apply here. It's a different layer of difficulty:

To apply logic equation properly, you first have to identify the meanings of the words used - the entities they point at or their signifiants. What the signifiants are in the language is not always a matter of definition, but also context.

Context in this case encases the ruleset and the included definition, the general linguistic custom (which is the reason why many of these arguments degenerate to dictionary swinging) and the particular subsection of that custom which is called "convention". Conventions are very important set of customs when it comes to written word in its differnet cathegories.

Now let's try to apply logic properly, taking the custom into consideration. I'm working from memory here, so I may be wrong on particulars, but the general principle is as follows.

1. There's a group of rules in the Rules Manual which reference "effects." Effects can be applied, cannot be applied, are removed from the model etc. etc.

2. There's a general rule defining the effect as something which changes model's status. And particular rules defining types of effects and how they work (Movement Effects, Placement Effects, Immediate vs. Ongoing effects etc).

The general rule for effects is interacting with the third group of rules:

3. Rules that define how and with what to affect models (rules saying you may push the model 4 inches, or the rule giving target model Paralyzed). Please note, that this third group, just like the first group, contains both the general definitions from the Rules Manual (for example an explanation how you cast spells and apply their effects) as well as the special rules on the cards of the models.

Between these rules the logic becomes circular - one is not the effect of another, but they all describe different facets of the same game mechanic - changing models.

So the operating word for the rule on the page 19 is "change".

Effect is anything that changes Model's Status.

Model's Status is anything that gets changed by Effects.

Anything references all the rules from the group 3, because only these rules can *change* things.

Things that get changed, are Model's Status.

Obviously this is only the general shape of things. When you cast a spell that plants an Ice Pillar, thus creating terrain, or when you move a forest with a spell, these too are changes. They are irrelevant for the entire subject as they go outside of the basic mechanic described here - these changes cannot be removed or affected by any of the spells that reference effects, because they do not change model's status, but something else (and only if they changed the model's status they'd become effects in gaming terms).

Obviously the rules writers could've defined model's status. The definition would have to be: "how the model is before it gets changed", as the status changes all the time.

From this you can see there isn't really any need for defining Model's status - it references models (so you know effects applying to terrain do not count, for example) and that's it. Change is the defining act here.

Circular logic is normally the defeat in a scientific argument. It is, on the contrary, quite common in rules writing. This is exactly the customary difference I'm speaking about - empiric process is not the same thing as a set of rules for closed system. A closed system is something which explains itself by itself, which is an abomination for empiric approach. Both of those are tools for solving different problems.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[poulpox]

"game effect says anything that changes the state of a model"

What changes the state (in the case of terrifying for ex) would be Fall back caused by Terrifying. So Fall Back can be removed with SB but not Terrifying. SB can remove anything which is altering the state of a model, not what caused that alteration, furthermore it would not remove anything originally printed on the model's card (unlike Hex with talents and spells)

[Ropetus]

I stopped reading that argument halfway page 3 but here is an answer to you:

Definition of effect: anything applied on a model during the game which changes their attributes from what is written on their card, except for Wd loss.

This includes stuff like: modifications to stats and additional Talents from Talents and Spells, debuffs applied on the model by another model's Talent or Spell (Censure, Undead Psychosis, Hex, etc.), states of models (Defensive Stance, Falling Back, etc.) and ongoing Auras (the effect must be removed from the model the Aura originates from). Maybe some other stuff too which I don't remember at the moment. The point is that effects are temporal and change the model from what is written on their card.

Stuff that are definitely not effects are as follows (but not limited to): Wd loss, model's position on the board, Counters and Tokens (the latter get a specific mention in the spell so all is well), anything written on the model's stat card originally, attributes of terrain (you can't remove Severe or Impassable from a terrain piece), instantaneous Actions like Pulses (though if they have lasting effects those effects can be removed).

Note that in some cases an effect on a model originates from a lasting effect on another model (for example an Aura) or a piece of terrain. These can be removed from the affected model but they will be immediately reapplied by the lasting effect.

-Ropetus

[Mr_Smigs]

To apply logic equation properly, you first have to identify the meanings of the words used - the entities they point at or their signifiants. What the signifiants are in the language is not always a matter of definition, but also context.

that last part is where we disagree. the use of context implies "rules as intended" as there is no evidence that clearly defines it.

Now let's try to apply logic properly, taking the custom into consideration. I'm working from memory here, so I may be wrong on particulars, but the general principle is as follows.

1. There's a group of rules in the Rules Manual which reference "effects." Effects can be applied, cannot be applied, are removed from the model etc. etc.

2. There's a general rule defining the effect as something which changes model's status. And particular rules defining types of effects and how they work (Movement Effects, Placement Effects, Immediate vs. Ongoing effects etc).

The general rule for effects is interacting with the third group of rules:

3. Rules that define how and with what to affect models (rules saying you may push the model 4 inches, or the rule giving target model Paralyzed). Please note, that this third group, just like the first group, contains both the general definitions from the Rules Manual (for example an explanation how you cast spells and apply their effects) as well as the special rules on the cards of the models.

Between these rules the logic becomes circular - one is not the effect of another, but they all describe different facets of the same game mechanic - changing models.

see there, nice flow of logic to define a term "changing"

So the operating word for the rule on the page 19 is "change".

Effect is anything that changes Model's Status.

Model's Status is anything that gets changed by Effects.

STOP

Point of Logic

you have committed the Fallacy of the Converse.

A --> B does not mean B --> A.

Obviously the rules writers could've defined model's status. The definition would have to be: "how the model is before it gets changed", as the status changes all the time.

ideally, they'd have two defintions:

a models "initial" state (as it is on the card, when deployed the first time)

and a model's "current" state (under the effects of any spells on it)

From this you can see there isn't really any need for defining Model's status - it references models (so you know effects applying to terrain do not count, for example) and that's it. Change is the defining act here.

again, based on an invalid use of the law of syllogism.

Circular logic is normally the defeat in a scientific argument.

circular logic is normally the defeat? no circular logic is the sign that there is a missing definition.

[Mr_Smigs]

I stopped reading that argument halfway page 3 but here is an answer to you:

Definition of effect: anything applied on a model during the game which changes their attributes from what is written on their card, except for Wd loss.

This includes stuff like: modifications to stats and additional Talents from Talents and Spells, debuffs applied on the model by another model's Talent or Spell (Censure, Undead Psychosis, Hex, etc.), states of models (Defensive Stance, Falling Back, etc.) and ongoing Auras (the effect must be removed from the model the Aura originates from). Maybe some other stuff too which I don't remember at the moment. The point is that effects are temporal and change the model from what is written on their card.

Stuff that are definitely not effects are as follows (but not limited to): Wd loss, model's position on the board, Counters and Tokens (the latter get a specific mention in the spell so all is well), anything written on the model's stat card originally, attributes of terrain (you can't remove Severe or Impassable from a terrain piece), instantaneous Actions like Pulses (though if they have lasting effects those effects can be removed).

Note that in some cases an effect on a model originates from a lasting effect on another model (for example an Aura) or a piece of terrain. These can be removed from the affected model but they will be immediately reapplied by the lasting effect.

-Ropetus

see, this, clearer definition helps greatly.

why isn't it stated that clearly in the rules manual?

this implies that the "STATE" of the model is as it reads on the card without the activation of any talents, abilities, or spells.

[Calmdown]

see, this, clearer definition helps greatly.

why isn't it stated that clearly in the rules manual?

this implies that the "STATE" of the model is as it reads on the card without the activation of any talents, abilities, or spells.

I'm as happy with having rules clarified precisely as anyone else is, but I'm still not sure why you feel the need to have this clarified further than the obvious - is there a specific situation you have in mind in which the lack of clarification of STATE could cause a problem? I'm interested as to why you're so interested in this.

[greyseerco]

<snip>

Stuff that are definitely not effects are as follows (but not limited to): Wd loss, model's position on the board, Counters and Tokens (the latter get a specific mention in the spell so all is well)

<snip>

-Ropetus

Greetings Ropetus, thanks for weighing in on this. But I am confused. The spell only specifically mentions counters and is a bit contradictory in that the first sentence removes Counters (no mention of Tokens) and then says Carried Counters are not removed.

Is that first reference to Counters in the first sentence supposed to be Tokens (like Poison and Fire)?

[poulpox]

Is that first reference to Counters in the first sentence supposed to be Tokens (like Poison and Fire)?

Yes, the term Token is only recent (with RM publishing) and there was before no term differenciation. "Counters" with regards to Dispell and such actually refer to tokens.

[greyseerco]

Thanks, I thought so, but I wanted to make sure. Hopefully she will get a V3 card like Levi

[Mr_Smigs]

Yes, the term Token is only recent (with RM publishing) and there was before no term differenciation. "Counters" with regards to Dispell and such actually refer to tokens.

that is the assumption.

clarity would be nice, as Shrug Off has similar wording IIRC.

[nilus]

that is the assumption.

clarity would be nice, as Shrug Off has similar wording IIRC.

Actually I believe it was ruled this way already right when the rule manual came out. Anyone got better search fu then me.

[Mr_Smigs]

ok... after having a day to mull it over... the ruling still has some notable questions... but I'll take those to a different thread...

using the definition above,

I'm still left to wonder, if "passive" abilities of the model that also apply effects to models around them (like Terrifying) are disabled by Spellbreaker (because they are an ongoing effect that applies immediate effects)

To use terms above, they (ongoing effects) are effects that change how cards read other than their wounds