Immune to Influence and Bounced Spells

[Tspot]

My whole club plays that bounced spells just auto hit the nearest targets since you do not need to flip cards and duel to hit them. And immune to influence says "Ignore effects that use wp WHEN defending in a duel"

Since the immune to influence model is not defending then it doesn't get the ignore.

I realize now that the sentence "Ignore effects that use wp WHEN defending in a duel" could be thought of as "Ignore effects that are produced from a wp duel" which would mean your immune whether your the direct target or not.

The way it is written now though it literally means you need to be the defending in a duel using wp to ignore.

Please clarify as this really changes a lot of peoples strategies for dealing with certain models.

Cheers,

T

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Clarify "Bounced Spells" please.

[Calmdown]

I'm assuming you're talking about Undead Psychosis as an example, where Seamus targets one guy and then gets "free hits" on the additional targets within 3" - the user of the spell is claiming that only the original target does a resist duel, and the additional targets are automatically hit with no duel, also bypassing I2I?

I've had someone pull that on me if so, but I dont believe it's the way it's meant to work. I think the 'additional targets' also get a resist duel against the casting total that's been determined during the flip.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

That's easy then. Check out page 53 in your Rules Manual under Resist Duels:

When a Spell could affect multiple models, all potentially affected models perform Resist Duels in an order of their controller's choosing.

If a model is Immune to Influence and the Spell is Wp Resist required it wouldn't need to perform the Resist Duel.

[Calmdown]

That's easy then. Check out page 53 in your Rules Manual under Resist Duels:

If a model is Immune to Influence and the Spell is Wp Resist required it wouldn't need to perform the Resist Duel.

I think the question is with the wording of spells like Undead Psychosis:

"The target and 1 additional model per Crow in the casting total must move away blah blah"

The implication of that for some people is that you cast the spell against a target, it resists, and if it fails, you choose x models to be affected. Is that correct? Or is the casting total generated, and you tag on an extra target per crow, then all of the targets make resist duels (or not, if they are I2I)?

[Tspot]

Now you have opened a whole new bag a worms for my group. We all were auto hitting the additional targets. Using low resist models as a way to "bounce" to a higher resist model. Calmdown has it right then, I need answers to a few questions now.

Cheers T

[Calmdown]

Now you have opened a whole new bag a worms for my group. We all were auto hitting the additional targets. Using low resist models as a way to "bounce" to a higher resist model. Calmdown has it right then, I need answers to a few questions now.

Cheers T

Players in my group and others play it this way too. I've not bothered arguing with them but I believe it is wrong. Unfortunately the ability is worded kind of ambiguously, and the timing is unusual (with new targets appearing after a casting total is generated) so I can see where the confusion arises and certainly understand their case for it.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

If you cast the Spell successfully with the crow, you nominate the other possibly affected models before the Resist Duels are performed.

Not ambiguous at except what you're putting into it.

[Calmdown]

If you cast the Spell successfully with the crow, you nominate the other possibly affected models before the Resist Duels are performed.

Not ambiguous at except what you're putting into it.

I agree. Unfortunately 90% of Seamus players dont

Thanks for clarification. Tspot: there you go

[Buhallin]

Page 51 is also enlightening, perhaps more so

If a Rst stat is listed for a Spell when it is successfully cast any model that could be affected by it must win a Resist Duel ... by exceeding the casting total or suffer the spells effects.

Emphasis mine.

[DeleteAccount]

OK, now I'm incredibly confused since this thread says the opposite

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17670&highlight=seamus

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

OK, now I'm incredibly confused since this thread says the opposite

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17670&highlight=seamus

Old Ruling.

Also before Ratty was a Marshal.

[Buhallin]

Pre-RM as well. I think the Rules Manual changed how it worked. I know we played it as only the actual target having to resist until the RM, although I'd have to dig back into the old books to make sure we weren't just playing it wrong all along.

Doesn't really matter either way, honestly

[nilus]

Old Ruling.

Also before Ratty was a Marshal.

Not to go OT but maybe when people get promoted to Marshals they should have a new user ID created. Maybe with Marshal in the name.

Its not the first time someone has posted an old thread and said a Marshal said XYZ but it was before they were a Marshal.

[poulpox]

The issue of pre-RM threads has come up a few times, particularly with new players who aren't aware of the rules evolutions. One tricky thing is that some of those old rulings are now in the Resolved Rules thread which seems to give them even more authority, and end up confusing new players. Sometimes I wonder if those thread shouldn't be deleted when encountered like in this topic; I know that looking for those old pre-RM threads is close to impossible, but when they are Slow to Die like here and pop up, it'd be a good opportunity to put them to eternal rest? Sacrifice all thread-corpse counters

[Q'iq'el]

Obsolete & defunct rulings sub-forum perhaps? Still, someone would have to go through it and clean it all up.

[Tspot]

I would just like to point out that pre-RM is exactly why my group is having this issue. We all play Warmachine as well and we had stopped playing Malifaux for a while to play WM and now we are starting up again. Some of the players have read the RM front to back but I dont think we have caught all the changes. We are all quite new to Malifaux so the changes in the RM don't jump out at us. So a lot of strategies my group use are probably from old threads.

Thanks for clearing this up and I think Im going to re-read my RM and tell the other players to do the same.

Cheers, T

[Tspot]

Obsolete & defunct rulings sub-forum perhaps? Still' date=' someone would have to go through it and clean it all up.[/quote']

Or just move them into it as they are brought up, it wouldnt be that long before the main threads that are causing issues were ferreted out and moved.

Cheers,

T

[Q'iq'el]

Or just move them into it as they are brought up, it wouldnt be that long before the main threads that are causing issues were ferreted out and moved.

Cheers,

T

First, there's no guarantee every such case would get noticed.

Secondly imagine the confusion if some obsolete rulings were not in the obsolete sections. People would think they are still current. Not everyone immediately posts when they find a ruling to confirm it. Actually most people take them at face value I think (or we'd be swamped by posts about old rulings).