Haunting melody trigger and immune to influence

[Q'iq'el]

Wolfgar, you say you are the defender when targeted by an action. A trigger, especially in this case is an aditional effect that may result from losing the duel against the initial action, assuming the appropriate suits have been met. Teddy, in the example, is the defender of a pipes strike, he failed the resist, and suffers damage, in addition, he mush pass this duel. Hamelin did not Target him with the duel, he targeted him with his pipes and the duel is a side effect.

This is not accurate. I agree (and I've already said that) the rules for effects applied by Triggers are blury, but one thing is not:

A trigger is a part of a Strike or Casting Duel sequence. It is a spearate position on the card, but it is executed as a part of the attack.

Most logically any Trigger that comes from Melee Strike, Ranged Strike or a Spell that can be classified as an Attack, is also an Attack, because it is executed as the part of the entire Sequence.

On the other hand Triggers that are executed after the Duel ends (granting a fresh action for example) or Triggers attached to Spells which are not attacks, wouldn't be considered attacks themselves.

A bit more explicit wording would be nice, but I think the fact this particular trigger is part of a Strike Duel sequence weights very heavily on Wolfgar side. When it is being executed the Teddy is still a defender in a Ranged Strike Duel the Trigger is only a part of.

[Wolfgar]

If a Trigger is independent from the attack action, and thus has to qualify as an attack on it's own, then it's reasonable that there is no defender. The Trigger is it's own entity and thus resolved as such. Of course a Trigger itself can never actual be considered an attack under the rules, but a Strike, Spell, or Action prompted by one could be.

If the Trigger is considered a part of the Action that prompted it, then it's attributes as an Attack or not should be derived from that Action.

I think we are getting closer.

[Q'iq'el]

The thing is there are different Triggers out there and they'd be classified differently I think.

First of all, all of them are declared and used as a part of a Strike or Casting sequence. That alone makes them part of an attack in the former case, and part of an attack if the spell can be classified as an attack in the later case.

However, we have some subclasses to consider too:

1) A Trigger which straight out boosts the attack's damage, affects the damage flip etc. is clearly part of the attack. It cannot even be separated.

2) A Trigger which adds new effect to the results of an attack is more complex. IMHO it still is a part of an attack, as would be an effect added by Weapon's rules or as the multiple effect of an Attack Spell would be. I can see it being a reason for an argument for some players though. (This is where Haunting Music fits).

3) Triggers which give a new free attack, push etc. are generally executed after the entire Duel ends. IMHO those result in all new action and as such, have to be classified separately, based on what they do. Some may be attacks, some may not be.

Now let's imagine, that a model moves into Terrifying range and has to conduct the test. There clearly is no attacker and defender in this case, so Immune to Influence doesn't help.

But what if there's a Trigger that causes the opponent to take a Terrifying test? Now the testing model is actually a defender, so Immune to Influence should work against Terrifying in this hypothetical context.

Does it sound right?

Edited December 19, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Wolfgar]

I think there are definite cases where Terrifying or a Morale Duel might be stopped by Immune to Influence.

[Mike3838]

While I can understand the logic used in the last few posts, I really hope someone comes along and Rules this to work the way we previously thought it did.

If I2I works against Terrifying "some of the time" then the game just got *far* too complicated.

Mike

[Q'iq'el]

While I can understand the logic used in the last few posts, I really hope someone comes along and Rules this to work the way we previously thought it did.

If I2I works against Terrifying "some of the time" then the game just got *far* too complicated.

Mike

But the entire conundrum around picking up counters is OK?

The game is complicated. In some areas very much so.

Immune to influence depends on being a defender. It works whenever you are a defender. It is not a complicated rule, you just have to check what is the model's status when a WP duel is being forced on it.

I'm not even sure if there is a possible situation that a Terrifying duel is triggered or caused by a spell-attack - as I said it is a hypothetical situation. The only example of such a spell I can think of belongs to Seamus, and since there's no resist or strike icon, it doesn't count as an attack (so there is no Defender).

Pandora's Dementia is an attack and the simple duel it causes has a Defender, but it doesn't matter anyway, as it is Rst:Wp, so it cannot ever succeed against I2I models.

Probably Haunted Music is one of very rare cases where this really kicks in.

[Mike3838]

The counter picking up question was pretty much a 1 time query that was more or less clear already in the RM. Acting player gets first dibs (with some further detail)

Immune to Influence vs Terrifying on the other hand, while relatively clear in the RM, is already technical/complicated enough that it gets asked on this forum by a player almost on a weekly basis. And now you guys are suggesting that it needs to be made even more complicated. Worth bearing in mind, that's all I'm saying.

Mike

[Q'iq'el]

The counter picking up question was pretty much a 1 time query that was more or less clear already in the RM. Acting player gets first dibs (with some further detail)

Not really, there are still questions being asked, because it is not always that one of the players in b2b contact is active, the game allows for multiplayer games and the official ruling doesn't really solve the problem without adding house rules.

The situation is not only still muddy, but RM and the ruling doesn't really resolve it in the long run.

Immune to Influence vs Terrifying on the other hand, while relatively clear in the RM, is already technical/complicated enough that it gets asked on this forum by a player almost on a weekly basis. And now you guys are suggesting that it needs to be made even more complicated. Worth bearing in mind, that's all I'm saying.

Mike

The difference, IMHO, is not in level of complication, just in the prevalence. Terryfying tests appear in many games... three sides being graverobbers in b2b contact with a dropping counter is very rare.

The problem with Immune to Influence is not a problem of complication, but of custom. People have been told by friends used to old rules, that all they have to check is if the Duel is opposed or Simple. That never really been the case - it was a shortcut (it so happened you couldn't be a defender in a simple duel in the old rules, IIRC).

Now we have found a case where it matters, which seems to be rare, and it turns out the shortcut people used makes them make a wrong choice here.

The solution is to re-read the rules and change the custom. It is not more complicated, it is just a different way of resolving situations than what we used till now.

[Mike3838]

Yea I can get on board with the custom thing.

If you're right though, it does strike me as strange that even though the old shortcut advice has been spread all over these forums for 9 months or more, never has a RM said "wait a sec, you're playing it wrong". I suspect that the intention isn't for it to work this way, after all the Pipes trigger's design intent appears to be to target I2I models. If it cant, it's a gigantic cuddle to Hamelin that I'd have thought would have been mentioned earlier during the furure over his OPness if we'd interpreted wrong.

I guess we'd need confirmation either that this new interpretation is correct, or that the RM isn't working as intended, to know for sure.

Mike

[Q'iq'el]

Well, there is the entire thing how Triggers mesh up with the Attacks that set them off.

The way I divided them into 3 groups based on how they work is pure conjecture. I'd like to see some confirmation of that too.

[magicpockets]

While I can understand the logic used in the last few posts, I really hope someone comes along and Rules this to work the way we previously thought it did.

If I2I works against Terrifying "some of the time" then the game just got *far* too complicated.

Mike

I'm with Mike on this, this game is in danger of becoming too complicated to the point where it's unexplainable to people. The "you took damage, damage turned to wounds, prevent all the wounds, means you retrospectively took no damage" thing springs to mind.

Also, there seems to be so many new people on here who are rules lawyering all day, arguing tiny intricacies of things which have been settled - unfortunately often with a gap in experience of Malifaux which distorts their argument.

I'm all for getting a clear understanding of how the rules work, and many of the queries are fair enough, but recently I'm getting a bad feeling about things. It's almost as if people are on a quest to prove there are gaps and problems with the game.

[To try an avoid a flame war etc, that's all I'm going to say on this. I just wanted to express my opinion, I'm not going to defend it or argue etc...]

[Q'iq'el]

I think this is grossly misplaced criticism Magicpockets.

It is one thing to rule-lawyer things into unplayability and completely different to notice an obscure change in the rules that has gone unnoticed for several months.

Yes the Rules Manual defines Attack, Attacker and Defender differently and wherever the rules reference these game terms, you need to adjust. That has nothing to do with rules lawyering at all and it is pretty much irrelevant whether the players are new or old (actually it is something easier to spot for new players without Book 1 baggage).

[Charmant]

Does the card for the ability state that it is a duel? If it doesn't it's not a duel.

[Sandwich]

Someone check Page 18 of the Rules manual, please.

Tell me if it states that there is an Attacker or Defender in a simple duel.

I remember that being the basis of our belief.

[Q'iq'el]

Someone check Page 18 of the Rules manual, please.

Tell me if it states that there is an Attacker or Defender in a simple duel.

I remember that being the basis of our belief.

This doesn't work like that in Rules Manual at all. The basis of our belief, as far as I remember, is in the old rulings about I2I - long before Rules Manual.

In Rules Manual we have a very clear definition of what an Attack is (something which was less clear in the past).

Then there's a statement in the same rule defining the initiator of an Attack as the Attacker and any direct target of the Attack, if one is required, or any model affected by the Attack as a Defender.

Which basically means it doesn't matter what Duel it is at all now. All there is to consider is whether the action against the target model is an Attack or not - if it is, it is a Defender. A Simple Wp Duel caused by a Spell (as long as the Spell in question is an Attack) is going to have a Defender, while one caused by an Ability isn't (as no Ability can be an Attack).

[Wolfgar]

Page 18 does not have anything to say about simple or opposed duels.

What it does say:

Attacks can come from multiple sources:

*Attacks with the icon are melee attacks, while attacks with the icon are ranged attacks.

*Spells with a :melee/:ranged in their Rg.

*Spells that require a rest Duel.

*Strikes with Melee/Ranged weapons

*Actions that inflict Dg or Wd on another model, or require an Opposed Duel

Each of these is considered an attack, and their initiator the attacker. The defender of an attack is either the direct target when a target is required, or any models potentially affected by the attack. A model cannot attack itself unless the attack's description states it affects friendly models.

It doesn't say anything one way or another about duel types.

The Trigger Haunting Melody can't fulfill any of those requirements on it's own, so if considered independently, it's not an attack. Likewise if it's not considered independently, then it is, since it's pretty clearly attached to a weapons Strike.

[Q'iq'el]

The Trigger Haunting Melody can't fulfill any of those requirements on it's own, so if considered independently, it's not an attack. Likewise if it's not considered independently, then it is, since it's pretty clearly attached to a weapons Strike.

It's more than attached to a strike. It is triggered during a Duel, which is an Attack in this case. It adds its effect to the effects of the Attack as well.

It's conditions, declarations and execution all happen within the confines of Strike Duel Sequence, which is the mechanic resolving the Attack itself.

It's very hard to consider it not counting as an Attack as well, in this situation.

[Mike3838]

My arm is part of my body, but my arm isn't a body. Frivolous I know, but I don't think being part of an attack qualifies it as an attack, if using that list.

Mike

[Charmant]

Also, you can only be the defender in a willpower duel and in order for it to be a willpower duel it has to be defined as such on the card.

"Morale Duels are:

*A simple Wp -> TN Duel which states in its description that it is a Morale Duel, or

* A Spell with a Wp Resist which states in its description that it is or counts as a Morale Duel" (RM p. 56)

[Q'iq'el]

My arm is part of my body, but my arm isn't a body. Frivolous I know, but I don't think being part of an attack qualifies it as an attack, if using that list.

The list classifies what action counts as an Attack. The Duel is how the action is resolved. The Trigger is a part part of that resolution and the effects of the Trigger are limited to the Action that triggered it (wording from page 26).

If the trigger causes additional damage flip, is that flip not part of an Attack? Is the attacked model suddenly not a Defender?

How do you separate effects of a Flay or Rot triggers from the effects of the attack?

And if you don't separate them, why would you separate this particular Trigger?

You've argued for simplicity. It surely is simpler to treat all the Triggers the same, right?

Edited December 19, 2011 by Q'iq'el

[Q'iq'el]

Also, you can only be the defender in a willpower duel and in order for it to be a willpower duel it has to be defined as such on the card.

"Morale Duels are:

*A simple Wp -> TN Duel which states in its description that it is a Morale Duel, or

* A Spell with a Wp Resist which states in its description that it is or counts as a Morale Duel" (RM p. 56)

This is definitely wrong.

Any duel that uses Wp is a Willpower duel. Any test where you flip a card and check if you beat a Target Number is a Simple Duel.

There are almost no flips in this game that are not Simple Duels or Opposed Duels (initiative flips, healing flips and some terrain related flips come to mind). Plenty of spells causes a Simple Duel as their result, without calling it that.

This is essentially spelled out on page 26 in the introduction to Duel mechanic.

[Adran]

Also, you can only be the defender in a willpower duel and in order for it to be a willpower duel it has to be defined as such on the card.

"Morale Duels are:

*A simple Wp -> TN Duel which states in its description that it is a Morale Duel, or

* A Spell with a Wp Resist which states in its description that it is or counts as a Morale Duel" (RM p. 56)

Thats irrelevent.

You might be confusing morale duels with willpower duels.

For Immune to Influence to have an effect:

You need to be the defender and you need to be using the WP stat.

I don't have to hand the wording of the Trigger, but its not as simple as Going its a simple duel -> no defender.

Resisting a spell is a simple duel that you are a defender to.

For there to be a defender, it needs to be an attack. (which a spell will count as)

The problem here is does this triggered duel counts as an attack or not.

I would say its not an attack on its own right, but is it an attack because its triggered by an attack?

Without the wording of the trigger I just don't know.

[Wolfgar]

For reference:

Cb(:masks:masks) Haunting Melody [Pipes]: After resolving this Weapon's Damage Flip, the defender model must win a Wp -> this model's combat total or gain Insignificant until the end of the Encounter.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Wolfgar

[Ratty]

When you resist a spell you count as a defender. The Duel generated by the Haunting Melody Trigger is not a resist just a normal simple duel so there is no defender.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Ratty

[Wolfgar]

When you resist a spell you count as a defender. The Duel generated by the Haunting Melody Trigger is not a resist just a normal simple duel so there is no defender.

So the official stance is Simple Duels that are not Resist Duels never have a defender, is that right?