Obey & Reflect Magic

[Hjelmen]

Hi!

I have a quick question about the Reflect Magic trigger and Obey.

The situation:

Hamelin the Ratcatcher casts Obey on a Witchling Stalker.

The Stalker resists Obey, and gets a :tomes in its resist total, and declares the Reflect Magic trigger.

Reflect Magic states that the caster becomes affected by the spell, as if it were the target. Since Hamelin is not a master, then he can be affected.

But the question is: Who controls Hamelin during the action granted by obey? Hamelins controller or the Witchling Stalkers controller?

Thanks!

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Hi!

I have a quick question about the Reflect Magic trigger and Obey.

The situation:

Hamelin the Ratcatcher casts Obey on a Witchling Stalker.

The Stalker resists Obey, and gets a :tomes in its resist total, and declares the Reflect Magic trigger.

Reflect Magic states that the caster becomes affected by the spell, as if it were the target. Since Hamelin is not a master, then he can be affected.

But the question is: Who controls Hamelin during the action granted by obey? Hamelins controller or the Witchling Stalkers controller?

Thanks!

The Witching Stalker's Controller.

[Hjelmen]

Yikes, that was snappy! Thanks, Sketch!

[Therril_83]

Sketch, may I ask the reasoning behind that ruling? is it just "that's the way it's supposed to be, the wording on the card is just inacurate/subject of a coming errata" or is there another reasoning behind it?

When I read the text, I can't see anything mentioning the change of caster of the spell, only the target. So in this example, I would say Hamelin obeys himself, and his controller controlls him, just as if he had obeyed another friendly model.

Same if I reflected Lure to a Lilitu. She would walk towards herself, and ending in her own melee range make a strike against herself.

Reflect Magic: After this model resists a spell targeting it, the caster replaces this model as a target and suffer the spell's effects. Use the difference in casting and resist totals if a difference is required. The reflected spell has no effect if the caster could not be affected by it.

edit: not that I'm unhappy with the ruling, I'm the only one in my group playing Stalkers, and I do think it makes the trigger alot more logical, but I just don't see where it is derived from.

Only changing of target is mentioned, no change of caster is. Perhaps you could reason that since some spells have resists, they can't affect the caster since they cannot attack themselves, but by the wording of the trigger that would cause the spell to fizzle more than it would cause another effect that isn't even mentioned.

[TreeNinja]

I think the ruling fits with the fluff of the stalker. I see it as the Stalker takes the magic from another and unleashes it back at them, or they litereally tap into anothers power as they are using it and still their control of the power.

As far as your Lilitu's Lure example I think it would force her to move toward the stalker and if Lilitu moves into the stalkers melee range then the stalker would get the free hit against her. I also think this would allow the stalker to bypass Lilitu's Irresistable ability, though I could be wrong and would be interested to know if I'm right about that.

[Clousseau]

If you think about the other cases where Reflect Magic applies, e.g. reflecting a ranged attack spell, the Witchling would flip for the resultant damage I think, which makes sense.

[Kadeton]

I think the idea that when the spell is reflected, the Witchling also replaces the caster (in addition to the caster replacing the target) is an excellent one. However, at the moment it's totally not supported by the rule as written.

It would be great to see an official errata to the ability that reflects the clarification Sketch made above.

[Therril_83]

I think the idea that when the spell is reflected, the Witchling also replaces the caster (in addition to the caster replacing the target) is an excellent one. However, at the moment it's totally not supported by the rule as written

This is exactly my point. I want the trigger to play out that way, because it makes sense and makes the trigger so much more useful, but I don't see how it reads that way.

Now, it has been ruled by a marshal, so I will be playing it that way, but without any argument to an objecting oponent other than "Marshall said so, that's why.".