rat vs SPA vs doll

[schristofersen]

so it has been over a year since this thread was put into the "resolved" rules section.

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?19472-Dolls-vs-Rats/page3

was it resolved officially someplace I missed? I've tried to search for it and wade through a ton of pages of posts but perhaps my search Fu is weak. Ratty did make a "it seems to me" type answer in the thread but seemed to be feeling it out logically.

If Leveticus casts one of his SPA creating spells on a rat does he get a SPA, a rat, or both as a result? While we are at it... same question casting at a stolen...unless that dilutes my post and results i a "only ask one question here" response, in which case the first question should be taken as the only important question and i'll take it up again about the stolen as it is slightly different.

[magicpockets]

To help generate an answer, there's two approaches here -

1. The model isn't being summoned from the rat but from the talent of the model killing the rat and so isn't affected by voracious rats (but the Hamelin player still gets his rat as per Voracious Rats)

2. The model IS effectively summoned from the death of the rat, is therefore subject to voracious rats and - as "cannot" rules trump "can" rules - no model can be summoned

I'm not sure which will be ruled, but hopefully that will help.

And, on a side, if Levi casts his spell which sacrifices the rat, he gets his (EDIT) Waif and no rat is generated as Voracious Rats is when a model is killed, not sacrificed

Edited April 8, 2012 by magicpockets

[Elazar]

And, on a side, if Levi casts his spell which sacrifices the rat, he gets his SPA and no rat is generated as Voracious Rats is when a model is killed, not sacrificed

Wouldn't be an SPA as a Rat is a living model :1_Happy_Puppet2:

[schristofersen]

Wouldn't be an SPA as a Rat is a living model :1_Happy_Puppet2:

True. It would be a waif. Still Magicpockets has accurately pointed out that entropic transformation is not a question here.

What is a question is if necrotic unmaking creates a rat, or a SPA. Using his logic it is not possible for both to occur.

The other question for Leveticus is if he gives blessings of desolation to a model and it kills an enemy does it create a SPA or a rat. It looks like the same question, but i'm certain someone will claim there is a distinctive difference and it goes back to the previous threads issue with wicked dolls as well, and other members of the Leveticus crew such as A&D/SPA.

It is fairly important as it has already been stated they are looking at Hamelin and balance. This ruling should have some impact on that discussion as well. It may not even be an issue if they have knowledge of changes to voracious rats we are not privy to.

[magicpockets]

^^ Sorry, I've clarified it above as both could occur. Nothing would stop the rat being summoned by Voracious Rats (unless I'm forgetting something on Levi's card?)

Re blessings, this is a good question. I personally feel there is a distinction here between abilities/triggers which summon DIRECTLY off the death (blessings of desolation/violition of magic) or those which summon INDIRECTLY because the death let the model use a separate talent (i.e. (0) Murderous) which then summoned the extra model.

That means (imo) that Levi would not be able to summon a model in this way, nor would Sonnia - whereas the Wicked Doll would.

I'm basing this on an explanation given a long time ago as a part of the Rule of Equivalency which said that whilst models could only generate one "counter" per base size, (0) Drain Blood was fine as the blood counter wasn't created by the model dying but by a talent used after the model dies. Whilst RoE has been abandoned, I would guess that the same logic still applies here.

[von Clausewitz]

I really lean toward Blessings/Violation summoning a model based purely on the fact that they resolve before voracious rats so the "no other model may be summoned" clause has not been put into effect at the time the SPA/Stalker is summoned.

[magicpockets]

^^ Voracious Rats is an ongoing effect so this wouldn't be the case.

For example -

1. Model is killed

2. Blessings/Violition tries to summon a model

3. Voracious Rats stops this from happening

4. Voracious Rats summons a new rat

[von Clausewitz]

^^ Voracious Rats is an ongoing effect so this wouldn't be the case.

For example -

1. Model is killed

2. Blessings/Violition tries to summon a model

3. Voracious Rats stops this from happening

4. Voracious Rats summons a new rat

It isn't actually an ongoing effect, it is an ability, which is always active, but is only applied when called for in the rules. In this case that is when a model is killed, but because it is applied simultaneously with the summoning effects of blessings/violation, the active player's effect would be applied first and the stalker/SPA would be summoned.

[magicpockets]

Sorry mate, have to disagree. Plus, it's not as simple as "the active players effect would be applied first" - that only matters if both effects are legal. As it stands the "cannot" in Votacious Rats stops the "can" in the effects you reference, nullifying the abilities and meaning only a rat is summoned.

Let's look at it from another angle, if you're right - what is voracious rats designed to stop summoning?

[schristofersen]

It isn't actually an ongoing effect, it is an ability, which is always active, but is only applied when called for in the rules. In this case that is when a model is killed, but because it is applied simultaneously with the summoning effects of blessings/violation, the active player's effect would be applied first and the stalker/SPA would be summoned.

Sounds like a viable interpretation. I am curious to see which way a rules martial will rule on this. I suspect it is currently a topic of hot debate... or already hammered out but not something they are ready to roll out until the Hamelin evaluation is well and truly ready to come out at once.

It does seem odd that one might be able to get a wicked doll with a (0) action while this spell might not... that... would be an interesting ruling.

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

Sorry mate, have to disagree. Plus, it's not as simple as "the active players effect would be applied first" - that only matters if both effects are legal. As it stands the "cannot" in Votacious Rats stops the "can" in the effects you reference, nullifying the abilities and meaning only a rat is summoned.

Let's look at it from another angle, if you're right - what is voracious rats designed to stop summoning?

As I have discovered from experience that line of thinking (that it has to be designed for something and therefor is unlikely to change so as to eliminate that origional reason) will get you in trouble.

If voracious rats is enough of a problem rules wise, no matter what it's origional purpose, it should change. Especially if it makes the Hamelin crew more in balance with the other crews.

Don't get me wrong, I think it likely voracious rats intent was to prevent ANY times any other model would hit the board unless sacrificing the rat, but this rules question may reveal a problem mechanically that would serve the game better with an adjustment to it rather than ruling that it overrides (and confuses) the rest of the game.

[magicpockets]

As I have discovered from experience that line of thinking (that it has to be designed for something and therefor is unlikely to change so as to eliminate that origional reason) will get you in trouble.

If voracious rats is enough of a problem rules wise, no matter what it's origional purpose, it should change. Especially if it makes the Hamelin crew more in balance with the other crews.

[\QUOTE]

Whoa, hang on. Your question was never about "making changes" - it was a simple "how does it work". On that basis, working backwards to consider why the rule was introduced is a sensible way to understand its intention. It just seems that you (and VonC) are actually looking for a ruling which says you can summon off Voracious Rats and trying to find/skew an RAI explanation that fits, rather than accepting the logical way it should be played RAW.

I've tried to help you (both) by explaining reasons for a certain interpretation, don't shoot the messenger. If you disagree, explain why you disagree, don't resort to how you "want" the rule to work or hiding behind the myth that everything about Hamelin is broken (this part of hs abilities certainly is not)

Edited April 9, 2012 by magicpockets

[schristofersen]

you know..

okay, so the answer is that voracious rats is meant to keep people creating anything from rats but rats and unless it is a "sacrifice" rat type situation you get a rat and no other thing?

if it is that simple I wish we could have started with that and finished with that.

[magicpockets]

In the main yes, but I still think murderous would be an exception due to how it works