Zoraida Proper Manners and the old Attack vs attack problem...

[baskinders]

Zoraida's ability 'Proper Manners' says:

"All Attack Flips made by enemy models targeting this model, which are not Focused or Channeled, receive (a negative flip modifier)."

It's a capitalised "Attack Flip", which refers specifically to a flip made as part of a Strike duel, as opposed to the non-capitalised "attack flip", which refers to any of the list of duel types on pg.18 of the rules manual list (even though attack is also capitalised as it's the beginning of the sentence...). The problem is that Attack Flips can never be Channeled because Channeling is done as part of a Casting Flip.

So my question is which word is the incorrect one here? Should it be "attack flips" that aren't "Focused or Channeled". Or should it be "Attack Flips" that aren't "Focused"? Obviously there's a fair difference in those two options.

Cheers!

[Ausplosions]

Zoraida's ability 'Proper Manners' says:

"All Attack Flips made by enemy models targeting this model, which are not Focused or Channeled, receive (a negative flip modifier)."

It's a capitalised "Attack Flip", which refers specifically to a flip made as part of a Strike duel, as opposed to the non-capitalised "attack flip", which refers to any of the list of duel types on pg.18 of the rules manual list (even though attack is also capitalised as it's the beginning of the sentence...). The problem is that Attack Flips can never be Channeled because Channeling is done as part of a Casting Flip.

So my question is which word is the incorrect one here? Should it be "attack flips" that aren't "Focused or Channeled". Or should it be "Attack Flips" that aren't "Focused"? Obviously there's a fair difference in those two options.

Cheers!

This is an awesome question.

[baskinders]

No one willing to take a crack at this one hey . Yeah I'm not sure what the intention is either? I've only played one game with my Zoraida and she didn't get attacked (with no capital) at all the whole game so it never came up, but playing another with her soon and don't want to do the wrong thing by my mate I'm playing.

Has is ever come up for anyone else? And how do you play it?

[gorillawizard]

Aren't there some spells that are ranged attacks (the little gun symbol next to them) and so can be channeled?

[Headcase2]

Never caught that before. I assume the intention was "attack flips" or "attacks" rather than "Attack Flips", but that's based on... well, nothing really, other than gut feeling.

[Sliver Chocobo]

Zoraida's ability 'Proper Manners' says:

"All Attack Flips made by enemy models targeting this model, which are not Focused or Channeled, receive (a negative flip modifier)."

It's a capitalised "Attack Flip", which refers specifically to a flip made as part of a Strike duel, as opposed to the non-capitalised "attack flip", which refers to any of the list of duel types on pg.18 of the rules manual list (even though attack is also capitalised as it's the beginning of the sentence...). The problem is that Attack Flips can never be Channeled because Channeling is done as part of a Casting Flip.

So my question is which word is the incorrect one here? Should it be "attack flips" that aren't "Focused or Channeled". Or should it be "Attack Flips" that aren't "Focused"? Obviously there's a fair difference in those two options.

Cheers!

Spells with a resist flip are attacks

[Headcase2]

Yes, but attacks flips are clearly defined and only apply to Strike actions.

[Cunning]

What about a spell with ? Would hat count as an Attack Flip?

[baskinders]

Spells with a resist flip are attacks

Yep, spot on. But they are not Attack Flips, hence the confusion

What about a spell with ? Would hat count as an Attack Flip?

Pretty sure it wouldn't, because you cast the spell with a Casting Flip regardless of whether it's a or a attack spell.

[Sliver Chocobo]

Yep, spot on. But they are not Attack Flips, hence the confusion

Pretty sure it wouldn't, because you cast the spell with a Casting Flip regardless of whether it's a or a attack spell.

The flip to cast the spell is both a casting flip and an attack flip, in the same way a strike is a strike flip and an attack flip

[Sarsnick]

The flip to cast the spell is both a casting flip and an attack flip, in the same way a strike is a strike flip and an attack flip

That is an attack flip not an "Attack Flip" which is part purely of a Strike duel (pg 42 RM). A casting involves a Casting Duel (matching or exceeding the CC) then proceeds into the Resist Duel neither Duel consisting of an "Attack Flip". Even if it has a ranged or melee icon attached to the spell, it will not be considered an "Attack Flip" (but it will be considered a "attack flip" )

Maybe have the general "attack flip" defined as something that is not easily confused with other types of flips such as "offensive flip" or "opposing flip". Or change it so anything the attacker flips is considered an Attack Flip but that would cause need of widespread rules changes.

[Ausplosions]

Any attack has an attack flip but an Attack Flip only comes from Strike actions. As in strikes with a weapon.

A spell with or still does not make an Attack Flip. it is still a casting flip...

[Ratty]

Best not to think of anything as an attack flip with small a and f. If you attack someone you have a flip and you're the attacker. If it's a Strike it's an Attack Flip, if it's a Spell it's a Casting Flip.

[Ausplosions]

Best not to think of anything as an attack flip with small a and f. If you attack someone you have a flip and you're the attacker. If it's a Strike it's an Attack Flip, if it's a Spell it's a Casting Flip.

Understood.

But in the case of Zoraidas card, why is Channeled mentioned? As you are unable to Channel for a Attack Flip. It creates much confusion.

So essentially Zoraida, when the target of a Strike, gives a but when the target of spells, etc she does not...

Perhaps a model clarification is needed?

[Ratty]

I will get that looked into. The v2 card definitely says Attack Flips but the original book has them lower case.

I'll get back to you. But for the moment. Consider it Attack Flips and ignore the Channeling bit.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Ratty

[baskinders]

I will get that looked into. The v2 card definitely says Attack Flips but the original book has them lower case.

I'll get back to you. But for the moment. Consider is Attack Flips and ignore the Channeling bit.

Sweet, thanks for that Ratty

[Ausplosions]

Except that spells with the icon follow the targeting rules for a ranged attack, as well as being affected by modifiers that would apply to a ranged attack. (pg 51 rules manual)

---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------

So yeah, the rules for cover only specify that an Attack Flip is modified, but the rules for ":ranged" ranged spells specify that they suffer the same modifiers even though its not an "Attack Flip".

So Mach 5 brought this up in the LOS and Cover thread...

So ranged attack spells are in fact treated as a ranged strike? Would that not be the same for melee spells? And does that mean that Attack Flips do not just get generated by weapons as stated in the FAQ.

[Mach_5]

Zoraida "Proper Manners: If an enemy model targets this model with an attack that is not Focused or Channeled, that Attack Flip receives :-fate"

Pg 51, Magic, "(Rg) Spell Range: ...Spells with a or icon in their Rg are melee and ranged attack Spells respectively and follow the targeting rules for those types of attacks. Modifiers that affect melee or ranged attacks affect these Spells as well."

As I see it, Proper Manners imposes a modifier to strikes (melee/ranged attacks) because of Attack Flip. Since its a modifier that affects melee and ranged attacks, it's fair to say the modifier also applies to melee and ranged attack Spells. This would also explain the need for Proper Manners to specify that the modifier is only applied when the attack is not Focused or Channeled.

Similarly, cover also imposes a penalty to the Attack Flip, and as far as I'm aware the penaly also applies to ranged attack Spells.

[Alex]

I feel like this is another "Entropic Claws" type of minor oversight in templating. It seems clear to me that the intent is you get a negative flip when making an attack against her that is not channeled or focused. That's how I feel it reads to anyone without a fairly deep technical understanding of the rules, to the point that in a year of playing Malifaux, I have never heard this argument or seen anyone playing it differently, though I suppose this could be my local meta.

But it doesn't say "with a Strike"; it says "with an attack" and it does make use of "focused or channeled". These things to me communicate intent; the intent that it works on all attacks. If this is not the case, it definitely needs a rewording and I'll have to adjust my play accordingly!

If my intuitive assumption was correct though, then I suppose it ought to say Attack or Casting Flip, or whatever the technical wording should be. But at least I wouldn't have to change my play, either as or against her. So that's the one I'm rooting for!

[Dessicated]

If its an attack aimed at Zoraida, it gets a negative flip unless Focussed if a Melee or Ranged Strike or Channeled in the case of a spell, even if said spell is some sort of Strike. Not much harder than that.

[Ausplosions]

If its an attack aimed at Zoraida, it gets a negative flip unless Focussed if a Melee or Ranged Strike or Channeled in the case of a spell, even if said spell is some sort of Strike. Not much harder than that.

Except that the Ability states it gives a to Attack Flips.

It has been stated that no spell generates Attack Flips. Only weapons do that...

Edited July 30, 2012 by Ausplosions

[Twisted Metal]

I really wish there was someway to make this concept less complicated. If someone isnt carefully watching these boards there is no possible way the average player will ever infer from the rules that there is a difference between an attack flip and an Attack Flip. I love this game but seriously every time this ruling comes up I just want to run my head into a wall.

[baskinders]

I really wish there was someway to make this concept less complicated. If someone isnt carefully watching these boards there is no possible way the average player will ever infer from the rules that there is a difference between an attack flip and an Attack Flip. I love this game but seriously every time this ruling comes up I just want to run my head into a wall.

I absolutely agree mate, I think this is one of the most innovative and fun rules sets out there, just needs these terminology issues tightened up and it'd be the best. I've suggested on a seperate thread that swapping Attack Flip for Combat Flip would probably solve most of it.

[Ratty]

I absolutely agree mate, I think this is one of the most innovative and fun rules sets out there, just needs these terminology issues tightened up and it'd be the best. I've suggested on a seperate thread that swapping Attack Flip for Combat Flip would probably solve most of it.

AS it is, it's actually stated implicitly in the Rules Manual what an Attack Flip is, it's even in the index. It's also in the FAQ, and been run through on the Forum.

Can you clarify what an Attack Flip or Defense Flip is?

Attack and Defense Flips are specific to Strikes

(RM p.42).

Casting and Resist Flips are specific to Spells

(RM p.52 & 53).

Morale Flips are specific to Morale Duels

(RM p.56).

Changing it would involve retroactively changing an awful lot of cards, which would cause far more issues with confusion than we currently have.

SO Attack Flips are only for Strikes, Period.

[Ausplosions]

So casting and spells at Zoraida (or any spell for that matter) does not incur the ?

[baskinders]

AS it is, it's actually stated implicitly in the Rules Manual what an Attack Flip is, it's even in the index. It's also in the FAQ, and been run through on the Forum.

Changing it would involve retroactively changing an awful lot of cards, which would cause far more issues with confusion than we currently have.

SO Attack Flips are only for Strikes, Period.

I know what you're saying Ratty, but when even the guys that write the cards confuse themselves, as in this specific case, you've got a problem mate. Completely up to you guys whether to change or not, just offering a helpful alternative.