Opposed Willpower Duels

[GrAYFoX]

Rather than keep off-topic, I was hoping to continue the discussion around Opposed Willpower Duels (sparked off by Tanner's Pitiful ability) in this thread within the appropriate forum.

As suggested in that thread, using the check-list for what constitutes an attack it was clearer to see which Opposed Willpower Duels (Wp->Wp) counted as attacks and which did not.

For those that didn't (Pitiful and Expose Fears) the language was similarly worded in contrast to something like Pandora's Incite/Pacify which has things like "If the target model loses" etc.

I think I have a solid understanding of how it works now, but one ability seems to skirt between the two cases. The Onryo's Haunt ability doesn't count as an attack as per the definition on RM, pg18 but it has language like "target model" and "if the target model loses." Add that you can select any model within 6" to receive the effects and it reads like an attack.

My question is, is this ability a weird exception or is it just like Pitiful where there is no defender? Sorry for the heap of text and feel free to throw up other examples for discussion

Edited August 11, 2012 by GrAYFoX
Clarification

[Grifonetto]

Malifaux 1.5, p. 29, under Resolving an Opposed Duel: "When in doubt, remember that any time targeting is mentioned, the target is automatically the defender".

[Ratty]

Not in this case though, as Haunt says.. target model performs a Wp->Wp duel. So it would be the target performing the duel, and trying to beat the Onryo's Wp (and therefore the model targeted by Haunt that would win in a draw.)

[GrAYFoX]

Ah...I see it now, thanks Ratty. Cool ability.

[Hateful Darkblack]

How does this interact with existing models with Pitiful? I mean, does Kirai's Twisted Mind come into effect for Pitiful duels?

I'm guessing the answer is "We need to get back to you on this." And that's a good answer as far as I'm concerned.

[Scurry]

twisted mind states "after this model wins an opposed willpower duel, opposing model suffers 2 wds" so i would assume so since there is no mention of attacker/defender and pitiful is still an opposed duel

[011121]

Posted over from the teaser thread:

That's great, but it doesn't resolve the much more fundamental question brought up by the previously quoted section of the rules:

Sorry to keep going here:

According to page 42:

Attacks are Attacker vs Defender.

According to page 28:

Opposed Duels are Acting Model vs Defending Model.

Does this mean that a Defending Model doesn't qualify as a "defender"?

Is this one of those Range vs Rg things?

According to that, defensive abilities (stubborn, immune to influence, etc) should operate in ANY opposed duel. But Ratty was saying that there is no defender/attacker so they don't. That's a fundamental rules conflict we really need addressed because it affects a much larger number of models than just Tannen (like almost every construct and the freikorps and lots more).

[Ratty]

Posted over from the teaser thread:

That's great, but it doesn't resolve the much more fundamental question brought up by the previously quoted section of the rules:

According to that, defensive abilities (stubborn, immune to influence, etc) should operate in ANY opposed duel. But Ratty was saying that there is no defender/attacker so they don't. That's a fundamental rules conflict we really need addressed because it affects a much larger number of models than just Tannen (like almost every construct and the freikorps and lots more).

It not as wide spread as you make out, it would only affect models that have both a when defender ability like Stubborn, I2I and a second ability that comes into play when the model is targeted and creates a opposed duel like Pitiful. I don't think there are more than a couple of models in the game which have both of these criteria. The only one that come to mind are at the moment is Tannen

For the moment play it that Tannen's Pitiful works as normal even when he has I2I up

If there are any more cases of this conflict tell me and I will make a temporary ruling until we get a full in depth explanation of how it's meant works for all of you.

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

In the case of Twisted Mind the wording on the ability just says the model wins a Duel with the Wp stat, so whether defender or not wouldn't matter.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Ratty

[The Godlyness]

Immune to influence models can still be terrifyed. And still check for harmless. As they are the attacker. Stubborn has no effect on terrifying or harmless

I thought kirai's twisted mind said wins a wp duel. Did not know it had to be opposed.

(pandora's project emotion on a seishin hitting kirai. Seishin failling, kirai passing with trigger me eating 2 wounds.)

[Ratty]

Immune to influence models can still be terrifyed. And still check for harmless. As they are the attacker. Stubborn has no effect on terrifying or harmless

I thought kirai's twisted mind said wins a wp duel. Did not know it had to be opposed.

(pandora's project emotion on a seishin hitting kirai. Seishin failling, kirai passing with trigger me eating 2 wounds.)

Your right it doesn't matter whether it's opposed or not, it's just wins a duel.

[The Godlyness]

Damn you had my hopes up of not eating damage when using pandoras spell lol

[Ratty]

Damn you had my hopes up of not eating damage when using pandoras spell lol

Yeah I only said Opposed as we were discussing Opposed Willpower Duels.

[011121]

Okay so here's a few examples:

Dreamer uses inflict dreams which gives a target model a - flip for Wp, Df, and Ca when defending against nightmares. Now any opposed duel caused by a nightmare will run into the issue; An Alp using Yawning, a Stitched using gambler or gamble your life, an Insidious madness' hysteria or psychosis, and so on. Similarly daydreams have disturbing whispers which give non-masters -1Wp when defending a duel. Same thing.

It seems like a fundamental problem more than a single model issue, we have to know whether an opposed duel always has a defender or not. And if not, when does it not.

[Ratty]

Okay so here's a few examples:

Dreamer uses inflict dreams which gives a target model a - flip for Wp, Df, and Ca when defending against nightmares. Now any opposed duel caused by a nightmare will run into the issue; An Alp using Yawning, a Stitched using gambler or gamble your life, an Insidious madness' hysteria or psychosis, and so on. Similarly daydreams have disturbing whispers which give non-masters -1Wp when defending a duel. Same thing.

It seems like a fundamental problem more than a single model issue, we have to know whether an opposed duel always has a defender or not. And if not, when does it not.

Not at all, I think you have misunderstood my original statement.

a)

Yawning

is an Action that is opposed, therefore an Attack, therefore the model targeted would be the Defender

Gambler

and

Gamble your Life

are both Actions that are opposed and therefore Attacks, and therefore targeted model would be the Defender.

c)

Hysteris

and

Psychosis

the model affected is performing the duel, so you would never have got I2I or Stubborn against them as even if these abilities were an Attack (which they are not) the model affected would not have been the defender. For exactly the same reason that you wouldn't get them for Terrifying.

Originally I said that there is a Defender whenever the opposed duel counts as an Attack. Which is in almost every situation that is not a reactive defensive ability like Pitiful. Now we will be discussing this and getting a clear Clarification up. It obvious that not everyone can work out which model is performing a duel. But for the moment it comes up very very rarely, and what we have said should allow you to play. I understand that it might be possible to read the book in two different ways and we will make sure it is cleaned up for you.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Ratty

[011121]

Okay but doesn't your case c directly contradict the book on page 42 (quoted above) which seems to indicate that ANY opposed duel has at least a defender (and reasonably if there is a defender there's an attacker). That's what I've been asking about. You seem to be saying you can have an opposed duel with no defender, the book seems to be saying the opposite.

[Ratty]

Okay but doesn't your case c directly contradict the book on page 42 (quoted above) which seems to indicate that ANY opposed duel has at least a defender (and reasonably if there is a defender there's an attacker). That's what I've been asking about. You seem to be saying you can have an opposed duel with no defender, the book seems to be saying the opposite.

p42 is Strike Duels.. all Strike duels are Attacks, by definition, and I have said if there is an Attack there is a Defender. Your "Attacks are Attacker vs Defender." is exactly what I've been saying. Where on p42 does it say "Non-Attacks are Attacker vs Defender"?

Edited August 11, 2012 by Ratty

[011121]

So what exactly makes a strike duel a strike duel and not simply a duel. How do we tell the difference?

[Ratty]

A Strike is made with a Weapon.

[Ausplosions]

lol.

[baskinders]

Not at all, I think you have misunderstood my original statement.

a)

Yawning

is an Action that is opposed, therefore an Attack, therefore the model targeted would be the Defender

Gambler

and

Gamble your Life

are both Actions that are opposed and therefore Attacks, and therefore targeted model would be the Defender.

c)

Hysteris

and

Psychosis

the model affected is performing the duel, so you would never have got I2I or Stubborn against them as even if these abilities were an Attack (which they are not) the model affected would not have been the defender. For exactly the same reason that you wouldn't get them for Terrifying.

Originally I said that there is a Defender whenever the opposed duel counts as an Attack. Which is in almost every situation that is not a reactive defensive ability like Pitiful. Now we will be discussing this and getting a clear Clarification up. It obvious that not everyone can work out which model is performing a duel. But for the moment it comes up very very rarely, and what we have said should allow you to play. I understand that it might be possible to read the book in two different ways and we will make sure it is cleaned up for you.

Sorry Ratty, just for clarity, when you say "Attack" above, do you mean "attack"?

[Ratty]

Yep.