Expensive Gift question

[Mr. Goggles]

I think I have this figured out correctly, but I want to post this here to make sure. The Performer spell Expensive Gift when successfully cast says "Target model with Use Soulstone discards one Soulstone. Gain one Soulstone."

My question is, if the other player does not have any more Soulstones, do you gain a stone? After talking to people in my local store, we have agreed that I would not gain a stone if the player is out of stones, on the logic that sentence 1 must be completed before sentence 2. The reason I ask this here though, is another interpretation can be that you do what sentence 1 says, then move on to sentence 2. In this instance, the player having no Soulstones remaining would not matter, as the second sentence would still go off.

If it was worded "Target model with Use Soulstone discards one Soulstone and you gain one Soulstone," then I wouldn't even ask this question, as that comes off as an A causes B statement. But with the fact that they are two separate sentences, I feel that an argument can be made that you can get a stone even if your opponent has none.

So in a nutshell, I think I have the mechanic correct, but I wanted to know what other people think.

[BloodDragonCC]

I have always played it as two separate sentences as well so even if sentence one has no effect sentence two still would but I could be wrong. I would also like to see what others say.

[CRC]

I'd be astounded if any of these tricks worked, because then Colette players would start taking pairs of performers and just leave them back in the DZ casting Expensive Gift on each other.

Expected result: generate 1.8 extra soulstones per turn, and that's without cheating in any cards...

[Tograth]

that wouldnt work CRC - firstly, because performers dont have use soulstone.

secondly, you would only get the soulstone if you failed the resist. if you failed the resist, then its a net gain of 0 as you first discard a SS, then gain a SS. In essence, it be pointless

with respect to the initial query though, as far as I am aware, you would gain the soulstone regardless of whether the opponent had any soulstones to discard. The only proviso is that the target model fails the resist.

[decker_cky]

that wouldnt work CRC - firstly, because performers dont have use soulstone.

secondly, you would only get the soulstone if you failed the resist. if you failed the resist, then its a net gain of 0 as you first discard a SS, then gain a SS. In essence, it be pointless

with respect to the initial query though, as far as I am aware, you would gain the soulstone regardless of whether the opponent had any soulstones to discard. The only proviso is that the target model fails the resist.

I think the point would be to run a low soulstone list, and to use the performers whenever you were out of soulstones. Wouldn't be the most effective Collette list IMO, as opponents could easily cut down Collette twice if you didn't have the right cards, and without a soulstone to heal, she'd die permanently.

[CRC]

(going by book text because I don't have my cards handy)

Target model with Use Soulstone discards one Soulstone. Gain one Soulstone

As I see there are two ways to read it. In the first card I read the second sentence as:

• "If they discarded a Soulstone, gain one Soulstone."

In the second I read:

• "Regardless, gain one Soulstone."

In case one, none one of these tricks (casting it on Colette when down to zero, using it on models without Use SS, ...) work.

In case two, it's completely broken.

Therefore, it either does, or shortly will, work according to case 1.

[Odin1981]

To me it seems simple if 1 happens do 2. But i'm not a rules lawyer type and I find it really fickle that people would really try to game the system that hard for interactions kinda like stuff like this and the example above potentially even the current alpha interaction with marcus will really stunt growth of the game and hurt it long term turning off individuals who want to play the game for fun and entertainment and not have d-bags who suck at life have to really game the system itself to suck enjoyment out of a 60-90 minute game for there opponents.

After having said this I am a competitive player that enjoys tournaments and such but stuff like this and other various interactions is just toddler worthy in the respective maturity of the player using these various things that while they might not be illegal atm, they should be and in a certain amount of time should be changed. And me personally if I were to play a person like this in a friendly/casual setting they either wouldn't ever get a game from again or they would have objects thrown at their head for acting like a little child and not a adult.

[HopelessHeretic]

I believe barring some kind of if then statement malifaux as a system is a "do as much as you can" system. Meaning that if you can't do everything in an effect you do as much of it as you can. For example if you cast a spell that gives slow and -2df but the model is already slow (can't gain slow if you already have slow) it would still get the -2df.

In all honesty I think the discard one soul stone is what stops you from casting it on your own models. I think this is a lot of crying over a spell that is only strong because of Cassandra's understudy ability.

Edited August 14, 2012 by HopelessHeretic

[Dracomax]

Relevant:

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?34081-Targeting-question-regarding-Expensive-Gift-and-Magician-s-Duel

Edit:The consensus seems to be that because it targets use soulstone models, if they don't have use soulstone, you can't use it, just as you can't use a spell that targets enemy models on a friendly model.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Dracomax

[Ozz]

Relevant:

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?34081-Targeting-question-regarding-Expensive-Gift-and-Magician-s-Duel

Edit:The consensus seems to be that because it targets use soulstone models, if they don't have use soulstone, you can't use it, just as you can't use a spell that targets enemy models on a friendly model.

That thread has a little relevance but does not answer the question of if you can get a soul stone from a model that has the ability with no stones left:)

Also this was possibly better posted in the rules forum to get potential input from a RM.

[13th Warrior]

I seem to remember, somewhere in the mists of time, a ruling that if the target didn't have soulstones left that you couldn't gain one. I'll see if I can dig out the thread, but it's going back a looooong way!

Cheers

Rob

[Seventeen]

it being called "Expensive Gift", fluff-wise the heart of the ability is the target model is giving a soulstone as a gift for the casting model to gain...

If the target model has no stone to give (thus discard and fulfill sentence/condition 1) / drop, there's no stone for the caster to gain.

[13th Warrior]

Not conclusive, but "Pull My Finger" supports the no gain view in the Performer Tips and Tricks section

Cheers

Rob

[bashamer]

...

So the wording has a dot, but it is interpreted as an "and" or "to" by some.

That is a very dangerous slope to walk down; Granted they are pretty lousy when ti comes to the wordings; for instance; December's maw on aRasputina has similar wording.

"....Enemy models within 6" and LoS of the sacreficed model must performa a WP -> 13 morale duel. this model then makes a Healing flip." does that mean that is there are no enemies you don't get to make a healing flip ?

I'll ask a rules guy to kick this to the rules forum, but with Gencon that could be a while.

[Q'iq'el]

IIRC the reason you cannot get the Soulstone when the target has none is the way the spells fail in Malifaux.

Normally description of the spell contains additional requirements+effects, which are executed in order they are written in (the order is important, actually).

Generally if you fail to meet any of the ARs or any of the Effects fails, the entire spell fails and none of the effects are applied. I'm not sure right now if you still pay the ARs or if that part of the spell description gets cancelled as well.

So when enemy model cannot discard a Soulstone, you cannot gain one because neither of the effects applies.

@bashamer And yes, in the December's Maw on aRasputina you cannot make a healing flip if there are no enemies in range (based on the quotation provided). Perhaps it is quite logical - judging by the name it's all about consuming the opponents, isn't it? And we know from the fluff Tina has knack for cannibalism.

And while there are some issues with wording here and there, the general principles are not only well thought of, but consistently applied to new rules design - this actually is Wyrd's strong side. You may be sure that if you apply the above explained principle to all the spells in the game, you will always get correct results, even if sometimes they may seem to be counter-intuitive to you (but that is subjective, isn't it?).

Edited August 14, 2012 by Q'iq'el

[bashamer]

nah, it is more of a; "Can December eat if there is noone to see it happen."

[HopelessHeretic]

Alright the closest thing I have found to a precedence (and I must admit it is a bit of a stretch) is that with surge you are not allowed to draw a card if you cannot discard a card (per the Malifaux FAQ). Surges wording is as follows with me adding the bold text. Ca (tt) After successfully casting a Spell, discard one Control Card then draw one Control Card. Here there is a clear if then statement meaning that the second effect is contingent on the first. There is no "then" in expensive gift so if they the opponent has no soul stones you can still gain one.

Edited August 14, 2012 by HopelessHeretic

[CRC]

Unfortunately, just because rule A is clearly worded, doesn't mean that rule B with different wording has a different game effect.

It might seem counter-intuitive, but those rules were written months if not years apart, at different stages of Wyrd's growth, and potentially by different people.

Edit: Also, "then" frequently implies sequencing, not always dependency.

Edited August 14, 2012 by CRC

[bashamer]

Gencon tournament ruling was that you get the stone.

This doesn't really mean a whole lot.

Also the same wording w/ period is used in the new book for the 10 thunder master.

[The Godlyness]

Did they rule it has to target a model with "use soul stone".

[bashamer]

didn't bother asking that part, sorry.

I think that one is pretty clear, the target needs to have use soul stone, similar to "target enemy model" the model must be enemy. but that is my opinion.

Edited August 21, 2012 by bashamer

[Crona452]

I believe the point of the spell is to

A) steal soul stones from enemy models

combo with collettes artificial soulstone ability to net a stone at little cost.

It makes no sense for it to target non-masters and little since to receive a soulstone from a model without them.

[HopelessHeretic]

Sorry to revive this thread after everyone has forgotten about it, but I thought of another argument as to why you should be able to cast this spell even if the enemy has no soul stones.

Let's pretend for a second that you can only target models if their controller still has soul stones left. I cast expensive gift on Lady Justice who has only one stone left and I cheat the spell nice and high. Now Lady J decides she has to soul stone in order to stop the spell from going off, but he flip is terrible and I still beat her. In this instance the spell would then do nothing cause there is no stone to steal. That doesn't seem correct to me at all.

There has been some talk in this thread about rules as written vs. rules as intended, but in this case I believe them to be the same. The two sentences signify two separate interactions.

[Q'iq'el]

Let's pretend for a second that you can only target models if their controller still has soul stones left. I cast expensive gift on Lady Justice who has only one stone left and I cheat the spell nice and high. Now Lady J decides she has to soul stone in order to stop the spell from going off, but he flip is terrible and I still beat her. In this instance the spell would then do nothing cause there is no stone to steal. That doesn't seem correct to me at all.

Why? Isn't the basic rule in Malifaux that if one effect fails, all the effects fail?

There has been some talk in this thread about rules as written vs. rules as intended, but in this case I believe them to be the same. The two sentences signify two separate interactions.

Exactly. These are two separate effects, to be precise. And as I said above, in Malifaux if one effect of a Talent or Spell fails, all the effects fail. This is counter-intuitive in some cases, but I think it always applies. If the part demanding the Soulstone be discarded fails, the part giving the Soulstone cannot succeed despite of it.

To put it differently, this isn't a cause-effect relationship between discarding the Soulstone and gaining one - merely the basic rule that all the effects must succeed or all of them fail.