Y'all watch this

[scottb]

Just to clarify, this ability allows a gremlin to do a boomstick strike as normal and then also do 2 Dg to models within 2"?

[DarcXON]

Just to clarify, this ability allows a gremlin to do a boomstick strike as normal and then also do 2 Dg to models within 2"?

God I wish, but technically no. It was rule that you cannot do the ability if any enemy model is engaging you because it counts as a range strike. So the only way to profit from this ability is if both you and the enemy model have a 1" melee range.

[Omenbringer]

God I wish, but technically no. It was rule that you cannot do the ability if any enemy model is engaging you because it counts as a range strike. So the only way to profit from this ability is if both you and the enemy model have a 1" melee range.

Have to disagree with this.

The wording on Y'all Watch This is clearly broken into 3 distinct parts. The Ranged strike that improves the damage potential of the Boomstick Strike, the second part that produces the pulse-like damage and finally the third portion which leads to the sacrificing of the Bayou Gremlin.

Each portion is a distinct independent step and each is ended with a period not a comma. Not being able to perform the Boomstick strike with enhanced damage potential because you are in melee doesn't stop the next two steps from occuring once the strike has been resolved (or in this case determined to not be legal due to being within melee range of an opponents model).

I asked Keltheos and Goblyn13 about this exact interaction this year at GenCon to confirm this and was told the same thing.

Hopefully one of them will chime in and confirm it here in black and white.

[Q'iq'el]

Omenbringer, isn't the basic rule that if one effect of the Talent/Spell fails, all of them fail, commas or not?

Technically the second effect isn't a pulse either, but I think it doesn't need to cause damage to succeed. It just goes off. It actually is a bit better than a Pulse, because it will damage through walls into enclosed spaces, where a pulse would need to fulfill its special LoS requirements to get in.

So if the enemy is far away and the Gremlin is not engaged in melee, then the extra damage applies and the pulse goes off without damaging anything (or damaging these models with 1" melee range, that are within 2" but can't keep the Gremlin engaged).

But if the Gremlin is engaged in melee, then it cannot make the Boomstick Strike, so the effect fails and the entire Action subsequently fails.

Actually it seems to me, first and foremost, to be an effect designed to damage friendly models. They are more likely to be within 2" without engaging the Gremlin in melee.

The last time I remember it being discussed in context of Actions was when Marshals confirmed one cannot use Dance Apart or Dance Together to destroy enemy Coryphées (when under enemy control). The argument was that since you cannot summon with enemy model you control and that effect of the action must inevitably fail, the effect requiring you to sacrifice the models on the table fails too.

[Omenbringer]

Omenbringer' date=' isn't the basic rule that if one effect of the Talent/Spell fails, all of them fail, commas or not?[/quote']

Not always.

Why I said "pulse-like and not . Definately agree that it is much better than a normal pulse effect.

This is a very narrow and expensive ability if that is the case.

Definately likely to hit several of your own models as well, however there are ways of limiting colateral damage.

That is a very different interaction as it would involve the sacrifice of both your coryphee and your opponents coryphee (which you dont control) for the action to succeed and progress where as Y'all Watch This doesn't (the Sacrifice being the final result of the whole chain of events).

As I said though, hopefully a Rules Marshal will meander in and finalize this one (one way or the other) as it has lurked in the shadows for a long while.

[Q'iq'el]

That is a very different interaction as it would involve the sacrifice of both your coryphee and your opponents coryphee (which you dont control) for the action to succeed and progress where as Y'all Watch This doesn't (the Sacrifice being the final result of the whole chain of events).

Actually it isn't two models when you try to Dance Apart the Duet. I think the situation is exactly identical - you have an Action (check), with two separate effects (check) of which one effect has to fail (Boomstick strike if the model is in melee, Sacrifice when the enemy controller tries to execute the action) and the other, seemingly unrelated effect (separated by comma) has to fail too.

I don't think ability is narrow. It is intended to shoot opponents at range, with ranged weapon. It boosts the damage for the increased AP cost, which is reasonable. The drawback is it will damage your models if you cramp them together. Pretty normal design.

If anything you can situationally use the drawback to your advantage (if enemy gets close enough but doesn't engage in melee), but this definitely doesn't seem to be main purpose of the ability.

As to whether the rule that one effect failling means all effects fail applies broadly or not, I think it does apply to all Talents and Spells. Too bad it isn't clearly spelled in the Rules Manual, but this is my impression from the past rulings.

Where it doesn't apply is Additional Requirements - these must be met for other effects to apply, but are executed even if the effects fail. But ARs are either marked as such or come first in the Spell description, so they are easy to tell apart. We are definitely not dealing with an AR here, so I'd say the situation is pretty clear - the Action fails entirely when engaged in melee.

[Omenbringer]

Actually it isn't two models when you try to Dance Apart the Duet. I think the situation is exactly identical - you have an Action (check)' date=' with two separate effects (check) of which one effect has to fail (Boomstick strike if the model is in melee, Sacrifice when the enemy controller tries to execute the action) and the other, seemingly unrelated effect (separated by comma) has to fail too.[/quote']

Nothing in Y'all Watch This is seperated by a comma where as the first portion of Dance Together does. The comma in the first part of Dance Together is the important difference as it requires the sacrifice of 2 Coryphee's not just one for everything to function.

Except it also requires the sacrifice of the Bayou Gremlin for that 1 "enhanced" damage potential ranged strike with a pretty low chance of success (below average CB and no ability to Use Soulstones) and the possibility of damaging friendly models.

We'll have to just disagree until a Rules Marshal weighs in (here as opposed to what was told to me verbally at GenCon).

[DarcXON]

Have to disagree with this.

The wording on Y'all Watch This is clearly broken into 3 distinct parts. The Ranged strike that improves the damage potential of the Boomstick Strike, the second part that produces the pulse-like damage and finally the third portion which leads to the sacrificing of the Bayou Gremlin.

Each portion is a distinct independent step and each is ended with a period not a comma. Not being able to perform the Boomstick strike with enhanced damage potential because you are in melee doesn't stop the next two steps from occuring once the strike has been resolved (or in this case determined to not be legal due to being within melee range of an opponents model).

I asked Keltheos and Goblyn13 about this exact interaction this year at GenCon to confirm this and was told the same thing.

Hopefully one of them will chime in and confirm it here in black and white.

I hope you are right, if they mentioned a new ruling overriding the last one would make this an efficient option for Gremlins. Its the same thing with the Entropic Transformation spell for Leveticus though. According to the FAQ if part of the action can't be use, then none of the action can be used.

I wish this wasn't so as it would open up a lot cleaner rulings.

[Omenbringer]

The only portion of the FAQ I saw that might pertain to this is in the General section asking about

Q: What happens when a model attempts something that it couldn’t do, like cast a Spell to create an additional Rare model when my Crew’s maximum number of that model are in play, or casts a borrowed Spell that requires a Weapon/Ability my model doesn’t have?

A: You cannot attempt the Action. If the Action would not work, reset back to before the Action began. If an event would require the model to enter play (such as a Pine Boxed third Viktoria coming into play when a Death Marshal is removed from play) the model does not enter play.

and the one in the Targeting section which asks:

Q: If I have a model in combat can I cast a Spell on someone out side of combat?

A: Spells without the or icons can target models outside of the combat. If they have the icon they can't be used while engaged in combat.

Neither of these really address Y'all Watch This though since the action itself doesn't have the icon so isn't illegal when engaged in melee. It is a similar interaction to the Judges Blades and Bullets spell which allows a Long Arm strike and a Long Arm Pistol strike to be performed against a single target within range of the spell.

Keep in mind I dont particularly care one way or another how this ends up being ruled but am going off of what I was told when I had the chance to ask in person (and how it makes sense to me).

[DarcXON]

This is the original ruling on it. Back when Sketch was a Rules Marshall

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?24577-Y-all-Watch-This&highlight=Y%27all+watch

So this is why I answered the way I did, since there hasn't been an official overruling (at least one that I have seen)

So if you can get Ratty here, BAM! Instant favorite person....for the next 5 minutes

[Q'iq'el]

Omenbringer, first this is an action, not a spell, so the second FAQ action doesn't apply.

Secondly you still generate a ranged strike with this Action and you cannot do a ranged strike if you are engaged in melee.

If there was an intention to make it useable wit melee, they'd call it different and wouldn't use the strike mechanic. They could have called it Cb->Df opposed duel and apply the damage accordingly if the opponent loses the duel.

[Omenbringer]

This is the original ruling on it. Back when Sketch was a Rules Marshall

http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?24577-Y-all-Watch-This&highlight=Y%27all+watch

So this is why I answered the way I did, since there hasn't been an official overruling (at least one that I have seen)

So if you can get Ratty here, BAM! Instant favorite person....for the next 5 minutes

I recall that thread and re-reading it is still confusing. There are a few inconsistencies in the rulings which never really get explained (as to why it works one way here and another there).

Omenbringer' date=' first this is an action, not a spell, so the second FAQ action doesn't apply.[/quote']

I included the second faq item as it is similar enough to the topic at hand (I know it is not a spell).

Then explain the Judge's Blades and Bullets spell which generates a and strikes that ignore the normal rules (allowing a strikes while in melee despite not clearly specifying it is allowed). General rules can be trumped by specific rules.

They could have written more than a few of the older models actions, spells and talents more clearly, however this one is written exactly the same in the old book and the new revised one.

As I said having talked with Keltheos and Goblyn13 the intention was to have it work while engaged in melee.

[DarcXON]

As I said having talked with Keltheos and Goblyn13 the intention was to have it work while engaged in melee.

I read that part, but we need them to actually write it in to make it official >.<

[Omenbringer]

I read that part, but we need them to actually write it in to make it official >.<

Definately agree.

[Q'iq'el]

I included the second faq item as it is similar enough to the topic at hand (I know it is not a spell).

IMO there's no similarity. Spells are completely different animal and they have different limitations.

As I said having talked with Keltheos and Goblyn13 the intention was to have it work while engaged in melee.

Can't check the precise wording of the Judge's spell right now, so I leave it for later. It being a Spell rater than an Action may have a lot to do with it.

The problem I have with your approach is it seems very arbitrary. If Y'All... uses Strike mechanics as is, then Strike mechanics introduce certain limitations Actions normally don't have. The most significant are the requirement to have LoS to the target and the requirement to be out of melee in the Ranged Strike case.

I don't see any conflict of the rules here, because General rules apply unless specififc rules change it. General rules in this case are rules for Actions, since we deal with an action. A Strike is not only a type of action (i.e. more specific rule), but it is quoted by this specific rule, so IMO the requirements and limitations of the Strike rule become the specific ones here.

The other approach means general rules for Actions override the Strike requirements. In that case you not only can use it in melee, but you also don't need LOS to the target.

Do you think Gremlins should be able to do this without LoS?

[DarcXON]

Do you think Gremlins should be able to do this without LoS?

Yes, this and then some more.

[Sarsnick]

Omenbringer, first this is an action, not a spell, so the second FAQ action doesn't apply.

Secondly you still generate a ranged strike with this Action and you cannot do a ranged strike if you are engaged in melee.

If there was an intention to make it useable wit melee, they'd call it different and wouldn't use the strike mechanic. They could have called it Cb->Df opposed duel and apply the damage accordingly if the opponent loses the duel.

If they wanted the Strike to happen in melee they would phrase it like the Specialist's Detonate Tanks (perform a Strike within X")

[Sybaris]

I would think that Q'iq'el's interpretation is the most practical and simple to explain atm.

If the Ranged Strike (boomstick) can't happen...the rest of the action cannot occur.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Sybaris

[Omenbringer]

I would asusme that the Rules Marshals are busy in the back room discussing this (and several other things I'd imagine).

It is pretty obvious Q'iq'el that neither of us are going to change our minds on the interpetation so I'll resign myself to just waiting for an "official ruling" (one way or the other, as I said it doesn't really matter to me).

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

If the Ranged Strike (boomstick) can't happen...the rest of the action cannot occur.

If it was punctuated with a comma I would agree but it isn't.

[Q'iq'el]

It is pretty obvious Q'iq'el that neither of us are going to change our minds on the interpetation so I'll resign myself to just waiting for an "official ruling" (one way or the other, as I said it doesn't really matter to me).

I don't mind it ruled either way, actually. I'm just surprised there is an argument for what essentially sounds like a shot with an overloaded firearm (exploding in the face at the same time) to be possible without LoS (through the walls etc.) and in melee (which is more of a game mechanic thing, but still).

I'd also like to see a detailed explanation for the ruling. This would have consequences in other places where an Action refers to Strike mechanics (mostly because it will remove LoS requirements in every such case, if it is ruled that Action rules automatically override Strike requirements).

---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

Also to foresee some possible and nasty rules-lawyering... I'd expect that Focus and Channel, being General Combat Action and General Magic Action, are still governed by all the same rules and limits as the Strike and Cast actions and won't remove LoS requirement, even if other Actions can.

(These are Actions and they refer to Strike/Cast mechanics, so if there was a general ruling that Actions override Strike/Cast requirements of LoS/not in melee etc. some people would probably argue it applies to these too).

[Omenbringer]

I am unsure where the ignoring LOS assumption is coming from, I am not suggesting that the Boomstick Strike ignores anything (It's the Judge's Blades and Bullets spell that would allow the strike against the same target that was targetted by the strike).

I am however suggesting that it doesn't matter if the strike granted by Y'all Watch This can't be made as far as the progression of steps goes (2 Damage pulse-like effect and Sacrifice).

[Q'iq'el]

I am unsure where the ignoring LOS assumption is coming from, I am not suggesting that the Boomstick Strike ignores anything (It's the Judge's Blades and Bullets spell that would allow the strike against the same target that was targetted by the strike).

What you argue implies it.

Actions -> don't need LoS unless specifically stated. Can be used in melee.

Strikes -> General Combat Actions specifically defined to need LoS, Range and if Ranged, can't be used in melee.

You are arguing that because Boomstick Strike is referenced by an Action and the Action's rules override Strike rules (as it effectively is a different Action now), the requirement for LoS, Range and not being in melee do no longer apply. Note, that the action, IIRC, sets its own Range limit anyway (edit: it doesn't do it directly, but it is a Boomstick Strike and the Boomstick has the range defined).

Therefore, if you are right, the LoS is not needed for the Strike, because it is eliminated in the same process which would eliminate need to be out of melee.

The reason why I keep saying not to mix Blades and Bullets into it is that it is a Spell. A Spell, unlike a Strike, is governed by Magic rules and Cast is a General Magic Action rather than General Combat Action.

When you cast Blades and Bullets you execute a bog standard Cast action, you acquire and check legality of the target according to the Cast Duel sequence and there is no problem with effect of the spell being a Strike or something else, because the Duel is over at that point and there is no target legality check to do (the Strikes inherit the Cast Action's targets and don't check their legality anymore. It's still arguable melee restrictions should apply to Long Arm Pistol Strike here, but perhaps these checks get bypassed too. I'd like to see Wyrd's official timing table for that.

When you use Y'All... Action you perform this Action and then it tells you to make a Strike so you perform the entire Duel according to the Strike Duel sequence. Its Target Legality check and melee requirements are not bypassed (AFAIK) by Cast action as it is in case of Blades and Bullets

In other words, the difference is in timing at which the checks occur. You hang up to the wording, but first the Actions and the Spells are ruled by different sections of General rules (an Action executing a General Combat Action vs. General Magic Action referencing a General Combat Action as an effect) and secondly, which is far more important here, at different timing:

Blades and Bullets executes a Strike as an effect after the Duel has already succeeded the target is determined legal and melee restrictions apply or not apply (not sure here).

Y'all Watch This orders you to do a regular Strike Duel so all the checks happen with no modification.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Q'iq'el

[Omenbringer]

I would say that is quite a stretch in logic.

It is clear that Y'all Watch This is not a action so can be done while engaged in melee (it also isn't a action, it is only an action).

It does cause a ranged action to occur as a step in resolving the action (just like Blades and Bullets which specifies that you resolve two seperate strikes against the same target, one melee and one ranged).

The fact that the strike can't be made while engaged following the normal rules (or even if it can be due to the action saying it is performed) doesn't really matter in the final resolution, as the legal action has already started and would have to be completed (you cant really reset back).

Now if it is ruled that the Boomstick Strike may be made while engaged if performing it via Y'all Watch This (which is a seperate issue not really related to the original posting) I would be a bit surprised.

[Q'iq'el]

I understand that line of thinking perfectly. What I'm saying is this line of thinking implies there is no LoS requirement.

Just like Actions can be performed in melee, Actions can target without LoS. Colette's Illusionist is one example of an Action where it gets used all the time. In other words if you say the Action has already been executed when engaged in melee, so the Strike happens even though normally it wouldn't... then you also say the Action has already acquired a legal Target and can target models out of LoS, even though Strike wouldn't normally allow for that.

Or is that somehow different?

Blades and Bullets are different in this aspect, because they inherit Cast's target and Magic Actions need LoS always, unlike Actions.

[Omenbringer]

Y'all Watch This doesn't target anything though, it simply begins a sequence of independent events. One of which happens to be a ranged strike (that should follow the normal rules and fail if engaged in melee). Additionally, I find the omission of commas in the description rather telling, as most abilities that are causal have them.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Omenbringer