Immune to Influence, Opposed Duels and Resist Duels

[Allandrel]

Hi! New to Malifaux, and after going over the FAQs and discussion here there are a few things I'm still not clear on:

Immune to Influence states "This model is immune to Wp Duels when it is the defender."

From my reading of the rules, it appears that a model is only the "defender" in a duel when it is being acted on in an opposed duel - such as the Attack Duel from Candy's Wail.

So Immune to Influence would not grant immunity to any simple Wp Duels that the ItI model would be called on to make, such as those required by Terrifying (a simple duel against the Terrifying value) or using Wp for a Resist Duel (a simple duel against the caster's Casting Total from the simple Casting Duel).

But here and elsewhere, I've seen people refer to ItI models as immune to any spell that uses Wp as the Resist stat, while still not immune to other effects that require them to make a simple Wp Duel (again, like Terrifying).

Is this correct? It does not make any sense given how ItI and the rules for Duels are written.

[Boshea]

Spells with a Resist are attacks, so you're considered the defender when resisting a spell.

[Allandrel]

Spells with a Resist are attacks, so you're considered the defender when resisting a spell.

Okay, so when ItI says "defender" it means defender in the general sense of "subject to an attack" rather than "Defender" as outlined in the rules for Duels on pp. 28-29 of Malifaux 1.5. Correct?

[Kadeton]

I don't have the rulebook to hand, but I think that Resist Duels are specifically called out as having a Defender in the pp. 28-29 sense.

Regardless, Immune to Influence works against spells, but not other simple duels like Terrifying.

[BuckarooBanzai]

I noticed that the "defender" references on pp28-29 are for opposed duels (player stat -> player stat) not simple duels (player stat -> target number).

The question truly is: Is there a defender in a simple duel?

If so then immune to influence makes them untouchable by any willpower based attacks or abilities.

[Ausplosions]

I noticed that the "defender" references on pp28-29 are for opposed duels (player stat -> player stat) not simple duels (player stat -> target number).

The question truly is: Is there a defender in a simple duel?

If so then immune to influence makes them untouchable by any willpower based attacks or abilities.

No, there are no defenders in a simple duel. How have you been explaining it in your demo games?

[BuckarooBanzai]

I understand the difference.

It was said that if a spell targets something that model is a defender. However a resist is a simple duel that is resolved using the casting total.

So immune to influence would not work against a spell it would seem.

[Cunning]

Yes but a resist duel has a defender. I'm not sure it specifically says this in the RM but it has been mentioned by marshalls in the past that this is the case. I've not got 1.5 but hopefully it does say it specifically in there.

For a bit more further indication this is the case. In a normal simple duel you only have to reach the target number. In a resist duel you have to beat it.

[BuckarooBanzai]

I am fine with resist duels having a defender, really. But in the RM the resisting model is refered to as the "resisting model" never as a defender. So, just looking for a clarification.

[Cunning]

I'll see if I can dig out a marshall ruling on it.

EDIT: Here you go: http://www.wyrd-games.net/showthread.php?30367-Sue-amp-Opposed-Duels&p=387690&viewfull=1#post387690

Sketch was a Rules Marshall at the time.

Edited November 13, 2012 by CunningStunt

[Csonti]

Actually the term defender is pretty clearly defined in the RM: under Attacks on page 18. There you can find the reference to Resist Duels.

[Allandrel]

A few thoughts and some follow-up questions:

A model is considered the defender whenever an attack is being resolved against it, with "attack" defined on Malifaux 1.5, page 21, which includes anything requiring an Opposed Duel or a Resist Duel.

1) So does Immune to Influence (and Stubborn, for that matter) also apply to other simple Wp Duels that the defender in an attack might be forced to make?

e.g., Madame Sybelle's Shriek spell ("If the target is a living model it must perform a Wp>11 Morale Duel after suffering damage."), or Hamelin the Plagued's Haunting Melody Trigger ("After resolving this Weapon's Damage Flip, the defender model must win a Wp>this model's combat total or gain Insignificant until the end of the Encounter.")

2) Regarding Immune to Influence vs. Stubborn, does Pandora's The Box Opens remove Immune to Influence (which provides immunity to Wp duels), but not Stubborn (which just provides a bonus)?

[FearLord]

1) Models aren't defending during those simple duels - they are initiating the duel, because it is their stat -> the target number, so 'stubborn' and 'immune to influence' would not help. Resist duels are a specific type of simple duel, that makes them a defense.

2) Correct - 'The Box Opens' only removes immunities to Wp duels, not bonuses...

[Allandrel]

I'm confused again. It seems like "defender" has two different meanings in Malifaux:

A) Rules for attacks: Malifaux 1.5 p. 21: "The defender of an attack is either the direct target when a target is required, or any models potentially affected by the attack." (emphasis original)

Under this definition, it appears that the defender in the attack would be the defender in any duels that occur during the attack, including Resist Duels and other Simple Duels.

Duels: Resolving an Opposed Duel, Malifaux 1.5 p. 29 Note: The model responding to the action is referred to as the target model, defending model, or defender." (emphasis original)

The rules for Resist Duels (p. 48) refer to the model making the resist duel as the "resisting model." Nowhere do the rules refer to the resisting model as the defender as they do for Opposed Duels.

I can't find anything in the rules, Errata, or FAQs indicating that a model being attacked is considered the defender for one type of Simple Duel required by the attack (Resist Duels), but not for others (Shriek, Haunting Melody, etc.).

Edited November 15, 2012 by Allandrel
Corrected a page reference.

[notmikehill]

I'm confused again. It seems like "defender" has two different meanings in Malifaux:

A) Rules for attacks: Malifaux 1.5 p. 19: "The defender of an attack is either the direct target when a target is required, or any models potentially affected by the attack." (emphasis original)

Under this definition, it appears that the defender in the attack would be the defender in any duels that occur during the attack, including Resist Duels and other Simple Duels.

Duels: Resolving an Opposed Duel, Malifaux 1.5 p. 29 Note: The model responding to the action is referred to as the target model, defending model, or defender." (emphasis original)

The rules for Resist Duels (p. 48) refer to the model making the resist duel as the "resisting model." Nowhere do the rules refer to the resisting model as the defender as they do for Opposed Duels.

I can't find anything in the rules, Errata, or FAQs indicating that a model being attacked is considered the defender for one type of Simple Duel required by the attack (Resist Duels), but not for others (Shriek, Haunting Melody, etc.).

It appears you've answered your own in this post. Defenders can be either a TARGET model, DEFENDING model, or a DEFENDER. Immune to influence only prevents effects when you're the TARGET of an ability. If you're DEFENDING (Such as a terrifying check) you would still follow through with that. Where as stubborn would help when DEFENDING.

so to sum it up:

Immune to influence- When you're a TARGET model

Stubborn- When you're a DEFENDING model.

[Allandrel]

It appears you've answered your own in this post. Defenders can be either a TARGET model, DEFENDING model, or a DEFENDER. Immune to influence only prevents effects when you're the TARGET of an ability. If you're DEFENDING (Such as a terrifying check) you would still follow through with that. Where as stubborn would help when DEFENDING.

so to sum it up:

Immune to influence- When you're a TARGET model

Stubborn- When you're a DEFENDING model.

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning at all.

There's no reason why Immune to Influence and Stubborn would differ in which situations they normally apply in:

Immune to Influence: This model is immune to Wp Duels when it is the defender.

Stubborn: This model receives +2 Wp in Duels where it is the defender.

And Terrifying is not an attack, nor does it require a Resist Duel, so the model making the Morale Duel is not a defender, so neither ability would apply to that duel.

Furthermore, a model does not have to be the target of an attack to be the defender, as "defender" includes "any models potentially affected by the attack." So models affected by a pulse attack are defenders when resolving the attack, even though a pulse does not target.

Opposed Duels specifically refer to the model being acted on as the "defender," so ItI and Stubborn obviously apply IF the ItI/Stubborn model is being acted on in an opposed duel. That's quite clear.

What I'm trying to understand is why ItI and Stubborn apparently apply to Resist Duels, but NOT to other Simple Duels forced by attacks.

I'll use Hamelin the Plagued's Understand the Soulless and Haunting Melody to illustrate this:

A) Understand the Soulless: The affected model is the defender against the Understand the Soulless attack. The effect forces a Wp Resist Duel, a Simple Wp Duel.

Haunting Melody: The affected model is the defender against the Pipes attack. The effect forces a Wp>attacker's combat total, a Simple Wp Duel.

The rules for Resist Duels refer to the affected model as the Resisting Model, NOT as the defender (as in an Opposed Duel). There is no equivalence for "resisting" and "defending" mentioned.

My understanding is that ItI/Stubborn apply to the Resist Duel because the affected model is the defender in the attack being resolved, and thus is treated as the defender throughout the attack, even though Simple Duels do not normally have a defender.

The same principle would logically apply to any other Simple Duel forced by an attack.

So why do ItI/Stubborn apply to the Simple Wp Duel forced by Understand the Soulless, but not the Simple Wp Duel forced by Haunting Melody? I cannot find ANY rule singling out Resist Duels in this fashion.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Allandrel

[Turbodog]

There's no reason why Immune to Influence and Stubborn would differ in which situations they normally apply in:

Immune to Influence: This model is immune to Wp Duels when it is the defender.

Stubborn: This model receives +2 Wp in Duels where it is the defender.

You are correct. They both apply in exactly the same situations.

And Terrifying is not an attack, nor does it require a Resist Duel, so the model making the Morale Duel is not a defender, so neither ability would apply to that duel.

True statement also. Skipping ahead...

What I'm trying to understand is why ItI and Stubborn apparently apply to Resist Duels, but NOT to other Simple Duels forced by attacks.

It's because even though the rules manual says there are two kinds of duels - simple and opposed - there are really three. Simple, Opposed, and Magic (my term). When targeted magic is happening, several special circumstances come into play that only apply in this case. For example, the casting flip actually sets the resist duels target number. Usually in a simple due, the target number is fixed. Usually if your opponent has some say about the target number, it is an opposed duel. But it's of course very different because the casting and resist flips are not made simultaneously. None of this is earthshattering news...but it gives background as to why you need to consider it a different situation only for resisted magic. I would have preferred if the Wyrd actually called out these three types of duels (instead of just two) but I understand they wanted to try to keep things simpler.

So since magic resist duels already have several special rules - they have a variable target number, you lose on a tie... Just consider this one more special exception they have: Everytime you make a magic resist duel, you are considered the defender and any pertinent abilities apply - like Stubborn (if it's a Wp resist duel).

I'll use Hamelin the Plagued's Understand the Soulless and Haunting Melody to illustrate this:

A) Understand the Soulless: The affected model is the defender against the Understand the Soulless attack. The effect forces a Wp Resist Duel, a Simple Wp Duel.

Understand the Soulless is a spell with a Rst: Wp. As such, the target model must make a Wp resist duel (magic) if the spell is successfully cast. Since this is a magic resist duel, several special rules apply including that the model is considered a defender and that the model will lose on a tie.

Haunting Melody: The affected model is the defender against the Pipes attack. The effect forces a Wp>attacker's combat total, a Simple Wp Duel.

Haunting Melody is a trigger that forces a model to do something. This is the trickiest part to learn (in my opinion) about Malifaux. There are several abilities on several different model cards that force a model to make a simple duel. When this happens, the model being forced to act is NOT considered a defender. Think of it as because it's acting or because there aren't attackers and defenders in simple duels (magic duels exception!).

So for the attack itself (which targets defense) you are considered a defender. But then IF you get hurt and the trigger goes off, you will not be a defender against any simple flips you are forced to make.

Clear as mud?

My understanding is that ItI/Stubborn apply to the Resist Duel because the affected model is the defender in the attack being resolved, and thus is treated as the defender throughout the attack, even though Simple Duels do not normally have a defender.

Exactly. The magic resist duels are a special exception.

The same principle would logically apply to any other Simple Duel forced by an attack.

Ah, that would be logical - but it is not how this game's rules are played. Again, I stress to simply consider magic duels (casting and resist) as their own category. Any other simple duel that is forced upon a model due to text on another model's card is NOT one in which they are the defender (unless it specifically states it as such of course).

So why do ItI/Stubborn apply to the Simple Wp Duel forced by Understand the Soulless, but not the Simple Wp Duel forced by Haunting Melody? I cannot find ANY rule singling out Resist Duels in this fashion.

It's because magic resist duels are special. I'm sorry I can not quote you a page number or source errata that specifically spells this out, as I am without my rules book at hand. But I hope this helps.

[Kadeton]

The page reference you're looking for is on p. 18 of the Rules Manual. It defines all spells that require a Resist duel as "Attacks", and notes that all Attacks have an Attacker (the initiator) and a Defender (the target, or any model potentially affected).

So yes, Resist duels are simple duels, but are treated differently from all other simple duels in that they have an attacker and defender, because any spell that requires a Resist is an attack.

[Allandrel]

Thanks for the responses.

It makes perfect sense that the resisting model is considered the defender because they are currently being attacked (since any spell requiring a Resist Duel is an attack). So I understand why ItI and Stubborn apply to Wp Resist Duels.

But I still can't find an exception that differentiates Resist Duels from other Simple duels that an attack forces a defender to make. People have repeatedly stated "Resist Duels are special," but the explanation for why the resisting model counts as the defender would seem to apply equally to other Simple Duels forced during an attack.

Madame Sybelle's Shriek and Hamelin the Plagued's Pipes (with Haunting Melody Triggered) are both attacks, and both of them force the defender to make a Simple Duel. Why does the defender not count as the "defender" during this part of the attack?

In the case of Shriek, the attack forces a living defender to make two Simple Duels. A Df Resist Duel, and a Wp>11 Morale Duel. So why does the defender only count as the "defender" during one of these simple duels?

I'm probably coming across as thick for not being able to get this, but I still can't find where a distinction is actually made in the rules.

[CRC]

I was going to write a long diatribe, much like Turbodog's, about common knowledge, and jurisprudence, explaining how everyone knows that resist duel is the second half of a modified opposed duel which makes the resister the defender of the original attack.

Then I realised that's all poppycock. We have three sources of rules: the printed rules, the online errata, and the collected RM posts. If none of those say that the resisting model is the defender against a spell attack then it's just not the case.

So, I call for quotes. No more explanations, we all understand what's been said. I want supporting quotes that show the basis for those explanations.

[Ratty]

A spell with a resist is an attack, therefore there is a defender.

[Allandrel]

A spell with a resist is an attack, therefore there is a defender.

So a model that is currently being attacked is treated as the defender during ALL duels forced by that attack, right?

Going back to Madame Sybelle's Shriek, it is an attack that forces the defender to make two Simple Duels: a Df Resist Duel and a Wp>11 Morale Duel. So logically the target is the defender during BOTH of these Simple Duels.

But people keep saying that the the defender is only treated as the defender against one of those Simple Duels (the Resist Duel), but not the other, with no rules quotes to back it up. Where is the distinction?

[Ausplosions]

Dear God.

We all know the intention of the rules.

I would not play a game with anyone arguing that ItI does not ignore Wp resist duels...

It work the way it has been explained to you.

Why?

Because it does. Stop trying to rules lawyer a different meaning or use for ItI/defender/simple duel interactions...

Sometimes I hate this game.

[Allandrel]

Dear God.

We all know the intention of the rules.

Please re-read my first post. I am new to the game, and I want to get a good grasp on the rules.

I do not know what "we all know," I know what is written in the manuals, FAQ, and errata. That's why I am here asking for help.

I would not play a game with anyone arguing that ItI does not ignore Wp resist duels...

Please re-read my first and second posts.

My initial post was questioning WHY people say that ItI/Stubborn apply to Wp Resist duels, because of my confusion on when a model is considered the defender.

Several people have helpfully explained, showing that I was focusing on the use of "defender" in the rules for duels, but that a model is also considered the defender while an attack is being resolved against it. Thus meaning that the model is the defender in all duels forced by the attack, not just opposed duels.

I understood that, and said so in my second post.

It work the way it has been explained to you.

Why?

Because it does.

"Because it does" is not an answer. "Because the resisting model is being affected by an attack and is therefore a defender" is. Which was helpfully explained to me back on the first page and, again, confirmed as understood in my second post.

Stop trying to rules lawyer a different meaning or use for ItI/defender/simple duel interactions...

As I wrote in my first post, I am new to the game and trying to understand it, not to rules-lawyer it.

My current understanding is:

A model being potentially affected by an attack is the defender.

Therefore, the model is treated as the defender during all steps of the attack, including simple duels such as resist duels.

A model with ItI/Stubborn receives the benefit of that ability when it is the defender, and would therefore receive the relevant immunity/stat bonus to Wp Resist duels.

My thanks again to the people who clarified this for me.

So let me re-state my unresolved question one more time:

Why are people claiming that ItI/Stubborn do NOT apply to other simple Wp duels forced by an attack, such as Madame Sybelle's Shriek and Hamelin the Plagued's Haunting Melody?

Where is this in the rules?

Sometimes I hate this game.

Because someone asking for help in learning the rules requests an explanation or citation?

Edited November 18, 2012 by Allandrel

[Ausplosions]

With the shriek example:

You are defending against the opponent's flips in the Defense duel.

If you fail that duel, you then perform a duel against a static target number which is not Flipped at all by you opponent. You are not defending. You are attempting to beat a target number because you failed at defending.

[Kadeton]

I (and a lot of other people) missed your underlying question the first time through. Sorry!

The question about why some duels in an attack have a defender and some don't is a good one, and (as I understand it) it basically comes down to effects.

When you're subject to an attack, defending against that attack makes you the defender - I think we're all on the same page with this one, including that performing a Resist duel makes you a defender against that spell.

If you fail to defend against the attack, you are then subject to its effects. At this point, however, the attack is done, and you're no longer the defender (you could be called the "victim").

When looking at Shriek, for example, it's a spell with a resist, so therefore an attack. If you fail to defend, it has two effects: a 2/2/6 damage flip, and (if the target is Living) a Wp -> 11 Morale duel. Since that Morale duel is an effect of the attack, you are no longer defending against the attack itself - so you are not a defender.

I hope that makes sense!