"Fizzle Rule" + Levi = huh???

[Turbodog]

Ok, so I was recently told about a new "fizzle rule" and that it may prevent Levi from casting entropic transformation on an undead model if he already has two waifs out. Anyone care to explain this to me?

[baskinders]

Even though I would say that if something "can't be affected" it is exactly the same as saying something "can't gain the effect", what if it was a model that was immune to Slow and paralyze ie they've had "Attennn-Hut!" and On Yer Feet cast on them?

[Ausplosions]

Even though I would say that if something "can't be affected" it is exactly the same as saying something "can't gain the effect", what if it was a model that was immune to Slow and paralyze ie they've had "Attennn-Hut!" and On Yer Feet cast on them?

She can gain slow, she just can't be affected by it.

If she was Immune to it, that would be different.

It's not the same. Give her slow while near Alps, and she will take wounds.

[baskinders]

No worries, terrible use of English again, given that Slow is an Effect and as I mentioned above, in English terms those two statements are equivalent, but I can see how it's intended to not "mean immune to slow, can gain the effect slow but does not lose any action points due to this effect"

But yeah, back to the fizzle thing, how about the immune to slow/paralyze model, or is it only applied to spells as mentioned above (which again isn't in the FAQ, it just says actions?)

[Q'iq'el]

Eh, stuff like people arguing that you can't Alpha the Ashes & Dust to kill itself because the Storm and Core placement can't happen. Dumb things, mostly, but I seem to recall it comes up a lot.

I'm pretty sure we had a clarification from the Marshals to that effect, when the issue first appeared with Coryphée and Alpha (using dance apart to sacrifice the duet is not possible, because even though you could sacrifice them, the placement is forbidden and all the effects would fizzle) and it isn't a new interpretation of the rules at all.

[Kadeton]

I'm pretty sure we had a clarification from the Marshals to that effect' date=' when the issue first appeared with Coryphée and Alpha (using dance apart to sacrifice the duet is not possible, because even though you could sacrifice them, the placement is forbidden and all the effects would fizzle) and it isn't a new interpretation of the rules at all.[/quote']

While I would prefer to avoid kicking that discussion off again, suffice to say that the A&D's action simply kills itself, which is fine. No part of that action is prevented by the rule. The placement bits are "events" (separate Talents) that occur on death, and as we know, in the case of an illegal event that would bring a model into play, the model is simply not brought into play.

We've had clarification on the Coryphee, but that's a completely different kind of action. I haven't seen anything official disallowing the death of an A&D, but I'd be very interested to see it.

[Q'iq'el]

So the way I've always thought about it is that an Action is something you declare you're doing and the things that happen because of the action are the effects. So applying that to what you're saying is that if a model can not complete all "immediate" effects of an action it can not perform that action, however if an action with "delayed" effects results in a situation where the delayed effect can not occur, cancel the delayed effect only, not the entire action.

Those "delayed" effects are called "ongoing effects" and their rules are defined in the Manual (as well as immediate effects).

The thing is that failure of an effect is not necessarily tied to its execution. With immediate effects it is most often the case. With ongoing effects you fail when you fail to apply them - so failure which fizzles the spell is still possible. Then, if the effect is successfully applied to the target, it will be executed when the conditions are met and it may fail at that time... this is unrelated to the original action though.

There are several rules coming into play here and Pine Box is a poor example, because you cannot fail to apply the rules for the unburying of the buried model.

First is immediate vs. ongoing effects and slight differences in how they succeed or fail at the moment of the execution of the action.

Second is timeline - in Malifaux everything always happens on a timeline. Event is a point in time and an Action is an event. It can be interrupted by some conditions setting off abilities and such, but otherwise it is executed step by step in one point in time, and then the game resumes. It may leave ongoing effects that get resolved later, but since there are new actions happening and new models being activated in between, it cannot be the same action.

Third is the clarification for how the things in Malifaux fizzle in the FAQ. I'm a bit surprised it pops up now - it's one of the issues which has been explained and clarified long time ago. It merely got integrated into FAQ recently. It's always been that if you cannot execute one component of an action or spell, all of them fail, though there are some additional complexities involving casts (since there are multiple stages at which they can fail).

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

While I would prefer to avoid kicking that discussion off again, suffice to say that the A&D's action simply kills itself, which is fine. No part of that action is prevented by the rule. The placement bits are "events" (separate Talents) that occur on death, and as we know, in the case of an illegal event that would bring a model into play, the model is simply not brought into play.

My bad. I don't face A&D very often (and I haven't played for a bit) and I remembered it as a one rule. Probably the reason for other players' confusion as well.

If these are separate, then there is not problem with fizzling. Also Abilities (and the effects which are triggered by conditions and which interrupt the time flow are most often Abilities) are not necessarily Actions and as such may not be tied up by the same rules as Actions at all.

[baskinders]

So does that mean that in the McCabe example he can or can't shoot a model immune to slow and paralyze. And for that case, how about shooting a model that wont take damage but is not immune to slow and paralyze ie a Wastrel that's activated the Earths Elixir or the the Friekorps Strongarm Suit?

Confusing...

Edited January 7, 2013 by baskinders

[Turbodog]

Sorry to be back here (I actually really want this thread to just die...)

But does this also mean that Pandora (or any other model with the pacify ability) can't use pacify on a model that has already activated this turn since it can't possibly activate after all other models this turn?

[Kadeton]

So does that mean that in the McCabe example he can or can't shoot a model immune to slow and paralyze. And for that case, how about shooting a model that wont take damage but is not immune to slow and paralyze ie a Wastrel that's activated the Earths Elixir or the the Friekorps Strongarm Suit?

Confusing...

I think that's reading too much into it. You can still successfully complete the action, but the model is immune to the effect.

Sorry to be back here (I actually really want this thread to just die...)

But does this also mean that Pandora (or any other model with the pacify ability) can't use pacify on a model that has already activated this turn since it can't possibly activate after all other models this turn?

You can still place a Pacify effect on the model. Pacify (and Ignite) are only concerned with the order of otherwise legal activations - if the target has already activated, it won't be relevant (unless the model picks up Reactivate somehow).

[baskinders]

I think that's reading too much into it. You can still successfully complete the action, but the model is immune to the effect.

You can still place a Pacify effect on the model. Pacify (and Ignite) are only concerned with the order of otherwise legal activations - if the target has already activated, it won't be relevant (unless the model picks up Reactivate somehow).

Yeah sorry for keeping this going so long but I want to understand how this intended to work. How do you determine when an effect can be completed successfully and hence not cause the action to fizzle, but not "applied" once completed, as opposed to unsuccessfully completing the effect and fizzling the action? I can't see a clear definition appearing from this thread?

The Levi summon example could be either of those (summon effect occurs but model is immediately removed from play due to rare restrictions OR summon effect does not occur) as could the McCabe example (apply the slow effect but the target is immune OR target is immune and the effect does not occur hence the shot fizzles). I'm just not sure where the line is?

Edited January 7, 2013 by baskinders

[ravenborne]

Perhaps the confusion comes in what is an isn't a legal action. As I understand it, if a model is immune to an effect you can still take an action against it that would induce that effect, the effect just doesn't work. If it were illegal to target a model that was immune to the effect, then the fizzle rule would probably apply. I can't find anywhere in the rules where you cannot target an immune model, just that the model will not take the effect. If someone knows of such a rule please post it.

In the case of rare models, you cannot have more rare models on the table than the rare number, and since Levi targeting a living/undead model will produce too many waifs, that makes it illegal. Just the same as if you wanted to try and summon a second Rogue Necromancy, its illegal to attempt the action.

---------- Post added at 02:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 AM ----------

The interesting thing about the Pine Box example is that (and not to avoid the ruling) Rare refers to models in play, and the new buried errata says buried models are still in play, so you could not even summon a model above the rare number if one was in a pine box, as I understand it.

[Kadeton]

Yeah, I think the setup of apply an effect -> target ignores or is immune to the effect always works. To do otherwise would be, as I said way back at the start, to apply the rule far more broadly than it was intended.

The rule, to my mind, is there to prevent things that are against the rules. The "model gains Slow" versus "immune to Slow" interaction is entirely within the scope of the rules, so it's resolvable. Bringing in more Rare models than is allowed is against the rules, so it's not resolvable. Actions that do only one thing are very easily categorised.

The confusion comes about when spells do one primary thing that has impossible follow-on effects, like Levi's spell in this case. I'm basically on board with the idea that Levi's spell can't be cast if there are two Waifs in play, I just think that the spell should be re-worded to allow it.

[baskinders]

Cool, so I guess the only three things that would make an action fizzle would be:

- it summons a restricted model, or

- it does not have a legal target, or

- it can not meet the AR cost

Does that about cover all eventualities?

[ravenborne]

Off the top of my head I cannot think of anything else, but the game is full of all sorts of interactions...

---------- Post added at 05:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 AM ----------

Actually here is one from the FAQ itself:

"...or casts a borrowed Spell that requires a Weapon/Ability my model doesn’t have?"

[baskinders]

Sweet mate, that make sense now, I'm with you, good chat

[Keeblerpowell]

when it says to "reset" does that mean to also put the cards back on top of the deck used to cast and give back the ap?

If so does that mean as a levi player I can purposly try to make a third waif just to see my top cards? This seems good. Thats like another deaths lessons.

[Ausplosions]

when it says to "reset" does that mean to also put the cards back on top of the deck used to cast and give back the ap?

If so does that mean as a levi player I can purposly try to make a third waif just to see my top cards? This seems good. Thats like another deaths lessons.

I would say. No.

[pgbsamurai]

Does anyone have a link to the ruling that a spell fails if one of it's effects can't happen? I always played it that you resolved each sentence in a spell or ability, and if a specific sentence fails then just that part fails.

[Q'iq'el]

Does anyone have a link to the ruling that a spell fails if one of it's effects can't happen? I always played it that you resolved each sentence in a spell or ability, and if a specific sentence fails then just that part fails.

Spells are difficult... they can fail at different stages.

If you fail when you find out the target isn't legal (and spell has to have a target with very few exceptions), you pay only AP.

If you fail the cast, you pay only AP.

If you succeed at cast, but the spell is resisted you pay AP and AR, even though Ars are listed among the effects.

If one of the effects fails, you still pay AP and AR, but none of the effects gets executed.

There are some further quirks to this - effects that may happen conditionally won't fail the entire spell (i.e. ability to strike if in melee range, on Lure) and ongoing effects which count as success if they are successfully applied, regardless of the final result.

edit:

The most counter-intuitive part of the deal is when one of the spell's effects affects the target and the other the caster. In such case if the spell gets resisted, or the effect affecting the target fails for another reason, the effect affecting the caster (a push or a heal, for example) also doesn't go off.

And guys, there's really no need for FAQ quote on this one. It is all in the rules for effects, actions and casting magic. Just read them carefully and you'll find all the required rules. FAQ merely clarifies situations where it is a bit harder to wrap the head around the rules. There are past rulings on the forum too, if you run the search, but some of them might have been made obsolete with the FAQ/Errata.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Q'iq'el

[Kadeton]

when it says to "reset" does that mean to also put the cards back on top of the deck used to cast and give back the ap?

If so does that mean as a levi player I can purposly try to make a third waif just to see my top cards? This seems good. Thats like another deaths lessons.

If it seems too good to be true... it almost certainly is.

Does anyone have a link to the ruling that a spell fails if one of it's effects can't happen? I always played it that you resolved each sentence in a spell or ability, and if a specific sentence fails then just that part fails.

The specific ruling we're arguing about is at http://www.malifaux.com/FAQ.php, third question.

If one of the effects fails' date=' you still pay AP and AR, but none of the effects gets executed.[/quote']

I agree with your other statements, but this one (at least per the FAQ) is not true. If an effect of the spell would be impossible (like summoning an extra Rare model) then the whole spell is gone, you don't pay AP or AR, and you "reset back to before the Action began."

[Q'iq'el]

I agree with your other statements, but this one (at least per the FAQ) is not true. If an effect of the spell would be impossible (like summoning an extra Rare model) then the whole spell is gone, you don't pay AP or AR, and you "reset back to before the Action began."

I think we've been through this confusion before. Knowing the action can't succeed beforehand and action not succeeding due to normal game mechanics (random factors, resists etc.) is not the same thing.

The FAQ speaks about two different situations - one is summoning a Rare minion when you are already at the limit. You know you cannot do it before you even attempt, so you cannot attempt. It is logical and analogous to not being able to take an action which would certainly kill your model (rules prohibit that, so you aren't even allowed to try such an action).

Then it speaks about a situation where you can execute an action, you don't know it will fail beforehand, but one of the effects fails upon execution. In case of Pine Box, the effect causing the model to unburry is ongoing and doesn't affect the spell at all. In case of other such Actions/Spells you still do get to do them and you follow normal Magic rules.

There's no reset or refund of APs, because your model didn't attempt an action it couldn't do. The action was possible, it just failed.

The biggest controversy of this thread, the revelation that if you fail one effect the entire action/spell fails has nothing to do with this question in FAQ at all - that is why people cannot find it in FAQ. It is simply the consequence of several different rules in the Rules Manual. The fact that failing one effect of the spell prevents all the other from going off is not a new problem and it isn't introduced by the FAQ at all. It's always been so and all the relevant statements are in the Rules Manual to begin with.

I also think that the suggestion you can take a look at the cards and then put them back shows poor understanding of the entire ruleset. Again the FAQ speaks about the situations where you know beforehand the Action cannot be done - you may take the action, declare it, then check if it is possible and if it isn't, you cannot do it so you reset. That happens before the flip, actually.

I also do not think it applies to any of the situation where the Rules Manual explains the conditions for the "Action fails" result (for example target turning out to be out of LoS or Range of your Action), because Failure of a legal action is not the same thing as not being able to take it to begin with.

Last but not least, I'd like to add for the sake of clarity, that while Errata does change the game rules, FAQ doesn't. It merely explains how you should interpret the rules that are already there. If you find it strange or hard to grasp, go back to the square one and re-read the basic rules, keeping in mind that your understanding should match the FAQ this time.

Edit2: As I look through the relevant rules now, It seems these are not uniform at all. For example, if you know the target is immune to certain Stat, you are not allowed to make duel against it - this is a basic rule for Duels and this would, IMHO, fall under not being able to execute an action... so it would reset it (so no, you are not even allowed to try a cast against I2I model, if your spell has a Rst:Wp). On the other hand the spell effects no longer seem to fail automatically if one of them fails - only if the caster fails to meet the ARs the entire spell fails. I know it's been clarified otherwise in the past, but I don't know if these older rulings still hold after the publication of the most recent FAQ/Errata.

I'm also not sure what is the situation of actions other than Strike or Cast. I'd assume if one of the effect fails the entire action fails, but that still wouldn't be the same as reset caused by the action being impossible to begin with. I can't find anything in support of that assumption right now.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Q'iq'el

[Kadeton]

I think we've been through this confusion before. Knowing the action can't succeed beforehand and action not succeeding due to normal game mechanics (random factors, resists etc.) is not the same thing.

The FAQ speaks about two different situations - one is summoning a Rare minion when you are already at the limit. You know you cannot do it before you even attempt, so you cannot attempt. It is logical and analogous to not being able to take an action which would certainly kill your model (rules prohibit that, so you aren't even allowed to try such an action).

Then it speaks about a situation where you can execute an action, you don't know it will fail beforehand, but one of the effects fails upon execution. In case of Pine Box, the effect causing the model to unburry is ongoing and doesn't affect the spell at all. In case of other such Actions/Spells you still do get to do them and you follow normal Magic rules.

There's no reset or refund of APs, because your model didn't attempt an action it couldn't do. The action was possible, it just failed.

I'm struggling to think of any situations where an effect can fail unpredictably after a spell is cast. Are we talking about things like the Shikome/Marcus situation again, where the failure is in the ability to target?

Pine Box is not an example of this, because the spell is successfully cast, it doesn't fail. The model might not be able to re-enter play under certain specific conditions (which probably don't exist any more now that buried models are still in play?) but that's an event, not the resolution of the spell.

I guess I'm just confused about the scenario you're referencing with that line. Can you provide an example where a spell is cast, not resisted, but then somehow one of the effects fails, making the spell impossible?

[Q'iq'el]

I'm struggling to think of any situations where an effect can fail unpredictably after a spell is cast. Are we talking about things like the Shikome/Marcus situation again, where the failure is in the ability to target?

Movement effects would be a common cause of this, I'd say. Especially when the spell targets multiple models and movement of one blocks the way for another. I had it at least once happen with Earthquake, so it isn't a purely theoretical problem.

In case of a movement effect with only one target, an interesting question arises though - is the knowledge that the model cannot move an information that would make the entire action impossible? What if the same spell has the potential to unblock the way for the target model (through AoE damage for example)?

[Kadeton]

Movement effects would be a common cause of this' date=' I'd say. Especially when the spell targets multiple models and movement of one blocks the way for another. I had it at least once happen with Earthquake, so it isn't a purely theoretical problem.[/quote']

But surely in that case, that wouldn't invalidate the rest of the spell? The movement effects have built-in escape clauses for running into impassible terrain or other models, so the effect can still be successfully applied and resolved even if the model can't move as a result.

[Vanilla_Dice]

Ok, have read most of this thread, could we possibly have a rules Marshall make a ruling about the specific instance with leve, kinda gonna need to know it with a tournament coming up soon and I'm running pretty much pure leve the whole time.