"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?

[Keeblerpowell]

Can someone point me in a direction as to the definition of "reset"?

[Kadeton]

Can someone point me in a direction as to the definition of "reset"?

It's not a game term, it's used in its common definition.

[Keeblerpowell]

so when the faq says to reset what exactally does that mean and in what order will those events occur?

This really seems like a very easy way for levi players to take advantage and deck stack. (If cards go back on deck. Still not sure if they do or not.)

[Ratty]

OK.

The important thing with a fizzle is that the Action you're performing is not legal when you declare it.

Eg.

• You cast a spell that summons a model that you already have enough of.
  
• Your target is illegal.
  
• You have copied an ability that needs a weapon you don't have.
  

In which cases you should never have been able to declare the Action at all. In these cases the entire thing is undone/fizzles, and you carry on as if it never happened. If you accidentally flipped cards before you realized, shuffle them back into the deck so it grants no advantage.

If the situation changes after you declared the Action (your target is changed by an ability for example), the Action just fails, but doesn't cause a fizzle.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Ratty

[Keeblerpowell]

Thanks Ratty. That helps out lots.

I was really confused about where the cards needed to go.

[Ausplosions]

Common sense prevails.

[ravenborne]

So Sayeth the Rat.

[Ratty]

Common sense prevails.

Who is accusing me of Common Sense... I don't have any of that.. just Rodent Cunning.

[Turbodog]

Thank you, Ratty for speaking on this one...

But a spell that I can cast on any number of dolls, spirits, and other "non-living" and sacrifice them into oblivion creating nothing...

But I can't cast it on living or undead models to do the same because I have two waifs in play already?

I wouldn't call that sense "common".

I was done with this thread a while ago. I confirmed I know a decent game way around it and can play it however my opponent wants and we can both have fun. I can accept it's what the rules say. But in a "character-driven skirmish game" it doesn't feel right to me.

Thanks Ratty for chiming in.

[CRC]

OK.

The important thing with a fizzle is that the Action you're performing is not legal when you declare it.

Eg.

• You cast a spell that summons a model that you already have enough of.
  
• Your target is illegal.
  
• You have copied an ability that needs a weapon you don't have.
  

In which cases you should never have been able to declare the Action at all. In these cases the entire thing is undone/fizzles, and you carry on as if it never happened. If you accidentally flipped cards before you realized, shuffle them back into the deck so it grants no advantage.

If the situation changes after you declared the Action (your target is changed by an ability for example), the Action just fails, but doesn't cause a fizzle.

Thank you for this answer.

I just want to say, that I think a significant amount of the confusion here comes from your use of the word "fizzle". It's not a common word, and the only explicit rules definition that I know of is from M:tG, where it means something different than you do. Fizzle - MTG Salvation Wiki

[amor sanguinis]

So can pandora pacify/incite a model that has already activated?

I have issues with seeing how its different if "summon a hollow waif" is

a requirment of the spell.

[Mike3838]

I think Incite and Pacify both state that the target must be unaffected by Incite or Pacify already.

[Ausplosions]

A model having already activated does not make it an illegal target for incite or pacify.

[amor sanguinis]

Why? If it already activated then it can not activate before /after any other models unaffected by incite or pacify.

[The Godlyness]

pssssst.....hey you......yeah you that guy........no not the person behind you, you.......... .................................((it's not a spell) incite/pacify)

[Ausplosions]

Why? If it already activated then it can not activate before /after any other models unaffected by incite or pacify.

ExactLy.

When it next activates it can.

But it wears of at the end of the turn.

Honestly. Just stop.

[amor sanguinis]

ExactLy.

When it next activates it can.

But it wears of at the end of the turn.

Honestly. Just stop.

Cool yea be that guy that says "Don't ask questions".

All you had to say is its a (0) action.

[Adran]

Cool yea be that guy that says "Don't ask questions".

All you had to say is its a (0) action.

It being a zero action is irrelevent.

the wording for both Pacify and incite only specify that they must be performed on models that aren't affected by pacify or incite. So a modle that has activated is still a legal target for the action. Even though the effect of the action is likely to have no effect, it is not trying to break the game rules (which summonign a third Waif would be) so the effect does not fizzle.

Hope that answers your question.

[Kadeton]

To (perhaps) clarify further, spells that affect activation order are only concerned with legal activations. For example, there are a host of abilities that target a model and allow it to activate immediately after the current model - if the target has already activated, these abilities simply have no effect.

This is a general principle for activation-order effects: if they would require a model to complete an illegal activation (e.g. a previously-activated model with an Incite effect that does not have Reactivate), then the effect is simply ignored.

[amor sanguinis]

Thank you.