silent one versus the judge

[Azmyak]

if the judge uses bullets and blades (the 8 inch one) to strike a silent one:

(1) can the silent one use counterspell?

(2) does bulletproof work against the sword strike?

[bobzilla]

As I understand it

(1)the hit's aren't spells so counterspell wouldn't work against it at that range as they are specifically defined as strikes in the description

(2)the sword strike is still a melee strike so bulletproof wouldn't work.

That's how I've played it anyway.

[Kadeton]

Bullets and Blades does target the model, so as soon as it's announced (before the Judge's controller flips cards) you can use Counterspell to cancel it.

[bobzilla]

But it doesn't have a resist and the spell itself only mentions making the strikes against a single target. As it reads surely that means the spell doesnt target anyone but the strikes themselves, which are resolved separately, do instead.

In other words the spell itself is just like casting a spell to get an extra melee/ranged action. You cast the spell on yourself and if you cast succesfully you get the extra action at the cost of -2cb and only being able to use it on the same target. Nothing at all is cast at the target of the strikes.

---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------

After rereading the minirules book I can see where confusion might come into it.

The spell itself isn't resisted so it's a simple duel to cast and doesn't have , or so it's not an attack spell as defined by p50. It isn't specifically cast on the judge though as it's range isnt c but instead the new range for the melee/ranged attack which suggests it might be cast on the target.

The thing is the description says that after succesfully casting it you immediately make the strikes on a target within range of the spell which suggests the strikes are not part of the spell and going with the wording if you do indeed need to cast it at someone then you don't need to strike the model you targeted with the spell just as long as both strikes hit the one target.

It looks to me that theyve tried to include the range to emphasise the melee strike can reach 8inches but not really pointed out who the spell is actually cast on.

Curious to find any previous rulings on it

Edited January 5, 2013 by bobzilla
trying to clarify the mess in my head.

[Mister_Q]

I'm with bobzilla - there is no target for Bullets and Blades so Counterspell wouldn't work against it.

Once B&B is cast the Judge makes two normal strikes except for the extra range granted by B&B - so Counterspell can't negate them and Bulletproof wouldn't protect against the damage.

[Kadeton]

It's a Book 1 spell so it's not going to follow the neat mechanics that were formalised in Book 2. Book 1 spells are all over the place in how they work.

In the new paradigm, there are two alternatives for how it would be written:

(1) Bullets and Blades (CC: 11:masks/-/C) Judge immediately makes a Long Arm Strike and a Long Arm Pistol Strike at a model within 8" and LoS, ignoring range. Both attacks receive -2 Cb.

(1) Bullets and Blades (CC: 11:masks/-/8) Judge immediately makes a Long Arm Strike and a Long Arm Pistol Strike at target model, ignoring range. Both attacks receive -2 Cb.

The first can't be counterspelled, the second can. They otherwise have essentially identical effects (there are other interactions that aren't important here).

My position is that the current Bullets and Blades is more like the second option, because spells that affect the caster have a range of C. However, there's definitely an argument to be made that the intent of the spell is more like the first option.

[bobzilla]

I think that's the argument we're having

Casting stats say one thing and description suggests another. Who will win? Join us in the ring to find out!

I'm curious to know how TO's and Henchmen call it. Never actually used it in a game where the issue of counterspell has came up but I can see it happening at some point.

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

My biggest problem with it being ruled as being able to be counterspelled is that the target isn't selected until after the spell has been successfully cast. :S

[Mister_Q]

A lot of Book 1 stuff has been fixed in the FAQ/erratta/v2 cards. This isn't one of them. It's all very nice to say "well it could be written as ...", but it isn't written that way.

Counterspell is specific in saying that the model itself must be targeted. This doesn't happen with Bullets & Blades.

If there was a target for B&B then it would be the Judge. It's a spell that lets the Judge make two strikes, not a spell that that attacks a target model twice.

Should Viktoria's Sisters in Victory strike be negated by Counterspell too? There are probably a few other similar spells.

The other issue with having it ruled as being able to be Counterspelled is that it would make the result magical damage.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Mister_Q

[Kadeton]

Counterspell is specific in saying that the model itself must be targeted. This doesn't happen with Bullets & Blades.

It literally does. The strikes are applied to "a single target within range".

If there was a target for B&B then it would be the Judge. It's a spell that lets the Judge make two strikes, not a spell that that attacks a target model twice.

If that were true, the spell would have range: Caster.

Should Viktoria's Sisters in Victory strike be negated by Counterspell too? There are probably a few other similar spells.

If Sisters in Victory specified "a falling back or rallying target model", then yes, it would absolutely be subject to Counterspell. It doesn't.

The other issue with having it ruled as being able to be Counterspelled is that it would make the result magical damage.

No, the effect is that the Judge gets to make two strikes against the target. That's no different to a model being Lured by a Belle and then smacked in the face.

[Davi]

As i read it: The spell is cast then a target for the 2 strikes is declared. So counterspell would not come into effect as it is a strike that is targeting it not a spell.

---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

or you could compare the opening lines of his spells

Arrest: target model...

Judge: Target model...

Blades and Bullets: This model...

We know who the spell is cast on now.

[WookieeGunner]

I would say Counterspell wouldn't work here's why. If we look at Bullets and blades, it says "Judge immediately . . .", now if we look at Arrest it says "Target model must . . .", and if we look at Judged it says "Target suffers . . ." so we know that on this card Wyrd has defined the subject of the spell as target in two different locations, so either the Judge is the target or Bullets and Blades, or Wyrd is being inconsistent in how they are stating the target of the spell in the spell description.

[Q'iq'el]

or you could compare the opening lines of his spells

Arrest: target model...

Judge: Target model...

Blades and Bullets: This model...

We know who the spell is cast on now.

This is entirely false. You take it out of context. The structures of the sentences are different, how they open does not determine what they mean. The former two spells go directly into describing the effects of the spell on the target, while the last one starts by describing the effects of the casters.

I think a good look at the basic rules for the spells would help. By default all the spells target something and you always need LOS to the target. Those are very basics. If a spell affects another model, that model is the target period.

The exceptions are spells that cause pulse, aura or some other such effect. Rng:C spells do target models, it's just that the caster is the target.

If you have a situation, where the spell targets the caster and then there's another "target" within x" (i.e. it is not a pulse or aura), I'd say that another model is still being targeted, but this is not the case here anyway. Spells can have multiple targets (and still need LoS to all of them).

It's all in the very first bullet point of the "Spells Basics" rules.

[Azmyak]

I'm on the side of the spell not having a target so it can not be counterspelled. I also feel the melee strike is still a melee strike. How would I get an official ruling on this?

[TheUnseemlyOne]

I think a good look at the basic rules for the spells would help. By default all the spells target something and you always need LOS to the target. Those are very basics. If a spell affects another model, that model is the target period.

The exceptions are spells that cause pulse, aura or some other such effect. Rng:C spells do target models, it's just that the caster is the target.

I think you're reading into something that isn't really there in the spell basics. All the first line says is "Spells require LoS to their targets unless otherwise indicated in their description." This doesn't mean that all spells have a target by default. It just states that spells still require LoS when a target is nominated. There are a few spells which can affect a model without being a pulse or aura, and have no need for a target. Lucius is the first example that springs to mind with Reinforcements.

[ClkwrkBldr]

I would agree with Bobzilla's version of how it works, there is no resistance, so the Judge is simply casting a spell on himself, which if successful, allows him to strike any target within range, with both weapons at the -2 Cb penalty( the trade off for the double attack and using the Blade at range).

The spell simply affects the Judge, and allows him to choose a viable target, it doesn't affect the target until the two separate attacks are made, so Counterspell wouldn't work, and Bulletproof would work against the Long Arm Pistol strike, but not the Long Arm Blade strike.

[WookieeGunner]

If a spell affects another model, that model is the target period.

And see, this is the part that I see as completely false. Where does it state that a spell can't have the caster as the target for casting purposes and still affect another target for effect purposes. As mentioned above, the Spells Basic rule doesn't state that it just says that there is a target (which can be the caster) and that the caster has to have LoS (model's always have LoS to themselves) to that target.

[Q'iq'el]

And see, this is the part that I see as completely false. Where does it state that a spell can't have the caster as the target for casting purposes and still affect another target for effect purposes. As mentioned above, the Spells Basic rule doesn't state that it just says that there is a target (which can be the caster) and that the caster has to have LoS (model's always have LoS to themselves) to that target.

A spell can have multiple targets, sure. The thing is, that every of these targets is still a target, which means it is being targeted. As simple as that. So you cannot say the spell has no targets or that the counterspell wouldn't work.

But the bottom line is that spells which don't have Rng:C do not target casters. Even if the spell generates strikes made by the caster, it still targets the model the strikes are conducted against.

And by the way, Rng: C is not a new notation at all - it's there from the very beginning of the Malifaux as far as I remember. If it isn't used, there's no caster-targeting.

The rules against self-targetting prohibit models to attack themselves. Presence of Rst:X is one of the factors which can make a Spell an attack, but not the only one. Besides, if Judge could target himself with this spell, he'd have to Strike against himself too, which would be pointless.

Lack of resistance is meaningless. There are plenty of no-rst spells that target other models. They simply don't get to resist them. It doesn't mean there's no target or anything like that. The most probable reason for the Rst omission is balance - since the spell generates additional strikes, the models still get to defend themselves in the opposed duels.

And if the fluff side of things bothers you, if Judge draws of energies of Malifaux to magic up his performance and strike and attack with unstoppable fury, then obviously someone apt at denying people access to these energies can counter-spell him and shut him down.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Q'iq'el