So I am perfectly clear about Carve a Swathe and Riposte...

[Kalkris]

Can Izamu utilize Carve a Swathe off of a severe damage flip from hitting the Riposte trigger? I am looking solely for a Rules Marshal's word on this.

My argument is that it works, because, reading Lady Justice's v2 card, it says "as if she had made a Greatsword strike" at the end, where while Izamu does not, it is implied, in the same way Immune to Influence and Irresistible used to have wording. Furthermore, while Izamu did not use the (1) Strike action, Riposte when triggered creates retroactive action, in that the action is treated as if Izamu *did* make the strike.

the argument against mine ranges from the fact that Izamu did not make the strike action, to the fact that Riposte on Izamu says nothing about izamu making a strike.

I would very much like a Rules Marshal's word on this above anyone else's because I keep on getting mixed words from people ranging from experienced veterans of the game to people who also seem unsure but have some ideas of their own on the (slightly ambiguous) wording. This does need to be finalized in settlement.

Thank you.

~Lil Kalki

[The Godlyness]

This should be incorrect as only melee weapons (those weapons listed on the Card with a Rg of ) generate melee attacks (and trigger Riposte). Reference is Page 38 of the 1.5 edition of the Malifaux Book.

Spells that have or icons generate melee or ranged attack Spells (and as such wont trigger Riposte). Reference for this is Page 46 of the 1.5 edition of the Malifaux Book.

i dont have the 1.5 book with me just the small one.

Edited for reasons

Edited April 19, 2013 by The Godlyness

[Barnaberible]

I dont have cards in front of me but keep in mind if 2 talents,spells or what ever abilites have the same name the one printed first has the correct rules until we get an errata. So if named the same lady j would have the correct wording.

Again dont have the correct cards at hand but it is a relevent point that might help you guys.

As I mentioned earlier the risposte wording for Sidir (also Storm of Shadows) is the same as Lady J and different from Izamu which surely would imply that Izamu has been worded differently on purpose without the reference to a strike

anyway I still stand by shooting him in the head (from a safe distance)

[xKoBiEx]

As a devil's advocate, it has been mentioned many times that all wordings for any ability of the same name should have the same description, and that description will be the newest printed form. Being that the books Sidir and Izamu were printed in is the same time, it comes down to what card was released latest. That means that Sidir's card trumps Izamu.

Unfortunately, that is where rules lawyering creates a 6+ page thread. Given that a lot of people consider Izamu way too strong, I am thinking that a large number of people have been playing that Izamu heals off his Riposte because he isn't hard to take out if you don't.

Either way, I don't care. I agree that a formal errata needs to be done on this and other ambiguous abilities. The more I hear arguments in either case, the more I second guess any position I stand in. Often, an argument against Riposte allowing the heal gets me thinking that the heal should actually be allowed. Then, I'll see an argument for the heal and it makes me think it shouldn't be allowed... Kind of counter-intuitive.

In a non-competitive environment, it really doesn't matter. At an event, the Henchman in charge is going to make a ruling and you have to stick with it.

[Gruesome]

What constitutes a strike HAS been ruled on.

There is not really any debate on this aside from the OP wanting to sort of redefine the "duration of a strike" in some way, a la Magic: The Gathering, like pretending that the attack and response are somehow on a stack and that somehow that "outer action" that is "wrapping" things therefore makes everything contained within it a "Strike" and therefore you get to apply all sorts of words from the "outer" action to things inside as if Riposte was some sort of "redirection" of the initial attack even though the very definition of the word "Riposte" is a counter-attack after a parried attack...

Couple that with the unwillingness of the OP to accept that Malifaux DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT and that 100 people have said so...

And this just becomes yet another in a long litany of threads where someone asks a question. 50 people answer and are not accepted because they do not have the hat.

Then everyone that was originally trying to be helpful starts getting a little irritated because their help is thrown back in their face and devalued. And when we are in periods of time, like now, where Rules Marshalls are busy elsewhere or simply not replying for their own reasons, little cancer-bud threads like this continue to linger and irritate....

[011121]

And this just becomes yet another in a long litany of threads where someone asks a question. 50 people answer and are not accepted because they do not have the hat.

Nor should they as there are plenty of instances of 50 people saying one thing and being, you know, wrong. There's no magic threshold that converts popular into correct. The people with the hats have the hats for one reason- to solve these questions. Frankly I can't imagine why you so deeply begrudge people for merely wanting clarification on the issue. If it's so important to you that you have the final word on the matter then get the hat. Until then if your best arguments fail to dissuade (either because the other side finds them not convincing or because they fail to listen, you're free to believe whatever you wish there) what possible point is there in you harping on and on about how others don't agree with you as to your infallibility?

[The Godlyness]

Well i know for certain now

Riposte can only occur off of a melee Strike (also included it that is things like onslaught and whirlwind)

Combat Total can only be generated off a Strike Duel page 43 Section E Small rule book.

Spells use Casting totals.

so melee attacks have to use a melee weapon with a symbol.

melee spells are just that melee spells. (see SQUEEL!!

What this also means is that Defensive stance has no Bearing on melee spells. since they are not melee attacks.

[Paddywhack]

Except check the Rsolved Issues thread (and I think the rulebook somewhere):

"Spells with the melee icon take the modifier for melee attacks, Casting Flips and spells, never Attack Flips"

(emphasis mine) So yes, Defensive Stance would still work against spells that use the melee symbol as they suffer all the same modifiers as melee attacks. I am also under the belief that they would count for triggers off of melee attacks, but can see why that might still be contentious.

[The Godlyness]

you point it out to me. and i will show you this

(1) Defensive Stance: this must be the first Action the model takes during its activation. until the end closing Phase, this model's Defense Flips receives :+fate when defending in a melee or ranged attack duel. this model also receives -2/-2 wk/cg until the end closing phase.

Emphasis mine on the melee or ranged attack duel.

so again i State defensive stance does not work on melee spells.

that faq for you

Q.: I'm a bit confused by Spell types. I understand that all Spells affecting enemy models are considered attack Spells, but what are "ranged" and "melee" attack Spells, specifically?

A.: Ranged and melee attack Spells are those Spells that have a ranged ( ) or melee ( ) icon in their Range stat. These Spells follow the rules for that type of attack and receive any bonuses or penalties associated with that type of attack (i.e. a model casting a Spell with the icon that targets a model in soft cover would receive a on the Attack Flip). Spells without ranged or melee icons ignore any restrictions or benefits that would apply to those types of attacks (i.e. the spell above cast without the icon would not suffer the soft cover penalty)

Edited April 19, 2013 by The Godlyness

[Adran]

Also worth pointing out that you don't take defense flips when you are targetted with a melee spell. You take resist flips.

[The Godlyness]

Also worth pointing out that you don't take defense flips when you are targetted with a melee spell. You take resist flips.

that's the cherry to this sundae of rules

[Paddywhack]

Edit.

Reading it over again I see where you are coming from, but I still can't shake the feeling that they mean for DS to work against melee spells, but as DS affects the Defense Flip of the defender and not the attack (casting flip) of the caster, I guess I have to agree with you.

The wording that all things that affect melee attacks also affects melee attack spells still makes me think that DS should apply, as it affects melee attacks. I can see your point though. I mean, you still give armor +1 for ranged attack spells that hit a target in hard cover, correct? (I'm guessing). And that doesn't directly affect the casting/attack flip of the spell, but is an effect for all ranged attacks. So I still could see DS affecting spells - yet I also still see your point :Paralyzed_Puppet:

Edited April 19, 2013 by Paddywhack

[The Godlyness]

and as adran has Stated above you make a resist flips for spells. NOT a Defense flip. which is clearly a Stipulation of Defensive stance.

By your interpretation if i used Magicians Duel with Colette Vs a Defensive stanced model that it could benefit from it. even in this case the resist is on CA not Df since its a melee attack spell you would get the :+fate? Absurd i know.

then your going to say no it does not work against things like that it has to be Resist flip on the DF stat? How come? Clearly its still a melee attack spell.

So now it becomes o yeah certain melee spells you get the ++ on but other ones nah since why? pick and choose?

Or the logical thing is since the Rule Book defines what a Defense flip is and how it is used is to Follow them.

And if your using the Defensive stance Action What reason could you have that modifys an action Clearly written out?

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Edit.

Reading it over again I see where you are coming from, but I still can't shake the feeling that they mean for DS to work against melee spells, but as DS affects the Defense Flip of the defender and not the attack (casting flip) of the caster, I guess I have to agree with you.

The wording that all things that affect melee attacks also affects melee attack spells still makes me think that DS should apply, as it affects melee attacks. I can see your point though. I mean, you still give armor +1 for ranged attack spells that hit a target in hard cover, correct? (I'm guessing). And that doesn't directly affect the casting/attack flip of the spell, but is an effect for all ranged attacks. So I still could see DS affecting spells - yet I also still see your point :Paralyzed_Puppet:

when someone pointed it out to me i was Highly argumentative and was like no no no no no. But after re reading it a bijillion times i could not flaw the logic.

Then he was like Take Mcmourning Organ donor him doing damage with a melee attack heals him. i was like k. then he was like so if i use dissection and hit severe i heal 10? cause that is a definitive bonus. then i was like point taken your right lets continue. (for the record he does not heal off of dissection)

[Paddywhack]

By your interpretation if i used Magicians Duel with Colette Vs a Defensive stanced model that it could benefit from it. even in this case the resist is on CA not Df since its a melee attack spell you would get the :+fate? Absurd i know.

--snip---

Or the logical thing is since the Rule Book defines what a Defense flip is and how it is used is to Follow them.

And if your using the Defensive stance Action What reason could you have that modifys an action Clearly written out?

OK - just lost a long post by accident. Short version. Page 42 of small manual is the only place a Defense Flip is ever spelled out and nowhere does it say it is only tied to the Df stat. In fact is says to add the value of the flip+ stat value and suit + modifers to get the total. So they appear to have left it open for a Defense Flip to be open to what stat it is, not just the Df stat. So why couldn't it be CA? (that appears to be your argument, but forgive me if I have misinterpreted).

I can't find any other mention of Defense Flip other than in that paragraph on Strike Duals in both the small and 1.5 rulesbook. As it never says a Defense Flip is only using the Df stat, I see no reason it couldn't be Ca or Wp or any other stat they may use for some future ability.

Also, what about figures that can use their Melee Weapons to attack stats other than Df - like the Onryo's finernails? Would Df Stance only work if the Onryo chose Df to attack and not Wp? Its not even a spell, just a plain Melee weapon (fingernails) that has a special rule to attack vs Wp - but otherwise is exactly the same as any melee attack Strike. IMO you could use Defensive Stance regardless of if its Df or Wp - its a melee attack, in a melee strike dual, and Defense Flip is not tied to any one stat.

Anyway, we have derailed this thread. I can see where you're coming from, but I think we still disagree on this. Not a big deal as if we ever played in a friendly game I'd likely concede the point for the sake of fun. In an organized event I'd live with whatever the organizer decided.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Look in the FAQ on Malifaux.com, it clearly defines a defense flip.

[rgarbonzo]

Attack and Defense flips are specific to Strikes

from the FAQ

[The Godlyness]

Also, what about figures that can use their Melee Weapons to attack stats other than Df - like the Onryo's finernails? Would Df Stance only work if the Onryo chose Df to attack and not Wp? Its not even a spell, just a plain Melee weapon (fingernails) that has a special rule to attack vs Wp - but otherwise is exactly the same as any melee attack Strike. IMO you could use Defensive Stance regardless of if its Df or Wp - its a melee attack, in a melee strike dual, and Defense Flip is not tied to any one stat.

On page 42 SrB Number 2 Strike duel second sentence.

Its still part of the Strike duel so the the defender would get the ++ if the onroyo targeted on WP instead of Df

[Paddywhack]

Ah. Too many darn places to look. Don't understand why they didn't do a better job with 1.5 to include a lot of the FAQ stuff? After a second 2 hour drive to Portland to try and catch a game and have no one show up on a game night, plus the various rules scattered and difficult to decipher, I'm starting to think if its worth even trying to play anymore....

[BC3]

Of course it is. It's fun.

[i_was_like_you]

It's worth playing, but maybe find somewhere closer to do so. A 2 hour drive is a close convention, not a game night. Heck, a half hour drive with the only opponents being the ones I brought with me wasn't worth it.

[Paddywhack]

Sadly only one store in town and its only got GW and PP players. No one is interested in Malifaux there.

I'm still unclear why they would even say something like melee/ranged attack spells use all the same modifiers as melee and ranged attacks if Defensive Stance wasn't included. Defensive stance is listed on the Melee Modififiers chart as Cover is on the Ranged Modifiers chart. I can see why normally DF is used in a Strike Dual, but I thought that the Special Rule about melee/ ranged spells (These Spells follow the rules for that type of attack and receive any bonuses or penalties associated with that type of attack (i.e. a model casting a Spell with the icon that targets a model in soft cover would receive a on the Attack Flip) would not override the regular rules sequence in this case? What other modifiers are they talking about?

Oh well. Its not as if I get to play much, so not likely to come up - just trying to understand the, at times, frustrating rules. Thanks.

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------

On page 42 SrB Number 2 Strike duel second sentence.

Its still part of the Strike duel so the the defender would get the ++ if the onroyo targeted on WP instead of Df

Yeah, I see that. I was just confused why the possibility of using Ca in a Defense Flip was so absurd. The implication I was reading into the statement (I could have been wrong about his meaning) was that a Defense Flip had to use Df. Clearly if you read that page a Defense Flip is left open to use whichever stat is necessary.

[Adran]

Ah. Too many darn places to look. Don't understand why they didn't do a better job with 1.5 to include a lot of the FAQ stuff? After a second 2 hour drive to Portland to try and catch a game and have no one show up on a game night, plus the various rules scattered and difficult to decipher, I'm starting to think if its worth even trying to play anymore....

For what its worth, I think They did do a good job on tidying up from the old Book to the rules manual (and whilst I've not read the 1.5 book I understand they did again). Most of the old FAQ questions were answered and the rules tidied up to cover that at the time. But we keep coming up with new cases, and whilst a lot of them are niche. there is still work to be redone.

Unfortuantly a small tidy up of the rules (which is all 1.5 really was) can't do things that change attack and attack to be different without re-doing all the cards, which they already did once for free.

Personally I can't see a purpose for the melee icon on spells. I can't even think of a Niche case where it matters at the moment.

[arkno]

black blood activate on melee spell for example.