Pandora's Self Harm vs non-shooters?

[baskinders]

Can pandora cast Self Harm at a target that has no ranged attack?

The answer boils down to whether the first sentence "Select a (1) AP ranged attack on the target." is a requirement of casting or if it's an effect of the casting?

The reason I ask is that if it's an effect then you can cast it on non-ranged attack targets and trigger Mental Anguish to Paralyse them if you take that upgrade, as it's triggered off success and not damaging.

The way it's written it could be either I guess? It doesn't say "target a model with a (1) AP ranged attack" so I'm leaning towards it being ok to target anyone. What do you all think?

[HalcyonSeraph]

Well, this is one area where the "just use common sense" part doesn't help, since clearly people's common sense differs. My common sense tells me that literally making all decisions prior to casting won't work in a lot of cases, as Myth pointed out upthread.

My common sense tells me that the "choose variables" step is intended to clear up variables that affect the casting of the spell itself, like Nico's summon which sets the TN. It is not, in my opinion, intended to force people to choose what action they will Obey, or what exact direction they intend to push, or which cards they intend to discard, or any of the other decisions that come from the effects of an action.

Also, can we please, PLEASE stop dismissing people who want clear rules as gamey gits or rules lawyers or weasels or whatever else? Being blase and casual about stuff doesn't make you a better person than someone who doesn't understand a rule or whose common sense disagrees with yours or who wants the game to work smoothly and consistently. Your instincts are not more correct than theirs or mine. Just because you think something is obvious doesn't mean anyone who disagrees is trying to get one over on you.

[rancor709]

I want clear rules as well! As I said I'd like it faq'ed

it is farily clear that if you don't have a gun I can't select a gun on you.

Just as if I'm not in 3" of you I can't do an attack that has a range of 3"

So I fail to see a distinction.

I can't obey a model to shoot another model if that model has no gun can I? cause if I can oh boy I'm going to be doing that all the time.

again I'll wait for the faq but I know again how this will be ruled locally until said time.

[mythicFOX]

Can I point out a wording thing.

Most actions begin; 'Target... effect'.

In the two 'with variable' cases we agree on and use as examples, Ramos and Nico, their actions both begin with a requirement to; name, choose or select. As does Pandora's ability.

As I read it the action opening with requirement 'to make a choice' indicates the presence of a variable that must be chosen. Actions which begin with a targeting requirements (like Obey) don't.

That's how I read and would rule it. Although I agree it should probably be FAQ'd.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I want clear rules as well! As I said I'd like it faq'ed

it is farily clear that if you don't have a gun I can't select a gun on you.

Just as if I'm not in 3" of you I can't do an attack that has a range of 3"

So I fail to see a distinction.

I can't obey a model to shoot another model if that model has no gun can I? cause if I can oh boy I'm going to be doing that all the time.

again I'll wait for the faq but I know again how this will be ruled locally until said time.

You fail to see a distinction, which is fine, but range is already explicitly a part of target selection so that isn't comparable and of course you cannot Obey someone to take an action they do not have, that is not comparable to this either.

In your opinion:

1. If you have a power that says "Remove 1 condition from target model and give that model Fast", can you cast it on a model who currently has no conditions? If yes, how is this different than Pandora casting Self-Harm on someone with no ranged attacks?

2. If you have a power that says "Push target model 3 inches", do you have to specify where you are pushing them before you cast it? Why or why not? Isn't that a variable?

3. If you have a power that says "Discard 2 cards to gain Fast", do you have to specify which exact cards you plan to discard before casting? Why or why not? Isn't that a variable?

[mythicFOX]

@ HalcyonSeraph - I think my post above may answer those questions.

[Myth]

I want clear rules as well! As I said I'd like it faq'ed

it is farily clear that if you don't have a gun I can't select a gun on you.

Just as if I'm not in 3" of you I can't do an attack that has a range of 3"

So I fail to see a distinction.

Keep in mind, though - you can have a Sorrow attempt to Paralyze a model that is Immune to Paralysis. Some might consider that a closer comparison - a situation where you can still make the attack, even though there it will have no direct effect on the target.

Or for another situation - say Lilith casts Transfixing Gaze ("Push target model its Cg directly towards this model") on a model with a Cg value of "-". Does the lack of a Cg characteristic mean the model only moves 0"? Or can Lilith not even target them with that power in the first place?

[rancor709]

1.) The and statement in statement one means the action completes and gives fast. It is different becasue there is no and statement in the Self Harm self harm states "select a 1 action action" I can't select a one action ranged action if you don't have it. Every thing else on the action is based on you having that ranged action to determine the dmg profile of the attack. That is how it it is different one is something causing 2 distinct effects at the same time. Self harm is stating the variables of the action.

2.) I would argue in those instances where it states it as a condition of casting and it doesn't already specifiy absolutley you would have to declare and most of the time direction is obvious or already stated.

3.)yes you discard 2 cards and beings they are discarded must be shown to the opponent so yes you would declare prior to.

I love hypothetical games

Let's play this one

1.) You have zero money. I cast a spell that says you give me 10 bucks. How much money do you give me? Why? Do i get my trigger that says when this succeeds I get to yell you? Can I succeed if no money is given

[HalcyonSeraph]

Paralyze is a good example in several ways. Models immune to Paralyze still have to make Horror Duels despite being immune to the effects, and still trigger "failed a Horror Duel" powers even though nothing happened.

---------- Post added at 10:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 AM ----------

1.) The and statement in statement one means the action completes and gives fast. It is different becasue there is no and statement in the Self Harm self harm states "select a 1 action action" I can't select a one action ranged action if you don't have it. Every thing else on the action is based on you having that ranged action to determine the dmg profile of the attack. That is how it it is different one is something causing 2 distinct effects at the same time. Self harm is stating the variables of the action.

2.) I would argue in those instances where it states it as a condition of casting and it doesn't already specifiy absolutley you would have to declare and most of the time direction is obvious or already stated.

3.)yes you discard 2 cards and beings they are discarded must be shown to the opponent so yes you would declare prior to.

I love hypothetical games

Let's play this one

1.) You have zero money. I cast a spell that says you give me 10 bucks. How much money do you give me? Why? Do i get my trigger that says when this succeeds I get to yell you? Can I succeed if no money is given

Well your opinion is certainly consistent, it's clear we just disagree at this point. I definitely do not think you need to declare the cards being discarded or the Obey action prior to casting.

The answer to your question is that I give you no money, but you were allowed to cast it on me anyway. Unless the power said "Target poster with more than 0 dollars". The trigger would depend on whether it says "after gaining money" or "after succeeding". We have rules for this already.

[rancor709]

Lilith can't target it immunity means there is no duel

call out boxpg.39

"Immunity-A model immune to a game rule cannot be affected by the rule. The model never performs a duel to which it is immune. A model immune to a horror duel, simply does not perform the duel. A model immune to a condition can never receive the condition. If an attack or other source causes damage and applies a condition to a model, the model still suffers the damage, but if it would not gain the condition if it is immune. If a model gains immunity to a condition while it has the condition the condition it immediately removes the condition.

No duel if I'm immune reading is fun

[HalcyonSeraph]

Lilith can't target it immunity means there is no duel

call out boxpg.39

"Immunity-A model immune to a game rule cannot be affected by the rule. The model never performs a duel to which it is immune. A model immune to a horror duel, simply does not perform the duel. A model immune to a condition can never receive the condition. If an attack or other source causes damage and applies a condition to a model, the model still suffers the damage, but if it would not gain the condition if it is immune. If a model gains immunity to a condition while it has the condition the condition it immediately removes the condition.

No duel if I'm immune reading is fun

Where are you getting that having a Cg of - means you are immune? Immunity, as you just quoted, is a defined game term. Which means if it doesn't say immune, its not immune.

[rancor709]

sorry I missed typed its on the sorrows. NO you can't cast dulldrums on a model with immunity paralyzed.

ON liliths I am not pushed Form the Faq

Q: If a model moves (or is Pushed, Falls, is Placed, etc) 0” (zero inches), does it count as having

moved?

A: No. Same answer for Pushing, Falling, Placement, etc.

[HalcyonSeraph]

sorry I missed typed its on the sorrows. NO you can't cast dulldrums on a model with immunity paralyzed.

ON liliths I am not pushed Form the Faq

Q: If a model moves (or is Pushed, Falls, is Placed, etc) 0” (zero inches), does it count as having

moved?

A: No. Same answer for Pushing, Falling, Placement, etc.

Thats not the question. Everyone agrees a model with Cg - who gets Transfixing Gazed would move 0. The question is whether or not she can even cast it on them to begin with. Or are they an illegal target for having Cg -?

(note that I don't actually know the answer to this question, since I can see either answer as being logical and neither is common sense)

Edited January 28, 2014 by HalcyonSeraph

[Myth]

Lilith can't target it immunity means there is no duel

call out boxpg.39

"Immunity-A model immune to a game rule cannot be affected by the rule. The model never performs a duel to which it is immune. A model immune to a horror duel, simply does not perform the duel. A model immune to a condition can never receive the condition. If an attack or other source causes damage and applies a condition to a model, the model still suffers the damage, but if it would not gain the condition if it is immune. If a model gains immunity to a condition while it has the condition the condition it immediately removes the condition.

No duel if I'm immune reading is fun

I believe you are reading it incorrectly. If a model is specifically Immune to Horror Duels, it does not need to make a Horror Duel. If a model is simply immune to being Paralyzed, it would still need to test for Horror Duels, and it could still be attacked by Sorrows - it just wouldn't be Paralyzed as an outcome. But making the test could still trigger other effects based on the pass or failure of Horror tests or Wp duels.

[rancor709]

I'm arguing that as they wouldn't allow the successful completion of the action as all variables aren't done it can't be cast on said model with Cg- as it would have no effect.

Again I think we have amply demonstrated the requirement for an FAQ on the matter and have no real interest in continuing our repetitive and tedious argument over the definition of non spelled out timings. Again I'll leave it where its at for now but I've appreciated the break from an otherwise tedious work day.

[therat]

I believe you are reading it incorrectly. If a model is specifically Immune to Horror Duels, it does not need to make a Horror Duel. If a model is simply immune to being Paralyzed, it would still need to test for Horror Duels, and it could still be attacked by Sorrows - it just wouldn't be Paralyzed as an outcome. But making the test could still trigger other effects based on the pass or failure of Horror tests or Wp duels.

This seems correct. Sorrows do not cause paralysis duels, so a model's immunity to paralysis would not prevent the duel. Indeed reading is fun.

[The Godlyness]

I guess this comes down to Pandora's attack including its effects before you complete the duel. I guess with this reading I say " your peacebringer does 2/3/4 to you. I have to tell you this before trying to Target you. So i am applying the effects before doing duels. Best ever.

My reading is I declare my action. I target your model pass anyduels required to do so. We generate duel totals and declare triggers I succeed. After succeeding triggers go off. I apply applicable effects. You don't have a projectile attack my applicable effect is i do nothing. After resolving triggers go off. Action ends check if in 6" if so take one from misery.

[Sharp_GT]

As a MTG player who quitted especially due to bad wording abuses, banlists of cards and all the rest, I can answer you that MTG is exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote about Ramos. And you should agree that there isn't any restriction for Magnetism to target and make a duel with a non-construct model, because "Push towards target Construct" is a part of the subsequent effect(it needs to be a Construct for the push, not to be targeted by the Duel)...

Actually no I wouldn't agree with that. As a MTG player who continues to play, and judges on a competitive level, I would say this is wrong. Read the commonly played card "Abrupt Decay". It states that you destroy target permanent with a cost of 3 or less. You cannot even target something that cost more than three with that spell, and I think a lot of malifaux actions work the same: the part of the the action after the semicolon explains not only the effect, but restrictions, modes to be chosen, and other information.

This makes no sense. Magnetism says "target construct". That is clearly a target restriction. You cannot target a non-construct to be your target construct. Just like if a power said "Target enemy model gains Poison +1", you would not be able to target friendlies with it. No one would argue that power to be castable for no effect on friendlies.

Precicely!

...I'm sure based on english reading of the rules as justin has asked for and a grain of common sense would be the rule is saying select a 1 ap ranged attack if non are present you can';t do it. avoiding the need for the line this action may only target models with a icon in one of there attacks. but I know the world is full of gamey gits an thus the need to actually clarify what should be instinctive. So I hope its added to the faq...

This makes me think I should change my mind on this matter. As Justin laid out in the Lilith vs Silurid thread we should be using common sense, not taking rules literally word for word. Without a action, Pandora's action would fail, or not be possible.

In the two 'with variable' cases we agree on and use as examples, Ramos and Nico, their actions both begin with a requirement to; name, choose or select. As does Pandora's ability.

I'm changing my tune on this issue. The action requires a choice that cannot be made, so I don't think the action can be taken. Again, applying common sense instead of treating the rules like a computer program.

...Also, can we please, PLEASE stop dismissing people who want clear rules as gamey gits or rules lawyers or weasels or whatever else?...

Seriously guys, I hate the term and the idea of the "Rules Lawyer" as it's most often applied to people who simply want the rules to be clear, concise, and to function the way they were written. A "Rules Lawyer" is someone who bends the meaning of words so that the rules function differently, gaining them an advantage. But more often the term is used to label someone seeking clarity in the rules that would prevent rules lawyering before it can start.

Alright, lets lay it to rest, another FAQ will be coming soon I'm sure.

[HalcyonSeraph]

This makes me think I should change my mind on this matter. As Justin laid out in the Lilith vs Silurid thread we should be using common sense, not taking rules literally word for word. Without a action, Pandora's action would fail, or not be possible.

That's in the absence of definitions though. We have definitions for target legality, and the issue is that we have a command from the game to declare variables and no clear understanding of what variables means in this context. If it means literally anything that is a decision stemming from the action (which would be the English definition of the word), then you get into a lot of nasty corner cases as stated in the thread, and I really strongly don't think that was the intent.

Justin certainly did not mean that we shouldn't actually read the rules and take them literally - quite the opposite. He means that if a word isn't given a game definition distinct from it's English definition, we shouldn't bend over backwards to assign it one, as we all were doing with "ignore" in the Lilith/Silurid thread. We should instead read those rules literally, as in use their actual literal definitions, rather than a game definition, like we have for Attack, Walk, Push, and so forth.

My "common sense" tells me that the game is not supposed to work in a way where you must declare exactly where you are pushing or that you plan to discard the 2 of masks if you succeed, all before casting. Therefore I have to believe that "variables" is referring to variables that actually affect the TN. That's why it is where it is in the casting order, because you can't take an action with a TN if you don't know the TN. I really believe that is all that sentence means.

Further, we have targetting restrictions in the game already, in the form of powers that either explicitly state who cannot be targeted, or in the form of powers that use the wording "target X does whatever". Self-Harm has none of that wording and doesn't use the word target so I have no reason to believe it's a targeting restriction.

[baskinders]

As the original poster I can say I'm no more clear now than before asking .

However, can I throw in the Monk of Low River to this debate and ask if he can target a model with his attack that has no Condition present? Because the way that attack is worded is the same as Pandora's, so the answer should be consistent either way.

[rancor709]

Lets look at the reprecusions if this is changed to being legally target-able on models without a ranged attack.

Voices becomes the defacto Upgrade choice for Pandora as you have just given for 1ss you know have a 10" paralyzed that works on everyone congratulations.

This was not how she was tested and farily sure wasn't how she was intended.

[Myth]

Lets look at the reprecusions if this is changed to being legally target-able on models without a ranged attack.

Voices becomes the defacto Upgrade choice for Pandora as you have just given for 1ss you know have a 10" paralyzed that works on everyone congratulations.

This was not how she was tested and farily sure wasn't how she was intended.

You believe that the balancing factor in designing Voices is the existence of models that she must engage in melee (where she has a higher Ca attack, subjects them to her aura, and can spam AoE damage going forward) in order to paralyze them, as opposed to being able to do so at range?

I mean, other Masters can Paralyze at range without needing a specific suit. I don't think that this ability working against all models (instead of having a handful that are arbitrarily immune) is somehow going to be a major change. And given that "There Is No Shelter Here" is an almost completely useless ability, I don't think that Voices will suddenly be an always-take over The Box Opens, which I honestly find a much more effective upgrade.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Lets look at the reprecusions if this is changed to being legally target-able on models without a ranged attack.

Voices becomes the defacto Upgrade choice for Pandora as you have just given for 1ss you know have a 10" paralyzed that works on everyone congratulations.

This was not how she was tested and farily sure wasn't how she was intended.

Giving Pandora a 10 inch ranged Paralyze on a crow is...really not a big deal. I'd still take Box Opens over Voices, and in fact have been, all the while playing Self-Harm as being able to target people who don't have ranged attacks.

Voices now already gives her a 10 inch ranged paralyze against MOST models, and that isn't broken at all. Being able to do it to people who don't have ranged attacks really isn't much of a change as far as Mental Anguish goes.

Do you think the Monk of Low River is completely unable to target models who don't have any Conditions?

[The Godlyness]

I did bring the monk question unto question. If you cant do the effects can you do the attack well why thr heck not. Whats stopping you. And the answer is nothing. Maybe i want to be gamey and make us flip cards for what ever perceived bonuses.

[Ausplosions]

And yet Tara can discard a whole hand consisting of zero cards

I'd say Pandora can do this.

[Justin]

Justin certainly did not mean that we shouldn't actually read the rules and take them literally - quite the opposite. He means that if a word isn't given a game definition distinct from it's English definition, we shouldn't bend over backwards to assign it one, as we all were doing with "ignore" in the Lilith/Silurid thread. We should instead read those rules literally, as in use their actual literal definitions, rather than a game definition, like we have for Attack, Walk, Push, and so forth.

This is fairly accurate.

I would also like to reiterate that there is nothing wrong with wanting clear rules, and I wouldn't accuse anyone in this (or the other) thread of trying to bend the rules to their advantage.

The silurid ruling, in my opinion, was a ruling that, if made incorrectly, could lead the game down a rabbit hole to a very bad place. I do not believe that this debate has such wide-reaching implications, so I see no need to rule on it now. And I can see both sides of it and want to test it out a bit.

It will be in the next FAQ.