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?

[Tuttleboy]

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.

Gotta love it when a designer comes to the rules forum and tells everyone he's going to do some testing on the questioned rule before he makes a ruling...

Thank you sir.

[Eyefink]

Personally, I fall on the side of "if you can't perform the effects of the action, it can't be attempted." But I will submit to the FAQ and am thankful for the designer's response. :fireball:

[Mastershake]

Personally, I fall on the side of "if you can't perform the effects of the action, it can't be attempted." But I will submit to the FAQ and am thankful for the designer's response. :fireball:

This is way too broad almost to the point of being unenforceable. You'd practically need a ruling for every action that isn't just an normal attack.

I fall in the camp of "If something meets whatever targeting restriction an action has, the action can be used. If part or all of an action cannot be completed, the parts that can't be completed have no effect"

[Ausplosions]

So if it said "discard two soulstones" but i had none, you would be okay if I used it?

Nope

[Morgan Vening]

So if it said "discard two soulstones" but i had none, you would be okay if I used it?

Depends on how it's written.

Examples,

(0) Shrug Off: This model may discard a card to remove....

(1) Temporal Shift: All models in 6 gain Fast. Then, this model discards....

The first is a cost associated to succeed at the action. The second is an effect of the action. In the case of Shrug Off, you can apparently still use the Action even if you don't discard the card. You just don't get the effect.

Personally, I would have preferred they kept the old AR (Additional Requirements) concept from late 1.5E. It was only problematic there because it worked back retroactively.

It's like Guild Guard's Menace and Frozen Heart. Immunity to Paralyze doesn't (I don't think?) stop the Menace from being cast, but the Frozen Heart model ignores the second half of the ability. I see it as a similar concept here. The second para of the Immunity callout (pg 39 BigRB) says that immunity to condition doesn't stop damage+condition from affecting it, just the +condition part.

That's how I personally see this argument. You do what you can, and ignore any parts that can't, or are conditional on something that hasn't been done. I can see both ways working, but this way is simpler, I think.

[Eyefink]

To be a little more clear, I was thinking in terms of valid targets, but you're likely right about it being to broad. FWIW, I think the official ruling will end up being you can target whomever even if the Action fizzles because it can't be carried out, regardless of what I think the original intent of that power was. If it's too far off base they'll just errata it anyway.

[HalcyonSeraph]

So if it said "discard two soulstones" but i had none, you would be okay if I used it?

Nope

No, but keep in mind that Tara can cast Temporal Shift even if she doesn't have a hand to discard.

\/\/\/ Good point, actually, you can cast it with no soulstones but the effect won't actually happen.

Edited January 30, 2014 by HalcyonSeraph

[Mastershake]

So if it said "discard two soulstones" but i had none, you would be okay if I used it?

Nope

If it said "Discard 2 soulstones to do X", you can cast it all day, but you lack the soulstones to have it do anything.

[thebarbalag]

What if an Ability caused an enemy model to discard two soul stones, but they only have one? And not in the"discards to avoid death" sense, just an ability that strips stones. Could I not use it if the model only had 1 stone?

Edited January 30, 2014 by thebarbalag

[Phototoxin]

It depends how it's phrased e.g.

(0) Flibble: this model may discard 3 soulstones, if it does eat cake.

you MAY discard 3 soulstones and if you do eat cake - CLEAR

(0) Bibble: discard 1 soulstone : eat cake,

to me that says I spend a 0 action AND a soulstone to eat cake

(0) Dibble: this model discards 2 soulstones, then eats cake

This is where the issue is:

the model has to discard two soulstones, if it can't has it endeavoured to do so thus qualifies to eat cake, or must it actually have 2 to get rid of (in which case can it even take the action?) before it can eat cake. EG if I have 0 soulstones and Dibble then do I just get cake?

PS the cake is a lie

[Ngangata]

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.

Sorry to single you out but this is a really bad analogy.

Abrupt Decay works the way it does because the game rules tell us exactly how to determine the what targets can be effected (comp rules 114.1a) and when to declare that target (601.2c).

My magic rules are a little sharper than my M2E rules so i don't know there is similar language in the malifaux rulebook for how to determine a legal target.

A better analogy would be abrupt decay vs. darksteel ingot. Darksteel ingot meets the targeting requirements (a permanent with a cost of 3 or less) but darksteel ingot is indestructible. So you can legally target it and the spell will be successfully cast, but when it comes to the effect, nothing happens.

IMHO that's how i see this scenario playing out, you can target any enemy model but the effect will only happen if it has a projectile attack.

Ngangata

[thebarbalag]

It depends how it's phrased e.g.

(0) Flibble: this model may discard 3 soulstones, if it does eat cake.

you MAY discard 3 soulstones and if you do eat cake - CLEAR

(0) Bibble: discard 1 soulstone : eat cake,

to me that says I spend a 0 action AND a soulstone to eat cake

(0) Dibble: this model discards 2 soulstones, then eats cake

This is where the issue is:

the model has to discard two soulstones, if it can't has it endeavoured to do so thus qualifies to eat cake, or must it actually have 2 to get rid of (in which case can it even take the action?) before it can eat cake. EG if I have 0 soulstones and Dibble then do I just get cake?

PS the cake is a lie

My intent would be phrasing something like this:

(0) Tribble: Ca 6 - TN 10 - Rst Wp - Rng 10: Target enemy discards 2 soul stones.

Edit, to finish my thought:

My issue, and I think, the issue with this interaction is, the action requires the enemy have X bad thing happen to it. If the result of the action is limited by the enemy's ability to have X happen to it, then that is a weaker ability, such as in the above example, where in the ability cannot target a model without 2 or more soul stones, as opposed to an ability that makes an enemy discard 0-2 soul stones, based on how many the enemy has. The same is true of Self Loathing and Self Harm if they are unable to target models without Ml or Sh attacks. The "cake" in a Pandora list is not a part of the ability, it's an internal synergy on Pandora's card, and an externally, with the Sorrows, with Teddy, and so on. All the ability needs for Pandora to do to "get cake" is succeed at the opposed duel. Misery, Smell Fear, and similar abilities don't care at all what happened after Pandora succeeded on the duel (or, more accurately, after the target lost).

There's no internal solution to this, though, I think, it just has to be ruled on, depending on how powerful the devs want the abilities to be. On one side, Pandora always has an ability to cause someone to make an opposed Wp duel at close or long range, on the other, her power level is slightly dependent on the abilities of the target. I'm not particularly concerned either way, I don't think it's much of a power swing.

Edited January 31, 2014 by thebarbalag

[Sharp_GT]

Sorry to single you out but this is a really bad analogy.

Abrupt Decay works the way it does because the game rules tell us exactly how to determine the what targets can be effected (comp rules 114.1a) and when to declare that target (601.2c).

My magic rules are a little sharper than my M2E rules so i don't know there is similar language in the malifaux rulebook for how to determine a legal target.

A better analogy would be abrupt decay vs. darksteel ingot. Darksteel ingot meets the targeting requirements (a permanent with a cost of 3 or less) but darksteel ingot is indestructible. So you can legally target it and the spell will be successfully cast, but when it comes to the effect, nothing happens.

IMHO that's how i see this scenario playing out, you can target any enemy model but the effect will only happen if it has a projectile attack.

Ngangata

Not sure how the darksteel ingot example applies, you still have a targeting restriction inherent to abrupt decay, the ingot simply cannot be destroyed which is similar to malifaux abilities that say a model is immune to something. But I see your point in that Self Harm does not explicitly have a targeting restriction.

A different MTG analogy that I think applies (sorry everybody who doesn't play Magic!) would be using the various lorwyn commands or the ravnica charms: upon casting you have to choose the modes and targets, with self harm the 'modal' choice is which (1) attack to copy the Dg from, but without an attack to copy you cannot choose that 'mode'. Of course it could also work like mind rot (target player discards 2 cards) where you can target a player with no cards in hand, they just won't have anything to discard.

Honestly I can see both sides of this argument, this will just need to come down to the FAQ.

[baskinders]

Honestly I can see both sides of this argument, this will just need to come down to the FAQ.

Amen

[baskinders]

Sorry to bring this up again but two more examples of "can you target a model with this action even though the primary effect does nothing" came up in our game yesterday.

The Rail Worker's Shovel Faster and whether it can target models with no Burning condition, and McMorning's Expunge and whether it can target models with no Poison condition.

I don't want to start the debate again, just wanted to add those two to Pandora and the Monk of Low River as they are all worded (in English meaning, not necessarily the exact words) the same, so should probably all be yes or no