Is falling back an effect?

[Eisenhorn]

If pandora is able to get her trigger off and force a model to fall back is the status of falling back an effect? Also if it is an effect what happens when a witchling stalker casts dispel magic on the model that is falling back? Does it auto rally and function as normal? Thanks

[Hookers]

i don't really see what it could be other than an effect, so i don't see why you wouldn't be able to shrug it off or dispel magic


that being said i don't know the real answer, so i'm as curious to see what they say as you are.

[Naravus]

I dont think that falling back due to a failed morale duel is actually an effect, it is simply forced movement. However, effects themselves can force falling back..

[magicpockets]

I've got a feeling this has come up in some form before and you can shrug off fallin back... Hang on...

EDIT:
okay, couple of threads on this. First one which points out you can't use (0) actions when falling back, but now kind of mute as falling back now happens immediately and not in your activation. Second thread (http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21581&highlight=Shrug+falling+back&page=2) where the question is under discussion, I've bumped that thread for an answer.

[Eisenhorn]

I can understand papa loco not being able to use shrug off because you first have to rally to use the (0) action. However the stalker is the one casting the spell on a different model. The model that is falling back isn't casting anything.

BTW thanks for reviving the older threads as well. I would like an answer to this as i can foresee this coming up many more times in my games.

[magicpockets]

Remember with the new rule book that falling back happens immediately now, not when you activate, and therefore Rallying happens as soon as you activate for the first time. So the only thing you can't do is take movement actions, and you get neg flips on all duels.

The question is, is the rule that means you can't walk/get neg flips an "effect". If it is, a witching stalker could remove it as you say (so the model activates as normal, but it still would have fled 2x movement as this happens on falling back before the WS activates) and an Ortega could do (0) Shrug Off as it's first action and then activate as normal after that.

[cerealkiller195]

in the same token, did they ever release a full list of what IS an "effect"? or what dispel magic/shrug off CANNOT do?

[Q'iq'el]

in the same token, did they ever release a full list of what IS an "effect"? or what dispel magic/shrug off CANNOT do?

They defined the effects pretty well in Rules Manual and even divided them into groups (Placement Effects, Movement Effects, Spell and Talent Effects etc.).

The assumption is, that if a spell modifies your stats or adds a "talent" to your model, it is an effect.

The gray area, I think, is with Action Modifiers (they are not effects in name, but they can still be placed on a model as a result of a talent or spell). Personally I assume something may be just an Action Modifier (talent printed on the card), or may be both Action Modifier and an Effect if it was gained from a talent or spell. That part is not explicitly stated in the Manual though, so, as I said, I think it is a gray area.

As far as Falling Back is concerned, the defintion is on the page 57 and the very first sentence mentions that a model must be affected by an effect forcing it to fall back, to be falling back.

It may be not the straightest of definition, but to me it means there is an effect called "falling back" placed on the model as a result of talent or spell.

[cerealkiller195]

Thanks Q! i actually only had the rules manual for a week or so and i'm still observing the subtle differences between the book 1 and 2 rules compared to the manual.

I'm glad they cleared it up, I was thinking of running a witchling stalker in my guild crews with the sole mission of dispelling any ill effects.

[Hookers]

it is more than forced movement, you have a :-fate to all flips and can't move for a turn.

obviously after you are forced to move you can't "unmove," the rest though would be fair game.

if kirai says you have take :-fate to flips involving spirits you would most definitely be able to take that effect off.

Q's answer is pretty solid and I'd be surprised if a marshal said anything to the contrary.

[Eisenhorn]

maybe im just not understanding the given answer completely or something so please bear with me as I walk through this.

1)Pandora declares her trigger on a guild guard that has not yet activated.
2)Guild guard immediately falls back doubling is walk.
3)Pandora's activation end and a Witchling Stalker activates.
4)Stalker casts Dispel magic on the guild guard and passes the duels.
5)The effect of falling back is removed
6)The guild guard now does not need to rally and can move as normal when it activates later in the turn.

Do I have this correct?

[Hookers]

that is my understanding, and how everyone else who responded to the thread described it.

if it's incorrect a marshal will come let us know.

[pixelgeek]

that is my understanding, and how everyone else who responded to the thread described it.

if it's incorrect a marshal will come let us know.

I guess it all depends on how you read the rules.

Page 56 of the rules says:

"A model that loses a Morale Check is falling back (see below) in addition to any other effects it may suffer from losing the Morale Duel".

Effects in this sentence seems to refer to other possible results of losing the Morale Duel and not to Falling Back.

If you compare Mental Anguish to Project Emotions, the spell effect is very careful to mention that the impact of the spell are effects. Mental Anguish does not.

Nowhere in the description of Falling Back is it said that this is an effect. Page 57 makes no mention of Falling Back being an effect and in lieu of a specific mention of it in the rules I can't see any reason to infer that it is meant to be.

Since Mental Anguish doesn't mention there being an effect on the target and Falling Back is not listed as an effect I think its clear that it isn't.

If it was then why couldn't the Witchling Stalker stop a model from Falling Back after being Terrified?

The situation of a model failing a Morale Check after being Terrified and the situation caused by Mental Anguish are the same but I think its clear that no-one is going to argue that a Witchling Stalker can remove a Falling Back status from a model that was Terrified.

[Hookers]

If it was then why couldn't the Witchling Stalker stop a model from Falling Back after being Terrified?


I would say it can



The situation of a model failing a Morale Check after being Terrified and the situation caused by Mental Anguish are the same but I think its clear that no-one is going to argue that a Witchling Stalker can remove a Falling Back status from a model that was Terrified.

you are correct, they are essentially the same thing. I don't see how that is clear that no one would argue that. I in fact would argue that it could remove falling back status after having lost a morale duel due to a terrifying effect.

Like Q said, it's a bit of a grey area. However, if it is not an effect, then what is it? His interpretation makes perfect sense and is what I'm going with until someone proves otherwise.

[pixelgeek]

I in fact would argue that it could remove falling back status after having lost a morale duel due to a terrifying effect.

So despite that it is caused by Terrifying you think it makes sense that a Dispel Magic spell would remove the status caused by the model being Terrified? Where is the Magic that the Witchling is dispelling?


However, if it is not an effect, then what is it?

Well it only has to be "something" if that "something" has a meaning and use in the game. An "effect" is something in the game because there are other things that can interact with them primarily by removing them.

Falling Back doesn't need to be "something" since there isn't anything that interacts with it in a way that isn't specific to and unique to Falling Back.


His interpretation makes perfect sense and is what I'm going with until someone proves otherwise.

His interpretation might make logical sense but typically one has to approach rules as they are written. No-where is it written that Falling Back is an effect and since the interpretation of it being an effect leads to oddities like Dispel Magic stopping a model from Falling Back then I think it quite clearly doesn't make sense.

I'm scared of a Desolation Engine and my Witchling Stalker removes that by "Dispelling" it?

[Q'iq'el]

So despite that it is caused by Terrifying you think it makes sense that a Dispel Magic spell would remove the status caused by the model being Terrified? Where is the Magic that the Witchling is dispelling?

Terrifying is a talent. Any talent can apply game effects to its target, not just spells (see page 19). Dispel Magic is affecting "magic" by name, but just like Spellbreaker and Shrug off it ends an effect on the model, without any further restrictions.

So there's no reason to suspect that you cannot use Dispel Magic or Shrug Off to remove falling back if it indeed is an effect, regardless of how the effect has been applied.


If you take the most basic definition of Game Effects from page 19, anything that changes the state of a model is an effect. This is a very broad definition and a "catch-all" for things like falling back in my opinion. As long as the effect is ongoing, you should be able to use abilities and spells removing effects to get rid of it.

[JoeB]

I would say if the falling back is the result of a spell maybe you could remove it. The question is is falling back the effect of the spell or was it the effect that caused the model to fall back. Also does falling back end after the model stops moving or at activation when he rallies, are you removing falling back or rallying? I don't think rallying is an effect.

If falling back was caused by failing a terror test I would think that it cannot be removed as this is not the result of magic, you just peed your pants and ran. I wouldn't think that a dispell magic spell would work on cowardice.

[Mike3838]

To people saying Dispel Magic only works on magical effects, would you also say it doesn't work on (I'll pick just one of many many non-magical effects in the game) Fester caused by Madame Sybelle? -1Wk/Cg til the end of the game due to a festering wound. That's not "magical" either, but it's definitely an effect and eligible for the Stalker to dispel.

There's nothing in the Rules to differentiate between falling back caused by something magical or a non magical source, except your interpretation.

Mike

[pixelgeek]

To people saying Dispel Magic only works on magical effects...

No-one is saying that. At least I am not. I bright it up as an example of the problem of viewing Falling Back as an effect.


There's nothing in the Rules to differentiate between falling back caused by something magical or a non magical source, except your interpretation.

Mike

Who are you talking to Mike? You need to quote people so we know who you are talking to

[pixelgeek]

If falling back was caused by failing a terror test I would think that it cannot be removed as this is not the result of magic, you just peed your pants and ran. I wouldn't think that a dispell magic spell would work on cowardice.

You can't have it both ways though. Either it is an effect at which point Dispel Magic works on it or it isn't.

[pixelgeek]

If you take the most basic definition of Game Effects from page 19, anything that changes the state of a model is an effect. This is a very broad definition and a "catch-all" for things like falling back in my opinion. As long as the effect is ongoing, you should be able to use abilities and spells removing effects to get rid of it.

This is true but the problem remains that the rules don't state that Falling Back is an effect. Since the rules seem to be pretty clear when a result from a spell, trigger etc is an effect it means that one has to make an inference.

[JoeB]

So again it is still a question of if falling back is an effect?

The Rules Manual says "A model that loses a Morale Duel or is affected by an effect that forces the model to fall back is falling back." That is the definition of falling back from P57. Based on that I would say that falling back is the result of the effect not the effect itself, just as a wd is the result of other effects.

[Q'iq'el]

Based on that I would say that falling back is the result of the effect not the effect itself, just as a wd is the result of other effects.

That is the definition of an ongoing effect in Malifaux terms, so yes it is an effect. A Wd is in itself also an effect, just an immediate one. (see page 20, especially the examples)


Anything that changes the state of the model is an effect, and the name of the effect is the name of the talent or spell that is affecting the model, unless specified otherwise (i.e. the talent/spell defines the name for the effect it may place).

If an effect affects a model and leaves a lasting influence on the model, it is an ongoing effect and that's precisely what dispelling abilities (some listed before in this thread) are supposed to counter.


I think people have problem grasping the fact that everything is an effect. Even the extra Armor a model gets from the hard cover is in fact an effect placed on the model by the hard cover - this is given as an example in the Rules Manual. There are no way to influence a model in game of Malifaux without it being an effect.

The only thing you have to worry about, IMHO, is whether the effect is immediate or ongoing. This is important, because the immediate effects are executed instantly and can't be removed later, while the ongoing effects are subjects of all the rules about stacking of effects and can also be removed from the models by other means.