Sky Waitress and Bunny Detroit

[driftingcloud]

This came up in tonight's game: Bunny attacked with weapon; player uses sky waitress to move the weapon to an adjacent bunny. The only adjacent bunny that's a viable target is Bunny Detroit.

Can Bunny Detroit be targeted by a weapon that has moved off of its original target by way of the Sky Waitress? Our initial consensus was yes, since the original target is the direct target and any other target as a result of card modifications is an indirect attack/aggressive card use.

Did a quick search here and didn't find this specific scenario mentioned.

[tommeedarko]

wow, this one really hurt my brain, lol. Half me says that the answer would be no, because you are "retargeting" the weapon to another bunny, while the other half of me completely aggrees with the fact that it was not the original "INTENDED" target. Im 50/50 on this one. I can see why this would have been an argument. lets wait and see if any one else comments on this post, I am really interested to find out! as always, house rules are best until ultimatly cleared up. I usually play by majority rule. I put it to a vote by the entire group, and that is the "understood" rule.

[TheDavii]

As far as I can tell, from my reading of the rules, they agreed on the most logical answer.

[jkudlick]

Bunny Detroit can only be directly targeted with an agressive card by a player who is a mother and Sky Waitress is an agressive card. There are four possible logical scenarios in this situation: 1. Sky Waitress and the weapon are both played by a mother; 2. Sky Waitress is played by a mother, but the weapon is not; 3. the weapon is played by a mother, but Sky Waitress is not; and 4. neither Sky Waitress nor the weapon are played by a mother.

The results for scenarios 1 and 4 are obvious; Scenario 1 is a valid play on Bunny Detroit and scenario 4 is not. This brings us to scenarios 2 and 3. I believe the answers to whose scenarios lie in determining the aggression. I interpret Bunny Detroit as meaning that any source of aggression towards it must come from a Mother; as long as the card has a pink rectangle then it must be played by a mother if Bunny Detroit is the intended target.

Let's determine targets of aggression before applying the logic to scenarios 2 and 3. While the weapon is an aggressive card, its intended target was not Bunny Detroit. However, when Sky Waitress is used to redirect the weapon, its target of aggression is the bunny to which the weapon is shifted. Therefore, in order to redirect a weapon to target Bunny Detroit directly, the player of the weapon need not be a mother but the player of Sky Waitress (or any other card used to redirect the weapon) must be a mother.

In short - the answer to the question revolves around whether Sky Waitress was played by a mother.

[TheDavii]

Jan 6, 2014 0:54:10 GMT -5 jkudlick said:

Bunny Detroit can only be directly targeted with an agressive card by a player who is a mother and Sky Waitress is an agressive card. There are four possible logical scenarios in this situation: 1. Sky Waitress and the weapon are both played by a mother; 2. Sky Waitress is played by a mother, but the weapon is not; 3. the weapon is played by a mother, but Sky Waitress is not; and 4. neither Sky Waitress nor the weapon are played by a mother.

The results for scenarios 1 and 4 are obvious; Scenario 1 is a valid play on Bunny Detroit and scenario 4 is not. This brings us to scenarios 2 and 3. I believe the answers to whose scenarios lie in determining the aggression. I interpret Bunny Detroit as meaning that any source of aggression towards it must come from a Mother; as long as the card has a pink rectangle then it must be played by a mother if Bunny Detroit is the intended target.

Let's determine targets of aggression before applying the logic to scenarios 2 and 3. While the weapon is an aggressive card, its intended target was not Bunny Detroit. However, when Sky Waitress is used to redirect the weapon, its target of aggression is the bunny to which the weapon is shifted. Therefore, in order to redirect a weapon to target Bunny Detroit directly, the player of the weapon need not be a mother but the player of Sky Waitress (or any other card used to redirect the weapon) must be a mother.

In short - the answer to the question revolves around whether Sky Waitress was played by a mother.

What I understand that you're arguing for is that the Aggressive card is Sky Waitress, not the Weapon card (which I and the other writer assumed). I disagree with your thoughtful analysis. (So, I'm arguing against your proposition that the revolves around whether Sky Waitress was played by a Mother.)

These are the card rules (from the QCC 4.0):

Sky Waitress (0588; Very Special; Aggressive) ‘Sky Waitress’ may be
used by a Player to move a Weapon from the original target bunny to an
adjacent bunny in The Bunny Circle. This card may be used at any time.

Bunny Detroit (0638; Run) ‘Bunny Detroit’ is a Yellow bunny that can
only be directly targeted with an Aggressive card by a player who is a
Mom.

• Bunny Detroit may fall victim to a Terrible Misfortune or may be
  killed by range Weapons or Roaming Red Run cards provided that
  he was not the direct target.

Is Sky Waitress targeting Bunny Detroit? This is (roughly) what I saw happening in the original poster's message:

1. Player A throws Weapon W at…
2. Player B's Bunny B (valid Bunny target other than Bunny Detroit)
3. Player C has Bunny Detroit (adjacent to Player B's Bunny B)
4. Player D throws Sky Waitress on Player A's Weapon, which allows...
   
5. Player D moves Player A's Weapon W to Bunny Detroit.

I argue that Bunny Detroit is not being directly targeted by Sky Waitress. Sky Waitress is targeting Weapon W, not Bunny Detroit (the action of the card is on the Weapon, not a Bunny). At best, Sky Waitress indirectly targets Bunny Detroit. I further argue that the criteria "Directly Targeted" (by Weapon W), "Aggressive" card, and "Targeted by a Mother" are the criteria and the order they should be applied (because that is the order they are listed on Bunny Detroit).

Bunny Detroit	Directly Targeted (by Weapon W)?	Indirectly targeted* (by Weapon W)?	Aggressive Card?	Targeted by a Mother?
Before Sky Waitress	N	N	Y	?
After Sky Waitress	N	Y	Y	?

* Indirectly Targeted : The intent of Player A was to target Bunny B, not Bunny Detroit, so Weapon W is not directly targeting Bunny Detroit and therefore the other questions ("Aggressive"? "Targeted by a Mother") do not even apply.

Therefore, if it is true that Sky Waitress is targeting the Weapon, then the Weapon can be redirected (which is the "indirect" part) onto Bunny Detroit, irregardless of whether a mother played it.

I think these are great questions. I'm not the last word, of course. (JB is.) Other opinions?