Steampunk arachnids, scatter, and Kill protogee

[sssk]

Hi folks,

I can't help thinking that this question has been answered, but I can't find anything searching on the forum or looking through the FAQ or errata documents.

Q: If i have a steampunk arachnid swarm, and my opponent takes kill protogee on it, what happens when I use the (1) scatter ability?

The specific wording from Rulebook 1.5 is:

"Sacrifice this model. Summon three steampunk arachnids into base contact with this model before it is removed from play. Any effects on this model are applied to each steampunk arachnid. Any wounds on this model are applied as evenly as possible to the steampunk arachnids. The steampunk arachnids may not swarm together this turn."

Because the summoned arachnids are summoned, rather than "replaced", this seems to bypass the FAQ's answer RE the new target of a scheme.

The options I've come up with so far are:

A) the swarm is sacrificed (by me) so the kill prot fails

The kill prot is an effect, and passes to one of the individuals

C) the kill prot is an effect and passes to all of the individuals (in which case do you get it for killing one of them, or all 3?)

D) the "sacrifice" should be a replace (when 3 individuals swarm together, they are "replaced", but a swarm isn't "replaced" when it scatters!) and it's just an error in the writing.

As I said, I'm sure this problem has come up before (as arachnid swarms are expensive, so they're likely to be kill prot targets a fair bit), but couldn't find an answer.

Cheers

[Fading Memory]

I believe it's A. Kill Protege is sometimes a very bad option to take as your opponent will eliminate the model before you even get the chance.

[Kadeton]

Easiest to just treat it as though it was a Replace effect anyway, and nominate one of the new spiders to be the target.

[Ausplosions]

Easiest to just treat it as though it was a Replace effect anyway, and nominate one of the new spiders to be the target.

Why?

Your opponent took a scheme that wad easily negated by you.

How does changing the rules help him to learn for next time.

Kill Protege fails in this case. End of Story.

[Kadeton]

Why?

Your opponent took a scheme that wad easily negated by you.

How does changing the rules help him to learn for next time.

Kill Protege fails in this case. End of Story.

It's still easily negated if you treat it as a Replace. The reason to play it that way is because it seems fairer and closer to the intent. The reason to play it the other way is to be a WAAC rules-lawyer?

Given that there are no models that I know of that actually do a multiple-Replace (they are all Sac + Place instead), the rule would never come into effect unless you play it the way they meant.

[dgraz]

Waac?

[Clevelander]

Waac?

Win at all costs.

[dgraz]

Win at all costs.

Thanks.

In that case; I don't think playing by the rules is WAAC rules lawyering................it's just playing by the rules.

[Kadeton]

Playing by the letter of the rules at the expense of the spirit of the rules in order to gain an advantage is literally the definition of rules-lawyering.

The rule as it's currently worded can never be applied in the game, because despite the fact that multiple-replacement rules exist, nothing actually uses them. In which case, why was the rule written at all?

[dgraz]

Playing by the letter of the rules at the expense of the spirit of the rules in order to gain an advantage is literally the definition of rules-lawyering.

I really don't understand your position here. Why do you interpret playing by the rules to be ....using the rules to gain an advantage? That sounds like someone not taking responsibility for their own ignorance or stupidity..........I don't know the rules as well as you but you're trying to take advantage of me.

Why should I take it easy on someone who hasn't done their homework? Believe me, I'm against rules lawyering in general myself, but it sounds like your advocating the opposite........which I'm also against.

It's one thing if your playing against a newbie, but against someone that has played for a while? I made a similar mistake myself not long ago.........took Kill Protege against Cassandra in a Colette crew. Guess what happened when I knocked Colette's head off? That's right....Cassandra was sacced and Colette lived.....no VP for me. My mistake. I cursed myself for making that mistake, not the other guy.

[Kadeton]

Oh, sorry, I thought I'd been clear: my position is that the rule only makes sense if you apply it in this context, because there is no other context in which it can ever be applied.

My issue with rules-lawyering is that it involves an insistence on following the letter of the rules in order to abuse the spirit of the rules. The spirit of this rule seems very clear: you can't just screw your opponent out of 2 VP without killing at least one of your own models. Allowing things like this to get around that rule on a technicality is an abuse of that spirit.

[dgraz]

I'm pretty big on the spirit of the rules also.....unfortunately we don't know what that is. We can assume we know the spirit of the rule...but we don't. I've made that mistake with this game before......thinking something was common sense and "surely, this is how they meant it"........well it wasn't and they don't like being called Shirley.

That makes me want to know exactly what the rule is.

[ravenborne]

The FAQ uses the term Replaced, and though I suspect the spirit of the rule might to shift the target, in this case it clearly does not say "Summoned". I don't think it is rules lawyering in this case, because the rule is so specific and uses game key words.

The trouble with playing it any other way is that you are now opening all sorts of other rules to tacking on extra key words that are not present.

Besides, Malifaux is full of all sorts of crazy ways to stop Kill Protigee, so its very hard to really point to any spirit of the rules. The scheme should probably say "if the model is not in play at the end of the game", but it doesn't.

[Kriltic]

It clearly is rules lawyering if you simply scatter them to deny Kill Protege points. Its no different than simply using Drain Souls, or sacrificing said model by another means (such as Hoffman detonating a construct or Kirai using Absorb Spirt) to simply deny some VP.

Its reasons like this that simply promote a small number of Schemes and kicks others in the teeth. Why risk Grudge, Assassinate, Fame for Murder or Kill Protege when they are so easy to stop through Rules Lawyering/abuse?

[Ausplosions]

It is not Rules Lawyering or Abuse.

It is common knowledge that this can be done.

If you take these schemes, then you give the opponent the chance to deny you those VP.

If you take these schemes against a crew where it is LIKELY to happen, then it is your own fault. I am not WAAC Rules lawyering.

I am winning because my opponent failed to take into account a scenario that I could employ. I

[Kriltic]

Of course it is, its no different to using Drain Soul on a model because they grudged it (or previously because you Alpha'd the enemy master). Its WAAC in one of its highest levels (especially in Malifaux). You make it sound like its your opponents fault you chose to kill your own model to deny them the VP.

Oh and its attitudes like this that promote things like Bodyguard, Stake a Claim etc. Ones that your opponent can't simply deny with the use of a (1) action in tournaments and other games not between friends just having a laugh.

[Cunning]

Of course it is, its no different to using Drain Soul on a model because they grudged it (or previously because you Alpha'd the enemy master). Its WAAC in one of its highest levels (especially in Malifaux). You make it sound like its your opponents fault you chose to kill your own model to deny them the VP.

Oh and its attitudes like this that promote things like Bodyguard, Stake a Claim etc. Ones that your opponent can't simply deny with the use of a (1) action in tournaments and other games not between friends just having a laugh.

I think it's very different. If you scatter a swarm you still have 3 spiders. If you drain souls on one of your own models just to get rid of it you've lost a model. There's a difference between WAAC and doing something sensible that wont cost you anything to do.

[Kriltic]

Costing you a model doesn't particularly matter. My point was that both are a cheap trick to simply deny the enemy VP.

[sssk]

I'll just stick in here, I'm not specifically putting in an arachnid swarm to prevent/ruin Kill prot, nor am I specifically scattering to prevent kill prot. They're the most expensive model I own, and they're useful with Mei, so when using her, I'll take them anyway. If the kill prot auto fails, that's just a side effect.

Anyway, in summary, official ruling = kill prot fails as soon as they scatter. General opinion is that this is a bit cheeky. Does that about summarise the situation?

[Kriltic]

Pretty much, yes.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I'm actually with Dgraz on this one. I also fail to see how removing one of your own models, regardless of how it happens, in order to deny your opponent 2 VP, is WAAC. The game is all about VP and in countless posts you'll hear it repeated over and over "Focus on the VP". In many cases the trade off to denying your opponent VP is that you will no longer have that expensive model to help you out any longer.

Arguing the "spirit" of the rules is also prone to pitfalls as well. Should Pandora players complain because Frame for Murder is pretty much an autotake scheme verses her? Clearly the "Spirit" of the rules is that the master must directly take action to kill the targeted minion, but Pandora has no option to not do the dmg caused by failing a wp duel. Is that not just as cheeky as killing one of your own models to prevent VP?

Another example I can remember was when I was first getting into WHF in the late 90's. I played my skaven army against an undead army, back when they were one force. I loved the theme behind clan Pestilens and brought a massive ton of Plague censer Bearers, which had a rule that required models within an inch of them, as well as themselves, to make a toughness test or take a wound that couldn't be stopped by armor. The fluff reason behind this was because of the cloud of diseased fog that surrounded them as they swung their censers. I charged a group of undead with them and the other player told me he didn't have to take the toughness tests. I asked him why not and he replied "because undead don't breath"... I asked to see the rule that said they didn't have to take the test and he argued that they didn't have to have a rule because it was obviously against the spirit of the rules, that since undead didn't breath they were obviously immune to anything that mentioned it was a gas attack.

Examples like that are why I get very suspicious whenever someone tries to invoke "The Spirit" of the rules instead of directly pointing to a rule. If people think that there is an issue with manipulating your own models to deny opposing schemes then that is perhaps a problem with the scheme's wording, not with the player.

Additionally, while almost every player I know of always announces both schemes, here's a thought, if you take a scheme that could be manipulated, don't announce it. That way the opponent will be very unlikely to kill his own model to prevent the points, and you still have the chance to do so.

For me the difference is in how you handle doing the model manipulation, not that you can do it. In a friendly game, if I'm playing Yan Lo with Izamu, for example, and my opponent announces Kill Protege, I'll mention it might be a better idea to choose a different scheme. With the Soul Porter I can easily stop that from happening, and so it just isn't a good scheme vs this crew build, but I'll be happy to wait if they would like to pick a different one. In a tournament I'll take the opening my opponent offers, but you don't have to crow or cheer about it. Just calmly do what needs to be done, agree that it is an odd rules interaction, but totally legal and move on with the game.

[Ausplosions]

Of course it is, its no different to using Drain Soul on a model because they grudged it (or previously because you Alpha'd the enemy master). Its WAAC in one of its highest levels (especially in Malifaux). You make it sound like its your opponents fault you chose to kill your own model to deny them the VP.

Oh and its attitudes like this that promote things like Bodyguard, Stake a Claim etc. Ones that your opponent can't simply deny with the use of a (1) action in tournaments and other games not between friends just having a laugh.

So, If you're playing against Ressurectionists and you take grudge (or whatever, you get the point) against my Canine Remains?.

I kill the dog to get a CC.

You say I'm in the wrong for doing so?

If you are stupid enough to take Kill Prot/Grudge against something that will most likely be sacced/killed by me, then it's MY fault?

Right...

Edited January 7, 2013 by Ausplosions

[Sarsnick]

Oh and its attitudes like this that promote things like Bodyguard, Stake a Claim etc. Ones that your opponent can't simply deny with the use of a (1) action in tournaments and other games not between friends just having a laugh.

Schemes that are easy to do in tournaments are a form of meta-resource in the game. The player who gets a small win using risky strats like Grudge or Kill Protegee will be better later on in the tourney when they have easier schemes such as Bodyguard, Sabotage, Kidnap still available to them later in the day.

So if I declare Kill Prot on one of your guys and you kill it yourself, I know that option for you is always there and the other scheme I took along with it will either be in the bag or I came up with some way to deny you the VPs.

And sometimes I do want to Steal Relic from Pandora/Kirai!

[Kriltic]

Arguing Undead dont breath to avoid a rule which is just plain stupid, while fluff wise he has a point it wasnt against the spirit of the game, he was just being awkward. The only rule similar to that which is something you can legally argue but never would as it is totally against the spirit of the game is in Warhammer. Models that doesn't have two or more eyes, can never perform any action that requires LOS, as the rule for drawing LOS states it must come from the models eyes. So undead, some Skaven models, Gorgers and a few other models can never charge, cast spells etc... Would you argue that, even though the rules say you can? No of course you wouldn't, why? Because its against the spirit of the game and clearly poorly thought out. It's so against the spirit of the game I've never hear it being brought up. It's not the only rule which is poorly thought out either but we as players are expected to work around rules which are that bad.

If someone takes Fame for Murder against Pandora, how about killing it with minions and not having Pandora hit it with 15 different Wp duels each turn? God a shock, Pandora having to think a bit before hitting everything with Wp duels and relying on her crew to do something for once.

If someone grudges a model they know you are going to kill as part of your strategy, such as a Canine remain then that is their fault, it was a poor choice on their part. If they grudged a model and you simply kill it off (even though you would never normally do such a thing) then that is against the spirit of the game and it is you just playing in a WAAC manner. Your argument, to me at least, comes across as 'If anyone ever takes Grudge, Kill Protege or Assassinate then they are stupid because I will just kill off the model before they get chance so they cant get the VP for them.'

I admit the schemes aren't perfect, and yes a fair few of them need tweaking as they were intended for book 1 models. Perhaps we should let Wyrd know we think some need tweaking and maybe even a couple of new ones?

[mythicFOX]

@ Kriltic

The problem here is there is no way to actually arbitrate 'spirit of the rules'.

You're creating a standard of behaviour that's subjective and then labelling anyone who doesn't hold themselves to your standard of behaviour as a bad person.

The only thing I expect from an opponent is that they play the game to the rules and conduct themselves in a polite and friendly manner during our game. To expect more is unrealistic.

Edited January 7, 2013 by mythicFOX
SPAG

[Fetid Strumpet]

Firstly, you mistake the point I was making about Pandora. It's not that Pandora's minions cannot attempt to kill the specified model, and it's not about the fact that now Pandora can't plink the said model to death, it's about the same rules manipulating you seem to be so very much against. The opponent can put the scheme on a tiny minion with low wounds and just keep the minion hidden from my forces. The instant pandora gets within 12" of it its going to be difficult to stop the minion from dying as if it targets her for anything it will have to make the Wp check which will cause the wds to kill if set up right. Pandora has no option to not do the dmg. This to me is exactly the same manipulation as killing your own minions to prevent VP. The spirit of the rule is obviously against this.

What about kidnap? Playing against a resser list that is going to be chopping up its own minions for parts, get 2 free VP. The fact that the spirit of the rule is that the NB are the ones doing the kidnapping is totally upset by the fact that the ressers were the ones who removed them from the table, isn't the NB player in this instance the one who is abusing the spirit of the rules, shouldn't that be held in just as much distaste in all situations as a model killing its own model to prevent your VP.

How about firing into Melee, and the fact, as Nix very astutely pointed out, that when firing into a melee it's often better to shoot at your own model then an enemy model, to maximize the chances the shot will hit an enemy. Is someone who does this not also violating the spirit of the rules?

And that is the point, different, totally honest and rational people can have a valid disagreement about what constitutes the "Spirit" of the rules. Since the spirit of the rules cannot be enforced or often even agreed upon by those who didn't actually create the game, the only way for rational people to proceed is to agree to follow the rules as they are presented. If you have a particular issue with how a rules interaction works then make you voice be heard, but please don't cast aspersions on the character of the individuals who play the game as it is presented.