Rules Question - McTavish in cover

[Tris]

Hi fellow Gremlin players,

I got a rules question, but don`t want to ask in the rules forum for now, as it`s very Gremlin specific.

 

Concerning McTavishs "The Swamp is our Home" - Friendly Swampfiend models in the aura receive cover from all non- Attack Actions, while they are in cover.

Additionally, gremlins got the wonderful "Hide in the Mud" Uppgrade, which states - this model is always considered to be in soft cover.

 

Problem is, friends at my club say that this ability does nothing to change the wording for cover in the big rule book (pg.41) - a model will gain the benefits of cover from a Projectile Attack when any LoS line....

And the wording for soft cover - Terrain with the soft cover trait will grant soft cover which imposes a to the attack flip of any Attack Actions.

 

So, basically they say I´m still getting only cover against Attacks.

They say it should be covered in a thread around here or in the rules forum, but I can`t find anything concering that....

 

I say, it`s a perfect example for the "Breaking the Rules" Box at page 28 (in the big rulebook), where a special rule contradicts (although its questioanble if the above wording "explicitly" contradicts) a rule from the core rulebook.

 

 

How do you all play it?

And why?

 

 

Thank you in advance

[Clement]

I play that rule so that it actually *does* something...  since by your club's definition, this ability is literally wasted ink.

 

Here's the rules forum thread on the topic:

Does McTavishes Swamp is our Home do anything?

[Tris]

Ah, thank you for the link

Yeah, I would also like to play it that way, as it`s clearly intended to grant cover against non Attacks (at least in my opinion), but as you can see in the rules forum thread, it seems hard to justify just by looking at the rules as written....

I want to find consens, as that`s the only way to play it consistently without a debate.

[Clement]

1 hour ago, Tris said:

Ah, thank you for the link

Yeah, I would also like to play it that way, as it`s clearly intended to grant cover against non Attacks (at least in my opinion), but as you can see in the rules forum thread, it seems hard to justify just by looking at the rules as written....

I want to find consens, as that`s the only way to play it consistently without a debate.

Deliver the same line of reasoning as given in the rules thread.  "What do you think this rule is supposed to do exactly?"  There's no actual ambiguity in the way the rule is SUPPOSED to work.   Anyone giving it a cursory read could tell you what it's supposed to do, even if by RAW it technically doesn't do that.    Malifaux is not written such that it can survive the hardcore "RAW or gtfo" style rules interpretation.   2nd ed was clearly stated as that from the outset.

[solkan]

I don't think you can take a rules forum discussion that got locked like that as a reasonable discussion on the topic. 

Because here's the problem:

Quote

Problem is, friends at my club say that this ability does nothing to change the wording for cover in the big rule book (pg.41) - a model will gain the benefits of cover from a Projectile Attack when any LoS line....

And the wording for soft cover - Terrain with the soft cover trait will grant soft cover which imposes a to the attack flip of any Attack Actions.

See page 19 of the Rules Manual:

Quote

Breaking the Rules

Models in Malifaux have many unique rules which override the core rules. This goes for any special rules, even those from terrain or an Encounter. When a special rule explicitly contradicts these core rules, follow the special rule rather than the core rule.

For instance, an Attack Action that states it does not require Line of Sight (pg. 40), is allowed to disobey the normal Line of Sight rules, and it may therefore choose a target in range, even if it cannot see it.

In the rare instance that two special rules contradict each other, the more specific of the two rules takes precedence.

The definition of Cover:

Quote

Cover

A model will gain the benefits of cover from a Projectile Attack when any LoS line between the Attacking model and the target model can be drawn through any terrain with the soft or hard cover traits that is within 1” of the target model.

Terrain with the soft cover trait will grant soft cover which imposes a to the Attack flip of any () Attack Actions.

Terrain with the hard cover trait will grant hard cover which imposes a to the Attack and damage flip of any () Attack Actions.

 

McTavish's ability:

Quote

The Swamp Is Our Home: Friendly Swampfiend models gain the following Ability while they remain within a6: "Lay of the Land: While in cover, this model receives cover from all non Attack Actions."

So what does that do?  It changes the cover from "any Attack Actions" to "all non Attack Actions".

 

[Tris]

That`s the same line of reasoning I like to follow, I talked to said friend just now and he participated at a tournament elsewhere, the guys at that place ruled it so that the ability does literally nothing, and the problem is, if you want to read that interpretation in RAW, it`s hard for me to argue against :/

I would say, at my local store it causes no problems, not even on tournaments, but we like to participate at other events occasionaly, and there the fact remains that we had negative experience with the wording of this ability.

That`s why I wanted to know if anything new showed up regarding that special case

[Four_N_Six]

I might just be tired, but I don't see the reason for debate. His ability gives additional cover if they're already in cover, and hide in the mud says they're always considered to be in soft cover. Seems rather obvious to me. 

[Von Woozle]

Seems very clear to me as well.  If in cover gain cover from non melee attacks.  Which means casting and adds to McTavish's brokeness since he ignores that kind of thing himself.

[Bazlord_Prime]

On 9/28/2016 at 9:33 AM, Clement said:

Deliver the same line of reasoning as given in the rules thread.  "What do you think this rule is supposed to do exactly?"  

Good advice for the next time you get into a debate on this - turn the onus on them to try to figure out what the rule ACTUALLY does.  As it must do something, otherwise it would never have been written.  Get them to realise it's not enough for them to dismiss an ability or rule by focusing down on one little contradiction - they need to weigh ALL of the pertinent information at hand before forming an opinion.  

Dog-dammit, RAW-lawyers p*ss me off...  

[Tris]

The actually got to the point that the ability allows you to take cover against cover ignoring shots.....

Try argument with people like that :/

[Bazlord_Prime]

3 hours ago, Tris said:

Try argument with people like that :/

I don't anymore!!  Same I reason I gave up having debates about religion - although I'd hope that people debating tabletop games rules would be slightly less intractable   ;-)

 

[Clement]

Take it to the rules forum then.   If you've come to it needing errata to be clear, then at least a recent trip through the rules forum (that actually comes to a conclusion) will help.

Bring along their thinking of the wording on it too, or it will be shot down.

[Tris]

4 hours ago, Clement said:

Take it to the rules forum then.   If you've come to it needing errata to be clear, then at least a recent trip through the rules forum (that actually comes to a conclusion) will help.

Bring along their thinking of the wording on it too, or it will be shot down.

The topic was already brought up, you posted the link yourself -I´m under the impression that it got shut down very quickly.

But i`ll talk to my clubmates and ask them to get me briefed on that tournament discussion.

 

[Clement]

Just now, Tris said:

The topic was already brought up, you posted the link yourself -I´m under the impression that it got shut down very quickly.

But i`ll talk to my clubmates and ask them to get me briefed on that tournament discussion.

 

But in the prior thread (from 18 months ago) they weren't arguing about what they thought it aught to do, they all agreed on that.   You now actually have that disagreement that gets it out of "rule 5" territory for the rules forum.  That makes it a valid discussion.

[Von Woozle]

Sorry, but what am I missing?   

 

Rules on models that break rules in main books who has heard of such a thing!

You would think Mctavish didn't ignore cover or randomise into combat like the rulebook says you do.