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

[Kadeton]

okay

That's the joy of subjective definitions.

Any luck on finding an example? I figure you'd be one of the people most likely to be able to find one if it exists.

[dgraz]

no. nor do I care to try since I disagree with your theory. I don't consider myself a WAAC player and my friends would certainly agree. and I don't appreciate being labeled like that by you because you think I'm wrong for expecting people to know the rules of the game they play.

[CrouchingMoose]

Whats wrong with playing with a WaaC mentality. My favorite games are when both sides are doing everything they can to win. It's also that kind of playing that wins tournaments. Not just in Malifaux, but in all games. Should I not try my hardest to win a competition? I do, and I'm more than willing to bring out Jack Daw and do whatever it takes to win, and I do so because I also expect nothing less than the same from each person I place against.

Now what about friendly games? Am I a WAAC player against a new person? Of course not, because they don't know the rules, they are still learning. I'll even secretly handicap myself to help them out (not cheat, when I could easily win, shave a few ss off my starting pool). But if I'm playing a regular, yes I will play to win against them. Why? Because it pushes them to be better. They want to win just as much and will make me earn my wins as much as I'm making them work for their's.

[Kadeton]

no. nor do I care to try since I disagree with your theory. I don't consider myself a WAAC player and my friends would certainly agree. and I don't appreciate being labeled like that by you because you think I'm wrong for expecting people to know the rules of the game they play.

Aww, sorry if I hurt your feelings. I love playing WAAC games when it's understood that's what we're playing (we call those "super tournament keepsies" games), I just don't take advantage of those rules technicalities against people with whom I don't have that understanding. Clearly, it would be super nice if everyone actually did know all the rules at all times, but in my experience, most of my opponents simply don't.

I'm not sure which theory you disagree with... is it that a rule must have a purpose in order to exist? That's the main one I've been trying to get across.

[Jonas Albrecht]

To answer that, I'd have to ask: "Is there a fundamental difference between WAAC players who take the best lists and play ruthlessly, and those who avoid attempting to actually play the game by exploiting gaps in the rules?"

Because I believe there is. I'll enjoy my games against the first. The second can crawl into a hole and die.

[Kadeton]

Absolutely, Jonas. In my initial post, I was using the term to refer to the second group. Once everyone started using it to refer to the first, my usage got rather muddled, so I apologise to anyone (including dgraz, again) who thought I was talking about people who just play hard with like-minded people (but who also thought I was somehow also attaching the stigma of the second group to that usage, ugh now I'm confused again).

[Q'iq'el]

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

That'd be a house rule though. The thing is that the original Swarm was not only replaced by summoned models, but also sacrificed beforehand, and a sacrifice is a game effect just like kill. To ignore it is a modification of the game mechanics and quite a big one at that.

There are plenty of other such cases - Coryphée come to mind.

It is up to the player choosing his Scheme to know what models may counter it and deny the points. If the player is new, you should guide him through the process and draw his attention to these quirks. Even if he doesn't tell you what Schemes he picks (assuming a learning game), you can still say "just be aware the Swarm can sacrifice itself when it scatters, so it may deny you points for some Schemes" beforehand.

I'd do the same for any friendly game I play. I don't play Colette very often, but when I do, I usually point this one out.

I don't think it is WAAC to adhere to the rules. I actually think it is a bad form to present your interpretation of the rules as "common sense" and label the players who disagree. The reasons for this situation are not a "loophole" in the rules, but simply how the rules are written and the logic behind it. Would there be no "sacrifice" mechanic involved, the situation would be a bit murky, but that is probably why the designers are explicitly sacrificing the Swarm in the process.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Q'iq'el

[Kadeton]

I'm going to try to get this out one more time, and I'll try to make it as clear as I can:

The rule covers a situation where a model is replaced by two or more other models, and one of those models becomes the target for Kill Protege. Is it actually possible for this situation to occur in a game of Malifaux, and under what circumstances?

[dgraz]

Your question doesn't cover what the FAQ says. The FAQ covers all schemes, not just Kill Protege. The first sentence of the answer is the main thing that matters. The part you're focused on is only the second sentence of a whole. And even if there is no way for the second sentence to happen with any scheme, there is such a thing as leaving a rule open-ended enough to cover new additions to the game.

[binkys]

Dropping the wall of text that a had written I'll just pick up where the latest post is.

The rule covers a situation where a model is replaced by two or more other models, and one of those models becomes the target for Kill Protege. Is it actually possible for this situation to occur in a game of Malifaux, and under what circumstances?

Dropping another wall of text now that I looked closer at the FAQ.

Q) How do I determine which model is the target of a Scheme if it's Replaced by another model or models?

A) When a target of a Scheme is Replaced, the new model is now the target. If the model was Replaced by more than one model, the player with the Scheme can choose which of those models is now the target.

1 swarm -> 3 arachnids. pick 1 arachnid, that's now the target.

[Kadeton]

Your question doesn't cover what the FAQ says. The FAQ covers all schemes, not just Kill Protege.

Can that situation happen with any other schemes?

The first sentence of the answer is the main thing that matters. The part you're focused on is only the second sentence of a whole.

It's the sentence that has relevance to the question posed in this thread, though.

And even if there is no way for the second sentence to happen with any scheme, there is such a thing as leaving a rule open-ended enough to cover new additions to the game.

While future-proofing is nice, I thoroughly doubt it was the intention in this case, given that the rule was provided in answer to questions about the existing ruleset.

---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 PM ----------

Q) How do I determine which model is the target of a Scheme if it's Replaced by another model or models?

A) When a target of a Scheme is Replaced, the new model is now the target. If the model was Replaced by more than one model, the player with the Scheme can choose which of those models is now the target.

1 swarm -> 3 arachnids. pick 1 arachnid, that's now the target.

Unfortunately that's the exact situation that most people here are arguing is wrong. I appreciate the support, though.

[dgraz]

What you're doing is what I consider lawyering.......focusing on one small part of a whole......and excluding the sense that the whole makes for the purpose of ripping apart the small part.

My question in response to your question is - what the hell difference does it make whether it can happen or not? The answer is there to any pertinent part of the problem.

I'm becoming aggravated by the silliness of it all.....so I'm out before I say something stupid.

[Kadeton]

What you're doing is what I consider lawyering.......focusing on one small part of a whole......and excluding the sense that the whole makes for the purpose of ripping apart the small part.

Okay, but... that's the part that doesn't make sense, so it's the part I'm focused on. The rest of the rule is fine.

My question in response to your question is - what the hell difference does it make whether it can happen or not? The answer is there to any pertinent part of the problem.

It matters to me, because I assume that rules are written for a reason. If there doesn't seem to be a reason for a rule to exist, I have to assume that it's because the rule's intent has been badly translated into words. I would prefer to play the game in the way the designers intended, not in the limited way that they were able to express.

I'm becoming aggravated by the silliness of it all.....so I'm out before I say something stupid.

Fair enough. Thanks for your input to the discussion so far.

[Adran]

I'm going to try to get this out one more time, and I'll try to make it as clear as I can:

The rule covers a situation where a model is replaced by two or more other models, and one of those models becomes the target for Kill Protege. Is it actually possible for this situation to occur in a game of Malifaux, and under what circumstances?

Yes I believe it is.

I choose kill protegee on a corephyee.

It Dances together. The Kill protegee will move to the replaced Duet.

It dances apart. As the dance apart replaces the duet with 2 corephyee, one of them will still have the kill protegee scheme "on it"

Same applies for Frame for murder, grudge, Kidnap (although I am not 100% sure what happens if you noted both Corephyee for this. I would guess the duet counts twice for the kidnap)

[Gruesome]

I faced Yan Lo a few weeks ago for the first time. I was actually playing (that horrible woman) LadyJ.

*LIKE AN IDIOT* I took Kill Protege on Izamu.

By the third turn I had him at 1 Wd and an activation away from killing him...

Soul Porter uses Soul Cages (D'oh!)

Izamu GONE... No scheme for me.

Was this WAAC for my opponent?

He has an ability whose ONLY job is to sacrifice his own models. (Ancestors)

I was going to get the kill. He stopped me by killing his own model. (And started achieving his Yan Lo scheme)

So, was this WAAC or a lesson learned for me when facing a crew that can so easily kill its own models. (And bring them back)

I know what *I* think it was.

[sharpobjects]

So, was this WAAC or a lesson learned for me when facing a crew that can so easily kill its own models. (And bring them back)

It was a lesson learned that all of us have gone through and learned from once it has happened to us. It is better to go through the experience of being denied the 2vp rather than tell your opponent at the beginning of the game that maybe they should pick another scheme.

We learn our lessons by making the mistakes not by being warned before the mistake is made. I pick Kill Protege knowing that I may be denied the vp. I have a personal rule not to use it on a model worth less than 9 stones. I also try to devote resources early in the game to get those 2vp. If my opponent wants to sac the model they would have to do it on turn 2 or 3. If my opponent wants to sac a 9 or 10 stone model early in the game I would be fine with it because even though I lost the chance at 2vp, they lost the benefit of an expensive model.

On the other hand I would not choose that scheme against a crew led by Yan Lo or Hamelin for example. These masters get benefits from sacrificing their own minions. The other choice is to not announce your scheme. These lessons need to be learned and experienced by your opponent so they can gain the understanding of how to properly choose schemes against certain crews.

I have made the mistake myself and my opponent playing Hamelin apologized to me right after he sac'd Nix denying me 2vp. I was angry at myself not my opponent. I told him there is no need to apologize, I am the one who made the mistake. A mistake I would not soon forget.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Slightly off topic, but the Soul Porter's ability kills the Ancestor, not sacrifices it, which means it drops 3 corpse counters, available, assuming Yan Lo was still alive, to bring a new Izamu back with 6 wounds.

Against Yan Lo you really don't want to take kill schemes I feel. If you put them on an Ancestor he can use the porter to kill them with a 0 action, and if you put it on a generic minion Yan Lo, of all masters, really doesn't mind his minions dying as much, as long as they are within 8" of himself or Chiaki.

If it is just a friendly game I tend to mention this fact to the opponent if they announce minion kill schemes.

[sssk]

True, I think you learn a lot better from mistakes than being told stuff. For instance I played against some 10T stuff a while ago, and took kill prot on an archer. Charged the archer with a razorspine rattler, and hit it for 5 and gave it 2 poison counters. It was going to die when it activated that turn, so I left it there and scampered off to do other things.

The archer then activated and died. I then learnt that tokens don't remember who put them on. Therefore even though it was MY poison token which killed the archer, I didn't get any VP for it, because it wasn't one of my models killing it.

Similarly, taking kill prot or grudge (don't remember which) on lelu, I killed him with a spell, and then learnt that it has to be a melee attack which kills him.

In both cases, I made the mistake, lost the game, and haven't made that mistake since (...I've made a whole raft of other mistakes).

In other news, isn't this all conversation for a different topic? I think my question was answered in the first couple of replies, and now we're onto an interesting, though off topic, set of anecdotes in the rules forum.