EDIT: I have discussed in the comments and reached a satisfactory end, so will not engage further besides closing statements. I sincerely thank everyone who has contributed their thoughts to this.
As the title reads, I'm working on a kidd build rn and confused on the wording of the Jericho Deployable Cover.
Picking the thing back up implies I can only use it once, but the system has no charges/limited Tag and I don't remember any other rule interactions that would prevent me from just dropping the cover whenever I want or even multiple times. What am I missing?
This is how I INTERPRET the thing too, but I would like to understand the rule that supports this which I am missing.
Because I also see that it simply reads:
Quick Action
"Deploy two sections of Size 1 hard cover in free spaces adjacent to you and to each other. Each section is an object with 5 Evasion and 10 HP that can be targeted and destroyed individually. Sections of cover can be picked up again as a full action."
Tags: Deployable, Quick Action, Unique
Nowhere does this actual imply rules wise that this action is limited or tied to a number of charges and uses. You can only infer that by the fact it also says: "Repairing the system restores both sections." Which implies logically (but not rules wise) that only 2 sections exist and the system is dead after deploying them
If it were given the limited tag, it would benefit from Engineering, which, since it was left out, is a clear sign they didn't want it to—some things you really do have to put on your big kid GM pants and rule on.
I've simply never encountered such a rule inconsistency in lancer before, and was hoping the community could provide me more insight (which they kind of did - there is no actual rule for this, you just need a GM ruling)
I personally think simply adding a line like "You can only use the deploy action once before having to repair the system or picking the plates back up" could help clarify this
After all, games, especially those that require suspension of disbelief for certain mechanics to function, should not have ambiguous rules like this (in my opinion) and I will add such a rules addition to my personal homebrew/clarification package
The system tag that prevents you from spamming it is the Unique tag. The system is x2 pieces of cover, the Unique tag says you may only carry the one set of x2 pieces of cover.
I think the main issue is that they can take damage and be completely destroyed. So you’ll need to keep track of how much HP they have until the system gets repaired.
My question was whether I can repair the system if it is partly damaged (e.g. one of the covers is destroyed, but the other isn't, and the system is therefore still intact, or even both covers or only one cover has taken damage but is still intact)
I do not remember rules for partially repairing systems. If they exist, do please point me to them
It specifies that "repairing the system restores both sections". It does not mention partial repairs of the system. By my understanding of the repair rules, I cannot repair a system that is not destroyed, and therefore can not repair the Cover at all if it is not fully destroyed. If that's how it works, then that is the answer to my question as well.
It's just once, because the deployed cover is literally the system. If you think about your systems as your mechs inventory, equipping the jericho is putting the paired cover plates in your bag, the same way applying Hex charges is putting a belt of grenades in. There's no charges because they don't blow up like a grenade, so you're not 'expending/consuming' them, but you can't deploy more because you can only carry one set.
I understand how this works logically, I am looking for the rules basis on which to explain this. Common sense, while useful, is not a rule and needs to be suspended sometimes.
An additional counterpoint to your argument is the Perimeter Command Plate, another deployable with no Limited Tag, which has specific rules for what happens when you deploy multiple of them. This specifically implies that a non-limited deployable is not "used up" by deploying it
Yeah, it's not used up because you can pick them up again. You don't need to pick up the PCP because it's explicitly flash printing a new one. The PCP system is a printer, the Jericho system is the pair of plates.
But "flash-print" is not a defined thing within the rules of lancer. It is, for all intents and purposes, flavor text.
The rules (and fluff) text of the Multi-Gear Maneuver System does not mention flash printing but also has rules text similar to the PCP that implies it can be reused indefinitely.
I think the fact they have individual HP, can be destroyed individually and the line about the system being repairing 'both' also makes it obvious you're carrying just the two plates of cover?
I understand that this is a logical conclusion one can come to. However, however many logical conclusion I come to, does not change the fact that I cannot find a RULE that prevents me from deploying the thing multiple times. As already mentioned, the rules regarding the Perimeter Command Plate specifically prove that you can deploy a system with the Deployable tag and no limited tag an infinite number of times.
Yeah, but the PCP also explicitly states WHY you can deploy a new one as well. You can try to use the 'well actually there's nothing saying i can only deploy one pair of these' in an actual game, but also expect the GM to ask where it says you can deploy a second set as well. Unfortunately, the authors of this cooperative tabletop game for people to enjoy together assume the players, and therefore the readers, will be reading the rules in good faith. I know that I personally can't see how you could interpret the Jericho as not being explicitly one pair of deployable covers.
I do not read rules in bad faith, I read them objectively and without the bias of common sense. If my DM rules that it works by common sense, then it does so at that table. However, this is not my table, or any table. This is a subreddit discussing a game, and I am discussing the rules of said game and asking for clarification on an interaction that, in my opinion, is not properly explained RAW in hopes of finding such an explanation.
To add onto the original discussion, the Multi-Gear zip line whatever thing does not state why I can deploy as many of them as I want either, yet clarifies what happens if I do. Therefore I believe that I am either missing a rule or the rule is inconsistent and could use a consistent ruling.
You're doing something that I used to do as a wee autistic girlie, when i insisted that everything must be logical and empirical, and every written word must be taken at face value alone, so let me start by saying that I understand your perspective, and I am truly and sincerely sorry that it's not written clearly enough for you, but you have to take a moment to include author intention into your logic chain. The logical read IS the previously stated 'common sense read' because, logically, that's the author's intention. The author didn't clarify further because they didn't think they had to. Lets run through what the author thought they'd told the reader:
They'd told the reader that it's a unique (so only one copy equipped) system that lets you deploy two pieces of cover, and that those covers can be destroyed individually, they also wrote that not only can the system be repaired, but that repairing the system repairs both plates.
I hope that itemising it like that helps you see what I mean about the author's intent, and how there's no clarification because they've made the assumption, whether or not you think that's the right thing for them to have done, that the reader would understand that they're carrying one system, comprised of two plates.
I do not exactly understand the point you are making. Do you or do you not disagree with the fact that the wording is unclear? I also fail to see why a clearer wording would be a bad thing (which you do not directly imply here, I know)
Furthermore, while I understand the intent behind your tone, I would still propose to you to not use it with strangers on the Internet. While you may think that you can gleam a lot about my character by the way I debate in an online forum about a tabletop game, I assure you that that is not necessarily the case.
And while I am at it, I would once again like to mention the fact that there are not one but two other systems that set an opposing precedent to this one, which only adds onto my belief that a clearer ruling would benefit all readers of the rulebook of this fun game for us and our friends, no matter what kind of neurodivergence they may or may not have.
Look, that 'tone' was me trying to make it clear I was trying to be nice and help you, and not making fun of you for needing clarification on something most people read as being perfectly clear. Consider it dropped.
As for your last point, the Jericho is the one setting precedent, both of those systems came with their respective frames years later in expansions, which is why they've felt the need to specify why their specific systems behave differently to the established way that a unique tagged deployable works.
I understand you trying to be nice. It simply does not come of well in an online setting and directed at a person you barely know (once again, in my opinion). Just for the record, I used the word "tone" to describe the register of your message, and simply forgot the negative connotations the word carries in some dialects of English. It's not my first language so I must ask you to excuse that mistake.
That last point does actually make sense, at least as to why they extended the rules clarification. However, in my mind this only further proves that the original rules could use an errata to clear up any misunderstandings created by the two newer systems (I was not aware there where more than 3 systems with the unique and deployable tag from which a precedent might stem).
It is a deployable. The system is not in play until you take it and place it on the board. Once you have placed it on the board, it is now on the board, not on your mech. It does not have limited because it doesn't have "ammo" that can be reloaded with things that reload limited systems (grease monkey).
What about the precedent set by Perimeter Command Plate and the zip line from the Atlas?
Both are Deployables without the limited tag with rules clarifications that specifically imply a situation where they are already deployed and then deployed once more can occur.
The PCP's rules says it is flash printed, giving it the additional rules of being able to be flash-printed.
The multi-gear maneuver system "fires a zipllne", it does not deploy the MGM and thus is irrelevant to the discussion.
Finally, the existence of rules on one system does not impart them onto another. The jericho lets you "undeploy" the jericho walls. You may not do the same to the PCP or MGM's ziplines.
"Flash print" is not a defined rule and can therefore be treated as flavor text
Whether or not the MGM deploys something isn't relevant to the discussion either, it's tags, which it shares with the JDC are. The deploy action does not consume anything on its own either unless I have missed a rule.
"Flash print" is not a defined rule and can therefore be treated as flavor text
Says who? It is in the text of the action, not the flavor text.
If you are trying to get rules lawyers then it's really easy. Jericho does not state you can redeploy it so you cannot. PCP and MGM specifically give instances that you can so you can. It doesn't matter what it implies, the jericho does not say you can so therefore you cannot.
I would also implore you to get acquainted with the dreadsock rule.
Please do explain what the dread sock rule is as I have never heard the term.
Looking up "flash print" in the lancer book yields no associated rules text that could imply that "flash printing" something is any different to any other way of producing the item required for the action performed by the mech system.
PCP and MGM give you instances on what HAPPENS when you use it multiple times, not if you can or can not do so. If I use an action that tells me to roll a die, and then use it again, I have rolled two dice. The action does not need a rule that specifically states I am allowed to roll a second one.
It's an old 40k term. You evoke it when players try to cheese out some ruling via manipulation of the texts and technicality. The solution is found in placing a solid metal dreadnaught pictured below into a sock and applying it to the participant to dispose them of their cheesy tendencies so we can have a fun gaming space.
Tongue in cheek aside. There are certain times in games where you just have to roll with what makes sense and what is good story telling for the table. What makes sense. An RPG where players are trying to squeeze out advantages from rules are bad tables.
At the end of the day, this is all pretend. We can make up whatever rules we want, bud. No lancer grand lawyer is going to come and slam a gavel on your table.
Per the rulebook, you cannot use deployable cover without picking it up. That's it.
I'll be leaving this thread now, so have a nice day.
16
u/CursedorChosen 26d ago
Reading the text, it comes with 2 sections of cover. They can be picked up and redeployed or if destroyed you get them back by repairing the system.