Follow Up questions to 360' Vision and Field of Fire (FoF) ruling for Colossals

[magi]

I have a few questions based on this ruling:

http://privateerpressforums.com/show...=1#post1487257

1) If you charge a model with a colossal and end your movement with the model in your back arc (as per 360' LOS), is that considered a failed charge (as you have no melee weapon in your back arc due to FoF)?

2) Can a model be engaged by a colossal even though the colossal has no melee weapon to attack it with (engage a model with it's back arc, even though it has no melee weapon in the back arc due to FoF)?

3) If a model enters the front arc and becomes engaged by a colossal under the affects of 360' LOS and leaves engagement through it's back arc, does the colossal get a free strike (it has no melee weapon to make an attack due to FoF)?

[quindraco]

Relevant rules, in addition to the quoted Infernal ruling:

Page 50, Prime: "A weapon's melee range extends 0.5" beyond the model's front arc for any type of melee attack." and "A model's melee range is the longest melee range of its usable melee weapons."
Page 51, Prime: "Non-warjack models with no melee weapons have no melee range. Warjacks always have at least a 0.5" melee range." and "When a model is within an enemy model's melee range and in that model's line of sight, it is engaged[...]." and "When an engaged model advances out of the enemy's melee range or line of sight, the enemy model can immediately make a free strike against it just before it leaves."

This appears to imply that the answers to your questions are:
1 and 2) The colossal's melee range extends 360 degrees around it, so the charge is not failed and the model is engaged. 3) However, since it cannot actually target models in the back 50% of its front arc, it cannot take provoked free strikes there, as targeting is necessary for free strikes.

I am hopeful I am contradicted soon, as this seems very silly.

[Lord Sessadore]

It seems to me that the crux of the issue is that "Warjacks always have at least a 0.5" melee range." While the usable melee weapons clause means a colossal with a 360 front arc only has 2" melee range in its L and R fields of fire (since its melee weapons cannot be used in its back arc), it looks like Prime is saying that colossal still has at least a 0.5" melee range outside of the fields of fire.

It might even be 2" all the way around, depending on how the colossals' inherent reach rule is written.

However, if this is the case, then charging and ending charge movement with the charge target outside of the fields of fire would be an interesting interaction - technically it would not be a failed charge, but since the colossal cannot target its charge target it should be free to attack any other models which are in its fields of fire.

[solkan]

I have a few questions based on this ruling:

http://privateerpressforums.com/show...=1#post1487257

1) If you charge a model with a colossal and end your movement with the model in your back arc (as per 360' LOS), is that considered a failed charge (as you have no melee weapon in your back arc due to FoF)?

Per the charge rules that's not a failed charge because it would be illegal before it would be failed. It would be illegal due to the errata:

Once the charge target is in the charging model’s melee range, it must stay in the charging model’s melee range for the entire charge.

If the charge would fail because the charge target is no longer in melee range, you've performed an illegal charge and should correct the game state.

Simply being unable to perform a melee attack against the charge target does not cause the charge to fail.

If the charging model cannot make its first melee attack against the charge target, the charging model can make its first melee attack against another eligible target, but this is not a charge attack. It does not lose its first attack.

[Maudlin]

Checking...

[DesertSpiral]

With all due respect to the rules team, the ruling that prompted this seems pretty knee jerk and bogus (http://privateerpressforums.com/show...=1#post1487257).

As stated in the previous thread a colossal targetting an enemy that it is directly facing is considered to have that enemy in both 'fields of fire'. A model with 360 vision is considered to at all times be directly facing every model, ergo if a model with 360 vision is always directly facing all models, then all models are at all times in both fields of fire.

Getting hung up on the nomenclature of 'fields of fire' is a distraction that doesn't need to occur because the rules are already set out.

Seems pretty simple, and certainly no cause for elaborate hoop jumping.

[Maudlin]

I assure you from my situation of privileged proximity that the development team is 'due' a lot more respect than "bogus, kneejerk hoopjumping".

Anyway, a model with a 360 front arc does not have a center of its front arc. That's why it is considerd to directly face all models, the normal condition for directly facing can not apply. Reversing the material implication across these two rules to suggest the entire front arc is the center of the front arc is not correct.

For related reasons, the Field of Fire rule now reads: "If any part of a model’s base is on the line separating the left and right fields of fire it is considered to be in both fields of fire."

None of this pertains to the question in this thread, which is on a model's melee range outside of the fields of fire, so locking for now.