Assault and model in melee rule

[gcflash]

Hey there just a quick question based on another rule query.

Assault specifically states that you cannot use it on a model you're engaged with at the start of your activation.

A model with Assault can, however, use assault when charging a model it is not engaged with.

One question about this scenario. If you charge (using assault) a second model but are still engaged by the first model (ie you moved less than three inches and the first model has reach... or what ever) would you still be able to assault as you are engauged by the first model?

The reason I ask is that normally you would not be considered to be engaged by the model(s) you charge (as the shot is considered to be taken as you approach). But in this instance you have been and still are engauged by the first model.

The way I see it that the engauged rule (being a "not" rule) would trumph the assault rule, as assault does not specically state that it ignores being engauged by other models (thus in melee). But I would like someone else view on this.

Side note

Assault - As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation. When resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty. If the target is not in melee range after moving, this model can make the Assault ranged attack before its activation ends.

Ok maybe not such a quick question

Cheers

[PG_petegrrrr]

Assault only specifies exceptions to the TARGET of your assault.

If another model engages you, it does nothing to trump the rule of an engaged model being unable to shoot without gunfighter.

[gcflash]

Cheers thats as I expected.

[vintersbastard]

I'm pretty sure that assault allows for a ranged attack even though the assaulting model is in melee, regardless of which models it is in melee with. If it wouldn't, an assaulting model would only rarely be able to perform a successful assault. (E.g. Trencher Infantry vs. reach infantry)
This seems to be the rare case of a special rule negating a general rule without specifying the general rule negated.

[Defenstrator]

Assault only specifies exceptions to the TARGET of your assault.

If another model engages you, it does nothing to trump the rule of an engaged model being unable to shoot without gunfighter.

This is incorrect.

When resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty

The rule is clear as written. No exceptions are made for models other than the target. When you are resolving nothing can target you in melee.

[PG_petegrrrr]

I've seen it ruled the opposite more than once.

Nothing in Assualt says it ignores engangement rules or penalties from anything but the target.

Assault is situational. Many people just use it to make super long range attacks. But it does work great against non reach infantry.

[PG_petegrrrr]

This is incorrect.

The rule is clear as written. No exceptions are made for models other than the target. When you are resolving nothing can target you in melee.

The Target in Melee rule is not the issue. It's the no ranged attacks while enaged rule, which is a completely different rule.

Remember, every single thing in assualt says "TARGET". you can get around the TARGET engaging you, but not other models.

If a reach model for example who is not your TARGET has you engaged, you cannot fire.

[vintersbastard]

The Target in Melee rule is not the issue. It's the no ranged attacks while enaged rule, which is a completely different rule.

Remember, every single thing in assualt says "TARGET". you can get around the TARGET engaging you, but not other models.

If a reach model for example who is not your TARGET has you engaged, you cannot fire.

Even worse. It doesn't say at all that you are allowed to ignore the no-ranged-attacks-while-in-melee rule, which means that even if the assaulting models is engaging its target, without being engaged itself at all, it is still not allowed to take the shot. This wouldn't make much sense, though, so apparently PP just missed to put that stipulation into the text of the rule.
(Sadly, we apparently missed that during the field test, and just played with the Mk I rule, which stipulated that the assaulting model was considered to not be in melee, thereby avoiding the issue)

[PG_petegrrrr]

Very true. It seems assault got watered down in mark 2.

Perhaps an infernal will stop by and let us know if this was the intent, or merely an accidental omission.

[mackman]

I might be over-simplifying this, but it seems to be a clear-cut case of a special rule overriding a general rule. It says "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation." It says, specifically, that you can make a ranged attack, with the stated limitations and those limitations only. It overrides the "no firing in melee" rule much like Grab-and-smash overrides the "no power attacks after initial attacks" rule. If every special rule (or spell) had to specifically state which general rule it was overriding, each special rule would be twice as long.
In short, this is a simple case of a special rule, "Assault," overriding the general rule of "no firing while engaged" when all other requirements for Assault are met.

[Defenstrator]

You do realise that assault gives an exception to being engaged. Otherwise the model you just charged into would count as engaging you (providing you had made it into melee range) and prevent you from shooting it.

[vintersbastard]

You do realise that assault gives an exception to being engaged. Otherwise the model you just charged into would count as engaging you (providing you had made it into melee range) and prevent you from shooting it.

The wording doesn't.
(Assault at the moment only says to ignore the -4 to hit and the random chance of hitting others, but it doesn't say anything about being allowed to shoot while in melee)

It's probably supposed to be the way you think, exactly because of the rather funny interaction you pointed out there.

[mackman]

The wording doesn't.
(Assault at the moment only says to ignore the -4 to hit and the random chance of hitting others, but it doesn't say anything about being allowed to shoot while in melee)

It's probably supposed to be the way you think, exactly because of the rather funny interaction you pointed out there.

Yes, the wording DOES allow you to shoot in melee, simply because it says that you can immediately make a ranged attack. It doesn't have to say that it ignores the general rule saying otherwise, because it clearly says that you can make a ranged attack targeting the model you charged. Assault, as part of a charge, allows you to "make one ranged attack targetting the model charged" with one and only one restriction: that you can't have been in melee with that model at the beginning of your activation. This rule clearly allows you to fire when engaged because it says that you can make a ranged attack, and being in melee isn't one of the restrictions.

[vintersbastard]

If that's the case, which doesn't run with the form of stating explicitly which general rules are superceded by special rules that's more common for PP, it would also be possible to ignore other targeting restrictions, e.g. Passage from the Menite Choir. Trenchers shooting at Dervishes and the likes without magical weapons would be sweet, but I seriously doubt that it's supposed to be that way.

(I'll put that specific case up as a separate question if this thread doesn't receive Infernal attention.)

[PG_petegrrrr]

Assualt currently grants one ranged attack targetting the model charged.

That does nothing to get around the "You cannot make ranged attacks if enaged" rule.

Just like if berserk grants you a melee attack against another model in your range, you cannot choose a model that cannot be targetted by attacks (Like under Saeryn's feat) even if it is in your range, because it does not get around that rule.

I truly believe this is just a minor wording snafu. I think Assault should let you shoot your charge target even if engaged, but currently it does not.

An infernal ruling would be helpful.

Now to do the magic infernal summoning dance!

[brotherscott]

Page 56 under Ranged Combat reads ""A model in melee cannot make ranged attacks."

"Assault - As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation. When resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty. If the target is not in melee range after moving, this model can make the Assault ranged attack before its activation ends."

The key here is that the target model is not in melee for the ranged attack. The model engaging the attacking model still prevents the ranged attack.

Where this would be effective is if the target model was engaged in melee with a friendly model (e.g. reach) and another model makes an assault. At the end of the attacker's movement if would resolve a ranged attack with no target in melee penalty, then resolve the charge attack.

Tricky interaction, and a nice brain teaser.... page 58 Targeting a Model in Melee, and the Assault order from page 120 (Trencher Infantry).

Our Press Ganger usually makes us read the rules out loud and completely for better understanding when we have a question. The rules index in the back of Prime MK II is very helpful as well.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Scott, the target in melee penalty is completely different than "a model in melee cannot make ranged attack".

It means you do not suffer -4 to attack rolls. It has nothing to do with the ATTACKER being engaged, just the TARGET.

That is the problem with the current wording.

All it is good for currently is getting extra movement to make a super long ranged attack, and ignoring the penalty if your target is engaged.

[brotherscott]

Pete- I was responding to the original post, wherein the attacking model is engaged in melee but gets the order to assault and targets another model.
Since the Assault order reads that the attacking model cannot make an assault against a model it is already engaged with, I was offering an example of where one could abuse the Assault wording as it currently stands.

No harm, no foul.

[PG_petegrrrr]

In the original post the attacker is engaged with a second model, so I just don't want to cloud the issue until we get a ruling on the key problems, that's all.

[gcflash]

Sorry I think I opened a can of worms.

Starting at the begining, I dont believe that PP has intended a change from the Mk I phrase-ology. In that the attack is made on the approach of the attack ie while not being in melee with the target (whether that be the moment it sets off on its charge or at the last moment before it grapples with its target).

So I am sure that there will be 1 point along its path where it is not engaged before it reaches its target and would make its ranged attack at that point (fitting with current Mk II rules and as the rule was writen in Mk I). I would therefore assume that if at any point along the assaulting models path it is not engaged it would be able to make its ranged attack (assuming that the model was in range to attack at that point).

The point I was querying was purely based on the fact that the assaulting model was engaged from the moment of activation to ending its activation. Therefore falling in to the principle rule of being able or unable to make a ranged attack. But now I fear that the abiltiy is very poorly worded.

Edited for mistakes

[knight_actual]

hmm... the way it reads to me too is that one can never make the assault shot if one makes it into melee with anything during the charge. This seems like a prime candidate for an errata.

[Defenstrator]

I don't understand. I know this came up in the field test. There was a big stink over Storm Lances and Assault, because due to their large bases they couldn't help but engage multiple people when they moved in. So it was ruled that when assaulting you didn't count as being in melee. How could this not be in the final document?

[Mutton]

I don't understand. I know this came up in the field test. There was a big stink over Storm Lances and Assault, because due to their large bases they couldn't help but engage multiple people when they moved in. So it was ruled that when assaulting you didn't count as being in melee. How could this not be in the final document?

I brought this up a while back, how all the relevant wording that let Assault work was removed in the final document; answer was to just play it as you should be, with ignoring models you are engaged with and the model you are assaulting, and you can assault a model you don't begin engaged with and make a ranged attack even if you are engaged.

[vintersbastard]

I don't understand. I know this came up in the field test. There was a big stink over Storm Lances and Assault, because due to their large bases they couldn't help but engage multiple people when they moved in. So it was ruled that when assaulting you didn't count as being in melee. How could this not be in the final document?

Nay, it didn't. Field Test used some kind of "models are not considered to be in melee with each other"-wording, thereby allowing for ranged attacks while engaging/engaged. What we had to deal with during the Field Test was the "target in melee"-penalty (-4 to hit) as soon as two models in the assaulting unit engaged each other's target.
The new wording removed the penalty, but got rid of the "not considered to be in melee"-clause completely, thereby bringing up this new conundrum.

@Mutton: Is there any chance you might remember where that's posted?

[bashamer]

the rule allows you to make a ranged attack while in melee, engaged or engaging.

When making the attack you ignore the penalty (the pernalty being referd to as "target in melee"). Now it would have been nice if they bolded the keyword combination, or made it italic like the way it apears in the rulebook.

So you have one more area where target is mentioned, and this is where it talkes about not starting your turn engaging the model.

So nothing allows you to negate the whole shooting while in melee stuff (technical term, look it up) other than the existance of the ability.

It works in prettymuch any scenario, even if I charge my vanguard into the melee range of 5 models and engage 5 models I can still make my assault shot.

[Defenstrator]

So we think. It would be nice if it was confirmed though.

[gcflash]

the rule allows you to make a ranged attack while in melee, engaged or engaging.

When making the attack you ignore the penalty (the pernalty being referd to as "target in melee"). Now it would have been nice if they bolded the keyword combination, or made it italic like the way it apears in the rulebook.

So you have one more area where target is mentioned, and this is where it talkes about not starting your turn engaging the model.

So nothing allows you to negate the whole shooting while in melee stuff (technical term, look it up) other than the existance of the ability.

It works in prettymuch any scenario, even if I charge my vanguard into the melee range of 5 models and engage 5 models I can still make my assault shot.

While I total agree with what you are saying; the "target in melee" rule is entirely different to the "in melee rule" (as explained above by petegrrrr) and the assault ability, as writen, simply does not deal with the latter. And this is the issue that has arisen. Therefore it requires an additional line of text along the lines of "The X is not considered to be in melee when making the assault ranged attack, nor is the target considered to be in melee with X." (quoted from Mk I rule).

Something I had not considered but will add is this.


Whether or not this line was added it means that troops such as trenchers are stupidly more powerful (than Mk I as a result of ignoring the target in melee rule) as you can engage X unit/model with another unit and then assault X with trenchers (choosing not to end in melee with X) after and suffer no penalty for shooting in to combat i.e.

• LOS - so long as you can see even a mm of the models volume you can shoot it.
• No screening (in Mk II) - so no bonus to DEF.
• Ignore "target in melee" - so no -4 to hit and no friendly casualties when you miss.

[PG_petegrrrr]

The current rule does not allow for an attack in melee.

What we are hoping for is a correction or errata to have Assault function like it did in mark 1.

Seriously infernals, I have done the infernal summoning dance as hard as I can

[bashamer]

does a rule that supercedes a rule really need to mention that it supercedes the basic rule ?

[PG_petegrrrr]

Show me where in the current wording Assault supercedes the "Cannot make a ranged attack while engaged" rule.

It does not. It gets around the target in melee penalty. That is it.

In mark 1, it specifically stated you could make this shot while engaged, something that is no longer present in the mark 2 rule.


I'm about 99% sure it should be played the way we all remember from mark 1, but as a PG and a Tourny Organizer, I cannot rule that with the current wording, which is really annoying.

[bashamer]

Errr... the rule isn't "Cannot make a ranged attack while engaged"

It is cannot make ranged attacks while in melee, and melee is defined as engaged or engaging. (Page 51)

The wording on the ability shows that it can be used in melee by virtue of "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack". Before making charge attack means that you are in melee. If you were not in melee there would be no charge attack.

The wording is fine, adding engaged, engaging wording would make it more confusing.

[Mutton]

Errr... the rule isn't "Cannot make a ranged attack while engaged"

It is cannot make ranged attacks while in melee, and melee is defined as engaged or engaging. (Page 51)

The wording on the ability shows that it can be used in melee by virtue of "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack". Before making charge attack means that you are in melee. If you were not in melee there would be no charge attack.

The wording is fine, adding engaged, engaging wording would make it more confusing.

No, before making a charge attack does no imply being in melee; charge attacks do not require to have you be engaged, simply have something in your melee range (huge difference, such as Kd models or shifting stones, etc etc). In addition, you still get an assault shot if you fail the charge, so that rules it out again.

[alchahest]

the ability clearly says "you can make a ranged attack"

if it didn't, then there'd be no reason to note assault, as a: you would be engaged at the end of your charge, thereby denying ranged attacks, or b: you didn't make it into melee range with your charge, which ends your activation.

this is a pretty open and shut case. it allows a ranged attack, as it says. if it didn't, there would be no way to use assault as written.

[Mutton]

the ability clearly says "you can make a ranged attack"

if it didn't, then there'd be no reason to note assault, as a: you would be engaged at the end of your charge, thereby denying ranged attacks, or b: you didn't make it into melee range with your charge, which ends your activation.

this is a pretty open and shut case. it allows a ranged attack, as it says. if it didn't, there would be no way to use assault as written.

Issue here is, plenty of stuff in the game says "you can make a melee or ranged attack" but you still can't make the ranged attack if you're in melee.

[alchahest]

right, but this specifically states when you can use this - during a charge, after the move and before the attack. You will be engaged when this occurs, period. you cannot charge and not be engaged.

in a charge, you have your movement, and then attack. between those, assault grants you a ranged attack. if you are not engaged at the end of the movement, your charge fails and your activation ends. this is explicitly saying "make an attack here, when engaged" without spending four lines describing all of the different loopholes it is trying to avoid. it just says "you can make a ranged attack." as opposed to the rule, which is "you cannot make a ranged attack"

[bashamer]

erm... I feel like I'm responding to trolling rather than honest questions at this point, but oh well.

Assault overrides the rules in a number of areas.
1. it allows you get to make a ranged attack on a charge, provided you do not start your activation engaging the target.
2. It alows you to ignore a penalty wich has the name of "target in melee"
3. it allows you to make the ranged attack even if you fail the charge (providing the target is in range).

The rules are clear, your TO can rule on this (if not he would be unqualified to be a TO).

The rest is creative interpetations that are hoping to be validated by trying to force (summon) a response from an infernal.

[Mutton]

right, but this specifically states when you can use this - during a charge, after the move and before the attack. You will be engaged when this occurs, period. you cannot charge and not be engaged.

in a charge, you have your movement, and then attack. between those, assault grants you a ranged attack. if you are not engaged at the end of the movement, your charge fails and your activation ends. this is explicitly saying "make an attack here, when engaged" without spending four lines describing all of the different loopholes it is trying to avoid. it just says "you can make a ranged attack." as opposed to the rule, which is "you cannot make a ranged attack"

I already gave several situations where you can make a charge attack and still have ranged attack options open; against models that are KD, stationary, or don't engage for example. The rule does not explicitly state that it allows an attack while engaged. This is all backdoor conjecture to surpass the RAW to get to the RAI.

[PG_joedj]

For visualization:

My Carnivean (Assault model) is in B2B with opposing non-reach infantry model A, two of the same opposing infantry, model B and C, are 0.6" away from the Carnivean's base. The Carnivean is forced to charge model B and moves 0.1" entering melee range of both model B and C, attempting to target model B, the charge target with it's spray.

Either the Carnivean can ignore being engaged with model A and C for purposes of the spray or not. Depends on how Assault assesses additional engagements (besides the target).

If ruled one way, the ignore additional engagements way, then Assault can be considered to combine Virtuoso and Gunfighter to a degree. That's powerful!

If ruled the other, then there has to be a very clear lane to a single model to pull off an Assault with the charge 'chaser'. In any case, Assault is still a way to grant +3 range and additional straightline movement.

[Necra-Chi]

Was this omission in the Hordes Field Test Rules too? Can a carnivean still make its ranged attack as part of an assault when its charge brings it into melee with its charge target?

Edit: I checked and the hordes field test has the same problem with assault.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Seriously, can we get an Infernal in here? Please? Mootaz? Lunatic? ANYBODY?????

I think we ALL know how this is supposed to work, but with the current wording, we need some official support for our stance!