Assault and model in melee rule

[TurboNitroMonkey]

I think what we're missing here, is that, generally speaking, the wording on a card will trump a rule in the book.

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.

Lets run through it.

A model is engaged by a model it doesn't intend to target with an assault action.

Does the attacking model have both its movement and action available to it, and otherwise can it legally declare a charge? Yes.
Declare the charge target.
Is the charge target in LOS? Yes.
Turn to face charge target.
Move towards charge target at up to SPD+3" in a straight line in faced direction, without stopping until the target model is in its melee range, or it reaches its maximum distance of SPD+3".
Did it move 3" or greater? Yes.

(Now we're going to assume it moved 3" or greater, but that it didn't have to move its full distance, because it would otherwise have to leave the melee range of the initial engaging model, and that under some interesting voodoo, the initially engaging model still has it in its melee range, as does the attacking model, so that no free strikes are incurred, and they are still engaging each other at the end of this movement, which is what this is about.)

Check.

Charge requirements met.

"after moving, but before making its charge attack" timing check.

"this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this model's activation."

Were the assaulter and target engaged at the start of the assaulter's activation? No.

Check.

Is the target currently in melee range with assaulting model. (Yes, otherwise it'd have had to leave the initial engaging model's melee arc by continuing up to its full movement until it reached the target, or hit its maximum movement.)

Assault requirements met.

Perform ranged attack, "the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty."

Ranged attack roll.
If hit scored:
Ranged damage roll.

Is target still alive? (Yes/No... now this is where you would otherwise perform your charge attack, and is beyond the scope of this question.)

That seems like it to me.

It seems to squirm around the rule allowing you to make a ranged attack while engaged in melee.

Also, assuming you're still engaging the initial model, it would stand to reason by the charge rules, that if you shoot and kill your charge target with the ranged attack, you can then use a non-charge attack to attack the target you were initially engaging.

This is probably not intended? But from the rules I'm reading about charging and assaulting, seems cheesy, but within the letter of the law.

It seems to me that Assault probably SHOULD be errata'd to include the following. "A model cannot make an assault during an activation it begins engaged in melee with an enemy model." or something similar.

At least it does appear that you cannot use Assault on a model less than three inches from you, which would prevent the 'charge attack', because of the "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack," part would be violated, given that the model wouldn't be allowed to make the charge attack.

So the cases where a model can move a full three inches through a model's melee arc, to engage another enemy model, without suffering a free strike and dying, and fulfilling all this will be rare at least. I can see it perhaps happening with a non-reach small base model moving through the arc of an engaging model with reach and a 360 melee range, in such a way that the small based model never gets its .5" melee arc in contact with the engaging model. Say... a Rhinodon or Epic Butcher or something. Maybe...

[PG_petegrrrr]

The problem is "Cannot" trumps "May/must".

A model in melee with another model "Cannot" make a ranged attack.

Like I said, we all know how this SHOULD work. It's just not worded in that fashion.

Assault grants a ranged attack.

Further more, it goes on to specify what that attack ignores (meaning their are conditions on this attack, and it is not some super ranged attack that ignores everything). Sadly, this does not currently include the "cannot shoot while in melee" rule.

It should be there. It used to be there. Frankly, it NEEDS to be there. But as a PG and a Tourny organizer, if someone raises a fuss about this, the wording would be on the side of no ranged attack, which I find just silly.

[TurboNitroMonkey]

Side note, how would this work in the case of a unit like Khador Assault Kommandos with Assault & Battery?

Assault & Battery (Order) - Before their normal movement, affected models can make one ranged attack. During their normal movement, affected models must charge or run. The ranged attack is made before declaring a charge target.

I'm thinking this would fall under the same as Assault. "Affected models can make one ranged attack."

Again, I feel this SHOULDN'T allow the model to ignore p56's "A model in melee cannot make ranged attacks."

But then if these rules don't ignore that rule, then gunfighter shouldn't either:

"This model is a gunfighter. The gunfighter has a melee range of 0.5" and can make ranged attacks targeting models in its melee range."

One rule says you can't, one says you can. When in doubt abilities and rules on cards that circumvent book rules, historically take precendence.

Again, I don't think this is intended, but it seems to work that way.

[TurboNitroMonkey]

Its one of those things where the spirit of the rule and the letter of it are in opposition and do wonky things.

Kind of like how a Carnivean with eyeless sight can spray through a forest, but a Koldun Lord for instance has his spray attack magically stop 3" in, or completely fail to exit the other side of a forest 1" deep, even if its only 1" away from him, because spray attacks can't hit models the attacker can't see, and he can only see 3" in and never all the way through. Thats another one that seems silly. Its meant to stop spray attacks from going through obstacles like buildings, but yet forests magically turn into walls for those who can see them, but if you close your eyes, it goes all the way through. Grr indeed.

[TurboNitroMonkey]

And you're right. P29 of PrimeMKII with the Cannot trumping may/must.

That would make assault charges ONLY seem to work if the charger COULDN'T get into melee, and defeat gunfighter entirely.

ALTHOUGH... the preface to those rules say only to apply them when *TWO* "special rules" conflict... which would still lead the wording to have me believe that the SINGLE special rule would continue to trump the book.

We know the spirit of the rule though, and I think any reasonable player would agree with the intention of it. If they don't and want to argue it, it just shows their character. If it comes up in a high-pressure/risk situation like a tournament, I pity the tournament director.

[brotherscott]

The worst part of all of this is how often is this situation likely to come up?

If I have an engaged model that gets the assault order, with common sense in mind, I will attack the nearest model that will benefit me, and not try to drive my opponent or TO/ Press Ganger to bludgeon me after the game in the back alley.

I understand the ruling that allows for charging in melee if the attacking model and/ or target both have reach, I don't see it happening a lot, if ever, but I am OK with that. Pushing for an assault from one melee engagement to another target to get the assault just does not seem as likely.

If asked to make a ruling, I would say "no", and an informal poll (about 6 or 8 regular players) at the LGS (complete with models on the table and measuring devices) seemed to feel the same way.

It gets pretty ridiculous if players are pushing this hard and this far to try and "break" one rule.

I am very interested in what any of the Infernals have to say about this.

[TurboNitroMonkey]

Agreed brotherscott. Agreed. Few and far between.

But its discussions like this that allow the rules to become that much more airtight, and less and less of this situations can even appear, so that in the end, everybody's playing the same game no matter where you travel or who you play.

Now if we can only find a rule that makes playing as the Protectorate of Menoth illegal in its entirety. Hmm.. *Scours book*

[Kommissar Golovko]

Side note, how would this work in the case of a unit like Khador Assault Kommandos with Assault & Battery?

Assault & Battery (Order) - Before their normal movement, affected models can make one ranged attack. During their normal movement, affected models must charge or run. The ranged attack is made before declaring a charge target.

I'm thinking this would fall under the same as Assault. "Affected models can make one ranged attack."

Assault and Battery is different from Assault. In Assault and Battery, you have to shoot first before your charge movement. The ruling is even explicit in this in that it says the range attack is made before declaring a charge target.

[brotherscott]

Now if we can only find a rule that makes playing as the Protectorate of Menoth illegal in its entirety. Hmm.. *Scours book*

I may have the Mercenary Shield up right now, but I am a Protectorate player from the start. I don't play cheesy.

I would fight you on making the Protectorate illegal every step of the way.

[Tarzen]

Not to get too OT, but assault and battery works in a similar way: it says you can shoot, then run, despite the rules for running(p 46) saying that it can't do ANYTHING else that turn. So, by your logic, you can't shoot, since the rule doesn't say it allows them to shoot and ignore the run runs. Just saying...

As to assault, the wording is pretty simple- you can do it because it says you can. p 51 says that a model that is ENGAGING or ENGAGED cannot make ranged attacks, but assault says there is only one condition that stops it from working - namely if you began your activation engaged by your TARGET.

Yes, we know this is how it's been played and how it will continue to be played, so do we really need all the hoopla?

Cheers

[Kommissar Golovko]

The hoopla will be there as long as there is no rule circumventing the no shooting when in melee. It is agreed that the intent of Assault is similar to Mk 1 but the finished product at the moment is not the same.

[Necra-Chi]

The argument that it is a special rule overriding a basic rule does not stand. If that were a valid argument then any model with strafe would gain the ability to shoot while engaged, for example.

[Maudlin]

Answer is: It works like most of you believe it does. Assault is a special rule that allows a ranged attack "as part of a charge", overriding the general rule of not shooting while engaged.

[Hjelmen0]

\o/ Thank you, Maudlin

[Maudlin]

\o/ Thank you, Maudlin

Quite welcome

The argument that it is a special rule overriding a basic rule does not stand. If that were a valid argument then any model with strafe would gain the ability to shoot while engaged, for example.

Just wanted to quickly respond to this. Strafe, as a *attack on a ranged weapon is itself a ranged attack. You could not use the Strafe special rule while engaged, at all. If anything prevents a charge, you could not use Assault, either.

Assault has always overridden several general rules, simply due to the way it is spelled out to work. It still does in Mk2. Another example is no melee & ranged attacks during the same combat action.

[Mod_Faultie]

Maudlin for Mayor! Only he has the sense to lead this community!

Thanks!

[Lord Xalys]

The rule in question:

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.

Nothing in the above text forbids you to shoot the target of your charge, EXCEPT when you are already in melee with said target. That's the whole idea of Assault: you charge in, guns blazing. See below:

Step 1: declare charge target;
Step 2: make charge movement towards charge target;
Step 3: shoot charge target thanks to Assault, thereby ignoring the target in melee penalty (in other words; you're considered not to be in melee);
Step 4: make charge attack (if you ended up in melee with the charge target).

That's it. I have the feeling people are reading too much into this, thus making it look like a mess.

EDIT: thx, Maudlin!

Cheers,
LX

[Mutton]

Ya infernal; now can we get some errata stating that so we don't have to get into arguments over it?

[Maudlin]

Ya infernal; now can we get some errata stating that so we don't have to get into arguments over it?

No, errata are for when the rule is incorrect as written.

[Blaque]

Would perhaps an entry in the FAQ be warranted if this were to come up again though? I doubt it will, but just curious on that.

And stuff.

[PG_Devilsquid]

Hooplah!


I think folks are over complicating things. Yes, the core rules say you can't shoot while in melee, but special rules trump core rules....that's what makes them special. Assault says "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."

That's all the permission you need to get past the "not shooting in melee" rule. It gives you a very specific target that you're allowed to shoot at, i.e., the model you charged.

It also says you don't get the penalty for shooting into a combat.

Really, i don't see what's so complicated.

[PG_petegrrrr]

The main issue was special rules trumping reguler vs. cannot trumping May/Must.

But as it has been resolved, I am relieved!

[brotherscott]

Thanks Maudlin!! I think I was in the minority, but reading it over, it makes sense and props to DevilSquid for the simplified interaction.

I think I may try to set this up soon.

[TurboNitroMonkey]

So in this case, back to my secondary question, If Assault works this way, would the Assault Kommandos' Assault and Battery work the same way?

Could a model already engaging an enemy in melee receive the Assault and Battery order and make a ranged attack while engaged, and follow that with a charge or run action?

It sounds to me like it would. If it targeted the model it is already in combat with, it would suffer the target in melee penalty, but in theory couldn't it then shoot OUT of melee at another unengaged model in its LOS without penalty, followed by its charge move "oops I couldn't move 3 inches, so I don't get a boosted damage roll" and two normal attacks?

[PG_petegrrrr]

That's why I realy think this needs a re-wording erratta.

I suspect that Assault and Battery is probably not meant to work that way, otherwise it would just be assualt, but with this ruling that door is now opened.

A quick, reworded erratta would probably save everyone a lot of head aches.

[Necra-Chi]

I know Maudlin knocked my example of strafe on the head but assault and battery is a better example of a special rule that has "may make a ranged attack" somewhere in it. Just because it is a special rule, that doesn't mean you get to ignore the requirements of the general rule telling you when you cannot make a ranged attack.

Look at any special rule that grants a ranged attack you wouldn't usually get without that special rule. Do those all ignore the requirement that you cannot make a ranged attack while engaged now?

[TurboNitroMonkey]

I know Maudlin knocked my example of strafe on the head but assault and battery is a better example of a special rule that has "may make a ranged attack" somewhere in it. Just because it is a special rule, that doesn't mean you get to ignore the requirements of the general rule telling you when you cannot make a ranged attack.

Look at any special rule that grants a ranged attack you wouldn't usually get without that special rule. Do those all ignore the requirement that you cannot make a ranged attack while engaged now?

Again, it doesn't feel right, but given the infernal response, it sounds to me like it may, so long as it isn't a special rule of the ranged weapon. But then before Maudlin spoke up, it sounded to me like Assault didn't either.

[Mutton]

I think it's a case of RAI versus RAW. RAW, as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, would break several other abilities. RAI, which I think we can all agree upon, is what Maudlin said.

[Kommissar Golovko]

I still think an errata or tactical tip at least should be made. It would be easier for people to accept a rule in black and white rather than a post in the forum which people either have to dig through or may even disappear if the forum breaks down.

[Maudlin]

Just because it is a special rule, that doesn't mean you get to ignore the requirements of the general rule telling you when you cannot make a ranged attack.

I agree with this, but see below.

Look at any special rule that grants a ranged attack you wouldn't usually get without that special rule. Do those all ignore the requirement that you cannot make a ranged attack while engaged now?

You have to look at the special rule in question. In this case, it's a rule that says, as part of a melee combat action, advance into melee with a model and then make a ranged attack against it. Do we really need to add a line saying that yes, you genuinely are allowed to make the attack in melee?

If we do, how long until someone claims that if you take the ranged attack, you're no longer allowed the charge attack because trenchers don't have Virtuoso?

Assault & Battery is once again a very different rule, but one which in turn overrides its own general rules. Does it confuse anyone that you're making a ranged attack at a point in your activation when you normally cannot? Are any of your opponents arguing that means you're not allowed to make it? If they are, a sockjack is your tool, not an erratum.

And no, that doesn't mean it ignores all other general restrictions on ranged attacks, neither does Assault (eg. you still need LoS).

I think it's a case of RAI versus RAW. RAW, as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, would break several other abilities. RAI, which I think we can all agree upon, is what Maudlin said.

Yes, this please. I do honestly see everyone's point here, but as I began to show above, there are hundreds of rules that implicitly override other, general rules. We cannot explicitly mention all of them. We wouldn't want to either, as MkII intended to move away from the huge, lumbering and largely redundant blocks of text in MkI.

If a special rule clearly describes a situation that is counter to a general rule, the general rule is implicitly overridden. Obviously, that should not be extrapolated to all other special rules or other situations.

I think it is clear what Assault means to do. You're meant to charge in, take a ranged attack against your target, then make the charge attack. That is the intention, and if that is clear to everyone from a simple reading of the rules as written (as I think it is) then there shouldn't be a problem during gameplay.

I wouldn't object to a tactical tip for something like this, but the books are already out, and it certainly doesn't merit an erratum.

[tensteam]

I think there should be FAQ of rules forum content. There are several things that aren't that clear in rules even in MkII and that would be an easy way to find the official answers. Should we just start a topic like this or is there something more official coming?

[PG_Devilsquid]

I'm personally glad Assault has been tweaked for MKII, because now my Cavalry can charge and shoot without capping a Halberdier in the back of the head.

[brotherscott]

I ended up at the FLGS yesterday, and, in order to explain how things worked (yes, it came up in a rules discussion), I put a few models on the table, grabbed a melee gauge, measuring tape, and the rule book, and demonstrated the interaction.
It is much clearer in my head now, as well as some of my fellow players.

That doesn't mean it doesn't seem cheeky, but it does make sense.

[Silk8185]

Sorry if this is reviving a dead thread, but theres something i need to know

Step 3: shoot charge target thanks to Assault, thereby ignoring the target in melee penalty (in other words; you're considered not to be in melee);

(My emphasis)

What if the Target was already Engaged?, i.e.

Player 1 model, engaging player 2 model, and player 1's Stormblades try to charge into this "Combat" would player 2's models get the +4 def for being egaged by another source BEFORE assault was actioned?

[Mutton]

Honestly, I think it should be worded

"Assault (Order) - Affected models must charge or run. As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, an
affected model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start
of the affected modelʼs activation. Models that received this order cannot make combined ranged attacks this activation. When
resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model and target are not considered to be in melee. If the target is not in melee
range after moving, the affected model must still make the ranged attack before its activation ends."

That's not even resolving the "okay, I start engaged by A, Assault B while staying in melee of A; do I get the shot?" issue.

[PG_petegrrrr]

True.

That stills needs clarifying. Do you ignore ALL engagement when making a ranged attack, or only the engagement of your target?

[brotherscott]

According to Maudlin, you ignore all engagement when making the ranged attack.

Post #53 above.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Well, that was more of a blanket ruling.

I would like to see some clarification, as I have my resurgence tourny coming up soon.

So far, we do know that it works on the charge target, as we all thought, but a second, non targetted model engaging is something different.

It could still work, but I'd like to see that spelled out real fast before I have to make any rulings on it.

[Silk8185]

This was the answer given in my topic before i found this one, and the same is said there, but it would be really interesting for me to know if this is how it works.

[Ngangata]

According to Maudlin, you ignore all engagement when making the ranged attack.

Post #53 above.

This is probably how the ability is supposed to work but it is not worded that way.
It is implied (thought not specifically stated) that you can ignore being in melee with your charge target for purposes of the ranged attack but I still do not see how the wording can lead to the conclusion that you can ignore being engaged by a model other than your target.
Just saying "he can shoot 'cause it says he can shoot" is not really good enough.
I believe there should be errata to this ability to add -this model may ignore being engaged for purposes of making an assault ranged attack- if that is the desired effect.

Just my 2 cents
Ngangata