PDA

View Full Version : Sacrificial Strike a ranged attack?



zyxx
08-30-2012, 01:37 PM
as the header inclines...

Ok, here's the set up... Skarre moves within her CMD range of Harbinger... i want to use Sacrificial Strike against Harby... there is a Devout 1" from Harby... upon using Sacrificial Strike, my opponent declares that the Devout will take the hit... I call shenanigans...

My opponent INSISTS that Skarre's Sacrificial Strike is a ranged attack because it has a Range of CMD...

I tried to explain that just because it has a range does not make a ranged attack... but he is requiring proof otherwise...

am I overlooking something?

Mod_Neldar
08-30-2012, 01:44 PM
Sacrificial Strike isn't an attack. Can't Shield Guard it away unless it is a ranged attack.

zyxx
08-30-2012, 02:04 PM
sorry... but i am going to need something more...

we went ahead and played it his way (under protest) cause it wasn't a game changer, but he saying that if its not an attack, it shouldn't do damage. :( I think he is reading to much into the rules...

Are there any post on this subject that I can point him to (my search-fu is weak)... or something in the rule book that I overlooked??

wargrim
08-30-2012, 02:13 PM
Actually it's not that your friend reads to much into rules, but that he interprets the rules instead of reading them.

Sacrificial Strike isn't an attack at all, it is a special action. There are rules for what defines attacks, *attacks and *actions. *actions are only attacks if their rules say so, like offensive spells.

There are rules that define whats a ranged attack, and doing something at range + doing damage isn't one of this things. If you want to prove it to your friend, show him the rules for ranged attacks and for special actions.

zyxx
08-30-2012, 02:23 PM
That's what I was overlooking.. its an ACTION.. not an attack... cannot use shield guard that...

thanks guys!

SageofLodoss
08-30-2012, 02:29 PM
Assuming that something has a range makes it a ranged attack is a false assumption. Spells shot at a range are "magic attacks," never 'ranged attacks.' He could not use Shield Guard to intercept your Blood Rain for example.

Assuming that something doing damage makes it an attack is also a false assumption likely made by him being too interpretive. *actions are not attacks, and there are a number of non-attacks which do damage. Saeryn's Blight Bringer, for instance, is a non-offensive spell, so it doesn't count as an attack, yet it deals POW 12's.

He needs to accept that. There's no other interpretation, that's how the rules work. If he wants to wrap his head around it, explain to your friend the nature of how these abilities are different from what you would consider 'attacks.' Skarre's Sacrificial Strike uses a range of command as a limitation of how far she can do the action, but she does not shoot something that distance at the opponent, she sacrifices a trooper nearby to automatically inflict damage on someone. Saeryn's Blight Bringer targets a friendly warbeast and makes them generate a big shockwave of death. In both cases you're not shooting something directly as someone, you're causing an effect on the field which happens to damage enemy models in some way.

vintersbastard
08-30-2012, 02:39 PM
My opponent INSISTS that Skarre's Sacrificial Strike is a ranged attack because it has a Range of CMD...

I tried to explain that just because it has a range does not make a ranged attack... but he is requiring proof otherwise...

am I overlooking something?
The only thing that is a ranged attack is something that is called a ranged attack somewhere in the rules, e.g. attacks with ranged weapons. Everything else is not a ranged attack, regardless of having a RNG stat, e.g. spells (those are magic attacks, after all).