PDA

View Full Version : Quick Work and additional attacks



Etheric
01-15-2013, 02:13 PM
So a model may not make both ranged and melee attacks in the same activation unless otherwise noted (pg 49 of the mk2 book). However it also says you can buy extra ranged attacks with any appropriate weapon, including the same weapon. If Vyros2 cuts a dude with his sword, is then free from melee and makes a ranged attack with quick work, he has now made both ranged and melee attacks in the same turn. Does that mean he can continue to buy ranged attacks with focus (up to 2 more, the RoF)? The wording on the drag ability seems to indicate no, since you make a melee attack as part of that attack and then the card has to tell you that you are able to buy more.

Either way, what if Vyros2 plays against Vyros2. EvilVyros2 feats, then GoodVyros2 cuts a guy. EvilVyros2 chooses not to make the free movement. GoodVyros2 then quick works another guy. EvilVyros2 then decides to use his feat to engage GoodVyros2. Now that GoodVyros2 has made both ranged and melee attacks this turn, is he now unable to buy additional melee attacks since he does not have a rule that allows him to make additional melee attacks in a turn that he has made ranged attacks?

Final, bonus point question. Since Vyros has reach, and he is engaging non-reach infantry, and the non-reach infantry are not engaging him, does that prevent him from making ranged attacks? I'm sure this one will be in the book directly but I can't find where that rule is.

Warfrog
01-15-2013, 02:35 PM
1. Quick work does not allow you to buy ranged attack after your free one. This does not however stop you from buying more melee attacks.

Edit: however to do more melee attacks you need a model in your melee range and if there is still a model in his melee range he cannot do the ranged attack.

2. GoodVyros can still buy Melee attack as per 1

3. If Vyros is engaged or engaging he cannot do ranged attacks as he does not have Gunfighter EDIT: and you cannot shoot out of combat

Etheric
01-15-2013, 09:03 PM
1. Quick work does not allow you to buy ranged attack after your free one. This does not however stop you from buying more melee attacks.

Edit: however to do more melee attacks you need a model in your melee range and if there is still a model in his melee range he cannot do the ranged attack.


Thanks for the prompt reply. However, I'm not sure I understand why you say this. Could you explain your logical chain for me?

The only relevant rules I've seen say you can't make both ranged and melee attacks unless noted otherwise. Once you've made a melee attack and a quick work ranged attack, you've satisfied the "noted otherwise" qualifier.

If you're saying that quick work was the "noted otherwise " attack and additional attacks have to also be "noted otherwise" then how could he make any additional melee attacks in scenario two? He's already made a ranged attack this turn and therefore is prevented from buying additional melee attacks.

My gut says you're right, otherwise what are things like virtuoso for. However, I just don't follow the logic. I have a copy of the core book. Maybe you could point me to a section I'm missing?

Mr. Golden Deal
01-15-2013, 09:08 PM
Vyros chose to make initial melee attacks for his combat action, and so can buy additional melee attacks. Quick Work grants a 1-time ranged attack, but otherwise doesn't change the fact that he can buy additional melee attacks.

Mod_Neldar
01-15-2013, 09:35 PM
When you go to make your action during the activation you can choose to make initial attacks. When you do so you choose melee or ranged attacks. Once you make this choice you are locked into that type and are no longer able to use the other type of attack that activation. Any bought attacks must be of the type you picked at the beginning.

That said, you have an additional rule to work with here. Ask yourself this: does Quick Work allow you to make initial ranged attacks? Does it allow you to buy additional ranged attacks?

No to both. How do you know? Quick Work doesn't say you can do those things.

A rule that breaks the main rules for initial attacks and bought attacks will say it does so (like Drag or Virtuoso). If it doesn't say it, it doesn't do it.

Warfrog
01-15-2013, 09:53 PM
Once you make a melee attack unless otherwise noted you can only make melee attacks for that activation. Quick work says you can make 1 ranged attack after destroying a model with a melee attack. Its now been otherwise noted that you can make 1 ranged attack. This does not take away the ability for you to make additional melee attacks. After Quick work is resolved you fall back into the constants of your combat action which is to only be able to make melee attacks.

Since you mentioned drag I will explain how it differs.

Drag starts with a ranged attack. After declare you are making ranged attacks you can only make ranged attacks that activation. If you damage a model with drag you can then push it into base to base and make one melee attack against it. Like Quick work this allows you to make an attack that would otherwise be prohibited. After this attack you would then fall back into the constants of your combat action which is to only be able to make ranged attacks. However there is one more line in drag that, after resolving the melee attack, grants you the ability to make more melee attacks.

Moral of the story is that unless otherwise noted (as in drag) the type of additional attacks you can make in a combat action, must match the initial attack type you declared.

Etheric
01-16-2013, 09:56 AM
Once you make a melee attack unless otherwise noted you can only make melee attacks for that activation. Quick work says you can make 1 ranged attack after destroying a model with a melee attack. Its now been otherwise noted that you can make 1 ranged attack. This does not take away the ability for you to make additional melee attacks. After Quick work is resolved you fall back into the constants of your combat action which is to only be able to make melee attacks.

Moral of the story is that unless otherwise noted (as in drag) the type of additional attacks you can make in a combat action, must match the initial attack type you declared.

I get what you are saying about drag. By inference because it is explicitly mentioned there and it isn't explicitly mentioned in quick work that would be the case. But that's just inference, which has the whole "correlation is not causation" problem. The reason it could be listed in drag is because they list that standard in all special attacks that are not attached to a weapon (see page 49, second to last paragraph of combat actions, "Special attacks listed as a rule of the model itself are neither melee attacks nor ranged attacks. The rules for these special attacks indicate the nature of any additional attacks that can be made afterward, if any.")

Everyone that has replied to this thread so far has made the statement that initial attacks determine what following attacks you make. The definition for initial melee attack is at the end of page 48 and the definition for initial ranged attack is at the beginning of page 49. The rule about additional attacks and not being able to make ranged and melee attacks on the same turn unless noted otherwise is a few paragraphs later on page 49 and does not mention "initial attacks" at all. If initial attacks were the qualifier for additional attacks, wouldn't the author have included that term -- which he just defined -- in that rule? Going to page 75 to the section "Focus: Additional Attacks" it also never mentions the term "initial attacks".

I've looked through both the errata, this forum, and the book for the rule that everyone seems completely familiar with and I can't find it. Are you sure this isn't just a rule by tradition? A lot of times when a game changes editions and its rules change some of the older rules will stick around in the mind of the players and influence what they believe the new rules are. Even new players that start with the current edition will have the rules explained to them (or find forum posts from) players of the older edition and can carry anachronistic paradigms in their comprehension of the game. Heck, going to D&D 3rd edition, I can't tell you how many times I've seen a player say that if you walk within melee range of an opponent and do not elect to attack them, you provoke an attack of opportunity. That rule wasn't in that edition or any previous one, but somehow made it into the collective consciousness of D&D players. I'm sure this is even worse in a game where people can play just from the cards and don't even own the core book as long as a friend does and explains things to them.

This may sound like rules lawyering, but I'm just asking you to show your work. It was very common in my meta that LoS was determined 2-dimensionally, and that models only blocked LoS for targets that were the same base size or smaller. However the LoS rules are 3 dimensional and in obscure corner cases that matters. A small base model is unable to target a large base model if there is an intervening medium base model AND that model is closer than half of the distance to the large based model: S--M------------L. This isn't rules lawyering, it's just a corner case interaction with the LoS rules of page 43 defying traditional rules interpretations.

If you really wanted to be a rules lawyer about additional attacks, you could show that rules as written allow warcasters to buy additional attacks of a different kind than their initial attacks without a special rule. I will illustrate:

Page 29: Rule Priority defines special rules as having priority over standard rules, and when special rules conflict with each other CANNOT trumps MUST. However, it does not say standard CANNOT rules trump special MUST rules, and more importantly it does not give any priority between standard rules.

Page 49: Combat Actions notes that warcasters and warjacks can spend focus to make additional attacks, referencing page 75, then gives the "unless noted otherwise" rule.

Page 75: Focus: Additional Attack states that "This model can spend focus to make additional melee or ranged attacks as part of its combat action" (emphasis mine) and then refers back to page 48.

Page 75 satisfies the "unless noted otherwise" rule because it explicitly grants additional melee or ranged attacks.

In this paradigm, the "unless noted otherwise" rule is there for non warcaster/warjack models. It prevents, say, a Houseguard Rifleman from stabbing a dude with his sword than making an additional attack with his rifle, since he has no rules that grant him additional attacks and can not make a melee attack and a ranged attack in the same combat action.

The only flaw in this reading is the word "additional" as you cannot have an additional attack unless you first make an attack. Therefore if you read page 75 to say "additional melee attack" and "additional ranged attack" in which case you are limited to the same kind of attacks you have already made this turn. But if you read page 75 to say "additional attack" well then you can choose your bought attacks regardless of any previous attacks you've made this turn as long as you have made some kind of attack.

I think this reading of warcaster/warjack additional attacks is pretty weird and wouldn't attempt to use it in a game due to how hard it flies in the face of conventional wisdom and traditional interpretation, but it's true that I have not found a rule that invalidates it.

p.s. I hate it when I spend an extended period of time writing a reply and the forum idles me out, so when I hit post it tells me I have to refresh, then when I refresh and relog I have to restore saved content, and then it isn't fully restored due to the auto-save having stopped working halfway through when I was idled out. Is there an option to stop the forums from logging me out without me choosing to do so?

Rosebriar
01-16-2013, 10:09 AM
This may sound like rules lawyering, but I'm just asking you to show your work. It was very common in my meta that LoS was determined 2-dimensionally, and that models only blocked LoS for targets that were the same base size or smaller. However the LoS rules are 3 dimensional and in obscure corner cases that matters. A small base model is unable to target a large base model if there is an intervening medium base model AND that model is closer than half of the distance to the large based model: S--M------------L. This isn't rules lawyering.

A) It is.
B) Bad supporting argument since it's not true. Model volume is relevant only as it applies to whether Los is obstructed by terrain, nothing prevents Los to a large base past a medium base.

Valander
01-16-2013, 10:15 AM
Prime pp. 48-49 cover what you can do in your Combat Action. Specifically, note that there are different bullet items for making melee attacks (which are then defined as initial melee attacks) or ranged attacks (which are then defined as initial ranged attacks). After the bullet list:


After resolving these attacks, a model might be able to make additional attacks.This indicates that you cannot make additional attacks until after your initial attacks (unless of course a special rule states otherwise, such as Berserk).

Further on that page is the restriction:

Unless noted otherwise, a model cannot make both melee and ranged attacks in the same combat action.

So, at the start of your combat action, you are, in fact, dedicating to making either melee or ranged attacks for that combat action. And you cannot make any of the other type, unless you have a rule allowing otherwise.


When this model destroys one or more enemy models with a melee attack during its combat action, immediately after that attack is resolved this model can make one normal ranged attack. Attacks gained from Quick Work do not count against a weaponʼs ROF.Quick Work does grant an exception, but it only grants it for one normal ranged attack. It does not allow you to make additional ranged attacks (comparison to Drag is completely correct; Drag includes "may make additional melee attacks" thus granting that ability as well).

Edit: Also, please try to keep posts in the rules forum on topic. Tangential discussions about other rules not asked about in the thread (especially when that tangent is also incorrect) are unhelpful in answering anything.

Bishop84
01-16-2013, 10:45 AM
I think this reading of warcaster/warjack additional attacks is pretty weird and wouldn't attempt to use it in a game due to how hard it flies in the face of conventional wisdom and traditional interpretation, but it's true that I have not found a rule that invalidates it.

I got lost somewhere in your interpretation. I don't really see the confusion. During a model's combat action, you choose melee or ranged. Then after all initial attacks are made, certain models can buy additional attacks. Since a model can't make both melee and ranged attacks in the same activation without some sort of special rule, those additional attacks are going to be the same type as the initial attacks. Quick Work is one of the rules that breaks the rule, but only for one single attack. It doesn't change the fact that melee initial attacks were made.

Not using the additional attacks rule on Warjacks/Warcasters will quickly leave you on the bad end of a very limited game experience. It's one of the most powerful rules in the game.

Etheric
01-16-2013, 01:49 PM
Thanks Valander for walking through that. I was bringing up other things to try to show the importance of walking through the logical process as opposed to just "no you can't do that." It all ended up for the better because now I see the line about using the model's volume for determining LoS for terrain, something my entire group missed when we re-read that section.

So the problem I'm seeing when reading through your explanation is that quick work then locks you out of buying additional melee attacks. You have made your initial melee attacks. You have made a ranged attack from quick work. When you go to buy the additional melee attack, you check to see if you've made a ranged attack that round. You have. Therefore you are unable to buy additional melee attacks.

Or is there an extra step in there? Check to see if you've made a ranged attack this round, then check to see if that attack was allowed by a special rule. If so, then you're free to buy additional melee attacks.

Is that the train of thought?


I got lost somewhere in your interpretation. I don't really see the confusion. During a model's combat action, you choose melee or ranged. Then after all initial attacks are made, certain models can buy additional attacks. Since a model can't make both melee and ranged attacks in the same activation without some sort of special rule, those additional attacks are going to be the same type as the initial attacks. Quick Work is one of the rules that breaks the rule, but only for one single attack. It doesn't change the fact that melee initial attacks were made.

Not using the additional attacks rule on Warjacks/Warcasters will quickly leave you on the bad end of a very limited game experience. It's one of the most powerful rules in the game.

Yeah you missed a step in there. The pg 49 rule does not require the model to have a "special" rule to violate it, a standard rule will do. Page 75 can be read that spending focus for additional attacks is an explicit rule that allows you to buy both melee or ranged attacks regardless of your other attacks this turn. Really it looks more like a bit of sloppy writing that can be misconstrued due to some layout problems. That's why it's important to have official forums like these and helpful people like everyone who has responded so far to allow people to play the same game whether you're from Texas or the UK.

Warfrog
01-16-2013, 02:00 PM
Gonna try to break this down as much as I can.

You can only make melee or ranged attacks in an activatoin unless you have a rule stating otherwise

You make a melee attack. Now you can only make melee attacks that activation

Quick Work triggers allowing One free ranged attack that ignores your limitation of only melee. It only ignores it for this attack.

After your free attack is resolved you fall back to the limitations of your combat action which is you can only do melee attacks.

You go to buy additional attacks. You can buy ranged or melee but you are only allow to make melee attacks so you can only buy melee attacks


When you go to buy the additional melee attack, you check to see if you've made a ranged attack that round. You have. Therefore you are unable to buy additional melee attacks.

This is not true as the ranged attack you made is a free attack that ignores your current limitation of only doing melee. Once this is done you go back to your only melee limitation.

You have an infernal saying this is how it works. Infernal ruling are as good as lines printed in the book.

Mod_Neldar
01-16-2013, 02:35 PM
So the problem I'm seeing when reading through your explanation is that quick work then locks you out of buying additional melee attacks. You have made your initial melee attacks. You have made a ranged attack from quick work. When you go to buy the additional melee attack, you check to see if you've made a ranged attack that round. You have. Therefore you are unable to buy additional melee attacks.

Or is there an extra step in there? Check to see if you've made a ranged attack this round, then check to see if that attack was allowed by a special rule. If so, then you're free to buy additional melee attacks.

Quick Work is a bad example. You can't make a Quick Work attack if you have a model in melee.

You also can't make a melee attack if there isn't anyone in melee with you.

There is no check to be done. You elected to make melee attacks for your initial attacks. Therefore, buying attacks with focus will let you buy melee attacks--not ranged attacks--because you can't make both in one activation. Special rules and effects like Quick Work and Drag don't change this rule unless they specifically say they do. These rules specify when they apply and what they do--they don't do anything they don't say they do.

You are looking to understand the logical process. The logical process for special rules and abilities is actually very simple. They apply exactly when they say they apply and they do exactly what they say they do. Don't infer rules. Play it as they read.

Quick Work does not mention additional attacks, therefore it does not affect your ability to make them nor does it affect what kind of additional attacks you can make.

Drag, however, specifies that additional melee attacks can be made. It does not mention initial attacks (so you can't make an initial melee attack), but it does affect the kind of additional attacks you can make (you can make both additional melee attacks and additional ranged attacks instead of just the additional ranged attacks).

Valander
01-16-2013, 02:45 PM
So the problem I'm seeing when reading through your explanation is that quick work then locks you out of buying additional melee attacks. You have made your initial melee attacks. You have made a ranged attack from quick work. When you go to buy the additional melee attack, you check to see if you've made a ranged attack that round. You have. Therefore you are unable to buy additional melee attacks.
This is where your confusion comes from. There is nothing that requires you to see what the "last" attack type you made was. Additional attacks are based on the first decision (melee or ranged), not a "stack" where the last thing you did is determinant. The "out of sequence" ranged attack from Quick Work does not change the "chose melee attacks for this combat action", and that choice is what determines what additional attack types you can make.

Of course, Virtuoso, Drag, etc. may further modify that.

Bishop84
01-16-2013, 05:10 PM
Yeah you missed a step in there. The pg 49 rule does not require the model to have a "special" rule to violate it, a standard rule will do.

Ok, poor verbage on my part. I said 'special rule' as any rule on a card that's not part of the main core rules is technically a 'special rule', but nothing in the game actually uses that wording. A rule is a rule, period. Everything else I said still stands.

Etheric
01-17-2013, 12:25 PM
@Neldar Check to see my GoodVyros vs EvilVyros example for a time when you can melee someone, quick work someone, then have someone in melee again that you might want to attack. Also knocked down opponents qualify for this scenario. It's not inferring anything to say "The rule says you can not make ranged and melee attacks in the same round, I have already done so due to a special rule, now I'm confused about what kind of special attacks I'm allowed to use."


This is where your confusion comes from. There is nothing that requires you to see what the "last" attack type you made was. Additional attacks are based on the first decision (melee or ranged), not a "stack" where the last thing you did is determinant. The "out of sequence" ranged attack from Quick Work does not change the "chose melee attacks for this combat action", and that choice is what determines what additional attack types you can make.

Of course, Virtuoso, Drag, etc. may further modify that.

I wasn't looking at the last attack I've made this turn, I was looking at all the attacks I've made this turn, but either way I see where you are coming from now. Thanks for replying to the thread again to straighten that out for me. I had seen the rule as being unable to make both ranged and melee attacks in the same turn as happening after initial attacks, but since it doesn't reference initial attacks that any attacks you have made this turn are examined by this rule to see what kind of additional attacks you qualify for. However, if I'm reading you right, it is as if the quick work attack NEVER HAPPENED. It didn't count against ROF, it came from a special rule, and does nothing to influence any other rules. Well I guess it might influence other special rules, like triggering abilities that activate when you hit with a ranged attack.

I hope you can see my confusion with the rules the way they are printed though. It would be a lot clearer if it said instead of not being able to make both ranged and melee attacks in the same turn, if it said "additional attacks are determined by your initial attacks unless noted otherwise." Maybe in mk III, eh?

@Warfrog: No, an infernal's word is not as good as a line in the book. I can't take an infernal's word with me out of the house to a game to point at to a friend, unless I have a smartphone or obsessive printing practices. It is as powerful as a line in the book. And they are much more polite than a line in the book, because they write back to me when I ask them questions. The book just stares at me sullenly pretends it can't hear me. One day I'll have my dream where computer programmers or logisticians write the rules that game designers come up with, who then hand their m****cript to a tech writer to edit/reformat for flow. In the meantime I think I'll survive in a world that gives me the internet that allows me to directly ask experts on matters that concern me. Thanks Valander, and everyone else too.

Edit: Really? It bleeps out the word "the original text of an author's work, handwritten or now usually typed, that is submitted to a publisher." That's hilarious.

Valander
01-17-2013, 12:29 PM
@Warfrog: No, an infernal's word is not as good as a line in the book.
I think what Warfrog was referring to was this:

First, Let me introduce your Rules team for this forum. We call them the Infernals.

Macallan
Poeticruse
Maudlin
Mootaz
TheUnknownMercenary
Valander

These fine soldiers of the shadow are here to answer your question and help you resolve any issues you have with the rules. Their words are official.

Either way, sounds like you're squared away, so locking.