PDA

View Full Version : Hellmouth missing when attacking a target in melee



Po the Barbarian
10-24-2015, 08:42 AM
As cited in this recent thread (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?240010-Ashes-to-Ashes-missing-in-combat), Hellmouth was described as being re-rolled after missing it's initial target if the initial target is in melee, in this thread. (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?46518-Cassius-amp-Wurmwood)

The relevant quote is:


The exact wording is "ignores the firing into melee penalty" and the only firing into melee penalty is the -4 to the attack roll so that is all that is ignored.

When you originally miss with an attack against a model in melee, you have to reroll the attack against another model. You are rerolling the original attack against a new target, since it is the same attack you do not count the miss against the original target but if you miss the new target then nothing will happen from Hellmouth.

So in your scenario, Cassius casts Hellmouth at the Bane Knight that has both cover and is in melee with Wurmwood. The Bane Knight would get the cover bonus +4 DEF. So the Bane Knight has a DEF of 16 against Hellmouth. Cassius makes his attack roll, which will NOT suffer the in melee penalty of -4. Now if Cassius misses the Bane Knight he then has to reroll the attack against Wurmwood and you use the same amount of dice against the Wurmwood as you did against the Bane Knight plus cover if Wurmwood also got Cover from the linear obstacle and Cassius's roll will not suffer the target in melee penalty against Wurmwood. If Hellmouth still misses the reroll then it will have no effect.

I bring all this up, as I don't understand why it works this way, and I always like being able to explain the reasoning rather than citing "an infernal said so" when a surprising rule interaction comes up. I would have thought that the statement in Hellmouth that the spell does nothing if it misses would be more specific than the overall missing into melee rules, and thus overide. My guess is that you haven't actually "missed" in the sense that hellmouth uses the word until you've missed the second roll -but I don't understand the attack sequences well enough to explain to another player that this is the case.

Can someone help me understand why it works this way (assuming it does)?

Grey Templar
10-24-2015, 08:46 AM
I believe you just ignore the -4 attack roll penalty. If you miss you still randomize against other models in the same melee, excluding yourself of course.

Po the Barbarian
10-24-2015, 09:00 AM
I think the ignoring the attack penalty talk in that thread is about a different rule on Cassius, black roots, that lets him ignore the firing into memes penalty. The original thread was around that so I wanted to be sure it wasn't an oversight to describe rerolling specifically with hell mouth.

juckto
10-24-2015, 11:32 AM
When firing into melee, you haven't "missed" until you miss both the "original attack roll vs a target model that is in melee" and the "re-roll the attack roll vs a randomised model".

It's the same as if you have any other ability that grants a re-roll; you haven't missed, and triggered any "attack that misses" effects, until both rolls are complete.

Leonard_Dukes
10-24-2015, 11:46 AM
I bring all this up, as I don't understand why it works this way, and I always like being able to explain the reasoning rather than citing "an infernal said so" when a surprising rule interaction comes up. I would have thought that the statement in Hellmouth that the spell does nothing if it misses would be more specific than the overall missing into melee rules, and thus overide. My guess is that you haven't actually "missed" in the sense that hellmouth uses the word until you've missed the second roll -but I don't understand the attack sequences well enough to explain to another player that this is the case.

Can someone help me understand why it works this way (assuming it does)?



Hordes: Primal, MkII, Appendix A: Timing, Attack Roll, p237
6.1. Resolve effects that change the number of dice rolled, such as boosting the roll.

6.2. Roll the dice.

6.3. Resolve effects that allow a player to choose or remove dice from the roll.

6.4. Determine if the model would be hit or missed by the attack roll against it.

6.5. Resolve effects that cause the attack roll to be rerolled, returning to step 2.

6.6. The attack roll is complete. Return to the main sequence.

7. Resolve effects that cause the attack to hit a model other than the target automatically.

8. Resolve AOE hit or deviation. [...]

9. Resolve all other effects that are triggered by hitting or missing.

I've bolded the steps of the Attack Main Sequence that I think are relevant here.

At step 6.4, you determine if the targeted model would be hit or missed - you have't actually reached the point where it is hit or missed. If you hit, then you proceed on down the chain until you get to step 9, and follow the instructions as laid out in the spell's text.

If, instead, at step 6.4 you determine that the attack would miss (but it hasn't actually missed yet), then you stop at step 6.5 and "resolve effects that cause the attack roll to be rerolled", albeit against a different target. If the new roll would also miss, what stops you from entering a never-ending loop of rerolling against new targets is the clause from the section on Targeting A Model In Melee that states "If the attack against the new target misses, it misses completely without targeting any more models."

I agree, wholeheartedly, that the inclusion of the phrase "If this attack misses, nothing happens" is confusing and (if it works as above) completely unnecessary.

Though it's still complete speculation on my part, I'd be willing to bet that this phrase is included to prevent players from inadvertently treating the spell as an AOE spell and deviating the 3" AOE on a miss against the primary target. The fact that the spell is listed as AOE: * could be confusing to some and cause them to treat it according to the rules of AOE spells, instead of a missed attack just missing outright with no further consequences.

As support that AOE: * attacks are not AOE attacks, consider the following blurb hidden away in the rules for AOEs:


Warmachine: Prime MkII, Point of Origin, p64
Finally, some non-AOE attacks, such as Ashes to Ashes and Chain Lightning, have special rules that allow them to damage models besides the attack's target.

Ashes to Ashes, of course, is another one of those AOE: * spells, and there's no other quality that would lead one to believe that it is an AOE spell other than that peculiar stat. Oddly enough, Hordes: Primal MkII has the same passage but omits Ashes to Ashes and uses only Chain Lightning as its example, but that's neither here nor there.

Po the Barbarian
10-24-2015, 01:58 PM
Great - thanks for walking me through the attack sequence on this one. This will really help me explain this when it comes up!