PDA

View Full Version : Spriggan and Flare



popg0estheworld
08-19-2010, 11:09 PM
Upon reading the rules for the Spriggan's "Flare," I had a couple questions-

Since the Spriggan places a flare instead of making an attack, can he do it if he is engaged in combat? Can he still make initial attacks with hi melee weapons when laying a flare? Can he do it when he runs, since it is not technically an attack? Is "flare" an ability considered outside of the normal ranged attack structure?

vintersbastard
08-20-2010, 01:10 AM
Targeting Flare - Instead of making an attack with this weapon, ...

As far as I can tell, you have to be able to make an attack with the Grenade Launcher to use the Targeting Flare, so you don't get it if you run, are in melee, or have chosen to make melee attacks in your combat action.

popg0estheworld
08-20-2010, 04:22 AM
Yes, but if one performs Flare "instead of making an attack," isn't it not an attack (and hence not subject to the same restrictions)? It's not a star action like other alternate weapon effects, so it seems like it has to have a different set of restrictions.

Michael
08-20-2010, 04:28 AM
While you may not be "making an attack" with that weapon, it's clear that you are still using that weapon to place the Flare.

I second what vinter said. It's a special rule attached to a ranged weapon, after all. It's not a * action or * attack because, otherwise, you wouldn't get to place the second flare or shoot the second grenade launcher.

blue loki
08-20-2010, 04:39 AM
While you may not be "making an attack" with that weapon, it's clear that you are still using that weapon to place the Flare.

I second what vinter said. It's a special rule attached to a ranged weapon, after all. It's not a * action or * attack because, otherwise, you wouldn't get to place the second flare or shoot the second grenade launcher.

The problem here is that the Flare ability is not a *Action or *Attack and does not contain wording similar to "when this model would make an initial attack with this weapon, it may instead...".

IMO, it is not clear if the ability requires the model to commit to a an initial ranged attack combat action, which is the core of the question.

NmoLvr
08-20-2010, 05:00 AM
The targetting flare is an ability of the grenade launcher, which is a ranged weapon. It is therefore subject to all of the restrictions of a ranged weapon, because it is one.

blue loki
08-20-2010, 05:18 AM
The targetting flare is an ability of the grenade launcher, which is a ranged weapon. It is therefore subject to all of the restrictions of a ranged weapon, because it is one.

Not that I doubt you, but what is the rule that states this.

NmoLvr
08-20-2010, 07:43 AM
The targetting flare is under the grenade launcer. The grenade launcher is a ranged weapon. I don't think the ranged weapon rules are in dispute here.

I guess I'm not understanding where the disconnect is. Are you thinking the targetting flare isn't a ranged attack, or that the 'place a 3" AOE' thing doesn't follow ranged attack rules?

blue loki
08-20-2010, 08:32 AM
Exactly.

The Targeting Flare ability is not an attack. Nor is it a special attack or special action. It's just an ability.
The ranged attack rules do not come into play.

rydiafan
08-20-2010, 08:38 AM
The logic is, the Spriggan must be able to make an attack with the Grenade Launcher in order to do something "instead of making an attack" with the Grenade Launcher.

mege
08-20-2010, 08:52 AM
Exactly.

The Targeting Flare ability is not an attack. Nor is it a special attack or special action. It's just an ability.
The ranged attack rules do not come into play.

Except that the ability actually says that you're making a 'flare action' instead of making a ranged attack. Ergo - you'd need to declare a ranged action and then choose the flare 'option' for the ranged attack. 'Instead' is a replacement.

blue loki
08-20-2010, 08:57 AM
Flare is not an action in any way.

@rydiafan - Yeah, I get the logic. Makes sense. Blind would prevent this as well then. I just wish it explicitly called stated that the ability could only be used during a ranged attack combat action.

popg0estheworld
08-20-2010, 10:00 AM
Flare is not an action in any way.

@rydiafan - Yeah, I get the logic. Makes sense. Blind would prevent this as well then. I just wish it explicitly called stated that the ability could only be used during a ranged attack combat action.

Therein lies my problem- the flare ability is poorly defined. We are all arguing the semantics of ranged attacks, but the wording of the flare ability seems to place it in some kind of limbo. It is a limbo that I, as a Khador player, would love to exploit if possible. Of curse I would love to be able to run and deny stealth, or lob flares from within combat- I am just looking for a definitive "yes, I can do that because the wording is such" or "no, this is definitively a ranged attack and follows all of the same guidelines."

rydiafan
08-20-2010, 10:34 AM
It replaces a ranged attack. To replace a ranged attack you must have a ranged attack. To have a ranged attack you must have chosen "make initial attacks with all ranged weapons" as your combat action, and not be in melee.

NmoLvr
08-20-2010, 10:40 AM
It replaces a ranged attack. To replace a ranged attack you must have a ranged attack. To have a ranged attack you must have chosen "make initial attacks with all ranged weapons" as your combat action, and not be in melee.

+9,487 (I really like it :))

This is clear, concise, and correct.

Iff
08-20-2010, 10:42 AM
Therein lies my problem- the flare ability is poorly defined. We are all arguing the semantics of ranged attacks, but the wording of the flare ability seems to place it in some kind of limbo. It is a limbo that I, as a Khador player, would love to exploit if possible. Of curse I would love to be able to run and deny stealth, or lob flares from within combat- I am just looking for a definitive "yes, I can do that because the wording is such" or "no, this is definitively a ranged attack and follows all of the same guidelines."
All of the thing you mentioned are captured in the rule "instead of making an attack with this weapon". That's the whole idea of phrasing it with the "instead" thing. it's defined perfectly well if you understand the use of "instead" in that sentence, no limbo at all.

popg0estheworld
08-20-2010, 11:08 AM
I get it, it makes logical sense that it would be the case, but I still think it is somewhat ambiguous.

Macallan
09-01-2010, 06:01 AM
If you can't make the attack, you can't do "instead of making the attack" stuff.

Crate123
09-01-2010, 06:14 AM
Errm Im still confused.
Sorry for this but did you mean Can't do "instead of making the attack" stuff ?
Or is this our way out of "headlocked from behind"

Macallan
09-01-2010, 07:05 AM
Sorry. Missing letters.