PDA

View Full Version : Admonition and Slam



thumpernickle
12-07-2010, 10:54 PM
We had a situation the LGS in which a model attempted to slam a model with Admonition on it. We were uncertain how to resolve a slam attack against the model with Admonition on it. We referred to the charge attack rules and the slam attack rules. We could not come to a clear conclusion, and so diced off. But we want to know the correct answer.

I have read through about a page of threads returned from a search of "+admonition +slam" and have found that the consensus is that you cannot make a slam attack against an Admonition model that moved 3" away from the attacker. However, the arguments given all seem to refer to charges and a detailed answer using slam rules have not been given. So I am looking for an explanation of why slams do not work against Admonition.

We know that when you charge, your movement is modified to SPD +3" and, upon a successful charge, during your combat action you MUST choose between targeting the charge target with a modified (boosted damage roll) melee attack or, if able, a special attack (both are called a charge attack). Thus, because a charge is divided between a clear movement and a clear combat action, I fully understand why a charging model has not failed its charge, but will not be able to make a charge attack against its charge target (assuming the target used its Admonition to move out of melee range).

However, the rules for slams (Primal pages 52-53) are not worded the same as charges. Specifically, slams state that a model that "ends its slam movement with its slam target in its 0.5" melee range has made a successful slam." Based on my understanding of the timing of Admonition, the model making the slam has meet this condition. At the end of its movement, the target model is within 0.5" of the modeling making the slam, resulting in a successful slam. THEN the targeted model makes its Admonition move. Thus, if the slamming model ended its movement within 0.5" of its target, it has made a successful slam regardless of the distance between the two models after the Admonition move, you then make a melee attack roll (defined 2d6+MAT, Primal page 51) against the targeted model and proceed to resolve the results of the melee attack role. Unlike charges, that specify that the charge attack is a melee attack (meaning that it must follow all the rules and steps of making a melee attack, such as first checking to see if the model is in the melee weapons melee range), slams simply direct you to make a melee attack role if the slam was successful. To reiterate, the rules require you to check to see if you ended your movement within 0.5" and then proceed to making a melee attack roll. This seems to indicate that there is only one point at which to check the distance between the target model and the modeling making the slam, at the end of the slamming models movement. Thus, I have concluded that slams get around Admonition. However, this creates some complicated results as the controller of the Admonition model can dictate the direction of the slam.

I of course could be, and probably am, completely wrong. But I would like a to see where my understanding of the rules of slams, charges, and timing are wrong with a well argued response.

jonconcarne
12-07-2010, 11:30 PM
garrr!!! I started writing up my post an hour ago, but got distracted.

edit: that is to say that I'm also unclear on the issue.

FearLord
12-07-2010, 11:42 PM
You've made a successful slam, so you activation does not end immediately. A slam attack is still a melee attack with a 0.5" melee range, so if your target is no longer in range to make the attack, it cannot be hit.

jonconcarne
12-07-2010, 11:46 PM
You've made a successful slam, so you activation does not end immediately. A slam attack is still a melee attack with a 0.5" melee range, so if your target is no longer in range to make the attack, it cannot be hit.

The key part is that it doesn't say to make a melee attack, where you would check to see if the target is in range. At the end of movement, you check to see if the target is in 0.5" -> successful slam (admonition triggers at this point). The next step in the slam isn't to make a melee attack, but you skip directly to making a melee attack roll. Hence why it seems range doesn't matter if you made a successful slam.

Kenton
12-08-2010, 01:49 AM
The key part is that it doesn't say to make a melee attack, where you would check to see if the target is in range. At the end of movement, you check to see if the target is in 0.5" -> successful slam (admonition triggers at this point). The next step in the slam isn't to make a melee attack, but you skip directly to making a melee attack roll. Hence why it seems range doesn't matter if you made a successful slam.

Emphasis mine.

"Melee attack roll". In what way is a Melee attack roll not calling up the Melee attack rules (eligibility, range and so on)?

FerrusManus
12-08-2010, 02:05 AM
Emphasis mine.

"Melee attack roll". In what way is a Melee attack roll not calling up the Melee attack rules (eligibility, range and so on)?

2 handed throw for example, you make melee attack roll against the target of the throw. Melee attack rolls just means that you roll your MAT+2d6 against targets DEF. Range, eligibility and so on comes from attack itself, for example you can only make normal melee attacks in your melee range, while special/power attacks may differ. Actually I'm not 100% sure how this situation should be played, but I lean towards jonconcarne's version.

Kenton
12-08-2010, 03:03 AM
2 handed throw for example

Fair point there. Though I can see that as the 'thrower' has the 'throwee' in it's hands then it is a special case and explicitly covered by rules.

In the case of the slam there is no explicit special case. I fear I may be on a hiding to nothing here but am trying (ho ho) to apply some logic to this situation (always a bad thing to do with this game) in that if the target is no longer present it can't be attacked.

As I understand it this issue arises as the act of completing the slam and the act of making the slam attack roll take place in different phases (movement and action respectively).

Admonition seperates the two activities.

The rules (not being able to cater for every ability subsequently devised) do not deal with what happens when the target moves before the attack is resolved.

I question whether there is a need to confirm melee range prior to an attack roll. If there is not then I agree that, according to the rules, the slam attack is made irrespective of the target's current location.

This can lead to some utterly ridiculous situations with models capable of follow up. I'll not list them here.

IF there is a need to check for a valid target as part of the attack roll then the slam is successful. The activation of the slamming model is not ended, but no slam attack can be made. Additional attacks could be made against eligible targets (much as with a charge).

If Slam were made an exception and resolved during the movement phase (which would make some sense) then this would also remove the issue.

In short, I agree that there is ambiguity in the rules. I would not play the interpretation that is being put forward.

Ondusi
12-08-2010, 03:39 AM
The key part is that it doesn't say to make a melee attack, where you would check to see if the target is in range. At the end of movement, you check to see if the target is in 0.5" -> successful slam (admonition triggers at this point). The next step in the slam isn't to make a melee attack, but you skip directly to making a melee attack roll. Hence why it seems range doesn't matter if you made a successful slam.

To me that sounds like the same thing as checking to see if the target is in range to make the attack. I don't have my rulebook handy, but to me, Admonition sounds like it activates right after the enemy model is done with movement, before anything is measured out range wise, so you would move up to 3 inches before measuring to determine if you're in successful slam melee range.

Kenton
12-08-2010, 03:53 AM
To me that sounds like the same thing as checking to see if the target is in range to make the attack.

+1

why don't I read more carefully before I post?

jonconcarne
12-08-2010, 07:40 AM
Why would the inactive player (admonition) trigger before the active player? Since they both have the same trigger, the active player would complete his check first, before the inactive player can move. At least, that's how I read the flow chart.

Rynth
12-08-2010, 08:04 AM
Why would the inactive player (admonition) trigger before the active player? Since they both have the same trigger, the active player would complete his check first, before the inactive player can move. At least, that's how I read the flow chart.

If you want to read it that way then the Active Player's ability involves an attack which means it goes last.

jonconcarne
12-08-2010, 08:12 AM
If you want to read it that way then the Active Player's ability involves an attack which means it goes last.

Which means admonition causes failed charges then too? As far as I know, it doesn't do this, so why would it cause failed slams?

Edit: that is to say, you always check your melee range as soon as you stop moving in a charge, the same with a slam. I've never known anything that interrupts it. I could see how admonition possibly could because it says immediately, but nobody is really making a good case for it.

and here is infernal confirmation (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?1066-Admonition-Question&highlight=admonition+fail+charge) that Admonition doesn't cause failed charges. So again, is there any reason why you wouldn't get to make your slam attack?

DocMerc
12-08-2010, 08:20 AM
Admonition prevents it, Here's why:
Admonition states that when a model advances and ends it's movement within 6" the target can immediately advance up to 3"

Slam rules state that after you declare the target, and the intention to slam, you turn the model to face, then advance full speed +3

It goes on to say: A slamming model that ends it's slam movement with it's slam target in it's .5" melee range has made a successful slam.

Since a slam is an advance, and at the end of that advance admonition kicks in, and the target of admonition is moved, the slamming 'Jack is no longer in the .5" melee range, so it is NOT a successful slam, and the 'Jacks activation immediately ends.

Slamming is also a Power attack, and since all power attacks are also "Special Attacks" then they are part of a models Combat action, and NOT part of a models movement

jonconcarne
12-08-2010, 08:29 AM
Umm, so you're saying that you can have a successful charge, but a failed slam due to Admonition?

DocMerc
12-08-2010, 08:38 AM
Umm, so you're saying that you can have a successful charge, but a failed slam due to Admonition?

I am not saying that you can have a successful charge. You did.
I looked at the thread you linked, and I do not see any official ruling there.
I looked in the rulebook, and the rule as it is written dictates that admonition WOULD indeed cause a failed charge, and thus end a models activation.
The charge rules make no exception for the target of the charge not being in melee range BUT other models are.
It simply states that if at the end of the charge movement, the target of the charge is not in melee range of the charger, that it is a failed charge, and the chargers activation immediately ends.

**Edit**Sorry, I do see where Mootaz posted in that thread (as a guest)
I am not sure where the underlying rule he based that judgment on comes from, as it DIRECTLY contradicts the rulebook.

DocMerc
12-08-2010, 08:49 AM
By and large, YES you can apparently have a successful charge, but a failed slam, in the sense that the target of the slam would take no damage from the slam since they are no longer in melee, just like the charger would not get to attack them with his charge attack.

Mootaz set precedent, however, for the slamming model to attack other models that he may be in melee rang to at the end of his slam movement, and could thus spend focus to make additional attacks against those models.

vintersbastard
12-08-2010, 08:50 AM
No, the slam is successful.
A slamming model that ends its slam movement with its slam target in its 0.5 ˝ melee range has made a successful slam.

But the model doesn't get to make a slam attack, as you can only make melee attacks against models in your melee range.

Basically you can put it this way: 'successful slam' =/= slam attack.

Exactly like the term 'successful charge' is not dependent on being able to make a charge attack.


EDIT: What's still unclear is whether the slammer gets to make initial attacks. I'd assume no, as there's nothing indicating that he could, so you simply have to start buying additional attacks immediatly.

Mod_Faultie
12-08-2010, 08:52 AM
Mootaz set precedent, however, for the slamming model to attack other models that he may be in melee rang to at the end of his slam movement, and could thus spend focus to make additional attacks against those models.I believe it is actually in the rulebook, although I cannot think of the page. If you end your movement in melee range of your charge target, but for whatever reason you are no longer in range when you make a melee attack, you do not lose your initial attacks. You merely lose the ability to make a charge attack.

Echomantis
12-08-2010, 09:00 AM
Wait a sec.... What can Slam thats not fearless? please tell me whats doing this.

Where does this say this in the book?


DocMerc
Admonition prevents it, Here's why:
Admonition states that when a model advances and ends it's movement within 6" the target can immediately advance up to 3"



"a model or unit within 3" of a model with Abomination :Abomination: - friendly or enemy - must make a command check or flee." pg 86 primal

DocMerc
12-08-2010, 09:01 AM
Page 47 of prime states that if you cannot make your first melee attack against the charge target, you can make your first melee attack against another eligible target but it is not a charge attack, you do not lose your first attack.
But this is charging specifically, and not a slam.
A slam is a special attack, and should be treated as such.
vintersbastard said it best: Successful slam does not equal slam attack.

This is getting muddied up pretty bad.
My take on it, based on Mootaz interpretation:
"Jack declares slam, and the target.
Turns to face, and moves MOVE+3
It ends its move within .5" of the target, and admonition kicks in.
The target of the slam, then gets to advance up to 3" and removes itself from the .5" requirement of the slam.
The slamming model loses its initial attack, since the slam attack failed.
That model can spend focus to "buy" additional attacks against any models that are eligible targets within it's melee range.
Since the slam is a special attack (power attack) it would use up the models initial attack, so it cannot make its basic attack, and thus needs to spend focus/be forced to attack other models.

Bottom line, Mootaz clarification dictates that the slam did not fail, but the slam attack would not take place.

thumpernickle
12-08-2010, 09:15 AM
Is the consensus saying that the sentence immediately following the slam rule sentence actually means to make a modified (meaning slam) melee attack, and not a melee attack role, as actually specified in the sentence?

Primal, Page 52
A slamming model that ends its slam movement with its slam target in its 0.5" melee range has made a successful slam. If it advanced at least 3" it makes a melee attack roll against its target. We agree that the slam is successful because the slamming model ended its movement within 0.5" of its target. We also know that when a rule says to make a melee attack roll, we are to make a melee attack roll, regardless of if the target model is in melee range or not (see two handed throws). To me, the slam rule reads that the only condition to determine if you are to make a melee attack roll is if the slamming model ended its movement within 0.5" of its target.
To be clear, it is the stipulation to make a melee attack roll, not a melee attack, that is causing me to question if Admonition prevents completing a slam.

thumpernickle
12-08-2010, 09:17 AM
Wait a sec.... What can Slam thats not fearless? please tell me whats doing this.

Where does this say this in the book?



"a model or unit within 3" of a model with Abomination :Abomination: - friendly or enemy - must make a command check or flee." pg 86 primal

We are talking about Admonition, not Abomination. They are two very different things.

FerrusManus
12-08-2010, 09:19 AM
I just remembered - all power attacks are special attacks with a 0.5" range, says that right at the beginning of power attack section. That means that if enemy model is out of 0.5" melee range you can't make an attack roll. Though you still haven't failed the slam and can continue your combat action, most likely by buying additional attacks.

jonconcarne
12-08-2010, 09:26 AM
I just remembered - all power attacks are special attacks with a 0.5" range, says that right at the beginning of power attack section. That means that if enemy model is out of 0.5" melee range you can't make an attack roll. Though you still haven't failed the slam and can continue your combat action, most likely by buying additional attacks.

umm, isn't it you can't declare the attack because you only declare the attack if it's legal. So if you're skipping the start of the attack sequence and going straight to the attack roll, why would you have to stop? That's the real question.

jonconcarne
12-08-2010, 08:12 PM
So I reread through all the power attacks due to a suggestion by Vintersbastard. In the description for all of the power attacks, it includes the wording of "make a melee attack roll." The closest derivative of a slam is most likely a trample, but I didn't find anything to directly compare between tramples and slams.

So the question is, on a slam, do you need to check the range between the slammer and the target model after you check for a successful slam but before you roll? As per the wording of the rules, I would say no.

My reasoning in differentiating a slam from the other power attacks (where you do check before you make the attack) is due to when you check the range. When you declare a normal power attack, you have to check to see if the model is within 0.5", if so, then you get to make your melee attack roll like it says to in the rules, if not, no rolling. However, on a slam, all you have to do to make a successful slam is end your movement within 0.5", then it's successful. In effect, you already measured the range for the slam when you declared it successful.

Overall, I still read a slam as the following.

1) Declare Slam with Model A @ Model B with Admonition on it.
2) Move "A" SPD + 3" to "B".
3) End movement, check to see if "B" is within 0.5" of "A"
3a) if yes, successful slam has been made
3b) if within 6" of "B", process Admonition to grant a 3" move.
4) Make melee attack roll against "B" to determine outcome of the Slam attack.

Do I think it's intended to have a slam from 3" away? No. Does it follow the wording of the rules as written? I think yes.

*shrug* it's okay if it's not, but I am interested in other opinions.

PUFNSTUF
12-08-2010, 08:26 PM
3) End movement, check to see if "B" is within 0.5" of "A"
3a) if yes, successful slam has been made
3b) if within 6" of "B", process Admonition to grant a 3" move.


I think this is where people are saying that in regards to 3a, yes it is successful, in the fact that charge attacks also do not fail, so a slam would not as well. BUT at this point admonition triggers and the model moves off, disallowing your attack roll since it is no longer in 3".

Basically it can still be successful but deal no damage. The jack stumbled or something...

jonconcarne
12-08-2010, 08:54 PM
I get what you're saying, but what wording/rule can you draw that conclusion from? You make an attack roll. You've already checked to see if the model was in range. Basically, Admonition is jumping between the checking to see if in range and the rolling of the attack dice... unless I'm missing something in the wording. Can you elaborate?

lulu
12-08-2010, 08:59 PM
I think this is where people are saying that in regards to 3a, yes it is successful, in the fact that charge attacks also do not fail, so a slam would not as well. BUT at this point admonition triggers and the model moves off, disallowing your attack roll since it is no longer in 3".

Basically it can still be successful but deal no damage. The jack stumbled or something...

The difference between a slam and a charge, however, is that
When slamming, if a successful slam is made (which we have agreed is made against a model with admonition) the slamming model makes a melee attack roll against the model.
When charging, if a successful charge is made (which we have agreed is made against a model with admonition) the model can either choose to make a special attack or a melee attack with boosted damage

melee attack rolls are made completely regardless of any sort of melee range. This is shown through the example of two handed throws

Although melee attack rolls are part of a melee attack, they are in no way the same thing

according to RAW, I do agree that the order of things are
1. Model initiates a slam power attack
2. measure to check if succesful
3. admonition move
4. slamming model makes a melee attack roll against successfully slammed model. If successful, the slammed model is pushed d6 directly away and suffers a damage roll with POW equal to the slamming model's str etc.

PUFNSTUF
12-08-2010, 09:47 PM
Jon originally said this


The key part is that it doesn't say to make a melee attack, where you would check to see if the target is in range. At the end of movement, you check to see if the target is in 0.5" -> successful slam (admonition triggers at this point). The next step in the slam isn't to make a melee attack, but you skip directly to making a melee attack roll. Hence why it seems range doesn't matter if you made a successful slam.

"Power attacks are special attacks that can be made by some
models"

"Power attacks are melee attacks with a 0.5 ˝ melee range"

"A melee attack can be made against any target in the melee
range of the weapon being used."

So even though a slam is successful once, it has moved away its no longer in range for the melee attack, and even though it says make an attack roll, it is still a melee attack roll because the attack itself is a melee attack. Now I would say at this point you would once again check to see if the target is in melee range of the jack, since the slam is still the melee attack and the target is now out of range. So you can't hit what is no longer there.

At least thats the way I see it



As to two handed throws, they are still a throw, and a throw requires that "The attacking model makes a melee attack roll against its
target" and a throw is a power attack which still has the .05 melee range.

Moknim
12-08-2010, 10:35 PM
I think Puf has it right - how I read it is that you check melee range twice, at two different points in the activation once to determine if the slam was successful and once to determine if the slam attack can be made as a slam attack is still a melee attack:

Movement Phase:
Declare a slam
Move up to SPD +3"
Check to see if within .5" if so the slam did not fail (if not w/i .5 the slam fails and activation ends)

If within 6" Admonition triggers and the target moves

Action/Attack Phase:
Check to see if slam target is still in melee range, if it is then make slam attack roll
If slam target is now out of melee range, slam attack cannot be made as the model is no longer a viable target for a melee attack
Additional attacks against other targets in melee range can be purchased.


I think it comes down to the fact you can't make an attack roll on something that isn't a viable target for an attack.

jonconcarne
12-08-2010, 11:27 PM
What rule/wording leads you to checking whether the range again? When you declared the attack, and checked when told to, you were in range. What forces you to check again is all. I'm not disputing that a slam is a melee attack, just that you have to start the combat action and range checking after you already check to see if you have made a successful slam.

As for making an attack roll against something that isn't a viable target, is there example of a target making itself an invalid target between the time of targetting (declaring legal target at the time) and the roll? The only thing that I can think of like that is quickdraw. This just seems like a unique situation that merits a closer look.

I can see your viewpoint, but what are you basing it on, that's all. Nowhere in the wording of slams does it say to check the range again. It just seems like you're justifying it by how you think it should work.

Edit: all that say, I think you're right in how it should work, but the way the rules read, I disagree with you. Basically, I think this just needs some kind of clarification.

Pink Foam!
12-08-2010, 11:55 PM
Slamming model would move, check to see if Slam was successful, see that it is, Admonition would trigger, slam target is no longer in melee range, slamming model's activation continues. A model charging/slamming a given target does not always make its attack against that target, as with Paingiver Bloodrunners and Shadow Play. You check to see if your charge/slam is successful at the end of your movement step. When that step is done admonition would trigger. After that you would be free to buy attacks if you have focus/fury available but cannot attack the initial slam target if it is out of melee range.

I don't have my book on me but I'm pretty positive that's how it works.

FearLord
12-09-2010, 12:03 AM
What rule/wording leads you to checking whether the range again? When you declared the attack, and checked when told to, you were in range. What forces you to check again is all. I'm not disputing that a slam is a melee attack, just that you have to start the combat action and range checking after you already check to see if you have made a successful slam.



Primal p.236 (Prime p.244) "Some effects cause certain conditions of an attack, such as whether it hit or what models it boxed, to change during resolution. When resolving triggered effects, recheck trigger conditions as you resolve each ability. If a condition is no longer met, the effect does not resolve."

Emphasis mine. After Admonition triggers, recheck the conditions of a power attack (0.5" melee range, etc) and if the conditions are no longer met, the slam can't resolve.

Kenton
12-09-2010, 12:15 AM
EDIT: by Jove I think Fearlord has it!

Nothing to see here . . .

PUFNSTUF
12-09-2010, 12:19 AM
is there example of a target making itself an invalid target between the time of targetting (declaring legal target at the time) and the roll?

if a model has reach that charges one of your models, staying just at its 2" reach range, and you have a model like a war do counter charge it and have that model be exectly between the attacking model and charge target you then cannot attack the charge target, since it is no longer in los and cannot be targeted. (this assuming all small based models are used)


the measuring twice would a cure due too the first measurement not being the attack itself per-see but that you did indeed make it to your target. just like a charge, you measure the distance to see if it made it to its target and if it is in melee then its successful, then you swing away. if the target leaves range, like the linked thread to the infernal ruling said, it was in range so you dont lose the attack or activation, but you lose it on the target that moved away. You can continue to attack though.

From that I take it to say you measure that it didnt fail (ie no failed charge or slam). then when you roll to attack you measure again to see if in range, but once its moved away it is not, so you are free to continue your attack on other targets if they are available.

edit: yah fearlord got it. was what i was trying to explain but couldn't find the page ha ha.

jonconcarne
12-09-2010, 07:33 AM
Alright, that covers this situation. Thanks Fearlord

x3tsniper
12-09-2010, 10:20 AM
Possible that they wanted slam to be a way around escapes at the cost of initial attacks and generally putting you out of reach of your target? It is basically using a jack to cancel out admonition. Unless you have boxed yourself in or he has reach, it should be impossible for him to attack again against the slammed target.

I look forward to seeing how this is intended to work out.

FearLord
12-09-2010, 11:40 AM
Ah Appendix A... the cause of... and the solution to all of life's problems!

Happy to have helped!

thumpernickle
12-09-2010, 12:57 PM
For me, the combination of the explicit statement that all power attacks are melee attacks (such a short, but important, sentence hidden a few pages away from the Slam rules), the similar use of "make a melee attack roll" in all but two of the other power attacks, and Appendix A support what I knew had to be the right answer. Thanks.

Macallan
12-19-2010, 03:02 AM
This thread and posts within it are a bit too long for me. If there are remaining issues, please start a new thread and reask, clearly and concisely, giving the relevant informations, and not more.