PDA

View Full Version : Assault and model in melee rule



gcflash
01-14-2010, 09:09 AM
Hey there just a quick question based on another rule query.


Assault specifically states that you cannot use it on a model you're engaged with at the start of your activation.

A model with Assault can, however, use assault when charging a model it is not engaged with.

One question about this scenario. If you charge (using assault) a second model but are still engaged by the first model (ie you moved less than three inches and the first model has reach... or what ever) would you still be able to assault as you are engauged by the first model?

The reason I ask is that normally you would not be considered to be engaged by the model(s) you charge (as the shot is considered to be taken as you approach). But in this instance you have been and still are engauged by the first model.

The way I see it that the engauged rule (being a "not" rule) would trumph the assault rule, as assault does not specically state that it ignores being engauged by other models (thus in melee). But I would like someone else view on this.

Side note

Assault - As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation. When resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty. If the target is not in melee range after moving, this model can make the Assault ranged attack before its activation ends.


Ok maybe not such a quick question :D

Cheers

petegrrrr
01-14-2010, 09:19 AM
Assault only specifies exceptions to the TARGET of your assault.

If another model engages you, it does nothing to trump the rule of an engaged model being unable to shoot without gunfighter.

gcflash
01-14-2010, 09:42 AM
Cheers thats as I expected.

vintersbastard
01-14-2010, 10:59 AM
I'm pretty sure that assault allows for a ranged attack even though the assaulting model is in melee, regardless of which models it is in melee with. If it wouldn't, an assaulting model would only rarely be able to perform a successful assault. (E.g. Trencher Infantry vs. reach infantry)
This seems to be the rare case of a special rule negating a general rule without specifying the general rule negated.

Defenstrator
01-14-2010, 12:36 PM
Assault only specifies exceptions to the TARGET of your assault.

If another model engages you, it does nothing to trump the rule of an engaged model being unable to shoot without gunfighter. This is incorrect.



When resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty
The rule is clear as written. No exceptions are made for models other than the target. When you are resolving nothing can target you in melee.

petegrrrr
01-14-2010, 12:38 PM
I've seen it ruled the opposite more than once.

Nothing in Assualt says it ignores engangement rules or penalties from anything but the target.

Assault is situational. Many people just use it to make super long range attacks. But it does work great against non reach infantry.

petegrrrr
01-14-2010, 12:43 PM
This is incorrect.

The rule is clear as written. No exceptions are made for models other than the target. When you are resolving nothing can target you in melee.

The Target in Melee rule is not the issue. It's the no ranged attacks while enaged rule, which is a completely different rule.

Remember, every single thing in assualt says "TARGET". you can get around the TARGET engaging you, but not other models.

If a reach model for example who is not your TARGET has you engaged, you cannot fire.

vintersbastard
01-14-2010, 02:18 PM
The Target in Melee rule is not the issue. It's the no ranged attacks while enaged rule, which is a completely different rule.

Remember, every single thing in assualt says "TARGET". you can get around the TARGET engaging you, but not other models.

If a reach model for example who is not your TARGET has you engaged, you cannot fire.

Even worse. It doesn't say at all that you are allowed to ignore the no-ranged-attacks-while-in-melee rule, which means that even if the assaulting models is engaging its target, without being engaged itself at all, it is still not allowed to take the shot. This wouldn't make much sense, though, so apparently PP just missed to put that stipulation into the text of the rule.
(Sadly, we apparently missed that during the field test, and just played with the Mk I rule, which stipulated that the assaulting model was considered to not be in melee, thereby avoiding the issue)

petegrrrr
01-14-2010, 04:52 PM
Very true. It seems assault got watered down in mark 2.

Perhaps an infernal will stop by and let us know if this was the intent, or merely an accidental omission.

mackman
01-14-2010, 11:28 PM
I might be over-simplifying this, but it seems to be a clear-cut case of a special rule overriding a general rule. It says "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation." It says, specifically, that you can make a ranged attack, with the stated limitations and those limitations only. It overrides the "no firing in melee" rule much like Grab-and-smash overrides the "no power attacks after initial attacks" rule. If every special rule (or spell) had to specifically state which general rule it was overriding, each special rule would be twice as long.
In short, this is a simple case of a special rule, "Assault," overriding the general rule of "no firing while engaged" when all other requirements for Assault are met.

Defenstrator
01-15-2010, 12:24 AM
You do realise that assault gives an exception to being engaged. Otherwise the model you just charged into would count as engaging you (providing you had made it into melee range) and prevent you from shooting it.

vintersbastard
01-15-2010, 06:57 AM
You do realise that assault gives an exception to being engaged. Otherwise the model you just charged into would count as engaging you (providing you had made it into melee range) and prevent you from shooting it.

The wording doesn't.
(Assault at the moment only says to ignore the -4 to hit and the random chance of hitting others, but it doesn't say anything about being allowed to shoot while in melee)

It's probably supposed to be the way you think, exactly because of the rather funny interaction you pointed out there.

mackman
01-15-2010, 07:30 AM
The wording doesn't.
(Assault at the moment only says to ignore the -4 to hit and the random chance of hitting others, but it doesn't say anything about being allowed to shoot while in melee)

It's probably supposed to be the way you think, exactly because of the rather funny interaction you pointed out there.


Yes, the wording DOES allow you to shoot in melee, simply because it says that you can immediately make a ranged attack. It doesn't have to say that it ignores the general rule saying otherwise, because it clearly says that you can make a ranged attack targeting the model you charged. Assault, as part of a charge, allows you to "make one ranged attack targetting the model charged" with one and only one restriction: that you can't have been in melee with that model at the beginning of your activation. This rule clearly allows you to fire when engaged because it says that you can make a ranged attack, and being in melee isn't one of the restrictions.

vintersbastard
01-15-2010, 07:52 AM
If that's the case, which doesn't run with the form of stating explicitly which general rules are superceded by special rules that's more common for PP, it would also be possible to ignore other targeting restrictions, e.g. Passage from the Menite Choir. Trenchers shooting at Dervishes and the likes without magical weapons would be sweet, but I seriously doubt that it's supposed to be that way.

(I'll put that specific case up as a separate question if this thread doesn't receive Infernal attention.)

petegrrrr
01-15-2010, 10:59 AM
Assualt currently grants one ranged attack targetting the model charged.

That does nothing to get around the "You cannot make ranged attacks if enaged" rule.

Just like if berserk grants you a melee attack against another model in your range, you cannot choose a model that cannot be targetted by attacks (Like under Saeryn's feat) even if it is in your range, because it does not get around that rule.

I truly believe this is just a minor wording snafu. I think Assault should let you shoot your charge target even if engaged, but currently it does not.

An infernal ruling would be helpful.

Now to do the magic infernal summoning dance!

brotherscott
01-15-2010, 12:46 PM
Page 56 under Ranged Combat reads ""A model in melee cannot make ranged attacks."

"Assault - As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation. When resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty. If the target is not in melee range after moving, this model can make the Assault ranged attack before its activation ends."

The key here is that the target model is not in melee for the ranged attack. The model engaging the attacking model still prevents the ranged attack.

Where this would be effective is if the target model was engaged in melee with a friendly model (e.g. reach) and another model makes an assault. At the end of the attacker's movement if would resolve a ranged attack with no target in melee penalty, then resolve the charge attack.

Tricky interaction, and a nice brain teaser.... page 58 Targeting a Model in Melee, and the Assault order from page 120 (Trencher Infantry).

Our Press Ganger usually makes us read the rules out loud and completely for better understanding when we have a question. The rules index in the back of Prime MK II is very helpful as well.

petegrrrr
01-15-2010, 03:28 PM
Scott, the target in melee penalty is completely different than "a model in melee cannot make ranged attack".

It means you do not suffer -4 to attack rolls. It has nothing to do with the ATTACKER being engaged, just the TARGET.

That is the problem with the current wording.

All it is good for currently is getting extra movement to make a super long ranged attack, and ignoring the penalty if your target is engaged.

brotherscott
01-15-2010, 03:50 PM
Pete- I was responding to the original post, wherein the attacking model is engaged in melee but gets the order to assault and targets another model.
Since the Assault order reads that the attacking model cannot make an assault against a model it is already engaged with, I was offering an example of where one could abuse the Assault wording as it currently stands.

No harm, no foul.

petegrrrr
01-15-2010, 04:31 PM
In the original post the attacker is engaged with a second model, so I just don't want to cloud the issue until we get a ruling on the key problems, that's all.

gcflash
01-16-2010, 08:29 AM
Sorry I think I opened a can of worms.

Starting at the begining, I dont believe that PP has intended a change from the Mk I phrase-ology. In that the attack is made on the approach of the attack ie while not being in melee with the target (whether that be the moment it sets off on its charge or at the last moment before it grapples with its target).

So I am sure that there will be 1 point along its path where it is not engaged before it reaches its target and would make its ranged attack at that point (fitting with current Mk II rules and as the rule was writen in Mk I). I would therefore assume that if at any point along the assaulting models path it is not engaged it would be able to make its ranged attack (assuming that the model was in range to attack at that point).

The point I was querying was purely based on the fact that the assaulting model was engaged from the moment of activation to ending its activation. Therefore falling in to the principle rule of being able or unable to make a ranged attack. But now I fear that the abiltiy is very poorly worded.

Edited for mistakes

knight_actual
01-16-2010, 08:39 AM
hmm... the way it reads to me too is that one can never make the assault shot if one makes it into melee with anything during the charge. This seems like a prime candidate for an errata.

Defenstrator
01-16-2010, 11:15 AM
I don't understand. I know this came up in the field test. There was a big stink over Storm Lances and Assault, because due to their large bases they couldn't help but engage multiple people when they moved in. So it was ruled that when assaulting you didn't count as being in melee. How could this not be in the final document?

Mutton
01-16-2010, 11:22 AM
I don't understand. I know this came up in the field test. There was a big stink over Storm Lances and Assault, because due to their large bases they couldn't help but engage multiple people when they moved in. So it was ruled that when assaulting you didn't count as being in melee. How could this not be in the final document?

I brought this up a while back, how all the relevant wording that let Assault work was removed in the final document; answer was to just play it as you should be, with ignoring models you are engaged with and the model you are assaulting, and you can assault a model you don't begin engaged with and make a ranged attack even if you are engaged.

vintersbastard
01-16-2010, 12:51 PM
I don't understand. I know this came up in the field test. There was a big stink over Storm Lances and Assault, because due to their large bases they couldn't help but engage multiple people when they moved in. So it was ruled that when assaulting you didn't count as being in melee. How could this not be in the final document?

Nay, it didn't. Field Test used some kind of "models are not considered to be in melee with each other"-wording, thereby allowing for ranged attacks while engaging/engaged. What we had to deal with during the Field Test was the "target in melee"-penalty (-4 to hit) as soon as two models in the assaulting unit engaged each other's target.
The new wording removed the penalty, but got rid of the "not considered to be in melee"-clause completely, thereby bringing up this new conundrum.

@Mutton: Is there any chance you might remember where that's posted?

generic4562
01-17-2010, 06:39 PM
the rule allows you to make a ranged attack while in melee, engaged or engaging.

When making the attack you ignore the penalty (the pernalty being referd to as "target in melee"). Now it would have been nice if they bolded the keyword combination, or made it italic like the way it apears in the rulebook.

So you have one more area where target is mentioned, and this is where it talkes about not starting your turn engaging the model.

So nothing allows you to negate the whole shooting while in melee stuff (technical term, look it up) other than the existance of the ability.

It works in prettymuch any scenario, even if I charge my vanguard into the melee range of 5 models and engage 5 models I can still make my assault shot.

Defenstrator
01-17-2010, 10:54 PM
So we think. It would be nice if it was confirmed though.

gcflash
01-18-2010, 06:32 AM
the rule allows you to make a ranged attack while in melee, engaged or engaging.

When making the attack you ignore the penalty (the pernalty being referd to as "target in melee"). Now it would have been nice if they bolded the keyword combination, or made it italic like the way it apears in the rulebook.

So you have one more area where target is mentioned, and this is where it talkes about not starting your turn engaging the model.

So nothing allows you to negate the whole shooting while in melee stuff (technical term, look it up) other than the existance of the ability.

It works in prettymuch any scenario, even if I charge my vanguard into the melee range of 5 models and engage 5 models I can still make my assault shot.

While I total agree with what you are saying; the "target in melee" rule is entirely different to the "in melee rule" (as explained above by petegrrrr) and the assault ability, as writen, simply does not deal with the latter. And this is the issue that has arisen. Therefore it requires an additional line of text along the lines of "The X is not considered to be in melee when making the assault ranged attack, nor is the target considered to be in melee with X." (quoted from Mk I rule).

Something I had not considered but will add is this.


Whether or not this line was added it means that troops such as trenchers are stupidly more powerful (than Mk I as a result of ignoring the target in melee rule) as you can engage X unit/model with another unit and then assault X with trenchers (choosing not to end in melee with X) after and suffer no penalty for shooting in to combat i.e.

LOS - so long as you can see even a mm of the models volume you can shoot it.
No screening (in Mk II) - so no bonus to DEF.
Ignore "target in melee" - so no -4 to hit and no friendly casualties when you miss.

petegrrrr
01-18-2010, 07:27 AM
The current rule does not allow for an attack in melee.

What we are hoping for is a correction or errata to have Assault function like it did in mark 1.

Seriously infernals, I have done the infernal summoning dance as hard as I can :D

generic4562
01-18-2010, 11:31 AM
does a rule that supercedes a rule really need to mention that it supercedes the basic rule ?

petegrrrr
01-18-2010, 11:44 AM
Show me where in the current wording Assault supercedes the "Cannot make a ranged attack while engaged" rule.

It does not. It gets around the target in melee penalty. That is it.

In mark 1, it specifically stated you could make this shot while engaged, something that is no longer present in the mark 2 rule.


I'm about 99% sure it should be played the way we all remember from mark 1, but as a PG and a Tourny Organizer, I cannot rule that with the current wording, which is really annoying.

generic4562
01-18-2010, 08:12 PM
Errr... the rule isn't "Cannot make a ranged attack while engaged"

It is cannot make ranged attacks while in melee, and melee is defined as engaged or engaging. (Page 51)

The wording on the ability shows that it can be used in melee by virtue of "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack". Before making charge attack means that you are in melee. If you were not in melee there would be no charge attack.

The wording is fine, adding engaged, engaging wording would make it more confusing.

Mutton
01-18-2010, 08:19 PM
Errr... the rule isn't "Cannot make a ranged attack while engaged"

It is cannot make ranged attacks while in melee, and melee is defined as engaged or engaging. (Page 51)

The wording on the ability shows that it can be used in melee by virtue of "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack". Before making charge attack means that you are in melee. If you were not in melee there would be no charge attack.

The wording is fine, adding engaged, engaging wording would make it more confusing.

No, before making a charge attack does no imply being in melee; charge attacks do not require to have you be engaged, simply have something in your melee range (huge difference, such as Kd models or shifting stones, etc etc). In addition, you still get an assault shot if you fail the charge, so that rules it out again.

alchahest
01-18-2010, 09:01 PM
the ability clearly says "you can make a ranged attack"

if it didn't, then there'd be no reason to note assault, as a: you would be engaged at the end of your charge, thereby denying ranged attacks, or b: you didn't make it into melee range with your charge, which ends your activation.

this is a pretty open and shut case. it allows a ranged attack, as it says. if it didn't, there would be no way to use assault as written.

Mutton
01-18-2010, 09:13 PM
the ability clearly says "you can make a ranged attack"

if it didn't, then there'd be no reason to note assault, as a: you would be engaged at the end of your charge, thereby denying ranged attacks, or b: you didn't make it into melee range with your charge, which ends your activation.

this is a pretty open and shut case. it allows a ranged attack, as it says. if it didn't, there would be no way to use assault as written.

Issue here is, plenty of stuff in the game says "you can make a melee or ranged attack" but you still can't make the ranged attack if you're in melee.

alchahest
01-18-2010, 09:18 PM
right, but this specifically states when you can use this - during a charge, after the move and before the attack. You will be engaged when this occurs, period. you cannot charge and not be engaged.

in a charge, you have your movement, and then attack. between those, assault grants you a ranged attack. if you are not engaged at the end of the movement, your charge fails and your activation ends. this is explicitly saying "make an attack here, when engaged" without spending four lines describing all of the different loopholes it is trying to avoid. it just says "you can make a ranged attack." as opposed to the rule, which is "you cannot make a ranged attack"

generic4562
01-18-2010, 09:27 PM
erm... I feel like I'm responding to trolling rather than honest questions at this point, but oh well.

Assault overrides the rules in a number of areas.
1. it allows you get to make a ranged attack on a charge, provided you do not start your activation engaging the target.
2. It alows you to ignore a penalty wich has the name of "target in melee"
3. it allows you to make the ranged attack even if you fail the charge (providing the target is in range).

The rules are clear, your TO can rule on this (if not he would be unqualified to be a TO).

The rest is creative interpetations that are hoping to be validated by trying to force (summon) a response from an infernal.

Mutton
01-18-2010, 09:29 PM
right, but this specifically states when you can use this - during a charge, after the move and before the attack. You will be engaged when this occurs, period. you cannot charge and not be engaged.

in a charge, you have your movement, and then attack. between those, assault grants you a ranged attack. if you are not engaged at the end of the movement, your charge fails and your activation ends. this is explicitly saying "make an attack here, when engaged" without spending four lines describing all of the different loopholes it is trying to avoid. it just says "you can make a ranged attack." as opposed to the rule, which is "you cannot make a ranged attack"

I already gave several situations where you can make a charge attack and still have ranged attack options open; against models that are KD, stationary, or don't engage for example. The rule does not explicitly state that it allows an attack while engaged. This is all backdoor conjecture to surpass the RAW to get to the RAI.

joedj
01-18-2010, 09:55 PM
For visualization:

My Carnivean (Assault model) is in B2B with opposing non-reach infantry model A, two of the same opposing infantry, model B and C, are 0.6" away from the Carnivean's base. The Carnivean is forced to charge model B and moves 0.1" entering melee range of both model B and C, attempting to target model B, the charge target with it's spray.

Either the Carnivean can ignore being engaged with model A and C for purposes of the spray or not. Depends on how Assault assesses additional engagements (besides the target).

If ruled one way, the ignore additional engagements way, then Assault can be considered to combine Virtuoso and Gunfighter to a degree. That's powerful!

If ruled the other, then there has to be a very clear lane to a single model to pull off an Assault with the charge 'chaser'. In any case, Assault is still a way to grant +3 range and additional straightline movement.

Necra-Chi
01-18-2010, 10:04 PM
Was this omission in the Hordes Field Test Rules too? Can a carnivean still make its ranged attack as part of an assault when its charge brings it into melee with its charge target?

Edit: I checked and the hordes field test has the same problem with assault.

petegrrrr
01-18-2010, 10:13 PM
Seriously, can we get an Infernal in here? Please? Mootaz? Lunatic? ANYBODY?????

I think we ALL know how this is supposed to work, but with the current wording, we need some official support for our stance!

TurboNitroMonkey
01-18-2010, 10:13 PM
I think what we're missing here, is that, generally speaking, the wording on a card will trump a rule in the book.

Assault - As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation. When resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty.

Lets run through it.

A model is engaged by a model it doesn't intend to target with an assault action.

Does the attacking model have both its movement and action available to it, and otherwise can it legally declare a charge? Yes.
Declare the charge target.
Is the charge target in LOS? Yes.
Turn to face charge target.
Move towards charge target at up to SPD+3" in a straight line in faced direction, without stopping until the target model is in its melee range, or it reaches its maximum distance of SPD+3".
Did it move 3" or greater? Yes.

(Now we're going to assume it moved 3" or greater, but that it didn't have to move its full distance, because it would otherwise have to leave the melee range of the initial engaging model, and that under some interesting voodoo, the initially engaging model still has it in its melee range, as does the attacking model, so that no free strikes are incurred, and they are still engaging each other at the end of this movement, which is what this is about.)

Check.

Charge requirements met.

"after moving, but before making its charge attack" timing check.

"this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this model's activation."

Were the assaulter and target engaged at the start of the assaulter's activation? No.

Check.

Is the target currently in melee range with assaulting model. (Yes, otherwise it'd have had to leave the initial engaging model's melee arc by continuing up to its full movement until it reached the target, or hit its maximum movement.)

Assault requirements met.

Perform ranged attack, "the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty."

Ranged attack roll.
If hit scored:
Ranged damage roll.

Is target still alive? (Yes/No... now this is where you would otherwise perform your charge attack, and is beyond the scope of this question.)

That seems like it to me.

It seems to squirm around the rule allowing you to make a ranged attack while engaged in melee.

Also, assuming you're still engaging the initial model, it would stand to reason by the charge rules, that if you shoot and kill your charge target with the ranged attack, you can then use a non-charge attack to attack the target you were initially engaging.

This is probably not intended? But from the rules I'm reading about charging and assaulting, seems cheesy, but within the letter of the law.

It seems to me that Assault probably SHOULD be errata'd to include the following. "A model cannot make an assault during an activation it begins engaged in melee with an enemy model." or something similar.

At least it does appear that you cannot use Assault on a model less than three inches from you, which would prevent the 'charge attack', because of the "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack," part would be violated, given that the model wouldn't be allowed to make the charge attack.

So the cases where a model can move a full three inches through a model's melee arc, to engage another enemy model, without suffering a free strike and dying, and fulfilling all this will be rare at least. I can see it perhaps happening with a non-reach small base model moving through the arc of an engaging model with reach and a 360 melee range, in such a way that the small based model never gets its .5" melee arc in contact with the engaging model. Say... a Rhinodon or Epic Butcher or something. Maybe...

petegrrrr
01-18-2010, 10:20 PM
The problem is "Cannot" trumps "May/must".

A model in melee with another model "Cannot" make a ranged attack.

Like I said, we all know how this SHOULD work. It's just not worded in that fashion.

Assault grants a ranged attack.

Further more, it goes on to specify what that attack ignores (meaning their are conditions on this attack, and it is not some super ranged attack that ignores everything). Sadly, this does not currently include the "cannot shoot while in melee" rule.

It should be there. It used to be there. Frankly, it NEEDS to be there. But as a PG and a Tourny organizer, if someone raises a fuss about this, the wording would be on the side of no ranged attack, which I find just silly.

TurboNitroMonkey
01-18-2010, 10:34 PM
Side note, how would this work in the case of a unit like Khador Assault Kommandos with Assault & Battery?

Assault & Battery (Order) - Before their normal movement, affected models can make one ranged attack. During their normal movement, affected models must charge or run. The ranged attack is made before declaring a charge target.

I'm thinking this would fall under the same as Assault. "Affected models can make one ranged attack."

Again, I feel this SHOULDN'T allow the model to ignore p56's "A model in melee cannot make ranged attacks."

But then if these rules don't ignore that rule, then gunfighter shouldn't either:

"This model is a gunfighter. The gunfighter has a melee range of 0.5" and can make ranged attacks targeting models in its melee range."

One rule says you can't, one says you can. When in doubt abilities and rules on cards that circumvent book rules, historically take precendence.

Again, I don't think this is intended, but it seems to work that way.

TurboNitroMonkey
01-18-2010, 10:39 PM
Its one of those things where the spirit of the rule and the letter of it are in opposition and do wonky things.

Kind of like how a Carnivean with eyeless sight can spray through a forest, but a Koldun Lord for instance has his spray attack magically stop 3" in, or completely fail to exit the other side of a forest 1" deep, even if its only 1" away from him, because spray attacks can't hit models the attacker can't see, and he can only see 3" in and never all the way through. Thats another one that seems silly. Its meant to stop spray attacks from going through obstacles like buildings, but yet forests magically turn into walls for those who can see them, but if you close your eyes, it goes all the way through. Grr indeed.

TurboNitroMonkey
01-18-2010, 10:45 PM
And you're right. P29 of PrimeMKII with the Cannot trumping may/must.

That would make assault charges ONLY seem to work if the charger COULDN'T get into melee, and defeat gunfighter entirely.

ALTHOUGH... the preface to those rules say only to apply them when *TWO* "special rules" conflict... which would still lead the wording to have me believe that the SINGLE special rule would continue to trump the book.

We know the spirit of the rule though, and I think any reasonable player would agree with the intention of it. If they don't and want to argue it, it just shows their character. If it comes up in a high-pressure/risk situation like a tournament, I pity the tournament director.

brotherscott
01-18-2010, 10:56 PM
The worst part of all of this is how often is this situation likely to come up?

If I have an engaged model that gets the assault order, with common sense in mind, I will attack the nearest model that will benefit me, and not try to drive my opponent or TO/ Press Ganger to bludgeon me after the game in the back alley.

I understand the ruling that allows for charging in melee if the attacking model and/ or target both have reach, I don't see it happening a lot, if ever, but I am OK with that. Pushing for an assault from one melee engagement to another target to get the assault just does not seem as likely.

If asked to make a ruling, I would say "no", and an informal poll (about 6 or 8 regular players) at the LGS (complete with models on the table and measuring devices) seemed to feel the same way.

It gets pretty ridiculous if players are pushing this hard and this far to try and "break" one rule.

I am very interested in what any of the Infernals have to say about this.

TurboNitroMonkey
01-18-2010, 11:01 PM
Agreed brotherscott. Agreed. Few and far between.

But its discussions like this that allow the rules to become that much more airtight, and less and less of this situations can even appear, so that in the end, everybody's playing the same game no matter where you travel or who you play.

Now if we can only find a rule that makes playing as the Protectorate of Menoth illegal in its entirety. Hmm.. *Scours book*

Kommissar Golovko
01-18-2010, 11:05 PM
Side note, how would this work in the case of a unit like Khador Assault Kommandos with Assault & Battery?

Assault & Battery (Order) - Before their normal movement, affected models can make one ranged attack. During their normal movement, affected models must charge or run. The ranged attack is made before declaring a charge target.

I'm thinking this would fall under the same as Assault. "Affected models can make one ranged attack."


Assault and Battery is different from Assault. In Assault and Battery, you have to shoot first before your charge movement. The ruling is even explicit in this in that it says the range attack is made before declaring a charge target.

brotherscott
01-18-2010, 11:08 PM
Now if we can only find a rule that makes playing as the Protectorate of Menoth illegal in its entirety. Hmm.. *Scours book*

I may have the Mercenary Shield up right now, but I am a Protectorate player from the start. I don't play cheesy.

I would fight you on making the Protectorate illegal every step of the way. :D

Tarzen
01-19-2010, 01:34 AM
Not to get too OT, but assault and battery works in a similar way: it says you can shoot, then run, despite the rules for running(p 46) saying that it can't do ANYTHING else that turn. So, by your logic, you can't shoot, since the rule doesn't say it allows them to shoot and ignore the run runs. Just saying...

As to assault, the wording is pretty simple- you can do it because it says you can. p 51 says that a model that is ENGAGING or ENGAGED cannot make ranged attacks, but assault says there is only one condition that stops it from working - namely if you began your activation engaged by your TARGET.

Yes, we know this is how it's been played and how it will continue to be played, so do we really need all the hoopla?

Cheers

Kommissar Golovko
01-19-2010, 01:36 AM
The hoopla will be there as long as there is no rule circumventing the no shooting when in melee. It is agreed that the intent of Assault is similar to Mk 1 but the finished product at the moment is not the same.

Necra-Chi
01-19-2010, 03:13 AM
The argument that it is a special rule overriding a basic rule does not stand. If that were a valid argument then any model with strafe would gain the ability to shoot while engaged, for example.

Maudlin
01-19-2010, 04:27 AM
Answer is: It works like most of you believe it does. Assault is a special rule that allows a ranged attack "as part of a charge", overriding the general rule of not shooting while engaged.

Hjelmen0
01-19-2010, 04:44 AM
\o/ Thank you, Maudlin

Maudlin
01-19-2010, 05:40 AM
\o/ Thank you, Maudlin

Quite welcome :)


The argument that it is a special rule overriding a basic rule does not stand. If that were a valid argument then any model with strafe would gain the ability to shoot while engaged, for example.

Just wanted to quickly respond to this. Strafe, as a *attack on a ranged weapon is itself a ranged attack. You could not use the Strafe special rule while engaged, at all. If anything prevents a charge, you could not use Assault, either.

Assault has always overridden several general rules, simply due to the way it is spelled out to work. It still does in Mk2. Another example is no melee & ranged attacks during the same combat action.

Mod_Faultie
01-19-2010, 05:47 AM
Maudlin for Mayor! Only he has the sense to lead this community!

Thanks! :D

Lord Xalys
01-19-2010, 06:05 AM
The rule in question:


As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation. When resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty. If the target is not in melee range after moving, this model can make the Assault ranged attack before its activation ends.

Nothing in the above text forbids you to shoot the target of your charge, EXCEPT when you are already in melee with said target. That's the whole idea of Assault: you charge in, guns blazing. See below:

Step 1: declare charge target;
Step 2: make charge movement towards charge target;
Step 3: shoot charge target thanks to Assault, thereby ignoring the target in melee penalty (in other words; you're considered not to be in melee);
Step 4: make charge attack (if you ended up in melee with the charge target).

That's it. I have the feeling people are reading too much into this, thus making it look like a mess.

EDIT: thx, Maudlin!

Cheers,
LX

Mutton
01-19-2010, 06:44 AM
Ya infernal; now can we get some errata stating that so we don't have to get into arguments over it?

Maudlin
01-19-2010, 07:55 AM
Ya infernal; now can we get some errata stating that so we don't have to get into arguments over it?

No, errata are for when the rule is incorrect as written.

Blaque
01-19-2010, 09:21 AM
Would perhaps an entry in the FAQ be warranted if this were to come up again though? I doubt it will, but just curious on that.

And stuff.

Devilsquid
01-19-2010, 09:36 AM
Hooplah!


I think folks are over complicating things. Yes, the core rules say you can't shoot while in melee, but special rules trump core rules....that's what makes them special. Assault says "this model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation."

That's all the permission you need to get past the "not shooting in melee" rule. It gives you a very specific target that you're allowed to shoot at, i.e., the model you charged.

It also says you don't get the penalty for shooting into a combat.

Really, i don't see what's so complicated.

petegrrrr
01-19-2010, 10:17 AM
The main issue was special rules trumping reguler vs. cannot trumping May/Must.

But as it has been resolved, I am relieved!

brotherscott
01-19-2010, 10:23 AM
Thanks Maudlin!! I think I was in the minority, but reading it over, it makes sense and props to DevilSquid for the simplified interaction.

I think I may try to set this up soon.

TurboNitroMonkey
01-19-2010, 06:26 PM
So in this case, back to my secondary question, If Assault works this way, would the Assault Kommandos' Assault and Battery work the same way?

Could a model already engaging an enemy in melee receive the Assault and Battery order and make a ranged attack while engaged, and follow that with a charge or run action?

It sounds to me like it would. If it targeted the model it is already in combat with, it would suffer the target in melee penalty, but in theory couldn't it then shoot OUT of melee at another unengaged model in its LOS without penalty, followed by its charge move "oops I couldn't move 3 inches, so I don't get a boosted damage roll" and two normal attacks?

petegrrrr
01-19-2010, 06:53 PM
That's why I realy think this needs a re-wording erratta.

I suspect that Assault and Battery is probably not meant to work that way, otherwise it would just be assualt, but with this ruling that door is now opened.

A quick, reworded erratta would probably save everyone a lot of head aches.

Necra-Chi
01-19-2010, 08:29 PM
I know Maudlin knocked my example of strafe on the head but assault and battery is a better example of a special rule that has "may make a ranged attack" somewhere in it. Just because it is a special rule, that doesn't mean you get to ignore the requirements of the general rule telling you when you cannot make a ranged attack.

Look at any special rule that grants a ranged attack you wouldn't usually get without that special rule. Do those all ignore the requirement that you cannot make a ranged attack while engaged now?

TurboNitroMonkey
01-19-2010, 08:46 PM
I know Maudlin knocked my example of strafe on the head but assault and battery is a better example of a special rule that has "may make a ranged attack" somewhere in it. Just because it is a special rule, that doesn't mean you get to ignore the requirements of the general rule telling you when you cannot make a ranged attack.

Look at any special rule that grants a ranged attack you wouldn't usually get without that special rule. Do those all ignore the requirement that you cannot make a ranged attack while engaged now?

Again, it doesn't feel right, but given the infernal response, it sounds to me like it may, so long as it isn't a special rule of the ranged weapon. But then before Maudlin spoke up, it sounded to me like Assault didn't either.

Mutton
01-19-2010, 09:07 PM
I think it's a case of RAI versus RAW. RAW, as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, would break several other abilities. RAI, which I think we can all agree upon, is what Maudlin said.

Kommissar Golovko
01-19-2010, 11:20 PM
I still think an errata or tactical tip at least should be made. It would be easier for people to accept a rule in black and white rather than a post in the forum which people either have to dig through or may even disappear if the forum breaks down.

Maudlin
01-20-2010, 02:57 AM
Just because it is a special rule, that doesn't mean you get to ignore the requirements of the general rule telling you when you cannot make a ranged attack.
I agree with this, but see below.


Look at any special rule that grants a ranged attack you wouldn't usually get without that special rule. Do those all ignore the requirement that you cannot make a ranged attack while engaged now?
You have to look at the special rule in question. In this case, it's a rule that says, as part of a melee combat action, advance into melee with a model and then make a ranged attack against it. Do we really need to add a line saying that yes, you genuinely are allowed to make the attack in melee?

If we do, how long until someone claims that if you take the ranged attack, you're no longer allowed the charge attack because trenchers don't have Virtuoso?

Assault & Battery is once again a very different rule, but one which in turn overrides its own general rules. Does it confuse anyone that you're making a ranged attack at a point in your activation when you normally cannot? Are any of your opponents arguing that means you're not allowed to make it? If they are, a sockjack is your tool, not an erratum.

And no, that doesn't mean it ignores all other general restrictions on ranged attacks, neither does Assault (eg. you still need LoS).


I think it's a case of RAI versus RAW. RAW, as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, would break several other abilities. RAI, which I think we can all agree upon, is what Maudlin said.

Yes, this please. I do honestly see everyone's point here, but as I began to show above, there are hundreds of rules that implicitly override other, general rules. We cannot explicitly mention all of them. We wouldn't want to either, as MkII intended to move away from the huge, lumbering and largely redundant blocks of text in MkI.

If a special rule clearly describes a situation that is counter to a general rule, the general rule is implicitly overridden. Obviously, that should not be extrapolated to all other special rules or other situations.

I think it is clear what Assault means to do. You're meant to charge in, take a ranged attack against your target, then make the charge attack. That is the intention, and if that is clear to everyone from a simple reading of the rules as written (as I think it is) then there shouldn't be a problem during gameplay.

I wouldn't object to a tactical tip for something like this, but the books are already out, and it certainly doesn't merit an erratum.

tensteam
01-20-2010, 03:46 AM
I think there should be FAQ of rules forum content. There are several things that aren't that clear in rules even in MkII and that would be an easy way to find the official answers. Should we just start a topic like this or is there something more official coming?

Devilsquid
01-20-2010, 05:26 AM
I'm personally glad Assault has been tweaked for MKII, because now my Cavalry can charge and shoot without capping a Halberdier in the back of the head.

brotherscott
01-20-2010, 06:13 AM
I ended up at the FLGS yesterday, and, in order to explain how things worked (yes, it came up in a rules discussion), I put a few models on the table, grabbed a melee gauge, measuring tape, and the rule book, and demonstrated the interaction.
It is much clearer in my head now, as well as some of my fellow players.

That doesn't mean it doesn't seem cheeky, but it does make sense.

Silk8185
01-20-2010, 10:26 AM
Sorry if this is reviving a dead thread, but theres something i need to know



Step 3: shoot charge target thanks to Assault, thereby ignoring the target in melee penalty (in other words; you're considered not to be in melee);

(My emphasis)

What if the Target was already Engaged?, i.e.

Player 1 model, engaging player 2 model, and player 1's Stormblades try to charge into this "Combat" would player 2's models get the +4 def for being egaged by another source BEFORE assault was actioned?

Mutton
01-20-2010, 12:06 PM
Honestly, I think it should be worded

"Assault (Order) - Affected models must charge or run. As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, an
affected model can make one ranged attack targeting the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start
of the affected modelʼs activation. Models that received this order cannot make combined ranged attacks this activation. When
resolving an Assault ranged attack, the attacking model and target are not considered to be in melee. If the target is not in melee
range after moving, the affected model must still make the ranged attack before its activation ends."

That's not even resolving the "okay, I start engaged by A, Assault B while staying in melee of A; do I get the shot?" issue.

petegrrrr
01-20-2010, 12:24 PM
True.

That stills needs clarifying. Do you ignore ALL engagement when making a ranged attack, or only the engagement of your target?

brotherscott
01-20-2010, 12:35 PM
According to Maudlin, you ignore all engagement when making the ranged attack.

Post #53 above.

petegrrrr
01-20-2010, 01:35 PM
Well, that was more of a blanket ruling.

I would like to see some clarification, as I have my resurgence tourny coming up soon.

So far, we do know that it works on the charge target, as we all thought, but a second, non targetted model engaging is something different.

It could still work, but I'd like to see that spelled out real fast before I have to make any rulings on it.

Silk8185
01-20-2010, 01:52 PM
This (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?t=7379) was the answer given in my topic before i found this one, and the same is said there, but it would be really interesting for me to know if this is how it works.

Ngangata
01-20-2010, 03:58 PM
According to Maudlin, you ignore all engagement when making the ranged attack.

Post #53 above.
This is probably how the ability is supposed to work but it is not worded that way.
It is implied (thought not specifically stated) that you can ignore being in melee with your charge target for purposes of the ranged attack but I still do not see how the wording can lead to the conclusion that you can ignore being engaged by a model other than your target.
Just saying "he can shoot 'cause it says he can shoot" is not really good enough.
I believe there should be errata to this ability to add -this model may ignore being engaged for purposes of making an assault ranged attack- if that is the desired effect.

Just my 2 cents
Ngangata

Tarzen
01-20-2010, 11:28 PM
really? another 15+ posts since this was answered and it's still going? please peeps, you have your answer. It works the way it says it does. It works when engaged because the rules say it does and more specifically, because the infernals say so. They have said that it will not be errata'ed, and chances are it probably never will be, but you have your answer.

Kommissar Golovko
01-21-2010, 12:20 AM
They're actually talking about a different scenario now. Now the scenario is that there's another model near the target that the attacking model with Assault ended up in melee with.

Tarzen
01-21-2010, 12:30 AM
They're actually talking about a different scenario now. Now the scenario is that there's another model near the target that the attacking model with Assault ended up in melee with.

Please read the infernals response in post 53 and 55-
Answer is: It works like most of you believe it does. Assault is a special rule that allows a ranged attack "as part of a charge", overriding the general rule of not shooting while engaged.

honestly, what do you not understand about the infernals answer? It ignores shooting while engaged. always has, seems it always will.

Kommissar Golovko
01-21-2010, 12:47 AM
The rule says right now: "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting
the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation."

The rule is worded such that you make a ranged attack against the target charged. If you end up in melee with the target, Maudlin's ruling now means that you can shoot the charge target even when both of them are in melee.

The question now being asked is can the attacker still fire if another non-targeted model ended up in melee with the attacker? Those are two different scenarios.

Tarzen
01-21-2010, 01:11 AM
The rule says right now: "As part of a charge, after moving but before making its charge attack, this model can make one ranged attack targeting
the model charged unless they were in melee with each other at the start of this modelʼs activation."

The rule is worded such that you make a ranged attack against the target charged. If you end up in melee with the target, Maudlin's ruling now means that you can shoot the charge target even when both of them are in melee.

The question now being asked is can the attacker still fire if another non-targeted model ended up in melee with the attacker? Those are two different scenarios.

I know what you are asking, read Maudlin's response and he answers this exact question, thus my questioning why it keeps getting asked. Anything further will simply be taken to PM as I'm tired of seeing this thread continue to bloat despite being answered 35 posts ago.

In fact, all parts of the original question (namely if a model is engaged by another model, can they still assault a DIFFERENT model and get off the shots) were answered by Maudlin.

Nite all

Silk8185
01-21-2010, 01:19 AM
Answer is: It works like most of you believe it does. Assault is a special rule that allows a ranged attack "as part of a charge", overriding the general rule of not shooting while engaged.


doesnt answer my question in the least, thats why i've continued to poke you folks in the direction of my enquiery! Maudlin only points out that this rule allows you to shoot WHILE engaged, i'd never questioned this because i used irusk in mk i, so i know how its intended to work.

Actually my question was specific to Lord Xalys' post in which he states :



(in other words; you're considered not to be in melee);


but this doesnt fully clear up what it is im asking, "You're not considered to be in melee" Perfct, i understand that, it makes sense, its the rule written as its intended, as it did in Mk i with carniviens, irusk, all sorts.

what im asking, is if the ruling is as quoted above, "you're" not considered to be in melee, what if something, already IS engaging your target before you get there. the reason im asking, is that we have a tournament upcoming here in wales, and one of our players uses this tactic (charging these boyo's into a fray) as part of his battle-plan, which means its fairly important i find out wether or not its legal.

Tarzen
01-21-2010, 01:30 AM
For Silk (would send in pm but you have it turned off), here's a summary of the infernal ruling on this topic...


Answer is: It works like most of you believe it does. Assault is a special rule that allows a ranged attack "as part of a charge", overriding the general rule of not shooting while engaged.

^^^That is the big one, right there^^^ It overrides the rule for not shooting while engaged. Period. It also sets out a time that you can do it (namely when you are NOT ENGAGED with the target you are assaulting).



Assault has always overridden several general rules, simply due to the way it is spelled out to work. It still does in Mk2. Another example is no melee & ranged attacks during the same combat action.
...

...
Yes, this please. I do honestly see everyone's point here, but as I began to show above, there are hundreds of rules that implicitly override other, general rules. We cannot explicitly mention all of them. We wouldn't want to either, as MkII intended to move away from the huge, lumbering and largely redundant blocks of text in MkI.

If a special rule clearly describes a situation that is counter to a general rule, the general rule is implicitly overridden. Obviously, that should not be extrapolated to all other special rules or other situations.

I think it is clear what Assault means to do. You're meant to charge in, take a ranged attack against your target, then make the charge attack. That is the intention, and if that is clear to everyone from a simple reading of the rules as written (as I think it is) then there shouldn't be a problem during gameplay.


peace folks

Silk8185
01-21-2010, 01:49 AM
Wait a minute, something just clicked in my brain.... if you look at it this way, it makes more sense in relation to my question

"Assume models charging with assault have gained gunfighter for the purposes for that charge."

thats basically right isnt it?

Tarzen
01-21-2010, 02:00 AM
In essence, I suppose you could think of it simplistically that way. Mind you, it could create other problems that I'd rather not try and hammer out now ;) but for the engaged issue, that's a good way of thinking about it.

whats82
01-21-2010, 06:16 AM
That would be elegant until some model with reach with assault brings up this jar again, such as Vanguard or something.

As long as the charge target and assault'er did not start in melee, ignore all range restriction regarding melee for the assault range attack is what I read.

alchahest
01-21-2010, 08:34 AM
I'm just going to go with the rule as intended / infernal ruling

Ngangata
01-21-2010, 03:10 PM
Answer is: It works like most of you believe it does. Assault is a special rule that allows a ranged attack "as part of a charge", overriding the general rule of not shooting while engaged.
^^^That is the big one, right there^^^ It overrides the rule for not shooting while engaged. Period. It also sets out a time that you can do it (namely when you are NOT ENGAGED with the target you are assaulting).
This is also the problem. No one is asking for a reversal on the ruling. The only thing being asked is that the wording be a little more explicit in letting you know you ignore being engaged by any model.




I think it's a case of RAI versus RAW. RAW, as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, would break several other abilities. RAI, which I think we can all agree upon, is what Maudlin said.
Yes, this please. I do honestly see everyone's point here, but as I began to show above, there are hundreds of rules that implicitly override other, general rules...

Maudlin even seems to agree the RAW is lacking, PG's are asking for erratta, there has been more than one thread on assault started in tha past few days; that leads me to beleave maybe the wording of assault isn't as clear cut as it could be.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to stir the pot here. We were all on the same team as far as getting a cleaner, meaner, stronger, better ruleset. This is one I think could still use a little tweeking. It's not to late for erratta in the back of Hordes MKII.;)

Ngangata

joedj
01-21-2010, 06:47 PM
So, my Scattergunner (w/ MK II Assault, please!) is B2B with an opposing trooper A and gets a charge order.
He charges 0.2" to target another opposing, non-reach trooper B 0.6" away. He's now engaged with both A&B, and can ignore both engagements for the purposes of his ranged attack, but cannot target trooper A with the ranged attack.

If this is correct, Assault = Gunfighter + Virtuoso (only minus being cannot range-target initial model(s) with which engaged)? [Do you care with sprays?!]

Now I REALLY want the Scattergunners to get Assault!!!

Virtually gives every model with Assault at minimum 1 more attack in melee, though with sprays this can be effectively many, many more. Units with Assault + Spray = swaths of unengage-able templates...

Sinsation
01-21-2010, 06:50 PM
I don't think you'd get a shot. You didn't move 3", so there wouldn't be a charge attack, so no shot for it to precede?

TurboNitroMonkey
01-21-2010, 10:45 PM
I don't think you'd get a shot. You didn't move 3", so there wouldn't be a charge attack, so no shot for it to precede?

I stand corrected.

favonian
01-22-2010, 12:33 AM
I don't think you'd get a shot. You didn't move 3", so there wouldn't be a charge attack, so no shot for it to precede?
The Assault ranged attack does not require that you move 3" or that you succeed in your charge. It only requires two things:
1. you charge a valid target in your LOS that you were not engaging at the beginning of your activation (whether the charge is successful does not matter but the model must be able to charge. You could also still "assault" a model engaging your model but it will not gain the ranged attack granted by assault. All other charge rules still apply. ).
2. If you choose to shoot, the ranged attack generated by the Assault charge must target the model you declared as a charge target.

The exemptions it gives you are:
1. You implicitly do not count as being in melee with ANY model for the purpose of that specific ranged attack (Otherwise you wouldnt be able to actually fulfill the text of the Assault ability and the rule exemption does not specifically say that it only applies to the model that you are Assaulting). This has been clarified by the Infernal. See pg 56 for the general rule prohibiting ranged attacks while in melee.
2. You do not receive the penalty called "Target in Melee" penalty described on pg 58 of the rulebook.
3. Your model may make a melee attack in the same activation as its ranged attack.
4. Instead of your activation immediatly ending, you may make a ranged attack if your charge failed (ie you are not in melee with your target)


That is it. Yes it works as written and yes you can make ranged attacks while engaged if the circumstances are correct. I am not sure why this is unclear from the rule as written and clarification from the Infernal. Particularly since shots from assault worked in exactly the same way during MK I. There was even a thread about all the tricks you could do with Assault/trenchers shooting out of melee in the old MK I rules forum. So why there is so much surprise, shock and awe now?

An example to clarify the outstanding question: Trencher A is .5” from/ and engaged by Iron Fang B and Iron Fang C who are in shield wall directly in front of Trencher A. The player sees that Trencher A has LOS to a Juggernaut Warjack that is behind Iron Fang B & C at roughly 6” distance which would be in range of Trencher As ranged attack (See pg 43 for LOS rules).

At this point, Trencher A may receive the Assault order and then choose the Juggernaut as his charge target. The model must turn to face the Juggernaut, attempt to move toward the Juggernaut, stop movement after moving .5” in a straight line because the model is now in btb with the iron fangs and cannot legally move any further. At that point the trencher fails his charge. However the text of assault says that “if the target is not in melee range after moving this model can make the Assault ranged attack before its activation ends.” So as a final action during its activation Trencher A may shoot the Juggernaut while engaged by Iron Fang B & C. (note that this only works if you are blocked because you MUST move up to your maximum advance to reach your charge target if possible. If you try to do this and the base of the trencher/ assaulting model is not blocked you will take a free strike as you must move your full advance +3 and attempt to be in melee with your target. See pg 47 of the rules regarding charges).

Kommissar Golovko
01-22-2010, 03:41 AM
The exemptions it gives you are:
1. You implicitly do not count as being in melee with ANY model for the purpose of that specific ranged attack (Otherwise you wouldnt be able to actually fulfill the text of the Assault ability and the rule exemption does not specifically say that it only applies to the model that you are Assaulting). This has been clarified by the Infernal. See pg 56 for the general rule prohibiting ranged attacks while in melee.


Sorry but in a game with rules, "implicitly" does not count unless it's confirmed. In that case it is not implicit anymore. For me what has been clarified by the infernal is that against the charge target, you are not considered to be in melee. I have no problem with that.

With all due respect to Maudlin, I still question the part about not being considered in melee when another model is engaging you. Nothing in the text overrules that and even though an Infernal implicitly (by your description) says so, Infernals have been mistaken before (like the issue before Reach). Hence there should be an errata which should end this debate once and for all.

I don't mind being in the wrong as long as I have something in black and white which everyone can refer to. Removing blocks of text is ok as long as the intent of the rule is accurately presented.



That is it. Yes it works as written and yes you can make ranged attacks while engaged if the circumstances are correct. I am not sure why this is unclear from the rule as written and clarification from the Infernal. Particularly since shots from assault worked in exactly the same way during MK I. There was even a thread about all the tricks you could do with Assault/trenchers shooting out of melee in the old MK I rules forum. So why there is so much surprise, shock and awe now?

Because we're in Mk 2 and a lot of things have changed?



An example to clarify the outstanding question: Trencher A is .5” from/ and engaged by Iron Fang B and Iron Fang C who are in shield wall directly in front of Trencher A. The player sees that Trencher A has LOS to a Juggernaut Warjack that is behind Iron Fang B & C at roughly 6” distance which would be in range of Trencher As ranged attack (See pg 43 for LOS rules).

At this point, Trencher A may receive the Assault order and then choose the Juggernaut as his charge target. The model must turn to face the Juggernaut, attempt to move toward the Juggernaut, stop movement after moving .5” in a straight line because the model is now in btb with the iron fangs and cannot legally move any further. At that point the trencher fails his charge. However the text of assault says that “if the target is not in melee range after moving this model can make the Assault ranged attack before its activation ends.” So as a final action during its activation Trencher A may shoot the Juggernaut while engaged by Iron Fang B & C. (note that this only works if you are blocked because you MUST move up to your maximum advance to reach your charge target if possible. If you try to do this and the base of the trencher/ assaulting model is not blocked you will take a free strike as you must move your full advance +3 and attempt to be in melee with your target. See pg 47 of the rules regarding charges).

You are assuming that the Trencher can still shoot when he is engaged by another model other than his target. Now point out the rule which makes this so. Players, esp new ones or those who do not check these forums will question it since it is clear that there is a rule that you cannot make ranged attacks when you are engaged. It is also clear from Assault that only the target model is the one which you are not considered to be engaged with (again assuming the players read the forums).

I really feel an errata on this issue should be made for clarificatory purposes. Something which PGs and players can point out in black and white.

favonian
01-22-2010, 10:02 AM
Sorry but in a game with rules, "implicitly" does not count unless it's confirmed. In that case it is not implicit anymore. For me what has been clarified by the infernal is that against the charge target, you are not considered to be in melee. I have no problem with that.

With all due respect to Maudlin, I still question the part about not being considered in melee when another model is engaging you. Nothing in the text overrules that and even though an Infernal implicitly (by your description) says so, Infernals have been mistaken before (like the issue before Reach). Hence there should be an errata which should end this debate once and for all.

I don't mind being in the wrong as long as I have something in black and white which everyone can refer to. Removing blocks of text is ok as long as the intent of the rule is accurately presented.

You are assuming that the Trencher can still shoot when he is engaged by another model other than his target. Now point out the rule which makes this so. Players, esp new ones or those who do not check these forums will question it since it is clear that there is a rule that you cannot make ranged attacks when you are engaged. It is also clear from Assault that only the target model is the one which you are not considered to be engaged with (again assuming the players read the forums).

I really feel an errata on this issue should be made for clarificatory purposes. Something which PGs and players can point out in black and white.
Im not sure how "implicit" doesnt work for you given that Mauldin (an PP staffer tasked with answering rules questions) came on this exact thread and said that is how they (PP, the designers of this game) intended for you to intrepret it. I'm sorry you dont believe the designers of the game. However, they just told you what they meant and it was pretty clear: "If a special rule clearly describes a situation that is counter to a general rule, the general rule is implicitly overridden. Obviously, that should not be extrapolated to all other special rules or other situations."

In this case the special rule says that you make a ranged attack while engaged. So the general rule of not shooting while engaged is "implicitly" overridden. There is no other text limiting this "override" to the target of the assault charge. As a result it counts for all models engaging the assaulting model. I dont see how his comments are not clear at this point?

As for your concern that Mauldin doesnt know what he is talking about. I am confident that if this ruling changes Mauldin, or some other staffer, will come back and let you know. If a player questions that ruling you should point them to this thread.

In regards to my example. I just pointed out the rules to you. As Mauldin pointed out. You read the ability and it modifies general rules. So in my post I gave you the page number for every rule that is altered. I did not make an assumption that the trencher can fire while engaged by two models. Mauldin came on this thread and said that it breaks the general rule of making ranged attacks while in melee and the text of the rule does NOT specifically say "the assaulting model does not count as being engaged by the target". So as of this moment, until PP changes their mind, an assaulting model breaks that general rule in every case while making the ranged attack granted by assault. Thus the model may still make the ranged attack granted by assault while being engaged by ANY other model.

I guess I am just missing why this is such a controversy given that the question has already been answered. If Mauldin cuts/pastes his comments into a faq does that really make any difference?