Projectiles and Paralyzed

[spydr261]

Can a model use a projectile attack () while it has a paralyzed enemy model is in it's melee range? More broadly, can a model be said to be engaged with a paralyzed model? I think the answers to these two questions are no and yes, respectively. This is because, although the paralyzed model is considered to have no melee range (as per the errata'd paralyze rules) the non-paralyzed model is still considered engaged with it since it is within its melee range.

Do I have this right? It just seems weird to me. Though I know that if the answer to my second question were "no," it would lead to another weird situation where models couldn't score or be scored with for certain schemes and strategies if the model had no melee range, whether by being paralyzed or having no  attacks (ex. hold up their forces, ply for information, take prisoner, etc.). I would just like to hear some other opinions on this since it matters for the new Seamus build that has been discussed recently.

[solkan]

1 hour ago, spydr261 said:

Can a model use a projectile attack () while it has a paralyzed enemy model is in it's melee range? More broadly, can a model be said to be engaged with a paralyzed model? I think the answers to these two questions are no and yes, respectively. This is because, although the paralyzed model is considered to have no melee range (as per the errata'd paralyze rules) the non-paralyzed model is still considered engaged with it since it is within its melee range.

Do I have this right? It just seems weird to me. Though I know that if the answer to my second question were "no," it would lead to another weird situation where models couldn't score or be scored with for certain schemes and strategies if the model had no melee range, whether by being paralyzed or having no  attacks (ex. hold up their forces, ply for information, take prisoner, etc.). I would just like to hear some other opinions on this since it matters for the new Seamus build that has been discussed recently.

The thing about being “engaged” is that it’s caused by “engaging” (having a model in your melee range) or “being engaged” (being in someone else’s melee range).  So the models surrounding the Paralyzed model can still engage it (and thus become engaged) whether or not the Paralyzed model has a melee range.

And that causes all of the consequences you’re probably trying to avoid:  No  attacks while standing nearby, and randomized shooting if you try to shoot the Paralyzed model while surrounding it.

 

[Artiee]

You are engaged or not engaged.        You could have a 5"   and a enemy model at the tip of 5" and you still wouldn't be able to attack. 

The only way you can  attack is with a enemy model next to you is if it is Paralyzed or doesn't have    AND yourself does not have a . 

[spydr261]

On 5/31/2018 at 9:30 PM, solkan said:

The thing about being “engaged” is that it’s caused by “engaging” (having a model in your melee range) or “being engaged” (being in someone else’s melee range).  So the models surrounding the Paralyzed model can still engage it (and thus become engaged) whether or not the Paralyzed model has a melee range.

And that causes all of the consequences you’re probably trying to avoid:  No  attacks while standing nearby, and randomized shooting if you try to shoot the Paralyzed model while surrounding it.

 

On 6/1/2018 at 9:57 AM, Artiee said:

You are engaged or not engaged.        You could have a 5"   and a enemy model at the tip of 5" and you still wouldn't be able to attack. 

The only way you can  attack is with a enemy model next to you is if it is Paralyzed or doesn't have    AND yourself does not have a . 

I thought this was the case. Thank you for the clarifying.