The Dreamer, Rules Manual and Rules Marshalls

[Definitechoice]

There seem to be a few issues that were ruled on in the past by Weird Sketch and Keltheos but are contrary to what is printed in the new Rules Manual. Some of these seem to be rule amendments designed to eliminate the specific issue by turning it into a general rule. For instance, the last paragraph of Multiple Activations(p.31) reverses this post by Keltheos. Another instance is that while before only the Dreamer could bypass the general rule on burying and unburying(Weird Sketch's ruling), now the general Buried(p.13) have been changed from "when the effect that buried them allows them to do so" to "when an effect allows it to do so."

This seems to establish that the Rules Manual trumps the prior Marshall rulings.

My main concern is this post by Keltheos, and the thread around it. Keltheos breaks the general Strike rules by stating that with melee strikes you cannot declare a target that is outside of your melee range. A Nightmare within 3" of the Dreamer but outside of melee range with a model trying to Strike the Dreamer would not be an eligible target and Shadowy Form would not take effect. However, no such requirement made it into the Rules Manual, and there is a clear distinction made between target and Legal Target(p.14). To declare a target, you need to check line of sight, special situations, and Talents/Spells that would prevent it. After that, range is measured and if the target is within range, it becomes a Legal Target. The Strike Sequence(p.42) reinforces this. "A model must be within the attacker's LoS to be declared the target of a Strike," then the range is checked and if "the target is out of range, is not a legal target. and the Strike fails."

So, should we be expecting a Dreamer errata changing Shadowy Form to require a Legal Target? Should this be played by the Rules Manual as written, or by the older ruling?

[James.]

At our club we've just been playing rules manual trumps all. You have to remember that the rules marshalls were making ruling based on the past edition of the rules, making the best of what they had, so to speak.

With the advent of the rules manual, they had a chance to clean the whole thing up and therefore override old rules, and rulings I would imagine.

Kind of like if you had a car and the exaust was falling off, you might tie it on with a bit of string, but if you then bought a new car you wouldn't need the string anymore, because you'd more than fixed any problems you had with the old car by getting a new one.

That's the way I see the new rules manual (and I might be seeing it totally wrong). The marshalls had given us enough fixes to use the old rules whilst they were in place, but now they've given us the new manual, which means we don't need any of the old fixes

James.

[Ratty]

The rules manual allows you to check your combat range at any time (p39). The rules for strike say target a model within range. I don't see how this goes against Kels ruling on how Shadowy form works. If you have to target a model within range and know whether a model is in range it's obvious a nightmare within 3" of the Dreamer is not a legal target before the strike even takes place.

[Definitechoice]

You don't have to target a model in range. Reread the Strike Attack Sequence rules, italics for emphasis mine. "Models making a ranged or melee Strike use the Strike Attack Sequence...Once a target in LoS has been declared the target of a Strike, ensure that the target is in range by measuring the distance between the two models...if the distance is shorter than or equal to the attack's Rg, the target is in range; proceed to 2. Strike Duel below. Otherwise, the target is out of range, is not a legal target, and the Strike fails."(p.42)

A Strike doesn't require a legal target, only a target. It will only be successful if it does have a legal target though. A failed Strike, even in melee is permitted by the rules.

While you can measure melee range at any time, there is no other premeasuring, and the rules for declaring a target make no mention of range. For something to be a target, you just need LoS, for there to be no extenuating circumstances, and no Spell/sTalents that prevent targeting. "If all of these factors allow the item to be targeted, then the model can declare that item as the target." Shadowy Form only requires that the Nightmare could be targeted by the action, not that it has to be a legal target and thus in range.

The rules manual allows you to check your combat range at any time (p39). The rules for strike say target a model within range. I don't see how this goes against Kels ruling on how Shadowy form works. If you have to target a model within range and know whether a model is in range it's obvious a nightmare within 3" of the Dreamer is not a legal target before the strike even takes place.

[Justin]

I'm strangely reminded of the moment in Dogma where the plot is revealed about how the Angels would unmake creation by proving God made a mistake.

[K.blas]

I'm with DefinateChoice.

Shadowy Form: this model cannot be targeted by an enemy Action while it is within 3" of a friendly Nightmare that could have been targeted by the Action.

. (Emphasis mine)

So then we look at page 42 of the MRB. Declare target then check range. To declare a target, all you need is LOS to said target. So if you were in your Melee Range of Dreamer, even though you might be "engaged" with only the Dreamer, if one of his Nightmares are within your LOS (and within 3" of Dreamer) TECHNICALLY you could still target his Nightmare (premeasure or not) it's just that you could not actually STRIKE the Nightmare.

So I said that wall of text to say that Ratty and DC you're both right, we just need to look at both parts of the whole.

[K.blas]

I did this in Paint really fast hopefully it explains my (our?) point a bit better.

My opinion is that we're getting hung up over the fact that we can "premeasure" a Melee Strike, but that there is still a Strike Sequence, and it specifically states that we need to:

1) Declare a target (in LOS), and

2) Check range

Since this is the way things are supposed to be, if the Dreamer (take my example above) has any Nightmare within 3" of him(Teddy), and the attacker(Ikiryo 2" away from Teddy so outside of her Melee) can LOS to the Nightmare, then the attack is a failure by Shadowy Form's rule (since she can't actually attack the Teddy, and Dreamer is an illegal target, since she can target but not Strike Teddy).

I think this is what Mr. Sketch was referring to in the other thread about positioning (or having a HT3 Teddy watching Dreamer back...)

For those that read far, what do you all think?

(Addition; if Teddy was changed to a HT1 Daydream, and it was behind Dreamer, this would whole point would be moot, because it would be out of LOS of Ikiryo, and then she could go to town on Dreamer, since she couldn't legally target the Daydream. )

[Genetic]

From what the rules state i would have to agree with you on this one...

[K.blas]

Just read my post and this...

(Addition; if Teddy was changed to a HT1 Daydream, and it was behind Dreamer, this would whole point would be moot, because it would be out of LOS of Ikiryo, and then she could go to town on Dreamer, since she couldn't legally target the Daydream.)

...Is incorrect because I forgot that Ikiryo was HT3. But I think y'all catch my drift.

[Wodschow]

While I agree with your RAW interpretation, I don't think the actual rules haven't been changed in the Manual from when Keltheos made his ruling, thus I believe it's still valid.

[poulpox]

While I agree with your RAW interpretation, I don't think the actual rules haven't been changed in the Manual from when Keltheos made his ruling, thus I believe it's still valid.

+1

Here's why:

p39 says for Strike: "the model targets another model ... within range" since it is legal to measure if you are in melee range of the Teddy and Teddy isn't in range therefore you cannot declare a Strike against Teddy. You are then allowed to declare a Strike against the Dreamer.

I think when Sketch referred to Teddy as protecting Dreamer's back it is not about simply having the bear within 3" but also in the right spot within those 3".

In this situation:

Teddy

3"

Dreamer

1"

Perdita

Perdita cannot declare a strike against Teddy as he isn't a legal target so she's then allowed to declare the strike against the Dreamer.

EDIT: this works differently with range strikes and charges, as there has to be a range guessing and in this instance the range cannot be pre-measured so Dreamer cannot be targeted and Teddy would have to be charged if in LoS.

Edited March 20, 2011 by poulpox

[K.blas]

...Teddy isn't in range therefore you cannot declare a Strike against Teddy. You are then allowed to declare a Strike against the Dreamer.

This is incorrect.

Yes on page 39, it says the point about premeasuring and attacking in range. (This is listed under GENERAL COMBAT ACTIONS)

The kicker is that on page 42, under STRIKE ATTACK SEQUENCE-DETAILS it specifically states that...

1) Attacker must be in LOS of target (if no targets, strike fails)

2) Check Range. (obviously you've already checked the range so you know this is going to work in advance...except in the funny case of the Dreamer;))

Page 39 does not disallow the strike sequence, it simply generalizes it.

Further in your example, I would say that Perdita has LOS to Teddy because of Dreamer being a spirit, and thus she is able to draw LOS through him (plus the fact that Teddy is HT3).

[poulpox]

The kicker is that on page 42, under STRIKE ATTACK SEQUENCE-DETAILS it specifically states that...

1) Attacker must be in LOS of target (if no targets, strike fails)

2) Check Range. (obviously you've already checked the range so you know this is going to work in advance...except in the funny case of the Dreamer;))

Page 39 does not disallow the strike sequence, it simply generalizes it.

Further in your example, I would say that Perdita has LOS to Teddy because of Dreamer being a spirit, and thus she is able to draw LOS through him (plus the fact that Teddy is HT3).

Yes you're right my argument wasn't good

Like Wodschow I agree that RAW is as you write. But as he mentioned the rule hasn't changed in the new rulebook and therefore the previous ruling from Keltheos should still stand as it was clarifying that point. I guess the book should have a particular mention of melee in the strike sequence, something like that in case of melee strike, if the potential target is known not to be in range (since we can pre-measure the melee) this model is unelligeable as a target for that strike, which was Keltheos point.

As a Dreamer player I prefer the more tactical necessity of having to put my bear not anywhere within 3" of Dreamer in order to protect it, but at the right spot.

I'm not sure the marshalls will rule again on this point though as it does seem to have been resolved in the forementioned threads (well, at least regarding the Shadowy Form issue, since the rules haven't changed, as opposed to the One Master sequence).

[poulpox]

Actually there's a little thing which kinda supports the Keltheos ruling (I'm not leaving this one alone am I ):

. Shadowy Form states that the friendly nightmare should have been able to be targeted

. According to p42 all that is required to be able to be targeted is a LoS (so far we all agree )

However there is a little conundrum:

In terms of Targeting, p14 says that if there's LoS a model can be targeted, yet stating later that if after measuring it is not in range it is not a legal target. So in the particular case of a melee strike, since we know in advance the range thanks to pre-measuring, this means we also know the friendly nightmare not to be a legal target, and I think this is why it disqualifies that nightmare for the purpose of Shadowy Form.

Pfffioooouuu, feels like I'm presenting a court case !

[Definitechoice]

Yes you're right my argument wasn't good

Like Wodschow I agree that RAW is as you write. But as he mentioned the rule hasn't changed in the new rulebook and therefore the previous ruling from Keltheos should still stand as it was clarifying that point. I guess the book should have a particular mention of melee in the strike sequence, something like that in case of melee strike, if the potential target is known not to be in range (since we can pre-measure the melee) this model is unelligeable as a target for that strike, which was Keltheos point.

As a Dreamer player I prefer the more tactical necessity of having to put my bear not anywhere within 3" of Dreamer in order to protect it, but at the right spot.

I'm not sure the marshalls will rule again on this point though as it does seem to have been resolved in the forementioned threads (well, at least regarding the Shadowy Form issue, since the rules haven't changed, as opposed to the One Master sequence).

I would contend that the ruling doesn't stand because nothing related to that ruling was included in the Rules Manual, and the rules have indeed changed. Legal target wasn't a term in the first rulebook, as far as I can recall. Unlike the previous examples I cited(burying and interrupting activations), they chose to reinforce the primacy of the general Strike Sequence instead of differentiating melee and ranged strikes or adding a clause that a melee strike requires a Legal Target.

I too prefer having to actually worry about the placement of my nightmares, but I also prefer the Dreamer to not die on replace.

Actually there's a little thing which kinda supports the Keltheos ruling (I'm not leaving this one alone am I ):

. Shadowy Form states that the friendly nightmare should have been able to be targeted

. According to p42 all that is required to be able to be targeted is a LoS (so far we all agree )

However there is a little conundrum:

In terms of Targeting, p14 says that if there's LoS a model can be targeted, yet stating later that if after measuring it is not in range it is not a legal target. So in the particular case of a melee strike, since we know in advance the range thanks to pre-measuring, this means we also know the friendly nightmare not to be a legal target, and I think this is why it disqualifies that nightmare for the purpose of Shadowy Form.

Pfffioooouuu, feels like I'm presenting a court case !

Shadowy Form only requires the nightmare to be targeted, and not to be a legal target. An errata to Shadowy Form requiring the nightmare to be a legal target would be the easiest way to resolve all of this and would not have an impact on the general rules the way Keltheos old ruling does.

[poulpox]

Shadowy Form only requires the nightmare to be targeted, and not to be a legal target. An errata to Shadowy Form requiring the nightmare to be a legal target would be the easiest way to resolve all of this and would not have an impact on the general rules the way Keltheos old ruling does.

That's right, or add in the rules that a non-legal melee target cannot be targeted (although... it does seem self-explanatory )

[Keltheos]

So in the particular case of a melee strike, since we know in advance the range thanks to pre-measuring, this means we also know the friendly nightmare not to be a legal target, and I think this is why it disqualifies that nightmare for the purpose of Shadowy Form.

This.

And in case it needs to be clearer:

UPDATED

Spot Errata/FAQ addition: Replace Shadowy Form description with "This model cannot be targeted by an enemy Action while it is within 3" of a friendly Nightmare that could be targeted by the Action or could be a legal target of the Action if it was a melee attack."

So, in the case of the Ikiryo attacking the Dreamer:

• Ikiryo declares Dreamer as a target.
  
• Ikiriyo checks LoS to Teddy. Teddy is in LoS and can be targeted.
  
• Ikiriyo checks melee range to Teddy. Teddy is not in Ikiryo's melee range, therefore Teddy cannot be a legal target.
  
• Ikiriyo continues Strike against The Dreamer.
  

Pfffioooouuu, feels like I'm presenting a court case !

You and me both, brother.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Keltheos
Clarified faq/errata item

[Ratty]

Quote:

Pfffioooouuu, feels like I'm presenting a court case !

You and me both, brother.

A court case with a Teddy in the Witness stand, and a jury of puppets (or was that muppets).

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

A court case with a Teddy in the Witness stand, and a jury of puppets (or was that muppets).

Judge. Not witness.

[Ratty]

Judge. Not witness.

I wasn't talking about you.. I was talking about the Teddy that was just standing there watching the Dreamer get battered by a mad dead bint.

[Keltheos]

In that case the Teddy's more the court reporter.

"Can you repeat that back for the court?"

Teddy: "aaaaugh, ahhh, Teddy, help meeee!!!"

"Thank you."

[nix]

Keltheos,

I think (my opinion only) that the problem comes up when the difference is made between ranged and melee strikes. A strike (ranged or melee) uses the same language, but people are understanding the results differently based on the type (ranged vs melee).

For example, in your example Ikyro could be replaced by Nino, and the third bullet is changed to ranged strike range, and the ruling still works. By the wording in the strike sequence (pg 42 rules manual) any target that is out of range (any range) is not a legal target. In the case of Melee, the understanding is the Dreamer can be re-targeted. In the case of ranged, the understanding is the strike fails.

Unfortunately I am not sure there is a clean way to fix this. I can see my local rules lawyers using your quote on Legal Target and combining it with pg 42 to treat ranged attacks the same way.

As I understand, the intention is as follows:

• If Dreamer is within 3 inches of a nightmare
  
  • Non-Melee attacks will fail if the nightmare is not in range but is in LOS.
    
  • Melee Attacks can target Dreamer if the nightmare is out of range
    
  • Melee Attacks must target nightmare if it is within range
    

Is that correct?

[Keltheos]

Your bullets are correct.

Keeping a taller Nightmare (Teddy) within 3" of the Dreamer pretty much ensures that he can't be targeted by Actions at range. It's when a model gets into melee and maneuvers in such a way to keep the Nightmare out of LoS and/or melee range that it can bypass Shadowy Form.

And note, this doesn't mean the Actions 'fail'. The Dreamer cannot be declared a target in the first place. You declare your intention to target the Dreamer, then check if he can be a target (p.14: LoS then special circumstances, then Talents/Spells). If he can't be a target you move on. Note at no point in the above are we checking range to the Dreamer from the acting model. That comes after determining he could be a target.

[nix]

I cannot wait to see:

1. How large your sig is by the end of this week
   
2. How small the font will be in your sig by the end of this week.
   

[Keltheos]

Me too. 500 chars max, so we'll see.

[Ratty]

Me too. 500 chars max, so we'll see.

Yeah I hit that a while back... it's quite annoying. I really need more.