Buhallin

My search-fu is superior! Rules Marshal confirms chained Onslaught

Let's rephrase this to simply "Can he attack both Neverborn" because the multiple attacks and AP really aren't relevant. Rules Manual, pg 40: "Models attacking down a flat elevation add the difference between the target's Ht and the elevation's Ht to their distance to the target" That should make both answers pretty solid. Assuming the Puppet is in base contact (or their bases are overlapping) with the Guilder, it is in range. Being 1" away the Doll is effectively 2" away, and out of range.

Obey does, but Alpha doesn't, so potentially Marcus can have his way...

Friendly models don't engage each other, but they're still in each others' melee range. This is an oversight in the RM, and has been clarified by Keltheos or Weird at some point, but I don't have the link handy. Edit: Found it: Terrifying clarification

Assuming you would be vulnerable to that terrifying (living model, not terrifying itself), not immediately. Per pg, 57, you have to take the Morale Duel when : - Start your activation in range - End an Action in range - Enter the range without fly or float - Charge a Terrifying model So most likely, if you can get the model out of the terrifying range before activating, you won't have to make the check.

I rarely worry about the Slit Jugular condition for manifesting no matter what I'm facing. It's by far the most fiddly, and has too big a chance to accomplish nothing other than meeting the requirement. Two turns for Face of Death, and manifesting early on Turn 3 still leaves you with a (1) and a (0). His Avatar accomplishes a lot of what it needs to just by being in position and letting things fail morale duels and run away to get hit by Wicked. I'll frequently use the (1) to move up more, then his (0) to boost the Terrifying, and just get him stuck in. Most models are going to need a 9+ to pass that, and that's a pretty hefty requirement. Hoffman is definitely an ugly matchup for Seamus in general, but I think he's very vulnerable to a few tricks. Onryo can be a good option to open up your Wp games, but they'll be about your only one so you have to make sure to protect it. Hoffman himself is not Immune to Influence though, and if you can beat him out on initiative and use a Sybelle-driven Alpha Lure to pull him away from his pack of bots, he's in trouble. Dead Rider is a good general choice as well, and can potentially accomplish the same thing. Separate The Hoff from his bots, break his ability to assimilate and the Protect chains, and he'll fold fast.

In the original rules, only the initial target had to resist - others were affected automatically. It changed in the Rules Manual to allow each affected model a resist.

Yes, this is a difference between them. But it's totally irrelevant. I've said this. Gunfighter allows a ranged weapon to be used for a disengaging strike because it says it can. Which you would know and not have to ask here... ...if you were bothering to actually read what people are writing. I quoted the exact rule for Gunfighter 3 posts before you wrote this, in response to your previous. You want to know why I'm getting snippy? The big reason is that you have yet to address a single actual rule, or apparently even read what other people are saying. The difference between the two is that Gunfighter explicitly says it can be used with disengaging strikes. Haunted Forest does not. I'm not sure how much more difference you can expect. It has nothing to do with Line of Sight, and I don't think anyone here has made that argument at all. I certainly know I haven't. It's also utterly irrelevant to the argument which was made at the very beginning, and I'm still making now. The core of the argument is simple, and consists of three parts: 1. Disengaging strikes happen when you leave melee range - never at any other time. 2. Melee range is defined by weapon range - nothing else. 3. Haunted Forest does nothing to change the melee range of a weapon. The rule for disengaging strikes defines when they occur - that's (1). It depends on a range, that's (2). If you can't meet the criteria defined by (1) and (2), you cannot make a disengaging strike. You said this is ambiguous - it's made up of 3 rules. One of those rules must have multiple possible interpretations for it to be ambiguous. If you could clarify which it is, it would probably help a great deal. Q's theory seems to revolve around (3), and he claims that there is some "effective" Rg for the weapon that is what actually matters. But there is no such rule. Same applies for charges (which I know he also doesn't like). A charge requires you to end in melee range, or it fails - being able to make a Strike isn't enough. If you charge something with a Waldgeist and make it into a connecting forest, but are out of melee range, your charge fails and you don't get to make the strike. I really don't know how many more times and how many ways I can try and say the same thing.

And I'll say again - that I agree with all that. When can you make a Strike? When the rules say you can. Haunted Forest doesn't let you interrupt your opponent's activation on the other side of the board and say "Yeah, I'm going to use Haunted Forest to take a Strike at you now" just cause you want to. When can you make a Disengaging Strike? When the rules say you can. Specifically, when you leave a model's melee range. That's it. It's not "unclear" when you can take a Disengaging Strike - there's nothing the least bit unclear about it. Just because Haunted Forest might be applicable during a Disengaging Strike (which, again, I agree it is) doesn't mean it gives you the opportunity to make a disengaging strike when you couldn't otherwise do it. I honestly don't know how to continue this discussion. You still have yet to actually cite a single rule - you've got huge interpretations of intent, a lot of "maybe it effectively sorta does this" that has absolutely support in the actual rules, and you've done nothing at all to try and address the rules definitions we do have and point to anything that changes those rules. So, I think it's time to leave it for the RMs, but I hope you'll at least acknowledge the tenuous nature of your argument, and not try and push it on anyone else without the RM's actually saying something.

You can, because the RM says you can: Pg 116, Gunfighter: "Models with this Ability can block disengaging models with the indicated Weapon." Interestingly, I think the disengaging strike would occur at the model's standard melee range rather than Gunfighter's 2" - while you can use the weapon, thereby using its Cb, its melee range doesn't seem to contribute to the model's melee range, so someone like Perdita would still trigger the Disengage via her Bash. How do you figure? They have the same ability. The question is not whether you can hit anything, or what weapon you can use. It's whether you can take a Disengaging Strike at all. Wind extends the Bisento to Rg 6. That means she'll get a disengaging strike when something leaves that range - 6". That's probably why Wind expires at the end of her activation. Leaving it at 6" would be a huge bubble which people could move in freely without drawing disengaging strikes. A Disengaging Strike is a Strike. You cannot use a Strike to cast a spell. Your melee range is not defined by spells. McMourning's melee range is 1, thanks to Surgical Implements. He has several spells that are melee spells and have Rg 2. You take the disengaging strike at 1" and you do so using the Surgical Implements - his ability to damage something beyond 1" with a melee attack is irrelevant. No, because they do very different things. Wind changes the Rg of her Bisento. Haunted Forest allows a model to ignore the range of its weapon, and LOS, when selecting a target. Very different effects, very different outcomes. <sigh> Here are the rules for Disengaging: Models cannot simply move past enemy models without risking an attack. To represent this, the moment a moving enemy model would leave a model's longest melee range, that model may interrupt the enemy's move and attempt to block it by making one melee Strike, called a disengaging Strike, targeting that enemy model. Melee range is well defined - we've addressed that. The ONLY WAY to trigger a disengaging strike is by leaving that melee range. Which part of that is ambiguous? What alternate meaning do you see for "A model's melee range is the Rg of any of its Weapons"? At what point does Haunted Forest change any of that - does it change the Rg, like Wind? No. Does it make a non- weapon ? No. "Ambiguous" means it has multiple possible meanings. You want it to work differently, so you're claiming it's ambiguous, but for an end result to be ambiguous, some part that contributes it must be ambiguous. Exactly which part of this flow - disengaging happens when leaving melee range, melee range is defined by weapons and weapons only - is poorly defined?

All perfectly valid questions to ask, Q. But they don't really have any bearing on the rules at hand. I'd suggest that another forum would be a more appropriate choice for this discussion, to avoid muddying what is a pretty clear rules interaction.

Pg 39, Melee Basics: "A model's melee range is the Rg of any of its Weapons." A model's longest melee range is very well and simply defined, and is in fact the longest weapon's melee range (or, more properly, the weapon with the longest melee range). Models don't have melee range which isn't defined by their weapons. I'd rather not get into intent, because it's too often (and rather clearly in this case) more about how the players wants it to be played than truly a divination of designer's intent. If Wyrd meant for her to be able to Wicked-strike anyone who left a forest, they'll change it so it works that way. But just looking at the rules as they stand, I'm having a very hard time seeing anything to support the distinctions you're trying to make. ---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

(1) No - they just stop at the board edge. The only way for a model to be lost off the edge of the board is if they Fall Back while already in contact with the edge. (2) No - one action, one blood counter. It just requires that you kill a model first. (3) Per pg 12, Talents are: Abilities, Actions, Triggers, and Weapons. Although for clarity, these apply to abilities which the weapon possesses, not the weapon stats themselves. (4) When she Mimics an attack, she gets the full stat line. It says she keeps her Cb, so that means she gets the melee/ranged characteristic, range, and damage line.

Can you elaborate on why you think they need a ruling, Q? Seems pretty clear, honestly: Disengaging, pg 38: "During its activation, a model may wish to disengage from one or more enemy models by moving out of opposing models' melee ranges" Melee Basics, pg 39: "Models in range of an enemy's melee Weapon, or with an enemy model within their melee Weapon range, are said to be engaged in melee, or engaged." Haunted Forest (Waldgeist): "This model's Claw Strikes can target models anywhere within 1" of a woods terrain piece while its base it touching the woods." Being engaged, in melee, and disengaging are all base solely on melee range. Haunted Forest does nothing to change melee range. Incidentally, I still think this applies to a charge, too - you can't charge a model in a forest, stop 6" away touching that forest, and then make an attack because if you don't end with the target in your melee range, the charge fails. So, I'm curious what you think the unresolved issues here are? And credit to Windlord Ryu - I just said everything he did, but with more citations

I'm a huge fan of the Hanged with either Seamus or Kirai, and more selectively with McMourning. Kirai fixes his speed limitation, and combining it with an Insidious Madness makes his very nasty for-the-rest-of-the-game abilities brutal as well as giving a consistent way to remove Immune to Influence. I know everyone gets wrapped around it only working against living models, but Seamus' bubble of -2 Wp makes resisting the big stuff harder and if he manifests the Terrifying 14 is very unpleasant against anything that is vulnerable to it.

I don't really like painting, just the results But I do try and do the best job I can, and agree with this general sentiment. It feels very much like the new paint line is aimed squarely at lower-end painters. Base paints are an improvement over Foundation, which were too thick, but still obviously intended to color over black rather than white primer (i.e. more for mass painting). Layers being pre-thinned is great for someone who doesn't want to bother doing anything but painting from the pot - but while you can always thin a paint, thickening it back up is much harder That makes the Layers useless for basecoating. The washes are handy in a few colors, but they were always limited use outside of Devlan Mud and Badab Black. The Dry paints... <sigh> I accept the need for it as a technique, but theming an entire range of paints around the technique is the wrong direction, IMHO, even before we again reach the "Useless for anything else". Textures are the ultimate in lazy, and give generally bad results on top of it while requiring a TON of paint to be slopped on. Overall, GW has retooled their paint line to their specific style of painting - which is entirely their right, but IMHO it's made the range far less useful for more serious painters. I'm experimenting with P3 and Reaper Master Series now, and while I have stocked up on certain colors of the old Citadel and a few of the new colors, I don't see myself sticking with them as a primary paint any more.

Correct. But don't think that's somehow weak. An unlimited range, LOS-only attack that deals 2 damage to a model every time it activates is remarkably powerful, especially against slow crews. I hate that little guy with a passion.

Models have to end as close as possible. If they can get as close by taking the stairs, they will - but if taking the stairs leaves them 12" away and the fall will leave them 10" away, they'll jump. Reference here.

Belles are just all-around useful. The ability to move one of your opponent's models out of position - or your own - is just huge. They can be a touch slow without Seamus to boost them, but Lure operates at enough range that it's not much of a problem. You're going to be running dogs with McM no matter what, and the combination of their -2 Df and Undress can make some very hard-to-hit targets much more manageable. I also much prefer the Grave Spirit with him as well - I don't think giving up the utility of a real totem is worth the extra body part or two you can get out of the Chihuahua. ---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ---------- Also - you might try proxying the Punks before you buy them. They can hit pretty hard, but they're slow, and that doesn't combine well with so much of their firepower coming out of Flurry. There are various ways to get around that, but it can be tricky to make them live up to their stats.

I'd agree with Ted. Once a model takes an action, it actually loses Harmless - it's not just there but inactive. This is supported by the various abilities that allow a model to "regain" Harmless. The timing is an interesting question. I can't think of any firm definition that we have on what it actually means to "perform" an action, so that may have to wait for an RM.

Reflect Magic essentially swaps the caster and the target. So the Belle would be pushed towards the Stalker, and the Stalker would have the opportunity for a melee attack if she ended close enough. "Towards" is a bit hard to state precisely, but a hunt through the forums should turn up some good discussion. Basically, the target has to try to move as close as possible to the caster of the Lure. It can go around terrain and the like, but can't just move 4" sideways to get 0.1" closer and call it "towards".

Hrm. I'd missed that. My best guess is that it's a fine reading of "target" in the rule itself - any effect that specifies "target" wouldn't work. Poison just says "affected model" so... Going to have to keep an eye on that, it's a pretty big change from my previous understanding.

While it would seem to make sense that they would, I don't think the rules support it. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, blasts cause nothing but damage. Nothing in Rafkin's rules do so. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, especially since I do think it's intended to cause poison, but IMHO a strict reading would require something like "Models damaged by blasts gain Poison."

The whole point of the different ranges is to allow most of them to be used straight from the bottle with minimal extra effort. That means no thinning or other manipulation. The different blacks may all be the same color, but they're different consistencies.