Showgirls: Colette's Promt

[Anselmus]

Hi there,

 

had my first game of M2E last night. I played (apart from other models) Colette and a Coryphee Duet. 

 

Since Corlette has 3 APs is it possible to cast Prompt three times on the Duet and make it attack three times out of its actual activation? 

This seems kind of overpowered.

 

Gtx
A

[Fetid Strumpet]

That factor I feel doesn't matter, because the range isn't important, the sentence ends by saying there is no engagement. It doesn't matter if Paralyze and the FAQ disagree on what distance 0 means, because the rest of the sentence clearly states that you have NO engagement range, thus clarifying the both the intent of the Rule and the RAW.  It wouldn't matter if the FAQ tomorrow said that 0" engagement range = table wide engagement range, because the end of the sentence wasn't changed. No engagement range = no engagement range. A model must be within it's own engagement range in order to make a   attack. If you have no engagement range you cannot be within your own engagement range and therefore cannot make a   attack.

[Soul Puppet]

That factor I feel doesn't matter, because the range isn't important, the sentence ends by saying there is no engagement. It doesn't matter if Paralyze and the FAQ disagree on what distance 0 means, because the rest of the sentence clearly states that you have NO engagement range, thus clarifying the both the intent of the Rule and the RAW.  It wouldn't matter if the FAQ tomorrow said that 0" engagement range = table wide engagement range, because the end of the sentence wasn't changed. No engagement range = no engagement range. A model must be within it's own engagement range in order to make a   attack. If you have no engagement range you cannot be within your own engagement range and therefore cannot make a   attack.

Which is the logical conclusion but I need a rules quote to back it up and can't find one!

[Myyrä]

There is no rule saying you have to be engaged to make  attacks.

[r4st4f4n]

The relevant text for this discussion is on page 52 of the big rule book:

 

 

You cannot make a melee attack if you are not within your engagement range, and the rules for Paralyzed say you do not engage enemy models while you have the condition.

 

 

As a personal observation on the action Prompt, I tend to find that Obey type effects like Prompt are more powerful than if they had a damaging attack action on masters, if that action has a decent range. The reason I have found this to be so is that it is a force multiplier that can be used very effectively and with versatility. Lets examine Zoraida's hyper movement from animal shape. She can take two actions to teleport a great distance, but if she does she can't interact. Prompt allows Colette to just target a model within 10" move is 3" and then just drop a marker. She herself has to move minimally to project massive amounts of power in that way.

 

Additionally comparing it to a melee master is just not really fair because that Melee master not only has to maneuver and put themselves in theoretical danger, and can be blocked or diverted, they physically have to be where they want to threaten in order to project power. Additionally consider that the bigger melee models are prime to be abused in this way. Lady J and Howard's melee attack are about equal in deadliness, if you survive a charge by Lady J you know at least she won't attack you again until next turn. In a crew with Prompt Howard can nimble up to you, flurry, and if you survive Prompt can give Howard between a max of 3 to 6 more attacks. and if any of them remove you as a threat Prompt can then jump to another model somewhere else up to 10" away from Colette.

 

It was something I found during the beta that masters that could just effectively give their AP to other models within a long range, especially if those masters were difficult to remove from the board, were often more effective that masters that just had great attack actions.

 

It's one of the reasons that almost all Obey effects not only require a suit, but also prevent you from taking more than one attack action via the Obey. Ultimately while I wasn't surprised that Prompt didn't prevent multiple attack actions I was surprised that it didn't require a suit.

 

Its going to take awhile though to truly gage where any particular master lies along the power axis, and even with prompt, while I think it is one of the most, if not THE most powerful abilities in the game, it remains to be seen in the long run if Colette's weaknesses make up for it. at this point wave 2 is just still too new to really have a hard gage on it, and my views I don't say are 100% fact, just what I've come to experience.

Prompt is Friendly models only, IMO, far from what real Obey can do to both friends and enemies Ca7 vs Wp: suicide, discard own markers, attack friends, waste position, lose Horror Tests, willing Lure...

[DocSchlock]

 

There is no rule saying you have to be engaged to make  attacks.

Any time a model would be in range of a attack, they are within engagement. If you are not in engagement, you can't be in range of a attack.

Paralyze says no engagement. You thus can't be within range of the attack, thus you can't make the attack.

[Soul Puppet]

There is no rule saying you have to be engaged to make  attacks.

...and you can therefore can make   attacks when in base contact and Paralyzed, if Prompted/Obeyed to do so.

 

BUT the wording of Paralyzed saying you are not engaged at 0" contradicts the FAQ 'within' as already stated, which leads me to believe that the intention was originally that no  attacks could be made. Of course, the fact that  attacks are not mentioned kind of leads me to believe that there was a bit of an oversight.

 

You see why I'm confused???

[Soul Puppet]

Any time a model would be in range of a attack, they are within engagement. If you are not in engagement, you can't be in range of a attack.

Where does it say this in the book? Help!

[DocSchlock]

 

BUT the wording of Paralyzed saying you are not engaged at 0" contradicts the FAQ 'within' as already stated

Why can't Paralyze say that? Can Conditions not make their own rules exceptions?

[DocSchlock]

 

Where does it say this in the book? Help!

Pg 48, small rulebook:

 

"Every model has an "engagement range" equal to the distance of its longest range

Close ( ) Attack. Models are engaged with each other if either model is within the

engagement range of the other and at least one of the models has LoS to the other.

Engagement goes both ways; if an enemy model is within a model's engagement

range, both die enemy and the model are engaged with each other. Models are

never engaged widi models that are friendly to them."

This is the important part:

"engagement range" equal to the distance of its longest range

Close ( ) Attack

You can't be within range of any Close Attack without also being in Engagement range. Period.

[Soul Puppet]

The wording says "and will therefore not engage enemy models" which indicates to me that it is backing up a rule already written elsewhere, rather than creating a new one.

 

I guess I'm just over thinking the whole thing.

[Soul Puppet]

Pg 48, small rulebook:

 

"Every model has an "engagement range" equal to the distance of its longest range

Close ( ) Attack. Models are engaged with each other if either model is within the

engagement range of the other and at least one of the models has LoS to the other.

Engagement goes both ways; if an enemy model is within a model's engagement

range, both die enemy and the model are engaged with each other. Models are

never engaged widi models that are friendly to them."

This is the important part:

"engagement range" equal to the distance of its longest range

Close ( ) Attack

You can't be within range of any Close Attack without also being in Engagement range. Period.

I'm still lost. The FAQ says base contact is 'within' 0" therefore if your  attack has range 0" you are engaged when in base contact. It is only in the wording of Paralyzed where this is overruled.

[DocSchlock]

 

It is only in the wording of Paralyzed where this is overruled.

Just like everything in the game, one rule can override another.

To be clear, 0" engagement range is still engaging models in BTB. It's only the wording of Paralyze that makes this not true for Paralyzed models. Just like how Defensive says it falls off at the beginning of the next activation, or Poison / Burning tick down at the end of turn; they are specific rules to specific conditions.

[Soul Puppet]

But it still doesn't say you can't make  attacks, just that you aren't engaged. The fact that under normal circumstances your longest  range is also your engagement range does not exclude you from hitting someone.

[DocSchlock]

Actually, I don't have an answer for that. I always thought of the two as inextricable, but you are right, maybe engagement can be divorced from attack range. Maybe that's the specific rules override in Paralyzed?

[binkys]

Is it possible that you do not need to be engaged in order to make a  attack, but the "You do not engage" clause is so that a model in base to base with an enemy model is allowed to walk away from it without triggering a disengaging strike(Done when moving out of a models engagement range.  If in b2b contact, they would still have been engaged).   This would also allow models that do not have an  attack to shoot while in base to base with the paralyzed model.

[PositronMike]

The rules for engagement specifically state that you are never engaged with friendly models. To those stating that you must be engaged to make a  attack this means that friendly models cannot make  against each other. As obey does not change who you consider to be friendly this would mean that you can never obey an enemy model to make a  attack against another model in the opponents crew.

 

As I don't believe that this is correct you must be able to make  attacks when not engaged and therefore able to make  attacks when paralysed.

[r4st4f4n]

The rules for engagement specifically state that you are never engaged with friendly models. To those stating that you must be engaged to make a  attack this means that friendly models cannot make  against each other. As obey does not change who you consider to be friendly this would mean that you can never obey an enemy model to make a  attack against another model in the opponents crew.

 

As I don't believe that this is correct you must be able to make  attacks when not engaged and therefore able to make  attacks when paralysed.

This untangles part of the current engaging doubts, thanks

Fact that Paralyzed explicitly states you have 0 Melee range still stands, though

[PositronMike]

This untangles part of the current engaging doubts, thanks

Fact that Paralyzed explicitly states you have 0 Melee range still stands, though

As paralysed states you have 0" melee range and base to base contact is defined as 0" range per the FAQ I would surmise that paralysed models are able to be prompted/obeyed to make  attacks on targets in base to base contact.

[Rob Lo]

The rules for engagement specifically state that you are never engaged with friendly models. To those stating that you must be engaged to make a  attack this means that friendly models cannot make  against each other. As obey does not change who you consider to be friendly this would mean that you can never obey an enemy model to make a  attack against another model in the opponents crew.

 

As I don't believe that this is correct you must be able to make  attacks when not engaged and therefore able to make  attacks when paralysed.

 

Okay, this was one hell of a brain twisting thought to wake up to. I'm going back to bed til someone works this all out. As it stands now, the rules for engagement, 0" engagement, and paralyzed are at odds with each other, or at the very least.. clear as mud.

[PositronMike]

I think the problem is arising from the way paralysed was written. I assume the rule was written from the consideration of a model performing actions in it's activation rather than considering out of activation actions. The wording for paralysed taken from earlier in the thread is

 

 

 

A model with the Paralyzed Condition generates no AP and can declare no Actions during its Activation (not even 0 Actions which cost no AP). The range of all    Actions a model has is considered 0 while it is affected by the Paralyzed Condition, and will therefore not engage enemy models

 

If the intent was for a model to be unable to take actions during its activation and to not engage models whilst suffering from the paralysed condition it could be written better as

 

 

 

A model with the Paralyzed Condition generates no AP and can declare no Actions during its Activation (not even 0 Actions which cost no AP). In addition  model  affected by the Paralyzed Condition does not engage enemy models

 

If the intent was for the model to be unable to take actions during its activation and to not make  attacks outside of its activation whilst suffering from the paralysed condition it could be written as

 

 

 

A model with the Paralyzed Condition generates no AP and can declare no Actions during its Activation (not even 0 Actions which cost no AP). The range of all    Actions a model has is considered - while it is affected by the Paralyzed Condition, and will therefore be unable to be used

 

The use of - is better than 0 as 0 is defined as base to base contact whilst - would mean that it has no range.

[Bengt]

My guess at the intent of Paralysed is that the paralysed model is not supposed to make disengaging strikes or stop an enemy from using  . If the intent was stop Obey/Prompt type of effects it would have said so or perhaps said that all its actions' range was 0. What feels like the "unforeseen consequence" of the current wording is that the paralysed model can't be prompted to make  attacks at their normal range.

[sassylady]

In a game I had Colette prompted Howard Langston to decapitate 34ss worth of my models in one activation. I wouldn't have minded so much but he was paralysed at the time! And what did Colette do, she stood 10" away laughing, lets see Vic of Blood do THAT!!

Ah, love Colette....trying very hard to keep to my Guild and no go running back to her! 

 

*must play other crews!*

[Ausplosions]

There is ZERO, ZILCH, NONE, NO evidence that you HAVE to be engaged to make a attack. 

 

If you did, friendly models could never, ever use attacks against other friendly models. As they are never considered engaged. 

 

 

 

A paralyzed model, in BtB with another model, has an engagement range of zero, and are never considered engaged. They can make attacks in this situation though, because there is NO REQUIREMENT to be engaged to make melee attacks. 

 

 

 

That is RAW. If the intention was something different, then it needs an errata.

[r4st4f4n]

There is ZERO, ZILCH, NONE, NO evidence that you HAVE to be engaged to make a attack.

If you did, friendly models could never, ever use attacks against other friendly models. As they are never considered engaged.

A paralyzed model, in BtB with another model, has an engagement range of zero, and are never considered engaged. They can make attacks in this situation though, because there is NO REQUIREMENT to be engaged to make melee attacks.

That is RAW. If the intention was something different, then it needs an errata.

I agree on the engagement rule, but it says that Melee Attack range (///) becomes 0, not engagement range(engagement becomes just "no"). Do you hit someone in Btb, if your attack has a range of 0? And, most important to me, why isn't ranged attack impeded by the paralysis as well(assuming it actually impedes a melee attack, Btb questioning aside)?

[Mastershake]

Prompt is Friendly models only, IMO, far from what real Obey can do to both friends and enemies Ca7 vs Wp: suicide, discard own markers, attack friends, waste position, lose Horror Tests, willing Lure...

 

You actually can't make a model discard friendly scheme markers, there is no action for it, only enemy.  That's neither here nor there, just a little technicality. 

 

In regards to prompt, I pointed out in the beta at least once the ability seemed stupid compared to similar abilities and made Colette a Prompt bot, but hey, it's in print now so what is there to do?

 

The big point of confusion for me was Lucius and his orders.  Lucius has a pretty good range and with the right suit it can effectively give more than 1AP, but needing a 7 to go off and being only usable once per turn per target, less range unless it has the Guardsman keyword and limited to only minions just makes it strictly worse in the majority of games and it's really his whole gimmick.  I'm just kind of stunned an ability that always gives an effective 2AP (push + action) and has no restriction on model types also got away with a longer range.

 

Nothing is quite as much fun as being shot 5 times by the same December Acolyte on the first turn because not being slow and discarding your hand is apparently an option you shouldn't have when fighting Colette per whoever the hell decided she needed to keep prompt.