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

[rgarbonzo]

Engagement is for 4 primary purposes in the rules disengaging strikes, firing  attacks into engagement, charges can not be made while engaged, and engaged models cannot take  attacks. Paralyzed models have no engagement range therefore enemy models can charge another model, make  attacks against other models, they can walk away without provoking a disengaging strike, and any model  firing a  attack at the paralyzed model will not have to flip for randomization. A 0"  range is just that, 0", meaning the models' engagement range is now 0" as well (pg 48 little rule book, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence). The FAQ established that BTB is 0" so it is possible to attack with a paralyzed model that is in BTB with an enemy model, but a model that is in BTB can walk away without provoking a disengaging strike. (paralyzed models do not make disengaging strikes as they are not considered engaged pg 62 little rule book)

[asrian]

One side point of contention to your statement, Rgarbonzo. 

 

A ------> B, C

 

Target B is paralyzed (0 engagement range)

Target C (my guy) has a 1" or 2" engagement and is close enough to be engaged with Target B.

Target A fires at Target B, who doesn't have an engagement range, but is still inside of Target C's engagement, then I'd still have to randomize as I understand the rules.

 

The same would hold true if Target B had a 1" engagement (not paralyzed) and was 2" away from Target C (who has a 2" engagement). Both are still randomized as C is engaged with B and still within 2" for randomization.

 

If I'm incorrect about this, by all means correct me so I don't confuse the issue for others, or myself in future games.

[The Godlyness]

Yes ofc If two models have   and are both with each others and one gets paralyzed then you would still randomize as they are both engaged. But Rgarbonzo was stating that if a model with a   was paralyzed and in BtB with a model that does not have a   there would be no randomization since neither model is engaged.

[kmdl1066]

Engagement is for 4 primary purposes in the rules disengaging strikes, firing  attacks into engagement, charges can not be made while engaged, and engaged models cannot take  attacks. Paralyzed models have no engagement range therefore enemy models can charge another model, make  attacks against other models, they can walk away without provoking a disengaging strike, and any model  firing a  attack at the paralyzed model will not have to flip for randomization. A 0"  range is just that, 0", meaning the models' engagement range is now 0" as well (pg 48 little rule book, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence). The FAQ established that BTB is 0" so it is possible to attack with a paralyzed model that is in BTB with an enemy model, but a model that is in BTB can walk away without provoking a disengaging strike. (paralyzed models do not make disengaging strikes as they are not considered engaged pg 62 little rule book)

 

The stink of newbie is still strong on me, so I'm probably wrong, but here goes. 

What am I missing?  The paralyzed model may not be engaging the non-paralyzed model but the non-paralyzed model is almost certainly engaging the paralyzed model. (How many models have no attack at all?) Page 48 tells us that engagement goes both ways.  So both models are engaged with each other due to the non-paralyzed model's engagement.

II'm not seeing anything in your statement that says the non-paralyzed model  does not have a  attack, so  assuming that the non-paralyzed model has a  attack, going down the bullet points on pg 48 an I right in the following understanding:

The non-paralyzed model can walk away without provoking a disengaging strike because the paralyzed model has an override on the normal exactly at x is within x to say the paralyzed model has no engagement range at all.

Shooting at either the paralyzed or non-paralyzed model will require randomization because they're both engaged, courtesy of the non-paralyzed model.

The non-paralyzed model cannot charge because it is engaged due to "goes both ways."

The non-paralyzed model cannot make attacks because it is engaged due to "goes both ways."

[Kadeton]

Assuming the non-paralyzed model has a attack that's within range, you are correct. There are certainly models which do not.

[Adran]

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)?

Because the rules don't tell us to impede   attacks.

 

(if you want my personal opinion, the reason it reduces claw attacks to 0 inches is to stop a paralysed model being able to stop another model moving. It wasn't because of looking at interactions with Obey and such and thinking "well, its ok to shoot just not to let them use a sword". And since  have many more down sides than  that they gain this slight advanatge probably doesn't matter very much).

 

Ruleswise, the only rules about  are that they are used to determine engagement range and make disengaging strikes. I'd always played it that the text at the end of paralysed was a reminder that at range 0" you can't hit anything, but accept that a model in base contact is 0" away, and nothing says that it can't be obeyed to make that attack.

[Math Mathonwy]

This has been happening to me quite regularly with Paralyzed Pouncing models, btw, so it isn't like it is a complete edge case.

[Kadeton]

It would have been vastly simpler if Paralyzed just prevented the affected model from taking any Actions at all. With so many ways for models to act outside of their Activation, it becomes a confusing mess.

[Ausplosions]

I disagree, I think it is quite clear.

[Kadeton]

It's not ambiguous, if that's what you mean. It's perfectly possible to reach a logical interpretation that is supported by all the rules. However, the presence of this and similar threads serves as a good indication that it's not at all 'clear'.

The rules should not just be able to be figured out, they should make intuitive sense.