Paralyzed and Obeying Close Attacks

[DocSchlock]

 

A friendly model A is base to base with enemy model B. A fails a horror duel caused by an effect outside of its activation, becoming Paralyzed, reducing the range of its attacks to 0 and "not engaging" per the rulebook definition of Paralyzed.

A gets Obeyed to attack B with a Attack, since the requirement to make the attack is in fact being in range of the attack, not being in engagement. Base to base is 0", so the model is still in range for the Close Attack, but will obviously not make disengaging strikes since it is prohibited from engaging.

Is there a flaw in this logic I'm missing or is this valid / intended? 

Edited September 18, 2015 by DocSchlock
Fix for Paralyzed dropping off at the end of an activation

[Myyrä]

That abomination of a rule should just be errated in my opinion.

[Dirial]

That abomination of a rule should just be errated in my opinion.

Justin, what the Otter of Truth tries to say: The rules for the Paralyzed condition could use some clear-up, or preferrably some re-wording, to make their interaction with melee and out-of-activation effects more clear. Also, there is some cognitive disconnect between the rules and the fluff of paralyzing a model. Please consider an elaborate FAQ, or a re-wording errata. Thank you for your attention, and keep up the good work.

[Dogmantra]

I'm pretty sure a range of 0" means it can only target itself (but then of course, you can't attack yourself).

Consider the paragraph explaining the paralysed range reduction, the exact wording is: "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."

Since you engage any enemy model that is in range of a attack and the above sentence says that a paralysed model will not engage anyone, it implies that even models in base contact are out of range.

This doesn't feel super definitive to me, unfortunately.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Dogmantra

[solkan]

Engagement isn't a requirement for making attacks.  That 'therefore' in the Paralysis rules really should be a "further more", or at best "and so we think it's only fitting that also". 

 

 

[DocSchlock]

I'm putting this up here in hopes it gets seen for November's errata.

Edited September 19, 2015 by DocSchlock

[Ludvig]

I think the explicit "will not engage enemy models" makes it clear that you can't take an Ml action, though I concur with Dogmantra that it's not as clear as it could be. I've always thought the way Paralyzed worked was a bit clunky as a result of allowing things like the Squee! trigger to still let a gremlin escape while paralyzed, but it is what it is.

As already stated (or because the forum jumbles the order in these threads) engagement is NOT a requirement for making melee attacks, just for disengaging strikes and randomizing when shooting. Only range and LoS is required for melee attacks.

[Ludvig]

There should be an old discussion on this. The arguments boil down to basically your two above. 

Do note that if you get paralyzed during your own activation you only end the activation, paralyze doesn't stick around.

[Philosfr]

I think the explicit "will not engage enemy models" makes it clear that you can't take an Ml action, though I concur with Dogmantra that it's not as clear as it could be. I've always thought the way Paralyzed worked was a bit clunky as a result of allowing things like the Squee! trigger to still let a gremlin escape while paralyzed, but it is what it is.

[oryxwild]

Another question, but related - You can in fact be obeyed to shoot while paralyzed, although you cannot make a melee action against someone 1/2'' away, yes?

[Woo]

Being obeyed to shoot while paralyzed is fine (as long as the shooting attack isn't a projectile attack if the model is engaged).

It's not so much melee actions, but Close Attack actions that can't reach the target if it is half an inch away.

"The range of all [close attack] Actions a model has is considered 0 while it is affected by the Paralyzed Condition, and will therefore not engage enemy models." (M2E Rulebook, p.52)

Hope that's helpful,

Woo.

[oryxwild]

Close attack and melee are the same thing, aren't they? My understanding of a "close attack action" is that it's an attack action that has a claw symbol and a range number. 

 

Thanks for clarifying... a sort of strange rules quirk, but good to know since I run nurses and Bete pretty frequently

[Astrella]

Close attack and melee are the same thing, aren't they? My understanding of a "close attack action" is that it's an attack action that has a claw symbol and a range number. 

 

Thanks for clarifying... a sort of strange rules quirk, but good to know since I run nurses and Bete pretty frequently

A melee attack is one that has the Ml prefix. Most claw attacks are also Ml attacks, but there are exceptions. E.g. Perdita has a Sh claw attack.

[Woo]

It seems odd at first, but it's part of what makes the system so effective.

Not all Close attacks are Melee, some are Casting attacks (e.g. Pandora's Self Loathing), and some Shooting attacks can be used as either Close attacks or Projectile attacks (e.g. Perdita's Peacebringer). It's also worth noting that some Casting attacks are neither Close attacks nor Shooting attacks, (e.g. Jakob Lynch's Play for Blood).

Cheers,

Woo.

[Myyrä]

Close attack and melee are the same thing, aren't they? My understanding of a "close attack action" is that it's an attack action that has a claw symbol and a range number. 

 

Thanks for clarifying... a sort of strange rules quirk, but good to know since I run nurses and Bete pretty frequently

A melee attack is one that has the Ml prefix. Most claw attacks are also Ml attacks, but there are exceptions. E.g. Perdita has a Sh claw attack.

Actually, there isn't a game term melee attack. There are just Ml Attacks and Close Attacks. It's best to just to stick to those two, as the rule book also talks about being engaged in melee, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Ml Attacks.