Shooting into melee and charge

[tenabrae]

B and C aren't in a common melee in that example. They just happen to be in a melee nearby (unless A or D has either B or C in their melee range)

[Justin]

Been thinking about it a bit more..

I don't think your interpretation makes sense Lalo.

Consider following situation with four models:

A B

C D

Everyone is in each others melee range. A and B are from the same crew and C and D are from the opposite crew.

Now if model E friendly to C and D wishes to shoot at A the possible targets would be: A C D (not B!!).

This seems unreasonable to me.

Aiming at C would result in possible targets being: A B C (not D). Better for the one firing the gun, but also unreasonable to me. They're all right next to each other after all.

Let's exaggerate a bit, I swarm an enemy Ht2 model with four Ht3 models and one Ht2 model.

I aim at my own Ht2 model and odds for me hitting the enemy are slightly better than 50/50.

I do not think this is how it's intended.

Well, here's another potential abusive scenario from the other side:

"I'll shoot into that combat between Seamus and Lilith."

"What combat? Dude, they're like a foot apart."

"I can't tell, let's measure and find out!...7 inches, alright."

"I told you."

"Yeah, I know, but now I know Seamus's .50 cal is in range."

"Duuuude..."

[Q'iq'el]

Well, I understand there are different gaming groups out there, but that's taking a VERY bleak view on humanity, Lalo.

My experience:

A regular player given the choice to select target which will benefit his shooting the most, will typically do it, even if it seems unrealistic or against the RAI.

A regular player told to pre measure things will be very careful to do it only when necessary, because it is an exceptional situation.

I think the best way to ensure there's no premeasuring is to fix the rules in different place.

In other words, it already is important for multiple rules to detect the point at which models are entering melee range. We for example have to measure to nearby models to see if they get disengaging strikes when we try to sneak by. If we require every model to check if it entered melee at the end of its activation, and possibly mark that with a counter until melee combat is over, there will never be any need to premeasure who's in melee and who is not.

90% of the time it is clear anyway, because models tend to get in melee charging and striking their opponents. In these rare cases where entering melee combat was a movement-related mistake and the combat hasn't taken place yet it'd solve the issue quite elegantly.

[Justin]

Well, I understand there are different gaming groups out there, but that's taking a VERY bleak view on humanity, Lalo.

My experience:

A regular player given the choice to select target which will benefit his shooting the most, will typically do it, even if it seems unrealistic or against the RAI.

A regular player told to pre measure things will be very careful to do it only when necessary, because it is an exceptional situation.

I think the best way to ensure there's no premeasuring is to fix the rules in different place.

In other words, it already is important for multiple rules to detect the point at which models are entering melee range. We for example have to measure to nearby models to see if they get disengaging strikes when we try to sneak by. If we require every model to check if it entered melee at the end of its activation, and possibly mark that with a counter until melee combat is over, there will never be any need to premeasure who's in melee and who is not.

90% of the time it is clear anyway, because models tend to get in melee charging and striking their opponents. In these rare cases where entering melee combat was a movement-related mistake and the combat hasn't taken place yet it'd solve the issue quite elegantly.

An additional rule like the one you describe would be nice for a subsequent edition of Malifaux. But for the moment we have what we have.

And I think that somebody premeasuring like I described is about as likely as someone shooting his own model to gain a benefit. So it's a bit of a wash.

And the real danger of this particular bit of measuring is that you can change your mind on your course of action after doing so. So, for example, checking melee range while moving, you are committed to the move. Checking melee range when declaring you are shooting at a combat as you describe does not lock you into the action, because if there is no combat, you'll have to choose another action.

And the interaction I described is the most outlandish to prove a point: it can be taken that far with the RAW, less blatant attempts at annoying gamery will be far, far more common. Another example would be checking melee range to see if your model can move without triggering a disengaging strike. This could be done without ever alerting your opponent you were bending the rules.

[Q'iq'el]

Isn't the sequence action->declare target->execute, right? So even if you allow pre-measuring to check if the target is in melée or not, you still have to chose the action first. The shooter can change his target, if he discovers it's a melée, but he can't change his action to something else, so he's still spending 1 AP to learn that. If there are no alternative targets he still has to shoot into melée and can still wound his own characters.

Additionally, there's a good practice of measuring melée range from the characters rather than between them. I'm using it and every player I know does the same, because it makes it less abusive and less likely to cause arguments.

So if you have Seamus and Lillith 7" apart, measure 1" from Seamus, 2" from Lillith and see they are not in melée. You pre-measured for melee, but you didn't learn how wide is the gap between them.

Even if you have a better clue as to the actual range between them now, you'd also have a betted clue if you moved another mini and compared the distance moved with the gap. Alternative activation in Malifaux makes range guessing considerably less challenging than in other games, which is IMHO very good.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Q'iq'el

[Justin]

Isn't the sequence action->declare target->execute, right? So even if you allow pre-measuring to check if the target is in melée or not, you still have to chose the action first. The shooter can change his target, if he discovers it's a melée, but he can't change his action to something else, so he's still spending 1 AP to learn that. If there are no alternative targets he still has to shoot into melée and can still wound his own characters.

Additionally, there's a good practice of measuring melée range from the characters rather than between them. I'm using it and every player I know does the same, because it makes it less abusive and less likely to cause arguments.

So if you have Seamus and Lillith 7" apart, measure 1" from Seamus, 2" from Lillith and see they are not in melée. You pre-measured for melee, but you didn't learn how wide is the gap between them.

Even if you have a better clue as to the actual range between them now, you'd also have a betted queue if you moved another mini and compared the distance moved with the gap. Alternative activation in Malifaux makes range guessing considerably less challenging than in other games, which is IMHO very good.

Declaration of the action and the target are one and the same. As far as I know, anyway.

How can he shoot into melee if there isn't one?

The rules cover not having line of site, and not having range, they don't really cover what happens if what you're shooting at doesn't exist.

Further, a melee is never defined by the rules in any way other than pg. 52.

As I said, the premeasuring isn't just a problem for premeasuring for shooting, but also to see if you can move without a disengaging strike, or even make sure you ARE in melee range. So, on the whole premeasuring=bad.

At this point we're pretty much going in circles. It was a nice discussion, I hope a marshal pops in at some point.

[Q'iq'el]

At this point we're pretty much going in circles. It was a nice discussion, I hope a marshal pops in at some point.

Been blowin' that whistle for over a day now.

[Cenotaph]

Whilst on the subject of melee.

If you cast a Ranged spell into a melee do you determine the spells success or failure before or after you determine who if effects?

This is important as if I know it will hit a friendly I won't bother to cheat fate or might cheat fate to cause the spell to fail.

Maybe if I go tie myself to a railway line a marshall might come along?

[Ropetus]

If you cast a Ranged spell into a melee do you determine the spells success or failure before or after you determine who if effects?

Definitely determine target first. It is consistent throughout the rules that before making any Duels you must know who you target (and measure to see if you're even in range).

-Ropetus

[Justin]

Whilst on the subject of melee.

If you cast a Ranged spell into a melee do you determine the spells success or failure before or after you determine who if effects?

This is important as if I know it will hit a friendly I won't bother to cheat fate or might cheat fate to cause the spell to fail.

Maybe if I go tie myself to a railway line a marshall might come along?

Pg. 63 under spell casting:

Step 1 is "declare spell and target."

When firing into melee, target is determined randomly. Since target must be declared as part of the first step, I have always played that you determine target before doing the casting duel.

You'd probably have a little more luck simply making a new thread in the rules forum for these questions.