Shooting into melee and charge

[Cenotaph]

Sorry if this has already been answered but I searched and found nothing, so here goes.

Figure 'A' has a melee range of 2" and figure 'B' has a melee range of 1".

Figure 'A' is attacking figure 'B' as 'B' is in melee range of 'A', but 'A' isn't in melee range of 'B'.

Now if another figure wanted to shoot at 'B' would this be shooting into melee as 'B' is being attacked by melee but isn't itself in melee range.

Also in the same circumstance could 'B' charge 'A' as 'B' isn't in melee range even though it is already being melee attacked by the target of its charge.

[Headcase2]

Shooting at B would count as shooting at a model engaged in melee, so has a chance of hitting A.

Model B does not have model A in its melee range, so it can charge A.

[Cenotaph]

Thanks that's kind of what I expected.

One further question:

Two figures A1 and A2 are attacking B. A1 and A2 are both in melee range of B but neither are in melee range of each other.

A1 - B - A2

If you shoot at A1 is there a chance of hitting A2?

[Justin]

Thanks that's kind of what I expected.

One further question:

Two figures A1 and A2 are attacking B. A1 and A2 are both in melee range of B but neither are in melee range of each other.

A1 - B - A2

If you shoot at A1 is there a chance of hitting A2?

No.

[Wodschow]

Can anyone confirm what Lalo just said?

I was under the exact other impression.

While being in melee is well-defined, 'a melee' itself isn't.

I assumed that it included every model in melee range of the target, and every model within melee range of a model in melee range of the target, etc.

Okay that came out weird, as you don't really target any model in the first place. Which is the main reason I don't understand if Lalo is correct.

My interpretation would mean that if there's a chain of models alternating between friendly and enemy models then if you intend to target a model in one end you could end up aiming at something at the other end out of range of your gun. I still believe it's how it's supposed to be understood though and the problem I just described isn't really a problem as you won't ever bring that many models in a game of Malifaux.

Edit:

I think I sound confused and doesn't make sense.

But I would answer 'Yes' to Cenotaphs question as you don't target A1, nor A2 in the first place, you target the melee they're part of (which can include any amount of models aslong as there's a 'chain' of models mutually engaged in combat with one another between every model).

Edited July 5, 2010 by Wodschow

[tenabrae]

The rules don't really define what constitutes a 'melee' which is the condition for shooting models in..well.. melee.

I'd say it's all models in the chain, each enemy model in the intial target's melee range would bring its own opponents into the melee, which would then bring their opponents, etc.

[Justin]

Can anyone confirm what Lalo just said?

I was under the exact other impression.

While being in melee is well-defined, 'a melee' itself isn't.

I assumed that it included every model in melee range of the target, and every model within melee range of a model in melee range of the target, etc.

Okay that came out weird, as you don't really target any model in the first place. Which is the main reason I don't understand if Lalo is correct.

My interpretation would mean that if there's a chain of models alternating between friendly and enemy models then if you intend to target a model in one end you could end up aiming at something at the other end out of range of your gun. I still believe it's how it's supposed to be understood though and the problem I just described isn't really a problem as you won't ever bring that many models in a game of Malifaux.

Edit:

I think I sound confused and doesn't make sense.

But I would answer 'Yes' to Cenotaphs question as you don't target A1, nor A2 in the first place, you target the melee they're part of (which can include any amount of models aslong as there's a 'chain' of models mutually engaged in combat with one another between every model).

Pg. 52

"Models in range of an enemy's basic melee weapon, or with an enemy within their basic melee weapon range, are considered to be in melee."

Pg. 55

"Flip one card for each model in the melee..."

So, when you combine these two statements, I would rule when firing at a model that is "in melee" you flip one card for it, one card for each model it considers an enemy within its melee range, and one card for each model it considers an enemy who's melee range it is within.

So, in the case of:

A1--B--A2

Where A1 is the target of the shooting attack (and A1 is within melee range of B but not A2) I would say you only flip cards for A1 and B.

However, if B is the target of the shooting attack (and it either has A1 and A2 in its melee range OR is within the melee range of A1 and A2) I would say you flip cards for all three.

However, I do admit that the language the book uses on page 55 reference a general sort of melee rather than melee ranges, which is a term that is not very clearly defined by the book, so I could be totally off. But I went with what interpretation was there. At least, that's how we've always played it.

[Lorenz]

I think that if A is in melee with B and B is in melee with C and D and you shoot at A you need to shoot at all 4 models because A is in melee with B and B is in melee with C and D all are in melee

[macgowan]

Sorry Lorenz, Lalo's right. He quoted the rules and everything. It depends on whom you target. Any models in melee with your target are potential, whaddya call them, "new" targets after randomization.

A - B - C

I'm on B's crew. A and C are opponents. I wanna shoot something. What to do?

Shoot my own guy.

If I target A, then A and B could get hit. 50% chance it's me.

Same deal with C.

If I target my own guy, there's a 1 in 3 chance it'll hit my dude. It'll probably hit a bad guy.

[Lorenz]

ok I see what you are saying sorta I reread it but I am still on the fence here

[Q'iq'el]

I'm not sure if the rules distinguish melee as clearly as Lalochezia presented it though.

Using his notation, if A1 is in melee with B, and A2 is in melee with B, but not with each other, and you shoot A1, then you determine who A1 is in melee with (. Because B becomes a part of the target group, you check if it isn't in melee with anyone else. B is in melee with (A1 and A2), so in the end you get one big melee, so no matter which of the models you shoot, it's 1/3 chance you get it (bar ht3 models etc.).

I agree with Lalo that the rules are not explicit, but because we're told that melee is really a big swirl of movement and a bullet can hit anyone, even if the miniature is initially out of LoS and impossible to target, then an interpretation which treats every mini in melee as a part of the swirl seems more RAI to me.

Or to put it differently - rules do not tell you when to stop checking who's in who's melee range, so you check everyone and stop until you have no more new models in melee range.

[Wodschow]

Pg. 52

"Models in range of an enemy's basic melee weapon, or with an enemy within their basic melee weapon range, are considered to be in melee."

Pg. 55

"Flip one card for each model in the melee..."

So, when you combine these two statements, I would rule when firing at a model that is "in melee" you flip one card for it, one card for each model it considers an enemy within its melee range, and one card for each model it considers an enemy who's melee range it is within.

So, in the case of:

A1--B--A2

Where A1 is the target of the shooting attack (and A1 is within melee range of B but not A2) I would say you only flip cards for A1 and B.

This is where the logic breaks down, A1 is -not- the target of the shooting attack.. The undefined 'melee' that A1 is part of is the target.

However, if B is the target of the shooting attack (and it either has A1 and A2 in its melee range OR is within the melee range of A1 and A2) I would say you flip cards for all three.

However, I do admit that the language the book uses on page 55 reference a general sort of melee rather than melee ranges, which is a term that is not very clearly defined by the book, so I could be totally off. But I went with what interpretation was there. At least, that's how we've always played it.

Meep..

Edit: Actually the melee isn't the target either.. You just fire into the undefined melee and wind up targetting something.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Wodschow

[Justin]

Meep..

Edit: Actually the melee isn't the target either.. You just fire into the undefined melee and wind up targetting something.

I can see how the rules may read that way.

Like I said, the way they are written is definitely open to interpretation.

But it just makes more sense --to me-- to try to shoot an enemy and accidentally hit a friend than to fire blindly into a swirl of people.

Also, interpreting it that way raises some really weird rules questions. For example, let's say you declare you are firing into the melee and not an individual model in it. How do you *know* it's a melee? What if you measure after declaring only to find out that the models are a fraction of an inch further than their melee range? What are you left shooting at? Or do you let people measure melee ranges before deciding what to do? Which just isn't a good idea, as there is no premeasuring in this game.

If you interpret it the way I do then the answer to that question is simple: you are shooting at your initial target, as it is not in melee.

[Q'iq'el]

It's really a matter of customary solutions that appear once you interpret the rules one way or the other.

For example, models are usually in melee, because they've been fighting the previous turn - you know they are in melee to begin with and you only check who else is there.

If they weren't fighting but look like they are in melee, we over here check if it is a melee or not before we declare the intention to shoot the melee (so the shooter can still go for completely different target). It is not by the rules, but in my opinion it follows the logic of the rules:

1. Melee is not an individual model, but swirl of models fighting each other.

2. If you want to shoot one of those models, you have equal chances of hitting someone else and only big models are easier to hit.

3. Since it is a swirl of melee combat, you obviously know what it is before you chose to shoot it - implied permission to pre-measure the melee ranges (but not the range to the chosen target).

I feel it is RAI because the other solution creates a situation where shooting one model (the own model on the top of that!) may be more beneficial than shooting another (enemy!) and not because of terrain, positioning or model abilities, but because the shooting rules can be exploited to create such an effect. I.e. it is on verge of being gamey.

[Justin]

It's really a matter of customary solutions that appear once you interpret the rules one way or the other.

For example, models are usually in melee, because they've been fighting the previous turn - you know they are in melee to begin with and you only check who else is there.

If they weren't fighting but look like they are in melee, we over here check if it is a melee or not before we declare the intention to shoot the melee (so the shooter can still go for completely different target). It is not by the rules, but in my opinion it follows the logic of the rules:

1. Melee is not an individual model, but swirl of models fighting each other.

2. If you want to shoot one of those models, you have equal chances of hitting someone else and only big models are easier to hit.

3. Since it is a swirl of melee combat, you obviously know what it is before you chose to shoot it - implied permission to pre-measure the melee ranges (but not the range to the chosen target).

I feel it is RAI because the other solution creates a situation where shooting one model (the own model on the top of that!) may be more beneficial than shooting another (enemy!) and not because of terrain, positioning or model abilities, but because the shooting rules can be exploited to create such an effect. I.e. it is on verge of being gamey.

That pretty much sums it up.

One solution requires premeasuring. (and, in my opinion, raises other questiong like: how does rapid fire work?)

The other can potentially be exploited by targeting your own models.

Choose your poison. *shrug*

Edited July 6, 2010 by Justin

[Q'iq'el]

That pretty much sums it up.

One solution requires premeasuring. (and, in my opinion, raises other questiong like: how does rapid fire work?)

The other can potentially be exploited by targeting your own models.

Choose your poison. *shrug*

Well, that sounds like a bad spot to be in, but you omit the fact that there is some circumstantial material pointing one way rather than the other.

I.e. we've been told what shooting into melee rules try to simulate and it's not a situation where ultra-steady and cold blooded sniper calculates the odds of the bullet ricocheting from the cooks pan, governor's parrot and an old copy of "Nuts 4 Malifaux", thus hitting the opponent while aiming at an ally.

[Justin]

Well, that sounds like a bad spot to be in, but you omit the fact that there is some circumstantial material pointing one way rather than the other.

I.e. we've been told what shooting into melee rules try to simulate and it's not a situation where ultra-steady and cold blooded sniper calculates the odds of the bullet ricocheting from the cooks pan, governor's parrot and an old copy of "Nuts 4 Malifaux", thus hitting the opponent while aiming at an ally.

I omitted all circumstantial material because:

1) We could go back and forth all day from both sides.

and

2) The only material I care about when it comes to settling a rules debate...is the rules.

[Cenotaph]

This does raise another point which is if you target a figure in a melee that is at the limit of your range and it deviates to a figure that is beyond your weapons range what happens?

I would see it as a miss, bullet out of range situation. But if melee is a swirl of movement then this might not be the case.

[Wodschow]

Again I would say you don't target the model on the edge of the melee, but you fire into the melee which is in range.

It's a good question though, obviously you still flip a card for the models.

Rules seems to go like this:

Check LoS -> Target -> Check Range

Since firing into melee determines the target, my guess is that you would still have to check the range and in the case described it would indeed be a miss.

[Q'iq'el]

I omitted all circumstantial material because:

1) We could go back and forth all day from both sides.

Not really. If we accept the interpretation should reflect what the designers told us the rules try to simulate, only one option seems right.

and

2) The only material I care about when it comes to settling a rules debate...is the rules.

A position I'd take myself if not for the fact the ruleset is new, a work in progress in some areas. Since there are so many cases where the word of a Marshal makes a rule, there's nothing wrong with using it to extrapolate the rulings on the other dubious situations.

*Blows his stolen Guild Guard whistle as strong as he can in hope of attracting one.*

[Q'iq'el]

This does raise another point which is if you target a figure in a melee that is at the limit of your range and it deviates to a figure that is beyond your weapons range what happens?

I would see it as a miss, bullet out of range situation. But if melee is a swirl of movement then this might not be the case.

I believe we'd been told one can indeed target models out of sight and out of LoS when targeting melée. So it'd be a legal shot.

I'd post a link, but I'm posting from my phone. I'll edit it in later on, if still needed. (unless I remember it wrong.)

[Wodschow]

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.

[tenabrae]

I still don't think Lalo's interpret covers all the bases. The rule term used is 'melee' which isn't defined.

Best wait for an official response on this one.

[Cenotaph]

Of course one solution would be just to rule that when you fire into a melee there is a limit to how far from the intended target other potential targets can be. So for instance just say that all other models in direct melee combat with the intended target and within a radius of 1.5" may be hit. This would kind of make sense as the whole point of having a long melee range is to distance yourself from your victim.

Just thinking out loud

[Cenotaph]

One other hiccup

Consider this

A - B C - D

A is in melee combat with B, C is in melee combat with D. B and C aren't attacking each other, maybe they are allies, who knows. But B and C are in melee range of each other.

If I fire at B is there a chance I will hit C, or worse case D?

I have seen instances of multiple melee combats occuring in close proximity like this several times so it would be good to get a ruling.