Firing into melee 'trick shots'

[Cadilon]

This came up recently in gameplay, so its not a hypothetical.

Scenario 1

A is in melee with 1. 1 has a melee range of 2". 2,3,4 are within 1's melee.

B has LOS with A and 1, but not 2,3,4. B targets 1 with a ranged attack.

Does firing into melee dictate that 2,3,4 are now valid targets despite not being in LOS with B? This greatly increases the chances that you'll hit an enemy instead of yourself, despite 3 of the targets not being in LOS. I know there are penalties involved, but for a ranged unit who might not have any other action, it might not be a bad play.

Scenario 2

A is in melee with 1.

B has LOS with A, but not 1.

Can B target A with a ranged attack for a chance to hit 1, who would not otherwise be a valid target because of lack of LOS?

Both of these scenarios seem to be in keeping with the rules for firing into melee, but I want to make sure I am not missing something.

Thanks.

[CrazyCarl]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure shooting into melee allows targeting of models that would otherwise be out of line of sight. It's not really a trick shot, it's to represent models swirling in melee combat.

[Vmag]

​Had a similar scenario as 1 above come up recently also. Thought we had the firing into melee rules down but now we're not so sure. Just to clarify the situation a little more to fit ours...

A and B are on the same crew, 1,2,3,4 are on the same crew. A is engaged with 1 but not 2,3,4. 2,3,4 are within melee range of 1. B shoots at 1. Obviously we would need to flip for target between A and 1 but looking at the RAW for firing into melee, we would also flip for 2,3, and 4 because they are within the targets melee range. Is this correct?

[Cadilon]

That's the way I read it.

[kasin666]

the bullet bounced off 1s thick skull hitting 3

[Mike3838]

Taking this to the extreme. A can only see B. B is in melee with 1,2,3, all of whom are out of LOS.

A shoots his own model B, but only has 25% chance to hit his friend as he also has to randomise for the 3 enemy models he could never have actually targeted? *That's* a trick shot!

Mike

[Ratty]

They are in a melee some of the time they will be trying to bash your guy in the head and therefore can be seen, just like some of the time your model will be out of sight trying to dodge. How many fights have you seen where everyone just stands stocks still and waits there turn to hit.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Ratty

[Vmag]

I guess where I'm coming from is not so much the fact that someone in melee can be hit if they are out of LOS but rather that models which are NOT engaged in melee can be hit by a shot fired into melee. Unless I'm misunderstanding what is considered to be melee. To me 'being in melee' refers to those models which are within the range of one or more opposing crew model's melee strike weapon. This is the same as being 'engaged'.

From my example above, A and 1 would be engaged (and therefore in 'melee'), however 2,3 and 4 are NOT engaged with A and therefore not in melee with A but are still viable targets when 1 is shot at by B. The 2, 3, and 4 models are included in the flips to see who is actually targeted only because the rules state (as I am understanding them now) that ALL models within the target's melee range (i.e. their melee strike distance) are viable targets. Initially we were understanding firing into melee to involve ONLY those models which are engaged, not all models within the target's melee strike range. THAT's what I'm trying to clarify (sorry for the caps, just easier to use emphasis this way while typing instead of switching to italics font).

To put this in a clearer example... The Steamborg is 2" away from Santiago (these two models are therefore engaged and in melee due to the Steamborgs melee range). There are three spiders 2" away from the Steamborg and directly (or as close to directly as possible) opposite from Santiago. The spiders and Santiago are NOT engaged nor are they in melee but they ARE within the Steamborgs melee strike range. Nino then makes a ranged strike at the Steamborg. So it is correct then to flip for Santiago, Steamborg, and each of the three spiders in order to determine the target of Ninos strike?

Following this; if Nino were instead to target Santiago the only models to flip to determine the actual target for would be Santiago and the Steamborg. So in this situation it may actually be better for Nino to fire at Santiago (and have a roughly 50% chance of targeting the Steamborg) and cheat as necessary if Santiago ended up as the target than it would be for Nino to target the Steamborg (and have a a roughly 20% chance of actually targeting the Steamborg).

[nix]

It seems like there is an undercurrent in the wider Malifaux community lately. This exact subject came up with some newer players in my gaming group recently as well.

Its a shameless plug, but I put together a lengthy explanation with RM page references on my blog to cover how shooting, targeting, and specifically firing into melee works. Hope this helps.

http://deadtau.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-does-that-ranged-stike-sequence.html

[micahwc]

They are in a melee some of the time they will be trying to bash your guy in the head and therefore can be seen, just like some of the time your model will be out of sight trying to dodge. How many fights have you seen where everyone just stands stocks still and waits there turn to hit.

Prior to the revolutionary war this seemed to be the way most wars were fought. Both sides line up and take turns shooting at each other.

[Vmag]

@Nix Thanks for the link, I plan to check out the rest of the blog soon. Pretty sure I've come across this previously from DakkaDakka. As for the question at hand though, I'm not entirely sure that the explanation provided quite covers what it was that I'm looking for. It's good and I appreciate the in-depth walk-through but I think I'm looking at a slightly different aspect of firing into melee.

I'm entirely fine with the concept of randomizing the target when firing into melee and I'm totally fine with the concept of hitting someone engaged in melee that is completely out of line of sight (and therefore not previously a legal target). The thing that is bugging me is the fact that models which are not engaged in melee whatsoever become legal targets for firing into melee and in fact it is tactically better to target your own model and thereby gain a better chance of actually targeting an enemy model than it is to target the enemy model straight away. (I just realized that in my example above the Steamborg would technically have two cards flipped due to its Ht 3 but my point remains, just the choice of models in the example was perhaps poor, replace Steamborg with any model that has a melee strike range of 2")

I'm perfectly fine if this is indeed what the intention was and how it is ruled. It just seems odd enough to me that I feel I must be missing something so I'm just looking for clarification that, provided the example above, this is exactly how the process would work. I can even justify, fluffily, to myself how such a thing could occur. But again, just looking to make sure that this is indeed how it is/was meant to be played since it opens a lot of different tactical possibilities for us.

Thanks!

[WookieeGunner]

Prior to the revolutionary war this seemed to be the way most wars were fought. Both sides line up and take turns shooting at each other.

True and in those engagements it would be possible to miss the guy you are aiming at and hit one of his buddies.

Which brings up an interesting point. If there are no enemy models in melee range of the target, but there are friendly models in range (for example a Gremlin gun line where the gremlins are base to base with no enemy models within say 4 inches) do you still use the Firing into Melee rules?

This actually matters in my group because we have players who will sometimes cluster gremlins so he can have So'mer/Slop Hauler heal them.

[nix]

I understand better (I think) where your coming from and what your asking. In fact, yes, per the rule it is sometimes better to target your own model than it is to target an enemy model. In your original example I believe it would have been better to target the Steamborg, but thats beside the point.

(better because the steamborg pulls more enemy models into melee than friendly because it includes all the enemy models within its 2 inch reach).

What your seeing is a situation where understanding and "gaming" the intricacies in the rules of the game is coming into effect. In this situation there needs to be a way to measure who is "involved" in a melee, and the game mechanic for doing so is a models melee range. Targeting a model with a large melee range that includes more enemy models than friendly models increases the chances of hitting an enemy model, even when that original target is friendly. This is a mechanical game issue vs an immersion game issue.

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

True and in those engagements it would be possible to miss the guy you are aiming at and hit one of his buddies.

Which brings up an interesting point. If there are no enemy models in melee range of the target, but there are friendly models in range (for example a Gremlin gun line where the gremlins are base to base with no enemy models within say 4 inches) do you still use the Firing into Melee rules?

This actually matters in my group because we have players who will sometimes cluster gremlins so he can have So'mer/Slop Hauler heal them.

Without enemy models there is no melee, so there would be no randomization.

[Cadilon]

True and in those engagements it would be possible to miss the guy you are aiming at and hit one of his buddies.

Which brings up an interesting point. If there are no enemy models in melee range of the target, but there are friendly models in range (for example a Gremlin gun line where the gremlins are base to base with no enemy models within say 4 inches) do you still use the Firing into Melee rules?

This actually matters in my group because we have players who will sometimes cluster gremlins so he can have So'mer/Slop Hauler heal them.

Nope. To use the Firing Into Melee rules of RM.pg.44, the target has to be in melee. Being surrounded by friendly models does not count as being in melee.

[Vmag]

@Nix. Thanks, I knew that was probably right and the way it is supposed to work, I just needed clarification since it seemed kinda odd. This happened to come up this last weekend and it just threw us for a loop, thought way too hard about it

As far as the 'better' target, that was just an arbitrary assumption that the 'borg needed to die and it'd be harder to target if there were more models within its melee range than there were actually engaged in the melee in question. I think my trip-up came from thinking that the melee range of a model represents only the actual reach from the base itself as opposed to a threat range that the model would be moving about within during the melee. In this latter sense it would be easier to imagine the 'borg happens to be toward the back of it's threat range (close to the spiders) when the shot occurs so the spiders could very well be hit by the shot (i.e. targeted). Again this is all just a fluff understanding of the rules as written to help visualize what's going on in the game world.

thanks again.

[CrouchingMoose]

Im still having trouble wrapping my head around the wording for firing into melee, and id like some clarification...

I understand the idea of firing at a model you have LoS to and hitting a different model thats behind a wall. I also get how you can use firing into to melee in order to hit something outside your range normally (since you draw los and range before figuring the firing into melee rules). What i dont get is how to determine what is included in the melee.

Currently, im under the impression that the "melee" includes the targeted model and all models the targeted model is within the melee range of and all models within the targeted models melee range.

Is this right? Or would it just be the targetted model and opposing models that meet the criteria i listed above. Basically would it be smart to shoot at a spa (spider) of mine that is engaging an enemy along with 2 other spiders, or would the odds be against me in that instance

Edited March 7, 2012 by CrouchingMoose

[Lucidicide]

My understanding is that if you're shooting at X, then you flip a card for:

• X
  
• All model's in X's melee range
  
• All enemy models that have X in their melee range (but weren't already flipped for).
  

As to the secondary question, if that spider has 2 other spiders in its melee and only 1 enemy... don't shoot at the spider.

[Vmag]

Yep, Lucidicide has it; cards are flipped for the target, every model in the target's melee range, and every model that has the target in its melee range.

@CrouchingMoose For your example it'd depend on how the SPA's were in relation to eachother since they only have a 1" melee range. If the models were arranged in a Y shape with the enemy model in the middle and SPAs on the top and bottom then you may have a better shot at hitting the enemy model if you targeted the bottom SPA than if you were to target the enemy model itself.

[CrouchingMoose]

Thanks...that clarified it a lot...i actually lost a game because my opponent said it wrong...i was laid out with 1 spider on one side of a model and an ec on the other ( not within range of each other though)...i shot at the ec and they made me flip for the ec, the model enganged with the ec and the spider because the spider was engaged with the model between it and the ec.

[Mergoth]

How many fights have you seen where everyone just stands stocks still and waits there turn to hit.

Two words. Historical Re-enactment.

[schristofersen]

So... I am very interested in this thread and perhaps i'm getting something wrong as, I thought I had it, and then I looked at Nix's blog. This sequence:

So, a Fire Gamin (ht 1) shooting a tot in melee with Hamelin would go like this:

1. I want to shoot the Tot

1a. I still wanna shoot the Tot

1a1. I have LOS to the Tot

1a2. Damn, the Tots in Melee

1a2a. Yup, he's in melee with Hamelin

1a2b. Flip Flip damn, I flipped lowest for Hamelin

1a2c. Now I'm shooting Hamelin

1a2d. Ok, lets shoot Hamelin

1a3. Damn, Hamlin's a bully and I can't shoot him

1b. Screw this, it doesn't matter any more... I just blew an AP

does it really work like that? I was under the impression the hit would happen despite Bully as the intended target was missed and Hamelin just got in the way. Otherwise you can tailor a shot to auto hit the intended target even if they are in Melee as the others will be out of range or other qualifiers that prevent the targeting. Perhaps i'm misunderstanding yet again.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

Two words. Historical Re-enactment.

Don't want to derail the thread more than it has been but... its an odd thing that in america it is often taught in schools that those silly Brits would have done better if they had not stood in lines and had instead hid behind trees and fired off shots like the clever americans. This is utter bull and all one really needs to do to see why is to fire an actual brown bess or charleville musket to see why as the muzzle variance is several feet at the distances most skirmishes took place at. Standing in a line and firing in ranks was a far superior tactic and was likely terrifying to face. Supply will win or loose a battle for you. Lessons for Malifaux might be in that someplace.

[CrouchingMoose]

@schristofersen: yes that is how it works under the current rules, because the shot is now now longer targetting the tot, but hamelin instead. and since hamelin is a bully, he cant be targetted by ht1 models, so the shot fails.

As for, the revolutionary war being lost, the brits would have easily won if they had been hiding but weren't due to it not being considered "honorable" to hide and that you should face your enemies like a man. As for the americans, the only ones that hid were the minutemen militas. The formal american military at the time (including those under the command of George Washington) used the same tactics as the british because the american generals had been trained to be British generals. It was also the milita's use of hunting rifles instead of standard muskets which led the large increase in the american's accuracy, but decreased the amount of damage that could be done with a single shot.

In Malifaux terms...Americans won cause they were in the woods with higher RG and CB but a lower damage spread.

[Omenbringer]

Brits would have done better if they had not stood in lines and had instead hid behind trees and fired off shots like the clever americans. This is utter bull and all one really needs to do to see why is to fire an actual brown bess or charleville musket to see why as the muzzle variance is several feet at the distances most skirmishes took place at. Standing in a line and firing in ranks was a far superior tactic and was likely terrifying to face.

The same thing that makes this a "far superior tactic" for shooting (i.e. Massed firepower) also makes it a "worse" tactic for preventing casusalties from return fire (because of limited dispersion). Tightly packed formations present a much larger target that overcomes the inaccuracies of the muzzleloaders. Though they may not hit what they were aimed at, they will more than likely hit someone within the formation regardless.

Hiding behind trees and laying in the prone however, provides substantially more protection from massed fire (because of the smaller target presentation and hard cover) and allows for relatively safe reloading and aiming.

---------- Post added at 09:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

In Malifaux terms...Americans won cause they were in the woods with higher RG and CB but a lower damage spread.

And Hard Cover.

[schristofersen]

So if a shot into melee ends up targeting a model that is out of range of the weapon/spell then it also fizzles?

Firing into melee seems pretty straight forward with the sequence as laid out by Nix if so. Cheers to Nix for having illustrated it so nicely.

My point was that the Brits did NOT lose due to inferior tactics or regimentation but rather due to dwindling supplies. Several times the casualties were inflicted in battles upon the americans by the british. Scurvy was a massive killer of the british however.

Edited March 8, 2012 by schristofersen

[Mister_Q]

Checking the range is part of the strike sequence too - so I'd say that yes, if the new target is out of range then the attack stops (even though the models are supposed to be "not standing still").

There needs to be a clarification between specifically declaring a target (which things like Bully could prevent) and having a target selected as a result of something else (like firing into melee). It's a bit silly that a shot intended for one target that accidentally hits another just disappears due to some "cannot target" effect. The second model wasn't the attacker's target - they're just getting hit by accident.

[Q'iq'el]

It used to be that when shooting into melee you could hit models out of LoS and out of Range. There was a ruling to that effect, IIRC. I'm not sure if it still holds with the RM wording and I can't check it now, but that's how I've kept on playing it.

Abilities like Immune to Influence or Bully, which stop attacks in their tracks, cannot be overiden that way. The reason for that, IIRC, lies in the order you perform the duel.

1. You check if you have LoS to ranged target.

2. You select it and perform the action.

3. You check if the target is legal (LoS & Ranged)

4. You "discover" it is in melee and flip for random target.

*At this point you are past the stage where you check for the legality of the target so anything goes as far as range and LoS are concerned.

5. Abilities and immunities that may modify or stop the attack come into play.