M2E Shooting into Melee

[Joza]

Hi gang! With the M2E I'm back to Malifaux (love the new rules!), and I have just one (probably dumb) question.

Take this situation:

- All models are Ht 2

- Blue models are friendly to each other (as are the red ones).

- The distance between any two of (B, D, E, F) is less than 2".

- The distance between A and any of (B, D, E, F) is more than 2".

- Model A is in shooting range of (B, D), which are engaged in Melee.

- The thick black line is a Ht 5, Blocking, Hard Cover terrain

Model A is declaring a Shooting Attack against the model D.

As per the Shooting into Engagements rules, since D is engaged with B (and they are less than 2" apart), the D is becoming the temporary target.

Model A now checks LoS and Range between itself and D (since D is the temporary target), and finds out that LoS and Range are OK.

Now A flips a card for each model within 2" of the temporary target (and the target itself), and the lowest card is flipped for model E.

To this step, all is pretty clear, and I have no issues. What happens next?

Variant 1 (which I belive is correct): Model A now attacks model E (as "it is possible to hit targets that aren't technically within LoS or Range"), and since the terrain is providing Hard Cover, the model E gets that benefit.

Variant 2 (which some people in my group think is correct): Model A now fails to attack the model E, as it has no LoS to it, because of the Ht 5 Blocking terrain, and the attack fails.

So, which one is right? And if it is the Variant 2, why is it so?

Thank you, Joza

[Mike3838]

When a model wants to perform a Projectile Attack

Action targeting a model which is engaged with one or

more models which are also within 2" of the target

E and F aren't engaged with the target due to the Ht5 blocking wall, so you don't flip cards for them.

I see where you're coming from though, since the subsequent paragraph doesn't specify the requirement for being engaged (it just says "each model within 2" of the target model"), but the requirement for being engaged is set-up in the previous (quoted) paragraph.

Further weight that this is the correct way to play this, is that both of your variants don't make sense given the blocking terrain.

[Dracomax]

I'm fairly sure that the intention would be to use Variant 2, becayse Models B and D are not engaged with the other 2. However, RAW says Variant 1, AFAIK.

---------- Post added at 07:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 AM ----------

@Mike The previous paragraph can be read that way. it can also be read as only establishing when you have to randomize, not which targets need to be randomized.

[Joza]

Sure, I can imagine, that the intended wording is The attacker flips a card for each engaged model within 2" of the target model..., but as far as I can tell, it is not the situation RAW.

The paragraph mentioning an engagement is IMO just a pre-requisity just for randomizing i.e. 'Are you shooting a model that is engaged with at least one model in 2"? Then randomize as described next in the rules', and the rules for "how to randomize" quite clearly say that you take all the models in 2" from the temporary target (no requirement for being engaged).

Then the Ht5 Blocking wall is negated by "...it is possible to hit models that aren't technically in LoS or Range...".

So I hope that some of the Wyrd Sanctioned Rules Masters will show up and tell us what should it be like..

[Dracomax]

Sure, I can imagine, that the intended wording is The attacker flips a card for each engaged model within 2" of the target model..., but as far as I can tell, it is not the situation RAW.

The paragraph mentioning an engagement is IMO just a pre-requisity just for randomizing i.e. 'Are you shooting a model that is engaged with at least one model in 2"? Then randomize as described next in the rules', and the rules for "how to randomize" quite clearly say that you take all the models in 2" from the temporary target (no requirement for being engaged).

Then the Ht5 Blocking wall is negated by "...it is possible to hit models that aren't technically in LoS or Range...".

So I hope that some of the Wyrd Sanctioned Rules Masters will show up and tell us what should it be like..

...Rules martials no longer give definitive rulings...

---------- Post added at 08:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------

From here:http://www.wyrd-games.net/forumdisplay.php?59-Malifaux-Rules-Discussion

First, and most importantly, there are not going to be any official rulings on the forums. We are moving away from the previous rules marshal system. If somebody official posts in this forum, it is not a ruling or an FAQ, it is simply their opinion.

[Joza]

sure, but they can still give their informed personal opinion based on the rules...

[Mike3838]

Thanks, I'd missed that later paragraph.

It seems a shame to me that the first paragraph is quite clear as to the intent.....

A model may still attempt to shoot at the enemy model, but he runs the risk of hitting the friendly models engaged in close quarters fighting.

Note: According to this he doesn't run the risk of hitting models that aren't engaged in close quarters fighting.

..... but then says something completely different:

When firing into an engagement it is possible to hit targets that aren't technically within LoS or range to the Attacker or to even hit models that aren't engaged (but are within 2" of the target model).

How can a model not engaged in the melee get hit? If this is possible, why don't I randomise between two different enemy models that are stood within 2" of each other when I try to shoot one of them? Inconsistent. I've no idea why that sentence allowing out of engagement models to get hit is in the book.

As you say though, the fact that it is in the book means that RAW is actually discernable, but very messy - I retract my previous answer and believe the current correct answer is Variant 1. It feels very Rules-lawyer-y and anti-M2E though.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Mike3838

[Joza]

Mike, I absolutely agree, that this is not in the M2E spirit, and I really hope that the FAQs will address this. I'm the first one to not like how this is (or it seems to be according to the rules), hence the rules question

I just wanted to make sure, that I understand the rules in a proper way, since I'm explaining the rules to new (or re-newed) players in our city, and there was quite long flame on this subject on our national forums.

[Dracomax]

Yeah, I dislike the interpretation myself, and initially had the same reaction as Mike, but the rules say what they say.

Here's hoping it gets changed, especially since I can hit someone with a bullet I can't hit with an explosion().

[Ausplosions]

E and F aren't engaged with the target due to the Ht5 blocking wall, so you don't flip cards for them.

I see where you're coming from though, since the subsequent paragraph doesn't specify the requirement for being engaged (it just says "each model within 2" of the target model"), but the requirement for being engaged is set-up in the previous (quoted) paragraph.

Further weight that this is the correct way to play this, is that both of your variants don't make sense given the blocking terrain.

No it is not

The only requirement is that you Flip for ALL models, engaged or not, within 2" of a target that is engaged in melee.

I really wish people would stop looking for intent.

Sometime RAW is the same as RAI.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Ausplosions

[Rhonlore]

...a new rule to add to my hit list. Madness.

[Ausplosions]

It stops ALL the "what of the randomised models is not a valid target?" questions.

But most importantly. It makes it easier to shoot 3" melee beatstick models when engaged with your models. And visa versa.

If your model is outside 2" but still engaged due to the opponent's 3" you don't randomise if they are the only models within 2". Shoot the big guy.

If Your3" melee beatstick is engaged at 3" with an enemy you don't randomise if there are no models within 2". Shoot the enemy.

Its different than 1.5.Is it a bad change? I don't think so.

[Rhonlore]

Models that are engaged with the target (and we know what engaged means) and are within 2 inches should be the only legal targets.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is not how the rule works currently correct?

[Ausplosions]

No. Any model within 2" of a target that is in melee can be hit. Even if it is within 2" and not engaged.

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 AM ----------

Conversely, a model that is engaged with the target, but is more than 2" cannot be hit.

[Mike3838]

Its different than 1.5.Is it a bad change? I don't think so.

We don't dislike it because it's different. We dislike it because you're now *equally likely* to hit a model on the opposite side of a 10 foot wall that isn't even aware that a melee is taking place, as you are to hit the target in melee right in front of you. You're sure that's the intent?

I *like* that a long melee reach doesn't protect you from shooting like it did in M1E. That's not under dispute. My issue is that at some point in writing the rules to allow you to target those 3" reach models, this bullet bending has crept in, and it's ludicrous.

[Ausplosions]

OF course it is the intent, it specifically tells you it's the case.

When firing into an engagement it is possible to hit targets that aren't technically within LoS or range to the Attacker or to even hit models that aren't engaged (but are within 2" of the target model.)

Sometimes logic and realism needs to be put aside to make game play smoother and less problematic.

In any case, it's hardly going to change now, so why worry?

[Mike3838]

The intent could have quite easily have been to simulate models standing close to a melee catching a stray bullet (fluffy). I maintain that it's very possible that the blocking terrain/out of melee case here has gotten caught up accidentally in wording the rules the way they have been.

You'll have to show me where the *intent* is specifically told, because I'm pretty sure it isn't.

And of course it could change. If the rule isn't working as intended, Justin has already announced there's a FAQ /errata being released in the near future.

[Ausplosions]

I quoted the exact wording.

It clearly states that LoS and Range is not required.

Is it a little ridiculous? Yes. But it is the only way to have the rule work without becoming clunky.

It is not RAI vs RAW.

There is ZERO ambiguity there.

At all.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Ausplosions

[Mike3838]

I quoted the exact wording.

It clearly states that LoS and Range is not required.

How you can willfully ignore that and try to say that it's not the intent is beyond me.

I'm not wilfully ignoring anything. The very *definition* of RAI vs RAW is that sometimes the way a rule is written isn't what is actually intended. So your arguing that it is written a particular way, and providing a quote, and then saying the quote backs up that the *intention* is a particular way, is completely missing the distinction between RAW/RAI.

There is ZERO ambiguity there.

RAW, I agree.

What would be clunky, exactly, about only randomising for models that are within 2" and engaged?

[Ausplosions]

It is INTENDED that models NOT in melee can be hit.

BECAUSE IT SAYS SO.

I will concede that having the "and in melee" caveat would not be clunky at all.

Which proves my point further, if they didn't mean for it to work the way it does now, why not just add that, and not SPECIFICALLY state that it can hit non-engaged models.

Ridiculous that this is even debated.

Shall we argue next whether or not they REALLY mean we should use cards instead of dice?

[Mike3838]

.

The intent could have quite easily have been to simulate models standing close to a melee (but not in it) catching a stray bullet (fluffy).

Likewise, the provision that LOS and range can be dismissed is *required* to allow models on the furthest edge of the melee to get hit, even if they're just out of the reach of the shooter, or LOS is blocked by models in between.

It's VERY possible, *even with the current wording*, that the blocking terrain example in the OP's case was overlooked.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Mike3838

[mythicFOX]

Everyone take a deep breath and think happy thoughts for a while.

</mod voice>

[Ausplosions]

Sure thing.

[Mike3838]

Everyone take a deep breath and think happy thoughts for a while.

</mod voice>

Awwwwh

[Joza]

Ausplosions: I'm not at all concerned with models not in melee gotten hit, and I believe that nobody else is.. My only concern is the corner-case scenario I described in my first post - i.e. hitting models that even if they wanted to could not be engaged, since they are well separated by the huge wall

I'm fine with the rules being written as they are, since I'm all in for streamlined play. I just wanted to make sure, that I'm not missing something in the rules (which I'm most probably not), so I can teach the rules in a proper way. To be honest, I was quite surprised to come to 24 posts of thread today

[Barnaberible]

Model A shoots into melee, hits a rock and the bullet flies miles up in the air at such a trajectory that when in comes down it lands on Model E's head.

Unlikely, but possible.