Charging oneself?

[Dirial]

Just read over the (2) Charge action because of the Executioner discussion in the Guild category. This silly question came to my mind:

 

Can a model charge itself? Shouldn't be possible, but is it forbidden by the rules?

 

Charge is a Tactical Action, which can target the model itself. Then, you move the model in a straight line. This move has to end with the charged model in the engagment range of the charging model.

 

The real question is therefore: Is a model in its own melee range? Shouldn't be, but I couldn't find conclusive evidence.

 

Follow-up question: If I'm wrong and you can charge youself, what happens to the melee attacks? Those are Attack Actions, which can not be targeted at the model itself.

[necroon]

Thank you.

Your welcome. 

Remember when we would all discuss intent because we didn't want to be like people that played some of those "other games"? 

I miss that. 

That's part of the reasons I play Malifaux and it's said to see threads like this appear. 

[Dracomax]

Engagement range, not engagement. Dumb as it seems there is a difference between the two as denoted by fear given form. Charging does not involve engagement. Engagement range does not specify two models. The base text for range does, but that's never stopped anyone from targeting themselves with take a swig or any other similar ranged ability.

 

The relevant text is on pgs 39, 40, and 44 of the big book if you want to take a look.

 

Edit: @ Solkan, you're right, its not optional, but at that point the attacks fall under the normal 'impossible action' rules and are just wasted. Same fashion as if a war pig had to charge someone in Hamelin or Rusty's no charge auras.

Well, no. At that point, because the attacks are not an optional part of charge, the entire charge is just wasted. You can't use charge for the movement; the attacks are part of the charge.

[Joel]

since an engagement range extends from the edge of the model's base, then no, a model is not engaged with itself, ever.

[Ratty]

Well and Attack is between 2 models and models can only Target other friendly models with an Attack. p38 a model may never target itself with an Attack action.. So you can never do an Attack.

 

Next Engagement "Models are engaged with each other if either model is within the engagement range of the other and at least one of the models has LoS to the other." this clearly suggests that Engagement needs to involve 2 models.

[Dirial]

Well and Attack is between 2 models and models can only Target other friendly models with an Attack. p38 a model may never target itself with an Attack action.. So you can never do an Attack.

 

Next Engagement "Models are engaged with each other if either model is within the engagement range of the other and at least one of the models has LoS to the other." this clearly suggests that Engagement needs to involve 2 models.

 

Charges only specify the engagment range. Which does not per se need two models. So while the suggestion is true, I don't see this as conclusive. Also, the Charge action does not specify that the target model must be another model, only that it has to be in LoS.

 

 

since an engagement range extends from the edge of the model's base, then no, a model is not engaged with itself, ever.

 

That would be conclusive! I just assumed that the engagement range is a circle, but in that case it would be a ring. Where can I find that rule in the book?

[Adran]

Just been looking at this, and I think I am wrong. I'll go correct in the guild forum, but I don't think I can legally charge my own models, as I don't engage them, so I can't legally move the charging model. I can attack my own models, but that doesn't require me to be engaged.

 

Thoughts?

[Dirial]

The Charge doesn't need engagement, you just need the target to be in engagement range. I'm not sure there is a difference, but the wording is not the same.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Just been looking at this, and I think I am wrong. I'll go correct in the guild forum, but I don't think I can legally charge my own models, as I don't engage them, so I can't legally move the charging model. I can attack my own models, but that doesn't require me to be engaged.

 

Thoughts?

 

You absolutely can charge and attack your friendly models. You just can't attack YOURSELF.

[hypoking]

Models are never engaged with models that are friendly to them.

 

All model's are friendly with themselves

 

No model engages itself.

 

So you CAN charge yourself. Why you would want to is the question.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Models are never engaged with models that are friendly to them.

 

All model's are friendly with themselves

 

No model engages itself.

 

So you CAN charge yourself. Why you would want to is the question.

 

Being able to charge and not being engaged does not mean you are a legal target for your own charge though. 

 

You need several things to charge: A listed Cg value, a 1ap melee-range attack, to not be engaged, and LOS to a legal target. All but that last bit is not in question here. The question is whether you are a legal target for your own charge. 

[Bloaty]

 

So you CAN charge yourself. Why you would want to is the question.

 

Killjoy could then charge himself if no enemies are in range and you don't want to charge your own stuff.

[hypoking]

Ok, Here's my thoughts on review of the big book. If the book didn't draw a meaningless distinction between being in someone's engagement range and actually engaging them this would be a whole lot simpler.

 

IF a model's engagement range is measured as any other range in malifaux than the 'or less clause' would mean it can be in range of itself the same way any other action with a range has sufficient range to target its user unless otherwise specified as with attack actions and certain tactical actions. If so a model will be within its own engagement range, though not engaging itself, and therefore satisfy all written requirements to declare a charge action.

 

IF there's some shwanky shadow rule that says engagement range is measured in a different fashion than normal range to and from a model than, it's not going to be in its own melee range and therefore ineligible to end with itself in its melee range, and therefore unable to declare the charge in the first place.

[Dirial]

Ok, Here's my thoughts on review of the big book. If the book didn't draw a meaningless distinction between being in someone's engagement range and actually engaging them this would be a whole lot simpler.

 

IF a model's engagement range is measured as any other range in malifaux than the 'or less clause' would mean it can be in range of itself the same way any other action with a range has sufficient range to target its user unless otherwise specified as with attack actions and certain tactical actions. If so a model will be within its own engagement range, though not engaging itself, and therefore satisfy all written requirements to declare a charge action.

 

IF there's some shwanky shadow rule that says engagement range is measured in a different fashion than normal range to and from a model than, it's not going to be in its own melee range and therefore ineligible to end with itself in its melee range, and therefore unable to declare the charge in the first place.

 

See, that's exactly the problem I have. I think it shouldn't be possible, but I don't see why it's not.

 

 

So you CAN charge yourself. Why you would want to is the question.

 

For example, Lady Justice could charge herself, move 7" and then push all Marshals. Or Killjoy could charge itself and move without hitting your own guys.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Killjoy could then charge himself if no enemies are in range and you don't want to charge your own stuff.

 

Yes, this is exactly why its clear you can't charge yourself. If you could, Killjoy's whole drawback would not ever exist as he could just declare a charge against himself and then intentionally miss the attacks. 

[hypoking]

1ap pig charges to deploy up field to, come to think of it.

 

Well bugger, I'd been assuming charge at least had a relational requirement to the movement component.

[hypoking]

See, that's exactly the problem I have. I think it shouldn't be possible, but I don't see why it's not.

 

 

 

For example, Lady Justice could charge herself, move 7" and then push all Marshals. Or Killjoy could charge itself and move without hitting your own guys.

Couldn't attack himself in the 1st place. The charge component of the action is completely indifferent to whether or not the model can actually attack. It only matters that they have attacks. Mancha, for example can legally charge somebody, end with the target two inches away from him, and then twiddle his thumbs as he remembers he can't take a (2) action.

[HalcyonSeraph]

1ap pig charges to deploy up field to, come to think of it.

 

Well bugger, I'd been assuming charge at least had a relational requirement to the movement component.

 

It does. You need to have a valid target to charge. Since you cannot make attack actions against yourself, you are not a valid target for the attacks of a charge, and so you cannot declare one. It's not like 1.5 where you do the movement and then check legality of the attacks, you measure out the whole thing beforehand. 

 

The fact that Charge itself is a tactical and you can target yourself with tactical is a loophole that ignores the fact that you need a legal target before you can make that action.

[Dirial]

1ap pig charges to deploy up field to, come to think of it.

 

Well bugger, I'd been assuming charge at least had a relational requirement to the movement component.

 

It has: you have to have the charged model in engagement range. And that seems to be the only thing potentially preventing self-charges.

 

Yes, this is exactly why its clear you can't charge yourself. If you could, Killjoy's whole drawback would not ever exist as he could just declare a charge against himself and then intentionally miss the attacks. 

 

Why, yes, it's clear that you shouldn't be able to charge yourself. But do the rules enforce it?

[hypoking]

That's not dictating how you move, just how you have to end the movement.  See the ratsnest that kicked up over lure for something similar.

[Dirial]

That's not dictating how you move, just how you have to end the movement.  See the ratsnest that kicked up over lure for something similar.

 

But the Charge actions specifies that you can't take it if you can't end the charge like that.

[hypoking]

Which given how range works in this game, it will.

[HalcyonSeraph]

It has: you have to have the charged model in engagement range. And that seems to be the only thing potentially preventing self-charges.

 

 

Why, yes, it's clear that you shouldn't be able to charge yourself. But do the rules enforce it?

 

To me this is fairly straightforward. Everyone agrees on the intent (you can't charge yourself) and everyone agrees that the game breaks in some stupid ways if we don't follow that obvious intent. So why would we all not just agree that it works that way? 

 

To clarify, if the wording has these loopholes then it should get faq'd, but that's sort of clerical cleanup work. This should not have any effect on the actual gameplay of anyone who isn't intentionally trying to break the system for no reason. Zero people think it actually is supposed to work the way where you can charge yourself even though you can't attack yourself, so it would be a purposeful abuse of a grammatical error in order to either make a point or cheat out a win, I guess.

[Hateful Darkblack]

You can't be engaged with yourself. You can only be engaged with an enemy model.

 

If you *could* be engaged with yourself, you wouldn't be allowed to charge ever, because you can't charge while engaged.

 

So, yeah, I'd say you can't charge yourself.

[hypoking]

Engagement is different then engagement range, see Fears Given Form. This is part of why this is even an issue in the first place. Charge specifies the charging model end with the target in their engagement range, not that they end engaged with their target.

 

edit

To clarify, if the wording has these loopholes then it should get faq'd, but that's sort of clerical cleanup work. This should not have any effect on the actual gameplay of anyone who isn't intentionally trying to break the system for no reason. Zero people think it actually is supposed to work the way where you can charge yourself even though you can't attack yourself, so it would be a purposeful abuse of a grammatical error in order to either make a point or cheat out a win, I guess.

Much as I agree with you that this lovely bit of esoterica is abhorrent and should be fixed as soon as possible, playing by the rules isn't cheating. This isn't a stray period or a misplaced comma. Its design oversight, not a typo.

[necroon]

You can't attack models your not engaged with and attacks made with a charge are 1 AP actions that follow all rules thereof. If you were able to charge yourself and therefore strike yourself by that logic Id think all Malifaux models with ranged and melee attacks would not be able to make ranged attacks.

Also while your engaged you can't charge so if your end goal is to make 2 melee attacks on yourself I'd think your charge would fail because your already at yourself... If that's the way you want to think about it.

This is also a very silly conversation and I hope it does not receive a FAQ.