McNathanson Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 By Your Side: Once per turn, when a friendly model within 5" and LoS of this model is targeted by an enemy model's Action, this model may be placed in base contact with the friendly model. This model is now the target of the Action, regardless of range or LoS. My question is, if Pandora charges Sonnia (say she's 6" away so her charge stops 2" short of contact), and I use By Your Side on the Charge action, I assume then that Pandora now attacks Sidir with both Attack Actions generated by the Charge, correct? However, if Sidir instead targets the first Attack Action, and places himself 'exactly' (declaring intent) between Pandora and Sonnia, what happens? Can he be targeted by the Attack Action even though he is not the target of the Charge? I would guess "yes" because there is no wording saying that an Attack Action that somehow targets a different model auto-fails or anything. But, now Sidir is blocking LoS to Sonnia, so the second Attack Action can't be taken, correct? Seems like a slick move in the right situation... just wanting to see if that's how it really works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach_5 Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 Seems legit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach_5 Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 Of course, if Pandora knows this she could endeavour to charge so that she ends up within 30mm of her target so that sidir cannot be placed thusly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 My question is, if Pandora charges Sonnia (say she's 6" away so her charge stops 2" short of contact), and I use By Your Side on the Charge action, I assume then that Pandora now attacks Sidir with both Attack Actions generated by the Charge, correct? However, if Sidir instead targets the first Attack Action, and places himself 'exactly' (declaring intent) between Pandora and Sonnia, what happens? Can he be targeted by the Attack Action even though he is not the target of the Charge? I would guess "yes" because there is no wording saying that an Attack Action that somehow targets a different model auto-fails or anything. But, now Sidir is blocking LoS to Sonnia, so the second Attack Action can't be taken, correct? Seems like a slick move in the right situation... just wanting to see if that's how it really works. Not totally sure, but as I understand it if Sidir target's the Charge action (which is also an attack action), then he would be the target of the charge, so any movement would go towards him, not the original target. I'm unclear if the charge would fail since he is now within close quarters range, but if allowed, then the charge would have it's attacks directed as normal regarding the but with Sidir as the target. If Sidir target's one of the actions generated by the charge, rather than the charge itself, LOS should not stop the following attack, as it is my understanding that LOS does not apply to close quarters attacks (the charge action requires LOS, but not the attack actions it generates). I could be wrong on both of these, as I'm not super familiar with the rules yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted December 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 @Mark: thanks, and yes (you'll notice in my example she ends up 2" short to make sure b2b isn't possible!) @Pax: most of that is wrong ;) 1) Charge is an Action, part of which is to take 2 Attack Actions against the Target of the Charge, after moving up to model's Cg distance. 2) The Charge doesn't have to go directly toward Target, but just needs to go in a straight line, and end within the Charger's close attack range of the Target. 3) The Charge Action is not complete until after the 2 Attack Actions are completed. 4) Close Attack Actions *do* require LoS, regardless of whether they were generated by a Charge or by a regular AP or some other way. Ummm... think that sums it up for the most part, but check the M2E rules for "Charge" and "Attack" actions! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach_5 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Interesting question if Sidir interrupts the Charge action itself, but is placed outside her charge range (ie more than 7" away) does Pandora still charge? His ability says he becomes the target regardless of range or LoS, but the charge can't be completed if she doesn't end within engagement range. In fact, she can't take the action at all. In which case, since Pandora couldn't spend the AP, could she then charge Sonnia (or whoever) again and since Sidir can't do it multiple times per turn he's SoL? Not sure there's a definite answer in the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Okay, actually got the rulebook out, instead of responding from memory. In no order: -Charge is listed as a Tactical action, so it can't be targeted by Sidir, as he can only target attack actions (I'm going with the posted info regarding sidir, not his actual printed rules because I lack those). -The two attack actions generated via the charge appear to be fair game, but Sidir would only be able to use that ability on only one of them, with the other still affecting the original target of the charge. -As for LoS, I was mixing up cover and LoS. I keep forgetting that they are different concepts in this game. Yes, looks like Attack actions with the close quarters symbol still require LoS. As I read it, Sidir could block LoS in this manner to the second attack from the charge, but it would be very dependent on the Ht of the models and potentially a vantage point. -I understand the charge does not require going directly towards the intended target, but given the close quarters end of the charge requirement, "towards" seems like a fair way to express the direction a model moves with regard to the target of the charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach_5 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Good catch on charge being tactical... Guess it's a non-issue. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach_5 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Actually the quote ntk posted just specifies action, not just attack actions... Ntk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Actually the quote ntk posted just specifies action, not just attack actions... Ntk? Misread then. Fail again. If the charge is allowed, brings up some interesting points. -the Charging model MUST end it's within engagement range, or the action cannot be taken as per charge. So if Sidir is too far away, he cannot make the charge fail, as doing so would negate the action entirely (and therefore not use any AP, leaving the opponent free to charge a second time). -Now we could entirely ignore range, but then there is no compulsion for the charging model to end their charge move anywhere near Sidir, as the term "range" is mentioned twice in "charge" for both the "engagement" range and the range "close quarters" attacks. If range is ignored, then the chargning model could move backwards their Cg, then attack with 2 close quarters attacks against Sidir, as range is ignored via his rules. Very much sounds like a perversion of the rules. -I found another thread for this on the wyrd forums which offers a third interpretation. http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/99453-sidirs-by-your-side-vs-charges/ - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach_5 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 They all seem to agree you move toward the original target and attack sidir regardless of los& range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 They all seem to agree you move toward the original target and attack sidir regardless of los& range. You mean the link, yeah. Though it isn't an official ruling, so if you wanted to debate it more, you could. Personally, as another in the linked thread said, I really think that the RAW is not very functional and it bugs me. I very much agree with their concluded answer, but it's one that doesn't work as written, it is just the only way to play it without additional complication of the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach_5 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Yep, agreed, works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted December 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 The thing they didn't discuss was the main question I raised: does using By Your Side on the first Attack Action resulting from a Charge Action, and in the process blocking LoS to the Charge Target, prevent the second Attack Action! I tend to think "yes" but it'd be one of those things that might raise eyebrows the first time you pull it on someone. Then again maybe Mollyfox has enough "tricksy" moves that people are just used to getting caught off guard by a new idea they hadn't seen before and accept it as cleverness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach_5 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Plenty of triggers out there that push a model after it's attacked so the charger would lose it's second attack, this one is a bit more limited than any of those (requires another model, only once per turn). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2015 Report Share Posted December 13, 2015 The thing they didn't discuss was the main question I raised: does using By Your Side on the first Attack Action resulting from a Charge Action, and in the process blocking LoS to the Charge Target, prevent the second Attack Action! I tend to think "yes" but it'd be one of those things that might raise eyebrows the first time you pull it on someone. Then again maybe Mollyfox has enough "tricksy" moves that people are just used to getting caught off guard by a new idea they hadn't seen before and accept it as cleverness? Best way to not raise eyebrows is to explain a new concept to the opponent while deploying your models. They may be still caught off guard, but if they are aware of the possibility at the start, then they are less inclined to be upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNathanson Posted December 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2015 Best way to not raise eyebrows is to explain a new concept to the opponent while deploying your models. They may be still caught off guard, but if they are aware of the possibility at the start, then they are less inclined to be upset. Definitely agree. There are just quite enough things like this already that I don't want a 30-minute pre-game discussion :) I like to as much as possible have an FAQ or at least a shared forum where we've all done as much level-setting beforehand as we can. Of course where that's not feasible (a pickup game with a stranger) then it's best to discuss ahead of time, or just not do stuff that seems to upset your opponent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2015 Report Share Posted December 13, 2015 Of course where that's not feasible (a pickup game with a stranger) then it's best to discuss ahead of time, or just not do stuff that seems to upset your opponent! Ultimately, they choose to get upset, as they are another person and not actually able to be affected by you unless they allow it. Still, you can do things, like the pre-game discussion, which can lessen the odds that the opponent will choose to be upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach_5 Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Fortunately malifaux people are generally a really easy going bunch. I really would not expect any drama out of this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.