The Dreamer, Rules Manual and Rules Marshalls

[Definitechoice]

There seem to be a few issues that were ruled on in the past by Weird Sketch and Keltheos but are contrary to what is printed in the new Rules Manual. Some of these seem to be rule amendments designed to eliminate the specific issue by turning it into a general rule. For instance, the last paragraph of Multiple Activations(p.31) reverses this post (http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=193309) by Keltheos. Another instance is that while before only the Dreamer could bypass the general rule on burying and unburying(Weird Sketch's ruling (http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=165955)), now the general Buried(p.13) have been changed from "when the effect that buried them allows them to do so" to "when an effect allows it to do so."

This seems to establish that the Rules Manual trumps the prior Marshall rulings.

My main concern is this post (http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=190944) by Keltheos, and the thread (http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17396) around it. Keltheos breaks the general Strike rules by stating that with melee strikes you cannot declare a target that is outside of your melee range. A Nightmare within 3" of the Dreamer but outside of melee range with a model trying to Strike the Dreamer would not be an eligible target and Shadowy Form would not take effect. However, no such requirement made it into the Rules Manual, and there is a clear distinction made between target and Legal Target(p.14). To declare a target, you need to check line of sight, special situations, and Talents/Spells that would prevent it. After that, range is measured and if the target is within range, it becomes a Legal Target. The Strike Sequence(p.42) reinforces this. "A model must be within the attacker's LoS to be declared the target of a Strike," then the range is checked and if "the target is out of range, is not a legal target. and the Strike fails."

So, should we be expecting a Dreamer errata changing Shadowy Form to require a Legal Target? Should this be played by the Rules Manual as written, or by the older ruling?

[James.]

At our club we've just been playing rules manual trumps all. You have to remember that the rules marshalls were making ruling based on the past edition of the rules, making the best of what they had, so to speak.

With the advent of the rules manual, they had a chance to clean the whole thing up and therefore override old rules, and rulings I would imagine.

Kind of like if you had a car and the exaust was falling off, you might tie it on with a bit of string, but if you then bought a new car you wouldn't need the string anymore, because you'd more than fixed any problems you had with the old car by getting a new one.

That's the way I see the new rules manual (and I might be seeing it totally wrong). The marshalls had given us enough fixes to use the old rules whilst they were in place, but now they've given us the new manual, which means we don't need any of the old fixes :)

James.

[Ratty]

The rules manual allows you to check your combat range at any time (p39). The rules for strike say target a model within range. I don't see how this goes against Kels ruling on how Shadowy form works. If you have to target a model within range and know whether a model is in range it's obvious a nightmare within 3" of the Dreamer is not a legal target before the strike even takes place.

[Definitechoice]

You don't have to target a model in range. Reread the Strike Attack Sequence rules, italics for emphasis mine. "Models making a ranged or melee Strike use the Strike Attack Sequence...Once a target in LoS has been declared the target of a Strike, ensure that the target is in range by measuring the distance between the two models...if the distance is shorter than or equal to the attack's Rg, the target is in range; proceed to 2. Strike Duel below. Otherwise, the target is out of range, is not a legal target, and the Strike fails."(p.42)

A Strike doesn't require a legal target, only a target. It will only be successful if it does have a legal target though. A failed Strike, even in melee is permitted by the rules.

While you can measure melee range at any time, there is no other premeasuring, and the rules for declaring a target make no mention of range. For something to be a target, you just need LoS, for there to be no extenuating circumstances, and no Spell/sTalents that prevent targeting. "If all of these factors allow the item to be targeted, then the model can declare that item as the target." Shadowy Form only requires that the Nightmare could be targeted by the action, not that it has to be a legal target and thus in range.


The rules manual allows you to check your combat range at any time (p39). The rules for strike say target a model within range. I don't see how this goes against Kels ruling on how Shadowy form works. If you have to target a model within range and know whether a model is in range it's obvious a nightmare within 3" of the Dreamer is not a legal target before the strike even takes place.

[Lalochezia]

I'm strangely reminded of the moment in Dogma where the plot is revealed about how the Angels would unmake creation by proving God made a mistake.

[K.blas]

I'm with DefinateChoice.


Shadowy Form: this model cannot be targeted by an enemy Action while it is within 3" of a friendly Nightmare that could have been targeted by the Action. . (Emphasis mine)

So then we look at page 42 of the MRB. Declare target then check range. To declare a target, all you need is LOS to said target. So if you were in your Melee Range of Dreamer, even though you might be "engaged" with only the Dreamer, if one of his Nightmares are within your LOS (and within 3" of Dreamer) TECHNICALLY you could still target his Nightmare (premeasure or not) it's just that you could not actually STRIKE the Nightmare.

So I said that wall of text to say that Ratty and DC you're both right, we just need to look at both parts of the whole.

[K.blas]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5059/5538401611_2f5cda834e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackgold11/5538401611/)


I did this in Paint really fast hopefully it explains my (our?) point a bit better.

My opinion is that we're getting hung up over the fact that we can "premeasure" a Melee Strike, but that there is still a Strike Sequence, and it specifically states that we need to:

1) Declare a target (in LOS), and
2) Check range

Since this is the way things are supposed to be, if the Dreamer (take my example above) has any Nightmare within 3" of him(Teddy), and the attacker(Ikiryo 2" away from Teddy so outside of her Melee) can LOS to the Nightmare, then the attack is a failure by Shadowy Form's rule (since she can't actually attack the Teddy, and Dreamer is an illegal target, since she can target but not Strike Teddy).

I think this is what Mr. Sketch was referring to in the other thread about positioning (or having a HT3 Teddy watching Dreamer back...;))

For those that read far, what do you all think?

(Addition; if Teddy was changed to a HT1 Daydream, and it was behind Dreamer, this would whole point would be moot, because it would be out of LOS of Ikiryo, and then she could go to town on Dreamer, since she couldn't legally target the Daydream. )

[Genetic]

From what the rules state i would have to agree with you on this one...

[K.blas]

Just read my post and this...


(Addition; if Teddy was changed to a HT1 Daydream, and it was behind Dreamer, this would whole point would be moot, because it would be out of LOS of Ikiryo, and then she could go to town on Dreamer, since she couldn't legally target the Daydream.)

...Is incorrect because I forgot that Ikiryo was HT3. But I think y'all catch my drift. :P

[Wodschow]

While I agree with your RAW interpretation, I don't think the actual rules haven't been changed in the Manual from when Keltheos made his ruling, thus I believe it's still valid.

[poulpox]

While I agree with your RAW interpretation, I don't think the actual rules haven't been changed in the Manual from when Keltheos made his ruling, thus I believe it's still valid.

+1
Here's why:
p39 says for Strike: "the model targets another model ... within range" since it is legal to measure if you are in melee range of the Teddy and Teddy isn't in range therefore you cannot declare a Strike against Teddy. You are then allowed to declare a Strike against the Dreamer.
I think when Sketch referred to Teddy as protecting Dreamer's back it is not about simply having the bear within 3" but also in the right spot within those 3".
In this situation:

Teddy
3"
Dreamer
1"
Perdita

Perdita cannot declare a strike against Teddy as he isn't a legal target so she's then allowed to declare the strike against the Dreamer.

EDIT: this works differently with range strikes and charges, as there has to be a range guessing and in this instance the range cannot be pre-measured so Dreamer cannot be targeted and Teddy would have to be charged if in LoS.

[K.blas]

...Teddy isn't in range therefore you cannot declare a Strike against Teddy. You are then allowed to declare a Strike against the Dreamer.

This is incorrect.

Yes on page 39, it says the point about premeasuring and attacking in range. (This is listed under GENERAL COMBAT ACTIONS)

The kicker is that on page 42, under STRIKE ATTACK SEQUENCE-DETAILS it specifically states that...
1) Attacker must be in LOS of target (if no targets, strike fails)
2) Check Range. (obviously you've already checked the range so you know this is going to work in advance...except in the funny case of the Dreamer;))

Page 39 does not disallow the strike sequence, it simply generalizes it.

Further in your example, I would say that Perdita has LOS to Teddy because of Dreamer being a spirit, and thus she is able to draw LOS through him (plus the fact that Teddy is HT3).

[poulpox]

The kicker is that on page 42, under STRIKE ATTACK SEQUENCE-DETAILS it specifically states that...
1) Attacker must be in LOS of target (if no targets, strike fails)
2) Check Range. (obviously you've already checked the range so you know this is going to work in advance...except in the funny case of the Dreamer;))

Page 39 does not disallow the strike sequence, it simply generalizes it.

Further in your example, I would say that Perdita has LOS to Teddy because of Dreamer being a spirit, and thus she is able to draw LOS through him (plus the fact that Teddy is HT3).

Yes you're right :) my argument wasn't good ;)
Like Wodschow I agree that RAW is as you write. But as he mentioned the rule hasn't changed in the new rulebook and therefore the previous ruling from Keltheos should still stand as it was clarifying that point. I guess the book should have a particular mention of melee in the strike sequence, something like that in case of melee strike, if the potential target is known not to be in range (since we can pre-measure the melee) this model is unelligeable as a target for that strike, which was Keltheos point.
As a Dreamer player I prefer the more tactical necessity of having to put my bear not anywhere within 3" of Dreamer in order to protect it, but at the right spot.

I'm not sure the marshalls will rule again on this point though as it does seem to have been resolved in the forementioned threads (well, at least regarding the Shadowy Form issue, since the rules haven't changed, as opposed to the One Master sequence).
:)

[poulpox]

Actually there's a little thing which kinda supports the Keltheos ruling (I'm not leaving this one alone am I ;) ):
. Shadowy Form states that the friendly nightmare should have been able to be targeted
. According to p42 all that is required to be able to be targeted is a LoS (so far we all agree :) )
However there is a little conundrum:
In terms of Targeting, p14 says that if there's LoS a model can be targeted, yet stating later that if after measuring it is not in range it is not a legal target. So in the particular case of a melee strike, since we know in advance the range thanks to pre-measuring, this means we also know the friendly nightmare not to be a legal target, and I think this is why it disqualifies that nightmare for the purpose of Shadowy Form.

Pfffioooouuu, feels like I'm presenting a court case :) !

[Definitechoice]

Yes you're right :) my argument wasn't good ;)
Like Wodschow I agree that RAW is as you write. But as he mentioned the rule hasn't changed in the new rulebook and therefore the previous ruling from Keltheos should still stand as it was clarifying that point. I guess the book should have a particular mention of melee in the strike sequence, something like that in case of melee strike, if the potential target is known not to be in range (since we can pre-measure the melee) this model is unelligeable as a target for that strike, which was Keltheos point.
As a Dreamer player I prefer the more tactical necessity of having to put my bear not anywhere within 3" of Dreamer in order to protect it, but at the right spot.

I'm not sure the marshalls will rule again on this point though as it does seem to have been resolved in the forementioned threads (well, at least regarding the Shadowy Form issue, since the rules haven't changed, as opposed to the One Master sequence).
:)

I would contend that the ruling doesn't stand because nothing related to that ruling was included in the Rules Manual, and the rules have indeed changed. Legal target wasn't a term in the first rulebook, as far as I can recall. Unlike the previous examples I cited(burying and interrupting activations), they chose to reinforce the primacy of the general Strike Sequence instead of differentiating melee and ranged strikes or adding a clause that a melee strike requires a Legal Target.

I too prefer having to actually worry about the placement of my nightmares, but I also prefer the Dreamer to not die on replace.


Actually there's a little thing which kinda supports the Keltheos ruling (I'm not leaving this one alone am I ;) ):
. Shadowy Form states that the friendly nightmare should have been able to be targeted
. According to p42 all that is required to be able to be targeted is a LoS (so far we all agree :) )
However there is a little conundrum:
In terms of Targeting, p14 says that if there's LoS a model can be targeted, yet stating later that if after measuring it is not in range it is not a legal target. So in the particular case of a melee strike, since we know in advance the range thanks to pre-measuring, this means we also know the friendly nightmare not to be a legal target, and I think this is why it disqualifies that nightmare for the purpose of Shadowy Form.

Pfffioooouuu, feels like I'm presenting a court case :) !

Shadowy Form only requires the nightmare to be targeted, and not to be a legal target. An errata to Shadowy Form requiring the nightmare to be a legal target would be the easiest way to resolve all of this and would not have an impact on the general rules the way Keltheos old ruling does.

[poulpox]

Shadowy Form only requires the nightmare to be targeted, and not to be a legal target. An errata to Shadowy Form requiring the nightmare to be a legal target would be the easiest way to resolve all of this and would not have an impact on the general rules the way Keltheos old ruling does.

That's right, or add in the rules that a non-legal melee target cannot be targeted (although... it does seem self-explanatory :) )

[Keltheos]

So in the particular case of a melee strike, since we know in advance the range thanks to pre-measuring, this means we also know the friendly nightmare not to be a legal target, and I think this is why it disqualifies that nightmare for the purpose of Shadowy Form.

This.

And in case it needs to be clearer:

UPDATED

Spot Errata/FAQ addition: Replace Shadowy Form description with "This model cannot be targeted by an enemy Action while it is within 3" of a friendly Nightmare that could be targeted by the Action or could be a legal target of the Action if it was a melee attack."



So, in the case of the Ikiryo attacking the Dreamer:

Ikiryo declares Dreamer as a target.
Ikiriyo checks LoS to Teddy. Teddy is in LoS and can be targeted.
Ikiriyo checks melee range to Teddy. Teddy is not in Ikiryo's melee range, therefore Teddy cannot be a legal target.
Ikiriyo continues Strike against The Dreamer.

Pfffioooouuu, feels like I'm presenting a court case :) !

You and me both, brother.

[Ratty]

Quote:
Pfffioooouuu, feels like I'm presenting a court case :) !
You and me both, brother.A court case with a Teddy in the Witness stand, and a jury of puppets (or was that muppets).

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

A court case with a Teddy in the Witness stand, and a jury of puppets (or was that muppets).
Judge. Not witness. ;)

[Ratty]

Judge. Not witness. ;)

I wasn't talking about you.. I was talking about the Teddy that was just standing there watching the Dreamer get battered by a mad dead bint.

[Keltheos]

In that case the Teddy's more the court reporter. ;)

"Can you repeat that back for the court?"

Teddy: "aaaaugh, ahhh, Teddy, help meeee!!!"

"Thank you."

[nix]

Keltheos,

I think (my opinion only) that the problem comes up when the difference is made between ranged and melee strikes. A strike (ranged or melee) uses the same language, but people are understanding the results differently based on the type (ranged vs melee).

For example, in your example Ikyro could be replaced by Nino, and the third bullet is changed to ranged strike range, and the ruling still works. By the wording in the strike sequence (pg 42 rules manual) any target that is out of range (any range) is not a legal target. In the case of Melee, the understanding is the Dreamer can be re-targeted. In the case of ranged, the understanding is the strike fails.

Unfortunately I am not sure there is a clean way to fix this. I can see my local rules lawyers using your quote on Legal Target and combining it with pg 42 to treat ranged attacks the same way.

As I understand, the intention is as follows:


If Dreamer is within 3 inches of a nightmare

Non-Melee attacks will fail if the nightmare is not in range but is in LOS.
Melee Attacks can target Dreamer if the nightmare is out of range
Melee Attacks must target nightmare if it is within range


Is that correct?

[Keltheos]

Your bullets are correct.

Keeping a taller Nightmare (Teddy) within 3" of the Dreamer pretty much ensures that he can't be targeted by Actions at range. It's when a model gets into melee and maneuvers in such a way to keep the Nightmare out of LoS and/or melee range that it can bypass Shadowy Form.

And note, this doesn't mean the Actions 'fail'. The Dreamer cannot be declared a target in the first place. You declare your intention to target the Dreamer, then check if he can be a target (p.14: LoS then special circumstances, then Talents/Spells). If he can't be a target you move on. Note at no point in the above are we checking range to the Dreamer from the acting model. That comes after determining he could be a target.

[nix]

I cannot wait to see:


How large your sig is by the end of this week
How small the font will be in your sig by the end of this week.

:D

[Keltheos]

Me too. 500 chars max, so we'll see.

[Ratty]

Me too. 500 chars max, so we'll see.

Yeah I hit that a while back... it's quite annoying. I really need more.

[Wodschow]

I think it's a really neat idea to have the latest rulings in your signature always..

Maybe make a sticky in the forum where you edit in one liners such as those aswell.. It'd make it easy for people who doesn't frequent the forums as often to see what's been ruled in the meantime.

Hmm, might be too much work though.. Ah well..

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

I think it's a really neat idea to have the latest rulings in your signature always..

Maybe make a sticky in the forum where you edit in one liners such as those aswell.. It'd make it easy for people who doesn't frequent the forums as often to see what's been ruled in the meantime.

Hmm, might be too much work though.. Ah well..
We did that with the extra errata...

[Wodschow]

Oh yeah, with actual changes, not all rulings.. I don't really know what I had in mind with the statement above though, I suppose I'm a little tired, maybe it's better to just let it dwell..

[Keltheos]

A few of these keep getting asked or misunderstood, so a few quick bullets will hopefully clear the decks.

[gnam]

If Dreamer is within 3 inches of a nightmare
[LIST]
Non-Melee attacks will fail if the nightmare is not in range but is in LOS.
Melee Attacks can target Dreamer if the nightmare is out of range
Melee Attacks must target nightmare if it is within range



I'm a bit confused as to what makes the first bullet point right?

What prohibits ranged attacks from targeting the Dreamer if they are within range to him, and not to the Nightmare using the ruling above?

For example, if a model is 11.5" away from the Dreamer with a Teddy 3" behind him (Teddy is 14.5" away from the shooting model).

If the Shooting Model has a range of 12" and targets the Dreamer, can he succeed in shooting him? The Teddy is not a "legal target" because he is out of range, so Shadowy Form would not take affect?

Is this correct?

[Keltheos]

I'm a bit confused as to what makes the first bullet point right?

What prohibits ranged attacks from targeting the Dreamer if they are within range to him, and not to the Nightmare using the ruling above?

For example, if a model is 11.5" away from the Dreamer with a Teddy 3" behind him (Teddy is 14.5" away from the shooting model).

If the Shooting Model has a range of 12" and targets the Dreamer, can he succeed in shooting him? The Teddy is not a "legal target" because he is out of range, so Shadowy Form would not take affect?

Teddy is still a target. Measuring range happens after determining if the model's eligible to be declared a target in the first place. So, Teddy's in LoS, you can't declare Dreamer as a target even if Ted's actually out of range. Just like if you'd wanted to shoot at Teddy at 14.5" and he was out of range. He can still be declared a target, but when you check that he's a legal target (i.e. in range) you find that he's too far to hit and the Duel never happens.

The Dreamer's Shadowy Form works in this way when it comes to timing (and it's geekeese heavy, so go with the flow):

1. You want to shoot the Dreamer (assuming your above ranges).
2. You declare that you will target the Dreamer.
3. (RM p.14) you check that the Dreamer's in LoS. Check.
4. (RM p.14) you check that there are any special situations that would prevent the Dreamer being targeted (outside of Talent/Spells). None, so far so good.
5. (RM p.14) You check if the Dreamer has any Talents/Spells that would prevent it being targeted. Shadowy Form...ok. Let's check Teddy as a target.
6. You check to see if Teddy is in LoS. yup.
7. Are there any special situations preventing you declaring Teddy as a target? Nope.
8. Does Teddy have any Talents/Spells that would prevent it being targeted? Nope.
9. Teddy could be declared a target.
10. The Dreamer's Shadowy Form kicks in so you cannot target him. It doesn't fizzle anything as you're checking if he's eligible to even be targeted at this point.
11. Change targets if you so choose. Let's say you do and declare Teddy. We already know he can be targeted.
12. Check range to Teddy, he's out of range, therefore he's not a legal target of the attack.
13. Without a legal target the attack misses (RM p.42).

whew. Now this is too long to put into a sigline.

Folks are blending when target choice/declaration/range measurement/legal target for a strike duel to occur together. The above's the exploded view of what's going on.

[gnam]

Ah, ok, I couldn't find anywhere in the book that said that someone out of range for a Melee attack isn't a legal target. The only reference I could find to legal target was at the beginning of the book (page 14 I believe) that says you declare and then measure, and if you are in range it's a legal target.

Do you know where it refers to melee range being required for it to be a legal target? I know I'll get asked at my local store.

[Keltheos]

Yeah, page 42. it's in the first step before the Duel begins (1. Declare Target, then Check Range). Since melee range can be checked whenever you're always aware of whether two models are engaged or not.

You'd know before even saying you want to target the Dreamer Teddy's not a legal target when it comes to melee range. I am going to revise the errata above to clarify the difference between melee and ranged though.


Spot Errata/FAQ addition: Replace Shadowy Form description with "Enemy models cannot target the Dreamer with Actions or Strikes if there is a friendly Nightmare within 3” of the Dreamer that could be a legal target of the Action."

This covers the above for ranged timing as well as the melee situations and legal targets. Same intent, clarified to cover the new Rules Manual 'legal target' terminology.

[Truefaith]

Ok, threadomancy here.

Just to sum up, if the Dreamer is less then 3in from Teddy and the dreamer is in Ikyro's melee and Teddy is outside of Ikyro's melee, she can bash the Dreamer.

But if Nino is shooting the dreamer he has to target Teddy and if Teddy is out of range the attack fails.

I just don't get it. On page 14 of the newer Little Rule Book, it talks about legal target and mentions range, so if your out of shooting range how is that a legal target? Its not. So shadowy form is errata'd to say "legal target in melee and target at range"?

[poulpox]

As far as I'm aware the final revision of Shadowy form was that the Nightmare must be a legal target in order to deflect the attack from the Dreamer. A legal target in terms of melee means the defender has to be in melee range and LoS. A legal target in terms of ranged attack means the defender has only to be in LoS (he is then targeted, but if out of range the attack fizzles).
:)

[karn987]

Just to bump it, the errata for Shadowy form can be found Here: http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=222629&postcount=34

And has been linked in Sketch and Kel's signatures.

[Truefaith]

Right I have that book marked, Kel's errata.

Para phrasing: Enemies cannot target the Dreamer if he's within 3in of a friendly nightmare if the nightmare could be a legal target.

But page 14 says to be a legal target you have to be in range. "If the target is within the effect's range and meets the above requirements, it is considered a legal target of the effect."

Strike attack sequence on pg 42 says "otherwise, the target is out of range, is not a legal trget, and the strike fails." So that's for shooting or melee.

I'm under the impression that if the dream has teddy 2.5in behind him and nino has only rng to shoot the dreamer, he would fail because teddy is within line of sign which makes him a target. But when you check he's out, so he's not a legal target, and the rng attack fails.

So melee works differently because its been errata'd? Even though the sequence for a strike on pg 42 says declare target, then check range. And if your out of range you fail.

Maybe I'm missing a page in the book?

[Truefaith]

So "legal target" has been changed to support this?

If a target is in LoS,for ranged attack its a legal target, but in melee you als have to be in melee range?

[Kintaro]

I also have a question :

You all keep referring to an attack "failing"....if that's the case, does that mean that the AP spent on the strike is still spent? Or since it can not be a legal target, the point is NOT spent and you can basically try again on another target (or use the point on whatever if it's a general AP)?
"Failed" seems to imply that you've got all the way "through" the strike - so to speak - and so the point would be spent.

I have only battled a few crews so far, and the Dreamer is by far the most difficult to figure out how to stop. My opponent plays the crew really really well, and after the game HE said he didn't know how to stop it! Knowing this sequence and the ruling helps a bit, as I think I can now figure out a way on how to mitigate this crew's seeming invulnerability.

Thanks!

[Headcase2]

Yes, the AP are spent as soon as you declare the action, and are thus wasted.

On beating the Dreamer: all of his models are squishy (even Chompy) and he relies on a few key pieces (i.e. blow up those Daydreams whenever you get a chance). That, and watch out for Alp Bombs (which usually aren't too bad once you figure out how to disarm them).

[Vinncent]

Question,
The Dreamer have Master of Dreams abilitie, that gives him max. to 5 more ss to the ss pool; that means i can have more than max. 8 ss (from basic rules)?

[Keltheos]

So "legal target" has been changed to support this?

If a target is in LoS,for ranged attack its a legal target, but in melee you als have to be in melee range?

Yes.

[osoi]

Question,
The Dreamer have Master of Dreams abilitie, that gives him max. to 5 more ss to the ss pool; that means i can have more than max. 8 ss (from basic rules)?

No thats just his starting cache it is between 0-5 dependant on how many nightmares he hires (it caps at 5 if you hire over this amount)

[Vinncent]

Ok,
thanks you osoi.

[mpangelu]

Yes.
... so the ranged attack doesn't actually have to have range to the new target for it to be valid to transfer?.... ... Really? He can dump it to someone you can't touch in range, but not melee?

[Fetid Strumpet]

It is counter-intuitive I know but the difference is in what is a legal target for a melee attack, and what is a legal target for a ranged attack.

A legal target for a melee attack is a model that is in LoS and within the melee weapon's range. If the model is not within the Melee weapon's range it is not a legal target. And since you may always check your melee range to see what is within it you will always know if one of the Dreamer's nightmare's is able to be targeted instead of him via shadowy form.

A legal target for a Ranged attack only requires that the target be in LoS.
Once you have declared your target you might be found to be out of range and therefore your action would fizzle, but the actual targeting is not limited by distance.