Augmented Jump & Wicked

[Slade]

While it hasn't come up in a game, I've been reading over Von Schill and came up with a problem. His Augmented Jump ability states that "This model may not be blocked while disengaging." So, is there still a required disengage duel? It matters most when trying to get away from a model with Wicked, while Von Schill will most definitely get away, will he still be required to make that test vs. getting damaged (as well as burning through cards in the players decks)?

[Ratty]

Wicked just means you get a damage flip when you win a disengaging duel. If there is no duel there is no damage. SO Von Schill's Rocket Shoes of Doom TM would allow you to avoid it.

[Keltheos]

Right, blocked = have to conduct a disengaging duel.

[Slade]

So, what I'm getting here is that yes, a disengaging duel is required, but there is no damage because Von Schill can't be stopped?

Sorry about the confusion, but there seems to be two posts that say the opposite answer.

[Justin]

So, what I'm getting here is that yes, a disengaging duel is required, but there is no damage because Von Schill can't be stopped?

Sorry about the confusion, but there seems to be two posts that say the opposite answer.

No, Kel was not saying that when a model is blocked you then conduct a duel.

He is saying that for a model to be considered "blocked" there must have been a disengage duel made which the model lost. So therefor, anytime a model is blocked, a duel must have been made.

So, thanks to Von Schill's ability, no duel is made. Therefor the model may not be blocked. (can't lose a duel it didn't make) In short: see Ratty's post.

[Keltheos]

Actually, what I'm saying is that a model disengaging from another may be blocked (game term, p.48 of the rules manual) by that model and a block results in a disengaging strike duel.

Von Schill cannot be blocked, therefore no disengaging strike occurs.

[Justin]

Actually, what I'm saying is that a model disengaging from another may be blocked (game term, p.48 of the rules manual) by that model and a block results in a disengaging strike duel.

Von Schill cannot be blocked, therefore no disengaging strike occurs.

Oh, man, I'm like the worst Kel translator ever.

[Slade]

Thank you, that is a much clearer way of putting it. I was confused because I thought blocked happened because of the disengaging duel, not the other way around (Lalo must've seen it the same way I did).

[Masque]

Thank you, that is a much clearer way of putting it. I was confused because I thought blocked happened because of the disengaging duel, not the other way around (Lalo must've seen it the same way I did).

I'm very tempted to say that Slade's initial instinct is correct. Check the wording. "...that model may interrupt the enemy's move and attempt to block it by making one melee Strike..." Because of the word "attempt" it appears that only a successful strike leads to a block. If the word "attempt" was removed then the strike would be the block as opposed to something that leads to the block. I know I'm being argumentative but I like rules and rulings on rules to actually say the same thing.

[Sandwich]

(0)Augmented Jump: This model gains Flight. This model may not be blocked by disengaging strike.

A disengaging Strike is a strike made when you attempt to stop a model from leaving your Melee Range.

Augmented Jump states that you may not Block Von Schill from leaving your Melee Range.

Therefore, if Von Schill activates (0)Augmented Jump and then goes to leave any model's melee range, he CANNOT be stopped.

There is no parting strike made at all.

Wicked would not even be brought into the equation.

[Slade]

Well, maybe Disengaging needs to be better defined. I'm fairly certain a disengage flip still occurs for several, hopefully clearly stated reasons:

As defined by Disengaging on page 48 of the rule manual


Models cannot simply move past enemy models without risking an attack. To represent this, the moment a moving enemy model would leave a model's longest melee range, that model may interrupt the enemy's move...

I'm breaking this up here for extra emphasis, cause this is the important part coming up in italics


... and attempt to block it by making one melee Strike, called a disengaging Strike, targeting that enemy model. The quote goes on to say that if it's successful, no damage, stops the action, you know the rest.

Now, that part where I stopped the quote is because it says that you attempt to block them by making the strike, ergo a block has not happened when you make the strike.

So, Von Schill may not be blocked while disengaging, read this way means that if he is hit by a disengaging strike he does not become Blocked and his movement is not halted. However, if the Augmented Jump ability were to read
"This model gains Flight. This model is not subject to disengaging Strikes." Yours would be the current interpretation of the rule; there is no disengaging strike, and no flip to be done.

You see, the rules don't even clearly define what a block is; they mention a blocking model later in that paragraph (I'm assuming a blocking model is one that successfully hits with a disengaging strike and causes a block to occur), but it doesn't say anything flatly to the effect of "A model that is hit by this disengaging strike has become Blocked and the Action of the disengaging model ends immediately." or "A model is Blocked until a disengaging Strike has been won by the model attempting to leave the blocking model's melee range." Either of which would clear the issue up.


Apologies for the condescending tone of the post, but I have been watching a lot of Penn & Teller's Bull****! and I find Penn's snarky tone to be utterly contagious. And lets face it, I do enjoy being right.

Cheers!

P.s. I do hope you actually read this long-winded rant instead of skimming it like I know most of you did and immediately thought I was some ignoramus arguing a solved issue in his favor just for the sake of arguments. I like rules, I like them better when they're followed.

P.p.s. I'm really not knocking the rules for being poorly written (they aren't), because things like this come up that no one could have though of. I'm really just making a point that as Rules Marshals you should put at least some effort into trying to see an issue from your opponents side, as opposed to stating your opinion (however supported it is) and calling it good. I'm really not trying to flame, I'm trying to debate. Debates don't happen when someone covers their ears and hums to themselves as their friends start chanting at the opponent that they're wrong.

[Ratty]

A block is a special interrupt you can make when someone leaves your melee range. Block referes to the entire event.


Models cannot simply move past enemy models without risking an attack. To represent this, the moment a moving enemy model would leave a model's longest melee range, that model may interrupt the enemy's move and attempt to block it ..

So this says you are making a block, it then goes on to explain how a block attempt is made.


.. by making one melee Strike[/I], called a disengaging Strike, targeting that enemy model.

[Slade]

You make a valid point. It can be read both ways I suppose, but why wouldn't it be called "Blocking" instead of "Disengaging". It's a little weird to have the action called one thing, but be considered another, especially when it's more of a side note than the focus of the article.

[Ratty]

The enemy is attempting to disengage. The player is trying to stop this, so he is trying to block the enemy, the strike which is just part of it is called a disengaging strike.

[KenS]

'May not be blocked" is, admittedly, vague. Does Block refer to the entire disengaging Strike sequence, or only the successful result? If something were to say, for example, "may not be damaged", I would assume the model would still be subject to Strikes, but would take no damage.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Really?

No Disengaging Duels may be attempted against Von Schill after he performs the Augmented Jump Action.