Avatar Lilith and melee

[Q'iq'el]

No, because they do very different things. Wind changes the Rg of her Bisento. Haunted Forest allows a model to ignore the range of its weapon, and LOS, when selecting a target. Very different effects, very different outcomes.

I think I've understood the point where our interpretations of a relatively clear rule go completely apart. I've allowed myself to underscore it in the quote above.

Haunted forest doesn't speak about "selecting a target". It speaks about "targeting with Strikes". Every strike "targets" something, whether it is a volitional action or something model is forced to do (or can choose to do out of activation). Disengaging strike also "targets" the model which is Disengaging. To "target" is not the same thing as to start an Action and select the target for it, if I understand the rules correctly.


Now I agree it is unclear how Disengaging Strike would "trigger" if the model is already out of Lilith's melee range, and the wording isn't explicit enough to be clear, but there is a doubt at least in my head, whether the permission to target models within 2" of the forest with strikes doesn't effectively mean the melee range of all her strikes (including Disengaging Strikes) is 2" of the forest.

The reason for that is in the rules for determining if the target is legal - if something is in melee range, then it fulfills one of the conditions to be a legal target. If something allows you to target within 2" of the forest, it bypasses this requirement, or does it change the effective melee range?

Now I'd be first to say it isn't a two-way street and the permission to ignore that requirement doesn't mean the range gets extended, but the permission affects all of her strikes, including disengaging strikes, and not only strike actions. It would say "strike actions" if it was intended to be limited that way. It does so in other cases.

[Buhallin]

And I'll say again - that I agree with all that.

When can you make a Strike? When the rules say you can. Haunted Forest doesn't let you interrupt your opponent's activation on the other side of the board and say "Yeah, I'm going to use Haunted Forest to take a Strike at you now" just cause you want to.

When can you make a Disengaging Strike? When the rules say you can. Specifically, when you leave a model's melee range. That's it. It's not "unclear" when you can take a Disengaging Strike - there's nothing the least bit unclear about it. Just because Haunted Forest might be applicable during a Disengaging Strike (which, again, I agree it is) doesn't mean it gives you the opportunity to make a disengaging strike when you couldn't otherwise do it.

I honestly don't know how to continue this discussion. You still have yet to actually cite a single rule - you've got huge interpretations of intent, a lot of "maybe it effectively sorta does this" that has absolutely support in the actual rules, and you've done nothing at all to try and address the rules definitions we do have and point to anything that changes those rules. So, I think it's time to leave it for the RMs, but I hope you'll at least acknowledge the tenuous nature of your argument, and not try and push it on anyone else without the RM's actually saying something.

[Gollum528]

I honestly have no intent in my querie other than curiosity. I mainly play guild, so it being ruled the way everyone but Q suggests is entirely in my favor.

I'm entirely aware of what ambiguous means. Please don't get snippy. There is quite a bit of tension in this thread and my main intent with my last post was to show Q that he is not alone in feeling this is unresolved.

The difference between waldgeists and Lilith is that Lilith can draw line of sight through forests and waldgeists can not.

If you agree that abilities (like gunfighter) do in fact affect melee range and disengaging strikes, then it seems contradictory that melees abilities would not.

To the best of my memory they read as following (I do not have the cards in front of me so I may be wrong), Lilith: this model may make melee strikes anywhere with in 2" of a forest piece she is in base contact with. Gunfighter: a model may make melee strikes using its weapon up to 2" away.

I don't see much of a difference between the two and that's why I say it's still ambiguous. I could be missing something, if I am, please let me know or if my logic is false, please let me know.

The best argument I have seen for why it doesn't work is you can't be engaged with something you have no line of sight of, which Lilith isn't worried about. Any other response to this I ask that you please be civil, this is just a game and there is no need to get upset over it.

[Buhallin]

The difference between waldgeists and Lilith is that Lilith can draw line of sight through forests and waldgeists can not.

Yes, this is a difference between them. But it's totally irrelevant. I've said this.

If you agree that abilities (like gunfighter) do in fact affect melee range and disengaging strikes, then it seems contradictory that melees abilities would not.

Gunfighter allows a ranged weapon to be used for a disengaging strike because it says it can. Which you would know and not have to ask here...

To the best of my memory they read as following (I do not have the cards in front of me so I may be wrong), Lilith: this model may make melee strikes anywhere with in 2" of a forest piece she is in base contact with. Gunfighter: a model may make melee strikes using its weapon up to 2" away.

...if you were bothering to actually read what people are writing. I quoted the exact rule for Gunfighter 3 posts before you wrote this, in response to your previous. You want to know why I'm getting snippy? The big reason is that you have yet to address a single actual rule, or apparently even read what other people are saying.

I don't see much of a difference between the two and that's why I say it's still ambiguous. I could be missing something, if I am, please let me know or if my logic is false, please let me know.

The difference between the two is that Gunfighter explicitly says it can be used with disengaging strikes. Haunted Forest does not. I'm not sure how much more difference you can expect.

The best argument I have seen for why it doesn't work is you can't be engaged with something you have no line of sight of, which Lilith isn't worried about. Any other response to this I ask that you please be civil, this is just a game and there is no need to get upset over it.

It has nothing to do with Line of Sight, and I don't think anyone here has made that argument at all. I certainly know I haven't. It's also utterly irrelevant to the argument which was made at the very beginning, and I'm still making now.

The core of the argument is simple, and consists of three parts:

1. Disengaging strikes happen when you leave melee range - never at any other time.
2. Melee range is defined by weapon range - nothing else.
3. Haunted Forest does nothing to change the melee range of a weapon.

The rule for disengaging strikes defines when they occur - that's (1). It depends on a range, that's (2). If you can't meet the criteria defined by (1) and (2), you cannot make a disengaging strike. You said this is ambiguous - it's made up of 3 rules. One of those rules must have multiple possible interpretations for it to be ambiguous. If you could clarify which it is, it would probably help a great deal.

Q's theory seems to revolve around (3), and he claims that there is some "effective" Rg for the weapon that is what actually matters. But there is no such rule. Same applies for charges (which I know he also doesn't like). A charge requires you to end in melee range, or it fails - being able to make a Strike isn't enough. If you charge something with a Waldgeist and make it into a connecting forest, but are out of melee range, your charge fails and you don't get to make the strike.

I really don't know how many more times and how many ways I can try and say the same thing.

[Q'iq'el]

Q's theory seems to revolve around (3), and he claims that there is some "effective" Rg for the weapon that is what actually matters. But there is no such rule.

Actually my theory does not revolve around this at all and perhaps there is no need to snap at other posters, if you don't bother with reading their points as well.


Simply speaking my argument is that Haunted forests allow models to execute *ANY* strike regardless of the melee range and LoS, as long as the Target is within 2" from the forest the attacker is in.

I agree with you it doesn't explicitly extend the melee range of a model. But on the other hand it is specifically worded to affect strikes and not strike actions. It may be an omission or it may be an unfortunate wording. To further show how the situation isn't exactly clear and the intent isn't obvious, I've pointed out that Lilith's Avatar's design seems to assume she can do it (or she has some redundant Talents, which is also possible) and that the permission to strike within 2" of the forest may in fact be regarded as a change of a melee range of the model (though you are right this is a rather open reading of the rules).


Haunted Forest is a VERY VERY old rule. It hasn't been reviewed in a very long time. IIRC, it hasn't changed on the Waldgeist V2 cards, so the wording is still from the Book 1 days. On the top of that, the Waldgeist and Lilith have different wording for the same rule - the former attack within 1", she attacks within 2". This corresponds to their weapon's range, so the idea that their weapon range is connected to the Haunted Forest rule is at the very least suggested by the rules - another reason to wonder what the intent might have been.

Last but not least, the wording of the Disengaging Strike in Book 1, even though similar to current edition (they allowed to execute the strike when the model was leaving melee range of the players model), was ambiguous enough that I at least assumed Waldgeist can make Disengaging Strikes against models moving away from its forest. Seems I'm not the only one.

That it didn't come up earlier is the testament to relatively low popularity of Waldgeists and masters who use them (Lilith and Marcus mostly).


Considering all those circumstances, I came to conclusion the intent here may be going in a completely different direction than the RAW rules suggest. And Malifaux is not a game where RAW is in any way encouraged at all (instead we are told to look up the rulings and follow them whether they confirm the RAW or go against it), which may be irritating to you, but it simply is the fact. The ruling would settle the issue once and for all.


And while we are still calm enough to talk, please take the note you asked yourself why do I think the rules need a ruling. I merely mentioned I would really like to see one (as an explanation of the designer's intent behind this rule for Lilith's avatar), while I've answered the question I know the answer for. How about a deep breath and not accusing people of taking the thread OT (which it really isn't, because we still discuss a problem the original poster asked about), when you were the first to start the discussion?