Psychic Blade!! Madness!

Just to say guys I am not being deliberately bloodyminded

and a few of us have said this is just talking about it what you do in your game is all that is important.

The crux of a lot of these rulings is that people are assuming what in effect are quite powerful additional abilities which are not stated in the books

For example :-

Making a Psychic blade invisible is a huge extra power not only does it mean you can not dodge it (after all it is treated like a sword in the rules) but other assassination and stealth attacks are uber powerful.

Manoeuvre allows a ranged attack if made, is a huge extra ability that is not backed up by anything in the game. We have a number of times that explain how you can exit melee but none mention manoeuvre also it is stated you can not use a basic weapon in melee but does not say unless you make a manoeuvre action.

Another example of this is the Dual shot argument where people assume that because both guns are shot at the same time this means the damage is added and Armour and toughness are only removed once. This assumption turns this into the most powerful feat in the game.

My rule of thumb as a GM is that if something takes a assumption that would add in a powerful advantage that is not mentioned normally you can take it you assumed wrong. After all these games have been playtested a lot. However once again your game is your game

Re: Maneuver not disengaging:

First, he's right: the only real definition of "engaged" we get (that I've found, correct me if I'm wrong) is under the description of the Move action, where it says

Move Action, pg 192 wrote:Whenever you end your movement adjacent to your adversary, you are said to be engaged with that opponent.

Now, unless you want to say that you're still "engaged" after him running off until you move, then the opponent's movement also counts, in which case the maneuver forces him to move away, ending his movement in a nonadjacent space, thus disengaging.

Second, think about the implications of ruling that maneuver can't disengage from melee. For starters, supposed I maneuver my opponent off a catwalk and he falls, am I still engaged in melee? Obviously not, but the rules interpretation that maneuver doesn't disengage would suggest that I still am.

Third, if it REALLY bothers you, make anyone wielding a basic weapon without a bayonet or that can't be used as a club take a -10 to his WS test to maneuver, because it's not as credible a threat.

Fourth, it's not really unrealistic at all. I run at you with a sword, swing, and miss (or hit, doesn't really matter). You lean forward and start to bring the stock of your shotgun around in an arc, so I jump back, at which point you step slightly to the side, bring the shotgun in line, and fire. What's unrealistic about this scenario?

Fifth, it's not game-breaking, because it's taking a full round and allowing an opposed check to fire ONE shot. If you have a problem with taking a whole round to fire one shot while giving your opponent not one but TWO chances to resist (the opposed test and the dodge once he actually fires), then I'd like to direct your attention to the automatic fire rules on page 190.

Magecraft, I see your point about people reading advantages that aren't there, but the Maneuver/Shooting isn't the same as just the effects of a single talent like Dual Shot (which I agree with you on, by the way, they're two shots, and getting around the offhand penalty is advantage enough), but rather the interaction of different rules. If the rulebook addressed every possible interaction of the rules presented, it would not only read like a legal text, but would probably be closer in size to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Saying "the written rules don't cover this interaction so it doesn't work that way," is, I'm sorry, a cop out, because it's the GM's job to rule on rules interactions (and while it's not a requirement, common courtesy asks that you give your players your reasoning and to be consistent). If you want to tell your players "No, you can't do that because there's not enough time (unless you have Quick Draw)," then that's something else, and a ruling I'd fully understand. But saying that a combo doesn't work solely because the rules don't specifically say they do wouldn't fly around here.

Sorry man I still disagree

If someone else's action disengages him then you are disengaged, we have one section which deals with disengaging from combat and that does not mention manoeuvre at all. Yes the section is called fleeing but if you read it is says if you choose to exit combat you can either disengage or just run away it does not mention manoeuvre at all and as you could with a greater chance of distance manoeuvre and then move why on earth would it not mention it.

Also while it does say that you are engaged when adjacent we do not know how far that is for example if 2 people with great weapons are fighting they may well be a lot more than one M away but are still in combat.

The manoeuvre also states you can not manoeuvre people into trouble.

It is not realistic because if you are engaged you are having to disengage and then bring your weapon up and hit, this is for moving people out of cover or away from doors.

It is powerful because you are interpreting a rule that allows a basic weapon to be used in melee, this is a huge change to the game. This is big enough that this would have been mentioned somewhere in the book. This is not a minor thing in the game and even if cutting down space I could not see something fundamental as a way to disengage from melee and / or fire a basic weapon in melee not to get a mention. For example fighting with a bolter or shotgun suddenly become far more effective with this ruling to the point unless you are talking having a major melee weapon. Also if you make a manoeuvre test an then you get to shoot and stop your opponent from using a full round attack action on you as he has to move back into melee which is also another major ability which is added by a interpretation of a rule which states nothing about it.

The way I am looking at this (and I maybe proved wrong by TPTB in the future) there is no mention of this at all, we have a statement telling us how we can disengage form combat (no mention of manoeuvre) we have a statement saying basic weapons can not be used in melee (once again no mention of manoeuvre). All we have to base this on is a line which says you can move forward or not, if this was disengaging then it surely would have said at that point as it is a huge difference. Adding in "and thereby exiting melee" is all it would have taken.

So yes people can take it how they want but as far as I can see we have nothing in the book to state it acts to end melee. Another way to look at it is my way of understanding this takes no assumptions or extra thinking the other requires assumptions and in effect extra rules/ruling. No as I said I may be proved wrong and one of the writer may say that in manoeuvre it should have said "and ending melee" but that is a major thing and it it not mentioned.

as far as I can see we have nothing in the book to state it acts to end melee.

Uh yeah:

Whenever you end your movement adjacent to an adversary, you are said to be engaged with that opponent.

Right there man, in front of ya.

Are you making melee combat be "everyone adjacent +1 meter?" That might be rather important since Point Blank rules come into effect at 3 meters or less.

Honestly, your just missing the fact that Manouvre allows you to force your opponent to move away from you, and thus, end the engagement. You seem to think that the only way you can end a melee is by fleeing, while you can, through Manouvre aggressively force your opponent to move away from you instead.

Edit: Maybe a more helpful way to describe it is: Fleeling, Disengage, etc., is "I move away from him."

Manouvre is "He moves away from me."

Chances are a Psyker's WP is be much higher than his WS

My Psychic blade is hitting for 1D10+10 Rending with 10 penetration

Whereas my fellow Guardsman is hitting with 1d10+5+4 with a pen of 6 with a powersword

My WP is Higher than his WS!

kris40k wrote:

as far as I can see we have nothing in the book to state it acts to end melee.

Uh yeah:

Whenever you end your movement adjacent to an adversary, you are said to be engaged with that opponent.

Right there man, in front of ya.

Are you making melee combat be "everyone adjacent +1 meter?" That might be rather important since Point Blank rules come into effect at 3 meters or less.

Honestly, your just missing the fact that Manouvre allows you to force your opponent to move away from you, and thus, end the engagement. You seem to think that the only way you can end a melee is by fleeing, while you can, through Manouvre aggressively force your opponent to move away from you instead.

Sorry you again are assuming, we are not sure what adjacent means in the game system.

I am not ignoring the fact about manoeuvre rather noting it does not state at any time this disengages from melee.

In the fleeing section it states sometimes you voluntarily want to move away from your opponent. If you could disengage with manoeuvre and then move would not this be given as a option?

The you make a manoeuvre and the melee end is a huge decision as not only does it allow a basic weapon to be used it also can be used to stop your opponent from having a full attack action. If you had a rifle with a melee attachment you can according to your interpretation do the following.

Roll initiative

You win, make a manoeuvre test, make it move opponent back a metre and shoot, fail do a melee attack.
You loose, you get attacked and then as above.

In his you take a manoeuvre and use it to either fire a basic weapon in melee (which the game states you can not do and does not mention manoeuvre) with a massive 30% bonus and even more power for a shotgun and / or stop you opponent from using any powerful full action attack (swift, lightning , 2 weapon).

This is a huge difference in the game that is not mentioned anywhere in the rules, if this was missed out due to space it is huge. All this is allowed because one passage uses the word adjacent and manoeuvre mentions you do not have to follow the 1 metre but in no where does it mention this stops melee.

My postion is simple if manoeuvre was that powerful it would have been mentioned at least once somewhere in the book.

I guess we are going to have to not agree on this, I can see your logic in making this but for me the complete lack of any confirmation, the lack of mentioning ending melee and the fleeing section not at any time mentioning manoeuvre; coupled with how powerful this would make manoeuvre and it not being mentioned. By far out weighs the logic of adding two lines that are not even in the same place.

As I have said I am not being bloodyminded and have accepted I was wrong in previous arguments (even found a quote on the multiple SA shots vs small burst argument which destroyed my case

) for me this is far to huge a assumption without any back up from the books.

we are not sure what adjacent means in the game system.

I'm pretty dang sure what it means, just wondering how far you're willing to take it at this pont.

I am not ignoring the fact about manoeuvre rather noting it does not state at any time this disengages from melee.

It doesn't need too. It's rather clear that if you are not adjacent when you end your movement, which Manouvre is a Movement action, you are not engaged. Pretty cut and dry. Basic rule of the game. Base to base, so to speak.

In the fleeing section...

Stop looking at fleeing. Manouvre is offensive, not defensive. Manouvre is not Fleeing.

I guess we are going to have to not agree on this,

That cool, it's your game and all. I am just interested in how many meters away someone has to shove someone before you will not consider them not in melee combat anymore

After reading p. 192 several times I would have to say I am inclined to agree with Magecraft. If Manouvre works as you are describing it it is the premere movement action to take. You can effectivly ened up with two attacks! How you may say? Well let us use the rule as Kris40K is interprting it.

You engage or are engaged in melee. You make a standard attack (1/2 Action), then you take the move action Manouvre (1/2 action) you 'move' your oppent 1 metre away from you. Now the sidebar covering Fleeing specifically states that 'If you are trying to move away from one or more opponents without using the Disengage Action each oppent gets a free attack against you...' so as your oppent moves away from you, you get a free attack. Two attacks, if you had inititive they got none and will have to reinitiate combat. You can continue to do this over and over. I am pretty sure Manouvre was not intened to work that way, for a simple half action anyone can take it is very powerful espicially considering the number of Talents one usualy has to take to get second or additional attacks.

Cypher wrote:After reading p. 192 several times I would have to say I am inclined to agree with Magecraft. If Manouvre works as you are describing it it is the premere movement action to take. You can effectivly ened up with two attacks! How you may say? Well let us use the rule as Kris40K is interprting it.

You engage or are engaged in melee. You make a standard attack (1/2 Action), then you take the move action Manouvre (1/2 action) you 'move' your oppent 1 metre away from you. Now the sidebar covering Fleeing specifically states that 'If you are trying to move away from one or more opponents without using the Disengage Action each oppent gets a free attack against you...' so as your oppent moves away from you, you get a free attack. Two attacks, if you had inititive they got none and will have to reinitiate combat. You can continue to do this over and over. I am pretty sure Manouvre was not intened to work that way, for a simple half action anyone can take it is very powerful espicially considering the number of Talents one usualy has to take to get second or additional attacks.

Stop being facetious.

Attacks like that are only made when someone turns their backs and Flees.

Manouvering someone during your turn does not trigger them Fleeing

And Cypher, don't lie about my interpretation of a rule, it's beneath of you.

kris40k wrote:

we are not sure what adjacent means in the game system.

I'm pretty dang sure what it means, just wondering how far you're willing to take it at this pont.

Well it means near or not disant from which can easily cover within 1 metre of

I am not arguing what it means but rather to assume that a 1 metre distant is not adjacent and thus in melee is a assumption.

kris40k wrote:

I am not ignoring the fact about manoeuvre rather noting it does not state at any time this disengages from melee.

It doesn't need too. It's rather clear that if you are not adjacent when you end your movement, which Manouvre is a Movement action, you are not engaged. Pretty cut and dry. Basic rule of the game. Base to base, so to speak.

How if you are using a large weapon in melee you are not next to some one but still in melee, during combat distance between combatants varies but it does not mean they exit the combat.

kris40k wrote:

In the fleeing section...

Stop looking at fleeing. Manouvre is offensive, not defensive. Manouvre is not Fleeing.

But fleeing is the only section we have about getting out of melee there is no other, also fleeing is not just fleeing but also getting out of combat and moving which can be to engage a different target.

kris40k wrote:

I guess we are going to have to not agree on this,

That cool, it's your game and all. I am just interested in how many meters away someone has to shove someone before you will not consider them not in melee combat anymore

The problem is we do not have a definitive answer to this, however I would say if you are within range of a weapon you are in melee so a sword + a arm is more than a metre so. For me this is key so if someone was using a pike or longspear with a reach I could easily see that this would not allow a point blank attack. My definition of melee is more fluid and would require either opponent to remove themselves from combat (and we have a specific action that does just that and now where does it say that manoeuvre does this) or a outside event separates them (As a rule of thumb I would look at this being more than one move action away or blocking). Or to look at it you are in combat until you choose to move away from it, being one metre away is not being away but still within combat range.

Oh for the old Q&A section this would be so easy to sort out with that.

I am not being facetious. Read the statement. You can't have you cake and eat it too. You want to interpret the rules strictly as they are written, except when they say, as written something that causes your intreptation to seem overpowered or off kilter. but look at what is stated regarding Fleeing:

Dark Heresy p. 192 wrote: Fleeing
Sometimes is is just best to get away from your opponent by any means you can. In combat, you may voluntarily flee from an opponent or be forced to flee becasue of Fear, a Psychic Power or some other effect. When fleeing under your own control, you can take any of the following actions: Disengage, Move or Run. When fleeing against your will, you must take the Run action. Under most circumstances (except for Disengaging), you're turrning your back on your opponent and leaving yourself open for an attack. If you are trying to move away from one or more melee oppents without using the Disengage Action, each opponent gets a free attack against you as you move away. This is an extra attack and is made in addition to any other attacks they make during their Turn.

Now when you move your opponent using Manoeuvre are they using Disengage? Becasue the rules don't say that. I don't think you should or even do get a second attack becasue I don't think the action Manoeuvre was meant to work like that. I think the intention was that you were staying in melee with your oponent but you were directing them by pressing your attack while moving. I think the 'if desired, you can advance one metre as well.' was either poorly worded or should be excised as if it is optional, and if is meant to work as written and intrepted by yourself then the above (two attack trick) does leaglly work and is kind of unballencing.

My point was to demonstrate the absurdity of such RAW interpretations of the rules, I really think there are alot of 'bugs' in the DH system at present but trust and hope that as the game goes into second printings that they will be adressed, fixed, explained and erratta-ed.

How if you are using a large weapon in melee you are not next to some one but still in melee, during combat distance between combatants varies but it does not mean they exit the combat.

I run fair and consistent. I don't tweak rules that my players don't know before hand. They need to know if melee ranges. Adjacent is Adjacent, Engaged is Engaged, no mater a knife or a claymore.

But fleeing is the only section we have about getting out of melee there is no othe

No where does it state that Fleeing is the only way to end a melee engagement.

Cypher wrote:I am not being facetious. Read the statement. You can't have you cake and eat it too. You want to interpret the rules strictly as they are written, except when they say, as written something that causes your intreptation to seem overpowered or off kilter. but look at what is stated regarding Fleeing:

Dark Heresy p. 192 wrote: Fleeing
Sometimes is is just best to get away from your opponent by any means you can. In combat, you may voluntarily flee from an opponent or be forced to flee becasue of Fear, a Psychic Power or some other effect. When fleeing under your own control, you can take any of the following actions: Disengage, Move or Run. When fleeing against your will, you must take the Run action. Under most circumstances (except for Disengaging), you're turrning your back on your opponent and leaving yourself open for an attack. If you are trying to move away from one or more melee oppents without using the Disengage Action, each opponent gets a free attack against you as you move away. This is an extra attack and is made in addition to any other attacks they make during their Turn.

Now when you move your opponent using Manoeuvre are they using Disengage? Becasue the rules don't say that. I don't think you should or even do get a second attack becasue I don't think the action Manoeuvre was meant to work like that. I think the intention was that you were staying in melee with your oponent but you were directing them by pressing your attack while moving. I think the 'if desired, you can advance one metre as well.' was either poorly worded or should be excised as if it is optional, and if is meant to work as written and intrepted by yourself then the above (two attack trick) does leaglly work and is kind of unballencing.

My point was to demonstrate the absurdity of such RAW interpretations of the rules, I really think there are alot of 'bugs' in the DH system at present but trust and hope that as the game goes into second printings that they will be adressed, fixed, explained and erratta-ed.

That is your problem, you are looking at Fleeing.

How many times do I have to state in this thread that Manouvre is not Fleeing?!?!

kris40K wrote:And Cypher, don't lie about my interpretation of a rule, it's beneath of you.

Please, comments like that are unecessary. I apologise if I misrepresented your point, if so it was a misunderstanding. I will admidt that. It is often difficult to fully grasp meanings and nuances, in text without seeing or actually speaking, discussing with the person. I did not mean to nor do I ever cast aspirations on others words. Please though extend the same courtousy to me. Again I apologise if you felt I was twisting your words or misrepresenting your stance, but that was not my intent so please refrain from accusing me of lying.

And thank you for realising that lying is, indeed, beneath me.

Cypher wrote:

kris40K wrote:And Cypher, don't lie about my interpretation of a rule, it's beneath of you.

Please, comments like that are unecessary. I apologise if I misrepresented your point, if so it was a misunderstanding. I will admidt that. It is often difficult to fully grasp meanings and nuances, in text without seeing or actually speaking, discussing with the person. I did not mean to nor do I ever cast aspirations on others words. Please though extend the same courtousy to me. Again I apologise if you felt I was twisting your words or misrepresenting your stance, but that was not my intent so please refrain from accusing me of lying.

And thank you for realising that lying is, indeed, beneath me.

I apologise if I offended, but reading

Well let us use the rule as Kris40K is interprting it.

from you errk me a bit. I'll let it go as a misunderstanding if you'll forgive me my rudeness.

But fleeing is the only section we have about getting out of melee there is no other,

This is probably another one of our disconnects. You only view Fleeing, while ignoring aggressive Manouvering.

The action is right there in front of you, but you only see running away. Not forcing your enemy to run away from you.

A couple of things Kris40k not to be confrontational.

You complained about the line using your interpretation of the rule but that is what we are discussing 2 interpretations of the rules that is what cypher is saying.

On the subject of weapon size that is my point exactly you are saying you are no longer in melee if you are a metre apart I am saying that is dependent on the weapon and melee not on a set distance.

We have 2 times that removing yourself from melee is mentioned in the rule book; Fleeing (which does not only describe running from a fight) and in disengage. Only in these 2 places; not in manoeuvre in fact manoeuvre is never mentioned in the same sentence as exiting melee ever.

Aggressive maneuvering is exactly that manoeuvring in combat it does not ever say, not once that it removes you from melee. Manoeuvring is moving a opponent by footwork etc not forcing him to run away (does not ever say this or indicate this in any way). If you where forcing him to run aways as you said then Cypher (deliberately over the top) extra attack would be warrented. Howvere Cypher is not saying this is the case just that the same required amount of assumptions to disengage from melee with a manoeuvre also is required to get a free attack. Both are far more than manoeuvre was intended to do.

Disengage has 2 parts for a reason, first to break the combat and the second to move out of it, if you did not do the second you would still be in melee.

Hmm personally I would have to go with Manoeuver not removing you from being engaged.

First: I see it as to helpful to gun wielders in a melee and logic also sort of points out if I can (using melee skills) push somebody away, then I am also close enough to threaten them.. (thus still in melee)

Second: While most are taking adjacent to mean (bases touching (if using miniatures)) I am not aware of this definition actually being printed. I take adjacent to mean (GM call) close enough to threaten / melee).

Likewise:

"Whenever you end your movement adjacent to an adversary, you are said to be engaged with that opponent."

So If I am standing up a bound, gagged, drugged, and semi-conscious cultist (clearly an adversary of every good member of the ==][==) and his bodies are sniping at me from roof tops, I can NOT shoot them since I am egnaged with the bound, gagged, doped up cultist (who despite all of those is certainly an adversary (again a word without specific meaning in game terms).

While it comes from a miniatures universe and borrows a lot from it, the base game is more subjective. If they had said within one meter, the same square/hex, or 'touching' I would clearly agree; however using the undefined and subjective 'adjacent' it is clearly meant to be GM call.. on exactly what adjacent is.

Can a war titan NOT step on you since you are 1 meter away from them (yes I realize they are a vehicle and don't really get a 'melee skill' but if somebody made a 100' tall dreadnought... Can they only manage to melee with somebody touching their base.. a mere 1 meter away from their base and suddenly they can not be squashed?

Personally I see the intent of Manoeuver to help position your opponent, either breaking him away from friends (so you can surround him) or to keep him from running through a door to get away etc (manoeuver him to the side then you move into the doorway). It does not specify maintaining (or disengaging from combat).

However I would allow common sense to apply here somewhat. If you chose NOT to follow your opponent (and your opponent on his turn does not move back in to threaten, not (if applicable by weapon) make a melee attack from the distance) but choses to do something non-threatening to you, I would probably on your next turn allow you to be considered non-engaged.

And to answer others, technically (besides fleeing or disengage, we do NOT have rules on other ways to end melee) we have RULES for what starts them... but the rule is:

"Whenever you end your movement adjacent to an adversary, you are said to be engaged with that opponent."

That does not state it ends if the above is no longer true.

1) If you don't move, what happens?

2) Somebody is render helpless (for arguments sake NOT dead). (you are still adjacent and they are still an adversary (just a helpless one)

3) Are you engaged if they don't know you are there? (distort vision and they think you are 10m away, see me not and they can perceive you.. (or just good stealth and you hiding behind the curtain). Clearly you could 'adjacent' (whatever that means) to somebody but not be engaged.

Whether the rules actually allow it or not, I prefer what Kris has said.

Manoeuvre is a pretty boring action, one I very rarely ever see used.

Pushing your opponent away from you and then shooting them in head I think is a great way to use what is an otherwise lacklustre action (you cross your shotgun with their sword and slide them away, before flipping your shottie around and letting rip).

The 'manoeuvre someone off a cliff' scenario I think is also pretty dumb - all it takes is a WS vs WS test to push someone off a cliff to their death? If only it were ACTUALLY that easy.

No one is going to let themselves get Weaponskilled off a cliff. Knocked off a cliff maybe (the knock down or whatever action is perhaps one of the best actions in the game).

A knock down half action followed by a single attack (with the opponent on the ground) is a nasty combo.

Hellebore

My problem is Hellebore while sounding cool it has a massive change in the combat dynamic.

Melee is a major part of combat in wh40K and is replicated in the rules as such however if you character has a good WS and BS you arguably have the best option he can do is use a shotgun in close combat.

With 2 successful role you can take down a lot of foes and as such the shotgun with maybe a melee attachment becomes the best melee weapon except for at the very high end.

So you make a melee attack and then role a PB shotgun attack, stick a LS on it and you get your ranged scatter attack at +40 every time. You also stop you opponent if you beat initiative from doing a full round attack action. This is massive and what you talk about is a intresting one off quirk in combat but what it actually becomes is arguably the best manoeuvre in game.

So the ultimate melee weapon is a shotgun with a mono melee attachment and a LS.

Combat goes as follows.

Make a manoeuvre action :-
Fail - make a melee attack spear mono
Succeed- Take a +40 scatter attack and most likely stop opponents full round attack.

Repeat if you have not already won.

Now this is a uber combat manoeuvre and has no down side at all. Yes is can be classed powergaming but then you are trying to bend the rules to offset a major rule that you can not use basic weapons in combat; based on a imho massive assumption that manoeuvre does exit melee if you do not move up the 1 M (which again imho has no backing in the rules as something this big would be mentioned).

Hellebore wrote:
Manoeuvre is a pretty boring action, one I very rarely ever see used.

The 'manoeuvre someone off a cliff' scenario I think is also pretty dumb - all it takes is a WS vs WS test to push someone off a cliff to their death? If only it were ACTUALLY that easy.

No one is going to let themselves get Weaponskilled off a cliff. Knocked off a cliff maybe (the knock down or whatever action is perhaps one of the best actions in the game).

A knock down half action followed by a single attack (with the opponent on the ground) is a nasty combo.

Hellebore

Ever done any sparring with mock or prop weapons? By being aggressive it is fairly easy to get an opponent to move in directions he would rather not. I seen people run into trees and/or buildings while trying to move away from someone.

As to the manouver off a cliff. If you're trying to pay attention to not getting stabbed in the liver, it would be frighteningly easy not to realise how close to the edge you are.

Finally, a cliff is not the only use of manouver. What about chasing an enemy out of cover so your allies can shoot him while you remain in cover? What about pushing him around so your buddies can pile on and stack on the ganging up bonuses?

Position and location in combat means a lot anywhere other than a flat empty field where you're fighting one-on-one.

If you follow Magecraft's line of thinking, then manoeuvring does not put your opponent out of 'combat' and thus pushing them out of cover would do nothing as you still count as engaged and thus may get hit instead.

I've done sparring and anyone stupid enough to ignore their surroundings isn't really a professional fighter. Even basic martial arts teaches you to be aware of your surroundings.

You can't 'dodge' (or parry for that matter) a manoeuvre, despite the text describing the 'dodge' action as a last ditch effort (the 'standard' feint/dodge being included in the WS test needed to hit someone in the first place). If someone who actually knows how to fight with deadly weapons has their back against a cliff they will try to get on the other side of the attacker - through them if necessary.

The WS vs WS test to push someone of a cliff is way to simple a test to produce such a nasty result. An NPC can do that to a PC just as easily as the other way around. It is effectively an instant death effect (falling damage being quite nasty even at low levels) for scoring 1 more DoS than your opponent. It does require an environmental specificity, but just happening to be fighting near a steep edge should not be grounds for instant death attacks.

And there are always more NPCs than PCs. All it takes is a couple of mooks to try a manoeuvre on a PC and one of them will eventually win.

Hmmm, I think I just found a quick way of stripping Fate Points from PCs. There are a lot of girders, gantries and towers in Imperial cities. Two punks on one PC get an outnumbering bonus making it more likely for them to win an opposed WS test. Why hit the carapace wearing storm trooper with a wooden club when lunging threateningly at them will make them fall off something...

@Magecraft I don't think it is as serious as you make out. Right now anyone can fire a pistol in melee, be it a melta pistol, plasma pistol or a shotpistol (there is a shotgun pistol in the IH I believe) or a hecutor.

You don't need to change the rules to be able to do that. Now you can't get a +40 to the shot (although you could if you followed the manoeuvre rules as Kris does) but you can still shoot someone in the face.

Hmmm, infernopistol with LS, manoeuvre bam. Or a meltagun. Or whatever.

But let me ask this, is it harder to force someone a metre away from you and the shoot at them as they come back for you, or swing your sword at them threateningly and make them fall of a cliff?

In my mind, it is MUCH easier to force someone to retreat from you to shoot at them (you see it in movies all the time where the hero is locked hilt to hilt before a surge of effort pushes them apart - although it goes without saying that films aren't reknown for their accuracy...) then it is to make them fall of a cliff.

If you tried the Knock Down action on someone at a cliff face it's a different story because you are actually trying to use brute force to push them off the cliff.

But an opposed WS test? Where is the ability to let them strike you instead? I would rather a gash across the arm than a thousand foot drop.

According to the rules you can't choose NOT to be manoeuvred, you can only try to negate it with an opposed test. What would happen if someone purposefully tried to manoeuvre their opponent on a cliff face and they refused to play ball?

Even with the Knock Down action if it was a success I would still allow an Agility test to attempt to grab the edge before going over (or even a WS test to attempt a counter Grapple - many a bad guy has tried to take the hero with them over the edge by grabbing them, but apparently all you can do is fall in DH....).

Hellebore

I think a lot of people seem to be forgetting that you cannot use manoeuvre someone into a dangerous situation. Let's think about what a dangerous situation might involve:

A cliff. A giant grinder. The barrel of a shotgun.

I like the idea of knocking the guy out of melee range and then blasting him, but given that combat is a dynamic situation I would say that you still count as being in combat with your opponent until one of you is down and out or disengages. Being 1m apart is fairly meaningless in a fight, especially when it involves weapons. You are still well within the reach of most melee attacks so unless your opponent is happy to break it off after being pushed a measly 1m away then I'd rule you are still in combat.

I see manoeuvre used quite frequently in my games. It can move an opponent out of a corner or other tactically advantageous position (even allowing you to move into it), force opponents into the open (even if you are still engaged you may be behind cover whilst they aren't), allow you to move towards a goal, objective or item whilst fighting, keep an opponent busy, clear a doorway or corridor for your allies and literally another fifteen or twenty uses! It is an exceptional action and one of the few truly tactical options presented in combat.

The coolest thing about battles in the 41st millenium is the locations and crazy scenery, manoeuvre might not let you force your opponent into the abyss, but it lets you do all sorts of other crazy nonsense with them!

In regards to the exciting adjacent/melee range argument. The rules never clarify what "adjacent" means as a game term and a strict dictionary definition is also clearly useless. The rules also never clarify what exactly melee range is, though we know that to make a melee attack a) we must be engaged with the enemy and b) to be engaged with the enemy we have to be adjacent. So its really up to each group to determine what exactly constitutes adjacent. The game does give us some other datapoints to add to our interpretation, we know that point blank range is less than 3 metres but at least greater than 1 metre (based on the games scale each character takes up 1m and when in base to base are definitely adjacent). The furthest you can move a character with manoeuvre is 1m which I would argue isnt far enough to break melee engagement (it is in fact on the edge of it). Of course like everyone else here this is just one interpretation and as no one is going to be convinced either way the entire argument is rather pointless.

Of course I think my interpretation of manoeuvre is the correct one though

To drag myself back to the actual topic of the thread, we found Psychic Blade to be too powerful in play and changed it to Dmg = 1d10+ WP bonus, Pen = WP bonus. Which still places it on par with power weapons and lets the pysker use his strongest stat to attack.

Hellebore I think you answered why it is a big deal in your post

+40 is huge

Also you are removing the chance for your opponent to make a full round attack which is also huge.

I have no problem with the use of pistols in melee as that is a long term theme in WH40K my problem is that if manoeuvre works that way Basic weapons are very effective in melee because all you need to do is with a WS role and then get a +40 (+30 no LS) shot at your foe and a good chance at stopping any fancy melee manoeuvre.

With this rule a strong case can be made that the best way to go is have both a High WS and BS but all ranged skills, as if forced into melee all you need to do manoeuvre and use your big gun.

As said the difference between the interpretation of the rules is if manoeuvre does not take you out of combat you can not use it to break combat (which it is never mentioned it can) the other gives manoeuvre a huge swath of extra very powerful uses none of which are mentioned in game.

However each to their own