http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/list/53.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
I need bigger goons!]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/27995.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/27995.page GMT lol ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151618.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151618.page GMT
also what would be amusing is the idea of two psychic blades hitting each other in a parry. WOuld it just parry like a normal blade with constant sensing on where the blades are; or would the connection of warp energy between the two duelers reach a point and an explosion of warp energy happens between them.

also what if your acoltyes go into a facility that has psychic protection in it (like stolen from a black ship)? ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151643.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151643.page GMT http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151722.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151722.page GMT
It is nasty but you do have to be close to use it. It rocks as a surprise first strike weapon but gets weaker unless you are the berserk type. So it has its checks and balances. Keeps guys from getting to close but ya still got to be a good shot or their guns will turn you to goo.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151746.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151746.page GMT
(Unless U allow a templar.)]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151889.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151889.page GMT
(Unless U allow a templar.)[/quote]

IIRC (don't have my book in front of me) it uses the Psychic WP FOR WS....


Its pretty much a one stop WP = IWin]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151897.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151897.page GMT
Wicked indeed.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151898.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151898.page GMT

It takes an 'action' to attack with the sword. Not clearly defined but we rolled this is an 'attack action' (common sense).

However it is NOT eligible for swift attack / lighting attack / etc.


It gives a TK a nice attack and then the option to do 'something' else, you can not be a Cuisinart make 3 attacks with your psychic blade and then a 4 attack with your two-weapon wielder.


Still not as silly as Pyromancy can get... (though fire is more area effect pain)]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151900.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151900.page GMT
Swings and roundabouts really.

Now a Psyker with a Force Sword.... owie.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151982.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/151982.page GMT

Biomancer / Pyromancer.


Sustain Regenerate and holocaust at will, if you can afford the -8 to your manifest roll for holocaust, sustain chameleon in there also. (so shooting you is alot harder)

]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/152831.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/152831.page GMT ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/152843.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/152843.page GMT

and even ad 1d5 . holocaust every other round.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153010.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153010.page GMT
(Unless U allow a templar.)[/quote]

IIRC (don't have my book in front of me) it uses the Psychic WP FOR WS....


Its pretty much a one stop WP = IWin[/quote]

Until he rushes someone with a combat shotgun.

PS You can Dodge melee attacks, even though you can not parry the blade.

]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153344.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153344.page GMT Because no one thought of what happens when two blades of pure warp energy cross each other when they made that power.

(the parry would use WP instead of WS)]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153628.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153628.page GMT

Although DH makes melee far more viable than in real life it still makes ranged combat the daddy.

Our group fought a psyker with this power, they simply kept range and blew him apart. It is a powerful one and useful in some circumstances but it has large limitations so is not over powerful IMHO.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153663.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153663.page GMT But like others have said while pretty nasty, Psychic BLade is not the uber end all power, but very potent none-the-less.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153962.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/153962.page GMT But like others have said while pretty nasty, Psychic BLade is not the uber end all power, but very potent none-the-less.[/quote]

I have read the description do we have any other basis that the blade is invisible? I read it can be a molecule thick but the so nearly is a mono sword edge, I would see it and for example Psychic bolt as a very visible effect. This would make it dodgeable, if invisible then this power has just dramatically improved in power in my eyes?]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154005.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154005.page GMT
Psy blade plus distort vision is a good way to close the distance between your intended target. If they don't have Area of effect weapons (like firestorm or flame thrower) it will be very hard to hit the psyker.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154165.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154165.page GMT
All of the telekinetic powers describe manifesting 'tangible' force, or will or psychic energy, they all seem to use similar langauge evocative of simmilar effects which have been described diffrerently to avoid repetition. Telekenetic Shield specifically states you MAY make the shield of Telekenetic Energy visable if you wish and have it take on a specif colour. This would lead me to believe that telkenetic energy is other wise invisable.

Also most use of TK in Sc-FI and fantasy has the force being invisable (think Sylar in Heros cutting the skulls with a Psychic Blade..) Anyway my GM said its invisable, and it seems resanable to me as its consitent with the popular concept of TK and as the rules do not state otherwise I see no problem withit, but if your GM (or you) rule otehrwise then that's compleatly fine as well.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154584.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154584.page GMT http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154881.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154881.page GMT http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154957.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/154957.page GMT
All of the telekinetic powers describe manifesting 'tangible' force, or will or psychic energy, they all seem to use similar langauge evocative of simmilar effects which have been described diffrerently to avoid repetition. Telekenetic Shield specifically states you MAY make the shield of Telekenetic Energy visable if you wish and have it take on a specif colour. This would lead me to believe that telkenetic energy is other wise invisable.

Also most use of TK in Sc-FI and fantasy has the force being invisable (think Sylar in Heros cutting the skulls with a Psychic Blade..) Anyway my GM said its invisable, and it seems resanable to me as its consitent with the popular concept of TK and as the rules do not state otherwise I see no problem withit, but if your GM (or you) rule otehrwise then that's compleatly fine as well.[/quote]

First off I said the edge of a mono sword not the whole sword

Also with the blade I think you are making assumptions which as you say is fine for your game.

A force bolt is tangible and made of the same stuff so I would believe a Psychic blade is as well.

The reasoning for my point of view is as follows :-

a) It states the psychic blade is treated as a sword wielded by the user (although does not require a free hand).
b) It does not metion it can not be parried or dodged and if so I feel it would have been important to mention this.
c) It does not mention the blade is invisible and once again this is a fairly big thing with many advantages which should have been mentioned if it is.

This makes me think we have a noticeable blade which while it may be 1 molecule thick is sword like and has a depth and height. As such would be invisible from one view point but kind of weirdly 2 dimensional nearly all the time.

We do not have enough information to be 100% correct and only info from the writers can fix this (oh the old BI Q&A) so for the moment we each will have to make up our own minds. However for me I do feel if invisible this would have been mentioned as it would be the perfect assassins tool.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/155066.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/155066.page GMT
I need bigger goons![/quote]

Not if the goon swings first.

Psychers typically aren't too tough to take down.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/155621.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/155621.page GMT
Regardless of your interpretation of the rules about it's visibility, Psychic Blade isn't going to be "invisible" to demons and warp creatures.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/155731.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/155731.page GMT
Also another point tangability does not equate visability, the invisable man is still tangible as would any 'force' that interacts in such a facshion with 'physical' objects. Your greatest point though, and one I'd have to concede is that the power does not say that it cannot be parried or dodged so I can definately see why it would be allowed to do so. Although parrying a blade that can 'shear through .. any physical object with ease' is kind of a strange thing to imagine. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/155998.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/155998.page GMT
Also another point tangability does not equate visability, the invisable man is still tangible as would any 'force' that interacts in such a facshion with 'physical' objects. Your greatest point though, and one I'd have to concede is that the power does not say that it cannot be parried or dodged so I can definately see why it would be allowed to do so. Although parrying a blade that can 'shear through .. any physical object with ease' is kind of a strange thing to imagine. [/quote]

The great thing about RPG's for me is we can both disagree and still be right for our games heck even the rules are only guidelines for the GM.

On the parry idea I may apply similar rules to a power sword on destroying parring weapons as I agree that parrying this thing would be fun, however I do not see a problem with dodging it

On the tangible point you are right but for me if it was invisible I can not see how that would not be mentioned and if it was invisible it would be even more powerful. Maybe a definite and noticeable distortion in reality around the blade that while itself is invisible its effects on reality are noticeable?]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156018.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156018.page GMT
And I agree 100% on using what works best in one's own games, the point is to have fun, the rules simply provide a shared framework or starting point wherewithin the players (GM included) can enjoy themselves.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156245.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156245.page GMT 1/2 Action Manoeuvre. You end your movement and are no longer adjacent, thus no longer engaged. 1/2 Action Standard Attack. Bang at PB range. +30 w/ Scatter, weee! Starting your round engaged prevents you from doing a Semi Auto, but shotties are still nasty at PB, since they are pretty much already Semi-Auto when at that range with only a Standard Attack. The Semi-Auto of a combat shotty is more over if you think you can close with him before he splatters you.

As far as the Dodge/Parry thing. The psychic blade can not Parry, and I am a believer in "works both ways." In that if it can not Parry, it can not be Parried. Otherwise it seems somewhat silly.

As far as Dodge, I see no reason why it can not be Dodged. There is no rule mention of it, and while it can slice though anything, it makes no mention that the manifistation of the blade is not visible to anyone else. Nor do any other Telekinetic attacks state that they can not be seen manifesting, or ignoring Dodge. Dodge states it can be used against melee or ranged attacks, there could be ground for rules laywering that it can not be used again Psychic powers there, but then you have to state that all Psychic powers are not considered melee or ranged attacks, when I think a Fire Bolt could clearly be Dodged.

YMMV.



]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156254.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156254.page GMT
And if TK power have visable physical, materium manfestations what then of Telepathy? Do the heads of individuals in Telpathic comunication glow, shimmer, or distort, are there visable wisps of psychic energy floating through the materium as thoughts travel from one individual to another? Do Dominated or Compelled indiviudal produce or display visable evidence of the psychic influence? WHat powers have visable versus invisable effects? Not just pertaining to TK or telepathy but all Powers, must they all produce some glimmer, shinning, shimmer whoosh FX? (Pyrotecnichs withstanding of course..)

... Thanks for clarifing re: Basics 'in mele' I didn't know you could do that (Man. + Shoot)]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156311.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156311.page GMT
And u can´t, there´s a especific maneouver called "disengage", a full action, that allow U to walk away off the melee without Ur oponent getting a FREE strike aganist U.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156343.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156343.page GMT
As far as manifestations for TK, and telepathy, I say yes in so much as unless it goes against the spirit of the power like See Me Not. Energy crackles from their eyes or hands, the air seems to ripple around them as they bend reality, etc., etc. Psycher powers in my perception of the 40k universe are flashy.

Ex: a Psyker doing a Mind Probe on someone touches the other individual. The psyker's eyes light up with unnatural energy, and then energy sparks out of the targets eyes, as they strain to resist the psyker's will.

Examples can change due to dramatic effect for the situation.

My first game I ran for my crew was discovering what caused an explosion that killed several people in a small town. Ends up it was an enormously powerful TK teenager who was not handed over by his parents, and was wild. Over the course of the game, as I described him doing things, it was that reality seemed to twist around him. He always had a TK shield up, which rules wise mentions the wavy air, but for example when he did a Push:

"You see the air start to ripple around him. He draws him arm up across his chest and thrust it out like he's waving you away. Chairs, tables, and other loose objects between you and him get tossed away, even the floorboards start cracking as a wave of telekinetic energy slams into you."

You may play it more subtle.

]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156351.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156351.page GMT
And u can´t, there´s a especific maneouver called "disengage", a full action, that allow U to walk away off the melee without Ur oponent getting a FREE strike aganist U.[/quote]

Disengage is a Full Action Move that automatically succeeds and allows you to make a half move away.

Manoeuvre is a Half Action Move that requires a contested WS roll. If you succeed, you can move your opponent 1m away from you in a direction of your choice. You can choose to advance a meter towards your opponent if you like, but you do not have to. If you end your movement and are not adjacent to an enemy, you are not engaged in melee combat.

Thanks for playing.

]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156355.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156355.page GMT No, you can't use Dodge to negate Push. There's already a built in resolution mechanic here: Opposed Willpower v. Strength. It's equivalent to Weapon Skill/Ballistic Skill v. Parry/Dodge. Allowing a Dodge on top of the opposed test is too much in the defenders favor.

My gripe with Push: Why is there no actual push back? Knocking someone down != knocking them away a couple of meters. Knockdown in Dark Heresy is kinda laughable when nearly everyone gets Leap Up (free action to stand).]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156487.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156487.page GMT

Kris40K : I would reason that you can not parry because you do not have that level of control of the blade, parrying is in the wrist or requires timing which is no their with mental control of a PB. Although I admit I would not argue if I was in a game and the GM said no parry

Cypher : I would say the reason push can not be dodged is it is a area attack not a specific point so you would have to move a very long way to avoid it

Kris 40k : I have to disagree with your interpretation of Manoeuvre, it does not state you disengage from melee combat or that you can now have a ranged attack. It is use to move your opponent in combat. Disengage is the only way to exit combat without a person having a free swing. My reasoning is they do not mention you can and also while you need a WS skill you would still be able to move further than a disengage 1m + half move. Another thing is above in the fleeing section it does not mention manoeuvre and move as an option to get out of combat it states the only way to do it without a free attack is disengage. I know the understanding is complicated by the option to not move up option on manoeuvre but that section is pretty clear.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156528.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156528.page GMT Yet another post from the dearly departed T.S. Luikart (No, as far as I know he isn't dead. He just hasn't posted in awhile)



[quote=T.S. Luikart]A bunch of pseudo-answers comments:

When you roll a "fumble" with a Psychic Blade (95-100 on Willpower Test) - you cut somebody's limb off, yours, your allies', random bystanders, but not your target's.

Telekinetic Shield, unlike almost all other forms of armour, stacks. Example: If your psyker is wearing a Flak Jacket (AP 3 Arms, Body & Legs), his AP totals become 1 on the Head and 4 on Arms, Body & Legs.

Walledin - Fearful Aura invokes the warp into the psyker. It isn't selective - all the psyker's allies are also effected by it. Terrify is targeted. BIG difference.

There are no accidents: I adore Equilibrium. Wink[/quote]

So for those who think Psychic Blade is too powerful there's a way to make it a double edged sword (pun intended). In the description of Psychic Blade it does mention that it's a dangerous power to use [i]"for any stray thought can misdirect it with devastating effect."[/i]
However I think the automatic loss of a limb is a tad much. I'd have the Psyker roll damage against a random target (including the psyker himself) other than the one he's aiming at. Perhaps another WP roll could stop the damage but only by turning the power off.



Here's the link. Get it while the forum is still up.

[url]http://forum.blpublishing.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4170&KW=psychic+blade&PID=80869#80869[/url]

I've attempted to download the Q&A section. I might have succeeded. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable in the ways of the Web (which is most everyone) will download the forums. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156767.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156767.page GMT http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156797.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156797.page GMT
That quote in itself confirms why I do not think is is invisible The power states specifically it is invisible which it does not do so on the Psychic Blade. If all of these powers where invisible then it would have said so in the general section. For a Psychic Blade to be invisible would be a massive advantage, huge nearly as big as the damage or penetration and as such surely worthy of note.


]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156818.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156818.page GMT
Part of the reason I think it was stated (re: Projection) is that it seemed obviuos to the designer that the power would do that as he was drawing from a source that he felt to be common enough to be understood without stating (Ravenor Novels). For me and my experience with Sci-Fi TK has alwasy been invisable force, I was suprised that so many envioused it otherwise.

Although I don't want people to think I'm trying to be argumentitive or make them change their mind, I am genuienly intrested in the other varied opinons and inturprtations on this topic, as it is interesting to me as I had never thought of it in the same fashion.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156849.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156849.page GMT Intresting discussion and difference of views.

I understand your view but for me the creation of a sword of force that is used as a sword rather than just a effect similar to it would have to include the fact it was invisible in its description. This is not a minor assumption thing but giving the Psychic Blades huge extra powers. I think the thing is; you are not just moving or interacting with something but creating a blade that was not there that may only be a molecule thick but requires a lot of energy and control to create (hence the high target number). That is the difference between interacting with a invisible force and creating something with it. Maybe that explains my viewpoint a bit better ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156991.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/156991.page GMT
[i]Manoevre is not Fleeing[/i], which is why there is no free attack. You are not moving away from the opponent, the opponent is moving away from you.

The benefit of Disengage is it there is no test, you automatically are able to move away half your movement value from you opponent with while not giving him a free shot. Manoevre is a Move Action, requires a successful WS vs WS roll and can fail. Manoevre is also targeted against one opponent, while Disengage automatically allows you to run from multiple opponents.

The rules on whether or not you are engaged are rather clear, if you look under the Move action. "Whenever you end your movement adjacent to an adversary, you are said to be engaged with that opponent."

In Sum:
Manoevre is a Movement Action.
You win a WS vs WS roll and end your movement and are not adjacent to an adversary.
You are not engaged with that adversary.
You still have a 1/2 Action left.
Standard Attack is a 1/2 Action.
Bang.

If you read the section on Fleeing, it says "in most circumstances (except for Disengaging) you're turning your back on the opponent and leaving yourself open for attack." Hence the free attacks when someone Flee's. Manoevre is not turning your back on the enemy since your aggresively forcing [i]them to move away from you.[/i] It's not fleeing, but it is ending the engagement.

But meh, you run your game however you feel. I just do not agree that Disengage is a end-all be-all only way out of melee combat.




]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/157862.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/157862.page GMT
A Bs specialist with a pistol would still to roll Ws though (no Bs for manoevre) so still if his ws were way lower than his opponent he would have a high risk of failing the roll.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/157972.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/157972.page GMT
If the option was to allow you to get out of melee then it is fairly obvious that it should have been mentioned. In the fleeing section it would have said you can either disengage, manoeuvre and then move or simply turn around and flee it does not.

As you say you can play as you want but this I feel is fairly clear, it does not say you are out of melee or that you can do any such action if that was the main point of the action then it would be mentioned.
]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158425.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158425.page GMT
A Bs specialist with a pistol would still to roll Ws though (no Bs for manoevre) so still if his ws were way lower than his opponent he would have a high risk of failing the roll.[/quote]

How is it realistic? If this was a realistic option then bayonets would not exist still, sorry this just does not add up. Yes it makes basic ranged weapons more useful in a melee situation but the whole point is they should not be that is why melee attachments are in the game. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158430.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158430.page GMT
I'm with Carp in that I see TK in Sci-fi as being invisible, although I probably differ somewhat in that I think it almost always has visible effects: Push, for example I can see as a sort of moving 'heat haze' type affair as the air in the path of the TK force is being pushed also, creating a wave of high pressure.
Psychic Blade, I see as essentially invisible (being made purely out of telekinetic force) except for the edge: I imagine it as being so thin it cuts through the larger air molecules, causing them to briefly fluoresce as they get ripped apart. So when the blade moves, the edge will glow, but when it doesn't (or is moving in the same direction at the same speed as the air currents) you'd get maybe the odd tiny spark as Brownian motion condemns a random molecule to it's doom. Think sort of a cross between the [i]sham[/i] swords in [i]Dark Side of the Sun[/i] and the Yakuza assassin with the mono-filament line in his thumb from [i]Johnny Mnemonic[/i]]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158445.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158445.page GMT 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 ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158596.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158596.page GMT
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

[quote="Move Action, pg 192"]Whenever you end your movement adjacent to your adversary, you are said to be engaged with that opponent.[/quote]

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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158666.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158666.page GMT

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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158859.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/158859.page GMT
Uh yeah:

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

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."
]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159091.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159091.page GMT
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!]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159093.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159093.page GMT
Uh yeah:

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

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.

[/quote]

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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159105.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159105.page GMT
I'm pretty dang sure what it means, just wondering how far you're willing to take it at this pont.

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

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.

[quote] In the fleeing section...[/quote]

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

[quote] I guess we are going to have to not agree on this,[/quote] 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

]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159113.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159113.page GMT
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 [b]not[/b] 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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159134.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159134.page GMT
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 [b]not[/b] 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.[/quote]

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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159137.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159137.page GMT
I'm pretty dang sure what it means, just wondering how far you're willing to take it at this pont.
[/quote]
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.

[quote=kris40k][quote] I am not ignoring the fact about manoeuvre rather noting it does not state at any time this disengages from melee. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.


[quote=kris40k][quote] In the fleeing section...[/quote]

Stop looking at fleeing. Manouvre is offensive, not defensive. Manouvre is not Fleeing.
[/quote]

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.

[quote=kris40k][quote] I guess we are going to have to not agree on this,[/quote] 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
[/quote]

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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159147.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159147.page GMT
[quote=Dark Heresy p. 192] [b]Fleeing[/b]
Sometimes is is just best to get away from your opponent by any means you can. In combat, you may [b]voluntarily[/b] flee from an opponent or [b]be forced to flee[/b] becasue of Fear, a Psychic Power or [b]some other effect.[/b] 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 [b]most circumstances[/b] (except for Disengaging), you're turrning your back on your opponent and leaving yourself open for an attack. If you are trying to [b]move away[/b] from one or more melee oppents [b]without using the Disengage Action[/b], each opponent gets a free attack against you as you [b]move away.[/b] This is an extra attack and is made in addition to any other attacks they make during their Turn.[/quote]

Now when you [b]move[/b] 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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159152.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159152.page GMT 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.

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

No where does it state that Fleeing is the only way to end a melee engagement.
]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159153.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159153.page GMT
[quote=Dark Heresy p. 192] [b]Fleeing[/b]
Sometimes is is just best to get away from your opponent by any means you can. In combat, you may [b]voluntarily[/b] flee from an opponent or [b]be forced to flee[/b] becasue of Fear, a Psychic Power or [b]some other effect.[/b] 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 [b]most circumstances[/b] (except for Disengaging), you're turrning your back on your opponent and leaving yourself open for an attack. If you are trying to [b]move away[/b] from one or more melee oppents [b]without using the Disengage Action[/b], each opponent gets a free attack against you as you [b]move away.[/b] This is an extra attack and is made in addition to any other attacks they make during their Turn.[/quote]

Now when you [b]move[/b] 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.[/quote]

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?!?!
]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159155.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159155.page GMT
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. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159157.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159157.page GMT
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. [/quote]

I apologise if I offended, but reading [quote]Well let us use the rule as Kris40K is interprting it. [/quote] from you errk me a bit. I'll let it go as a misunderstanding if you'll forgive me my rudeness.
]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159163.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159163.page GMT
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.


]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159175.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159175.page GMT
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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159279.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/159279.page GMT

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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/169487.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/169487.page GMT
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




]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/169786.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/169786.page GMT
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). ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/169900.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/169900.page GMT 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

[/quote]

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.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/170100.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/170100.page GMT
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

]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/170182.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/170182.page GMT
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!]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/170229.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/170229.page GMT
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. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173450.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173450.page GMT +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 ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173654.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173654.page GMT
[quote=shaunclinton]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: ... [/quote]

All it says is that you can't maneuver someone into another character or a wall. If it said you can't maneuver them into a dangerous situation, it would make the action worthless, because you wouldn't even be able to maneuver someone out of cover or force him out of an advantageous position like a corner or high ground.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173684.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173684.page GMT Of course the definition of obstacle will probably vary according to the GM. ]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173814.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173814.page GMT http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173851.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/173851.page GMT I assume one of the reason for doing a Maneuver is to put your opponent into a dangerous situation!
However I would not allow someone to be maneuvered off of a cliff or catwalk. I would allow someone to be maneuvered into or out of a corner, or cover, or underneath the big container full of spare Rhino parts held up by a crane and the release switch is right over there....
Sorry, got carried away there.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/174284.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/174284.page GMT
I´m doing Kendo since nearly 7 years now. Being aware of your surrounding is a key factor in shiai (tournament combat). The side length of a sparring field is only 9-11 meters, and fighters receive penalty points if the cross the line. Effectively there could be a deep shaft, glowing nails protuding from the floor, acid pools, sticky cuddly animals, whatever. If you cross the available space you are nailed and will probably lose. This happens mostly to lower Kyu-Grades who don´t have much experience, but also to more experienced Fighters (albeit less often). You actually can win a fight if you manage to direct your opponent with mental pressure (we call it zanshin) and overwhelming force out of the field multiple times (happens fairly seldom).

On the topic of distance: 1m is a stupid distance, and i don´t mean it derogatory to the above poster, its just that if you are already that near you have missed the point where you should have attacked. In D&D normal melee distance is 5 feet, which is also not very helpful. This is abstract to keep players from attacking from unrealistic distances. If a character can reach an opponent with angled arms plus the length of his weapon nobody in his right mind is going to run away, and just maneuvering your opponent somewhere else will not instantly turn him into a cowering potatoe - if he survives being pused in the paticular direction. Maneuvering can get you in dangerous situations and will get you killed, thats the whole point of bullying someone around.

What i learned to love is the "attack-of-opportunity" rule in D&D...if you are next to (translates to "adjacent") someone with a melee weapon and use something else than a melee weapon or perform complicated actions - the guy with the blade gets the first go.

Example for the pistol/sword showoff: The pistolero tries to shoot, the swordsman calls AoO and rolls first. If the pistolero is still standing after that he can make his attack roll.

Example for psyker/guy with a sharp stick: The psyker wants to show some funny colors and begins waving his arms, but the stickwielder says..."DON´T YOUT DARE!" and rolls first.

D&D makes this rule overly complicated, GM rules all is faster.

]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/174323.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/174323.page GMT
Everyone is complaing about how powerful that is, but really the only weapon that benefits from that +30 is the shotgun, and honestly, shotguns are very deadly at close range. If someone with a melee weapon wants to get that close to a guy wielding a shotgun, then thats a risk they take. Combat is not fair, weapons are not equal.

Plus, if someone is really a good swordsman/whatever they won't get pushed back by someone threatening them with a ranged weapon that close, they will simply parry/brush the weapon aside and then strike. Perhaps there just needs to be rules so if they person fails the manuevre his opponent gets a strike at them.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/285231.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/285231.page GMT

Back to the initial point ...

Here's how you deal with psykers with psychic blade:


Dodge
Swing Back]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/285235.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/285235.page GMT
[quote=T.S. Luikart]
[b]Psychic Blade[/b] - Why the hell would anybody manifest psychic force visibly? One of the bad guys in my personal game was a serial killer that would lop the limbs off his targets in broad daylight (well, gas light, hive and all) and nobody would know who did it. Yes, you can ambush the crap out of people with PB. Yes, it is horribly nasty. It's also missing a crucial sentence: "When rolling a 95-00 while attacking with a Psychic Blade, a stray thought causes the psyker to attack and automatically strike his nearest companion. If there are several, the psyker strikes the individual he is emotionally closest too. If there is no one in range, he automatically strikes himself."
[/quote]

As regards the Shotgun (or other Basic Weapon Wielder) vs. a Mele Weapon wielder in closecombat trying to use Manuevre, I've decided I'd allow them to try to get the move them and shoot at PB range but if so, they take their oposed WS test with whatever modifiers the defender would have had for that round (so at -20 for Defensive Stance or +10 for the defendeer if they made a Guarded Attack ect.) also if they don't have a melee attachment on their weapon they count as being unarmed while attacking an armed oppentent so get a(n additional) -20 to the oposed WS test.]]> http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/285279.page http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/preList/1235/285279.page GMT