N18 Versatile, bloody versatile

Sump Thing

Ganger
Dec 5, 2014
112
112
53
I may be wrong, but perhaps anyone who wishes to discuss it should start a new thread so we don't foul up this Cawdor gang-build thread any more eh :)
Fine, I guess I won't be getting any answers otherwise.

The original thread is here.

Can't help myself, I'm not sure that's legit RAW or RAI. Versatile N23 p317:
"The wielder of a Versatile weapon does not need to be in base contact with an enemy model in order to engage them in melee during their activation.
They may engage and make close combat attacks against an enemy model during their activation, so long as the distance between their base and that of the enemy model is equal to or less than the distance shown for the Versatile weapon's Long range characteristic. For example, a fighter armed with a Versatile weapon with a Long range of 2" may engage an enemy model that is up to 2" away.

The enemy model is considered to be engaged, but may not in turn be Engaging the fighter armed with the Versatile weapon unless they too are armed with a Versatile weapon, and so may not be able to make Reaction attacks.

At all other times other than during this fighter's activation, Versatile has no effect."

I see how you've reached your above interpretation of this, but the way I read it nothing says that the Versatile-armed attacker is not still Engaging his opponent if after performing a Versatile Fight (Simple) action his opponent is still standing, and thus free to perform any other actions available to a Standing+Active fighter rather than only those allowed to a Standing+Engaged fighter, just that said opponent IS STILL (my interpretation/emphasis) "considered to be engaged, but may not in turn be Engaging the fighter armed with the Versatile weapon unless they too are armed with a Versatile weapon , and so may not be able to make Reaction attacks."
As I read that, the only 'beauty of Versatility' is that you can perform melee attacks via a Fight (Basic) action rather than solely by a Charge (Double) action if already positioned correctly, and that your opponent can't perform Reaction attacks unless also armed with Versatile, not that your Engaging status only lasts for the one Fight action and just expires and reverts to Active status even though you're still standing in the 2" Engagement range you've just happily swung your stick in without fear of immediate reprisal.
I'd say if you use your first action to hit a guy with your long stick and fail to drop him, you are still 'in combat' i.e. Engaging with him even if he can't reach to hit you back just yet, and should not be free to switch to 'not-engaged-anymore-so-i can-shoot-him-in-the-face-before-he-gets-close-enough-to-fight-back'. The quoted text talks about the the Versatile trait's effects "during the fighter's activation", not broken down into individual actions, and so overall my instinct would be that if you Engage via Versatile you remain Engaged on your part until your target's dead or someone retreats out of the Versatile range or the end of your activation. Same goes for cases where you find yourself in 2" of an enemy at the start of your activation but declare you're not subject to Engaged-via-Versatile Status until your second action cos you want to sneak a shot to the face in before swinging your stick.
I may be wrong, confused, or not considering other relevant factors, but my shenanigans radar is pinging.
Bloody Versatile, derailing threads since M2.47563!%£%£%@... ;)

Ok, am I supposed to understand this so, that once you do Attack (basic) action with a stick, the model will remain engaged for the rest of its activation, and can only perform Attacks and Retreats? But if the stick attack is second action, the model could still do any basic and simple Standing & Active actions before it, like Shoot.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: TopsyKretts
Ok, am I supposed to understand this so, that once you do Attack (basic) action with a stick, the model will remain engaged for the rest of its activation, and can only perform Attacks and Retreats?
That's what seems right RAW and RAI to me, just like how a normal combat works, making Rain of Blows a desirable skill to pick up to make Fight (Simple) instead of (Basic). YMMV.
But if the stick attack is second action, the model could still do any basic and simple Standing & Active actions before it, like Shoot.
Actually on reflection yeah that seems fair, just cos you're in Versatile range doesn't necessarily mean you've declared an attack and thus become 'Engaging the enemy but not necessarily Engaged by them' already. Damn sketchy rule ol'Versatile innit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sump Thing
once you do Attack (basic) action with a stick, the model will remain engaged for the rest of its activation,

I'm not clear which model you're talking about, but that doesn't seem right to me, based on:

"The enemy model is considered to be engaged, but may not in turn be Engaging the fighter armed with the Versatile weapon unless they too are armed with a Versatile weapon"

As I read it, if model A (with versatile weapon) attacks model B (who does not have versatile), then B is considered engaged (until the end of A's activation), but A is not engaged.
 
What we have here is a failure to communicate ;) based on the one word and Secondary Status 'Engaged' referring to both 'Doing an attack and able to make Melee attacks' and 'Being attacked and a viable target for Melee attacks', and that distinction being kinda invisible/irrelevant until Versatile rears it's long-necked head.. All else I can add is to suggest that
"The enemy model is considered to be engaged, but may not in turn be Engaging the fighter armed with the Versatile weapon unless they too are armed with a Versatile weapon"
contains in official rules a slight hint at acknowledgement of the otherwise-ignored distinction between 'being (E)ngaged' and 'Engaging', which leads me to feel that if you start an activation by 'Engaging' via Versatile you remain 'Engaging-ed' (so to speak) and subject to the action restrictions of an 'Engaged' fighter until you retreat out of range or the end of your activation (or killing the target with your first attack). Just explaining the source of my qualms, no-one has to agree with me, I just always lean towards the interpretation that feels less like taking advantage of ambiguity. I may be being a fussy old spoilsport grammar-nazi stickler. Happy sunday my fellow nerds ;)
 
you remain 'Engaging-ed' (so to speak) and subject to the action restrictions of an 'Engaged' fighter

Why think this?

They clearly specify that A engaging B does not mean that A is also engaged by B. That would seem pretty pointless, if A was still subject to the same restrictions as an engaged fighter anyway.

So, my view is that A is not subject to restrictions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
They clearly specify that A engaging B does not mean that A is also engaged by B.
Indeed it is so, but to my mind, that 'A is not also engaged by B' does not mean that 'A is not engaging B', and thus A is 'Engaged' but not necessarily 'Engaged by B'.
That would seem pretty pointless,
To my mind, the point is to make clear that B cannot make Reaction attacks unless similarly armed, not to exempt A from Engaged ('Engaging' in this context) status as soon as his initial Fight (Basic) action is completed, see?
So, my view is that A is not subject to restrictions.
Fair enough, I expect you're in the vast majority on this one. This is what I get for trying to debate propositional logic with ambiguously-defined terms.o_O
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S
Indeed it is so, but to my mind, that [1] 'A is not also engaged by B' does not mean that [2] 'A is not engaging B', and thus [3] A is 'Engaged' but not necessarily 'Engaged by B'.

I think you're right that 1 does not mean 2. Absolutely, A is engaging B. But I don't think 3 follows. Nothing says A is engaged, only engaging (as you put it).

To my mind, the point is to make clear that B cannot make Reaction attacks unless similarly armed, not to exempt A from Engaged ('Engaging' in this context) status

Ok, it would serve that purpose. But, if A's not engaged by B, then I don't see how A is engaged (assuming there's not some other model, C, engaging A).

I'm not aware of anything suggesting that you can be engaged without being engaged by someone.
 
But, if A's not engaged by B, then I don't see how A is engaged
How is A allowed to do a Melee attack at all from 2" away if not 'Engaged' then?
'm not aware of anything suggesting that you can be engaged without being engaged by someone.
Apart from the very Versatile Trait rules that we're discussing, right?
All this boils down to is I'm counting 'Engaging' i.e making a melee attack as being 'Engaged' i.e. subject to the action restrictions of an Engaged fighter even if it's at Versatile range, but free from the risk of Reaction attacks in those circumstances, whereas you seem to only want to apply 'Engaged' status restrictions to the non-active helpless victim of such an attack and effectively not count 'Engaging' at Versatile range as officially 'Engaged' status at all, more a kind of Active status with added melee perks. Maybe that's how they should have written it: 'At Versatile range you are still Active status but can choose to do a melee attack as if Engaged but without ever actually being Engaged' or some such.
All i've been trying to make clear is that in my interpretation, if A was 'Engaged' enough to be doing a Fight (Basic) action on B at 2" away for the first action of his activation, he remains 'Engaged' in terms of action restrictions (if not necessarily viability as a target for retaliatory Fight (Basic) actions from B) until the end of his activation or B isn't in Versatile range anymore, whichever comes first. There is some support in my opinion from the official text having acknowledged the hidden distinction within 'Engaged' between 'Engaging' and 'being Engaged by' that only emerges in this Versatile corner case, and the official text stating that the trait's effects only apply during the attackers activation, rather than only applying during any Fight (Basic) action made via Versatile within said activation. I'm not saying I'm right and you're all wrong, I'm trying to explain my linguistic/semantic/grammatical/whatever ya wanna call 'em ponderings concerning how this rule is written. Not sure how else to lay it out. Peace, love, and happy blunderpole swinging to all.
 
How is A allowed to do a Melee attack at all from 2" away if not 'Engaged' then?

Because this is what Versatile allows them to do:
"The wielder of a Versatile weapon does not need to be in base contact with an enemy model in order to engage them in melee during their activation.
They may engage and make close combat attacks against an enemy model during their activation"

Apart from the very Versatile Trait rules that we're discussing, right?

But Versatile doesn't, so far as I can see, say either (i) that you can be engaged without being engaged by someone or (ii) that A is engaged.

I agree it's not perfectly clear, but these things are your interpretation/extrapolation from the text, not things explicitly stated.

All this boils down to is I'm counting 'Engaging' i.e making a melee attack as being 'Engaged' i.e. subject to the action restrictions of an Engaged fighter

I get that, but I don't see anything in the rules that supports this interpretation. The rules explicitly say that A may not be engaged by B (assuming B doesn't have a versatile weapon themselves). If A isn't engaged by B, then I think the natural reading is that A isn't engaged at all (merely 'engaging').

So far as I can see, the only thing you've said giving reason to think that A counts as engaged is that A can perform a Fight (Basic) action. But that's because Versatile lets them do this even though they aren't engaged.

Perhaps it's not fruitful to continue this debate further though. I think we both agree that the rule could have been written more clearly.
 
But Versatile doesn't, so far as I can see, say either (i) that you can be engaged without being engaged by someone or (ii) that A is engaged.
The rules explicitly say that A may not be engaged by B (assuming B doesn't have a versatile weapon themselves). If A isn't engaged by B, then I think the natural reading is that A isn't engaged at all (merely 'engaging').
So far as I can see, the only thing you've said giving reason to think that A counts as engaged is that A can perform a Fight (Basic) action. But that's because Versatile lets them do this even though they aren't engaged.
And yet,
"The wielder of a Versatile weapon does not need to be in base contact with an enemy model in order to engage them in melee during their activation.
They may engage and make close combat attacks against an enemy model during their activation"
contains the words 'in order to engage them in melee' and 'They may engage and make close combat attacks', my natural reading of which is that if they make such an attack then they are indeed Engaged rather than 'free to make a Fight (Basic) action despite not being actually Engaged and remaining Active at all times', see?
However, this
Perhaps it's not fruitful to continue this debate further though. I think we both agree that the rule could have been written more clearly.
is the way. Glad we agree on that, and on the general importance, desirability and glory of tiny men hitting eachother with broomsticks, huzzah!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts