Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's always fun to bog down you're enemy with a unit of Tharn Bloodtrackers and a woldwarden, but leave pKreugar in plain sight. As soon as they get in threat range you fly over and wack they're caster. Usually suicidal but hilarious if it works!

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:While yes that's true the point of it is that the jack would be useless for that turn. You lock them in the back and let's say they break free. At that moment they can only make initial attacks, which means they can't turn to face you and therefore can't punch you in the face. You essentially make them useless as while they can hit anything, they can't hit your jack who locked them from behind, which is what matters.

Maybe I'm reading too deeply (due to excessive 40K rules) but it doesn't say that you're denied your movement after breaking a lock. It just says that after breaking a lock you can still make initial attacks. I read that as showing that the breaking of the lock itself does not constitute an attack. I would think, and probably incorrectly, that if you lost your movement the rule would explicitly state that.
I have to admit that to me it's mostly academic since I tend to run eSorscha with bonded Jack or a Devastator so in either event the lock becomes a moot point when it comes to facing the enemy.

I assumed that the movement itself was the free struggle to escape because I can't see why they would give the struggle for free...

I thought that it was just another part of the activation phase. It just isn't listed as a normal act because it is so situational. Just like the Acuarii can move and attack in the control phase due to their special rule (Vengence, I think it's called).

Even if you break the lock, you have attacked. You can't attack then move without bushwhack and even then you cant split attacks and movement.

Where does it say that? The rules specifically state that you still have your initial attacks after breaking a lock. Ergo if you still have your initial attacks then you haven't attacked yet.

Vengeance occurs in the maintenance phase and out of activation. I'm fairly sure there is nothing that happens during a model's activation that doesn't cut into the rest of it's possible actions.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I would just think that they would state that you lose your movement when breaking a lock. Which isn't stated as such. Considering PP's almost lawyer like way that they write rules I would say that if you can normally do something then you can do it unless some rule says that you can't.

Well let's look at in another way. Given some thought the text says you can make melee attacks and what not. Does this imply that attempting the break goes straight into your action phase and skips your movement? I should probably ask on the PP rules forum :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a thread with the ruling after the lock errata that came out. So if you get locked in the back you're screwed...

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?42121-Questions-relating-to-the-headlock-weapon-errata&highlight=back+lock

There's no ruling in that thread only one person's opinion. I don't know if he's anyone of import but he isn't an "official" like a mod or an Infernal. If you can site some of his bona fides then I will accept his opinion. But having seen him in other threads he seems to be someone who states his opinion as fact with little to no backing.

Well alright, here.

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?61957-lock-from-a-models-rear-arc&highlight=lock

I agree that you can lock from behind but I'm going to agree with Khadoran wargod that the errata is referring to range and not LoS. Also Valander fails to not the word "instead" in his highlighted quote. The instead means that instead of making an attack with the weapon you can attempt to break the lock and if you have more than 1 weapon you can make more than 1 attempt without having to use focus.

I'm just really referring to the infernals post here >_>

I don't think that he is a true infernal. I think that he just uses that as a made up title. Here is a thread with a real infernal:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?36805-animi-vs-blessed last entry.
Actually I just found this in the Circle FAQ:
How does a reverse head/weapon lock work?

Get a model in a warbeast or warjack's back arc (not too hard with something like a Shadowhorn Satyr), then head/weapon lock the target model. When it comes time to break the lock, it will have to spend its' initial melee attacks to do so. This means that it has used some of its' combat, and thus cannot move to turn around and attack the locking model. Even assuming it breaks the lock, the model still can't go anywhere and can't attack the model in its' back arc... leaving it in perfect position to get locked all over again the next round, assuming that your opponent doesn't detail another model of his to go over and bail it out of trouble.

Since this is in an officially sanctioned FAQ I'll accept it as correct. No offense, but I just won't accept "because I said so" as a valid basis for an answer. I'm not referring to you personally just as a general rule of thumb.

Ummm I'm not sure how often you go on the forums, but he is actually an infernal. He was sanctioned by the others, on the list, and consistently does his job and settles arguments. I no Unknown has a tendency to do things quickly, but I guess that's just a matter of opinion then. Also was that posted up before or after the lock errata?

I went on their boards once. I didn't/don't like the way they "help" other people (rude and haughty too many times). The FAQ is current so it's still good AFAIK.

Okay, coo'

TheUnknownMercenary is an Infernal. When a thread is locked
by an infernal over there, that means they're acknowledging
that the question has been answered correctly.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I went on their boards once. I didn't/don't like the way they "help" other people (rude and haughty too many times). The FAQ is current so it's still good AFAIK.

It's also not official. All it is is a stickied collection of advice, not official rulings, such as those made by Merc.

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?1767-Welcome-to-the-Rules-Forum

"Their words are official"

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?1767-Welcome-to-the-Rules-Forum

"Their words are official"

That does not, however, include the words of some other guy in a random FAQ on a faction subforum.

I'm just pointing out that TheUnknownMercenary is in fact on that list and his word is official unless proven otherwise.This is more of a response to Leo, not you since we seem to share a point xD Anyways the ending point of this is whether you like it or not Infernals essentially have the final say.


...I like how off topic this went xD

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:I'm just pointing out that TheUnknownMercenary is in fact on that list and his word is official unless proven otherwise.This is more of a response to Leo, not you since we seem to share a point xD Anyways the ending point of this is whether you like it or not Infernals essentially have the final say.


...I like how off topic this went xD

Ah. Hard to tell without a quote box.

I haven't looked at the linked PP rules threads in question, but AFAIK the names of Infernals are in purple, and do count as official rulings. Just thought I'd throw that out there.