Mindshackles question.

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.

**Fragile**

Simple context of the rule shows its a close combat attack.

**nosferatu1001**

It is, I'm trying to show that occams is also broken, and the attack is unplayable, playing it as otherwise

**PrinceRaven**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
I am using the wound allocation rules found in the shooting phase section because that is where the wound allocation rules happen to be located in the book.

Again, you have not proved it is a close combat attack, you have proved it is like a close combat attack, and done instead of close combat attacks.

So it doesnt count for combat res?

How do you get aaround needing to determine distance to the firing unit? By guessing?

Pr - found an answer to these yet?

Yes it does count towards combat resolution just like any other wound caused during the fight sub-phase does.

You use the same allocation rules everything else uses.

**nosferatu1001**

Close combat attack have a specific allowance to get around the need to measure between the firing unit. Have you found that permission for your non close combat attack yet? Pages and graph this time, not an assertion which does not address the question.

**PrinceRaven**

Page 15 contains the rules for wound allocation, either you use them or you can't allocate wounds and you are stuck in the game until someone gives up with a wound pool you can't empty.

**nosferatu1001**

So the answer is "no, I cannot find out how to measure from the firing uni" meaning you agree that your interpretation leads to a broken rule.

Or, you maintain context, instead of ignoring it, and instead of performing normal close combat attacks, you instead perform abnormal cc attacks, using your close combat weapons expect as normal, and the game can continue,

I know which has more support,

**PrinceRaven**

I use the rule as it is written despite how it leads to problems later on then deal with those problems, rather than deliberately misinterpret the rule to suit me.

**nosferatu1001**

I have not deliberately misinterpreted the rule. I just didnt ignore the context of the rule, unlike your stance which not only relies ignoring the context, but leads to a broken rule
So, how will you deal with it? Make up an allocation method to suit your made up non-close combat attack?

**PrinceRaven**

The context of the rule does not state the hits are close combat attacks, only that they share certain commonalities with them.

I shall deal with it by simply using the wound allocation rules on page 15 with the omission of a single word, "firing". It is a simple solution that does not involve changing the type of attack it is or having the side effect of changing the hits to benefit from the model's special rules.

**nosferatu1001**

The context is that these replacement attacks are still close combat attacks. There is no way of saying otherwise.

Youre ignoring that context

**PrinceRaven**

There is a way of saying otherwise, you say that they are automatic hits that are done at the model's initiative step instead of their normal close combat attacks.

**nosferatu1001**

...ignoring the context that the rule sits in. Preponderance of evidence is certainly NOT in your favour there.

**PrinceRaven**

What I said was pretty much paraphrasing the rule in question...

If they were close combat attacks, why would the writers feel the need to state that they use the strength value and special rules of the melee weapon? If they were close combat attacks surely it would simply say "Instead of attacking normally, the model makes d3 attacks that automatically hit (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

You still have yet to quote me proof that it is a close combat attack, despite your insistence that it is according to RAW not RAI or HYWPI.

**nosferatu1001**

Context states it is a close combat attack, and not a 3rd type, foer which you have to make up rules to cover the operation of.

Occams suggests your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

**PrinceRaven**

So you can't actually provide evidence for your assertion then?

**nosferatu1001**

Yes. Context. The entire subject is about close cmobat attacks, not a non-close combat attack, whcih requires made up rules to function.

When youre having to make up rules for one interpretation, and not for the other, it lends credence to the other.

**PrinceRaven**

Either way we're making up rules, I'm making up rules that allow you to allocate wounds that are caused by a wide variety of non-combat non-shooting rules.
You're making up rules that Mindshackle Scarab hits are close combat attacks.

My made up rule fixes every single non-shooting non-combat attack in the game.
Yours fixes an aspect of Mindshackle Scarabs while breaking another aspect of it.

**nosferatu1001**

WHat aspect does it break? It still functions exactly correctly.

**PrinceRaven**

The hits now benefit from all the model's special rules that only affect close combat attacks.

**ductvader**

I'm pretty certain it's d3 hits...it's not even an attack of any sort.

Doesn't fall damage work in a similar fashion?(I've never used the rule)

**nosferatu1001**

PrinceRaven wrote:
The hits now benefit from all the model's special rules that only affect close combat attacks.

That isnt "broken", aka "non functional"

It is also consistent - when hitting yourself with your poisoned massive claws, do you suddenly go "oh no, I WONT hit myself as hard, or secrete the venom this time", despite not being under control?

So we have a contextually correct reading, whcih resutls in no made up rules, and a context ignoring reading that, in order to function, you have to make up rules.

**PrinceRaven**

The point is, both our solutions fix the problem of allocating the wounds, but yours has side effects and mine doesn't.

And yes, treating it like a close combat attack is definitely making up rules, as it is not a close combat attack according to RAW.

**ductvader**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is also consistent - when hitting yourself with your poisoned massive claws, do you suddenly go "oh no, I WONT hit myself as hard, or secrete the venom this time", despite not being under control?

Well, I am of course fighting the urge to hit myself...which is even represented by a test...it's also more difficult to hit your own body hard than external bodies...and you'd think that creatures that secrete toxins would have a certain immunity to them. (One aspect I like about Warmachine)

**tag8833**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
The hits now benefit from all the model's special rules that only affect close combat attacks.

That isnt "broken", aka "non functional"

It is also consistent - when hitting yourself with your poisoned massive claws, do you suddenly go "oh no, I WONT hit myself as hard, or secrete the venom this time", despite not being under control?

So we have a contextually correct reading, whcih resutls in no made up rules, and a context ignoring reading that, in order to function, you have to make up rules.

If the hits benefit from the model's special rules, why do they ignore the model's attacks stats? It seems like you have to go all of the way if you are insisting that they are close combat attacks. You think that mindshackle scarabs cause a model to attack its own unit, but they don't do that. They inflict a number of hits on the model's unit. So if it makes it easier to understand, think about the hits as not coming from actual attacks, but instead coming from imagined attacks. Mindshackle scarabs make a unit hallucinate that they are taking hits from a certain weapon.

Why they were designed this way, I will never know. It I had designed them I would have made a model attack its own unit, but GW in its wisdom chose not to do that. And they designed it clearly by specifying that it does "hits" not "attacks" and that it get the abilities and penalties from the "weapon" not the "model". Read the rule again, and you will see how clear it is.

At the start of the fight sub-phase, after charges have been made, but before any blows are struck, randomly select a non-vehicle enemy model in base contact with the bearer of the mindshackle scarabs. That model must immediately take a Leadership test on 3D6. If the test is passed, the mindshackle scarabs have no effect. If the test is failed, the victim strikes out at his allies. Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own or in a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice). If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck.

**Fragile**

PrinceRaven wrote:
The point is, both our solutions fix the problem of allocating the wounds, but yours has side effects and mine doesn't.

And yes, treating it like a close combat attack is definitely making up rules, as it is not a close combat attack according to RAW.

If the test is failed, the victim strikes out at his allies. Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts d3 hits on his own unit .... when it is his turn to attack.

Simple context proves it is a close combat attack.

**PrinceRaven**

"the victim strikes out at his allies" - fluff statement, "strikes out" is not a rule recognised by the BRB
Instead of attacking nomrally, he inflicts d3 hits on his own unit" - hits, not attacks
"when it is his turn to attack" - at his initiative step.

None of these say these hits are close combat attacks, they say the model is hitting his unit with his melee weapon.

**Baktru**

RAW, I actually agree with Prince Raven.

The "Hits" are not said to be CC attacks. They are "Hits" that can also use the special rules of 1 weapon on the model.

There is precedent for other attacks that happen during the CC phase, without being CC attacks (Exploding Spore Mines (I think, hat one I need to check) and Acid Blood hits come to mind.

As for allocation? As with other "hits" or "attacks" that are neither shooting nor CC, nor have an allocation method specified: random allocation.

**nosferatu1001**

Or, dont ignore context, and dont make up an allocation method, and call a close combat attack a close combat attack

The fact it is automatic hits and not a number of attacks isnt enough to stop it being a close combat attack.

**BlackTalos**

If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck.

I do believe, RAI, that "all blows" seems to include CC attacks and MSS, grouped in the same basket?

As for RaW:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Context states it is a close combat attack, and not a 3rd type, foer which you have to make up rules to cover the operation of.

Occams suggests your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

MSS is replacing CC attacks, so even though there is no wording to say it IS a CC attack, there is no support for a non-CC attack either.
Because both types "do not exist" in the RaW, it stays a CC attack as it was before...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baktru wrote:
There is precedent for other attacks that happen during the CC phase, without being CC attacks (Exploding Spore Mines (I think, hat one I need to check) and Acid Blood hits come to mind.

I am unfamiliar with those rules, but what stops them being actual CC attacks?
Wording of the rules themselves? That MSS does not have therefore indicating its isn't part of the "3rd party unknown attack type" - which I doubt exists in the first place. They just seem like CC attacks with varied properties (Special Rules).

And then this applies:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please define how you remove casualties. You cannot use random allocation, as you know where the attack is coming from. So shooting or close combat?

Why would anything be other that CC or shooting?

**tag8833**

BlackTalos wrote:

As for RaW:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Context states it is a close combat attack, and not a 3rd type, foer which you have to make up rules to cover the operation of.

Occams suggests your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

MSS is replacing CC attacks, so even though there is no wording to say it IS a CC attack, there is no support for a non-CC attack either.
Because both types "do not exist" in the RaW, it stays a CC attack as it was before...

How about the fact that it isn't an "attack" at all. It is "hits". If you are so certain it is an attack, you should be rolling to hit.

Lots of things cause hits without being an attack. For instance a grounding check. Those things require the rules to give us the stats of the attack, and what rules apply to it. In the case of a failed grounding check, it is S9 ignores armor (essentially AP:2). In the case of Mindshackle Scarabs it is S:Model, abilities and benefits of weapon. You are treating it as if those rules don't exist, and thus we need to write them, but they do exist and they are clear.