Can you use the ATST Arsenal 2 Keyword to use its Fence cutting blades against something its in base contact with and then use its MS-4 Twin Blaster Canons at something else at at range?

I think so? I believe vehicles are technically never "engaged," even when in melee. I just checked it, but for more details, it is Page 26 in the reference.

Yes. You just can't mix ranged and melee weapons into the same dice pool, different dice pools are fine.

I would say you cannot mix these two weapons (melee weapon and ranged weapon) in one attack.

Because an attack has either to be a melee attack or a ranged attack. First you are choosing what attack you are doing, after this you pick the defender(s) and attack pool(s). If it would be that each attack pool is either ranged or melee, i would agree. But if the whole attack has to be ranged or melee, i don't think that you can mix.

RRG page 14:

• There are two types of attacks: ranged and melee.

The same question would be if a unit of stomtrooper is in melee with a vehicle. Can they split the attack to ranged and melee? Attack with 3 minis the vehicle with a melee and with 3 minis any other target with ranged? I would say no, because the attack has to be the same kind (ranged or melee) for the unit.

Quote

"there are 2 types of attacks, ranged and melee.

during a ranged attack the attacker and defender are not in a melee, and the attacker can only use weapons that have a blue range icon.

during a melee attack the attacker and defender are in melee, and the attacker can only use weapons that have a red melee icon."

swl rules reference, page 14 "attack"

seems pretty straightforward to me. it's not possible to mix those 2 types of attacks in 1 attack action.

incidentally, this also forbids an attacker to fire on a target that is in melee, but not engaged. until checking this issue i assumed only engagement protects from being fired upon.

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

I would say you cannot mix these two weapons (melee weapon and ranged weapon) in one attack.

Because an attack has either to be a melee attack or a ranged attack. First you are choosing what attack you are doing, after this you pick the defender(s) and attack pool(s). If it would be that each attack pool is either ranged or melee, i would agree. But if the whole attack has to be ranged or melee, i don't think that you can mix.

RRG page 14:

The same question would be if a unit of stomtrooper is in melee with a vehicle. Can they split the attack to ranged and melee? Attack with 3 minis the vehicle with a melee and with 3 minis any other target with ranged? I would say no, because the attack has to be the same kind (ranged or melee) for the unit.

I don’t see anything that says you cannot perform both ranged and melee attacks within a single action. You are effectively performing multiple “attacks” within a single “attack action” when you target different defenders. Each of those attacks must be either ranged or melee because:

RRG page 33, “Melee Weapon”: A melee weapon cannot be in the same attack pool as a
non-melee weapon.

The inverse rule also exists if you look up Ranged Weapon.

1 hour ago, shlominus said:

seems pretty straightforward to me. it's not possible to mix those 2 types of attacks in 1 attack action.

incidentally, this also forbids an attacker to fire on a target that is in melee, but not engaged. until checking this issue i assumed only engagement protects from being fired upon.

Just wanted to point out that your original assumption was correct. Engagement prevents ranged attacks, but being in a melee does not. That quoted line is saying that you cannot use a ranged weapon when the defender is in a melee with you. If you are able to target something outside of the melee, you can use your ranged weapons against that target.

how do you reach the conclusion that "the attacker and defender cannot be in melee" actually means "the attacker and defender cannot be in melee with each other"? i don't see why that would be the case. like i said, i thought it would be the case, but this quote says otherwise. why omit "with each other" if that's what it's supoosed to say? is it a language thing, cause the way i read it there's a difference?

not really sure i can agree with your overall point though. i grant that after rereading it's not that straightforward anymore and your quotes seem to imply it's possible. i fear it's another case where we have to wait for an official answer.

52 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

I don’t see anything that says you cannot perform both ranged and melee attacks within a single action. You are effectively performing multiple “attacks” within a single “attack action” when you target different defenders. Each of those attacks must be either ranged or melee because:

RRG page 33, “Melee Weapon”: A melee weapon cannot be in the same attack pool as a
non-melee weapon.

The inverse rule also exists if you look up Ranged Weapon.

Just wanted to point out that your original assumption was correct. Engagement prevents ranged attacks, but being in a melee does not. That quoted line is saying that you cannot use a ranged weapon when the defender is in a melee with you. If you are able to target something outside of the melee, you can use your ranged weapons against that target.

You are right that it is not clear. And this is only my interpreation of the rules (like for so many other parts in legion where the rules are not clear). I love Alpha-Tests of new games .
But one part seems clear for me. You cannot do multiple attacks within a single attack. One attack is one attack and not several. If it would be several attacks, the whole "perform an attack" part would be obsolete.

But there are two parts in the RRG:

Quote

• There are two types of attacks : ranged and melee.

and

Quote

• To perform an attack , a player resolves the following steps:
1. Declare Defenders
2. Form Attack Pool
3. Declare Additional Defender
4. Roll Attack dice
....

All the substeps, like choosing additional targets, are done during the attack. And this attack is either ranged or melee.
If it would have been that each attackpool can be either ranged or melee, i would agree that you can mix.

But if the attack as whole is either melee or ranged, all additional targets must follow the same restrictions, because they are done during this attack.

5 hours ago, shlominus said:

how do you reach the conclusion that "the attacker and defender cannot be in melee" actually means "the attacker and defender cannot be in melee with each other"? i don't see why that would be the case. like i said, i thought it would be the case, but this quote says otherwise. why omit "with each other" if that's what it's supoosed to say? is it a language thing, cause the way i read it there's a difference?

not really sure i can agree with your overall point though. i grant that after rereading it's not that straightforward anymore and your quotes seem to imply it's possible. i fear it's another case where we have to wait for an official answer.

There is a logical difference, but it reads to me that “with each other” is implicit.

@Tokra hmm, you may be right. I just noticed this as well:

Quote

During an attack, the unit that is performing the attack is the attacker and the target of the attack is the defender.
» Multiple units can be chosen as defenders (see step 3).

So it’s one attack with multiple defenders. I thought the “choose additional defenders” step may have added another implied attack, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

I agree with you both that clarification from the top may be needed...

I got e-mail answers to both of these questions today. An attack action can have both ranged and melee attacks, and being in a melee does not prevent ranged attacks (assuming no engagement):

Quote

Q: Can a unit combine ranged and melee attacks within a single attack action, assuming they target different defenders? For example, an AT-ST is in a melee with an enemy unit. It uses its Arsenal 2 to form an attack pool with its melee weapon against that unit, and another attack pool with its main cannon against another unit not in melee with it. Would anything prevent this scenario?

A: Yes, that is perfectly acceptable.

Quote

Q: Does being in a melee (but not engaged) prevent ranged attacks? Some have taken the line from page 14 below very literally and argue that it means being in a melee *at all* disallows ranged attacks. Is that the intent here?: "During a ranged attack, the attacker and defender are not in a melee, and the attacker can use only weapons that have a blue range (?, ?, ?, ?, ?) icon."

A: No it does not. It just means the attacker cannot use ranged weapons against the unit it is in base contact with. It can attack a different unit with ranged weapons, as long as it is not engaged.

Well, Alex cleared this one up this morning.

Related question: when picking a weapon to be destroyed due to resilience threshold, you can totally pick a melee weapon right?

54 minutes ago, Big Easy said:

Well, Alex cleared this one up this morning.

Related question: when picking a weapon to be destroyed due to resilience threshold, you can totally pick a melee weapon right?

Yes because it's a weapon.

On 4/13/2018 at 10:05 PM, nashjaee said:

I got e-mail answers to both of these questions today. An attack action can have both ranged and melee attacks, and being in a melee does not prevent ranged attacks (assuming no engagement):

now the question I have is this...the way the email response is stated reads as if a stormtrooper unit of 6 could attack with melee and have all 6 attack with melee and then also have all 6 fire at a ranged target. I think he means you can mix them (2 melee and 4 ranged etc) but I'm not sure. Almost seems like you can do both (essentially allowing trooper units Arsenal 2 if in melee combat)...might need more clarification with that one because I'm sure I'm not the only one that will read it this way

41 minutes ago, sonofabyro said:

now the question I have is this...the way the email response is stated reads as if a stormtrooper unit of 6 could attack with melee and have all 6 attack with melee and then also have all 6 fire at a ranged target. I think he means you can mix them (2 melee and 4 ranged etc) but I'm not sure. Almost seems like you can do both (essentially allowing trooper units Arsenal 2 if in melee combat)...might need more clarification with that one because I'm sure I'm not the only one that will read it this way

So if the stormtrooper unit did 6 melee attacks they would have to perform another attack action in order to get 6 ranged attacks, and as we know you cannot perform 2 attack actions in the same activation. In an instance where you can split fire i.e. a unit with arsenal (x) you can do one attack with x number of weapons, being either the melee weapon or the ranged weapons. The only limitation here is you can't shoot at the same unit you are fighting in melee.

Your other thought of splitting the attacks I would agree would be allowed to melee attack with the 5 troopers, but split fire the 6th heavy weapon trooper onto a different unit because the rules already allow them to split fire.

1 hour ago, sonofabyro said:

now the question I have is this...the way the email response is stated reads as if a stormtrooper unit of 6 could attack with melee and have all 6 attack with melee and then also have all 6 fire at a ranged target. I think he means you can mix them (2 melee and 4 ranged etc) but I'm not sure. Almost seems like you can do both (essentially allowing trooper units Arsenal 2 if in melee combat)...might need more clarification with that one because I'm sure I'm not the only one that will read it this way

Hmm, I didn't read it that way. In fact, I think one would have to twist his words rather significantly (and ignore parts of the RRG) to reach the conclusion that being in a melee grants each mini a ranged attack in addition to the melee attack that is declared in the attack action.

He is definitely saying that the stormtroopers in your example (assuming they are in a melee with a non-trooper unit to avoid engagement) can mix ranged and melee attacks by dividing the minis of the unit into different attack pools. Potentially hitting 4 different targets if the unit is loaded up (melee, E-11, DLT/HH, grenades)!

13 hours ago, nashjaee said:

Hmm, I didn't read it that way. In fact, I think one would have to twist his words rather significantly (and ignore parts of the RRG) to reach the conclusion that being in a melee grants each mini a ranged attack in addition to the melee attack that is declared in the attack action.

He is definitely saying that the stormtroopers in your example (assuming they are in a melee with a non-trooper unit to avoid engagement) can mix ranged and melee attacks by dividing the minis of the unit into different attack pools. Potentially hitting 4 different targets if the unit is loaded up (melee, E-11, DLT/HH, grenades)!

Stormtroopers do not have arsenal, so they cannot make use multiple weapons. Also, if you are in engagement, you must use your melee weapon.

So if you have troopers in melee with a vehicle, they could move and then shoot the vehicle instead of using a melee weapon. But since melee dice are better, there's no point in doing that.

A unit of 6 troopers made up of 5 blaster and 1 other weapon can split fire along the different weapons. I.e. 5x blaster fire at one target and 1x other weapon fires at a second target, no need for Arsenal X. If the unit of 6 troopers somehow did get Arsenal then they could attack with two weapons per model in the unit, I.e. 5x blasters at 1 target, 1 x other weapon at a 2nd target, 6x grenades at the 1st, 2nd or a 3rd target.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

Stormtroopers do not have arsenal, so they cannot make use multiple weapons. Also, if you are in engagement, you must use your melee weapon.

So if you have troopers in melee with a vehicle, they could move and then shoot the vehicle instead of using a melee weapon. But since melee dice are better, there's no point in doing that.

Right, each mini can only use 1 weapon, but the unit overall can mix weapons. So the trooper unit in melee with the vehicle (note that they are not engaged here) can split fire with some hitting the vehicle with their melee weapon and some hitting other targets with various ranged weapons.

37 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Right, each mini can only use 1 weapon, but the unit overall can mix weapons. So the trooper unit in melee with the vehicle (note that they are not engaged here) can split fire with some hitting the vehicle with their melee weapon and some hitting other targets with various ranged weapons.

No, there is never a chance for this to happen. You cannot have part of a unit in melee. It's all or nothing.

If you have a vehicle displace the unit, the unit cannot be placed in melee. You cannot move a unit via cohesion and have some minis in a melee. You cannot enter a melee without the unit leader initiating, and then the entire unit is in melee.

Contrast to the AT-ST, which has arsenal and can use a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, but it cannot be against the same unit.

PG18

When placing a mini in cohesion, it cannot be placed in base contact with enemy minis, unless the unit is in a melee

PG 25

» When placing a displaced mini, it cannot be placed in base contact with an enemy mini.

PG 32

1. Move Unit Leader: The player performs a move, moving their unit leader into base contact with an enemy mini.

2. Move Other Minis: Maintaining cohesion, the player places each other mini in the unit that started the melee into base contact with enemy minis that belong to the same enemy unit that their unit leader is now in melee with.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

You cannot have part of a unit in melee. It's all or nothing.

Completely agree here.

I have a feeling you may be confusing “melee” and “engagement”? Being in a melee does not prevent ranged attacks to other units that are not in the melee.

Just now, nashjaee said:

Completely agree here.

I have a feeling you may be confusing “melee” and “engagement”? Being in a melee does not prevent ranged attacks to other units that are not in the melee.

Describe an example where part of a trooper unit is in melee. The rules I listed prevent it so I don't know what you're talking about haha

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Describe an example where part of a trooper unit is in melee. The rules I listed prevent it so I don't know what you're talking about haha

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding here and I’m not sure exactly what it is (since I said I agree you cannot have part of a unit in melee). So I’ll start fresh with an example.

Stormtrooper unit of 6 minis performs a move action. Unit leader moves into a melee with an AT-RT. All other stormtrooper minis follow in cohesion entering the melee. The entire stormtrooper unit, and the AT-RT are now in melee.

Stormtrooper unit performs an attack action. 2 minis elect to use their melee weapon against the AT-RT (this is legal because they are in a melee with that AT-RT). The other 4 use a ranged weapon against a Rebel Trooper unit that is nearby (this is legal because they are not engaged with the AT-RT).

2 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding here and I’m not sure exactly what it is (since I said I agree you cannot have part of a unit in melee). So I’ll start fresh with an example.

Stormtrooper unit of 6 minis performs a move action. Unit leader moves into a melee with an AT-RT. All other stormtrooper minis follow in cohesion entering the melee. The entire stormtrooper unit, and the AT-RT are now in melee.

Stormtrooper unit performs an attack action. 2 minis elect to use their melee weapon against the AT-RT (this is legal because they are in a melee with that AT-RT). The other 4 use a ranged weapon against a Rebel Trooper unit that is nearby (this is legal because they are not engaged with the AT-RT).

Oh ok yea, that should be legal. I was thinking you had 2 guys in melee and the rest chillin off to the side.