Hello

I have a question

If all the weapons allow to attack the enemies neighboring.
Why in the bonus pack of éva its glasses allows to make a melee attack with pistols?

For me it is more logical than a melee attack makes only with no weapon or hand to hand (or pistol with equipment special).Possibly for a new version of rules?

Bauer said:

This may be a hold over from the old rules which forced adjacent characters to use melee weapons, or it may indicate that rule will be returning to Tann., or it's just there to let you shoot through doors, but it may simply be an error.

You should ask FFG.

Miah999 said:

thank you mia

Any answers so far? Please post them.

Well obviously there's an error in the rulebook. You shouldn't be able to use ranged weapons on adjescant characters, thats why Evas gun makes sense. What would otherwise be the point of melee weapons?

sejestephan said:

No there's no error in the rule book.

Minimum ranges like that were part of the original Tannhauser, and not very well liked either, so FFG eliminated them with the Revised Rules. Perhapse they went to far by eliminating minimum reanges completly, but I would not welcome their return. I have several ideas from making melee weapons more advantagous, but all are too complex and confusing, if I come up with a simple one I'll let FFG know.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just rule that a character in melee range (usually adjacent, Eva's Strafe being the notable exception since it would "threaten" 2 spaces) has to use a melee attack or move out of melee range to be able to use a ranged attack? Yes, it would make Yula's Close Combat Bar deadlier but it would still work fine.

That would be a step back to the old rules, when Reich could use "cornerfighting" (still remember that?) to render Union totally useless. I will stick to the new rules in thgis matter.

Maybe, I must confess I've barely played with the old rules. Still, I think there's a big difference between varying minimum weapon ranges (1, 2 and 3) for different weapons and a fixed rule stating that you have to be out of "melee range" to shoot (which is almost always 1). That way melee weapons and a few items wouldn't completely lose their use for some characters. I can't hardly see how that would create "cornerfighting" and I've never found difficult to improvise strategies to deal with the melee savvy characters of the Reich, especially after the Matriarchy arrived. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't had any problems so far.

Miah999 said:

I do think there is an omission in the rulebook, what is the use of melee weapons then? Knife for example; if you can use a pistol in HtH u still get to roll 4 dice) it would make little sense.

A wee optional rule might help in this melee weapons versus ranged weapons mess

When the target is adjacent, ranged weapons suffer the following penalties

pistol (-1 die)

automatic weapon (-1 die, -1 to roll)

heavy weapons ... either (-1 die, -2 to roll) or (cannot be used against adjacent targets)

-Nhoj

ps I have been playing Reich versus Union solitaire recently, with the Reich hiring Asteros, I found that Ramirez (union) would occasionally go adjacent to Asteros (Asteros was hiding) in this situation Ramirez using his heavy weapon suffers as much (or more) then Asteros does ..... with the above optional rule this would not be an issue

thoughts?

Using melee weapons makes sense when opponents fail bull rushes against characters, as you are able to make free melee attacks against chars that lost in stamina duels conerning this special stunt. So, carrying melee weapons around is not useless at all. I had this situation quote often, lately.

For the last time H-to-H weapons require LOS, it's on page 17 of the Revised Rules.

Miah999 said:

Maybe you wanted to post this in another topic?

??! said:

Opps your right, sorry.