Ranged Attack vs Wall bordering same zone

[Dundee]

Played a game today where situation 2 emerged. Ballista attacked the wall but it did not affect outcome of game so we did not bother to get an answer if it was ok or not.
After game my opponent asked a well know person in the community (no name needed) and came back with the answer that Ballista could not attack the wall.
This lead me to this Question:
Who can/can't attack the wall and why?
Taken from page 17MWC Ranged attacks may target a wall if either of the adjacent zones is in range AND LOS
Taken from Mage_Wars_Official_Rules_and_Codex_Supplement.pdf
In order for a creature to be able to perform a ranged attack against a wall, it must (1) have LoS to the wall
(trace LoS to the center of the border where the wall resides), and (2) be in range of at least one of the zones the wall borders.
This would suggest it's ok for 1 and 3 and not ok for 2 sins Ballista is not a creature. Seems kinda weird if so.

[iNano78]

According to this thread, the Ballista can indeed attack a wall that borders its zone.  However, I see what you're saying.  A strict reading from your second reference (FAQ) specifies "creature" whereas your first reference (MWC) is referring to a ranged attack from any source.  But I think the FAQ is supposed to overwrite the text from the MWC and is intended to cover all ranged attacks.

(As you can see in the thread I linked, I had agreed with you, thinking that Ballista could be countered by a wall just as easily as Akiro's Hammer)

*edit* As per DaveW's post below, I have in the past used melee attacks with a Skeleton Archer to attack a wall bordering his zone, assuming he couldn't shoot the wall as it blocked LoS to a legal ranged shot.  But according to others, you don't need LoS to the zone that is at proper range.

[DaveW]

My answer was: none of these, as they each have a minimum range of one. None of these objects can see into the other zone that the wall borders, and the range to the wall is zero since it borders on the zone that the creatures are in. In no case does any of these have both range and LOS.

Note that the rule mentioned in that other thread specifically states "creature." The ballista is not a creature.

What I had thought on the range rule is that the creature has to both 1) be in range of one of the zones, and 2) have LoS to the same zone. I don't know the intent of the rule, and it may not actually be read two ways, I think.... Others will say that all three can target it....

Here's a silly corollary: If this were a Bloodspine Wall (for example... really, any way that does not block LoS), and if the answer is that the wall can't be targeted because either 1) both Range and LoS has to exist for the same zone, or 2) because the Ballista isn't a Creature... would the attack then be permitted? Both of these restrictions would be ignored if you can see to range 1....

[sIKE]

I could never imagine not being able to shoot my bow an Arrow at a Wall in real life! I know its a fantasy setting but yeah its there to shoot. A Wall borders both zones and, as noted in Schwenkgotts thread about Walls, is more than one zone away from either a creature or a conjuration (Ballista is not the only Conjuration with a 0-2 ranged attack). Logically a Wall Blocks line of sight into the next zone, because your looking at it (LoS) and you can't see through it, unlike a Bloodspine Wall which you can apparently peer through.

The Hammer on the other hand has a Range of 2-3, this means that a Wall that is placed in front of him is one zone away. This makes good game mechanics sense, however since it is an indirect-fire ranged weapon it should still be able to shoot something "blindly" over the Wall placed in front of it with a negative to the dice roll modifier to take into account the reduced accuracy due to the Wall Placement.

[Schwenkgott]

I cannot support this Rule from the Supplement, because it's totally nonsense in my eyes. This has to be fixed asap.

Ranged attacks with a minimum range of 1 against a wall bordering the own zone should not be possible, simple as that!

[sIKE]

I cannot support this Rule from the Supplement, because it's totally nonsense in my eyes. This has to be fixed asap.

Ranged attacks with a minimum range of 1 against a wall bordering the own zone should not be possible, simple as that!

huh? That is just crazy talk! You are literally saying I can run up to a Wall and bash it my sword, a melee attack against an object not in the same zone, but I can't stand back 5 feet from the wall and sling a stone, shot an arrow or bolt at an object once again not in the same zone.

[Zuberi]

Wow, I find this thread extremely interesting. I did not realize there was so much ambiguity here, though I think it is simpler than people are making it. First, the rules in question are basically in regards to how does one target a wall. I think the first thing we need to do therefore is refresh ourselves on the rules for targeting. In order to target an object three things must be true:

1. You have LOS to the object.
2. The object is within range.
3. The object is a legal target for whatever effect you are using on it.

Now, the rules that have been discussed are simply clarifying how these targeting rules are applied with regards to walls. Since walls do not exist within a zone, the normal rules for determining 1 and 2 above can not be used. It doesn't make sense to draw a line to the center of the zone containing a wall, because walls are not within a zone. So, instead we have:

1. Instead of drawing a line to the center of the zone containing the target object, for a wall you draw a line to the center of the zone border containing the wall.
2. Instead of counting the number of zones up to the one containing the target object, you count the number of zones up to a zone adjacent to the target wall.

Now, the problem at hand seems to be the fact that there is no rule to determine which adjacent zone you must use when counting range. It would be much easier if they stated the nearest adjacent zone, which is how I have typically interpreted it. This interpretation would mean that any attack with a minimum range of 1 would be incapable of attacking a wall bordering it's zone. However, rules as written lacks this specification which grants the player the option of which zone they would like to use when counting range. Thus, strictly going by the rules as written, you get to choose whether the bordering wall is 0 zones away or 1 zone away whenever you target it.

This is not something I realized until now, and is an interesting spin on things. Up until now I've been considering walls a paradox, because measuring distance to them using the nearest adjacent zone would mean that the wall is closer to the attacker than the attacker is to the wall. Because, measuring distance to a bordering wall from an attacking creature (or conjuration) would result in 0 zones away (the nearest zone adjacent to the wall is the one your creature's in) while measuring from the same wall to the same creature would be 1 zone away (the zone adjacent to the wall).

Now, instead we have a paradox similar to Schrodinger's Cat, where the wall is both 0 and 1 zone away from you, and you don't know which until you decide to target it, lol.

[sdougla2]

Or, better yet, it's both at once.

[ringkichard]

Am I the only one annoyed by people's instance on saying that walls are "in" a zone? Just me? Ok, then. Carry on.

[Schwenkgott]

I cannot support this Rule from the Supplement, because it's totally nonsense in my eyes. This has to be fixed asap.

Ranged attacks with a minimum range of 1 against a wall bordering the own zone should not be possible, simple as that!

huh? That is just crazy talk! You are literally saying I can run up to a Wall and bash it my sword, a melee attack against an object not in the same zone, but I can't stand back 5 feet from the wall and sling a stone, shot an arrow or bolt at an object once again not in the same zone.

All I'm saying is: If i cannot sling a stong on a target that is standing right beside me, then I should not be able to sling a stone on a target, that is only somewhat further away (for the same reasons). It just feels more consistent to me, if minimum range works the same for all things, that are in the same zone (and walls can be understood as in the same zone, because they can be melee attacked)

Using math to explain the contrary (walls are 1.5 zones away = between two zones) does not make me feel comfortable and I would imagin that new players, who think Mage Wars is complicated because of all the traits etc, feel exactly the same.

[ringkichard]

This 1.5 zones business is wrong, wrong, wrong. Distance in mage wars is a step function, and not subject to mean averaging. It'd confuse a new player because it's wrong. Did I mention it's wrong?

[Zuberi]

...walls can be understood as in the same zone

Only if you completely ignore the rulebook. The rules are very clear that walls exist between the zones. They are not in any zones what-so-ever, and to say otherwise is to ignore the frame work of the game. You are then playing by house rules.

[Schwenkgott]

No I'm not. Melee attacks work like you can attack whatever is in your zone. And that's one of the most basic rules of Mage Wars at all! Following this, walls can be considered as in two zones for attacking purposes, because melee creatures in both zones can attack them.
It would be SO MUCH simpler to understand and to play, if this would apply also for ranged attacks in a logical way as discribed above.

And btw. I would always play by house rules, if i experienced that they are just better than official rules. In this case, they are definitely.

[Dundee]

All I'm saying is: If i cannot sling a stone on a target that is standing right beside me, then I should not be able to sling a stone on a target, that is only somewhat further away (for the same reasons). It just feels more consistent to me, if minimum range works the same for all things, that are in the same zone (and walls can be understood as in the same zone, because they can be melee attacked)

Think of it this way.
The reason why you cant sling the stone vs an enemy creature in the same zone is that he is actively engaging you in combat, walls do not. And the ballista could technically attack a creature rubbing its chest on the tip of the arrow but are unable to due the the clumsiness of aiming it so it will not happen. A wall on the other hand is a big thing that doesn't move. And the fact that you can melee attack (range 0) vs a wall should not be a factor here sins the creature have legs to move into position for the attack.
I prefer to think of walls more like the way we do with flying creatures. Flying creatures exist in the zone but at the same time above it and can therefor be target by range attacks with min range higher than 0. I see walls in a similar way. They don't exist in the zone but in the outskirt of the zone, and if a creature can move in position to attack it with melee it can with ranged as well.
The wording in supplement is weird and should be changed to same wording used with ranged attacks vs flying creatures.
"Any ranged attack can always target a wall bordering the same zone."
This change would also give min range 2+ the ability to attack the wall but that's fine cause if you cant shoot over the wall you will hit the wall.

[wtcannonjr]

It would help if range to walls was traced using LOS rules (i.e. traced to center of wall) and range was lowest number of zones traced THROUGH. This prevents tracing through a blood spine wall and using the resulting higher range to get around a range attack with a minimum range greater than zero.