You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.

[thondar]

Hi!

I hope i'm not breaking any forum rules...

I play a famous game (i prefer don't say the name) and I've a problem to understand a rule. I already ask in specialistic forum but it give start to endless discussion.

Now i want to take a different approach. I dont want any rule-related (if you know the game) or logic or common sense help but only grammatical help.
This is the phrase (no copyright):

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.

The question is:
even when it is not your action is related to threaten or to attack?
Grammatically can be related to both?

For clarity in the first case i can rewording this way:
1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack
2) You threaten even when it is not your action (so you don't need to can attack when it is not your action)

In the second case:
1) You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack
2) even when it is not your action to threat you have to can attack.

thank you

 

[Matching Mole]

I would take threaten to mean that you are a potential danger. Threatening is not attacking, it is being capable, or having the intention to attack in the future, under certain circumstances. I would therefore not take it that you can attack if it is not your action, according to this rule, because it only says that you threaten players in the squares. There must be some point to the difference.

Are there any consequences to opponents that are "threatened"? For example, are there certain things they cannot do while they are in the squares which your "threaten"? If this is the case it would mean that opponents in a threatened area are still limited, even if it is not your action.

Otherwise, I don't see the point of the rule, or I don't understand it.

 

[thondar]

I would take threaten to mean that you are a potential danger.

Correct

I would therefore not take it that you can attack if it is not your action, according to this rule, because it only says that you threaten players in the squares.

For clarity i repeat the second interpretation in different wording:
In an instant you have to can attack to threat in that instact. So even out of your turn you must to can attack (it's possible) to threat.

Are there any consequences to opponents that are "threatened"? For example, are there certain things they cannot do while they are in the squares which your "threaten"?

Yes, there are.
You give support to an ally opposite the enemy, for example (the enemy between you is distracted by you).

If this is the case it would mean that opponents in a threatened area are still limited, even if it is not your action.

Are you speaking by logic o by grammatica?
The problem is that we are already speaking by logic (and by rules) in specialistic forum (50+ pages of topic...) so i'm searching a grammatical analysis.
Anyway the second point supporter say that when the situation don't allow you to attack you can't threaten because your adversary is untroubled about you. He can ignore your presence.

 

[waspsmakejam]

Hello Thondar

I often play, and GM, this game. (Other readers - trust me, there is a verb "to GM")

The rules are very complex, and in my opinion badly written. I found them very hard to understand and so did my players, all native English speakers. Neither logic nor grammar will help you understand this sentence on its own.

The sentence is a definiton of the term "threatened". It is not an instruction or requirement.

A character threatens all the squares in their reach for a possible melee attack. The squares are threatened all the way through a round not just when a character takes an action. Characters cannot choose to threaten or not threaten these squares. A character just has to be conscious and in a square to threaten adjacent squares within the reach of their melee weapon or unarmed strike.

This makes more sense when you read more of the rules (context!) because characters have to follow specific rules when taking actions in, or moving into or out of, threatened squares.

As I said, this is very complicated. We practised with minatures for an hour before playing for real, that was the only way we could understand them. If you can buy the book for players (you know the one I mean!) there are some useful diagrams.

 

[cuchuflete]

As stated above, considerably more context is required to analyze the grammar and logic of the statement, which may, and probably does, have meanings beyond those normally attributed to the words used. This discussion is therefore beyond the scope of this forum.