If I might offer my two cents on this conundrum,
I think a houserule on the Melee Reach ability would be the best fix: while this character is attacking, this character considers itself adjacent. IE a non-adjacent melee attack. But then, parry/evade might still work, and SSM...
This scenario reminds me of the character with flight v. character without flight AoO scenario;
the character with flight enters and leaves a threatened square. However, as the other character does not have flight, even though technically it should get an AoO (something moved through the threatened square) it cannot.
Levitate and AoO also comes to mind...

bottom line; the flight v non-flight should be the precedent for Melee Reach. Even though characters with parry/riposte/djem so technically should be able to get an attack against a melee attack, they may not because they do not have the Melee Reach ability.

Then all you've done is make it work they way you expect (via real world logic) in some scenarios while making no longer work in others. I suppose the "majority" idea is a reasonable compromise, but its technically not more correct than what we currently have.

He wasn't even arguing that point particularly. But to answer your question, the additional complexity it required made it not only nearly worthless, not the more powerful you are looking for, but it also tied the game down to misunderstandings of how it worked. It's now very simple, straightforward, and clear to anyone who reads the definition, something that was never true in the past. As for the idea that it could/should be "pure benefit", that's really not accurate because the abstraction is a simplification of multiple concepts that while similar, are not exactly the same. Let me try to explain here.

For a character like the Mystril Shadow Guard, who is using a long whip to attack a character, it would make logical sense to not allow djem so to work.

For a character using an extra long Lightsaber, this is less true. LS combat in SWs logic rarely prevented attacks back, as the long LS represented by MR where not really all that long. They really allowed a different style of fighting, not an "I attack you from 6 feet away and you can only reach 3" type of thing. Yoda and others have shorter LSs, and yet, our game does not limit their ability to hit from the same range as any standard LS. Shoto's are represented as the same as a standard LS. So in this one, it is not clear that it should work as you suggest.

For a savage type character whose MRX is related to length of claw/leg/tail/jaw/etc, this is clearly not correct at all. You should always be able to attack back against these with djem so/etc.

So at best, your solution would be to solve for 1/3, break another 1/3, and leave ambivalent for the middle 1/3. That is not a real solution, and is not better than the current simple solution. Abstraction is important for simplicity, this is just an example of it.


Incorrect, the full definition of MRX in the glossary is that they are adjacent for "all purposes". This is important because it is this very wording that prevents all the stupidity of the original Universe silliness (which was much worse than djem so issues on characters with a long weapon).

What you are asking for then, is a change not in MRX alone, but also a change in the glossary of djem so, reposte and counterattack.

To do this, you would need to rewrite MRX without the "adjacent for all purposes" clause, then add in a complete sentence specifying exactly how all interactions you want to work, will work (which amounts to breaking the targeting rules, explaining under these new rules who counts as adjacent, specifically what they count as adjacent for - and what not for, and finally when it applies.

Next, you need to rewrite the attack back abilities, to say specifically, "these don't work against MRX" or some such, because all they require is being "adjacent," and there is no way to prevent them from working against an adjacent attack from a MRX character without specifically making this an exception directly in the rules.

Finally, I have no idea what you would do to prevent Self destruct. I guess you'd have to go the same route and just make a straight up in the definition exception for MRX.

Can you see why the additional complications are just not worth the hassle now?

Not really. A character with Melee Attack cannot attack back against a non-adjacent Melee Attack. There are a LOT of interactions that are not intuitive, since it is sort of heavily implied that Melee=adjacent. It's why people still ask about AoOs and Melee Reach.

As for redefining how adjacency works, that's an even bigger change that won't happen, and causes a lot more issues and changes than just the interactions here.

Thank you for the input. I'm understanding the logic of why it works and partially accepting it. For the sake of a house rule, will those of you with a better command of the rules point out the unintended consequences of the following ability?

Melee Reach 2 (Weapon)
When attacking, this character treats enemies within 2 squares as adjacent for all purposes except Self-Destruct abilities and enemy abilities that generate an immediate attack.

It is intended to do exactly what I think MR2 should have done all along. It will replace MR2 only on Medium pieces.

From someone that has used MR2 alot its fine how it is. Yes sometimes its annoying how it works. But its simple and the old way of how it use to be was just a big mess.

Its going to be a bigger mess trying to get it changed.

Really outside of Regionals/Gencon I think a house rule is fine.

really Saga rpg rules for MR are kind of annoying so I like how MR in minis works.

I agree that would work for play, but not for custom character cards.