An issue was raised in a Rules Forum topic and I wanted to open a discussion for addressing an issue with Melee Reach X. As currently ruled, a character may Djem So/Riposte a character 2 squares away if the attacker used its Melee Reach X special ability.

Example:

XXX
CXL
XXX

Corran Horn (C) attacks Luke Skywalker, Rebel Commando (L) utilizing Melee Reach 2. X is a square that separates them. As currently worded and ruled, Luke can use Djem So against Corran even though Luke does not have Melee Reach 2.

There are three issues with this as I see it.

1. Melee Reach X represents a character’s range advantage in melee combat (spear, dual-phase lightsaber, exceptionally long arm, etc). Conceptually, it makes no sense for a character to Djem So/Riposte an attacker 2 squares away when their own weapon cannot cover the distance.
2. Melee Reach X should not end up benefitting an enemy character. As stated above, it is an advantage for the character that an enemy should have to work around by moving adjacent. Adjacent in the case of a Djem So/Riposte character (w/o Melee Reach X) equates to character’s base touching the enemy’s base.
3. Djem So/Riposte should not circumvent or supersede a character’s Melee Attack special ability. As such, Melee Attack would limit the character to Djem So/Riposte attacks against adjacent (touching) enemies.

This brings us to the question of resolution. What do we do with Melee Reach X? I believe the wording is fine. I also believe the wording on related abilities like Djem So, Lightsaber Riposte and Cleave are sufficient. The simplest fix, in my opinion, is to rule that Djem So/Riposte are limited by the character’s own Melee Attack special ability.

That’s my take on it. However, this is a community and I’d like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Does Melee Reach X need to be tweaked so as to work more accurately to the concept and provide a fulltime benefit to those characters with it? If so, how?

Definitions:
Melee Reach 2
When attacking, this character treats enemies up to 2 squares away as adjacent
Cleave
Once per turn, if this character defeats an adjacent enemy by making an attack, it can make 1 immediate attack against another adjacent enemy
Djem So
Whenever this character is hit by a melee attack, make a save of 11. On a success, this character can make an immediate attack against that attacker.

You can't change the ruling without changing the wording. Period. And we are not errata'ing WOTC abilities. Feel free to discuss, but it is not changing.

As for your examples:
1. Fine for Corran, but what about the Rancor? They are attacking the weapon attacking them.
2. Benefits vs Drawbacks. Not all abilities should be a pure benefit. Non-adjacent Melee Attacks for MR was proven to be worthless and extra complicated. I think the benefits far, far outweigh 2 really minor drawbacks.
3. It does not supersede it. They are attacking a character who is still considered adjacent.

see the issue i have with changing it (I know they dont want to change any WOTC abillities so its kind of MUTE) is that unless you are making it a non-adjacent attack it would still trigger djemso/riposte simply because of its wording. THe timing alone requires that a character can react to it, just like parry. IF you change it so that a character cannot riposte it you will also be changing the fact that you can parry such an attack. AN if you were to change it to a non-adjacent attack, you would be allowing things like evade to effect it and to me that is just wrong too.

There are a few issues that come into this discussion.

* Is adjacency a symmetric relationship? That is, if A considers B adjacent, does B also consider A adjacent? So far, the game considers adjacency symmetric. Changing MRX to the proposed interpretation would change the natural, symmetric definition of adjacency. (If I understand the proposal correctly.)

* We have non-adjacent non-melee attacks, adjacent non-melee attacks, and adjacent melee attacks. Nowhere in the game do we have non-adjacent melee attacks. Another way to get the OP's desired result would be to allow non-adjacent melee attacks. This would break precedence, but I don't see anything inherent in the rules to prevent it.

In any case, I wouldn't mess with it. This is not nearly as egregious as Lightsaber +10, and that one has even been included in the Vsets. Fortunately, additional "melee bonus for non-melee attackers" abilities (like Gauntlet Knife) have specified the attack is melee.

Ehh... its tricky stuff that, imho, is best left as is. I think its horribly designed, but thats how it works... i think that trying to change it just create more issues. For example... you could say that it counts as a ranged attack, but then characters can't BLOCK it, which, makes no real world logic sense (which is why you want to change the rule in the first place... because in real world logic, the guy with the lightsaber shouldn't be able to reposte from 2 squares away). You could say that you don't count as adjacent, that would fix some of the problems, as enemies could block but not riposte/djem, however, that greatly weakens the ability. You then would not be able to attack non-adjacent enemies when based by one... it would also not be a trump for SS/Invisibility/Cloak.

I think the SA Reach works fine for what it is. If you want to change it, its only because it doesn't make real world logical sense... which, if we're going to change it based on that issue, there are a million things that i would change first (yay mouse droids providing my AT-ST sufficient cover from enemy fire!).

The problem with your logic on limiting LR/DJ, is all in the timing. At the time of trigger for these abilities, the enemy IS adjacent... you can't change that fact without changing Reach's definition.

So melee reach could have been a handy ability.... but

now basically benifits your enemy nearly as much as you ?

Wait a second, Melee reach actually expands a character's threat range? I take threat range to mean the area controlled that AoO are made in; being able to attack one square further away is NOT an increased threat range in my book although it could be seen as an increased attack range.

MR may get around SS but that isn't any different than normal melee except you can maybe stay a square further away. I could give you the diplomat wall except not the real target just stays another square back although that does make it easier to actually target the dipomat with something else by blocking LOS. MR may let you strike a target without getting taking a full attack next turn but that opponent could easily base you and then your MR is worthless against that opponent. I already mentioned my issue with "threat range" and the "choose a target once based" benefit is the same one that allows you to ignore the diplomat wall.

Now I should admit I'm not solid on SWM's MR rules but dealt with it enough with DDM that eveyone's "adjecent" need not be the same.

For those who came late to the game (including me), what was the original "useless" ruling on melee reach?

Which was really evident, since at the time, most of the figs with Melee Reach had Savage.

if I lightsaber throw you (melee attack ?)

you can Djem from 6 squares away ??