It was so hard to write the question. It only gives me so much space. Ya, but how does one write this question without already answering it? Without asking how silly it is that it had to be asked?
Should attacks that get bonuses from using a lightsaber count as melee attacks?


The first thing I will say is that the balance team should not be limited to only the vsets.
The balance team and "vset team" are the leaders of the star wars minis community. As in it is our community, we know what is best for our game.
Wizards left years ago, their jurisdiction left with it.
I have not heard a single reason why we should hold wizards old rules to a higher standard than our own opinions and guidelines. Mainly because we have been around long enough to know that they messed up. They changed their own stuff. I do not think that we are inferior to them nor do I feel as if they were Superior to us in regards to making the game fun, competitive, and inviting.

Onto the balance team. The balance team, as far as I understand it, is there to ensure that the best path for the game is taken. I think of them kind of like the Supreme Court. They are the checks and balances to ensure that things make sense, are fun, and represent the community.
Tbh I personally feel the balance committee should also serve as a check before pieces are released. A check for accuracy at the very least. Designers have too much say in what goes down in the grand scheme of things.

Why do I think lightsabers should always count as a melee attack?
Because it helps melee be more playable.

Which is the bottom line to a lot of what the balance committee is about.
Also it just makes sense. It is for the integrity of the characters.
It is time for things to make sense. It should be a large part of design.
Kanan blaster barrages every one with a lightsaber?
Luke and Leia speeder hits embo with a lightsaber and he can't reduce the damage and than he hits Jarael and she can't parry because it is a nonmelee Attack!
Luke cannot djem so Ezra Bridget's lightsaber? Even though he is definitely using it, he gets the bonus.

Point being that it helps melee be able to do there thing. Characters with nonmelee attacks with the lightsaber ability or lightsaber force powers get all the benefits of using a lightsaber and none of the potential counters for it. They are in every sense of the word cheating.

Does it create a huge disturbance?
I would say no.
Does it make it that much harder for melee to be played?
Absolutely!
Does it cause annoyance when someone says I am using lightsaber since I am adjacent and you can't makashi, parry, djem so, block, or use a lot of armor? Yes, very much so.

I really do not understand the reasoning for keeping lightsaber nonmelee. If someone can explain there reasoning for wanting it that way I would be much obliged

double....claw.....attack.... come on wizards

For me the big picture is it makes every melee piece with parry, djem so, etc more playable. It does weaken a some shooters, which ezra and kaanan are, but thats not a big deal for me. If L&L strafe would count as melee that would be great, but I am not so sure it works that way.

For those that want it to stay the same, I would like to know why? ^^

Depends... can you be a good devils advocate? lmao

Which is kind of cool, except lightsaber block doesn't deal +10 damage.





Firstly, thanks for posting some reasons. I can see those as having some truth. However, I see the reason for changing them being even more important.
1.
yes, but we are not looking to the past. We are looking to the future! At tournaments and whatever we can literally have printed, very cheaply I might add, some cards that have the updated ruling. You might even be surprised and see some people say, "cool, never thought it made sense anyway". Also, it is not like it is confusing. It is more confusing trying to explain to a new player why a lightsaber is not considered a melee attack.....



true and it stinks that this is the case. However, lets be honest. The power level will not change that much. This ruling would be one for INTEGRITY more than anything else. Mara Jade is not losing too much if Jarael can parry her lightsaber. Since Jarael can Parry Mace Windu's it should not be that big a stretch.

On the flip side to that, it helps ensure that rocks that rely on parry/block stay in the power grade that they should. For instance, the BHC pieces. All three are 100 cost and have Makashi, Djem So mastery, and Parry. haha! You are paying half your squad relying on those abilities.
This affects the mainstays of some squads. Satele needs to be able to parry. Jaina Solo needs to be able to parry, Sidious, Hero of Hypori, Cin Drallig, Jarael all these pieces are used as a crutch piece for their squads. If they are taken out easily the squad is usually taken out easily. That is no joke either. and that is just Parry.


yes, you just do it all at one time. The overall rule is If it should be melee than it is melee. than have the list of abilities that are not melee that should be.

true as well. Doesn't really mean anything though. Because that is stupid, this can be stupid to is not very fine logic.

The Glossary says:
This character uses a lightsaber instead of a blaster when attacking adjacent enemies. Such attacks get a +10 bonus to Damage.

That is the glossary of the Ligthsaber ability right?
What about for Luke and Leia Speeder who do not have the Lightsaber Special ability but do have Lightsaber Deflect?

The Lightsaber +10 SA is not pertinent to this issue. Mara Jade, Jedi is non-melee with a lightsaber.
She still counts as a character with a lightsaber while shooting.

From the FAQ
Lightsabers (characters with)

A. To qualify as a lightsaber while inspecting a miniature, it must contain the colored lightsaber blade. If that isn’t visible on the miniature, you must check the stat card for the Lightsaber special ability specifically or any Force power containing the word “Lightsaber”.

Sorry guys, Damage Reduction is misleading because of the pertinent part missing from the Card Text . . .

Glossary: Damage Reduction
When this character would take damage, reduce the damage dealt by 10. Attacks by adjacent enemies with lightsabers, or with the Lightsaber Throw Force power, ignore this special ability. Resolve this ability only after all Bodyguard decisions have been made.

So, how easily could we make a blanket statement regarding abilities that aren't melee but should be? Just a thought experiment here: I went and found some of the abilities that might pose a problem if we tried to just make a "If X or Y, then it is a Melee Attack." IF this happens, we could certainly just make a list saying "these are now melee," but I think it would be better to be able to make a blanket statement. That said, I went through and dug up every potential rules fiasco I could think of.

This not to say it should or shouldn't be done, simply that this is what will have to be dealt with if it is done.

Let's say "Attacks made using abilities that grant attack and/or damage bonuses against adjacent enemies are considered Melee Attacks." (not perfect glossary-style wording, just bear with me a moment)

Momentum - certainly implies you are shoulder-tackling someone.
Charging Assault +10 - ditto.
Charging Assault - Hmmm... you receive no bonus, so you could technically be running 12 squares and just shooting at point-blank range... but, that's irrelevant - the only piece that has it already has Melee Attack. Good to go.
Double Claw Attack - Requires adjacency, and uses the word "claw." Obviously melee-oriented, but doesn't fit within our definition. Let's change that.

"Any attack made via an ability that grants extra attacks, attack bonuses, or damage bonuses against an adjacent enemy are considered Melee Attacks."

Rend +10 - Extra damage against adjacent enemies. That's fine, but what about the first attack? Can the first one count as non-melee and the second count as melee? Might not be an issue... let's leave it for now.
Bravado - Here's the fun part. Bravado in no way requires you to be in melee combat (for the record, it shouldn't even require you to be right in someone's face... but that's a poll for another time), yet it shows up on quite a few Pilot/Trooper types. A Naboo trooper facing down an adjacent Darth Bane is probably gonna be better off trying to shoot him rather than pistol-whip him, but there's no common-sense way to add this into our definition.
Clamp - Clamp doesn't specify adjacency, but should it? I honestly don't know. All the pieces that have it have Melee Attack - it represents anything and everything from handcuffs to tentacles. Theoretically, you could have some net-gun or something like that...
Cleave - Holy rules exception, Batman! What exactly does Cleave represent? It's easy with Wookiees; the Wookiee swings at one stormtrooper, and the unlucky fellow next to him just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets bowled over as well. But what about Jyn Erso? Is she tackling them? Round-house kicking them? Shooting both point-blank?
Close-Quarters Fighting and Close-Range Targeting Computer - These are hard. CQF generally implies hand-to-hand combat, but could also mean you're especially accurate at point-blank range. Targeting Computer has nothing to do with melee, though - it is simply stating that droids are more likely to deal damage when shooting at something right in front of them.
Counterattack - Hmm. It's Vong-only right now (Jedi usually have Djem So Style instead), but it doesn't technically require you to be making a melee attack.
Crowd Fighting - This would get caught in our current definition, but doesn't necessarily mean Melee. But, all current holders have Melee, so it's a moot point for now.
Demolish - Should be melee, but doesn't fit in our definition so far.
Rakghoul Disease - Raks can't get any ranged attacks that I know of, but this is definitely melee-oriented.
Rolling Attacks - This is probably melee, but it isn't beyond possibility to have someone tuck-and-rolling around shooting at point-blank range.
Sokan - It says "attacks and abilities," and Vima has no abilities that require an enemy to make a save, so it might deliberately be intended to take effect on characters not adjacent to the Sokan user?
Stingbeam - I still have no idea what this is supposed to be in-universe, but it would be considered melee with my above blanket-statement.
Virulent Paralyzing Poison - This would be considered melee. There are non-melee pieces with regular poison, but this one specifies adjacent for balance reasons, so then what? Is all poison melee by default? Only some poison?
Galloping Attack - Um... yeah. The only non-melee piece it shows up on right now is the v-set Grievous Wheelbike. Is he clobbering them or shooting them as he rides by?

These are the ones that should be affected in my opinion.




These are the ones from your list that should be considered melee.
All the others can be fixed by designers ensuring that those abilities like rend and poison go on pieces with melee attack already.

For instance Rend +10
fix Double Claw Attack, it is fixed. No need to touch Rend +10 and all future designs should have Melee if they want rend +10 or some other form of melee attack like double claw

Bo-Rifle assault is a great new ability that states counts as melee.

things like clamp, counterattack, rolling attacks, sokan are only on melee pieces, so need to change them. once again designers design with accuracy we are set.