My people, it is a simple matter of tearing through the book with a magnetic, fine tooth comb that is on fire and gigantic in size! The answer is OBVIOUS if you look at it MY WAY!!
Sure logic dictates that a ranged attack is anything made at range, but since when has GW RAW ever been logical?
I should warn you, this is by no means a 'clearly stated definition.' (but I do believe it is definitive, and it certainly is something to smack someone with.)
After a long and hard search through the book I managed to find a SINGLE reference to what is a "Ranged attack" in the form that I required. (note: you will not find a definition for 'ranged attack' anywhere in the book)
"But Lynks" you cry, "where is this gem of truth?" More on that later. for now we need some BACKGROUND
First we shall discuss the so called attack made in the shooting phase. This has a term that is clearly and regularly used. "shooting attack". see page 39 for discussion on what a shooting attack is (note: it's the entire page and pretty much everything up until "take saving throws").
Similarly there is a clearly implied, if not defined term for attacks made in close combat, "close combat attacks" or some variation thereupon. The rulebook makes it quite clear that attacks made in close combat are made in base to base contact (or are made as if they were in close combat, the DE spell is the only example i can think of this however).
there is no discussion anywhere that a shooting attack= to a ranged attack. A shooting attack has a range, but close combat attacks have a range so to speak, that range is "combat" (see weapon descriptions). (note: a shooting attack is loosely defined in form by these pages, but is not clearly stated and is instead implied.)
Our next piece of background is the GW phrasing I am sure we all know well, it comes in several forms, "unless specified otherwise, except for when, except when explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of form it all means the same thing. Basically what they all boil down to is if something is to function outside of the norm, it needs to be clearly stated [whoa, didn't know you were so fussed on clarity Gdub]
The final piece of background is, drum roll please... SAVING THROWS! "Why lynks, why? you shout." More on that later, for now;
"There are two types of saving throw: armour saves and ward saves."
"Models that are wounded still have a chance to avoid a grisly death by 'saving' the wound...(explains function)" Page 43 (note: yes it is in the shooting section but all references to armour saves refer here and location really means nothing in the book given how everything is scattered)
This means that any time a model is wounded (unless specifically stated otherwise) it gets to make a saving throw, though I'm sure we all knew that. Why is it important? Because of the reference!
Page 108 takes the cake. "but that is warmachine talk?!" Precisely.
Under "split profiles"
"The toughness of the warmachine is used against ranged attacks and the majority toughness of the crew is used against close combat attacks"
"The crew's armour save (if any) is used against both ranged and close combat attacks."
You might now notice a striking omission. There is no mention of shooting attacks, there is no mention of what to do with spells and no mention what to use when there are unusual effects, just close combat and ranged attacks."
So we know what a close conbat attack is, that is undeniably clear but what occurs in the rest of the situations? They did not inform us. Note they did not say "except where otherwise stated" or any of their ilk. this means that there are ONLY TWO situations that apply. close combat, and ranged.
But what if ranged does not exist? You can argue that a missle attack (AKA shooting attack) is a ranged attack because it has a range and is clearly stated to be an attack...
... so what happens if for instance our cannon is affected by weeping world sores, a Skaven spell from Storm of magic (toughness test or die (one of the two characteristic tests a war machine is allowed to make). As the war machine is affected by the spell it MUST take a toughness test, but it has no toughness to use in this instance, as it has a toughness of 0 or -, it dies instantly both from having no toughness and failing the test. A dramatic example.
Another example is- a war machine gets hit by awakening of the wood, a direct damage spell that causes d6 str 4 hits (that then cause wounds). Does it get an armour save? According to page 43 it should but a war machine can only take armour saves against ranged or close combat attacks (p 108). It certainly isn't a close combat attack so IF a direct damage spell is not a ranged attack then it does not get to make an armour save against these wounds.
This means that there are two types of attacks. Those made in close combat (or stated to function as if in close combat) and anything else, which is a so called 'ranged attack' inclusive of "shooting attacks", "missile attacks" and so on.
But hold up, just WHAT IS an attack? ... predictably the rulebook does not define the broad term of 'attack' so anything that SAYS (or implies through shared words and linking function) IS an attack, and thus must either be ranged or close combat. It would be very easy to say an attack is anything that has the potential to wound or remove as a casualty, but the book doesn't so we must go the long way.
By now, it is clear that anything capable of causing damage to something other than spells is an attack because of shared words or stating thus, take for instance death shriek- "death shriek is a special attack used in the shooting phase... range of 8"... If the terrorghiest is engaged in combat, it's death shriek may target a unit in base contact"
Thus- if used outside of combat- it is a ranged attack
- if used in combat- it is debatably a close combat attack (though does not add to combat resolution)
but still... what of spells? The answer? if the overwhelming evidence above does not convince you of their nature through interpreting the clear intentions of the rulebook, the answer depends on the spell. (spell types found on page 31)
While you could break down the spells into their individual types (and if you want I can do this, for instance, direct damage spells explicitly state that they are an attack) it is all overshadowed and made redundant by the fact that page 42 discusses "Unusual Attacks"
It states that when resolving unusual attacks "there are several circumstances in warhammer that call upon you to inflict hits upon an enemy- spells being an obvious example..." Thus anything that would inflict hits is an unusual attack and must fall under the category of either a ranged attack or a close combat attack, and each is resolved in their own way.
Combining all these pieces together I feel it is conclusive proof that there are two kinds of attacks, close combat attacks, made in base contact or in the actual results of a round of close combat and ranged attacks, which include a great variety of types of attack, however the defining feature is that it is made outside of combat. IF the definition of a ranged attack was to be limited to only the elements of the shooting phase, several elements of the game break as a result of this, which means that this is clearly not the case.
Please forgive any rambling/ doubling up. I wrote this in parts as it is clearly (hehehe) quite long. obviously the inane comments i made to keep myself sane will need to be edited for my argument to be used elsewhere :tongue:
