Obscene
-
Content Count
163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Obscene
-
-
IMO, as the person that originally led the charge for Kari requiring LOS as RAW, is that the line of sight section in the RRG will get reworded in a FAQ.
-
Just now, Muz333 said:Well, I'm just going to put it out there. I don't think Uncontrolled Geomancer damages itself, only friendly units always within the range. For example, it could plough through an enemy unit and then also hit a friendly unit behind the target.
No, it hurts itself the word "You" on upgrade cards is a game term referring to itself.
Muz333 and Budgernaut reacted to this -
I expect Line of Sight to be reworded to say: Ranged attacks require line of sight and ranged effects when specified require line of sight to their targets to resolve them.
-
-
A unit can pass through one trays worth of friendly units but can not end its movement on a friendly unit, if it would it collides with it.
With what you are suggesting is that that calvary charge through a trays worth of models(which it could) but not have enough room to be placed with out overlapping on friendly models. It's movement ends at this point and would have collided with the Spearmen and suffers the associated penalty.
Squaring up isn't part of a movement action -
Oathsworn Cavalry can not perform in the role you want them too. There skill icon is dependent on the blue actions. Unless you wanted to not melee attack and just use the skill in melee, which I think is a mistake as their attack roll is better then fire rune IMO. I do think the idea is extremely novel and there is definitely some play with it to be figured out as it interestingly enough gives them a way to deal damage while running in then which is something few units can do.
-
20 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:You mean aside from this box not being released by quarter 1 in time for the Adepticon tournament that had to be cancelled?
EDIT: I don't want you think I have anything against you. I know we haven't seen eye-to-eye in the range discussion, but I enjoy your contributions. I wrote this somewhat snarky comment before I realized it was you who posted it, so I hope you don't take it personally.
Nah I don't think that. I can disagree with some one and still like them. Rule discussions are just an incredibly frank topic. Plus I like being told when I am obviously wrong, or wrong in general.
Budgernaut reacted to this -
2 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:I don't think it requires line of sight because it says "Each unit at range 1-[unstable]."
64.6 - "At: If any portion of a unit's tray is inside the specified band, that unit is at that band."
There are no targets of the attack, it simply has an effect that applies to each unit at the specified range. Without a target, I don't think it requires line of sight.
My retort is that it has multiple targets. By applying an effect to something it is inherently targeting it, even if it is effecting other units at the same time.
64.6 still applies even under that intention. It's largely there to say if a unit a portion of it's base formation within the specified range it is a valid target for the effect.An example would be a big bad formation of skeletons 99 percent outside of range 2 but 1 tray is barely in, that unit would be at range 2.
-
FFGs upcoming page is frequently inaccurate. I largely don't pay attention to it till it says shipping. Their LCG cycles are all printed and shipped at the same time and only leave the warehouse at different times for marketing reasons. If the coreset and all of the initial expansions weren't printed at the same time, I largely expect the others to be all printed at the same time and will roll on time. Plus has FFG missed date after the Asmodee merger? From the products I have followed, all of their project dates have been hit post merger. The logistic company started making the trains run on time. I have a fairly high confidence we will hit infantry command expansions in May.
-
18 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:Based on the illustration I agree, however the card tells a different story because it says "including you," which tells me that he is nor hurling rocks at his enemies but instead causing the earth to tremble. Which is why it can effect him as well as ally units and should not require line of sight. Basically its an AoE not a spray.
You keep using theme to justify rules and that is an incredibly poor reason.
Use the RRG please.
It basically amounts to you saying I feel this way so it is.
I can just as easily say it's him picking up the earth underneath him and accidentally crushing his friends/slinging them at the enemy as to why it is just a cone effect and hits yourself.
Instead I am going to use the reason that because it has a target(targets) it must use the line of sight rule which is derived from it's firing arc to determine if it hits multiple targets. -
14 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:Too much emphasis on targeting. If an effect utilizes range, it is by default a ranged effect. The strict reading of section 46 would then imply line of sight is needed. The target in that case would be the beneficiary of the effect. Whether an effect states that it targets or not is irrelevant.
I agree that is emphasizing an otherwise small word in the context of the game overall, but it is the foundation of the reasoning why a ranged attack or other ranged effects would require line of sight. So it seems to me that having to choose a target(s) is the primary reason why something would require line of sight; from that you can gleam on the cards themselves if they have targets/and would require line of sight.
Of course this is going off the assumption that the RRG is 100 percent correct as is.6 minutes ago, drkpnthr said:Heartseeker DOES NOT specify that it only affects ranged attacks. It just says 'when choosing a target'. That is why targeting matters so much in this case.
Heartseeker only allows you to ignore line sight when performing a ranged attack. The ranged icon signifies this.
-
50 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:Heartseeker says Ranged Attacks ignore line of sight, which are a ranged effect that explicitly state they require line of sight normally. Heartseeker wouldn't work with Kari's ability either, since it is not a ranged attack.
Section 46 of the RRG is not meant to cover any and all ranged effects. It just isn't. We already have multiple effects that just wouldn't work if it was.
By stating LOS is not the default requirement of ranged effects, it turns kari into a 360 degree attack. Something nothing else in the game is. It also makes uncontrolled geomancer a 360 degree attacker as well.
-
IF LOS is implicit, where is it implicit and where is it not is what I'm currently trying to think about:
46: To perform a ranged attack or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target.
Target is not a game term it is used in a plainspeak manner often following the word choose.
Ardus is currently the largest target hit by this RAW interpretation.
Well, I'm starting to think Ardus' ability never actually says to choose a target, so it wouldn't require LOS. Only effects that have a target require LOS.
Protector also never choose's something, from the bearers point of view at least so no LOS is needed.
Kari's ability is significantly neutered, but Kari by the points was the most efficient source of damage of in the game. It also makes wraithstep a bit more meaningful in positioning for using her ability. -
Just go with superglue. I detest plastic glue.
Go with Loctite Gel Control. Best glue I have ever bought. Bonds fast, and I've never seen it break. Fixed a load bearing shelf clip in a bookshelf that I'm looking at right now. -
10 minutes ago, Pigeon Von Smythe said:This post seems to have been derailed with the premise that Kari's effect is a ranged effect and then lots of line of sight discussion. Have a look at the card, the ability has the crossed swords symbol so it is a melee effect. (it affects things within 1-5 that does not make it a ranged effect, it is melee only). Ranged effects have the bow and arrow symbol.
No, the melee symbol is just there to identify when you can spend the surge icons. It doesn't denote any further properties. If it does denote further properties show me where in the RRG.
The discussion seems excessively banal and pedantic, but it's a terrible hole in the RRG.
RRG's dictate what is, you can't fill the void with what you want.
I'm of the personal opinion for the game to work as intended line of sight is not a intrinsic requirement, but I have yet to see any one show me where in the RRG that it states it is not.
Yet 46 clearly states Ranged attacks(which is a ranged effect) and other(other in reference to the previously mentioned) ranged effects must have line of sight. You can see that a ranged attack is a ranged effect when the game states it under section 64.3. -
-
Show me where in the rule book where it states that line of sight isn't implicit. You can keep telling me I'm wrong, but you have not proven it.
Please. You tell me I'm wrong, but offer no proof where the game states that line of sight isn't required yet there are several sections to suggest that it is.
-
Another thing to consider is this:
64.3: When measuring for a game effect that requires line of sight - typically a ranged attack - a player must use the same points for determining line of sight.
This is interesting because it is specifically referring to a ranged attack as a game effect.
Now read this:
To perform a ranged attack or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target.
A ranged attack is a game effect. A ranged attack is a ranged effect. -
My personal opinion is I think the Line of Sight section is worded terribly because a lot of the game stops functioning when you pair ranged effects and ranged attacks under a single must use line of sight clause. It's especially contradictory to the range section which somewhat "implies" that line of sight is not the standard, but doesn't state it.
Ardus is hit even harder then Kari. Uncontrolled Geomancer becomes slightly disgruntled Geomancer. -
11 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:So by your logic, all game effects cause units to suffer damage, refer to keywords, and forces morale tests.
The implicit phrase is other game effects that involve the pertinent rule.
Units can suffer damage from attacks and other game effects that cause damage.
Attacks and other game effects that refer to morale tests can cause a unit to suffer a morale test.
To perform a ranged attack or resolve other ranged effects that require line of sight, a unit must have line of sight to its target.
You are missing the overall context of the entirety of section 46, which is explaining how to determine line of sight. Effects that don't require line every of sight are not impacted by section 46. If an effect doesn't ask for line of sight, it doesn't require line of sight.
By my logic, all game effects can cause units to suffer, refer to keywords, and force morale tests.
10 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:FWIW, Kari has plenty of room on her card for them to have written "and in line of sight".
Additionally, her power is essentially useless if it requires line of sight as it forces her to turn her flank to enemies. I highly doubt the intention was to force her to grant her engaged enemies a flanking bonus in exchange for possibly being able to pass along damage to other units.
I'm not arguing the strength of the unit or the effectiveness of the rules as intended. I'm arguing that how is the unit works as written. I don't want the unit to function in a particular manner, but in the current way the rules are written. Ranged Attacks and Ranged Effects inherently require line of sight. Not Ranged Attacks and Other Ranged Effects(but not the other ranged effects.) We could argue intention all **** day, I am not.
Rules As Written is that Ranged Attacks and Ranged Effects require line of sight. No where in the rulebook does it state that ranged effects do not require line of sight.
20 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:By this logic Kari doesn't need LoS to use her surge ability.
For context the use of cannot on the protector keyword is "allies at range 1-2 cannot be targeted by attacks if the attacker could target a unit with protecter." Therefore the word cannot. On this ability doesn't have any bearing on the conversation.
No text on Kari specifically contradicts the rules.
Also the protector keyword is a side discussion and not part of the primary debate of Kari being able to use her ranged effect with out line of sight.
Anyways,
I have cited several spots in the rule book where it clearly states where line of sight is required. I humbly request you use find somewhere in the rulebook to support your argument that it doesn't require line of sight with out contradicting something else in the rule book. It's great to tell me I am wrong, but prove it. Show me where in the rulebook that it states that ranged effects do not require line of sight inherently. The only reference to things not requiring line of sight in the rule book is specifically how to measure them. This leads to only one certain conclusion: Line of Sight is an inherent requirement.
Remember a card doesn't have to specify that it follows the rules of the game, it inherently does. It has to explicitly state to modify or take precedent over them.
This isn't about intention. This is about the rules as written. This isn't about how good a unit is or how bad a unit is off of the rules and it should be judged another way.
That is for errata.
Cultiststeve reacted to this -
I feel the need to hammer this "other" point home even though it is starting to get pedantic.
22 Damage:
Units can suffer damage from attacks and other game effects.
45 Keywords:
45.7: If an upgrade or other game effect...45.8: If an upgrade or other game effect...
46 Line of Sight:
To perform a ranged attack or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target.53 Morale Test:
Attacks and other game effects can cause a unit to suffer a morale test.
Are a few of the instances of "or other" in game syntax. Every single time it refers to other effects then the initially listed one. It does not refer to other game effects then game effects. And before you reply it says game effects, not ranged effects. A ranged effect is a specific type of game effect. -
@rowdyoctopus You can not extract "other ranged effects" in isolation from the rest of the sentence to say there are other ranged effects besides ranged effects. It is called taking something out of context.
-
39 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:"Other ranged effects" does not necessarily have to be inclusive of all ranged effects. Is it super clear? No, but I read that to be other ranged effects that require line if sight.
Are you trying to be silly? It clearly means other in reference to the previous part of the sentence.
To perform a ranged attack or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target.
Is a very clear and concise sentence. There is no mention of ranged effects for your "other" ranged effects to make sense. It says what it says, not what you want it to say.37 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:I don't think the Golden Rules apply here at all. I need some more explanation about how Protector contradicts the RRG under my interpretation. And "cannot" is irrelevant here since that doesn't take effect until after the range measurement.
The part that I think puts a hole in the idea that Protector can only protect units in line of sight is that Line of Sight (46) mentions a target. Protector doesn't have a target, so it doesn't require line of sight. This causes an issue though, because there is only one place in the entire rulebook that defines what a "target" is, and that's the Attack sequence. Since no other game effects use the word "target," I don't think those game effects would be subject to 46.
Now, that seems ludicrous, doesn't it? Aren't Kari, Carrion Lancers, and Deathcallers targeting a unit? Isn't an Uncontrolled Geomancer not targeting because it isn't choosing a single unit to resolve the effect on? But these interpretations are just based on what feels right. Nothing in the rules tells us whether these non-attack effects have targets or not.
I'm saying I do agree Protector should not require line of sight from the Protector to the ally, but I don't see a way to justify that interpretation within the rules without making the whole line-of-sight ruling fall apart.
The Golden Rules definitely apply because of the use of the word cannot and it's contradiction of the rules.
The game doesn't need to define target, it is used in a plainspeak manner similar to the word choose. It's not really a question of them having targets, it a question of them being chosen as a target for an attack or chosen for an effect. Using the Golden Rules makes Protector work as written. You can't just decide to ignore it.5 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:I don't think anyone is confused about protector. It is just being used as an example of an effect that uses range, seemingly doesn't need line of sight, yet doesn't specify on the card that line of sight is not needed.
Some people feel that line of sight is required unless an effect explicitly says otherwise.
It's not a matter of feeling. The game explicitly states in clear detail:
To perform a ranged attack or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target.
No feeling, plain as day. It's not a matter of making cards work the way I want them to. It's a matter of how they function in the rules as written. -
Protector cares about the enemy attacking a target and it's distance to the unit with protector. It doesn't care about what the unit with protector is doing, just that it exists.
If that explanation is not good enough, with your interpretation there still exists the wordage in the RRG to handle it:
RRG Page 2, The Golden Rules:
If an effect on a card or another component contradicts rules found in the LTP booklet or the RRG, that component takes precedent.
If a card effect uses the word "cannot" that effect is absolute and can not be overridden by other game effects.
Protector clearly contradicts the RRG under your interpretation and also uses the magical word: cannot.
Kari's special
in Runewars Rules Questions
Posted · Edited by Obscene
The melee icon is there to signify that you can use the surge ability(which happens to be a ranged effect) during a melee attack. It does not inherently denote any further properties, and I would love to see the area in the RRG that suggests this.
It is most definitely a ranged effect. It is literally selecting a target at ranged.
The problem is the ambiguous wording on the line of sight rule which can leave the interpretation of having line of sight as an implicit requirement for ranged effects that have a target.
My entire argument was on the basis that the wording of the line of sight rule is not congruent with the rest of the game.