46 Line of Sight says units must require line of sight to resolve ranged attacks and effects.
Kari's surge ability is done while attacking, but the language is definitely not there to explicitly say that the surge ability is an attack. The language, however, is there to say it is an effect. (1 Abilities)
It should be considered that Carrion Lancer/Death Caller and other similar effects would not have to say that they require line of sight to require line of sight. Consider them friendly reminders. The death caller ability would not be an attack either, where as fire rune is an attack.

Just to be explicitly clear, requiring line of sight is the default and not requiring line of sight would need to be declared on the card.

According to the above interpretation, the Protector keyword requires line of sight to the allied units you are protecting. If an ally is behind you, you cannot protect it.

Seems odd. I am, however, slowly coming around to the idea that Kari requires line of sight. So 64.3 isn't contradictory at all because it is explaining cases like Heartseeker. I'm a bit disappointed about Uncontrolled Geomancer not just wrecking everything around him, though.

15 minutes ago, Obscene said:

46 Line of Sight says units must require line of sight to resolve ranged attacks and effects.
Kari's surge ability is done while attacking, but the language is definitely not there to explicitly say that the surge ability is an attack. The language, however, is there to say it is an effect. (1 Abilities)
It should be considered that Carrion Lancer/Death Caller and other similar effects would not have to say that they require line of sight to require line of sight. Consider them friendly reminders. The death caller ability would not be an attack either, where as fire rune is an attack.

Just to be explicitly clear, requiring line of sight is the default and not requiring line of sight would need to be declared on the card.

Why do some abilities have friendly reminders and others do not? How do we know what is a reminder and what isn't?

1 hour ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Why do some abilities have friendly reminders and others do not? How do we know what is a reminder and what isn't?

NM I misunderstood, Some times it is just omitted because it is listed in rules and placing and extra line of text might fill the card too much. In this case it is most likely just a matter of keeping the card from being overly cluttered.

5 minutes ago, jek said:

Some are different characters or troops so they are represented in formation as they would be in a normal marching group, while others may be equipment or and ability the unit holds, you wouldn't see a dispatch runner as they are moving back and forth between units instead of marching in formation and it isn't necessary to resculpt every model to signify tempered steel weapons. Part of tabletop gaming is knowing your list front and back it is also one of the harder parts to do I know I regularly forget that I had some special ability that could have made a serious difference in the game, but that is just part of the game. And when you face an army it is your responsibility to review their list and remember what they have, and if you are hazy mid battle ask them, typically rules prohibit your opponent from not telling you things about their army mid game.

I think you missed the point of @rowdyoctopus's post. The Carrion Lancers' skill says, "Choose and unengaged enemy at range 1-5 and in line of sight." Obscene contests that the "and in line of sight" part is just reminder text. Meanwhile, Kari's ability says nothing about line of sight, just the range limit: "Choose another enemy unit at range 1-5." If the "and in line of sight" of the Carrion Lancer is just reminder text, why does it get reminder text and Kari doesn't? How do we know for sure that Kari requires line of sight for her surge ability? That's the reminder text rowdyoctopus is talking about, not about your opponent reminding you what your forces do.

ooooooh, I thought it was referring to the fact that some cards use models and some don't...

32 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

According to the above interpretation, the Protector keyword requires line of sight to the allied units you are protecting. If an ally is behind you, you cannot protect it.

Seems odd. I am, however, slowly coming around to the idea that Kari requires line of sight. So 64.3 isn't contradictory at all because it is explaining cases like Heartseeker. I'm a bit disappointed about Uncontrolled Geomancer not just wrecking everything around him, though.

Protector doesn't care about line of sight like that because it cares about where the attack is coming from and what it could target.

1 hour ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Why do some abilities have friendly reminders and others do not? How do we know what is a reminder and what isn't?

The most directly obvious one: Space on the card.

Regardless, whether the card mentions the attack requiring line of sight is irrelevant; what is relevant is if the wording mentions the attack or effect ignoring line of sight. This is fairly clear from the very declarative statement in the rrg pg. 13 section 46: To perform a ranged attacked or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target.
This is a very linear statement and doesn't leave much room to interpretation. It is from this you know for a ranged attack or effect to ignore line of sight, the card text must state it.

Just now, Obscene said:

Protector doesn't care about line of sight like that because it cares about where the attack is coming from and what it could target.

Protector requires you to measure range from the unit with Protector to an ally in order to see if the Protector must be targeted. According to your strict interpretation of 46, any ranged effect requires line of sight. The ally must therefore be in line of sight of the Protector in order for it to be considered at range 1-2.

[I'm ignoring the situation where the Protector is engaged with the same enemy unit as the ally because that situation has no bearing on our discussion of range.]

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.

10 minutes ago, Obscene said:

Protector doesn't care about line of sight like that because it cares about where the attack is coming from and what it could target.

The most directly obvious one: Space on the card.

Regardless, whether the card mentions the attack requiring line of sight is irrelevant; what is relevant is if the wording mentions the attack or effect ignoring line of sight. This is fairly clear from the very declarative statement in the rrg pg. 13 section 46: To perform a ranged attacked or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target.
This is a very linear statement and doesn't leave much room to interpretation. It is from this you know for a ranged attack or effect to ignore line of sight, the card text must state it.

"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.

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.

2 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

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.

I would think protector would only require line of sight to the attacker, its an angry middle finger banner, not a tractor beam or magic just offensive...

4 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.

I think everything other than a ranged attack is included in other ranged effect, at least that would be my interpretation of the rules.

I don't understand the confusion on the card. It seems really straightforward. Basically, if you could hit the protector that's close to what you wanted to hit, then you instead have to hit the protector. If that's not possible because of "whatever" then you just attack what you wanted to attack originally.

3 minutes ago, Willange said:

I don't understand the confusion on the card. It seems really straightforward. Basically, if you could hit the protector that's close to what you wanted to hit, then you instead have to hit the protector. If that's not possible because of "whatever" then you just attack what you wanted to attack originally.

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.

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.

4 minutes ago, Obscene said:

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.

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.

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.

Again, in the English language, "other ranged effects" is not automatically inclusive of ALL ranged effects.

@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.

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.

@Obscene I'm not trying to be difficult, but you honestly aren't coming across completely clearly to me. You state that ALL ranged effects require line of sight, but then I give you an example of a ranged effect (Protector) and you still haven't convinced me that it is an exception to the rule. On what grounds is it an exception to the rule that ranged effects require line of sight?

29 minutes ago, Obscene said:

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.

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.

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.

8 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 sorry, common sense replies will see you to the door sir ?

6 hours ago, power500500 said:

This thread is starting to look like Law & Order: Terrinoth.

CHING CHING

I think the wording on 46 really is ambiguous. You can easily read it either way.

1 hour ago, Obscene said:

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.

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.