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.

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.

If I say "Coffee and other drinks contain caffeine," I am not explicitly stating that all other drinks have caffeine. You could read it two ways:

1) Coffee and ALL other drinks contain caffeine.

2) Coffee and SOME other drinks contain caffeine.

Given that ambiguity of the English language, we are actually unable to resolve this rules dispute. The rules don't support one interpretation any more than another.

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.

42 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

If I say "Coffee and other drinks contain caffeine," I am not explicitly stating that all other drinks have caffeine. You could read it two ways:

1) Coffee and ALL other drinks contain caffeine.

2) Coffee and SOME other drinks contain caffeine.

Given that ambiguity of the English language, we are actually unable to resolve this rules dispute. The rules don't support one interpretation any more than another.

I'm sure we'll get an FAQ that goes over instances like LOS. Hopefully, we get it next week with the core set release or shortly after.

Here is my take on this.

I think it depends whether the ability is an active or passive one. Active abilities such as Kari's one need line of sight. Her ability let you choose another enemy unit. On the other hand, passive abilities do not. Protector is a passive ability. The unit with this keyword does not decide to activate the ability. It's always active if I may say so. Same thing with Ardus' ability. You don't choose anything. Ardus attacks and its attack is treated as having the surge abilities of allies at range.

46. Line of sight

To perform a ranged attack or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target. Keyword here is resolve. Mind you, English is not my first language but as per its formal definition, resolve is "to make a decision formally".

Like I said, passive abilities don't let you make any decision (no LOS needed) but active abilities do (LOS needed). I might be totally wrong, but that's how I would rule it as of now.

In my experience, FFG's FAQs can be a long time in coming. Heck, they gathered a bunch of questions for BattleLore and then never released the FAQ!

9 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

In my experience, FFG's FAQs can be a long time in coming. Heck, they gathered a bunch of questions for BattleLore and then never released the FAQ!

They realized it was easier to answer the 5 people that bought the game personally via email. ?

Another thing to note:

We don't know that ranged attacks require line of sight because of section 46. We know it because of the section on attacks.

11 hours ago, Obscene said:

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.

It doesn't state it because it isn't.

10 hours ago, Obscene said:

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.

The implication of the section you quoted is that game effects state when they do require line of sight.

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.

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.

20 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.

This is also how I read the rule.

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.

The problem is that the rules never actually defines what is and is not a Target, nor any section for Ranged Abilities as a distinct thing from Ranged Attacks (which does have a section). The section I quoted is for Range, which seems to include some rules for ranged attacks or abilities.

My assumptions and hypotheses based my experiences in FFG games and reading the rules here (which may or may not be right):

• A Target is any unit that is selected to be affected by an attack or ability
• Anything that is not a Ranged Attack that requires you to measure using the Range tool and choose a target is a Ranged Ability
• Ranged Abilities are not anything with the Ranged Attack icon, these are Triggered Effects of a Ranged Attack
• 64.3 II is specifically written for Heartseeker, which is the only upgrade or unit card the actually says it ignores LoS
• Kari's ability does not explicitly say it ignores LoS, so it would not trigger 64.3 II without the Heartseeker upgrade
• IF Kari and other's abilities are affected by LoS, then they must use the Firing Arc per 46.1 I
• The Carrion Lancer MUST use the Firing Arc to use its Skill Activation since the unit card explicitly states it uses LoS

@rowdyoctopus You bring up a good example with the Carrion Lancer of why we have doubt with my hypothesis. Please keep in mind though that cards are always secondary to the Rules Reference in FFG games. The fact that the card specifies does not imply, expand, or change the original rules as written, it just creates a new condition that can alter the way RAW is processed. I think you have definitely found evidence there that the 'Ranged Abilities' rules were in flux during the testing phase, and perhaps they never completely nailed everything down before the game shipped. I'm hoping we see some updates to make this clarified, and some FAQ or Rules 1.1 released to help us.

The melee symbol denotes what type of attack it is (page 10 of the learn to play guide, i don't have the RRG infront of me right now) Page 13 of the learn to play guide has the rules for card text and abilities which explain when a bit of card text can be applied to a particular type of attack. It also explains that surge abilities are paired to a particular type of attack, in Kari's instance (based on her card text) this would be a melee attack not a ranged attack.

4 minutes ago, Pigeon Von Smythe said:

The melee symbol denotes what type of attack it is (page 10 of the learn to play guide, i don't have the RRG infront of me right now) Page 13 of the learn to play guide has the rules for card text and abilities which explain when a bit of card text can be applied to a particular type of attack. It also explains that surge abilities are paired to a particular type of attack, in Kari's instance (based on her card text) this would be a melee attack not a ranged attack.

All that means is that the ability can only be used while she is performing an attack. It doesn't dictate what type of ability it actually is. It is a surge ability that requires range. While there isn't an explicit definition for ranged effects, it is fairly self explanatory that it would be an effect that requires range.

6 minutes ago, Pigeon Von Smythe said:

The melee symbol denotes what type of attack it is (page 10 of the learn to play guide, i don't have the RRG infront of me right now) Page 13 of the learn to play guide has the rules for card text and abilities which explain when a bit of card text can be applied to a particular type of attack. It also explains that surge abilities are paired to a particular type of attack, in Kari's instance (based on her card text) this would be a melee attack not a ranged attack.

Nobody is saying that her surge ability is a ranged attack, but the fact that it requires you to measure range does make it a ranged effect. Section 46's ambiguous reference to "other ranged effects" may include that surge ability, depending on your interpretation of "other ranged effects."

34 minutes ago, drkpnthr said:

The problem is that the rules never actually defines what is and is not a Target, nor any section for Ranged Abilities as a distinct thing from Ranged Attacks (which does have a section). The section I quoted is for Range, which seems to include some rules for ranged attacks or abilities.

My assumptions and hypotheses based my experiences in FFG games and reading the rules here (which may or may not be right):

• A Target is any unit that is selected to be affected by an attack or ability
• Anything that is not a Ranged Attack that requires you to measure using the Range tool and choose a target is a Ranged Ability
• Ranged Abilities are not anything with the Ranged Attack icon, these are Triggered Effects of a Ranged Attack
• 64.3 II is specifically written for Heartseeker, which is the only upgrade or unit card the actually says it ignores LoS
• Kari's ability does not explicitly say it ignores LoS, so it would not trigger 64.3 II without the Heartseeker upgrade
• IF Kari and other's abilities are affected by LoS, then they must use the Firing Arc per 46.1 I
• The Carrion Lancer MUST use the Firing Arc to use its Skill Activation since the unit card explicitly states it uses LoS

@rowdyoctopus You bring up a good example with the Carrion Lancer of why we have doubt with my hypothesis. Please keep in mind though that cards are always secondary to the Rules Reference in FFG games. The fact that the card specifies does not imply, expand, or change the original rules as written, it just creates a new condition that can alter the way RAW is processed. I think you have definitely found evidence there that the 'Ranged Abilities' rules were in flux during the testing phase, and perhaps they never completely nailed everything down before the game shipped. I'm hoping we see some updates to make this clarified, and some FAQ or Rules 1.1 released to help us.

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.

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.

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.

2 hours ago, Obscene said:

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.

As it should, at least for the geomancer as he is basically the epicenter of an earthquake.

With Kari, she is a single model it should be easy enough for her to make an attack then spin and throw her knives and be able to block the next attack. Heroes need heroic moments.

3 hours ago, Obscene said:

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.

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.

Heartseeker IS triggered by a Ranged Attack. Then it says to ignore LoS 'when choosing a target'. This would alter the actual Ranged Attack, and would alter all ranged effects triggered by that Ranged Attack (IF Kari had any, which she doesn't in Core). So @rowdyoctopus I was mistaken there, thanks for pointing out that Heartseeker was triggered by a ranged attack.

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.