9 hours ago, Soulless said:

As its written, its clear as day that LOS is not required.

The RR46 entry "...or resolve other ranged effects..." doesn't apply to every effect dealing with range, it only states that there ARE situations aside from ranged attacks that require LOS. Ranged attacks ALWAYS require LOS (unless special rules or upgrades apply) but other effects can vary and if one requires LOS it will state so in its rules.

Thats how I interpret it, can't say thats how FFG intended it. But IF Karis special requires LOS based on the RR46 entry, then so should also Ardus special

It's not clear as day.

Ranged effect is not a phrase that is defined with any specificity at all, leaving us to guess what it means or when it might apply.

And there is a strong argument against Ardus' ability being a ranged effect. Mainly... it's really not a ranged effect. It checks for friendlies at a certain distance to determine the potential of his melee attack. Nothing happens between the models at distance, it's an aura, same as the Unstable Geomancer ability.

But again, the problem here is that "Ranged Effect" is an undefined bit of nomenclature.

5 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

It's not clear as day.

Ranged effect is not a phrase that is defined with any specificity at all, leaving us to guess what it means or when it might apply.

And there is a strong argument against Ardus' ability being a ranged effect. Mainly... it's really not a ranged effect. It checks for friendlies at a certain distance to determine the potential of his melee attack. Nothing happens between the models at distance, it's an aura, same as the Unstable Geomancer ability.

But again, the problem here is that "Ranged Effect" is an undefined bit of nomenclature.

The card says nothing about LOS and nothing about it being an attack so until FFG erratas in something to say otherwise Karis ability clearly does not require LOS.

Im not saying FFG couldnt have botched something here but as its written, taking into account both rules and other cards, i think it IS clear as day. If Kari needed LOS her card would have said so or described it as an attack.

2 minutes ago, Soulless said:

The card says nothing about LOS and nothing about it being an attack so until FFG erratas in something to say otherwise Karis ability clearly does not require LOS.

Im not saying FFG couldnt have botched something here but as its written, taking into account both rules and other cards, i think it IS clear as day. If Kari needed LOS her card would have said so or described it as an attack.

Nobody is arguing that her ability doesn't mention LOS.

What they're arguing is that it is possibly a ranged effect and, if it is a ranged effect, it doesn't need to say it on the card to require LOS. It also doesn't say on her card that her ranged attack requires LOS, but we know it does, because all ranged attacks do.

Problem is, we have no guidance on what the hell a ranged effect is in the context of surge abilities, or any other context for that matter.

Just now, Tvayumat said:

Nobody is arguing that her ability doesn't mention LOS.

What they're arguing is that it is possibly a ranged effect and, if it is a ranged effect, it doesn't need to say it on the card to require LOS.

Problem is, we have no guidance on what the hell a ranged effect is in the context of surge abilities, or any other context for that matter.

Fair enough, i can appreciate that.

But it feels highly inconsistent if Karis ability is a ranged effect and needs LOS without it being mentioned while Carrion Lancers ability DOES mention LOS and so is NOT an effect or an attack?

i mean FFG is known for some less then consistent writing but would they really mess up this bad on a core in this day?

I doubt it and thats why I believe we are simply overinterpreting the rules. Not that its a bad thing to clear things up but man, between this and the collision discussion i sometime wonder how anyone ever plays competitively on good mood

Just now, Soulless said:

Fair enough, i can appreciate that.

But it feels highly inconsistent if Karis ability is a ranged effect and needs LOS without it being mentioned while Carrion Lancers ability DOES mention LOS and so is NOT an effect or an attack?

i mean FFG is known for some less then consistent writing but would they really mess up this bad on a core in this day?

I doubt it and thats why I believe we are simply overinterpreting the rules. Not that its a bad thing to clear things up but man, between this and the collision discussion i sometime wonder how anyone ever plays competitively on good mood

Completely agree, Deathcaller also mentions clearly needing line of sight

3 minutes ago, Soulless said:

between this and the collision discussion i sometime wonder how anyone ever plays competitively on good mood

By having discussions, finding weaknesses, analyzing rules, and achieving consensus. When that consensus is "I dunno", by asking FFG directly, which we have, several times, and are still waiting on a reply.

Thus, rules discussion forum.

I completely agree that the wording is inconsistent across abilities written on cards. There would be no disagreement whatsoever if not for the words "and other ranged effects" under the LOS rule header.

15 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

By having discussions, finding weaknesses, analyzing rules, and achieving consensus. When that consensus is "I dunno", by asking FFG directly, which we have, several times, and are still waiting on a reply.

Thus, rules discussion forum.

I completely agree that the wording is inconsistent across abilities written on cards. There would be no disagreement whatsoever if not for the words "and other ranged effects" under the LOS rule header.

Which cards have been inconsistent? I'm just not seeing where they haven't been, I think they've been pretty good with wording and terminology. I think people are putting way too much thought into a pretty easy game.

8 minutes ago, blkdymnd said:

Which cards have been inconsistent? I'm just not seeing where they haven't been, I think they've been pretty good with wording and terminology. I think people are putting way too much thought into a pretty easy game.

The ones we have been talking about.

Kari vs Carrion Lancer is a pretty clear one.

One says it requires line of sight, the other doesn't, simple, right? Except it's not, because the RRG says that all "ranged effects" need LOS, and Kari's ability certainly seems like a ranged effect (It's an effect. It's ranged. What other requirements could there be?), and if it is a ranged effect, it doesn't need to say that it requires LOS any more than the ranged attack symbol needs to say it. Again, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT A RANGED EFFECT IS in the context of literally anything because it is an undefined bit of nomenclature.

If Kari's ability is a ranged effect, it doesn't matter one bit what any other card says about LOS, though it does make their text somewhat erroneous.

And as someone who has been playing FFG games for years, trust me, this is not putting too much thought into it at all. Nomenclature is extremely important to these games, this is why timing effects have their own entry in the RRG that clearly delineates what words like during, while, and after mean in the context of the game. This is why the RRG exists at all.

For the record, I believe that Kari's ability does not require line of sight, simply because all the rules seem to flow until you get to the phrase "ranged effect" under RR-42. The simplest answer is that the phrase itself is erroneous, and I think this is what they'll tell us.

That said, FFG has come out of left field with rulings that defy all logic in the past, so you are best off not placing any bets.

EDIT:

I'd just like to note that there's always someone in these threads who tries to be the guy saying "You're overthinking it". I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. It's a game! Chill out and have fun!

These threads and questions are not for casual play. In a casual game, many rules get flubbed or hand-waved in the name of moving the game along and having a good time.

These threads are for competitive tournament play . If you are not interested in competitive tournament play, I do not expect you to be interested in these intricacies.

Just now, Tvayumat said:

The ones we have been talking about.

Kari vs Carrion Lancer is a pretty clear one.

One says it requires line of sight, the other doesn't, simple, right? Except it's not, because the RRG says that all "ranged effects" need LOS, and Kari's ability certainly seems like a ranged effect, and if it is a ranged effect, it doesn't need to say that it requires LOS any more than the ranged attack symbol needs to say it. Again, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT A RANGED EFFECT IS in the context of literally anything because it is an undefined bit of nomenclature. Kari's ability certainly seems like one. It's an effect. It's ranged.

If Kari's ability is a ranged effect, it doesn't matter one bit what any other card says about LOS, though it does make their text somewhat erroneous.

And as someone who has been playing FFG games for years, trust me, this is not putting too much thought into it at all. Nomenclature is extremely important to these games, this is why timing effects have their own entry in the RRG that clearly delineates what words like during, while, and after mean in the context of the game. This is why the RRG exists at all.

For the record, I believe that Kari's ability does not require line of sight, simply because all the rules seem to flow until you get to the phrase "ranged effect" under RR-42. The simplest answer is that the phrase itself is erroneous, and I think this is what they'll tell us.

That said, FFG has come out of left field with rulings that defy all logic in the past, so you are best off not placing any bets.

I stopped at "seems" because that's where you're making assumptions. Read what's on the card. It's a melee ability that doesn't require line of sight.

10 minutes ago, blkdymnd said:

I stopped at "seems" because that's where you're making assumptions. Read what's on the card. It's a melee ability that doesn't require line of sight.

You literally just said I'm making assumptions, then made an assumption.

Please quote the rules text that defines what a ranged effect is.

I'll wait.

EDIT: I'm not going to argue this anymore. It's been gone over with a fine toothed comb and the only thing left to do is wait for a response from FFG. I genuinely don't understand why people participate in rules discussions if they don't care about the nuance of rule resolution.

9 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

You literally just said I'm making assumptions, then made an assumption.

Please quote the rules text that defines what a ranged effect is.

I'll wait.

EDIT: I'm not going to argue this anymore. It's been gone over with a fine toothed comb and the only thing left to do is wait for a response from FFG. I genuinely don't understand why people participate in rules discussions if they don't care about the nuance of rule resolution.

No, I dont need to, I can read what's on the card.

Im not arguing against the weird wording on the RR46 reference to "other ranged effects" even though I think its simply a statement that SOME effects require LOS and not only ranged attacks but Im just curious how people think FFG intended Karis ability to be used if it would require LOS?

Her ability cannot target the unit being attacked when her ability is triggered so the only way she could ever use her ability is if she is being flanked. Do people really believe this is what her ability is intended for?

I think FFG simply wrote RR46 badly. That or Karis ability is useless.

I also found a reference to game effects that does NOT require LOS

RR64.3

"When measuring range for a game effect that does not require LOS..."

So this entry clearly states that there are ranged effects that does not require LOS. Which falls in line with some effects asking for LOS while other doesn't, just as the cars would suggest. Again, the entry at RR46 referring to "other ranged effects" simply states that there are things outside of ranged attacks that require LOS. But not everything.

11 minutes ago, Soulless said:

Im not arguing against the weird wording on the RR46 reference to "other ranged effects" even though I think its simply a statement that SOME effects require LOS and not only ranged attacks but Im just curious how people think FFG intended Karis ability to be used if it would require LOS?

Her ability cannot target the unit being attacked when her ability is triggered so the only way she could ever use her ability is if she is being flanked. Do people really believe this is what her ability is intended for?

Well, that is the question that makes this so contentious. If the purpose of the wording were to indicate that some abilities would require LOS, why write it at all? Why not just include write "requires LOS" on the abilities that require it, and leave it off the ones that don't?

By one interpretation (No LOS) her ability is a holy terror (or at least seems to be at the learning game level).

By the other (Yes LOS) her ability is a lot more tricky. It can be used, but she needs to be flanked, or engaging an enemy side to side (happens surprisingly often), or use Wraithstep. It's far from impossible to gain LOS while engaged in melee, you just can't do it while engaged along your front edge. Trust me, it happens.

One of these interpretations is extremely powerful and easy to use, the other is still powerful but requires forethought and tricky maneuvering to use. (Not strictly a bad thing)

As discussed elsewhere, I think the learning games exacerbated the issue, and her ability calms down at lot at 200 pts.

I also think her ability probably doesn't require LOS, but the fact is that we just can't be 100% definitive on the matter, and that's irritating.

6 minutes ago, Soulless said:

I also found a reference to game effects that does NOT require LOS

RR64.3

"When measuring range for a game effect that does not require LOS..."

So this entry clearly states that there are ranged effects that does not require LOS.

Good find. This is the only other use of the phrase that I've seen, but it still indicates that some do, and some don't, while the LOS header indicates that the default state is that it does.

27 minutes ago, blkdymnd said:

I stopped at "seems" because that's where you're making assumptions. Read what's on the card. It's a melee ability that doesn't require line of sight.

It may be a melee ability but it is still a ranged effect.

Just now, Orcdruid said:

It may be a melee ability but it is still a ranged effect.

... maybe ...

5 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

Well, that is the question that makes this so contentious. If the purpose of the wording were to indicate that some abilities would require LOS, why write it at all? Why not just include write "requires LOS" on the abilities that require it, and leave it off the ones that don't?

By one interpretation (No LOS) her ability is a holy terror (or at least seems to be at the learning game level).

By the other (Yes LOS) her ability is a lot more tricky. It can be used, but she needs to be flanked, or engaging an enemy side to side (happens surprisingly often), or use Wraithstep. It's far from impossible to gain LOS while engaged in melee, you just can't do it while engaged along your front edge. Trust me, there are many ways to wind up engaged along edges other than the front that don't require her to be flanked.

One of these interpretations is extremely powerful and easy to use, the other is still powerful but requires forethought and tricky maneuvering to use. (Not strictly a bad thing)

As discussed elsewhere, I think the learning games exacerbated the issue, and her ability calms down at lot at 200 pts.

I also think her ability probably doesn't require LOS, but the fact is that we just can't be 100% definitive on the matter, and that's irritating.

Good find. This is the only other use of the phrase that I've seen, but it still indicates that some do, and some don't, while the LOS header indicates that the default state is that it does.

Alrite, I can see your point. And I want to make clear that I don't wanna come on as provoking or anything, I full heartedly enjoy this discussion and the detective work involved! It helps me get a better understanding of the rules and how that can be interpreted and misinterpreted! I guess I interpret RR46 different though, but still it doesn't hurt going over the rulebook trying to find some notice that would clear it up.

However we should not forget the Golden Rules from page 2 of RR either.

"If an effect on a card or another component contradicts rules found in the learn to play booklet or rules reference, that component takes precedence"

Karis card does not ask for LOS.

Carrion lancer card do ask for LOS.

Which one of these contradicts the rules? And does it matter since the golden rule apply?

On another not so serious note, the golden rule above refers to cards and components but only state that component takes precedence, not cards...How should we interpret this

12 minutes ago, Soulless said:

Alrite, I can see your point. And I want to make clear that I don't wanna come on as provoking or anything, I full heartedly enjoy this discussion and the detective work involved! It helps me get a better understanding of the rules and how that can be interpreted and misinterpreted! I guess I interpret RR46 different though, but still it doesn't hurt going over the rulebook trying to find some notice that would clear it up.

However we should not forget the Golden Rules from page 2 of RR either.

"If an effect on a card or another component contradicts rules found in the learn to play booklet or rules reference, that component takes precedence"

Karis card does not ask for LOS.

Carrion lancer card do ask for LOS.

Which one of these contradicts the rules? And does it matter since the golden rule apply?

On another not so serious note, the golden rule above refers to cards and components but only state that component takes precedence, not cards...How should we interpret this

2things

1.) cards are components

2.) if RR46 does mean all ranged effects, then Kari's ability would only be a contradiction if it said "ignoring LoS."

1 hour ago, Tvayumat said:

Except it's not, because the RRG says that all "ranged effects" need LOS,

Except it doesn't say "all" at all. That's an interpretation of "other ranged effects."

1 hour ago, Soulless said:

I also found a reference to game effects that does NOT require LOS

RR64.3

"When measuring range for a game effect that does not require LOS..."

So this entry clearly states that there are ranged effects that does not require LOS. Which falls in line with some effects asking for LOS while other doesn't, just as the cars would suggest. Again, the entry at RR46 referring to "other ranged effects" simply states that there are things outside of ranged attacks that require LOS. But not everything.

Yes. I made the same argument several weeks ago.

33 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

2things

1.) cards are components

2.) if RR46 does mean all ranged effects, then Kari's ability would only be a contradiction if it said "ignoring LoS."

1. I know, wasnt serious, just wanted to make a point that the golden rule could be word for word interpreted as allowing component that is not cards to contradict the rules.

2. RR46, which this discussion winds down to, either means LOS is required for everything made at range unless otherwise stated. But going against this is the fact that some cards specifically states that LOS is required, and we know the rules allow for ranged effects that doesnt require LOS.

So we have rules that either

A. Require that effects state if LOS is not required

or

B. Require that effects state if LOS is required.

We also have cards and effects that state that LOS is required

But we do NOT have cards and effects that state that LOS is NOT required.

To me, this makes it pretty clear that if an ability or effect require LOS it will either be stated as an attack or it will state in writing that LOS is required.

If it doesnt, then LOS is not required.

Its consistent, even with RR46 since it can be interpreted in such a way to function with the rest of the game, writing and component without errata or faq, and in my personal opinion makes the most sense.

So, for the sake of clarity:

The general consensus is that Kari probably does not require LOS, and that the wording under LOS referring to "other ranged effects" is confusing, or at least contentious over whether or not it is confusing (which is sort of the definition of confusing).

Now, FFG will release a ruling via email that says something like Carrion Lancer doesn't require LOS, and the world will end in blight.

5 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

Now, FFG will release a ruling via email that says something like Carrion Lancer doesn't require LOS, and the world will end in blight.

If only.

Blight is right!

Put me in the camp that says the RRG section on line of sight is not saying all ranged effects require line of sight. Abilities will state when they need line of sight.

Think of it this way: ranged attacks and other ranged effects require line of sight. This implies that ranged attacks are a subcategory of ranged effects. Why call them out at all then when you could have said ranged effects require line of sight?