I hope FFG gives us a ruling soon. Otherwise I'll have to jump off a cliff to keep from hearing the same arguments over and over.

5 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

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?

I agree. If I were to reword 46, it would say, "Some ranged effects, including ranged attacks, require the unit initiating the effect to have line of sight to the target."

this is interesting. i believe overall that karis ability does not require line of sight. however if it does, she can still use it while front to front with some units.

example. Kari front to front with a single lancer (or any single tray) has LOS out of both front corners in a triangle wedge to either side. vs a larger unit if she is on the far right or left of said unit, she has a single triangle wedge of LOS out of that side. if she is in the middle she is then out of luck.

6 hours ago, Klaxas said:

this is interesting. i believe overall that karis ability does not require line of sight. however if it does, she can still use it while front to front with some units.

example. Kari front to front with a single lancer (or any single tray) has LOS out of both front corners in a triangle wedge to either side. vs a larger unit if she is on the far right or left of said unit, she has a single triangle wedge of LOS out of that side. if she is in the middle she is then out of luck.

But if she is front to front, the rangetool cannot be placed at her corner without overlapping the opposing tray.

6 hours ago, Soulless said:

But if she is front to front, the rangetool cannot be placed at her corner without overlapping the opposing tray.

Why not? If you are at the corner following the 45 degree Line that marks los you are not overlapping the opponents tray

1 hour ago, Klaxas said:

Why not? If you are at the corner following the 45 degree Line that marks los you are not overlapping the opponents tray

You might be correct. The Learn to play booklet with diagram shows it as the range rulers full width having to be free of obstructions.

But the Rules Reference does state that only a line has to be traced and not the width of the ruler.

So I stand corrected, a straight line out from the corner(s) of Karis tray would be free!

I think if she is engaged front to front, there is no 'side' triangles of LOS. The vision is front corner to front corner, so I think there would be zero LOS when she is front engaged.

i think her ability does not require line of sight (which is very OP). But I do think if she hits another enemy within range that is engaged, your friendly that is in engaged should receive a panic token due to friendly fire.

1 hour ago, Ywingscum said:

I think if she is engaged front to front, there is no 'side' triangles of LOS. The vision is front corner to front corner, so I think there would be zero LOS when she is front engaged.

i think her ability does not require line of sight (which is very OP). But I do think if she hits another enemy within range that is engaged, your friendly that is in engaged should receive a panic token due to friendly fire.

But those 45 degree marks show the angle that LOS extends out. It doesn't go out straight from the tray

Edit. You cant get the friendly fire panic token because her ability is not an attack

First, I should say that I'm in the camp that the default is that any effect that asks you to use the range finder and choose a target is a ranged effect, and therefore requires LOS (including Kari, but excluding things like Uncontrolled Geomancer). When you are targeting an enemy and finding your LOS, you can trace a path of LOS from the corner of your formation to any other unit. So if you position Kari's front arc so that she is on the far left or far right lined up with the last tray, she has effectively a 45 degree arc off to that side of the enemy unit that can still hit a goodly portion of the board, even while engaged. So those who argue Kari's ability is useless if it does not ignore LoS need to check the LoS rules again. Another point that hasn't come up as a reason Kari's ability is OP without LOS is that it would ignore things like blocking terrain and units, allowing you to negate a huge portion of you army positioning and strategic thinking, which is core to the reason to have rank and file anyway.

3 hours ago, drkpnthr said:

First, I should say that I'm in the camp that the default is that any effect that asks you to use the range finder and choose a target is a ranged effect, and therefore requires LOS (including Kari, but excluding things like Uncontrolled Geomancer). When you are targeting an enemy and finding your LOS, you can trace a path of LOS from the corner of your formation to any other unit. So if you position Kari's front arc so that she is on the far left or far right lined up with the last tray, she has effectively a 45 degree arc off to that side of the enemy unit that can still hit a goodly portion of the board, even while engaged. So those who argue Kari's ability is useless if it does not ignore LoS need to check the LoS rules again. Another point that hasn't come up as a reason Kari's ability is OP without LOS is that it would ignore things like blocking terrain and units, allowing you to negate a huge portion of you army positioning and strategic thinking, which is core to the reason to have rank and file anyway.

Not to keep debating this as everything to say qbout it already is and we must wait for faq but in your opinion, why do some ranged effects ask for LOS if its default?

And why is there no effects that explicitly says to ignore LOS?

Ardus require range ruler, that also require LOS?

The absence of an example that explicitly says it ignores LOS does not mean that ignoring LOS is the default state, it could be that they have no intention of publishing such, or that we won't see something that does until Ankaur Maro or the Latari elves are released. To counter: why is there a line in the rules saying ranged effects must obey LOS if abilities like Kari's are assumed to ignore the LOS rules? I just think it makes much more sense that Kari and other ranged effects (carrion lancer) need to obey LOS rule if they must CHOOSE a target, but like you say, we must wait for the FAQ gods to give us clear understanding. I would suggest that everyone playing matches with a new opponent should specifically ask "Hey, I'm used to playing Kari so that her special ability ignores LOS, is that cool?" and reach an agreement. For all those who find the idea crazy, try playing with that assumption and how much it really messes you up to have to think about the positioning of Kari a little more carefully. Also, be aware that my assumption would allow you to use a unit of cavalry or something to block Ankaur Maro's special ability from hitting a unit of Reanimates. Otherwise he can just hide behind a forest and regen on allies (while slowly dying).

I think we're forgetting the Golden Rules, Rules Reference page 2:

"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."

They can put in all the rules for LOS, ranged attacks and effects they want. If Kari's card doesn't say anything about LOS you don't need LOS.

38 minutes ago, drkpnthr said:

To counter: why is there a line in the rules saying ranged effects must obey LOS if abilities like Kari's are assumed to ignore the LOS rules?

1) Because that line does not necessarily say that ALL ranged effects must obey line of sight, but that some do ...

2) and as pointed out in 64.3, we know that some ranged effects do not require line of sight.

6 minutes ago, Daverman said:

I think we're forgetting the Golden Rules, Rules Reference page 2:

"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."

They can put in all the rules for LOS, ranged attacks and effects they want. If Kari's card doesn't say anything about LOS you don't need LOS.

That argument doesn't work in this case because her card does not directly counter rules. You can't contradict a rule by saying nothing. The Golden Rules really apply to situations like Close Quarters Targeting. The rules state that a unit cannot make ranged attacks if it is engaged (65.2), but Close Quarters Targeting expressly overrides that rule.

If you applied the Golden Rules for cards NOT-SAYING something, you get weird things coming up like, "My card doesn't say I take a panic for disengaging, so I can disengage without taking a panic token."

16 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

1) Because that line does not necessarily say that ALL ranged effects must obey line of sight, but that some do ...

2) and as pointed out in 64.3, we know that some ranged effects do not require line of sight.

This.

Again, we know the rules allows ranged effects to ignore LOS. We also know some effects explicitly asks for LOS, some effects says nothing about LOS, but none explicitly says to ignore it. Makes no sense at all if LOS was default.

And the RR 46 can either refer to ALL ranged effects, which directly contradicts RR 64. Or it can refer to SOME ranged effects, which works perfectly with the other rules in RR as well as all the cards and abilities/ranged effects we know of so far.

I just can't understand how this could be interpreted as having LOS as default.

Actually, we do know tjat occupying terrain lets you ignore line of sight for ranged attacks, so that is one instance of ignoring it.

3 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

Actually, we do know tjat occupying terrain lets you ignore line of sight for ranged attacks, so that is one instance of ignoring it.

True but that is a ranged attack. Ranged attacks require LOS by default so whenever a ranged attack does NOT require LOS it has to be stated for that specific case.

It does say ranged EFFECTS require LOS as well, so to use your argument, Kari's ability does not SAY she ignores LOS. The rules mention what to do if an effect ignores LOS, it never says this is the default.

*slams face into keyboard repeatedly*

I hope FFG give us a FAQ file soon, but meanwhile I just read the rulebook and reference book in my native language (spanish) and I think Kari's special does requires LOS.

For what it is worth, my interpretation using the English version:

Rules Reference - Rule 46 - "To perform a ranged attack or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target ." (emphasis added)

Kari's Card - "Choose another enemy unit at range 1-5 . That enemy suffers..." (emphasis added)

I do not see how this ability can be interpreted as anything other than a "ranged effect" that "must have line of sight." For what it is worth, I believe Ardus interpretation is the exact same...he needs line of sight (even though it does not make a lot of sense), and I think that cards such as the Carrion Lancer that say "and in line of sight" are poorly drafted, but should not be determinative because they do not contradict the Golden Rules , second bullet that states "If an effect on a card...contradicts rules found in the Learn to Play booklet or Rules Reference, that [card] takes precedence." Nothing on the Carrion Lancers card contradicts a rule in either book. So, very strict rules as written, I think both Ardus and Kari's abilities necessarily require line of sight because there is nothing on the card that contradicts the baseline rule in the Rules Reference.

Note, I understand the argument about the construction of other cards that specifically include a line of sight reference, but...bottom line...there is no golden rule that says "to resolve a conflict, look at how other cards are written." So, I feel that line of argument is unpersuasive from a rule as written perspective.

The above said, my gut tells me that FFG made a mistake and neither Kari's nor Ardus' abilities are supposed to have line of sight and it will be FAQed soon, by a parenthetical that says "This ranged effect does not require line of sight."

7 hours ago, noteclado said:

...but meanwhile I just read the rulebook and reference book in my native language (spanish) and I think Kari's special does requires LOS.

You can't just drop that on us and leave! Explain por favor.

1 hour ago, JasonGlass said:

You can't just drop that on us and leave! Explain por favor.

Si seguimos al pie de la letra las reglas, al ser la habilidad de Kari un efecto/ataque a distancia, según el libro de referencias en 54 LÍNEA DE VISIÓN: "Para realizar un ataque a distancia o resolver otros efectos a distancia, la unidad debe tener dentro de su línea de visión al objetivo".

El problema es que de ser así la habilidad de Kari sería bastante inútil, por lo que espero que FFG publique luego una guía FAQ para aclarar el asunto.

English:

If we strictly follow the rules, since Kari's ability is a ranged effect / attack, according to the reference book in 54 LINE OF VISION (in spanish version): "To perform a ranged attack or solve other ranged effects, the unit must have line of sight".

The problem is that if so Kari's ability would be quite useless, so I hope that FFG then publish a FAQ guide to clarify the issue.

6 hours ago, Oloh said:

For what it is worth, my interpretation using the English version:

Rules Reference - Rule 46 - "To perform a ranged attack or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target ." (emphasis added)

Kari's Card - "Choose another enemy unit at range 1-5 . That enemy suffers..." (emphasis added)

I do not see how this ability can be interpreted as anything other than a "ranged effect" that "must have line of sight." For what it is worth, I believe Ardus interpretation is the exact same...he needs line of sight (even though it does not make a lot of sense), and I think that cards such as the Carrion Lancer that say "and in line of sight" are poorly drafted, but should not be determinative because they do not contradict the Golden Rules , second bullet that states "If an effect on a card...contradicts rules found in the Learn to Play booklet or Rules Reference, that [card] takes precedence." Nothing on the Carrion Lancers card contradicts a rule in either book. So, very strict rules as written, I think both Ardus and Kari's abilities necessarily require line of sight because there is nothing on the card that contradicts the baseline rule in the Rules Reference.

Note, I understand the argument about the construction of other cards that specifically include a line of sight reference, but...bottom line...there is no golden rule that says "to resolve a conflict, look at how other cards are written." So, I feel that line of argument is unpersuasive from a rule as written perspective.

The above said, my gut tells me that FFG made a mistake and neither Kari's nor Ardus' abilities are supposed to have line of sight and it will be FAQed soon, by a parenthetical that says "This ranged effect does not require line of sight."

To be super clear, the cards are being used to justify an interpretation. The question they are asking when putting up the cards is: Why, if your interpretation is correct, do they waste ink printing the word "and in line of sight" on some cards?

For those who don't get it, the fundamental quistion of this thread is:

Does the term "other ranged effects" in the context of rule 46 in the rules reference, mean all other ranged effects?

I can see the points for both interpretations. For now, however this topic should be put to bed until we get an official ruling from FFG one way or the other.

2 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

To be super clear, the cards are being used to justify an interpretation. The question they are asking when putting up the cards is: Why, if your interpretation is correct, do they waste ink printing the word "and in line of sight" on some cards?

I don't know, but there is no rule, golden or otherwise, that says "if wording on one card is consistent with the rulebook, it should be interpreted in a manner to read in contradictions on other cards."

2 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

Does the term "other ranged effects" in the context of rule 46 in the rules reference, mean all other ranged effects?

Between the interpretation of "all" other ranged effects and "certain unspecified" ranged effects, I don't see how anyone can choose the latter with a straight face. Do "all" ranged attacks need line of sight?

2 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

For now, however this topic should be put to bed until we get an official ruling from FFG one way or the other.

I disagree. The purpose of a rules forum is to discuss and clarify rules. Even if the analysis for this particular rule has been thorough, it is still a good exercise for the forum may help others in the future.