LeperColony

In that case, suppose the following: Heyreddin has shielded 1. He decides to trigger Necrotic Decay and "suffers" 1 damage, which shielded reduces to 0. We know he "suffered" the damage since the trigger's cost was paid. So then does Black Blood happen?

I think pretty much everyone resorted either to refusing to identify their logical/rules framework behind their belief, or asserted that "within range" passes . And after I demonstrated textual evidence that indicates it doesn't, nobody provided any textual evidence that it does. I mentioned the pass through method at least three times as a possible solution, and to the best of my knowledge, you're the only one to take it on explicitly. However, I am sorry if I didn't notice someone else saying it, and I suppose it's entirely possible it's what someone meant, even if they didn't say it (or say it in that way). In fact, I suppose it's even possible that someone saying the action's passes to the trigger meant the general rule that the action passes, without ever actually endorsing the general rule, which would have led me to believe they were limiting their opinion to the singular case. Given my somewhat rudimentary model knowledge, I was worried about the implications of passing types to all triggers. --- My interest in the mechanism may seem unnecessary, but the mechanism has real consequences. If type always passes, it's relevant for other effects that reference or interact with the type. In most cases, because of the ways actions and triggers are worded, this is going to be obvious. But sometimes it won't be, and other times it may even be counter-intuitive. If instead it's somehow based on some other theory, and type doesn't pass, that also has implications.

Since the rules define suffered damage as the damage that exists after reduction, this argument seems like a tidy solution.

So the Arcane Emissary's Rampage trigger is on a action, so it is a too. So if Cassandra has Finesse up, she benefits from it in the TN 13 Mv duel (Emissary gets a )? -- edit, the MV duel isn't opposed, so 🤣, but if there is anything similar that is opposed, would Finesse apply? -- Since all these defense techs say from/in/during "actions," if Bullet Proof applies to damage from triggers (which is how I've always done it), does Serene Countenance give a to duels on triggers of attack actions? Because I don't think I've ever done it that way, except when the trigger is itself an action (like Onslaught). So previous to this, I would not have believed Serene Countenance works on the triggers. But it does (assuming any attack action trigger causes an opposed duel. I don't know if any does)? Or Sonnia's Smothering Flame works to reduce the range of non- triggers as well? --- By the way, I appreciate your solution grounded in the actual rules. I've mentioned this was a possible resolution a few times, but I indicated I didn't know if it would be problematic to pass types to triggers, since I've never thought about the triggers in those terms, and nobody until now has been willing to assert this as a solution.

A question came up earlier about damage that a model chooses to suffer for an effect. The rules prevent a model from choosing to "[suffer] damage that would reduce their health to 0 or below." (pg 33, grammatical change mine) But the rules say: "If a game effect references the amount of damage suffered, it is referring to the amount of damage suffered after damage reduction." So can a soulstone-capable model produce an effect that requires them to take damage, but it's damage they can prevent? The actual question was can Francois LaCroix declare Frantic Attack when he is at 1 health with soulstones available. --- I didn't think so, since even with a soulstone there's no way to guarantee that you can avoid suffering any damage, since the Black Joker would be 0 prevention. But the question then became what if it's impossible for the BJ to appear (because it's been used or it's in the control hand)? To me, that was kitty corner enough to where I didn't think it would work, but I don't know how others are doing it.

If you want to make a ruling, that's fine. It's even more than fine, it's good because this is how I want it to work too. And the nice thing about rulings is that they don't have to accord with the text in the book, they can change, clarify or alter it. But it's obviously not clear cut, because your assertion doesn't match what the text says. The red circle is "range." The red circle that is range includes two components. These components, named on page 22 are: Yellow Box (sorry, gun symbol got covered because I am not good at graphics): Type Blue Box (sorry, inch symbol got covered because I am not good at graphics): range (which is then defined as "distance," so we know any other section of the rules talking about "distance," such as the "within range" definition on page 13 under "Measuring", cares about this). There is no dispute that range (red circle) includes two different components, which can be independently variable (you can change, add, subtract, modify each one without having any impact on the other). By the actual text of the rules, "within range" only cares about blue square. If the ruling is that for actions, "within range" cares about the entire red circle, then presumably all the type's rules apply to the trigger. --- If there's other text I've missed, please point it out to me. I prefer to understand the framework that makes the mechanics work, and nobody has managed anything other than "there is a ." But if, as I suspect, this is a ruling, then obviously the text of the rules are superseded. --- If type passes due to "within range," then does that mean we're saying types are not part of the game effects that pass from an action to a trigger automatically? So that triggers without "within range" don't automatically get the action's type? This would be much clearer and preferred to the alternative that types always just pass to triggers without other qualification. None of us, of course, were qualified to make a ruling, so absent such a modification, the only mechanism under the rules was the "action pass to trigger" rule, and as I've said the implications of that seem significant (though in fact they may not be). The nice thing about ruling that type passing is tied to "within range" rather than the triggers gain an action's effects concept is that, since the triggers are themselves very standardized, in most cases the fact that they type passes is going to be harmonious with what the trigger and action both do.

"within range" from the rulebook, page 13 (emphasis mine): An object is within range if any portion of that object's base is at that distance or closer. Any effect that references an object being "within" a distance is talking about range. --- So that's telling us within range is going to be within a distance. Okay, clear enough. Now, if only some part of the rulebook told us how to find distances. Page 22: "[Ranges have types and they have a]...range in inches, which is the maximum distance the Action can affect." (summary mine) Now, as I've said multiple times already, talking about range can get confusing because the rules use the word range to mean distance alone, but it also uses it to mean the type and the numerical value of inches. So then which use of "range" do we use for "within range?" Well, since "within range" is concerned with distance alone, we use the "range" (distance). --- I'm going to ask this every time you dodge it: Because no appears in the trigger, either: 1- doesn't apply to the trigger or 2- Some other rule has to pass to the trigger. So then, is it your contention that type always passes to triggers? Or, as it seems, do you really just want this trigger to have . It doesn't. But we're going to pretend it does so that it works how we think it should? --- I should note that other triggers do use "within X" in its text. Chiaki could easily have been written to say "within 4". She could even have been written to say "model affected by the " or "by the action." This is almost the only wording, other than saying "also including Chiaki" that would use the same range (distance) as the action but include her. Does that mean they meant to? Not necessarily. But it is interesting.

In one case the is actually printed on the action, and in the other there is no actually printed on the trigger. I am fundamentally baffled by the fact that there are people who think there is no difference between appearing in game text and not appearing. --- Because no appears in the trigger then, as I've said like 12 times now, either: 1- doesn't apply to the trigger or 2- Some other rule has to pass to the trigger. Can someone please tell me what's confusing about this to them? Because it really seems confusing to them. 1: Nobody has ever said they aren't related. And as I've mentioned about 17 times now, I've indicated the rule that says actions pass game effects to triggers could be used to say the type passes. I'm just asking if that means everyone plays their triggers as sharing the type of the action. Which is something none of you want to commit to, for obvious reasons. There's tons of triggers and always passing type could be horrendous. 2: Obviously range and type are related, they're in the same column on the action heading. Again, not sure what this is supposed to show. I've demonstrated their relationship like 5 different times. Also, this completely glosses over the fact that "range," the exact word, is used to mean both the RG and the numerical value alone in RG. This makes talking about "range" at times more difficult, because which "range" is being referred to could be easily lost. 3: "within range" never "excludes" anything, no matter whether it appears in an action, ability, trigger, game commentary, juice box, etc. "within range," as far as Malifaux is concerned, always refers to the distance (in inches) between two objects. Specifically whether or not the two objects are X or closer, where X is a value derived from the game text. This is why I wrote out the action and trigger, replacing "within range" with its game-equivalent "within 4" and demonstrated that the bizarre claims you and others are making about "within range" make no sense. 4: "Everyone" (which is like three people currently, just to be clear) can still be wrong. HOWEVER, as I indicated in my original post, previously I didn't think other models could get Chiaki's Reliquary, and the exact same reasoning should prevent her from getting others. This was based on believing the trigger was a or functioned like one. I've always just sort of assumed it was a . It's only this discussion, and your failure to identify how the applies, that has raised any doubt to me. None of you have been able to show that the action's applies to the trigger, which again has no printed in it anywhere, and the only framework for doing so under the rules, that type as a game state passes to triggers, is one that you're all squeamishly avoiding endorsing. --- Chiaki's trigger is unique enough that a specific ruling could fix it. But absent a ruling, there needs to be a rule you can point to to prevent her from being a model within 4. The rules would be sufficient. If the FROM THE ACTION, BECAUSE THERE IS NO IN THE TRIGGER, applies. --- So then, is it your contention that type always passes to triggers? Or, as it seems, do you really just want this trigger to have . It doesn't. But we're going to pretend it does so that it works how we think it should?

To be honest I don't know, since my overall model knowledge is not exactly top tier. Though Ashes and Dust Demise may qualify. Pre-edit edit---- While writing this post, I thought more about it and the summon effect doesn't measure from another object in the sense I was talking about. The summoner itself isn't the other object, the summoner is the one generating the effect. By another object, I mean for instance an ability that says "target a corpse marker" or some such. However, I think it would depend on the specific wording of the ability. The reason RtR is different is the ability indicates you select a scrap marker within 12" (so vertical counts), then place into base contact with it. --- I actually keep going back-and-forth on this, and I think language can be found to support either opinion. At the moment, I think I come down on the side of vertical counting for summons, under the following logic: The summons is not a place, the summons involves a place. So when you're measuring to "summon" a model, vertical distance counts. You then place that model at that location, using the place rules. Obviously though, this is an opinion I hold with little conviction, so I'm prepared to accept a better concept if it comes around.

Oh, sorry, I was speaking summoning generally. Not with reference to Som'er.

I've already covered this so many times, anything more would just be repetition.

No, but the distinction is actually pretty subtle. RtR is not a place within 12". In other words, it's not a 12" place that ends on a scrap marker. If it were, we could ignore vertical range to the scrap marker. However, RtR says "Place itself into base contact with a scrap marker within 12". So we need to consider the distance between the model and the marker, which means we have to care about vertical distance as well. Summoning, on the other hand, is just a place. So you can ignore vertical distance provided that the summon effect doesn't measure distance from another object. If it said something like Moonshine in a Barrel would care about vertical distance when measuring the range for the scrap marker. You couldn't say "it's a place" and, using that rule, ignore the vertical distance to the scrap marker.

LoS as described in the rules is a two step process: 1. Draw sight lines. 2. Unblocked sight lines give LoS "to each other." Each other, by definition, means both members of the pair. So if A sees B, B sees A. If you can't accept the definition of each other, there's really no way to progress.

I'm not making any assumptions, because I'm the one illustrating both cases. At this point it's easy to get confused, so I'm going step by step here, and defining some terms. 1. Range in the rulebook is used in two different ways. The exact same word. It can either mean the RG section of the action heading, which might include a type and/or numerical value. Now, the game calls this numerical value Range also. Whether you believe the type is part of RG is going to be similar to whether you believe suits/fate modifiers are part of STAT, because it uses similar wording. 2. "Within range" is a term with a specific definition in the rules on page 13. It means essentially being within the numerical value of RG, or less. Because the terminology uses the same word in different ways (range), then a very similar phrase (within range), all of which can have different meanings, it can be confusing. Now, to your bullet points: #1 is nothing I've ever said. In fact, I'm the one who has repeated said it's possible type does pass to triggers, under the rules that an action's effects pass to the trigger. I'm literally the first, and thus far possibly the only one that laid out the possibility of that process. Now, every time I've brought this up, I've also asked as a corollary what kind of impact passing the type to triggers has on the game, because it's not something I've considered generally. I also don't know if triggers, as a rule, have types. I think in most cases this is moot, because where it would come up, the trigger instead tells you to take a certain type of action. #2 is also nothing I've ever said. But actually, triggers can ignore the range icon. And for most triggers, the range icon is irrelevant. The reason you may be confused here is that I'm saying if the does not pass to the trigger by rule, then the trigger doesn't have a and the only other range indicated in the trigger is the "within range" language. If, by rule, the does pass to the trigger, then all restrictions apply. I must have said this at least three times already. The Mechanical Rider you mentioned would be identical. If an action's type always passes to its trigger, then on the action would apply to the trigger and so you could pick any model, other than the Mech Rider, within LoS and "within range," which would mean "within 6." If types do not pass, then the trigger, which lacks in the text, would use the only other distance indication, "within range" which would mean "within 6." I've never said it means something different. In fact, in order to demonstrate how it is the same every single time, I actually wrote out the full text of the Action and the trigger, replacing "within range" with its game effect, within 4. And you can see it was used the same way every time. I'm truly baffled by this claim, so maybe you can quote actual text where I say "within range" acts differently? Unfortunately, the other threads you've quoted are using the same assumption that type passes to triggers. In fact, two of the answers (that are the same) mistakenly talk about the "ability [Split the Soul] being a and not an ." But the trigger isn't an ability and it isn't a . Unless, again, by rule it's a because the action was a . But if you believe that type always passes to triggers, then you need to remember that can have potentially wide-ranging rules implications. For instance, does the Arcane Emissary's Rampage trigger become a ?

Uh, no. Nothing in that section establishes this. Repeating myself on this seems counterproductive, so we'll just have to accept different uses of "may not." But first, just to progress, can we establish you now accept "each other" means reciprocity? Because you didn't before, and we need to make sure that we're using the same terms or there's really no basis for communication. Literally nothing in the sentence says both models check. "LoS to each other" in no way talks about checking, regardless of the outcome. LoS is the consequence of unblocked sight lines. Although, just to be clear, since LoS is probably a continuous process, both models are always checking. Checking results in LoS to each other. That's the text of the rules. LoS to each other. The issue is what happens when an unblocked sight line is established. Then the models have LoS "to each other." The only way your argument works is if you believe that although Parker can "ignore the terrain when drawing sight lines (example pg 18)," ignoring the terrain doesn't mean the sight line becomes unblocked. Rather, it's a blocked sight line but nevertheless LoS exists. I've never seen anyone propose it work this way, and it hinges on what it means to "ignore" something. But "ignore" is not clear: Conceptually, there's two basic ways most other games deal with it (that I can tell, there of course could be more). 1) Ignore means you treat the ignored object/effect as though it never existed. If Parker "ignores" the terrain under this theory, the sight line is drawn as though the terrain doesn't exist. In other words, the sight line is unblocked and so the models have "LoS to each other." 2) Ignore means you allow effects to occur even though the conditions that exist would have prevented them. In this theory, when Parker "ignores" the terrain, the sight line is still blocked, but Parker is allowed to have LoS anyway because he "ignores" the terrain. Because this is not LoS based on having an unblocked sight line, the rules for unblocked sight lines don't apply and Parker has LoS while Dashel doesn't. --- This isn't navel gazing. Whether the sight line is blocked or unblocked could matter if other models have effects that reference sight lines. A search of the app brings up Francois. If Parker is targeting Francois instead of Dashel (that is, we replace Dashel with Francois in the example), does he get Showdown or not?

I have no clue what contradiction you think exists. I've already spelled out, twice, how the text looks using "within 4" which is the literal rule meaning of "within range" in this circumstance, and you've identified no contradiction. There's no indication that they do. It's not even clear if triggers can have types, since the types discussion is only in the Action section. Now, I was the one who proposes it's possible types might follow triggers under the rule that triggers are governed by the game effects of the action. But I hesitate to say all triggers are also the type of the action. There a ton of models and a ton of triggers, and I haven't looked at what that would do.

That's not what "may not" means here. The actual sentence is structured as situation and consequence. Situation: If all sight lines are blocked. Rule: LoS may be blocked "to each other." They need to add "may not" have LoS because not every instance of blocked sight lines prevents LoS. Parker's sight lines to Dashel are blocked. So LoS "may not" exist "to each other." But Parker has a special rule allowing him to ignore 1" of the terrain when drawing sight lines. Because that's the actual definition of "each other?" From Merriam-Webster online. "Definition of each other : each of two or more in reciprocal action or relation" Also, I know of literally no other possible use for "each other" that would not be reciprocal. Maybe you can think of one? If you ignore "to each other" then sure. But you can't.

Yeah. Even if he's standing in the middle of a huge building alone, he can't summon a model inside it. Seems kind of odd, but them's the rules.

From page 16: LoS is used "to see if two models can see each other." Reciprocal. "If at least one of the sight lines between the two objects is unblocked, the objects have LoS to each other." Reciprocal. "If all the sight lines are blocked, the two objects may not have LoS to each other." Reciprocal. If your point is no rule says: "LoS is always reciprocal," that would be entirely correct. However, every situation of LoS in the rules is reciprocal. So it may be more accurate to state that the rules do not provide any situation where LoS is not reciprocal, other than a model to itself. The rules do not say "in general." The rules say if there is at least one unblocked sight line, the models have LoS to "each other." That's it. I understand you don't want it to work this way. Neither do I. But no rule ever describes LoS in any other manner. If you have a rule citation, let me know. I'll definitely take a look. But asserting things like "in general yes" without textual support doesn't establish that the rules say anything other than what they say. Then indicate the rule were LoS is only singular. I am quoting actual game text. It's not what I want. It's not even how I play it. But it is the actual game text. All Wyrd would have to do to make it work how we all want it to is remove "to each other." Yes, it does say that. However, the full text is more important, because it's clear under the full text Parker can see Dashel because there is an unblocked sight line. Here's the text in the example: "However, since Parker is standing on the terrain, he ignores the first 1" of that terrain when drawing sight lines to other models. This gives Parker LoS to Dashel, and he [Dashel] won't gain Cover against his [Parker's] actions." (emphasis and pronoun clarifications mine). The terrain allows Parker to make a sight line that would otherwise be blocked unblocked. Once we have an unblocked sight line, we look at the rules and see what happens with unblocked sight lines (spoiler alert: The models have LoS "to each other.").

I already demonstrated how "within range" works. At this point, I can only conclude you're trolling. For anyone else, can you demonstrate where the is in the trigger? Here's the text, with "within range" replaced with "within 4" since apparently that's not clear to some people: Spirit Flute 4" 6 - 10 Friendly Retainer models within 4" may move up to 3". So what do we know from the action? We know it's a , because it explicitly says . So we know all the rules apply. Here is the actual text of the trigger, thus converted: Split the Soul: Choose a friendly model within 4". The chosen model may Attach the Reliquary (X) Upgrade, where X is the name of any one other friendly model within 4". ---- It's been suggested that we can pass the type of an action along to a trigger? The rules don't specifically say this, but it may be possible under the rule about passing game effects of an action to triggers. But can triggers have types? And is there an issue making every trigger have the type of the action?

Except it's not an assumption, it's the actual text of the rules. If you can show me any place in the rules were LoS is established and the end result doesn't say "to each other," then that would be a different (and welcome) situation. Other, of course, than the rule stating a model has LoS to itself, since there reciprocity is meaningless. I don't think anyone plays the RAW method, where LoS, if established, is "to each other." I don't play that an enemy can see Zoraida through Bad Juju, but I do so knowing it is a conscious modification of the rules. But when someone asks a rules question, I give them the answer under the text of the rules (as I understand them, of course). All Wyrd would need to do is remove the words "to each other." It would be the same in the vast majority of cases, and it would make the node examples work more like they were no doubt intended. If Wyrd did remove "to each other," then A could see B but B couldn't see A, since the ability to ignore the terrain only belongs to the model standing on it.

I honestly have no clue what point you're trying to make here or why you think it helps you establish that "LoS to each other" isn't reciprocal. You change the measuring point, but the implication is the same. Zoraida "may draw LoS" from other models. That means we are measuring with different objects. But if there are unblocked sightlines, LoS exists. And if LoS exists, they have LoS "to each other." The LoS rules that are in the book already even cover nodes (somewhat obscurely, it must be said) because LoS as deriving from unblocked sightlines between "objects." Now, the primary use of the word "object" is to cover things like marker, which are not models. But it also neatly covers nodes, because it provides the textual flexibility to say this model is using this object (which is typically itself, but in Zoraida's case can be someone else, in Reva's it's a marker, etc) to try and see that object. The actual process in the rulebook for establishing LoS is: 1. Draw a series of sight lines between two objects (I suppose a step 0 would be to identify the objects between which you're drawing the lines). 2. If at least one of the sight lines is unblocked, the objects have LoS to each other. Show me in the rulebook where LoS is not reciprocal. This is a common dynamic with our discussions. I quote the actual rules. I go step by step through the process in the rules. You make sweeping assertions about how you think things work, ignore terms in the rules that are explicitly defined, and then pronounce away any ambiguities that exist. The actual text of the rules is: "...the objects have LoS to each other." Please show how that definition is not reciprocal. What? Are you confusing the definition of reciprocal? This claim that if the two objects don't have an unblocked sight line then that means LoS isn't reciprocal is based on what? Consider the following: 1) There are no unblocked sight lines between Zoraida and Jack Daw. Therefore, neither LoS cannot be established and neither have LoS "to each other" 2) There are no unblocked sight lines between Zoraida and Jack Daw. Bad Juju is within 12 of Zoraida. Therefore, Zoraida is allowed to draw LoS from Bad Juju. If there are no unblocked sight lines between Bad Juju and Jack Daw, Bad Juju and Jack Daw do not have LoS "to each other." Zoraida, measuring from Bad Juju, also has no unblocked sight lines (none of her own, and none from Bad Juju), so therefore Zoraida and Jack Daw do not have LoS "to each other." 3) There are no unblocked sight lines between Zoraida and Jack Daw. Bad Juju is within 12 of Zoraida. Therefore, Zoraida is allowed to draw LoS from Bad Juju. If there ARE unblocked sight lines between Bad Juju and Jack Daw, Bad Juju and Jack Daw DO have LoS "to each other." Zoraida, measuring from Bad Juju, has an unblocked sight line so therefore Zoraida and Jack Daw DO have LoS "to each other." Each scenario means there are unblocked sight lines. And the only result in the rulebook from an unblocked sight line is "the objects have LoS to each other." This is the very definition of a reciprocal system. -------- The issue is Zoraida says she may "draw LoS" from other models. Draw LoS means sight lines. The rules use the word "draw" and its conjugations exclusively for this. If she had a rule saying she just "has" LoS to any model a friendly swampfiend has LoS to, that would not be reciprocal. But that's not how the rules are written. ------- By the way, this is not how I want it. It's not even how I play it, as I said. But we don't really have a formal theory for why, under the rules, we don't play it this way. I think it's mostly about when we draw LoS, if I absolutely had to pick a reason.

This seems to be really confusing you, so let's snip everything else just to make it easier to talk about one thing. Also, since "within range" is something that has seemingly been difficult to convey, let's replace it with the actual numerical value of the action, which is 4. We'll type out the action, but instead we'll use the number 4 wherever it would say "within range." (Though actually, for grammatical purposes, we'll just replace "range") Here is the actual text of the action thus converted: Spirit Flute 4" 6 - 10 Friendly Retainer models within 4" may move up to 3". So what do we know from the action? We know it's a , because it explicitly says . So we know all the rules apply. Here is the actual text of the trigger, thus converted: Split the Soul: Choose a friendly model within 4". The chosen model may Attach the Reliquary (X) Upgrade, where X is the name of any one other friendly model within 4". That's it. There's no in it. Within 4 is still within 4. If within 4 were the only condition that applied to the effect, then distance is all we'd care about. When it comes to the action, within 4 is not the only condition. also applies. When it comes to the trigger, within 4 is the only listed condition. I'm honestly confused as to why you think there's any conflict between them.

Okay. No rule says this that I know of, and I'm guessing none that you do either. Because the issue that underlines this whole part of the discussion is whether range is always type+range (distance) or if it is only range (distance). Just like the stat thread, there isn't a clear answer in the rules. Now, do I think you're assertion that an action keeps its type throughout is reasonable? Sure, and that's almost certainly how I've always played it without even thinking about it. And if you accept that you can change/ignore one component without doing so to all, then we're on the same page. It does do that. "within range" is a phrase explicitly defined in the rules and tied only to physical distance. That's it. You have never once addressed the fact that "within range" has a very specific meaning in the rules. This is why the fact that her trigger isn't a matters. (and and and ) carry with it additional qualifiers. "Place in base contact to a model within X" and "Place in base contact to a model within X" do not mean the same thing. The only process by which Chiaki's trigger can be a is one of two: 1) Under the rules, all triggers are by default (unless otherwise provided) the same type as their action. I've been saying since the start that this is reasonable on its face, I just don't know what other implications exist if all triggers with ranges are automatically the same type as the action. I also don't know how, if this is the case, you would word a trigger like Chiaki's that could choose her without something awkward like "this is not a " which we never see anything similar. 2) the word "range" is always taken to mean type and range (distance), so that somehow by a torturous reading, even though "within range" is explicitly defined as being within the physical distance, we import the rules. This is highly doubtful to me. No, "within range" always means whatever it means. But, again (since I've said this like three times by now), the action explicitly has . So the rules also apply, meaning the object is excluded and LoS matters. The difference is the trigger does not have the . So unless somehow it is counted as having it, the rules do not apply. I can understand not agreeing that the trigger doesn't or shouldn't have . But I genuinely can't understand why you don't see the difference between "within range" in an effect and "within range" in an effect with a . There is nothing breaking about not adding that aren't there.

The point of that section of the discussion was about the reciprocity of LoS, not its purposes. LoS can have other uses, like if you're included in a for instance. I honestly have no clue how you're getting here. Sight lines are how you establish Line of Sight. Line of Sight is the result from an unblocked sight line. Nodes allow you to draw LoS from another point. It doesn't change that you use sight lines. LoS effects come in four categories: 1- A model always has LoS to itself (so I guess you win, since that's not reciprocal). 2- "standard sight lines" LoS is only described as reciprocal 3- nodes change where you draw LoS, but not the process 4- Ignoring LoS. No LoS, no sightlines, no reciprocity. I may need to be more clear here then. To be clear, I do not know when you check for LoS. I'd like to assume continuously, however RAW that leads to some unfortunate results discussed in your next point. If, on the other hand, it's when a model is acting or an effect matters, then reciprocity doesn't lead to the bad results. So it becomes a contest between reciprocity which, like it or not, is the RAW, or continuous LoS checking (which isn't explicitly a rule, but is eminently reasonable) in terms of which gets modified/ignored to produce what is probably "normal" play for most of us. I didn't make the rules. I'm just pointing out what the actual text of the rules say. RAW, LoS is always reciprocal (except for a model on itself). It's never described in any other manner. This isn't how I want it. Now, of course, anything that says "may" is elective. Zoraida doesn't have to use Swampfiends for LoS, which means I assume that even under continuous LoS checking, she can just "turn it off" during enemy activations. I've never explicitly detailed the process used during play, but if I had to guess, I think we use more instance-based LoS rather than continuous checking. But this wasn't an intentional choice, more the result of caring about LoS only when it "matters." I would be perfectly fine (and in fact in favor) of a ruling that didn't make LoS reciprocal.