Jump to content


Vote Enabled
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Zoer's Achievements


Rookie (2/14)

  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • First Post

Recent Badges



  1. That's what I was appealing to. There's no need to target anything. An aura just affects its creator constantly. Do you think this would allow the aura to affect a buried model?
  2. I think you guys make a valid point about a model being present on the table. I've just looked at rules once again and noticed one more thing. The first paragraph of Area Effects says "Area effects are game effects that influence an area of the table..." and Bury rules in turn say "Buried models are removed from the table...". I guess that's it. Thanks everyone
  3. Actually, I think "these Actions ignore all game effects relating to the position" refers to actions that can target buried models. Because that's what they do - they allow you to target something ignoring range and LoS.
  4. It just looks strange to me. If a model generates an effect, why should it stop working just because its creator is placed elsewhere? It's a permanent ability of a model. Aura effect just says that it affects an area around its creator as well.
  5. Aura rules say "All models inside the Aura’s area, including what is generating the Aura, are affected by the Aura as long as they stay inside the area and remain in LoS of the generating object." 1. There's nothing about targeting a model, it just says "affects". So, "buried models cannot be the target" should not apply here. 2. LoS rules say that a model always has LoS to itself. Regarding range, there are no clear rules about it. It's just said that range is a distance from one object to another. So, I assume that a model is always in range of itself, just like with LoS. If a model is on a table, there's no question whether it's affected by its own aura, but we never check for range.
  6. Well, I think "These actions" stands for "actions that specifically target buried models" as they actually ignore position effects. Regarding Titania's aura, it affects all friendly models and not the enemies. It does not matter if an enemy model is within the aura's range. That's why I think Titania is still affected by her aura, despite being buried.
  7. Let's say we have a game with Titania vs. Tara. Titania has her "Cruel Disappointment" which changes any severe damage she would suffer to moderate instead. At some point in the game Tara buries Titania and attacks her. As the result of the attack Titania has to suffer severe damage. Would "Cruel Disappointment" still work and the damage would be changed to moderate? I've spent some time reading the rules and I couldn't find anything that prevents this. To me, aura effect just specifies which area is affected. Taking into account the fact that abilities work constantly, aura affects its creator and a model always has LoS to itself, I would say that the aura should still work. The only thing that mentions abilities in buried state says that a model can't be targeted by an ability, which aura does not require. It's more about the fact that an aura cannot affect anything that is still on the table. What do you think?
  8. What if we simply change the order like this? "After any action in which a friendly Urami model is moved through an enemy model, if the enemy model..."
  9. I'd actually prefer this variant. It sounds much clearer. I do not expect all native speakers to use correct grammar, but it's the rules we're talking about. I expect them to be as clear as possible.
  10. My main objection is that if we say "something is moved through", it basically means the same as "something moved through". Adding "by" just tells us who or what caused that movement, it does not change the subject. I've asked some of my friends and we all agreed that the original sentence sounds incorrect. I guess there will be other people, too. Ideally, it would be nice to see a detailed explanation from the developers.
  11. Sorry, but I can't find any examples of such use of the passive voice. This sentence does not make any sense. Let's look at another example. "A house was moved through the streets by truck". In this case the house moves through the streets and it's being moved by a truck. If we drop "the streets" part we'll get "A house was moved through by truck". It does not mean that the truck moved through the house. I hope that makes sense
  12. This is how I understand it. If object A is moved through object B, it means that A went through B, not the other way around. Also, if "object A is moved by object B", it means that B did something to move A. I can't find any example of "is moved through by". So to me it reads like an enemy model should move through a friendly Urami model. Moreover, that move should be caused by a friendly Urami model. All of this makes it really hard to perform.
  13. Can you please point me to any example where this is grammatically correct? I can't find any.
  • Create New...

Important Information