Zoer

23 minutes ago, Adran said:

Just to say that you are not "targeted" by an aura. Target is a game term, and if an action or an ability does not say that it targets a model, then the models it effects are not targeted by that action/ability.  (Can matter for things like Terrifying which will only happen if you target that model. )

 

 

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?

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

5 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

The bury rules explicitly say auras dont apply.

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.

8 minutes ago, solkan said:

That big quote includes “as long as they stay inside the area”.  -that- is what makes it an effect that depends on the position of the model, and by that reason the buried models clause makes it not apply.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Hipper Hopper Table Toper said:

As far as I understand the Rules it says; "Buried models cannot be the target of any Actions or Abilities that do not specifically target Buried models".

So the only possiblity to attack a buried Model is with an ability like Beyond Time from Tara: "This Model may target Buried models with actions, ignoring range and LoS"

and all "These Actions ignore all game effects relating to the position of the Buried model, such as range, LoS, , moving the Buried model, etc."

 

And regarding buried modells (Titania) it says:

 

1. "Buried models are removed from the table, though they are still considered to be in play"

So titania isnt there. So you cant draw line of sight, so the Aura cant be used.

 

2. "Buried models cannot be the target of any Actions or Abilities that do not specifically target Buried models"

So titania cant be targeted by her own ability.

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.

4 hours ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

Second paragraph of Bury rules: "These Actions ignore all game effects relating to the position of the Buried model", and lists an Aura as one of the ignored game effects. Since Tara's attack would ignore Titania's position for Aura's, I don't think Titania exists inside her Aura and does not gain the effect while Tara's Action is resolving. Another issue I see with allowing it: Auras need to draw Range and LoS to the model being affected, and neither can be done to a Buried model.

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.

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?

7 minutes ago, Adran said:

"After an action in which a friendly Urami model moves through any enemy models, then each enemy model passed through that hasn't failed a duel from Join with me this turn has to pass a TN 13 WP duel or this model may summon a WP 4 or less Urami minion into base contact with that model. "

 

Gets pretty wordy and complex if you don't use the enemy model as the subject. Also left asking questions about the order of testing to selecting the summon if you pass through more than 1 model. In the original wording, its clear its test -select test- select etc. But in the alternative wording is it Test-Select, Test-select or test test select select?

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..."

7 minutes ago, muraki said:

after any action in which a friendly urami model moves through any number of enemy models

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.

37 minutes ago, Adran said:

Your new sentence doesn't make sense because you have removed what the house has moved through. (And if anything it does mean you moved through the house with the truck)

You can't just drop "the street" part you would have to move "through the streets", because "the streets" is what the "through" is referring to.  So you should make the sentence " The house was moved by truck". Because "A house was moved through" and " A house was moved through the streets" have two very different meanings. In one case the house is what was moved through and in the other the streets is what was moved through

"I moved through the park by bike" does mean the bike also moved through the park. 

As I said, I'm a native speaker, which means I haven't really been taught the language properly, I just picked it up. 

 

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.

1 hour ago, Adran said:

My dog moves through an open doorway. 

From the point of the doorway you would write the sentence as follows " The open doorway was moved through by my dog."

I've changed the subject and object(?) around. 

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

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.

1 minute ago, santaclaws01 said:

Grammatically it's fine, just non-standard. The standard way to word it would be "...moves through an enemy model..."

Can you please point me to any example where this is grammatically correct? I can't find any.