Jump to content
Yarpen

Unaffected by Underbrush Markers

Recommended Posts

How does the new wording on Abundant Growth impact the Fae?

Severe Terrain part is clear, but what about concealing Terrain? How should it be treated for opposed attack actions?

Also, does this mean, that Titanias The Queens Command damage will not affect Fae?

Will Fae ignore  the hazardous damage from Killjoys ritual upgrades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see the abundant undergrowth wording is unaffected. 

Queens command damages your models too. It's the action not the marker that deals damage. 

I'd argue that the opponent also gain concealed. Fae being unaffected doesn't change that the opponent still has concealed. 

I'd say that they don't take damage from the markers. Otherwise emissary would take damage from hungry land

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that's a yes for ignoring Underbrush for concealing, it really only effects Killjoy's Chain, Aeslin's Decay, Rougarou's Intimidating Roar & Autumn Knight's Challenge, so I don't really see that as game-breaking.

However, I think Fae would still take damage from The Queen's Command as the damage is coming from the action, not the Underbrush. I'd like to see this become Non-Fae models take 1dg or be worded as the Underbrush counts as Hazardous during this action.

Yes, They should ignore the Hazardous from Killjoy

Ninja'd... But glad to see we agree! Other than the concealment... But I think @Angelshardis right and the enemy does get it... Maybe!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abundant Growth previously stated, that this models movement is not affected by Underbrush Markers, now it says it is unaffected by Underbrush Markers. 

Concealement actually impact all non -<melee claw>  attack actions, to it would impact the following:

Titania - Awakened Hunger(Edit: AC it ignore concealement. My bad.)

Killjoy - Hooked Chain

Aeslin - Decay

Autumn Knight - Challenge

Gorar - Spit Venom

Rougarou - Intimidating Roar

Bultungin - Toss on the Mud

So I would say it matters quite a lot.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Angelshard said:

My reason is that conceal goes both ways. So if you ignore it on opponents they would also ignore it on you. 

 

Why would it? It's the active model that gains the penalty from concealment, and as it's only the fae that ignore underbrush, it would not go both ways unless the other model also ignores it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, Concealement is granted at the moment of drawing a sight line to a model, right. So enemies still consider the underbrush marker when drawing sight lines to Fae, but Fae ignore the Markers, thus no concealement is granted to the enemy. The unaffected makes sense now. Thanks Hawkoon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fae doesn't ignore underbrush, they're unaffected by it. 

Concealing: If a sight line drawn to a model passes through Concealing Terrain, that model has Concealment.When drawing sight lines, a model in Concealing Terrain may ignore that terrain’s Concealing trait if any single sight line drawn between the two objects passes through 1” or less of that terrain.Most fog banks count as Concealing Terrain.

As I read this there isn't an effect on a specific model. If however I had to choose I'd say the model being targeted is the one effected, as that model being referenced. 

The attacker suffering minus is merely the result of that effect. 

  • Respectfully Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends on how you would treat the sight line being drawn, if it is part of the Fae models action, or not. If it is a part of the action, then the sight line itself is also unaffected by the underbrush marker. If it would be treated as an independent part of the games mechanic, then you would be of course right and the [-] is a result of the concealement granted to the enemy model and not the marker.  I would like to get a confirmation on this from a game dev, as if the latter is correct rulewise, then the Fae handicaping themselves by Underbrush Markers feels counterintuitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing the intent of the wording change was to make it so Fae were not impeded by underbrush nor harmed by hazardous underbrushes created by Killjoy’s upgrades.

I don’t think the intent was to allow anyone to ignore the concealment from underbrush that didn’t already have it printed on the card (i.e. Titania). 

They chose the wording that used the fewest words. 

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to discern intent from the current phrasing. 

If I am correct perhaps abundant growth could be changed to say “...Underbrush markers do not effect this models movement. This model may not be harmed by underbrush markers.”  

Some clarification of intent from Wyrd would be useful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking concealment is an effect placed on the defender, not the attacker, so if anyone wouldn't get concealment from an underbrush marker itd be the model unaffected by them.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Yarpen said:

What has changed on the wording?

pg. 20: "If a sight line drawn to a model passes through Concealing Terrain, that model has Concealment." This has been reworded at some point to add an effect to the defender rather than being a straight penalty to the attacker. In light of this wording I agree with @Angelshard and @santaclaws01.

However I'm not sure this is the intent of the change to the Fae. Would be nice if Wyrd would clearify how it's supposed to play.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please, played last week with it and we weren’t not sure how to play it. I was running Titania and gave my opponent the choice and he told me to IGNORE them for co dealing purposes but I’m not totally sure. I can understand the argument going both ways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the call out box "Unaffected by Terrain" p20 not clear enough?

If you are unaffected by Severe terrain you do not suffer the movement penalty. If you are unaffected by Concealing terrain you ignore the concealing trait when drawing LOS.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Adran said:

Is the call out box "Unaffected by Terrain" p20 not clear enough?

If you are unaffected by Severe terrain you do not suffer the movement penalty. If you are unaffected by Concealing terrain you ignore the concealing trait when drawing LOS.

Thanks, hadn't noticed this in the last update. 

UNAFFECTED BY TERRAIN

Some models are unaffected by certain types of terrain or terrain markers. If a model is unaffected by a terrain trait, it ignores that trait for game purposes:

Severe: The model does not suffer the movement penalty of Severe Terrain.

Hazardous: The model does not suffer the effects of the Hazardous Terrain.

Concealment: This model ignores the Concealing Trait when drawing LoS.

Seems in line with my initial interpretation.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...