Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
conykchameleon

Lucius Hidden Sniper Rules

Recommended Posts

Someone else from our group tried in the NB forum and didn’t get much of a response, so I’ll try here too:

Does Lucius’s Hidden Sniper ability require him to have LOS to the friendly Mimic/Elite model that he’s using to draw LOS from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no LOS requirement in the action. Ot doesn't target anyone so LoS is not required.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no LOS requirement in the action. Ot doesn't target anyone so LoS is not required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, conykchameleon said:

Yeah but ‘no’ is not helping me convince anyone of that opinion.

There’s two problems with the situation:

1.  The proof requirement applies to both sides.  If the effect required line of sight, the persons who believe it does could explain to you why it does.

2.  Effects that require line of sight either say so or rely on mechanisms that require line of sight.  For instance, Rasputina’s Ice Mirror Ability specifies “Ice Pillar Markers within :aura8”.  The middle sentence of the second paragraph of the Auras rules creates a line of sight requirement—Rasputina, as the generating object, has to have line of sight to the Ice Pillar for it to be affected by the aura.

Hidden Sniper specifies no range or line of sight requirements to the “friendly Mimic or Elite model”.  The action’s range doesn’t apply because that effect isn’t specified as “target” (or some variation of targeting) and does not specify anything like “in range”.

That leaves you with just what the effect says.  The requirement is that the model is a friendly Mimic or Elite model.

Disclaimer:  Some of the wording in actions or abilities is stylized to the point that it’s incomprehensible the first time someone sees it.  The point here is to be clear about all of the various indirect requirements and arcane phrasings that are used.

The expected feeling in this case should be surprise.  “Huh, there’s no range or line of sight requirement on this effect.”  Effects are allowed to be surprising like that, occasionally.  Hopefully, we’ve located all of the accidental surprises so we can be safe in concluding that this one is intentional.  :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, solkan said:

There’s two problems with the situation:

1.  The proof requirement applies to both sides.  If the effect required line of sight, the persons who believe it does could explain to you why it does.

This is true-unless one of the parties is adjudicating rules in an organized play situation (which is is the situation here). I appreciate your thorough response-hopefully it will help our group get this one sorted out!

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...