Unaffected: traits that are ignored - Underbrush

[Flib Jib]

I had a rules question in a game last night regarding Underbrush markers and how certain traits where ignored and by which models. 

Underbrush Markers are 50mm Ht0, Concealing, Severe.

Models with the Abundant Growth are unaffected by Underbrush Markers.

From the rulebook:

Quote

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

A model with the Abundant Growth ability was targeting an enemy model standing in an Underbrush Marker 6’ away. The question was does the attacking model receive a negative modifier in the duel?

The attacking player said that since the Attacking model was unaffected by the Underbrush Marker, it ignores the traits of the Marker, (Severe and Concealing) Since the concealing trait is ignored the defending model does not gain concealment and does not impose a negative to the duel.

The defending player argued that though the attacking model ignored the traits of the Underbrush Marker, the model standing in concealing terrain did not ignore the traits and therefore gained concealment. And since the attacking model ignores the terrain not the  model, the attacking model would still have a negative modifier.

Thoughts? Would love to hear the consensus of the forum. 
 

[Tapdancer]

We’ve done this discussion before. There is a technical argument for applying the ability in a silly way, I argued it that way; the consensus was I needed to stop being silly 

[Flib Jib]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about... 😅

 

3 minutes ago, Tapdancer said:

We’ve done this discussion before

Reference Please?

4 minutes ago, Tapdancer said:

There is a technical argument for applying the ability in a silly way

1. What's the argument?
2. How is it technical?
3. In which way was it applied?
4. How was it silly?

6 minutes ago, Tapdancer said:

I argued it that way

Reference please?

6 minutes ago, Tapdancer said:

the consensus was I needed to stop being silly 

What was the actual consensus?

[Flib Jib]

The only thing I have found was from Adran 

"If you ignore a marker, you ignore the traits of that marker (otherwise it means nothing) so sight lines drawn through an underbush marker won't cause concealment to them."

[Ludvig]

The whole point of the fae crew is to target stuff in undergrowth markers. If it doesn't specify which trait is ignored I would assume it is all of them from that marker type. 

Concealment needs to be ignored by the model doing the shooting to be canceled, not by the tsrget. There are several models who ignore concealment from any source and I'm pretty sure that's meant to make them better at shooting and not easier to shoot back. 

[santaclaws01]

What use would the attacking model ignoring the concealing trait be if every model it attacked would still gain concealment.

[solkan]

Look at what Concealing says:

Quote

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.

Now look at the argument presented:

Quote

The defending player argued that though the attacking model ignored the traits of the Underbrush Marker, the model standing in concealing terrain did not ignore the traits and therefore gained concealment. And since the attacking model ignores the terrain not the  model, the attacking model would still have a negative modifier.

Does that argument work for Concealing?  No, it doesn't.

Is it going to be any different for "This model ignores the Concealing Trait when drawing LoS"?  "when drawing LoS" vs. "when drawling sight lines".

Model X with Abundant Growth is standing in an Underbrush Marker.  Someone targets it.  What happens?  The attacking model has to deal with the fact that Model X is standing in Concealing terrain.

Model X (with Abundant Growth) targets Model Y in an Underbrush Marker.  Model X ignores the Concealing trait when it draws line of sight to Y, so the Concealing trait doesn't do anything for Y.  Just like if both X and Y were standing in the same Underbrush Marker, and they were less than an inch apart.

 

[benjoewoo]

On 10/22/2019 at 11:22 AM, santaclaws01 said:

What use would the attacking model ignoring the concealing trait be if every model it attacked would still gain concealment.

You could use non melee attack actions to target your own models, and provided they both ignored the underbrush markers' concealing traits, you'd get a straight flip, which could be important for TNs, triggers, etc. It would also be a balance factor since you're creating potentially a double digit number of 50mm areas of the map that are now severe and concealing, which could operate to make the opponent's models hitting themselves incredibly difficult in addition to just moving. E.g. Hayreddin has an attack action that pretty easily just pings a friendly black blood model for 1 on a trigger, but underbrush markers make that incredibly hard without a stone because of the negative twist from concealment.

I feel that two weeks isn't necro-posting, but the defending player in @Thimblesage's situation indirectly brings up a good question: if you are unaffected by something, how do you gain a benefit from it that only comes from direct interaction with the thing you're unaffected by? 

Concealment as a mechanic is defined in reference to the model being targeted by the action. It reads on page 36 of the e-rule book, "[w]hen a model with Concealment is targeted by a non-melee Attack Action, the Action's duel gains a negative twist."

The key part of that definition is that the model being targeted has concealment, not the model that is targeting that model. 

Abundant Growth from Titania's card (she's the first fae that pops up if you search "fae" in the dropbox of files) provides in relevant part, "[t]his model is unaffected by Underbrush Markers." Underbrush Markers are a special marker, and they do not exist and have no effect until created/dropped and given definition. Titania at the least creates a 50mm, Ht 0,  concealing, severe Underbrush Marker after deployment--the traits of the Underbrush Marker Titania makes are uniform across all Fae models with the Abundant Growth ability. 

The term "unaffected" is not specifically defined in the rule book, but there is a call out box on page 37 of the e-rule book providing for at least the situation where a model is unaffected by concealing terrain. I won't quote it as @Thimblesage has already quoted it in his initial post.

I'll refer to Underbrush Markers as UMs and models with abundant growth as MAGs because my fingers are tired.

The questions to be answered to answer @Thimblesage's question, then are as follows: are MAGs and non-MAGs affected by the concealing trait of UMs? when drawing line of sight to each other? If yes, what effect, if any, does this have in practical model interactions?

MAGs, per the quoted ability from Titania and observation all MAGs have the same text for Abundant Growth, are unaffected by UMs.  MAGs do not deal with the severe trait and they are unaffected by the concealing trait, as these are the two effects UMs can have on models given the rules of the game. 

Now that we know that MAGs are unaffected by the concealing trait of UMs, so now we need to determine what application this rule has, because the ability is worded in reference only to the specific model with Abundant Growth, not any other MAGs.

Assume Model A and B are MAGs, friendly to each other, and are both positioned outside and not in base to base contact with separate UMs such that all of their LoS lines pass through more than 1" of the UMs in order to see Model C, a model enemy to both Models A and B. Assume Model C is also positioned outside and not in base to base contact a UM such that Models A & B draw all of their sight lines through more than 1" of the UM Model C is positioned in. Assume that Model C has one attack action that has the range to target Models A or B if LoS is established and there are no targeting restrictions preventing Model C from taking that attack action. Assume that Model A has an attack action that can reach Model C with the same assumptions for Model C's qualifying attack action.

I will not discuss the severe trait of the UMs further because it's not relevant here, and instead focus on only the concealing trait of the UMs. 

Per the rule quoted by @solkan, at least Model C has concealment in reference to Models A and B when temporarily discounting Abundant Growth because Models A, B, and C draw all of their sight lines through more than 1" of concealing terrain, so under the rules in the rule book, Model C  has concealment in reference to Models A and B. Again temporarily discounting Abundant Growth, Models A & B have concealment with reference to Model C for the same reason.

With Abundant Growth, Models A & B are unaffected by the three UMs in the assumed example, so they ignore the concealing trait of the UMs. We know this because MAGs are unaffected by UMs per the Abundant Growth ability and the rules specifically provide that models unaffected by concealing terrain ignore the concealing trait when drawing LoS.

Therefore, when Model C takes the attack action described above against Models A and/or B, Model C will be proceed to flip the appropriate cards without any negative twist applied from the UMs' concealing trait because the MAGs ignore the concealing trait for drawing LoS and the rules provide that the negative twist is applied when a model with concealment is targeted by an attack action. Models A and B cannot both be unaffected by the UMs and still gain the benefit of concealment from the UMs. It actually goes against the explicit wording of Abundant Growth (because the UMs are affecting Models A and B by providing concealment), is a self-contradicting application of an ability, and it doesn't work with the rule book's explicit rules that reference concealment's negative twist applying based on the target model having concealment.

Now, if Model A wants to target Model C with the attack action referenced above, it continues to ignore the UMs because it is a MAG as assumed. The example plays out the same way, then, with Model A ignoring the concealing trait while drawing sight lines, so Model C does not gain concealment because of Model A's Abundant Growth. 

I believe the defending player in @Thimblesage's original post is incorrect as that player's argument is posed here, but that player brings up a good point that MAGs cannot be unaffected by something and still gain a direct benefit from the thing they are unaffected by--gaining a benefit that you can only get by virtue of interaction with the thing is being affected by the same thing the MAGs are unaffected by.

 

[santaclaws01]

@benjoewoo Every post of yours doesn't need be a complete essay. As for arguing that fae models can't get concealment from Underbrush markers, no. They do get it. The rules tell us what being unaffected by terrain mains for various traits. There is literally 0 ambiguity.

[Maniacal_cackle]

I think the rules are pretty clear (the MAG ignores the marker when drawing LOS. Other models do not when attacking the MAG). Additionally, Malifaux doesn't really do well with minute rules lawyering.

An entire crew has an ability based on making concealing markers. Why on earth would they be able to make concealing markers that have no effect on enemies shooting them and no effect on them shooting enemies? Concealing would be (almost) pointless to add onto the markers at that point.

[Adran]

7 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I believe the defending player in @Thimblesage's original post is incorrect as that player's argument is posed here, but that player brings up a good point that MAGs cannot be unaffected by something and still gain a direct benefit from the thing they are unaffected by--gaining a benefit that you can only get by virtue of interaction with the thing is being affected by the same thing the MAGs are unaffected by.

 

We are told in the rules exactly what unaffected by concealing terrain means.

You can argue that the English language could be clearer, and that if you just refer to a standard translation then you could have an ambiguity, but I don't think there is an argument that stands that its not clear here what is meant. I would also say that its a very common approach in wargames to have models unaffected by a terrain type, and be able to use that terrain type against their foes. There are plenty of rules in the Fae list that require them to interact with underbrush markers which taking the argument that they are unaffected in anyway to its extremes show it is foolish.

[Angelshard]

Arguing that Fae cannot benefit from concealment in an underbrush marker just seems like a willful misreading of the rules. Arguing that being unaffected by the rule and still gaining the benefit is self-contradictory just means you haven't read the rules properly.

The unaffected clause (p.37 of the digital rulebook) specifically states that the model only ignores the trait when drawing line of sight. Since only the acting model draw line of sight to the target, the only time the concealing is being ignored is while the Fae is targeting something. In other words, the Fae ignore concealment from underbrush markers, but still gain the benefit from it.

Also unaffected is clearly defined in th shout out box on p.37 as no model in the game is unaffected by anything except severe, hazardous and concealment.

Finally I'd say that your argument is needlessly long and complicated.

[benjoewoo]

15 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I think the rules are pretty clear (the MAG ignores the marker when drawing LOS. Other models do not when attacking the MAG). Additionally, Malifaux doesn't really do well with minute rules lawyering.

An entire crew has an ability based on making concealing markers. Why on earth would they be able to make concealing markers that have no effect on enemies shooting them and no effect on them shooting enemies? Concealing would be (almost) pointless to add onto the markers at that point.

First paragraph:

First sentence is stating a rules proposition without a citation or support for the conclusion. Second sentence is an opinion, also without a rules citation.

Second paragraph:

First sentence is incorrect--Killjoy at least doesn't have Abundant Growth (haven't checked for others, may be single example). Second and third sentences are reductions to absurdity arguments, a logical fallacy. I've posed an example where having the UMs provide benefit to a MAGs crew. Additionally you're creating severe terrain that could make leaving the deployment zone not only tricky, but very slow, allowing time to move up and set up a second line of brush markers to achieve the same to gain further advantage in positioning and alpha strike. UMs also provide benefit to a non-MAG that is also in keyword, again Killjoy, one of the hardest and sturdiest hitting beaters in NB and the game overall. This last thought goes for any out of keyword models hired into a MAGs crew as well. 

Additionally, considering UMs are not destructible, the opponent may not have options to deal with them without hiring a number of out of keyword models, as the opponent would only find out he/she's facing a MAGs crew after declaring a master that has no in keyword marker removal/manipulation. That's a significant advantage on top of the effects they have for the opponent's crew manipulating itself via attack actions, moving through severe, and attacking out of keyword hires in a MAGs crew.

9 hours ago, Adran said:

We are told in the rules exactly what unaffected by concealing terrain means.

You can argue that the English language could be clearer, and that if you just refer to a standard translation then you could have an ambiguity, but I don't think there is an argument that stands that its not clear here what is meant. I would also say that its a very common approach in wargames to have models unaffected by a terrain type, and be able to use that terrain type against their foes. There are plenty of rules in the Fae list that require them to interact with underbrush markers which taking the argument that they are unaffected in anyway to its extremes show it is foolish.

 

I disagree with your point as to what was "intended" because it's an intellectually dangerous argument in rules interpretation to first rely upon intent in drafting when reading what was actually written--your rules foundation is inherently weak because you require knowledge of events, thoughts, etc. that are not necessarily publicly available or easily accessible to interpret the publicly available and easily accessible authoritative sources. Intention in drafting can be useful in bringing up issues to think about, but they should be one of the last things used in interpreting what was actually written.

I don't actually play other wargames, but I do play a number of board games and have played a number of competitive card games in multiple languages, all of which provide rulings/errata when the player base confirms via authoritative rules sets that an interaction doesn't work as the game designers "intended." Are they all fast responses? No, and sometimes the designers will even rule the wonky result plays to see how much effect there is before deciding on issuing an errata--if the wonky result doesn't greatly affect the field there isn't necessarily a need to further complicate the game with additional rules.

Your last point is an example of how you can interact with a marker by targeting the marker, which is different than being affected by it. The UMs can only affect models via the concealing and severe traits, barring the release of models that are affected by the 50mm and/or Ht 0 characteristics of a marker. 

I actually originally thought Abundant Growth would grant concealment the way @Thimblesage's "defending player" argued, because Titania's Awakened Hunger attack action has italic rules for it that seem designed to factor UMs in. The action's italics read, "This Action ignores Concealment and receives a positive twist to its duel if the target is in Severe Terrain." Considering UMs have both of those traits, it initially seemed a good direction to think. But, the rules don't support that conclusion, so these italics only apply in full with reference to other terrain on the board and/or model's interactions (e.g. auras) that provide concealment. With reference to UMs, only the portion related to severe terrain is relevant. 

4 hours ago, Angelshard said:

Arguing that Fae cannot benefit from concealment in an underbrush marker just seems like a willful misreading of the rules. Arguing that being unaffected by the rule and still gaining the benefit is self-contradictory just means you haven't read the rules properly.

The unaffected clause (p.37 of the digital rulebook) specifically states that the model only ignores the trait when drawing line of sight. Since only the acting model draw line of sight to the target, the only time the concealing is being ignored is while the Fae is targeting something. In other words, the Fae ignore concealment from underbrush markers, but still gain the benefit from it.

Also unaffected is clearly defined in th shout out box on p.37 as no model in the game is unaffected by anything except severe, hazardous and concealment.

Finally I'd say that your argument is needlessly long and complicated.

First sentence commits the same logical fallacy as Maniacal's argument, a reduction to absurdity. Second sentence is the same. Another example of why I'd run a MAGs crew is because of their ability to move my opponent's models around and dictate my opponent's path of movement. UMs, on creation, have to be at least 2" away from any other marker, per Abundant Growth the ability and the Germinate actions on various Fae models. Titania can move them so they're base to base with each other, literally creating walls of indestructible, severe terrain. Depending on your board layouts, this could make going through tighter areas on the board very slow or non-viable without inefficient play, like charging for movement. 

Citation to drawing line of sight, while stated differently, is largely the same as the rule previously cited by myself and @Thimblesage. Your statement that only acting models draw LoS to the target is not supported in the rules--I actually tried to find a rule for this thought because it would be the best explanation for why MAGs ignore concealing while attacking through UMs and why non-MAGs do not. However there is no reference to drawing LoS in a direction with rules impact--I could draw LoS from the target to the acting model in the typical scenario and drawing LoS correctly. Even if there is a rule that references how you draw the LoS lines between specific models, concealment as a mechanic is defined and applied based upon the target having concealment, so your argument that the model "targeting" another model is unaffected is irrelevant--the model being "targeted" must not be affected for your argument to apply.

I had to think about how the MAG attacking the non-MAG interaction would work because of the lack of reference for how LoS lines are specifically drawn in actions. But, as LoS lines being drawn are what determine whether concealment applies, and the rule book specifically states models unaffected by concealing terrain ignore the trait while drawing LoS, it meant the MAG had to be able to bypass that mechanic, meaning the non-MAG would not gain the benefit of concealment. LoS in this edition is not necessarily reciprocal between models, e.g. Scion of the Void, and without rules dictating directional drawing of LoS, if one model effectively ignores the trait, a model interacting with that model that would cause the trait to apply effectively ignores the trait.

I agree with your citation--I am unsure what the second part of that sentence is supposed to mean. "Dense" is a terrain trait that models can be affected by when drawing LoS, but it's not listed. There are also no currently existing models that interact with or are unaffected by dense terrain specifically. There could be a model in the future that ignores dense terrain, but not models, when drawing LoS. If Wyrd, on releasing that model, could amend the rule book to account for this to keep the call out box exhaustive in practice, or it could rely on the call out box's general rule and it would still work. The rule book currently provides an exhaustive list of all the "unaffected by" interactions we currently can have in game. This can change, and the general rule of that call out box remains to answer for those situations. It'd be easier and possibly cost saving to print a shorter section to fit more text on the page or just have fewer rules by only including the specific instances if those are the only and will always ever be the only terrain traits a model can be "unaffected by." 

Detailed rules discussions will generally need to be long in order to full explain thoughts and provide citations. I think the above quoted posts provide ample reason considering the second thing I bring up most is that what has been said since my post has no rules support, the first being people are making arguments by simply stating I'm wrong because I'm crazy. I think it'd be more crazy to go to a competitive event, play competitively, and when a game winning play opportunity comes up I take it, execute correctly, and then have my win overturned and convert into a loss because a TO disagreed for non-rules reasons in a competitive environment when my opponent complained that's not how the rules were designed.

Rules are only as useful as their application to the thing they govern. That goes doubly so for ostensibly competitive events where the explicit goal is to win. That doesn't mean be an ass or cheat. Consistently and correctly applying the rules is sportsmanlike conduct because it is how the game works and leads to clean play. 

[Kharnage]

Brevity is the soul of wit, and so I find this debate quite witless. 
The following statement is also going to qualify as a reduction to absurdity, so no need to break out the debate classes.
From a game design standpoint, if I'm going to create a keyword system that rewards picking your own keyword, it stands to reason that I expect a decent percentage of players to play wholly within one's keyword, especially to maximize keyword abilities, such as Abundant Growth. To then turn around and make the markers concealing, and then create a crew that entirely does not interact with the concealing terrain defending or otherwise, seems to be poor design. Under what scenarios does the concealing terrain now function? When the enemy is to attack themselves? 

As for a rules based argument, the Concealing trait as described in the rulebook seems to go to a bit of trouble to describe which model ignores the Concealing terrain trait when within an inch.
"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."
If your rules interpretation were correct, and that drawing line of sight is not "owned" or keyed to specific models, I would argue that the phrasing would have been "When drawing line of sight, If any line of sight between two models goes through less than an inch of Concealing terrain, that terrain is ignored." But instead, they specify that a model may ignore it, if that model is in it, and that it's within an inch. Seems like a lot of extra legwork if it could have been defined so simply. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Well, to elaborate on the above...

• Concealment is a trait that models have, but that is because it can come from two different sources (terrain or things like Night Terror auras).
• In this case, we're talking about concealment from terrain.
• If we have a situation of A, concealing terrain, B, C...
• You don't claim that B has concealment when C attacks it, because there is concealing terrain for a sight line for B. 
• Having a sight line through concealing terrain does not give you concealment for everything.
• Having a sight line through concealing terrain gives you concealment for attacks that have their sight lines pass through the terrain.
• What this means is that A attacking B means B has concealment for the attack (and vice versa)

Now let's say B is a MAG. What consequences does this have?

• When A is attacking B, they're drawing the LOS. See page 16, a model draws LOS to another model when attacking.
• So if A is attacking B, they do not get to ignore the concealing terrain (nothing says for them to ignore it). Thus B gets concealment (since B ignoring the concealing terrain is irrelevant. They don't draw LOS for B).
• If B is attacking A, they get to ignore the concealment due to MAG (again, what 'ignoring' concealing terrain means is you ignore it when drawing LOS. When B is attacking, they're the ones drawing the sight line).

Thus when you have A attacking B, you have concealment for B. When B is attacking A, you do not have concealment for A.

Also, if you've played games like Magic: The Gathering then you can expect every possibility to have a ruling. That is far, far more difficult to do in a wargame with complex mechanics (magic simply has a timing component to complexity. Wargames have a timing component, a positioning component, a relative positioning component, etc). You're not going to find this level of precision in Malifaux rules for at least another few years I reckon (and probably more than that). Also, if you think this is tricky, wait until you get to Black Blood timing.

[Maniacal_cackle]

48 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

Citation to drawing line of sight, while stated differently, is largely the same as the rule previously cited by myself and @Thimblesage. Your statement that only acting models draw LoS to the target is not supported in the rules--I actually tried to find a rule for this thought because it would be the best explanation for why MAGs ignore concealing while attacking through UMs and why non-MAGs do not. However there is no reference to drawing LoS in a direction with rules impact--I could draw LoS from the target to the acting model in the typical scenario and drawing LoS correctly. Even if there is a rule that references how you draw the LoS lines between specific models, concealment as a mechanic is defined and applied based upon the target having concealment, so your argument that the model "targeting" another model is unaffected is irrelevant--the model being "targeted" must not be affected for your argument to apply.

See page 16. Rasputina draws lines of sight to a Sorrow.

Lines of sight are from the perspective of the attacking model.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Also @benjoewoo, good to keep in mind this forum guideline:

Quote

To rules Questions:  We're here to help people play this great game, not explore the rules as an arcane philosophy.

Using a debating style, pointing out logical fallaices, etc. is largely just going to be ignored by most people on this forum I think. People are here first and foremost to arrive at conclusions that contribute to productive 'kitchen table' gameplay.

You can argue that precise rules are conducive to gameplay (and indeed, at a cutthroat tournament level, that is true). But Malifaux isn't based on cutthroat competitive play. It is largely based on good sportmanship. And I find it a stretch to suggest that arguing rules to the point that you're negating a major theme of an already underpowered crew is good sportmanship.

Which if how you want to play is minute rules-lawyering, you're welcome to. Just understand that a lot of people on the forums may not necessarily engage. That's not what most of us are here for.

In some ways, wargames are closer to Dungeons and Dragons than Magic the Gathering, at least in terms of rules. You have to do a lot more reading between the lines, and there's less precision.

[santaclaws01]

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

First paragraph:

First sentence is stating a rules proposition without a citation or support for the conclusion.

Because the rule is already clearly stated. It doesn't need to be requoted every time.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Second sentence is an opinion, also without a rules citation.

Well it's not a rule, so it would be pretty hard to put a rule citation.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

First sentence is incorrect--Killjoy at least doesn't have Abundant Growth (haven't checked for others, may be single example).

Needlessly pedantic. You know what they were saying even if 1 fae model doesn't have Abundant Growth.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Second and third sentences are reductions to absurdity arguments, a logical fallacy.

It's... not? Additionally reduction to absurdity arguments aren't really fallacious when dealing with rules, since there is a clear structure and an internal consistency. Saying that X works one way can and does often mean that Y would also have to work in a similar way, but that Y working in that way would be patently ridiculous. For example, in this case saying that Fae models can't benefit from concealment from underbrush by ignoring the "Unaffected" callout box would also mean that Planted Roots is have worthless since it says the model is unaffected by severe terrain, but then gives said models a buff for being within severe terrain

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Additionally you're creating severe terrain that could make leaving the deployment zone not only tricky, but very slow, allowing time to move up and set up a second line of brush markers to achieve the same to gain further advantage in positioning and alpha strike. UMs also provide benefit to a non-MAG that is also in keyword, again Killjoy, one of the hardest and sturdiest hitting beaters in NB and the game overall. This last thought goes for any out of keyword models hired into a MAGs crew as well. 

Additionally, considering UMs are not destructible, the opponent may not have options to deal with them without hiring a number of out of keyword models, as the opponent would only find out he/she's facing a MAGs crew after declaring a master that has no in keyword marker removal/manipulation. That's a significant advantage on top of the effects they have for the opponent's crew manipulating itself via attack actions, moving through severe, and attacking out of keyword hires in a MAGs crew.

Additionally all irrelevant. This is still claiming a keyword doesn't benefit from the core mechanic of the keyword because you want to interpret a defined game term in differently standard english. Also none of this is a rule, so it's doubly irrelevant.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I disagree with your point as to what was "intended" because it's an intellectually dangerous argument in rules interpretation to first rely upon intent in drafting when reading what was actually written--your rules foundation is inherently weak because you require knowledge of events, thoughts, etc. that are not necessarily publicly available or easily accessible to interpret the publicly available and easily accessible authoritative sources. Intention in drafting can be useful in bringing up issues to think about, but they should be one of the last things used in interpreting what was actually written.

There was never a RAI argument in what you're responding to, so why are you bringing up RAI arguments? Also trying to dismiss something for being a RAI argument when your last 2 paragraphs are basically thinly veiled RAI arguments is an interesting choice.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I don't actually play other wargames, but I do play a number of board games and have played a number of competitive card games in multiple languages, all of which provide rulings/errata when the player base confirms via authoritative rules sets that an interaction doesn't work as the game designers "intended." Are they all fast responses? No, and sometimes the designers will even rule the wonky result plays to see how much effect there is before deciding on issuing an errata--if the wonky result doesn't greatly affect the field there isn't necessarily a need to further complicate the game with additional rules.

This paragraph just literally doesn't need to exist. Not only is it irrelevant to the rule argument the majority of it is coming from nowhere.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Your last point is an example of how you can interact with a marker by targeting the marker, which is different than being affected by it. The UMs can only affect models via the concealing and severe traits, barring the release of models that are affected by the 50mm and/or Ht 0 characteristics of a marker. 

Markers can affect models by more than just their terrain traits. If you want to use normal english to determine rules you need to be prepared for all the implications of that.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I actually originally thought Abundant Growth would grant concealment the way @Thimblesage's "defending player" argued, because Titania's Awakened Hunger attack action has italic rules for it that seem designed to factor UMs in. The action's italics read, "This Action ignores Concealment and receives a positive twist to its duel if the target is in Severe Terrain." Considering UMs have both of those traits, it initially seemed a good direction to think. But, the rules don't support that conclusion, so these italics only apply in full with reference to other terrain on the board and/or model's interactions (e.g. auras) that provide concealment. With reference to UMs, only the portion related to severe terrain is relevant. 

Another RAI argument after just dismissing RAI arguments.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

First sentence commits the same logical fallacy as Maniacal's argument, a reduction to absurdity. Second sentence is the same.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what a reduction to absurdity argument is if you think either of those is a reduction to absurdity.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Another example of why I'd run a MAGs crew is because of their ability to move my opponent's models around and dictate my opponent's path of movement. UMs, on creation, have to be at least 2" away from any other marker, per Abundant Growth the ability and the Germinate actions on various Fae models. Titania can move them so they're base to base with each other, literally creating walls of indestructible, severe terrain. Depending on your board layouts, this could make going through tighter areas on the board very slow or non-viable without inefficient play, like charging for movement. 

Another RAI argument that's also irrelevant to this discussion.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Citation to drawing line of sight, while stated differently, is largely the same as the rule previously cited by myself and @Thimblesage. Your statement that only acting models draw LoS to the target is not supported in the rules--I actually tried to find a rule for this thought because it would be the best explanation for why MAGs ignore concealing while attacking through UMs and why non-MAGs do not. However there is no reference to drawing LoS in a direction with rules impact--I could draw LoS from the target to the acting model in the typical scenario and drawing LoS correctly. Even if there is a rule that references how you draw the LoS lines between specific models, concealment as a mechanic is defined and applied based upon the target having concealment, so your argument that the model "targeting" another model is unaffected is irrelevant--the model being "targeted" must not be affected for your argument to apply.

While you're correct that there is no rule that only the acting model draws LoS, the requirement for a model getting concealment is that the attacking model must be drawing LoS through concealing terrain that is not being ignored. The defending model's LoS is never factored in. So even if you were right and unaffected wasn't a game term, it's still the attacker being affected by the terrain, not the defender.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I had to think about how the MAG attacking the non-MAG interaction would work because of the lack of reference for how LoS lines are specifically drawn in actions. But, as LoS lines being drawn are what determine whether concealment applies, and the rule book specifically states models unaffected by concealing terrain ignore the trait while drawing LoS, it meant the MAG had to be able to bypass that mechanic, meaning the non-MAG would not gain the benefit of concealment. LoS in this edition is not necessarily reciprocal between models, e.g. Scion of the Void, and without rules dictating directional drawing of LoS, if one model effectively ignores the trait, a model interacting with that model that would cause the trait to apply effectively ignores the trait.

This is just wrong. You're drawing a conclusion that is in no way supported by logic or the rules. This argument also means that a model standing in concealing terrain with less that 1" of it between it and another model outside of the terrain wouldn't gain the benefit of concealment from the other model.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I agree with your citation--I am unsure what the second part of that sentence is supposed to mean. "Dense" is a terrain trait that models can be affected by when drawing LoS, but it's not listed.

There's no point in bringing up something that not in the rules and not a possibility in the game mechanics. There are no rules for my opponent flipping the table and saying "I win" after an 8-0 game against them.(this is a reduction to absurdity argument, just fyi)

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

There could be a model in the future that ignores dense terrain, but not models, when drawing LoS. If Wyrd, on releasing that model, could amend the rule book to account for this to keep the call out box exhaustive in practice, or it could rely on the call out box's general rule and it would still work. The rule book currently provides an exhaustive list of all the "unaffected by" interactions we currently can have in game. This can change, and the general rule of that call out box remains to answer for those situations. It'd be easier and possibly cost saving to print a shorter section to fit more text on the page or just have fewer rules by only including the specific instances if those are the only and will always ever be the only terrain traits a model can be "unaffected by." 

None of this is relevant to the rules discussion at hand.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

Detailed rules discussions will generally need to be long in order to full explain thoughts and provide citations.

There's a difference between a rules discussion being long, and one persons posts each being excessively long with so much in it that could be cut and have absolutely no affect on their argument.

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I think the above quoted posts provide ample reason considering the second thing I bring up most is that what has been said since my post has no rules support, the first being people are making arguments by simply stating I'm wrong because I'm crazy.

No, you're wrong because of the already quoted rule that people are referring to and you're being called crazy for claiming that a core keyword mechanic is there solely for the benefit of models not within that keyword.

 

3 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

I think it'd be more crazy to go to a competitive event, play competitively, and when a game winning play opportunity comes up I take it, execute correctly, and then have my win overturned and convert into a loss because a TO disagreed for non-rules reasons in a competitive environment when my opponent complained that's not how the rules were designed.

Yes, if you're convinced that you're playing a rule correctly and told you're wrong to then lose because of it, that would be frustrating. That doesn't mean you're playing the rule correctly. 

[Adran]

4 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

 

I disagree with your point as to what was "intended" because it's an intellectually dangerous argument in rules interpretation to first rely upon intent in drafting when reading what was actually written--your rules foundation is inherently weak because you require knowledge of events, thoughts, etc. that are not necessarily publicly available or easily accessible to interpret the publicly available and easily accessible authoritative sources. Intention in drafting can be useful in bringing up issues to think about, but they should be one of the last things used in interpreting what was actually written.

I don't actually play other wargames, but I do play a number of board games and have played a number of competitive card games in multiple languages, all of which provide rulings/errata when the player base confirms via authoritative rules sets that an interaction doesn't work as the game designers "intended." Are they all fast responses? No, and sometimes the designers will even rule the wonky result plays to see how much effect there is before deciding on issuing an errata--if the wonky result doesn't greatly affect the field there isn't necessarily a need to further complicate the game with additional rules.

Your last point is an example of how you can interact with a marker by targeting the marker, which is different than being affected by it.

 

I didn't give a rules as intended answer. You had already referred to the box in the rules that tells you the rules so I didn't reqoute, but I can't see what isn't clear. I don't think anything I said in this thread referred to designer intent or previous iterations. ( You might be thinking of a different discussion we're in where I have referred to that sort of thing). 

I then referred to an argument that the word unaffected means something different in English, but only some times, and how it's a common reading in this sort of situation to mean what the rules say it means.

There are interaction outside targetting a marker in the crew. Even the placing of a marker is limited by other underbrush markers, so surely then they are affecting the model that takes the action, as well as all the requirements for enemy models to be in severe terrain affecting this models actions . 

So sorry if I wasn't clear, but every point in your reply to me doesn't answer any of what I wrote (as I read it. )

[Maniacal_cackle]

Also, just as a supporting point... but 100% of Fae models are unaffected by Underbrush Markers. Most of the models have Abundant Growth, and Killjoy has Barbed in Brambles.

So the 'negating a key part of the crew' is not reduction to absurdity. It's literally 100% of her models.

[benjoewoo]

4 hours ago, Kharnage said:

Brevity is the soul of wit, and so I find this debate quite witless. 
The following statement is also going to qualify as a reduction to absurdity, so no need to break out the debate classes.
From a game design standpoint, if I'm going to create a keyword system that rewards picking your own keyword, it stands to reason that I expect a decent percentage of players to play wholly within one's keyword, especially to maximize keyword abilities, such as Abundant Growth. To then turn around and make the markers concealing, and then create a crew that entirely does not interact with the concealing terrain defending or otherwise, seems to be poor design. Under what scenarios does the concealing terrain now function? When the enemy is to attack themselves? 

As for a rules based argument, the Concealing trait as described in the rulebook seems to go to a bit of trouble to describe which model ignores the Concealing terrain trait when within an inch.
"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."
If your rules interpretation were correct, and that drawing line of sight is not "owned" or keyed to specific models, I would argue that the phrasing would have been "When drawing line of sight, If any line of sight between two models goes through less than an inch of Concealing terrain, that terrain is ignored." But instead, they specify that a model may ignore it, if that model is in it, and that it's within an inch. Seems like a lot of extra legwork if it could have been defined so simply. 

"...concision is not a definitive virtue, on occasion one loses out by talking too much, it is true, but how much has also been gained by saying more than was strictly necessary." -José Saramago, The Stone Raft

For the first point--when enemy models attack themselves for benefit is an example, and not an absurd one--nephilim crews currently can benefit off it to achieve set up later efficiency. It also protects any out of keyword models hired or ones in keyword without Abundant Growth, e.g. Killjoy., a a Fae without the ability but benefits greatly from not being blasted in the face.

Your alternative as a re-statement could work--I haven't thought much about it. But that's not the issue here. I initially think the way you rephrase the rule eliminates the requirement that the model be in the concealing terrain to be able to ignore the terrain when any sight line passes through 1" or less of that terrain. But, at least your version saves 7 words as Microsoft Word counts it by eliminating that requirement.

4 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

See page 16. Rasputina draws lines of sight to a Sorrow.

Lines of sight are from the perspective of the attacking model.

Do you have a citation for LoS being drawn directionally with reference to a specific model and then to another specific model? If you have one I'm probably wrong in my analysis. Your subsequent post relies on it if my understanding is correct. 

Also I disagree that enforcement and strict interpretation of rules is cut throat. If you enter a competition, especially one based on a leisure activity, you expect fair play based on an agreed to rule set and one that both of you can refer to. Where people decide to conduct their competitive events by different rules, that's their own decision and great fun for all participants who enjoy that and participate. If anyone holds out though that it's the legitimate way to play, they are definitively wrong. People want this game to be competitive in the sense that if you go to an event, you have something you can refer to as a win or great showing for what you do there--saying Malifaux is just played at the kitchen table level takes away from that because every win has an asterisk with caveats for any illegitimate rules interaction.

Posed as an example instead and a TL;DR--if your opponent believes the melee action generated by the charge action is stopped by the Stealth ability because the charge action was initiated from further than 6" away and has played that way regularly with their local group of M3E players newly transitioned from M2E, which you are visiting in their tournament, which goes to your benefit in a game winning way, is it more cut throat to let it fly because you're not rules lawyering, or is it more cut throat to correct the opponent and let him/her resolve the melee attack action by rules lawyering? Your answer here guides how you should look at rules interactions because clean play is sportsmanlike play.

I don't think Titania is particularly under powered in relation to your other options in NB, though I'm not particularly knowledgeable on NB models. I also think it's a little early to make that call as there may not be enough live testing to really show conclusive data.

I'm here to play the game and see what crazy combos are out there while shooting the crap with friends. I play almost exclusively casually so that rules questions are less relevant because it removes any particular investment into winning a given game. I also want to confirm whether certain interactions work the way I think they do based on the rules because a crazy combo isn't fun if it involves cheating to achieve. I think a lot of players here are doing the same. 

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

Because the rule is already clearly stated. It doesn't need to be requoted every time.

Well it's not a rule, so it would be pretty hard to put a rule citation.

Needlessly pedantic. You know what they were saying even if 1 fae model doesn't have Abundant Growth.

It's... not? Additionally reduction to absurdity arguments aren't really fallacious when dealing with rules, since there is a clear structure and an internal consistency. Saying that X works one way can and does often mean that Y would also have to work in a similar way, but that Y working in that way would be patently ridiculous. For example, in this case saying that Fae models can't benefit from concealment from underbrush by ignoring the "Unaffected" callout box would also mean that Planted Roots is have worthless since it says the model is unaffected by severe terrain, but then gives said models a buff for being within severe terrain

Additionally all irrelevant. This is still claiming a keyword doesn't benefit from the core mechanic of the keyword because you want to interpret a defined game term in differently standard english. Also none of this is a rule, so it's doubly irrelevant.

There was never a RAI argument in what you're responding to, so why are you bringing up RAI arguments? Also trying to dismiss something for being a RAI argument when your last 2 paragraphs are basically thinly veiled RAI arguments is an interesting choice.

This paragraph just literally doesn't need to exist. Not only is it irrelevant to the rule argument the majority of it is coming from nowhere.

Markers can affect models by more than just their terrain traits. If you want to use normal english to determine rules you need to be prepared for all the implications of that.

Another RAI argument after just dismissing RAI arguments.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what a reduction to absurdity argument is if you think either of those is a reduction to absurdity.

Another RAI argument that's also irrelevant to this discussion.

While you're correct that there is no rule that only the acting model draws LoS, the requirement for a model getting concealment is that the attacking model must be drawing LoS through concealing terrain that is not being ignored. The defending model's LoS is never factored in. So even if you were right and unaffected wasn't a game term, it's still the attacker being affected by the terrain, not the defender.

This is just wrong. You're drawing a conclusion that is in no way supported by logic or the rules. This argument also means that a model standing in concealing terrain with less that 1" of it between it and another model outside of the terrain wouldn't gain the benefit of concealment from the other model.

There's no point in bringing up something that not in the rules and not a possibility in the game mechanics. There are no rules for my opponent flipping the table and saying "I win" after an 8-0 game against them.(this is a reduction to absurdity argument, just fyi)

None of this is relevant to the rules discussion at hand.

There's a difference between a rules discussion being long, and one persons posts each being excessively long with so much in it that could be cut and have absolutely no affect on their argument.

No, you're wrong because of the already quoted rule that people are referring to and you're being called crazy for claiming that a core keyword mechanic is there solely for the benefit of models not within that keyword.

 

Yes, if you're convinced that you're playing a rule correctly and told you're wrong to then lose because of it, that would be frustrating. That doesn't mean you're playing the rule correctly. 

There are a number of quoted to sections that are answering quoted things people have said, so the quoted section here doesn't display everything here unfortunately.

Instead of going point to counter-point and back and forth, I'll just ask why is it that you think being unaffected by something can still yield a direct benefit from it when you obtain that benefit by interacting with that thing for its effect when you're unaffected by it?

2 minutes ago, Adran said:

I didn't give a rules as intended answer. You had already referred to the box in the rules that tells you the rules so I didn't reqoute, but I can't see what isn't clear. I don't think anything I said in this thread referred to designer intent or previous iterations. ( You might be thinking of a different discussion we're in where I have referred to that sort of thing). 

I then referred to an argument that the word unaffected means something different in English, but only some times, and how it's a common reading in this sort of situation to mean what the rules say it means.

There are interaction outside targetting a marker in the crew. Even the placing of a marker is limited by other underbrush markers, so surely then they are affecting the model that takes the action, as well as all the requirements for enemy models to be in severe terrain affecting this models actions . 

So sorry if I wasn't clear, but every point in your reply to me doesn't answer any of what I wrote (as I read it. )

Maybe I misunderstood what you've said then. I actually think if I am, then I do not understand the point you're trying to make--could you please explain more? I am unfamiliar with other miniature games since I don't play them, but the question from OP at its core is how/why a model with Abundant Growth would get to effectively ignore concealment in one direction but not the other? I'm sorry if I lumped you together with people I've interpreted to be making RAI arguments, but there are multiple posts about it being pointless to have the ability, and I think I read your post that way as a background argument of it.

I think when I was responding to your post I was thinking of Hans, whose ability specifically says the model's attack actions are unaffected by concealment. The unequivocal language tailored to the rules for concealment is known and used, so I don't have reason to think the design of Abundant Growth/Brambles wouldn't also have known it. If it's a clarity of language issue, then I think relying on what the rules say is important to interpretation. I don't think anyone has argued OP's "defending player" was inherently an unreasonable person, so reasonable minds disagreeing is possible.

While I was reading, Maniacal posted that KJ has brambles, which has the unaffected text found on abundant growth verbatim. I'm wrong that KJ would have a different interaction compared to Titania or other MAGs.

[Maniacal_cackle]

22 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

Do you have a citation for LoS being drawn directionally with reference to a specific model and then to another specific model? If you have one I'm probably wrong in my analysis. Your subsequent post relies on it if my understanding is correct. 

Some arguments it works that way, with one model drawing LOS lines to another:

• Page sixteen says "In this example, Rasputina is drawing sight lines to the Sorrow" and several other instances of suggesting a model is drawing LOS to another model.
• The lines drawn on page sixteen have directional arrows, suggesting sight lines (and line of sight) is drawn from one model to another.
• Everything about sight lines is in the LOS section, which suggests it is about one model having LOS to another.
• Other instances of the rules break down a bit if sight lines and LOS are independent (for instance, when Zoraida uses abilities through nearby swampfiends, you get sightlines from tons of models used in your calculations).

You've proposed a lot of counterpoints, but do you have a cohesive argument that sight lines work in a bilateral fashion?

[Ogid]

Don't mind me... I'm just going to quietly sit here and watch the world burn.

[santaclaws01]

42 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

Instead of going point to counter-point and back and forth, I'll just ask why is it that you think being unaffected by something can still yield a direct benefit from it when you obtain that benefit by interacting with that thing for its effect when you're unaffected by it?

You asking this question makes me doubt that you've actually read any of my responses, because I've(and everyone else in here) addressed this multiple times. Unaffected is a defined game term. Unaffected by concealing means the model ignores the concealing terrain trait. 

"If a sight line drawn to a model passes through Concealing Terrain, that model has Concealment."  Please tell me where in that sentence the rules care at all if the model LoS is being drawn to ignores concealing terrain or not. And if you still think somehow that being unaffected by concealing terrain means that a model attacking them gets to also ignore the concealing terrain, explain why you think that it doesn't also apply to the 2nd part of the concealing trait which says "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." And please, as you're so quick to call out people not citing rules, make sure to explain this with rules quotes, but I'll save you some trouble and tell you that I've already quoted all the relevant rules.

[MajorUndead]

 

8 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Some arguments it works that way, with one model drawing LOS lines to another:

• Page sixteen says "In this example, Rasputina is drawing sight lines to the Sorrow" and several other instances of suggesting a model is drawing LOS to another model.
• The lines drawn on page sixteen have directional arrows, suggesting sight lines (and line of sight) is drawn from one model to another.
• Everything about sight lines is in the LOS section, which suggests it is about one model having LOS to another.
• Other instances of the rules break down a bit if sight lines and LOS are independent (for instance, when Zoraida uses abilities through nearby swampfiends, you get sightlines from tons of models used in your calculations).

You've proposed a lot of counterpoints, but do you have a cohesive argument that sight lines work in a bilateral fashion?

Also, the concealing terrain trait starts with "If a sight of line drawn to a model" (emphasis of the "to").
This seems to me like a clear rule statement that, at least for the concealing terrain trait, LOS are drawn directionally

[Ogid]

@benjoewoo, You sir are either a master troll (in that case, congrats, 10/10) or have some issues discussing rules. I'm going to asume is the second for what follows:

As other users pointed out, being concise helps to both understand well your point and keep the thread focused. Making posts that long and hard to read, with so many random thoughts and examples on them just scatter the focus away from the main topic; examples that other users try to debunk to prove his point and that you just ignore after that, and then bury after writing another wall of text. That's a very ineficient way to discuss a topic. For a player who tends to make post longer than necessary to abord a rules question but that are very informative and useful check @solkan profile to see his answers. If you want to give longer and detailed answers; that's a good place to start checking how.

Another problem I find with your way of discussing is you tend to build your own idea of how something works and then defend it to the death, ignoring most of the points and abilities/rules that doesn't fit with how you think that ability works (for example here arguin that it's perfectly reasonable the keyword ability is there to make them easier to shoot and to protect OOK picks or in the other thread that permabury Bad Juju when it's hit with a random bury it's balanced). As some users pointed, this is a issue that can be tricky to understand because there are some nuances (what unaffected means, how concealing works...), but all of that it's perfectly defined in the rulebook. The fact that you are arguing things like LoS are bilateral or that Killjoy works differently for not having Abundant Growth (when it has an ability with the exact same wording than the rest of the keyword for the issue discussed here "This model is unaffected by Underbrush Markers") indicates that you aren't expending enough time revising the rules and the relevant abilities before making your posts and points.

All the above will trigger people and will make them less prone to discuss rules with you. I hope the above help you to improve your discussing style.

About the main topic... the rest of the users covered it quite well, so I have nothing to really add at this point.