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. 
 

[benjoewoo]

To keep the explanation short, then.

1. Concealment is applied if sight lines for LoS are drawn through concealing terrain. Concealing terrain can be ignored if a model drawing sight lines is both (1) in the terrain and (2) draws at least one sight line through 1" or less of that concealing terrain.  pg 37 of e-rule book.

2. Concealment as a mechanic is defined and applied in terms of and in reference to the model being attacked having concealment. pg. 36 of e-rule book.

3. Unaffected by Concealing Terrain--Models unaffected by concealing terrain ignore the concealing trait when drawing LoS. 37.

4. LoS is drawn bi-laterally. There is no rule stating which way "direction" LoS is drawn. Because the rules are phrased so that LoS can be drawn from either direction to achieve the same effect, this seems the rule that the rules work with. The picture examples are drawn directionally, e.g. from Rasputina to a sorrow, but there is no actual reference to the direction drawn and the example makes more sense with how the example is phrased, i.e. from Rasputina to Sorrow. But, requiring LoS to be drawn specifically from one model to another is a more specific proposition because it is a more restrictive, specialized rule; there would need to be a rules citation for drawing LoS in this manner compared to drawing them from either of any models interacting.

A model with Abundant Growth or similar ability, e.g. Killjoy, is unaffected by Underbrush Markers, which are 50mm, Ht 0, Severe, and Concealing Terrain markers.

When drawing LoS normally, rule 1 would provide that the models drawing LoS through an Underbush Marker would have concealment, provided none of them are in the terrain drawing at least one sight line through 1" or less of that terrain. Rule 2 would then apply concealment to both, affecting any non-melee attack actions targeting models in such a position. 

But, models with Abundant Growth or similar ability (MAGs) would, per rule 3, ignore the concealing trait when drawing LoS. Thus, per rule 4, MAGs and non-MAGs attacking each other through concealing terrain created by Underbrush Markers ignore the marker because the MAG(s) ignore the concealing trait. 

[Ogid]

Ty! That post is much easier to read.

43 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

4. LoS is drawn bi-laterally. There is no rule stating which way "direction" LoS is drawn. Because the rules are phrased so that LoS can be drawn from either direction to achieve the same effect, this seems the rule that the rules work with. The picture examples are drawn directionally, e.g. from Rasputina to a sorrow, but there is no actual reference to the direction drawn and the example makes more sense with how the example is phrased, i.e. from Rasputina to Sorrow. But, requiring LoS to be drawn specifically from one model to another is a more specific proposition because it is a more restrictive, specialized rule; there would need to be a rules citation for drawing LoS in this manner compared to drawing them from either of any models interacting.

This part is what make the reasoning go south. The LoS is in general bilateral in a sense that if a model can see another, in most scenarios the other model can see the first one back and the LoS will travel through the same space. But each model use the LoS from his point of view to determine cover and concealment rules (see below).

To make this point even clearer, there is a very niche case where the LoS isn't bilateral (in the sense that is blocked in one direction but not in the other). Check in shadows (pg 18):

Quote

When drawing sight lines, a model standing on terrain that is casting a Shadow ignores that terrain (and its Shadow) if any single sight line drawn between the two objects passes through 1" or less of that terrain.

This would let a model with a size of 1 or 0 on top of a terrain having LoS to a model below when the model below would have his LoS blocked because it can't ignore the terrain. From a thematic point of view this would be that model peeking to use an ability before covering again.

 

This was already pointed but the Concealing terrain rules clearly state the directionality of the LoS (pg37)

Quote

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

drawn to a model. From the performing model to the target. A model in concealing terrain may ignore (not both model may ignore).

Also the unafected rules (pg37):

Quote

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.

It is specified that is this model ignores the concealing terrain. Not all model sharing a LoS with him.

Compare it with the Severe one ("The model does not suffer the movement penalty of Severe Terrain"). Would this let any model in the same piece of severe terrain  ignore the movement penalty or does it only apply to the model with the ability?

 

Imo from the rules perspective the intention is clear, but from a thematic point of view is also logic. A model in a better position (in high ground or hidden in a concealing bush) will have the edge over a model in open ground. And some models are specially trained to operate in some scenarios where other will struggle to operate, so they will have some advantages like being better shoting into concealing terrain. The fact an specially trained sniper is able to shoot a model in the middle of a jungle (concealing terrain) with no problems doesn't make the receiving model better at shooting him back for example.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, benjoewoo said:

 

4. LoS is drawn bi-laterally. There is no rule stating which way "direction" LoS is drawn. Because the rules are phrased so that LoS can be drawn from either direction to achieve the same effect, this seems the rule that the rules work with. The picture examples are drawn directionally, e.g. from Rasputina to a sorrow, but there is no actual reference to the direction drawn and the example makes more sense with how the example is phrased, i.e. from Rasputina to Sorrow. But, requiring LoS to be drawn specifically from one model to another is a more specific proposition because it is a more restrictive, specialized rule; there would need to be a rules citation for drawing LoS in this manner compared to drawing them from either of any models interacting.

Wargames generally use examples to communicate rules for movement and line of sight because it is near impossible to spell out every contingency. The examples are part of the rules.

And again note the forum guideline of favouring the interpretation that doesn't break the game. If lines of sight aren't drawn by a model drawing line of sight, a number of things break (Zoraida eyes, concealment 1" rule, etc).

If you disagree and you can find players who are on the same page, you're welcome to play it however you wish of course.

[Adran]

I'm going to echo the calls that your assumption 4 is flawed.

Your Rule 1 already shows a point where Assumption 4 doesn't work.

The 2 models would draw the same sight lines but they would calculate their line of sight, cover and concealment separately with possible different results.

15 hours ago, benjoewoo said:

 

1. Concealment is applied if sight lines for LoS are drawn through concealing terrain. Concealing terrain can be ignored if a model drawing sight lines is both (1) in the terrain and (2) draws at least one sight line through 1" or less of that concealing terrain.  pg 37 of e-rule book.

 

To this you can  to add "or (3) if a special rule allows the model to ignore concealing terrain." to your checklist ( I know you are almost quoting here, but this is where the unaffected by Concealing would also apply and follows the same rules).

 

Unless you are also now arguing that the model in the concealing terrain that is ignoring the concealing terrain because it is in it is also not going to be "protected" by the concealing terrain because it is ignoring it so models outside the concealing terrain also get to ignore the concealing as long as the target is in it and with in 1" (on at least 1 sight line).

[benjoewoo]

On 11/19/2019 at 12:59 AM, Adran said:

I'm going to echo the calls that your assumption 4 is flawed.

Your Rule 1 already shows a point where Assumption 4 doesn't work.

The 2 models would draw the same sight lines but they would calculate their line of sight, cover and concealment separately with possible different results.

To this you can  to add "or (3) if a special rule allows the model to ignore concealing terrain." to your checklist ( I know you are almost quoting here, but this is where the unaffected by Concealing would also apply and follows the same rules).

 

Unless you are also now arguing that the model in the concealing terrain that is ignoring the concealing terrain because it is in it is also not going to be "protected" by the concealing terrain because it is ignoring it so models outside the concealing terrain also get to ignore the concealing as long as the target is in it and with in 1" (on at least 1 sight line).

I'm unsure how to read the last sentence. I want to be accurate on it because some posts before may have been misdirected.

I do have to ask how you bring up that 2 models draw sight lines and calculate their LoS differently. LoS is bi-lateral-it is the default state unless the rules provide otherwise because: (1) the game requires models draw LoS to each other and (2) the game does not specify LoS is drawn in a particular direction when referencing taking actions. If both of these are true, then when drawing sight lines, it cannot be wrong to draw from the model being targeted by an action to the model taking the action vs. the other way around.

The part everyone disagrees is that in bi-lateral LoS, can a model treat it differently than the other model to which/from which LoS is drawn? I think this may be the focus of the question. I don't think it works that way because concealment's yes/no application, including the text on what it means to be unaffected by it, is written based on a model in the interaction ignoring it. 

I haven't posted in some time because I think that the rules are vague on this purposefully. Unfortunately I think a combination of perceived power of the Underbrush Markers has led to the Fae keyword not being particularly high powered and multiple people seem to agree that it works the way the majority says, but people do not necessarily agree in full on how you get there--maybe this second part is a misreading but in responding here I've felt I've responded to different concepts to address the same situation.

[Ogid]

17 minutes ago, benjoewoo said:

I do have to ask how you bring up that 2 models draw sight lines and calculate their LoS differently. LoS is bi-lateral-it is the default state unless the rules provide otherwise because: (1) the game requires models draw LoS to each other and (2) the game does not specify LoS is drawn in a particular direction when referencing taking actions. If both of these are true, then when drawing sight lines, it cannot be wrong to draw from the model being targeted by an action to the model taking the action vs. the other way around.

Hi again! I'm not sure if you read my last post, there I adressed those. Rules about LoS are written with directionality in mind (From/to) and in fact there is a niche case in the base rules where a model have LoS, but the other hasn't.

And after reading some particular abilities is even clearer the LoS is individual; if you check abilities like "Ice Mirror" or "Eyes in the night" you'll see some models may trace LoS from a different game element.

[Adran]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 6:20 PM, benjoewoo said:

I'm unsure how to read the last sentence. I want to be accurate on it because some posts before may have been misdirected.

I do have to ask how you bring up that 2 models draw sight lines and calculate their LoS differently. LoS is bi-lateral-it is the default state unless the rules provide otherwise because: (1) the game requires models draw LoS to each other and (2) the game does not specify LoS is drawn in a particular direction when referencing taking actions. If both of these are true, then when drawing sight lines, it cannot be wrong to draw from the model being targeted by an action to the model taking the action vs. the other way around.

The part everyone disagrees is that in bi-lateral LoS, can a model treat it differently than the other model to which/from which LoS is drawn? I think this may be the focus of the question. I don't think it works that way because concealment's yes/no application, including the text on what it means to be unaffected by it, is written based on a model in the interaction ignoring it. 

 

Lets try again, and slightly slower and clearer (That last sentence was a bit all over the place) 

Sight lines are drawn up between 2 models. This generally means that model A will draw the same sight lines to model B that mode B will draw to model A. So as a general rule, line of sight will be the same for both (ignoring special rules). 

But Sight lines are also used to determine  cover and concealment, and these can differ between model A and B even though they are using the same sight line.

So for example, a model (A) that is less than 1" inside a piece of concealing terrain may choose to ignore that terrain for the purpose of determining if the defender (B) is suffering concealment. Model B does not have any rules that allow it to ignore the concealing trait and so when Model B is the attacker, it will suffer the concealment penalty against Model A.  So we already have 1 instance where the identical sight lines (and line of sight) produce different results based on concealing.

 

So the rules for unaffected by concealing terrain are:

{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: ...

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

And the rules for concealing are

{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.}

You appear to be mis-reading the rules to say that if a model ignores the concealing trait then it is impossible for it to gain the benefit of concealment. The counter argument is that the model that ignores concealing terrain is allowed to not count the concealing trait from terrain pieces when it draws line of sight (and sight lines) to determine what it can see. Nothing in the rules that I can see would suggest that 2 way relationship on concealment that you seem to think is there. (And as I pointed out, your Rule one is another instance where the rules imply there is a difference based on which model is drawing the sight lines, as does the whole concealing section)

 

 

There are similar situations in Cover where one model has cover and the other doesn't even though they use the same sight lines.

 

I hope that's a clearer explanation.

 

[benjoewoo]

On 12/16/2019 at 2:51 AM, Adran said:

Lets try again, and slightly slower and clearer (That last sentence was a bit all over the place) 

Sight lines are drawn up between 2 models. This generally means that model A will draw the same sight lines to model B that mode B will draw to model A. So as a general rule, line of sight will be the same for both (ignoring special rules). 

But Sight lines are also used to determine  cover and concealment, and these can differ between model A and B even though they are using the same sight line.

So for example, a model (A) that is less than 1" inside a piece of concealing terrain may choose to ignore that terrain for the purpose of determining if the defender (B) is suffering concealment. Model B does not have any rules that allow it to ignore the concealing trait and so when Model B is the attacker, it will suffer the concealment penalty against Model A.  So we already have 1 instance where the identical sight lines (and line of sight) produce different results based on concealing.

 

So the rules for unaffected by concealing terrain are:

{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: ...

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

And the rules for concealing are

{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.}

You appear to be mis-reading the rules to say that if a model ignores the concealing trait then it is impossible for it to gain the benefit of concealment. The counter argument is that the model that ignores concealing terrain is allowed to not count the concealing trait from terrain pieces when it draws line of sight (and sight lines) to determine what it can see. Nothing in the rules that I can see would suggest that 2 way relationship on concealment that you seem to think is there. (And as I pointed out, your Rule one is another instance where the rules imply there is a difference based on which model is drawing the sight lines, as does the whole concealing section)

 

 

There are similar situations in Cover where one model has cover and the other doesn't even though they use the same sight lines.

 

I hope that's a clearer explanation.

 

Hey it's been a while because of work, but finally getting to check back.

In the first section where you post the example, that is a good example of where concealing would "only go one way" as a result of rules operations as we read the rules. I don't think we disagree on the result because Model A, which you have described as being able to draw an LoS through 1" or less of concealing terrain to Model B (re-stated to the rule--I assume you mean this instead of 1" inside terrain because that description alone would not necessarily mean you could ignore it)--has the rule book backing to choose whether Model A ignores the concealing terrain or not, which would grant or deny the concealment status and appropriately effectuate the penalties (if any) on Model B's actions targeting Model A.

 

There are a number of situations you'd want this--a model friendly to Model A targeting Model A for crew utility, set up, etc. while denying enemy models straight flips on the duel.

 

Where I disagree is the second section. Fae keyword models' abilities, though named differently for KJ, all provide there is no choice--the models with the respective abilities MUST ignore the concealment trait because they are unaffected by the same.

 

There is no timing, there is no exception/exemption, they are simply unaffected by them at all. Thus there is no choice as in your first example with Models A and B provided that Model A was attempting to apply/not apply concealment solely via an Underbrush Marker. Model A must ignore the effects of concealment when targeting Model B and must ignore the effects of concealment when Model B targets Model A. Since concealment is defined and applied based on the model that would/would not have concealment, Model B would not have the concealment mechanics applied to its actions since Model A would ignore the concealment of the Underbrush Marker.

[benjoewoo]

Thank goodness the FAQ made a ruling on this. 

[ebolazaire]

from FAQ for completeness 😛

 

If a model is unaffected by Concealing Terrain, does it still gain Concealment from enemy Actions that draw LoS through that Concealing Terrain?

a) Yes. Being unaffected by Concealing Terrain does not prevent a model from gaining Concealment from enemy models drawing LoS through that terrain. Being unaffected by Concealing terrain allows the model to ignore the Concealing trait when it is drawing LoS to other models.