Can Thunder Archers use Shadow Pin on models which would normally have concealing from them?

[Jinn]

Thunder Archers have the following action:

Blessed Longbow             Rg: 12"         Stat: 6       Rst: Df
This Action ignores Concealment. Target suffers 2/3/4 damage, ignoring Incorporeal.

Shadow Pin: Target must have Concealment or be within 3" of a friendly Shadow Marker. When resolving, target suffers +1 damage and gains Staggered.

 

If the Thunder Archer is ignoring Concealment with this action can they still treat the target as having Concealment for the purposes of declaring the trigger?

Before English Ivan (who treats Concealment as a , rather than ignoring it entirely) came out these guys were the only model in the game with this trigger, which implies to me that they are intended to be able to declare this against models that would normally benefit from Concealment, but rules as written I can't see a justification for it.      

[santaclaws01]

Yes.

Keep in mind that before ES released, the Thunder Archer was the only model with the Shadow Pin trigger, so wouldn't make much sense to have a trigger with a condition that would be be achieved.

[Jinn]

59 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Yes.

Keep in mind that before ES released, the Thunder Archer was the only model with the Shadow Pin trigger, so wouldn't make much sense to have a trigger with a condition that would be be achieved.

Are there any rules supporting that interpretation though? Given triggers/actions are often shared across models and there are often cases where parts of them can't be used by the model in question it would be very helpful to have something more ironclad to support this interpretation.

I would strongly prefer to rely on what the rules actually say rather than just assuming the intentions of Wyrd based on the order in which certain models were released.

If there is currently no actual rules support for this interpretation then I think it ought to be errataed, for new players if for nothing else.

I can't really begrudge someone for ruling that this trigger can't be declared against models in Concealment but not within 3" of a Shadow Marker as it stands, given it is what the rules seem to actually say.

Wyrd pls fix

[Jesy Blue]

The action ignores concealing, it does not remove concealing from another model.

You're going to be looking for an ironclad rule that doesn't exist because you're interpreting the effect incorrectly.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Ignoring concealing just ignores the penalty flip (see bottom right of page 37 of the digital rules), the model still 'has concealment.'

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 hours ago, Jinn said:

I would strongly prefer to rely on what the rules actually say rather than just assuming the intentions of Wyrd based on the order in which certain models were released.

Overall, Malifaux has rules that require a bit of inference and guesswork. Personally I prefer this, as it allows Malifaux to have an insane variety of abilities (some of which really wouldn't work under a really technical rule set like Magic: The Gathering).

But many things aren't clear cut in the game.

[Jinn]

1 hour ago, Jesy Blue said:

The action ignores concealing, it does not remove concealing from another model.

You're going to be looking for an ironclad rule that doesn't exist because you're interpreting the effect incorrectly.

You truly don't see how an action ignoring Concealment could be interpreted to not treat the target as having Concealment? How do you decide which aspects of Concealment to ignore?

1 minute ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Ignoring concealing just ignores the penalty flip (see bottom right of page 37 of the digital rules), the model still 'has concealment.'

It doesn't ignore concealing though, it ignores capital "C" Concealment.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Jinn said:

You truly don't see how an action ignoring Concealment could be interpreted to not treat the target as having Concealment? How do you decide which aspects of Concealment to ignore?

It doesn't ignore concealing though, it ignores capital "C" Concealment.

Well, if you think that the distinction matters, you're welcome to play it that way. It'd be nice if it was a bit more clear-cut, but unfortunately is not.

Quote

How do you decide which aspects of Concealment to ignore?

Well, as I said, the bottom right of page 37 gives some pretty solid guidance, and the page 36 definition just talks about the minus flip, but ultimately it is a judgement call.

In a tournament it'd be up to a TO. If you think the rules are ambiguous, can be good to talk to your TO beforehand about it.