2022 Errata - Raspy 1

[Jinn]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I don't think that is ironclad at all. That says all markers of a single name have the same terrain traits, and is pretty clearly aimed at the fact that not all the cards happen to spell out the terrain traits.

Extrapolating that to 'treats as' instances is a stretch (especially since 'treats as' does not change the name of the model. It is still a Kaltgeist, you're just treating it as an ice pillar).

Also I was aware of that FAQ, but I meant do you have any basis under the general rules.

If Terrain markers with the same name have the same traits, then the Ice Pillar marker mentioned on Kaltgeist's Icy Form ability is the same Ice Pillar marker that is Ht 4, Destructible, Impassable, and Blocking from all other cards that define it fully. As models can be treated as markers with traits (see Moorwraith) and Kaltgeists are being treated as a marker with traits why should we ignore those traits in this case?

Because of that FAQ we know that markers with the same name necessarily share all traits, so whenever a card refers to just an Ice Pillar Marker it is still referring to a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker, even if it doesn't have all of that text. So when the Kaltgeist's Icy Form ability says "Other friendly models may treat this model as an Ice Pillar Marker." it is saying "Other friendly models may treat this model as a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker." even if it doesn't mention that text, just as it would if it, like the Banasuva, had a demise that dropped one without fully defining it. This is because all markers with the same name share all terrain traits.

Note that if the Ice Pillar Marker mentioned on the Kaltgeist does have the same traits as all other Ice Pillar Markers (which we know it does) then the wording on the Kaltgeist is identical in style to that of the Moorwraith which I think we all agree can be treated as a marker with traits. Why can't the Kaltgeist be treated as a marker with traits then?

[Maniacal_cackle]

11 minutes ago, Jinn said:

If Terrain markers with the same name have the same traits, then the Ice Pillar marker mentioned on Kaltgeist's Icy Form ability is the same Ice Pillar marker that is Ht 4, Destructible, Impassable, and Blocking from all other cards that define it fully. As models can be treated as markers with traits (see Moorwraith) and Kaltgeists are being treated as a marker with traits why should we ignore those traits in this case?

Because of that FAQ we know that markers with the same name necessarily share all traits, so whenever a card refers to just an Ice Pillar Marker it is still referring to a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker, even if it doesn't have all of that text. So when the Kaltgeist's Icy Form ability says "Other friendly models may treat this model as an Ice Pillar Marker." it is saying "Other friendly models may treat this model as a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker." even if it doesn't mention that text, just as it would if it, like the Banasuva, had a demise that dropped one without fully defining it. This is because all markers with the same name share all terrain traits.

Note that if the Ice Pillar Marker mentioned on the Kaltgeist does have the same traits as all other Ice Pillar Markers (which we know it does) then the wording on the Kaltgeist is identical in style to that of the Moorwraith which I think we all agree can be treated as a marker with traits. Why can't the Kaltgeist be treated as a marker with traits then?

Sorry to clarify, are you playing it that when Sparks treats a scrap marker as a pit trap marker, the scrap marker grows to 50mm?

[Morgan Vening]

56 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Sorry to clarify, are you playing it that when Sparks treats a scrap marker as a pit trap marker, the scrap marker grows to 50mm?

Honestly, I'm as surprised that this wasn't addressed during playtest as I am this wasn't addressed in the latest FAQ.

The only argument that I've seen that it goes one way or another, is the Sparks issue and the theory that you go with the option that doesn't break the game.

But the English language for 'treats as' is as vague as 'within'.

Just surprised it got this far.

[Jinn]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Sorry to clarify, are you playing it that when Sparks treats a scrap marker as a pit trap marker, the scrap marker grows to 50mm?

I've already said that I'd understand taking into account the physical limits of the thing on the table (there being, for example, an unstated rule that base size isn't shared) but there is no such case for a model being treated as having actual terrain traits when it is treated as a terrain marker. This cannot be an unstated rule because otherwise the Moorwraith makes no sense.

I would use the sparks case as the example that tells us that treating an object as a marker does not include the base size, but even that is just because it isn't practical to have a physical marker that has two differing sizes. That grounds doesn't stand for refusing to treat a Kaltgeist as Blocking, after all we know that the game can allow us to treat models as having terrain characteristics and there is no actual issue in play with treating them as having these characteristics.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Just now, Jinn said:

I've already said that I'd understand taking into account the physical limits of the thing on the table (there being an unstated rule that base size isn't shared) but there is no such case for a model being treated as having actual terrain traits when it is treated as a terrain marker. This cannot be an unstated rule because otherwise the Moorwraith makes no sense.

I would use the sparks case as the example that tells us that treating an object as a marker does not include the base size, but even that is just because it isn't practical to have a physical marker that has two differing sizes. That grounds doesn't stand for refusing to treat a Kaltgeist as Blocking, after all we know that the game can allow us to treat models as having terrain characteristics and there is no actual issue in play with treating them as having these characteristics.

Well, again, Moorwraith is different from most cases in that it specifically is named as having some terrain traits.

But if you want to play it your way, that's perfectly fine. I think the game breaks pretty seriously when you do shenanigans with corpse markers that are also ice pillars, but if that's how your opponents and you want to play then I hope it works!

[Jinn]

13 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Well, again, Moorwraith is different from most cases in that it specifically is named as having some terrain traits.

But if you want to play it your way, that's perfectly fine. I think the game breaks pretty seriously when you do shenanigans with corpse markers that are also ice pillars, but if that's how your opponents and you want to play then I hope it works!

I don't really think it matters how it's played as it is rather minor, it only really matters for things like Obeyed Slam actions and niche Joker fishing. I just think that the rules can only lead to them being treated as having those traits if we want them to be consistent. I doubt you'd argue that the Banasuva's Demise FAQ statement wouldn't apply to a created marker that had missed a trait all other instances of that marker had, I just don't understand why you wouldn't think it applies in this case.

[Adran]

In short, the rules don't tell us for certain which is the right answer. 

There are 4 different ways I can see to "use object A counts as Marker Y"

1 You use all the traits of both Object A and Marker Y

2 You treat it as Object A, but it is a valid target/choice for anything that could target/be affected by Marker Y

3 when you are treating it as Marker Y you stop treating it as Object A

4 You use some of the traits of Object A and Marker Y. 

 

There are some rules loopholes with a few of these. 

With the first one, you are stuck with something being 2 different "sizes" at the same time. We have no way to resolve this in the rules, so if I can find a better meaning I would go with that. 

With the second one, I don't think there are any rules issues. 

The third one is where you get strange things like walking through a zombie because you are treating it as a corpse marker, which doesn't break any rules, but is not an obvious outcome. 

The fourth one has no guidance as to which things to copy. There is nothing to stop a model having terrain traits in general (as is seen by the Kurgan), and you could try and restrict what to not copy to be limited to "physical " traits like base size and Ht. You then get strange circumstances like if you have Blocking but no Ht (because you have a Sz instead) you won't create cover because you don't create a shadow. This can work but needs you to make up what can eb copied and what can't. 

 

So whilst I can't point to a rule that says the Kaltgeist should  count as Ht 4, Blocking, impassable and destructible when I want, and Sz 2 when I want, there are rules complications that way. If I always treat it as Sz 2, but that it can count as something named an ice pillar when something requires an ice pillar, without gaining the rest of the rules that an ice pillar has there are no rules complications. There will be very few situations where this matters. 

 

[Spitfire]

To me, personally i think it boils down to "being treated" as something or "being" something (which is kinda included in Adrans post while i had this prepared and was musing things over some more).

The marker dropped via the demise  IS an Icepillar marker. The Kaltgeist can be treated as an icepillar marker, which doesn't necessarily infer further attributes unless otherwise stated (as the Moorwraith does).

[Jinn]

I have a solution to the base size issue with Spark's ability! Markers with the same name only share all Terrain Traits, and base size is not a Terrain Trait. Theoretically there is no issue with a future model dropping a 50mm Ice Pillar Marker. Doesn't really matter for the Kaltgeist example, but it's always good to know the rules actually work.

 

Well, just to put it out there as this discussion seems to be over, my final view on the topic:

1. Ice Pillar Markers are defined as Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible and Impassable, and this applies even if a given instance of an Ice Pillar is missing any of that text (FAQ). Ice Pillar Marker = Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker.
2. Models can be treated as a Marker with terrain traits (Moorwraith).
3. Kaltgeists have an ability that lets you treat them as an Ice Pillar Marker
   1. Due to point 1. this is a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker
   2. Due to point 2. we know the game allows for models to be treated as having terrain traits, and uses identical wording
   3. There are no practical issues with this in play as there are other effects that cause models height to vary mid-game that cause no issues
      1. In this case Kaltgeists would be simultaneously Sz 2 and also be a Ht 4 Marker. I can't think of any issues with this that don't already exist in the game.
4. Treat them as a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker

This seems the most direct interpretation of the rules to me, and the one least likely to create issues in the future due to narrowing the application of the FAQ on named Markers. As far as I can see, the only way to not treat them as this is to allow a case where we have a named marker but don't treat it as having the Terrain Traits of other identically named markers.

[Adran]

That sort of makes the FAQ a pointless question. If the base size isn't also fixed then what base size are the pillars dropped by banasuva? 

What other things change ht/sz? I can't think of any that aren't fixed alteration like the bayou upgrade. I certainly can't think of anything outside this that is both sz2 and ht 4, or to know if that can see past a ht3 wall?

[Jinn]

29 minutes ago, Adran said:

That sort of makes the FAQ a pointless question. If the base size isn't also fixed then what base size are the pillars dropped by banasuva? 

What other things change ht/sz? I can't think of any that aren't fixed alteration like the bayou upgrade. I certainly can't think of anything outside this that is both sz2 and ht 4, or to know if that can see past a ht3 wall?

If the base size of a marker isn't mentioned then it defaults to 30mm. None of the other Ice Pillars mention a base size either. The issue with the Banasuva's Demise was that it didn't state the Ht of the pillar.

My thought with changed Sz was the Bayou upgrade going into and out of Von Schtook1's (and Shenlong2 now) blank upgrade aura. Especially on a Sz 2 model if there's a Ht 2 wall between them and Schtook; while the upgrade is blank they aren't in the aura. What a nightmare, but a hilarious image of a bouncy Gremlin on Yer Head. There is no issue with Kaltgeists seeing over a Ht 3 wall (they can't treat themselves as Pillars), all that happens is other friendlies can effectively see a Ht 4 Ice Pillar in the same spot as the Kaltgeist.

The only possible issue with changing Ht (or Sz) is that an object that fits under terrain becomes incompatible with that location, but as this problem already exists due to Von Schtook I don't think it is any more of a problem here. I'd just assume that you cannot treat it as an Ice Pillar Marker if it is in a place an Ice Pillar Marker cannot be (same as if there was an aura that turned off Markers, which sounds like a cool ability), so it's even less of an issue than Schtook.

[Morgan Vening]

2 hours ago, Jinn said:

My thought with changed Sz was the Bayou upgrade going into and out of Von Schtook1's (and Shenlong2 now) blank upgrade aura. Especially on a Sz 2 model if there's a Ht 2 wall between them and Schtook; while the upgrade is blank they aren't in the aura. What a nightmare, but a hilarious image of a bouncy Gremlin on Yer Head.

Schroedinger's Ghillie Suit.

[Spitfire]

9 hours ago, Jinn said:

I have a solution to the base size issue with Spark's ability! Markers with the same name only share all Terrain Traits, and base size is not a Terrain Trait. Theoretically there is no issue with a future model dropping a 50mm Ice Pillar Marker. Doesn't really matter for the Kaltgeist example, but it's always good to know the rules actually work.

 

Well, just to put it out there as this discussion seems to be over, my final view on the topic:

1. Ice Pillar Markers are defined as Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible and Impassable, and this applies even if a given instance of an Ice Pillar is missing any of that text (FAQ). Ice Pillar Marker = Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker.
2. Models can be treated as a Marker with terrain traits (Moorwraith).
3. Kaltgeists have an ability that lets you treat them as an Ice Pillar Marker
   1. Due to point 1. this is a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker
   2. Due to point 2. we know the game allows for models to be treated as having terrain traits, and uses identical wording
   3. There are no practical issues with this in play as there are other effects that cause models height to vary mid-game that cause no issues
      1. In this case Kaltgeists would be simultaneously Sz 2 and also be a Ht 4 Marker. I can't think of any issues with this that don't already exist in the game.
4. Treat them as a Ht 4, Blocking, Destructible, Impassable Ice Pillar Marker

This seems the most direct interpretation of the rules to me, and the one least likely to create issues in the future due to narrowing the application of the FAQ on named Markers. As far as I can see, the only way to not treat them as this is to allow a case where we have a named marker but don't treat it as having the Terrain Traits of other identically named markers.

Sooooooo, let me get that straight.

In order to solve the canandrum that exists by your reading you'd go back on your core argument (every marker is exactly the same) by arbitraty deciding on which attribute of the marker that conflicts with your reading to ignore rather than something being treated as something else just meaning abilities or actions can make use of the thing that is bein treated as without infering other rules, abilities or attributes unless otherwise stated?

[Jinn]

1 hour ago, Spitfire said:

Sooooooo, let me get that straight.

In order to solve the canandrum that exists by your reading you'd go back on your core argument (every marker is exactly the same) by arbitraty deciding on which attribute of the marker that conflicts with your reading to ignore rather than something being treated as something else just meaning abilities or actions can make use of the thing that is bein treated as without infering other rules, abilities or attributes unless otherwise stated?

You're mischaracterising me here. This conundrum in Sparks (which we've found out doesn't exist) has nothing to do with Kaltgeists as their base size was never a problem. The issue with it was that it is a rule that requires extra interpretation beyond what is written because treating it literally lead to impractical outcomes. Those cases in the rules that require that extra step (of thinking 😆) are always inelegant and should be avoided if possible.

The difference between Base Size and other characteristics is that it is not listed under the Terrain Traits section of the rules. The FAQ on Terrain Markers specifies Terrain Traits. Do you see how it's not arbitrary?

[Adran]

10 hours ago, Jinn said:

If the base size of a marker isn't mentioned then it defaults to 30mm. None of the other Ice Pillars mention a base size either. The issue with the Banasuva's Demise was that it didn't state the Ht of the pillar.

My thought with changed Sz was the Bayou upgrade going into and out of Von Schtook1's (and Shenlong2 now) blank upgrade aura. Especially on a Sz 2 model if there's a Ht 2 wall between them and Schtook; while the upgrade is blank they aren't in the aura. What a nightmare, but a hilarious image of a bouncy Gremlin on Yer Head. There is no issue with Kaltgeists seeing over a Ht 3 wall (they can't treat themselves as Pillars), all that happens is other friendlies can effectively see a Ht 4 Ice Pillar in the same spot as the Kaltgeist.

The only possible issue with changing Ht (or Sz) is that an object that fits under terrain becomes incompatible with that location, but as this problem already exists due to Von Schtook I don't think it is any more of a problem here. I'd just assume that you cannot treat it as an Ice Pillar Marker if it is in a place an Ice Pillar Marker cannot be (same as if there was an aura that turned off Markers, which sounds like a cool ability), so it's even less of an issue than Schtook.

That will teach me to answer when something comes to me in the middle of the night without checking what is actually said. 

Yes, you are right the base size would default. 

 

I'm more worried about targeting a Kaltgiest with an action when I can only see it if I treat it as an Ice pillar, and the ice pillar isn't a legal target.  It feels very loopholey, as does the can make you get cover or not. I'm not really sure that there is much that its abusable other than the ability to choose for it to be targeted or not if if it is behind a wall.  As I said I can't say your view is wrong according to any rules, but something having 2 different heights at the same time doesn't feel right. You can make everything work, but it does have strange things that occur (A kaltgiest can't block line of sight to a Ht 3 model even if it is also pretending to be an ice pillar for example, its not likely to come up often but its how you would have to interpret the rules). 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Wait, if people are playing that base size doesn't carry over, are they playing that Sandeep 2 drops 30mm Pyre markers instead of 50mm pyre markers?

[Jinn]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Wait, if people are playing that base size doesn't carry over, are they playing that Sandeep 2 drops 30mm Pyre markers instead of 50mm pyre markers?

Oh damn, that's a good point! That does make his options more balanced I guess, I was almost always choosing the Pyres because they're an absurdly large shockwave at 50mm. I do think this is what the rules (and FAQ) say is what should happen, no idea if it's what's intended (or even if that matters as long as it's balanced given the Bete situation).

I could absolutely see it being an oversight and them adding it to what's shared for simplicity and consistency on the board though. I imagine Hazardous with two different marker sizes could get confusing. I do like the potential of them adding 50mm Ice Pillars to a model one day though! 

[Patzer]

Maybe this is a dumb question, but here goes. Winter's Strike states that the target suffers +1 if any blasts are touching an Ice Pillar marker. I think the intention is that models damaged by this Action's blasts markers suffers+1 damage if the blast marker is touching an Ice Pillar marker. However as it is worded now it seems like the original target suffers +1 damage if a blast touches a ice pillar. How should it be played? 

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Patzer said:

Maybe this is a dumb question, but here goes. Winter's Strike states that the target suffers +1 if any blasts are touching an Ice Pillar marker. I think the intention is that models damaged by this Action's blasts markers suffers+1 damage if the blast marker is touching an Ice Pillar marker. However as it is worded now it seems like the original target suffers +1 damage if a blast touches a ice pillar. How should it be played? 

The attack only has one blast, and that blast has to be touching the target because of the blast rules.  And you only get the bonus to the target of the attack.  (Blasts don’t create secondary targets, that’s what “models damaged by this attack” is for….)

Edit:  There’s also paragraph four of Blasts:  “The damage a model suffers from a  [Blast] is unaffected by effects that increase the damage the original target suffered from the attack.”  There’s another reason for the +1 to not carry over.

 

[Adran]

As written, it only increases the damage to the target, not any models that are hit by blast markers.

I'd definitely play it that way, rather than trying to guess intent with no other guidance.