|
Post by hocestbellum on Mar 1, 2019 12:13:32 GMT
I couldn't find the thread where this came up originally, but there has been a purple ruling on Alchemical Mask. HEREFor those not familiar, the text of Alchemical Mask is 'This model does not suffer gas effects. When determining LOS or resolving attacks, this model ignores cloud effects' The debate was a) Whether it ignores the concealment granted by a cloud (True Sight ignores clouds for LOS but doesn't ignore concealment), b) whether it ignores Prowl on models in clouds, and c) whether it ignores things like Freezing Mist which state 'when in the cloud models suffer -2 to hit' The answer is that yes, it ignores concealment from clouds and it ignores riders on cloud effects whilst making attacks. But it doesn't ignore Prowl, as the model will still have gained Stealth. The logic here is that whilst they are attacking the cloud doesn't exist for them. But as far as the model with Prowl is concerned it still has concealment and thus gains Stealth. That's pretty much how I thought it would work, and could be handy to bear in mind. Shame AKs are still pants!
|
|
|
Post by skathrex on Mar 1, 2019 13:55:27 GMT
Imo its the same ruling as Hunter, so yay for continuety
|
|
|
Post by P'tit Nico on Mar 1, 2019 14:12:51 GMT
it ignores riders on cloud effects whilst making attacksRiders?
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Mar 1, 2019 14:22:27 GMT
it ignores riders on cloud effects whilst making attacksRiders? Additional effects. So, for example, Freezing Mist reads "Place a 3" AOE cloud effect completely within the caster's control range. While in the AOE, models without Immunity: Cold suffer -2 to their attack rolls. The AOE remains in play for one round." It creates a cloud, and the 'rider' is the "While in the AOE, models without Immunity: Cold suffer -2 to their attack rolls." Whilst attacking, models with Alchemical Mask will ignore the -2 to their attack rolls as it is part of the cloud effect
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Mar 1, 2019 15:09:57 GMT
Huh, I expected the ruling to be that Alchemical Mask does NOT ignore the Concealment. Consider me pleasantly surprised. Especially since I asked that question so long ago that I had completely forgotten about it; six months to get a ruling feels a bit excessive to me.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Mar 1, 2019 15:13:59 GMT
Huh, I expected the ruling to be that Alchemical Mask does NOT ignore the Concealment. Consider me pleasantly surprised. Especially since I asked that question so long ago that I had completely forgotten about it; six months to get a ruling feels a bit excessive to me. Random guess - while no one cares about AKs in and out of PP there probably needed to be play testing to be sure this "buff" to syvestro (I think he is the only one with a mask among the CG casters) didn't end up being too much of a buff. So probably playtesting?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 1, 2019 15:37:52 GMT
Some days it would be easier if people just listened to me. Would’ve saved everybody 6 months on the rules forum!
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Mar 1, 2019 17:02:17 GMT
Some days it would be easier if people just listened to me. Would’ve saved everybody 6 months on the rules forum! Did we not listen to you? What did you say, I don't remember!
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 1, 2019 17:10:23 GMT
Some days it would be easier if people just listened to me. Would’ve saved everybody 6 months on the rules forum! Did we not listen to you? What did you say, I don't remember!
I went round and round with people in that thread, contending that “ignore” means “ignore.” That is all.
|
|