Alealexi
BattleBox Champ
Burning heritecs and wracking as always... it's a personal hobby.
Posts: 55
|
Post by Alealexi on May 20, 2017 23:49:37 GMT
Can a model lose the benefits of stealth if a model ignores concealment with hunter?
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on May 20, 2017 23:53:53 GMT
Can a model lose the benefits of stealth if a model ignores concealment with hunter? I don't believe so. The model still has the benefit of concealment therefore has stealth. The other model ignores the concealment but does not ignore stealth.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on May 21, 2017 0:02:41 GMT
Moved to New PLayers
|
|
|
Post by wolfchild on Dec 10, 2017 1:06:12 GMT
Was this ever confirmed? I use Circle, so not losing stealth despite my enemy ignoring concealment would be huge.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Dec 11, 2017 0:36:20 GMT
Was this ever confirmed? I use Circle, so not losing stealth despite my enemy ignoring concealment would be huge. Im fairly certain this was infernaled to say you still get stealth from prowl even if your opponent ignores concealment.
|
|
|
Post by wolfchild on Dec 12, 2017 0:41:08 GMT
I dearly hope ur right. Still my meta has a high proportion of Legion so it doesn’t make too much difference, good to know nonetheless
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Dec 12, 2017 19:49:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wolfchild on Dec 24, 2017 0:33:34 GMT
I can’t see any infernal presence on any of the Hunter vs Prowl threads from last few years, however it’s been consistent responses from ‘destroyer of worlds’ posters, that Prowl keeps stealth, even if Hunter is ignoring Concealment, so I’ll run w that.
|
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on Mar 24, 2018 5:37:05 GMT
It's annoying, honestly. As far as I understand, the ruling functions as it did in Mk2(hunter does not ignore prowl). But honestly, if it wasn't for that precedent, I'd assume the exact opposite from reading the rules. There's no distinction in the rules that suggests you can have concealment and not 'benefit' from it as if those were two separate states.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Mar 26, 2018 6:52:20 GMT
It's annoying, honestly. As far as I understand, the ruling functions as it did in Mk2(hunter does not ignore prowl). But honestly, if it wasn't for that precedent, I'd assume the exact opposite from reading the rules. There's no distinction in the rules that suggests you can have concealment and not 'benefit' from it as if those were two separate states. I disagree, when reading the rules exactly, you never lose Concealment, the attacker with Hunter just ignores it. Hence the condition for triggering Prowl is still met and that's not something Hunter ignores.
|
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on Mar 26, 2018 7:18:08 GMT
It's annoying, honestly. As far as I understand, the ruling functions as it did in Mk2(hunter does not ignore prowl). But honestly, if it wasn't for that precedent, I'd assume the exact opposite from reading the rules. There's no distinction in the rules that suggests you can have concealment and not 'benefit' from it as if those were two separate states. I disagree, when reading the rules exactly, you never lose Concealment, the attacker with Hunter just ignores it. Hence the condition for triggering Prowl is still met and that's not something Hunter ignores. The condition for having prowl is "while this model has concealment". The terrain is irrelevant, it mentions only the effect, which hunter ignores. In any other context that would be an intended counter.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Mar 26, 2018 7:38:33 GMT
I disagree, when reading the rules exactly, you never lose Concealment, the attacker with Hunter just ignores it. Hence the condition for triggering Prowl is still met and that's not something Hunter ignores. The condition for having prowl is "while this model has concealment". The terrain is irrelevant, it mentions only the effect, which hunter ignores. In any other context that would be an intended counter. Still, I disagree in a literal sense. If that were the intended outcome, then Hunter would state "When this model makes a ranged attack, the target loses Concealment and Cover for the duration of the attack.", it deliberately says it just ignores it so you wouldn't lose the other advantages. To make a truly ridiculous real world analogy: say I have a car, but you ignore this fact and assume I walk everywhere, that doesn't change the fact that I get everywhere faster than walking. Of course the premise and outcome are different, but it illustrates the function of "ignore".
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Mar 26, 2018 7:59:51 GMT
The condition for having prowl is "while this model has concealment". The terrain is irrelevant, it mentions only the effect, which hunter ignores. In any other context that would be an intended counter. Can you give an example of any of these other contexts that work the way you read it? Concealment isn't determined per attacker, it's based entirely on your placement (completely within a forest, a cloud, affected by a spell...). It's not something that switches on and off based on who's looking, like some weird quantum effect. [Edit] I have to admit to being wrong here, concealment can be determined per attacker when certain terrain types are involved. However, Hunter doesn't say concealment does not apply, only that the hunter ignores its effect.
|
|
|
Post by elshinare on Mar 26, 2018 21:41:21 GMT
Hunter is great against models without prowl...that is essentially what the rules state
|
|
|
Post by wolfchild on Apr 6, 2018 19:07:41 GMT
This still hasn’t had an infernal ruling and still is open to interpretation. Even though, if you’re in a forest (concealment) which allows u to prowl (gaining stealth), of course the forest doesn’t cease to exist, but if someone has the ability to ignore the cover (from view) provided by the forest, then you’d have nothing to hide behind or in that would have allowed you to gain stealth.
There needs to be a clarification, as although MkII argued for one version, the wording is still ambiguous and as we shifted from MkII to MkIII so too might the intention behind the subtle wording changes have shifted.
If they can’t get a clear wording without listing specific examples, then they need to write the specifics in the rule.
|
|