Jump to content

[Rules] "Visible friendly fighter"


gabbi

Recommended Posts

Disclaimer 1:
Some of this has been already discussed in FEC thread, but I just noticed some discrepancy I'd like to discuss.

Disclaimer 2:
I haven't received yet my GA tomes, so I'm basing this on M&M and ToC19 books.
If something is different in GA books, please comment below.


There has been some discussion regarding the FEC ability Chosen of the King. The ability reads:
A fighter can use this ability only if they are within 6" of a visible friendly fighter with the Leader runemark.
Until the end of this fighter’s activation, add 2 to the Attacks characteristic of attack actions made by this fighter that have a Range characteristic of 3 or less.

[ToC19, p.120]

The discussion regarded if the Crypt Haunter (a leade  who has the associated runemark) can use the ability on himself.
Some says no, cause Visibility rules (Core Book, p.35) always consider two bases/models in their description.
Some says yes (including me) cause the Core Book (p. 35) specifically says that unless rules says "other" friendly fighter, a player considers all fighters in their warband to be friendly fighters. And Chosen of the King doesn't says "other". Plus, the associated runemark (Elite) doesn't have any rulings by itself (like for example Fly or Mount), there are not any other ability associated with this runemark so there will be no point in giving this runemark to a model if it could not use the associated ability.

But then there's the FEC ability  The Royal Hunt, that reads:
This fighter makes a bonus move action. Then, they can make a bonus attack action.
In addition, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of that attack action if this fighter is within 1" of a visible friendly fighter.

[ToC19, p.120]

Now, if the above interpretation (if wording doesn't specify "other" friendly fighter, a player considers all fighters in their warband to be friendly fighters) is correct, the last part of this ability would not make sense, as the model using the ability would always be 'within 1 of a visible friendly fighter' himself.
So, the correct interpretation is that a model can't be considered a visible friendly fighter to itself?

Well, not so fast.

The Gloomspite triple  Bogeyman Dance reads:
Pick another visible friendly fighter within 6" of this fighter.
Until the end of the battle round, add half the value of this ability (rounding up)to the Move characteristic of that fighter.

[M&M, p.63]
So this ability specify "another visible friendly fighter", this would be redundant if a model should not be considered a  visible friendly fighter to itself, isn't it?

So what's the correct interpretation?
If a model is a visible friendly fighter to itself, the last part of The Royal Hunt has no meaning to be there, but if a model is not a visible friendly fighter to itself, specifying "another" in Bogeyman Dance would be redundant.

To date, nothing is in the faqs  in this regards. If someone could check if the wording of these abilities is the same in the most recent books, would be great.

As for me, I will just play Chosen of the King considering the Haunter is visible to himself and The Royal Hunt as if it specifies "another" friendly fighter.
Until we'll get some official interpretation, at least (if we'll ever get one).

Edited by gabbi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I posted this same issue and didn't really get much guidance. I also submitted a request to GW for an FAQ which as of right now hasn't been answered as you mentioned.

I believed originally that a fighter is not considered visible to itself. I believe the new book reinforces this. There was no changing to the wording of the abilities HOWEVER there was another change. They have added the symbol for Chosen of the King to the normal crypt horror - so that now the Crypt Haunter is no longer the only unit that can benefit from that ability. Previously I think the strongest argument that a fighter was visible to itself was that the Crypt Haunter was the only unit with the symbol, which meant there was a serious logical problem since he would also be the leader and therefore the ability was unusable. 

With the addition of the crypt horror gaining the symbol now it makes a lot more sense that a fighter is not visible to itself. ALSO, the new rules for the grand alliance books state that you can take someone with a leader mark as a HERO unit and while that are not considered the leader they still retain their abilities. That means you could have a abhorrent ghoul king leader, and the crypt haunter as a hero unit, and the crypt haunter can use Chosen of the King when around the ghoul king. 

In my mind the issue of redundancy with the Gloomspite ability is less of an issue then the logical fallacy that would be presented in making an ability worded as contingent and then allowing the contingency to always be met (ie - the Royal Hunt ability always being "on"). Redundancy is poor wording to be sure, but it is at least reinforcing itself rather than contradicting itself.

I believe, as poorly as it may have been done, that the corrections to the symbols and the system of "hero" units resolves the contradiction that was previously present for the Chosen of the King ability.

TL;DR - New book adds symbol for Chosen of the King to normal crypt horrors and lets Haunters be non-leader hero units, so they can still use Chosen of the King without depending on themselves for the "visible friendly fighter" - leaving the only contradiction with a fighter being visible to itself with the Royal Hunt ability. Because the only contradiction is with that ability, it seems logical that a unit considering "visible friendly fighter" does not include itself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Core rules page 35:

Quote

A player considers all fighters in their warband to be friendly fighters ... If a rule for an action or ability performed by a fighter refers to 'other friendly fighters', it means fighters from that fighter's warband, excluding itself.

Given some things explicitly state "other friendly", I'd say "visible friendly fighter" does include itself. 😉👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is "visible", is a unit visible to itself is the real question.  The "other friendly" is a completely different issue because there is no reference to visibility.  The phrase "other friendly fighter" has no logical connection to whether a fighter is visible - so the arguments in my previous post. If you read a "visible friendly fighter" to include itself then you are reading out of existence the contingency in Royal Hunt, "In addition, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of that attack action if this fighter is within 1" of a visible friendly fighter." Reading out the entire contingency isn't a rules decision that should be taken flippantly. For certain the fault lies with GW for not making this more clear with their language choices.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vicar1492: Apologies, I didn't actually realise there was an old post before yours (didn't scroll up). 😔

The fact that GW is so prescriptive with their wording ("friendly" vs. "other friendly") led me to believe the exclusion of "other" in these cases was definitive (as per @gabbi's point with the 3rd example) - I was wrong. After reading the post, and some other abilities on my cards, I can now see the ambiguity that's being discussed.

Also on page 35:

Quote

... a fighter considers all other fighters in their warband to be friendly fighters ...

Given visibility can only ever be within the context of the fighter, I'd say that the definition of friendly fighter is also from the perspective of that fighter and, therefore, excludes itself.

In short: Yep, I agree with @vicar1492. 👍

Edited by KhaosSpawn
Make better gramma.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KhaosSpawn said:

Given visibility can only ever be within the context of the fighter, I'd say that the definition of friendly fighter is also from the perspective of that fighter and, therefore, excludes itself.

If so, why specify "another visible friendly fighter" in Gloomspite "Boogeyman Dance" ability?

Truth is, GW wording in writing rulebooks is pure ******. They just don't give a sh*t in writing their books properly (the amount of  errors and inconsitencies in GA books is disheartening) and since we still flock to purchase them, why they should ever change this?

As for me on this particular issue, I'll apply the "visible friendly fighter" statement on a case by case basis, depending on what makes more sense to me (my group).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, vicar1492 said:

New book adds symbol for Chosen of the King to normal crypt horrors 

Nope. This wasn't added in GA book. It's always been this way. The phisical cards are this way. It's just they messed up the ToC2019 and swapped in the Leader runemark.

Also, I disagree with your conclusions because:
1) Crypt Horror Leader (Haunter? Can't deal with GW stupid names) did have the rune for Chosen of the King already when Heroes weren't a thing, and since the rune doesn't do anything by itself, seems logic to me that it was there for a reason (access to Chosen of the King).
2) Point costs wise, the Infernal is already a better option for a Leader. Way better. Strip the Horror Leader of Chosen of the King and nobody will evere use it. Ever.

Really, the only "right" way to apply rules in GW games is on a case by case basis, as I wrote above. Thinking you'll find consistency in their rulebooks is just vain hope.

Edited by gabbi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, gabbi said:

Nope. This wasn't added in GA book. It's always been this way. The phisical cards are this way. It's just they messed up the ToC2019 and swapped in the Leader runemark.

You're right, I misstated that, what I should have said is that what the GA book changed is that they REMOVED the leader runemark from the ability "Chosen of the King" - but my point remains the same, the only change they made was correcting the issue of paradox of the Haunter being both the leader and the only one capable of using that ability. So while I accidentally misstated the change, they DID change the thing creating the rules paradox - meaning now both the Horror and Haunter can use "Chosen of the King".

 

29 minutes ago, gabbi said:

Also, I disagree with your conclusions because:
1) Crypt Horror Leader (Haunter? Can't deal with GW stupid names) did have the rune for Chosen of the King already when Heroes weren't a thing, and since the rune doesn't do anything by itself, seems logic to me that it was there for a reason (access to Chosen of the King).
2) Point costs wise, the Infernal is already a better option for a Leader. Way better. Strip the Horror Leader of Chosen of the King and nobody will evere use it. Ever.

Neither of these really address the root issue of the rule at hand. The fact is they did CHANGE THE ABILITY once heroes were a thing. So neither of these arguments really address the actual rule and its internal logical consistency. The points point doesn't have any bearing on the rule, there are lots of units that have ridiculous points costs and no one would ever take them - GW isn't the best at balancing things properly, I think we all realize that. The points you are making though seem like arguments that you really want your Haunter to be able to use the ability, which is fine - play however you want, doesn't bother me - more than they are logical arguments for why the rule should be read a particular way.

I think the removal of the leader rune mark requirement for Chosen of the King enabling both the horror and haunter to have access to that ability AND allowing you to have both the Haunter and a separate leader, indicates to me that GW thinks they cleared up the inconsistencies with using that ability.

I think looking to the rules in other factions is a mistake, like I said in my previous post, and honestly to your point about reading consistency within GW own rules, it is more important for an internal faction to be consistent then GW having total consistency across all factions. 

The root of the issue about the FEC visible fighter ruling is the two abilities: Chosen of the King and The Royal Hunt. The Royal Hunt makes no sense if a fighter is visible to itself, and the old Chosen of the King made no sense if a fighter wasn't visible to itself. By changing the rules in the GA book to now make sense if a fighter isn't visible to itself, that speaks volumes about how to interpret the internal rules for the FEC abilities. Now, there is no inconsistency in reading both rules to read as though a fighter isn't visible to itself - BUT - if we read that a fighter is visible to itself, The Royal Hunt still makes no sense. Since one of possible 2 interpretations can be read to have no internal inconsistencies, that is, in my estimation, the appropriate interpretation.

Edited by vicar1492
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gabbi said:

2) Point costs wise, the Infernal is already a better option for a Leader. Way better. Strip the Horror Leader of Chosen of the King and nobody will evere use it. Ever.

Side note since I just had this thought. The haunter doesn't lose this ability. In fact under the new GA book rules, the haunter maintains its ability to use Chosen of the King - the change is that he cannot trigger it off himself anymore. You can still take the Haunter as a hero unit, he retains the Chosen of the King ability, which you could then also take a Crypt Infernal as your leader, and just get him near the Haunter and BOOM! You get the best of both worlds. The haunter never lost the ability, it just changes how it has to be used. There is also a what, 40 point?, difference between Haunter and Infernal - that I'm sure is intended to reflect one possessing flying and the other not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vicar1492 said:

Neither of these really address the root issue of the rule at hand. The fact is they did CHANGE THE ABILITY once heroes were a thing.

They did not.  I have GA book and original Abilities Card from card pack and Chosen of the King reads exactly the same, to me.
Am I missing something?

chosen-of-the-king.jpg

Picture of Abilities Card, red border box is from the GA book.
They seem exactly the same to me. No changes.

 

One note: sorry if I sound a tad bitter, but I suppose I actually am.  These GA books have been a huge disappointment. They're full of typos, inconsistencies and things that don't make sense. Honestly I'm a bit sick of GW attitude about rulebook writing. I'm seriously considering to  start to  rely on russian websites to provide myself rulebooks, for the time to come.

Edited by gabbi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, gabbi said:

One note: sorry if I sound a tad bitter, but I suppose I actually am.  These GA books have been a huge disappointment. They're full of typos, inconsistencies and things that don't make sense. Honestly I'm a bit sick of GW attitude about rulebook writing. I'm seriously thinking on starting to  rely on russian website to provide myself rulebooks, for the time being.

I totally understand this, FEC is not my primary faction, but I feel the same way about Tzeentch (which I play the most). I don't interpret any offense in the bitterness and I'd just request you do the same for me. I'm not intending personal attacks, though I can see how you would take it that way. I apologize if that veered into direct affronts to you.

I had to go back and look at the cards and I see you're correct, I guess originally in my mind the Chosen of the King required the unit using it to have the leader runemark - but maybe what I was thinking of is that the Crypt Horror had the leader runemark rather than the elite one in the Tome of Champions.

I don't know that this changes my position, only because apparently it has always been the way that it should be to prevent logical inconsistencies. Since you can take the Haunter as a non-leader character he always still has access to Chosen of the King if you setup your roster a particular way.

I'd also point out that the original visibility issue still applies, if they wanted to just say, "friendly fighter" then the Haunter could count himself. 

I'll restate my main point, because I'm not sure anything has been said that counteracts it: 

1 hour ago, vicar1492 said:

The root of the issue about the FEC visible fighter ruling is the two abilities: Chosen of the King and The Royal Hunt. The Royal Hunt makes no sense if a fighter is visible to itself, and the old Chosen of the King made no sense if a fighter wasn't visible to itself. By changing the rules in the GA book to now make sense if a fighter isn't visible to itself, that speaks volumes about how to interpret the internal rules for the FEC abilities. Now, there is no inconsistency in reading both rules to read as though a fighter isn't visible to itself - BUT - if we read that a fighter is visible to itself, The Royal Hunt still makes no sense. Since one of possible 2 interpretations can be read to have no internal inconsistencies, that is, in my estimation, the appropriate interpretation.

Before hero units there were 2 incompatible readings of those abilities. The haunter had an ability he could never use if you read visibility to not include oneself, and the Royal Hunt ability had an ability which contained a contingent clause that was never actually contingent if you read visibility to include oneself. In that scenario, neither interpretation was wholly accurate because there were counteracting inconsistencies. My primary point is that now with the GA books, both abilities function if you read visibility to not include oneself, while the opposite reading results in the same inconsistency as before with Royal Hunt, a contingent clause that is never actually contingent. Since there is a single interpretation that no longer results in the counteracting inconsistencies, that must be the correct interpretation based on the rules we have written before us.

If they wanted Chosen of the King to trigger for the Haunter on himself, they could have just said "friendly fighter" and left out visibility. 

So lets take a look at the root visibility issues, and in this case the category in which the rule is stated matters. Visibility is directly on point on page 35 as you mentioned and its listed category is VISIBILITY, it states:

"Many rules in Warcry require one fighter (usually the target of an attack action or ability) to be visible to another fighter (usually the fighter making the attack action or using the ability). One fighter is said to be visible to another fighter if a direct line could be drawn between the two fighters without passing through a terrain feature or another fighter."

The word "another" is inherently present in the description of visibility. The point you mention about other fighters contained further into page 35 is under the category FRIENDLY AND ENEMY FIGHTERS, it states:

"If a rule for an action or ability performed by a fighter refers to ‘other friendly fighters’, it means fighters from that fighter’s warband, excluding itself."

There are a few problems in interpreting this particular statement as affecting visibility. First, the category with which this statement is listed under is dealing with identifying friendly versus hostile fighters - it has nothing to do in the slightest with visibility. Secondly, and arguably more importantly, it refers to a specific statement, "other friendly fighters", and defines what the does and does not include. That statement, "other friendly fighters", is not contained in either Royal Hunt or Chosen of the King, therefore it has zero relevance on those abilities and provides no context for the issue of visibility. There is no sound, logical reading of that statement which would then allow an inference that they would have said "other" to exclude itself, especially the visibility description that proceeded it on that page, which inherently contains the words "another fighter". 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...