Arcane Assassin Clarification

[Sansker]

Hello everybody,

in thread about Garryth a question concerning the ability "arcane assassin" was raised.

Does arcane assassin also work against spells like Sorschas "Fog of War"? So that models with the arcane assassins ability can negate the DEF bonus through concealment?

The question arises from the wording of arcane assassin: " When making attacks ignore [....] spell effects adding to its ARM or DEF".

Thank your for your answers.

Regards
S.

[Spike0011]

No, models still gain concealment because:

Arcane assassin ignores spells that add ARM or DEF (exp. defender's ward, Blood of kings, Inviolable Resolve, etc.)

Spells like Fog of War grant concealment, and the concealment grants the +2 DEF against shooting. Fog of War is not granting +2 DEF against shooting, concealment is.

[Sansker]

@Spike0011:

That was my initial thought, too. But then i reread the rule and it states, as quoted above:

"ignore[...]spell effects adding to ARM or DEF"

And if i am not totally wrong, concealment is an effect from Sorschas spell "Fog of War".

This is the reason i am asking. If the rule was worded as you said, there would be no question

Regards
S.

[whats82]

Well, in Mk1, blessed weapons ignore even cover provided by Gorten's stone wall, so I'm leaning toward that arcane assassin ignore fog of war as well.

[Sansker]

@whats82:
That´s the way I see the rule at the moment too, but perhaps a helpful infernal could clear this issue

Because sadly, mkII "arcane assassin" is not mkI "blessed" , even if the wording is similar.

Regards
S.

[Spike0011]

@ Sansker:

I see your point, but another way to look at it is that the spell's effect is concealment not the +2 DEF.

So the question now is: Is the +2 DEF from concealment considered part of the spell's effect or is it just there because concealment just happens to be there.

@whats82

That's MKI, we don't talk about MKI anymore.

P.S. if you had just played Vyros, this would never have come up.

[Sansker]

@Spike0011:

I see your point, too
That is the reason for asking here.

But until a official answer i will play it like it only ignores direkt DEF and ARM buffs.


But as i am thinking about it, this questions affects one warcaster, one unit, and some solos, so it is quiet important
So it is very good I didn´t play Vyros


On Topic:
Is there really a distinction between concealment and the +2 DEF it grants? I always thought it was an effect, which resultet in giving +2 DEF...

S.

[Killionaire]

It does not directly add +ARM or +DEF. It instead grants concealment. That's it. So not an issue, nothing is ignored by arcane assassin, because ARM and DEF has not been flatly said to have increased.

While concealment happens to increase DEF, that's not the point.

[Spike0011]

@ Sansker:

Now if blessed/arcane assassin ignores the concealment effect, then if a model ignores forests, it ignores the concealment from the forest. I can't think if a model that does that but there may be one.

Edit: eSever's Awareness. It says you ignore forests but not concealment. By your prepossessed theory, awareness would disallow the concealment from forests.

Concealment (below): A model with concealment in
relation to its attacker gains +2 DEF against ranged and
magic attack rolls.

Page 27 of the Hordes rule PDF

Now it says here concealment grants the +2 Def, not the spell.

[Sansker]

@Killionaire:

You are right, the spell(Fog of War) doesn´t increase ARM or DEF directly. But an effect of that spell does this, as concealment is an effect of that spell and concealment grants the +2 DEF vs ranged attacks and spells.

I hope i could make my opinion clear.


@Spike0011:
Although that rule quote is quite helpfull in understanding how concealment works and is worded itself, i don´t see it as really helpfull for this question.

Because concealment is an effect of a spell (Fog of War) and the effect of concealment is granting +2 DEF vs ranged attacks and spells.


@all:
My problem is the "spell effects" part, nothing else.
And to be understood correctly, i don´t want to abuse a rule or something like that.
I just want a official clarification for this rule and to what arcane assassin can be applied. Nothing more.

Nethertheless, thank you for your answers and replies, even if i can´t accept them at the moment.

Regards
S.

[Spike0011]

@sansker:

yea the quote is lame but I wanted something to back me up.

I still want to address the point of Awareness. Awareness states that models ignore forests for LoS. Now, by your theory of arcane assassin, Awareness ignores the concealment granted from forests. What's your though on that?

P.S. I'm not arguing to win or anything, I'm arguing because at some point, an Infernal will say: "look at that, a rule forum tread with 30 posts, I should look at that"

[Mutton]

Guys, this is a valid question that you have to wait for an Infernal to answer; stop clogging it up and wait for one. He has a point about Blessed and how this works. And Awareness only disregards forests for LOS; you can often see a model in a forest and they still get concealment

[dicegod]

Based on a previous ruling that Garryth ignores Fox Hole with his hand cannons off the top of my head - I say yes, Arcane Assassin ignores Fog of War.

[ar2]

Taking a look at other similar rulings it seems that yes, arcane assassin would indeed ingnore bonuses from spells such as Fog of War, but could we please, get a ruling from an Infernal on this?

[Banjulhu]

Have we had any clarification on this yet. I have a bunch of spell dodging Ret units that wish to hurt enemies hiding in cover they make for themselves using magic.

[Maudlin]

Just a little more patience, guys, it has been discussed but we're waiting for a ruling. I'm sure you can appreciate the rule people at PPS have a lot on their plate these days.

[Banjulhu]

Not a problem. The whole fieldtest a new set of rules is generally more important to a minor implication of a rule used by about 4 units in the entirety of the game in total. In the end its pointless having a single rule clarrified when the things it will be interacting with are not working as they should.

[Sansker]

@Maudlin:
Thank you for the response, that shows someone is working on it
And i think everyone understands, that at the moment there are other more important issues to be solved.

So again thank you.

Regards
S.

[Maudlin]

Answer is: Regardless of how a model gains Concealment or Cover, the DEF bonuses are granted by the core rules on Concealment/Cover. Arcane Assassin does not ignore them.

In general, if a spell creates an effect (terrain, cloud, etc.) and the core game rules for that item then grant a bonus to ARM or DEF, then Arcane Assassin / Blessed does not ignore those things.

That's pretty much limited to Concealment/Cover in practice, but it could happen that eg. a scenario grants a similar bonus.

[Sansker]

@Maudlin:

Not what i wanted to hear , but really thank you for that clarification.
At least i don´t have to change how i played the rule, doing it right.

Thank you.

Regards
S.

[whats82]

Awesome, thanks !

[zee]

Cool.
Ok so just to clarify, Arcane Assassin does not ignore the benefits granted by foxhole either, because foxhole grants cover to those in the area.

makes sense...

[Warhawk]

No its completely nonsense. The effect concealment is created by a spell so I think arcane assassin should ignore it.

[Techcasualty]

and i disagree with you. In my opinion arcane assassin is like shooting 'magic piercing bolts'. The ammunition ignores 'magic shields' and 'magic deflection' however, a cloud is a cloud. If the cloud came from nature or a person doesn't really matter. You can't see through a cloud. It's going to be hard to hit

[Defenstrator]

Ok so just to clarify, Arcane Assassin does not ignore the benefits granted by foxhole either, because foxhole grants cover to those in the area.

Under this ruling this would be correct. Another reason why Siege is the man.

[Warhawk]

@Techcasualty: Fluff ain`t rules. And the wording of arcane assassin is that it ignores spell effects adding to a models Arm or DEF. Camouflage in case of Sorschas Fog of War is an effect created by a spell adding to the models DEF and should be ignored by arcane assassin.

[thecsharian]

@Techcasualty: Fluff ain`t rules. And the wording of arcane assassin is that it ignores spell effects adding to a models Arm or DEF. Camouflage in case of Sorschas Fog of War is an effect created by a spell adding to the models DEF and should be ignored by arcane assassin.

Unfortunately the infernal ruling disagrees with you.

...dreams != rules.

[Zaqir]

@Techcasualty: Fluff ain`t rules. And the wording of arcane assassin is that it ignores spell effects adding to a models Arm or DEF. Camouflage in case of Sorschas Fog of War is an effect created by a spell adding to the models DEF and should be ignored by arcane assassin.

No offense but not only has an Infernal commented on this but it is a very cut and dry situation.

Arcane assassin would not work if you hit behind a bush or a forest for instance.

If a spell made a forest or a cloud etc, it would be the same thing, it blurs the vision for all intensive purposes.

If you took the time to think for a second it makes perfect sense. It is not a spell on a purson, it is a spell that a person created and then used to hid behind something.

It is not so much a magical/physical shield that the bullet goes through.


The spell doesn't add DEF or ARM, it creates a situation that creates concealment, Arcane assassin doesn't ignore concealment, part of the rules of concealment are that it provides def but not directly.


The terms used above are the simplest examples that can be used. You are so adamant on your point of you but honestly, let it go it just isn't worth it for something so straight forward.

[Warhawk]

Hey in my opinion it complicates a clear wording ok?! And even in the past the Infernals have made decisions,thougt them over and then altered them. Even Infernals are humans .

[Macallan]

We don't make decisions.

[Warhawk]

So in my opinion in WM/Hordes everything is about wording, not intention not wishing. Arcane assassin states :" Ignores spell effects adding to DEF or ARM" . It does not state :" Ignores spell effects that directly add to DEF or ARM".
In case of Sorschas FOG of WAR concealment is an effect that is created by a spell and it adds to the DEF. If you go after the wording arcane assassin should ignore it. If the Intention of arcane assassin was not to ignore concealment or cover it should be in the wording.
In my opinion there has to be an errata.
Don`t want to offend anyone but thats how I see it.

[whats82]

Here's the distinction between direct effects and indirect effects. Fog of war does not say +2 def vs. range and magic, it says concealment.

Lots of other games make the distinction between direct and indirect effects. (for example, in DnD, spell resistance does not apply against summoned creatures or a conjured rock falling on you, both are 'caused' by spells)

[fredster]

In my opinion there has to be an errata.

Which will have to wait, there has been an Infernal ruling which allows the game to play. Someone is always going to be disappointed when a ruling is made but thems the breaks to prevent semantics clogging up the game.

[Zaqir]

So in my opinion in WM/Hordes everything is about wording, not intention not wishing. Arcane assassin states :" Ignores spell effects adding to DEF or ARM" . It does not state :" Ignores spell effects that directly add to DEF or ARM".
In case of Sorschas FOG of WAR concealment is an effect that is created by a spell and it adds to the DEF. If you go after the wording arcane assassin should ignore it. If the Intention of arcane assassin was not to ignore concealment or cover it should be in the wording.
In my opinion there has to be an errata.
Don`t want to offend anyone but thats how I see it.

You keep trying to argue the same damn point but it is the same answer, dude give it up.

[Warhawk]

I am not argueing, I only want to show, that this ruling isn`t conform to the wording ok?!

[greenlock]

But it does conform if read strictly. Arcane assassin doesn't ignore spelleffects that give concealment because they do not give plus to defense. They give concealment. Concealment in turn gives plus to defense. Concealment isn't the same as a defensebuff. If it was it could just say +2 def against ranged and magic attacks everywhere it says concealment.

[Zaqir]

I am not argueing, I only want to show, that this ruling isn`t conform to the wording ok?!

You are sadly, every example you use is clear cut not a +DEF or +ARM, every example is of another spell effect that also confers some sort of buff albeit indirectly which Arcane Assassin does not deal with.

To put it simply Arcane Assassin works on DIRECTLY applied +Def and ARM, not indirect, and concealment and cover are indirect that is all there is to it really.

[Weaselcreature]

Concealment is the effect of the spell, +2 DEF is the effect of concealment. Arcane Assassin does not ignore effects of effects.

[Wishing]

Warhawk would argue that effects of effects are still caused by the original spell, and Arcane Assassin therefore does ignore effects of effects.

Personally I agree that the rule can be read either way - hence the previous ruling that was the opposite of the current ruling - but I find the new ruling to be more intuitive so I am happy.

[Warhawk]

You are sadly, every example you use is clear cut not a +DEF or +ARM, every example is of another spell effect that also confers some sort of buff albeit indirectly which Arcane Assassin does not deal with.

To put it simply Arcane Assassin works on DIRECTLY applied +Def and ARM, not indirect, and concealment and cover are indirect that is all there is to it really.

Then the wording of arcane assassin should feature the word/term " directly".
@Wishing: That`s exactly how I see it.