PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Kommandant Irusk feat question



Sand20go
01-11-2015, 12:10 PM
This isn't clear so it needs a ruling (and no, doesn't probably need debate prior to a purple post)


"Desperate Ground

Friendly faction models currently in Irusk's control area ignore cloud effects and forests when determining LOS and gain pathfinder. Affected models currently knocked down immediately stand up. Enemy models........"

Who gets to stand up? Just Friendly faction? Friendly models? All models (both friendly and enemy)? Not clear. Most of the time, sentences in WM/Hs are meant to be read seperately. In this case no modifying adjective before models in the second sentance and the verb would seem to imply those in the bubble.

baldrik78
01-11-2015, 12:19 PM
Friendly Faction models stand up. They are what is being affected.

Sand20go
01-11-2015, 12:21 PM
Friendly Faction models stand up. They are what is being affected.

Why is it not all models being affected by the feat?

baldrik78
01-11-2015, 12:30 PM
Affected models is referencing the Friendly Faction in the first sentence. It's the only statement thus far referencing which models will be affected by the feat.

It specifies in a later sentence who is affected by the rest of the feat.

Hai-pe-neki
01-11-2015, 12:31 PM
The first line tells you what models are affected, and then gives you a first effect. Then it adds another effect, but this doesn't change the first words, defining the affected models.

Only AFTER it has made FF models stand up, the feat introduces another effect, affecting a different group of models (enemies).

Sand20go
01-11-2015, 12:33 PM
Affected models is referencing the Friendly Faction in the first sentence. It's the only statement thus far referencing which models will be affected by the feat.

It specifies in a later sentence who is affected by the rest of the feat.

Then it should be rewritten this way which is clearer.

"Friendly faction models currently in Irusk's control area ignore cloud effects and forests when determining LOS, gain pathfinder, and if knocked down, immediately stand up.



But now that I look at the rule set if you DON"T read affected this way (implicitly referencing the objects in the prior sentence) you get all sorts of weird interactions. I stopped at Menoth. Has PP been consistent in other places they use this construction?

Sgt.Sunshine
01-11-2015, 01:23 PM
That structure of the sentence you proposed makes less sense. It implies that if I run a model and gets knocked down, but makes a tough roll he immediately stands up. That, however, is not the intention of the feat. The current wording is quite clear. Affected is not ambiguous terminology because it's not the only sentence in the paragraph. If it was the first line then I would agree with you, but this is not the case. Instead it comes after detailing who the feat actually benefits, friendly faction models.

Feats don't have a blanket affect on every model in range. They explicitly state who benefits from them in their first line of text and that is to make wording such as 'affected' have a reference point. In the case of eIrusk's feat the reference point for 'affected' in the second sentence is in the first. The order of the sentences dictates as much. It's true that sentences in WM/H are largely meant to be read independently, but in those cases the sentences do not refer to one another.

The purpose of splitting the two up is because the first sentence is a constant benefit to the affected models, friendly faction models, and the second is a one time pulse effect where models immediately stand up.

This is my take on it anyways.

Sand20go
01-11-2015, 01:31 PM
That structure of the sentence you proposed makes less sense. It implies that if I run a model and gets knocked down, but makes a tough roll he immediately stands up. That, however, is not the intention of the feat. The current wording is quite clear. Affected is not ambiguous terminology because it's not the only sentence in the paragraph. If it was the first line then I would agree with you, but this is not the case. Instead it comes after detailing who the feat actually benefits, friendly faction models.

Feats don't have a blanket affect on every model in range. They explicitly state who benefits from them in their first line of text and that is to make wording such as 'affected' have a reference point. In the case of eIrusk's feat the reference point for 'affected' in the second sentence is in the first. The order of the sentences dictates as much. It's true that sentences in WM/H are largely meant to be read independently, but in those cases the sentences do not refer to one another.

The purpose of splitting the two up is because the first sentence is a constant benefit to the affected models, friendly faction models, and the second is a one time pulse effect where models immediately stand up.

This is my take on it anyways.

Yeah. And just an aside - PP has been moving away from the use of the word "affected" in most feats. I think I found 4-5 other instances among other war nouns. Only 1 other is open to weird interpretation. The others (for instance pVayl, offers up a clarifying phrase to ensure we know it is the models benefiting from the extra movement stuff in the feat which are immune to free strikes.)