PDA

View Full Version : "Target model loses [ability]" versus "Target model gains [ability]"



Leonard_Dukes
06-08-2015, 12:55 PM
This question came up several months ago (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?212764-Aurora-s-Bladed-Gale-spell-vs-Absylonia2-s-Feat) and was never firmly settled one way or the other.

Does a spell/effect/ability that states that an affected model "loses [some ability] for one round" also prevent that model from regaining that ability from some other means during that round?

The example in the linked thread was Bladed Gale versus Metamorphosis/Glider:


Bladed Gale - Models hit lose Flight for one round.


Glider - This model gains Flight. Glider lasts for one turn.

By way of counterexample, consider the wording of the spell Marked for Death:


Marked for Death - Target enemy model/unit suffers -2 DEF and loses Incorporeal and Stealth and cannot gain those abilities while affected by Marked for Death. Friendly faction models can target an affected model regardless of LOS.

It seems that the bolded portion would be redundant if "loses Incorporeal and Stealth" alone were sufficient to prevent the model from gaining those abilities while affected by Marked for Death.

SageofLodoss
06-08-2015, 01:11 PM
The important thing here is duration. Any ability that forces a model to 'lose' something for one round or while in an area (Baldur1's feat) would essentially trump 'gain' by causing them to lose it again.

Marked for Death doesn't specify a duration because it is an upkeep. Thus, it is important to re-word it to include the no-gaining as an ongoing effect of the game that could potentially be until the end.

Leonard_Dukes
06-08-2015, 01:37 PM
The important thing here is duration. Any ability that forces a model to 'lose' something for one round or while in an area (Baldur1's feat) would essentially trump 'gain' by causing them to lose it again.

As mentioned in the original thread, pBaldur's feat is a little different, as it says "While in Baldur's control area, enemy models never have Pathfinder" which is distinct from "enemy models lose Pathfinder".

Supposing that what you say is correct, though, would that mean that casting Glider first would prevent Bladed Gale from taking effect? Unlike "cannot vs. can" or "specific versus general" there doesn't seem to be any precedent in the core rules that says "losing an ability trumps gaining one" or vice-versa.



Marked for Death doesn't specify a duration because it is an upkeep. Thus, it is important to re-word it to include the no-gaining as an ongoing effect of the game that could potentially be until the end.

Specifying a duration for an upkeep spell, such as Marked for Death, still seems redundant for me as the duration is implied by the fact that it is an upkeep spell. The duration is however long the spell is in play for (until it is not upkept or otherwise removed).

lord17c
06-08-2015, 02:06 PM
Using the Cannot vs can thing. I'd have to go with that you can not gain flight, as the spell says for one round, it can not be countered by something for a turn. The main thing that I am thinking here, is that the other examples, kriel stone, marked for death, etc, have something that says while within or can not gain them. Doing that something lasts for a round I'd have to go with its more powerful then for the turn.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Leonard_Dukes
06-08-2015, 02:21 PM
Using the Cannot vs can thing.

That's sort of the crux of the issue: whether "model loses [X]" is equivalent to "model cannot gain [X]". If it is, then problem solved. If it is not, then "cannot vs can" doesn't apply and we've got to use some other logic to suss out an answer.

SeoNN
06-08-2015, 06:41 PM
That's sort of the crux of the issue: whether "model loses [X]" is equivalent to "model cannot gain [X]". If it is, then problem solved. If it is not, then "cannot vs can" doesn't apply and we've got to use some other logic to suss out an answer.

I think it's a bit deeper. "Model loses [x]" means " model cannot do [y], where [y] is that what model can do, if only it has [x] spesial rule"

solkan
06-08-2015, 08:21 PM
It's "loses stealth" vs. "gains stealth" all over again.

The problem with the "cannot gain" wording is that if it isn't redundant, then there's going to be either a nightmare process of figuring out the order in which to apply gaining and losing effects (since several of them are area effects), or there's going to be several new errata entries in a few weeks to sort everything out.

I still think it's more likely that it's:

gain = has (for the duration, if specified)
lose = does not have (for the duration, if specified)

and that "cannot gain" is a freak redundancy that just happened to read well.

But I don't have the digital copies of the rulebooks yet to make a search for all of the instances of "cannot gain" feasible. :(

Leonard_Dukes
06-08-2015, 08:35 PM
It's "loses stealth" vs. "gains stealth" all over again.

Was that ever definitively resolved? I can't find anything in the Rules Questions forum about it.



I still think it's more likely that it's:

gain = has (for the duration, if specified)
lose = does not have (for the duration, if specified)


But then, as you said - in what order to we apply these, if there's no clause in one effect or the other that doesn't specifically prevent its opposite?


But I don't have the digital copies of the rulebooks yet to make a search for all of the instances of "cannot gain" feasible.

Yeah, we ran into this on the last go-around as well, and "Marked for Death" was the only example I could find, using the "thumb the pages" method. The search continues.

Larnu
06-09-2015, 03:18 AM
My personal opinion on the matter is a timing thing, and that if you grant a model a rule, after it loses it, it does gain it (provided that the preceding lose does not state that the model cannot gain it).

I know real life mechanics don't really apply to WarmaHordes, but if you misplace(lose) your keys and you borrow(gain) a set, you don't immediately misplace the new set until you find your own. I feel like the same applies here. You lost flight, but then something else gave you it. The flight rule you had originally is gone for the moment, but you have a new one at your disposal.

Also, I hate to add to the question, but what if a model doesn't have the rule to lose, but then gains it from another means in the same/next turn? For example, a Shredder is hit by Bladed Gale and "loses" Flight for one round. Absylonia 2 then feats, granting it flight. It didn't lose flight, so does it gain it? In my comments above I would say it does, but if your opinion is on the other side of the fence, does your opinion change for this scenario?

ScottMcd
06-09-2015, 05:54 PM
I also think its a timing issue. A model has flight natively and is hit by bladed gale. If the 1 round clause wasn't there, it would never regain its native flight.

After this, but before the round is complete, the model gains flight through a spell or other effect. It now has flight, and when the original round is complete, it will regain native flight.

Next, still within the original round, the model that lost flight because of bladed gale and then gained it froma spell or effect activates within the command range of a model that cast Winter Storm the turn before. The model will lose the flight from the spell (the native flight is still gone) during its activation and regain it after its activation.

At the end of that turn the round is over and it will have its native flight back (as well as retaining the flight from the spell for its duration.)

Those are my thoughts anyway.

DarkLegacy
06-10-2015, 05:58 AM
Checking...

Macallan
08-08-2015, 11:12 AM
You can regain the ability if the ability that causes you to lose the ability doesn't specify. For example, if a unit is hit by Radiance (Revelator's Light Bringer gun) causing it to lose Camouflage and Stealth for one round, if the model has Occultation cast upon it, it will regain Stealth.

thegreatexperiment
08-08-2015, 01:39 PM
You can regain the ability if the ability that causes you to lose the ability doesn't specify. For example, if a unit is hit by Radiance (Revelator's Light Bringer gun) causing it to lose Camouflage and Stealth for one round, if the model has Occultation cast upon it, it will regain Stealth.

Just to clarify, does Occultation need to be cast after the Revelator's Radiance hits? Or can I precast Occultation on a unit that naturally has Stealth and effectively have it protected against Stealth removal?

If the former is the case, does upkeeping the spell effectively count as refreshing the spell, or do I need to let Occultation drop and recast it to regain Stealth during my turn?

DarkLegacy
08-08-2015, 01:40 PM
Just to clarify, does Occultation need to be cast after the Revelator's Radiance hits? Or can I precast Occultation on a unit that naturally has Stealth and effectively have it protected against Stealth removal?
If it has Stealth and is hit by Radiance, it loses it. It needs to be recast to gain it back.

Leonard_Dukes
08-08-2015, 02:01 PM
Thanks for the follow-up.

Shyalas
08-08-2015, 04:38 PM
If it has Stealth and is hit by Radiance, it loses it. It needs to be recast to gain it back.

Just to be absolutely clear, it needs to be recast to gain it back that round, correct? The upkeep stays, it just stops providing any actual effect until it's upkept the next round?

Larnu
08-08-2015, 11:32 PM
Just to be absolutely clear, it needs to be recast to gain it back that round, correct? The upkeep stays, it just stops providing any actual effect until it's upkept the next round?

The spell that was cast last has precedence, from the wording Macallen and DL have used. If you upkeep something, it won't override a spell that was cast prior. So, for example, a unit that has Pathfinder has an upkeep spell custo on them so that they lose it. In the next turn, an upkeep spell is cast on them which gives them Pathfinder, so they have it again. If in the next turn the original spell is upkept (as a round has passed) nothing will happen, effectively. You're not making the unit lose Pathfinder again, as there has been another spell cast afterwards that overuled it. You would need to let the spell expire, and then recast it on the unit, to make them lose Pathfinder

Make sense?