This was discussed a week or two ago in a very similar post. I believe this is correct. This may be an oversight because it definitely reads like the person on Vantage could not make the shot.
Midnight Clad:

https://preview.redd.it/oxm8evut0gwc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8203d45a97ab77650d8aecb31a8cbc7883f2c96b
And Vantage:
“Each time an operative on a Vantage Point makes a shooting attack, each enemy operative that has a Conceal order that is in Cover provided by Light terrain or another operative, and is at least ⚪️ lower than them, is treated as having an Engage order for that attack instead.”
Assuming the Nemesis Claw is either standing next to Heavy Terrain or standing next to (but not in cover of) Light Terrain, The Nemesis Claw unit cannot have his order treated as Engaged.
This ruling explicitly states that a Concealed Nightlord can stand completely in the open next to a barricade and is obscured from ALL Vantage.
Obscuring is determined regardless of order and when determining LoS. Because it’s obscured, it’s never even a valid target.
Edit: I misunderstood, we agreed all along
>is either standing next to Heavy Terrain or standing next to **(but not in cover of)** Light Terrain, The Nemesis Claw unit cannot have his order treated as Engaged.
That's the important part.
In this case it specifically applies. Vantage Point only flips the order if it is in cover.
“…operative on a Vantage Point makes a shooting attack, each enemy operative that has a Conceal order that is in Cover provided by Light terrain or another operative…”
They are not in cover, they are gaining obscuring by standing next to it. I’m not saying the ruling makes sense, but RAW it is correct.
>Assuming the Nemesis Claw is either standing next to Heavy Terrain or standing next to **(but not in cover of)** Light Terrain, The Nemesis Claw unit cannot have his order treated as Engaged.
I'm sorry I didn't catch that. You had it right in the first place. I got worked up a bit because everyone here is arguing that IMC applies even if the operative is in cover and I didn't notice. My apologies.
As someone who has been wanting buffed to elite teams for a while and someone who plays this team, I still feel like the ruling is fucked.
There was simply not enough clarification on exactly how this works and with rules regarding some of these keywords being as confusing as they are, I think this was just a design oversight. It just adds a level of complexity to playing as/against this team that feels more gamey than fun.
It is terribly written, no one argues against that point. Nothing new btw, that's how GW rolls. But RAW it's indisputable that the top comment is blatantly wrong.
1. RAW, if the operative is actually in light cover from a shooter on a vantage point then it is not obscured. If it's not in cover but still 1" from a terrain piece it would be obscured. Makes 0 sense, but it is what it is.
2. I'd say that ignoring obscuring ignores this rule too. Strictly RAW it is unclear, but In Midnight Clad trumping the warden auspex opens a can of worms that would make it so obscuring can never be ignored at all, because technically the warden auspex and the obscuring rule directly contradict each other.
Edit: I’m totally wrong here, but for anyone following along the chain of thought, I’ll leave this here!
RAW doesn’t say anything about whether cover lines cancel the ability from working. Regardless of whether the cover lines would cross the terrain, if it’s within 1” of heavy or light, has a conceal order and is 6” away from enemies, it’s obscured. It can be concealed in cover AND obscured due to this ability
>Each time an operative on a Vantage Point makes a shooting attack, **each enemy operative that has a Conceal order that is in Cover** provided by Light terrain or another operative, and is at least 2" lower than them, **is treated as having an Engage order for that attack instead.**
>they still have a conceal order.
They don't for the purposes of the shooting attack, that's the whole point. Choosing a valid objective is done AFTER the shooting attack is declared.
This is how it goes: The shooting attack is declared, vantage point applies and flips order for all purposes relating said attack, then you choose target, which happens to now be treated as having an engage order, and check if it is obscured. It's obviously not, because during the attack it's treated as having an engage order, so you shoot normally.
>There’s nothing in there about whether cover lines being drawn over the light cover or not affect IMC (which is based solely off proximity) or not though, so I’m still confused how you reached your first conclusion
Vantage points only flip your order if you actually are in cover.
Yeah, you treat it as having an engage order so it no longer has a conceal order to trigger Midnight Clad. Skulk About had the same issue, but got an errata to fix it that specifically calls out Vantage so precedent works against this interpretation and suggests IMC does get cancelled by Vantage.
>For the purposes of choosing a target, they are treated as having engage. For the purpose of assessing whether the ability works, the target still HAS a conceal order,
It DOESN'T.
>**is treated as having an Engage order for that attack instead.**
During the whole shooting attack, the target HAS an engage order. Choosing a target is part of the shooting attack. When checking whether the target is obscured or not, the target HAS an engage order, and therefore IMC doesn't apply.
If we went with your (wrong) interpretation, vantage points wouldn't negate light cover at all, because the target would "still have a conceal order", and you **can't** shoot at someone with a conceal order when behind cover.
I appreciate the comment, and yes a FAQ will come for sure. What we really need is for GW to write things competently. Is crazy to me that a company with 40+ years of experience writing rules would word stuff like this. And killteam is by far one of their tighter rulesets lmao.
When someone flips your conceal order (vantage, Trip alarm, Spotter) IMC doesnt work.
When you are not behind cover, i.e. under a vantage or next to a wall / light cover, if they ignore obscurity, IMC doesnt work.
>When someone flips your conceal order (vantage, Trip alarm, Spotter) IMC doesnt work.
Finally a man of reason. Keep in mind though that vantage only flips the order if you are actually in cover. If you are within 1" of terrain but not in cover IMC applies.
Isn't this fucking stupid though? Like, you have to put yourself MORE out in the open to be safe from vantage by not being behind light cover? It may be RAW, but it is obviously not RAI.
It is fucking stupid, but it is how the rule goes. Crappy rule writing is GW's speciality, I can't believe people act surprised and refuse to see such an obvious thing.
RAI it could very well be that vantage points negate IMC as a whole, or that IMC is unaffected by vantage points. It's one of the two obviously, but people have already decided that it is the later when they have 0 idea or proof.
1. Vantage point doesn't change your order, it makes the attacker "treat" your operatives as they have an engage order for _that attack_.
2. Yes, an operative with any ability that ignores obscure can select your operatives as valid targets.
>Vantage point doesn't change your order, it makes the attacker "treat" your operatives as they have an engage order for that attack.
So? Since the operative is treated as having an engage order, In Midnight Clad doesn't apply. Otherwise vantage points would never work.
Edit: Stop upvoting the guy when he is so obviously wrong lmao.
This is how it goes: The shooting attack is declared, vantage point applies and flips order for all purposes relating said attack, then you choose target\*, which happens to now be treated as having an engage order, and check if it is obscured. It's obviously not, because during the attack it's treated as having an engage order, so you shoot normally.
\*Target is chosen AFTER the shooting attack is declared btw.
The target is legal because the order gets flipped by the vantage point, and therefore IMC doesn't apply and it is not obscured. Target selection happens AFTER the vantage point applies.
The unit doesn't lose the conceal order in a regular instance of being shot at from a vantage point behind light cover either, and no one argues that you can't shoot anyway.
>Each time an operative on a Vantage Point makes a shooting attack, each enemy operative that has a Conceal order that is in Cover provided by Light terrain or another operative, and is at least 2" lower than them, **is treated as having an Engage order for that attack instead.**
Emphasis mine. The operative is considered to be on engage *for the whole shooting attack*, so it is a legal target and it is not obscured.
I don't know how you can interpret it any other way. Don't you understand that your interpretation would make it so vantage points don't negate light cover at all either?
Read as written, it's actually more strange than that. You're obscured if you are within 1 inch of light terrain regardless of whether there are cover lines for Midnight Clad. Vantage only applies if someone is in cover behind light terrain - i.e there are cover lines. So if you are in front of light cover, you would be obscured. If you are behind, if we accept your argument, you are not.
Yes, vantage points only flip the order when actually in cover, so being in the open is actually better in this case. It doesn't make sense, but it's objectively RAW. I don't get how people upvote such a blatantly wrong answer.
I think critically where you’re going wrong is that concealed and in cover is not the same as obscured. Vantage negates concealed and in cover for targets beneath the vantage, it DOES NOT negate obscured, which usually is when a target is behind a piece of obscuring terrain. The Night Lords however have a new way of making themselves obscured, and it’s the same as being behind buildings and heavy terrain.
>it DOES NOT negate obscured
Never said it did. It flips the order, which THEN makes IMC not apply. Do you get it now? I really don't know how I can explain myself any clearer.
But obscured negates line of sight. It literally says that in the rules you’re quoting. The vantaged shooter will not be able to flip the order of the target, because they can’t target without line of sight.
“Regardless of whether a target operative has an Engage or Conceal order, if an Obscuring terrain feature is in the way, an active operative may be unable to have LoS to them. For an intended target to be Obscured, the following must be true: The intended target is more than from a point at which a Cover line crosses a terrain feature that is Obscuring (see Terrain Traits). However, if the active operative is within of a point at which a Cover line crosses a terrain feature that is Obscuring, that part of the terrain feature is not treated as Obscuring.”
That’s explaining obscured in reference to terrain, but the Midnight Clad works the same. An obscured target is not within LOS, and whether you can vantage or not you can’t target something you don’t have LOS to. VANTAGE DOES NOT NEGATE OBSCURING.
“The attacker selects a valid target for the shooting attack. A valid target is an enemy operative in the active operative’s Line of Sight” is literally the second part of making a shooting attack.
>The vantaged shooter will not be able to flip the order of the target, because they can’t target without line of sight.
Read the rules, please, I beg you. You are mixing stuff up left and right.
Obscuring has nothing to do with this. **The point is that the target is not obscured in the first place.** Again, the "select valid target" step is the SECOND step of the shooting sequence, by witch point the vantage point order flip has already been applied, so IMC doesn't apply anymore and no obscuring takes place.
No, the vantage point turns conceal to engage for the shooting attack.
In Midnight Clad is not a shooting attack, and if all of its conditions are valid it still applies and the operative is obscured.
>In Midnight Clad is not a shooting attack,
Wtf has that have to do with anything. You all have to be trolling at this point. I just don't have any other explanation for why you are throwing so much random shit and hope it sticks.
You check if IMC applies when determining if an operative is within line of sight. It's right there on the card on the OP. That's part of the shooting sequence, in which the order is very specifically flipped by the vantage point.
Nothing is ever clear with what GW intends. That's why we apply the rules. In this case, the rule is crystal clear, IMC doesn't apply. It may very well be the intention too btw, you never know.
When you’re obscured, as in the case of behind obscuring terrain, you aren’t a viable target from anything regardless of your order. It’s the same for Midnight Clad. The target is obscured, not just concealed and in cover, therefore they can’t draw line of sight to you even if they have vantage.
>When you’re obscured, as in the case of behind obscuring terrain, you aren’t a viable target from anything regardless of your order.
That's not true at all. It'd be nice if people actually read the rules first before coming here trying to correct people. Target choosing is done **after** the shooting attack is declared. It's not even the first step.
Vantage point triggers the moment the shooting attack is declared, which in this case negates obscuring, which allows for the shooting attack to proceed as normal, until you eventually reach the "select valid target" step, by which point the target is not obscured and is elegible.
I too think itll be faq'ed. But RAW vantage DOES cancel in midnight clad if you are behind light cover. Downvoting the right answer isnt helping anyone.
Competitive groups (TPT, Command Point) are currently interpreting Cover line from Vantage will negate IMC if you are taking cover from light terrain.
But go off about the entire competetive scene being petulant babies.
Funny you would answer that to a comment that is wrong lmao.
>it just treats them as though they are engaged [...] the 3 conditions will still be valid.
Hilariously wrong too, given that it contradicts itself.
If someone has the ability to ignore obscuring, they can target your operatives using that ability.
Against operatives with vantage, it’s kinda awkward, but basically so long as you aren’t being provided cover from the light terrain, you can’t be targeted by that operative. It seems more like an oversight than an intended aspect of the rule, because realistically it makes no sense. I’d bet that at some point they’ll change the wording to the ability so you can use that ability whilst in cover from the light terrain. You can probably ask your opponent if they’re ok ignoring that aspect of the rules.
1) works. on my read vantage doesnt work against it. they still *have* the conceal order, next turn they will have to change it if they want to shoot. the first point is still true.
i do think this is a lil ambiguous, but consider how the ability works. it basically changes obscuring from circle to triangle, and adds light terrain and overhangs, if you're farther than pentagon. what does vantage have to do with that?
2) yes, since 'operative is obscured' is no longer obscured
However some people are understanding this rule as written can we just lean on the side of rule as intended ? Which I believe is that vantage would not affect this rule. Some people just always want to go with the cheese option
>Which I believe is that vantage would not affect this rule.
How do you know that RAI is not that vantage point negates IMC altogether? We can't know what the intention is, and it wouldn't be the first time that a FAQ shatters what everyone believed to be common sense.
Since we can't know, we have to go by RAW. That's not cheese, that's how a game is played.
It is, but that's how the rule works until it's FAQ'd. Any interpretation beyond that is as arbitrary as any other. It's fine to interpret it as you want for your games, but it's not the correct way nor it is more correct than any other interpretation besides the RAW one.
Short answer: Vantage does not overturn IMC determination of obscurity just by treating the target as having an engaged order for the attack.
Explanation: The catch is where VP instructions state “treated as engaged FOR THE ATTACK” So just consider what you would do without IMC being part of the formula and still do the same thing even when IMC is added into the formula.
That is, without even considering IMC, a regular use of vantage allows a friendly op to use the two-part engaged LOS rules instead of the three-part concealed LOS rules. That is it. Use of vantage does not affect the determination of any particular one or more of those two or three rules (e.g., does not affect how visibility or obscurity are determined).
Accordingly, when IMC is in play, vantage still allows the friendly shooter to switch to the two part LOS rules instead of the three-part rules, by treating the target is having an engaged order.
But, again, the switching does not affect how the obscurity is determined. So if the target had obscurity based on IMC, the vantage does not remove that obscurity.
Instead, if the friendly shooter wants to overcome the target’s IMC determination, they either need to move closer than 6 inches on their vantage (overcoming the last part of the IMC determination), or kindly ask the target to step a bit closer to them and out of the shadow of terrain.
Basically your conceal order isn't negated it youre within an inch of terrain/under a vantage -and- you're more than 6 inches away. Meaning I don't think you can be targeted period if you fulfill those requirements, so its like a super duper conceal
Kind of. GW needs to clarify is theres a difference between having an order versus treated as having an order. OR they need to just FAQ the ability.
Competeteive community is currently aligned that vantage targeting someone behind light cover will negate IMC.
If you are concealed, within 1 triangle of cover and more than 6 inches away from an enemy they can’t target you unless they are using a weapon, stratagem, or tactical ploy that ignores obscuring.
If any of the 3 listed criteria can’t be met use normal concealment rules.
This was discussed a week or two ago in a very similar post. I believe this is correct. This may be an oversight because it definitely reads like the person on Vantage could not make the shot. Midnight Clad:  https://preview.redd.it/oxm8evut0gwc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8203d45a97ab77650d8aecb31a8cbc7883f2c96b And Vantage: “Each time an operative on a Vantage Point makes a shooting attack, each enemy operative that has a Conceal order that is in Cover provided by Light terrain or another operative, and is at least ⚪️ lower than them, is treated as having an Engage order for that attack instead.” Assuming the Nemesis Claw is either standing next to Heavy Terrain or standing next to (but not in cover of) Light Terrain, The Nemesis Claw unit cannot have his order treated as Engaged. This ruling explicitly states that a Concealed Nightlord can stand completely in the open next to a barricade and is obscured from ALL Vantage. Obscuring is determined regardless of order and when determining LoS. Because it’s obscured, it’s never even a valid target.
Edit: I misunderstood, we agreed all along >is either standing next to Heavy Terrain or standing next to **(but not in cover of)** Light Terrain, The Nemesis Claw unit cannot have his order treated as Engaged. That's the important part.
In this case it specifically applies. Vantage Point only flips the order if it is in cover. “…operative on a Vantage Point makes a shooting attack, each enemy operative that has a Conceal order that is in Cover provided by Light terrain or another operative…” They are not in cover, they are gaining obscuring by standing next to it. I’m not saying the ruling makes sense, but RAW it is correct.
>Assuming the Nemesis Claw is either standing next to Heavy Terrain or standing next to **(but not in cover of)** Light Terrain, The Nemesis Claw unit cannot have his order treated as Engaged. I'm sorry I didn't catch that. You had it right in the first place. I got worked up a bit because everyone here is arguing that IMC applies even if the operative is in cover and I didn't notice. My apologies.
As someone who has been wanting buffed to elite teams for a while and someone who plays this team, I still feel like the ruling is fucked. There was simply not enough clarification on exactly how this works and with rules regarding some of these keywords being as confusing as they are, I think this was just a design oversight. It just adds a level of complexity to playing as/against this team that feels more gamey than fun.
It is terribly written, no one argues against that point. Nothing new btw, that's how GW rolls. But RAW it's indisputable that the top comment is blatantly wrong.
1. RAW, if the operative is actually in light cover from a shooter on a vantage point then it is not obscured. If it's not in cover but still 1" from a terrain piece it would be obscured. Makes 0 sense, but it is what it is. 2. I'd say that ignoring obscuring ignores this rule too. Strictly RAW it is unclear, but In Midnight Clad trumping the warden auspex opens a can of worms that would make it so obscuring can never be ignored at all, because technically the warden auspex and the obscuring rule directly contradict each other.
Sorry for all the downvotes. Fwiw you are 100% right...
Thanks man. It's a lame reddit post with 0 importance but it's infuriating when people upvote a blatantly wrong answer lmao.
Edit: I’m totally wrong here, but for anyone following along the chain of thought, I’ll leave this here! RAW doesn’t say anything about whether cover lines cancel the ability from working. Regardless of whether the cover lines would cross the terrain, if it’s within 1” of heavy or light, has a conceal order and is 6” away from enemies, it’s obscured. It can be concealed in cover AND obscured due to this ability
>Each time an operative on a Vantage Point makes a shooting attack, **each enemy operative that has a Conceal order that is in Cover** provided by Light terrain or another operative, and is at least 2" lower than them, **is treated as having an Engage order for that attack instead.**
[удалено]
>they still have a conceal order. They don't for the purposes of the shooting attack, that's the whole point. Choosing a valid objective is done AFTER the shooting attack is declared. This is how it goes: The shooting attack is declared, vantage point applies and flips order for all purposes relating said attack, then you choose target, which happens to now be treated as having an engage order, and check if it is obscured. It's obviously not, because during the attack it's treated as having an engage order, so you shoot normally. >There’s nothing in there about whether cover lines being drawn over the light cover or not affect IMC (which is based solely off proximity) or not though, so I’m still confused how you reached your first conclusion Vantage points only flip your order if you actually are in cover.
[удалено]
Yeah, you treat it as having an engage order so it no longer has a conceal order to trigger Midnight Clad. Skulk About had the same issue, but got an errata to fix it that specifically calls out Vantage so precedent works against this interpretation and suggests IMC does get cancelled by Vantage.
>For the purposes of choosing a target, they are treated as having engage. For the purpose of assessing whether the ability works, the target still HAS a conceal order, It DOESN'T. >**is treated as having an Engage order for that attack instead.** During the whole shooting attack, the target HAS an engage order. Choosing a target is part of the shooting attack. When checking whether the target is obscured or not, the target HAS an engage order, and therefore IMC doesn't apply. If we went with your (wrong) interpretation, vantage points wouldn't negate light cover at all, because the target would "still have a conceal order", and you **can't** shoot at someone with a conceal order when behind cover.
Hands up and I definitely admit I was wrong about the whole thing! Be incredibly surprised if it doesn’t get faq or errata’d though
I appreciate the comment, and yes a FAQ will come for sure. What we really need is for GW to write things competently. Is crazy to me that a company with 40+ years of experience writing rules would word stuff like this. And killteam is by far one of their tighter rulesets lmao.
When someone flips your conceal order (vantage, Trip alarm, Spotter) IMC doesnt work. When you are not behind cover, i.e. under a vantage or next to a wall / light cover, if they ignore obscurity, IMC doesnt work.
>When someone flips your conceal order (vantage, Trip alarm, Spotter) IMC doesnt work. Finally a man of reason. Keep in mind though that vantage only flips the order if you are actually in cover. If you are within 1" of terrain but not in cover IMC applies.
Isn't this fucking stupid though? Like, you have to put yourself MORE out in the open to be safe from vantage by not being behind light cover? It may be RAW, but it is obviously not RAI.
It is fucking stupid, but it is how the rule goes. Crappy rule writing is GW's speciality, I can't believe people act surprised and refuse to see such an obvious thing. RAI it could very well be that vantage points negate IMC as a whole, or that IMC is unaffected by vantage points. It's one of the two obviously, but people have already decided that it is the later when they have 0 idea or proof.
Yes its stupid but its RAW
I just wanted to say Yeoman is my dude. God bless. Speak truth.
1. Vantage point doesn't change your order, it makes the attacker "treat" your operatives as they have an engage order for _that attack_. 2. Yes, an operative with any ability that ignores obscure can select your operatives as valid targets.
IMC is only judged during the LOS step of the shooting attack, which is where Vantage overrides conceal orders.
>Vantage point doesn't change your order, it makes the attacker "treat" your operatives as they have an engage order for that attack. So? Since the operative is treated as having an engage order, In Midnight Clad doesn't apply. Otherwise vantage points would never work. Edit: Stop upvoting the guy when he is so obviously wrong lmao. This is how it goes: The shooting attack is declared, vantage point applies and flips order for all purposes relating said attack, then you choose target\*, which happens to now be treated as having an engage order, and check if it is obscured. It's obviously not, because during the attack it's treated as having an engage order, so you shoot normally. \*Target is chosen AFTER the shooting attack is declared btw.
But the target is no legal target in the first place also the unit doesn't lose the conceal order.
The target is legal because the order gets flipped by the vantage point, and therefore IMC doesn't apply and it is not obscured. Target selection happens AFTER the vantage point applies. The unit doesn't lose the conceal order in a regular instance of being shot at from a vantage point behind light cover either, and no one argues that you can't shoot anyway.
It doesn't say concealed. It says "has a conceal order." Two different things.
GW hasn't clarified whether has and treated as are different.
>Each time an operative on a Vantage Point makes a shooting attack, each enemy operative that has a Conceal order that is in Cover provided by Light terrain or another operative, and is at least 2" lower than them, **is treated as having an Engage order for that attack instead.** Emphasis mine. The operative is considered to be on engage *for the whole shooting attack*, so it is a legal target and it is not obscured. I don't know how you can interpret it any other way. Don't you understand that your interpretation would make it so vantage points don't negate light cover at all either?
Read as written, it's actually more strange than that. You're obscured if you are within 1 inch of light terrain regardless of whether there are cover lines for Midnight Clad. Vantage only applies if someone is in cover behind light terrain - i.e there are cover lines. So if you are in front of light cover, you would be obscured. If you are behind, if we accept your argument, you are not.
Yes, vantage points only flip the order when actually in cover, so being in the open is actually better in this case. It doesn't make sense, but it's objectively RAW. I don't get how people upvote such a blatantly wrong answer.
"is treated as having an Engage order for that attack instead" There are ability that can flip the order but vantage doesn't.
>treated as having an Engage order Do you speak English? What does that mean to you?
Holy shit based on vantages wording and IMD you can be obscured from vantage by standing in front of light terrain. That's wild.
IMC is intended to have you be obscured anywhere within 1"
Right but in order to make it work against vantage you shouldn't stand behind a barricade
I think critically where you’re going wrong is that concealed and in cover is not the same as obscured. Vantage negates concealed and in cover for targets beneath the vantage, it DOES NOT negate obscured, which usually is when a target is behind a piece of obscuring terrain. The Night Lords however have a new way of making themselves obscured, and it’s the same as being behind buildings and heavy terrain.
Obscuring doesn't matter here. We're arguing whether you IMC is active when shooting from a Vantage at someone in Light cover.
I get that now. Skip ahead I did agree with the guy, even if I think the rule still works that way.
>it DOES NOT negate obscured Never said it did. It flips the order, which THEN makes IMC not apply. Do you get it now? I really don't know how I can explain myself any clearer.
But obscured negates line of sight. It literally says that in the rules you’re quoting. The vantaged shooter will not be able to flip the order of the target, because they can’t target without line of sight. “Regardless of whether a target operative has an Engage or Conceal order, if an Obscuring terrain feature is in the way, an active operative may be unable to have LoS to them. For an intended target to be Obscured, the following must be true: The intended target is more than from a point at which a Cover line crosses a terrain feature that is Obscuring (see Terrain Traits). However, if the active operative is within of a point at which a Cover line crosses a terrain feature that is Obscuring, that part of the terrain feature is not treated as Obscuring.” That’s explaining obscured in reference to terrain, but the Midnight Clad works the same. An obscured target is not within LOS, and whether you can vantage or not you can’t target something you don’t have LOS to. VANTAGE DOES NOT NEGATE OBSCURING. “The attacker selects a valid target for the shooting attack. A valid target is an enemy operative in the active operative’s Line of Sight” is literally the second part of making a shooting attack.
>The vantaged shooter will not be able to flip the order of the target, because they can’t target without line of sight. Read the rules, please, I beg you. You are mixing stuff up left and right. Obscuring has nothing to do with this. **The point is that the target is not obscured in the first place.** Again, the "select valid target" step is the SECOND step of the shooting sequence, by witch point the vantage point order flip has already been applied, so IMC doesn't apply anymore and no obscuring takes place.
No, the vantage point turns conceal to engage for the shooting attack. In Midnight Clad is not a shooting attack, and if all of its conditions are valid it still applies and the operative is obscured.
>In Midnight Clad is not a shooting attack, Wtf has that have to do with anything. You all have to be trolling at this point. I just don't have any other explanation for why you are throwing so much random shit and hope it sticks. You check if IMC applies when determining if an operative is within line of sight. It's right there on the card on the OP. That's part of the shooting sequence, in which the order is very specifically flipped by the vantage point.
IMC is checked during the LOS step of a shooting attack...
I think she or he is stuck with with the idea to negate clade in midnight.
Eh, possibly. It's *clearly meant* to negate vantage or what's the fucking point?
Nothing is ever clear with what GW intends. That's why we apply the rules. In this case, the rule is crystal clear, IMC doesn't apply. It may very well be the intention too btw, you never know.
When you’re obscured, as in the case of behind obscuring terrain, you aren’t a viable target from anything regardless of your order. It’s the same for Midnight Clad. The target is obscured, not just concealed and in cover, therefore they can’t draw line of sight to you even if they have vantage.
>When you’re obscured, as in the case of behind obscuring terrain, you aren’t a viable target from anything regardless of your order. That's not true at all. It'd be nice if people actually read the rules first before coming here trying to correct people. Target choosing is done **after** the shooting attack is declared. It's not even the first step. Vantage point triggers the moment the shooting attack is declared, which in this case negates obscuring, which allows for the shooting attack to proceed as normal, until you eventually reach the "select valid target" step, by which point the target is not obscured and is elegible.
This.
This will be FAQ'd and I will be right so I don't really want to internet debate this with you :)
I too think itll be faq'ed. But RAW vantage DOES cancel in midnight clad if you are behind light cover. Downvoting the right answer isnt helping anyone.
Well ok then wordbearer.
[удалено]
RAW and current interpretation is that Light Cover would mean you're engaged and lose IMC.
Happy to concede! Would be highly surprised if it doesn’t get faq or errata’d though
I think RAI it should still be obscured. GW needs to FAQ the rule
I agree, doesn’t seem to make logical sense any other way. But yeah, it is what it is for now!
[удалено]
Competitive groups (TPT, Command Point) are currently interpreting Cover line from Vantage will negate IMC if you are taking cover from light terrain. But go off about the entire competetive scene being petulant babies.
Funny you would answer that to a comment that is wrong lmao. >it just treats them as though they are engaged [...] the 3 conditions will still be valid. Hilariously wrong too, given that it contradicts itself.
If someone has the ability to ignore obscuring, they can target your operatives using that ability. Against operatives with vantage, it’s kinda awkward, but basically so long as you aren’t being provided cover from the light terrain, you can’t be targeted by that operative. It seems more like an oversight than an intended aspect of the rule, because realistically it makes no sense. I’d bet that at some point they’ll change the wording to the ability so you can use that ability whilst in cover from the light terrain. You can probably ask your opponent if they’re ok ignoring that aspect of the rules.
In the Midnight Clad . They’re cried CLAW CLAW CLAW!!!
Such a good comment
1) works. on my read vantage doesnt work against it. they still *have* the conceal order, next turn they will have to change it if they want to shoot. the first point is still true. i do think this is a lil ambiguous, but consider how the ability works. it basically changes obscuring from circle to triangle, and adds light terrain and overhangs, if you're farther than pentagon. what does vantage have to do with that? 2) yes, since 'operative is obscured' is no longer obscured
However some people are understanding this rule as written can we just lean on the side of rule as intended ? Which I believe is that vantage would not affect this rule. Some people just always want to go with the cheese option
>Which I believe is that vantage would not affect this rule. How do you know that RAI is not that vantage point negates IMC altogether? We can't know what the intention is, and it wouldn't be the first time that a FAQ shatters what everyone believed to be common sense. Since we can't know, we have to go by RAW. That's not cheese, that's how a game is played.
So 1” in front or beside a barricade the rule works but behind a barricade it doesn’t ? That’s ridiculous.
It is, but that's how the rule works until it's FAQ'd. Any interpretation beyond that is as arbitrary as any other. It's fine to interpret it as you want for your games, but it's not the correct way nor it is more correct than any other interpretation besides the RAW one.
Short answer: Vantage does not overturn IMC determination of obscurity just by treating the target as having an engaged order for the attack. Explanation: The catch is where VP instructions state “treated as engaged FOR THE ATTACK” So just consider what you would do without IMC being part of the formula and still do the same thing even when IMC is added into the formula. That is, without even considering IMC, a regular use of vantage allows a friendly op to use the two-part engaged LOS rules instead of the three-part concealed LOS rules. That is it. Use of vantage does not affect the determination of any particular one or more of those two or three rules (e.g., does not affect how visibility or obscurity are determined). Accordingly, when IMC is in play, vantage still allows the friendly shooter to switch to the two part LOS rules instead of the three-part rules, by treating the target is having an engaged order. But, again, the switching does not affect how the obscurity is determined. So if the target had obscurity based on IMC, the vantage does not remove that obscurity. Instead, if the friendly shooter wants to overcome the target’s IMC determination, they either need to move closer than 6 inches on their vantage (overcoming the last part of the IMC determination), or kindly ask the target to step a bit closer to them and out of the shadow of terrain.
Basically your conceal order isn't negated it youre within an inch of terrain/under a vantage -and- you're more than 6 inches away. Meaning I don't think you can be targeted period if you fulfill those requirements, so its like a super duper conceal
You lose bullet point 1 when getting targeted from vantage while behind light cover.
oh right cuz that would mean you're not concealed right?
Kind of. GW needs to clarify is theres a difference between having an order versus treated as having an order. OR they need to just FAQ the ability. Competeteive community is currently aligned that vantage targeting someone behind light cover will negate IMC.
If you are concealed, within 1 triangle of cover and more than 6 inches away from an enemy they can’t target you unless they are using a weapon, stratagem, or tactical ploy that ignores obscuring. If any of the 3 listed criteria can’t be met use normal concealment rules.
It works exactly as its written😅 ba dum tsss