Scheme and Trigger Query-ette

[DaVinci's Cat]

I'm probably over thinking the following, so others input and interpretation would be much appreciated.

Several schemes (Breakthrough for example) and a few triggers (No Witnesses) state that the may be revealed/triggered ' if there are no enemy models within X" and LoS of this model...'

My question is, does the distance and LoS have to be applicable to each enemy model? ie if there is an enemy model further away than X" but has LoS, they don't count and the scheme can be revealed or trigger used.

[DaVinci's Cat]

Not to worry, I've found the answer in the Apr 2021 FAQ (General Section, para 20).

[Dave]

I’ve read the faq and I’m non the wiser (it reads like a maths problem?!) but I always thought both conditions (in LoS and within 4”) had to apply in order for an enemy model to prevent the scoring of that particular scheme.

[DaVinci's Cat]

Your reading of it is correct - both conditions have to apply to a single enemy model to prevent scoring. Your way of wording it (in LoS and within 4") seems so much clearer.

When I originally read the statement, I read it both ways, hence the confusion.

[Tom]

It’s just swapped sides of the ‘and’ !

[Brad85]

One of those moments where an ampersand would be handy.

But I'm glad someone more experienced asked as I did wonder about that myself.

[Tom]

How would an ampersand change anything?

[Brad85]

An ampersand would imply that the two items are linked, rather than a separated list.

'if there are no enemy models within X" & LoS of this model...'

Rather than

'if there are no enemy models within X" and LoS of this model...'

[Tom]

Those say the exact same thing to me!

If it were the situation you guys are getting confused with it would either say ‘no models within X” OR line of sight’ or it would say ‘no models within X’ and no models with LoS’.

Seems perfectly clear to me but I concede it obviously isn’t to everyone.

[DaVinci's Cat]

As I said from the beginning, I was probably over thinking it. Or I've sent far too much time being a Grammar Pedant and dealing with too many sharp Government contractors and their stitch-up commercial contracts.

Clearly the FAQ has provided the answer (as we all understood the intention of the ruling to be, so all is good), however for clarity, I think either 'if there are no enemy models...' should be replaced with 'if there is no enemy model...' or the conditions should be worded something along othe lines of: 'within both X" and LoS of this model...'