Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm glad you're entertained. It shows your quality.

In my previous post I said the context determines that the text "to see how many models are affected" means the same thing as "to see how many models are also affected".

Indeed, the text of the rule lacks the term "also". I agree that the wording is not ambiguous, as the context fixes the meaning and that this meaning is not equivocal or open to competing interpretations.

However, I must disagree with your assertion that taking the text stating the rules out of context is a truth-preserving method of reading the rules. Quite simply the Blast Weapon rules tell us how to place the blast marker and determine the number of additional hits under the normal rules regarding rolling to hit.

I've not avoided what is obvious to everyone else, I've patiently tried to explain that the 'obvious' is making people overlook the evidence.

Quite why you're talking about RAW I don't know. I've never defended that naive theory of meaning and attacked it quite often. If anything your insistence on taking text out of context to determine its meaning is RAW at its worst.

Now of course I'm not not saying that the rules don't say what they say: I'm saying, as ever and always, that the rules are stated by the text according to basic semantic conventions of sense, reference, use, and context. I'm certainly not arguing that the rules include words that aren't there.

I am pointing out that people are misreading the rules by taking them out of their context and thus decoding them improperly.

The context does show the answer. There are rules on hitting, and then there are special circumstance rules concerning blast weapons. Both can be read together, on their face, without having to insert words or strain for an interpretation. The majority of this thread have pointed that out repeatedly.

You're so focused on your own analysis that you're missing your fallacy. You see the 'to hit' rules, which say a hit is caused, so you've had to change the meaning of the blast rules to avoid generating multiple hits on a single model. But it's just as easy to change the to hit rules, and read in context that a sucessful ballistic roll only affects a model if there isn't a special circumstance exception, such as a blast. There's nothing logically necessary about your argument, because mine is just an tenable.

We are used to rules overriding each other, that's a well-known interpretive maxim in 40k. What's not a maxim is that the rules might mean something other than what they plainly say. Applying the accepted maxim, the to hit rule and the blast rule can work in tandem, without changing their wording, when we read the latter as an exception. That's the correct interpretation.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm glad you're entertained. It shows your quality.

I am pointing out that people are misreading the rules by taking them out of their context and thus decoding them improperly.

Oh, the irony...

Dude, I can't believe you're telling me (above) that the rules say something other than what they say. You keep needing to insert the words "also" and "additional" to make the rules say what you want them to say. The rest of us don't ever need to do that.

When a plain reading of the rules concludes one thing, and doesn't require additional words to be inserted, one may reasonably assume that the plain reading is correct.

For you to be asinine about insisting that the rules don't do what they say, and that they need to be specially interpreted to add extra language, demonstrates the weakness of your position.

For this "discussion" to continue, we're reaching a point at which we have to go back to the very basic concept of special rules. I now question whether you even understand how GW uses special rules to override basic rules.

Nurglitch wrote:Correction, JohnHwangDD, the entire Blast Weapon rules are about causing additional hits.

Really? That's not what the actual rules say.

You're mistaking mention of the term "additional" with the actual structure of the rules expressed by the text.

Now you're saying that the structure of the rules implies something that isn't actually stated? :S

An understandable mistake if one supposes that each rule in the book corresponds to a single term, but still a mistake if one wishes to read the rules correct.

Now, I'm wondering if you get the rules so wrong that you roll to-wound when you hit a Vehicle.

Because the AP rules are a replacement effect for the to-wound in the same way that the Blast rules are a replacement effect for the to-hit.

Let's look at those rules, shall we?

OK, let's go through it, this should be amusing.

Blast Weapons, p.30:
"When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected."

The rule says to roll to hit as normal. That indicates that we are using the basic procedure used to determine hits. That can be found on page 22. The rule also says that in the advent of scoring a hit, the Blast marker is placed so its hole is over one model in the target unit to determine a number of hits.

So far, so good.

"roll to hit" (as normal) has specific rule to define it:

Roll To Hit, p.22:
"To determine if the firing unit has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot. Normally troopers will only get to fire one shot each. However, some creatures or weapons are capable of firing more than once, as we'll explain in more detail later. The dice score need to hit will depend on how accurate the firers are (as shown by their Ballistic Skill characteristic or BS). The chart below shows the minimum D6 roll needed to score a hit."

The rule says that if you roll the threshold number on the chart below, you have scored a hit on a unit (targets are defined as units on page 18). So normally if you successfully roll to hit, you have at least one hit.

And *this* is where you go horribly wrong.

A plain reading of the above rule is that it describes a *success* mechanic. Did the "roll to hit" say that the unit or model was actually hit (affected)? No, it didn't. All we've done to this point is determine a number of successes.

So going back up to the first part, now, you're allowed to place a marker. Let's go on...

Blast Weapons, p.30:
"Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically."

The Blast Weapons rules further say that models partially covered by the maker count as hits on a 4+, while models completely covered automatically count as hits. Now since the hits caused by a weapon are inclusive, such that the role to hit is in addition to the hits caused by the marker rather than instead, it follows that if a single model unit is hit by a blast weapon that it will ordinarily take one hit at most, rather than taking one hit from the to hit roll and one hit from being partially covered by the template (since the hole ensures it is only partially covered).

Epic Fail. To reach "inclusive" and "in addition", you have inserted an rules clause that is not referenced, namely, the basic procedure for Shooting that converts successes into models (or units) being hit.

However, nowhere does it say to apply the basic shooting successes to-hit = mode hits. Instead, it says to check the marker for full and partial hits. This is a replacement effect for the basic rule.

Now I've explained how the Blast Weapon rules state that the blast marker is used to determine additional hits: You get one hit from successfully rolling to hit, because otherwise when the blast marker is placed at least one model, the model under the hole in the middle of the marker, is only ever partially hit regardless of the size of its base.

No, all you've done is insert a rule that doesn't apply.

It is particularly instructive when we all note that you completely ignore my Frag vs. Avatar / Guardian all-partials example to make a stupid argument that doesn't hold water.

Your inability to follow my argument does not lead me to make spurious and unsupported conclusions about the nature of your copy of the rules, or the epistemology basis of your claims.

Of course not. That is because I am following the rules correctly, and was wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to your "reasoning" (or demonstrated failure therein).

However, as you have confirmed that you have the correct rules, that excuse is now ruled out. It is clear from the rules chain that you are assuming an unreferenced basic rule still applies, when clearly it does not.

I must admit though, it's pretty funny to read someone telling me to read the rules (as if I hadn't quoted them earlier in the thread and shown how to read them), understand (i.e.: agree with them about something I have good reason to disagree with), and follow the rules (rather tangential to what the rules actually are, but them's the breaks I suppose). It's particularly funny because I'm wondering why you don't just read the rules, understand them, and stop playing silly buggers with them!

Funny old world eh?

Indeed. It's especially funny when it's clear that you've gotten it completely wrong.

Well, the only time this is going to come up is when I plasma cannon a MC. Guys just give me a hit and deal with the fact that you just took a direct hit from a blast weapon. Granted your bigger which would mean that I should get some type of bonus to hit you but the fact stands that you have taken all of the blast. In all respects just get over the fact that im to big and deal with the fact that str 7 is going to wound instead of trying to find out if its a partial. There is no partial on a full which you guys are taking the context of partial and turning it into something else.

What this boils down to is that there are two different ways presented to read the rules... and both sides think they are correct.

What we need, then, is some form of clarification... something else that refers to this issue to clarify what this apparently ambiguous rule actually means.

The funny part is that this clarification was already given earlier in the thread: The Apocalypse book mentions that Blasts against Gargantuan creatures always count as a Hit... and state that this is a change to the normal rules, which would make it impossible to score a full hit because the Blast is smaller than the model's base.

End of problem, right there.

Here's an example of a Frag missile having been fired by a Tactical Marine at an Eldar Avatar on 60mm base being placed such that the hole in the center of the Blast is at the edge of the Avatar base in order to catch 4 Guardians on standard 25mm bases following behind the Avatar:



According to Nurglitch, the Avatar is automatically hit, which is clearly false. The player made a conscious decision to place the 76mm Blast so that it only partially covers the Avatar, in order to try and kill a couple Guardians.

Under a normal reading of the rules, the SM player rolls a partial for the Avatar, and then 4 partials for the Guardians, because no bases are wholly under the template.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Here's an example of a Frag missile having been fired by a Tactical Marine at an Eldar Avatar on 60mm base being placed such that the hole in the center of the Blast is at the edge of the Avatar base in order to catch 4 Guardians on standard 25mm bases following behind the Avatar:



According to Nurglitch, the Avatar is automatically hit, which is clearly false. The player made a conscious decision to place the 76mm Blast so that it only partially covers the Avatar, in order to try and kill a couple Guardians.

Under a normal reading of the rules, the SM player rolls a partial for the Avatar, and then 4 partials for the Guardians, because no bases are wholly under the template.

Exactly because the rules say place center of the template over a model not the center of the template over the CENTER of a model. Hopefully your diagram puts an end to any and all arguements the the center of the template is a normal hit (Which its not). Which is what we who properly understand this rule have been trying to explain.

Uncle.

I give up. You win.

Truly, it is you that are the ones who properly understand this rule.

Please, pardon my dissent, I know not what I did...

If I am not mistaken are we all know talking about a single model? Maybe some of you should read the question again so that your not trying to change the topic.

Tarval wrote:If I am not mistaken are we all know talking about a single model?

No, what we're discussing is the rules for Blast weapons.

Whether the Blast is hitting one model or hitting multiple models, the model the Blast is centred on should be treated the same.

@insaniak:

Good find with the note from apocalypse. While people try to apply apocalypse stuff to the regular game in rules discussions a little too often, this is to me is a great example of someplace where it's exactly right and very useful.

But yeah, as was said many times in this thread, the whole argument is moot in 10 weeks. And we'll have all sorts of new poorly worded rules to argue over.

insaniak

No, what we're discussing is the rules for Blast weapons.

No go back to page one and read up on what the question was, if not just look at the title sir.

We are talking about partial and there are no partial if everything that could hit, hit a single target. You guys keep wording partial so that somebody might have to roll because your to big.

lambadomy wrote:Good find with the note from apocalypse.

While I'd love to take the credit for it, Nightrunner actually pointed it out earlier in the thread...

Tarval wrote:No go back to page one and read up on what the question was, if not just look at the title sir.

...and your point is?

Does the model that the marker is centred on have different rules if other models are also affected by the Blast?

You guys keep wording partial so that somebody might have to roll because your to big.

Er, yes... because that's how it works.

If the Blast marker doesn't cover the model's base, it's a partial. That's what the rules say, and that's what the Apocalypse book confirms.

insaniak
If the Blast marker doesn't cover the model's base, it's a partial.

All of you keep taking the word partial out of context.

Oh well, two more months...

Tarval wrote:All of you keep taking the word partial out of context.

Rulebook, page 30
"Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a D6 roll of 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically."


Apocalypse, page 91
"If a Gargantuan creature is hit by a weapon that uses a Blast marker, the normal rules for determining if the creature is hit by the marker are not used (as the marker may be smaller than the creature's base, and so could never score a direct hit.)"


So, please, explain how claiming that a model whose base is only partially covered by the marker is not automatically hit is taking things out of context.