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.

Galador wrote:The picture in the BRB shows it completely over the Orks base, if that is any help. It even shows that it is off center, but still completely over the base.

And obviously that is the only way to place a blast marker.

If the hole was slightly off the base, that would support my interpretation.
The hole being completely on the base doesn't support nor shoot down my interpretation.

I just know that around my FLGS, if there is an illustration to go with a rule, we use the illustration to show how to do it. Hence, if it is completely on the base in the illustration, then it needs to be completely on the base on the tabletop. Just how we play it here, and it doesnt totally shoot down your way of thinking, however, I feel that with the wording of the rule and the backup of the illustration, that nos has it correct.

The problem with that is that the illustration is correct regardless of which interpretation is used.

Editing to add:
We have generally played that the entire hole had to be over a model - in every case.
The FAQ states that is not the correct way to play.

What it comes down to is:

"with its hole over the base of the target"

If the hole is not over the base, in any capacity or amount, then the rule has been broken, because clearly, the hole is not over the base. It is Partially over the base, but that is not what the rule calls for.

Basically if you ask the question: Is the hole over the base of the target?

If you can answer yes, without answering yes and no, then you are in the clear.

Read page 60, DeathReaper. Specifically Blast Weapons vs. Vehicles.

Then read that FAQ (that I quoted) again.

Then think about your table argument.

Editing to add:
Ohh. . .HiveTyrant!

p32 of the BRB may be instructive. The diagram shows the original blast marker (with no scatter) being partially over, but not completely over the target base.

foolishmortal wrote:p32 of the BRB may be instructive. The diagram shows the original blast marker (with no scatter) being partially over, but not completely over the target base.

Gadzooks, the 1 is!


Good eyes, man!

Thank you. I'm normally not this active on internet forums, but my research grant ended, my 2nd job dissolved, and full time classes are only so distracting.

I was really enjoying the Chimera DT IP DoW topic, but for me at least, it has run its course.

I'm trying very hard to engage in helpful, open minded debate. If I slip into trolling please smack me down.

ok, read P.60 and the FaQ.

It still stands that 'The Hole' must be initially placed over any part of the vehicles hull.

'The Hole' still includes all parts of said object, since no allowance is given to place 'The Hole' so it is at least partially over etc.

DeathReaper wrote:ok, read P.60 and the FaQ.

It still stands that 'The Hole' must be initially placed over any part of the vehicles hull.

'The Hole' still includes all parts of said object, since no allowance is given to place 'The Hole' so it is at least partially over etc.

Except, as previously noted, the example on page 32 shows the first hole (a hit according to the text) being partially on the base. Which supports the new FAQ as well.

Can all the diagrams be trusted? Surely the one on pg45 depicting the 'Trapped!' rule has that unengaged Rhino a little too close to those enemy Gretchin? AFAIK you're only allowed to ignore the 1" rule when assaulting, and those gretchin are already in assault.

There is very little chance that they could fit in that gap and be the assaulting unit that turn, but if the marines were the assaulting unit then the gretchin must have already been within 1" of an enemy model prior to the assault due to space issues.

If the combat had been going on for a few turns, then that Rhino has moved too close.

Either way, if i'm not mistaken, the placement of the Rhino breaks the 1" rule, meaning rulebook diagrams aren't exactly definitive evidence.

\o/ I am vindicated!

@Avatar, for all we know, the Rhino was there before assault began. It could be something like:
Rhino moves to where it is depicted, and Scouts jump up. Gretchins assault on their turn.
Either no winner in assault, or loser passed morale test.
2 units of Marines move up closer.
Gretchins lose combat and are forced to fall back.
This situation accurately depicts what has happened in the picture.

What happens later on does not matter, the Rhino is still breaking the 1" rule by being within 1" of a unit that is not assaulting (they have reached combat resolution, therefore are past assault moves) and is not involved in the assault.

The situation depicted is not my point, my point is that GW have broken their own rules in that diagram, why would it not happen in other diagrams?

DeathReaper wrote:ok, read P.60 and the FaQ.

It still stands that 'The Hole' must be initially placed over any part of the vehicles hull.

'The Hole' still includes all parts of said object, since no allowance is given to place 'The Hole' so it is at least partially over etc.

The FAQ says exactly the opposite, assuming you read the one from GW regarding the hole over a vehicle that I mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:the Rhino is still breaking the 1" rule by being within 1" of a unit that is not assaulting (they have reached combat resolution, therefore are past assault moves) and is not involved in the assault.

The rules disallows moving within an inch, other rules make you move if needed during your move, but there is not a passive rule that says a unit cannot be within 1" of an enemy; the rule says you may not MOVE within 1" of an enemy.

Or am I missing something?

Avatar 720 wrote:What happens later on does not matter, the Rhino is still breaking the 1" rule by being within 1" of a unit that is not assaulting (they have reached combat resolution, therefore are past assault moves) and is not involved in the assault.

The situation depicted is not my point, my point is that GW have broken their own rules in that diagram, why would it not happen in other diagrams?

There is no "... and is not involved in the assault ..." in the rules. They say the Gretchins make a normal move, with the exception that they can move to within 1" of an enemy unit - page 34. Nothing about other units. Unless I missed a rule?

I agree that GW does make mistakes. GW employs and is run by human beings, fallible human beings. No editing process is perfect. However, to say that since a mistake has occurred previously, therefore we cannot trust the BRB.... well, we won't get very far with that approach.

I agree that rulebook diagrams aren't exactly definitive evidence. However I think they are valid points to look at when trying to interpret text. What we have here is potentially ambiguous text that needs an interpretation.

p30 BRB
"When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit.
instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer
and place the blast marker (see diagram) with its hole
over the base of the target model, or its hull if it is a
vehicle."

Can you place the marker so that the hole is over, but not completely over the model and/or vehicle hull? The recent FAQ ruling was put forth as a possible means of interpretation.

p4 Jan 2012 40k faq
"Q: If the hole at the centre of a blast marker is only
partially over the hull of a vehicle, is the hit resolved at
the weapons full Strength? (p60)
A: Yes."

This was objected to because it may well be referring to a post scatter positioning of the blast marker. OK...

on to the diagram p32 BRB. "The original marker (1) scores a hit and does not scatter"
How was this original marker placed? Under multiple barrages it says "First place the blast marker for the weapon in the firing unit that is closest to the target."
How do you do that? p30 BRB quoted above.

Not definitive evidence, but a strong argument. IMO a stronger argument than mistakes are possible, so it is possible GW made a mistake.

That FaQ MUST be in reference to the Final position of the marker.

How I came to that conclusion: the question is about the hit being resolved, and you only resolve a hit after you roll for scatter.

Now, it may have not scattered in that case, but there is a 2 in 3 chance that it will not 'Hit'

Editing miss-quote.

The FAQ states that partially over is over,
It is not asking about scatter.

When you use the actual question written, not assumptions about why it is written, it covers this question. Literally, in the case of vehicular targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is always fun spending each half of a thread positing opposite things.

It does "covers this question. Literally, in the case of vehicular targets" but only after the final position of the marker has been determined.

So it invalidates that FaQ for the situation were are discussing.

It does seem the RaW is not as clear as we would like it to be.

kirsanth wrote:It is always fun spending each half of a thread positing opposite things.

Gotta agree here, the RAW is a tad unclear. However, I have to say I'm inclined to say that partially-covering counts; it seems fairly consistent that in Warhammer 40k, being partially within a certain area satisfies requirements to be within it. Figuring who can attack in CC works that way, as does disembarking from a transport, so given that the wording is fuzzy and there's only limited precedent, I think that's the way I'd play it.

rigeld2 wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:What happens later on does not matter, the Rhino is still breaking the 1" rule by being within 1" of a unit that is not assaulting (they have reached combat resolution, therefore are past assault moves) and is not involved in the assault.

The situation depicted is not my point, my point is that GW have broken their own rules in that diagram, why would it not happen in other diagrams?

There is no "... and is not involved in the assault ..." in the rules. They say the Gretchins make a normal move, with the exception that they can move to within 1" of an enemy unit - page 34. Nothing about other units. Unless I missed a rule?

The 'and not involved in the assault' was to show that the Rhino is not part of the combat occuring on page 45.

They don't say anything about the Gretchins moving at all, they say that they lost the combat in order to show the 'Trapped!' rule, but that is unimportant. The fact is that you are only given the ability to ignore the 1" rule during an assault move, once you are in combat you are no longer performing an assault move, therefore you must comply with the 1" rule. The Gretchin on page 45 are within 1" of the enemy Rhino and they are not performing an assault move, nor have they engaged the Rhino in any way, therefore the scenario is illegal.

BeRzErKeR wrote: Figuring who can attack in CC works that way, as does disembarking from a transport, so given that the wording is fuzzy and there's only limited precedent, I think that's the way I'd play it.

And arriving from reserve is the opposite to disembarking and who can attack in CC, so we have two different precedents here.

Given two interpretations we should probably take the least advantageous one.

DeathReaper wrote:

And arriving from reserve is the opposite to disembarking and who can attack in CC, so we have two different precedents here.

Given two interpretations we should probably take the least advantageous one.

Well, since I play Orks and never take any blast weapons, allowing my opponent to place his liberally IS the least advantageous for me.

That is not how it works Berzerker.

The one doing the placement should use the least advantageous of the two interpretations.

Just as anything in your army of orks. If it could work two different ways and one way gives you an advantage, you should play it the other way.

DeathReaper wrote:That is not how it works Berzerker.

The one doing the placement should use the least advantageous of the two interpretations.

Just as anything in your army of orks. If it could work two different ways and one way gives you an advantage, you should play it the other way.

I was being flippant, as evinced by my Orkmoticon.

I DO go out of my way to avoid taking advantage of rules issues; but I also, in cases like this where I can see support for both sides, let my opponent choose. If my opponent made the argument that he could center a blast marker partially on and partially off the base of one of my models, I would let him do so. That's what I'm saying.

Apologies, I did not see the Orkmoticon.

Can we agree that (1) on the diagram on p32 of the BRB shows an initial, non-scattered placement of a blast marker hole over, but not completely over the target model's base?

Rules should be interpreted as simply as possible without adding imaginary arbitrary limitations. There are plenty of explicitly stated arbitrary limitations for us to bump into. This is a wargame after all

I want to know why there's an enemy model that isn't engaged in combat within 1" of a model that isn't making an assault move on pg45 first. If that gets cleared up, i'll accept pg32 as evidence for partial placement, but if it isn't, then how can we be sure that GW haven't fethed up that diagram?

Avatar 720 wrote:I want to know why there's an enemy model that isn't engaged in combat within 1" of a model that isn't making an assault move on pg45 first. If that gets cleared up, i'll accept pg32 as evidence for partial placement, but if it isn't, then how can we be sure that GW haven't fethed up that diagram?

How can we be sure the page numbers are correct? How can we be sure they didn't misdraw every diagram? What is up? WHAT IS DOWN? HOW CAN WE BE SURE OF ANYTHING?!

Seriously - even if there's one mistake in a diagram (which I agree, page 45 is poorly drawn) that doesn't mean there's mistakes in every diagram.