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.

In the thread about multiple Whirlwinds people assume that multiple castellan mine fields stack.

I d like to hear your reasoning how that is legal.

 

 

Because the rule says you trigger "the" minefield on a 4+. So one roll for one minefield.

But that is a little ridiculous, and I doubt I'd play it that way. But I wouldn't complain if someone else wanted to.

Cant you interprete "the" minefield as all mines that lie close together, in which case overlapping templates would just increase the area of "the" minefield?

So, like you say it seems to be a little too shady to go to a tourney and try to enforce stacking mine fields against unsuspecting opponents.

 

 

I would have no problem playing with Raiders interpretation of the enlarged minefield effect, but if someone tried the stacking minefield logic, I would have a problem.

Darrian

I wasn't involved in the origional debate so feel free to ignore this post.

It seems pretty straightforward that multiple rolls are needed when travelling through stacked minefields. Not only does it make sense (a minefield that has twice the amount of mines in an area is twice as deadly), but it works ruleswise too.

models moving over the minefield trigger it. It looks to me like the words "the" and "it" refer to each minefield not some newly created enlarged minefield. I wouldn't expect an opponent to treat two of my Earthshaker rounds that happened to hit in the exact same location as one blast. I would be inclined to give any marine player the same courtesy.

Take the concept of a realistic "minefield" out of the picture and its much easier to understand. I.E. Reread the rules and relpace every instance of the word "minefield" with "plastic template".

Glaive has it right, each minefield is an individual item and should be treated individually.

Im not convinved.

We are talking about an abstract minefield here, that does not thin out, when unit after unit walks over it. Why should it neccessarily become more dangerous with added mines, when missing exploded mines dont affect its performance?

Besides that, it works ruleswise the other way too...

Raider wrote: Im not convinved.

We are talking about an abstract minefield here, that does not thin out, when unit after unit walks over it. Why should it neccessarily become more dangerous with added mines, when missing exploded mines dont affect its performance?

Besides that, it works ruleswise the other way too..."


Ummm, the whole 40K system is 'abstract' by definition. It is not a 'reality simulator' by any stretch and there are a whole host of logical arguments that are flat out ignored by the 40K system in a trade off for ease of game play and enjoyment.

I'd have to go with the 'roll for each minefield' argument - for much the same reasons as Glaive & Blue Loki stated. Your reasoning that two templates automatically = a much larger area covered argument doesn't hold up either. If two templates land nearly on top of each other, then by your reasoning, the owning player is penalized (unfairly) by only having one chance to hit & wound from two templates with no gain in area covered.

We are not talking about a single abstract minefield, we are talking about multiple minefields represented by multiple physical templates.
If you cross over two of these physical templates, then you have crossed over two of these physical templates. You can't get around the fact that there are two templates now under the model.

Each template has an effect, and each template resolves its effects seperately.

For every minefield, you need a minefield template.  If minefield templates overlap (which they physically have to), and you move your models over it, your models are only ever on a single template at a given time, so only one minefield goes off.  This has to be true because you can't mine the bottom floor of a 3-floor building and then say that anyone above the minefield has to take a hit, including flyers (so what, now we have a magic cylinder of mines too?).  As always, it is best to take the least advantageous interpretation.  If you mine an objective with 12 minefields, get ready to be laughed out the store when you try putting 12 hits on each unit moving to it.

- Oaka

Plus, you NEED to make minefield templates, people.  There have been several instances where my opponent has laid down a minefield only to ask me if they can borrow an ordnance template for it.  That's BS!

Unfortunately Oaka, units trigger the minefield when they go "over" it, as opposed to when they go onto it. You can have multiple minefields stacked, and when you move over the top one, you move over all 3. Just like if I'm in the 9th story of a building, I'm over 8 stories.

I don't play Marines. I would have no probelm with the multiple minefield interpretation. It's not an oversight. It's another of GW's attempts to make Marines the most powerful army.

"The" minefield is still ambiguous.

It can be either an area with mines (-> no stacking), or a physical template (-> stacking).

As long as it stays ambiguous one might be better off using the less advantegous interpretation.

Posted By Raider on 03/30/2006 7:28 AM

"The" minefield is still ambiguous.

It can be either an area with mines (-> no stacking), or a physical template (-> stacking).

As long as it stays ambiguous one might be better off using the less advantegous interpretation.

Except that "an area with mines (-> no stacking)" is a real-world concept that does not exist in 40k therefore we do not consider it.

Minefield, in the context of the whirlwind entry, is a defined game term with a singular definition. It is a physical template.

Since there is a game specific definition of the term, we must use that definition.

I agree with blue loki. If there are multiple templates and a unit goes over it, then there's a roll for each template.