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.

kirsanth-who are you talking to? If it's me, I didn't mock anybody.
If not, peace out.

@ Nurglitch-"argumentum ad populum" thanks for the clarification, as I said it's been a few years! lol

"Incidentally, what do you mean by logarithmic? "- A+B=C in form of argument. I am VERY rusty, so sorry if I am unclear!
Nurglitch-

*No doubt this will provoke laughter from people with a less charitable view of my behaviour on these forums, but I quite honestly want to know the truth of the matter - hence why I'm trying to encourage people to use the method I've demonstrated in "Beyond RAW and RAI", a method by which people can objectively check each other's work.

Encourage away Sir, but I can't keep up with the pace! lol Besides, me am dum.

akira5665: No problem. "Logarithmic" usually means something like "pertaining to logarithms". I think you mean 'logical'. All logarithms are logical, not all logic is logarithms (thank god).

All that terminology aside, is there anything you would accept as proving your opinion to be wrong?

@ Nurglitch-yeah, but you would have some problem with my answer.(It being proved to be a fallacious basis of stance!)

I would have to run into @ least 99% of opponents telling me I am wrong, or a definative answer in WD or a FAQ.

Or an entry regarding this from Insaniak.

That's about the only way you could sway me @ this point.

no. . . i apologize. i am interupted and mean no disrespect. i shall be short.

the first sentence of the second paragraph still needs support. It is not a stand alone rule no matter how many times people will quote it alone and without support.

that is the inherent flaw in the argument i have read against this. reading a single sentence out of an entire section is a VERY easy way to get things wrong.

the attempts to explain what this sentence means to gameplay - through actual text - always reference examples of text that include specific refences to why Nurglitch's (for lack of another association) reading is correct.

through gameplay i have never seen this interpretation. however, through text i cannot understand why this is the case.

akira5665: Assuming, of course, that I haven't make an error in the exegesis I've presented here, why would the number of people agreeing with the truth make it more palatable. Likewise, why would a "definitive answer" or an FAQ in White Dwarf make a difference?

In the first case what would consensus have to do with truth? I can certainly agree that consensus is very important to playing the game, but reading the rules is another matter: all you have to do is read the rules properly and what they say should be the same for everyone.

In the second case, given that I've shown how the rules are read properly (assuming, again, that I have not erred) and the rules are the definitive rules, how would an explanation in White Dwarf be any more definitive? Would the answer I've given be somehow more true if it was printed in White Dwarf?

Likewise are things true because insaniak says they are, or are they true because insaniak cannot err and mistake truth for falsity?

Cool discussion Nurglitch, I am having a ball!

Ok, 1st case- As it is a game played with humans(mostly), I have no wish to prove the un-enligtened wrong whenever it comes up....too much work, and also the possibility of being called a 'Power-gamer' or 'Rules Lawyer'.

Now, 2nd case-Nurglitch, nobody could fault your style when it comes to explanations/logic. However, as in case 1, it would make life a lot easier if I could show somebody a single line from an FAQ/WD that said"This is the way it is" As opposed to going through a book, cross-referencing pages.
(Not meant at you mate, describing how I would explain it to others)

3rd case-Insaniak- His rule interps are always spot-on. Always.

Likewise are things true because insaniak says they are, or are they true because insaniak cannot err and mistake truth for falsity?

And just being a little silly here-but yes on both counts, lol

In the first case you won't agree that it is the truth because it is too much work to explain it to other people, and you might get called names. Is that correct?

In the second case, if you could show a single line from an FAQ that said "This is the way it is" and it agreed with the truth as I've argued it, then you would agree with the truth as I've argued it?

In the third case, how do you know insaniak is always right?

It seems to me that whether it is too much work to prove the truth does not alter the fact that it is the truth. You can, after all, hold the truth in your heart and not bother people with it. Likewise whether you can easily explain the truth to someone seems irrelevant to whether it is true. Neither of these are good reasons for withholding agree. Indeed they are fallacies of relevance, the first case seems to be that of preferring style to substance, and the second case seems to again be the appeal to popularity. Always trusting to insaniak's opinion is the fallacy called the 'appeal to authority'.

I can certainly see why you might not want to try and convince people of this fact about shooting with Template weapons, but I don't see how a reasonable person can consider that things to somehow be contrary to its truth (actually yes, I can, just not for charitable reasons).

But it seems to me that you can explain the truth as I've argued it in a very simple way that people can recognize easily and say "This is the way it is." There is a line in the first paragraph of the "Shooting Phase" and it says:

"The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire between two or more target units."

You don't bring this up during a game, and when they bring up the objection that the Template weapons rules say template weapons hit models you can agree that template weapons do indeed hit models in the target unit.

For the most part hopefully your responses will be like that of kirsanth.

Another way to do this and indeed even easier is to play it that way yourself and say to your opponent when you lay a template over two of his units: "I used to play flamers as if I could hit anything under the template, but I was reading the rulebook one day and I noticed that you could only hit the models in the target unit!"

This way you cannot be accused of power-gaming because you are not power-gaming, you are not scraping for every little advantage. You also cannot be accused of rules-lawyering (although some people don't need a good reason and you don't have to worry about them) because the rules are pretty clear on this when people care to read them, starting on P.18 and working back to P.31.

Well, no

In the first case you won't agree that it is the truth because it is too much work to explain it to other people, and you might get called names. Is that correct?

Being called names is never nice. I am not going to try and prove 99% of 40k enthusiasts wrong, unless you are willing to stand by my side and explain it clearly, as you have in this thread.

And besides, IMO you are still wrong, so no.

You do present your side very clearly and there is no doubt you know your stuff Sir, I just am convinced that your ruling is incorrect.

EG a Vibro-cannon thingie the Eldar Revanant uses, or the 'Inferno' Gun you can put on a Imperial Titan. It's a Template. It is also rather large. Can I only wound models from a single unit, even if there are two units under the template?

Nurglitch-Another way to do this and indeed even easier is to play it that way yourself and say to your opponent when you lay a template over two of his units: "I used to play flamers as if I could hit anything under the template, but I was reading the rulebook one day and I noticed that you could only hit the models in the target unit!"

This way you cannot be accused of power-gaming because you are not power-gaming, you are not scraping for every little advantage. You also cannot be accused of rules-lawyering (although some people don't need a good reason and you don't have to worry about them) because the rules are pretty clear on this when people care to read them, starting on P.18 and working back to P.31.

Very nice ways of approaching it. Thanks mate.


And yeah, he is always right(99%) of the time, from what I have seen. The other 1% can be accounted to not responding!

akira5665: Okay, so you're convinced that my explanation is incorrect, yet none of your objections seem to be about any failing in my explanation. What is it then that convinces you that my explanation is incorrect and is relevant to the truth of my explanation?

I'd need the Apocalypse rulebook to see how those weapons were treated, particularly because a similar weapon, the Inferno Cannon, deviates from the rules for Template weapons. Why don't you check for me since I'm just applying a method and you know what that method is?

Nurglitch, you could argue the rules till you're blue in the face. You might be right, I might be right, somebody else might be right, or we might all be a little right and a little wrong.

I like to paint sci-fi miniatures and play wargames. Warhammer 40K is the most played game that fits my likes. Mostly I enjoy the forums from an informational standpoint. I also enjoy reading posts from people who act as if they are interpeting the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I certainly want to be more knowledgable of the rules than my opponent. It gives me an edge, and I'm a competitive guy. But after a point I figure I'm OK on the rules and I'm gonna build and paint models, then I'm gonna play games with my friends, or at a tournament. The 40K rules aren't airtight, not even close, so I do the best I can with what I've got, and try not to let it bother me when a ruling goes against me. If 99 percent of the 40K community, including myself, play template weapons incorrectly, I don't care if I'm right. I don't care if you're right either, so I'm going to other threads and try to learn something relevant to the games I'll be playing.

Ooh, I'm blushing...

For what it's worth, I think that Nurglitch's assessment of the RAW is spot on in this case... but I don't think it's how it was intended to be played. Given how the Template rules read out, it seems obvious that they expected them to affect anyone under the template... the fact that they didn't limit it to the target unit specifically, while it would be pretty obvious that models from other units are going to wind up under there from time to time, certainly seems to point in that direction.

But it's unfortunately trumped by the normal targetting rules.

I'd be still playing it as most people seem to, though, and taking casualties from any unit hit by it. The RAW in this case is definitely running towards the grey, is counter-intuitive, and just a little bit silly.


As an aside, while the faith in my judgement is rather flattering, I'm just as likely to get it wrong as the next guy. Most of the 'right' answers these days simply come from having discussed the same issues in multiple threads over the last 5 years...

Krak_Kirby-True. Harsh'high-falootin'call, But true! lol

I just wanna have fun. I do NOT want to argue with every gamer I have to address the template issue with.

However, I do like having discussions with you Nurglitch, you are skilled debater. And, well mannered too. Keep it up mate, even if I cannot keep up with you!

I just read insaniaks post. See! you are right(mostly) Nurglitch, it is just too difficult a scenario to work out with every new opponent.

And no insaniak, you are wrong. You are always right. lol

Krak_kirby: Fortunately the Warhammer 40k rulebook is not the Dead Sea Scolls, they are a set of rules stated in English (among other languages). No interpretation is required.

I am applying an objective method for determining how rules written in a natural language such as English are stated. Whether anyone is convinced of this is there own business, as people can only convince themselves. This is why I am applying this method, because it is designed so as to allow people to check reasoning, their own or that of others, in an objective fashion.

Fortunately I do not need to make this argument until I am blue in the face. I have already made it, and have explained how it works so that others can check it if they have an interest in the truth. Now I'm simply asking other people how they arrived at contrary opinions.

Call it "high-falootin discourse" all you like. I call it basic problem solving and literacy, something that even university freshmen can handle. What I would call "mental masturbation" is the attitude that somehow discussion about rules is about winning and forcing agreement from others rather than about seeking the truth about what is the case. If I'm right, then that's nice, and if I'm wrong then it's also nice of someone to help me see that.

insaniak: I take exception to the continual misrepresentation that my assessment of the rules is RAW or anything of the sort. I don't know why people keep calling it that, particularly when I take pains to point that it isn't.

I really need to come up with a snappy acronym for it.

You can call it whatever you want... but if it's what the rules say, then it's RAW.

That's my point. RAW is just what the rules say, which is, to use a technical term, stupid.

The method is not just about what the rules say, it's about what they state, how they are expressed and structured, and how the text relates to diagrams, tables, other non-text information.

It is not RAW.

Nurglitch-That's my point. RAW is just what the rules say, which is, to use a technical term, stupid.

Welcome to the world of 40k.

RAW vs RAI is a great thread to finish this discussion IMO.

Actually the more I actually sit down and actually apply the method I was taught (and indeed teach) to the Warhammer 40k rules the better and better they look. Certainly their expression and layout could do with work (not enough redundancy, although as previously mentioned recent codicies seem to correct for this problem somewhat), but the actual rules I've checked are technically clear. I have yet to find any rules that are genuinely ambiguous or have loopholes that are not the result of 'creative' reading.

Nurglitch wrote: it's about what they state, how they are expressed and structured, and how the text relates to diagrams, tables, other non-text information.

That is RAW.

RAW isn't, as many people try to insist, about simply taking a line of rules and pretending it exists in a vaccuum to devine the meaning as it applies in one particular instance. Context, layout and diagrams are an important part of RAW... because if you leave them out, you're not reading the rules as a whole.

If you're not reading the rules as a whole, you're not reading the whole rules. That then isn't RAW, it's taking rules out of context and trying to pretend that they still mean anything.

Determining RAW requires reading the rules as a whole. Which is exactly what you claim to be doing.

There's reading the rules as a whole and there's reading the rules as a whole properly. I have yet to see someone attempt to use RAW and do what they're supposed to be doing. Take the difference between what a sentence says and what a sentence states. Just like math-hammer I've seen people mangle statistics and call it math-hammer, but unlike RAW I've seen people demonstrate the actual statistics and call it math-hammer.

I have yet to see anyone on a Warhammer 40k forum express anything like comprehension at what this distinction is and how it functions. I've seen people take the literal wording the rules and try to pass that off as the statement of the rules, and I've seen people take some misreading of the rules and try to pass that off as the statement of the rules, but I haven't seen anyone genuinely say: "This is what the sentence is and this is what it states because its semantic model is x." Mostly the error is in trying to make the text hermetic, as though grammars, dictionaries, and logics did not pertain, but generally it seems to be people's opinions passed of as a demonstrable method rather than such a method.

I'm hoping you will prove me wrong. Maybe in a thread where this is on topic (sorry about dragging it off-topic).

Nurglitch wrote:But it seems to me that you can explain the truth as I've argued it in a very simple way that people can recognize easily and say "This is the way it is." There is a line in the first paragraph of the "Shooting Phase" and it says:

"The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire between two or more target units."

You don't bring this up during a game, and when they bring up the objection that the Template weapons rules say template weapons hit models you can agree that template weapons do indeed hit models in the target unit.

Um, when you place the template legally and it hits the majority of models in the target squad (per the template rules) and additionally hits models in between or around, you aren't "splitting fire". There is no rule contradiction in hitting all of the models under the template if it is placed legally. This also is logically why you cannot place the template over a friendly unit, because that would logically cause friendly fire if and only if all units under the template are affected.

As to my question that you avoided by saying there were two answers, but giving neither.

If a template cannot be placed in such a way as to touch a model in the target unit is the template placed?

Just give me both answers if there are two.

I say RAW and how I play are the same. The template cannot be placed legally by my reading so it is not placed at all. I don't see how yours would matter either since if it can't hit the target unit and doesn't affect other units it would not even matter wether it was placed or not so you could stick with your RAW and play the same way.

i still point out the blast reference. the favorite sentence on pg 31 "all units" et al is easy to read as elucidating the fact that template weapons do not have to roll for partial hits. to assume that it allows illegal units to be targeted is exactly that. . . an assumption. especially considering the entire rules that one sentence is written into.

as far as intent?

it is repeated that shooting at one unit does not allow any other unit to be hit. even with blast weapons - unless they are barrage.

i cannot find any example to the contrary in the text, and i am still looking.

and technically - as the templates are read it is possible to "hide" one in a unit so it has ONE single fire lane for the template (by arranging "friendlies" for example)and that lane is perpendicular to the direction the unit shoots - FORCING the template to be placed on top of an entirely different unit. "as many models as possible in the target unit" is the text. 0 is valid here as "number" isnt even refenced. if the template is "in range" but has to be placed facing a different direction, this is not disallowed as most people assert the rules to be interpreted.

why is that ok? page 31 shows why it is NOT ok, even with that one sentence in it. the rest of the book actually backs it too.

snooggums: No doubt how you play and RAW are the same, which is why how you play and RAW are not what the text of the rules state.

For example, if you take the text of the Template rules out of context, you will not think that hitting models besides the target unit contradicts the rules because you will not have the context, other rules, that tell you that units are hit and that only models in the target unit may be removed as casualties. Hitting models that are not part of the target unit is splitting the fire of one unit between 2 or more, in the case of flamers literally so.

Call your opinion "logical" all you want, neither your argument is valid nor your conclusion true. Your 'logic' is unsound, it is illogic. Take this as an insult if you must, but please be aware that your opinion is not logical until you prove it to be so (or cite where it's been proven before). Calling something "logical" and it actually being logical are naturally disjoint.

I already answered your question, but hey, repetition genuinely does make things clearer:

If a template cannot be placed in such a way as to touch a model in the target unit then it cannot fire. Because: "Any individual models in the unit that don't have a line of sight to the target unit can't fire" P.21.

Nurglitch wrote:snooggums: No doubt how you play and RAW are the same, which is why how you play and RAW are not what the text of the rules state.

For example, if you take the text of the Template rules out of context, you will not think that hitting models besides the target unit contradicts the rules because you will not have the context, other rules, that tell you that units are hit and that only models in the target unit may be removed as casualties. Hitting models that are not part of the target unit is splitting the fire of one unit between 2 or more, in the case of flamers literally so.

Call your opinion "logical" all you want, neither your argument is valid nor your conclusion true. Your 'logic' is unsound, it is illogic. Take this as an insult if you must, but please be aware that your opinion is not logical until you prove it to be so (or cite where it's been proven before). Calling something "logical" and it actually being logical are naturally disjoint.

I already answered your question, but hey, repetition genuinely does make things clearer:

If a template cannot be placed in such a way as to touch a model in the target unit then it cannot fire. Because: "Any individual models in the unit that don't have a line of sight to the target unit can't fire" P.21.

Actually you did not answer it, you said there was the way you played and the RAW. Then you talked about somethign else and did not actually answer it. My example said the template could not be placed due to an impeding model the first time I asked, not because of LOS issues. The second time did not mention any LOS issues either, so I'm not sure why you give that as a reason for it not being placed.

We also have a history in the rules (including the current Long Fang's ability to 'split fire' between targetes) that clearly means that splitting fire is intentionally targetting a unit. Yes, Ordnance and Blasts list the ability to wound anything under the template, but so does a Template, by virtue of the rule that has been quoted several times about hitting 'all models' under the template.

snooggums wrote:
We also have a history in the rules (including the current Long Fang's ability to 'split fire' between targetes) that clearly means that splitting fire is intentionally targetting a unit. Yes, Ordnance and Blasts list the ability to wound anything under the template, but so does a Template, by virtue of the rule that has been quoted several times about hitting 'all models' under the template.

ok. . .
but where does it say that anything other than barrage (ordinance as a sub) actually ignores the rule stating that models must be removed from the target unit? these state that the randomness allows for other targets. templates use blast rules to see what is hit. except that all models even partially under this template are hit. blast rules say no to hit roll is needed for targets under the area - that is the ONLY rule excepted -to hit-. damage rules state that units MUST be removed from the targeted unit.

the rest is restatements no one questions. or i am misreading again.

i would love to be wrong, as no one plays "correctly" myself included if i am not.

Maybe another voice will lend credit to Nurglitch's arguments. He is entirly correct for the reasons he has stated.

What states that a template is causeing wounds to any unit other then the one it was targeted at? The 'its under the template' argument has been clearly pointed out only applies to the the unit it was fired at and not any other.

Start picking holes in Nurglitch's argument as he as presented. He is not, nor is anyone, holding a gun to your head to prevent you from playing 40k how you want. But if you want to claim you're playing the game literally how the rules are written, then you must abide by this instance as well. Its not 'his opinion' or mine. It is the truth, regardless of how popular or often used.

I don't think people have accepted that the "its under the template" only applies to the unit it was fired at. The template rules don't specify that the template only hits models that are in the Unit it was targeted at. All the well sequenced, long-winded post in the world that argue the "models" mentioned in the Template rules refer only to models in the targeted unit are going to fall short of being "clearly pointed out", because they require players to ignore a pretty straight forward rule as written, "all models under the template..." and instead use a rules as intended 6 step rules flow chart Nurglitch developed.

The one part of Nurglitch's argument which did sway me was the section on removing casualties. Clearly, the rules state that only a targeted unit can have casualties removed. However, as I stated earlier, as an argument for why Template weapons can only hit models in the targeted unit, this elicits the same level of respect from me as the rules which clearly don't state terminators wear terminator armor.

I disagree Caedesis. He is not 'entirely' correct in his statements. Templates do not follow the same rules for 'Blast Markers' or single fire weapons(lasguns etc).

They follow the rules for 'Template' weapons.

Just because a car is a car, does not mean that it is an 'Armoured Vehicle, Nascar or F1 racer. It is the vehicle as spec. It has four wheels, a steering wheel, and a windshield(mostly). So you could not point at a Mini-moke, and tell me that it follows the same 'requirements' as an F1 car. It is a totally separate thing all-together.

Rules for Template weapons are very clear. You are not splitting fire between units, you are firing at 1 Unit. If there happens to be some other clowns around him drenched in promethium, well, that's thier silly fault. As the rules quites clearly states 'ALL models under the Template weapon are hit(you do not even need to check for 'partials'-like you MUST for Blast weapons).

It is a totally different kind of weapon to the previously mentioned ones. Why are we trying to apply the rules for Chalk with Cheese?

Thats fair akira5665, but how do you account for the removing models part of the argument?

akira5665 wrote:I disagree Caedesis. He is not 'entirely' correct in his statements. Templates do not follow the same rules for 'Blast Markers' or single fire weapons(lasguns etc).

They follow the rules for 'Template' weapons.

Just because a car is a car, does not mean that it is an 'Armoured Vehicle, Nascar or F1 racer. It is the vehicle as spec. It has four wheels, a steering wheel, and a windshield(mostly). So you could not point at a Mini-moke, and tell me that it follows the same 'requirements' as an F1 car. It is a totally separate thing all-together.

Rules for Template weapons are very clear. You are not splitting fire between units, you are firing at 1 Unit. If there happens to be some other clowns around him drenched in promethium, well, that's thier silly fault. As the rules quites clearly states 'ALL models under the Template weapon are hit(you do not even need to check for 'partials'-like you MUST for Blast weapons).

It is a totally different kind of weapon to the previously mentioned ones. Why are we trying to apply the rules for Chalk with Cheese?

except that what you say isn't true.
template weapons do follow all the rules. they are not a stand alone section that can be used without reference. they actually state in text that they require some of the blast rules be used for understanding templates. and they use all shooting rules they do not specifically alter (notably the "to-hit" rolls that everyone seems to write of, but seem to be intrinsically related). they are a type of weapon. so they follow rules for using weapons in this game of 40k. those rules are pretty complex and not limited to one part of one page.

for example the bit about prometium soaked areas isn't even related in the game. . . no model under any template or Blast marker needs to be a model removed. the rules say that. only models in the wounded unit must be. oddly the problem is that all the rules refer to the only woundable unit as being the one that is targeted. and that basically is the problem, in a nutshell. reading a single sentence and taking it as the end of the text.

here is a 40k example for you. since that car thing just did not work.


q
ee
f g


f is in range of unit q and g with a flamer.
f is in a unit with e.
no units are in base.
this unit (eef) fires at unit q.
placing the template so that it covers the most enemy units in target unit (q) will cover zero models in the target unit, since it cannot cover friendlies. the rules allow this. this is also part of the problem. not the answer, read on and remember the flamer is in range, and friendlies do not block LOS outside of melee.
the only legal placement of the flamer splits fire. deliberately and obviously.
this can be done on purpose far easier than hiding a powerfist.
moving any models can only change where the template is placed. it never changes who can be targeted. that i believe is the problem.
the only textual exception being weapons out of range or LOS. those weapons do not fire.

why is that ok?
or maybe more importantly why is that not ok?

i find it hard to believe this is not (ab)used more often.