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.

That's being a little silly.

I don't want it to mean there's a mistake in every diagram or every page, just that there's the possibility that they misplaced the template on pg32, and that it isn't the solid evidence that it could be if the other diagrams were fine.

Avatar 720 wrote:That's being a little silly.

I don't want it to mean there's a mistake in every diagram or every page, just that there's the possibility that they misplaced the template on pg32, and that it isn't the solid evidence that it could be if the other diagrams were fine.

By itself no.

But the image, plus the wording of the FAQ, and the lack of the word "entire" on page 30...

I see a rule allowing me to place a blast with the hole over my target's base.
I do not see a rule restricting me to placing the entire hole over my target's base.

I'm only playing the Devil's Advocate here, i'm not this bothered about blast marker placement (I only have one Blast in my Eldar, and 1-2 in my Tau, and none of them gets used often enough for me to be bothered about the extra 1/2-2/3 or so of an inch it would or would not get me, so long as my opponent and I agree, i'm fine about it), so i'm not going to add anything more, since i've said all I can really.

It seems to be one of these "there's evidence either way, talk it over beforehand" discussions, and whilst I don't necessarily agree with those in the Partials camp, I really don't think it's enough of an issue to kick up a fuss over, especially when there's no definitive answer.

Avatar 720 wrote:It seems to be one of these "there's evidence either way, talk it over beforehand" discussions, and whilst I don't necessarily agree with those in the Partials camp, I really don't think it's enough of an issue to kick up a fuss over, especially when there's no definitive answer.

Agreed.

ok, p45 "Trapped!" the caption says
"As the Gretehin cannot fall back 8 " without running into
impassable terrain or moving to within 1" of an enemy,
the entire unit is destroyed!"

It makes no mention of how this situation came about. Perhaps the Gretchen assaulted the rhino.
On the following turn, the 2 squads of SMs moved in and assaulted the Gretchen.
The Gretchin get their butts kicked, take wounds, and remove casualties.
The removed casualties were in spaces, that if filled would no longer have the Gretchin squad breaking any rules.
The SMs won the assualt. The Gretchen failed their morale check are now required to fall back.

Ignore the caption, it isn't important in the slightest, nor is how the situation arose.

The fact is that at the end of the combat, at least 1 Gretchin model is within 1" of an enemy model it is not engaged with, thus your assumption that casualties were remove to make sure no rules were broken cannot be.

Although upon further reading of the rules, it says models are not allowed to move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting, it says nothing about simply being within 1" without having moved there illegally, without anything else moving there illegally, and with neither model being in close combat with the other.

Thus the game implodes.

EDIT: Okay, NOW i'm bowing out.

Avatar 720 wrote:The fact is that at the end of the combat, at least 1 Gretchin model is within 1" of an enemy model it is not engaged with

This is not illegal.

Well seeing, as how we have no idea what happened in that combat, isn't it likely that there could have been a multi-assault going on? There are numerous ways that picture came to be, whether through game play or simple human error. However, we have no idea.

foolishmortal wrote: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?

If it is legal to not place the hole over the base of a model, like in the diagram you referenced, why they did not do the same on the page (30 or 31 do not have book right now) diagram where they placed the hole over the targets base.

If that was legal they could/should have shifted it up just a bit to catch that other Ork in the blast as well, while retaining part of the hole over the target.

This probably boils down to playing it as the least advantageous interpretation, which is whole hole over the base of the target.

Avatar 720 wrote:
Thus the game implodes.

The real answer.

I agree that on p30 of the BRB, the blasting player could probably have positioned the marker better (up ~1/2" and right ~1/2") to catch 4 orks on a hit.

Maybe he was worried about a scatter. Maybe he did it quickly instead of perfectly. Maybe he was going easy on his little brother. If you are watching me drive, you might see me turn right at a 4 way stop. I didn't have to turn right, I just chose to. Heck, maybe straight would have been a better choice and gotten me there faster. That doesn't make right illegal. The safest assumption we can make is that the diagram shows a legal way of placing the blast marker, but not necessarily the only legal way.

Page 29 - 32 contain numerous instances of GW making a distinction between over and completely over, "placed to cover as much of the vehicle as possible," "even grazed by it," "arecompletely or
partially covered," "anywhere in contact with or over markers 1 and 2, even directly on top of the first marker." The fact that this specific language is used in some places, but not others is suggestive (but not conclusive) Was it intentional or an oversight that the distinction was not made for the placing of the blast marker rules? Let's look at more context.

Template rules p29 BRB
"Instead of rolling to hit. simply place the template so
that its narrow end is touching the base of the model
firing it and the rest of the template covers as many
models as possible in the target unit without touching
any friendly models."

interesting, but not conclusive.

How about p40 BRB
Shooting into& out of close combat
"While blast markers and templates may not be
deliberately placed such that they cover any models
locked in combat, they may end up there after
scattering and will then hit any models they touch
(friends and foes!)."

This is stronger. It shows the use of "cover" without meaning or implying "completely cover" But cover and over are not the same word. How about this...

p32 BRB
"for example, a hit had been rolled for the third marker instead,
the player could have placed it anywhere in contact with or
over markers 1 and 2, even directly on top of the first
marker (as long as it causes the most hits on the target)"

In this example, the non-specific over seems to include both completely over and partially over.

It adds up to a decently strong argument. The new FAQ language for 1/2 vs full strength hits on vehicles only makes it stronger.

DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote: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?

If it is legal to not place the hole over the base of a model, like in the diagram you referenced, why they did not do the same on the page (30 or 31 do not have book right now) diagram where they placed the hole over the targets base.

Seriously? Why does every image not show every example simultaneously? That is your retort?

The fact that the text, FAQ, and image agree with each other in this case isn't enough?

Next:
Vehicular target.
1) If blast marker's hole is over the hull, the target is legal.
2) If blast marker's hole is over the hull, the hit is full strength.

FAQ clarifies (Not errata, remember?) that blast marker's hole does not have to be entirely over the hull for 2. But you are saying it does for 1.


I can live with that d6 more than I can you "letting" me play that way.

foolishmortal wrote:p32 BRB
"for example, a hit had been rolled for the third marker instead,
the player could have placed it anywhere in contact with or
over markers 1 and 2, even directly on top of the first
marker (as long as it causes the most hits on the target)"

Where is the underlined, I can not find it in the Blast rules.

But if you need to place the marker "as long as it causes the most hits on the target" then they would have HAD to place it over the 4 models if it could be only partially over a model. Something is funky here.

no, nothing funky. The diagram on p30 shows the initial placement of the blast marker. The underlined rule for causing the most possible hits is from the caption in the diagram on p32. It is in reference to placing the second and following blast markers from a multiple barrage.

I cited it because I thought it might help clarify what GW means by "over." In this example, the non-specific "over" seems to include both completely over and partially over.

Other than the diagram on Page 32, where is this requirement for blast weapons, I can not find it.

("as long as it causes the most hits on the target")

You mentioned getting a warp rift off. Did you have a librarian in terminator armor joined to Mordrak or did you just try to cast that from Mordrak himself?

DeathReaper wrote:Other than the diagram on Page 32, where is this requirement for blast weapons, I can not find it.

("as long as it causes the most hits on the target")

You're right. It really only mentions that in the diagram caption, but not the main text rules. There is a mention in the flamer template diagram on p29 about the "maximum amount of hits" but it's contextually phrased more as sage advice instead of a rules requirement.

I don't have a copy of the earlier 40k rule books. Is it possible these are old diagrams and that they were re-used even though the wording of the rules changed?

Ele-Boom wrote:You mentioned getting a warp rift off. Did you have a librarian in terminator armor joined to Mordrak or did you just try to cast that from Mordrak himself?

All librarians in a GK army have termie armour, and Mordrak does not have the power. Its what i have at 1750...

@Nosferatu, I was just checking man. Had some people at the FLGS who didn't know how stuff used and tried using psychic powers on non librarians cause, 'all GKs are psykers'. No harm no foul.

Well theyre all psykers, but not all of them are as adept as the libbies

I run one iwth mordrak at 1750 - sanctuary, rift and might. EVery guy in the squad can now be S7+2D6 in CC, and sanctuary can help me avoid getting charged or thinning them on the way in.

foolishmortal wrote:You're right. It really only mentions that in the diagram caption, but not the main text rules. There is a mention in the flamer template diagram on p29 about the "maximum amount of hits" but it's contextually phrased more as sage advice instead of a rules requirement.

I don't have a copy of the earlier 40k rule books. Is it possible these are old diagrams and that they were re-used even though the wording of the rules changed?

Okay so we know we can not trust that diagram on P.32 100%

DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:You're right. It really only mentions that in the diagram caption, but not the main text rules. There is a mention in the flamer template diagram on p29 about the "maximum amount of hits" but it's contextually phrased more as sage advice instead of a rules requirement.

I don't have a copy of the earlier 40k rule books. Is it possible these are old diagrams and that they were re-used even though the wording of the rules changed?

Okay so we know we can not trust that diagram on P.32 100%

Templates say on page 29 that they must cover the most models possible. You're correct, though, that blast weapons do not have that requirement.

DeathReaper wrote:Okay so we know we can not trust that diagram on P.32 100%

I disagree.
I think the parenthetical is because it is player choice, choosing a sub-optimal option is not worth using as an example.

Ignoring parts of the rulebook because they do not conform to preconceived notions is probably not the best idea.

It* seems like a rule they got wrong (Or intended the Template rules about coverage to cover blast markers as well) more than player choice.

Why would anyone choose to only cover three when you can cover 4 models?

It refers to: ("as long as it causes the most hits on the target")