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've been hearing people describe this situation as broken under the current edition.

I may be reading this wrong from the BRB but maybe someone can elaborate on it.

as I read it. if you place the blast template on models that are in ruins, you look over the template and any models visible under the template are hit.

example. 3 floor ruins. you templates center lands on a model on the third floor. on the second floor you have 3 models. one is under the floor the other two are visible from overhead and under the template.

the two models on the second floor are then struck by the blast.

is this how its supposed to be played?

If this was a Barrage weapon, blast coming from the center, the two soldiers on the second floor would get a cover save?

these rules seem acceptable to me. I guess I don't understand.

What is "under the template". Does that mean anywhere beneath the template, or visible beneath the template as you described?

If it IS as you described, then how could you hit people on floors that aren't the top floor with any blast weapon at all, barrage aside? How would templates work?

It's not just models 'visible' under the marker (not template - Template weapons use templates, Blasts use Blast Markers) - it's any model 'under' the marker.

Checking what is visible under the marker is just an easy way of determining who is under it... which obviously doesn't work in the case of multi-level ruins.

So any models on any floor that are under the marker will be hit by it in the current rules.

This isn't particularly 'broken'... it's how Blasts worked for 10 or 15 years before the rules for different levels were added in. It's just a reversion to the old way of doing it.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spellbound wrote:
How would templates work?

Templates are a total mess in ruins at the moment, due to the requirement to touch the template to the firer's base. There is no easy way to resolve them within the rules most of the time where ruins are concerned..

What I mean is,
place the blast marker over the target on the third floor.
when seen from above. you have the target on the third floor. and two on the second floor under the marker. the 4th model is within the blast marker but fully obscured due to the floor.

as seen from above, do all four models get hit or just the 3 visible?

 insaniak wrote:
Templates are a total mess in ruins at the moment, due to the requirement to touch the template to the firer's base. There is no easy way to resolve them within the rules most of the time where ruins are concerned..

Only if you assume that "touch" means "physical contact" rather than "touching when seen from above, ignoring height". Fortunately the rulebook uses the second option, and there's no conflict at all.

 insaniak wrote:
So any models on any floor that are under the marker will be hit by it in the current rules.

This isn't particularly 'broken'... it's how Blasts worked for 10 or 15 years before the rules for different levels were added in. It's just a reversion to the old way of doing it.

I'm still a bit hesitant to use the old version of the rules, especially since these rules are so vague.

I just find it a bit silly to say everything under the blast period. We have a 5 story building, almost a foot tall. A blast with 3 inch diameter creates a foot high vertical pillar of death?

From my understanding it means everything immediately below the marker, so hold the marker within an inch of the models you want to hit and it only hits models within that distance to it (meaning just that floor, or a slight vertical increase such as a hill, as you can hold the marker at a matching slope).

 kingbobbito wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So any models on any floor that are under the marker will be hit by it in the current rules.

This isn't particularly 'broken'... it's how Blasts worked for 10 or 15 years before the rules for different levels were added in. It's just a reversion to the old way of doing it.

I'm still a bit hesitant to use the old version of the rules, especially since these rules are so vague.

I just find it a bit silly to say everything under the blast period. We have a 5 story building, almost a foot tall. A blast with 3 inch diameter creates a foot high vertical pillar of death?

From my understanding it means everything immediately below the marker, so hold the marker within an inch of the models you want to hit and it only hits models within that distance to it (meaning just that floor, or a slight vertical increase such as a hill, as you can hold the marker at a matching slope).

The way we play it, we also hold the marker vertically from the point of impact and only affects targets in that diameter as well

 Peregrine wrote:

Only if you assume that "touch" means "physical contact" rather than "touching when seen from above, ignoring height". Fortunately the rulebook uses the second option,...

The rulebook just says 'touching'. And so it should be touching.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kingbobbito wrote:
.
I just find it a bit silly to say everything under the blast period. We have a 5 story building, almost a foot tall. A blast with 3 inch diameter creates a foot high vertical pillar of death?

It's not really any sillier than templates suddenly gaining unlimited range when fired on overwatch.

From my understanding it means everything immediately below the marker, so hold the marker within an inch of the models you want to hit and it only hits models within that distance to it (meaning just that floor, or a slight vertical increase such as a hill, as you can hold the marker at a matching slope).

There is no rules basis for this way of playing it. Perfectly acceptable as a house rule, though.

 insaniak wrote:
It's not really any sillier than templates suddenly gaining unlimited range when fired on overwatch.

From what I understand the idea is that the enemy is charging you, you start firing your flamer the whole time they're charging, they need to get past said fire to reach you. I think the BRB actually has something along those lines in it.

It's not necessarily the best explanation, but at the same time it seems idiotic that your flamer has no effect on the person running at you. Solutions to the problem exist, such as making template overwatch only apply if the charge is successful, but I'm not in charge of rules changes.

The silliness comes from the fact that every other weapon firing on overwatch is bound by range.

 kingbobbito wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's not really any sillier than templates suddenly gaining unlimited range when fired on overwatch.

From what I understand the idea is that the enemy is charging you, you start firing your flamer the whole time they're charging, they need to get past said fire to reach you. I think the BRB actually has something along those lines in it.

It's not necessarily the best explanation, but at the same time it seems idiotic that your flamer has no effect on the person running at you. Solutions to the problem exist, such as making template overwatch only apply if the charge is successful, but I'm not in charge of rules changes.

Under the current rules the wounds from Wall of Death can be allocated to a model infinite inches away, models that are so far away that it would take the entire game for him to be in the range of the flamer

Checking what's visible under the marker is merely a simple way associated with determining who is under it...

 insaniak wrote:
The silliness comes from the fact that every other weapon firing on overwatch is bound by range.

Guess we'll have to ask GW to make all overwatch work regardless of range.

 insaniak wrote:
The rulebook just says 'touching'. And so it should be touching.

The rulebook also clearly shows pictures of the template being held parallel to the surface of the table, not touching the base and slanted upward to go over the target models. And a physical contact requirement leads to absurd situations like a model standing near a low wall (an ADL, for example) being unable to use a template weapon at all because you can't get the template into base contact. Conclusion: "touching" is only from a top-down perspective, not physical contact between the template and base.

The best way to look at it is to place the blast marker 4 feet above the table, and pretend it is an invisible cylinder down to the table. Any model touching this invisible cylinder is hit.

 Peregrine wrote:

The rulebook also clearly shows pictures of the template being held parallel to the surface of the table, not touching the base and slanted upward to go over the target models.

Yes, it does. And this isn't the first time GW have included an example illustration that doesn't match the written rules.

And a physical contact requirement leads to absurd situations like a model standing near a low wall (an ADL, for example) being unable to use a template weapon at all because you can't get the template into base contact

Yup. Similarly, the LOS rules lead to absurd situations like a model beside a low wall being unable to shoot over it because the model was posed in a kneeling position.

While it would be nice to think otherwise, being absurd does not automatically mean a rule is being read incorrectly where GW is concerned.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, it does. And this isn't the first time GW have included an example illustration that doesn't match the written rules.

So why are you considering the written rules to take priority over the illustration? Remember, this is not just the "pretty picture" kind of illustration, it's a "how to do this" example.

While it would be nice to think otherwise, being absurd does not automatically mean a rule is being read incorrectly where GW is concerned.

You're right, but it is a good argument when it is combined with a picture that supports the "top down only" argument. Unlike the kneeling model case (which is clearly how the LOS rules work) there is only a very weak argument for the absurd scenario, based on a literal interpretation of a single word instead of one that makes a lot more sense in the context.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The rulebook also clearly shows pictures of the template being held parallel to the surface of the table, not touching the base and slanted upward to go over the target models.

Yes, it does. And this isn't the first time GW have included an example illustration that doesn't match the written rules.

And a physical contact requirement leads to absurd situations like a model standing near a low wall (an ADL, for example) being unable to use a template weapon at all because you can't get the template into base contact

Yup. Similarly, the LOS rules lead to absurd situations like a model beside a low wall being unable to shoot over it because the model was posed in a kneeling position.

While it would be nice to think otherwise, being absurd does not automatically mean a rule is being read incorrectly where GW is concerned.

Except that we don't, and never have, play the game by a strict, absolute literal RAW interpretation. (Unless you refused to allow opponents to fire Wraithknights' guns up until 7th, or play that a unit getting out of a Wrecked Land Raider Crusader can launch an assault in their opponent's assault phase.) We always have, and continue to, interpret the rules in the most reasonable manner in order to play the game. Top-down is clearly the most reasonable interpretation of intent, since we have an illustration showing us exactly how we are supposed to do it.

 Peregrine wrote:
So why are you considering the written rules to take priority over the illustration? Remember, this is not just the "pretty picture" kind of illustration, it's a "how to do this" example.

Because it's not the first time the 'explanatory' picture has differed from the actual rules, and because the written rules are the written rules while the picture is just supposed to clarify what the rules are saying.

When the picture is actually completely different to the actual rules, the sensible option is generally to ignore it.

...there is only a very weak argument for the absurd scenario, based on a literal interpretation of a single word instead of one that makes a lot more sense in the context.

That 'weak argument' is based on what the rules actually say. Your alternate proposal involves assuming that the rules mean to say something completely and utterly different to what they actually say.

Which isn't to say that your version isn't how it's supposed to work... the illustration is a suggestion that you might well be right. But since GW don't believe in actually supporting their product, we have no way of knowing for sure just how it's supposed to work. All we have to go on are the rules we are given.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Except that we don't, and never have, play the game by a strict, absolute literal RAW interpretation. .

I wasn't talking about how people choose to play it. I was pointing out what the rules say.

I would like to point on the fact that though it might seem silly - being in a ruined building when things are exploding inside is probably a lot worse than being out in the open. Just as in the real world. Weapons designed to be used to clear rooms perform exceptionally well inside of buildings. Detonate a fuel air bomb in a tunnel system and you'll have 10 to 20 times more damage inflicted then if it was set off on open ground. Templates specifically are designed to negate the advantages of cover - it think it's entirely reasonable that they do damage to units on multiple levels of a ruined building. Cover being ridiculously overpowered, I think more rules to discourage clustering your units into a ruined building should exist.

Why so beardy?

I do like the idea of the 3" blast template pillar of death reaching all the way to the sky (like a reverse version of the satellite laser cannon from Akira), or standing on a chair and holding a 1" blast template at ceiling height and using parallax error to hit the entire table

...even in Necromunda the rules appeared to hit multiple levels, but did nobody just rotate the template/hold it on its side and imagine it was a sphere¿ I'm glad I only ever played for fun.

 insaniak wrote:
Because it's not the first time the 'explanatory' picture has differed from the actual rules, and because the written rules are the written rules while the picture is just supposed to clarify what the rules are saying.

When the picture is actually completely different to the actual rules, the sensible option is generally to ignore it.

Can you cite something from GW to support your claim that the written rules are the "actual rules" and the pictures are "explanatory"?

That 'weak argument' is based on what the rules actually say. Your alternate proposal involves assuming that the rules mean to say something completely and utterly different to what they actually say.

No, the "weak argument" is based on what one interpretation of one part of the rules says. And that part conflicts with another part of the rules, in addition to creating absurd situations. My alternate proposal is to consider the second part (the one that functions sensibly in more situations) the correct one and use the interpretation of the first part that aligns with the second.

 trollmeat wrote:
standing on a chair and holding a 1" blast template at ceiling height and using parallax error to hit the entire table

You can't do this. The rules state that you hit all models under the template, not all models seen through the template (which would be no models at all, in the case of opaque templates).

 trollmeat wrote:
... but did nobody just rotate the template/hold it on its side and imagine it was a sphere¿ I'm glad I only ever played for fun.

Everyone else just 'plays for fun' as well.

But no, very few people turned the marker on its side, because the rules never said to do so. GW clarified in previous editions' FAQs that the marker was supposed to be considered to have infinite height.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Can you cite something from GW to support your claim that the written rules are the "actual rules" and the pictures are "explanatory"?

No. Can you cite something from GW that suggests that we shouldn't also treat the page number as a rule?

The pictures serve to illustrate the written rules. That's fairly standard procedure for any text that utilises pictures alongside text.

No, the "weak argument" is based on what one interpretation of one part of the rules says.

Yes, it is. But that 'one part' of the rules is the part that actually deals with the situation in question, and that 'one interpretation' is what that section of the rules says.

My alternate proposal is to consider the second part (the one that functions sensibly in more situations) the correct one and use the interpretation of the first part that aligns with the second.

Which is perfectly acceptable as a house rule and is, I suspect, the way most people play it, going by previous discussions on this topic.

 insaniak wrote:
GW clarified in previous editions' FAQs that the marker was supposed to be considered to have infinite height.

...before True Fliers were introduced, or multiple levels (city/necromundastyle).

This this what a real Grenade Blast looks like?

 trollmeat wrote:

This this what a real Grenade Blast looks like?

Bravo...