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.

 Idolator wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

Why am I wrong? Honestly. Please tell me.

because your premise is incorrect.

Mainly this one:

 Idolator wrote:
It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see,

It is incorrect, there is no rule that states this.

If you think there is please follow the tenets of the forum. Mainly this one:

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC): wrote:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

 Grey Templar wrote:
This thread should probably be locked, nothing more useful to be found here I think.

I don't see it that way.

Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of models in the target unit.

I made the point that those models must be in LOS of the firing model. As the rules for LOS are still in effect and nothing in the rules for templates allow an exception to this.

It is completely within the topic at hand of "Torrent weapons and which models to remove first"

Models that are out of line of sight of template weapons are also not allocated wounds because there is no exception to this in the template rules either.

I've been repeatedly told that I was wrong. I've seen no citation that provides an exception to the LOS rules regarding template weapons.

The perfect example is the range example that I gave above.

I'll give give two more. for these examples lets assume that the flame template is 8 inches long.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 10 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 8 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers? No.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 7 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 7 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers at the models that he cannot see and ignore the only visible model? No.

LOS is still a determining factor when placing a template.

 Idolator wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
This thread should probably be locked, nothing more useful to be found here I think.

I don't see it that way.

Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of models in the target unit.

I made the point that those models must be in LOS of the firing model. As the rules for LOS are still in effect and nothing in the rules for templates allow an exception to this.

It is completely within the topic at hand of "Torrent weapons and which models to remove first"

Models that are out of line of sight of template weapons are also not allocated wounds because there is no exception to this in the template rules either.

I've been repeatedly told that I was wrong. I've seen no citation that provides an exception to the LOS rules regarding template weapons.

The perfect example is the range example that I gave above.

I'll give give two more. for these examples lets assume that the flame template is 8 inches long.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 10 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 8 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers? No.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 7 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 7 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers at the models that he cannot see and ignore the only visible model? No.

LOS is still a determining factor when placing a template.

I think the problem is that if you don't cite or quote rules in the way others on the forum do, meaning you have to follow their format or syntax, using quotation marks or page numbers etc then you are not actually citing or quoting rules.

No, there's no required syntax, there's just no rule that says "Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of models in the target unit that are in LOS."

A model has LOS to a unit. He is now required to cover the maximum amount of models in the unit.

Job done - without inserting an LOS requirement that just isn't there. We target units, not models.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see,

It is incorrect, there is no rule that states this.

pg 12 regarding the checking of range. When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit. Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible models in a target unit does not shoot.

It is the visiblility that determines if you can target models in a unit. Just because you have LOS to one model in a unit. It does not confer the ablility to intentionaly fire out of LOS.

This is further itterated in the blast rules. In those rules you must pick a model visible to the firer and that model is then refered to as the target model.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:

I think the problem is that if you don't cite or quote rules in the way others on the forum do, meaning you have to follow their format or syntax, using quotation marks or page numbers etc then you are not actually citing or quoting rules.

Yeah, I took care of that.

Blast rules are on pg 33. btw. Forgot to cite the page number.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, there's no required syntax, there's just no rule that says "Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of models in the target unit that are in LOS."

A model has LOS to a unit. He is now required to cover the maximum amount of models in the unit.

Job done - without inserting an LOS requirement that just isn't there. We target units, not models.

you are right, there is no requirement.

However each poster/reader sees things differently.
What you might see as citing or not citing a rule may be different from everyone else.

Idol may be thinking he is citing LoS rules by simply referring to LoS where as Nos obviously does not think he is citing the rules.

I sent this to GW yesterday. Hopefuly it will be addressed in the FAQ.

Are enemy models that are out of Line of Sight of the firing model, considered when placing a template weapon for the purpose of determining the number of enemy models covered by the template?

It's simple yes or no question.

That's all that we've been discussing here.

Obviously, if the firing model can't make the template hit visible models due to range, it is not allowed to fire at all, even if the unseen models would be in range..
My assertion is that it cannot intentionaly fire at unseen models at all, effectively ignoring the visible models.

40k-noob wrote:
you are right, there is no requirement.

However each poster/reader sees things differently.
What you might see as citing or not citing a rule may be different from everyone else.

Idol may be thinking he is citing LoS rules by simply referring to LoS where as Nos obviously does not think he is citing the rules.

You can tell when someone is citing a rule when they quote the rule or give a page number.
Saying "LOS rules" isn't citing anything. Because unless I'm missing a sentence or two (which is where citing helps) there's no rule supporting his statements.
Citation by the very definition of the word requires quoting (and giving the source for the quote). Idolator has done neither.

@40k-noob: "Citing" has a more precise meaning in the context of rules interpretation.

That is pretty weird. As written, it appears a model cannot fire a template weapon unless it is in range and line of sight of a model in the target unit, but then must place the template wherever it will achieve the largest number of hits on the target unit (keeping in mind restrictions, of which LoS is not one). It says it hits each model under the template.

Weird, but pretty clear as written.

It's not totally weird. I would think the point is to deal with cover.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see,

It is incorrect, there is no rule that states this.

pg 12 regarding the checking of range. When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit. Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible models in a target unit does not shoot.

It is the visiblility that determines if you can target models in a unit.

Except you do not target models, you target a unit.

"Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a target for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting." P.12

Your premise of targeting models is incorrect, as you target units.

Well, the part that's weird is that your template-wielding model can't fire at a unit if it doesn't have LoS to the models in it, but it can (indeed, is required to) place the template where it hits models out of LoS if that covers the most models. I'm imagining a tactical squad with a flamer moving up to a wall and firing at a unit at close range. The flamer guy is firing blind over the wall at enemies he knows are there (perhaps his squad is telling him where they are) and hits them because it's a flamer and pretty indiscriminate, but if he can't personally see anyone in the enemy unit then he cannot fire at all.

It doesn't make sense that he can or can't fire at models he can't see based on whether he can see another model over to the side.

ETA: though again, to be clear, even though it doesn't make sense it does seem unambiguous that this is how it is played RAW.

 Manchu wrote:
It's not totally weird. I would think the point is to deal with cover.

But then folks fall back on the fact that the wounds inflicted can't be allocated to the models that are out of LOS. Even though the weapon description ignores cover.

I know that the rules for template don't address the LOS issue directly. I've maintained that my reading has been RAI.

Often times there are rules interpretaions that are counter to how the writters intended. I believe that this is the case here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except you do not target models, you target a unit.

Pg 33. Blast

Instead, pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the the relevant blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
you are right, there is no requirement.

However each poster/reader sees things differently.
What you might see as citing or not citing a rule may be different from everyone else.

Idol may be thinking he is citing LoS rules by simply referring to LoS where as Nos obviously does not think he is citing the rules.

You can tell when someone is citing a rule when they quote the rule or give a page number.
Saying "LOS rules" isn't citing anything. Because unless I'm missing a sentence or two (which is where citing helps) there's no rule supporting his statements.
Citation by the very definition of the word requires quoting (and giving the source for the quote). Idolator has done neither.

true enough. But if a poster is thinks he is citing a rule and someone keeps telling that poster that no you have not, rather then pointing out that the reference/citation is too general or lacking specifics doesn't help the debate.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
(perhaps his squad is telling him where they are) and hits them because it's a flamer and pretty indiscriminate, but if he can't personally see anyone in the enemy unit then he cannot fire at all]

If a member of his unit could see them, then it would be perfectly ok. (He's told to shoot though a wall by a squad mate) I'm addressing the occasions when no one in the unit can see the guys that are out of LOS of the entire unit.

40k-noob wrote:
true enough. But if a poster is thinks he is citing a rule and someone keeps telling that poster that no you have not, rather then pointing out that the reference/citation is too general or lacking specifics doesn't help the debate.

You're right. Understanding what citing is does help the debate.
Which is something you should do before saying "I've cited rules!" when you actually haven't.
I will say that I only have a tangential understanding of Idol's argument as I have him on ignore - but from what others have quoted him saying he hasn't cited anything.

There is no corresponding requirement for templates. It says you must place the template where it covers as many models as possible. That's all.

It seems to me that it would be more logical for the LoS requirement to be in error. If the Template section had a line saying that when firing a Template weapon the model does not require Line of Sight to fire then it would make sense. The section itself talks about them being fired over obstructions and so on.

 Idolator wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
(perhaps his squad is telling him where they are) and hits them because it's a flamer and pretty indiscriminate, but if he can't personally see anyone in the enemy unit then he cannot fire at all.

If a member of his unit could see them, then it would be perfectly ok. (He's told to shoot though a wall by a squad mate) I'm addressing the occasions when no one in the unit can see the guys that are out of LOS of the entire unit.

That's pretty weird, yeah, but it's not any weirder than the abstractions of the shooting system in general. Blast weapons do the same thing - they generate wounds on models that cannot be killed by the shooting attack. It's no stranger than all of a unit being able to see one model in the target unit except for one guy, who can see around the wall to the others, and the attacking unit thus being able to kill the entire target unit.

I don't have any particular problem with the template thing because the firing model might know or assume the enemy models are there, whether that's by having seen them move there earlier, hearing them or whatever, and it seems in line with the rules for blasts and such (other than the one that says blasts can generate wounds on units out of LoS, since that doesn't have any effect RAW due to not being able to allocate them).

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except you do not target models, you target a unit.

Pg 33. Blast

Instead, pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the the relevant blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model.

That in no way overrides the you target a unit wording of Page 12.

You pick a target unit to fire at.

You have to place the blast marker over a model. (But we are talking about template weapons, not blast markers).

The template rules tell us we must cover as many models as possible with the template in the target unit.

"Instead of rolling To Hit, simply place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the firing model and the rest of the template covers as many models in the target unit as possible..." P. 52

I underlined the targeting part of the Template rules for you.

I've not argued that the rules for template stating that you cover as many ememy models as possible.

I've just argued that LOS is involved.

Some agree. Some don't .

It's my RAI argument.

I put in a question to GW.
I know all the rules that y'all have cited (or implied). I still see it the same way.

I understand why others see it the way that they do. I think that it's a much too narrow interpretation.

Simple as that.

The trouble with RAI arguments is that their validity can only be established by the rule writer and, even then, the authentic intention may be hard to recapture. Unless you get an honest, clear answer from whoever wrote the rules as to what they actually intended, RAI arguments always boil down to a house rulings. I believe that's why most regular YMDC contributors talk about RAW.

 Manchu wrote:
The trouble with RAI arguments is that their validity can only be established by the rule writer and, even then, the authentic intention may be hard to recapture. Unless you get an honest, clear answer from whoever wrote the rules as to what they actually intended, RAI arguments always boil down to a house rulings. I believe that's why most regular YMDC contributors talk about RAW.

While RAI may be the harder argument to defintively prove, it is usually what is argued. As two people may read the exact same sentence and come to different conclusions. Many may quote the RAW, but it is the RAI that is always in question.

RAI is what's important to discern as the RAW often has conflicts or errors that must be reconciled before play.

No one can argue what is writtren. It's in black and white. A person can only argue what is intended by the written word.

The need for errata, amendments, and FAQ updates proves that it's the RAI is the important factor.

When you are playing, yes. RAI (or at least HYWPI) is very important. In a discussion based on what the rules actually say...not so much.

 Happyjew wrote:
When you are playing, yes. RAI (or at least HYWPI) is very important. In a discussion based on what the rules actually say...not so much.

It is "You Make Da Call"

Not "What Was Printed"

There are discrepancies in the rules, mistakes, misprints, errors, bad editing. All of it leads back to RAI.

You can't argue what is printed. You can only argue what is intended by the printed word.

I've yet to see a sustained debate on what words exist, only on what they mean.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.


Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Hence the reason for the following:

 Lorek wrote:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

I agree there are discrepancies. I also agree that nobody who participates in these forums play strict RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.


Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

I've stated that is my argument, over and over again. Cited the pages and explained my reasoning.

This is probably the 5th time that I've stated that it's RAI.

Hey everybody! It's my RAI interpretation that the LOS rules apply to firing template weapons.
Because the rules for templates don't provide an exception to line of sight .

Well it is not RAW, and that is what most were discussing.

So if you play by RAW the Template can, indeed must, be placed over as many models in the target unit as possible, even if those models are out of Line of Sight.

 Idolator wrote:
I've stated that is my argument, over and over again. Cited the pages and explained my reasoning.

This is probably the 5th time that I've stated that it's RAI.

Hey everybody! It's my RAI interpretation that the LOS rules apply to firing template weapons.
Because the rules for templates don't provide an exception to line of sight .

4th actually. But who's counting?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5379650
Does not include anything pointing to you discussing RAI.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5381049
Here either.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5382036

You may find that when ever you make a point on RAW

So that's making a RAI argument?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5385180
Nope, still nothing about not being RAW...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5385447
The first hint!

It may be an RAI reading of the rules. But I was pretty clear about that when I gave the 4 point reasoning.

Darn. "may" isn't saying you're presenting a RAI argument at all, and you weren't "pretty clear" before either.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5386190
Darn. Fell back into not prefacing your argument at all.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5386386
Again.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389294
Nope, still nothing about not being a RAI argument.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389483
Again.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389573
Still appears to be asserting RAW - "I've seen no counter to the LoS argument that I have made. "
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389603
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389699
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389764
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389808
All of these appear to be RAW arguments.
And then we have:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389853

I've maintained that my reading has been RAI.

No, no you have not. In fact, that's the first time you've come out and said it.