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'm sorry for asking what might be a stupid question but we can't seem to find it in the BRB under the barrage rule and we're about to start a game.

Do I choose what level is hit by a barrage, does it automatically resolve against top/bottom floor, etc?

Under blast/template rules. All models under the template are hit, levels no longer exist.

Of course then the line of site rules come into play, and wether you can see through levels...

7th Ed terrain rules are a mess.

Nothing to debate on true line of sight though.

Can your model see the model, yes or no?
Nothing hard about that.

That isnt the point they were making - some argue that, despite it only being a suggestion that ONE way of determining who is under a marker is to look through it and see, they take that as being the ONLY way, and therefore anyone below a piece of scenery cannot therefore be hit. This is, of course, untrue.

What is true is some keep changing the definition of 'underneath' to the point they refuse to admit it the word used in the rule. It's pg 12 btw, before someone accuses me of making up the word again. the definition of underneath is 'directly below' meaning you do need a direct line from the marker to the model and that is 100% RAW.

If you're only using 1/2 of the definition you are not playing RAW.

sirlynchmob wrote:
What is true is some keep changing the definition of 'underneath' to the point they refuse to admit it the word used in the rule. It's pg 12 btw, before someone accuses me of making up the word again. the definition of underneath is 'directly below' meaning you do need a direct line from the marker to the model and that is 100% RAW.

If you're only using 1/2 of the definition you are not playing RAW.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is of course not true.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
What is true is some keep changing the definition of 'underneath' to the point they refuse to admit it the word used in the rule. It's pg 12 btw, before someone accuses me of making up the word again. the definition of underneath is 'directly below' meaning you do need a direct line from the marker to the model and that is 100% RAW.

If you're only using 1/2 of the definition you are not playing RAW.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is of course not true.

Thank you for your opinion, now if only you had some rules bases for it. It's is true, It is demonstrably true. To deny it's truth is being intellectually dishonest.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
What is true is some keep changing the definition of 'underneath' to the point they refuse to admit it the word used in the rule. It's pg 12 btw, before someone accuses me of making up the word again. the definition of underneath is 'directly below' meaning you do need a direct line from the marker to the model and that is 100% RAW.

If you're only using 1/2 of the definition you are not playing RAW.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is of course not true.

Thank you for your opinion, now if only you had some rules bases for it. It's is true, It is demonstrably true. To deny it's truth is being intellectually dishonest.

It is not my opinion, I can not find that meaning in the Oxford English dictionary.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
What is true is some keep changing the definition of 'underneath' to the point they refuse to admit it the word used in the rule. It's pg 12 btw, before someone accuses me of making up the word again. the definition of underneath is 'directly below' meaning you do need a direct line from the marker to the model and that is 100% RAW.

If you're only using 1/2 of the definition you are not playing RAW.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is of course not true.

Thank you for your opinion, now if only you had some rules bases for it. It's is true, It is demonstrably true. To deny it's truth is being intellectually dishonest.

It is not my opinion, I can not find that meaning in the Oxford English dictionary.

Oh really?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/underneath
1. Situated directly below (something else):

It's the first definition.

Underneath "Situated directly below"

Notice how it also says "Situated directly below (something else):
[AS PREPOSITION]: our bedroom’s right underneath theirs"

It does not have to be visible to be underneath.

Models on a different floor and directly under another model are situated directly below the marker...

"each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker" (Blast rules 3rd graph)

If there is a floor in between, they are not directly below.

 Shandara wrote:
If there is a floor in between, they are not directly below.

Yes they are.

From: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/underneath

"[AS PREPOSITION]: our bedroom’s right underneath theirs"

Notice how they use underneath even when there is a floor in between...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Underneath "Situated directly below"

Models on a different floor and directly under another model are situated directly below the marker...

"each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker" (Blast rules 3rd graph)

allow me to look up directly for you as well.

1. without changing direction or stopping.
2. with nothing or no one in between.

If there is a floor between the model and marker the model is not directly below the marker. Because there is something between the marker and the model, and to draw LOS you'd have to change direction to go around the floor and the floor would stop LOS.

The definition of underneath is 'directly below' meaning you do need a direct line from the marker to the model and that is 100% RAW. Just because you are using a more broad definition while ignoring the use and definition of directly is not disproving my claim, Nor proving my claim is not RAW.

Care to move the goalpost further? You start with an opinion, then deny what your dictionary of choice says, now you're using directly incorrectly. Anything else I can clarify for you?

And it does not change direction or stop.

If you go by #2 there can be nothing ever directly underneath anything else, as there would be air in between the marker and the models...

P.S. the rule says beneath, not underneath. which has a few meanings, one of which is 'at a lower level or layer than' the other is 'directly underneath'.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And it does not change direction or stop.

If you go by #2 there can be nothing ever directly underneath anything else, as there would be air in between the marker and the models...

P.S. the rule says beneath, not underneath.

what does pg 12 state in bold, you do know that being in bold is highlighting the essence of the rule right?

so know you're up to real world comparisons, and denying what the rule book and your dictionary says.

beneath according to oxford:
1. Extending or directly underneath:

LOL LOS is blocked by air?

Wait so.... if I hide my rangers in the earth's core, a blast template will still hit them because they're directly beneath it? Damn, I THOUGHT THEY WERE SAFE! ( >.< )

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/beneath

"Extending or directly underneath, typically with close contact: in the labyrinths beneath central Moscow"

Note how they use beneath in a sentence, 'the labyrinths beneath central Moscow' are "Extending or directly underneath, typically with close contact" but there is a floor in the way in that situation, so your claims are not 100% true.


P.S. P 12 says to look underneath or through to determine...

The actual rules about blasts say beneath.

 DeathReaper wrote:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/beneath

"Extending or directly underneath, typically with close contact: in the labyrinths beneath central Moscow"

Note how they use beneath in a sentence, 'the labyrinths beneath central Moscow' are "Extending or directly underneath, typically with close contact" but there is a floor in the way in that situation, so your claims are not 100% true.


P.S. P 12 says to look underneath or through to determine...

The actual rules about blasts say beneath.

You should quote your cut and paste job about real world examples after stating stuff like that.

and according to you're own dictionary of choice, they both use directly

beneath: 1. Extending or directly underneath:
underneath: 1. Situated directly below (something else):

directly:
1. without changing direction or stopping.
2. with nothing or no one in between.

the definition of underneath is 'directly below' meaning you do need a direct line from the marker to the model and that is 100% RAW.
Does this break any rules? no.
Am I changing any definitions of the rules or ignoring the definition? no

ergo it is 100% RAW.

but you keep to your real world examples, while ignoring the context of how we are using blast markers.

Does just claiming the marker hits everything "under" the marker break any rules? in some cases yes, but not all cases.
are you changing the definition of the rules and ignoring the definition? yes

I am not changing any definitions.



beneath: 1. Extending or directly underneath: (Extending underneath and directly underneath are both included so both are valid definitions).

Models on different floors can be Extending underneath the marker.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not changing any definitions.

directly:
1. without changing direction or stopping. (This is the case for blast markers)


2. with nothing or no one in between. (This is not as there is something in between the marker and every model).

you're a riot today, thanks for the laughs. So you'd consider air to be directly between the marker and the model, but a solid floor blocking all LOS is just going to far. I've seen some weird strawman arguments before, but that one is just ridiculous.

I suppose if you're playing in china the air could probably obscure models by 25% or more so all models get cover saves


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not changing any definitions.



beneath: 1. Extending or directly underneath: (Extending underneath and directly underneath are both included so both are valid definitions).

Models on different floors can be Extending underneath the marker.

I'll quote this one as well as I caught you before your edit. Thank you for finally admitting I'm using a valid definition.

If you can admit I'm using a valid definition, then you should be able to admit as well it is truly RAW.

My definition meets both words used 'underneath' and 'beneath'

yours still skips the 'directly' part that both words use. So you meet 1 definition, I meet both.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
If there is a floor in between, they are not directly below.

Yes they are.

From: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/underneath

"[AS PREPOSITION]: our bedroom’s right underneath theirs"

Notice how they use underneath even when there is a floor in between...

This is because it deals with the concept of ROOMS.. which generally include the walls, ceiling and floor.

I will point you to:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/room

When your having to get the dictionary out when rules lawyering its getting beyond joke, But then again GW ruins sections and blast markers is garbage and just about every one has house ruled this back to what its is supposed to be.

Before the game with a player you've never played before you explain this house rule and get them to agree to it, if they do not accept the change back to what its supposed to be then they are a douche who wants to have there cake and eat it (you'll probably see lots of blast markers in the army) At this point you politely tell to find a new opponent.

Hettar wrote:
and just about every one has house ruled this back to what its is supposed to be.

Before the game with a player you've never played before you explain this house rule and get them to agree to it, if they do not accept the change back to what its supposed to be then they are a douche who wants to have there cake and eat it (you'll probably see lots of blast markers in the army) At this point you politely tell to find a new opponent.

And you know what it is supposed to be because you've had an in-depth discussion with the authors of the rules, right? Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke up someone's derriere when you say that you know what it is supposed to be. And even after a discussion with the author, the frikkin' FAQ writers can change the rule to something that the author did not intend. True story, I was the Games Day rules judge that had the in-depth conversation with the codex author and later an FAQ changed the rule. Yep, per the author, the old DeffRollas were NOT supposed to be used against vehicles.....

LOL.

SO.. that went well.

Or not.


Another one to add to the 'discuss it with your opponent' list.

Moving on.