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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
The only way to achieve a consensus where we both play consistently is to accept that the picture is drawn correctly.

Sorry... but, what?

'We disagree, so the only correct approach is to do it my way!'...?

No, I'm saying that because it's a logically consistent answer:

If you are correct with the wording, then the picture is incorrect. Or, you're saying that the picture is correct, but the wording is unclear. Either way, in this interpretation, the rules are unusable, because an argument of lack of clarity one way can just be thrown the other way.

However, if I am correct, then the picture and the rules work in tandem and in agreement.

Logically, if presented with two options, one being "the rules work this way, but one or the other must be wrong", and the other being "the rules work this way, and the two support each other", then the latter is a logically consistent answer.

 insaniak wrote:
Since the 2d version isn't backed up by anything in the actual written rules, though, the point stands.

The 2d interpretation isn't explicitly stated, but it's very strongly implied because GW never says anything about the various issues that come up when trying to use the 3d interpretation. When you look at templates/blasts/etc in general it seems like GW wrote the rules under the assumption that you do them entirely from a 2d top-down point of view and never consider height, unless the rules explicitly tell you to (the old levels in ruins rules, for example). That's why you never get answers to questions like exactly how high over a model you're supposed to hold a blast template (if you're targeting a model on the bottom of a ruin can you hold the template all the way up at the top of the ruin to get all levels under it, or do you have to hold it just barely above the targeted model?), and why the rules for not hitting friendly models with a template weapon are included at all (since they'd never come up if you can hold the template 0.00000000001" over the model and have a legal shot).

If they meant for the word to mean anything different to what it actually means, the rules need to say as much. Hinting at it through examination of the relative shapes of templates in example diagrams is not sufficient.

But "touching" can also refer to overlapping things when seen from one point of view. There's no re-defining of words because "if the top-down shapes (the circle of the model's base and the infinite-height teardrop that the plastic flamer template represents) contact each other when seen from above" is a possible interpretation as-written. And it's an interpretation that's reinforced by the example picture. Which, as far as we know, has just as much authority as the written rules. GW never says "example pictures aren't official", so you can't just assume that they aren't.

 insaniak wrote:
If you're going to use 'does it make sense' as a criteria for disregarding 40K rules, you're going to wind up changing an awful lot of rules...

I think there's a clear difference between things like wound allocation (which we know is an abstraction) and the kind of "WTF that makes no sense" situation like the old "models with helmets can't shoot because they have no eyes to draw LOS" argument. Template weapons under your interpretation don't just create situations where the abstraction doesn't match the fluff, they go pretty far into the second category. For example, a model standing behind an ADL can't fire a flamer at all, even though the flamer model reaches over the wall and has an unobstructed shot. Or the rules seem to be pretty clearly intended to say "you can't put the template over your own models", but because it says "touching" you're free to hit every model in your squad with a flamer as long as you hold the template 0.00000000000001" over their heads.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

So just to be clear then, you play allowing models to flame through their own units, as long as the template does not PSYSICALLY touch the models?

No, I play that the template has to touch the firing model's base and not be placed over any friendly models. Looks like the latter part of that is not actually RAW in 7th edition, but I don't really see any need to change how I play it now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yarium wrote:

No, I'm saying that because it's a logically consistent answer:

The claim that the rules must mean something other than what they say because the example picture shows something different is no more logically consistent than the claim that the example picture must be wrong if it doesn't match the written rules... Although we have a fairly long history of GW's example pictures being wrong. They're a lot like summaries in that respect... Where there's a difference, it's almost always the example or the summary that is incorrect.

 insaniak wrote:
No, I play that the template has to touch the firing model's base and not be placed over any friendly models. Looks like the latter part of that is not actually RAW in 7th edition, but I don't really see any need to change how I play it now.

You don't see any problem with a model standing behind an ADL being unable to fire a flamer because the wall (which is short enough for the model to hold the flamer across it) prevents you from touching the model's base with the template? I could maybe understand accepting that absurdity to play by RAW, but if you're already going to change the rules for the template being over friendly models why not change your interpretation of the rules for "touching" the base to be consistent with your interpretation of "touching" friendly models?

I don't use fortifications in any of my games, and the guys with flamers are generally in assault units rather than hunkering behind defence lines, so no, it hasn't really been an issue so far.


Yes, it's a problem, technically. That doesn't change the fact that it's what the rules say to do.

 Peregrine wrote:
But "touching" can also refer to overlapping things when seen from one point of view. There's no re-defining of words because "if the top-down shapes (the circle of the model's base and the infinite-height teardrop that the plastic flamer template represents) contact each other when seen from above" is a possible interpretation as-written. And it's an interpretation that's reinforced by the example picture. Which, as far as we know, has just as much authority as the written rules. GW never says "example pictures aren't official", so you can't just assume that they aren't.

This. As far as we know, the example pictures in 40k are just as RAW as the written rules. Taking an interpretation which is counter to this is counter to the RAW, as far as we know.

 insaniak wrote:
I don't use fortifications in any of my games, and the guys with flamers are generally in assault units rather than hunkering behind defence lines, so no, it hasn't really been an issue so far.


Yes, it's a problem, technically. That doesn't change the fact that it's what the rules say to do.

Then why are you playing RAW for only part of the rule? You can't use the "its the RAW" argument when you aren't even following them.

Ok, got a similar question. Can a Mawloc "Terror from the deep" to eat the squad sitting on top of the tower?

Neophyte2012 wrote:
Ok, got a similar question. Can a Mawloc "Terror from the deep" to eat the squad sitting on top of the tower?

I honestly don't know anymore myself. There is no such thing as a bottom "level" anymore, so by RAW it's a totally broken section of the rules, and thus would hit all models - not just the lowest "level". That said, it's obviously the intention of the rules that if there's a 3-dimensional area where models could be placed overtop of each other, then only models at the lowest possible position are hit by the Mawloc's attack.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Then why are you playing RAW for only part of the rule? You can't use the "its the RAW" argument when you aren't even following them.

You're confusing 2 separate things here.

My statement of how I choose to play the game is not a statement of RAW. It's a statement of how I choose to play the game.



Incidentally, for those claiming that the example picture for the use of templates 'proves' that you just hold the template above the models, that image actually shows the small end of the template beneath the models' weapons. Not above them, as would be the case if the template was held above the models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yarium wrote:
There is no such thing as a bottom "level" anymore,...

Yes there is. 'Levels' in ruins were never there solely because the rules said so. The rules for templates and blasts simply had specific rules for how they functioned on multi-level ruins.

The removal of those rules doesn't change the fact that there are multiple levels on the ruin model that you put on the table, so if something specifically says that it only affects models on a particular level, then that still functions just as well as it did previously.

In this specific case, the Terror from the Deep rule specifies that only models on the lowest level of the ruin count as being under the blast marker. The fact that Blasts don't normally only affect models on a single level any more doesn't stop that rule from functioning as written.

Hiwpi it would be fine to hold the template above the firing model if you cannot physically fit the template where you are firing it. But can only hit what it would realistically touch were it 3 dimensional. This makes it fair for both sides as touch the base isnt always possible but you also cannot pretend to be hitting 3 different levels of units

RAW is exactly as insaniak says

 insaniak wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Then why are you playing RAW for only part of the rule? You can't use the "its the RAW" argument when you aren't even following them.

You're confusing 2 separate things here.

My statement of how I choose to play the game is not a statement of RAW. It's a statement of how I choose to play the game.

I am not confusing 2 separate things. We are talking about a single rule.

 insaniak wrote:
No, I play that the template has to touch the firing model's base and not be placed over any friendly models. Looks like the latter part of that is not actually RAW in 7th edition, but I don't really see any need to change how I play it now.

This is you pointing out that you do NOT play RAW regarding the the template "touching" the firing model's unit.

 insaniak wrote:
I don't use fortifications in any of my games, and the guys with flamers are generally in assault units rather than hunkering behind defence lines, so no, it hasn't really been an issue so far.


Yes, it's a problem, technically. That doesn't change the fact that it's what the rules say to do.

This is you pointing out that you do play RAW regarding the template touching the firing model. Then your next statement indicates it should be played this way because that is what the RAW says.

My point was that you shouldn't use the "play it this way because its RAW" argument when you are actually house ruling half of it.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Then your next statement indicates it should be played this way because that is what the RAW says.

No, that next statement was pointing out that it is the RAW, not that it should be played that way.

My point was that you shouldn't use the "play it this way because its RAW" argument when you are actually house ruling half of it.

I have never, as far as I can recall, stated that anyone should play the game a certain way just because it is RAW in any discussion on this forum. How you choose to play the game is entirely up to you.

Again, there were two separate parts to the post you're referencing. The fact that I choose to play that templates can't be placed over friendly models doesn't change the fact that the rules tell you to touch the template to the firing model's base.


To be clear - the rules for templates refer to 'touching' twice - once to tell us that the template has to be touched to the firing model's base, and once to tell us that the template can't touch any friendly models.

I play that as a requirement to touch the template to the firing model's base, and assume that the second reference is trying to be tell us not to put the template over friendly models. That second part isn't RAW.... it's just how I've been doing it for the last 20 years.

The RAW way to play that would be to touch the template to the firing model's base and not touching any friendly model... in that case, just being over (but not touching) friendly models is a perfectly legal (but probably not intentionally legal) placement.