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.

My son was firing a hive crone flamer at my space marine scouts that were positioned on two separate floors of a building. Are both floors considered to be 'under the template'? dsf

If the template is over both floors, then yes, everything under the template is hit.

Note that for non-vehicle models, the template is supposed to be placed so that the narrow end touches the base of the firing model, which makes it difficult to cover multiple floors unless the model is on top of the ruin... Although a lot of players ignore that requirement and just place the template horizontally above the models.

We play it this way. You can hit multiple levels but floor levels block line of site, so if you look from the top of template down, what ever can be seen from the template is hit.

I would play anything the firing model can draw LOS to can be hit on multiple levels.

You still need LOS to allocate the wounds.

I love my Heldrakes.

 fnpwargamers wrote:
We play it this way. You can hit multiple levels but floor levels block line of site, so if you look from the top of template down, what ever can be seen from the template is hit.

So you make it so models on the bottom floor of multi level ruins are essentially immune to templates?

You don't check LOS when placing the template, just when choosing the target and allocating wounds.

 insaniak wrote:

 fnpwargamers wrote:
We play it this way. You can hit multiple levels but floor levels block line of site, so if you look from the top of template down, what ever can be seen from the template is hit.

So you make it so models on the bottom floor of multi level ruins are essentially immune to templates?

You don't check LOS when placing the template, just when choosing the target and allocating wounds.

Right you get a good look from above the template and count the models you can see. And you should have the template touch the base, RAW and all that.

Where does it say that its only the one you can see?

 Ghaz wrote:
Where does it say that its only the one you can see?

brb pg 12 "to SEE how many models..."

In that context, 'see' means 'determine' or 'establish'.

 insaniak wrote:
In that context, 'see' means 'determine' or 'establish'.

we'll have to agree to disagree here. we're told to look and see how many models are underneath. all that combined says "you hit what you see"

No, all that combined, when actually taken in context instead of cherry picking individual words, means you hit what is underneath the template.

Edit: the simple fact is that the template rules deal really poorly with terrain, so a certain amount of discussion with your opponent is required to make sure you're both playing the same way, if it's likely to be an issue.

 insaniak wrote:
No, all that combined, when actually taken in context instead of cherry picking individual words, means you hit what is underneath the template.

Edit: the simple fact is that the template rules deal really poorly with terrain, so a certain amount of discussion with your opponent is required to make sure you're both playing the same way, if it's likely to be an issue.

I would say flamer rules make sense.


A house rule we have is that a blast hits the level the center is over and the level beneath that. The whole "how many levels does this template hit" should be covered pre game to avoid confusion

 insaniak wrote:
No, all that combined, when actually taken in context instead of cherry picking individual words, means you hit what is underneath the template.

Edit: the simple fact is that the template rules deal really poorly with terrain, so a certain amount of discussion with your opponent is required to make sure you're both playing the same way, if it's likely to be an issue.

it's not cherry picking though, we know what underneath means, the word you used as well. "directly below"

If I told you I'd be waiting underneath the sign on 5th & elm, if you didn't see me directly below the sign, would you assume I didn't show up, or would you look in the sewers? check for underground caves? how far down would you dig?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, all that combined, when actually taken in context instead of cherry picking individual words, means you hit what is underneath the template.

Edit: the simple fact is that the template rules deal really poorly with terrain, so a certain amount of discussion with your opponent is required to make sure you're both playing the same way, if it's likely to be an issue.

it's not cherry picking though, we know what underneath means, the word you used as well. "directly below"

If I told you I'd be waiting underneath the sign on 5th & elm, if you didn't see me directly below the sign, would you assume I didn't show up, or would you look in the sewers? check for underground caves? how far down would you dig?

Bad real-life example.

In the 40K ruleset you hit whenever is under the template, even things on lower levels of the ruin are still hit as they are under the template.

Also you don't have to see them from above the template, because there are templates in the rulebook that are opaque, and you can still hit models under them even though you can not see them.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, all that combined, when actually taken in context instead of cherry picking individual words, means you hit what is underneath the template.

Edit: the simple fact is that the template rules deal really poorly with terrain, so a certain amount of discussion with your opponent is required to make sure you're both playing the same way, if it's likely to be an issue.

it's not cherry picking though, we know what underneath means, the word you used as well. "directly below"

If I told you I'd be waiting underneath the sign on 5th & elm, if you didn't see me directly below the sign, would you assume I didn't show up, or would you look in the sewers? check for underground caves? how far down would you dig?

Bad real-life example.

In the 40K ruleset you hit whenever is under the template, even things on lower levels of the ruin are still hit as they are under the template.

Also you don't have to see them from above the template, because there are templates in the rulebook that are opaque, and you can still hit models under them even though you can not see them.

It's a great example, it highlights how we use the word.

Secondly you can not use opaque templates, we are also told on pg 12 that ALL of the templates and blast markers can be purchased separately to this book. so show me these opaque templates on GW's website.

sirlynchmob wrote:

It's a great example, it highlights how we use the word.

No, it highlights one user of the word, in a different context.

All of the rooms in a multi story house are underneath the roof of that house.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Where does it say that its only the one you can see?

brb pg 12 "to SEE how many models..."

If I place the template and it covers the entire piece of terrain the model is hiding in, I can clearly see that the template is over the model even if I can't see the model.

And by the way, here is what the rulebook actually says:

To work out the number of hits, you normally need to hold the template or blast marker over an enemy unit or a particular point on the battlefield, and then look underneath (or through, if using a transparent template) to see how many models lie partially or completely underneath.

So why are there rules provided for opaque templates if you can't use them?

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

It's a great example, it highlights how we use the word.

No, it highlights one user of the word, in a different context.

All of the rooms in a multi story house are underneath the roof of that house.

Now who's shifting context, only the upper floor is underneath the roof. I notice you left out the subway, the sewers, the caves, the home of the molemen, and the elementals living in the core of the earth.

It's like you were aware of the directly associated with under. In context of the rules we would also be correct in only hitting those models in direct contact with the template and no others. but, we are looking for models to be directly under the template, which means if anything is between the model & the template it is not directly under, and therefore can not be hit.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Where does it say that its only the one you can see?

brb pg 12 "to SEE how many models..."

If I place the template and it covers the entire piece of terrain the model is hiding in, I can clearly see that the template is over the model even if I can't see the model.

And by the way, here is what the rulebook actually says:

To work out the number of hits, you normally need to hold the template or blast marker over an enemy unit or a particular point on the battlefield, and then look underneath (or through, if using a transparent template) to see how many models lie partially or completely underneath.

So why are there rules provided for opaque templates if you can't use them?

maybe at one point they did make them and sell them, maybe they plan to some day in the future, but we are told which templates we have permission to use in the game.

So in other words, you can't explain it. Maybe you can explain this, from the very same rule you only partially quoted.

A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template or blast marker.

Nothing there about only the models you can 'see' being hit. If it is under the template or blast marker, the unit takes a hit whether you can see that model or not.

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's like you were aware of the directly associated with under.

I'm aware that the formal dictionary definition of the word refers to things being 'directly' underneath, yes. I'm also aware that in common usage, 'Underneath', 'Below' and 'Beneath' are all fairly interchangeable.

Given that there is always going to be something in between the model and the template unless it is physically touching the model (well, unless you're playing in a vaccuum chamber), the strict dictionary definition renders templates completely non-functional. At which point, it seems prudent to go with common usage instead...

 Ghaz wrote:
So in other words, you can't explain it. Maybe you can explain this, from the very same rule you only partially quoted.

A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template or blast marker.

Nothing there about only the models you can 'see' being hit. If it is under the template or blast marker, the unit takes a hit whether you can see that model or not.

situated directly below (something else)

You're changing the definition of underneath. If it's not directly below the marker you can not hit it. How do we know whats underneath the marker we take a look and see. If you cant see the model, then it is not situated directly below (the marker)

this is using the common usage, and without going overboard and asking about the air.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So in other words, you can't explain it. Maybe you can explain this, from the very same rule you only partially quoted.

A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template or blast marker.

Nothing there about only the models you can 'see' being hit. If it is under the template or blast marker, the unit takes a hit whether you can see that model or not.

situated directly below (something else)

You're changing the definition of underneath. If it's not directly below the marker you can not hit it. How do we know whats underneath the marker we take a look and see. If you cant see the model, then it is not situated directly below (the marker)

But unless you place the marker literally on top of the model(s), the model(s) are not directly below the marker. Air is.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So in other words, you can't explain it. Maybe you can explain this, from the very same rule you only partially quoted.

A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template or blast marker.

Nothing there about only the models you can 'see' being hit. If it is under the template or blast marker, the unit takes a hit whether you can see that model or not.

situated directly below (something else)

You're changing the definition of underneath. If it's not directly below the marker you can not hit it. How do we know whats underneath the marker we take a look and see. If you cant see the model, then it is not situated directly below (the marker)

But unless you place the marker literally on top of the model(s), the model(s) are not directly below the marker. Air is.

but if you want to account for the air, then only the models in direct contact with the marker are hit. which is also allowed for under the usage of underneath

We went down this rabbit hole once before. It was unclear if the model had to be physically touching the template or if held from.above so that, looking down, it was touching was unclear. Obviously if it must be physically touching then it's impossible to shoot through windows unless those windows are wide enough to fit the template, which doesn't make sense but seems to be what is written. At the same time the example image doesn't show an angled template, so seems to suggest that looking down from.above is correct but allows flamers and blasts to hit all levels of a building.

 Yarium wrote:
At the same time the example image doesn't show an angled template, .

Actually, it does. If you look closely, the barrel of the flamer is shown above the template, rather than being obscured by it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So in other words, you can't explain it. Maybe you can explain this, from the very same rule you only partially quoted.

A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template or blast marker.

Nothing there about only the models you can 'see' being hit. If it is under the template or blast marker, the unit takes a hit whether you can see that model or not.

situated directly below (something else)

You're changing the definition of underneath. If it's not directly below the marker you can not hit it. How do we know whats underneath the marker we take a look and see. If you cant see the model, then it is not situated directly below (the marker)

this is using the common usage, and without going overboard and asking about the air.

And you're changing the definition of one use of the word 'see' to suit yourself depending on the situation. You want it to mean 'see' (to be physically seen with the eye) and 'see' (to determine) at the same time. So which is it? If its the first definition, the rule that you look through the template is meaningless as all models under the template are hit regardless. If its for determining who's under the template, there is no requirement that the model be visible when you see who is under the template.

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So in other words, you can't explain it. Maybe you can explain this, from the very same rule you only partially quoted.

A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template or blast marker.

Nothing there about only the models you can 'see' being hit. If it is under the template or blast marker, the unit takes a hit whether you can see that model or not.

situated directly below (something else)

You're changing the definition of underneath. If it's not directly below the marker you can not hit it. How do we know whats underneath the marker we take a look and see. If you cant see the model, then it is not situated directly below (the marker)

this is using the common usage, and without going overboard and asking about the air.

And you're changing the definition of one use of the word 'see' to suit yourself depending on the situation. You want it to mean 'see' (to be physically seen with the eye) and 'see' (to determine) at the same time. So which is it? If its the first definition, the rule that you look through the template is meaningless as all models under the template are hit regardless. If its for determining who's under the template, there is no requirement that the model be visible when you see who is under the template.

RAW we are told to look and see.
I can't explain it any better, but let's see what the dictionary says about "see"
to perceive by the eye

and look:
an act of directing one's gaze in order to see someone or something

and it's by looking and seeing that we can determine what models are hit.

I think we should all take the time to review the tenets before continuing this debate


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

And we do that by looking underneath the marker on all levels to determine what is below the template.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And we do that by looking underneath the marker on all levels to determine what is below the template.

Care to quote that rule?