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.

So you can't back up your claims that what you see under the template has any bearing on who's hit. The rules say that models under the template are hit, and so far you've provided nothing to say that a model you can't physically see isn't under the template without making the single use of the word 'see' have two definitions at the same time.

 Ghaz wrote:
So you can't back up your claims that what you see under the template has any bearing on who's hit. The rules say that models under the template are hit, and so far you've provided nothing to say that a model you can't physically see isn't under the template without making the single use of the word 'see' have two definitions at the same time.

speaking of tenets *caugh*1a*caugh*

I've proved my point, RAW the model needs to be directly under the template. But feel free to play it differently.

Everyone understands if I said "look for me under the small blast marker" You'd look for the small blast marker, then at the first spot of ground under it to find me. And if you didn't see me there, you'd assume I wasn't there, you wouldn't go digging for me to see if I was further underneath it.

And yet again, you're trying to use two definitions of 'see'. So which definition is being used?

"... to discern visually how many models lie partially or completely underneath."

Considering the rules say that the unit takes a hit for each model fully or partially under the template or blast marker with no further restrictions, it's pointless how many I 'discern visually' because that has no bearing on who is hit.

"... to ascertain after inquiring how many models lie partially or completely underneath."

In this case, I look and ascertain how many hits the unit takes. This definition does not require that you 'discern visually' how many models are under the template, just that you ascertain how many are under the template.

So which definition is it? You can't have them both for a single use of the word 'see'.

 Ghaz wrote:
And yet again, you're trying to use two definitions of 'see'. So which definition is being used?

"... to discern visually how many models lie partially or completely underneath."

Considering the rules say that the unit takes a hit for each model fully or partially under the template or blast marker with no further restrictions, it's pointless how many I 'discern visually' because that has no bearing on who is hit.

"... to ascertain after inquiring how many models lie partially or completely underneath."

In this case, I look and ascertain how many hits the unit takes. This definition does not require that you 'discern visually' how many models are under the template, just that you ascertain how many are under the template.

So which definition is it? You can't have them both for a single use of the word 'see'.

You're right, you can't have them both, We are told to look underneath or through to see how many models lie underneath.

which of those two better fit what we are trying to do?

RAW we are told to look (an act of directing one's gaze in order to see something) through the marker to see (perceive by the eye) how many models lie underneath (directly below)

Let's try it your way, jumping to the 21st definition, we are told to look (an act of directing one's gaze in order to see something) through the marker to see (ascertain after inquiring) how many models lie underneath (directly below)

RAW what you see is what you hit, because those are directly below the marker. Even with your 21st definition it still equates to the same thing, RAW what you see is what you hit.

It's the directly below part that means you can't, and have no permission to, hit things that are blocked by anything. If the model is blocked it is not directly below.

sirlynchmob wrote:

It's the directly below part that means you can't, and have no permission to, hit things that are blocked by anything. If the model is blocked it is not directly below.

Which leaves models that are not on the top floor of ruins completely invulnerable to templates.


Note that a hardline RAW reading of the template rules also allows you to place the template over friendly models so long as it doesn't physically touch them.



Most players, from my experience, assume that the rules are just written a little loosely here, and that we're supposed to assume that any model that the template is above is hit by it.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

It's the directly below part that means you can't, and have no permission to, hit things that are blocked by anything. If the model is blocked it is not directly below.

Which leaves models that are not on the top floor of ruins completely invulnerable to templates.

Not at all, if you are on the top of a ruin with a enemy model on the top with you, you place your template, then following RAW we look to see how many models are visible, so you could see 1 on the top floor, 2 on the second floor and another 2 on the table. It's just those complete out of site that you don't count for hits, as they are not directly below the marker.

Note that a hardline RAW reading of the template rules also allows you to place the template over friendly models so long as it doesn't physically touch them.

I'm not taking a hardline RAW approach on this, That kind of hardline would IMO equate to only hitting models that are in direct contact with the base. I believe I am following RAW and RAI and the spirit of the rule, and this is how it should work.

Most players, from my experience, assume that the rules are just written a little loosely here, and that we're supposed to assume that any model that the template is above is hit by it.

I complete agree, as long as they can be seen.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Not at all, if you are on the top of a ruin with a enemy model on the top with you, you place your template, then following RAW we look to see how many models are visible, so you could see 1 on the top floor, 2 on the second floor and another 2 on the table. It's just those complete out of site that you don't count for hits, as they are not directly below the marker.

Sorry, I thought it was self-evident from my post that I was talking about models underneath higher floors.

If you have a squad huddled in on the ground floor of a ruin underneath the 2nd floor, your interpretation results in them being untouchable by template weapons.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Not at all, if you are on the top of a ruin with a enemy model on the top with you, you place your template, then following RAW we look to see how many models are visible, so you could see 1 on the top floor, 2 on the second floor and another 2 on the table. It's just those complete out of site that you don't count for hits, as they are not directly below the marker.

Sorry, I thought it was self-evident from my post that I was talking about models underneath higher floors.

If you have a squad huddled in on the ground floor of a ruin underneath the 2nd floor, your interpretation results in them being untouchable by template weapons.

they'd be untouchable for flamers anyways as when it came time to allocate wounds they'd still be OOS. For blasts and barrages RAW works out the same, you have to see them to hit them, and if more models are hiding on the bottom just target them to start with and you'll get more hits.

sirlynchmob wrote:
they'd be untouchable for flamers anyways as when it came time to allocate wounds they'd still be OOS.

Only if there was a solid wall or some other obstruction between them and the shooter.

But by your interpretation, there could be a completely open space in between them and the guy with the flamer, and it couldn't hit them because there's a roof over their heads.

...and if more models are hiding on the bottom just target them to start with ...

How?

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
they'd be untouchable for flamers anyways as when it came time to allocate wounds they'd still be OOS.

Only if there was a solid wall or some other obstruction between them and the shooter.

But by your interpretation, there could be a completely open space in between them and the guy with the flamer, and it couldn't hit them because there's a roof over their heads.

well I started with a flamer on top of a building, I'm not sure what situation you're envisioning here. so I'm assuming a flamer on the ground shooting into a building? keeping in mind I agree with RAW and the template touches the base. We'll assume 3 on the second floor and the 3 on the ground complete under the floor and unseen from the template. So you can angle up and get 2 out of the 3 on the second floor, or aim for those on the bottom and get 3. you take the 3 hits, roll to wound, allocate as normal.
If I'm still not getting what you're picturing, I might need a picture

...and if more models are hiding on the bottom just target them to start with ...

How?

Barrages don't need LOS, place the marker on any floor you like, blasts pick someone you can see on the bottom. Most ruins have windows so you should be able to see someone.

A ruin can and often does have gaps in the floor. It would be possible to have los to a model but that same model not be visible from directly above

sirlynchmob wrote:
...or aim for those on the bottom and get 3.

How are you seeing these models through the template when there is a floor in the way?

blasts pick someone you can see on the bottom. Most ruins have windows so you should be able to see someone.

So you're looking sideways through the marker now?


You're making a mess by requiring LOS from both the shooter and down through the marker. Sure, you have LOS from the shooter... but if you're requiring that models be seen from above through the marker, you're never going to be able to target anyone on lower floors, because you're not going to be able to see them from above.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
...or aim for those on the bottom and get 3.

How are you seeing these models through the template when there is a floor in the way?

blasts pick someone you can see on the bottom. Most ruins have windows so you should be able to see someone.

So you're looking sideways through the marker now?


You're making a mess by requiring LOS from both the shooter and down through the marker. Sure, you have LOS from the shooter... but if you're requiring that models be seen from above through the marker, you're never going to be able to target anyone on lower floors, because you're not going to be able to see them from above.

What you don't play with a dental mirror and a laser pointer? But seriously we both know the answer to this already.

We know RAW and we know how to make it work.

But since you've taken on a absolutely literal stance, it gets foggy in the UK, if you play with the windows open and the fog comes in, are all models considered obscured?

sirlynchmob wrote:
What you don't play with a dental mirror and a laser pointer?

No... I just place the template and assume that everything under it is hit.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
What you don't play with a dental mirror and a laser pointer?

No... I just place the template and assume that everything under it is hit.

Well we know what happens when you assume, and you've already stated you don't play RAW.

Honestly though, all kidding aside, you've seen my argument, is what I am stating as RAW in any way violating any rules? and if not, will you admit it is a valid RAW statement?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Honestly though, all kidding aside, you've seen my argument, is what I am stating as RAW in any way violating any rules?

IMO, yes. You're taking a super-literal reading and assuming that you're supposed to look from above and only apply hits to any models that are visible through the template.

What I think the rules are actually saying to do (badly) is to place the template and assume that any models under the template are hit.


The whole 'looking from above' thing is simply (usually) the easiest way to accomplish that, but it doesn't take ruins into account at all... and so an alternate process needs to be applied in that situation.

Otherwise, you wind up with that invulnerable lower-floor unit.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Honestly though, all kidding aside, you've seen my argument, is what I am stating as RAW in any way violating any rules?

IMO, yes. You're taking a super-literal reading and assuming that you're supposed to look from above and only apply hits to any models that are visible through the template.

What I think the rules are actually saying to do (badly) is to place the template and assume that any models under the template are hit.


The whole 'looking from above' thing is simply (usually) the easiest way to accomplish that, but it doesn't take ruins into account at all... and so an alternate process needs to be applied in that situation.

Otherwise, you wind up with that invulnerable lower-floor unit.

What I'm seeing is RAW I'm right, and you're assuming they meant something else. We're not assuming their hit, we can see their hit. No other alternate process is ever hinted at, nor mentioned and RAW can be applied to ruins with no weird issues coming up.

You could make a ruin with no windows, would you complain their "invulnerable" to shooting because you can't see them to target them?

sirlynchmob wrote:

What I'm seeing is RAW I'm right, and you're assuming they meant something else. We're not assuming their hit, we can see their hit. No other alternate process is ever hinted at, nor mentioned and RAW can be applied to ruins with no weird issues coming up.

No other alternate process is suggested because it's not really necessary. They just tell us to determine how many models are under the template.

Note that they also don't tell us how to roll dice, how to turn pages in the rulebook, or how to breathe while standing up.

You could make a ruin with no windows, would you complain their "invulnerable" to shooting because you can't see them to target them?

No, why would I?

Not being able to shoot at a unit that you can't see makes sense.

Not being able to fire a flamer at a unit is completely visible but is standing under something doesn't.

 insaniak wrote:

Not being able to fire a flamer at a unit is completely visible but is standing under something doesn't.

Except you can fire a flamer at them.

You've just spent the better part of 2 pages arguing that you can't.

...and doing so incorrectly, as the "normally" is simply a guideline, not a requirement. Any model under the blast is hit. That is RAW. How you determine that is "normally" by looking from the top.

The selective definition Sirlynchmob does everytime this thread comes up is disingenuous as well. There are more definitions of underneath than that, they know this, yet persist, every time, to pretend the one convenient to their argument is the only one available to us.

 insaniak wrote:

No... I just place the template and assume that everything under it is hit.

How do you manage models that are on upper levels of a ruin that would be out of range of the template from a true LOS? (i.e. models on the top floor that would fall "under the template" horizontally, but are further than 8" away when you measure from the actual model firing the flamer?)

 insaniak wrote:
You've just spent the better part of 2 pages arguing that you can't.

I've done nothing of the sort, we both know that you can target and put a template on top of models, even if their under a ruin. and it will be obvious those models are directly underneath the template. if in doubt and for a more accurate look, you can still get a look in from above. I understand you don't want to play that way, but we both know RAW I'm right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...and doing so incorrectly, as the "normally" is simply a guideline, not a requirement. Any model under the blast is hit. That is RAW. How you determine that is "normally" by looking from the top.

So you're arguing the most important rule now? the rules are just guidelines now?

No, I am simply using the word "normally" in its usual (normal!) English meaning. Do you have another meaning where it means "the only" or similarly restrictive verbiage?

Yet again ignoring that you are wrong about underneath as well?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, I am simply using the word "normally" in its usual (normal!) English meaning. Do you have another meaning where it means "the only" or similarly restrictive verbiage?

Yet again ignoring that you are wrong about underneath as well?

except I'm not wrong about anything here. and I showed many times how I am using the words in context of how they are normally used in English. I'm using the first definition of the words, not looking for the 21st and then applying it wrong to the situation at hand like you've done. And as you're only argument here is to try and discredit me and not my argument I again can be assured that I am right, and this is 100% RAW

we are told to look (an act of directing one's gaze in order to see something) through the marker to see (perceive by the eye) how many models lie underneath (directly below)

If I told you I put a briefcase underneath your bed with 1 million dollars, you would start looking for by it digging under the foundation of where you live. Insanik would encourage you to do so while he sneaked in and got the briefcase from under your bed. Then when you got to looking under your bed, you'd see the briefcase wasn't there and assume there never was a briefcase under the bed, but you'd probably keep digging looking for caves, how far down would you dig? Because when we look for something under a marker, we look for the marker, then look at the ground under it. because that is the spot that it is universally accept as being. because that spot is directly under the marker.

Your analogies are getting worse. All blasts and templates are cylinders (teardrops) with infinite height. If you center a blast over a target on floor three of the ruins, you get all 3 floors, the molemen underground, and any 2 headed eagles flying above. Instead of blast markers, GW should supply the players with pringles cans.

sirlynchmob wrote:
we are told to look (an act of directing one's gaze in order to see something) through the marker to see (perceive by the eye) how many models lie underneath (directly below)

What the rules actually say are:
"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."

Which means you look underneath the template to determine how many models are underneath. In this context look does mean direct ones gaze, but see means to determine (by looking) the number of models that are underneath. It's quite clear that you don't even need a transparent template and so your argument of the models having to actually be visible through it are ridiculous. In the last rulebook edition there was even a page with opaque templates printed on it that were intended to be cut out and used in the game.

 Green is Best! wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

No... I just place the template and assume that everything under it is hit.

How do you manage models that are on upper levels of a ruin that would be out of range of the template from a true LOS? (i.e. models on the top floor that would fall "under the template" horizontally, but are further than 8" away when you measure from the actual model firing the flamer?)

you determine hits on them as normal as per the template rules.

 Green is Best! wrote:

How do you manage models that are on upper levels of a ruin that would be out of range of the template from a true LOS? (i.e. models on the top floor that would fall "under the template" horizontally, but are further than 8" away when you measure from the actual model firing the flamer?)

You don't measure 8" from the guy with the flamer. You place the narrow end of the template against the firing model's base. Any models that the template doesn't reach are out of range.

So a non-vehicle model on the ground is rarely going to be able to hit models on the upper levels of a ruin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I've done nothing of the sort, we both know that you can target and put a template on top of models, even if their under a ruin. and it will be obvious those models are directly underneath the template.

Ah. So now, models 'obviously' being under the template is sufficient, even if you can't see them?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
we are told to look (an act of directing one's gaze in order to see something) through the marker to see (perceive by the eye) how many models lie underneath (directly below)

What the rules actually say are:
"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."

Which means you look underneath the template to determine how many models are underneath. In this context look does mean direct ones gaze, but see means to determine (by looking) the number of models that are underneath. It's quite clear that you don't even need a transparent template and so your argument of the models having to actually be visible through it are ridiculous. In the last rulebook edition there was even a page with opaque templates printed on it that were intended to be cut out and used in the game.

Yep, however sirlynch will continue to ignore any actual evidence contradicting their viewpoint, as they've done every thread where this comes up.

The claims will get wilder but the rules support will remain, as ever, absent.