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.

People need to understand that the Rules were not written by Lawyers or people who frequently establish and interpret important rulesets.

Most of the WH rules are written with a certain outcome in mind trying to be as specific as possible.
These are GAME Rules made to simulate a set of actions happening at war.
That's why applying the rules sometimes makes no sense if you put it in a real life perspective.

Your argument about the definition of word "see" is of little importance for this issue.
Clearly, the author explained the rules with the most simple situation in mind: Units on the ground and a blast marker on top.

If it was a law, I would agree to read it word by word applying common definitions to every single word (thats how I learned it and thats how I do it every day.).
For lawinterpretation there is a simple rule: There is only so much room for interpretation as the wording clearly allows (since anything else would just be making up a different rule)

Since it is NOT a law, you have to bear in mind that the author may have used unprecise words to explain the rule.
We know, that templates form an invinite pillar (contrary to 6th ed.).
"see" in this context means to find out the number of models placed in that pillar.

LOS for shooting is determined by the firing model and at least 1 target model. (Dont need LOS to blast through a floor, do I ? And unloading my flamer into a house will not only burn floor 1)

LOS for wound allocation is determined again by the firing model.

The number of units HIT only allows me to roll as many WOUND rolls.
The number of wounds the target unit suffered is then applied using normal wound allocation with one exception:
"Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special
rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of
any models from the attacking unit."

For Template weapons the wording is even more clear:
"Any models fully or partially under the template are hit."
Contrary to blast weapons, wound allocation follows line of sight (no word about different wound allocation in the RB).
This could result in a single model getting 10 wounds because no other models are seen by the shooting model.

Therefore it is pretty clear to me that, taking the above said into account, a template or blast marker is used as a pillar and every model in it will be hit.
The floors of ruins only come into play, when the firing model cannot see a hit model because of the floor.


Keep in mind: it's a game and the rules are designed to simplify a complex scenerio. Rule lawyering and clinging to the sometimes bad wording of the rules makes them less playable and more complex than intended.

Aeri wrote:


Keep in mind: it's a game and the rules are designed to simplify a complex scenerio. Rule lawyering and clinging to the sometimes bad wording of the rules makes them less playable and more complex than intended.

so legally I'm right and it's RAW, cool.

Yet creating a infinite column, hitting all models above & below the marker, and spawning in more markers is keeping it simple? nope no rules lawyering and clinging to bad wording there. I didn't see anyone disagree with these concepts so it must be part of the infinite columns position.

the word "see" is just one of 3 key words that support what I'm saying. Look & underneath are also needed, and underneath is the key word.

RAW is simple, you hit those directly under the marker. If you have to go around a floor, then you are not directly under the marker. It's simple and easy, and RAW.

Nope, thats just the complete opposite of what I just said.
And it nowhere says "directly".

If you would have read what I wrote, you would have found a passage about the boundaries of interpretation and if you apply that, your interpretation is not "arguable" but just wrong.

Aeri wrote:
Nope, thats just the complete opposite of what I just said.
And it nowhere says "directly".

If you would have read what I wrote, you would have found a passage about the boundaries of interpretation and if you apply that, your interpretation is not "arguable" but just wrong.

Yes I see where you went off on your assumption with no rules to back up. Directly below is the definition for underneath.

Here's the rule with the common definitions. This is RAW it's the simplest interpretation of it. you hit what you see.
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)

Talking about infinite columns is making up a new rule, which is clearly wrong once especially when you start trying to hit things above the marker or duplicate markers.

I am starting to think that you are just trying to fool us here.

Anyways, anybody who is interested on how to play it has enough of explanation in this thread.
Or you could houserule it and play it like sirlynchmob...

The problem is sirlynchmob, that by your interpretation, if you cant fit your head over the template (there is a roof over all models for instance) then you cannot see through the template and therefore cannot score any hits

Which is why it is good that the suggestion is only that, a suggestion. The actual rule s you count what is beneath the marker, no need to "see" them at all

Sirlynchs position remains as tenuous as ever, no matter how much proof is shown they are unwilling to listen. I'd suggest leaving it here - the actual rule is well known, and only some want to houserule back to some weird 5th edition like hybrid.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which is why it is good that the suggestion is only that, a suggestion. The actual rule s you count what is beneath the marker, no need to "see" them at all

Sirlynchs position remains as tenuous as ever, no matter how much proof is shown they are unwilling to listen. I'd suggest leaving it here - the actual rule is well known, and only some want to houserule back to some weird 5th edition like hybrid.

except it's undeniable that what I've said is 100% RAW, unless you're being disingenuous.

tell me again how you can hit things above the marker, or how your definition "at a lower level than" allows you to place the marker above the table high enough to hit your opponents entire army. "see the marker is up here, I'm hitting everything under it" as Nos would say.

You're projecting your sloppy argument style again and admitting what you are doing, NOS "my position remains as tenuous as ever, no matter how much proof is shown I am unwilling to listen"

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which is why it is good that the suggestion is only that, a suggestion. The actual rule s you count what is beneath the marker, no need to "see" them at all

Sirlynchs position remains as tenuous as ever, no matter how much proof is shown they are unwilling to listen. I'd suggest leaving it here - the actual rule is well known, and only some want to houserule back to some weird 5th edition like hybrid.

except it's undeniable that what I've said is 100% RAW, unless you're being disingenuous.

tell me again how you can hit things above the marker, or how your definition "at a lower level than" allows you to place the marker above the table high enough to hit your opponents entire army. "see the marker is up here, I'm hitting everything under it" as Nos would say.

You're projecting your sloppy argument style again and admitting what you are doing, NOS "my position remains as tenuous as ever, no matter how much proof is shown I am unwilling to listen"

Ah so making up more fake quotes again? Youre getting sloppy.

Enough with the strawman arguments or puttign pretend words in my mouth. You're done here, from a credible argument standpoint.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which is why it is good that the suggestion is only that, a suggestion. The actual rule s you count what is beneath the marker, no need to "see" them at all

Sirlynchs position remains as tenuous as ever, no matter how much proof is shown they are unwilling to listen. I'd suggest leaving it here - the actual rule is well known, and only some want to houserule back to some weird 5th edition like hybrid.

except it's undeniable that what I've said is 100% RAW, unless you're being disingenuous.

tell me again how you can hit things above the marker, or how your definition "at a lower level than" allows you to place the marker above the table high enough to hit your opponents entire army. "see the marker is up here, I'm hitting everything under it" as Nos would say.

You're projecting your sloppy argument style again and admitting what you are doing, NOS "my position remains as tenuous as ever, no matter how much proof is shown I am unwilling to listen"

Ah so making up more fake quotes again? Youre getting sloppy.

Enough with the strawman arguments. You're done here, from a credible argument standpoint.

yes for the love of god, quit with the strawmen, have you contributed anything to this conversation? plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and saying LALALALALA is not contributing

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ah so making up more fake quotes again? Youre getting sloppy.

Enough with the strawman arguments. You're done here, from a credible argument standpoint.

yes for the love of god, quit with the strawmen, have you contributed anything to this conversation? plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and saying LALALALALA is not contributing

Pray tell, what strawman argument? Or do you not understand what that named logcial fallacy refers to? For example, you made up an argument that I supposedly put forth, whereby placing the template I can hit everything above the template. Given I never put forward that argument, you created a strawman argument.

Now, given you still continue to add nothing to this thread - your fallacious argument has been refuted ad nauseum, and youre resorting to poor attempts at using terms you dont seem to understand, I suggest you quit before you fall further behind.

To others - the rules on this are clear: we're back to 4th ed for "ruins", in that anything below the marker is hit. Whether you can allocate a wound is still up to the Out of Sight rule. Ignore Sirlynchmob, their argument is deader than the walkman.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


To others - the rules on this are clear: we're back to 4th ed for "ruins", in that anything below the marker is hit. Whether you can allocate a wound is still up to the Out of Sight rule. Ignore Sirlynchmob, their argument is deader than the walkman.

If you're playing 4th ed, then you should state that.

as you have offered nothing other than your oppinion on what I've stated for RAW, it can be clearly seen that it is the correct way to play.

100% RAW, supported by the rules. If there is something between the model and the marker they are not directly below the template and do not count for hits.
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)

either find some rules to actually make a RAW claim, or take your opinions & 4th ed rules elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You are told to work out what models are beneath the marker. You are not given any restrictions on how you achieve this, just blanket permission. Looking down from above is one way, certainly, but not the only one.
You cannot read a blanket permissive rule such as that as being restrictive, without making rules up anyway

Or are you going to lie further and claim you never posted the above?


Which means this is legal according to you. "see the marker is up here, I'm hitting everything under it" as Nos would say.

sirlynchmob wrote:
If there is something between the marker and the template they are not directly below the template and do not count for hits.

I assume you mean the model and the template, but I'm genuinely interested in where this is stated in the rules. Could you provide a quote?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
If there is something between the marker and the template they are not directly below the template and do not count for hits.

I assume you mean the model and the template, but I'm genuinely interested in where this is stated in the rules. Could you provide a quote?

yes thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it.

pg 12 under blast markers & templates

"to work out the number of its, ... then look underneath or through to see how many models lie fully or partially underneath. a unit takes a hit for each model that is fully or partially underneath the blast marker or template"

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
To others - the rules on this are clear: we're back to 4th ed for "ruins", in that anything below the marker is hit. Whether you can allocate a wound is still up to the Out of Sight rule. Ignore Sirlynchmob, their argument is deader than the walkman.

If you're playing 4th ed, then you should state that.

Apologies, I was using an analogy in how the rules for "ruins" now work in 7th edition, i.e. the loss of any concept of "levels". I apologise if that went over your head.

sirlynchmob wrote:as you have offered nothing other than your oppinion on what I've stated for RAW, it can be clearly seen that it is the correct way to play.

EVery thread where this comes up, the actual rules, and what they actually mean, are posted up. This thread is simply a repeat of a well trodden argument, where you are proven wrong

RAW

Every. Single. Time.

sirlynchmob wrote:100% RAW, supported by the rules.

Except for the rules you make up, the rules you ignore, and the definitions you use that dont match actual usage and cnotext, you would be correct. Sadly, youre not correct.

sirlynchmob wrote:If there is something between the model and the marker they are not directly below the template and do not count for hits.

No, that is not the rule. You are aware of this. Why lie?

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)

No, we are told that normally we can do so. You are aware that makes this ioptional, and simply an example? Or is again the meaning of the word "normally" escaping you?

sirlynchmob wrote:either find some rules to actually make a RAW claim, or take your opinions & 4th ed rules elsewhere.

The rules have been found in every thread, and in every thread you
a) ignore them
b) claim they mean something else entirely
or c) come up with a definition that is so restrictive and lacking the correct context t is laughable.

Every thread. So , no, you can take your posts elsewhere, as they add nothing of any use. Not a single poster here agrees with you either, which you should takea s some hint.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are told to work out what models are beneath the marker. You are not given any restrictions on how you achieve this, just blanket permission. Looking down from above is one way, certainly, but not the only one.
You cannot read a blanket permissive rule such as that as being restrictive, without making rules up anyway

Or are you going to lie further and claim you never posted the above?

1) prove I have lied already, or retract your insult. I wont hold my breath
2) Given you only just gave an actual quote, I am not sure why I would deny it. Glad you finally did it though, it helps show your position for what it is - incorrect - quite clearly.
You failed to refute the argument in that thread, and you ignore it now. Because it destroys your arugment.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Which means this is legal according to you. "see the marker is up here, I'm hitting everything under it" as Nos would say.

Ah, there you go, making up gak again. How about you refrain frmo making up arguments and pretending others have said them? Tenets and all that

So to put you further on the spot:the rules give an example of how to determine which models are under the marker.

If you disagree, provide a rule showing otherwise. Page, graph and complete citation required.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


If you disagree, provide a rule showing otherwise. Page, graph and complete citation required.

your whole post can be summed up as "in my opinion, you're wrong because I say so"

so how does your opinion "You are told to work out what models are beneath the marker. You are not given any restrictions on how you achieve this, just blanket permission. Looking down from above is one way, certainly, but not the only one. " prevent you from holding the marker up and hitting your opponents entire army? keeping in mind your claim that their are no restrictions.

I have shown RAW you have not, please do so. tenets and all that.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
If there is something between the marker and the template they are not directly below the template and do not count for hits.

I assume you mean the model and the template, but I'm genuinely interested in where this is stated in the rules. Could you provide a quote?

yes thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it.

pg 12 under blast markers & templates

"to work out the number of its, ... then look underneath or through to see how many models lie fully or partially underneath. a unit takes a hit for each model that is fully or partially underneath the blast marker or template"

Hmm, yes I'm aware of those rules but they don't mention anything about things being between the model and template preventing hits being generated. You must admit the RAW only require the model to be underneath the template. If you re-read what you have quoted you'll also notice there is no strict requirement to look through the template in order to determine the number of hits; it's just one possible method of doing so.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
If there is something between the marker and the template they are not directly below the template and do not count for hits.

I assume you mean the model and the template, but I'm genuinely interested in where this is stated in the rules. Could you provide a quote?

yes thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it.

pg 12 under blast markers & templates

"to work out the number of its, ... then look underneath or through to see how many models lie fully or partially underneath. a unit takes a hit for each model that is fully or partially underneath the blast marker or template"

Hmm, yes I'm aware of those rules but they don't mention anything about things being between the model and template preventing hits being generated. You must admit the RAW only require the model to be underneath the template. If you re-read what you have quoted you'll also notice there is no strict requirement to look through the template in order to determine the number of hits; it's just one possible method of doing so.

they do with the use of the word "underneath" which is defined as "directly below" so for the model to be underneath the template it must be directly below. And agree or not with that conclusion it is still a 100% RAW supported position.

Underneath has ONE definition of directly below

Sirlynch likes to pretend that is the only one. Of course this is a lie, and an oft repeated one for them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Underneath has ONE definition of directly below

Sirlynch likes to pretend that is the only one. Of course this is a lie, and an oft repeated one for them.

so still no rules to support your idea?

still not even mentioning what other definition you are using?

still trying to use one blast marker to hit an entire army I see.

help me out, where is that post where you accused me of making up the word underneath, because you didn't realize it was in the rules?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
If there is something between the marker and the template they are not directly below the template and do not count for hits.

I assume you mean the model and the template, but I'm genuinely interested in where this is stated in the rules. Could you provide a quote?

yes thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it.

pg 12 under blast markers & templates

"to work out the number of its, ... then look underneath or through to see how many models lie fully or partially underneath. a unit takes a hit for each model that is fully or partially underneath the blast marker or template"

Hmm, yes I'm aware of those rules but they don't mention anything about things being between the model and template preventing hits being generated. You must admit the RAW only require the model to be underneath the template. If you re-read what you have quoted you'll also notice there is no strict requirement to look through the template in order to determine the number of hits; it's just one possible method of doing so.

they do with the use of the word "underneath" which is defined as "directly below" so for the model to be underneath the template it must be directly below. And agree or not with that conclusion it is still a 100% RAW supported position.

I'm having trouble following your logic here. Are you saying that if a model is beneath the template, but there is a ruin floor in between the two, the model is not in fact underneath the template?
I'm pretty sure that if the model was in line vertically with the extent of the template it would be considered to be underneath, whether a floor is in between or not.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
If there is something between the marker and the template they are not directly below the template and do not count for hits.

I assume you mean the model and the template, but I'm genuinely interested in where this is stated in the rules. Could you provide a quote?

yes thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it.

pg 12 under blast markers & templates

"to work out the number of its, ... then look underneath or through to see how many models lie fully or partially underneath. a unit takes a hit for each model that is fully or partially underneath the blast marker or template"

Hmm, yes I'm aware of those rules but they don't mention anything about things being between the model and template preventing hits being generated. You must admit the RAW only require the model to be underneath the template. If you re-read what you have quoted you'll also notice there is no strict requirement to look through the template in order to determine the number of hits; it's just one possible method of doing so.

they do with the use of the word "underneath" which is defined as "directly below" so for the model to be underneath the template it must be directly below. And agree or not with that conclusion it is still a 100% RAW supported position.

I'm having trouble following your logic here. Are you saying that if a model is beneath the template, but there is a ruin floor in between the two, the model is not in fact underneath the template?
I'm pretty sure that if the model was in line vertically with the extent of the template it would be considered to be underneath, whether a floor is in between or not.

yes, because the model has to be directly under the template to meet the definition of underneath. If there's anything in between it doesn't meet the definition of underneath.

I think we're done here.