Situational questions if template is a literal range

[Something Wycked]

And dswanick (see other thread), and Falldown.

dswanick has chosen not to participate in this thread, and falldown certainly doesn't support your view of the argument, per his last post. His intent was simply to reduce your walls-o-text to manageable points to argue.

 

None of the opposition has argued the same mechanics at all. They've taken different tacks, yes, but those tacks are mutually exclusive and resolve many game situations differently from each other.

Untrue; they resolve every game situation the same. Which is to say, differently than how you'd resolve the situations. We resolve the situations with:

 

1. Templates out of range missing, rather than targeting a second unit

2. Templates blocked by friendly models missing, rather than targeting a second unit

 

Because, really, that's all this boils down to: you'd like to be able to not waste your template shots when the unit they are a part of fire on a target that is out of range of the template.

 

And that's against the rules, as we've all told you.

[Squirrelloid]

And he does fire at the same target unit as his unit. He then places the template exactly as described on p29. Nowhere does he take a separate target.

 

Why would I need to demonstrate a unit with "0" models? 0 is explicitly ruled out of the range of squad size. Space Marine Tactical Squads are specifically given as being 5-10 models. 0 is not an element of the set [5,10]. Its not a valid number specifically because it was excluded from the range.

 

There are, however, units which you may include 0-1 of. Fielding 0 Death Company squads is perfectly legitimate.

 

If no legal unit can have "0" models, then "0" is not a legal element of "as many models as possible of the target unit". As you have said it, 0 is not an element of the set.

 

Um. What?

 

So, a tactical squad is 5-10 models. If you touch 3 models in a tactical squad with a template, its not a valid placement because 3 is not an element of [5,10]?

 

(Sorry Falldown, I was trying to stop, I really was. But seriously, what?)

 

This is getting entertaining. :)

 

To point out an error in your logic, Squirreloid - a tactical squad starts at 5-10 models. But it can legally exist as 1-10 models due to casualties. So the set you're dealing with is [1,10] and not [5,10].

 

0 is still outside the set.

 

Then it can legally exist as 0 models due to casualties. He had originally specifically asked about squad sizes as they were allowed to be taken from the army list.

 

Its important we're clear about quantities we're measuring. Legal sets for some quantities are not the same as for others. In particular, what he originally asked for was the size of units taken from the army list. That set is distinct for each unit than the sizes it can exist at during the game, even though it shares some numbers in common. (Because i fully agree a tactical squad can have 3 models during the game, but it cannot have 3 models in the army list).

 

Further, the number of models the unit can contain when taken from the army list or even does contain at any moment during play are totally different quantities than models from the squad that can be touched by the template, as they are from each other. Apples : Oranges.

 

The only limits on the permissible number of units in the target squad that can be touched are physical ones. They can't be less than 0 (There's no such thing as a negative model), and there can't be more than can physically be touched by template (This number depends on base size and I do not know what it is for 1" bases offhand).

[Jehoel]

Actually Squirrelliod, maturin had it right. While at start, a tactical squad is defined as 5 - 10, the unit doesn't go away if it drops below 5 models, but it does go away when it loses it's last model. So, 0 is not a legal part of the unit's size.

[Quixus]

1. Templates out of range missing, rather than targeting a second unit

I'm pretty sure thade acknowledged that Template is not a range, so the template weapon cannot be out of range. So the opposition's view is not so uniform.

2. Templates blocked by friendly models missing, rather than targeting a second unit

That is against the rules. You are not allowed to not place the template when you declared to fire the template weapon. There is a legal placement (covering the maximum number of models, which is zero and not touching friendlies). Refusing to use that placement is not in the rules.

 

Because, really, that's all this boils down to: you'd like to be able to not waste your template shots when the unit they are a part of fire on a target that is out of range of the template.

No that is not the point, at least not for me. The point is to have consistent rules. Making additional units targets by hitting them with one weapon (template weapon) and not making them targets by hitting them with another (blast weapon) is not at all consistent. If all units covered by a blast marker or template would become targets, you couldn't fire either weapon if their markers are placed on more than one unit as you are not allowed to split fire. So the dictionary definition of target does not work. You have to go with the definition the book offers which is (paraphrased) "the unit you declare as target".

 

How the game is actually played has no impact on this discussion.

 

@Jehoel: The model count of a unit may not go below 1, but that has nothing to do with the number of models covered by a template. It's comparing apples and oranges.

[Squirrelloid]

You know something, I'm done. I'm tired of trying to get people to actually cite the rulebook. I'm tired of trying to correct misuses of terms. I'm tired of laboriously citing all the relevant rules, repeatedly, with their precise wording so we know what is being discussed only to have that wording totally ignored. I'm tired of trying to figure out what people mean when they say things that have implications far beyond the situation they're applying them in, and the implied rules do not match what the same person seems to think happens in other situations. I cannot honestly summarize how *anyone* who has argued against my position think the rules for *firing* work, much less templates in particular.

 

I thought this was the +OR+ board but no one seems to want to actually discuss what's written in the rules. I honestly don't care how people think the rules are intended to be played. If I was at a table playing the game, then I might care. Or at least would care to reach an agreement quickly without getting into detailed mechanics so the game could go on. We're not playing a game right now. I'm interested in only what the rules say, that's the only proper place for this board.

 

If the rules were themselves unclear that would be a legitimate conclusion. But no one has actually demonstrated any lack of clarity that stands up to actually reading the rules. The rules are clear, just not in agreement with people's notions of how to play. I'd be fine with a conclusion that the rules *should* be houseruled (with the connotation that your group, or the TO, should make every player aware of exactly how they've changed the rules so everyone knows before it comes up in game) to work more like people's notions of how they work. What I don't want is people imagining stuff into the rules that isn't there. People should be able to know the rules before a game starts, and the only way to do that is to either rely on the text (since the only thing everyone has access to is the rulebook), or on errata either published officially or locally that everyone is given access to.

 

(The only point that isn't totally clear in the rules regards range. But then its a choice of either we don't measure range at all, OR we measure range but we can never find ourselves out of range (x" > 'template' is never true), OR we check range normally using the length of the template as the real range but place the template anyway in step 3 - none of which seem to actually cause a different result).

 

So, I'm done. I came to explore what the rules actually say. Its been many many pages and I have seen very little of that.

[Something Wycked]

I'm pretty sure thade acknowledged that Template is not a range, so the template weapon cannot be out of range. So the opposition's view is not so uniform.

Regardless of what thade has "acknowledged" or not, "Template" is what it says in the Range column in the stat line for Flamers, among othe things.

Regardless of what Squirrelloid says about the extra information indicated by the placement of "Template" in the Range column in the stat line for flamers among other weapons, Template is the designated range of the weapon by RAW and by common sense.

 

2. Templates blocked by friendly models missing, rather than targeting a second unit

That is against the rules. You are not allowed to not place the template when you declared to fire the template weapon. There is a legal placement (covering the maximum number of models, which is zero and not touching friendlies). Refusing to use that placement is not in the rules.

You aren't refusing to use the template; the rules are preventing you from firing it. The template's rules stipulate that you must place it on models in the targeted unit, and you may not place it on friendly models.

 

Get that last part? May not place it on friendly models. If the only legal place to put the template (ie, on targeted enemy models) involves placing the template on friendly models, then you may not place the template.

 

Because, really, that's all this boils down to: you'd like to be able to not waste your template shots when the unit they are a part of fire on a target that is out of range of the template.

No that is not the point, at least not for me. The point is to have consistent rules. Making additional units targets by hitting them with one weapon (template weapon) and not making them targets by hitting them with another (blast weapon) is not at all consistent.

As has been mentioned by thade, if you want absolute, mathematical, 100% consistency from rules, then you're playing the wrong game- or at the very least have highly unreasonable expectations from GW's rules writers.

 

How the game is actually played has no impact on this discussion.

:huh: :lol: <--- I actually lol'ed.

 

If how the game is actually played has no impact on the discussion, what are we doing here? :lol:

[Isiah]

OK I think we're done here. The topic's going nowhere and all points of view are now on the table. I'll consider reopening at some future point, or if someone has anything new and sensible to say – but I can't see this going any other way but spiraling downwards towards bitterness and personal attacks.

 

 

Cheers

I