Jaws Shooting Question

[DV8]

I'm sorry, when my Rune Priest is on the 1mm thick base that my ruins are on, and someone tries to tell me that he can't use a power on ANYONE because he's not on the "ground" because the line would have to go down 1mm, THAT is being "cute."

 

Also, I can be cute too...

 

The primary definition of "along" is "through, on, beside, over, or parallel to the length or direction of;." So "along the board" simply means a line, in THE SAME DIRECTION as the board that is parallel to it. The board itself is flat (terrain is on TOP of the board), so "along the board" would simply mean the line is drawn FROM the RPs base PARALLEL to the board.

 

I think this is how I and everyone I have played with has played, and it fits RAW and RAI.

 

So, in conclusion... you are being too cute.

 

Right. Did you actually read my entire post, or are you just picking and choosing parts? I was taking the argument to the absurd to prove just how ridiculous the logic it was based upon actually was. My point being is that there is required a certain abstraction whereupon certain terrain elements are intended to represent the natural contours of the ground (scenic bases for buildings, hills, cliffs, a model's base when it's on the ground floor, etc.) That someone might try and argue a model on top of a hill would qualify as being "elevated" to a second floor flies in the face of that abstraction.

 

Is it permissible? Oh of course, given both players agree to it. But then where would you draw the line? In this instance, at what part of the hill does a model cease to be on the ground floor and is considered as elevated?

 

And your argument changes nothing of what I've been saying. The stock base of a model (that is, what it must be mounted on) for gaming is only about 1/3 of a cm high (maybe 1/2 of a cm). Even if you use the literal translation of along (and I won't fault you for it), you're still only drawing a straight line about 1/3 to 1/2 of a cm above and parallel to the board.

 

The issue in this instance is certain terrain features like a modular hill that wasn't modeled onto the gaming table. It is obviously meant to be an abstract representation that the ground is supposed to have this hill here. However, if you claim that all terrain not a part of the gaming table sits on top of the board, this would mean that when you draw the Jaws line along the board, you would pass under all terrain features.

 

By that logic (if you're still following me, make sure you read all of it now), any terrain feature that has a base that would elevate it above the board in any way, would in turn elevate models (even on the "ground" level) to the point where they aren't actually touched by the line. The issue is then further compounded when people try to argue that models elevated to something clearly above ground level are also affected by Jaws, and vice-versa Rune Priests being able to cast Jaws from an elevated floor.

 

One of the key issues then becomes "what qualifies as the ground", and why I said there must be some manner of abstraction as to what really does qualify as "the ground". Which is why I brought up the issue of a scenic base for a piece of terrain (which is meant to represent the ground level of said terrain); the same applies to hills.

 

Bottom line, I don't see myself being cute about any of this. One would think that I (and others) have proven beyond a doubt by RAW how Jaws works, and yet people insist on beating a dead horse.

 

I mean, I think the only viable debate to be having over this is whether a RP on the 2nd floor of a building can Jaws other models on his floor. I think a fair compromise would be yes, but this should be a decision of your gaming group, not the decision of RAI vs. RAW bickering.

 

I missed this in your original post, so apologies. There is no bickering involved here. While it makes no sense by RAI (the chasm opens in the ground, not the first or any other floor of a building), by RAW I would also allow it, assuming that the only models affected are on the same elevation as the Rune Priest. Can players house-rule it to work otherwise? Of course, and I would be one of them (that the Rune Priest may only cast Jaws when he himself is on the ground floor). But that doesn't change the fact that there is no arguing the point. The rules are clear on how Jaws does and doesn't work. You'll end up with 3 parties:

 

1. Players who play Jaws by RAW (no argument, no compromise)
   
2. Players who understand RAW, but by RAI think it works differently and compromise with their opponents to reach an agreeable consensus on amending Jaws to work a certain way
   
3. People who will try and argue that Jaws works in a different manner than by RAW.
   

 

In all situations how Jaws operates leaves no room for interpretation (by RAW). If you want to play Jaws by RAI, you end up changing the rules for Jaws, and that's the key element (and why I am continuously frustrated by this thread and others where people think by RAW Jaws operates differently).

 

Phew long rant, and if that was TL;DR for some of you, summation:

 

Jaws works a particular way by RAW and there's no way to argue or debate it. So stop it, there's no way you can argue against it by RAW.

 

If you don't like how Jaws works and want to change it, by all means go ahead. So long as your opponents are okay with it, I don't care. Just don't try to bring in your personal conventions here because it won't fly, not by RAW.

 

 

DV8

[Stormbrow II]

also I'm wondering why so many people sign their post with their name? it's not like we dont know it's them we can clearly see name and avatar next to yer post.

Someone's been reading Dick Move. ;)

 

One of the key issues then becomes "what qualifies as the ground", and why I said there must be some manner of abstraction as to what really does qualify as "the ground". Which is why I brought up the issue of a scenic base for a piece of terrain (which is meant to represent the ground level of said terrain); the same applies to hills.

I'm hoping to make a quick summary of this insanely long (but very thorough) post:

 

Agree with your opponent beforehand what is ground level and what is 3" up. Anything at ground level (hills, forests, ruins) is fair game. Anything above this (typically 3" or more such as the 1st floor of a building/ruin) isn't.

 

In all of the games I've played where there is debris strewn about or fences or some such, that has been treated as ground level simply because you don't have to sacrifice 3" of movement to move vertically to get on top of it. If you have to move vertically to get somewhere, being in that somewhere means you're immune to Jaws.

 

Hopefully that'll make things easier and DV8 can save his sanity by not having to repeat himself.

[DV8]

Hopefully that'll make things easier and DV8 can save his sanity by not having to repeat himself.

 

 

 

DV8

[Voracioustigger]

I feel like you're just trying to get the last word in DV8. Your posts definitely make it sound like you're advocating for the insanely technical approach of a RP who is 1mm off the ground not being able to target anything as RAW... when that just isn't the case.

 

I buy that my line won't go up a 6" hill and on the ground, but I don't anticipate anyone who isn't an online poster will argue that my 1mm elevated RP can't hit anything.

 

You say

 

"If you want to play Jaws by RAI, you end up changing the rules for Jaws, and that's the key element (and why I am continuously frustrated by this thread and others where people think by RAW Jaws operates differently)."

 

RAW, my line travels from my RP who is 1mm off the board and parallel to the board. I suppose RAW, if I travel between the legs of a model, then he is unharmed, but the line still continues at the 1mm height from the board.

 

Maybe I was confused because you seemed to be giving several alternatives, but talking mostly about RAW, so I'm confused as to exactly what you are advocating, but let me know why my argument is incorrect. I seem to meet all the criteria by my version...

 

1) I am drawing a line from my base

2) In a straight line

3) "Along" (i.e. parallel to) the board

4) "Touching" models along that line, which is parallel to, but not touching, the board

 

(I note that there is no requirement that the line touch the "base" of a model, and the word "ground" does not appear in my codex)

 

Is this what you're arguing too?

[DV8]

I feel like you're just trying to get the last word in DV8. Your posts definitely make it sound like you're advocating for the insanely technical approach of a RP who is 1mm off the ground not being able to target anything as RAW... when that just isn't the case.

 

I buy that my line won't go up a 6" hill and on the ground, but I don't anticipate anyone who isn't an online poster will argue that my 1mm elevated RP can't hit anything.

 

No no no you mis-understand me. If you read through the entire thread you will understand that I was taking potential arguments (that I have heard many times since the Space Wolves Codex was released) to the extreme, to disprove them based on the absurdity of the logic behind it.

 

There were some players who used to argue that hills didn't qualify as part of "the board" because they are terrain features that sit (as you say) on top of the board. I merely take that to the extreme by saying that, if I follow their sequence of logic, that I could also claim that scenic bases for terrain features didn't qualify either, and in this instance I could say models on bases wouldn't be on the board (since they are on bases) also.

 

Which is why I also went on to say there has to be some manner of abstraction whereupon players acknowledge that there are certain terrain and scenic elements that are meant to represent features of the board, despite not being a part of the board per-se (for example, hills, scenic bases, and model bases).

 

My posts make a lot more sense when you realize that I'm taking faulty/incorrect logic and arguing for it to the extreme as a way of disproving it (it's a method of argument I use quite a lot, actually), and it helps if you realize that a lot of my posts are filled with heavy-handed pseudo-sarcasm.

 

Bottom line, we aren't in disagreement Voracious. I'm simply saying, I don't understand why people still feel a need to argue about how Jaws works. In fact, you actually play Jaws closer to RAW than I do (by allowing a Rune Priest to cast Jaws while on an elevated floor, assuming the only models affected are on the same elevation). RAI to me that doesn't make sense and so my own Rune Priests never cast Jaws while elevated. If other players want to do so, they are within their rights (I won't argue it) assuming they abide by RAW. I simply won't do it with my own Priests.

 

What I DO object to is you calling me cute when in point of fact I am not. I'm merely exasperated at trying to argue RAW for Jaws over and over and over again to people who just don't seem to understand it. And besides, only my girlfriend gets to call me cute. So stop it! :lol:

 

 

DV8

[skoll]

Hopefully that'll make things easier and DV8 can save his sanity by not having to repeat himself.

 

 

 

DV8

 

moar like (warning adult language and cage rage)

[Grimtooth]

A couple of things to note,

 

The BRB says that a model occupies the area of its base. So, you are not starting the line 1/3 cm above the ground but instead exactly where the black base touches the ground.

 

GW has shown a trend of defining words as they see fit, not per the dictionary definttions. In this case we have examples of where in deployment a line does indeed have height and then the along the ground argument of Jaws.

 

Now GW does indeed tellsus to determine the line, to turn a tape measure on the side, but are we given a height at which to hold the tape measure? One could hold it just above the ground, just above the model, or high enough that the line of the tape measure will cover models on the second or third level of a building or ruins.

 

So while lne is defined by Websters and several other dictionarys, GW likes to use their own defintions quite often.

[Wulfebane]

The primary definition of "along" is "through, on, beside, over, or parallel to the length or direction of;." So "along the board" simply means a line, in THE SAME DIRECTION as the board that is parallel to it. The board itself is flat (terrain is on TOP of the board), so "along the board" would simply mean the line is drawn FROM the RPs base PARALLEL to the board.

 

This is where my point of view stems from too. As DV8 has pointed out the definition of "line" several times by now, him, and others, seem to be overlooking that no where in the ruling for JotWW is the word "on" used. So what Voracioustigger says above is how I perceive elevated models being out of range to be incorrect.

 

 

Also, I'd like it if we could all sit down and count to ten. I know there's a lot of disagreement on this and I'm sure we'd all like it to be resolved. Some of us may feel like we're beating our heads against a wall trying to make the other party understand and tempers are starting to flare. I'd much rather get to a resolution of this debate, rather than slinging.. for lack of a better word.. "cuteness".

[DV8]

Let's step back and break things down. I know there's been a lot of confusion as to my previous posts as to what my actual supporting argument was, and what I was countering (by arguing for to absurd extremes as a way of disproving). So let's start from square 1.

 

What qualifies as "the board"?

 

Imagine we played on a completely flat surface.

 

http://spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig1.jpg

 

This surface would qualify as the board. Any models placed on the board are just that; "on" the board.

 

http://spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig2.jpg

 

Now imagine this board had hills and cliffs modelled onto it (not unlike Games Workshop's battle-boards). The entirety of this surface would still qualify as the board, and models placed are still "on" the board.

 

http://spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig3.jpg

 

Re-imagine our completely flat surface.

 

http://spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig4a.jpg

 

Now what if the hills and cliffs from Fig. 3 were not modelled on, but extra terrain pieces that were placed on the board?

 

http://spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig4b.jpg

 

It is clear that these hills are meant as an abstraction to represent a part of the board (that is, the natural landscape of the battlefield). But do we consider these modular hills a part of the board, or terrain features that are merely "on" the board? If the latter, what has changed from Fig. 3?

 

Consider a flat board with two buildings on it, one that has a scenic base, and one that does not.

 

http://spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig5.jpg

 

When you look at both buildings, does the ground floor qualify as part of the board? Is the building on the left merely "on" the board because it has a scenic base, or can we accept that the scenic base, while technically on the board, is meant as an abstraction to represent an extension of the board (again, as the natural landscape of the battlefield), much like the hill in Fig 4b?

 

Hopefully we can agree that there is an interpretive abstraction as to what qualifies as part of the board, and typically what is meant to represent the natural contours of the battlefield (hills, forest bases, and scenic bases for buildings, as an example) qualify as part of the board. The buildings themselves, as they are meant to represent constructed structures, would merely be "on" the board because they are not natural extensions of the landscape, but foreign elements added onto it.

 

In the case of a building with a scenic base, the scenic base would be considered part of the board, while the building would be on the board.

 

http://spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig6.jpg

 

Before I even continue, do you consider this abstraction acceptable as to what qualifies as part of the board versus being on the board?

 

 

DV8

[Schertenleib]

Agreeing completely with you so far DV8. Have to admit in this debate the illustrations will help a lot.

[Grimtooth]

I am enjoying the cartoons. Where are the stick figure Space Wolves?

[Wulfebane]

I agree with your "on the board" terrain cartoons and can see where you're going. I've had no confusion throughout this thread and will still disagree with RPs affecting buildings in the end, since there's still a difference between "on" and "along"... but by all means, continue.

[Nrthstar]

A sticky of dv8's pics would be worth it, but since we have so many already, a solid blog entry would be worthy.

 

Thank's duder. Glad we're back to sounding like wolves and less like the inquisition.

[Wulfebane]

A sticky of dv8's pics would be worth it, but since we have so many already, a solid blog entry would be worthy.

 

Thank's duder. Glad we're back to sounding like wolves and less like the inquisition.

 

Except there's still disagreements.

[Schertenleib]

A sticky of dv8's pics would be worth it, but since we have so many already, a solid blog entry would be worthy.

 

Thank's duder. Glad we're back to sounding like wolves and less like the inquisition.

 

Except there's still disagreements.

 

 

LOL there are always disagreements.

[Wulfebane]

Right, which is why it is premature to request DV8's viewpoint as the final ruling as Nrthstar seems to be advocating.

[DV8]

Firing Jaws of the World Wolf from the ground level

Space Wolves Codex, p. 37
The Rune Priest implores the spirit of the world upon which he walks to open its rock-fanged maw, and a chasm cracks open under the feet of his enemies, sending them tumbling to their deaths...

As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24" away. This line may pass through terrain. ... models touched by this line must take an Initiative test.

1. Jaws states that the line drawn must be straight. A line has neither neight nor width (having either of each and it would cease to be a line); and the property of being straight means it is without bend, angle or curve.
2. Jaws states that the line must be drawn along the board. That is, through, on, beside, over or parallel to the board.
3. Jaws states only models touched by the line (assuming they fall under specifically mentioned categories of models) are affected.
   

Space Wolves FAQ, v1.1, p. 2
Q. How wide is the line for the Jaws of the World Wolf power?
A. It's a hairline, it does not really have a specific designated thickness. We like to turn our tape measures on one side and use their edge, keeping it as straight as possible of course.

This statement is critical because it establishes that the Jaws line is a hairline, like a 24" strand of hair, completely straight. They give practical advice (establishing intent and concern) on how to determine the direction of this line, expressing that the horizontal aspect be as straight as possible.

I don't think this is really a concern; essentially from the top down, the Jaws line will always be a completely rigid, straight line, with no deviation to the left or the right. Agreed? Here's a picture just to be on the safe side:

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig7.jpg

Consider this rather complex-looking board:

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig8a.jpg

On the far left we have a hill that has been modelled onto the gaming table, with a building (complete with scenic base) that is on top. Farther to the right we have a modular hill that has been placed on top of the table; it has some neat little trees that have been modelled on too. On top of the hill has been placed a wall, which also has its own scenic base.

To the right of that we have yet another building, on a scenic base, and we finish with another forest, this on its own scenic base too.

As per our definition of what qualifies as a part of the board versus whats on the board, consider the following labels:

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig8b.jpg

Anything I have labelled with black, I consider a part of the board. This includes all of the scenic bases, as well as the modular hill in the middle.

Anything I have labelled with blue, I consider to be on the board. That is all the buildings and the trees. The trees cannot be climbed and so are irrelevant apart from blocking Line of Sight.

The wall on the middle hill is a little more complicated, as it isn't high enough to constitute an entirely new elevation for models on top of it, and yet it doesn't represent a natural contour of the battlefield; it is a foreign constructed element. However, as established by such things as Blast and Template weapons having to choose which level of a building they will hit, the same can inference can be made of Jaws, whereby while certain terrain elements are not part of the board, they can be considered part of "the board" for that particular elevation.

For example, a model on top of the wall is still part of the ground elevation for the purposes of being hit by a Blast or Template weapon. Similarly, a model on top of a weapons crate on the third floor of a building is still part of the third floor elevation.

If, however, the wall were high enough to constitute an entirely new floor (say, for example, a castle wall), then it is up to the players to establish that the top of said wall would be a level unto itself.

We are in agreement so far I presume?

If so, let us approach a few scenarios of a Rune Priest casting Jaws from the ground floor. Let us assume for the time being that he doesn't need targets, he's just firing off Jaws willy nilly. It is no difficult at all keeping Jaws straight on the horizontal aspect, but what about the vertical aspect?

For illustrative purposes, the Jaws line will vary in length merely to illustrate various situations that may occur. Also, from this point on, all references to the straightness of the Jaws line is in reference to the vertical aspect.

How is Jaws drawn along the board (that is, assuming either 'on' or 'parallel' to the board) while being straight at the same time? It becomes of particular interest when you have hills and other terrain features that are a part of the board, but are elevated.

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig9a.jpg

Consider that the Jaws line remains parallel to or on the board for most of the time, but by remaining completely straight, it fails to do so for the entirety. It also cuts through various terrain pieces like the hills (thus models on top, while on the board, would still be immune by virtue of Jaws having been drawing in such a straight line). This scenario is RAW, and could result in models being elevated enough as to be untouched by Jaws (but good luck playing it this way).

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig9b.jpg

You'll also run into problems maintaining a completely straight line that must remain parallel to the board because at which part of the board should you determine the parallelism? For example, a Rune Priest on a hill; at what part of the board is the Jaws line to be parallel to? The slope? The base? The crest?

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig9c.jpg

Here the Jaws line has been drawn parallel to the board (as well as all terrain features meant to be a part of the board). While it does break to an extent the relative straightness of the line (it is still straigth from a top-down view), it remains RAW along the board, and so works in the spirit of the rule without bringing in interpretation. This scenario is also RAW.

A measuring tape has been drawn to illustrate, for example, how it would be measured, while maintaining the illustrative function of Jaws.This scenario makes the most sense that, while it doesn't remain entirely straight, maintains the spirit of both the straightness as well as having been drawn along the board.

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig10.jpg

When a Rune Priest is in a Rhino, or other similar vehicle with a fire point (for now, let's say it's a Rhino), the principle is the same. And while you measure from the top hatch/fire point for range and line of sight (illustrated by the measuring tape), the red line indicates how Jaws is actually functioning (illustrated by the red line).

Now, targeting models on an elevated floor, or while the Rune Priest is on an elevated floor, can be rather simple, or it can get rather complex, dependent on how you choose to interpret what a line actually is. Now as I've established above, GW has expressed that the line is a hairline, lacking thickness. Without necessarily requiring them to specify thickness in which particular aspect (height? width?) I think it's safe to assume lack of thickness in every direction.

Should you choose to interpret a line as having infinite height and depth, not only do you make the English language cry, but the debate is irrelevant as, from the moment you draw the Jaws line, everything quite literally under the measuring tape as you measure will be affected by Jaws.

However, assuming that the Jaws line has no thickness and thus no height or depth, the following situations should illustrate why it is impossible for a Rune Priest to cast Jaws and affect models on a different elevation than he is (that is, if the Rune Priest was on the ground floor, models on the second floor and beyond would be on a different elevation; if the Rune Priest was himself on the second floor, models on the ground floor, and third floor (and beyond) can be said to be on a different elevation to the Rune Priest.

I have forgotten my pencil-case at home today and am unable to supply illustrations for the "elevated" situations, so apologies. I'll see about drawing some up by tomorrow.

I agree with your "on the board" terrain cartoons and can see where you're going. I've had no confusion throughout this thread and will still disagree with RPs affecting buildings in the end, since there's still a difference between "on" and "along"... but by all means, continue.

Well the key is elevation, really. A Rune Priest on the ground level should be able to hit models on the ground level of a building, but by RAW be unable to hit models on any other level of said building (although some people seem to insist that the Jaws line should be able to hit them as well).


DV8

[hendrik]

those comics are so hilorious DV8! have on ale on me for the effort!

[Grimtooth]

Firing Jaws of the World Wolf from the ground level

 

Space Wolves Codex, p. 37

The Rune Priest implores the spirit of the world upon which he walks to open its rock-fanged maw, and a chasm cracks open under the feet of his enemies, sending them tumbling to their deaths...

 

As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24" away. This line may pass through terrain. ... models touched by this line must take an Initiative test.

 

1. Jaws states that the line drawn must be straight. A line has neither neight nor width (having either of each and it would cease to be a line); and the property of being straight means it is without bend, angle or curve.
   
2. Jaws states that the line must be drawn along the board. That is, through, on, beside, over or parallel to the board.
   
3. Jaws states only models touched by the line (assuming they fall under specifically mentioned categories of models) are affected.
   

 

Space Wolves FAQ, v1.1, p. 2

Q. How wide is the line for the Jaws of the World Wolf power?

A. It's a hairline, it does not really have a specific designated thickness. We like to turn our tape measures on one side and use their edge, keeping it as straight as possible of course.

 

This statement is critical because it establishes that the Jaws line is a hairline, like a 24" strand of hair, completely straight. They give practical advice (establishing intent and concern) on how to determine the direction of this line, expressing that the horizontal aspect be as straight as possible.

 

I don't think this is really a concern; essentially from the top down, the Jaws line will always be a completely rigid, straight line, with no deviation to the left or the right. Agreed? Here's a picture just to be on the safe side:

 

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig7.jpg

 

Consider this rather complex-looking board:

 

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig8a.jpg

 

On the far left we have a hill that has been modelled onto the gaming table, with a building (complete with scenic base) that is on top. Farther to the right we have a modular hill that has been placed on top of the table; it has some neat little trees that have been modelled on too. On top of the hill has been placed a wall, which also has its own scenic base.

 

To the right of that we have yet another building, on a scenic base, and we finish with another forest, this on its own scenic base too.

 

As per our definition of what qualifies as a part of the board versus whats on the board, consider the following labels:

 

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig8b.jpg

 

Anything I have labelled with black, I consider a part of the board. This includes all of the scenic bases, as well as the modular hill in the middle.

 

Anything I have labelled with blue, I consider to be on the board. That is all the buildings and the trees. The trees cannot be climbed and so are irrelevant apart from blocking Line of Sight.

 

The wall on the middle hill is a little more complicated, as it isn't high enough to constitute an entirely new elevation for models on top of it, and yet it doesn't represent a natural contour of the battlefield; it is a foreign constructed element. However, as established by such things as Blast and Template weapons having to choose which level of a building they will hit, the same can inference can be made of Jaws, whereby while certain terrain elements are not part of the board, they can be considered part of "the board" for that particular elevation.

 

For example, a model on top of the wall is still part of the ground elevation for the purposes of being hit by a Blast or Template weapon. Similarly, a model on top of a weapons crate on the third floor of a building is still part of the third floor elevation.

 

If, however, the wall were high enough to constitute an entirely new floor (say, for example, a castle wall), then it is up to the players to establish that the top of said wall would be a level unto itself.

 

We are in agreement so far I presume?

 

If so, let us approach a few scenarios of a Rune Priest casting Jaws from the ground floor. Let us assume for the time being that he doesn't need targets, he's just firing off Jaws willy nilly. It is no difficult at all keeping Jaws straight on the horizontal aspect, but what about the vertical aspect?

 

For illustrative purposes, the Jaws line will vary in length merely to illustrate various situations that may occur. Also, from this point on, all references to the straightness of the Jaws line is in reference to the vertical aspect.

 

How is Jaws drawn along the board (that is, assuming either 'on' or 'parallel' to the board) while being straight at the same time? It becomes of particular interest when you have hills and other terrain features that are a part of the board, but are elevated.

 

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig9a.jpg

 

Consider that the Jaws line remains parallel to or on the board for most of the time, but by remaining completely straight, it fails to do so for the entirety. It also cuts through various terrain pieces like the hills (thus models on top, while on the board, would still be immune by virtue of Jaws having been drawing in such a straight line). This scenario is RAW, and could result in models being elevated enough as to be untouched by Jaws (but good luck playing it this way).

 

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig9b.jpg

 

You'll also run into problems maintaining a completely straight line that must remain parallel to the board because at which part of the board should you determine the parallelism? For example, a Rune Priest on a hill; at what part of the board is the Jaws line to be parallel to? The slope? The base? The crest?

 

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig9c.jpg

 

Here the Jaws line has been drawn parallel to the board (as well as all terrain features meant to be a part of the board). While it does break to an extent the relative straightness of the line (it is still straigth from a top-down view), it remains RAW along the board, and so works in the spirit of the rule without bringing in interpretation. This scenario is also RAW.

 

A measuring tape has been drawn to illustrate, for example, how it would be measured, while maintaining the illustrative function of Jaws.This scenario makes the most sense that, while it doesn't remain entirely straight, maintains the spirit of both the straightness as well as having been drawn along the board.

 

http://www.spacewithinspace.net/images/wips/jotww/fig10.jpg

 

When a Rune Priest is in a Rhino, or other similar vehicle with a fire point (for now, let's say it's a Rhino), the principle is the same. And while you measure from the top hatch/fire point for range and line of sight (illustrated by the measuring tape), the red line indicates how Jaws is actually functioning (illustrated by the red line).

 

Now, targeting models on an elevated floor, or while the Rune Priest is on an elevated floor, can be rather simple, or it can get rather complex, dependent on how you choose to interpret what a line actually is. Now as I've established above, GW has expressed that the line is a hairline, lacking thickness. Without necessarily requiring them to specify thickness in which particular aspect (height? width?) I think it's safe to assume lack of thickness in every direction.

 

Should you choose to interpret a line as having infinite height and depth, not only do you make the English language cry, but the debate is irrelevant as, from the moment you draw the Jaws line, everything quite literally under the measuring tape as you measure will be affected by Jaws.

 

However, assuming that the Jaws line has no thickness and thus no height or depth, the following situations should illustrate why it is impossible for a Rune Priest to cast Jaws and affect models on a different elevation than he is (that is, if the Rune Priest was on the ground floor, models on the second floor and beyond would be on a different elevation; if the Rune Priest was himself on the second floor, models on the ground floor, and third floor (and beyond) can be said to be on a different elevation to the Rune Priest.

 

I have forgotten my pencil-case at home today and am unable to supply illustrations for the "elevated" situations, so apologies. I'll see about drawing some up by tomorrow.

 

I agree with your "on the board" terrain cartoons and can see where you're going. I've had no confusion throughout this thread and will still disagree with RPs affecting buildings in the end, since there's still a difference between "on" and "along"... but by all means, continue.

 

Well the key is elevation, really. A Rune Priest on the ground level should be able to hit models on the ground level of a building, but by RAW be unable to hit models on any other level of said building (although some people seem to insist that the Jaws line should be able to hit them as well).

 

 

DV8

 

Are you drawing the line from the top of the rune priests base for any particular reason?

[DV8]

Otherwise you wouldn't be able to see the red line clearly if I drew it right on top of the black line. The red line should be touching the tabletop, but I have elevated it "just" a bit so it's immediately visible. What that being said, even slightly elevated, since the line doesn't exceed the height of the Rune Priest's base, it'll still touch any model on the ground floor because the base heights are all equal (even if it skims slightly over a base, a model, as you say, inhabits the area of it's base).

 

 

DV8

[Nrthstar]

I didn't mean to hurt anyone's toes there, and I should have explained myself earlier. After reading around about rulings from adepticon and talking to my two local judges the point of view is very similar to dv8's.

[Wulfebane]

Soooo.....

 

Despite DV8's lengthy posts, complete with illustrations, I wanted to get this officially cleared up once and for all... so I called GW.

 

If anyone has forgotten, the original question that spurned this debate was:

 

If I use JOTWW against a unit in a terrain that has multiple levels (such as a destroyed building for example), does it affect the models on each levels directly under the line or just those on the level i shot?

 

 

And per the GW representative that I spoke with, the ruling was:

 

If the Rune Priest fires at a terrain piece with multiple levels, potentially affecting multiple models on various levels, the JotWW will ONLY AFFECT MODELS ON THE GROUND LEVEL ...and his reason, which references the question posed by the OP, is because JotWW is treated as a template and according to GW rules, all templates only affect one level of terrain.

 

Also, should the Rune Priest be positioned on a level currently higher than ground level, JotWW will still only affect models on the ground level (aka below the level the Rune Priest is on) because, per the GW rep., the ability is traced "along the board", aka ground, and therefore cannot affect levels above it.

 

So, for my part, I will concede defeat and I apologize to adding to DV8 and others' frustration regarding this matter.

[Rain Finale]

Soooo.....

 

Despite DV8's lengthy posts, complete with illustrations, I wanted to get this officially cleared up once and for all... so I called GW.

 

If anyone has forgotten, the original question that spurned this debate was:

 

If I use JOTWW against a unit in a terrain that has multiple levels (such as a destroyed building for example), does it affect the models on each levels directly under the line or just those on the level i shot?

 

 

And per the GW representative that I spoke with, the ruling was:

 

If the Rune Priest fires at a terrain piece with multiple levels, potentially affecting multiple models on various levels, the JotWW will ONLY AFFECT MODELS ON THE GROUND LEVEL ...and his reason, which references the question posed by the OP, is because JotWW is treated as a template and according to GW rules, all templates only affect one level of terrain.

 

Also, should the Rune Priest be positioned on a level currently higher than ground level, JotWW will still only affect models on the ground level (aka below the level the Rune Priest is on) because, per the GW rep., the ability is traced "along the board", aka ground, and therefore cannot affect levels above it.

 

So, for my part, I will concede defeat and I apologize to adding to DV8 and others' frustration regarding this matter.

 

But that's good to know that it can, in fact, be used when the Rune Priest is above ground level which was another arguement.

[Valerian]

also I'm wondering why so many people sign their post with their name? it's not like we dont know it's them we can clearly see name and avatar next to yer post.

 

Sorry for the OT, but to answer this question the reason that I sign my name on my first post in a thread, is so I can use the Search button on the main page of the BnC. When I type in my own name and hit go, it'll produce a list of all of the threads that I've posted in, and I can quickly determine which ones have new posts, and which ones have gone stagnant. If I post more than once in the same thread, I'll usually just sign as 'V'. It's a handy little trick that I taught myself. If I'm looking for something specific that I posted on long ago, I can use additional search features, like '+Valerian +Ragnar +Dante' to find my thread about a battle with the Blood Angels last year.

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

Regards,

 

Valerian

[Marshal Wilhelm]

also I'm wondering why so many people sign their post with their name? it's not like we dont know it's them we can clearly see name and avatar next to yer post.

 

Sorry for the OT, but to answer this question the reason that I sign my name on my first post in a thread, is so I can use the Search button on the main page of the BnC. When I type in my own name and hit go, it'll produce a list of all of the threads that I've posted in, and I can quickly determine which ones have new posts, and which ones have gone stagnant. If I post more than once in the same thread, I'll usually just sign as 'V'. It's a handy little trick that I taught myself. If I'm looking for something specific that I posted on long ago, I can use additional search features, like '+Valerian +Ragnar +Dante' to find my thread about a battle with the Blood Angels last year.

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

Regards,

 

Valerian

 

He hasn't got long teeth for nothing, eh? :D

 

Marshal Wilhelm.... :lol: