Situational questions if template is a literal range

[Seahawk]

Seems to me that it's answered in the BRB:

 

What's a target?

- "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target, and may not split its fire among different targets." (p.16)

- "If there are other potential targets nearby (and there often are!)..." (p.30)

- "However, see the exception over the page for multiple targets." (p.33)

 

So, all enemy units are considered targets, or simply "enemy unit = target." When shooting, you may only choose one of them and firing models can only shoot at that one target.

 

According to the template rules, the model with the template weapon is a "firing model." A firing model can only shoot or place a marker/template on it's target unit (p.16, 29, 30).

 

It's only a target if you declare it is, and you can only declare one target

Nope! As I've shown, all units are targets, all the time. You simply choose one to affect at a given point in the game.

[falldown]

I got this. You are firing your flamer at the target, but since the maximum number of models your flamer can reach is zero regardless of direction, you can move the template in another direction of your choosing. You have successfully reached the maximum number in the target unit (zero), so your new positioning is legal. Incidentally the new direction happens to cover a completely different squad, which you did not target.

[thade]

According to the definition of target, whatever you fire at's a target; that would include something you didn't declare as a target.

 

Ironically, often when playing even in tournaments I notice that people don't always "declare" their target. More often they measure and roll their dice quickly, because you know, we're on a timer.

[falldown]

I agree. I was merely summing up in my own language how this chain of events was being validated without a wall of text. So again.

 

1. You choose target unit

2. You fire flamer to reach maximum coverage

3. In this case regardless of direction maximum coverage is zero

4. Incidental placement of template causes coverage of a non-targeted unit

 

I believe that is what this comes down to. You tried to hit your target, but there are no specific rules pertaining to "templates specifically" about what happens when the maximum coverage is zero.

[Squirrelloid]

You don't have multiple targets. Therefore, you're not splitting your fire *among multiple targets*.

What on earth?! This is seriously the crux of your arguments?

 

You do have multiple targets.

 

target [tahr-git]

noun

1. an object, usually marked with concentric circles, to be aimed at in shooting practice or contests.

2. any object used for this purpose.

3. anything fired at.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

The BRB doesn't explicitly and exhaustively define what a "target" is so we fallback on what we know it to mean. You know, much like we do for words like "the" and "and" which are also used in the BRB yet not explicitly and exhaustively defined.

 

The rules do explicitly define target: "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target..." (p16) That's a specific definition. You choose a single enemy unit not locked in combat. That is your target.

 

If we go with your dictionary definition, what happens if we touch models from declared target A and also units B and C. They are fired at, so they become targets? But I am allowed to hit those models because i touched them with the template, yes? Either that's specific permission to split fire or its not splitting fire at all because B and C are not targets.

 

The rules for targets don't change just because the template touches or doesn't touch some models. The rules for targets stay the same regardless. They don't have the situational context you seem to want them to have. Indeed, we only know the template could fire in the first place because he could measure LoS to his target. Its strictly defined in step 1 when we check LoS, and the definition never changes in a later Step.

 

Also, we're not defining target generally, we're defining 'A given unit's target in a given phase of shooting'. That specific unit's target is declared for the unit during Step 1. There are lots of potential targets for the unit, but it only has one actual target, as fully specified and laid out on p16.

 

Edit:

Seahawk: Potential target is not the same thing as "its target". Its target, the unit's target, is specifically defined by declaration, as per p16. There are "potential targets", but they are not 'the unit's target'.

 

You interpretation also prohibits flamers from hitting models not in the target squad even if it touches those models at the same time as models in the target squad, which makes it patently false.

 

Falldown: That looks entirely correct.

[Gentlemanloser]

Not at all. They measure range to their target. They have standard ranges (24"). So we measure the distance from each firer to the closest visible enemy model. Any model out of range automatically misses.

 

But the GKT are in range of all 3 Squads.

 

I can shoot at any of them, as Squad B and Squad C aren't targets.

 

What's not RAW here?

 

Nope! As I've shown, all units are targets, all the time. You simply choose one to affect at a given point in the game.

 

Potential Target =/= Target. :)

 

They're not targets until you declare them.

 

(Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with this)

 

How do you distinguish "extra" hits from regular hits under the rules.

 

Come on...

 

Extra hits (however you want to call them, I'm using your term from earlier here) are hits form a legally placed Template that hit minis in units other than the single selected target unit.

 

Please note, that to be legally placed, the template has to hit the single selected enemy unit. Which in the case of Templates and their auto hit mean that the Template needs toc over at least 1 mini from the single selected target unit to be legally placed. Of course without touching any friendly minis as well.

[thade]

The term target is not clearly defined there. It is sort of implied, but not defined. You choose a unit as your target; but what is a target? If you accept that a target is what you chose, congratulations on being circular. Hofstadter would be proud.

 

This is just laughable now. You have found yourself a pseudo loophole; you refuse to see that sometimes there are loopholes and that they are inappropriate.

 

Feel free to leverage that loophole at your next event and let us know how they take to your arguments, I guess.

 

EDIT: Punctuation and redacted some inappropriate stuff.

[Squirrelloid]

Not at all. They measure range to their target. They have standard ranges (24"). So we measure the distance from each firer to the closest visible enemy model. Any model out of range automatically misses.

 

But the GKT are in range of all 3 Squads.

 

I can shoot at any of them, as Squad B and Squad C aren't targets.

 

What's not RAW here?

 

see p17 under rolling to hit as quoted by me in the post you're referring to in the paragraph immediately under it.

[Gentlemanloser]

Then we roll to hit. P17: "To determine if the firing models have hit their target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range." A succesful hit only hits their target, because that's what you're rolling to determine. There exists no rule to roll to hit a squad that isn't your target, so you're not allowed to do so. Its the rules for rolling to hit that limit normal weapons to hitting only their target.

 

The rules for templates specifically override these rules. "Instead of rolling to hit...". That supersedes the entire section on rolling to hit.

 

Superceeds rolling by hitting automatically. You don't need to roll a dice. (Edit: Including how many dice you now don't have to roll...)

 

It doesn't superceed everything else...

[Squirrelloid]

How do you distinguish "extra" hits from regular hits under the rules.

 

Come on...

 

Extra hits (however you want to call them, I'm using your term from earlier here) are hits form a legally placed Template that hit minis in units other than the single selected target unit.

 

Please note, that to be legally placed, the template has to hit the single selected enemy unit. Which in the case of Templates and their auto hit mean that the Template needs toc over at least 1 mini from the single selected target unit to be legally placed. Of course without touching any friendly minis as well.

 

I've only ever used that term in quotes because other people have used it, and always to claim no such concept exists.

 

There are simply hits. The template rules do not distinguish which squads touched models belong to when hitting them.

 

The bolded is not in evidence anyway. Cite the rule or drop the claim.

 

Then we roll to hit. P17: "To determine if the firing models have hit their target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range." A succesful hit only hits their target, because that's what you're rolling to determine. There exists no rule to roll to hit a squad that isn't your target, so you're not allowed to do so. Its the rules for rolling to hit that limit normal weapons to hitting only their target.

 

The rules for templates specifically override these rules. "Instead of rolling to hit...". That supersedes the entire section on rolling to hit.

 

Superceeds rolling by hitting automatically. You don't need to roll a dice. (Edit: Including how many dice you now don't have to roll...)

 

It doesn't superceed everything else...

 

So a flamer can't hit models not in the target unit, even if it touches one model in the target unit?

[thade]

I hate to say this, but this is the point in the conversation where even I'm starting to wonder when somebody is going to post the troll face. :(

 

You can't lay the template down on a unit that's not the target; they can be collateral, but the moment they're the only guys being hit they are the second target.

[Squirrelloid]

The term target is not clearly defined there. It is sort of implied, but not defined. You choose a unit as your target; but what is a target? If you accept that a target is what you chose, congratulations on being circular. Hofstadter would be proud.

 

This is just laughable now. You have found yourself a pseudo loophole; you refuse to see that sometimes there are loopholes and that they are inappropriate.

 

Feel free to leverage that loophole at your next event and let us know how they take to your arguments, I guess.

 

EDIT: Punctuation and redacted some inappropriate stuff.

 

Your target is a unit you specifically designate. That is its definition. Being a target carries other connotations. But something becomes 'your target' by declaring it is while you can see it. Definitions are, by definition, circular.

 

What definitions should not be is tautological, which this is not.

 

You can't lay the template down on a unit that's not the target; they can be collateral, but the moment they're the only guys being hit they are the second target.

 

Distinction nowhere in evidence in the rules.

 

If you want to use your definition, you have to use your definition in all cases, not just when it suits you.

[thade]

Your target is a unit you specifically designate. That is its definition.

The word "target" is as much a part of the parlance as the word "the" in warfare and games like these; it has a definition that we all understand and I cited it. You designate what the target is; what makes it a target is that you shoot at it.

 

Definitions are, by definition, circular.

Nope.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

 

If you want to use your definition, you have to use your definition in all cases, not just when it suits you.

You are all about the veiled ad hominem. You should try getting over that. It doesn't suit you.

[falldown]

Here it is. This is the entire argument. Please just stop.

 

1. You declare your target

2. You meet the flamer requirement of covering max number from the target squad

3. Max number is ZERO

4. Because you CANNOT cover any from the target squad regardless of direction, you place the template in a way that incidentally covers another squad

5. You are technically still shooting at your target, and have met your flamer requirement of covering the max number from the target

6. The flamer fires

 

If I followed all this correctly... There are no rules about what happens when the max number from the target unit is zero, this is a disconnect in the rules. This is your loophole. Enjoy.

[thade]

This entire post bears repeating.

 

Seems to me that it's answered in the BRB:

 

What's a target?

- "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target, and may not split its fire among different targets." (p.16)

- "If there are other potential targets nearby (and there often are!)..." (p.30)

- "However, see the exception over the page for multiple targets." (p.33)

 

So, all enemy units are considered targets, or simply "enemy unit = target." When shooting, you may only choose one of them and firing models can only shoot at that one target.

 

According to the template rules, the model with the template weapon is a "firing model." A firing model can only shoot or place a marker/template on it's target unit (p.16, 29, 30).

 

It's only a target if you declare it is, and you can only declare one target

Nope! As I've shown, all units are targets, all the time. You simply choose one to affect at a given point in the game.

 

Every single one of those references depends on the reader already having a basic understanding of what a "target" is.

[Seahawk]

Targets are not defined except by the dictionary. Any other idea is grasping desperately for something that doesn't exist, as a target in 40k is inferred from my previous quotings.

 

Seahawk: Potential target is not the same thing as "its target". Its target, the unit's target, is specifically defined by declaration, as per p16. There are "potential targets", but they are not 'the unit's target'.

 

You interpretation also prohibits flamers from hitting models not in the target squad even if it touches those models at the same time as models in the target squad, which makes it patently false.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. "It's target" and "target" are two different things for shooting purposes. Every unit is a target; you choose one each phase to make it that unit's target at that time. When you fire a template, you must fire it (p.27) at its target (p.29 and 16), with the only limitation being that it can't touch friendly models.

 

How does my interpretation do what you claim? Show me a rule instead of making stuff up that says templates cannot touch models other than the target unit.

 

 

Potential Target =/= Target.

 

They're not targets until you declare them.

See above, as yes they are. A target is a target, regardless of when it becomes one. Whether or not it's the firing unit's target that turn or not is the important part.

[thade]

Targets are not defined except by the dictionary. Any other idea is grasping desperately for something that doesn't exist, as a target in 40k is inferred from my previous quotings.

This bears repeating.

[greatcrusade08]

i think it needs stating that 40k is a game aimed at 13 year olds.. this is a well known fact.

it also needs stating that 40k is not written by english or math professors.

 

so using complex words and mathematical equations to prove/disprove a rule is not only rude and condasending its also wrong.

 

now i consider myself an intelligent person and ill freely admit i dont have the first clue about max=0 and all that nonsense, and i gaurantee that the codex writers dont either.

40k is a game not a book of laws..

stop trying to pervert the game with the smallest of loopholes and enjoy it for what it is.

 

i also urge you to follow occums razor, if that fails use common sense.

you can only shoot at a single unit, your loophole means you can now shoot at two (as soon as you direct a weapon towards a unit it becomes a target)

[Quixus]

If, as per dictionary definition, everything that is shot at becomes the firing unit's target in the game context, what happens to the "extra hits" if the template covers the designated unit and another hostile unit? Since you cannot target more than one unit (long fangs and possibly some other units excepted), the other unit cannot be hit by a template or a blast weapon, since you shoot at more than one unit.

 

And if we are going by dictionary definitions how about this:

1a : the greatest quantity or value attainable or attained

b : the period of highest, greatest, or utmost development

 

2: an upper limit allowed (as by a legal authority) or allowable (as by the circumstances of a particular case)

 

3: the largest of a set of numbers; specifically : the largest value assumed by a real-valued continuous function defined on a closed interval

None of those definition excludes zero or negative numbers. My conclusion is that the rulebook must explicitly exclude the zero, if it tries to say that not covering the designated unit causes the template to become harmless. It does fire in any case. there is no rule saying weapons declared to be firing but being out of range do not fire. The rules say they automatically miss. If you don't fire you cannot miss.

 

Squirrelloid: I trade your pounds sterling for all the pieces of eight I have in my pocket. :(

[thade]

What little defense can be offered is that 0 can be a maximum for some function; that's easy-street.

 

What's not is the "I didn't say it's a target therefore it's not and I can shoot at it" debacle. Per the definition of "target", once you're shooting at a unit, that unit is a "target".

 

EDIT: Clarification.

[Squirrelloid]

Targets are not defined except by the dictionary. Any other idea is grasping desperately for something that doesn't exist, as a target in 40k is inferred from my previous quotings.

 

Seahawk: Potential target is not the same thing as "its target". Its target, the unit's target, is specifically defined by declaration, as per p16. There are "potential targets", but they are not 'the unit's target'.

 

You interpretation also prohibits flamers from hitting models not in the target squad even if it touches those models at the same time as models in the target squad, which makes it patently false.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. "It's target" and "target" are two different things for shooting purposes. Every unit is a target; you choose one each phase to make it that unit's target at that time. When you fire a template, you must fire it (p.27) at its target (p.29 and 16), with the only limitation being that it can't touch friendly models.

 

How does my interpretation do what you claim? Show me a rule instead of making stuff up that says templates cannot touch models other than the target unit.

 

 

Potential Target =/= Target.

 

They're not targets until you declare them.

See above, as yes they are. A target is a target, regardless of when it becomes one. Whether or not it's the firing unit's target that turn or not is the important part.

 

So, all units (in LoS) are targets?

 

So a template weapons must touch as many target models as possible, regardless of squad? They are all targets, after all.

 

I'm really confused. I don't know what your point is. I don't know what you think you've proven.

 

What does it mean to fire a template 'at' its target. You mean the rules on p29? That you must cover as many units in the target unit as possible and not touch any friendlies? I can touch at most 0 models in the target unit. I place the template while touching 0 models in the target unit and no friendlies. I have legally placed the template. Despite hitting 0 models in the target unit, I have in fact fired at the target unit and followed all the explicit instructions for doing so. I have not touched any friendly models - i have followed that limitation to the letter.

 

I really don't understand why there is confusion on this point. The template weapon's target has a very specific meaning in the rules for firing templates that tells you exactly how the target unit affects template placement. As long as you have touched as many as possible without touching friendlies you have legally placed the template.

 

------------------

 

Thade: Definitions are universal. They apply all the time or they aren't definitions. If a unit's target is anything its shooting affects, then it is always anything its shooting affects. The definition is not conditional. So the template weapons's unit targets multiple units if it ever touches models from more than one unit, even if one of those units was the declared target.

[Squirrelloid]

Squirrelloid: I trade your pounds sterling for all the pieces of eight I have in my pocket. :(

 

Deal! Indeed, I am so efficient you should already have received all of them. Don't spend them all in one place!

[thade]

You're a waffle house, man. Present you with a point, you rebuttle with a wall of text. Smoke and mirrors.

 

Yep, they're all targets. And you can only shoot at one of them a turn. You cannot split fire between targets in a given turn. That is precisely what we are saying and precisely what the rules say.

 

The template is an exception to that in one way: if another unit's models fall under the template while it's hitting the chosen target, they take hits too. That's it. Otherwise, you're lookin' for loopholes.

 

EDIT: Space comes after and not before the comma.

[Squirrelloid]

You're a waffle house, man. Present you with a point, you rebuttle with a wall of text. Smoke and mirrors.

 

Yep, they're all targets. And you can only shoot at one of them a turn. You cannot split fire between targets in a given turn. That is precisely what we are saying and precisely what the rules say.

 

The template is an exception to that in one way: if another unit's models fall under the template while it's hitting the chosen target, they take hits too. That's it. Otherwise, you're lookin' for loopholes.

 

EDIT: Space comes after and not before the comma.

 

I have never once waffled. I have maintained a uniform and comprehensive reading of the entire rules set. You keep waffling on what you mean by target. Choose a single definition so we can apply it to the rules uniformly and see what that means.

 

I rebut in detail because i actually bother to cite rules and/or fully explain things. As opposed to arbitrary assertions with no basis in the rules. Writing enough text to convey precise ideas is not a sin, its a virtue.

 

You're looking for a loophole that distinguishes being able to touch 1 or more models and being able to touch 0 models in teh target unit. No such loophole is actually there. So you imagine rules to make it true.

 

For example, you have not demonstrated that the model firing a template weapon ever takes any other unit as *his* target, or that "All models touched are hit" only applies if you first touch some models in the target squad. These supposed rules of yours are nowhere in evidence.

 

Edit: I do want *consistent* rules to play the game by. Not definitions that change based on arbitrary circumstances. I certainly would never play a game with an opponent who is permitted and encouraged to change the definitions of terms whenever it suits them.

 

Also edited for clarity.

[thade]

Choose a single definition so we can apply it to the rules uniformly and see what that means.

Yea, actually, um. I did that. We did that, really. What you're doing there isn't responding in a way that begets a comprehensive reading of what's been presented here. Looks more like waffling.

 

For example, you have not demonstrated that the model firing a template weapon ever takes any other unit as *his* target, or that "All models touched are hit" only applies if you first touch some models in the target squad. These supposed rules of yours are nowhere in evidence.

If you shoot at it, it's a target; see: any dictionary of the English language.

 

Edit: I do want *consistent* rules to play the game by. Not definitions that change based on arbitrary circumstances. I certainly would never play a game with an opponent who is permitted and encouraged to change the definitions of terms whenever it suits them.

Then you are playing the wrong game. I'm serious. This is not a game with a consistent rule set. Again, I've played with five different groups, four of them store-sponsored clubs. All five of them vary on how they handle various nuances like this. The same is true for any tournament I've ever participated in or read about. Everybody has their own local FAQs, some actually typeset like a 40k rulebook, others just in their heads. These implicit and explicit non-condoned FAQs are consistent within each little group but not across them.

 

And, ironically, your twisted and broken interpretation would suit me. I use flamers constantly. More than anybody else in the club, throughout virtually all of the melta-gun-is-king meta period. I use flamers still. So it'd be nice for me to fire that flamer at whatever unit I choose. But I can't because it's against the rules.