Situational questions if template is a literal range

[Something Wycked]

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.

Interestingly, it seems that those of us forming the opposition in this debate (and all of our opponents) hold the high ground of consistency, while you are the statistical anomaly changing the rules of the game whenever it suits you. :wallbash:

[Squirrelloid]

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.

 

So, if you touch 3 units with a template, they're all your target. QED.

 

Either:

-Templates are allowed to split fire (likely, specific rule overriding general)

-Templates are not allowed to touch models not in the declared target squad at all (much less likely, requires inventing text not present for a specific rule).

[Jehoel]

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.

 

Ok, first off, the model with the Flamer does not target anything, the unit he is part of does the targeting and all models in the unit fire on the same targeted unit. This is why people say the way your saying flamer templates work is "targeting" two units.

 

Second, looking at the issue of "0" is the max number being legal, show us any codex (in any edition of the game) that allows a unit to consist of less than one model.

[Squirrelloid]

Interestingly, it seems that those of us forming the opposition in this debate (and all of our opponents) hold the high ground of consistency, while you are the statistical anomaly changing the rules of the game whenever it suits you

 

Majority is not consistency. Consistency is not changing your interpretation to suit a situation. Consistency is the rules meaning exactly what they say, and a consistent houserule will modify the rules in a consistent and uniform way.

 

Ie, in a consistent set of rules, either all units touched by the template are target units or only the one initially declared is. It can't work one way in one situation and a different way in another (unless the rules themselves specifically detail how the rule changes to say _exactly_ that).

 

In a consistent set of rules, if a unit is your target you are bound by all rules governing the target that apply to the weapon. So if the template really was taking a new target it would suddenly be required to cover as many models in the new unit as possible. No one has argued that.

 

I could get more technical. But in short consistency is not consensus. Its a mathematically definable property of a set or rules.

 

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.

 

Ok, first off, the model with the Flamer does not target anything, the unit he is part of does the targeting and all models in the unit fire on the same targeted unit. This is why people say the way your saying flamer templates work is "targeting" two units.

 

Second, looking at the issue of "0" is the max number being legal, show us any codex (in any edition of the game) that allows a unit to consist of less than one model.

 

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.

[falldown]

Ok. Now you're just trolling. I was actually trying to help you squirrel. My numerically laid out order of operations that I posted a couple times specifically gave you an argument that you could use to validate "technically" how this could be construed as legal without wall of texting. I'm done though. You can use my previous posts if you want, but I think you're just continuing to type to draw this out for some unknown personal reason.

 

As an addendum. Thanks for the free kill point on the 0 model Death Company squad.

[Squirrelloid]

Ok. Now you're just trolling. I was actually trying to help you squirrel. My numerically laid out order of operations that I posted a couple times specifically gave you an argument that you could use to validate "technically" how this could be construed as legal without wall of texting. I'm done though. You can use my previous posts if you want, but I think you're just continuing to type to draw this out for some reason.

 

I'm not trying to troll. I'm really not. But I am attempting to answer objections and explain what the rules say. Its hard to answer 5 different people without making walls of text, especially when i have to mechanically break down *every single step of the shooting phase*. Repeatedly. I completely agree with your summary.

 

The problem is that, even if you get them to notice and respond to it, its not going to change the non-rules based arguments against it that get thrown at it. Its a great summary specifically because it covers everything i've said, and no one opposed to it seems willing to accept that's what the rules actually say, even when you quote the entire book to them.

[thade]

So, if you touch 3 units with a template, they're all your target. QED.

Actually, in that case the guy with the flamer has three targets. Remember, the unit he's in can only fire upon one target - which he also must fire on - but the flamer template allows him to damage other units as well as collateral.

 

Templates are allowed to split fire (likely, specific rule overriding general)

It's dangerous to look at it this way, I think, but it's not terrible; the template rules do allow him to score hits on units other than what his unit is firing at. He's still got to fire at that unit though and if he can't then he doesn't.

 

Tell you what. You show me where, RAW, it states that I must use the top facing on a die after I roll it to determine the result of the roll. Because, by my reading, there is no such rule; thus I can choose whichever facing I want and I always choose the one with the 6 on it.

 

It doesn't say specifically that you must hit at least one model with the flamer before it can inflict collateral damage. But it must, in much the same way that we must use the top facing of a die to determine the result of a roll.

 

I hope you're thinking "Bologna! Everybody always uses the top facing for that purpose!" You're right. It's quite normal and, in fact, universal. Much like the definition of the word "target"...which is why things like both of these silly examples are left out of the BRB.

[Something Wycked]

Interestingly, it seems that those of us forming the opposition in this debate (and all of our opponents) hold the high ground of consistency, while you are the statistical anomaly changing the rules of the game whenever it suits you

Majority is not consistency. Consistency is not changing your interpretation to suit a situation. Consistency is the rules meaning exactly what they say, and a consistent houserule will modify the rules in a consistent and uniform way.

con·sist·ent   /kənˈsɪstənt/ [kuhn-sis-tuhnt]

adjective

1. agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent.

2. constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.: a consistent opponent.

3. holding firmly together; cohering.

 

con·sist·en·cy   /kənˈsɪstənsi/ [kuhn-sis-tuhn-see]

noun, plural -cies.

1. a degree of density, firmness, viscosity, etc.: The liquid has the consistency of cream.

2. steadfast adherence to the same principles, course, form, etc.: There is consistency in his pattern of behavior.

3. agreement, harmony, or compatibility, especially correspondence or uniformity among the parts of a complex thing: consistency of colors throughout the house.

 

Hmm. Apparently the consistent majority understanding is consistency. ^_^

[thade]

EDIT: Redacted. Purely antagonistic. Apologies.

 

If you don't accept the common definition of the word target and you don't accept that the rest of us have all accepted the WH40K rules for all their weaknesses and short-comings, I don't know what to tell you. The reason I've been so persistent is that I was very much like you when I started on here and, having played the game many times a week with many different people for these past few years I very quickly learned that cold logic just doesn't foot the bill in Warhammer.

 

The game's rule set isn't written by software engineers or computer scientists as Magic: the Gathering was. It was written by some lowest bidder game designers for a company that thrives on plastic sales. You are on a road to frustration, which a few heated in-person arguments will demonstrate for you.

 

My real advice: offer your stance and either dice it off or just give it to them. It's more fun to play the game than to be right about it.

[falldown]

I am reposting this. Sorry. This is legitimately my last attempt to reach some closure on this.

 

THE CRUX

1. You declare your squad's target (group A)

2. You meet the flamer requirement of covering max number from the target squad upon laying down the template

3. In this case, the max number is ZERO

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

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

6. Since the rules do not specify that you HAVE to hit a single model in the target unit for the flamer to fire the template, the flamer still fires and results in the incidental flaming of group B

 

There are no rules about what happens when the max number affected from the target unit is zero, this is the disconnect in the rules. This is your loophole.

[Squirrelloid]

Something Wicked:

There is no unified opposition. Everyone who has argued against my position has argued a different unique position of their own, there is absolutely no agreement.

 

And none of those definitions refer to belief or voting. Agreement is refering to the parts of the thing itself being in agreement (in this case the components of the rules). Without reference to an outside body. If the rules are in agreement on something they are consistent. Even assuming we had people who actually agreed on the mechanics involved, people being in agreement in their beliefs about the rules only shows their beliefs about the rules are consistent with each other, not that the rules are consistent.

 

So, if you touch 3 units with a template, they're all your target. QED.

Actually, in that case the guy with the flamer has three targets. Remember, the unit he's in can only fire upon one target - which he also must fire on - but the flamer template allows him to damage other units as well as collateral.

 

It allows him to damage other units, period. There is no concept of collateral.

 

If the model firing the template has 3 targets, how do you resolve the rules on p29? He must cover as many models as possible across his three targets?

 

Templates are allowed to split fire (likely, specific rule overriding general)

It's dangerous to look at it this way, I think, but it's not terrible; the template rules do allow him to score hits on units other than what his unit is firing at. He's still got to fire at that unit though and if he can't then he doesn't.

 

Tell you what. You show me where, RAW, it states that I must use the top facing on a die after I roll it to determine the result of the roll. Because, by my reading, there is no such rule; thus I can choose whichever facing I want and I always choose the one with the 6 on it.

 

It doesn't say specifically that you must hit at least one model with the flamer before it can inflict collateral damage. But it must, in much the same way that we must use the top facing of a die to determine the result of a roll.

 

I hope you're thinking "Bologna! Everybody always uses the top facing for that purpose!" You're right. It's quite normal and, in fact, universal. Much like the definition of the word "target"...which is why things like both of these silly examples are left out of the BRB.

 

No procedure is given for rolling dice, at all. It is a common procedure. We can reference any instructions anywhere you can find on rolling dice - they will all be the same - and I will be happy to use any such reference you can produce.

 

Firing a template weapon is not a common procedure outside WH40k. Indeed, there is no instructions for using it outside of this or closely related games by the same publisher. We need instructions to tell us how to use them.

 

A procedure is given for firing a template weapon. It is fully specified, an "exact method" (p27) is given. There is no need to add anything to that procedure. It is logically complete (possibly shocking for GW rules, but it is). There is no need to touch at least one model in the target squad because the rules for placing it are completely sensible and mechanically performable even if you can't.

 

At least, I assume you're not saying that its impossible to physically place the template to touch no friendly models and no target enemy models in Situation 2. We agree such placements exist?

 

If we've followed all the rules for placing the template in the rules. And there is no common or even known procedure outside the rules for placing the template, what else are we to refer to?

[Jehoel]

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.

[Squirrelloid]

Falldown: 1 small correction. Its not that there are no rules about what happens if you touch 0 models, its that there's no exception to the rules if you touch 0 models.

 

I would argue that makes it not a loophole at all. The template was legitimately placed according to the rules. It may be the case that the rules are _incomplete_ if you think templates shouldn't be able to do that, but that's a claim that there should be more rules, not that loopholes exist.

[thade]

You omitted any sort of response to the actual meat of my comments there. Have you proposed this to your gaming group yet? What's their take? Is it like yours?

 

It's not that hard to maximize the number of models under the template no matter how many units fall under it at the end of the day; just find the spot that gets the most guys (via counting them) then your opponent can point out which guys are in which unit if it's not clear. Easy.

 

Yes, you can physically place a template such that it 1. does not touch a friendly model, and 2. illegally falls upon a unit that is not the called-target while not hitting any models in the called-target. We agree such a placement exists. We do not agree on the correctness of it.

 

If you hit zero models from the called-target, you are not hitting that target; you are then splitting fire, which is outside of the rules.

 

...and actually in any example I can think of involving a flamer template, it invariably hits the unit that the rest of the squad is firing at. What you are saying is such a gross departure from what is otherwise obvious that they would have made a point of it had that been the intention. I mean, why do they make Long Fangs out to be special for being able to split fire when anybody with a flamer weapon can do so?

[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?)

 

If you hit zero models from the called-target, you are not hitting that target; you are then splitting fire, which is outside of the rules.

 

You are never required to hit the target. If you roll to hit and miss you have hit zero models from the target unit. If you fire a blast weapon and scatter off them you have hit 0 models from the target unit. Hitting is never required.

 

You are required to take a target. The template rules instruct you to 'cover as many models as possible' from the target. If that number is 0 you have still 'covered as many models as possible' from the target. Those (plus not touching friendlies) are the only instructions regarding the target you are given. If you follow those instructions, you have fulfilled all teh stated requirements in the rules.

 

And you, I will note, did not answer my question. If the flamer has 3 targets when hitting A,B,C, how do you resolve p29?

[Something Wycked]

6. Since the rules do not specify that you HAVE to hit a single model in the target unit for the flamer to fire the template, the flamer still fires and results in the incidental flaming of group B

 

There are no rules about what happens when the max number affected from the target unit is zero, this is the disconnect in the rules. This is your loophole.

There are two issues with this argument. The first is this: there are only two conditions in which a template weapon will be able to affect zero models in the target unit.

1: the template is out of range

2: there is a friendly model in the way such that the template cannot cover any models in the target unit without touching the friendly model

 

If the template is out of range, it misses. If the placement of the template is impossible due to friendly models, then it is not placed. Zero models in the target unit is not a valid result for template weapons.

 

The second issue is that group B is not "incidentally" hit by the template weapon; they are purposefully targeted by the player, and the end result is the squad is splitting its fire without permission. This is illegal.

 

Something Wicked:

There is no unified opposition. Everyone who has argued against my position has argued a different unique position of their own, there is absolutely no agreement.

 

Firstly, how is everyone but Quixus not unified opposition?

 

Secondly, we've all taken a unique position of our own because:

1. we're all unique human beings with unique thought processes and

2. you've come up with a crazy amount of ways to run the argument in circles... so we take a different tack to try and help you see the light.

 

What you fail to see is that, despite there being a unique point of disagreement that we've each used in this discussion, the end result we're arguing for is the same.

 

And none of those definitions refer to belief or voting.

Of course they do; one is an adjective and the other is a descriptive noun. Both can be applied to belief or voting in the proper context.

 

We, as a group, have a consistent vision of the rules. You are advocating a vision of the rules that is outside of this vision and is not only unsupported by RAW, but obviously rules lawyering.

 

Even assuming we had people who actually agreed on the mechanics involved,

Which we do, by the way.

 

people being in agreement in their beliefs about the rules only shows their beliefs about the rules are consistent with each other, not that the rules are consistent.

That's just what thade has been trying to tell you; the rules aren't consistent. But we are consistent, and the rules don't bend nearly so far as you're trying to make them.

[falldown]

No... no you weren't. Your last post proves that, but like I said. I'm done.

 

As a final final note, I also think this is a departure from the rules as stated. There is nothing that specifically states that you have to hit your target with a flamer, in that I feel you are correct. The problem is what happens to the template/flamer when that occurs. As this is not stated specifically, it either has no impact at all or it still fires and can hit another unit in range.

 

I personally believe it has no impact, you disagree. <hands... washed...>

[thade]

That's just what thade has been trying to tell you; the rules aren't consistent. But we are consistent, and the rules don't bend nearly so far as you're trying to make them.

That is really my message; shudder to think.

 

I am all set on being trolled. Let us know how your gaming group takes to this.

[Ming]

You guys still at it?

 

My golden rule: Stretching the rules to your interpretation would end the golden rule for me. I'd get tired of it, leave the game, and then tell all my gaming buddies what a horrible player you are, and then we'd laugh.

 

20+ pages of posts on the template topic. Something that for many is so inconsequential in the game. It makes me think you have some personal motive your trying to win....like a Vendetta.

 

In my list the only template I'd use is on my Redeemer.

[Jacinda]

My real advice: offer your stance and either dice it off or just give it to them. It's more fun to play the game than to be right about it.

I think I found my sig ^.^

[thade]

My golden rule: Stretching the rules to your interpretation would end the golden rule for me. I'd get tired of it, leave the game, and then tell all my gaming buddies what a horrible player you are, and then we'd laugh.

I have been trying very, very hard to help him avoid this very fate. Not my place. Lesson learned.

[Squirrelloid]

Something Wicked:

There is no unified opposition. Everyone who has argued against my position has argued a different unique position of their own, there is absolutely no agreement.

 

Firstly, how is everyone but Quixus not unified opposition?

 

And dswanick (see other thread), and Falldown. And i seem to recall one other but I'd have to go looking through the thread.

 

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. And when i try to get people to follow their mechanics through to their logical conclusion (such as asking Thade what you do when you end up with 3 targets for the flamer including the declared target) they never answer or they give an answer that is inconsistent with their use of terms or rules they used to refute my position.

 

I leave it to falldown to answer your substantive claims, since you're responding to him.

[Isiah]

Keep it cool guys or this one will be closed too.

 

Cheers

I

[maturin]

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.

[thade]

Falldown doesn't agree with you, man. He's just summarizing your TL;DR for everybody.