| Bell/Furnance vs Templates | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 30th November 2010 - 01:35 PM (2,684 Views) | |
| tbone | 30th November 2010 - 08:38 PM Post #16 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Well this should illustrate our disagreement.
Sure
I was just providing it as an example on how to basic rules are applied. But you are right it is more or less irrelevant
We are still together to this point
My point is, all that jazz about what other troop type rules really doesn't hold up. Exceptions or additions, whatever you want to call them, for other troop types doesn't apply to the bell. Only the basic rules apply, and the army book rules that provide the changes to those rules. None of the entries in the basic rules, unique troop rules, or our army book rules indicate anything about the bell/furnace being a multipart model.You are under the assumption that it is a multipart model, because other troop types act similarly. Honestly, I would agree with you guys, but you would have to show me where in the rules (only those entries which would apply to a "unique" model)the bell/furnace should be treated as a multipart model. The only thing I find is that is a "single model," so that's why I'd treat it as such. IDK, the argument about being "single" model not precluding it from being a "multipart" model seems weak. The words 'single' and 'multiple' are clearly antonyms (google it if you must), meaning they are mutually exclusive, or plainly worded one cannot be the other. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one. The real question is really, if you think the bell/furnance is a multipart model, then yes a single cannonball can hit a grey seer twice. However, if you disagree, then the bell gets hit once with a chance to wound the seer instead. Mutate: I'd also say that the rule about templates hit all portions of multipart models are only in reference to ridden monster rule, which the bell does not have. |
| Tbone's Nasty Rats | |
![]() |
|
| Moggrash | 30th November 2010 - 09:16 PM Post #17 |
|
Clanrat
|
Pge 42 Skaven Armybook Right under the characteristics "The Screaming Bell is a special kind of mount for a Grey Seer. It is treated as a single model with a combined characteristics for the Screaming Bell and the Rat Ogre" So, after reading this, I'm quite sure that they mean that the Rat Ogre and the Bell are a single model. Not that the Grey Seer, Bell, and the Rat Ogre would be a single model. Basicly the err... plastic thing is a Grey Seer and a Screaming Bell-Rat Ogre. This means that it would take two hits from a template (even though there are three "models"), unlike a Stegadon that would take 6 hits (1 from the Stegadon and 5 from the 5 Skink crew.) I could be wrong. |
![]() |
|
| Ablabab | 30th November 2010 - 09:18 PM Post #18 |
|
Chieftain
|
The sensible thing would be to agree that the Bell is hit once by templates, and that the one hit is randomized. To me this seems to be the intention with the rules given in Skaven army book. However, the RAW argument still stands - everything is hit, and both hits (or the one hitting the screaming bell) are randomized as per the rules for randomization of hits in the skaven army book. Though the RAW argument seems both farfetched and a groundless rules extrapolation, it is the "right" way to do things, according to the rules. In friendly games, i still try to advocate the RAI way of playing this, but if my opponent is sufficiently determined/convinced that this way is wrong, i won't stand firm on it. |
![]() |
|
| Sleboda | 30th November 2010 - 09:28 PM Post #19 |
|
Pensive Penguins Fan
![]()
|
No offense, but that's not sensible at all. For those who think it odd that a single cannon ball (template) can end up striking the seer twice, I propose that it's equally odd that a large blast from a mortar (template) can only ever hit either the bell or the seer. I mean, really, come on. A mortar shell lands in a unit of 40 guys and touches almost all of them causing lots of hits, or lands on a dragon with rider and touches both of them causing two hits, but that same huge-ass template that covers the entire bell and the tiny seer can be randomized to hit only the seer? Preposterous. Anyone have anything to refute my earlier assertion that the bell rules and the BRB rules actually exist _in harmony_ rather than in conflict? To reiterate, the BRB rules deal with determination (number of hits) and the Skaven book deals with allocation (distribution of those hits). As pointed out on another forum, this is really no different than bow shots. The BRB tells us that when 10 bow shots roll to hit the bell, you first see how many hit (say, 6), then you use the unique rules of the Skaven book to say where those hits land (say, 1 on the seer and 5 on the bell). It's completely analogous to that they BRB tells us how many hits the template causes on its target (36 of 40 in a block of troops, or whatever, 2 on a dragon with rider, and 2 on a seer/bell) and then we allocate those hits (one per model on the block of troops, two on the dragon+rider - one on each component, and one on the seer + one random allocation for the hit on the bell). I have yet to read a compelling argument that refutes this. |
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
| |
![]() |
|
| tbone | 30th November 2010 - 09:29 PM Post #20 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Isn't all this reference to page 105 and the template section kinda in vain. I mean who cares what it says there. The bell is neither are ridden monster or a chariot mount, or is it told to use the ridden monster rules in anyway. These rules do no apply at all. anyway here are some links to the other discussions: http://underempire.net/ar/t35055.htm http://underempire.net/ar/t35253.htm |
| Tbone's Nasty Rats | |
![]() |
|
| turmi110 | 1st December 2010 - 01:34 AM Post #21 |
|
Chieftain
|
There is no troop type that has in its rules anything about being multipart. Multipart is not a rule that applies to any entire type of troop in the game. In the rules they say that multipart models included models such as characters riding chariots, and characters riding monsters. This list isn't the whole list. Now, the character riding a chariot is still in the chariot troop type, but unlike the rest of the chariots, it is multipart. Now I've been using the term 'multipart' a lot. There is no actual definition for multipart in the rulebook. I use it to describe the models for which this sentence applies (found in the template rules page 9) "Some models.... might have several different locations that can normally be hit separately" down into one word so I don't have to keep typing that out. That word is multipart. This distinction goes on a model by model basis, and doesn't take the troop type into account at all. I'm under the assumption that the bell follows my definition for multipart models because it has two parts that can be struck at separately from the rest.
Still don't see how you still hold this view. As I've pointed out previously, characters on a monster is one single model. It has two parts, eg dragon and rider, but is one single model. The bell has two parts, bell and seer, but it is one single model. What distinguishes a multipart model, is when you're in close combat with said model, how many different components can you swing at? You can swing at the bell, or you can swing at the seer. Thus it is multipart. I know what single and multiple mean, I also know that a single engine is made up of a very great many parts. In fact if you want to be pedantic, the only single thing in the world that at this current time cannot be broken down into multiple parts is the quark, but I digress.
My argument is based almost entirely off the template rules in page 9. It mentions characters riding chariots and monsters as a couple of examples as to what a multipart model is. It makes no mention of specific troop types There is further mention of it in the ridden monsters section but I'm ignoring that as we're not dealing with a ridden monster. I believe you are far too hung up on troop types here, when the template rules apply to all models regardless of troop type.
I also don't see the sense in this. How is it that a single cannonball can simultaneously hit a stegadon, and all 6 of its crew, yet you claim the bell + seer should only ever be hit by the ball once? I think its a bit steep that every part should be hit by a cannonball, but as sleb pointed out, a template encompasses an entire area. Everything under that area gets hit. The cannonball is an oddity because it is a single line, and the ball itself is tiny in comparison to the usual multipart models it lays waste too. To me, the intention of the randomisation rules in the skaven rulebook is how to decide what happens when the bell is hit by a bunch of arrows, or a bolt from a bolt thrower. You know, the same thing that every other randomising rule does.
The problem with RAI is that almost every person has a differing view on what the RAI really is. Often (not saying it is the case with you) RAI is skewed in the direction that will benefit the person claiming what RAI is. If you were in my gaming club and tried to argue that the cannon can only possibly cause one single hit on the seer/bell, I'd argue back that my steg should follow the same rules. The high elf player would then say hang on, why is my prince and dragon taking one hit each? I'm just going to take one and randomise it too. Soon every person down the line is claiming their monster + rider is only taking one hit then randomising it. You see where this is going? I don't like the rule that multipart models get hit multiple times by a single cannonball, but I also don't like the fact that my saurus warriors only have 1 initiative, or that my skaven can't use SiN to rally, or that the doomwheel has only Ld7 and flees at the first sign of trouble in close combat, or that teclis is a better mage than the oldest living slann. These are the rules of the game, my only options are to just cope with it, or try and bully everyone into house ruling it differently, or find another game system. I'm very comfortable in option 1. |
![]() |
|
| tbone | 1st December 2010 - 03:05 AM Post #22 |
|
Grey Seer
|
I'm just checking to see if I have this right. The crux of your argument is that when it is stated that "some models, such as chariots and monsters," is not the entire list of models that have "several different locations?" I'm curious as to what the other models, besides the bell and furnace and obviously the ridden monsters and chariots, that have this....er, your assumed "multipart" model definition |
| Tbone's Nasty Rats | |
![]() |
|
| turmi110 | 1st December 2010 - 05:06 AM Post #23 |
|
Chieftain
|
No, the crux of my argument is that the bell or furnace is a single model, but has two separate locations that can be hit, thereby the template rules state that each part takes a hit from said template. Putting 'such as' at the beginning of a list never means that it is the full complete list. If it does, then it is grammatically incorrect. Ask Miss teen South Carolina 2007 for another example of incorrect usage of such as. 'Such as' preceeds an, or multiple examples of the larger group that is being referenced. The crux of your argument seems to have come down to thinking that 'such as characters riding monsters and chariots' is a complete list and nothing else can ever be included. The current complete list of 'multipart' models so far to my knowledge is characters riding chariots and monsters, as the 'such as' list already included, but also the stegadon (irregardless of being mounted by a character), the bell and the furnace. Just because there may not be other examples doesn't mean that the bell or the furnace escape being included. Can you honestly say that the bell and furnace do not have multiple locations that can be hit independently of the other? That is all this part of the template rules on page 9 is interested in. It doesn't say 'if the model has multiple locations, AND only if it is a character riding a monster or a chariot and nothing else, only then will each part gets hit'. It says instead that if it has multiple locations that can be hit (eg character riding a monster or chariot) then each takes a hit. Army book specifically states that people can direct attacks at either the seer/priest or the bell/furnace, thereby proving without any doubt that there are multiple locations for the bell/furnace. Multiple locations under a template mean that each location takes a hit. That is the crux of my argument. ps If I said that I enjoy playing ALL computer strategy games such as empire total war and RUSE, does that mean I cannot possibly like playing command and conquer, or civilisation because I didn't include it in my 'such as' list? Absolutely not, I stated that I enjoy all computer strategy games, therefore I must enjoy C&C and civilisation. I followed up that statement with a short incomplete 'such as' list of examples to illustrate what I enjoy. That is all a 'such as' list does. It is not a complete list. |
![]() |
|
| Ablabab | 1st December 2010 - 05:40 AM Post #24 |
|
Chieftain
|
If only cannonballs hadn't been ruled to be templates, this would all make a lot more sense. @Sleboda: You are entitled to your opinion, but i disagree
|
![]() |
|
| Aeschere | 1st December 2010 - 07:18 AM Post #25 |
|
Grey Seer
|
I have to disagree with Sleboda as well. Agreeing with Turmi though. Taking a bell/furnace as a mount makes it a single model (p42 Skaven): Check The bell/furnace has a seperate profile(p42 Skaven): Check The Seer/Priest has a seperate profile(p41 Skaven): Check You can hit the bell/furnace and seer/priest seperatly(p43 Skaven): Check Cannonball hits all parts (p9+p83 BRB): Check Grey Seer takes hit: Check Bell/furnace takes hit: Check Hits on bell/furnace needs to be randomized(p43 Skaven): Check 6 hits Grey Seer: Check Also being a single model doesn't exclude it from being a multipart model. Something practical. Take this single pen. We can all agree that it is one pen throwing it will damage the pen. Now, take a closer look. The pen consists of a casing, an ink holder, a clip, and a spring. So this single pen consists of multiple parts, or does it suddenly become multiple pens? The whole: Becomes a single model is imo added to ease up the combat resolution part. At this point 2 spearman will outnumber a bell/furnace. That's easy. Else you could argue that the bell/furnace consists of a seer/priest, a rat ogre/plague monks. Why I am disagreeing with Sleboda is because your argument is based on the fact that every model in a unit is equal. You can fire 10 bow shots at a group of spearman and we don't care which one is hit so all hits are piled up. This is just to speed up the game. When hitting a special kind of unit we do care who is hit so we cannot throw all the hits unto a big pile of hits. |
|
For Pony! You got Owned! | |
![]() |
|
| Kevlar | 1st December 2010 - 10:37 AM Post #26 |
|
Doomwheel Driver
|
Skaven are the only army that has a character mount that still uses 7th edition shooting rules. Just play it like everything else in 8th edition and you won't have any problems. |
![]() |
|
| Moggrash | 1st December 2010 - 10:51 AM Post #27 |
|
Clanrat
|
I found something!!! The Grey Seer will get a Look out Sir! save from the template hit, (or both if you roll unlucky) Why? Pge 104 Character Mounts, section Cavalry, second paragraph "If a charater has a cavalry mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'cavalry' and follows all the rules for both characters and cavalry models" Pge 105 Character Mounts, section Monstrous Cavalry, first paragraph "... In this case, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'monstrous cavalry' and follow all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models." Pge 105 Character Mounts, section Chariot Mount, first paragraph "If the character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and follows all the rules for both characters and chariot models. ..." Pge 105 Character Mounts, section Ridden Monsters, second paragraph "If a character has a ridden monster the whole model is treated as having the troop type monster and thus follow all the rules for both character and monster models... " So basicly, a character is an infantry model untill he has taken any of these mounts, only then will he stop counting as infantry and count as cavalry/monstous cavalry/monster. But there is no wording where I can find, eather in the "Character Mount" section, the "Unique troop type" section at Pge 87, the Screaming Bell entry in the Skaven Army Book (pge 42-43) or the Grey Seer entry in the Skaven Army Book (pge 41), that says that the Grey Seer will be treated as having the "unique" troop type. So even though he is mounted on the Screaming Bell, the Grey Seer is still treated as an Infantry and will gain a Look Out Sir! save from the Clanrats. |
![]() |
|
| Sleboda | 1st December 2010 - 02:25 PM Post #28 |
|
Pensive Penguins Fan
![]()
|
=> You are so right about the cannonball thing. It would help with this particular situation, and with people's desire to ignore their rules, if they were not templates. However, they are, and they use the same rules for determining how many hits a unit takes as other templates. It's just the shape that's different. Instead of being round or teardrop shaped, a cannonball template is a line. Other than fluffy and/or mental hurdle reasons, I can't see why people are having such a hard time with it. Actually, that bring me to a point I have been meaning to make: It seems like there are two actual debates/problems in this whole discussion. The first is the question of the number of hits a multi-part model takes from a template weapon. Actually, I think most people agree that every multi-part model other than uniques (currently furnace and bell only) take one hit per component. It's the uniques that cause issues. Second, even if one agrees that a furnace/bell takes two hits, there is debate over how to handle those hits. I'd like to suggest that when folks reply on this thread, they make it clear which of the two parts of the debate is their point of divergence. Ablabab, it's great to disagree. Seriously. Forums are here to let us all bring different views to the discussion. Which part, though, do you not agree with? That a template weapon hits all parts of a bell/furnace model or that once you have the number of hits, you randomize the single hit on the bell?
=> First off, thank you for actually taking the time to respond with some thought as to why you disagree. How very refreshing! Despite how it might appear sometimes, I don't come to forums with my opinions to be right, I do it to get it right. I have always had a personal motto of "Have an opinion on everything. Be prepared to change that opinion when you learn more, but at least have an opinion." When people reply to posts with "No it's not" or "because" or something like that, it's pretty much useless. Replying with reason and thoughtful insight does a whole lot more to add to the discussion and change minds. Having said that, I'm having a hard time seeing where we disagree! It seems your checklist totally follows my thought process. Have I misunderstood? By the way, my argument is not "based on the fact that every model in a unit is equal." It's based on the concept of hit determination by type. To briefly re-summarize- When you shoot a weapon, no matter what it is, you have to determine how many hits that weapon causes. This is based on two factors - the weapon type and target type. A standard crossbow, for example, can cause a single hit. A repeater handgun can cause three. The crossbow that shoots at a single spearman can hit that target one time. A repeater handgun can hit that target three times. Those same two weapons can hit a furnace once and thrice, respectively. Now move on to a bolt thrower vs a mortar. Both of these weapons will hit a spearman once. However, the bolt thrower will still hit a furnace once while the mortar will hit it twice (or, if the verbiage is more comfortable for some readers, the mortar will hit the furnace one time, but will generate chances to wound two separate components of the furnace (single) model). Once you know how many hits the weapon causes against the target in question, you move on to the next step. Generally, this means rolling to wound. For a single spearman this is simple enough. For a dragon rider it's slightly more complicated, as you will need to make two rolls to wound since two hits have been caused. For a furnace, there is an additional step. You know, per the rules, that you have caused a hit (crossbow or bolt thrower) or multiple hits (repeater hand gun or mortar). The unique rules of a furnace/bell now come into play and tell us that we need to figure out what to do with the hit on the bell/furnace.* We have a little randomization to deal with, which we do, and then we can move on to the to-wound rolls just like we would for a spearman or dragon rider. * Yes, I realize there is an important third part of the debate here as to whether GW means for only the hits on the bell/furnace to randomize or hits on the bell/furnce AND the rider to randomize. It's an interesting debate, to be sure, but one that does not have to enter into this equation at all since resolving this debate has no direct impact on that question.
=> This has come up before, and you are correct for all the reasons you point out. I, personally, do not take my LoS! roll, even though I am entitled. Having said that, I would not deny an opponent his right to take it. Let's face it, this whole issue needs yet another hit from the FAQ lords. It's all very clear as is, in a RAW sense, but I think many folks have a "yeah, but" rolling around in their heads that is either colored by a delusion that they somehow magically know the intention of the rules authors (and if you _do_ know, then you need to open a psychic practice and become a millionaire) or they just wish the rules were different because they "feel" like they "ought to" be (yuck). Either way, since there is no conflict between the BRB and the Skaven book (just an additional layer to the resolution), the RAW is perfectly clear and entirely playable. edit: By the way, if GW makes an errata to change the furnace/bell to work as others feel it ought to, I'll happily play it that way. It won't be because others actually somehow knew anything. It'll be because the rules will have been changed to match the alternate rules others have suggested, and I play by the rules in nearly all cases (exceptions can be discussed elsewhere). |
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
| |
![]() |
|
| Aeschere | 1st December 2010 - 02:41 PM Post #29 |
|
Grey Seer
|
The thing that confuses most people (including me!) is this reasoning: You shoot a template and it hits the Bell. The rules now say that all parts of the model are hit. This means that the Bell itself and the Seer gets a hit, right? Let's assume that this is the case, we then move on to the randomization part. You (Sleboda) says that since it is one model both the hits are now being rolled against the randomization chart of the Bell. Personally I think this is confusing as we have just determined that there is 1 hit against the Bell and 1 hit against the Seer so in my opinion there is only one hit that could be randomized, which, weirdly enough can hit the Seer again, but we can assume that a canonball shatters in pieces and that the Seer is just unlucky. Correct me if I am wrong (and explain how I am wrong )Perhaps you are right and are we better off leaving this to the FAQ. But to be honest I don't think this will actually enter the FAQ in the near future. (I am still waiting on a clear cut answer to Chaos Knights with a Mark of Khorne/Banner of Rage). Explaining opposite standpoints is just common sense right? There is no room for discussion when all you get is a "Wrong". |
|
For Pony! You got Owned! | |
![]() |
|
| Kevlar | 1st December 2010 - 02:53 PM Post #30 |
|
Doomwheel Driver
|
The only time randomization comes into play is ballistic skill shooting. In 8th templates hit everything. Everything is the seer and the bell. I think that is a pretty simple way to play it even if it isn't official yet. Its how everything else in the game works. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fantasy Battles Rules Discussion · Next Topic » |







