Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Bell/Furnance vs Templates
Topic Started: 30th November 2010 - 01:35 PM (2,683 Views)
Paricidas
Doomwheel Driver
I dont have anything really usefull to post in this thread other than to say thanks for the clearification of this matter. My opponents use to get really confused when I field some of the special stuff (So what does this wracker attack do. Does it hit the unit or my chaos lord?...).
It really helps a lot when people here take the time to a.) read the rules up very closely b.) make up their own mind in about those rules and c.) write their conclusions on this board in an understandable and reasonable way. So, just thanks again.
Ceterum censeo Altdorfem esse delendam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sleboda
Member Avatar
Pensive Penguins Fan

Aeschere
Dec 1 2010, 09:41 AM
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 :)

Actually, we agree.

It is indeed odd that the seer can get twice, but "dem's da rules."

Like I said, there are two points of contention in the debate:
1) Do we use the randomization as a replacement for the BRB hit determination rules (in which case we also, for consistency, have to use them to replace the hit determination rules for archers, which leaves us with a gap that gives us no way to actually get from point A to point B )?
2) If we realize that we do indeed still have two hits to deal with, do we allow the second hit to go from the bell to the seer?

Like you, I see it as two hits, one of which _will_ hit the seer and one which is randomized.


edit: @ Kevlar - That would indeed be nice and simple. I would love it if they would FAQ/errata it that way just for simplicity. It's not the rule right now, but it would make it nice and easy.
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aeschere
Grey Seer
Aha, I never thought that we are actually in agreement there. What a little explanation can do :)

Good to see this thing sorted.
For Pony!
You got Owned!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
Quote:
 
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.


As for the entire list ... such as part. That is called an interrupter clause.
http://www.penandpage.com/EngMenu/graminter.htm
This means it is non-essential to the sentence. So in terms of RAW we can ignore it, as it really only exists in the sentence to provide an example of what kind of models can be hit on several locations from a template (basically, entire list or not, it doesn't matter).

So, take it out the ",such as characters riding chariots and monsters,"

you are left with. "Some models might have several different locations that can normally be hit separately - in these cases a template is assumed to hit all the locations on the model."

This tells me somewhere I expecting to see rules on specifically how “some models” a template will hit multiple locations on a model.....ok, fine with that
Later it it explains in the monster ridden rule that template hit both rider(the character) and the mount, in this case either a monster or a chariot.....ok, those are the rules I expected
The Bell/furnace is neither a monster, or chariot.......... Ok these rules do not apply
So if in fact the bell/furnace is treated as a having “several different locations that can be normally be hit separately,” we have to look in our army book for clarification. ….right?

Our book is completely null and void of any discussion about templates, or it being a ridden monster or chariot mount, or having “ several different locations that can be normally be hit separately.”

So my point is that you have the burden of proof. You need to explain why the bell is treated as a multipart or multi location model. You said it yourself
Quote:
 
There is no actual definition for multipart in the rulebook
Without our book telling you explicitly about how to resolve templates, or it being a ridden monster or chariot, having “ several different locations that can be normally be hit separately,” the model will be hit once and only once....

And to further my disagreement, no I don't think a steg will be hit 6 times by a cannonball. If a priest is on it yes it will be hit twice (as per the ridden monster rules dealing with templates...in the character mounts section), but not 1 for each crew as well. Why would a priest-less steg only be hit once. Well because the steg is a monster. And how do we determine hits on a monster.....
Quoting page 113 , Who has been hit?
-If the cannonball bounces into a monstrous infantry/beast/Calvary/ or monster, that model suffers a hit. It does not say “count up how many locations can be hit separately” and determine that many hits against the model. It is just one hit.....not 6. That is fairly obvious.
The fact that a steg has a crew doesn't mean they are hit multiple times ..... the model is still a monster, it gets one hit.

Honestly, many of you are looking way too much into this sentence about hitting all locations with a template. The BRB is basically just talking about a partial hit counting as a hit, but provide a disclaimer in the next sentence stating there are “some models” that could be hit multiple times. In effect, that is all that is on page 9.

The is no need to assume or self define anything. It is all fairly clear.
Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sleboda
Member Avatar
Pensive Penguins Fan

@tbone-

I like your approach on the most recent post. Nice job using support for your position. You reach several valid conclusions. The clause can be ignored, leaving what you showed. It does indeed leave us searching for what "may" and "normally" might mean. It is really in this area that the vague rules writing style of GW fails the community.

I do, however, have to point out a flaw in one thing you said:
Quote:
 
Our book is completely null and void of any discussion about templates, or it being a ridden monster or chariot mount, or having “ several different locations that can be normally be hit separately.”


Not true. The book does tell us that the rider and the mount can be hit separately.

Also, it's amazing how we can reach this same conclusion:
Quote:
 
The is no need to assume or self define anything. It is all fairly clear.


...and yet have totally different opinions on what that means. :)
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
Sleboda
Dec 1 2010, 06:34 PM
I do, however, have to point out a flaw in one thing you said:
Quote:
 
Our book is completely null and void of any discussion about templates, or it being a ridden monster or chariot mount, or having “ several different locations that can be normally be hit separately.”


Not true. The book does tell us that the rider and the mount can be hit separately.

It is my understanding is that this only applies to how the bell operates in close combat, not shooting.

I also understand why people may think this sets a precedent for a shooting attack, but I just can't agree with that. Taking a RAW approach, a unique model will explicitly provide exceptions and/or additions to basic rules. So, we just can't assume that it is a multiple location model because it behaves differently in close combat then many other models. We are talking about shooting, we are in a whole different phase.
Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ablabab
Chieftain
Sleboda
Dec 1 2010, 02:25 PM
"Ablabab"
 
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

=> 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.

Sorry for ignoring most of your post, but this is the only part of it i can sensibly respond to right now.

Cannonballs do not at all work like templates. It's a completely messed up label. A cannonball hitting rank and file does not hit every model covered by the "template-the-width-of-a-cannonball" - it hits one per rank/file, depending on arc. This actual cannonball rule works perfectly fine without the need to apply template rules.

The following would cover cannonballs vs. models just fine:

a) one model per rank/file within the bounce is hit
B) multipart-models take one randomized hit - the cannonball bounce stops only if the hit part of the model survives.

No need for template rules. No silly "And the we agreed that the cannonball hit his juggernaut and bounced up into the chin of the rider and then proceedeed straight past both"-agreements or similar. I cannot for the life of me understand why GW felt the need to call cannonballs templates.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sleboda
Member Avatar
Pensive Penguins Fan

Quote:
 
It is my understanding is that this only applies to how the bell operates in close combat, not shooting.

I also understand why people may think this sets a precedent for a shooting attack, but I just can't agree with that. 

==> It's not so much a precedent as it is clearly showing that the model does indeed have separate components. Since, for many, a lot of this comes down to denying this element, I think it is worth highlighting (or at least not glossing over).

Quote:
 
Taking a RAW approach, a unique model will explicitly provide exceptions and/or additions to basic rules.

=> Agreed! And pretty much the crux of my position and our point of divergence. I see the 1-5/6 effect as an addition to the rules, you see it as an exception.

I have a very basic approach to gaming, and Warhammer in particular. It can be summed up this way: "Can I apply all the rules that are present without creating an actual conflict, no matter how odd or painful it may be to do so?" If I can, I do. This way I am not relying on someone else to see the rules differently than I do, just to see the rules that are there and apply them.



edit: Had a thought. Even if we were to go down the path of saying that one cannot say that having separate parts in combat means it has separate parts in shooting, and accept that this were the basis of my recent thoughts, couldn't we show that it _does_ have separate shoot-able parts by virtue of the Hochland long rifle's rules? In other words, if the Hochland can pick out the seer, then the model clearly has two separate parts that are valid shooting targets, and thus the template rules would apply.
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sleboda
Member Avatar
Pensive Penguins Fan

Ablabab
Dec 1 2010, 02:16 PM
Cannonballs do not at all work like templates.

...

I cannot for the life of me understand why GW felt the need to call cannonballs templates.

But they do, and they did. :)
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
Sleboda
Dec 1 2010, 07:17 PM
Quote:
 
It is my understanding is that this only applies to how the bell operates in close combat, not shooting.

I also understand why people may think this sets a precedent for a shooting attack, but I just can't agree with that. 

==> It's not so much a precedent as it is clearly showing that the model does indeed have separate components. Since, for many, a lot of this comes down to denying this element, I think it is worth highlighting (or at least not glossing over).


This is, I believe, the root of our disagreement.

Putting the semantics of the word "precedent," aside, as well as rule exceptions vs. rule additions (call them rule changes if you want it doesn't matter):

The section we are referring to in our book on page 43 is labeled
"The Screaming Bell in Combat"
I would and should not apply this section at all to understand how to resolve a cannonball, a template, or a ranged attack.

I've brought up before that it says, and we all agree, it is a "single model."
If it helps you can contrast this definition with page 104 of the BRB.
"The character and his mount are treated as a single character model for all rules purposes,
except as noted below."

This indicates there are exceptions(or call them changes additions, whatever)...those are listed in the following pages.

Notice how the screaming bell entry says nothing to this effect.

This tells me that treat it as a single model.....no exceptions

Mutate:
When any model is hit by a cannonball bounce (yes this includes a priest-less steg), they take A hit. page 113

Same goes for any template attack
Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sleboda
Member Avatar
Pensive Penguins Fan

I understand your point about the section title ('in combat') but I would say that a model does not change its nature depending on the phase. If a model has separate areas, it has separate areas. Also, as has been very well demonstrated by others, the labeling of the model as a single model in no way, whatsoever, precludes it also being a model with many, or just two parts. It is one, single model. Just one. It has lots of parts, two of which can sustain track-able damage, which makes it a multi-part, single model.

So again we have some agreement (that it is indeed a single model) but disagreement about the implications of the term.

Any thoughts on the hochland angle?
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
Sleboda
Dec 1 2010, 08:20 PM
I understand your point about the section title ('in combat') but I would say that a model does not change its nature depending on the phase.  If a model has separate areas, it has separate areas.  Also, as has been very well demonstrated by others, the labeling of the model as a single model in no way, whatsoever, precludes it also being a model with many, or just two parts.  It is one, single model.  Just one.  It has lots of parts, two of which can sustain track-able damage, which makes it a multi-part, single model.

I'm just seeking clarification, so correct me if I'm wrong:
If you agree in drawing conclusions about the existence of multi-part, single models based on the sentence on page 9, that you would also agree that the last paragraph on 105 regarding template vs. ridden monsters is more or less redundant, because these rules have already been discussed on page 9.

Mutate:

As far as the long rifle, it has the sniper rule, which says, "The sniper can shoot at any model he can see."

Here is my interpretation:

Since the bell is treated as a single model, basically the seer is more or less invisible to a sniper.

Why?

The sniper looks for models only...not parts of models

The only model a sniper can 'see' is the bell.

At this point, ridden monsters and chariots models as a whole (being described single models) can be picked out by the sniper. If they are picked out and hit, then the ranged hit randomization would kick in.

but,

The last sniper paragraph that deals with additional ways to target characters, which is what gives the sniper the ability to pick out characters on monsters, chariots, and war machines, an ability not granted in the previous paragraph.

@ sleboda :I hope that helps, I tried PMing you back but it seemed like it wouldn't work
Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
turmi110
Chieftain
tbone, there are a couple of things to point out here, in no particular order

Quote:
 
And to further my disagreement, no I don't think a steg will be hit 6 times by a cannonball. If a priest is on it yes it will be hit twice (as per the ridden monster rules dealing with templates...in the character mounts section), but not 1 for each crew as well. Why would a priest-less steg only be hit once. Well because the steg is a monster. And how do we determine hits on a monster.....
Quoting page 113 , Who has been hit?


Steg counts as a monster with multiple riders as written in the lizardmen armybook, I'll let you off for that one as I don't expect you to be fully clued up on all the finer details of the lizardmen army. Each skink on top counting as a rider. Thus (regardless of having a character on top) at the start of the game it is a monster with 5 riders. If it has full crew, and you apply the randomise rules for templates, the steg can take anywhere up to 6 hits, but if it has no crew, then it takes only 1 hit. It doesn't make sense that having crew increases the number of hits the steg can take when the monster itself is otherwise identical.

I have mentioned plenty of times that 'my' definition of multipart model was simply a way of shortening down the description of 'a model with several different locations that can normally be hit separately'. I did not make up that rule, and using 'multipart' instead of typing out that sentence repeatedly doesn't negate any argument. I just gave it a (common) name for ease of explanation. Note also that this rule makes no mention of how or when they can be hit separately, only that if it is possible at all for them to do so, then they are 'multipart' models.

When Sleboda talked about how the army book specifies that the mount and rider can be hit separately you went on to say
Quote:
 
It is my understanding is that this only applies to how the bell operates in close combat, not shooting.

How is that different from ANY OTHER 'MULTIPART' MODEL IN THE GAME?!??!? If you claim that because the parts can only be hit separately in close combat, that doesn't apply to the template rules, then NO multipart model takes multiple hits from a template.

If you then claim that the sniper rule is a shooting attack, and can target separate locations of character riding monsters or chariots, therefore they are 'multipart' for the purpose of shooting, (but the bell/furnace is not because arguably you're not allowed to pick the seer out separately) I'll return fire with an equally silly suggestion that a model is only 'multipart' for the purposes of template if the thing shooting said template has the sniper rule as well.

The 'multipart' description says that it has several different locations that can normally be hit separately. It doesn't say that you have to be able to pick out each part separately. It has two components that can be hit as proven once in the close combat section of the bell rules, and proven again in the shooting section of the bell rules where it says you randomise shooting attacks to decide which part is hit, therefore it is 'multipart'.

I seriously can't see how you continue to debate the multipart nature of the bell/furnace.

Your argument about 'such as' comma'd section being an interrupter clause was good, I liked it.

Quote:
 
I'm just seeking clarification, so correct me if I'm wrong:
If you agree in drawing conclusions about the existence of multi-part, single models based on the sentence on page 9, that you would also agree that the last paragraph on 105 regarding template vs. ridden monsters is more or less redundant, because these rules have already been discussed on page 9


I agree with slebodas statement. As to your statement, the template rules on page 105 are more or less redundant, with exception of randomising the higher strength portion of a stonethrower.

Ablabab
 
No silly "And the we agreed that the cannonball hit his juggernaut and bounced up into the chin of the rider and then proceedeed straight past both"-agreements or similar. I cannot for the life of me understand why GW felt the need to call cannonballs templates.


I lol'd. Fully in agreement with this statement too, though unfortunately it is the rule, so I will follow it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
It's worth noting (as the wording is rather similar) that rules for Ridden Monsters (as the case with the stegadon) do not apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two district troop types

Quote:
 
I seriously can't see how you continue to debate the multipart nature of the bell/furnace.


Trust me, the feeling is mutual.

Don't get me wrong, it not like I'm saying you can't prove me wrong. You have just failed to do so. IDK, maybe it is your approach. Maybe all this talk about 'multipart' models seems weak to me because, admittedly, there is no such definition in the rulebook. If 'mulipart' = 'might have several different locations that can normally be hit separately," I would suggest just copying and pasting to save time. Self defining something and applying to several different models, from a rules lawyer standpoint, provides a very weak argument. Can you re-frame your argument not using the word 'multipart.' Incidentally, I cannot find multipart or multiple locations anywhere else in either our or the basic rule book. Can you? If so, please share. :D
Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moggrash
Clanrat
Whats the definition of a "multi part/multi location" model btw?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fantasy Battles Rules Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply