Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Bell/Furnance vs Templates
Topic Started: 30th November 2010 - 01:35 PM (2,682 Views)
Aeschere
Grey Seer
At the moment we are using the term to describe a single model that has several seperate locations.

For example: A chariot with a hero, a dragon with a rider and for this discussion, a bell with a seer.
For Pony!
You got Owned!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
Quote:
 
At the moment we are using the term to describe a single model that has several seperate locations.

Don't forget the "that can be hit normally"

Don't any of you find it fundamentally wrong to make a rules based argument by making up your own definition and apply it to models that don't clearly say nothing to the effect, i.e. that the bell/furnace says it has "several separate locations that can be hit normally."

If any of you can show where I can find this, I'm sold. Until, you guys will continue to claim that this rules are RAW, but clearly what you are doing is RAI.

I understand your approach. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a duck. In this case, it bell seems to have different damage locations with opportunities to hit them, does this mean its the so called "mulitpart" model or has "several separate locations that can be hit normally." Keep in mind this is an interpretation, not what is actually said.

Consider that parable with the blind man and the elephant. He is asked to describe an elephant but finds several different things instead.
- feels the trunk, he thinks its a snake
- feels the ear, he thinks its a leaf
- feels the leg, he thinks its a tree trunk
- feels the tail, he thinks its a broom

What do we learn, not everything is what it seems. Sometimes you just have to put ALL the pieces together to really understand something. Do we need to look at all the parts of the elephant? Could it be that this particular sentence offers a mere glimpse of the rules for templates. Hmmmm. Maybe we should look at the other template rules too...

So when you say that the bell has "several separate locations that can be hit normally," ok it may seem like it, but from a RAW standpoint, it merely a interpretation, because it does not explicitly say so.

Could GW actually be right, that indeed cannonballs have no chance of hitting a Gray Seer twice with same shot.
Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sleboda
Member Avatar
Pensive Penguins Fan

tbone
Dec 1 2010, 04:07 PM
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.

Ok, so, a few things.

1) For clarity - My impression is that you believe no model in the game has more than one part, which is at least the implication I get from your entirely reasonable desire to see people not make up game terms that don't exist in the game (multi-part model). If that's the case, would you agree that the term "single model" is meaningless, or at least redundant? Essentially, all models are single models anyway, so why call out the term? (One model is not two models. An object cannot exist in two places at once, so calling a model a single model is, like, duh!)

2) Having read the two page references you call out, I would agree that in the form they have chosen to use to present these sections, parts of the rule on p. 105 are redundant. I'm ok with that. I'd much rather have a rule reiterated in other, relevant, sections that have to go searching. For instance, I really wish they would have put the modifier to shoot at skirmishes in the list of modifiers on p 40 and listed the -1 to stand and shoot in the rules for stand and shoot! I played a few early games with errors in this area. So, I like them mentioning the template general rules again in the section on p.105. In particular, I like them calling out the reminder that a cannon fires a template attack. Back on course, it looks to me like the reason for the redundancy was merely to set the scene for the handling of the different strengths of a stone thrower attack. Could they have written that last paragraph as something like "Templates with Multiple Strength Values - Models with multiple locations that are hit by these templates randomize which location gets the higher S hit" or something similar? Sure. I think the way they have chosen to present it is better, even if it is partially redundant.

Another question for you, to make sure the basics are in agreement on both sides of the isle:
Regardless of terminology, would you agree that a Screaming Bell with a Seer rider and a Plague Furnace with a Plague Priest rider are both models (dropping "single" based on point at top) that have multiple locations, regardless of which phase of the game we are in or how that might relate to other rules? Would you, again, agree that these models do actually have more than one part?


Note to anyone else reading along: After a PM discussion with tbone, I have learned that we Skaven players have reason to rejoice. A seer/priest on bell/furnace cannot be picked out by a hochland long rifle! (Nor can the crew of a stegadon.)
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ratarsed
Grey Seer
Sleboda
Dec 2 2010, 11:25 AM
Note to anyone else reading along: After a PM discussion with tbone, I have learned that we Skaven players have reason to rejoice. A seer/priest on bell/furnace cannot be picked out by a hochland long rifle! (Nor can the crew of a stegadon.)

Tell us more. I don't see why not, wouldn't the bell or furnace fall under the "specific model where the target is normaly rolled for randomly" part of the sniper rules?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sleboda
Member Avatar
Pensive Penguins Fan

Ratarsed
Dec 2 2010, 12:39 PM
Sleboda
Dec 2 2010, 11:25 AM
Note to anyone else reading along:  After a PM discussion with tbone, I have learned that we Skaven players have reason to rejoice.  A seer/priest on bell/furnace cannot be picked out by a hochland long rifle!  (Nor can the crew of a stegadon.)

Tell us more. I don't see why not, wouldn't the bell or furnace fall under the "specific model where the target is normaly rolled for randomly" part of the sniper rules?

Sniper allows you to shoot a different target than his unit. That's one benefit, but has no bearing here.

A Sniper can target a "model" he can see, which is different from what the rules in the Empire book used to be. It's a subtle distinction, but one that is present and should be accounted for nonetheless.

So, a Sniper can target a model in a unit (champ, seer with clanrats, etc).

What else does Sniper allow?

According to the rules "A Sniper shot can even target a character riding on the back of a ridden monster or chariot..." A seer on a bell is neither one of these, and despite all the other discussions above, it's clear that we all pretty much agree that the Unique designation tells us to use the rules in the Skaven book where they are in conflict with main rules. A seer on a bell is not on a monster or a chariot. We don't even have the "such as" caveat. The full list is actually presented: A character on a monster or chariot. Two parts of that equation - character (not normal skink, for instance) and two types of mounts (chariots and monsters).

You are, lastly, allowed to target a specific model where the target is randomly determined. Again despite all the chatter in this thread, I would hope we all, like 100% of us, agree that the Screaming Bell with a Seer on it is, in fact, only one model. A model with sections/multi-parts/areas/locations or whatever, but only one model. Since it is one model, and not a separate one protected by randomization of shots onto other models, the Seer+Bell is not covered by this section of the Sniper rules. Neither are the crew of a stegadon.

To me, this falls into a "favorite" category of mine:
"You don't have to like the rules, but those _are_ the rules."
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
turmi110
Chieftain
I apologise for my liberal usage of the term 'multipart', I can see it has caused some confusion. Being a math major it is in my nature to substitute for purposes of clarity and brevity, and I assumed multipart was a common and well understood phrase (at least in my neck of the woods it is). Clearly I was wrong in that aspect. My argument stays the same, if you substitute back in "multipart = several different locations that can normally be hit separately" then there should be no problem. I will endeavor to abstain from using 'multipart' in a formal discussion and leave it for colloquial usage.

Now back to the discussion at hand.

Quote:
 
So when you say that the bell has "several separate locations that can be hit normally," ok it may seem like it, but from a RAW standpoint, it merely a interpretation, because it does not explicitly say so.


True, it isn't explicitly stated, at least not word for word. It does tell you however that it has separate locations that can be hit by shooting, and that it has separate locations that can be hit by close combat. What other cases do you need for it to count as normal? If that doesn't cover 'several separate locations that can be hit normally' then I don't know what does. What is the definition of 'normally' in the WHFB rulebook?

Now a question back at you, where does it explicitly state that a character riding a monster has "separate locations that can be hit normally"? How does the wording for them compare to that of the bell? *

*Note that the template rules on page 9 say that some models, eg characters on monsters and chariots might have several different locations blah blah. That is not explicitly state that all characters on monsters and chariots fall under that category. You will have to find your statement elsewhere.

Nice catch on the sniper rule, I had to read that a few times over a few times, couldn't spot any disagreements with your argument though, I'll have to find other points to argue with you about :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
@selboda:
1) Ok that makes since. I agree
2) OK. I see where you are coming from. Like I said i was seeking clarification, not really trying to make a point. I just wanted to be sure the rules on 105 are really a non-issue.

As for your question:
This must be where we fundamentally disagree. I cannot say yes or no to any of that. Without the book giving me any distinction for what a multiple location model is, how can I in good faith be the judge of what is and what isn't a multiple location model. IDK, maybe its because I played games like magic where the rules are constantly changing, from the mechanics, card types, new card zones, assorted card specific rules, etc. etc.

To me, if you start make distinction on which models are and aren't models that have "several different locations that can normally be hit separately," it really just opens up a huge can of worms.

Okay lets say my preverbial can is openned:
I could start making argements things like the anvil of doom and cauldron of blood are too models that have "several different locations that can normally be hit separately."

hmmm... now Orc bullys on their war machines those are characters.... warmachines are treated as a single model so it too is a model that having "several different locations that can normally be hit separately"

What does Normally mean?
Well in the context of the paragraph it is fairly obvious.
"Normally, any model that is fully or even partially underneath the template is hit automatically ...."
Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bakish
Member Avatar
Stormvermin
Yes but unfortunately both the anvil and the cauldron have specific FAQ's in regard explaining how it works. I haven't read the Orc FAQ, but an edjucated guess would be that the goblins are removed first and the orc last.

Me for one can go ether way on that one. Depending on what me and my opponent decides before the game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
Bakish
Dec 3 2010, 12:57 AM
Yes but unfortunately both the anvil and the cauldron have specific FAQ's in regard explaining how it works. I haven't read the Orc FAQ, but an edjucated guess would be that the goblins are removed first and the orc last.

Me for one can go ether way on that one. Depending on what me and my opponent decides before the game.

right about the cauldron and anvil.
While a great guess the Orc faq says nothing that effect.

I guess to further my wormy argument :P :

Same would go for dwarf war machine engineers

Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ratarsed
Grey Seer
Sleboda
Dec 2 2010, 01:02 PM

To me, this falls into a "favorite" category of mine:
"You don't have to like the rules, but those _are_ the rules."

An approach to the game that I do not subscribe to. Unless there can be no doubt at all that the rule is a stupid rule I will always tend to play the rule in a way that makes sense.
It is clear to me that using the "unique" get out clause to stop a Grey Seer being sniped from a bell when the rider of a dragon or chariot can is as classic a case of rules lawyering as there is.

Now I hate the rule that cannons hit every location on a muti-part model. (I'm happy to use the term because every clear thinking person knows what I mean) It makes no sense at all that a cannonball should hit both the rider and monster as the point where both are in the path of the cannonball is minute compared to where ony one or the other would be in the path. However it is absolutely clear that this is how it works and is even reinforced with the rules explicitly confirming ridden monsters take hits on all their locations with cannonballs. So I suffer the rule begrudgingly. I do not try and weedle out of the stupid rule by some desperate plea that because the bell is not specificaly mentioned as a multi-part model, even though it is obvious it is, we are not obliged to apply the template rules to it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
xxrathammerxx
Stormvermin
My way of thinking is COMPLETELY different from all of your's. The rules (or rather lack there of concerning unique models) make all of this a pain in the a$# and not much fun, which besides friendly, (cussing up a storm when you fluff rolls) creative competition, is what warhammer is about. I've read 4 pages now of well-referenced posts, and have thouroughly enjoyed this heated debate, but from page 2 the solution has been crystal clear to me. Hear me out and let me know if this is stupid.
INSTEAD
of rolling to hit each model (yes I do consider them two models for purposes of sniping, mortars, flame templates, BS shooting etc.)
WHY NOT
just have your opponent roll a D6 for wounds as he has to already for a cannon shot, and THEN randomize WOUNDS instead of hits?
Example: A cannonball bursts in front of the bell and breaks into D6 pieces (wounds).
QUESTION: How many of those wounds hit/wound the "very-small-in-comparison-to-the-bell" grey seer?
ANSWER: One out of six will hit/wound him.

I am of the opinion that this is the most fair way to play cannons in shots versus monstrous mounts, or in this case unique units.
WHY?
Because under no circumstances should a grey seer take up to TWELVE wounds from a cannon, this IS NOT GRAPESHOT FIRED AT A DISTANCE. The cannonball does not split in two, with one part normally hitting him and one part randomly hitting him...it just does not happen.
Now, you can say what you want about "them's the rules, accept it" (paraphrase) or something like that, but I like to incorporate a little common sense into my gaming. As do "most" of the members of my club. If you have rules lawyering in your club, you have my condolences, but A FIVE OUNCE BIRD CANNOT CARRY A ONE POUND COCONUT.
Is this a dumb idea? I just think it's the fairest way to play ANY cannon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sleboda
Member Avatar
Pensive Penguins Fan

"ratarsed"
 
Sleboda
Dec 2 2010, 01:02 PM

To me, this falls into a "favorite" category of mine:
"You don't have to like the rules, but those _are_ the rules."

An approach to the game that I do not subscribe to.

=> To be clear, I am not saying I always smile while playing this way (thus the quotes around 'favorite')...

Quote:
 
Unless there can be no doubt at all that the rule is a stupid rule I will always tend to play the rule in a way that makes sense.

=> ...but the number of instances where both players have equal belief in the complete stupidity of a rule is very, very small, and thus I default to the phrase I mentioned.

Quote:
 
It is clear to me that using the "unique" get out clause to stop a Grey Seer being sniped from a bell when the rider of a dragon or chariot can is as classic a case of rules lawyering as there is.

=> See, there's a really darn good example. To me, this is not rules lawyering in the slightest. It's not gaming for an undeserved advantage, seeking loop holes, or anything else folks might want to call it. The BRB is very clear in telling us that Uniques are, well, unique and, by extension, that they are _not_ whatever else we might think they are. They have their own special category of existence within the system for a reason. I actually rather like this invention of Unique status, despite it's rather sloppy execution. It lets us avoid having to see phrases like "Unit X follows all the rules for ridden monsters except x,y, z, and q. In addition it does a, b, c, and w. Good luck!" What GW has done instead is say "Use the rules of the main game for this Unique thing, but only so far as they go, since this has unique rules that cover it." The Sniper rules are remarkably specific. Really, they are. Had they had the dreaded "such as" phrase, it would be another matter, but they don't. They tell us with great precision exactly what can be picked out and under what circumstances. It really is a perfect fit for the phrase I mentioned. Madness lies down the path of changing incredibly clear (for once!) rules simply because one (or even both) parties think they are "stupid." I think, as do some of my regular opponents, that it's the height of stupidity that a Corsair hits a Clanrat with the same skill and frequency as a Bloodthirster hits a Skaven slave. Should we change the to-hit chart? Heck no! Same thing. Clear rule. Stupid rule. The rule.

True scholars have more than just one book to study.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
Sniper vs. the bell is pretty clear, as sleboda said.
If you would prefer a fluffier explanation...
The seer moves around quite a bit, obscuring view of the sniper. Hiding behind the construct. 360 LOS tells me could be spending a fair amount of time behind the supports, or bouncing around on the bell.

Getting back at the template issue (let me know if I'm off):

I believe we have identified that the problem dispute is centered around what it means to to be a model that has "several different locations that can normally be hit separately."

So what qualifies as a model that can "normally be hit separately."
Some believe (not myself) as illustrated before:
Because the Bell can be be hit in Close Combat, it does indeed mean that it "normally can be hit separately."

Perfectly sound logic, but here is the problem.

As noted before, "What does 'normally' mean?"

Lets look at the previous sentence.

"Normally, any model that is fully or even partially underneath the template is hit automatically with the effect described in the special rules for the attack."

To me, especially giving the context that the rule lies in the "template' section of the rules, this is a clear definition of what 'normally' is actually referring to:
It is referring only to templates, not shooting, not close combat, just templates.

So when it says 'normally' be hit separately, it, in effect, is saying "normally hit by templates separately"

This being the case, the Ridden Monster rules the explain what to do in the event of a template attack, can no longer be considered redundant, as it is explaining exactly how templates are resolved.

Make sense?
Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
turmi110
Chieftain
Quote:
 
Some believe (not myself) as illustrated before:
Because the Bell can be be hit in Close Combat, it does indeed mean that it "normally can be hit separately."


Not only close combat, don't forget you can hit the bell and the seer with shooting too. Pretty sure most templates come under shooting. Oh and there is also magic, can't forget magic. Magic can hit both the bell and the seer too. There are a few more templates in there. Can you think of a single case where a character and his ridden monster can be hit separately, but a seer and his bell cannot possibly be hit separately?

tbone
 
So when it says 'normally' be hit separately, it, in effect, is saying "normally hit by templates separately"


tbone
 
"Don't any of you find it fundamentally wrong to make a rules based argument by making up your own definition and apply it to models that don't clearly say nothing to the effect"

(double negative, if they don't clearly say nothing to the effect, that means they must clearly say something to the effect. Bazinga :P)

It seems to me that you just made up your own definition of 'normally'. The only definition I'll accept for 'normally' is first and foremost a WHFB rulebook definition, then secondly an english definition.

If what you were saying was true though, a big hypothetical IF, then that would make the majority of the lower left paragraph of page 9 redundant. What would be the purpose of bringing it up on page 9 if the rule only comes in effect if it is already defined later on in the book? It sounds like you are trying to say "A model has different parts that can normally be hit separately by templates only if has different parts that can normally be hit separately by templates", that would be like looking in a zoology book for the characteristics of an elephant and it saying "an elephant is an elephant", then later on in the very same book finally characterising what an elephant actually is.

So we're either looking at a redundancy in a specific advanced rule on page 105, or, what you seem to be claiming, a redundancy in a basic rule on page 9 (that applies to every model unless specifically stated otherwise) that is based entirely off a specific advanced rule that the basic rule makes no mention of or reference too? I think you're beginning to stretch your argument a bit too far.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tbone
Member Avatar
Grey Seer
turmi110
Dec 3 2010, 06:28 PM
It seems to me that you just made up your own definition of 'normally'.  The only definition I'll accept for 'normally' is first and foremost a WHFB rulebook definition, then secondly an english definition.

So, what your are saying is that the previous sentence, "Normally, any model that is fully or even partially underneath the template is hit automatically with the effect described in the special rules for the attack," doesn't define what 'normally' means? :wacko: Very interesting.....

I am totally not making anything up. And therefore, I'm not "fundamentally wrong (in making) rules based argument by making up your own definition and apply it to models that don't clearly say nothing to the effect."

Don't get confused about how I feel about redundancies. For the most part I think they are great. They add clarity to somewhat confusing rules GW provides us with.

Quote:
 

If what you were saying was true though, a big hypothetical IF, then that would make the majority of the lower left paragraph of page 9 redundant. What would be the purpose of bringing it up on page 9 if the rule only comes in effect if it is already defined later on in the book? It sounds like you are trying to say "A model has different parts that can normally be hit separately by templates only if has different parts that can normally be hit separately by templates", that would be like looking in a zoology book for the characteristics of an elephant and it saying "an elephant is an elephant", then later on in the very same book finally characterizing what an elephant actually is.


What is wrong with that kind of book????

Anyway, since you are a math major, lets take a look a one of your books. I'm sure you must have taken a stats course.
In the beginning of the stats book, It may have a short paragraph, maybe 2-3 sentences on what statistics is. Are these sentence wrong?....no. Will these sentences describe what statistics are?....yes. Will this sentences tell you everything you need to know about statistics, and their rules......no. Are a more specific definitions and rules on statistics located later in the book, my guess is yes. In trying to completely understand statistics (not just get a general understanding then make assumptions about it), would you refer mostly to the short paragraph or the more in depth discussion located later in the book? Your choice i guess, but I will tend to believe the guy who will read the in depth section.

So, what is the purpose of the short paragraph about statistics in the beginning of the the math book? You tell me. Or is your math book wrong, unclear, or misleading?
Tbone's Nasty Rats
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fantasy Battles Rules Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply