| Bell/Furnance vs Templates | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 30th November 2010 - 01:35 PM (2,681 Views) | |
| Ratarsed | 3rd December 2010 - 08:34 PM Post #61 |
|
Grey Seer
|
My experience is the opposite. Nealy every game I play me and my opponent are in aggreement with how best to play rules, RAW or RAI. To the best of my knowledge I have yet to play someone who does not think you can snipe a grey seer on a bell or who thinks Cannons don't hit all locations on a bell. Suits me.
|
![]() |
|
| turmi110 | 4th December 2010 - 03:40 AM Post #62 |
|
Chieftain
|
Ok tbone, I'll take your example of the stats textbook and give you another example of what you're trying to say in a stats context. At the beginning of a stats textbook they could very well lay down some fundamental basics about statistics. One of which would invariably be 'normally the bigger your data sample size the more accurate the statistic'. It could then go 'such as' or 'for example' and list normal distribution. Later on in the book, under normal distribution, if it said that 'when calculating a normal distribution a larger sample size would increase the accuracy', but didn't mention larger sample sizes increasing the accuracy for any of the other statistics tests, would you then go on to say that none of the other statistical tests in the book benefit from having a larger data sample size? That in effect is what you're trying to say in regards to the bell/furnace being exempt because 'normally' only applies to cases that are specified later in the book, ignoring the fundamental nature of the basic rules. This statistics case is an example of a redundancy in the specific rules for normal distributions. It does not show a redundancy in the basic rules of statistics. Just because they don't explicitly state it for every single example where it would apply, that doesn't make it false for examples where it isn't mentioned. That is why it is a fundamental basic rule. Fundamentals apply except in cases that is specifically counter ruled. For a physics example, gravity is a fundamental principle, or rule, just because a physics text book on the topic of momentum talking about a car travelling on a road colliding with a truck, but not mentioning gravity at all in this example, it doesn't mean that there is no gravity when a car collides with a truck. ps I'm an algebra and calculus type of guy, stats is boring
|
![]() |
|
| tbone | 4th December 2010 - 04:22 AM Post #63 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Just because they don't explicitly state it for every single example where it would apply, that DOES make it false for examples where it isn't mentioned I can simply argue no more. And there you have it folks, both sides... YOU be the judge. |
| Tbone's Nasty Rats | |
![]() |
|
| Sleboda | 4th December 2010 - 04:51 AM Post #64 |
|
Pensive Penguins Fan
![]()
|
I played many, many games of 7th edition until just one person pointed out that breath attacks are measured from the head of the attacker, not from his base. Just because a bunch of people agree on a rule, doesn't mean they are right. Sometimes an actual reading of the rule leads to an "ah ha!" moment. Perhaps your group got so used to playing with long rifles as presented in the Empire book that nobody had bothered to really read how Sniper changed them. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's not accuracy. |
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
| |
![]() |
|
| Aeschere | 4th December 2010 - 05:59 AM Post #65 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Just one more question to add to the discussion. What about a Grey Seer getting a mistcast? Will the Template not hit both the bell and the Seer? Really, if you are arguing that a cannon template cannot hit both then surely a magic template can't hit both as well, which, imo, would be kinda silly. The basic fact that the model has two separate statistics (Bell/Furnace and Seer/Priest) is enough to define it as a model with separate parts that can be hit no matter which phase you are in. |
|
For Pony! You got Owned! | |
![]() |
|
| Ratarsed | 4th December 2010 - 07:37 AM Post #66 |
|
Grey Seer
|
In cases where a rule is open to interpretation I would say that whatever is aggreed at the time is the correct solution, for that game. On this particular point however, it is not just my regular group of players that have applied the basic template rule for multi-part models to the screaming bell. I have played in 3 events since 8th came out, using a bell in one of them, and in all 3 it was ruled that screaming bells take the hits just like any other multipart model. This is from people who take tournaments and application of the rules pretty seriously. So whilst you may be convinced of your own correctness you still need to accept others will not aggree with you and probably just as convinced of their own correctness. In cases of different opinions it is traditionaly the majority veiw that prevails, and around these parts that is definatly a hit on each location for the bell from cannons. |
![]() |
|
| tbone | 4th December 2010 - 03:47 PM Post #67 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Yes template hits once on a bell Seperate stats means nothing, all cavalry has separate stats but get hit once... Does our BoneBReaker have separate stats? yes, actually even more complete stat lines than a bell, is that a model with separate so-called parts? So what your saying is if there is a disagreement, put it to a vote? What? Why? Right or wrong, the majority will always win. That can hardly be considered a way to arrive at truth, which is the point this discussion. I also like to point that something, because some people are getting frustrated with the "rules lawyer" arguments going around. If you and your gaming group wants to play a rule a certain way, or even make up your own, by all means do it, have fun, enjoy yourselves!! If you want to pound a beer everytime you fail a leadership test, sounds like a blast to me! What we are trying to figure out what it says in the rulebook, not opinions, not "well this is what I do", "and this how most people do it." Will the results of these discussion result in something that "makes sense" ...maybe.... maybe not....but will aim to discover the truth of the matter. As a result I get frustrated when people chime in to the effect "this is what I do" "this is what my group does" "I don't think that makes any sense." "I use RAI not RAW"......all of which has no bearing on the discussion or discovery of the truth about this topic "Bell/Furnace vs Templates" |
| Tbone's Nasty Rats | |
![]() |
|
| Ablabab | 4th December 2010 - 04:15 PM Post #68 |
|
Chieftain
|
This is absolute bogus - both cavalry and monstrous cavalry are EXPLICITLY defined as having only one location that can be hit (i.e the horse/bonebreaker/whatever is never hit, but the highest characteristics are used by the model), as opposed to ridden monsters and similar, that have several locations that can be hit. Which is also why, RAW, cannonballs hit both screaming bell and seer. |
![]() |
|
| tbone | 4th December 2010 - 04:25 PM Post #69 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Got a page reference? I need to see where it says "damage locations"? Anyone have thoughts about when a template hits a war machine that contains a orc bully or dwarf engineer?
this wrong as well A warlord will never use the bonebreaker's toughness, a higher characteristic |
| Tbone's Nasty Rats | |
![]() |
|
| Ratarsed | 4th December 2010 - 10:32 PM Post #70 |
|
Grey Seer
|
The point I was trying to make is that I think you are in a minority in your opinion and IMO fighting a lost cause. Go to an organised event in the UK and you will almost certainly be playing the bell is a multipart model and both seer and bell take a hit from a cannonball.
Actually it is opinions we are discussing. In this discussion it seems it boils down to whether you think the "uniqueness" of the screaming bell allows it to avoid the rules for templates against multipart models or not. What is your truth is not my truth. The truth is often what people decide it to be, and the majority or victors nearly always get their way as you correctly pointed out. I am always willing to change my opinion if presented with a convincing argument of irrefutable evidence. I'm afraid nothing you have said in this thread has yet to convince me to change how I choose to play cannons vs screaming bell. |
![]() |
|
| tbone | 4th December 2010 - 11:44 PM Post #71 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Anyway, I'll re-frame my question that is consistently avoided and presents a glaring hole in the apparent majority opinion Anyone have OPINIONS about when a template hits a war machine that contains a orc bully or dwarf engineer? Actually, even though they have been FAQed, wouldn't the cauldron and anvil both fall under the opposing view's definition of a "multiple location model that can normally be hit seperately." So they too get hit multiple times from templates??>? |
| Tbone's Nasty Rats | |
![]() |
|
| ratwhowouldbeking | 9th December 2010 - 02:17 AM Post #72 |
|
Clanrat
|
This particular line is about the lowest decorum you can display on a message board. If you don't care what people think, don't post. If you decide that on second thought, remove your post. The fact of the matter is, Warhammer is a terrible, terrible game to play if you think that rules are immutable facts and that there are objective truths to gaming. If a rule is obvious as written, or have a FAQ specifically for it, then you have an objective truth. But Warhammer is far too complex (and some would say sloppily written) for this to be the case in all isntances. There's nothing stopping you from interpreting the rules however you want, until you face an opponent who thinks otherwise, in which case you'll have to compromise. Above all, the whole point is to enjoy yourself.
|
![]() |
|
| Kevlar | 9th December 2010 - 02:53 AM Post #73 |
|
Doomwheel Driver
|
tbone, no one that I can see is arguing with you. By the rulebook you are right. The "unique" status of the bell/furnace means it gets treated as it says in the skaven book. The problem with that interpretation, even though it may be correct, is that no other army has any units that play that way. The bell still uses 7th edition randomization rules which were discarded in 8th edition. So when it comes to tournaments or even friendly games you can expect no one is going to know what you are talking about when you pull some obscure 7th edition randomization chart out for your bell. Now you can rules lawyer until your face turns blue, but most people are going to just tell you to stuff it and 8th edition templates hit every location. Like it or not it is the most sensible way to play and one that will make the games run smoother and friendlier. Feel free to argue your "unique" status and 7th edition randomization chart all you want, I just have no interest in doing so. |
![]() |
|
| tbone | 9th December 2010 - 03:49 AM Post #74 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Honestly, I think quite the contrary, kevlar. It's not me being the rules lawyer. To me, a rules lawyer is someone who will continue to plead his/her case in the face of overwhelming contrary facts. I will make concessions when I know I'm wrong, like with the orb and stegadon. I play only friendly games. Unfortunately, I often have the responsibility to explain rules to opponents and my gaming group whom often wont read it themselves, seriously they barely read it, and spend their time with their army books. So, I try to be objective as possible.
People are making assumptions on an, admittedly, very ambiguous sentence, in the beginning of the rulebook, and aside from the troop types explicitly listed, the only other affect thing in all of WHFB that it affects is the furnace/bell. To me that seems a bit rules lawyerish, but I guess we all have our opinions and definition of a 'rules lawyer.' @ ratwhowouldbeking: Your right. I will remove. I thought the conversation was digressing, focusing on what I say instead of the rules. I figured if I removed myself from the conversation, then maybe things would get back on track. Trust me, I do enjoy myself, and the games I play
|
| Tbone's Nasty Rats | |
![]() |
|
| Sleboda | 9th December 2010 - 03:03 PM Post #75 |
|
Pensive Penguins Fan
![]()
|
But isn't that the true heart of almost all rules debates that last more than a minute or two? When two people read a rule and the answer is equally obvious to both readers and yet they both have different beliefs on just what that mean, we get these issues. You are on to the point, but you assumption begins one step to far down the Road of Understanding: You assume we all agree on what is and is not obvious and that we are only debating the murky rules. The truth is that some of us think a rules is "obviously" saying one thing and some think it is "obviously" saying something else.
=> Not to open up an old wound, but in the interest of clarity I have to say that I, for one, do not think this. I firmly stand by the unique rules for the bell/furnace being layered into the process of hit,wound, etc. |
True scholars have more than just one book to study.
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fantasy Battles Rules Discussion · Next Topic » |








