Blast marker placement

[theJudge]

Setting the scene.

Two ht2 models are standing on opposite sides of a wagon that was defined as ht2 at the beginning of the game. LOS can be drawn between the two models.

If one of these models it hit by an attack which in turn generates a double blast how may the blast markers be placed? Is it,

1) the blast markers can be placed so they cross over the wagon.

2) The blast markers are placed on the ground so they are moving around the wagon.

I would be interested in every ones opinion.

[Schism 93]

Beat me to it, can't complain as you phrased it better than I would have, cheers.

[Eyefink]

I would say the intervening terrain would have no effect on the Blast Marker placement, if for no other reason than the 3" above/below rule exists (they have to be standing on something, right?). I assume the LOS requirement is meant to handle situations where a piece of terrain might "block" the effects of a blast. That may make some of the double/triple blast effects look funny, but those are pretty abstracted anyway.

[Uktena]

Almost doesn't matter.  If a model hit with a blast marker cannot draw LoS to the original target they aren't affected....aaaaand i just read the part about having LoS.  I dunno.  I'd go around just to avoid making my opponent mad.

[Joel]

Blast markers have to be placed so that the first one touches the base of the original target of the attack. Any further blast markers have to touch a previous one in the chain. (P.50 rulebook)

Since you couldn't do this in your example, the terrain making it impossible for the blast marker to touch the base of the model, then you'd have to go around, not over, in this case.

[Thaarup]

I would go with option number 1, as there are LoS between the models.

[Schism 93]

Blast markers have to be placed so that the first one touches the base of the original target of the attack. Any further blast markers have to touch a previous one in the chain. (P.50 rulebook)

At the table I read and interpreted that same way as you, so accepted it to go that way. The henchman pointed out we are meant to be a top down view, so it might be okay, but overnight I've considered this more.

By extension it means that of models are arranged in a cross formation base contact or 1" apart (large melee or keeping in an aura could be examples) it is therefore impossible to place blasts touching the central model. This seems counter intuitive to how a blast should work, am I missing a rule here or is this how you would also play this corner case example?

*edited for spelling

[theJudge]

My personal take on it is the Wagon would block the blast which is why it cannot be placed over it.  The wagon would block an Aura or a Pulse so why not a blast?

 

That being said, RAW does state the marker must be placed so it is touching the models base so it's a moot point I guess.

[vonevilstein]

I think in this instance "touch" doesn't actually mean physically touch. Looking at the rules in context, it states that a blasted model must have LOS to the original target and with the general top down measurement concept I think it's pretty obvious what the rules were meant to achieve - i.e. if there's a LOS blocking object between the target and the intended blasted model then the blast won't hit the intended blasted model, otherwise it does.

 

Of course, this is entirely my interpretation, and the rules do say "touch".  It just seems obvious to me what was intended.

[Schism 93]

The wagon would block an Aura or a Pulse so why not a blast?

But, due to LoS the wagon wouldn't block pulse/aura

[theJudge]

But, due to LoS the wagon wouldn't block pulse/aura

fair point.  I missed that.

[Schism 93]

Please do not knee jerk cry crazy at what I'm about to say anyone, please. If you think I am wrong get models out and try to do this before responding. This may seem like splitting hairs and will not be popular, but, it is the follow on argument to the concept of physically requiring blasts to touch bases. I like to think no one would actually argue this in a game situation, but...

We are in really dangerous territory here of removing single blasts from the game. If 2 models stand base to base, it is physically impossible to place a blast touching the target's base without overlapping it (by a miniscule amount) and catch the adjacent model in the blast. So, to avoid single blast attacks all you would need to do is stand really close together. That is mental!

Therefore, I hope Vonevilstein's analysis is correct. Because if Joel is correct single blasts become useless using RAW, food for thought on any precedent set here

[Mike3838]

The FAQ says this:

 

 

Q: Can you define the terms "base contact" and "base to base contact"?

A: They both mean the same thing: "When the bases of two or more models are physically touching."

 

 

From a literal reading, if a model is largely surrounded by other models, you could not place the blast marker in physical base to base contact (because the surrounding models are three-dimensional and get in the way).

 

This is HIGHLY unintuitive and I suspect needs a further FAQ specific to blast marker placement.

[Mike3838]

And good point Schism.

 

If Joel's interpretation is correct, you can no longer target your own Witchling Stalkers or Ice Gamin, and then place a blast over the enemy model they're engaged with.

 

Since this is a well known and established tactic for Sonnia and Rasputina, it suggests the literal interpretation isn't correct.

[theJudge]

We are in really dangerous territory here of removing single blasts from the game. If 2 models stand base to base, it is physically impossible to place a blast touching the target's base without overlapping it (by a miniscule amount) and catch the adjacent model in the blast. So, to avoid single blast attacks all you would need to do is stand really close together. That is mental!

Therefore, I hope Vonevilstein's analysis is correct. Because if Joel is correct single blasts become useless using RAW, food for thought on any precedent set here

 

You know that argument has convinced me.  From now on I will play it that the blast can move over terrain/models as long as there is LOS from the originating model to the next.

[Mike3838]

Had a further thought regarding this, which might mean I jumped the gun.

 

I'm presuming that Blasts (like Corpse counters, scheme markers etc) are Ht 0 Markers. This means you can legitimately stand a model on top of them - or place them underneath a model. That would negate the issue as it applies to the single blast - you'd just lift the nearby models out of the way, place the blast in B2B with the target, then replace the nearby models and see who would be affected.

 

Obviously in the real world, to be practical, you wouldn't *actually* move the models, you'd work it out from above.

 

Terrain is different to models though. Markers can't go inside or through blocking terrain - can they? If you think they can - would you say it was legitimate to stand a model very close to a wall and then drop a scheme marker inside the wall?

[theJudge]

that's another good point.  I'm confused now!

[Joel]

The rules for blast markers don't mention base contact, they say touching, and show a diagram that describes how they interact with models (overlapping them).

We have that covered and they work as stated.

We have no separate rules for how they interact with terrain in that manner.

[Csonti]

The rulebook only prohibits models to enter into impassable terrain but I guess it would be strange to see somebody mason a say corpse marker under a wall.

[Schism 93]

This means you can legitimately stand a model on top of them - or place them underneath a model

Good point Mike, but can you place a marker under a model? Opens up new shenanigans in my mind that changes a few things

The rules for blast markers don't mention base contact, they say touching

How are these different? Sorry if it's obvious, but can't see anything that defines a difference between these two. And the picture in the manual it would work as the secondary model is far enough away from the target to allow touching but not overlappimg

[dgraz]

The rules for blast markers don't mention base contact, they say touching, and show a diagram that describes how they interact with models (overlapping them).

We have that covered and they work as stated.

We have no separate rules for how they interact with terrain in that manner.

Absolutely........if you just look at the rule book it's pretty clear.

[Schism 93]

If this conversation is happening, extra clarity could be useful. Also, if touching but not overlapping is a requirement that is physically impossible if the models are in base contact and an errata or clarification on the term touching could be handy.

[dgraz]

If this conversation is happening, extra clarity could be useful. Also, if touching but not overlapping is a requirement that is physically impossible if the models are in base contact and an errata or clarification on the term touching could be handy.

Meh.......if they do an FAQ for every time someone can't be bothered to read the rule book then the FAQ will be 237 pages long.

[Mike3838]

The rules for blast markers don't mention base contact, they say touching, and show a diagram that describes how they interact with models (overlapping them).

We have that covered and they work as stated.

We have no separate rules for how they interact with terrain in that manner.

 

This is true.

 

What seems to be happening is that the abstraction (hovering the marker over the models and projecting the shadow downwards), while a practical and legitimate way of working out which models are affected when in the open, is causing confusion when terrain is involved. 

 

Since we're all holding hovering markers over models every time we play, it feels intuitive that we can do the same for terrain.

 

Instead, we should be imagining that the markers are resting on the tabletop surface, and if we wouldn't be able to place the markers on the tabletop due to blocking terrain being in the way, the blast marker position isn't allowed.

 

It's not a matter of "not reading the rulebook" - how you place the marker isn't very clear, given the physical routine that we all perform when we have a blast marker in our hands.

[Mako]

Ok, for clarity here: 

 

Page 49, big rulebook says markers always go on top of terrain, and models can move on top of markers and stop on them. No burying them in walls, they rise to the top of the wall.

 

And now, my perspective on it all:

 

Blasts are stated to be able to overlap the bases of models on p50, big rulebook. I would say that, since they aren't treated as solid parts of the battlefield, they can go over/through terrain as well - it shouldn't matter, as if you try to go through a wall to get someone, they won't be in LoS of the original target so wouldn't get hit. As in the bad diagram below:

 

 

Model B is in LoS to model A, so it can be hit. Model C is safe, even if the blast covers it. If it was multiple blasts, going round or over the wagon wouldn't affect anyone behind it (Unless A was Ht 3, in which case the blast would go over the wagon and hit C in the face). There's nothing to stop you putting blast markers through walls as they aren't solid bits of the battlefield, they're temporary indicators of the blast, and any part of it that goes out of LoS of model A stops having any effect.

 

In fact, if a 30mm model is hiding behind a 50mm model and wouldn't be in LoS of the original target, it's safe from blasts too even though there's absolutely no question that blasts can overlap model bases. It's the LoS requirement that polices blasts going across stuff, not any rule that blocks them from being placed over terrain (I can't see one, at any rate).

[Mike3838]

I know I'm flip flopping here, but I think you could be right Mako.

 

I'm sceptical that you could place a scheme marker inside the wall of a tall building and it would rise to the top of the building though...?