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.

[Mako]

The rule states that they always go to the top of terrain if terrain is placed over them, and there's something about being on top of terrain. I can't remember the details, but it definitely says they go on top of terrain.

 

I suspect it's a case of 'you can't put it in a wall, it goes on top, so it's out of range' is the overall effect of that marker rule.

[Schism 93]

Flip-flopping suggests picking a side, in reality what that leads to is inferring people are lazy/stupid for disagreeing with them. A rules forum should be for analysing rules in a detached fashion. You will throughout the discussion be swayed by different arguments until it becomes apparent what the rulebook actually says.

Last night I agreed with Joel's interpretation, now I think it could go either way. But have neither read nor been pointed in the direction of anything that undermines the points I have made thus far. Making me think there is some conceptual language I am missing in the book or might need clearing up.

[Csonti]

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.

 

Playing devil's advocate here.

 

 

•If terrain would be created or moved on top of a marker, the marker is placed on top of the terrain without changing the markers position on the table's horizontal surface (the marker simply moves up).

 

The rule you referenced only speaks about the case when a terrain feature would be created or moved on top of a marker. Placing the marker is a different issue.

[Uktena]

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

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

Dude, there's a picture in the book. The one with lilith and a young nephilim. If she didn't place it "under" the model the young wouldn't have been affected. I think you are overthinking the touching part.

[Schism 93]

That's cool, we pretend the template goes under the model. Unless someone references where the book says this we must accept it is an assumption using an interpretation of the rules. I'm happy enough with that if we acknowledge it as an interpretation, not a rule I was too lazy to look up or too stupid to understand.

My follow on question is looping back to the opening post. If we assume that it goes under a models base, why can't it go under the base a terrain feature has and where is this difference defined in the book?

That's my point, if we don't, as you say, over think this and decipher the rules involved, we must accept we are using house rules. I have no problem at all with this, just that we should be honest about what we are doing.

[Joel]

So Lilith, or waldgeist, can create terrain underneath a marker in squatters rights and push it to ht4 or ht5 depending on the effect and prevent enemy models from reaching them.

Classic!

I'll create terrain near Lilith or other models and push markers up so that plant explosives or spring the trap fails then

[Mako]

Schism, that was my point - it doesn't actually matter if it goes under, over or through the model; it can do the same with terrain (there is no rule I could see that says it can't be placed the same way for terrain as for models, and the rulebook states that it can overlap a model's base).

 

But you still require LoS from the original target to actually affect a model, so in my diagram (assuming the terrrain is Ht3 and everything else is Ht2), blasts generated off A cannot damage C whether it goes through terrain or round it as there's no LoS between them.

 

The blast isn't a marker that exists in the game, or a solid object, it's a temporary thing to show where the effect spreads to. Kind of like an imaginary 50mm wide cylinder that stretches 3" up and down from the original target model. It can be overlaid on things quite happily in my opinion (as it isn't 'real'), but the LoS rule still applies so if you're the other side of terrain with no LoS to the original target, it doesn't matter whether you're under the marker or not. Even if you walked multiple blasts round terrain, the LoS rule still prevents them from being damaged if they can't be seen by the original target. 

 

So to sum up my view, the blast is basically a 3" up and 3" down 50mm cylinder that can pass through anything, only needing to be placed touching the original target or another blast without overlapping each other. LoS to the original target then decides who gets hit out of those under that area.

[Nazull]

Mako in the book it stats (pg50P) Blasts may be placed into areas the attacking models did not have LoS to.

 

All models whose bases are touched or overlapped by 1 or more blast markers are affected, unless the model is more than 3" above or below the blasts target.

any model touched or overlapped by the blast are affected.

 

so going off that in your pic. A would be the target of an attack from some other model and B and C are both effected by the blast as they are hit by the blast + they are not more than 3" above or blow the Target of the attack

 

A is then hit and the damage flip is (2/3B/4BB) so A takes 3 damage and both B and C take 2 damage.

 

The part about not having los to someone hit by a blast im not sure I find that...I do see on the same page bottom left next to the Lilith pic a bit that says

 

Auras blast & Pulse LoS ( But believe this is talking about Auras and Pules )

I think that the word blast in this is ether a mistake or it is referring to the blast paten an Aura and Pules dose.
as a Pulse is a kind of a blast that go out in all direction to a set distance and only affects models that is has LoS as it later stats that anyone touched by a blast is effected.

 

I remember an FAQ done for blasts showing 3 blast affecting 3 models and 1 was behind a wall but as the blast were done as a chain all 3 models took damage 2 at low and 1 a mod.

 

I know that's an old faq and may not have any bearing on this edition

 

I love your Dead Justice pic.... just wanted to add that

[Mako]

Areas the attacking model doesn't have LoS to, yup. But I'm talking about LoS from the original target, A. The attacker could be directly south of A and have no LoS to B, that doesn't matter. A needs the LoS, not the attacker.

 

Also, I'd definitely discount any old FAQs. Only the current one on malifaux.com is valid, that one sounds like it's from the previous edition so isn't applicable.

 

I'll double check when I get back to my book, but I read that page carefully before reaching that conclusion, including that callout that specifies blasts too.

[Nazull]

yer I just realized there is a bit about blast there.

 

Hmmm going off that and off the blast rule, they seam to contradict each other.

1 saying they must have los and one saying anyone touched by it are affected.

 

I hope they FAQ this asap.

 

I use Sonnia and she dose not need LoS for attack actions when someone has burning on them but going off this line of looking at blasts then anyone she hits with the blast after the main target would not be affected by the blast if they don't have burning on them.

 

if they are not affected by blasts because she dose not have LoS they will not recive the burning con and would not take damage witch stops her from doing one of her main tactic. hideing behind a wall shooting at groups with only needing 1 of them to have burning on and then blasts on the rest..

 

so I guess this will effect my crew a lot.

[Mako]

They don't need LoS to Sonnia, only to the target of Sonia's attack. So Sonnia could be off the picture and hit A, B only needs LoS to A (the original target), not to Sonnia. The tactic still works.

[Dracomax]

The bigger issue is with Sonnia is some of the corner cases from her Pyrokinesis.

 

For instance, can the 2 inch movement be vertical? Say She hits target A, who is on a 4" tall vantage point. Can she move the blast so it will hit someone at the bottom of the wall?

[Ausplosions]

What the hell?

Am I missing something? Why are the use of single blasts in jeopardy? I really don't get how we got to this conclusion?

[Ausplosions]

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.

Amen to that.

[Barnaberible]

I agree with Mako completely regarding the interpretation on placing the blast markers, that's how I've always played it

As for Sonnia, I can't see why se wouldn't be able to place the blast in base contact 2" up or down if you wanted

[Ausplosions]

I think the first item at the top of the next FAQ should be:

Q: I Have a Quest-

A: JUST READ THE RULEBOOK.

Then we can avoid filling the FAQ with things like this.

[Barnaberible]

So Lilith, or waldgeist, can create terrain underneath a marker in squatters rights and push it to ht4 or ht5 depending on the effect and prevent enemy models from reaching them.

Classic!

I'll create terrain near Lilith or other models and push markers up so that plant explosives or spring the trap fails then

Personally I would say that because you are creating severe terrain and not blocking terrain the marker would sit in the terrain rather than on top. Sonnia's flame wall (blocking/impassable) specifically states it can't be placed on a marker presumably to stop such filthy behaviour!

[theJudge]

I think the first item at the top of the next FAQ should be:

Q: I Have a Quest-

A: JUST READ THE RULEBOOK.

Then we can avoid filling the FAQ with things like this.

3 posts in this thread and no real contribution. Nicely done.

[Mako]

Ok, lets stay on topic everyone. I'd prefer not to lock the thread, but I will if it gets personal.

 

What issues are there still weighing on people's minds regarding blasts?

[Ausplosions]

3 posts in this thread and no real contribution. Nicely done.

Sorry. I wasn't aware that my opinion on the matter was conditional on contributing in a manner you approve of.

Ok then;

Markers move to the top of terrain when placed, as has been shown in this thread.

When you place the marker over the wagon it moves up, which means it is no longer touching the base of the model. Which means it cannot be placed.

There really is no issue here as I see it. It cannot be done.

[dgraz]

I think people are taking parts of the rules and applying them without using the full body of the rules. Like looking at one part that says some markers can't overlap, but not looking at the diagram that shows the exact intent. When you look at the full scope of the section I don't think there is any room for interpretation.

[Eyefink]

I'm glad to see I'm in agreement with Mako, even if he did say it infinitely better than I could have.

I think one of the things people are getting hung up on is markers being a "thing" when if fact all they are is something that is representative of an effect. The area of a blast would still be in base contact with a model, even if you happen to be holding the blast template above the area in order to not interfere with model placement. If you really wanted to, you could lift up the wagon, place the template, then set it back down to determine the area of effect; this is what would have to happen in the example on page 50 if you weren't holding the template.

[Mike3838]

Sorry. I wasn't aware that my opinion on the matter was conditional on contributing in a manner you approve of.

Ok then;

Markers move to the top of terrain when placed, as has been shown in this thread.

When you place the marker over the wagon it moves up, which means it is no longer touching the base of the model. Which means it cannot be placed.

There really is no issue here as I see it. It cannot be done.

Same for scheme markers then, which are placed in base to Base contact? They rise up, but then retrospectively can't be placed because they're no longer in b2b, and the interact can't be taken?

Sounds like the "rising up" rule would never take effect then.

[vonevilstein]

Ok then;

Markers move to the top of terrain when placed, as has been shown in this thread.

When you place the marker over the wagon it moves up, which means it is no longer touching the base of the model. Which means it cannot be placed.

There really is no issue here as I see it. It cannot be done.

 

 

And this is the problem in a nutshell. This is an extremely literal interpretation of rules. Players are asking for an FAQ because of this interpretation - whilst Malifuax uses abstracted rules, not being able to place a blast marker over terrain seems counter-intuitive to many players. Especially players of other systems - most of them don't use blast markers like this and in fact have transparent blast markers for the express purpose of looking top down over scenery and models.

 

Mako's interpretation is the one I think most players would use, but whilst the rulebook says "touch" the literal interpretation will exist.

[Csonti]

Ok then;

Markers move to the top of terrain when placed, as has been shown in this thread.

 

And as it has been shown in this thread this is a wrong interpretation of the rules. That part only applies when a terrain would be moved or created on top of an already placed marker. I don't think a Scheme Marker would rise on the top of a 2 storey building if you place it under the wall and I can't find anything concrete in the rulebook regarding the interaction of impassable terrain and marker placement. Although we can assume (can we?) that blast markers are not really markers as such but the problem still exists with Corpse, Scrap, Scheme etc.

 

And to make things more complicated here is an issue I stumbled upon thinking about marker placement:

A model is standing on the edge of a vantage point and places a Scheme Marker in B2B so that the marker "hangs in the air". What happens?

A - The marker can't be placed.

B - The marker hovers in the air.

C - The marker falls down to the ground level.

D - The world ends.