Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Annihilator quotemyname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    546

    Default Winter Guard Artillery Kapitan - Interaction with Blast Damage Development Questions

    Hi everyone!

    Earlier I posted a thread on the Rules forum asking about the interaction between "Clear!" and a model suffering blast damage:

    http://privateerpressforums.com/show...=1#post3774971

    In that thread, I asked some questions which I was told would be better to field here. Here's the relevant summary, and the questions I would like answered:

    Quote Originally Posted by quotemyname View Post
    I found a thread where this was mentioned previously, but there was no ruling from an infernal on it:

    http://privateerpressforums.com/show...=1#post3614065

    I am looking for a final clarification for this interaction:

    1. Artiller Kapitan gives Close Fire to a Mortar.
    2. The Mortar makes an attack against an enemy model. We'll say, for arguments sake, the attack roll is [6,6] and automatically hits the intended target, regardless of its defense.
    3. A friendly Winter Guard Infantry model is base to base with the intended target, and thus under the 5" AoE blast damage template resulting from the attack.

    Blast damage says that the WGI model 'is hit and suffers blast damage,' or something like that (not a direct quote).
    The Artillery Kapitan's ability gives the mortar Clear! which says it's attacks automatically miss friendly models.

    The rule book states that an automatic miss supersedes an automatic hit.

    A quick aside: Is the hit resulting from a blast damage template considered an automatic hit?

    Here is the final question I would like answered: In the situation described above, does the Friendly Winter Guard Infantry model suffer blast damage, or does Clear! make him immune to the blast damage caused by the Mortar's AoE?
    The consensus is that the two rules do not interact. A model which is automatically missed will still suffer blast damage. This seems to work identically to targetting a stealthed model with an AoE from further than 5" away. The Stealthed Model is automatically missed, but may still suffer blast damage.

    I would like clarification on this particular rules interaction (or lack thereof as the case may be). Specifically, why is this non-interaction structured the way it is? Hopefully if I can get an answer to this, I can better understand the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by quotemyname View Post
    The thing that most confuses me about the interaction of these wordings is that the text on the AoE damage is something like, "models are hit and suffer blast damage...". In that context, the word, "automatically" seems to be implied. Grammatically and syntactically speaking, the sentence would mean the same thing in this context if it read, "models are automatically hit and suffer blast damage...". However, the lack of the word 'automatically' basically precludes these two rules clauses from interacting.
    These last questions are for my own curiosity. Game Design interests me and I'd just like a peep into what goes on in a Dev's head when making decisions like this.

    In summary:
    1. Was this ability intended to be used with the Mortar Crew, and the words just don't work out? Or was this intended to be used with the Field Gun, and it's fine that the wording excludes the Mortar Crew from benefiting?
      • Note: I respect and understand that this ability is technically capable of targetting the Mortar Crew, and technically functions as written. This question is asked from more of a subjective/tactical standpoint. In my opinion, RAT 1 is so unlikely to hit ANY model even with back strike bonuses, that it is unlikely that using this ability on the mortar crew is an efficient use of the ability. The Mortar Crew would gain more benefit from the other abilities of this Solo.
    2. Why is this wording/interaction structured this way? Was this a conscious design decision, or perhaps a layover from Mk2's wording which interacts badly with a new, unreleased model?


    Please, and thank you in advance.

    The Juggernaut is 7 points for ARM 20 and P+S 19.
    The Marauder is 7 points for the lols.

  2. #2

    Default

    I always thought "Close Fire" was created for the mortar crew. Put it on the mortar, shoot it at your ARM 20 warjack, scatter it on to the high-def, low-arm enemy nearby. Good chance that it will hit the warjack as well, but it's blast damage, who cares.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old post
    I would say the wgi is not hit by the attack. p.52 "Once the point of impact has been established, every model other than the model directly hit that has any part of its base covered by the AOE template is hit, but not directly hit, by the attack and suffers a blast damage roll..."
    I would say that regardless of the automatic-ness of the word is, is, nothing is saying that the model with Clear! isn't the originator of the attack that is in question hitting a friendly model.

    i read your post on the rules forum after writing this i apologise, I realise what you were really looking for here is an authority to comment. I still stand by my comprehension of the rules as written if the words "by the attack" did not appear in the how to resolve AOE i think the wgi would be hit. This may still be true as rules as intended and hopefully you get a clear answer from an authority.

    Having put more thought and reading over the thread i can easily see this point of view people have on this topic. I feel the term Automatic Miss means just dont roll to hit is a poor interpretation of this sentence "If a rule causes an attack to automatically miss, do not make an attack roll." This does not give meaning to what an automatic miss is, just instructions on if it is do not do X. Regardless of your opinion on that the second sentence is where I'd focus on "The attack just misses."
    After extensive conversation with my group I have changed my mind and agree it will hit.
    Last edited by Lowking; 01-07-2017 at 08:23 PM. Reason: Changed my mind.
    Is the prisoner a prisoner because he lives in a cage or because he knows that he lives in a cage. -Michael Moorcock

  4. #4
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,097

    Default

    It's not just that sentence though, did you review the timing chart appendix? It makes it pretty clear at what step the ability would be applied

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    It's not just that sentence though, did you review the timing chart appendix? It makes it pretty clear at what step the ability would be applied
    I have and agree that the rule would be applied at step 4 if there were any "hits" to resolve at that point but AOE hit's do not even exist in the sequence until step 7 and still feel it works
    It is resolved under step 7. Resolve the AOE hit or deviation. All models within the AOE at its final position are now hit by it. The attack just misses Winter Guard Infantry.
    (last sentence added by myself as an explanation of how im reading it.)

    Now I completely agree that this is an extremely niche situation in the game and may have just been glossed over by the designers and would love to be told I'm wrong. But as someone who works with game designers everyday they tend to play the rules as intended having tried to write them as well as they can but because it all makes sense to them little things like this become scrutinised and subtle wording needs to change for mass acceptance as rules as intended.

    Could this be made clear er. Yes.
    Is my interpretation of words any more sound then any other's. No.
    My group can choose to play it the way i feel it should be played until an authority says how it should be and I await that decision.


    I'd also like it noted that i am biased on my argument as i really want it to work the way i describe because it seems more thematically sound and how i feel the rule would be used as intended. But I can't speak to the intention of PP only my perceived intent which I wait to be appraised of hopefully in the near future.

    (Please ignore poor capitalisation or grammer its like 20 degrees Fahrenheit and my fingers like ice.)
    After extensive conversation with my group I have changed my mind. I don't see a reason or way to delete my posts. I'm going to hope for a ruling to make this work the way I believe to be the more interesting and to me more thematic and fun to play.
    Last edited by Lowking; 01-07-2017 at 08:22 PM. Reason: Changed my mind.
    Is the prisoner a prisoner because he lives in a cage or because he knows that he lives in a cage. -Michael Moorcock

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •