And from the examples, you can see how hard it is to pull off - as DTWs are all Burst 1, getting Burst 3 requires having two identical DTWs to use the Twin Weapons rules, and being in a Fireteam of 3+ troopers. Off the top of my head, that's Minutemen in USAriadna with 2 Light Flamethrowers, Cranes in Imperial Service with 2 Nanopulsers and that's about it. So it's both rare and restricted to Small Teardrop Templates.
As @Hecaton points out. The problem isn't with the DTW rules. It's with the saturation zone rules. DTWs work just fine without needing to declare a main target, and the rules don't require one. I don't think I'm creating interpretational differences, I think the rest of you potentially are. By interpreting the BS rules so that DTWs require a main target. When that interpretation is applied to a saturation zone situation, the interpreted outcome might be different than intended. Sure this gives us a clearer picture of how they work under Saturation zone rules, but it's not our job to change the rules so one group is happier. It may also cause other issues with different rules down the line. Again, saying it's a house rule is fine until there's an official ruling. You may be right, there might be no difference in the end under my interpretation of DTWs. But that's only IF your interpretation on how DTW and Saturation zone rules interact is correct. Maybe the blast focus at the users base is the target just like a shotgun. What I do know is the current interpretation doesn't make sense on the table as it allows DTWs to bypass the Sat rules almost completely. Whether that's an interpretation issue on our parts, or a rules issue on CBs part. Either way, I'd prefer the game designers sort it out. My interpretation of DTWs may make them stronger in Sat zones. But as I said above, that's only IF your interpretation of how the DTW and Saturation zone rules interact is correct. Maybe the blast focus at the users base is the target just like a shotgun. You don't seem to understand the issue and I'd suggest rereading this thread. Where have I said/implied omission is the same as permission? BS attacks do not REQUIRE declaring a target. They REQUIRE LoF (to the target). I've put forth plenty of evidence to support that. Other rules that require a target say so explicitly. BS attacks and DTWs do not. What I'm saying in no way implies a rule by omission. I looked at the intuitive attack FAQ. My interpretation handles all those situations just fine. Reread the thread please, I've explained why my interpretation doesn't allow this very clearly. Look, there's a strong possibility that's how it's supposed to work. There's also a strong possibility the rules for BS attacks and DTWs do not require declaring a main target. So why can't you just admit that there is an issue with how these rules interact, as written? All we have to do then is ask for the rule to be fixed/clarified? Maybe all that is needed is for a requirement to be added to BS attack stating a target must be declared. Maybe we just need to add a rule to DTWs stating we must declare a target? Intuitive attack supports my position by having a rule that explicitly states we must declare a main target when using the skill. Because intuitive attack weapons don't always require a target, and since Intuitive attack is a dice roll, there's a potential for a crit. We need to determine who takes the crit when multiple targets are hit. So there is a clear need for a main target. If a main target is chosen upon declaration, why add this requirement? I'm not surprised at all CB missed this interaction with Sat zones. I just don't get why you'd rather cling to the idea that BS Attack rules have a requirement that is clearly NOT listed.
I understand full well your arguments, but they don't hold up to scrutiny and you have to fix that if you want to convince anyone of your point of view. For instance, here's simple logic: You simply can not have LOF to the target without a target.
Why should they be stronger in a Saturation zone? Remember that a SINGLE unopposed Dodge roll will evade ALL of the templates...
I've explained this repeatedly, why not show why my explanation is incorrect rather that dismiss my arguments completely? LoF to the target occurs when I place the template on the table and it covers an enemy trooper. For those under the template to be hit, LoF needs to be drawn to them from the blast focus. If i have LoF to a legal TARGET, the attack is valid. EDIT: Also, you guys keep saying a target must be declared. Do you not see how you're adding rules that are not there?
No, there is no possibility that BS Attacks do not require a target. BS Attacks are unplayable if you pretend that the requirement to pick one or more targets (repeated in multiple places in the rules) doesn't exist. For example, something that's already been mentioned, from http://infinitythewiki.com/en/BS_Attack_Declaration#Burst "Burst Each time a trooper declares a BS Attack, it can take as many shots as the Burst (B) value of its BS Weapon. During the declaration of a BS Attack, the player can distribute a number of shots equal to the Burst value among one or more targets, as long as they are valid (within LoF, if needed)." That's the rules for making a BS Attack declaration. You distribute Burst to valid targets. That doesn't support your argument. It's a reminder that it matters for the purposes of Criticals. It wasn't missed. It's only an issue when you try to apply an interpretation that breaks the rest of the game. Right. A TARGET. That's our effing point. There must be a TARGET. No target, no BS Attack.
I've lost track of whether this one has been mentioned, but there is also: Q: What happens when a Direct Template Weapon in ARO misses the target because it’s out of range? Does it affect the other troops inside the Template or does it get cancelled? A: The Attack is cancelled. The target. The one that you chose when declaring the BS Attack. The one that MUST be in range, even if the template covers other unactivated enemy troopers.
My interpretation holds for every example you've just given. The rules don't breakdown by BS attacks or DTWs not requiring me to declare a target in that situation. I'm forced to choose the activating troop/fireteam as the target under the ARO rules. AROs must choose the trooper activated by the Order as their target. Burst rules don't say BS attacks require a target declaration. You're reaching there. They simply tell you to distribute your burst. The same way BS attacks need to have LoF. The targets of DTWs are found upon placing the template. Having valid targets for a skill declaration to be valid is not the same thing as requiring us to declare a main target. Dismiss the intuitive attack rule and all other rules that explicitly state when you need to declare targets as reminders if you want. I'm not buying it.
Please explain how, without involving things like targeting a spot on the ground (illegal without the Targetless Trait) or targeting the person shooting the DTW. You just quoted rules text saying that you have to target the active trooper. Not 'I place a template which happens to hit them', but you have to target them. As far as "I'm forced to choose the activating troop/fireteam as the target under the ARO rules." is concerned, that's not what the rules actually say. A Fireteam grants a single ARO to each enemy trooper within LoF or ZoC. So, each enemy trooper will be able to declare a single ARO against only one of the Fireteam members who are in their LoF or ZoC. You have to choose one of the active troopers. You don't get to choose the Fireteam as a whole as the target.
I didn't really want to go down this route as it can come across as an Argument from Authority fallacy, instead of an attempt to give some insight into the rules design process, but I can confirm that this is the intended outcome. The Saturation Zone rules went through several different versions, so I discussed them several times while N3 was being proofread. Saturation Zones are 100% intended to reduce the Burst per target, after having allocated Burst to targets. See http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Saturation_Zone#Saturation_Zone._Example_2 and also the FAQs. Apart from anything else, it means that there is no way to invoke Saturation Zones without also referring to Burst distribution.
I don't feel like you're listening at all. I've done that more than once already. I don't target the user or the ground at all. I follow the steps in the rules very clearly. Declare a BS attack. Place the Template down when you declare the Attack to determine what the Attack affects, as that might influence the possible second Short Skill and AROs. After placing the template down, I do as the rules instruct I determine what the attack affects. By checking for LoF from the blast focus to those under the template. Oddly enough, how do I do this before placing the template down in the first place? I don't have to choose. I place the template down. For the ARO to be valid it needs to affect/hit/target one of the fireteam members. Which is checked after placing the template down.
Step 1b, fulfil the Requirement for the BS Attack, of having LoF to the target. Because there are two steps involved. First you need LoF to the target, as per the BS Attack Requirements, then after placing the template you work out if anyone else is affected by the template. Now you're the one not listening. The standard ARO rules force you to pick one of the active troopers as the target. Nothing in the DTW rules says that this is over-ridden, so it's not over-ridden. Again, and for the last time - this is how Saturation Zones are intended to work. There's nothing being bypassed, you allocate Burst and then reduce the Burst allocated to each target.
When did i ever say or imply DTW rules override that? I didn't, so it seems clear to me who's not listening. I declare my BS attack ARO against the trooper activated because the ARO rules tell me to do so. Not because BS attacks require a target be declared, because they don't. If I fail to hit the activated trooper, my attack is cancelled, because i haven't met the ARO conditions. Where is it listed that I must check LoF at the moment of declaring a BS attack. Or that the attack is cancelled if I've failed to meet that requirement? Once the template is placed, i check to make sure i have LoF to each enemy trooper under the template. It's at this time the BS attack declaration is validated. Here's a very interesting piece of information under the Order Expenditure Sequence: IMPORTANT! All details and choices related to the execution of a Short Skill, Short Movement Skill, or Entire Order Skill must be specified when it is declared. For instance, if you declare a movement, specify the entire route; if you declare a BS Attack, specify which Weapon will be used, who the targets are, how the Burst is divided, etc. It says to specify, "who the targets are", plural. I don't have to declare one single target. Seems clear that by placing the template down I'm actually declaring multiple targets. I actually feel like this revelation should move this conversation forward. Will that have an impact on how DTWs and Sat zones interact?
That's because a "main target" is not normally chosen. You simply choose a "target" for BS attacks. Intuitive Attacks and impact templates require that that target be called the "main target" for the purpose of criticals otherwise a crit would damage everything under the template without an armor roll. Now, there is one place in the rules that I think needs to be rewritten, but that's because it is contradictory to itself. Consider these two line of text from the template weapons page: These two entries can create some confusion because they inconsistently use "target" and "main target". It is fairly clear from the rest of the rules, however, that the first entry is in error. It should say "main target of the attack (and only the main target)" to be consistent with all of the instances where it's possible to get a critical with a template. That leaves the second entry to show that everything under the template is a target, but that also can't be true because you are not allowed to target camo'd troopers with a template even though an FAQ entry says they are affected. This means that it must go something like this (IJW already said this, but it seems it need to be repeated): 1a. You declare a (main) target for your DTW. 1b. You THEN place your template down to see if you actually hit the (main) target. [This is mostly to see if they are actually in range] 1c. You check to see if any ineligible troopers are under the template (friendlies, impersonation markers, Civs...). If so, the attack is cancelled. 2. Everything under the template with LoF to the blast focus is affected. You know the rest... What this shows is that you can't just lay down a template and say, "Oh, it looks like that model got caught, I guess I'll make that my target." Consider this situation. You want to hit someone with a chain rifle. You lay down the template. but it turns out they are out of range. However, there is an enemy that you happened to clip with that template when you laid it down. You seem to be arguing that you can just say, "Well, I guess I couldn't hit who I wanted to, but that thing right there that I wasn't really concerned about got hit so roll!" We are arguing that you can't do that. I must say, I can't see how you are still getting stuck on the requirement for declaring a BS attack (of any kind). In order to have LoF to a target, you must already have a target!! Lastly, I'm not sure if you know, but since @ijw brought it up, what he says is as close as you are going to get to CB's intent with the rules that is not actual CB staff. The hierarchy goes like this: random poster < forum consensus < ijw < CB staff
I'm not surprised, you've been extremely unhelpful. Which is too bad, because I think I'm finding some important points here. How can you fulfill Step 1b without taking into account the rules for the weapon being used? You have to apply the effects of weapons that do not require LoF for example. Why are we not applying the template rules with a flamethrower the same way? The skill doesn't become null if the BS attack requirements are not met upon declaration. OES, as per below, says we must apply a skills effects, which instruct me to place the template down, before the attack can be considered null. After placing the template down, i have LoF to multiple targets and the BS attack requirements are clearly met. IMPORTANT! If the Player declares a Skill and, when he applies its Effects, he realizes the Requirements are not met, then the Skill is considered null. However, the trooper who declared it still generates ARO, as if he has declared an Idle, and loses the ammunition or equipment used, if he declared the use of a Disposable weapon or piece of Equipment.
That situation is actually a great example. I don't have to declare a main target in that situation. As the attacker, i simply see enemies in front of me and try to spray feiry death all over them. I place the template down and hit whatever i can. I think your example is a great indication of why there is no main target requirement for DTWs. What exactly do you think I'm stuck on?
IJW, like others, has been MORE than helpful and very moderate in his manner. A lot of people (many) are explaining to you (single) that you are reading a rule improperly. You are stubbornly ignoring us all. You are welcome to retain your opinion, if you do not want to listen to AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY kindly explaining the game to you.
That's^ the problem right there. They're all explaining how THEY play the game. They're not discussing what the rules actually say or intend. (EDIT: which makes it clear this community is not for me) I've proven that I've been listening by answering questions and giving alternate interpretations. I've been doing this in the face of people like you, who are claiming I'm reading the rule improperly. The common way to play the game has no bearing on the rules as written or intended. I've even put forth an explanation where DTWs actually have multiple targets. What you call stubborn, i call providing very clear evidence against your interpretation and evidence in support of my interpretation. When i objectively look at the evidence, i don't come to your conclusion. I think if you look elsewhere, you'll find the truly stubborn ones.
