We literally had this discussion in N3: the blast focus is the circle on the end of the standard Tear-drop template. Once you accept that it's possible it's fast: "Oh that Drop Bear right next to my Trooper, OK you can place the template so it'll hit it."
We had the discussion, I don't believe we had a good result from it. In either case, it creates some weird situations and arguably unwanted behaviours. Could easily be solved by defining the blast focus as not causing hits and then removing the exception for the attacking trooper to be hit.
Part of why I ask is that in the template pictures on the N4 wiki, the black dots only reach the edge of the template along a quite short arc right at the end of the template. I don't know if it was the same in N3. But then the example diagrams have troopers placing their templates touching points where the black dots don't touch the edge - nowhere close, in fact. But then we know that the examples can contain rules, but when an example contradicts the other rules the other rules take precedence. So I'd want to know what ijw said in N3 and see how it relates to the placement of the dots in the N4 templates before drawing any conclusions.
Many of the examples are 2d renditions of 3d cylinders, it's perfectly reasonable most of them are in fact correct when viewed from more than one angle.
I was involved in the discussion on Discord and my opinion can be summed up as "yes, the game's rules allow you to do this, but it's f@%#$ing stupid and should be FAQd into oblivion forever." My Jujak is 1mm from a Tikbalang behind him and 50mm from a Regular on a crate in front of him. He lifts up his flamethrower overhead and blasts the Regular with a gout of fire, and somehow magically he also simultaneously gets the weapon to shoot backwards and roasts the Tikbalang in the optics with the same attack. That's not how weapon barrels work, and it's sure as hell not how a directional blast works. The fact that the rules allow this is highly counter-intuitive and super game-y, and on that basis I consider it to be a loophole exploit rather than an intended result of the mechanics as written. You could make an excuse that mines explode, but Infinity mines are explicitly smart directional charges, not "kill everyone within X meters" charges. Their boom boom goes a direction, and that direction is away from the origin point, downfield toward the end of the template. One fix would be to specify that targets touching the actual origin point on the template aren't affected by it, so at least a target has to be downwind a little bit. Another would be to specify that the origin of the template must be in contact with the vertical sides of the Silhouette of the attacker, not the top, although that runs into a slight complication when trying to template someone overhead. I dislike this interpretation of the rules right up there with the weirdness of exposing yourself 3mm to create reciprocal LoF to a 1mm sliver of the back of someone's Silhouette, nanometer precision pie-slicing, and the weird measurement questions that come up around pathing for jump movement. Things that are artifacts of the rules' granularity and counterintuitive bug me, sorry.
I'll give you that one when and if rocket launchers inflict a hit on any one trooper in the back arc of the firing model. Until then I assume that futuretech engineers have solved the issue somehow. Speaking of which...in the lore are Tankhunters just permanently deaf? That autocannon they heft around really ought to stun the user on a failed BTS roll.* *DISCLAIMER: This is a joke. It is not a serious proposal for a change to the rules.
Here is the end of the small teardrop template, taken directly from the wiki entry for Template Weapons and Equipment: If indeed the black dot is the Blast Focus, then as you can see the dot only reaches the edge of the template here: So if that's the blast focus, then the TTS template shown in the OP photo is wrong. It has a dot which is bigger and reaches the edge of the template on a much wider arc. If the players had used the template from the wiki, it's pretty unlikely they would have been able to place to template to hit the Lt. The whole thing is complicated by the example diagrams, and the question of whether the black dot is the Blast Focus in the first place. But suffice to say, I'm not at all convinced that the backwards-shooting template is allowed RAW. (RAI, I'm completely convinced that it's not intended.)
I've always played the edge of the Blast Focus that touches the edge or the template as semi-circular: which seems to be relatively consistent with the wiki, as this is how a template where a Blast Focus with the same radius as the narrow end of the Tear-drop template would be constructed. This allows you to place the template parallel with the top or side of a SIL. This is also consistent with the placement of templates that was ruled correct in N3 for hitting secondary targets in Total Cover (ie a placement where the line-of-symmetry of the Tear-drop template was perpendicular to a line bisecting the firer's SIL, in the horizontal plane). It is also relatively consistent with the images on how templates can be placed (none require more than half-of-a-circle to make work). But that construction means that if the template is placed parallel with the top of the Mine a Prone, then nothing below the height of the Mine (in either direction) would be hit. That is, I've always assumed that the radius of the circle on the narrow end of the Teardrop template and the radius of the Blast Focus was the same. Which meant that so long as the curved semi-circle was in contact the placement was legal. Tl;dr I think the correct maximum angle for is 90 degrees relative to a Template extended "straight out", which would mean that this sort of back-hit is legal but only when the target / victim aren't prone.
Oh, the other reason why I think allowing Templates to be placed up to 90 degrees to the "straight out" placement is correct is that anything less is practically impossible to enforce on a tabletop (you'd literally need protractors because I don't know anyone who uses official CB templates - and my memory is most of those had imperfectly printed Blast Focuses anyway). Basically to pull off the interaction: The Mine must be on the table as a Mine, not a Camo Marker. The Mine must be within a distance less than the diameter of the Blast Focus from the victim (and probably more like within the radius of the Blast Focus). The target needs to come within 7" of the Mine. The target needs to not be Prone. The victim probably also needs to not be Prone (although technically this is a function of how close the target approaches the Mine and how close the Mine is to the victim). Overall, I think the best way ahead is: accepting that it's EXTREMELY edge case but legal and getting a definitive answer that 180 degrees of the Blast Focus touches the edge of the Teardrop Template.
I'd like to see a link for that one as well. I've never seen anyone try this at the table, and it seems pretty unlikely to be intended. Unless in the future we have gravitonic weapons to bend bullet trajectories around corners...
To rephrase: to hit secondary targets out-of-LOF from the Attacking Trooper but in-LOF of the Blast Focus of the Direct Template Weapon. I didn't think we needed to re-litigate that one but if you do then, sure, @ijw this was ruled as valid placement for Templates in N3. I believe on the previous forums as I can't find the thread anymore. Is this template placement still valid in N4?
Like I said, if there's already been a ruling then by all means, post a link to the ruling. But "I remember a ruling so everyone can just assume my recollection is accurate" doesn't cut it. Especially for something as problematic as bendy bullets. In the photo you just posted, it looks to me like the shooter has LoF to both target units. I can sort of picture a scenario where they didn't, if we assume that the blast focus is a circle rather than a point. Which is a big assumption. But perhaps the prior thread already addressed those questions... which would be helpful, if we had a link to the prior thread.
The attacker doesn't have LOF to Marker IV. It's right on the line, but honestly I may have knocked it a little and the perspective is not perfect. The point is that, if the Blast Focus is the circle at the end of the Tear-drop Template and you can use the full 180 degrees where the Blast Focus is touching the edge of the Tear-drop Template, then you can use the ~3mm extension out from the SIL to hit targets that are out of LOF. Honestly, I'm shocked I'm having this conversation with the both of you: this was solved so long ago that I'm now fairly certain that the applicable thread died in the forum shift. I'm still searching though. If you think it's the point at the end of the template, then the ONLY legal placement for the Template is straight in line from Attacker to Target. You can't angle it at all: rather - in the horizontal - it always needs to be placed directly in line with a radii extending from the centre of the SIL, a la the Mine Trigger Area diagram (aside, the Trigger Area specifies this "radius... extended out" - which results in the Trigger Area of a Mine being slightly different to what can be hit by a Mine's DTW). If you think it's an arc at the end of a Template that is not equal to 180 degrees, then how do you play that? Because if you think the arc is, say, 100 degrees then you can angle it +/- 50 either side of the radius extended out but no further. How do you propose measuring that in reality? Basically the only playable positions are: A) the template must be placed with the line of symmetry of the Teardrop template in line with the radius of the SIL extended out B) the template must be placed with the line of symmetry of the Tear-drop template at most perpendicular to the radius of the SIL extended out. This right angle orientation is easy to implement and police in practice.
I wasn't able to find the thread. But this is what I'm describing. I really can't see how it's not permitted by the rules (note I'm describing a secondary target - you certainly can't declare an attack [requiring LOF] under these conditions).
Except that your interpretation would allow an Intuitive Attack against a camo marker around a corner.
Only through a Zero Vis Zone or, as you say, vs Camo Markers, but yes. You didn't answer my question on how you would play an alternate interpretation?
Until we get an official clarification, if necessary I would probably play that (a) you have to shoot from the half of your silhouette that faces the target (i.e. no shooting over your own head with the blast focus behind your head), and (b) you can't hit targets that are in total cover from the shooter. Like I said I've never seen anyone actually try these moves at the table, so I think the above is a fair approximation of the way people actually play it, based on the idea that the template is a blast emanating from a point on the shooter's silhouette.
