Yeah, and I think you're reading things into the text that isn't there. Because nothing in the text implies you need to centre them (the only place that comes up is for circular Impact Templates and is specific to their rules). How do you resolve it then? Because anything else either requires one of the bursts failing at Declaration or the players making things up. Re: Ranges. I understood that. I'm pointing out that that's already the case in your interpretation. If the centre of the marker is less than 8" + 12.5mm away from the firing unit the range from the marker to the Trooper is <8".
I get all this, but we're talking active turn? Where is everyone getting the requirement from that these burst 2 actions need to target the same location? Splitting burst is a thing? I frequently target 2 spots to place a pitcher or smoke in active turn.... and I'm unaware of a requirment for them to need the same (non)target?
No it doesnt, the drop bear is on that point, its within 8 because you measure distance from closest point to closest point and that point is within 8 because the dropbear is touching it
Actually that hasnt been defined. Imp is talking reactive. in active there is no restriction outside coordinated orders on targetting so you can have the drop bears as far and widely placed apart as you wish (provided other rules ect)
I assumed reactive because this is an open and complex question in reactive whereas in active it has a clear and well understood answer (see @Mahtamori's second post).
What I’m confused about is how people can claim to use the measuring rules to interpret choosing where the drop bears are being placed. If someone says to me “I’m going to target this point to place the drop bears”, I have to assume they mean that they’re centering the model on that point, or they’re referring to a base sized “point” on the table. I haven’t ever seen some say “This is where I’m going to put the model” when pointing at a point on the table to mean “I’m going to put the model next to that point (because it’s zero inches from the point).”
"I'm going to put both of these objects at this point" *proceeds to place both markers touching the same point* And why do you "have to assume that the marker will be centred on that point"? I see nothing in the rules that forces that interpretation. Out of curiosity where do you measure range to, the point or nearest edge? The reason measuring came up was because I was pointing out to IJW was that even if the point is outside 8" the range could well be under 8".
From my understanding and interpretation, in ARO, if you drop two deployable equipment as your reaction, and succeed on both, they both land at the exact same point. Since you cannot have two objects occupying the same spot, one goes away. Am I wrong?
Yes. With that interpretation, one would go away before rolling because it would be an invalid declaration. All details need to be detailed at declaration and a Deployable that is found to occupy an impossible location is resolved as an Idle (ie you don't roll). Discarding one after rolling is not supported by the rules. * Note, I disagree with your premise. I'm describing how to play your premise RAW.
Something is declared to be there. It's the declaration that needs to be valid not the result. I am assuming that you are required to place a marker as part of describing all details of the declaration; and that if you declare B2 you must place 2 markers. I'll concede that the requirement to place a marker at declaration is not explicit, but I would argue that it's implicit in the same way that placing a Mine Marker in B2B during declaration when deploying the Drop Bear as a Deployable Weapon is not explicit but is understood. If this is not the case it begs the question as to why one must place a Mine Marker on the table at declaration when deploying the Drop Bear as a Deployable Weapon.
Wait... didn't Hellois just confirm that it's not really on the table until the conclusion of the order? Meaning that someone could just move into that position and waste the mine?
Yes, you are, which is a bit weird given that we have specific rules text about when Pitchers and thrown Drop Bears, even if we ignore HellLois' ruling about moving onto the spot where a Mine has been declared: 'A successful BS Roll allows players to place a Deployable Repeater Marker (REPEATER) at the point of impact.' 'If you pass the Roll, the Drop Bear is successfully deployed, placing a Mine Marker (MINE) at the Conclusion of the Order'
To be honest, we're both making assumptions - but I think it's a safer assumption to use the common usage for things being in the same spot, and then assume that one item gets lost if both rolls are successful, than to assume that you can put things side by side and have them count as having targeted the same place.
I'd disagree that "those two people are standing at the same spot on the field" isn't common usage. Particularly when the implicit tool being used to define the location is by 'pointing' which commonly means 'with a finger', so not particularly high fidelity.
Side-note - when you lay out a table, do you centre the objectives on the positions given, or only touching those positions?
If it was possible to have to put two objectives at the one point then I would off centre them. (Ie it said "place two objectives on the centreline 24" in from a side edge of the table"). But this is an interesting way to change up the dynamics of a table: thanks for pointing it out. [emoji14] Serious answer: we know where the objectives go because the diagrams show us and they're clearly centred in the diagrams. No such examples exist for Mines or Pitchers.
