So a Link Team has 3+ members and deploys one of the following: 1) Drop Bears. Q: Do the drop bears need to be at exactly the same spot, and as such do they "stack", and then do both go off? 2) Smoke Q: Does this also need to be in the same spot or can the burst be split?
1) The Drop Bears must touch the target. The target is a point on the table. There is no additional guidance in the rules. Barring a clarification or FAQ I (and my meta) find it reasonable to place both Drop Bears in contact with the target point. 2) The Impact Template needs to be centred over the target. This will result in both Templates having the same coverage.
Assuming this is an ARO. Drop Bears need to target the same spot. Speculative Fire has a special allowance for sticking the attack off target, regular use of Drop Bears do not. I also note how in the example, the player places the marker to indicated the target - which would make the spot be the area under the marker.
Sorry active turn. My opponent was arguing it was not possible to stack markers. I think for the purposes of this game two side by side are sufficient. I was mainly concerned with making sure that one was going to be there rather than being forced to spend another orders if I failed to "hit" with the drop bear.
Right. Active turn. Markers just like models need to be fully supported by the game table, so they can't really sit on top of another marker. Since it's active turn, just toss them close enough since you can have several targets during active turn :)
Where is it required to be a spot under the marker, or the marker to be centred on the spot? (This is specified for Impact Templates) As far as I can tell the only requirement is that they both target the same point. This can be achieved by having both markers touching a single point on the table. Think about this in terms of LOF. Nothing prevents you drawing LOF to a point and then placing the Drop Bear such that it is almost entirely obscured from the firing Trooper with the exception of where it touches the target point.
Nitpicking language (because this is what it is), that's not "on" the same spot, that's "touching" (as in "adjacent to") the same spot.
Nitpicking geometry actually. [emoji14] It's "touching" as in "share coordinates with". The purpose of the nitpicking is expressly to avoid the "sucks to be you, you succeeded so hard you failed" situation that otherwise occurs. However, again: the requirement is that they target a point on the table, having both bases touching that point meets the requirement. Why am I wrong?
If you want to get mathematical to define what "touching is" then you need to define what the line actually is, but keep in mind it's physically impossible to have a part of a physical object share the same space (or touch the same sub-atomic point) as another distinct physical object while remaining two distinct objects. So shooting back the same question at you, how large do you define the point to be? You're wrong about touching because the requirements aren't to be touching the same point on the table, it is to "point at the desired location" - much more informal than what we're both suggesting. If you go into the example, the way pointing at the desired location works is to literally place the Mine Marker there. Placing two mines touching each other doesn't really mean you've placed both mines in the same location, now have you?
Point on a table comes from the FAQ. Placing two mines touching the same point on the table is possible, provided (as you point out) that the point is large enough. Practically we usually define a target as 3mm x 3mm, but I think you should go as small as practically possible (so 2 markers touching at the target point). The reason I’m pursuing this line of reasoning though is from a gameplay POV. It’s just a better way to play the game than the alternative. Both are interpretations are equally unsupported by RAW.
I don't agree that this is something that necessarily is needed from a gameplay POV, nor that it's a better way to play the game. I think you're assigning a value and a function to Drop Bears that is not intended. They can't even Intuitive Attack to be placed near camo markers and would have to be placed in those situations. These quality of life actions have been quashed and clarified before to not work and that you'd have to choose whether to increase probability or preserve your ammo. I very much think people are assigning far too much value to their deployables.
Honestly that's why I'm happy with this: two Deployables touching the same point doesn't really add anything tactically but avoids a negative experience. It's about the gameplay experience, not the 'value' and 'function'. Given two options that can both be justified by the rules I prefer the one that gets the least "WTF?"
Which is why you're able to coordinate pushing buttons, it avoids negative experiences. No. Wait. That was removed by FAQ. Sorry, I just don't buy it.
Now you're being facetious. You are allowed to co-ordinate pushing the same button, because everyone is affecting the same target which... they're touching. ;)
But not different buttons ;) But seriously, this would make Drop Bears and those mine launchers the only deployables that can be deployed in greater numbers than 1 as ARO, and there's something wrong with that.
Pitchers. Any Deployable which is fired as a BS Attack and therefore has Burst, basically. Oh and has a possibility of failing.
And Pitchers, yes. In either case, I think we've run the course of this one and can't really provide more input without CB staff taking the time to answer it. It's been a known issue for something like 2 or 3 years now I think.
Out of curiosity, where are you getting this 'touch the target' text from? Drop Bears say 'the desired location'. Pitchers say 'at the point of impact'. Neither of those say or infer anything about being able to place the items off-centre. It also raises issues for picking a point of impact that's within a range band and placing the actual item in a different range band.
Nowhere. I'm making deductions from limited information: A. It is possible to fire B2 Drop Bears/Pitchers B. In ARO these must be fired at the same target (desired location/point of impact/point on the table) C. The rules are silent on what to do with 2 successes, which mechanically seems possible D. 'desired location' / 'point of impact' must be able to accommodate 2 Drop Bears / Pitchers. Deduction: the desired location in this situation must be where they meet. Touching this location meets a plain English reading of 'at the location',, particularly since Infinity rules 'touching is in'. Which is reasonable from a practical geometry POV. Where are you getting that they must be placed centred on the 'desired location' or that the 'point of impact' must be the centre of the marker? How do you justify that at D you conclusion is "discard the second success"? All details need to be provided at Declaration so it should become apparent at Declaration which marker is legally deployed and which is not; the second (being invalid) should revert to being an idle and cancelled prior to rolling. If you're arguing range bands then it's already the case that the centre of a Drop Bear marker may be in a different range band than when you measure base to base (which is how range is measured).
Thanks for the explanation. I don't agree with your point D, I think that at that point, given no permission anywhere to place the items off-centre, you place one and lose the other as being unplaceable. And I'm saying that as someone who frequently fields linked Pitchers etc. ? I think you misunderstood my point - your reasoning lets me pick a target point for a Drop Bear that is within 8" and +3 range, but place the Drop Bear so that it's actually placed on a spot more than 8" away.
