The Targetless trait, Spec Fire and Impact Templates interact in a way that DTWs don't. Look at how you measure Spec Fire: intuitively it is between the Blast Focus and the attacking trooper but this is wrong, it is actually between the attacking Trooper and the (primary) target of the attack. This is also relevant to Targetless attacks which imply that they don't actually have a target but on reality do. So, the presence of 'target' in how Impact Templates function is necessary to emphasise that there really is still a target of the attack to people who would otherwise argue the point but is (probably) not necessary in the strictest sense. DTWs OTOH are a form of BS Attack and therefore require a target that is an enemy Trooper and don't have any other interactions that would require this to be emphasized. So far you've attempted to argue that requirement by saying, effectively, "no they don't", "the Template placement is the target" and "the firing model is the target". It appears that you have formed an opinion on how the rule should work and are trying to justify it: this is disengious and will annoy your interlocutors.
If there are two enemies within DTW range of someone with B2 in a Sat zone, splitting burst and getting both attacks off on both seems wrong. I assure you, it's not. It's just a quirk in the rules (I think I've said this somewhat recently...) with how saturation zone and splitting burst interact.
But the Impact rules don't need to list a main target as a requirement to accomplish that. It can simply say to place the blast focus on your target* and yada yada. *because target is implied right?* Direct template rules don't need to list anything about overriding the need for a target. It tells you where to target the template already. Where the user stands, at its base. I don't see how explaining my interpretation and countering opposing arguments is disingenuous or annoying. I find the accepted way to resolve this scenario, by allowing the ridiculous situations where i can score 4 hits against two adjacent enemy troopers but only one hit against a lone enemy, annoying. Can anyone tell me how placing a mine is different then? If what I'm being told is true, I see no indication how it avoids the implied requirement of needing an enemy target. It's a short skill/ARO with the attack label just like a BS attack. Yet we all just accept the placement location as written. It doesn't have the targetless trait. So how does it get placed next to the user? Why do we simply follow the instructions as written for mines and not for Direct templates?
Placing a Mine is not a BS Attack, so it does not follow the rules for BS Attacks. DTWs are BS Attacks so they must follow the rules for BS Attacks. That is the difference.
Impact Templates could just say that: but it's reasonable that they don't, because it can be really quite confusing about what is the target of an Impact Template attack. What appears disengious is that it seems like you've shifted your argument when it's been explained why your argument is wrong. And yes, it is ridiculous and I also don't like it, nevertheless it is the rules. I take it you don't play Bakunin? Because if so, wait until someone explains White Noise. ;) Because Deploy <Deployable> isn't a BS Attack so doesn't have the same requirements as BS Attack?
They do, for the exact reason you quoted. Criticals only affect the "main target" of an attack, which is the enemy model you declared the attack against. The other models caught in the blast are targets as well, otherwise a host of skills they should be able to use suddenly become unusable. Both ITW and DTW being non-targetless BS attacks require you to target an enemy model. There's no way around that.
BS Attack doesn't say anywhere that a target is required. I've just been going on the assumption that it does because it's been repeated so many times in this thread. The only requirement is that we must have LoF towards the target. That's not the same thing as all BS attacks require a target. So for direct template weapons i simply follow the instructions as written. Which is to place the template at the users base "to determine what the Attack affects" EDIT: So either there is no target needed, and thus no LoF required. Or the target is the base of the user, which automatically grants LoF. The main target is the target hit by the blast focus. So resolving crits is fine. I'm not trying to get around it, I'm showing why the rules don't support the idea that a flamethrower needs to declare a target. You can't crit the flamethrower either, so a main target isn't even needed in that case.
You certainly can with an intuitive attack... ...and I'm not sure how you can take a line like "Requires LoF to the target" and think that it doesn't require a target...
From BS Attack Declaration: "For a trooper to declare a BS Attack in its Active Turn or Reactive Turn, it needs to: Be using a BS Weapon, or a Skill or piece of Equipment capable of making a BS Attack. Be able to draw Line of Fire (LoF) to the target of the BS Attack, unless the BS Weapon, Skill or piece of Equipment used doesn't require LoF. Not be in base to base contact with any enemies during the Activation phase of that Order."
I can't help if anyone feels my argument has shifted. I explain it in different ways to better help others understand. And it's your opinion they've explained why it's wrong. I don't agree with that opinion and so I don't agree that my interpretation is wrong. The official ruling may even back what others have said. But that still won't change the fact that the rules as written support my interpretation. Unless of course I've missed something. But that's why I'm discussing this. To find that thing i might have missed in hopes this all makes sense. @inane.imp & @Sabin76 How is quoting the rule that I've already explained is not the same as requiring a target, supposed to provide new facts to change my opinion?
An "if" statement isn't a requirement. It's simply a rule to handle a situation where there is more than one target.
Actually we're quoting different rules where it says that a target is required for any BS Attack (with exceptions, of which DTW is not one). The reason that I quoted that particular rule is because it requires the attacker to have LOF to a target, if the target doesn't exist that LOF can't exist. We know that targets must be enemy troopers unless a specific exception applies. What do you consider to be the target of a BS Attack with a DTW if not an enemy Trooper?
I honestly don't know what you would expect the rules to say that would persuade you, though. The fact that a target is required is as explicitly written as can be, short of: "Requirements: A target. other stuff..." Consider the Targetless trait: Targetless. This weapon utilizes a Special Ammunition capable of firing without designating an enemy as a target. This would seem to heavily imply a target is required for any other type of ammunition type in a BS attack, no?
But those rules being referenced don't actually say a target is required to execute the attack. You only need LoF unless otherwise stated. REQUIREMENTS The user must have LoF towards the target unless the BS Weapon, Special Skill or Equipment used states specifically that it does not require LoF. Direct template weapons meet this requirement without having to choose an enemy target. Again, because it's not required. We place the template as instructed over whatever troopers we want. These troopers become the 'targets' of the attack. I don't need to declare one to use my flamethrower. Getting hit by a template weapon requires LoF from the blast focus to the troopers touching the template. So when scenery blocks LoF, a hit isn't scored.
The rules as written really really don't support your interpretation. You've been given chapter-and-verse including multiple rules quotes showing that you're wrong. Stuff like "EDIT: So either there is no target needed, and thus no LoF required. Or the target is the base of the user, which automatically grants LoF." isn't helping, either. We've already explained why the target cannot be the base of the user, and DTWs have no text saying that they ignore LoF, so the default for a BS Attack applies - you MUST have LoF to the target. As it doesn't have the Targetless trait, there MUST be an enemy trooper as the target.
Bolded bit is accurate, you subsequent conclusion is not. You do need to declare a (primary) target because the attacker needs LOF to that target for a valid BS Attack. Otherwise Intuitive Attack would be irrelevant because you could just place your Template through a Zero Vis Zone. To reiterate: you can't just place the Template down so that it only hits troopers you can't draw LOF as part of a basic BS Attack. If you can't draw LOF to a trooper you can't declare a BS Attack (unless specifically permitted, see Jammers).
Again, DTWs do not specifically say they do not require LoF, therefore they require LoF to the target. As they don't have the Targetless trait, that target must be an enemy trooper*. *With a potential exception for targeting scenery items if there was ever a DTW with Anti-materiel ammo. But even then there's a target involved.
You need LOF towards the target. With the target being the target you are looking for. This applies to DTWs as they do not specifically state that they do not require LOF. Also - here are the Burst rules for an additional reference to targets hoping it helps you understand what you are looking for. Burst (B) The B value is the number of shots the weapon is capable of firing in a single BS Attack Skill declaration. This value only applies during the Active Turn. During the Reactive Turn, the B value is reduced to 1. When firing, you can distribute the weapon's Burst amongst any number of enemies within LoF. Choose this distribution when declaring the Short Skill BS Attack. This means that when you declare a BS Attack with a Combi Rifle, you can make three BS Rolls - each one an attempt to hit a target - because the weapon's Burst is 3.
Are you sure it isn't you and others here who've formed an opinion and are trying to justify it? Twisting the rules so that you can continue playing, as if a target is a requirement, doesn't sound any different to me. Telling me written rules mean something other than what they say, isn't proof. You're clearly not listening to me. I've listed multiple ways to interpret it so the LoF requirement is met. I've explained it as if the target is the base of the user, no target needed, or the targets are those troopers under the template. LoF is met in all cases. I've bent over backwards to try to provide alternate ways to meet the requirements of a target, even though it is not required. I've gotten nothing in return.
