I do not declare a target of the attack. I simply place the DTW down. If one trooper under the template was in my LoF, it's a valid declaration. AROs are declared and we move on as normal.
Ok. Everyone else conceives of that as "I declare a BS Attack against Trooper A with a LFT, Trooper B is also hit." But practically there's no difference: we were unstanding what you were saying to be the DTW would be valid even if neither Trooper A or B were in LOF of the Attacker. WRT a Sat Zone you do the same thing: Template 1 is placed so that hit hits A+B ("I declare a BS Attack against Trooper A with one bust of my LFT, Trooper B is also hit." for the rest of us) and place Template 2 infitessimally differently so that it hits B+A ("the other burst is against Trooper B and Trooper A is also hit.").
Yeah, that has been a bit infuriating. WRT? This is where my interpretation possibly results in a different outcome. Since I don't think you declare a target, what happens next? Is the burst 2 DTW simply reduced to burst 1, regardless of where i place the templates? Or by putting the template down in two different locations, is that essentially the same as two different targets? Do the troopers hit have any impact on the burst? I don't know. What I do know is, the interpretation that others have pushed here, results in an outcome I don't think is in the spirit of the rules. Which only helps validate my interpretation of not needing to declare a target when using DTWs. EDIT: To be fair though, splitting burst to avoid any reduction at all with say a combi, doesn't sit well either. But if the only intention of a saturation zone is to reduce burst on one single target, mission accomplished... unless of course we're using the common DTW rules pushed here. :P
If the templates are not placed exactly the same, then you've split the Burst and are making 2 x B1 attacks through the Sat Zone. Sat Zones reduce the value of the attack to 1, both attacks are B1 therefore they cannot get reduced further. Even without reference to a target the logic holds up. As I've said: I don't like it for DTWs, but it's explicitly the intent of the rules to act like that in general and DTWs are a type of BS Attack. Edit: IE to reduce the burst for each individual split attack through the zone. Also, for spirit of the rules @ijw is the closest answer you'll get absent CB itself weighing in: which they won't for something as cut and dried as this.
CB may not, which I expect, but i hate that rulings are being made by whoever without any oversight. There are no appeals and once that ruling is made no one seems to take another opinion seriously. The Infinity rules are far too loose for those in charge to be so rigid. I have to thank you @inane.imp for being the only one to listen and discuss this with me in an appropriate manner. Even rulings made by official staff shouldn't be above reproach. They jump into a thread and quote an answer or give a little snippet. I don't exactly have confidence they understand all the nuances of the situation or what exactly is being asked and answered. Then the forum users here have their own interpretation of the ruling. That logic holds up depending on your interpretation of a DTW's 'target'. Which i'd like to think I've shown to be unclear at this point. I know you disagree but if the 'target' is the blast focus in base with the user, I can easily see the attack being -1 burst regardless of how the templates are oriented. Or, if it has no target, then what? I understand that, believing DTWs must declare a target, makes it easier to stomach their interaction with saturation zones, but it feels like fitting a square peg in a round hole. I'd much rather an admission it's unclear and ask for an official ruling. In the meantime, an unofficial ruling can be made with the caveat, it's temporary.and by no means official. Of course, i don't expect very much to actually change. I can't even get the unofficial persons in charge to admit there's a real difference between how Impact rules state a requirement for declaring a target vs a BS attacks requirements. And not to be insulting, but to me, that's the most basic level or foundation we all have to build upon.
Yeah. You won't get traction with this because it's a non-issue. Your interpretation only makes sense because you don't grok the way the underlying interactions work: declaring a BS Attack without a target makes no sense in the overall context of how BS Attacks works* even if you can make it make sense by looking at DTW in isolation. Compare the thread in ITS about Datascan: it reveals a fundamental disagreement about what does or does not provoke a FTF which has distinctly different results in game. * Which is why we all independently interpreted not requiring a target for a BS Attack meaning you didn't need LOF to any Trooper. There's a bit of group think going on and part of the role of the forum is inducting people into that group think.
Have you looked at the Intuitive Attack examples recently? In particular, the first example, where a Chain Rifle (direct template weapon) is used against a camouflage marker. There's a certain point where you have to connect the concept "declare an attack against" with "target" in order for the rules to make sense.
There's an important distinction to made here. In my eyes, I'm not declaring a BS attack without a target. I'm still declaring a 'target' to a degree. I place the template from the users base and cover X number of enemy troopers. That's essentially my 'target' declaration. My interpretation will have conflicts with other rules... just like the widely accepted interpretations have conflicts. I don't see the relevance? An intuitive attack adds extra abilities and conditions to a DTW attack. I can shoot things like enemies in camo or ZVZ directly. Meaning I can bypass normal restrictions which typically force me to hit another valid target nearby making sure the splash hits the camo trooper.
If anything, looking over the Intuitive attack rules only reinforces my interpretation. It says to choose one target as the main target for the purposes of a critical hit roll. Why is that relevant if I'm forced to declare a target upon skill activation anyway? It's basically saying we don't normally/always need to declare a target, but since we're making a roll with a potential crit outcome, we better declare a target.
That's kinda the point: that's more coherent if you make the (primary) target explicit. By making the primary / main target and secondary target explicit for all attacks with Templates (which isn't explicitly required by the rules for DTWs, which only explicitly requires one or more valid targets) it eliminates any confusion and resulting conflicts. It is absolutely an explicit requirement of Impact Templates and Intuitive Attacks and you yourself have largely accepted the practical implication for DTWs with my Trooper A and Trooper B examples. This base understanding (by their nature all BS Attacks have a main target used to determine LOF, MODs, Crits and Template placement and may also have secondary targets) is coherent across all BS Attack rules. It comes up in arguments around using Smoke to avoid Impact templates, ECM MODs and the impacts of Vis Zones on BS Attacks. This coherent rule of BS Attacks isn't explicitly stated in general but it's the only way to coherently deal with the subtley different forms of BS Attack without send everyone insane. It gets explicitly restated in Impact templates and Intuitive attacks because it becomes an issue there. It's not really an issue for DTWs, but implicitly they follow the same rules and it's easier to just use the same language.
It's really a quite useful word. I use it as much as I possibly can to try and keep it in common usage.
I'm not sure I understand. What confusion? I declare targets when it's relevant or required. I don't when it's not required.
Which caused you an issue in understanding how DTWs and Sat Zones work. This isn't an issue if you understand BS Attacks as always requiring a declared target: a way of thinking about the issue that doesn't stop you using DTWs in any way that you already do but makes it easier to parse how others think about them. I'm basically saying, just embrace the group think.
I'm all for simplicity and consistency. Making all BS attacks require a single target declaration certainly fits the bill. But I'd essentially just be trading one issue for another. I don't think DTWs require a target declaration and this causes an issue in their interaction with Saturation zones. CB missed a detail, it happens. But the alternative, which is to declare a target, allows me to bypass the saturation zone rules. A burst 3 DTW and 3 troopers under my template? No problem, i can hit them all 3 times. Is the group think really the better solution here?
The problem is not with direct template weapons, it's with the saturation zone rules, which, like the rest of the terrain rules, are of questionable balance.
What’s the new issue that’s created by assuming that all BS Attacks require a single main target? Replace DTW with an Impact template weapon in the Sat Zone example. Is it better that you can do it with an Impact template but not a DTW? @Hecaton’s implies approach of “change the Sat Zone Rules” is better than creating interpretational differences between two BS Attacks. Even then, buying your premise (that the DTW doesn’t require a target) why can I not place the templates in infinitesimally different positions so that the LOF of each burst through the Sat Zone is infinitesimally different and so must be considered different attacks? All three Troopers are still hit.
Interestingly enough. The idea that a direct template weapon has no enemy models as main targets but the ground instead actually makes them stronger against saturation zones, and not weaker. This is because you could just put them a non 0 distance apart, declare them against different targets (2 different points on the ground) and still end up hitting only enemy A twice through a saturation zone. This is counter to what everyone (imho correctly) plays as the attack requires a Main target, so you can't hit only enemy A twice through the zone. To shoot a twin chain rifle through a sat zone requires two enemy models to be in the template.
Omission is not the same as permission. BS Attack specifies you need a target. For the weapon to not need a target, it must explicitly say it does not need a target. Where in the Template Weapon rules or the traits of individual weapons does it say, explicitly, that you don't need an enemy as target? @Razi the burden of proof is entirely on you, because it is not possible to conclusively prove absence and it is you making the claim that challenges status quo. Also note that it's not sufficient to claim you have proven it, you need the proof to be conclusive enough to be convincing as well. Also remember that you need this proof to be consistent with Intuitive Attack, which I suggest you look up, and the FAQ from version 1.2 http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Template_Weapons_and_Equipment#FAQ It would also mean you can just shoot the ground and take 2-3 camo tokens with you without having to declare Intuitive Attack.
Yes, that's how Saturation Zones work, nothing is being 'bypassed'. If there are enough targets, you don't lose any shots. That's consistent across standard weapons, Impact Template Weapons and Direct Template Weapons. If you have a Combi Rifle and split Burst 3 across the three targets, you get full Burst. If you have a Light Rocket Launcher and Fireteam Burst bonus and split Burst 3 across the three targets, you get full Burst. If you have two Light Flamethrowers and Fireteam Burst bonus and split Burst 3 across the three targets, you get full Burst. If the templates overlap and catch someone more than once, that's not a rules issue, that's someone clumping troopers too close together when there are Template Weapons in use.
