1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Smoke - Going downward ?

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Arkhos94, Jun 27, 2019.

  1. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,572
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    In this we agree. Height just make it easier to do a demonstration on the table but doesn't affect the rules.
     
    Ogid likes this.
  2. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    In your examples, the impact is stacking over the surface rather than on the surface.

    If you were to shoot a shotgun shot at a S2 trooper for example, you couldn't impact it like this...

    [​IMG]
     
  3. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    2,804
    We have much more evidence that the template itself doesn't have a thickness/extend off of a surface than it does. Consider that:

    1) The rules entry says to place the template over the impact point for blast templates, supporting the idea that blast templates are 2D objects projected in 3D space.
    2) We know impact templates don't actually represent the template itself, but the 3D object created by rotating the template 360 degrees about its long dimension. So impact templates are also 2D objects projected in 3D space (following different rules for projection).
    3) The rules for impact templates start with "These weapons place a Template at the point of impact." -- not a point infinitesimally higher than the point of impact, but at the point itself, which means there's precedent for blast templates working the same way.

    And most importantly, the template rules state the following: "Templates used by Template Weapons and Equipment have a height equal to their radius or half their width (unless otherwise specified, as in the case of Smoke Special Ammunition,). To help determine the three-dimensional Area of Effect of a Template, add a second identical template perpendicular down the middle so the cross-section forms an X."

    This would indicate that a blast template has a thickness of 0 at its edge and any point beyond it -- or in other words, that the template itself has no height, since the AoE of the template is a perfect half sphere, not a half-sphere with a cylinder of infinitesimal height underneath -- since this shows it is a point that is created by contact between the surface and the blast template itself, there cannot be an angle between the template and the surface it is on, and by extension, the blast cannot extend downward.
     
    #63 meikyoushisui, Jun 28, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2019
  4. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    We are entering in rules lawyering territory. You can't give that answer to a player and call it a day.
    Now imagine that player arguments that he places the blast focus right in the corner, being the corner just the point where the horizontal and vertical surfaces meet, from that point it can be argued that LoF could be traced downwards. It could be both.

    My point is that this should be rulled officialy by CB, not by us tweaking the space and references until LoF may or may not be traced. If there is no way to get a perfect placement in the edge, then there is no point in this; the LoF cannot be traced downwards. If it can be placed in the edge then an official word about it if needed; because right now it's all about the point of reference you take. If you take the corner, you can trace LoF downwards, if you argue that the corner is not part of the horizontal surface or that the line have to "pierce" the horizontal surface then you cannot do it. In this point we need an official word.

    EDIT: However as i said before, it seems that the RAI is no downward LoF
    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/smoke-going-downward.33971/#post-265503
     
    #64 Ogid, Jun 28, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2019
  5. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    2,804
    You can't take an argument that sums up the reasoning behind the most well-supported side and just write it off as "rules lawyering" -- most of the support is in basic three dimensional geometry, and I don't really have the energy to explain it again.

    I would absolutely give that answer to a player with the caveat "pending FAQ." But for now, we need to rule it some way, and the way I presented has more support than any other side.
     
  6. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    I don't argue that the point has volume but rather that the point is immediately above the horizontal surface. I interpret 'on' to mean 'immediately superjacent'. That is, the point doesn't need volume it just needs not to be at the same plane as the object it rests on. Rather the the Blast Focus is infitessimally higher than the plane of the object it rests on.

    Re: Shotguns. The Blast Focus of a shotgun is, essentially, a rough sphere (IIRC of ~3mm diameter) and is placed inside the SIL of the target.

    My personal preference is for all Blast Focus' to be the same: a 3mm sphere. This BTW is what I actually think RAI is, but it's absolutely not supported by RAW.
     
  7. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    It's a good reasoned argument, I give you that. But there are ways to argue the LoF can be traced downwards; so trying to enforce that one IS rulles lawyering.
    However the RAI also seem to support the no LoF downwards, so I can buy the "pending FAQ" but let's play like this for now.
     
  8. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    You know, you're the first person to argue that the rules say AT the point of impact rather than ON the point of impact.

    My argument has always been based on the understanding that the Blast Focus is ON the point of impact (so infitessimally higher than the surface on which the weapon impacted).

    If it's AT the point of impact it doesn't hold up. As you say, that's basic geometry.

    Smoke can't go down.
     
    chromedog likes this.
  9. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    But the only reason to have it separate from the actual surface is if it has a volume that needs to be distinct from the surface due to physical constraints.

    Keep in mind, I'm not arguing *inside* here, but rather that an entity without any physical body can be a degree closer than f.ex. paint
     
  10. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Or because it's what I thought the rules described. I read 'on' as 'superjacent'. A point adjacent to a surface is not part of that surface, it is by definition distinct from it.

    While it's clear to me that the writers do actually conceive of the Blast Focus as something with volume (although the rules themselves don't), that's irrelevant, my argument has always been that the sphere described by the template is centred infitessimally above the surface that was targeted because it was centred on a point superjacent to and therefore distinct from that surface.

    I was wrong in that understanding, it is centred at the surface that was targeted and isn't distinct from that surface.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  11. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Where does it say that the Blast Focus has no height?
     
  12. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    2,804
    It doesn't directly state this, but it can be reasoned from a few things:

    1) Impact template weapons say to put the template at the point of impact, indicating the template starts at a point on the surface of impact, not above it.
    2) The rules that specify the placement of the blast template (quoted in a post by me above) indicate a blast template is a perfect half sphere, so the blast focus would be a part of the surface the blast template was placed on. 2b) Since the template has no height, the blast focus does not either.
    3) The rules do not specify a height for the blast focus, so we should assume that there is no height until proven otherwise (or if it having a height contradicts any other rules of course, but a 0-height blast focus is actually necessary for some of the rules to work, as shown above).
     
    BLOODGOD likes this.
  13. split-infinity

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    9
  14. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,572
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    Nowhere. The rules doesn't says what a blast focus is anywhere
     
  15. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Yes it does. It says that it's the centre of a template. We know that the template actually describes a sphere. The centre of a sphere is a volumeless point.
     
  16. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    The volumeness point is well reasoned RAW (even if makes no sense thematically, grenades aren't eactly zero volumen objects). But my point is that even assuming it, there is still ways to argue you can trace downwards LoF.
    If you choose for that volumeness point the corner (the point where horizontal meet vertical surface), you can trace a line from that point going downwards (and there is no rule that say the corner is illegal; and a point could be placed just there).
    Hence the need for the an official word about if perfect border placement is possible; and in the case that's possible, if the LoF could be traced downwards.

    The @ijw responses before make me think this is not an intended mechanic so they will probably rule either that you cannot achieve perfect placement (red arrow illegal in my case E) or that the blast focus can never trace LoF downwards the surface it is (the best way to do this is ruling that the LoF lines must "cross" the surface where the "blast point" is to be legal, not just have LoF to the point; doing this the tangent lines to the point placed just in the corner needed for the downward LoF wouln't be legal; however this would also have a buggy interaction so maybe just forbid the corner point at all).
    So right now RAW is debatable whether is possible or not (in fact with the tangent lines reasoning it can be rules lawyered), RAI points towards no. So let's play like it's a no until this is confirmed.
     
    #76 Ogid, Jun 29, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2019
  17. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,572
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    Nope, it's not "the center", it's "at the center". "At" is likely here for a reason

    If the blast focus is the size of the MAS marker, centered on the center of the template, it's "at the center"
     
  18. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    XDD this is going too far.

    (s)It make a lot of sense. I'm also sure the writter carefully evaluated all the option and choose the right wording like "at the center" instead of "the center" or "at the point of impact" instead of "a point infinitesimally higher than the point of impact". He totally set it up so we could make all this extrapolations and find the true meaning of these rules thanks to the no volumen point in (but never infinitesimally higher!) the point of impact! (/s)
     
  19. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,885
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    The blast focus is a point, and it is used to determine LoF from the blast to the targets, it has no volume and no height.
     
  20. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    Ty for the clarification.
    Is there any way to place that point in the corner of a rooftop so the blast focus let trace LoF downwards, or that is just never intended to happen? For the answers we got before from @ijw it doesn't seem intended, but clear that out beyond any doubt is the whole point of this thread.

    We have talked before about using speculative fire to place the blast focus off-center, but it would also required to being able to select just the target area (3x3 mm) right next to the border, which is also unclear whether is allowed.

    If that point is placed right in the corner, it could be argued that it can be used to trace LoF downwards. For example imagine that point is placed right in the corner like in the image bellow, being the corner the (0,0) in this cartesian coordinates; you could trace "LoF" to any of the green or organge dots.
    [​IMG]
    EDIT: the black line represent the 0 volumen points along the edge of the vertical and horizontal surface, please pardon my inability to represent 0 volumen objects with Paint.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation