[Xenon]

The "this" clearly shows it's the net hits on the unopposed bit that determine the DV.

By definition you can not have "net hits" on an unopposed roll.

Magician roll ONE threshold 3 test.
Reason for this is that Magician does not roll an Opposed roll for each target.
He only roll once.
Count the number of hits (not net hits as this is not an opposed roll, yet).

If he get more than 3 hits (not net hits) then DV might or might not increase on individual targets (if he get net hits against them).
If he get less than 3 hits (not net hits) then DV will not later increase on individual targets (if he get net hits against them). AoE will also scatter 2d6m minus number of hits.


Defenders roll. Defender count their hits.

Magician hits - defender hits = magician net hits.
This is net hits (not hits).
This is what will increase the DV if the magician originally got 3 or more hits on hits attack roll.

Just like the example on the same page.



but again. the rules as they are written are not correct according to Aaron.

[ZeConster]

The "this" clearly shows it's the net hits on the unopposed bit that determine the DV.

By definition you can not have "net hits" on an unopposed roll.

Yes you can. It's right there on page 45.

[Xenon]

The "this" clearly shows it's the net hits on the unopposed bit that determine the DV.

By definition you can not have "net hits" on an unopposed roll.

Yes you can. It's right there on page 45.

I stand corrected.
Thank you.

[Michael Chandra]

There clearly are multiple versions of the grenade/aoespell rules in the book, just like there's multiple versions of the troll/dwarf costs and a few more errors around. The example says A. The rules say B. They contradict, and there's evidence supporting either case. Given the fact the AoE spells themselves mention a threshold test and do not mention a dodge test in any way, it sounds like RAI was no dodge test, though the GenCon Agents might be more up to date with future intent or have gone for a temporal ruling awaiting an official one. But in Core, there are more pointers to no dodging than there are to dodging, even if they may change that in the future.

There is no Opposed Test when it comes to 'explosions', no matter whether they are technological or magical. The things pointing in the opposite are examples and tables, not written rules, so are more easily artefacts than the written statement of a threshold test. Occam's Razor sides with Bull's explanation from months ago, as much as I dislike it.Explosions do base damage which lessens over distance, Spells do damage based on how many hits they score above the 3 needed to place it without scatter, which is constant in the entire area.

Now apparently in GenCon they have been using a temporary ruling where a dodge test at a -2 penalty creates distance, since otherwise it's far too easy to create a total partywipe with grenades, and it means someone who gets really lucky on a dodge roll, or is a decent bit removed from the center, might totally avoid an indirect area spell. I like that quite a bit, though it begs the question of whether you can be aware of an AoE magic spell going off, and what happens if you do not spot the exploding grenade or realize an AoE spell is getting tossed your way.

The rules need errata to get rid of the artefacts, and in all fairness they need to do something about the lack of defense against AoE effects. But RAW does not support claims on dodging them more than support claims on not dodging them right now, and statements from multiple sources support the ruling you and I both dislike.

[DivideByZero]

There clearly are multiple versions of the grenade/aoespell rules in the book, just like there's multiple versions of the troll/dwarf costs and a few more errors around. The example says A. The rules say B. They contradict, and there's evidence supporting either case. Given the fact the AoE spells themselves mention a threshold test and do not mention a dodge test in any way, it sounds like RAI was no dodge test, though the GenCon Agents might be more up to date with future intent or have gone for a temporal ruling awaiting an official one. But in Core, there are more pointers to no dodging than there are to dodging, even if they may change that in the future.

There is no Opposed Test when it comes to 'explosions', no matter whether they are technological or magical. The things pointing in the opposite are examples and tables, not written rules, so are more easily artefacts than the written statement of a threshold test. Occam's Razor sides with Bull's explanation from months ago, as much as I dislike it.Explosions do base damage which lessens over distance, Spells do damage based on how many hits they score above the 3 needed to place it without scatter, which is constant in the entire area.

Now apparently in GenCon they have been using a temporary ruling where a dodge test at a -2 penalty creates distance, since otherwise it's far too easy to create a total partywipe with grenades, and it means someone who gets really lucky on a dodge roll, or is a decent bit removed from the center, might totally avoid an indirect area spell. I like that quite a bit, though it begs the question of whether you can be aware of an AoE magic spell going off, and what happens if you do not spot the exploding grenade or realize an AoE spell is getting tossed your way.

The rules need errata to get rid of the artefacts, and in all fairness they need to do something about the lack of defense against AoE effects. But RAW does not support claims on dodging them more than support claims on not dodging them right now, and statements from multiple sources support the ruling you and I both dislike.

Great summary, Michael.  I think our local team will be rolling with the GenCon ruling for now (as to avoid party wipes) for grenades and AoE spells, until some official errata comes out.

[Michael Chandra]

There's one thing you need to determine, DBZ: Should Spell Defense work against the spellcasting, as bonus on the GenCon-rule dodge, or as bonus on the soak test? It's a really tough decision, I have no idea which it should be on. On one hand, the explosion already is elemental and physical when it hits. On the other hand, magical acid doesn't stick around, so clearly there's still magic involved. So likely I'd rule it as bonus on the soak test, where it likely is the most valuable for the players.

[Xenon]

The fact you can have net hits on an unopposed roll made a lot of difference. Until now read the unopposed threshold roll as a roll the  thrower (or the magician) did just once. And then each target rolled against that to produce different net hits (like the example on p.283), but since an unopposed roll can have net hits per p.45  (thanks again for that link) then rules do promote the idea that you don't get a defense roll.

Great summary, Michael. 

+1