Targeting and templates

[hewhowalks]

I have a question that I can't figure out after looking through the BRB and the forum.

Lets say I have a Leman Russ equiped with a battle cannon and hull mounted heavy flamer. The tank has not moved. I have two enemy units, the first is directly in front of me one inch away, and the other is also in front of me, but 36" away.

Can I target all of my weapons on the unit which is 36" away, knowing my heavy flamer cannot reach, just so I can flame the other unit which is directly in front of me?

I say no, but I'm having a hard time backing up that claim. In the ranged combat section it says if a unit is out of range, the attack automatically misses the target unit, but it doesn't directly address firing-for-effect and burninating a completely different unit.

I could see someone argue that just because the target is out of range does not mean the weapon never fired, especially since you normally lose your shooting action if something is out of range.

Any help is appreciated.

[s_harrington]

Thats a really good question. There isn't a lot of specific rules to cover it.
I did find one on page 17 of the Rule Book.
Verbatim:

Any model that is found to be out of range of all of the models he can see in the target unit misses automatically - his shots simply do not reach.

With context:

Any model(from the firing unit) that is found to be out of range (with his weapon of choice) of all of the models he can see in the target unit (not counting ones in the way) misses automatically - his shots simply do not reach.

Although this only hints at it, its a good place to begin building your foundation for forming your own answer to a question without a definitive answer.

[Count Fenring]

The important thing here (It seems very clear to me btw) is the spirit of the game. You made your intentions clear to shoot the far unit. flamer is not in range, so can't use it. Now you can try to use another gun. I don't think there is a player alive that would allow you to try to fabricate and bend the rules the way you described. I simply would not give it to you. The far unit would also get a 4 save by your reckoning as they are outside template range anyway.

Now if you could split fire like those cheese speece woolves, or Tau, you would be golden:D

[Nabterayl]

S-Harrington has it right. Note that "template" is two things: it is the range of the weapon, and it is a special way to determine hits. Ordinarily people only focus on the second. However, in a case like this, the first is just as important. Since the target unit is out of the flamer's range (which range is given by "template" in the weapon's profile), page 17 comes into effect and the flamer is an automatic miss.

[Wildeybeast]

Obviously you can't do this.

1) You can only fire at a single unit, including 'accidentally'
2) The template rules on p29 state place the template with the narrow end touching the vehicle and 'the rest of the template cover[ing] as many models as possible in the target unit'. Since you can't put your template over any models in the target unit, you can't 'divert' it onto another unit as that would violate the rules about firing at more than one target. In the same vein you cannot place your template in such a way as to hit two units next to each other.
3) You have actually answered your own question by saying 'the attack automatically misses'. That means misses everyone, not 'diverts onto nearby unit'. The weapon fired, but the firer obviously did something stupid like get knocked by a bump in the ground and jet it harmlessly into the air.
GW did not feel it necessary to add such caveats into the rules as the assumed no one would be beardy enough to try this. :D

[Nabterayl]

To clarify the possible objection you alluded to in your OP ...

It's true that one could argue that "automatic miss" shouldn't mean that the weapon never fired, but that actually is what it means. The situation is analogous to targeting a battle cannon at a model 76" away - the shot is an automatic miss, and no blast marker is placed (page 30) - even though if you had targeted a model 70" away and the marker had scattered to the model 76" away, the marker would be placed.

[Tynskel]

yes, even though some feel this is dumb that the shot 'missed', but I really hate warmachine for people abusing blast weapons that automatically miss.

[Caldera02]

These are correct interpretations of the rules. Now what you can do along those lines though is say squad A is one inch away and B is five inches. Target B with both templates. The flame template will hit both squads.

[hewhowalks]

Thanks for all the input. Even my most beardy friends and I wouldn't try to pull something like this. I think it's worth discussion in the event that some weirdo attmepted it at a tourney.

I know it's wrong, but it's good to know specifically why.

thanks again

[Wildeybeast]

These are correct interpretations of the rules. Now what you can do along those lines though is say squad A is one inch away and B is five inches. Target B with both templates. The flame template will hit both squads.

You can do this with the blast template, but not the flame one. The blast template allows you to pick out a single model in a squad, so you could postion it in a such a way that it hits two sqauds. The flame template specifies that you must place it covering as many models as possible in the target squad, ergo you are not allowed to place it covering models not in the target squad.

[Hive Mind]

In the example given by Caldera you can place it so that it covers the maximum amount of models possible in the target unit and have it covering models in another unit as well.

You can't place it so that it only covers, say, two models in the target unit and hits another unit if it's possible to place the template over three models in the target unit but that means you won't hit the other squad as well. However, if you can only hit two models in the target unit no matter where you place the template you can place it so that it hits another unit as well.

[Wildeybeast]

I disagree entirely, the rules seem clear to me that you can only target one unit with the flame template. GW hasn't felt it necessary to add in that caveat, since it's already been covered under the only fire at one unit rule. If you cannot place the template in such a way that it does not touch models from another unit, then tough.
But hey, that's my interpretation, I can see where you are coming from with that one, but it does not seem in the spirit of the rules to me and as such I would not let you play that way. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Hive Mind]

p29 of the Rulebook; "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit."

You can only target one unit with the template, but so long as you fulfil the requirement to have the template covering as many models as possible in the target unit any models in another unit "fully or partially under the template are hit" also.

[Hive Mind]

I also question that the Heavy Flamer in the example given by the OP has no effect on the unit directly in front of the tank. There's nothing in the rules to say that. Yes, the target unit is out of range and thus unaffected but the template has been placed to hit the maximum number of models possible in the target unit. By RAW it is immaterial that the maximum number of models is zero models. Accordingly models "fully or partially under the template" in the unit not targetted "are hit".

Further, it is nonsensical to suggest that the flame template causes no damage to non-targetted unit.

"Erm, sarge we're about to get flamed!"
"Nonsense Jenkins, that tank is not targetting us."
"Yeah but sarge, that's a big wall of flame coming directly at us."
"Did you not hear me stupid boy? These flames currently licking all around us are not targetted at us thus we are immune to their effect!"
"..."

[Hive Mind]

I disagree entirely, the rules seem clear to me that you can only target one unit with the flame template. GW hasn't felt it necessary to add in that caveat, since it's already been covered under the only fire at one unit rule. If you cannot place the template in such a way that it does not touch models from another unit, then tough.
But hey, that's my interpretation, I can see where you are coming from with that one, but it does not seem in the spirit of the rules to me and as such I would not let you play that way. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

How about the reverse situation then, if you target a unit whose furthest model is 4" away with a flamer and the template (obviously) extends past this unit and covers models in a unit 7" away also, are the models in the second unit not hit?

[Wildeybeast]

By RAW it is immaterial that the maximum number of models is zero models.


Really? The OED describes zero as "no quantity or number; the lowest possible amount or level; nothing at all" and maximum as "the greatest amount, extent, or intensity possible, permitted". Therefore, you cannot possibly say nothing is the maximum of anything, nothing is precisely that, nothing. You cannot place the flame template in such a way that it touches no models in the target unit, if you cannot place it touching at least one model, it doesn't fire/automatically misses, it does not hit anyone else.

[Hive Mind]

Semantics. You have placed the template so that it covers the largest amount of models in the target unit possible. It does not matter that the largest amount possible is zero, the flamer still fires and any model under the template is hit, per p29 of the Rulebook.

[thecactusman17]

At my FLGS, the question has been answered thusly: Template models must be placed to hit the maximum number of models in the target squad. If the maximum number is reached and the template can hit/harm other units, that is 100% OK. If the target unit is out of range, that is also OK. Place the flamer template so that it is pointed directly at the nearest model in the target unit. If there are enemy models under the template at this time, then those models are hit. You may not wiggle around--you must point the template in the straightest line possible to hit your opponent.

There is a singular exception: Vehicles like the Hellhound are not required to declare a target with their ranged template, because the rules for the weapons allow you to place the template anywhere within 12"

[DarkLink]

Wildeybeast is flat-out wrong about not being able to hit multiple units. So long as you hit as many models as possible in the unit you are targeting, you can hit as many other enemy units as you want.

[Nabterayl]

By RAW it is immaterial that the maximum number of models is zero models. Accordingly models "fully or partially under the template" in the unit not targetted "are hit".
It is indeed immaterial that the maximum number of models is zero models. What is material is that the target unit is out of range and thus the shot is an "automatic miss."

[dannyat2460]

Page 17

Check Range

All weapons have a maximum effective range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot if a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot MISSES automaticaly................. Any model that is found to be out of range of all the models in the TARGET unit MISSES automaticaly.

[Hive Mind]

The language in the 'range' sections of the Rulebook is not appropriate for template weapons, instead they have their own method for divining range and hits inflicted, on p29. That method states only that the template must be placed in such a manner that it covers the numerically largest amount of models in the target unit as is possible. It then states that "[a]ny models fully or partially under the template are hit". My emphasis of course.

In the OP example then, you place the template so that it covers as many models in the target unit as possible. It will of course not cover any of them. However, the template has been placed in order to maximise the number of hits on the target unit in accordance with the rules and so any models under the template, fully or partially, are hit.

[dannyat2460]

Name Range Strength AP
Flamer Template 4 5

No im pretty sure it has a range just a special type

[Hive Mind]

I didn't say it doesn't have a range.

[dannyat2460]

so i bring to your attention this extract

if a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot MISSES automaticaly

[Hive Mind]

Misses the target unit, yes.

[dannyat2460]

Misses the target unit, yes.

RAW does not say misses target unit it just says it misses

[Hive Mind]

What does 'miss' mean in this context?

[dannyat2460]

there are no hits.

a good example of what is ment here is in the blast rules,

page 30

Blasts

.......................
If the hole at the center of the marker is beyond the wapons maximum range, the shot automaticaly misses, and the marker is removed.

[Hive Mind]

'Miss' means that no hits are inflicted on the target unit. That's all. In the case of a template weapon, all that is required is that the template is placed in such a manner to maximise the number of hits on the target unit. If the largest number of hits that can be caused on the target unit is zero then placing the template so that no models in the target unit are hit satisfies this requirement. The template has been placed lawfully, if ineffectively. Then you move onto the next component of the template rules which says that any models under the template are hit. Any models. If models from a unit other than the one targetted are under the template, they are hit.

Rules for blast weapons are irrelevant, blast weapons are not template weapons.

[dannyat2460]

'Miss' means that no hits are inflicted on the target unit.

where does it say that in the rule book?



Rules for blast weapons are irrelevant, blast weapons are not template weapons.

i know that thats why i said its a good example, not this is the rules

[Hive Mind]

'Miss' is not defined in the Rulebook.

[dannyat2460]

'Miss' is not defined in the Rulebook.

so we have to use the english dictonarys definition of it

miss/mis/
Verb: Fail to hit, reach, or come into contact with something

[Nabterayl]

'Miss' means that no hits are inflicted on the target unit. That's all.
Can you prove that? It does not so mean in the case of blast weapons.


so we have to use the english dictonarys definition of it

miss/mis/
Verb: Fail to hit, reach, or come into contact with something
Not at all. We have to deduce the meaning of "miss" from the way it is used in the rulebook, notwithstanding the fact that the rulebook has not seen fit to give us a sentence to the effect of, "When used in this rulebook, the word 'miss' means ..."

We have at least one example in which "miss" means more than "no hits are inflicted on the target unit." What evidence have we that the meaning of miss in the rulebook should be restricted to hits inflicted on the target unit?

[dannyat2460]

wasnt saying we should ristrict it from meaning both just in this case it says misses. that to me means it misses everything.

[Hive Mind]

'Miss' and variants is/are only ever used in the Rulebook when no hits are inflicted on a target unit, even in the (irrelevant) rules for blast weapons. To 'miss' with a blast weapon the centre hole must be out of range or off the table, thus causing no hits on the target unit.

To miss, there has to be a target. You cannot miss something in this context unless you are aiming at it. Thus, Rulebook usage of the term coupled with logic dictates that 'miss' means no hits are inflicted on the target unit.

[dannyat2460]

Maybe so but as you say we cant prove eather way so it is now irrelavent, what we are worrying about however is a target unit been out of range, what your saying is that if this is the case you fire it anyway and hit another unit in effect allowing you to target 2 or more units without actualy targiting more than one.

now im against this as an idea and as we know the 40k rules desire some one who has more than a basic idea of english (and as you need at least an A-level in english to work for gw as a writer) more than a basic understanding of the game.

[Hive Mind]

Hitting two (or more) units with one flamer shot, de facto multi-targetting, is not a novel concept.

[dannyat2460]

ive seen it done but ive only ever allowed it within the rules e.g. hitting at least one model in the target squad

[dannyat2460]

Ok quick question then you have a 10 man marine squad that 9 of them have bolters and one has a flamer and he is positioned to the far right of the squad.

the squad targets a unit 11" to there fronts and fires there bolters the flamer been out of range of the targeted squad misses ((in your words)the targeted squad) but finds a squad within 3" that is in range and as such hits 5 models in that squad

is this legal?

[Hive Mind]

If the squad being flamed is nowhere near the general direction of the squad initially targetted then it's a dick move but it's legal, yes.

[dannyat2460]

Ok I disagree but next question

a mob of 30 burna boyz all with burnaz is surrounded by 30 units all consisting of one man (unlikerly i know but stay with me) the squad targets a squad 36" away so none of the weapons in the squad are in range of the target unit ((in your words) missing the target unit) and as such the template weapons are able to target any unit in range and as such the 30 burnas score 1 hit each on 30 different squads.

Is this legal?

[Hive Mind]

Aside from the numbers (and the level of dickery) involved that's exactly the same as your previous scenario, so yes.

[dannyat2460]

ive just got the perfect reply to that of the movie im watching

"you dont know how to play"

[Hive Mind]

I think it's more the case that the people I play with would never think to try and pull the type of move you've outlined. Fun and 'spirit of the game' is much more important to us than WAAC is. Someone trying to do the things you've outlined would not be invited back.

To us, flaming a unit that is directly in your line of fire is permissible and entirely different to flaming a unit totally out of the line of fire of the rest of the unit, even though both are strictly legal by RAW.

[dannyat2460]

You see i would disagree alowing the flamer to shoot as a different squad to the rest of his unit is against the rules entirly you have to be in range of the target unit to fire the weapon

its just if another unit gets in the way the template dosnt care

[Tynskel]

I don't understand where people are coming up with being able to shoot two units. All of your weapons that are firing have to be in range:

ex.
Space Marine combat squad: 4 Bolters, 1 Missile Launcher. Target unitA is 30" away. The Missile Launcher can fire, but the Bolters cannot. Nor do they get to shoot a unitB that is in the path of the 30" away unitA.

These same rules apply to ALL weapons. Template weapons have a range of 'Template'.

[dannyat2460]

I don't understand where people are coming up with being able to shoot two units. All of your weapons that are firing have to be in range:

ex.
Space Marine combat squad: 4 Bolters, 1 Missile Launcher. Target unitA is 30" away. The Missile Launcher can fire, but the Bolters cannot. Nor do they get to shoot a unitB that is in the path of the 30" away unitA.

so why do template weapons get to do it then

[Nabterayl]

'Miss' and variants is/are only ever used in the Rulebook when no hits are inflicted on a target unit, even in the (irrelevant) rules for blast weapons.
That's untrue. As you yourself appear to be aware, if you target the center hole of a blast marker beyond the maximum range of the weapon, no hits are inflicted on any unit. You don't even get to roll to scatter; it's as if the weapon never fired, because the shot is an "automatic miss."

You're suggesting that "miss," by itself, implies a specific target and thus a shot can be an "automatic miss" and still hit things. I'm suggesting that "miss," by itself, implies that everything and anything is a target, and thus a shot that is an "automatic miss" cannot hit anything. Which usage does page 30 seem closer to?

[Hive Mind]

Well I'll just make up some total BS about strategic versus tactical. That should shut you up.

[Tynskel]

Well I'll just make up some total BS about strategic versus tactical. That should shut you up.

Go ahead. Try use the words in the rulebook to do it.

[Tynskel]

so why do template weapons get to do it then

The whole point is that they cannot.

The only reason that the flamer gets to fire is because it is in range of the target unit.

[dannyat2460]

That's untrue. As you yourself appear to be aware, if you target the center hole of a blast marker beyond the maximum range of the weapon, no hits are inflicted on any unit. You don't even get to roll to scatter; it's as if the weapon never fired, because the shot is an "automatic miss."

You're suggesting that "miss," by itself, implies a specific target and thus a shot can be an "automatic miss" and still hit things. I'm suggesting that "miss," by itself, implies that everything and anything is a target, and thus a shot that is an "automatic miss" cannot hit anything. Which usage does page 30 seem closer to?

Thats what i was trying to say



Well I'll just make up some total BS about strategic versus tactical. That should shut you up.

go on then make up some BS about strategic versus tactical, ill pick holes in that argument also

[Nabterayl]

Well I'll just make up some total BS about strategic versus tactical. That should shut you up.

go on then make up some BS about strategic versus tactical, ill pick holes in that argument also

That was uncalled for, guys. If you can only be bothered to be civil when speaking with people who don't irritate you, would you do me the favor of letting me know?

Alternatively, Hive Mind, if you intended to imply that when the rulebook doesn't define a word, and we find ourselves needing to know the exact meaning of that word, we should not turn to a dictionary but rather to the rulebook, how does page 30 square with your proposition that "miss" only ever means that you miss the target?

[dannyat2460]

That was uncalled for, guys. If you can only be bothered to be civil when speaking with people who don't irritate you, would you do me the favor of letting me know??

Sorry 02:10 here little tired and im not a morning person lol will try to remain civil

[Hive Mind]

That's untrue. As you yourself appear to be aware, if you target the center hole of a blast marker beyond the maximum range of the weapon, no hits are inflicted on any unit. You don't even get to roll to scatter; it's as if the weapon never fired, because the shot is an "automatic miss."


No hits being inflicted on any unit necessarily means that no hits are inflicted on the target unit.



You're suggesting that "miss," by itself, implies a specific target and thus a shot can be an "automatic miss" and still hit things. I'm suggesting that "miss," by itself, implies that everything and anything is a target, and thus a shot that is an "automatic miss" cannot hit anything. Which usage does page 30 seem closer to?

No, that's a misunderstanding of what I'm saying, respectfully. A shot cannot hit anything if it is an automatic miss, that much is clear from the rules. I am saying that the rules for placing it make it clear that you can place the template even if the target unit is out of range and therefore any models under it are hit. There is a distinction in the rules between 'normal' ranged attacks that fire a projectile and template weapons.

It's a distinction that makes logical sense too. In the case of, say, a boltgun, the projectile simply tumbles to the ground and does not reach it's intended target. A cloud of burning promethium would still envelop a closer unit even if the target unit was beyond its reach.

[Hive Mind]

T
Alternatively, Hive Mind, if you intended to imply that when the rulebook doesn't define a word, and we find ourselves needing to know the exact meaning of that word, we should not turn to a dictionary but rather to the rulebook, how does page 30 square with your proposition that "miss" only ever means that you miss the target?

I don't really know what about p30 you want me to acknowledge to be honest. The two rules-related uses of 'miss' that in both cases are used when no hits are inflicted on the target unit?

I don't really see any relevance to the issue at hand in the rules for blast weapons.

[Tynskel]

Nabterayl,

You still need to use a dictionary, then use the context of the passage of the rulebook. The dictionary has the foundational meanings (plural) of words, and the context is what we use to determine individual meaning.

The point is, you have to use both because the rulebook is fundamentally constructed from words out of a dictionary.

This is why I am fine with Hive Mind and dannyat2460 trying to justify their work within the context of the rulebook.
However, no matter how much they try, the meaning of miss within the context of the rulebook only means to 'failure to hit the target'.

They will not be able to use the context of the rulebook to make the word 'miss' mean 'a title of respect for an unmarried woman'.

[Tynskel]

I don't really know what about p30 you want me to acknowledge to be honest. The two rules-related uses of 'miss' that in both cases are used when no hits are inflicted on the target unit?

I don't really see any relevance to the issue at hand in the rules for blast weapons.

You have forgotten one crucial part--- you may only fire your weapon if your weapon is within range of the target unit.

[dannyat2460]

Thats not what the template rules say at all, you seem to be missing out that like all weapons the template weapons have a range and as such must still conform with the rules set by the range section of the rule book which state if the weapon is out of range it misses, as it dosnt say any specific thing it misses we have to asume its a blank that means anything and everything.

And if you want a logical debate it is also logical that a squad listens to its commander and does exactly as its told no questions so if its told to shoot at that unit it will shoot at that unit and only that unit

[Hive Mind]

You have forgotten one crucial part--- you may only fire your weapon if your weapon is within range of the target unit.

Is that so? How then is that a miss? How do you miss without taking a shot?

[Tynskel]

Is that so? How then is that a miss? How do you miss without taking a shot?

The construction of the rules are such that a unit that automatically misses does not fire. ie, the Missile Laucher blast marker disappears. Or, the unit may not fire such weapon, ie the Bolter is out of range and cannot fire.

The Template must be in range to attempt to fire.

[Nabterayl]

It's a distinction that makes logical sense too. In the case of, say, a boltgun, the projectile simply tumbles to the ground and does not reach it's intended target. A cloud of burning promethium would still envelop a closer unit even if the target unit was beyond its reach.
I disagree that there's a consistent principle at work here. A battle cannon with a range of 72" is plainly capable of hitting a model up to 83.5" away (72" range + 12" scatter - BS3 + 2.5" marker radius). But if it tries to hit a model 83.5" away, the projectile ... what? Is assumed to be a dud? Is never fired? There's no game world-logical reason why a blast weapon targeted beyond its maximum range has a 0% chance to hit anything, when a blast weapon targeted within its maximum range has a 100% chance to hit something. Flamers that fail to hit things that are directly in front of them make no less sense than that.

I get that this is, in game world terms, a silly outcome. When the tank commander says "Tank, twelve degrees, five hundred meters," it makes logical sense that the driver would ignore that and engage the infantry that is only twenty meters away. But it also makes logical sense that the sponson gunners would engage that infantry too, and they just ... don't.


No, that's a misunderstanding of what I'm saying, respectfully. A shot cannot hit anything if it is an automatic miss, that much is clear from the rules. I am saying that the rules for placing it make it clear that you can place the template even if the target unit is out of range and therefore any models under it are hit.
Ah, I see what you mean now. In that case, I disagree with you still, but on different grounds. The template rules do not say, "When making a shooting attack with a template weapon, simply place the template ..." What they say, instead, is "Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template ..."

But to get to the to-hit roll, the target unit must be in range. As page 15 makes clear, rolling to hit is a separate step from checking range, and the template weapon rules only purport to replace the to hit roll. I disagree that "Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template" can be read to mean, "Instead of checking range, simply place the template."


Is that so? How then is that a miss? How do you miss without taking a shot?
That depends. Are we consulting the dictionary, or the rulebook? If the latter - which I believe is your preferred approach, as it is mine - then very plainly one can miss (or, if you prefer, Miss) without taking a shot, or more accurately one can Miss and have the exact same chance of causing harm as one would have had without taking a shot (e.g., a Storm Eagle rocket that was targeted at a point beyond 120" away would not get to place any blast markers, because it was an "automatic miss," but it would still count as having fired for purposes of the Limited Ammunition rule).

[dannyat2460]

I disagree that there's a consistent principle at work here. A battle cannon with a range of 72" is plainly capable of hitting a model up to 83.5" away (72" range + 12" scatter - BS3 + 2.5" marker radius). But if it tries to hit a model 83.5" away, the projectile ... what? Is assumed to be a dud? Is never fired? There's no game world-logical reason why a blast weapon targeted beyond its maximum range has a 0% chance to hit anything, when a blast weapon targeted within its maximum range has a 100% chance to hit something. Flamers that fail to hit things that are directly in front of them make no more less sense than that.

I get that this is, in game world terms, a silly outcome. When the tank commander says "Tank, twelve degrees, five hundred meters," it makes logical sense that the driver would ignore that and engage the infantry that is only twenty meters away. But it also makes logical sense that the sponson gunners would engage that infantry too, and they just ... don't.


Ah, I see what you mean now. In that case, I disagree with you still, but on different grounds. The template rules do not say, "When making a shooting attack with a template weapon, simply place the template ..." What they say, instead, is "Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template ..."

But to get to the to-hit roll, the target unit must be in range. As page 15 makes clear, rolling to hit is a separate step from checking range, and the template weapon rules only purport to replace the to hit roll. I disagree that "Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template" can be read to mean, "Instead of checking range, simply place the template."


That depends. Are we consulting the dictionary, or the rulebook? If the latter - which I believe is your preferred approach, as it is mine - then very plainly one can miss (or, if you prefer, Miss) without taking a shot, or more accurately one can Miss and have the exact same chance of causing harm as one would have had without taking a shot (e.g., a Storm Eagle rocket that was targeted at a point beyond 120" away would not get to place any blast markers, because it was an "automatic miss," but it would still count as having fired for purposes of the Limited Ammunition rule).

Well it looks like im not needed here any more the dual might of chapter masters Nabterayl and Tynsel have made this veteran sgt obselete lol

[Hive Mind]

The construction of the rules are such that a unit that automatically misses does not fire. ie, the Missile Laucher blast marker disappears. Or, the unit may not fire such weapon, ie the Bolter is out of range and cannot fire.

The Template must be in range to attempt to fire.

Another fine example of simply making things up to suit.


I disagree that there's a consistent principle at work here. A battle cannon with a range of 72" is plainly capable of hitting a model up to 83.5" away (72" range + 12" scatter - BS3 + 2.5" marker radius). But if it tries to hit a model 83.5" away, the projectile ... what? Is assumed to be a dud? Is never fired? There's no game world-logical reason why a blast weapon targeted beyond its maximum range has a 0% chance to hit anything, when a blast weapon targeted within its maximum range has a 100% chance to hit something. Flamers that fail to hit things that are directly in front of them make no more less sense than that.


I would agree that it is illogical that the marker is simply disregarded, however that is what the rules plainly tell us and so we are bound by them.



Ah, I see what you mean now. In that case, I disagree with you still, but on different grounds. The template rules do not say, "When making a shooting attack with a template weapon, simply place the template ..." What they say, instead, is "Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template ..."

But to get to the to-hit roll, the target unit must be in range. As page 15 makes clear, rolling to hit is a separate step from checking range, and the template weapon rules only purport to replace the to hit roll. I disagree that "Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template" can be read to mean, "Instead of checking range, simply place the template."

Being out of range does not mean that the template cannot be placed, on the contrary the template must be placed to measure the range. Check Range says that out-of-range attacks 'miss'. It does not say that they have no effect. Obviously non-template attacks cannot have any effect if they miss because they cannot affect a non-targetted unit. Templates can. The template misses the target unit and cause no hits on them but models in another unit under the template can still be hit.

Your Storm Eagle example plainly demonstrates, as do other game mechanics, that a unit that 'misses' has still fired. In the context of a flamer, that means a burning sheet of promethium directed straight at the non-targetted unit.

[dannyat2460]

Being out of range does not mean that the template cannot be placed, on the contrary the template must be placed to measure the range. Check Range says that out-of-range attacks 'miss'. It does not say that they have no effect.

This is what you do to shoot.

1:Check line of sight and pick target
2:check range
3:roll to hit
4:roll to wound
5:take saving throws
6:remove casulties

we need to consentrate on numbers 2 and 3

1st you check range by putting the template on the battle field and seeing if target unit is in range
2nd if it is you then add the ammount of hits to the roll to wound pile

you are combining these two seperate stages into one

[Hive Mind]

Never mind. Misunderstanding on my part.

[dannyat2460]

How do you check range when firing a template? Oh right, you place the template on the table.

Yes you do this is checking if you are in range of the target unit which you arnt, so you automaticaly miss and as such dont get to roll to hit (even if with template weapons you automaticaly hit models under the temlplate) you dont score any hits so cant roll to wound any other units.

Look at it like this you place the template to check range, you then pick the templare up and measure the other weapons with a measure. You then roll to hit with the other weapons and put the template back down this time adearing to the normal rules for templates must be over most models ext and add them to the "to wound" roll with the other hits.

you can not combine measuring range and rolling to hit together in this case as its breaking the rules normaly it is done to speed the game up but in this case it will break the rules

[Nabterayl]

How do you check range when firing a template? Oh right, you place the template on the table.
Of course you do. If the target is in range, you may then proceed to roll to hit, and the template rules will tell you not to do that and place the template again.

What is the sequence of events for firing a template weapon?

I propose that it is this:
Check that the target is in line of sight.
Check that the target is in range.
Check number of hits inflicted.
Check number of hits that inflict wounds or glancing or penetrating hits.
Check number of wounds or glancing/penetrating hits that are saved.
Remove casualties and roll on the vehicle damage table.
You may not proceed from step two to step three if the target is out of range any more than you may proceed from step one to step two if the target is not in line of sight. This is the same sequence of events that all shooting attacks follow. The template rules give us special instructions for step three, but they say nothing about step two, or about skipping step two, or about conflating steps two and three. On what basis do you propose that we are instructed to do so?

[Hive Mind]

Yes you do this is checking if you are in range of the target unit which you arnt, so you automaticaly miss and as such dont get to roll to hit (even if with template weapons you automaticaly hit models under the temlplate) you dont score any hits so cant roll to wound any other units.

Look at it like this you place the template to check range, you then pick the templare up and measure the other weapons with a measure. You then roll to hit with the other weapons and put the template back down this time adearing to the normal rules for templates must be over most models ext and add them to the "to wound" roll with the other hits.

you can not combine measuring range and rolling to hit together in this case as its breaking the rules normaly it is done to speed the game up but in this case it will break the rules

You miss the target unit. The template is on the table and models are underneath it. Ergo, they are hit.

Unfortunately I am in the same timezone as Wakefield (is McDermott's still alive?) and so I must now retire.

TBC.

[Tynskel]

No, placing the template to check range is not firing, this is still the check range phase. You then 'fire' the template in the next step, at which point, you would adjust the template to 'cover as many models as possible'.

This is the same thing as taking out your measuring tape and measuring from the bolter to the target model. If you are out of range you do not fire.

[s_harrington]

Disclaimer: The words in all caps are not to emphasize a point but are direct quotes from the rulebook, where they are in all caps as well. Don't read to far into the capitalization. Thanks


"All weapons have a maximum effective range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot. If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically."

I find this an interesting quote from the rules as it might apply to this discussion.

It plainly says if your target is out of range, the shot misses. It does not say the shot misses the target, it says
the shot misses. Period.

Consideration must be given to templates though. It clearly says that you skip the "ROLL TO HIT" section of the rules. But if we look on page 17, we see that "CHECK RANGE" is not part of the "ROLL TO HIT" section. It, in fact, preceded it in order of shooting.
You never actually get to the "ROLL TO HIT" step of the shooting sequence, and thus cannot take advantage of the templates special rules.
The shooting sequence can be found on page 15 if you would like to review it.
...Back to "CHECK RANGE"...
A template weapon is special in that it's range is 'template'. Thus you measure with the template. Just because it's not in inches does not invalidate the entire "CHECK RANGE" section of the rule book.

Does your template hit the target you were aiming for? No?
"the shot misses automatically"Did you hit intervening units? No, not because the template wasn't on them, but because the rules say
"the shot misses automatically"



Non Relevant Musings:
Now had it said you missed the target unit, I would be obliged to grant that a template weapon could hit intervening units, but in this case it does not say that. It's very global in saying it just plain missed.

I think a lot of the problem comes from the mixing of real world and game world mechanics.

Realworld: A flamethrower would wash over those in the way between the gunner and his target.
Gameworld: This type of thing is not included.

Realworld: Fire a smith and wesson through a crowd at a tree in the distance, and don't have enough velocity to hit the tree, you can still hit the people in the way.
Gameworld: You fire a bolter through intervening units at a target that is found to be out of range, you never hit the models in the way. (It should be said that there are rules for this in Necromunda though!)

[Nabterayl]

Agreed with the various foregoing. Hive Mind is assuming that placing the template to check range and placing the template instead of rolling to hit are the same thing, but I see nothing in the rules to suggest that. Perhaps when he wakes up he can tell us what he sees.

[Hive Mind]

I've told you what I see several times. Repeating irrelevant parts of p17 back to me ad nauseum doesn't change anything.

It is nothing less than fabrication to suggest that a unit which is out of range of its target does not fire. There is not a thing in the rules to suggest as much and several things that flat-out contradict such an assertion. Placing the template on the table is firing the flamer. Yes, it is out of range and misses automatically but that is only describing the relationship between the attack and the target unit as 'miss' is only ever used in the Rulebook where an attack fails to inflict hits on the target unit. The rules for blast weapons, while being totally irrelevant to template weapons, support this rather than countermand it as some of you have suggested. Meanwhile, per p29, "[a]ny models fully or partially under the template are hit." Models under the template that has to be placed on the table. Normal ranged attacks are not capable of affecting a non-targetted unit (you'll note that a scattering blast weapon is not described as a 'miss') while it is established that a template weapon is capable of affecting non-targetted units. It does not matter that the template cannot cover any models in the target unit, all that matters is that it is placed to cover as many models in that unit as possible. If it is not possible to place it covering any models in the target unit then placing it so that it covers none of them is a legal placement and any models covered are hit, per p29. It is as plain as day.

I cannot put it in any clearer terms and am already getting mighty sick of simply repeating what I've already said. I am not Tynskel and droning on repetitively and endlessly does not appeal to me.

[Nabterayl]

It is nothing less than fabrication to suggest that a unit which is out of range of its target does not fire.
Agreed.


Placing the template on the table is firing the flamer.
The only way I can see for this to be true is if you conflate rolling to hit, or measuring range (which are the only two situations in which you should ever place a template) with firing a weapon. I think it's clear that the rules don't think that way.


Yes, it is out of range and misses automatically but that is only describing the relationship between the attack and the target unit as 'miss' is only ever used in the Rulebook where an attack fails to inflict hits on the target unit. The rules for blast weapons, while being totally irrelevant to template weapons, support this rather than countermand it as some of you have suggested.
I don't see how this is true. Is it not true that if a blast weapon is targeted beyond the weapon's maximum range, or a barrage weapon firing indirectly is targeted inside the weapon's minimum range, the shot is an "automatic miss," and such a shot fails to inflict hits not only on the target unit but on any unit? Is that not a case in which the word "miss" is used to describe a situation in which a weapon that has the potential to hit more units than the target unit hits no units at all, rather than just the target unit?


Normal ranged attacks are not capable of affecting a non-targetted unit (you'll note that a scattering blast weapon is not described as a 'miss')
That is untrue. As page 30 says, "If the target is in range, the large area affected by the blast means it's going to be very hard to miss completely .... If the shot scatters so that the hole in the centre of the marker is beyond the table's edge, the shot is a complete miss ..." Scattering definitely is described as a miss, either a complete miss (in the case of scattering beyond the table's edge) or an incomplete miss (in the case of scattering anywhere else). C.f. page 60, under The centre of the blast marker ends outside the vehicle, but part of the marker covers its hull.

Just to be clear, you are suggesting that a shot that is an "automatic miss" may in fact inflict hits upon one or more models?


Meanwhile, per p29, "[a]ny models fully or partially under the template are hit." Models under the template that has to be placed on the table. .... It is as plain as day.

What are you looking at that makes you think template weapons do not have to check range but instead go straight to rolling to hit?

[incenerate101]

Hive Mind you are right in what you are saying but what you are missing is to shoot you must declare a target even with a template weapon you must first designate what unit you are shooting at before placing the template. In the rulebook it says you must declare your target. If a unit is between you and your targeted unit and the template does not touch the unit you designated as being targeted by the flamer then your shot in null and void because your designated target is out of the range of weapon. Which is also stated by the rules as a "miss" It does not matter if you touch another model or unit with your template, you must beable to fire your template weapon and TOUCH your previously designated target or it misses anything else it touches anyway.

This also means you cannot fire at the closer unit if your previously targeted unit was out of range and you have already measured your range/placed your template. Saying that your hitting a unit you didnt designate as your target is switching targets which units cannot change targets after measuring range. This is also stated in the rulebook.

[incenerate101]

What are you looking at that makes you think template weapons do not have to check range but instead go straight to rolling to hit? Template weapons do not roll to hit. Blast templates must scatter which is rolling to hit, and placing the template for flamers is the actual "to hit" phase of shooting.

[Wildeybeast]

Hive mind, you seem to be labouring under the misaprehension that zero is a number. it is not. it is the complete absence of any numerical value, either positive or negative. it is literally nothing.

So look again at the wording of the template. it is quite clear that you must place the template covering the maximum amount of models in the target unit. Maximum means some sort of numerical value, (i.e 1 or above), zero is not a numerical value. Zero cannot be the maximum of anything. So, as you cannot place the template covering any models in the target unit, you cannot place the template on the tabl at all. Thus you cannot use it to hit another squad.

[Hive Mind]

I don't see how this is true. Is it not true that if a blast weapon is targeted beyond the weapon's maximum range, or a barrage weapon firing indirectly is targeted inside the weapon's minimum range, the shot is an "automatic miss," and such a shot fails to inflict hits not only on the target unit but on any unit? Is that not a case in which the word "miss" is used to describe a situation in which a weapon that has the potential to hit more units than the target unit hits no units at all, rather than just the target unit?


Yes it is true that a blast weapon which misses fails to inflict hits in any unit. However, this can be distinguished by the fact that the rules for blast weapons explicitly provide for such a scenario whereas rules for template weapons do not. Further, blast weapons are not template weapons and template weapons are not 'normal' ranged attacks and the rules for one do not translate to the other.



That is untrue. As page 30 says, "If the target is in range, the large area affected by the blast means it's going to be very hard to miss completely .... If the shot scatters so that the hole in the centre of the marker is beyond the table's edge, the shot is a complete miss ..." Scattering definitely is described as a miss, either a complete miss (in the case of scattering beyond the table's edge) or an incomplete miss (in the case of scattering anywhere else). C.f. page 60, under The centre of the blast marker ends outside the vehicle, but part of the marker covers its hull.


The word 'miss' is not used in a rules context in relation to a blast weapon scattering. I would argue that the use of 'miss' in "very hard to miss completely" is a situation whereby you must separate the parts of a paragraph that seek to lay down rules and the parts that merely illustrate a rule or rules. "Very hard to miss completely", in my opinion, does not even carry the weight that an obiter dicta would; it is mere 'fluff'.

A blast weapon that scatters but still covers a model, fully or partially, is not a 'miss' and is never described as such by the Rulebook. Again, rules for blast weapons are irrelevant in my opinion to a discussion on the rules for a template, even when they are only being used in a formative sense.



Just to be clear, you are suggesting that a shot that is an "automatic miss" may in fact inflict hits upon one or more models?


Only if that shot comes from a template weapon. Blast weapons are explicitly disregarded, 'normal' ranged attacks cannot affect a non-targetted unit and therefore implicitly cannot inflict a hit on any unit if they are a 'miss'. The effect of template weapons that are found to be out of range are not satisfactorily described by either of these methods.



What are you looking at that makes you think template weapons do not have to check range but instead go straight to rolling to hit?

I am not contending that. I am saying that by checking the range with a template weapon you are, in fact, firing the weapon. Using a 'normal' ranged attack or blast weapon this would have no further implication as a a 'normal' ranged weapon cannot affect a non-targetted unit and blast weapons have explicit rules for such an occurrence. Templates on the other hand involve, for want of a better term, an area effect. To me there is no basis, either in the rules or in logic, to an assertion that this 'area effect' has no effect on a unit that is not targetted and yet lies in the path of it.

As an aside, and I do not hope that you find this too personal a question, are you legally-trained? Your posting style certainly suggests as much to me.

[incenerate101]

Hive mind, you seem to be labouring under the misaprehension that zero is a number. it is not. it is the complete absence of any numerical value, either positive or negative. it is literally nothing.

So look again at the wording of the template. it is quite clear that you must place the template covering the maximum amount of models in the target unit. Maximum means some sort of numerical value, (i.e 1 or above), zero is not a numerical value. Zero cannot be the maximum of anything. So, as you cannot place the template covering any models in the target unit, you cannot place the template on the tabl at all. Thus you cannot use it to hit another squad.

quoted for TRUTH

[Hive Mind]

'Maximum' does not feature in the rules for templates. I used it once, erroneously, and have stopped using it once I realised that it does not satisfactorily describe what I intended it to.

The rules state "as many models as possible". Covering zero models when it is not possible to cover any models fulfils this requirement, as I have already explained.

Do try to keep up, repetition is wearying and a waste of time for all of us.

[incenerate101]

I am not contending that. I am saying that by checking the range with a template weapon you are, in fact, firing the weapon. Using a 'normal' ranged attack or blast weapon this would have no further implication as a a 'normal' ranged weapon cannot affect a non-targetted unit and blast weapons have explicit rules for such an occurrence. Templates on the other hand involve, for want of a better term, an area effect. To me there is no basis, either in the rules or in logic, to an assertion that this 'area effect' has no effect on a unit that is not targetted and yet lies in the path of it.


This is made invalid by the fact that you must designate a target with the weapon. Then place your template. If your template DOES NOT TOUCH any model base in the TARGETED unit the shot misses no matter if its touching the bases of a model in a different unit.

[Hive Mind]

That's not in the rules. That is an interpretation and one that I have dealt with repeatedly already.

[incenerate101]

What you are saying is also not stated in the rules. The process and rules for shooting NEVER change and are NEVER negated.

Normal weapons are self explanatory.
Blast Template Weapons you have a base range in inches followed by scatter.
Flamers have a template that ignores cover saves and ballistic skill is not needed to hit.

For all of these weapons they still follow the same process and rules for shooting. Which means if the targeted unit is not touched by your flamer template and another unit is. Regardless of how many models are touched if a model from the targeted unit is not touched the shot misses out right.

[Hive Mind]

Yawn.

Give me a shout when Nabterayl comes back.

[incenerate101]

Im going to my local bunker today and i will ask them personally and get thier verdict and post what i get from them later.

Hive Mind i did not mean to be confrontational or talk down to you. If it seemed as such i apologize.

[Nabterayl]

Yes it is true that a blast weapon which misses fails to inflict hits in any unit. However, this can be distinguished by the fact that the rules for blast weapons explicitly provide for such a scenario whereas rules for template weapons do not. Further, blast weapons are not template weapons and template weapons are not 'normal' ranged attacks and the rules for one do not translate to the other.
I don't see how the distinction matters to the definition of "miss" that we are constructing. I'm aware that blast weapons are not template weapons, but we have here an example whereby "miss" is not used with reference only to the target unit. Therefore, it cannot be true that when the rulebook says "miss" it always means "miss the target unit," and therefore, it may not be true that a shot that is an "automatic miss" is only an "automatic miss" with respect to the target unit.

EDIT:
The word 'miss' is not used in a rules context in relation to a blast weapon scattering. I would argue that the use of 'miss' in "very hard to miss completely" is a situation whereby you must separate the parts of a paragraph that seek to lay down rules and the parts that merely illustrate a rule or rules. "Very hard to miss completely", in my opinion, does not even carry the weight that an obiter dicta would; it is mere 'fluff'.
As an aside, if you believe that scattering is not a "miss" for blast weapons, I challenge you to come up with an interpretation of the twin-linked rules for blast weapons that allows a twin-linked blast weapon to re-roll the scatter die if it rolls something other than a hit.


Only if that shot comes from a template weapon. Blast weapons are explicitly disregarded, 'normal' ranged attacks cannot affect a non-targetted unit and therefore implicitly cannot inflict a hit on any unit if they are a 'miss'. The effect of template weapons that are found to be out of range are not satisfactorily described by either of these methods.
What criteria are you using for "satisfactorily?" I understand that the game-world situation described makes no sense, but I don't see how that matters when we are discussing what the rules say. I can think of no lexical reason why a template weapon being capable of inflicting no hits is not satisfactory.



I am not contending that. I am saying that by checking the range with a template weapon you are, in fact, firing the weapon. Using a 'normal' ranged attack or blast weapon this would have no further implication as a a 'normal' ranged weapon cannot affect a non-targetted unit and blast weapons have explicit rules for such an occurrence. Templates on the other hand involve, for want of a better term, an area effect.
Ah ... this seems to me to be the crux of the matter. I hope you don't mind me repeating this point, but you seem to be under the impression that shooting attacks made with template weapons have a different sequence than other shooting attacks. I do not see the language in the template rules this is based on, though. We have special template rules for determining how many hits a template weapon inflicts, and upon which units. But that is all I see. I do not see special rules that actually alter the sequence for making shooting attacks on page 15. And that sequence is our default, is it not? The template rules are written to modify something (I propose the page 15 sequence); they are not a self-contained shooting attack sequence (for instance, they make no mention of how template weapons inflict wounds, presumably because they are a modification of the page 15 sequence and not a wholesale replacement).

I understand that you are contending that by placing the template (step 2) you are also firing the weapon (step 3). But what is the actual language are you looking at that conflates those two steps - or, in the alternative, tells you that template weapons skip step 2 entirely?

I suppose it might be "any models fully or partially under the template ..." You've brought that language up before. But neither of the two ways I can think of that you might mean to use that sentence work for me.

You might mean to say, "Because template weapons have their range listed as 'template,' template weapons never check range." But I don't see why you would say that. There is certainly no explicit language skipping step 2. No other weapon in the game skips step 2, and it does not follow as a matter of logic that a weapon with a range that is a known quantity would never have to check range, nor that a weapon whose range is coextensive with its area of effect would never have to check range.

Alternatively, you might mean to say, "Because the template must be placed to check range, and because models may be fully or partially under the template when so placed, models are effectively hit at the 'check range' step." But this ignores the plain language of page 29, which places the "any models fully or partially" language in the context of modifying the firing/roll to hit step, not the check range step. Moreover, this interpretation appears to rob the words "Instead of rolling to hit" of meaning, which I trust signals to you (even if it does not to some of our fellows) that the interpretation must be in error.


To me there is no basis, either in the rules or in logic, to an assertion that this 'area effect' has no effect on a unit that is not targetted and yet lies in the path of it.
I think you're changing your argument here. We are, to my knowledge, discussing only what the template rules actually say. In particular, we are not, to my knowledge, discussing what events the template rules represent, and whether or not our interpretation of the text causes those rules to represent something that makes sense within the context of the 40K universe.

I bring this up because "logic" cannot be adduced on its own. It is not "illogical" to state, "If a template weapon is out of range of the target unit, it may inflict no hits on any unit." It would not be, by itself, "illogical" for the rulebook to make such a statement (which is in effect what I and others are claiming it states). It can only be illogical for the rulebook to make such a statement in some sort of context ... and I submit that if you try to come up with such a context, you will find that all available candidates are based on what is "actually happening" in the game world.


As an aside, and I do not hope that you find this too personal a question, are you legally-trained? Your posting style certainly suggests as much to me.
Yes, I am a practicing contract lawyer with a large Chicago-based firm.

[Wildeybeast]

'Maximum' does not feature in the rules for templates. I used it once, erroneously, and have stopped using it once I realised that it does not satisfactorily describe what I intended it to.

The rules state "as many models as possible". Covering zero models when it is not possible to cover any models fulfils this requirement, as I have already explained.

Do try to keep up, repetition is wearying and a waste of time for all of us.

Same difference. 'as many models' as possible clearly implies a value of models e.g. one or more. Zero is not 'as many as possible' it is nothing. Ergo, no template placing is allowed. I agree with you point about repetition, which is why I find it frustrating that you keep insisting zero is in some way a number. Is it the concept of basic mathematics or simple english that you are stuggling with here?

[Nabterayl]

Same difference. 'as many models' as possible clearly implies a value of models e.g. one or more. Zero is not 'as many as possible' it is nothing. Ergo, no template placing is allowed. I agree with you point about repetition, which is why I find it frustrating that you keep insisting zero is in some way a number. Is it the concept of basic mathematics or simple english that you are stuggling with here?
I have to say, I'm with Hive Mind on this one. Whether zero is a number or not (and if you contend that in an English non-mathematical text, zero is not a number, I think you either have too much or too little mathematical education), it is absolutely possible for "as many X as possible" to be zero. Suppose, for instance, I asked you to count as many instances as possible in which Winston Churchill gave an address in Swahili to the board of directors of the Moscow Ballet. If you told me, "There are zero such instances," would it not be true that you had still counted as many as possible?

EDIT: For that matter, if I asked you for a number between -1 and 1, you contend that an answer of 0 would be incorrect?

[Hive Mind]

A practising lawyer, impressive. A worthy sparring partner indeed.

I will get around to responding to your post but you'll have to bear with me. I am catching a flight at 3am tomorrow morning and in the meantime I have to pack up the contents of my entire house and move them into storage. Accordingly, I do not have time right now to provide the detailed response that a coherent and apposite post such as yours requires.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Wildeybeast, the rule says "as many as possible". I don't like to stray into RAI unless it's necessary to do so. Asserting that the rule requires at least one model to be covered is merely your interpretation and is not provided for in the rules. In this instance RAW works and so it is not necessary to invoke RAI.

[Wildeybeast]

I have to say, I'm with Hive Mind on this one. Whether zero is a number or not (and if you contend that in an English non-mathematical text, zero is not a number, I think you either have too much or too little mathematical education), it is absolutely possible for "as many X as possible" to be zero. Suppose, for instance, I asked you to count as many instances as possible in which Winston Churchill gave an address in Swahili to the board of directors of the Moscow Ballet. If you told me, "There are zero such instances," would it not be true that you had still counted as many as possible?

EDIT: For that matter, if I asked you for a number between -1 and 1, you contend that an answer of 0 would be incorrect?

In the first example, there are no instances, a complete absence of them. This is not the same as 'as many as possible'. A good anaolgy is dark and light. Many people assume darkness to be a thing, in the same way as zero, because we have a word to describe it and allow is to understand it. However darkness does not exist, it is the complete absence of light. Light is a 'substance' which can be measured and quantified, darkness is not. In the same way, zero is a word used to describe the abstract concept of a lack of numerical value.
In the second example, yes, zero would be incorrect. There is no number between -1 and 1, there is simply nothing.
And my mathmatical education is of average to good rating, I am approaching this from a philosophical and linguistic point of view. I guess you can make a case that zero is a number, but you won't be able to persuade me, so I think it best to leave this point as we could go on forever.

Hive mind I am not invoking RAI, the RAW seems clear to me. We disagree on whether zero is a numerical value and thus 'as many as possible', so I think we have to respectfully agree to disagree and hope we never end up playing each other!
P.S. What are your qualifications/profession that make you a worthy sparring partner for Nabterayl then?;)

[Hive Mind]

I haven't claimed that I am a worthy sparring partner for Nabterayl. Such a divination would have to be made by him/her, not me.

I am merely a student of law.

[Wildeybeast]

I haven't claimed that I am a worthy sparring partner for Nabterayl. Such a divination would have to be made by him/her, not me.

I am merely a student of law.

[Adopts tongue in cheek tone of voice]
Your statment "A practising lawyer, impressive. A worthy sparring partner indeed" clearly implies that because Nabterayl is a lawyer, you consider him to be 'worthy'- that is to have met the standard necessary to be worth arguing with and may also further imply that his arguments have some merit to them. I wish to know what this standard is that you impose, so that I know whether I meet it. If I do not, I shall not trouble myself in further debates with you:)

[Hive Mind]

Oh I do indeed consider Nabterayl 'worthy' of response and debate. I don't mean that in a self-aggrandising manner, though some self-aggrandisement is perhaps inevitable, I simply mean to say that sometimes it becomes clear that that any time you invest in a response to a person is nothing more than a waste of time and of server-space. As an extreme example, debating the finer points of racial integration would almost certainly be a total waste of time if your opponent was, say, a member of the British National Party or the Stormfront forum*.

As for you, well I'm responding to you aren't I? That should be read in the same tongue-in-cheek manner as your post. by the way. There is only one person, so far, on this forum that has proved himself/herself totally unworthy of anything but the curtest responses, you are not that person.

*Though it must be said that Stormfront is a fun forum to troll.

[Wildeybeast]

Oh I do indeed consider Nabterayl 'worthy' of response and debate. I don't mean that in a self-aggrandising manner, though some self-aggrandisement is perhaps inevitable, I simply mean to say that sometimes it becomes clear that that any time you invest in a response to a person is nothing more than a waste of time and of server-space. As an extreme example, debating the finer points of racial integration would almost certainly be a total waste of time if your opponent was, say, a member of the British National Party or the Stormfront forum*.

As for you, well I'm responding to you aren't I? That should be read in the same tongue-in-cheek manner as your post. by the way. There is only one person, so far, on this forum that has proved himself/herself totally unworthy of anything but the curtest responses, you are not that person.

*Though it must be said that Stormfront is a fun forum to troll.

I have to say that I do agree with you on some people being a waste of time, when they won't even listen to what you are saying. I won't push you to say who the person is that on here that applies to, I can just imagine the argument that would cause.
I have actually had a conversation on racial integration with BNP supporters and it was like bashing my head against a wall. Which, incidentally, is what I felt like doing with their heads.:) *Queue outrage at discrimination agaisnt neo-nasis*

[s_harrington]

So we're done here, right?
We're just having fun debating and the rule was answered with a firm majority 5 or 6 pages ago, right?

Good, I'll move on to something else.

It was an interesting read gentlemen (or women if your hiding behind anonymity). Thanks for keeping it 99% civil. It's always boring when a rules debate devolves into insults and logical fallacies.

See you on the next point of contention.

[Hive Mind]

I'm not done. I'm on hiatus until real life quits intervening and making me do stuff.

[Nabterayl]

And my mathmatical education is of average to good rating, I am approaching this from a philosophical and linguistic point of view. I guess you can make a case that zero is a number, but you won't be able to persuade me, so I think it best to leave this point as we could go on forever.
Fair enough. I'm not a mathematician either, but I do know that zero has certainly not been considered a number by all cultures. However, I'm pretty sure that if you look around the internet, you'll find that western mathematics does consider it a number, and further, that treating zero as a number rather than a non-entity as you do has led to a number of useful mathematical advances. Might be something worth looking into in your curiosity time.

[Wildeybeast]

So we're done here, right?
We're just having fun debating and the rule was answered with a firm majority 5 or 6 pages ago, right?

Good, I'll move on to something else.

It was an interesting read gentlemen (or women if your hiding behind anonymity). Thanks for keeping it 99% civil. It's always boring when a rules debate devolves into insults and logical fallacies.

See you on the next point of contention.

Think I'm done. I've made my case and it'll be a cold day in hell before I let anyone put a template on unit they haven't fired at:) But I'm sure others shall continue the argument, so I'll watch with interest.

Nabteayl, you have piqued my interest. Any suggestions where I should start looking into this whole zero business?

[dannyat2460]

Aww ive just come back online to check how its going and it looks like its all over without me,

Thankyou to Nabterayl for putting my arguments into a little more than one or two line responces.

So to clarify the reason that you can not fire the flamer if the target unit is out of range is because of the sequence that you must stick to NOT because Zero is not a number.

Sorry Wildeybeast but zero is definatly a number. You cant argue that zero degress celcius dosnt exist

[DarkLink]

Right, zero is a number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)). Otherwise, how would binary work?


In fact, the invention/discovery of the number zero revolutionized mathematics a long time ago, as did negative numbers and complex numbers and the like.

[Nabterayl]

Nabteayl, you have piqued my interest. Any suggestions where I should start looking into this whole zero business?
Ditto the wikipedia article. You might also find it interesting to look into the Mayan treatment of zero.


Think I'm done. I've made my case and it'll be a cold day in hell before I let anyone put a template on unit they haven't fired at:) But I'm sure others shall continue the argument, so I'll watch with interest.
I'm not sure if this is clear already, but just to be extra clear, I think it's perfectly within the rules to place a template on a unit that hasn't been fired at so long as it is also (i) in range of the target unit and (ii) covers as much of the target unit as possible, subject to the various restrictions on placing templates. You might recall this article (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/03/spacecurves-tactics-class-flame.html) from several months ago, which goes into one perfectly legal way to fire a template weapon in such a way.

[wkz]

(I think the regulars reading my posts should know by now: I usually use CAPITALS to emphasize my posts, much as I use bold, underline and itallics. There is no malice/anger behind this. Just in case you think otherwise)

This is a bit of a cheap shot, given that Hive Mind is currently unable to respond and I've only skimmed the 11 pages (!??! 11 already?!? I saw this thread for the FIRST time, fer...) of argument... but I'll respond anyways. Perhaps a fresh viewpoint may get the point across...


Here's the very interesting thing: Nabterayl main form of argument (the "Firing sequence") does not invalid your "equals zero" argument... so lets drop that zero argument...

What we're left with is this: Does the flamer, if it is out of range, get to point towards another unit to burn it fully...even if said unit is in the straight line path towards the actual target?



But before we begin, lets bring up the shooting sequence of the closest 40k equivalent as a case in point: blasts and large blasts.

Now, we all know how normal shooting is conducted:
1) Nominate target.
2) Check Range
3) Roll Hits
4) Roll Wounds
5) Resolve Wounds
6) Remove Models.

Blasts and large blasts goes exactly the same way, just as any other form of shooting. What blasts and large blasts rules does however is to modify the rules: 1-Nominate becomes "target model the blast's hole is going to be under", 2-Check range becomes checking range to that hole instead of the entire unit, 3-Roll Hits becomes "Roll for scatter", etc...

Here's the interesting thing: for blasts and large blasts, during 1-Nominate you can nominate a target ("that tank") such that it can overlap another unit ("the corner of the tank where all the infantry are"). On a scatter roll of a hit, a (large) blast can hit more than 2 units, much as a flamer can.

BUT what if during 2-Check Range, the small hole is out of range? Putting it simply, if the small hole is out of range, the entire blast is removed. That's what Miss says: all the shots are invalidated.

BUT what if the small hole is out of range, BUT other units overlapped is within range, due to the non-targeted unit being closer to the targeted unit? Can the blast STILL hit the non-targeted unit? NO.

The entire (large) blast is removed, even if there is a chance of hitting the non-targeted unit. 3-Roll Hits will never happen. You cannot move onto 3-Roll Hits no matter what your case may be. You may not hope for the blast to scatter back towards you, thus hitting something within range. You can only Miss, and by that, miss entirely with all parts of the (large) Blast acting as if it did not exist.


Well, now to Flamer templates. True, you place the template on the table. True, you try to hit as much of the targeted unit as possible. True, Zero is a perfectly acceptable number for covering the target unit...

BUT what the flamer template actually changes in the firing rules is 3-Roll Hits, not 2-Check Range. And yes, this is corroborated by template rules:

pg 29, Template: Instead of Rolling to Hit, simply place the template... (other stuff).

It is describing how step 3-Roll Hits is overwritten, and yes it overrides the hades out of that section of the rules. However, it does NOT override 2-Check Range. You'll still need to check range, thus you'll still miss if you're "out of range of all of the models he can see". AND the moment you realize you cover zero of the targeted unit with that flamer template, you have missed. The relevant passage is here:

pg 17, Check range: Any model that is found to be out of range of all of the models he can see in the target unit misses automatically - his shots simply do not reach.

If you miss, that's it. The end. The flamer dude/the flamer sponson/the flamer turret misses automatically, and the entire template should be discarded.

Step 3 does not, and will not occur at this point. Any to-hit rolls which might grant you wounding shots one way or other on any units within or without range, they are just not taken because the entire flamer template have missed automatically. This is regardless of whether you're using it to burninate targeted or non-targeted stuff. You cannot even use the template to burn unoffensive scenery. The entire template ceased to exist, period.


In a nutshell: if the template is out of range, then it will not even reach the "Roll Hits" part of the rules that may or may not cause harm on a unit "in the same path"...

[Tynskel]

Bingo!


Holy Crappola! He combined bold and Underline with capitals. He must be antagonizing us!

[Wildeybeast]

Right, zero is a number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)). Otherwise, how would binary work?


In fact, the invention/discovery of the number zero revolutionized mathematics a long time ago, as did negative numbers and complex numbers and the like.

Ok, there seems to be quite a lot of opinion to suggest zero is number, I'm willing to concede that, but it is a number without numerical value, either positive or negative and so I stand by my point that it is logically incorrect to claim zero is a maximum of anything.

[wkz]

Bingo!

Holy Crappola! He combined bold and Underline with capitals. He must be antagonizing us!

Maybe I'll edit in a BOLDED CAPS UNDERLINED ITALLIC'ed word, just to egg you further? :D


Ok, there seems to be quite a lot of opinion to suggest zero is number, I'm willing to concede that, but it is a number without numerical value, either positive or negative and so I stand by my point that it is logically incorrect to claim zero is a maximum of anything.
... IIRC, a documentary I've watched stated Modern, current day Maths as we know it started with the acceptance of Zero being a number... just saying.
Edit: *facepalm* I can't believe I wrote that. It has nothing to do with what Wildeybeast is saying...

[Tynskel]

Ok, there seems to be quite a lot of opinion to suggest zero is number, I'm willing to concede that, but it is a number without numerical value, either positive or negative and so I stand by my point that it is logically incorrect to claim zero is a maximum of anything.

It could be a local maxima...

[wkz]

Ok, I've gone through the thread a 2nd time, and apparently what I've said above has already been addressed and discussed halfway though the thread.
Time for round 2 I guess:

Relevant rules:
--------------- ---------------
pg 15, Shooting Sequence:
1) Check LOS and pick target
2) Check range
3) Roll to hit
4) Roll to wound
... (etc) ...
--------------- ---------------
pg 17, Check range
When you're checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model to the target unit.

Any model that is found to be out of range of all of the models he can see in the target unit misses automatically - his shots simply do not reach.
--------------- ---------------
pg 29, Additional Weapon Characteristics, Template
...
Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template so that... (etc)... rest of the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models. Against vehicles... (etc)...
...
Any models fully or partially under the template are hit.
...
Cover saves are ignored when resolving wounds, even by models inside area terrain! Wounds inflicted by... (etc)...
--------------- ---------------



First up, note what I've included from "Template", which (hopefully) covers the major points included in the template rules.
- It modifies "Rolling to hit"
- It modifies "How to hit (as many models as possible)". It also does that against vehicles.
- It modifies the "To Hit" dice roll (you don't need one).
- It modifies armor penetration and clarifies which vehicle facing is hit (not quoted here)
- It modifies Cover saves. (you don't have one)
- It, however, clarifies you still take Wound allocation as normal (partially quoted here).

However, if the rules for Templates are taken alone, it just doesn't work. You can't place a template to cover "as many models as possible in the target unit" if you don't have a target unit. You know the number of models you've hit, but without the 4-Roll to Wound rules, you don't know how many models you've wounded. Etc.

Also, things that are not mentioned should still work here, but are not described in the Template rules. You may not take cover saves, yes. BUT you should still be able to take Invulnerable saves despite it not being in the Template rules. You should still cannot shoot the template at a unit you cannot see even if you're able to cover the enemy unit with the template (blocked by a wall?). Etc.

What I'm trying to say is that, at the end of the day the Template rules is still a modification of the original shooting rules. It fires vastly differently from other weapons, yes. BUT at the end of the day the original shooting rules take precedence. You still do step '1-LOS and pick target' first, following all the rules for that step, including the rule to end the firing sequence (if nobody is in LOS). Only then do you do '2-Check range' and all its rules, followed by '3-Roll to hit', etc...

And what I've said about "2-Check range" can be found in my previous wall of text. To recap: "At the end of the day, '2-Check range' will still come before '3-To Hit'. The entire firing process ended in '2-Check range'. '3-To Hit' never occurs"





Which brings us to the 2nd half of the argument: "Templates fire differently so it should still work, the template placed during the '3-To Hit' step is also part of '2-Check Range' ".

Ignoring my previous wall of text (see the recap above), this brings us to an interesting sequence of steps, quite different from the original shooting steps:

1) Check LOS and pick target (as usual)
2) "Check Range" and "Modified To Hit"
3) Roll to wound (as usual)

... (etc) ...

"Interesting" because of several factors:

a) You place the template both to check range and to "Hit" models.

b) You can place the template in certain situations such that it does not affect the targeted unit (because the target unit is too far), BUT because the template is already placed on the table it can still affect an unrelated enemy unit (I shall call this 3rd unit the "unlucky unit" from now on).

c) Any models under the template, including models from the "unlucky unit", will be hit.


Once again, this is ignoring my previous wall of text... but the rules are STILL working against your argument at this point.


Point #1: This is in FAVOR of the template user, but still against your argument: if you must try to cover as many models in the target unit as possible and the covered model count equals zero (because the template did not reach)... ... you do not need to point the template towards the targeted unit.

Reasoning: No matter which direction you point that template, the total count will still equal zero. There is no rule which specify the direction you should be pointing in this case. Therefore, ANY direction is equally valid, because ANY direction will still equal zero (as long as all other rules are upheld, such as "no friendly models").

You can burn the "unlucky unit" BEHIND you from the direction of the targeted unit. You can burn the "unlucky unit" OUTSIDE OF LOS on the other side of the wall. You can burn "unlucky units" protected by a special LOS rule. You can burn unoffensive scenery in the way. Etc. And all you need to do so is to shoot at a targeted unit that is unable to be reached by the template.

Do you realize how powerful this interpretation of flamers firing will make template weapons? It is as if Baals and Landraider Redeemers have a super-boosted Machine Spirit (Assault cannon the first unit, and the flamer sponsons are free to burn 2 other units), and all infantry squads with template weapons automatically have the Long Fang's split-fire rule.

At least this "game breaker" is nullified by...


Point #2: This is disadvantageous to the template user: "Check Range" and "Modified To Hit" may have merged into a single step... ... but all the underlying rules for "Check Range" and "To Hit" will still work. Well, the original '3-Roll To Hit' has been changed by the template rules into "Modified To Hit"... ... ... BUT "Check Range" rules has not been modified in any way.

Here comes the curious rules mix (or a headache, depending on how you're looking at things):

Template "Modified To Hit": Any models fully or partially under the template are hit.

Check Range: Any model that is found to be out of range of all of the models he can see in the target unit misses automatically

Combined, we get: All models under the template Are Hit... but misses automatically if the template is out of range of all the models in the target unit...

(Additional side note: the above is assuming "not covered by Template" equals "Out of range of a template". If you disagree, please state why)

So basically the "unlucky unit" would have gotten hit by a template... BUT the "hit" counts for nothing because the original declared target is out of range. You can place the template whatever which way you want, it'll still "automatically miss" at the end of the day. Interesting, no?


tl;dr: No matter your interpretation of Template's firing sequence (with the steps '2-Check Range' and '3-Roll to Hit' being separated, or being combined into one step), at the end of the day if the template does not reach the original targeted unit, it does no hits to any "unlucky units".

[Konovalev]

Your thought problem arguments are oh so entertaining.