Sketchy Template Placement

[ElectricPaladin]

This hasn't come up yet in an actual game, but I'm curious to hear how you think it should be adjudicated.

A model capable of firing more than one weapon - let's call it a dreadnought - shoots at a distant unit with a long range weapon. In between the model and its target is an intervening unit. Can the firing model choose to fire a template weapon - say, a heavy flamer - "at" its target, even though the only unit it can actually hit is the intervening unit?

Like this

Dread ----> Gaunts ---> Carnifex

Can the dread fire its lascannon at the carnifex and "fire" its heavy flamer at the carnifex, too, even though when the template is placed, it can only cover the gaunts?

I've read the rulebook and I don't believe that it's clear. The book says that the template must cover "as many members of the target unit as possible," but doesn't say what to do if that number is zero.

[Nabterayl]

I think the answer turns on whether we think that each firing weapon on a vehicle is treated like a separate firing unit or not. Attend:

You're quite right that no rule states what to do if the number of models in the target unit the template can hit is zero. You're also quite right to observe that page 52 says, "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit," not "any models in the target unit," so if the template could be fired in your example, it could hit the gaunts.

Here are what I believe are the two rules that control this scenario:

Page 12 states, "Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit doesn't shoot - his shots would not be not accurate enough to hit anything."

Page 72 states, "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight from each weapon's rnounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models. If the target unit is in cover from only some of the vehicle's weapons, then work out the target's cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing unit."

So we can see, if the flamer couldn't see the carnifex (even if, somehow, it could see the gaunts), it wouldn't fire at all, and the gaunts would not get toasted. Here is the question: do we work out range as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing unit, or line of sight only?


If the former, then the flamer does not fire (because the flamer "unit" is out of range, even though it has line of sight), and the gaunts are not toasted.
If the latter, then the flamer does fire (because the dreadnought unit is in range, and the flamer "unit" has line of sight), and the gaunts are toasted.

I think most people would go with treating each firing weapon like a separate unit for line of sight and range purposes (though not for targeting purposes, obviously). I can certainly see the argument for treating each firing weapon like a separate unit for line of sight purposes only, though.

[Kevin48220]

I think that you should look at that in light of "Which Models Can Fire" on P. 13. The rule there states that a firing unit has to fire all of its weapons at the same target unit. If a model cannot shoot at the target unit "for any reason" then it cannot fire at all. I think that being out of range for the template attack would fall well within the "for any reason" language of that rule. I think that is supported by the "Shooting Sequence" sidebar on P. 12, which states that models that are not within range cannot shoot.

In that case, your dread would not be able to fire the flamer at the Carnifex (out of range) but could still opt to fire its lascannon (in range).

[Tepogue]

The local players here, pull this all the time. "i'm shooting at the unit behind the closest one, oops I just happen to dump 3 combi flamers into the close unit while the furter unit also takes hits. LOL"

I gave up trying to reason with them, so now I switched to Demons and just burn them all.
Go Go Over Powered Flamers.

[magickbk]

This has never been legal, in any edition of 40k since split firing was removed from the game.

[Kevin48220]

Tepogue, I think your situation falls into the language on P. 12 in Point 2 of "shooting sequence"--says that every model in the unit that is firing has to have range on a model in the target unit in order to fire. The combi-flamers would have to have range on the target unit in order to be able to catch the intervening unit in the same blast.

[ElectricPaladin]

Tepogue, I think your situation falls into the language on P. 12 in Point 2 of "shooting sequence"--says that every model in the unit that is firing has to have range on a model in the target unit in order to fire. The combi-flamers would have to have range on the target unit in order to be able to catch the intervening unit in the same blast.

Yeah, the difference is between one model capable of firing multiple weapons and members of one unit firing different weapons.

[DarkLink]

This has never been legal, in any edition of 40k since split firing was removed from the game.

But explain the rational, because we already know you can hit multiple enemy units. The only difference here is that you're out of range of the target unit, and as mentioned there are no rules covering that. So why are you so certain that you lose the ability to hit multiple enemy units when the main target is more than ~9" away?

[Nabterayl]

Yeah ... past history can be a guide when something is ambiguous, but it's not a reason to decide that something is ambiguous. The plain language of 6th edition, I think, allows for firing a template weapon at a target that is out of its range, so long as that target is in range of the firing model's (not unit's) other weapons. The rules are not ambiguous, they just have an unexpected meaning. We can certainly choose to ignore that meaning, but we shouldn't pretend that something is ambiguous when it isn't.

In 5th edition this was not true. As page 17 said, "If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." There is no such rule in 6th edition.

[magickbk]

I started digging through the rulebook, comparing the text on p13 with the rules for drawing line of sight for vehicles, etc, and that's when the rationale hit me:

Nowhere in the book does it say I cannot rip the flamer off your model, claim WYSIWYG, and say the model is not equipped with a flamer. It's an extreme example, but there comes a time when you have to decide why you are playing this game. Are you playing to have fun? Can you have fun without mercilessly slaughtering your opponent's toy soldiers? Can you have fun if your opponent wins?

If someone tried to do this in a game against me, I would simply allow them to do whatever they wanted in that game, and then not play that person again, and if I discovered everyone in the store played that way, I would just play elsewhere.

If you are playing in a tournament? Ask the TO. As a matter of fact, the TOs should probably write a new book, because those people are not playing the same game I am.

[Nabterayl]

Do we really have to have the "Discussing what the rules say is not discussing how people should play the game" discussion every thread? We should sticky a thread so we can just link to it.

[magickbk]

Do we really have to have the "Discussing what the rules say is not discussing how people should play the game" discussion every thread? We should sticky a thread so we can just link to it.

It all derails to the same point. Here's how it happens:
1. Read thread on the internet.
2. Think to self: "That can't be right."
3. Pore over ambiguous and contradictory passages from the BRB, carefully analyzing pronouns.
4. Realize you just wasted time you could have spent painting or playing trying to figure out something that there is no concrete answer to until they FAQ the damn thing.
5. FAQs! Surely this has been resolved already! Check the FAQs. Nothing.
6. Post rant on thread about how stupid the whole thing is and why people play the game wrong. Walk away from computer in anger.
7. Peer back over at computer. "I wonder if anyone responded to my rant?"
8. Read response calling you out on your rant.
9. Post response justifying your rant.
10. Take a break from the forums. Return when you have some new models to post into your WIP thread.

[DarkLink]

If you're the type of person who would refuse to play someone over a (presumably) legal action that is far from gamebreaking, with no real reason for refusing beyond completely and fickly arbitrarily deciding your opponent is being a dick, not because the are actually being a dick but because you don't like a random rule that is reasonably clear, then you're not the type of player I want to play anyways. That type of player complains that I'm a WAACplayer because I play grey knights despite playing since the demo hunter codex, gives me constant crap because I actually know and play by the rules rather than their made-up RAI, and generally acts like a dick under the guise of being a fluff player.

[Nabterayl]

It all derails to the same point. Here's how it happens:
1. Read thread on the internet.
2. Think to self: "That can't be right."
3. Pore over ambiguous and contradictory passages from the BRB, carefully analyzing pronouns.
4. Realize you just wasted time you could have spent painting or playing trying to figure out something that there is no concrete answer to until they FAQ the damn thing.
5. FAQs! Surely this has been resolved already! Check the FAQs. Nothing.
6. Post rant on thread about how stupid the whole thing is and why people play the game wrong. Walk away from computer in anger.
7. Peer back over at computer. "I wonder if anyone responded to my rant?"
8. Read response calling you out on your rant.
9. Post response justifying your rant.
10. Take a break from the forums. Return when you have some new models to post into your WIP thread.
Or, you know, people could act like human beings and answer the question asked without assuming that only a questioner of nefarious intent out to ruin everybody else's fun could possibly ask that.

[Wildcard]

It still seems people are unconsciously refering to the past editions and/or learned habits instead of "matter-of-factly" just going throught the rules and leaving everything irrelevant out of the context.

[whargoul666]

The book say that I have to shoot all of my guns at one target. So, I'm gonna shoot my big guns and my flamer at that guy way over there. I know my flamer wont get him, but itll get the squad in front of me. I have now rules lawyered/doctored to get what I want (split fire that I am not allowed to have usually).

Looks like cheating, sounds like cheating, doesnt sound like a fun person to play with if they are so WAAC that they are fine bending the rules to their whim. Seems to me that rules as intended would say then that the flamer cant fire... I know it's not spelled out, but this goes against the first golden rule of "have fun" at the very least.

[daboarder]

I started digging through the rulebook, comparing the text on p13 with the rules for drawing line of sight for vehicles, etc, and that's when the rationale hit me:

Nowhere in the book does it say I cannot rip the flamer off your model, claim WYSIWYG, and say the model is not equipped with a flamer. It's an extreme example, but there comes a time when you have to decide why you are playing this game. Are you playing to have fun? Can you have fun without mercilessly slaughtering your opponent's toy soldiers? Can you have fun if your opponent wins?


Conversely, there's no rule saying I can't rip the jaw out of your face....

This is and always HAS been totally legal, flamers work like this deal with it.

[RGilbert26]

As long as the Flamer template can reach the unit the Lascannon was firing at then you can fire the Flamer and catch the models in the middle.

[Animus Silvanna]

What does WAAC stand for all I could find was Western Association for Art Conservation and that cant be right lol. In my experience the entirety of 40k is a game of allowances. For instance if its just a friendly game and your opponent forgot to shoot his 2 units of scouts before he started declaring assaults into your already gunned down paladins who cant roll above a 1 to save their lives (literally), I would of course allow that said person to go ahead and shoot. However, if it was a tournament I would be like "DaFuq????", "Hell NO! This is the assault phase now guy you should have gone from one end of the board to the other instead of skipping around :P As were this rule to present itself in my situation at a game store i would suggest he have the key pages highlighted for me to reference and if still feels unclear always best to get a 3rd party involved nothing wrong with that. Also you could always go back to the 1-3 your rule affects the game 4-6 my rule affects the game. Plus if thats how the your gaming area wants to play it as well then just incorporate it into your master strategy and don't put your gaunts that close to a dreadnoughts heavy flamer, cause when has that even been the best option for them o.O?

[Nabterayl]

Conversely, there's no rule saying I can't rip the jaw out of your face....

This is and always HAS been totally legal, flamers work like this deal with it.

Well, no, it hasn't. As I already pointed out, in 5th edition this wasn't legal, because a printed rule actually made it illegal. It also wasn't legal in 4th edition, which had the exact same rule ("If your target is beyond this maximum range then your shot misses automatically") on page 22. In 6th edition, the rule that made it illegal was removed.

In 4th, 5th, and 6th, it is totally legal to shoot at a target in flamer range even if there is another target in the way, thereby flaming both units. In 4th and 5th edition it was illegal to shoot a flamer at a target beyond flamer range, even if the flamer model could fire other weapons at that target that were in range. In 6th edition, this is legal, though I think the take-away from this thread is that most people don't/wouldn't care.


What does WAAC stand for all I could find was Western Association for Art Conservation and that cant be right lol.
Win At All Costs.

[Tynskel]

I am not sure one even needs a rule that says you cannot shoot when out of range when the rules implicitly state that you cannot shoot if your gun isn't in range.

[Nabterayl]

I'm pretty sure that they felt the addition of pre-measuring warranted a change in the wording. Now, instead of saying a weapon has to be in range, we have a rule saying a model has to be in range: "Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit doesn't shoot - his shots would not be not accurate enough to hit anything" (p 12). Hence why the hypothetical has to specify that it's a single model, which is in range with one of its guns. I think it's pretty clear that they meant to say "Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit doesn't shoot" (after all, models don't have ranges - only weapons do), so again, in answer to the OP, I think it most likely to be adjudicated that way.

EDIT: In favor of it being adjudicated such that a weapon out of range of the target does not shoot, consider the case of a lascannon/storm bolter dread that is 36" away from an enemy carnifex. If page 12 doesn't mean "weapons" out of range don't shoot (instead of models), on what grounds is the carnifex not hit by the storm bolter?

[DarkLink]

I think that answers the question. Weapons don't shoot themselves, and if the model can't shoot at something out of range then you can't coincidentally hit a closer target.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Realistically speaking, If you were piloting that 'nought, would you elect to fire a template weapon at something you know is out of range? nope. You'd use something that has a little longer reach.

Gamewise, if someone was trying something like that on me, firing a template weapon at a further unit and "incidentally" hitting the closer unit, I'd call that person a cheater, and then warn him the next time he does that, it's game over.

[DarkLink]

Realistically, you'd flame one unit with one arm while shooting a different unit with another arm. Because in real life, there aren't "units".

And before calling him a cheater, I hope you'd at least check the rules to ensure he's actually cheating. Otherwise, you're the douchebag there.

[Caldera02]

So the reason you cannot fire the flamer at the close unit while firing at the further away unit is thus:

Pg. 52. - Template Weapons. States that you have to place the template over as many models in the "Target Unit" as possible.

Since you cannot does this you cannot shoot the flamer.

[Chris Copeland]

This seems like a settled issue (based on the above rulings). If anyone tries it on me I'll just point to the above two referenced pages and say, "Sorry, you can't do that."

[Nabterayl]

So the reason you cannot fire the flamer at the close unit while firing at the further away unit is thus:

Pg. 52. - Template Weapons. States that you have to place the template over as many models in the "Target Unit" as possible.

Since you cannot does this you cannot shoot the flamer.

I think there is a good reason why you can't shoot any weapon at a target out of range, but I don't think that's it. "As many models as possible" can still accept an answer of zero. "As many as possible" does not imply "at least one."

[Daemonette666]

I would allow the enemy to target my unit, set further back with the flamer providing the flamer could actually hit at least one model in the target unit. Any models in the intervening unit would be hit as well.

If the Flamer template could not cover any of the models in the far away unit, which the lascannon (in your example) is targeting, then I would not allow the flamer to fire.

A blast template that deviates, hits every model friend and foe that it lands on. Template weapons must be placed to cover only enemy models, but the restrictions do not stop them from putting the template over 2 units, so long as you have covered as many possible valid target models from the target unit. I would also make it so that if some of the models from the target unit were hidden from view (not valid targets, and they can not be removed as casualties), then the template does not have to be placed over them. This may mean that the template could cover more of the models in the non targeted unit as long as the template covered the most models from the target unit that were visable and in range for the template weapon as you could get covered.

If you believe the rule that flamer templates and other template weapons can not be fired if they cover models from a non targeted enemy unit in addition to models from a targeted unit then I will simply set my models up to have 2 unit set so close to each other that you will never be able to place the template down without cover models from both units. This will make your template weapons useless until I decide to charge.

The zipper method for setting up units seems the best for this. Imagine 2 lines of models, one for each unit with all models in these units 2" apart with a third line of individual models in the center with models from each unit alternating, all with the minimum separation distance for units, so you could not set the template up to cover only one unit.

In this case magickbk and others would get fed up with my tactical deployment of my units and vow not to play me again, just because I was using their interpretation of the rules to stop them from firing at either unit with template weapons.

I still believe the flamer can not be used if it does not cover any models from the unit being targeted by other weapons on the vehicle/walker.

In reality a vehicle has a whole crew to target its weapons and should be able to target multiple units as long as the individual weapons have line of site to them. Why would tanks throughout history have been designed with guns sprouting from multiple facings to cover enemy approaching from the sides and rear? The individual weapons would not give a great deal of firepower but at least warned the tank of their approach, and kept the enemies heads down. This is one thing I would have liked the 6th edition rules to have allowed for, but the game is suppose to be a fast game, and would get bogged down if each tank were able to fire every weapon. It may have offset the vulnerability and lackluster performance of tanks in 6th edition 40K.

[magickbk]

magickbk and others would get fed up with my tactical deployment of my units and vow not to play me again

I got frustrated and took a break for a few days, but I think I was a little unclear. You can always hit intervening enemy units with the template, that isn't what I was trying to argue. As a matter of fact, since pre-measuring is allowed, you can line up your flamer so that you only catch one model from the target unit with the template but get maximum coverage of an intervening unit. What I was trying to say wasn't allowed was firing at a model, say the Carnifex in the OP that is say, 32" away, and using the flamer to burn a unit of gaunts 3" in front of you because you are targeting the Carnifex with the flamer. If the template can't reach the target unit, it doesn't fire, which is the consensus that was reached here.

I just got cranky because I perceived that people were starting to jump on me for it, realized that I did and called myself out on it, and then everybody else did too.

[DarkLink]

So the reason you cannot fire the flamer at the close unit while firing at the further away unit is thus:

Pg. 52. - Template Weapons. States that you have to place the template over as many models in the "Target Unit" as possible.

Since you cannot does this you cannot shoot the flamer.

Well, "as many models as possible" does not preclude zero models. But Nab referenced models not being able to shoot at stuff out of range as well, so overall I think it's clear that you can't shoot.


Edit:
And, yeah, not trying to insult anyone, I'm just pointing out getting mad over silly little rules issues and then declaring the person you're disagreeing with a cheater, for no better reason that disagreeing with you, is kind of a dick move.

If they are genuinely cheating, then go for it. But if they're not, then chill out. GKs have lots of obscure little rules that a lot of my opponents don't understand, and they often are rules that can screw my opponent over (like how Rad/Psykotroke grenades affect all enemy units assaulting/being assaulted, not just the one the bearer is in assault with). If my opponents got started refusing to play me every time I pointed out an area where they misunderstood the rules (or if I did the same to them), I'd never get to play any 40k.

[OrksOrksOrks]

No of course you can't do that, stop being dumb all of you. You all know you're not supposed to be able to do that, so why are you trying to justify it to yourselves? Its a GAME.

[DarkLink]

Really? Someone brings up a legitimate rules question, and instead of actually looking at the rules your response is "nuh-uh, that's illegal and you're all stupid"?

Quit trolling, and go read the forum rules. I can sum them up for you: don't be a dick.

[Nabterayl]

And/or read the thread? We just spent four pages justifying to ourselves why you can't do that, and with considerably greater rigor than "of course." Please.

[Anggul]

The rules seem to say that you can't do it if the target unit is out of range, but it's fine if the target unit is in range. Personally (and I don't use any units that can do this anyway so I'm not saying it for my own benefit) I think you should be able to, as if, to use the given example, a Dreadnought saw a Carnifex further away and there were a bunch of Termagants in front of him about to climb all over him or generally cause a nuisance, he would aim and fire at the Carnifex while blasting out fire in front of him to toast the Termagants. It doesn't take concentration to blast indiscriminately into a living tide.

That's fluff though, and if it were up to me you could split-fire with special and heavy weapons anyway, but as far as the rules go I think the weapon has to be in range of the target unit to fire, or it can't at all. It's fine if the target is under the template as well as intervening units, nothing wrong with that.