Template Weapons vs Vehicle Squadron

[TimmyPowerGamer]

Rules for template weapons state that for units you must try to cover as many models as possible and for vehicles that you must cover as much of the target vehicle as possible. Against a unit of, say, IG Sentinels which would take precedence?

Could I place a template so that it just clipped a couple of bases?

[Wolfshade]

For vehicles you have to cover as much of the vehicle as possible, for non-vehicles it is as many models.

The as many models is the "normal" case and the as much as the hull as possible is the special case for firing at vehicles.

[Katharon]

There shouldn't be any confusion over this, because Sentinels are Walkers and not Vehicles. You would place the blast marker over one of the Sentinel bases, with the center hole remaining fully over a base, and try to hit as many as you can (which is what most people do...I've never known anyone to do differently).

If there is a squadron of tanks, then you can move the template around so that (as long as the center hole remains fixed over the hell of a tank) the full blast hits as many different tanks as possible.

[Wolfshade]

Aren't walkers just a sub-type of Vehicle?
Also, template weapons like the flamer, have no holes hence the requirement to cover as much of the hull as possible, rather than having the hole wholley over the hull.

[chicop76]

This is a good one. Blast weapons is not an issue, but flame type weapons are. I had issues like this when I used to play with flamers. It stops you from flaming 3 vehicles. I got around it by flaming units and the flame would hit a tank or two.

I would favor that you would try to hit the squad over one vehicle since the vehicle is in a squad. Have to look in vehicle squad rules or in the Faq to see if it's covered.

[Katharon]

No, walkers are not a sub-type. They're called "Walkers" and that is their designation. You want to argue semantics or definitions, go call the GW customer service hotline.



Also, template weapons like the flamer, have no holes hence the requirement to cover as much of the hull as possible, rather than having the hole wholley over the hull.

And that pertains to this discussion how? We've already established that Walkers are not Vehicles. Ergo, you would place the template against walkers the same way you would against infantry models.




I had issues like this when I used to play with flamers. It stops you from flaming 3 vehicles. I got around it by flaming units and the flame would hit a tank or two.

I would favor that you would try to hit the squad over one vehicle since the vehicle is in a squad. Have to look in vehicle squad rules or in the Faq to see if it's covered.

The only thing that can stop you from hitting a Vehicle with a template weapon is if it also hits a friendly model. That's a no-no. Otherwise you are free to flame-on, as much as you want. So long as the Vehicle in question (or Squadron of Vehicles) is the primary target, any other "hits of opportunity" afforded by extra enemy models in the area under the template are just luck for you and bad-luck for your opponent.

So...no issue.

[TimmyPowerGamer]

I haven't got a new codex with me but in older codexes, walkers were described as Vehicle (Walker) so yes, they are still vehicles.

[Wolfshade]

Let us dial back the level of aggression.

I merely stated that I thought walkers were a type of vehicle, and as a logical consequence of that you would have to cover as much as the vehicle as possible.

I do not see where we have established that walkers are not vehicles, though if you point me to a BRB stating that walkers are not vehicles I will be more than happy with how you view the rules since if walkers aren't vehicles then you do have to hit as many as possible as per the template rules.

[Katharon]

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that they're not tanks (of any kind) and are targeted in the same fashion as infantry are with template weapons. The only difference from Infantry is that you have to determine the armor facing that your template is hitting. If you're aiming a flamer directly at the front of an Armored Sentinel, then its front armor facing is AV12. If you are behind the Walker or a squadron of them and hit them with a template, then you hit them on their rear armor facing, which is AV10.

There should really be no confusion about this.

[Wolfshade]

Again, I am happy to accept that if you can show me where it says that walkers are infantry and not vehicles.

[TimmyPowerGamer]

It doesn't just apply to squadrons of walkers - landspeeders and such operate in squadrons as well and they are certainly vehicles.

[Katharon]

Again, I am happy to accept that if you can show me where it says that walkers are infantry and not vehicles.

Because they have bases and other vehicles don't.

[Wolfshade]

Because they have bases and other vehicles don't.

So, Falcons, Stormtalons etc are infantry as they have bases?

[Katharon]

So, Falcons, Stormtalons etc are infantry as they have bases?

Stop trying to be obtuse. Page 77, under "Damaging Squadrons".

[DarkLink]

He'll probably stop being obtuse when you 1) chill out and 2) stop making up rules.

Walkers are vehicles. They are repeatedly referred to as such in their rules. Shooting at them works exactly like shooting at any other vehicle.

On top of that, blast markers, which you keep referring to, and templates, which the op was asking about, are two different things.

[Mounty]

Page 142 WH40K rulebook: walkers are a certain vehicle type! so a template has to cover as much as possible one vehicle, if it is a squadron, you have to look afterwards if another vehicle is underneath!

[Nabterayl]

Agree with DarkLink that walkers are clearly vehicles. Consider, among others, page 70:


The different types of vehicle are: Chariot, Fast, Flyer, Heavy, Hover, Open-topped, Skimmer, Tank, Transport and Walker.

or a selection from page 84:


Walkers are an unusual type of vehicle ...

Unlike other vehicles, Walkers have a Weapon Skill ...

Unlike other vehicles, Walkers can fire Overwatch.

As for the OP, I agree with Wolfshade: you have to cover as much of the vehicle as possible. Putting the "against vehicles" in the same paragraph as, but after, the "as many models in the target unit as possible" sentence indicates that "against vehicles" is a special case and "as many models in the target unit as possible" is the general case. Special cases take precedence over general, so you have to cover as much of the vehicle as possible even if doing so means you don't cover as many models in the target unit as possible.

[chicop76]

Holy crap. Let's look at some 6th edition book walkers.

Hmmm dreadnought from dA and marine book says Vehicle ( Walker). Same with the defiler and soul grinder. Hmmm guard is still 5th edition so I will have to look at the brb or the faq, but I would imagine since every 6th edition walker says Vehicle (walker) it is safe to say walkers are vehicles.

Pg. 52 explains what a template weapon is and on pg. 53 it shows a nice picture of what one lools like.

Pg. 33 covers blast and large blast weapons and shows you a picture of what a blast weapon lools like. Pg. 34 covers barrage weapons.

I was hoping when I said template and said blast you would had picked up it was two different things. Now I give book referance for you.

Pgs 70-87 cover vehicles and the different types of vehicles. On page 84 in the vehicle section of the book explains what a walkwe is.

" Walker are an unusual type of vehicle. ...." That is the very first sentence on pg. 84.

Pg. 77 goes into rules for vehicle squads.

Hope this helps, since now you kniw where to read.

[chicop76]

Agree with DarkLink that walkers are clearly vehicles. Consider, among others, page 70:



or a selection from page 84:



As for the OP, I agree with Wolfshade: you have to cover as much of the vehicle as possible. Putting the "against vehicles" in the same paragraph as, but after, the "as many models in the target unit as possible" sentence indicates that "against vehicles" is a special case and "as many models in the target unit as possible" is the general case. Special cases take precedence over general, so you have to cover as much of the vehicle as possible even if doing so means you don't cover as many models in the target unit as possible.

Ninja *******, lol. Funny that we pretty much covered the same pages as a reference.

[Katharon]

He'll probably stop being obtuse when you 1) chill out and 2) stop making up rules.

1) I actually have been chill the entire time and 2) what frakking rules have I made up? I was simply arguing that a Walker, imho, does not equate to a vehicle - its usually a bipedal exo-skeleton or prosthetic (think Iron Man); the only real walker that deserves the vehicle nomenclature would be the Sentinel.

But yeah, if you are firing a flamer at a squadron of walkers, you try follow the rules under "Damaging Squadrons" on page 77.

[Nabterayl]

what frakking rules have I made up? I was simply arguing that a Walker, imho, does not equate to a vehicle
If you intended to express an opinion as opposed to a rules interpretation, okay ... though for my part,

because Sentinels are Walkers and not Vehicles
does not read as simply expressing an opinion.

[Katharon]

Fine, I apolgize if my use of language was not accurately and clearly expressed at the time to demonstrate my own, personal belief that a Walker -- or in this case Sentinels -- were to be considered primarily as a Walker first and a vehicle second. This misunderstanding came about partially because it seemed that the OP and others were, due to my understanding of the language they were using to express their ideas, viewing Walkers in the same way that you view a Tank (a vehicle that has no base). Because a Sentinel has a base, a template weapon has to cover the base as much as possible, and not the physical hull of the model in question.

So, Nabterayl, my apologies if that misled you into thinking that I was somehow creating a rule.