Flamers and angles

[Javin]

I was at adepticon this week. I played nids in the final round of the championships. I was playing IG. My opponent was a nice fellow. He told something that I am now curious about. He stated a heavy flamer had to shoot in a strait line. I thought hull mounted weapons could shoot in a 45% angle.

I had his genestealers lined up for a 30% angle shot but he stated I had to shoot strait ahead. Because of the angle (near the board edge) I could not hit him strait on. I hit one genestealer and the rest wiped out that side of the board and won the primary because of this.

I feel now that I was rather seriously cheated. Can hull mounted weapons shoot in a 45% angle? If not I feel I owe this fellow from austin an apology. If they can, I was fooled (I know I should have looked up the rule considering this move allowed him to win rather than me) and feel rather poorly towards what is otherwise a fine player (who knew the rules very very well.).

[Nabterayl]

I was at adepticon this week. I played nids in the final round of the championships. I was playing IG. My opponent was a nice fellow. He told something that I am now curious about. He stated a heavy flamer had to shoot in a strait line. I thought hull mounted weapons could shoot in a 45% angle.

I had his genestealers lined up for a 30% angle shot but he stated I had to shoot strait ahead. Because of the angle (near the board edge) I could not hit him strait on. I hit one genestealer and the rest wiped out that side of the board and won the primary because of this.

I feel now that I was rather seriously cheated. Can hull mounted weapons shoot in a 45% angle? If not I feel I owe this fellow from austin an apology. If they can, I was fooled (I know I should have looked up the rule considering this move allowed him to win rather than me) and feel rather poorly towards what is otherwise a fine player (who knew the rules very very well.).
You're both right, in a sense. The rule for all weapons is that they can only fire directly "ahead" (i.e., in a straight line for what they are pointed at). The rule for hull-mounted weapons is that they are deemed to be able to rotate a minimum of 22.5 degrees left, right, up, and down, even if that is patently impossible due to the vehicle's design (e.g., a Basilisk's Earthshaker cannon clearly has no traverse) or due to the model's construction (e.g., a Land Raider's hull-mounted heavy bolters were glued in place rather than left free to rotate).

Consider the following from pages 58 and 59:


Just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them. When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' [sic] mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models.

On some models it will be actually impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target ... in this case, players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings ... Hull-mounted weapons can fire in a 45-degree arc from their mounting point (see diagram).

[Diagram on page 59, showing a Vindicator's Demolisher cannon with a 45-degree arc even though the Demolisher cannon plainly is not designed to rotate at all.]

So, assuming you had a hull-mounted heavy flamer, the rules say the following:
You could only target the genestealers if your heavy flamer could be rotated directly at one or more genestealers. Note that you have to point the flamer directly at a genestealer to establish line of sight - if you can't point directly at at least one genestealer, you can't shoot, even if the teardrop shape of the template would allow you to hit a genestealer anyway.
For purposes of establishing what your heavy flamer can point directly at, your hull-mounted heavy flamer could rotate 22.5 degrees in any direction, even if the model cannot physically do that, and even if a "real" heavy flamer could not do that (remember the magic swiveling Demolisher cannon).
In practical terms this means your opponent was wrong and you were right. However, remember that the arc of fire of hull-mounted weapons has been cut in half compared to 4th edition. It used to be that a hull-mounted weapon could rotate 45 degrees left or right, for a 90-degree total arc of fire. In 5th edition, hull-mounted weapons can only rotate 22.5 degrees left or right, for a 45-degree total arc of fire.

So if your opponent's genestealers actually were 30 degrees to the left of the mount (not that you got out a protractor and checked, I imagine), you would not have been able to hit them anyway. Therefore, it is possible that the outcome of the game was correct, even if your opponent got the rule wrong.

[The Mystic]

I think we should look at this by phase.

The 45 degrees determines the arc of sight. So if you dertermined that the opposing unit was within that arc of sight. If so, and you have line of sight to the unit you can shoot at it.

Now we come to shooting. Since you are firing a heavy flamer you use the template rules for shooting and they clearly state that you must cover as many models as poossible when firing.

I would conclude then that you can put your template on any angle that will result in the most model coverage.

[Nabterayl]

Mystic: Does that mean you contend that a hull-mounted flamer on a properly designed model could theoretically fire 160-degrees backwards, so long as one model in the target unit was within the 45-degree arc of sight?

[The Mystic]

I would think not as would'nt you end up covering your own model?

[Nabterayl]

On all the hull-mounted heavy flamers I can think of, yes, but that's not necessarily a problem. It goes against the rules, but lots of template weapons clearly make an exception for the firing vehicle to the "you can't touch friendly models" rule. Otherwise, for instance, Immolators couldn't ever fire their heavy flamers.

But even assuming for the moment that a vehicle can't touch itself with its own flamer template, if the model happened to be designed so that it was possible for a hull-mounted heavy flamer to be fired 160 degrees to the left or right without touching the firing model, and doing so covered the most enemy models in the target unit, and if one model in the target unit were within the 45-degree arc of sight, would you conclude that the template had to be placed at 160 degrees?

EDIT: Eh, there I go overthinking again. Never mind.

[The Mystic]

No.

As I have just read the rules for some clarification, it states that Hull-mounted weapons can fire in a 45 degree arc from there mounting point.

So in the case of a heavy flamer you would be able to place the template at any angle to maximise model coverage as long as the template remains within the 45 degree arc of sight.

Edit: Ooops. Just reread your original post and realised we were trying to say the same thing. You just said it better.;)

[Nabterayl]

Then we agree. Hooray for mature consensus!

So I have to know, Javin - assuming Mystic and I are correct, would it have made a difference? Or was the rest of the genestealer unit at too extreme an angle?

[The Mystic]

Your much to eloquent for me Nab :p

[Javin]

After looking at the rules I will admit to feeling rather poorly at my opponent and myself. Myself for not looking up the rules and believing my opponent, and my opponent who knew so many rules that I beleived him when I should not have. I guess I should not feel too poorly at him as he might not have known this one rule (After all, I did not).

Just another pointer that reading the rule book and/or double checking is never wasted time. Ah the difference that one decision made. Such is life.

[weeble1000]

It depends on whether or not you have to keep a template within the weapon/model's line of sight. I suppose this question would also apply to an infantry model that has line of sight to one model in a unit but the majority of the unit is out of line of sight, say around the corner of a building. In that case are you supposed to swivel the template around the corner even though the firing model does not have line of sight to the other models in the unit?

In the case of the infantry model I'd say yes, because the template rules don't say anything about line of sight when placing the template. I think this would also apply to vehicles. Once line of sight is established the template rules indicate that the template is placed to cover as many models in the target unit as possible as long as the small end touches the base of the model and no friendly models are under the template. This is done instead of rolling to hit. It seems that confirming rage is a redundant step for template weapons.

Rolling to hit is a separate step in the shooting sequence from check line of sight and pick a target. So yes, illogical as it may be, if one model of the enemy unit is within the 45 degree line of sight, the hull-mounted heavy flamer would be allowed to "open fire" on the enemy unit. The next step of checking range would be ignored, and the template would be placed to cover as many models in the enemy unit as possible, even if that meant that the template had to be placed at 160 degrees.

[Nabterayl]

It depends on whether or not you have to keep a template within the weapon/model's line of sight. I suppose this question would also apply to an infantry model that has line of sight to one model in a unit but the majority of the unit is out of line of sight, say around the corner of a building. In that case are you supposed to swivel the template around the corner even though the firing model does not have line of sight to the other models in the unit?

In the case of the infantry model I'd say yes, because the template rules don't say anything about line of sight when placing the template. I think this would also apply to vehicles. Once line of sight is established the template rules indicate that the template is placed to cover as many models in the target unit as possible as long as the small end touches the base of the model and no friendly models are under the template. This is done instead of rolling to hit. It seems that confirming rage is a redundant step for template weapons.

Rolling to hit is a separate step in the shooting sequence from check line of sight and pick a target. So yes, illogical as it may be, if one model of the enemy unit is within the 45 degree line of sight, the hull-mounted heavy flamer would be allowed to "open fire" on the enemy unit. The next step of checking range would be ignored, and the template would be placed to cover as many models in the enemy unit as possible, even if that meant that the template had to be placed at 160 degrees.
You know, I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure I can agree with it. Let's suppose you have a mob of 20 orks huddled behind a massive concrete wall that is 8" long, 10" high, and 3" thick. 19 of the orks are clustered behind the wall, but one of them sticks out from around the corner. Now let's say there's a space marine with a flamer on the other side of the wall, who can just barely see the one ork sticking out from around the corner, and can just barely touch that one ork if he angles his flamer template just right.

At this point, the following facts are true:
The one ork is visible, and therefore the entire unit may be targeted.
The one visible ork is about 8" away, and if the flamer template hits him, the flamer marine will score one hit.
19 other orks are a mere 3" away and clustered very tightly, but on the other side of a 10" high 3" thick solid wall.
Are we really saying that the flamer marine can, and indeed must, place his flamer template over the orks behind the enormous wall? Sure, they'd get a cover save, as 100% of their bodies are obscured, but the flamer ignores cover saves. So ... the template can effectively shoot through a wall that's the width of a Rhino and the height of a Warhound? That doesn't seem right.

[Javin]

Then we agree. Hooray for mature consensus!

So I have to know, Javin - assuming Mystic and I are correct, would it have made a difference? Or was the rest of the genestealer unit at too extreme an angle?

The difference? I had two Chimeras at that point, one was immoblized but still alive. He had three stealers and stealer leader who already had two wounds. Had I been able to flame them they would not have been able to destroy the two chimeras and my command squad. They would not have been able to take full primary as it would have been contested. I might have picked up the primary and secondary because he had 4 warriors, a tervigon, a hive guard, 10 gargoyles, and 9 gaunts (besides those stealers). I still had part of plt cmd sq, a full company command squad, two chims, a medusa, two vendettas, and two special weapons teams (one of which I had stupidly dropped too far from the action).

Had I been able to burn down even half I would not have lost those two chimeras the next turn (due to distance in the assaults) and he would not have been able to make it to wipe my command squad the next turn and claim one of the three objectives the turn later. I could have burned the gargoyles or even the 5 guants that were holding the main objective (and who later killed my special weapon squad that was contesting it). I could have put the command squad in the chimera so they would not be shot up enough that there would be enough ablative wounds to survive and assault from a stealer.

But that is maybes and ifs now. Moral of the story, read the rules yourself, even if your opponent seems to be helpful and friendly.

[Nabterayl]

Sorry man, didn't mean to hit a nerve there. I just meant, do you think the other two genestealers were within 22.5 degrees of your heavy flamer's center? If you would have had to traverse 30 degrees to hit them then the game went the right way, even if your opponent got his rules wrong. Just curious.

[Javin]

NP, just tired after a long days work. I could have made a 20% angle. Doesn't matter now. I just know a bit more about the game which is always good. I will say my opponent taught me a few things and was a decent fellow. It is not like he was abusive of the rules (besides not measuring a few movements which I called him on). I just should have looked up the rule rather than just blindly trusting my opponent. This was more my fault on being too trusting than his.

[Lerra]

Are we really saying that the flamer marine can, and indeed must, place his flamer template over the orks behind the enormous wall? Sure, they'd get a cover save, as 100% of their bodies are obscured, but the flamer ignores cover saves. So ... the template can effectively shoot through a wall that's the width of a Rhino and the height of a Warhound? That doesn't seem right.

That is the way that I've always played it. The game rules are an abstraction and that is one of those scenarios that my local players think of in rules terms instead of using real-world logic. Running up to a Valkyrie to hit it with your fist doesn't make logical sense either ;) If you can move through a concrete wall, I don't see why you couldn't shoot a flamer template through it, either, as long as line of sight was followed.

If a large blast template was placed on a wall, it would still hit units on both sides of the wall, even if a single shell in the real world wouldn't be able to do that.

[weeble1000]

I agree Lerra. The firing arc rules for vehicle-mounted weapons are only important regarding line of sight and line of sight simply determines what you can target and what cover save it might get. It doesn't dictate how a template functions.

Look at it this way. If we changed the hull-mounted heavy flamer in the above example into a hull-mounted heavy bolter, nobody would have a problem with that bolter shooting the unit in question three times and the opposing player taking models 160 degrees away as casualties. Yet that's about as illogical as a flamer template being placed outside of its firing arc or through a wall.

@Nab - Considering your posts in other threads, I'm surprised with your interpretation of this issue. The RAW seem pretty clear cut here.

[gcsmith]

Hmm with TLOS id say you flame maximum models of those you can see. You may only shoot models you can see, For normal templates like missles anyway so why should flamer be diff

[Nabterayl]

@Nab - Considering your posts in other threads, I'm surprised with your interpretation of this issue. The RAW seem pretty clear cut here.
Heh ... I'll take that as a compliment :p

Lest you lose faith in my godlike powers of reading comprehension, I actually did agree with your position until Mystic talked me out of it a couple of posts back. The question as I see it is this: how should we read "can fire in a 45-degree arc?" I see two options:
The template must be placed within the 45-degree arc.
The template may be placed anywhere, provided that the flamer can see at least one model in the target unit within the 45-degree arc.
#1 is, I think, the natural meaning of "can fire in a 45-degree arc." Casualty removal is a conceptually different issue. A heavy bolter firing within its 45-degree arc could certainly kill models outside of its arc of fire, but that is not the same thing as saying that it can hit models outside of its arc of fire. With a heavy bolter there is no practical distinction, of course, but the concepts are still theoretically distinct.

As attractive as it is to go with the natural meaning of anything, #2 has three great points in its favor. First is that the whole discussion of firing comes up in the context of determining what the weapon can see, not what it can hit. The second point, which you and Mystic among others have both raised, is to read page 59 as determining when a weapon can fire, but not how. If we are left with only page 29 to determine the how, then I agree that templates can shoot through concrete walls and flamers can fire at extreme angles, though only when at least one model in the target unit is within their arc of fire. Third is the fact that the diagrams on page 59 speak of an arc of sight, not an arc of fire (the counterpoint to this, of course, is that the bullet points speak of firing only within the arc of sight, which brings us back to #2.2).

I think the intent of the rules is fairly clear in this case. Page 58 says that we point our vehicle weapons "to see if the shot is blocked." Additionally, the arc of sight really is describing how the weapon can be pointed - it is not the case, for instance, that a Predator's right sponson can be rotated fifteen degrees toward the center of the vehicle and then can fire an additional 22.5 degrees to the left of that. Template weapons are the only possible exception to the rule that weapons can only shoot at what they can be pointed at, or deemed to be pointed at.

That said, having talked myself through this again, I must concede that while the intent can be clearly discerned from what is written, what is written is different from the intent. If this were a legal case, I would be justified in choosing the clear intent only if the actual language was ambiguous. Unambiguous language trumps unambiguous intent in the legal world, and I generally try to interpret GW rules with no more rigor than I would interpret the constitution.

So the question, for me, at any rate, really boils down to this: does the conflict between "may fire" and "arc of sight" constitute ambiguity?

It's a bit of a gray area, but at the end of the day I can't quite convince myself that the actual language is ambiguous. So I will reverse my decision and concur with the reading advocated by weeble, Lerra, et al.

[weeble1000]

Hmm with TLOS id say you flame maximum models of those you can see. You may only shoot models you can see, For normal templates like missles anyway so why should flamer be diff

I believe you can only target units that you can see, which is different from shooting models. Step one of the shooting sequence is check line of sight and pick a target. When checking line of sight any model in your unit that has line of sight to any model in the enemy unit is able to target that unit. So if one model in your unit has line of sight to one model in the enemy unit then the enemy unit may be chosen as your unit's target. Once step one is over, step two is check range. In this step every model that has line of sight checks range to the closest model in the enemy unit that it has line of sight to. Any models in your unit that have both line of sight to and are within range of any single model in the enemy unit may then roll to hit and wound the unit.

Template weapons replace rolling to hit with placing the template. What weapon a model in your unit is using has nothing to do with that model's line of sight and so the fact that a model is armed with a template weapon has no impact on step one of the shooting sequence.

Template weapons implicitly ignore the second step of the shooting sequence since a unit cannot take hits from a template that does not cover any models, making the rage check superfluous. That is, you physically cannot "hit" an enemy unit with the weapon if it is out of range, so there can be no error in the number of hits the enemy unit takes caused by skipping the second step of the shooting sequence. For example, if you failed to check which of your models armed with bolters was in range of the enemy unit, you could accidentally roll to hit the enemy unit more times than you should. This can't happen when placing a template.

This leaves template weapons at the third step of the shooting sequence which is rolling to hit. Instead of rolling to hit, a template must be placed such that the small end touches the base of the model and the template covers as many models in the enemy unit as possible without covering any friendly models. Again, rolling to hit has nothing to do with line of sight since steps one and two already established that your model is allowed to potentially hit and wound the enemy unit. So your model's line of sight cannot and should not influence how the template of a template weapon is placed when determining hits in the third step of the shooting sequence.

[gcsmith]

Should not? seriously If you can only see one model then that is the only model you can aim at. After all Unless its barrage the TARGET must be in LOS and targets are models. At least this is how all GW run tournies have been, After all you would think i was silly if i was placing a template in the unit so it covered models and was OOR when doing so, and LOS. My hammer head cannot aim outside LOS so a flamer shouldnt be able to do. Only exception is City fight :p

[weeble1000]

I could indeed be reading and interpreting the rules terribly incorrectly. In spite of my predilection to waste time at work posting on the internet I don't have a copy of the BRB on hand at the office, so I'm going to bow out of this discussion until I can once again refer to the rules.

[Nabterayl]

Disclaimer: as I said before, I think the intent of the rules is demonstrably clear in this case. Please bear in mind that I'm discussing what I think the rules say, not what I think they should say, and not necessarily how I would play.

That said, weeble is definitely correct at least when it comes to the general case of shooting template weapons. A template weapon can only be fired at a unit if the unit can be chosen as a target, which means at least one model in the target unit must be visible. Assuming the unit is a valid target, though, page 29 says nothing at all about placing the template so that it covers as many visible models in the target unit as possible. Instead, all it says is this:


Place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it and the rest of the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models.

Contrast that with page 30, which states the following:


When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit, instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker (see diagram) with its hole over the base of the target model."

To go back to my Warhound-sized concrete wall example, a blast weapon would have to be targeted at the single visible ork, even though it could scatter onto the hidden orks, and even though any of the hidden orks could be taken as casualties instead of the visible ork. Nothing in the template rules restricts placing flamer templates to visible enemies, though.

[harrybuttwhisker]

Line of sight for vehicles is drawn from the weapons muzzle, for non-vehicle units the models head (or equivalent).

If you can see a model (singular) then the unit becomes an eligible target.

So in the case of template weapons as long as you position the template within its fire arc, for a fixed mount a 45% fixed firing arc, a turrret 360 degrees, any other non-vehicle model the narrow end of the template touching the base of the firing model but otherwise 360 degrees. Then you can place the template how you like over the target unit as long as you satisfy the above provisos and endeavour to cover as many models from the target unit as possible.

so:

1)can i see a model in the target unit i wish to fire at?

if yes

2)can the template be placed within the limitations of the models fire arc to cover at least one model from the unit?

edit:what he said

if yes

3)have you placed the template to cover as many models in the target unit as possible within the limitations of your fire arc?

if yes

4)count the number of models under the template, this is how many you have hit.

5)roll to wound and allocate wounds as normal.

Simples

[Nabterayl]

2)can the template be placed within the limitations of the models fire arc to cover at least one model from the unit?

edit:what he said
Yeah, this is the trouble. In order for this to be a true restatement of the rules, we need to have something in the rules that limits us to placing the template within the arc of sight. We can definitely say the following:
Vehicle weapons may only fire at units that have at least one model within their arc of sight.
Vehicle weapons may only fire within their arc of sight.
Here's what I'm having trouble with: what authorizes us to make the jump from "fire within their arc of sight" to "place the template within their arc of sight?"

We might say, "Well, isn't it obvious that the template can only be placed within the arc of sight?" or, in the alternative, "Isn't it obvious that flamers can only project their streams of promethium directly forward?" To these we would have to answer, "No, though it's obvious that's what the rules should say," and "Yes, but is that really a rules argument?" respectively.

When we go to the actual rules, as far as I can tell, there is nothing that restricts us to placing the template only over visible models, or directly forward from the template weapon. In fact, blast weapons do have an analogous restriction, which is conspicuously absent from the template weapon rules.

EDIT: You could argue that when page 59 says, "Can fire in a 45-degree arc" it is not saying, "May fire at any target within a 45-degree arc per the normal rules for firing a template weapon" but is instead saying, "May fire at any target within a 45-degree arc per the normal rules for firing a template weapon; provided, that the template may only be placed within a 45-degree arc."

The trouble with that is that the entire discussion is taking place in the context of what the flamer can be pointed at and what it can see, neither of which are restrictions for the placement of a flamer template. So we need to come up with some reason why "Can fire in a 45-degree arc" justifies inventing a new rule for the placement of a flamer template, and I'm not sure we can do that.

[harrybuttwhisker]

BRB states a vehicle takes the line of sight from the mounting of a weapon along the length of its barrel.

on the next page it states that although some weapons may not obviously be able to move, for the purposes of line of sight it is assumed that they can move freely within arc given under the following weapon types.

(bit of paraphrasing there)

so the hull mounted flamer can move freely in a 45 degree arc. Once we have "pointed" the weapon at our "target" we now look down the imaginarily repositioned barrel, this lets us know can we see and therefore target said unit. All fairly clear, still with me?

Then it states for hull mounted weapons that they "fire within a 45degree arc" to me this means that all actions involved in firing the weapon, placing the template etc must take place within the 45degree arc.

simples and in the BRB ;)

if i was to be super picky i would say vehicles cant fire template weapons, as it says under firing template weapons that the template has to be placed in base contact with the model firing and tanks don't have bases

[Nabterayl]

Then it states for hull mounted weapons that they "fire within a 45degree arc" to me this means that all actions involved in firing the weapon, placing the template etc must take place within the 45degree arc.
Which is a reasonable way to read it, and the way I read it originally. It is certainly the natural reading of "fire within a 45-degree arc." I'm not convinced it's the right one in this case, though, considering that non-vehicle mounted templates can fire off-bore, and the whole discussion of pointing and firing within n-degree arcs is in the context of what can be seen and therefore what can be targeted.

[harrybuttwhisker]

non-vehicle mounted ones don't fire off bore they simply have a 360 degree arc of fire, the template is placed in contact with the base a la the diagram in the big red book. Our glamorous space marine modelling in this diagram then helpfully repositions his weapon (giggle) so that the template is now spurting (double giggle) from it.


The 45 degree context is

hull mounted weapon may fire in a 45 degree arc.


There is also a proviso allowing for how the model is built/designed that modifies its line of sight based on that statement, not the other way around

[Nabterayl]

non-vehicle mounted ones don't fire off bore they simply have a 360 degree arc of fire
Yes, that's true. But there's nothing stopping a flamer held by a space marine from firing at models out of its line of sight (go back to the concrete wall example), so long as those models are in a unit that is in line of sight. I'm not sure page 59 provides a warrant for modifying this fact about template weapons. Yes, it says "fire in a 45-degree arc," but that could be read in two ways:
May fire at any target in a 45-degree arc according to the normal rules for firing.
May fire at models in a 45-degree arc according to the normal rules for firing.
For all weapons but template weapons, there is no difference between #1 and #2. For template weapons there is a difference, and #1 seems closer to the rules than #2.

[harrybuttwhisker]

ok so if we followed example one we end up with the following scenario

a chimera with a hull mounted haevy flamer fancies shooting so ork boys.

It can see a boy in its 45degree arc, so can target the unit, howevermost of the boys are actually at the side of the chimera.

So i must following the template rules place the template to cover as many models as possible from the target unit.

This only leaves one of two ways to position the template

1) the narrow end is placed against the muzzle and the template lies across the hull of the tank.

2)the template is placed in contact with the hull on the side of the chimera facing the larger concentration of boys

neither of these make any sense but to satisfy example one and the normal rules of firing a template one of these two examples has to happen.

If using example two neither of these weird situations arise.

[Nabterayl]

neither of these make any sense but to satisfy example one and the normal rules of firing a template one of these two examples has to happen.

If using example two neither of these weird situations arise.
100% agreed, and as I said earlier, I think that one can make a pretty clear case that example two is the intended rule (and the way I personally would prefer to play). But I think that the rule as written does indeed require us to face the bizarre examples you have correctly outlined.

[weeble1000]

Although I don't have my rulebook on me right now, I do remember something about other weapons mounted on a vehicle being considered separate models in a unit consisting of all the vehicle weapons for the purposes of shooting.

Would this mean that a template could not be placed in a way that would cover another vehicle weapon as that weapon would be a "friendly model?" This would be assuming that the template could be placed outside of the weapon's arc. I'm just curious about what ya'll think.

[Nabterayl]

Although I don't have my rulebook on me right now, I do remember something about other weapons mounted on a vehicle being considered separate models in a unit consisting of all the vehicle weapons for the purposes of shooting.
The quote you're thinking of is "If the target unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicle's weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit" (p. 58).


Would this mean that a template could not be placed in a way that would cover another vehicle weapon as that weapon would be a "friendly model?" This would be assuming that the template could be placed outside of the weapon's arc. I'm just curious about what ya'll think.
Other vehicle weapons are not really separate friendly models, and are only treated as such for purposes of determining cover saves. Regardless, it is true that a template may not be placed if it covers any part of any friendly model, which includes the firing model itself. This is a problem not only for vehicle-mounted template weapons, but also for passengers firing template weapons from certain transports (e.g., drive-by flamings from a Rhino).

The most common solution, I think, is to read an implied exception into the rules for transport vehicles and firing models. This goes squarely against the rules, but I doubt many people would seriously argue that an Immolator can't ever fire its heavy flamers just because the muzzles of the flamers never clear the hull of the vehicle (other vehicles would have similar issues, such as flamer-armed Razorbacks, and Banewolves firing to the rear).

A more RAW-friendly solution would be to point out that nothing in the rulebook actually states that the template weapon has to be placed with the narrow end touching the muzzle of the firing weapon. Range is worked out from the muzzle of the firing weapon, but template weapons don't actually measure range, and page 29 only tells us to place the narrow end of the template touching the base of the model firing. Thus, I think you can make a strong argument that an Immolator firing forward would measure line of sight from the muzzles of its heavy flamers, but the template should actually be placed in contact with the hull of the Immolator, not the muzzles of the flamers themselves. I seriously doubt many people play this way, but I think it's the most technically correct reading of the rules.

[AirHorse]

Seems like keeping the template within the vehicles arc is the agreed upon verdict, and its how ive always played it since it makes sense!

I also dont think theres anything wrong with an infantry model firing a flamer at parts of a unit he cant see, its just like a barrage weapon can shoot targets they cant see. There are more ways of figuring out where the enemy are than just seeing where they are and given that template weapons are the kind of weapons designed for getting at targets you cant get with conventional straight shot weapons it is perfectly reasonable.

In extreme examples(like the giant block of concrete that nab suggested) I would hope that people would be decent enough to accept that a piece of scenery like that kind of provides an exception to the rules thats not written about really(I dont have many pieces of scenery that are giant blocks anyway :P).

[Paul]

Regardless of the letter of the rules, I believe there is some basic common sense here.

Bear with me; I know the phrase "regardless of the letter of the rules" is heresy, but there really is some basic common logic which would make much sense.

Think of a ball-mounted flame-thrower, on say, a tank. Or even the ball-machine gun on some World War II vehicles. Then, build the tank so that this gun can only pivot 45 degrees, or 22.5 in either direction from straight ahead.

If a model is behind the tank/next to the side of the tank, a hull flamer CAN NOT simply pivot to engage it, not without some SEVERE damaging of the vehicle's hull and structural integrity. If it could, I'd be worried. So even if one model is dumb enough to stand in front of a flame thrower, how, then, does the 45 degree flamethrower pivot 90 degrees (or more) to engage the rest of the squad?

It simply doesn't make sense.


Edit:

Additonal: One of the coolest things about 40K was the ability to take a cool-looking model, which would normally sit in a display case, and pit it against other cool looking models. I think part of this cool factor goes away if tanks can shoot hull-mounted weapons sideways or depress their gun-barrels to ridiculously low angles. I don't feel my Chimera model is actually a Chimera full of honest, no-guts-no-glory guardsmen if it's hull mounted flamer is firing through it. It seems like a cheap, rules-advantaging trick that shouldn't work at all.