If a squad with a flamer is firing at a unit that is 12 inches away, can the flamer still fire at that unit even though it's only an 8 inch long template? The obvious reason for this would be to barbeque a unit that was within range of the flamer. If the flamer si allowed to fire like this, what are the rules for how the template can be placed? Does it have to be on a path to potentially hit the unit 12" away?

If the weapon is out of range it does not fire.

But if you can just nick one of the bases in the far unit with the template, then the shot does go off, and you can fry the unit between the flamer and it's so-called target.

I remember this from an Ed question, I think, about flaming a Falcon in order to toast the guardian in front of it.

thanks for the clarification

bigchris1313 wrote:But if you can just nick one of the bases in the far unit with the template, then the shot does go off, and you can fry the unit between the flamer and it's so-called target.

I remember this from an Ed question, I think, about flaming a Falcon in order to toast the guardian in front of it.

That would then be in range and therefore not fit the question asked.

bigchris1313 wrote:I remember this from an Ed question, I think, about flaming a Falcon in order to toast the guardian in front of it.

That's legit, right? And I guess the point was to hit the falcon with an anti-tank weapon and wash the guardian with the flamer from the same squad?

What about hitting a rhino with a flamer to spash the marines sheltering behind it? Or does that hit LoS issues?

- Salvage

Yes, if the falcon is in range you can use a weapon of too low strength and hit the guys in between as long as you place the template so that the most coverage possible is hit (so pretty much directly at the vehicle in most cases). This can cause the models in between to be hit, and is a cheap but completely legal tactic.

You can't hit models you cannot see behind the vehicle because they are not in LOS, so they would not count for templates.

**Editted for clarity**

The range of a template weapon like a flamer is the length of the template, which is 8" long. See P. 31 of the rulebook you shelled out hard cash for.

snooggums wrote:You can't hit models you cannot see behind the vehicle because they are not in LOS, so they would not count for templates.

I think you might even be able to hit and wound, but your opponent would be prevented from removing them.

bigchris1313: Wrong. You cannot hit and since you cannot hit you cannot wound. You are, however, correct that those models could not be removed as casualties.

"Any individual models in the unit that don't have a line of sight to the target can't fire, and any models in the target unit that can't be seen by the attackers can't be hit or chosen as casualties (with the exception of barrage weapons - as explained later)." Line of Sight. P. 21.

Hence the "I think" as opposed to an outright assertion.

Yes, what you though was false because what was true was otherwise than what you thought. What's the problem?

There's no problem; I just wanted to reiterate that I'd given a disclaimer.

Fair enough.

Okay, so that means that plasma guns never overheat if the target is found to be just out of range? I thought you still had to roll even if you couldn't hit.

@ Neo- No, why would you roll an over-heat if you do not even get to shoot?
\
1,. Determine Target.
2. Delare target(within LOS rules).
3.Measure range.
4. IF the target is in range, roll to hit.

Nurglitch wrote:bigchris1313: Wrong. You cannot hit and since you cannot hit you cannot wound. You are, however, correct that those models could not be removed as casualties.

"Any individual models in the unit that don't have a line of sight to the target can't fire, and any models in the target unit that can't be seen by the attackers can't be hit or chosen as casualties (with the exception of barrage weapons - as explained later)." Line of Sight. P. 21.

I don't mean to be very annoying about this but this means you can't target a unit that is out of LOS. What says that a unit out of LOS can't be hit (other than the specific ordnance rule. I agree that it doesn't make sense for a flame to go up, over a vehicle and back down to hit the troops, that's not good physics.

Warhammer 40k isn't physics, it's a game. You might as well complain that The Order of the Stick is not photography.

Now don't worry, you're not being annoying. What says that a unit entirely outside of a shooting unit's line of sight cannot be hit is the cited rule. If a model cannot fire its weapon, nothing can be hit by that weapon. If a model cannot fire its weapon because it does not have a line of sight to a model in the target unit, then no model in the target unit can be hit. A weapon must shoot or fire before a template is placed or a to hit roll is made. If it cannot, it does not.

snooggums wrote:If the weapon is out of range it does not fire.

There is nothing in the rules that say the weapon does not fire.

However it does say that the weapon misses (I'll get a quote later tonight). So given this wording it does in fact fire.

Except the "Line of Sight" rule on P. 21 quoted above.

Nurglitch wrote:Warhammer 40k isn't physics, it's a game. You might as well complain that The Order of the Stick is not photography.

Now don't worry, you're not being annoying. What says that a unit entirely outside of a shooting unit's line of sight cannot be hit is the cited rule. If a model cannot fire its weapon, nothing can be hit by that weapon. If a model cannot fire its weapon because it does not have a line of sight to a model in the target unit, then no model in the target unit can be hit. A weapon must shoot or fire before a template is placed or a to hit roll is made. If it cannot, it does not.

I agree, but the Target can be seen, it's the tank right in front of the firing unit. Therefore the firining unit may fire the flamethrower. As per the flamer rules, any target under the template is automatically hit. Again I don't think that this is right and I don't agree with this happening (units behind a tank being hit by the flame thrower) because it doesn't make physical sense to me but I don't think that you can challenge the fact that the flamethrower can fire. I do recall something about not being able to draw a line of sight through a tank and there for not being able to hit a unit specifically stated in the 40K rule book but I'm not sure that that can but used in this case.

Models out of line of site simply can't be removed as casualties to a weapons fire. If your hiding behind a tank and can't be seen by the model with the flamer you can't be removed as a casualty. At this point whether or not you can be hit isn't important.

I won't comment on the rules in this issue, but as far as making sense, flamethowers fire liquid that arcs as it is projected. Most footage I've ever seen of flamethowers in action show the soldier targeting the area like a garden hose. I can easily imagine firing it over a wall or vehicle to bathe the other side...

Krak_kirby wrote:I won't comment on the rules in this issue, but as far as making sense, flamethowers fire liquid that arcs as it is projected. Most footage I've ever seen of flamethowers in action show the soldier targeting the area like a garden hose. I can easily imagine firing it over a wall or vehicle to bathe the other side...

Which is why it ignores cover saves normally. They just didn't go so far as to cause it to make casualties behind large objects.

Negativemoney wrote:

snooggums wrote:If the weapon is out of range it does not fire.

There is nothing in the rules that say the weapon does not fire.

However it does say that the weapon misses (I'll get a quote later tonight). So given this wording it does in fact fire.

As the template is placed after measuring distance, it is never placed because it is out of range. It also cannot be placed legally as it is required to be placed so that it covers as much of the tank as possible (out of range cannot cover any of the vehicle of course).

So I'm not going to even argue if it is "fired" or not, the template is never placed if the vehicle is out of range.

Zargyboy: As Dr Phibes points out models outside of a line of sight cannot be removed as casualties. If a model in a unit (A) is in range and line of sight of a tank model with its flamer then the template is placed over the tank model and the tank is hit automatically. If the template overlaps an infantry model from a different unit (B) that the flamer-carrying model in unit A does not have a line of sight to, then that infantry model cannot be removed as a casualty because it does not meet the conditions of being both in range and in line of sight.

snoogums: You are arguing if it is fired. "Fire/Fire/Shot/etc" are all terms used in Warhammer 40k to denote to hit dice being rolled or templates being placed. If the template is not placed because all models in the target unit are out of range, the weapon has not been fired.

Nurglitch wrote:Zargyboy: As Dr Phibes points out models outside of a line of sight cannot be removed as casualties. If a model in a unit (A) is in range and line of sight of a tank model with its flamer then the template is placed over the tank model and the tank is hit automatically. If the template overlaps an infantry model from a different unit (B) that the flamer-carrying model in unit A does not have a line of sight to, then that infantry model cannot be removed as a casualty because it does not meet the conditions of being both in range and in line of sight.

Just one more retort: pg 31 40K Rule book, "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit automatically." If squad A places a template on a tank and there are other models (squad B) under the template, they are hit. (Yes, I do see that this means that troops behind a wall would be hit, by saying this, if there was a wall between the tank and the squad but that doesn't affect my arguement.) pg 26 "The owning player can choose to remove any models from the unit, providing they are within line of fire and range of the attacker's weaponry" I'd argue that this is one of the rare times when "line of fire" is not the same as "line of sight" (yes, I know that they are the same "for all intensive purposes." The troops in squad B are quite literally in "line of fire."

Zargyboy: You're assuming several false things about the placement of templates. The first thing you're assuming is that more than one unit may be hit by the flamer. This is false, see P.18.


P. 18 "Shooting Phase"

"The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire between two or more target units."

The second thing you're assuming is that "line of fire" means something substantively different from "line of sight". This is also false, see diagrams on P.20. Likewise "line of fire" does not mean the same as "line of sight" for all intents or purposes in the game.

While one may have a line of sight without a line of fire, one must have a line of sight to have a line of fire. An enemy model is in a line of fire when it is in a line of sight and its unit has been attacked. The first diagram on P.20 shows units in lines of sight, while the second diagram shows models in lines of fire.

If unit A places a template on a unit B, but it overlaps another unit C, only unit B will be affected since a unit cannot split fire between two or more target units. Since a unit cannot split fire between two or more target units, only models in the target unit will be in the line of fire. A model must be in the line of fire and range to be affected by an attack and thus removed as a casualty (or lose wounds, or incur damage, etc).

So you can never hit another squad with a template then? I don't think that that is correct. Unit C is hit by the template, it was not directed at them. It seems to me that Line of sight implies who you can see and line of fire implies who you can hit. I agree that to have a line of fire you must frist see someone from the unit, normally. But the rules for a template weapon state that if the template lands on a model, it is hit; this, I believe, bypasses the need for LOS. Hence, the units are in line of fire but not necessarily, line of sight. Of course, if you say that a second unit cannot be hit by a flame template under any circumstances than I concede the argument.

I agree with Zargyboy on this one. After reading the rules for template weapons, targeting, line of site and the rest. Not only can you hit multiple units as long as you're covering as much of the target unit as possible, template weapons will certainly hit anything underneath them as long as the original target unit was legal to shoot at.

Models aren't hit. Units are hit, models are removed as casualties. You can't hit members of a unit that are not part of the target unit, you can only inflict hits on the target unit. The rules for template weapons do not conflict with the usual order of operations when resolving a unit's shooting against its target unit.

If a model in the target unit is under a template, then the target squad takes a unit and like blast weapons casualties may be removed normally and will not necessarily be the models under the template. A model is in the line of fire only when it is in the target unit. It can only be removed as a casualty if it is in the target unit.

Aside from special rules like those of Space Wolf Long Fangs and Ordnance weapons, a second unit cannot be hit by a flame template under any circumstances as noted on page 18 of the rulebook.

Pg. 18 says you may not split fire between units, so a flamer would have to fire at the same target unit as everyone else in his squad. Nowhere does it say that models from other units can't be killed. Under the template weapon heading on page 31 it says that any model under the template is hit, not any model under the template in the target unit.

Nurglitch-Models aren't hit. Units are hit, models are removed as casualties. You can't hit members of a unit that are not part of the target unit, you can only inflict hits on the target unit. The rules for template weapons do not conflict with the usual order of operations when resolving a unit's shooting against its target unit.

Noooo, wouldn't wash over well with me......

Krak_kirby-Pg. 18 says you may not split fire between units, so a flamer would have to fire at the same target unit as everyone else in his squad. Nowhere does it say that models from other units can't be killed. Under the template weapon heading on page 31 it says that any model under the template is hit, not any model under the template in the target unit.

Is the correct answer when regarding hits from template weapons.
A) Worst case scenario- 2 squads interspersed amongst each other ( it happens). Can Your template only 'hit' members of one squad under the template?

You can't hit members of a unit that are not part of the target unit, you can only inflict hits on the target unit.

Does not work under p18-31 rules.

The rules for template weapons do not conflict with the usual order of operations when resolving a unit's shooting against its target unit.

Is absolutely correct. Resolve the wounds, as you need not roll to hit. You hit anything under the template.

So Nurglitch, are you telling me that if, say, I direct fired a Battlecannon at one unit, naming that as my target. But, since I was moving and have bad dice, the template scatters, missing my target unit entirely but hitting a unit next to them. Are you saying that my Battlecannon shot can't actually wound the models it scattered onto?

Battlecannons don't use Templates. They use Blast Markers.

Only Template weapons use Templates.

p31 - ANY models fully or partially under the template are hit

if it's hit you roll to wound.

p26 - the owning player can choose to remove any models...within line of fire and range

they ARE in range and in line of fire - templates are asumed to be infinate height in the same way as terrain such as woods, and hit anything within the area - hence not allowing cover saves. The tank would act as cover, not an obstacle to the template. If you could only remove models within line of sight then you would not remove models from indirrect fire. They would still be hit but the owning player would not remove so what would be the point of it in the first place?

covenant84 wrote:p31 - ANY models fully or partially under the template are hit

if it's hit you roll to wound.

p26 - the owning player can choose to remove any models...within line of fire and range

they ARE in range and in line of fire - templates are asumed to be infinate height in the same way as terrain such as woods, and hit anything within the area - hence not allowing cover saves. The tank would act as cover, not an obstacle to the template. If you could only remove models within line of sight then you would not remove models from indirrect fire. They would still be hit but the owning player would not remove so what would be the point of it in the first place?

There is no relationship between the height of a firing model and the cover save permitted-cover saves being based upon the relative size of the terrain feature and the model claiming cover. Given this I cannot determine where in the rules templates are assumed to be of infinite height? Of course, this would still be irrelevant as there is no Size 4 in the game (see the 40k rulebook FAQ online), and one "infinite height" size 3 firing model (your flamer) would still be blocked by another "infinite height" size 3 feature-the tank.

Given this, the models in question are not in line of sight and cannot be removed as casualties.

Barrage weapons are specifically exempted in their rules from normal line of sight requirements-hence their utility.

Krak_kirby: Yes, on P.26 "Casualties" the rules tell us the casualties can only be removed from the target unit.

"Once the number of hits and wounds has been determined, the player that owns the target unit must remove any casualties."

"The owning player can choose to remove any models from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and range of the attacker's weaponry."

There are three conditions here: (1) Membership in the target unit, (2) Being in any attacking model's line of sight, and (3) Being within range of any attacking model's weaponry.

akira5665: The rulebook only allows a template weapon to hit a single unit. On P.18, as I've quoted, it tells us that only one unit may be an attacking unit's target. On P.19 it tells us which unit may be the target unit, according to the target priority rules. Pp.20-21 it tells us when a target unit is in line of sight. P.22 tells us how range and movement of the attacker affects the shooting interaction, and tells us how the target unit is hit by the attacker. P.23 tells us how rolling to wound is done against the target unit rather than the particular models composing it, and also how those models affect its toughness. P.24 tells us the same for armour saving throws and references the Mixed Armour Rule on P.76 when the target unit contains models with different armour saves. Cover and invulnerable saves are covered on P.25, again with reference to units, particularly in the case of units in partial cover. Finally P.26 covers the removal of individual casualties from target units.

The entire process of choosing a target, hitting, wounding, making saves, and removing casualties is defined as an interaction between units on P.18. as quoted. On P.19 the rules says:

"As mentioned previously, a firing unit can choose a single enemy unit as its target."

On P.22 the rules tell us that attacking units do not hit members of a unit that are not part of the target unit, and that hits are scored on the target unit and not models.

"To determine if the firing unit has hit its target, roll a D6 for each shot."

On P.31 "Templates" the placement rule for template weapons is expressed as:

"Instead of rolling to hit, simply 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 covering any friends."

When the template has covered models in the target unit: "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit automatically." and "As with blast weapons, casualties inflicted by template weapons do not have to be taken from amongst the models actually covered by the template, but must come from within range of the firer." As you can see these sentences lie within the scope of the of the target unit, and do not refer to any model whatsoever.

Turtle: As insaniak helpfully points out, Battlecannons are not Template weapons. They are covered by the rules for Ordnance weapons.

Nurglitch, the template rules don't mention covering models in the TARGET unit, they simply say "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit automatically." And the entry never mentions line of sight for casualty removal, only range.

Page 26 does not specify that casualties can be removed only from the target unit, only that "the player that owns the target unit must remove any casualties". "When a unit" (not target unit) "suffers casualties, each will affect a different model"

I understand a firing unit can choose a single enemy unit as a target, but I can't find anything on page 22 or elsewhere that disallows a template weapon to hit the target unit and any other models also beneath the template.

I think the template rules are quite clear that the only rules for placement are covering as many models in the target unit as possible, and not covering any friendly models.

Every game I have ever played where templates have been used, everything under the template is hit. No question from any opponent, onlooker or judge. Anyone who tried to argue otherwise would be judged against, I would wager the game on it.

Nurglitch wrote:Models aren't hit. Units are hit, models are removed as casualties. You can't hit members of a unit that are not part of the target unit, you can only inflict hits on the target unit. The rules for template weapons do not conflict with the usual order of operations when resolving a unit's shooting against its target unit.

If a model in the target unit is under a template, then the target squad takes a unit and like blast weapons casualties may be removed normally and will not necessarily be the models under the template. A model is in the line of fire only when it is in the target unit. It can only be removed as a casualty if it is in the target unit.

Aside from special rules like those of Space Wolf Long Fangs and Ordnance weapons, a second unit cannot be hit by a flame template under any circumstances as noted on page 18 of the rulebook.

Nope, Units are targetted, models are hit when using templates and blast weapons. Model removal (generally by unit) is separate from the targetting, hitting, and wounding steps.

If the original model can be reached with the template it is placed, any models underneath are hit and possibly wounded. Model removal (which requires LOS) allows the models between the firer and past the target if LOS can be drawn to be hit and wounded and possibly removed. Others can be hit with the template other than the target unit as it says "all models under the template" are hit (which is also logically why you cannot place a template so that it covers a friendly unit). If the unit had models in front and behind the vehicle (like say a 30 man ork squad) it is being argued that the models behind would count towards wounds towards those in LOS.

And I'm avoiding the "wether weapon shot" argument by focusing on wether a template can be placed, which has nothing to do with wether it was fired. I don't have a way to draw a diagram here at work, but imagine blocking your own template with a friendly model in a way that it could be placed 90 degrees to the side, which could hit a unit without hitting the target unit. This would be an illegal placement since you did not place it in a way that hit the target unit to have the most enemy models under it (because there are none) so the template would not be placed. Basically a flamer in the second row doesn't get to place the template all willy nilly at untis behind them because they cannot fire towards their unit's target.

Krak_kirby: So apparently you haven't been playing according to the rules stated in the rulebook. That's not unusual. What would be unusual is if you had been playing exactly by the rules. The Template weapon rules do indeed refer to models in the target unit, as I've shown.

The casualty rules on P.26 do indeed specify that casualties are removed from the unit that was hit. They refer to "the unit". The term 'the' indicates the definite article. That means that "the unit" refers to a particular unit. The particular unit is, as P.18 tells us, the target unit.

If you cannot find this in the Shooting rules, then I don't know how to help you find it because I've laid it out for you. The Template rules are quite clear, they follow the ordinary rules for shooting except they inflict a number of hits on the target unit equal to the number of number under the template.

Feel free to apply whatever rules you see fit in your own games. The fact is that the rules state that a flamer template will only hit its target unit.

Snoogums: Yes, units are hit, wounded, and make saves. Models are removed as casualties. When shooting with a Template weapon the template is placed over the target unit and the number of hits on the unit is the number of models under the template. If the models under the template were hit, then only models under the template could be removed as casualties, but that conditional is false because its consequence is false, any models in range of the Template weapon wielding model may be removed and not only those under the template.

Nurglitch wrote:Snoogums: Yes, units are hit, wounded, and make saves. Models are removed as casualties. When shooting with a Template weapon the template is placed over the target unit and the number of hits on the unit is the number of models under the template. If the models under the template were hit, then only models under the template could be removed as casualties, but that conditional is false because its consequence is false, any models in range of the Template weapon wielding model may be removed and not only those under the template.

No, units are targetted, models are hit and wounded by range and models make saves in groups by armor value (not necessarily unit). The specific models in these previous steps are not necessarily the models that are removed in the model removal stage (with exceptions for different armor saves I won't get into here). You need to grasp this basic concept before arguing further.

Nope, units are the targets referred to in the rules. Units are hit, wounded, and take saves. But I agree, we both need to agree with the rulebook before any constructive discussion can proceed. I've shown that the rulebook refers to units in the cases of rolling to hit, to wound, and to save, and to models in the case of removing casualties. If you want to argue the point you're going to have to demonstrate that what you state is true. I've given references and relevant quotations (possibly the references and relevant quotations), so please either show how the references and quotations I've given are incomplete or irrelevant, or show how I have misunderstood them.

Hey lifeafter don't worry. There are no dumb questions, only dumb people.

Nurglitch wrote:Nope, units are the targets referred to in the rules. Units are hit, wounded, and take saves. But I agree, we both need to agree with the rulebook before any constructive discussion can proceed. I've shown that the rulebook refers to units in the cases of rolling to hit, to wound, and to save, and to models in the case of removing casualties. If you want to argue the point you're going to have to demonstrate that what you state is true. I've given references and relevant quotations (possibly the references and relevant quotations), so please either show how the references and quotations I've given are incomplete or irrelevant, or show how I have misunderstood them.

From your own post:

When the template has covered models in the target unit: "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit automatically." and "As with blast weapons, casualties inflicted by template weapons do not have to be taken from amongst the models actually covered by the template, but must come from within range of the firer." As you can see these sentences lie within the scope of the of the target unit, and do not refer to any model whatsoever.

Models are hit, wounds are taken on majority toughness and models are removed based on unit and range (depending on mixed armor saves). You can remove a model that you could not legally place the flamer on because of an interceding friendly (but is in range) because of the casualty removal, but the models under the template were actually the ones that were hit.

In ranged shooting you still only hit the models that are in range and LOS, which is why mixed armor is determined by the valid models (in range and LOS). You target the unit, hit models. The opponent assigns wounds to similar armor groupings and then removes based on range and LOS. What you hit is not necessarily what you remove, but it is what you hit.

I've never played a game with anyone who refused to take casualties from a template that their models were under.

I see what Nurglitch's argument is and I put it in the same category as the RAW argument that terminators aren't actually wearing terminator armor.

The rules for template weapons clearly say that all models under the template are hit: pg 31 "All models fully or partially under the template are hit automatically." Note that the rules don't say "All models in the target unit..."

On page 26 of BGB the first paragraph talks about removing casualties from the target unit. This is the paragraph Nurglitch gets his argument from. "Once the number of hits and wounds has been determined, the player that owns the target unit must remove any casualties. The term "target unit" is what Nurglitch is using to say only models in the targeted unit are removed. I would move that this whole page can be opened to an argument of semantics that would support both opinions of this matter.

The second paragraph on page 26 says: "When a unit suffers wounding hits, each will affect a different model..." The use of the article "a" seems to refer to any unit which takes wounding hits not just "the target" unit which was referred to earlier. The 3rd paragraph then goes on to say "The owning player can choose to remove any models from the unit, providing they are within the line of fire and range of the attacker's weaponry." What does the "The Unit" refer to here? It might refer to the specific example of "a unit" that was mentioned in the 2nd paragraph. Maybe it's referring to the 1st paragraph's "the target unit." Who knows, but a different article was used, so it could be argued that the removal of casualties now includes multiple units. What's more, the 3rd paragraph says the owning player "can choose to remove." Maybe this means the player has a choice of removing models if they're in the "the unit" instead of "the target unit." This can really go on and on and end the end nothing is really proven right or wrong. It's just getting caught up in RAW when this might perhaps be one of many instances where RAI is needed.

The rules for templates state that any models under the template take rolls to wound. Arguing that RAW only requires you to remove casualties from the targeted units in my opinion ignores a key attribute of the Template weapon.

My own post notes that the unit is hit and that the number of hits is equal to the number of "models fully or partially under the template". So no, the models under the template were not actually the ones that were hit, they were the ones indicating the number of hits to the unit of models.

The important thing here is to note the structure of the order of operations given on P.18.

1. "Select an enemy unit..." What is selected as a target? An enemy unit. How do you choose it? You just pick one and pass a priority check.

2. "See if the target..." Which target? The enemy unit chosen in step one. How do you see it? If the target has members within range and line of sight of member of the attacking unit.

3. "...to hit their target." Who are they? The attacking unit. What is their target? The enemy unit chosen in step one. How do you hit? You roll for every member of the attacking unit that has range and line of sight to at least one member of the target unit.

4. "For each shot that hits, roll again to see if it wounds the target." What is the target? The enemy unit chosen in step one. How do you wound? You roll for every shot that hit the unit. The unit toughness is either that of the majority of its members, or that of its member with the lowest tougness in absence of a majority, P. 23

5. "Each wounding hit may be deflected by making Saving Throws." What is hit? The target unit. What is wounded? The target unit. What takes saves? The target unit. The unit saves are either those of the majority of its members, or that of its member with the worst save in absence of a majority. If a unit is partially in cover, its cover save is that of the majority of its members in cover, P.25.

6. Remove casualties. Where from? From amongst members of the target unit in range and line of fire. What is removed as casualties? Models are removed as casualties.

So when does a model take a save, if ever?

"Even if a hit normally ignores all Armour Saves, an invulnerable model gets to try to make a Saving throw as normal." P.25.

"When a unit suffers as many hits from the firing of a single enemy unit as it has models," then "This model must make a save against one of the wounding hits." P.26.

You could, were you so inclined, write this order of operations as a series of nested statements where [1[2[3[4[5[6[5[6]]]]]]]] or [1[2[3[4[5[6]]]]]] if we reduce the self-referent torrent of fire rule to a well-founded part of the saving throw rules:

1. Choose a target [If target then 2, if not target then nearest unit is target]

2. Check if target available [If [range and line of sight to members of target] then 3, if [no range or no line of sight to members of target] then stop.]

3. Check hits [If [to hit dice # >= (BS - 7)] then [# to hit dice = # to wound dice, and 4], if [to hit dice < (BS - 7)] then discard dice.]

4. Check wounds [If [to wound dice # >= (S & T, where S = weapon to hit dice, T = majority toughness or lowest toughness)] then # = wounding hits, and 5, if [If [to wound dice # < (S & T, where S = weapon to hit dice, T = majority toughness or lowest toughness)] then discard dice.]

5. Make Saving Throws [a. If wounding hits >= # members in unit in range and in line of sight then attacking player choose one member for specific save. b. if any members have invulnerable saves then defending player nominates members taking invulnerable saves. c. If wounding hits > 0, and a or b, then roll # of armour or cover saves = members in unit in range and in line of sight, and roll an armour or invulnerable save for specified members. d. If saving throw dice # >= cover or armour or invulnerable saving throw # then discard dice, if saving throw dice # < cover or armour or invulnerable saving throw # then U[# s < c or i] = # casualties and 6.]

6. Remove Casualties [If model in range and line of fire and then discard models where # discard models = # casualties, target unit player's choice where model not specified.]

Note: [models in line of fire] = [members in target unit in line of sight] Why is this significant? Well, if models were simply in an attackers line of sight then they would not necessarily be in the target unit, whereas being in line of sight is a necessary but insufficient condition by itself for being in the line of fire.

What you hit is not necessarily what you remove if and only if the number of member models in the unit is larger than the number of hits. Where what you hit is necessarily what you remove, the number of unsaved wounding hits on the unit is equal to or greater than the number of wounds amongst the models in the unit (assuming instant kill hits mean W1+ = W1).

Nurglitch wrote:My own post notes that the unit is hit and that the number of hits is equal to the number of "models fully or partially under the template". So no, the models under the template were not actually the ones that were hit, they were the ones indicating the number of hits to the unit of models.

Although number of hits from the template (x) effectively is the same thing as saying the number of hits on the unit (x) the difference is that weapon range affects how the wound allocation and saves are done. "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit automatically." is really cut and dried to mean those specific models are hit no matter how you break down the shooting phase. Are you saying that:

You can't hit members of a unit that are not part of the target unit, you can only inflict hits on the target unit. The rules for template weapons do not conflict with the usual order of operations when resolving a unit's shooting against its target unit.

If a model in the target unit is under a template, then the target squad takes a unit and like blast weapons casualties may be removed normally and will not necessarily be the models under the template. A model is in the line of fire only when it is in the target unit. It can only be removed as a casualty if it is in the target unit.

is not superceded by the template rules specifying that any model under the template is hit and giving a restriction on friendly units being under the template (with the assumption that this is because they would tehn be hit)?

Also, as an aside question: Do you agree that if a flamer template cannot be placed in such a way that it cannot touch an enemy in the target unit that it cannot be placed?

It seems so laughable, that this would go for this long.

Template weapons hit ALL models under the template...p31.

Who cares what unit they are in, as long as it isn't one of yours/friendly.

RAW/RAI jump in a bucket and fight it out. I am going to play games with my templates, BYE.

emphasis mine, words not so much.

CHOSE A TARGET
"As mentioned previously, a firing unit can choose a single enemy unit as its target."

ROLL TO HIT
"To determine if the firing unit has hit its target. . ."

TEMPLATE WEAPONS
"As with Blast weapons, casualties inflicted by template weapons do not have to be taken from amongst the models actually covered by the template, but must come from within range of the firer."

BLAST WEAPONS
"If a hit is scored, take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected. . . . The defending player may remove any casualties inflicted from the unit as a whole, not just from the models beneath the Blast marker"

REMOVING CASUALTIES
"Once the number of hits and wounds has been determined, the player that owns the target unit must remove any casualties"

Where does it say that models in the units that are not targeted get dealt with or are even allowed to be removed? under barrage it is mentioned specifically - just prior to "Such are the vagaries of barrage weapons"

Remember, templates and Blast markers do NOT show the models that are hit. They show the number of models that are hit.

I have played using the rules everyone other than Nurglitch seems to agrees with, until today. Now I cannot figure how I misread that much text.


I do not think a template is placed if the target is out of range or sight.

lifeafter: But we're not talking about how you play the game, we're talking about what the rules say. If you think my argument is the same as the invalid ones put forward to posit that Terminators do not have the Terminator Armour wargear, then you demonstrate that you do not understand my argument (supposing, of course, that the given value of 'see' here indicates understanding).

The rules for the Template weapons do indeed clearly say what is written on the page. It is literally in black and white, and no higher contrast is needed for ordinarily sighted people.

However, the written text does not state what is clearly written on the page because what it states is stated within the scope of the Shooting rules unless some exception is specifically stated. Notice the difference between what is said and what is stated. I may state two different things with the same sentence, or I may state the same thing with two different sentences. The statement is the rule, while the sentence merely expresses it.

If I was using "RAW", I would be assuming something that is false, that the rules state exactly what they say (a semantically invalid conclusion). Instead, and in a rather loose fashion, I am using the method I describe more rigorously in the "Beyond RAW and RAI" thread. Using this method I am showing how the Template rules fit into the greater structure of the Shooting rules whose scope encompasses the effects of weapons used in the Shooting phase.

What the sentence in the Template rules states is a part of the ordinary Shooting rules, an extension if you will. Hence the part stating that only models in the target unit are hit was covered earlier in the rules. Rather like in arithmetic, you are required to 'carry over' those rules that are not discharged in a specific extension. Well, that is you are required if you are intent on applying the rules rather than misapplying them or applying your own rules.

My argument is not derived from any specific part of the Shooting rules as much as it is derived from all parts of the shooting rules, and in particular those parts that state the structure of the shooting rules, as in which rules are conditional upon each other, conjunct with each other, disjunct with each other, the negation of each other, or simply the equivalent of each other. The quoted parts of the text are simply instances where the structure is specifically stated rather than assumed. Fortunately there are many instances of these structural statements, usually done in order (though interestingly, and perhaps misleadingly, out of order in the case of 'torrents of fire').

One of the problems that GW has with their rules is that they do not restate previously stated rules; their rules are additive rather than iterative and additive (although they're learning to fix it, witness the latest codicies where Terminator Armour is listed in each unit's wargear list as well as its saving throw, the wargear description, and so on).

Now, onto your exegesis of the rules, starting with P.26. The use of the indefinite article is within the scope of the statement on P.18 describing which units may be affected by an attacking unit: one unit (so there's number agreement) that is the target unit (which is not explicitly iterated in the expression of this rule, although it is in the previous paragraph as described above.

The use of the definite article to refer to the indirect object of the verb indicates to us that it is a specific unit affected by the verb, and since there's only one unit that can be affected by the verb in this situation, the target unit, it refers to that target unit.

Since the referent of 'the unit' is fixed by previous rules about which unit can be affected by shooting, the reference to 'the unit' in the first sentence of the third paragraph on P.26 no logically sound argument is possible that the referent in that sentence refers to units in addition to the target unit.

While we could go on arguing about this forever, the fact is that there is a very finite number of statements in the rulebook, and thus a finite number of things to check to decide the truth of the matter. This isn't RAW or RAI, this is how you check a piece of text to determine the rule it expresses if you were doing a word problem in logic. Reproducible, demonstrable, and mechanical. In other words: an effective method. If someone goes on arguing about this after the conclusion is reached and checked for soundness, then they are merely arguing for the sake of arguing, or they do not understand the method involved. It's quite simple.

The rules for Template weapons state that any unit under a template is hit a number of times equal to the number of models under the template, although only models within the template's range may be removed as casualties in that eventuality.

Why do the rules under the scope of the "Template" heading state this when they say something apparently different? The rules under the scope of the "Template" state this because they follow the ordinary "Shooting Phase" rules whose scope they lie within and into whose scope they fit the operation of Template weapons.

This isn't RAW, this isn't RAI, this isn't anything that stupid; this is how we properly read rules expressed in English.

pg 31: "All models fully or partially under the template are hit automatically."

Step 3 of your nested statement doesn't cover template weapons that hit "all models fully or partially under the template" automatically.

If in placing a template down to cover the maximum number of models in a target, the template finds itself over models that are in another unit, is it acceptable to think that those models are hit per RAW on pg 31, but aren't wounded per RAW on pg 23, and aren't removed per RAW on pg 26?

I think that rules on page 31 supersede the semantics of "target unit", but I see where you are coming from. It's hard for me to accept that target can be hit, but not be wounded or removed as a casualty, but I can see where RAW can be argued to support it.

Has anyone ever seen a ruling of this at this at a major tournament.

snooggums: I am trying to point out that the ordinary shooting rules are not superseded by those rules limited to Template weapons because they do not state that models under the template are hit, they state that the number of models under the template are the number of hits taken by the unit according to the usual shooting rules for hits. Certainly the rules for Template weapons say that models under the template are hit without reiterating the ordinary hitting rules, but as the example of Blast weapons (referenced by the Template weapon rules) shows this is a common expression in the text for how many models are hit, not for which models are hit in contravention of the usual shooting rules.

Interestingly the matter of range, non-applicable to blast weapons sine they have a stated Maximum Range in their profile, is reiterated when the ordinary process of casualty removal reiterated in "Blast Weapons" is restated, and obviously because Templates have no stated range (although it is easily determined by applying the template like a compass).

I should also point out that the rules for positioning the template do state that the weapon cannot cover any friendly models, but not under the assumption that they would then be hit; no such assumption is made. The rule about the position of the template is conjunct with the rule about how many models are hit by the template, not conditional upon it.

Do I agree that if a flamer template cannot be placed in such a way that it cannot touch an enemy in the target unit that it cannot be placed? Before I can answer I have to ask whether I would agree in a game I was playing, or whether I agree that is what the rules state.

akira5665: I would not agree that this is laughable. Although from my perspective this is a dead issue, since I showed what the answer is and how it is reached quite a while ago, I do not think it is wasted if the consensus is wrong. If the consensus is misreading the rules, then it is obviously to the benefit of the Warhammer 40k community that the truth be demonstrated, promulgated, and explained so that people can demonstrate and promulgate (or correct) it in their turn.

If you're interested in playing by the rules of the book, then playing as though all models in any unit covered by the template are hit is breaking the rules and you don't want to do that. But since you're not interested in playing by the rules of the book, and indeed more interested in playing your own akira5665 40k I wish you luck and good fun in your games. I hope your play-mates know about how you are changing the rules and agree with that amendment. Just please don't mislead people that how you play your games is what the rules ]in the rulebook state.

kirsanth: Well, to be fair, if you noticed your mistakes before you made them then you wouldn't make them! That's why a writer should never edit their own work, because they can't see their own mistakes as easily. Part of the utility of forums like this one, I think, is that we can put our reasoning about the rules out there for people to check (if, of course, we are putting our reasoning out there for others to check instead of just talking about how we play the game or trying to bully others into agreeing with us*).

*No doubt this will provoke laughter from people with a less charitable view of my behaviour on these forums, but I quite honestly want to know the truth of the matter - hence why I'm trying to encourage people to use the method I've demonstrated in "Beyond RAW and RAI", a method by which people can objectively check each other's work.

There are no semantics. . . or at least none that opinions help with.
Why are any shooting rules ignored while shooting a template weapon?

Barrage weapons again have an explicit example of models that are hit but cannot be wounded or removed.

scatter out of range.

There are times in the RAW that it is possible.

As i said, i have NEVER played this way. But i CANNOT read it any other way now. Reading the single sentence everyone loves to repeat made me agree with lifeafter. Reading the rules that sentence is a part of made me agree with Nurglitch.

And now i will HAVE to ask this in every game.

psh... thanks Nurglitch. ^_^

lifeafter: Yes, stage 3 of the "The Shooting Process" does cover Template weapons. You place the Template weapons during that stage of shooting with a unit to determine hits.

The rules state on P.18 (not by RAW) that you cannot split fire between units, and also state on P.22 that 'fire' is attacks (potential hits). So while it is permissible that a template can be placed over two enemy units in order to maximize the number of models in the target unit that are hit and to avoid placing the template over friendly models, the models in the 2nd unit will not be in the target unit and are not hit. They are not hit, not wounded, and take no saves. Models from the non-target unit cannot be removed as casualties.

The Template weapon rules on P.31 do not supersede the ordinary shooting rules. Indeed they go to some length to fit them into the ordinary shooting rules, explaining that one of the ordinary rules does not apply for step 3 (rolling to hit), replacing the to hit roll with the template coverage, and that like blast weapons the ordinary rules do apply for casualties, including the range restriction.

Again, this is not a RAW argument. This is not determined by some literal and out of context reading of the rules. This is determined by showing how the Template weapon rules fit into the scope of the pre-established framework of the Shooting phase.

As I have said, it is up to the players themselves (or the tournament organizers) to determine whether they want to actually apply the rules in the book.

kirsanth: No problem. I'm glad you found this useful.

Nurglitch

If you're interested in playing by the rules of the book, then playing as though all models in any unit covered by the template are hit is breaking the rules and you don't want to do that. But since you're not interested in playing by the rules of the book, and indeed more interested in playing your own akira5665 40k I wish you luck and good fun in your games. I hope your play-mates know about how you are changing the rules and agree with that amendment. Just please don't mislead people that how you play your games is what the rules ]in the rulebook state.

I am interested in playing the 'Rules by the book'. That is why ANY unit that is under the Template suffers wounds. Take your casualties from that unit where you like, that is your right under the rules. I playtested this theory last night(played with myself-lol). I had a Nob and his retinue getting ready to charge my Assault squad(ignore the tactical sillines-it was to test a theory). To get to them, the Nob and Boyz had to walk through a squad of Grot ZZap guns to get to me. Anyway, my unit that flanked them let loose with it's flamer at the Nob and such. There were 2 Grots under the Template. I rolled to wound the Nob etc(No luck!!!), then rolled to wound the 'Unit' of Grots, and they suffered two wounds(easy). Am I cheating? Every other player I have played with has played it this way. I am not going to bother asking a RS, as that info is dubious/fickle.

Nurglitch, you may be right, but I don't personally think so. As for playing Akira5665 40k(made me LOL!!) funny gibe, but no, I play by the rules universally accepted by EVERY other player I have had the pleasure of having a game against.

We need an insaniak-he knows his stuff. He may also prove me wrong, in which case-EXALT!

kirsanth

Why are any shooting rules ignored while shooting a template weapon?

Because you do not roll to 'hit'. Just Target priority/LOS/friendlies/limitations of template size/rules need to be adhered to.

akira5665: You said "Every other player I have played with has played it this way." That is not a good argument against the truth of what I have argued on this thread, as it is neither persuasive nor logically sound.

It is not persuasive because, for example, if everyone else thought something like 2+2=5 was true (under the usual axioms of arithmetic) they'd still be wrong and what you would agree with would still be false.

It is not sound because it is not about the rules as stated in the book, just what people do in their games. In ascribing to this argument you have committed what is occasionally known as the "is/ought" fallacy, supposing that with regard to a set of instructions that what people are doing is what the instructions say. It may be the case, and indeed apparently is the case, that everyone you had played gotten it wrong, and that what they agreed to was not the truth of the matter.

Out of interest, what would you accept as proving your opinion to be wrong?

@ Nurglitch-Is that correctly called the fallacy of "toquo-que?(Sry if my spelling is incorrect-Been a few years since I studied Logic!). You are correct in your description of my fallacious statement basis though.

EG-600 years ago'Everyone thought the Earth was flat-so it must be so" Just as silly as my argument. However, aside from my inability to communicate my deas in a sound, logarithmic sentence, it seems far too prevalent to dismiss as an 'incorrect' way to play 40k.

akira5665: No, a to quoque (Thou as well?) argument would be arguing that the conclusion of my argument should be abandoned because I myself do not follow it. Of the informal fallacies it would be argumentum ad populum where something is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true.

The formal fallacy, as described, is also known as the 'naturalistic' fallacy. Now I'm not saying that it is the incorrect way to play 40k such that people shouldn't play it that way. Obviously people play it how they want. It's simply not the way described in the book, which is why I'm saying that people shouldn't play in a way that disagrees with the book if and only if they want to play by the book.

Incidentally, what do you mean by logarithmic?

That is an example, although admit it was begged, that does not hold up to its own presumption.
Templates do NOT ignore the to-hit rules they pre-empt them. They SHOW you. Which is why i used the 3rd quote that i was told was irrelevant. they do NOT ignore shooting rules for to hit. they use the to hit rules for shooting as shown in BLAST weapons. Your example does not show why the units that are not legal for removal via the shooting rules are going to be removed by shooting. your own mocking response shows why you are WRONG

Because you do not roll to 'hit'. Just Target priority/LOS/friendlies/limitations of template size/rules need to be adhered to.

your PRIORITY statement > than your logic

kirsanth-who are you talking to? If it's me, I didn't mock anybody.
If not, peace out.

@ Nurglitch-"argumentum ad populum" thanks for the clarification, as I said it's been a few years! lol

"Incidentally, what do you mean by logarithmic? "- A+B=C in form of argument. I am VERY rusty, so sorry if I am unclear!
Nurglitch-

*No doubt this will provoke laughter from people with a less charitable view of my behaviour on these forums, but I quite honestly want to know the truth of the matter - hence why I'm trying to encourage people to use the method I've demonstrated in "Beyond RAW and RAI", a method by which people can objectively check each other's work.

Encourage away Sir, but I can't keep up with the pace! lol Besides, me am dum.

akira5665: No problem. "Logarithmic" usually means something like "pertaining to logarithms". I think you mean 'logical'. All logarithms are logical, not all logic is logarithms (thank god).

All that terminology aside, is there anything you would accept as proving your opinion to be wrong?

@ Nurglitch-yeah, but you would have some problem with my answer.(It being proved to be a fallacious basis of stance!)

I would have to run into @ least 99% of opponents telling me I am wrong, or a definative answer in WD or a FAQ.

Or an entry regarding this from Insaniak.

That's about the only way you could sway me @ this point.

no. . . i apologize. i am interupted and mean no disrespect. i shall be short.

the first sentence of the second paragraph still needs support. It is not a stand alone rule no matter how many times people will quote it alone and without support.

that is the inherent flaw in the argument i have read against this. reading a single sentence out of an entire section is a VERY easy way to get things wrong.

the attempts to explain what this sentence means to gameplay - through actual text - always reference examples of text that include specific refences to why Nurglitch's (for lack of another association) reading is correct.

through gameplay i have never seen this interpretation. however, through text i cannot understand why this is the case.

akira5665: Assuming, of course, that I haven't make an error in the exegesis I've presented here, why would the number of people agreeing with the truth make it more palatable. Likewise, why would a "definitive answer" or an FAQ in White Dwarf make a difference?

In the first case what would consensus have to do with truth? I can certainly agree that consensus is very important to playing the game, but reading the rules is another matter: all you have to do is read the rules properly and what they say should be the same for everyone.

In the second case, given that I've shown how the rules are read properly (assuming, again, that I have not erred) and the rules are the definitive rules, how would an explanation in White Dwarf be any more definitive? Would the answer I've given be somehow more true if it was printed in White Dwarf?

Likewise are things true because insaniak says they are, or are they true because insaniak cannot err and mistake truth for falsity?

Cool discussion Nurglitch, I am having a ball!

Ok, 1st case- As it is a game played with humans(mostly), I have no wish to prove the un-enligtened wrong whenever it comes up....too much work, and also the possibility of being called a 'Power-gamer' or 'Rules Lawyer'.

Now, 2nd case-Nurglitch, nobody could fault your style when it comes to explanations/logic. However, as in case 1, it would make life a lot easier if I could show somebody a single line from an FAQ/WD that said"This is the way it is" As opposed to going through a book, cross-referencing pages.
(Not meant at you mate, describing how I would explain it to others)

3rd case-Insaniak- His rule interps are always spot-on. Always.

Likewise are things true because insaniak says they are, or are they true because insaniak cannot err and mistake truth for falsity?

And just being a little silly here-but yes on both counts, lol

In the first case you won't agree that it is the truth because it is too much work to explain it to other people, and you might get called names. Is that correct?

In the second case, if you could show a single line from an FAQ that said "This is the way it is" and it agreed with the truth as I've argued it, then you would agree with the truth as I've argued it?

In the third case, how do you know insaniak is always right?

It seems to me that whether it is too much work to prove the truth does not alter the fact that it is the truth. You can, after all, hold the truth in your heart and not bother people with it. Likewise whether you can easily explain the truth to someone seems irrelevant to whether it is true. Neither of these are good reasons for withholding agree. Indeed they are fallacies of relevance, the first case seems to be that of preferring style to substance, and the second case seems to again be the appeal to popularity. Always trusting to insaniak's opinion is the fallacy called the 'appeal to authority'.

I can certainly see why you might not want to try and convince people of this fact about shooting with Template weapons, but I don't see how a reasonable person can consider that things to somehow be contrary to its truth (actually yes, I can, just not for charitable reasons).

But it seems to me that you can explain the truth as I've argued it in a very simple way that people can recognize easily and say "This is the way it is." There is a line in the first paragraph of the "Shooting Phase" and it says:

"The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire between two or more target units."

You don't bring this up during a game, and when they bring up the objection that the Template weapons rules say template weapons hit models you can agree that template weapons do indeed hit models in the target unit.

For the most part hopefully your responses will be like that of kirsanth.

Another way to do this and indeed even easier is to play it that way yourself and say to your opponent when you lay a template over two of his units: "I used to play flamers as if I could hit anything under the template, but I was reading the rulebook one day and I noticed that you could only hit the models in the target unit!"

This way you cannot be accused of power-gaming because you are not power-gaming, you are not scraping for every little advantage. You also cannot be accused of rules-lawyering (although some people don't need a good reason and you don't have to worry about them) because the rules are pretty clear on this when people care to read them, starting on P.18 and working back to P.31.

Well, no

In the first case you won't agree that it is the truth because it is too much work to explain it to other people, and you might get called names. Is that correct?

Being called names is never nice. I am not going to try and prove 99% of 40k enthusiasts wrong, unless you are willing to stand by my side and explain it clearly, as you have in this thread.

And besides, IMO you are still wrong, so no.

You do present your side very clearly and there is no doubt you know your stuff Sir, I just am convinced that your ruling is incorrect.

EG a Vibro-cannon thingie the Eldar Revanant uses, or the 'Inferno' Gun you can put on a Imperial Titan. It's a Template. It is also rather large. Can I only wound models from a single unit, even if there are two units under the template?

Nurglitch-Another way to do this and indeed even easier is to play it that way yourself and say to your opponent when you lay a template over two of his units: "I used to play flamers as if I could hit anything under the template, but I was reading the rulebook one day and I noticed that you could only hit the models in the target unit!"

This way you cannot be accused of power-gaming because you are not power-gaming, you are not scraping for every little advantage. You also cannot be accused of rules-lawyering (although some people don't need a good reason and you don't have to worry about them) because the rules are pretty clear on this when people care to read them, starting on P.18 and working back to P.31.

Very nice ways of approaching it. Thanks mate.


And yeah, he is always right(99%) of the time, from what I have seen. The other 1% can be accounted to not responding!

akira5665: Okay, so you're convinced that my explanation is incorrect, yet none of your objections seem to be about any failing in my explanation. What is it then that convinces you that my explanation is incorrect and is relevant to the truth of my explanation?

I'd need the Apocalypse rulebook to see how those weapons were treated, particularly because a similar weapon, the Inferno Cannon, deviates from the rules for Template weapons. Why don't you check for me since I'm just applying a method and you know what that method is?

Nurglitch, you could argue the rules till you're blue in the face. You might be right, I might be right, somebody else might be right, or we might all be a little right and a little wrong.

I like to paint sci-fi miniatures and play wargames. Warhammer 40K is the most played game that fits my likes. Mostly I enjoy the forums from an informational standpoint. I also enjoy reading posts from people who act as if they are interpeting the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I certainly want to be more knowledgable of the rules than my opponent. It gives me an edge, and I'm a competitive guy. But after a point I figure I'm OK on the rules and I'm gonna build and paint models, then I'm gonna play games with my friends, or at a tournament. The 40K rules aren't airtight, not even close, so I do the best I can with what I've got, and try not to let it bother me when a ruling goes against me. If 99 percent of the 40K community, including myself, play template weapons incorrectly, I don't care if I'm right. I don't care if you're right either, so I'm going to other threads and try to learn something relevant to the games I'll be playing.

Ooh, I'm blushing...

For what it's worth, I think that Nurglitch's assessment of the RAW is spot on in this case... but I don't think it's how it was intended to be played. Given how the Template rules read out, it seems obvious that they expected them to affect anyone under the template... the fact that they didn't limit it to the target unit specifically, while it would be pretty obvious that models from other units are going to wind up under there from time to time, certainly seems to point in that direction.

But it's unfortunately trumped by the normal targetting rules.

I'd be still playing it as most people seem to, though, and taking casualties from any unit hit by it. The RAW in this case is definitely running towards the grey, is counter-intuitive, and just a little bit silly.


As an aside, while the faith in my judgement is rather flattering, I'm just as likely to get it wrong as the next guy. Most of the 'right' answers these days simply come from having discussed the same issues in multiple threads over the last 5 years...

Krak_Kirby-True. Harsh'high-falootin'call, But true! lol

I just wanna have fun. I do NOT want to argue with every gamer I have to address the template issue with.

However, I do like having discussions with you Nurglitch, you are skilled debater. And, well mannered too. Keep it up mate, even if I cannot keep up with you!

I just read insaniaks post. See! you are right(mostly) Nurglitch, it is just too difficult a scenario to work out with every new opponent.

And no insaniak, you are wrong. You are always right. lol

Krak_kirby: Fortunately the Warhammer 40k rulebook is not the Dead Sea Scolls, they are a set of rules stated in English (among other languages). No interpretation is required.

I am applying an objective method for determining how rules written in a natural language such as English are stated. Whether anyone is convinced of this is there own business, as people can only convince themselves. This is why I am applying this method, because it is designed so as to allow people to check reasoning, their own or that of others, in an objective fashion.

Fortunately I do not need to make this argument until I am blue in the face. I have already made it, and have explained how it works so that others can check it if they have an interest in the truth. Now I'm simply asking other people how they arrived at contrary opinions.

Call it "high-falootin discourse" all you like. I call it basic problem solving and literacy, something that even university freshmen can handle. What I would call "mental masturbation" is the attitude that somehow discussion about rules is about winning and forcing agreement from others rather than about seeking the truth about what is the case. If I'm right, then that's nice, and if I'm wrong then it's also nice of someone to help me see that.

insaniak: I take exception to the continual misrepresentation that my assessment of the rules is RAW or anything of the sort. I don't know why people keep calling it that, particularly when I take pains to point that it isn't.

I really need to come up with a snappy acronym for it.

You can call it whatever you want... but if it's what the rules say, then it's RAW.

That's my point. RAW is just what the rules say, which is, to use a technical term, stupid.

The method is not just about what the rules say, it's about what they state, how they are expressed and structured, and how the text relates to diagrams, tables, other non-text information.

It is not RAW.

Nurglitch-That's my point. RAW is just what the rules say, which is, to use a technical term, stupid.

Welcome to the world of 40k.

RAW vs RAI is a great thread to finish this discussion IMO.

Actually the more I actually sit down and actually apply the method I was taught (and indeed teach) to the Warhammer 40k rules the better and better they look. Certainly their expression and layout could do with work (not enough redundancy, although as previously mentioned recent codicies seem to correct for this problem somewhat), but the actual rules I've checked are technically clear. I have yet to find any rules that are genuinely ambiguous or have loopholes that are not the result of 'creative' reading.

Nurglitch wrote: it's about what they state, how they are expressed and structured, and how the text relates to diagrams, tables, other non-text information.

That is RAW.

RAW isn't, as many people try to insist, about simply taking a line of rules and pretending it exists in a vaccuum to devine the meaning as it applies in one particular instance. Context, layout and diagrams are an important part of RAW... because if you leave them out, you're not reading the rules as a whole.

If you're not reading the rules as a whole, you're not reading the whole rules. That then isn't RAW, it's taking rules out of context and trying to pretend that they still mean anything.

Determining RAW requires reading the rules as a whole. Which is exactly what you claim to be doing.

There's reading the rules as a whole and there's reading the rules as a whole properly. I have yet to see someone attempt to use RAW and do what they're supposed to be doing. Take the difference between what a sentence says and what a sentence states. Just like math-hammer I've seen people mangle statistics and call it math-hammer, but unlike RAW I've seen people demonstrate the actual statistics and call it math-hammer.

I have yet to see anyone on a Warhammer 40k forum express anything like comprehension at what this distinction is and how it functions. I've seen people take the literal wording the rules and try to pass that off as the statement of the rules, and I've seen people take some misreading of the rules and try to pass that off as the statement of the rules, but I haven't seen anyone genuinely say: "This is what the sentence is and this is what it states because its semantic model is x." Mostly the error is in trying to make the text hermetic, as though grammars, dictionaries, and logics did not pertain, but generally it seems to be people's opinions passed of as a demonstrable method rather than such a method.

I'm hoping you will prove me wrong. Maybe in a thread where this is on topic (sorry about dragging it off-topic).

Nurglitch wrote:But it seems to me that you can explain the truth as I've argued it in a very simple way that people can recognize easily and say "This is the way it is." There is a line in the first paragraph of the "Shooting Phase" and it says:

"The whole unit has to fire all of its weaponry at a single opposing unit of your choice - you may not split fire between two or more target units."

You don't bring this up during a game, and when they bring up the objection that the Template weapons rules say template weapons hit models you can agree that template weapons do indeed hit models in the target unit.

Um, when you place the template legally and it hits the majority of models in the target squad (per the template rules) and additionally hits models in between or around, you aren't "splitting fire". There is no rule contradiction in hitting all of the models under the template if it is placed legally. This also is logically why you cannot place the template over a friendly unit, because that would logically cause friendly fire if and only if all units under the template are affected.

As to my question that you avoided by saying there were two answers, but giving neither.

If a template cannot be placed in such a way as to touch a model in the target unit is the template placed?

Just give me both answers if there are two.

I say RAW and how I play are the same. The template cannot be placed legally by my reading so it is not placed at all. I don't see how yours would matter either since if it can't hit the target unit and doesn't affect other units it would not even matter wether it was placed or not so you could stick with your RAW and play the same way.

i still point out the blast reference. the favorite sentence on pg 31 "all units" et al is easy to read as elucidating the fact that template weapons do not have to roll for partial hits. to assume that it allows illegal units to be targeted is exactly that. . . an assumption. especially considering the entire rules that one sentence is written into.

as far as intent?

it is repeated that shooting at one unit does not allow any other unit to be hit. even with blast weapons - unless they are barrage.

i cannot find any example to the contrary in the text, and i am still looking.

and technically - as the templates are read it is possible to "hide" one in a unit so it has ONE single fire lane for the template (by arranging "friendlies" for example)and that lane is perpendicular to the direction the unit shoots - FORCING the template to be placed on top of an entirely different unit. "as many models as possible in the target unit" is the text. 0 is valid here as "number" isnt even refenced. if the template is "in range" but has to be placed facing a different direction, this is not disallowed as most people assert the rules to be interpreted.

why is that ok? page 31 shows why it is NOT ok, even with that one sentence in it. the rest of the book actually backs it too.

snooggums: No doubt how you play and RAW are the same, which is why how you play and RAW are not what the text of the rules state.

For example, if you take the text of the Template rules out of context, you will not think that hitting models besides the target unit contradicts the rules because you will not have the context, other rules, that tell you that units are hit and that only models in the target unit may be removed as casualties. Hitting models that are not part of the target unit is splitting the fire of one unit between 2 or more, in the case of flamers literally so.

Call your opinion "logical" all you want, neither your argument is valid nor your conclusion true. Your 'logic' is unsound, it is illogic. Take this as an insult if you must, but please be aware that your opinion is not logical until you prove it to be so (or cite where it's been proven before). Calling something "logical" and it actually being logical are naturally disjoint.

I already answered your question, but hey, repetition genuinely does make things clearer:

If a template cannot be placed in such a way as to touch a model in the target unit then it cannot fire. Because: "Any individual models in the unit that don't have a line of sight to the target unit can't fire" P.21.

Nurglitch wrote:snooggums: No doubt how you play and RAW are the same, which is why how you play and RAW are not what the text of the rules state.

For example, if you take the text of the Template rules out of context, you will not think that hitting models besides the target unit contradicts the rules because you will not have the context, other rules, that tell you that units are hit and that only models in the target unit may be removed as casualties. Hitting models that are not part of the target unit is splitting the fire of one unit between 2 or more, in the case of flamers literally so.

Call your opinion "logical" all you want, neither your argument is valid nor your conclusion true. Your 'logic' is unsound, it is illogic. Take this as an insult if you must, but please be aware that your opinion is not logical until you prove it to be so (or cite where it's been proven before). Calling something "logical" and it actually being logical are naturally disjoint.

I already answered your question, but hey, repetition genuinely does make things clearer:

If a template cannot be placed in such a way as to touch a model in the target unit then it cannot fire. Because: "Any individual models in the unit that don't have a line of sight to the target unit can't fire" P.21.

Actually you did not answer it, you said there was the way you played and the RAW. Then you talked about somethign else and did not actually answer it. My example said the template could not be placed due to an impeding model the first time I asked, not because of LOS issues. The second time did not mention any LOS issues either, so I'm not sure why you give that as a reason for it not being placed.

We also have a history in the rules (including the current Long Fang's ability to 'split fire' between targetes) that clearly means that splitting fire is intentionally targetting a unit. Yes, Ordnance and Blasts list the ability to wound anything under the template, but so does a Template, by virtue of the rule that has been quoted several times about hitting 'all models' under the template.

snooggums wrote:
We also have a history in the rules (including the current Long Fang's ability to 'split fire' between targetes) that clearly means that splitting fire is intentionally targetting a unit. Yes, Ordnance and Blasts list the ability to wound anything under the template, but so does a Template, by virtue of the rule that has been quoted several times about hitting 'all models' under the template.

ok. . .
but where does it say that anything other than barrage (ordinance as a sub) actually ignores the rule stating that models must be removed from the target unit? these state that the randomness allows for other targets. templates use blast rules to see what is hit. except that all models even partially under this template are hit. blast rules say no to hit roll is needed for targets under the area - that is the ONLY rule excepted -to hit-. damage rules state that units MUST be removed from the targeted unit.

the rest is restatements no one questions. or i am misreading again.

i would love to be wrong, as no one plays "correctly" myself included if i am not.

Maybe another voice will lend credit to Nurglitch's arguments. He is entirly correct for the reasons he has stated.

What states that a template is causeing wounds to any unit other then the one it was targeted at? The 'its under the template' argument has been clearly pointed out only applies to the the unit it was fired at and not any other.

Start picking holes in Nurglitch's argument as he as presented. He is not, nor is anyone, holding a gun to your head to prevent you from playing 40k how you want. But if you want to claim you're playing the game literally how the rules are written, then you must abide by this instance as well. Its not 'his opinion' or mine. It is the truth, regardless of how popular or often used.

I don't think people have accepted that the "its under the template" only applies to the unit it was fired at. The template rules don't specify that the template only hits models that are in the Unit it was targeted at. All the well sequenced, long-winded post in the world that argue the "models" mentioned in the Template rules refer only to models in the targeted unit are going to fall short of being "clearly pointed out", because they require players to ignore a pretty straight forward rule as written, "all models under the template..." and instead use a rules as intended 6 step rules flow chart Nurglitch developed.

The one part of Nurglitch's argument which did sway me was the section on removing casualties. Clearly, the rules state that only a targeted unit can have casualties removed. However, as I stated earlier, as an argument for why Template weapons can only hit models in the targeted unit, this elicits the same level of respect from me as the rules which clearly don't state terminators wear terminator armor.

I disagree Caedesis. He is not 'entirely' correct in his statements. Templates do not follow the same rules for 'Blast Markers' or single fire weapons(lasguns etc).

They follow the rules for 'Template' weapons.

Just because a car is a car, does not mean that it is an 'Armoured Vehicle, Nascar or F1 racer. It is the vehicle as spec. It has four wheels, a steering wheel, and a windshield(mostly). So you could not point at a Mini-moke, and tell me that it follows the same 'requirements' as an F1 car. It is a totally separate thing all-together.

Rules for Template weapons are very clear. You are not splitting fire between units, you are firing at 1 Unit. If there happens to be some other clowns around him drenched in promethium, well, that's thier silly fault. As the rules quites clearly states 'ALL models under the Template weapon are hit(you do not even need to check for 'partials'-like you MUST for Blast weapons).

It is a totally different kind of weapon to the previously mentioned ones. Why are we trying to apply the rules for Chalk with Cheese?

Thats fair akira5665, but how do you account for the removing models part of the argument?

akira5665 wrote:I disagree Caedesis. He is not 'entirely' correct in his statements. Templates do not follow the same rules for 'Blast Markers' or single fire weapons(lasguns etc).

They follow the rules for 'Template' weapons.

Just because a car is a car, does not mean that it is an 'Armoured Vehicle, Nascar or F1 racer. It is the vehicle as spec. It has four wheels, a steering wheel, and a windshield(mostly). So you could not point at a Mini-moke, and tell me that it follows the same 'requirements' as an F1 car. It is a totally separate thing all-together.

Rules for Template weapons are very clear. You are not splitting fire between units, you are firing at 1 Unit. If there happens to be some other clowns around him drenched in promethium, well, that's thier silly fault. As the rules quites clearly states 'ALL models under the Template weapon are hit(you do not even need to check for 'partials'-like you MUST for Blast weapons).

It is a totally different kind of weapon to the previously mentioned ones. Why are we trying to apply the rules for Chalk with Cheese?

except that what you say isn't true.
template weapons do follow all the rules. they are not a stand alone section that can be used without reference. they actually state in text that they require some of the blast rules be used for understanding templates. and they use all shooting rules they do not specifically alter (notably the "to-hit" rolls that everyone seems to write of, but seem to be intrinsically related). they are a type of weapon. so they follow rules for using weapons in this game of 40k. those rules are pretty complex and not limited to one part of one page.

for example the bit about prometium soaked areas isn't even related in the game. . . no model under any template or Blast marker needs to be a model removed. the rules say that. only models in the wounded unit must be. oddly the problem is that all the rules refer to the only woundable unit as being the one that is targeted. and that basically is the problem, in a nutshell. reading a single sentence and taking it as the end of the text.

here is a 40k example for you. since that car thing just did not work.


q
ee
f g


f is in range of unit q and g with a flamer.
f is in a unit with e.
no units are in base.
this unit (eef) fires at unit q.
placing the template so that it covers the most enemy units in target unit (q) will cover zero models in the target unit, since it cannot cover friendlies. the rules allow this. this is also part of the problem. not the answer, read on and remember the flamer is in range, and friendlies do not block LOS outside of melee.
the only legal placement of the flamer splits fire. deliberately and obviously.
this can be done on purpose far easier than hiding a powerfist.
moving any models can only change where the template is placed. it never changes who can be targeted. that i believe is the problem.
the only textual exception being weapons out of range or LOS. those weapons do not fire.

why is that ok?
or maybe more importantly why is that not ok?

i find it hard to believe this is not (ab)used more often.

Ok.....

At no point did I mention removal of models, so I don't know where that came from. Totally seperate issue. Remove models from your Unit as long as it follows the minimun range issues, at yor discretion.

o

EkkkE
EkkkE
E E

Now, we say 'o' is a Marine with a Flamer. to get as many models as possible under the Template, the player places his Template in such a way to cover as many 'k's as possible. when this happens, the 'E' at the very middle-rear is clipped by the template. Do I not roll to wound him? Is he safe? If he is wounded, fails his armour save, your opponent takes an 'E' from anywhere in the squad, as they were all in range of the template.

That's not the point.

1. The "o" can't hit any "E's" because he isn't targeting them. Only "k's" can be hit and wounded .

2. The Splitting fire example that Kirsanth displayed is an interesting dilemma. I guess I would check to see if the flamer model "would" be in range, then place the template so that it did not hit any friendlies. More people don't (ab)use this tactic because it would be hard to pull off sometimes, and lead to long debates .

no. it is simple to pull off. easier than hiding a PF which is basic 40k tactica. you always move your flamer to be hidden from the unit being targeted by friendlies - but within range. now two units are being shot at.

which my example shows better than akiria5665's does.

however, akira5655's example works better than mine for the broken askpect of this mistake. if any E is wounded can unit E be charged? it was hit in shooting, according to you, so viable.

no model under any template or Blast marker needs to be a model in the unit targeted that is wounded, everyone agrees and then says all models are hit under the template. well. again. no. these areas are used to measure numbers of potential wounds instead of to-hit rolls.

shrug

If the flamer cannot be placed in a way that it covers models in the target unit it cannot be placed per the template instructions as it does not tell you what to do if you cannot meet the requirements of covering any models.

The rulebook does tell you what happens if you cannot place the template. It cannot fire. Simple.

Hey Nurglitch, do you have any other 'regular' players that support your interp? I mean Gamers that you actually play with, not neccessarily Dakkites.

It would be interesting for my next game @ the club to try this on all. Happens on the 29th of Jan. I will let you know, if I can see the screen through two black eyes and a badly broken nose.

Any comment on the 'Inferno' or 'Vibro' cannon stuff?

I find your logic slightly faulty Nurglitch.

p31. Template Weapons: "As with blast weapons, casualties inflicted by template weapons do not have to be taken from amongst the models actually covered by the template, but must come from within range of the firer."

p1 40 Rulebook FAQ: Q: What happens when an Ordnance balst scatters out of LOS and/or Range (possibly onto a different unit)? Do the casualties have to be within range and LOS as per normal shooting rules, or do these not apply to a scattering Ordnance shot?
A. A scattering Ordnance shot can hit and kill models that are out of LOS and range. These models would of course get their cover saves for any intervening terrain.

Since template weapons are treated as blast for casualty removal, minus the fact that the casualties still have to be in range for template weapons, you can still wound and remove models outside of LOS as per the FAQ. The only restriction with template weapons lies with range of the template.

akira5665: Yes, I do. It was how I was introduced to the game when I came back to 40k after the introduction of 4th edition. If you're going to try this out at the club I strongly suggest following my earlier suggestions about pointing it out before play starts and then playing back it when you do.

Kej: Template weapons are treated like Blast weapons for casualty removal, not like Ordnance Blast weapons that scatter. The FAQ text that you cite fails to be relevant.

I conceed the second point to you as I found the one sentence I missed.

However, for someone of self proclaimed intelligence, (which you did so incessantly in another thread) one would think blatently telling someone they are wrong would be above you and that you would, at least, cite a purpose for your statement.

Either way, you appear to be right as far as I can find.

I rather doubt that I've proclaimed my intelligence anywhere. I've certainly proclaimed my credentials, but that's hardly a claim of intelligence. Indeed, I've argued publicly and vociferously against the concept of intelligence. Still, I appreciate a good flame as much as anyone.

That said, I'm pretty sure that I did explain why your objection was irrelevant: because Template weapons are treated like Blast weapons for casualty removal, not like Ordnance Blast weapons that scatter.

So normal blast weapons that hit models from additional units in LOS and range do not cause wounds to the additional unit?

exactly.

RAW

it is VERY easy to abuse otherwise.

i did exactly what is suggested and asked my local gamers this.
they ALL disagreed with Nurglitch.
so i pointed out easy abuse from this. they said "that they way it plays"
every shooting phase i pointed out why RAW makes the abuse i was heaping on them illegal. but the "its meant to be played that way" verified that i CAN in fact do these things and they agreed that this is true (as most dakkites assert)

after the game the wanted to go read details and consult their beardy friends because in practice Nurglitch's interpretation plays better and more fairly too.

apparently no one else has noticed

To be fair, the perception that it plays better and more fairly when we play by the rules is irrelevant to what the rules actually say.

Still, that's a clever way of selling it. Kudos!