I have played my friend a number of times now and this is just pissing me off to no end. He lines a salamander up parallel to my battle line then shoots down the line even though there are units in combat between the sallie and its intended target.

he says that true line of sight means that even though there is a combat going on he can see through the unit to the one on the other side, I call BS but he argues that all he needs to see is a part of the model and draw a line in between my intervening models with no penalty

what inevitably ends up happening is my models in combat get hit, his don't, sometimes the unit he is shooting at gets hit plus mine in combat

does this seem even remotely fair or legal (obviously I don't think its fair and goes against the spirit of the game)

I am obviously biased but a 75pt model that can decimate ANY other unit on the table with no draw backs (march and shoot, shoot into combat, ignore monsters and handlers) requires some serious nerfing

and I have attempted to deal with them using a variety of techniques (my latest was favourite charged with a chariot, he was in a forest but rolled a 1 of course and chariot died to trees!) and little seems to work

I am sick to death of a 75pt model destroying 350+ pt units nuff said

cheers

Papasmurf

You cannot from or into combat. Period. The only time is when a blast weapon scatters.

TLOS means he can declare his shot at the unit beyond. If he doesnt roll high enough then he will hit your models in combat.

Nothing prevents this.

Interesting. I've always fired my cannons with the initial range set in a manner that it can't possibly land in combat on any roll of the artillery die.

Does he have any possible chance of hitting the unit he's aiming for? It's not out of range is it?

Cannons have specific rules about never being able to be aimed to hit something in combat. Meaning that if a cannon shot has any chance to hit into combat, whether the roll is a 2, 10, or anything in between then it can't be fired that way (pg 112, towards the bottom under Choose Target).

Salamanders do not have that specific restriction.

Davall wrote:Cannons have specific rules about never being able to be aimed to hit something in combat. Meaning that if a cannon shot has any chance to hit into combat, whether the roll is a 2, 10, or anything in between then it can't be fired that way (pg 112, towards the bottom under Choose Target).

Salamanders do not have that specific restriction.

It doesn't matter according to the rules this is illegal, that rule is not just for cannons it also applies to breathe weapons, and since the Salamanders fire a sort of bw, they can't do this.

I might be incorrect, but frankly when he does this reach across the table, and slap him. You can't purposefully shoot into combat unless your Skaven.

The sallie shoots more like a fire thrower than a breath weapon, and those too have no such restrictions.

Page 56 – Salamander Hunting Packs, Special Rules
Add “Monster & Handlers”.
Page 56 – Salamander Hunting Packs, Hunting Pack
Change the first paragraph to “Salamanders are treated as
Monsters for the purposes of the Monster & Handlers rule.
The unit may not be joined by characters.”
Q. Is the Salamander’s shooting attack treated as a Breath Weapon?
(p56)
A. No.

That's the extent of the FAQ on Salamanders.
So, the hunting pack is monsters and handlers, and the salamander is the handler. The shooting attack is not a breathe weapon.

Hey, does the salamander description say that you roll for partials? The FAQ doesn't include a partials auto hit, and the base rules say use the rule book (re:gyrocopter).

I'll dig out my rule book in the morning (most likely monday), but I think that for his shot to be legal, at the very least:
1) his declared target must be in range
2) his declared target must not be in melee
3) he must have a possibility of hitting his target without hitting the unit in melee.

If he can't hit the "target" without dropping it into melee, I think it's illegal.

-Matt

The salamander is the Monster, think you got it the wrong way round there

You do not roll for partials, so partials == hit as per everything but the poor gyrocopter.

HawaiiMatt wrote:3) he must have a possibility of hitting his target without hitting the unit in melee.

Provide proof.
So far i've seen no rules forbiding a fire thrower of a sallamnder to "accidentaly" fry fighting or even friendly units.

citadel97501 wrote:

Davall wrote:Cannons have specific rules about never being able to be aimed to hit something in combat. Meaning that if a cannon shot has any chance to hit into combat, whether the roll is a 2, 10, or anything in between then it can't be fired that way (pg 112, towards the bottom under Choose Target).

Salamanders do not have that specific restriction.

It doesn't matter according to the rules this is illegal, that rule is not just for cannons it also applies to breathe weapons, and since the Salamanders fire a sort of bw, they can't do this.

I might be incorrect, but frankly when he does this reach across the table, and slap him. You can't purposefully shoot into combat unless your Skaven.

You may want to recheck the Salamander rules (not a breath weapon, no classification period).

The only rule is you can't place the template on a unit in combat, before you scatter it. If it scatters onto one, it's all good.

Once again, a GW FAQ (along with for Flame Throwers) would solve all of this, and I can't believe it doesn't get asked.

We need to make a questioning drive.
Have as many people as we can gather send an e-mail to GW asking this.

Yes but he can place the template so that it will never touch his own models of course

I have looked through the book and it is the "true line of sight" that is the issue, how can you have true line of sight THROUGH a combat! It is a swirling conflux of strikes and parries and bodies so despite the fact that the models are lined up just nicely in ranks I fail to see how that allows you to draw line of sight through them

One solution I am considering is rebasing my units so that they are staggered in the ranks slightly so as to block LOS through the unit

I really feel that the base represents the model and if you can't draw LOS past the base then you should not be able to see period.

cheers

Papasmurf

nosferatu1001 wrote:The salamander is the Monster, think you got it the wrong way round there

You do not roll for partials, so partials == hit as per everything but the poor gyrocopter.

Odd, I thought the text in the salamander book said that partials are hit on a 4+.
You're right about the monster, no more late night posts for me on rules.

-Matt

there are no more partials as per BRB

cheers

Papasmurf

PapaSmurf wrote:there are no more partials as per BRB

cheers

Papasmurf

Not 100% true. See Gyrocopter FAQ wording.

Papsmurf - you're missing the TRUE part of TLOS

You are suggesting that, instead of TLOS we should have non-TLOS.

really are you being serious or just a giant jerk?
What I am saying is it doesn't make any #@$%ing sense in any world, fantasy or not

dont see a lot of templates flying over the top of infantry in combat that just "happen" to fall on the combatants in 40K do you? and it uses TLOS

Guess I also have big issues with a number of other 8th ed "improvements" to the game I love

cheers

Papasmurf

You cannot see a unit through another unit, especially one in combat. You can't spot a goblin unit through another goblin unit, but i would make the argument that you could see a bull unit through a unit of gnoblars.

That being said, on page 39 in the BRB it says "you cannot purposefully aim a template so that some of your models will be hit. For the salamanders, this would then rule out the option of shooting over another unit, plus they don't have line of sight. That's just a quick look at the book, but how the people at my local GW have been playing it and it works out pretty well.

I can't agree more but try getting my friend to agree to that is like trying to move a mountain with a mouse

cheers

Papasmurf

No need for name calling Papa. It's a good quote from the BRB- if that doesn't do the trick, then it seems like you'll just need to plan on icing those salamanders before they get to take up such awful positions for you. Disc rider should work, and they should be a high priority for magic missiles.

I fired all my warmachines at them in my last game against lizards (ignoring two stegs to do so), because I knew the amount of mess they'd cause if they got in.

Yes, salamander breath weapon at -3 to armor (I think) + dwarfs armed to the teeth = barbeque...

I'd say those sallies should be the number one target for pretty much any army, but especially for highly armored and tightly packed armies like WoC and dwarfs.

I play Lizzies and I love my Sally's. I would never claim LOS of a unit with another unit between unless the other unit was a large target like the Gobbo spider. So I think your friend is wrong about the LOS, but hitting other units, even in combat is okay.

This happens usually when I target, say a warpfire weapons team. These usually run alongside a unit of rats that are often in combat. I will target the weapons team and sometimes the template would extend far enough to hit the unit in combat. Knowing this might happen I of course angle the shot so it won't hit my unit. All perfectly legit in my eyes. Cheesy? Perhaps, but usually I really want to get rid of that weapons team, or imperial attachment.

But seeing a unit through another unit of similarly sized models...no.

The LOS issue is situational but easy enough to check in this case, you just get down and find out what the sallamander cans with his rather close to the ground eyes.
Since the unit will contain up to 3 sllies doing that is not a problem.

he only runs them in groups of one, using a laser pointer you can probably draw a line through the ranks of my troops to the other unit, I just really feel that it is taking unfair advantage of a loophole, ie sallies not being breath weapons and the STUPID True LOS to achieve an unfair advantage, no other army can do it save skaven but that is their schtick - life is cheap

Wolf - of course you love your sallies, a 75pt model that can rip entire armies to shreds, whats not to love? Oh and don't forget the auto panic check if you take 1 (ONE!!!!) casualty

cheers

Papasmurf

Take the 2+ ward vs fire item and go sally hunting with a flyier, it isnt too hard.

Sallies are hardly the worst thing in a world of hydras and HPA.
If Sallies are breathe weapon they'd be outright useless.

Pap - firstly, no, not being a jerk. Not called for, its a game, yes?

The game was purposefully moved away from the faux-LOS (a mix of real LOS and the heights system, which was stupid in a number of ways) to a single, consistent system: if you can see if you can shoot it.

Secondly: name a variable range template weapon in 40k. Go on. FOund one? No? Shock. thats why you dont see it - they dont exist. False analogy is false analogy. You can however have Blast Markers scatter into combat just fine - however the scatter dice adds an extra element of "luck" just not present with the Salamanders

Thirdly: Sallies are not a "breath" weapon because, frankly, that would be stupid. 75pts for a single shot per game? Uh, no.

Finally: the BRB quote simply says you cannot cover your own models, nothing about the template on random distance ending in combat - that is perfectly fine.

It is ENTIRELY possible for him to be able to draw TLOS through one unit to another. That's the rules, and if you want to have houserules - fair enough. Seems like your friend doesnt, however.

PapaSmurf wrote:there are no more partials as per BRB

cheers

Papasmurf

You better read that section again. MOST weapons ignore partials.
Stone throwers say ignore partials, so anything that says it fires like a stone thrower does. However, if the salamander wording says that 4+ to hit on partials, and it doesn't say resolve like a breathe, then you are rolling for partials.
That's why the Gyro is rolling for a 4+ partials; it's wording says so, and the basic rule is "Most" not "All".

Deploy from one table edge to the middle, and put warriors of tzeench (with shields) and the ward save banner on the outside. That way, you get a 6+ save followed by a 4+ save against said salamander.
Use flying heroes to go hunt him down (and/or daemon prince).

-Matt

Your advice for handling them is sound but trust me I have tried it! most times just can't get to grips with him - terrible dice over and over and OVER again

cheers

Papasmurf

Well, if the problem is terrible dice, then there isn't really any advice available...

hehehehe yeah there is that but honestly I have tried many ways to deal with them, most of which are either ineffective or so many more points that it seems ineffective (to me anyway)

Real issue is dealing with this shooting into combat problem that I have

cheers

Papasmurf

So TLOS means that if you have a huge 50 man unit then you can see through it because the models have thin arms and legs that you can see by? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard and if someone I played tried to make that argument I would pack up my stuff and go home. Like units can't see through like units. If 2 units are head to head in combat then you cannot see through them because it is a swirling mass of blood and bodies, TLOS be damned.

So you would refuse to play the clear, unambiguous and clearly intended rules for no rules based reason? Just a "this is the way it used to be!!!!" reason?

Fair enough, sounds like its not a game I would have enjoyed playing, if I were your opponent.

A laser pointer can be useful for this- if you can light up the opposing model with a laser, then you can clearly see it.

If not, the fact that you can see it from the point of origin may only be in your imagination...

If I were playing in a tournament then I would be forced to hold by those rules then I would obviously have to. I don't play in many tournaments and in my opinion this rule is a very good reason not to. My friends and I are casual gamers and I'm sure they would agree with me that this rule by no means mirrors a real battle at all.

And yes I agree with you. It doesn't sound like a game I would enjoy either. Regardless of TLOS you cannot see through units or combat in the games we play. It just seems to make sense.

In a real battle you would have your flame belching monsters spit fire down the ranks of your enemy in a heart beat.

If you are really upset about units seeing through yours, model your lads staggered on their bases, and with large shields to block sight. It is a lot of work, but so is getting all worked up over this.

Still, I should think a single Hellcannon round would quiet a salamander squad pretty well. Likewise pretty much any magic missile etc.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
You better read that section again. MOST weapons ignore partials.
Stone throwers say ignore partials, so anything that says it fires like a stone thrower does. However, if the salamander wording says that 4+ to hit on partials, and it doesn't say resolve like a breathe, then you are rolling for partials.

I'm afraid you really should drop this already, the sallie wording does not mention partials, in fact it says to treat the template as if a breath weapon hit there and those have no partials.

Bengrold - as long as you realise youre playing houserules, and that attempts to play like that in tournaments is likely to get your changes rejected, that is all good

Wehrkind - that would fall under modelling for advantage, no?

Wehrkind wrote:Still, I should think a single Hellcannon round would quiet a salamander squad pretty well. Likewise pretty much any magic missile etc.

The cannon would need to hit wich is only about 33% chance, then there is the fact you only get one hit per sallie with handlers being counters top it off with the 5++ handler save and you can see why the canoon is a bit dubious. A magic missile of S5+ should clean them up right quick tho.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bengrold - as long as you realise youre playing houserules, and that attempts to play like that in tournaments is likely to get your changes rejected, that is all good

Wehrkind - that would fall under modelling for advantage, no?

Well, yes. Still, if it REALLY bothers someone as much as it seems to that fellow, that probably is his best bet. Easier to model for advantage and get people to play you than demand they play by your house rules. I wouldn't bother to do it myself, but then I am not terribly concerned about people shooting through my units (I would assume they shoot over them). I can understand the frustration though, going from 40k where for a long time you couldn't see through combats at all.

Good call on the durability of Sallie units Hoverboy. I keep forgetting handlers don't take hits themselves, just the beastie with randomization.

Well, this is quite the mess.

First, I'd like to step up to the defense of True Line of Sight. It is, in fact, possible to shoot at a unit through another unit. The fact that they're in combat makes it harder than if they were, say, standing still, but that's rarely the case. Usually, you get a -2 to hit your target to represent this. And that's fine by me. I do take a small issue with the fact that, when I miss my target because another unit got in the way, that unit is always 100% unharmed, despite being forced into the role of arrow-shield.

Okay, beyond that. It's obvious that Salamanders and Fire Throwers weren't meant to shoot in such a way as to hit units in combat. Cannons offer that proof; with all three of these attacks, you know, with absolute certainty, that the template will resolve somewhere between 2 and 10" from it's starting point, or not at all.

Stone Throwers and their ilk, on the other hand, have a 10" radius to contend with. Games Workshop clearly thought that the 2-10" line was a reasonable and easily avoided restriction, whereas the 10" swath of the table was not.

So, Papa Smurf, I would suggest talking to your friend, calmly and genially, about this. Ask him if he's willing to stop, and play the game as GW intended.
If not, then take a Disk-rider with a 2+ Ward, take advantage of Stegadons' cannon-allergies, and just plain deal with any bad luck you have. Poor dice-rolls shouldn't bare in the slightest how you feel about this given rule. It's completely human to feel generally frustrated, of course.

Now, beyond that, I'd like to toss around some quotes and attempt to weaken the RaW argument, if only a little:

- p.39 Shooting Into Combat "Some war machine weapons, particularly those that use templates, can accidentally hit friends..."

I'll start strong. According to RaW, you could argue that this statement only allows models with the troop type war machine to accidentally hit illegal targets. This would mean that Salamanders have to follow similar restrictions as cannons. Though it would create a world of problems for the Hellcannon, unless it counts as a war machine for purposes of shooting or whatever.

- p.39 Shooting Into Combat "the key word here is 'accidentally'--you cannot purposefully aim a template so that some of your models will be hit"

This sentence doesn't, as written, make much sense, due to the random element involved in almost all template attacks, and the impossibility of knowing, for sure, which models "will be hit".

- p.67 Breath Weapon Shooting Attack "...place the flame template...so that it is not touching any friendly units or enemy units that are in close combat."

Do we treat a Salamander's template as a breath weapon through-and-through? 'Cause if we do, it looks like, at least before the artillery die is rolled, it can't be touching any illegal targets.
Even if we're only supposed to "resolve the hit as if it were a breath weapon", I would argue that the vague steps of declaration and resolution are never explicitly defined in the BRB.

So...my main point is that it's a little shaky, either way. If I had the final say in the matter, I'd say no. But then again, I'd also do away with Stegadons and randomizing cannonballs and so on.

Oh goody RAI claims, i'm out.

Wehrkind - not true. You COULD shoot "through" a 4th ed fight, as long as it only contained models one height lower than yours. So a swarm vs swarm, height one, could be shot through by height 2 and above. And so on.

It isnt shaky. Not popular, but that has no bearing on the discussion.

You do realize that a cannon ball is now treated as an infinitely thin template for the purposes of models hit, so shooting it at a ridden monster means that all the models on that monster are hit (no partials remember) so a steggadon is even more afraid of cannon balls now, especially ones with skink priests on them

cheers

Papasmurf

No, theyre not. Because the stegadon rules still specifically state you randomise ALL shooting. Cannons are still shooting.

Specific > General

Warp I understand that you can shoot through other units and that there is a -2 penalty but the sallie is a template and does not use BS so there is no penalty there (a very frustrating occurrence)

I disagree in principle to the shooting through one unit to another, especially when the first is in combat

Yes clearing up exactly what kind of weapon the sallie is would help matters but we all know exactly how good GW is at clarifying things

cheers

Papasmurf

I thought that a cannon ball hit the stegadon, crew, whatever, and that each hit was randomized, resulting in what is more likely than not a very dead Stegadon.

At any rate. Yes, PapaSmurf, the lack of BS shooting makes it harder to swallow.
Beyond situations like this, though, there's really no reason that shooting through a unit (1) can't be done and (2) is particularly cheesy.

And HoverBoy, I understand the sentiment; I'm trying to keep it pretty simple and straight-forward here. The rest is all RaW.

So...does anyone care to refute me or back me up?

Cannons hit both the mont and the rider.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wehrkind - not true. You COULD shoot "through" a 4th ed fight, as long as it only contained models one height lower than yours. So a swarm vs swarm, height one, could be shot through by height 2 and above. And so on.

Oh indeed, you could shoot over it if you were of a taller height level than all the combatants, but you couldn't shoot through. Not like you can in Fantasy now where if you can see it you can shoot it. So if there was a dread in combat with a swarm, too bad, even if you can see over the swarm the dread was everywhere and so blocked all sight. Whee!

Actually, just to check my understanding, salamander models are about as tall as dwarfs, right? I never really compared size before, but they only looked about as tall as Skinks, which are definitely a good bit shorter than say Chaos Warriors. Just want to make certain about that while I am thinking about it.

Wehrkind wrote:Actually, just to check my understanding, salamander models are about as tall as dwarfs, right? I never really compared size before, but they only looked about as tall as Skinks, which are definitely a good bit shorter than say Chaos Warriors. Just want to make certain about that while I am thinking about it.

The eye level of a sallamander is about on the same level as that of a skink yes.

Warp and UNREAL - that would be true, apart from the Steg rules stating that ANY SHOOTING at them is randomised. As I said

You oculd shoot "through" - if you could see it, you could shoot it AND if you were a bigger height than the combat. It wasnt area terrain, but functioned a bit like it.

Well...wait a minute. The BRB says that a template hits everything. The Lizardmen book says any hits on a Stegadon are randomized. So...doesn't that mean that each "hit" (versus the mount, crew, rider, etc.) is randomized?
I know what you and everyone else is saying; I'm just waiting for a direct address to the above.

...and to my information on Salamanders. To briefly recap:

- p.39 states that some war machines can accidentally shoot into combat. Technically, it offers us nothing for spells/units/etc. that randomly place templates.

- p.67 says to place the flame template for a breath weapon so it is not touching any friendlies or enemies in combat. So, if the FaQ says we should treat the shooting attack as a breath weapon, then the template cannot be placed (before the artillery die moves it) in an "illegal" position.

So, what say you?

the faq says it is not a breath weapon but does not state what type of weapon it is, probably a "special attack" meaning "we don't have a clue"

As to the steg, sure lets make things more complicated, template hits everything and THEN RANDOMIZE? cause that makes complete sense - about as much sense as shooting into combat hehehe

cheers

Papasmurf

I've heard a lot of complaints about the Stegadon, for that reason. It does not make sense, that is true. But that's not the point. I want to know what the rules, as-written, say.

Well, HoverBoy, you say that the FaQ says to treat it as if it were a breath weapon, yes?

And if it's not...what would happen if we went by what p.39 said, and only war machines (or things that "shoot as war machines", I suppose) were aloud to drift onto illegal targets?

Q. Is the Salamander’s shooting attack treated as a Breath Weapon?
(p56)
A. No.

So that tangent is DOA.

So...where does it say that Salamanders don't do 4+ to hit partials, then?

Does the Salamander entry specifically mention 4+ partials? (I do not have the Lizardman book.)

If not, the BRB covers it, aka no partials. If it does, well, I can't comment as I do not have the book and/or a horse in this race

Warpsolution wrote:So...where does it say that Salamanders don't do 4+ to hit partials, then?

Because nothing says it does?

The entry for Sallies has no requirement to 4+ on partials, and the BRB doesnt either. So you dont.

As for the Argument - you dont need permission to accidentally place into combat; you need something explcitly denying it. Which there isnt.

Then its not an accident is it (explitive deleted)

its deliberate and its #$%@ing annoying and its the reason for this whole thread

there are rules explicitly denying the placing of templates in combat, problem is salamanders are not clearly defined allowing them to fall into this particular situation

cheers

Papasmurf

What about p.39? No units may shoot into combat. Some war machines may do so accidentally, however.

Going off of that on it's own, it seems like Salamanders don't get to.

Also, PapaSmurf, we know it's frustrating. We know.

Papa - how is rolling high (or low) on a dice roll a "deliberate" action?

Really? I place the template Knowing that no matter what I roll it will hit models in combat seems fairly deliberate to me
If you think different than we have VERY different ideas of what deliberate is

Cheers

Papasmurf

Now, hold on everyone.

PapaSmurf, the you see what he's saying, right? The situation is random, so, even though the outcome is always good for your friend, it's not technically possible for him to target the models in combat, even if they will probably or even definately get hit.

And Nosferatu, c'mon, you know what he means.

I'm being nice you should hear what I'm thinking!

cheers

Papasmurf

Wait, so hes placing so it will ALWAYS hit combat?

Thats entirely different to the initial post you gave, which suggested it needed a high ish roll to "get over" the unit he was next to.

Does that...matter? I mean, as long as the "target" is legal, the rest is still an "accident", right?

Buf it the initial placement is hitting combat, then surely the initial target wouldnt be legal?

Well, if the unit you're shooting through is in combat, but you're aiming at a unit that's not...

Does it really matter if he starts 9" away so the template is 1" away from the unit in combat (about normal) regardless of what he rolls he will hit the unit in combat

cheers

Papasmurf

Well, no. According to the RaW (and ignoring my latest observations, as people have yet to comment), you can't target a unit that is in combat. However, if your target is legal, and the template "just so happens" to land on some other dudes, well, shucks.

Of course, to me, it looks like this possibility is only allowed in terms of war machines, and then only some times. Thoughts?

Again, I understand the frustration. But you've just got to accept that, until someone confirms my current theory, the rules allow it. We know that's not what the designers really intended. We know it can suck. But saying "GW should have done it this way" isn't going to do much.

I'm with Warp on his conclusion.

Some warmachines explicitely state that they may not be fired in a way that can ever contact a close combat. The sally has no restrictions like that. Pick your target, roll, resolve. It does seem like this is a legal tactic according to RaW. Frankly, I'd never use it with my Lizardmen only because I think its an oversight.

Papa, if you intend to go to any tournaments, speak to the TO about it. If its just a problem in 'friendly' games, do not play that person again.

We have been pretty lucky in terms of FAQ's coming out at a decent rate (compared to FAQ's for 40k at least), but I would be surprised if this was FAQ'd before the next LM codex came around, which might be a long time.

Lehnsherr, I have to point out that my current position is not so. It would be, if certain things hadn't come to light.

On page 39, it clearly states that you may not, under any circumstances, shoot into a combat.
It then goes on to say that some war machines may do so accidentally.

So, if we're to really--really--follow this book as written, I would currently say that any unit without the troop type war machine, or without a clarifier that says it "shoots like a war machine", cannot aim a template in any way that would even potentially hit an illegal target.

There's also the whole issue with the completely useless sentence on p.39, but that's for an other time.

I'm sticking with this theory until proven wrong. Or at least until someone--anyone--notices I posted it a page back.

I noticed you posted it, I then responded that the unit, at the time it declres the target, isnt shooting into combat.

That doesn't address the issue.

I am claiming that the only things technically capable of accidentally shooting into combat are war machines.

they dont need a rule allowing it; they arent shooting into combat when they declare shooting, which is what would stop them declaring the shooting in the first place.

semantics and it doesn't help the situation, a clear definition of how the salamanders work, what type of unit it is are needed

I fully agree with Warp, if there is any chance that the template could scatter/move/be placed into combat then the shot is illegal, sallies are not warmachines so no scattering into combat for them

cheers

Papasmurf

Except that isnt what the rules require.

At the time you place the template, assuming it isnt touching combat, you are NOT firing into combat. So the shoot is 100% legal to be fired. When you resolve the shot you may end up in combat - which is fine.

BS semantics it is not a war machine therefore as per rules cannot scatter into combat, doesn't matter how the template was places originally

cheers

Papasmurf

Is it fine, Nosferatu? Warhammer tells us what we can do, not what we can't, blah blah blah you know better than I do. The only thing I found that says "it's okay for some templates to land on illegal targets by 'accident'" pertains to war machines.

Also, how does what it initially touches matter? I mean, as long as your "target" is legal, it shouldn't matter what your actual target is, right?

Papsmurf; we're discussing rules. Please attempt to remain civil - and given Semantics is *exactly* what is under discussion, calling it BS simply because you dont agree is not only rude but misses the point entirely.

I know you dont agree with the rules interpretation, but so far you have not proposed a rational argument as to why not. Warp has.

Warp - yes, it tells you waht you can do. You declare your target, which is legal as it is not in combat. The rules then allow you to roll the dice, and count hits based on the template position.

Nothing in the rules follwoing initial selection gives any amount of care to combat or not. They simply do not address it, but thats ok - you still have permission to resolve the shots, as your initial target for shooting was legal.

so nos you would be totally okay we me taking my cannon, declaring a shot at a fleeing salamander on the far side of your unit of temple guard engaged with my swordsmen then deliberately placing the initial landing point so that there was no possible way to hit the intended target but would be guaranteed to hit the temple guard and probably the slaan with the bounce?

cheers

Papasmurf

Yes. That is, essentially, the same thing.

So...Nosferatu, you're saying that, because there isn't a phrase along the lines of "you may not place the template in such a way as to possibly hit illegal targets", since the idea "war machines can accidentally hit illegal targets" does not, specifically, say that other things can't?

I think I can get behind that. I think.

PapaSmurf, if you're looking for someone who agrees with you that this whole thing disagrees with the Spirit of the Game, look no further. I'm here.
But this is You Make Da' Call, and such sympathies don't belong in analysis.

PapaSmurf wrote:so nos you would be totally okay we me taking my cannon, declaring a shot at a fleeing salamander on the far side of your unit of temple guard engaged with my swordsmen then deliberately placing the initial landing point so that there was no possible way to hit the intended target but would be guaranteed to hit the temple guard and probably the slaan with the bounce?

cheers

Papasmurf

This example is moot. Please read the cannon rules, as cannons specifically forbid this.

Salamanders do not

effect is the same

you dont get a cheers


Papasmurf

No, the effect is not the same. The cannon rules specifically prohibit this. It's on pg 122.

Show me where it does the same for Salamanders.

I'm not going to hold my breath as you can't.

Please don't compare apples to oranges.

We can only use the rules given to us for the sally to shoot. It tells us to declare a target, roll, place, determine what was hit. We know that the rules for sallies provide us with a "loophole" of sorts to shoot into combat. Yes, warhammer is a permissive ruleset, but once we are given those permissions, exceptions to those permissions need to be declared. In this case, we have permissions to pick a target, roll and fire.

Pg. 39 (as Warp pointed out) states "Models are not permitted to shoot at enemies that are engaged in close combat...", however, as Nos pointed out, this is in the Choose a target section. The sally is not choosing a target in close combat. His intention is to hit the combat, but his target is a legal one. Anything that happens after that is random. That really is the key to the loophole, as we are given rules on how to pick a target, and how to resolve the shooting, but are not given a restriction outside of the choosing a target section. Maybe there is something else in the BRB that I am missing, but I have yet to come across anything.

The next paragraph goes on to talk about war machines being able to hit friendly models. This is a different point altogether. The qualifier here is that "you cannot purposefully aim a template so that some of your models will be hit." That 2nd paragraph on page 39 is not very helpful for this particular case. The part about "purposefully aiming a template" is only in reference to your own models and does not mention an enemy unit in close combat.

Thats about the extent of the rules that we have for sallies.

Trying to compare sally shooting to a cannon is pointless. The cannon has a specific restriction on being able to shoot in a way that could come into contact with a unit in combat. The fire thrower is a more pertinent comparison. The fire thrower has no such restriction, and RAW it would be able to shoot into a combat in much the same way as a salamander. In fact, if you combine the rules with salamanders / fire throwers with page 39, its possible for these weapons to hit your own troops if you are not careful.

**Edit**

effect is the same

This is false. The cannon has a specific rule written in the BRB that prohibits firing into a combat. If we had such a rule for the salamanders we wouldnt even be having a discussion on the forum about it. We don't have one, and therefore cannot compare the salamander to a cannon.

Couldn't you employ the Golden Rule? You can't decide on the way the rules should be applied (as it doesn't seem very clear) so roll for it. 1-3 he can do it, 4-6 he can't.

If it's so muddy that 3 pages here hasn't solved the issue then I'd say let fate be the decider (until you can get GW or whatever to clarify)

All hail the warhammer rules gods, I bow down to your infinite wisdom and expertise

Lovely loophole you can jump through and go anywhere else

I realized the cannon example was bad but the effect is the same

extent of the rules being a major problem

nuff said

Papasmurf

Just because you don't like the answer you are getting doesn't mean it's wrong and you need to be a dink about it. I guess I need to add my first person here to some sort of an ignore list.

Sad days.

As was pointed out: the effect is NOT THE SAME. You are overriding a specific prohibition against shooting into combat, with no permission to do so.

So, as was pointed out 3 pages ago: feel free to HOUSERULE this, but, like all houserules, you friend has to agree to it as well.

All hail the warhammer rules gods, I bow down to your infinite wisdom and expertise
Lovely loophole you can jump through and go anywhere else
I realized the cannon example was bad but the effect is the same
extent of the rules being a major problem
nuff said

I think you are taking the rules discussion a little too personally. Based off your post here, and your posts in the Lists subforum, its obvious you are frustrated with playing this particular player who is utilizing this tactic against you. The only person / people you should be upset with is GW. Their intention with the rules is muddy due to the changes from 7th to 8th with cannons. It *seems* like they do not want us to be able to fire in a way that comes into contact with any unit in a combat. Arguing RAI is pointless, however. The player you are playing against might seem like the obvious choice to get angry at, but he is just using the rules he has been provided with.

As I pointed out earlier, its not something I would use myself. I have no clue how GW intends it to work, although I lean heavily towards this being an oversight and a tactic that will be changed in the future. That being said, RAW there really isn't anything we can say to rule against it.

However, the example is bad, and the effect is not the same. Compare the sally to the firethrower. You end up with the exact same ruling. You roll the dice, and move the template. Where it lands is what it hits. For a sally, the only thing different is that you have to pick a target. As long as your target is legal, the extent of the remaining rules allows it to be fired in this manner.

And just because I am passionate about something and yes disagree with some of what has been said I should just smile and turn the other cheek? get down off your high horse

As I have stated I believe that the rule is wrong, there is exactly one army that has rules allowing them to shoot into combat - it makes them kind of unique, lizards are unique all on their own

I guess I am just applying common sense thinking to the situation that is not present in the written rules - you can't do it this this situation but in this almost identical situation it is fine because its not in the rulebook, rules lawyering at its finest

cheers

Papasmurf

And just because I am passionate about something and yes disagree with some of what has been said I should just smile and turn the other cheek? get down off your high horse

As I have stated I believe that the rule is wrong, there is exactly one army that has rules allowing them to shoot into combat - it makes them kind of unique, lizards are unique all on their own

You are entirely within your rights to be passionate about it. You are also within your rights to disagree with what has been said. Generally though, you would need to provide some kind of counter argument to what has been said, otherwise you are disagreeing because you simply don't like the outcome.

The fire-thrower would be a weapon that would also be able to shoot into combat, as would stone throwers (scattering into combat).

The list of armies that could fire into combat would then include
Brets, O&G, Empire, Dwarves, TK, Skaven, WoC, and potentially Ogres (I am not sure how the scrapfire launcher fires). I'd hardly call Llizardmen unique in this manner.

And I don't see this as the same thing, the salamander template does not "scatter" as do these other weapons - it moves forward an artillery dice, that to me is not a scatter, scatter requires some change of direction

For me it is the INTENTIONAL nature that is the big issue, these other warmachines do it unintentionally, unless they have a loaded scatter dice

And a flamer-thrower belongs to what army? (and yes I know dwarves have one too, when was the last time you saw one used?)

Papasmurf

This is one of those rules that is completely technically legal, but will get your tires slashed in the parkinglot of the gaming store, similar to two wide Eternal Guard tarpirs, Goblin Fanaticapults, and Zombie Torpedos. Its legal, but you are a massive douche for pulling it in a game.

You'll have to explain the examples cause I haven't seen/run into any of them

cheers

Papasmurf

The two wide eternal guard thing is because they are stubborn, so its not just eternal guard, but any unit that stubborn... Essentially you make your frontage as small as possible and dont care that you lose combat every round cause your ld 10 stubborn rerollable.

Flank plus challenge with something fighty should take care of that shouldn't it? Plus how the heck do you maneuver a formation like that?

cheers

Papasmurf

And I don't see this as the same thing, the salamander template does not "scatter" as do these other weapons - it moves forward an artillery dice, that to me is not a scatter, scatter requires some change of direction

For me it is the INTENTIONAL nature that is the big issue, these other warmachines do it unintentionally, unless they have a loaded scatter dice

The salamander template does not scatter in the same way as a stone thrower, that is true. There are however elements of randomness in both. There is definitive intent of the player opposing you, however there is still an element of randomness involved. You claimed that only 1 army could fire into combat, which is false. The way in which they fire into combat is different from other armies, but they are not the only ones. That was my point in bringing up the stone throwers.

And a flamer-thrower belongs to what army? (and yes I know dwarves have one too, when was the last time you saw one used?)

Lizardmen do not have a flame-thrower, but Dwarves do have one. The last time I saw one on the field is entirely irrelevent. They fire identically to a salamander. It is the best comparison we have available to us. Intentional or not, a flame thrower is allowed to fire into a combat. Choose a target in LoS, roll the die, place the template that far away. Everything under the template is hit. Its identical to the situation you had used against you with the Salamander, and the main reason I see the sally shooting that way as legal.

Its clear this is a rule you disagree with, but there really isn't anything in the book that disallows it. I wouldn't put the two wide eternal guard on the same level as the salamander firing into combat. The eternal guard situation is a smart use of the rule for stubborn. I don't see that as a rules loophole. Same goes for the Fanaticpult, if that is in reference to Hand of Gork on a unit of Goblins. Again, great use of a spell to get your fanatics into a great position to do damage. The salamander thing *seems* a bit dodgy, but its legal RAW.

There is only one army that can intentionally fire into combat and no matter how YOU interpret it if you place a template and then move it forward you have intentionally fired at that unit - rules as written or not

cheers

Papasmurf

Dwarves would make it 2.

Did he choose a legal target?

Did he follow the rules for resolving the attack?

The answers to these questions is yes.

**Edit**

Intentions are irrelevant. He may not declare his target to be a unit that is in close combat. That is what we can take away from page 39, "Shooting into Combat" heading, first paragraph. He hasn't done so in your example. His target unit was one that was not in combat. I get what you are saying in that his *actual target* unit is the one that is in combat, but he all he has to do by the rules is to declare a legal target, which he has done so.

The 2nd paragraph is the paragraph that uses the word "purposefully aim" and this paragraph is in reference to aiming in a way that would hit your own troops. The 2nd paragraph has no bearing on the situation you are describing.

Yes and what you feel are "smart" examples of combining elements others would call douchebaggery, I'll leave it for you to decide which side of the fence I fall on

cheers

Papasmurf

I thought i made it pretty clear that I felt the same way throughout this thread.

Go back and reread each of my posts and how I have referred to it as dodgy, and something I would never personally do.

How I feel about players using this strategy has no bearing on whether or not it is legal according to the rules. The problem you are clearly having is in making a distinction between personal feelings and rules.

Your implication of me in this

Yes and what you feel are "smart" examples of combining elements others would call douchebaggery

is disgusting. I posess the ability to put aside personal feelings on a ruling (I think it should be changed to the way you think it should be played) yet I can see that RAW it simply isn't that way.

So why then put them forward as examples? If not to elicit a response such as the one I made? Do I think this applies to you? Don't know, don't know you personally, do I agree with the rules as written? Guess I have to, enough people have quoted them to me, will I continue to argue that despite following the letter of the law you are still doing something illegal in game terms? Hells yes

cheers

Papasmurf

as an aside do you game at GW in Missassauga? Gonna be down there this weekend for a bball tourny, I'm really not such a bad guy in person

So why then put them forward as examples? If not to elicit a response such as the one I made?

Because you asked for opinions on a ruling. That is the purpose of this forum, to discuss rules. The rules are what they are, regardless of how I, you, or anyone feel about them.

Do I think this applies to you? Don't know, don't know you personally,

Yet you implied I played the game a certain way a mere post ago.

do I agree with the rules as written? Guess I have to, enough people have quoted them to me,

And that should /thread this.

will I continue to argue that despite following the letter of the law you are still doing something illegal in game terms? Hells yes

Thats great provided you make an argument. However, if someone is following the letter of the law, I'm not sure how you could make an argument that they are doing something illegal. Seems a bit oxymoronic to me.

I'm really not such a bad guy in person

Never said you were. I think you are passionate about this, and thats fine. You should however be able to discuss rules without personal bias. The rule sucks. I don't think anyone argues that.

hehehe yeah rules suck

Personal bias will creep into any argument, usually the reason for the argument in the first place, try to keep mine in check but when something feels this wrong well....

my argument would be that he is targeting the unit in combat through the placement of the template

cheers

Papasmurf


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ooohhhh arrrgghhh, just reread updated faq, base is considered part of the model for purposes of being hit by templates but not for LOS why why why its like having your cake and eating it too!!!


cheers

Papasmurf

Seems like this has gone about as far as it can productively go.