If you fire a torrent weapon at a unit (such as a Baleflamer), are models removed determined by the firing model or the thin end of the template?

They are removed based on the firing model.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
They are removed based on the firing model.

Exactly. Look at the position of the damaged unit (and closest models) from the firing unit.

I discovered this when I vector struck/flamed a unit of plague marines led by typhus.
Both hit the nearest model to my finished position. Typhus tanked the lot, for a cost of 1 wound. Bah.

Preda - Vestor Strike is handled as Random Allocation, as per the FAQ

Torrent allows the template to be placed within 12" of the firing model as long as the small end of the template is closer to the firer. This means that the direction of the small end of the template and the firing model should always be the same... This seems to me that it makes the question unimportant, unless there's something I'm missing.
As nosferatu1001 said, Vector Strike is allocated randomly so positioning of the models has no bearing,(FAQ page 1, right side, second from the bottom), and is different from Torrent.

curious, can a Torrent temple be used to hit the rear of a vehicle, even though you are facing it front/side?

I palyed in a tourney where a Dreadknight blew up a couple of my vehicles because he placed the template over the rear of tanks.
I didnt question it at the time but it did seem wrong at the time.

40k-noob wrote:
curious, can a Torrent temple be used to hit the rear of a vehicle, even though you are facing it front/side?

Look at the rules for vehicle arcs. It makes it very clear.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
curious, can a Torrent temple be used to hit the rear of a vehicle, even though you are facing it front/side?

Look at the rules for vehicle arcs. It makes it very clear.

ARGH!!!! Dang it!! PAge 73 has it.

that definitely would made a huge difference in my game :(

At the risk of starting another flame war (pun possibly intended), is it correct that Wounds caused by a Torrent weapon cannot be allocated to models Out of Sight of the firer?

So it is not possible to fire a Torrent weapon "round a corner"???

Snapshot wrote:
At the risk of starting another flame war (pun possibly intended), is it correct that Wounds caused by a Torrent weapon cannot be allocated to models Out of Sight of the firer?

So it is not possible to fire a Torrent weapon "round a corner"???

I'm not sure (off-hand) if templates are allowed to even roll to wound models that are out of sight. Assuming they can, you could fire it around corners to generate more wounds to be forced upon the guys in sight.

If I'm not mistaken, template weapons have to be placed where they cover the largest amount of models visible to the firing model. (not hitting any of your own models of course)

It should be a relatively rare occurence to hit models that you cant see.

I've always believed that templates and markers can and do hit and wound models even if they are out of sight. As long as the rules for targeting are followed.

 Happyjew wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
At the risk of starting another flame war (pun possibly intended), is it correct that Wounds caused by a Torrent weapon cannot be allocated to models Out of Sight of the firer?

So it is not possible to fire a Torrent weapon "round a corner"???

I'm not sure (off-hand) if templates are allowed to even roll to wound models that are out of sight. Assuming they can, you could fire it around corners to generate more wounds to be forced upon the guys in sight.

I don't think there are restrictions on templates (or blasts) hitting models out of sight. My reading is the same as yours, that hits and wounds can be generated on OOS models, but it's the one's in sight that wear them. I just wasn't sure if there was something else special about Torrent.

If a model is hit be a template/blast out of sight the hit still counts, but wounds can't be allocated to models that are out of sight.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Preda - Vector Strike is handled as Random Allocation, as per the FAQ

Thanks - Thats just made things a little easier

Idolator - nothing requires them to hit the most models IN sight, just the most models total.

You have no restriction on hitting or generating wounds, but have the same restriction as any normal weapon on allocating to out of sight models.

Templates and blasts can wound models out of LOS. It's says so under templates and blasts special rule.

sam918 wrote:
Templates and blasts can wound models out of LOS. It's says so under templates and blasts special rule.

No, it doesn't.

Blasts state they may hit and wound models out of range and LOS. There is no mention of LOS at all under Templates however.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Blasts state they may hit and wound models out of range and LOS. There is no mention of LOS at all under Templates however.

Again, no they don't. The bolded word doesn't exist where you think it does.

Oh, yeah. It says units. Which are composed of models.

Wounding a unit is substantially different from wounding a model.
Wound a unit you have to allocate wounds, wound a model there is no allocation to be done.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Oh, yeah. It says units. Which are composed of models.

Correct.
Now - you have permission to wound the unit. Note that wounding the unit (rolling to wound) is a separate process from allocating wounds (page 12 - RTW is step 4, Allocate is step 5).
Find permission to allocate wounds to models out of sight.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Wounding a unit is substantially different from wounding a model.
Wound a unit you have to allocate wounds, wound a model there is no allocation to be done.

You can't wounds units.

Units do not have stats like Toughness or Wounds.

Only models have those stats. Therefor you are wounding the Models in the Unit.

So what is majority toughness?
You target a unit and you roll to wound against that target. That target is still a unit.
Removing casualties at the beginning refers to the target and to the unit.
Check page 12-15.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
So what is majority toughness?

The majority toughness of the models in the unit.

I think you should check the rest of the edited post.
Also in that paragraph on majority toughness it still says the unit is the target of shooting.

So for a distinction. Perils and gets hot wound a model, same as DT. Shooting, cc and some non shooting or cc units generate a wound pool these wounds are allocated to models in a unit as the target for the attack was the unit.
Do you see the distinction.

40k-noob wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Wounding a unit is substantially different from wounding a model.
Wound a unit you have to allocate wounds, wound a model there is no allocation to be done.

You can't wounds units.

Units do not have stats like Toughness or Wounds.

Only models have those stats. Therefor you are wounding the Models in the Unit.

100% incorrect. You wound the unit (roll to wound, note the specific language used) and then you allocate Wounds to models

Please review the rules before posting

Which makes the sentence about wounding units out of LOS useless.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Wounding a unit is substantially different from wounding a model.
Wound a unit you have to allocate wounds, wound a model there is no allocation to be done.

You can't wounds units.

Units do not have stats like Toughness or Wounds.

Only models have those stats. Therefor you are wounding the Models in the Unit.

100% incorrect. You wound the unit (roll to wound, note the specific language used) and then you allocate Wounds to models

Please review the rules before posting

Where does a "Unit" have a Toughness value or a Wound value?

Still not looking up the rules are we?

"All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit." p13

"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart. " p14

What is the toughness of a unit of toughness 4? Majority toughness tells us how to find a unit's toughness.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Which makes the sentence about wounding units out of LOS useless.

I'll disagree. It's useful because it allows you to add to the wound pool. If no one is in LOS then it sucks but if only one or a few guys, are they are allocated all the wounds from the pool. It can force a lot of saves against only a few models.

a Land Raider is a unit, can you wound it?

40k-noob wrote:
a Land Raider is a unit, can you wound it?

It's a vehicle unit - so it has special rules that are analogous to wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:
Only models have those stats. Therefor you are wounding the Models in the Unit.

Absolutely false. You're conflating rolling to wound and allocating wounds.
The actual rules make a distinction between the two.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
a Land Raider is a unit, can you wound it?

It's a vehicle unit - so it has special rules that are analogous to wounds.

Point is Unit is just an identifier. It has not stats.

The models that make up the unit have stats and you wound them based on those stats.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
a Land Raider is a unit, can you wound it?

It's a vehicle unit - so it has special rules that are analogous to wounds.

Point is Unit is just an identifier. It has not stats.

The models that make up the unit have stats and you wound them based on those stats.

It's not just an identifier.

Under "Roll to Wound" on page 14:

... compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness...

Do you target units or models?

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
a Land Raider is a unit, can you wound it?

It's a vehicle unit - so it has special rules that are analogous to wounds.

Point is Unit is just an identifier. It has not stats.

The models that make up the unit have stats and you wound them based on those stats.

AGain, please actually reference the rules, especially when they have been given to you more than once

You wound the target. What is the TARGET of shooting? THe unit

You absolutely, 100% DO wound units. You then ALLOCATE wounds to models. The rules abslutely incontrevertibly back this up. You Wound units and then in a different step Allocate wounds to models.

If you disagree you must provide page numbers, not just more assertions which have already been proven incorrect

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - nothing requires them to hit the most models IN sight, just the most models total.

You have no restriction on hitting or generating wounds, but have the same restriction as any normal weapon on allocating to out of sight models.

While I do see what you're saying. I believe that the rules for targeting apply as well. You can't target models that you can't see, on purpose. If you can only see one model in a unit, but there is a big pile hiding behind a wall, you can't ignore the model or models that you can see in order to fire at the ones that you cannot see.

No, you cannot target *units* you cannot see. There is a big difference between unit and model.

The Template rules require you to maximise number of hits, and you are not allowed to break this rule unless told you can. Once you have targetted a unit in LOS, you are then forced to maximise the number of models from that unit that are hit. Nothing in this places a restriction on which models are in LOS

nosferatu1001 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
a Land Raider is a unit, can you wound it?

It's a vehicle unit - so it has special rules that are analogous to wounds.

Point is Unit is just an identifier. It has not stats.

The models that make up the unit have stats and you wound them based on those stats.

AGain, please actually reference the rules, especially when they have been given to you more than once

You wound the target. What is the TARGET of shooting? THe unit

You absolutely, 100% DO wound units. You then ALLOCATE wounds to models. The rules abslutely incontrevertibly back this up. You Wound units and then in a different step Allocate wounds to models.

If you disagree you must provide page numbers, not just more assertions which have already been proven incorrect

Page 14: To Wound paragraph 2
"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart. The number indicated is the minimum result on a D6 needed to convert the hit into a Wound. A value of '-' indicates that the target cannot be wounded by the Attack."

Does "Unit" have a Toughness Characteristic or do "Models" have a Toughness characteristic?

40k-noob wrote:
Page 14: To Wound paragraph 2
"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart. The number indicated is the minimum result on a D6 needed to convert the hit into a Wound. A value of '-' indicates that the target cannot be wounded by the Attack."

Does "Unit" have a Toughness Characteristic or do "Models" have a Toughness characteristic?

You keep ignoring the bolded word. It does not mean what you think it means.

Models have a Toughness characteristic, but the unit refers to it when rolling to Wound.
According to you, rolling to wound is sufficient to trigger things like Pinning, Entropic Strike, etc as a model has suffered a wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Page 14: To Wound paragraph 2
"To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart. The number indicated is the minimum result on a D6 needed to convert the hit into a Wound. A value of '-' indicates that the target cannot be wounded by the Attack."

Does "Unit" have a Toughness Characteristic or do "Models" have a Toughness characteristic?

You keep ignoring the bolded word. It does not mean what you think it means.

Models have a Toughness characteristic, but the unit refers to it when rolling to Wound.
According to you, rolling to wound is sufficient to trigger things like Pinning, Entropic Strike, etc as a model has suffered a wound.

So, I take it, that would be a No, a Unit does not have a Toughness characteristic? Is that what you are saying?

No, and it doesn't need one.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, and it doesn't need one.

Ok so when checking the To Wound chart as stated in the rules, how do you wound something that does not have a Toughness characteristic value?

40k-noob - you are, again, ignoring the rules

"Target" and "majority toughness". The first tells you that the unit is the target, and the second tells you how to work out the toughness of the unit, which is the target

Again you are suffering 5th -edition hangover. The rules have changed, please do the posters a courtesy by more carefully reading the rules quotes and not just apparently ignoring them.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, and it doesn't need one.

Ok so when checking the To Wound chart as stated in the rules, how do you wound something that does not have a Toughness characteristic value?

Majority Toughness.

Since I've been polite and answered your questions how about you answer this one:
Do you target a model or a unit with shooting?

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, and it doesn't need one.

Ok so when checking the To Wound chart as stated in the rules, how do you wound something that does not have a Toughness characteristic value?

Majority Toughness
Now, what is the Target of shooting? IS it a Unit, or a Model?

Didn't you just say that unit does not have a Toughness Characteristic? So how can you have a "Majority Toughness?"

40k-noob wrote:
Didn't you just say that unit does not have a Toughness Characteristic? So how can you have a "Majority Toughness?"

So you're going to refuse to answer my question?
That's cool bro.
The unit doesn't have a Toughness so it looks at its components. See, you have permission to do so by the Rolling to Wound rules.
What you don't have permission to do is wound models when you're rolling to Wound - that comes with allocation.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Didn't you just say that unit does not have a Toughness Characteristic? So how can you have a "Majority Toughness?"

So you're going to refuse to answer my question?
That's cool bro.
The unit doesn't have a Toughness so it looks at its components. See, you have permission to do so by the Rolling to Wound rules.
What you don't have permission to do is wound models when you're rolling to Wound - that comes with allocation.

You target a unit of models. Because that is what "unit" is, a group of models and in some case a single model.

You also roll to Wound those models per the wound chart comparing Toughness of the Models vs Strength of the Weapon.

You can't wound "Unit" because it is just a reference to a model or group of models.

 reaverX wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Which makes the sentence about wounding units out of LOS useless.

I'll disagree. It's useful because it allows you to add to the wound pool. If no one is in LOS then it sucks but if only one or a few guys, are they are allocated all the wounds from the pool. It can force a lot of saves against only a few models.

It also ceases to be a unit out of LOS and isn't applicable to the discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going to refuse to answer my question?
That's cool bro.

Many people ignore questions, or dismiss them as "irrelevant," in order to pursue their own agenda. But it is the cool thing to do, apparently.

40k-noob - fine, you cannot answer the questions so you dodge them.

to-wound is against the unit, allocation is against the model. According to your rule-less assertion, the two are the same "thing", meaning ES triggers as soon as you roll to wound against the unit. It doesnt, this is just an easy way of demonstrating your failure.

40k-noob wrote:
You can't wound "Unit" because it is just a reference to a model or group of models.

When measuring distance between units, how many models to you measure between?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
40k-noob - fine, you cannot answer the questions so you dodge them.

to-wound is against the unit, allocation is against the model. According to your rule-less assertion, the two are the same "thing", meaning ES triggers as soon as you roll to wound against the unit. It doesnt, this is just an easy way of demonstrating your failure.

I did answer your question and you would see that, if you would only read the all the posts before replying.

Now, since you are so adamant about answering questions. I am still waiting on you to define what "conflict" means in 40k terms, care to supply an answer to that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
You can't wound "Unit" because it is just a reference to a model or group of models.

When measuring distance between units, how many models to you measure between?

I assume you mean for shooting purposes, you measure from the firer to to the closet model in the target unit.

40k-noob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
40k-noob - fine, you cannot answer the questions so you dodge them.

to-wound is against the unit, allocation is against the model. According to your rule-less assertion, the two are the same "thing", meaning ES triggers as soon as you roll to wound against the unit. It doesnt, this is just an easy way of demonstrating your failure.

I did answer your question and you would see that, if you would only read the all the posts before replying.

You've answered this question?

Now, what is the Target of shooting? IS it a Unit, or a Model?

Did I miss where?

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
You can't wound "Unit" because it is just a reference to a model or group of models.

When measuring distance between units, how many models to you measure between?

I assume you mean for shooting purposes, you measure from the firer to to the closet model in the target unit.

That's not what I asked - your assumption was incorrect.
But your answer is good enough.
Your assertion is that a "unit" is just a placeholder for "a bunch of models". How can you check range to the unit if you only measure to one model?

40k-noob - wonderful dodging, wonderful off topicness. Again


Please answer - does Target refer to Unit or Model? Easy enough to answer, if youve already done so once

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
40k-noob - fine, you cannot answer the questions so you dodge them.

to-wound is against the unit, allocation is against the model. According to your rule-less assertion, the two are the same "thing", meaning ES triggers as soon as you roll to wound against the unit. It doesnt, this is just an easy way of demonstrating your failure.

I did answer your question and you would see that, if you would only read the all the posts before replying.

You've answered this question?

Now, what is the Target of shooting? IS it a Unit, or a Model?

Did I miss where?

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
You can't wound "Unit" because it is just a reference to a model or group of models.

When measuring distance between units, how many models to you measure between?

I assume you mean for shooting purposes, you measure from the firer to to the closet model in the target unit.

That's not what I asked - your assumption was incorrect.
But your answer is good enough.
Your assertion is that a "unit" is just a placeholder for "a bunch of models". How can you check range to the unit if you only measure to one model?

My answer was "you target a unit of models."


as for: "How can you check range to the unit if you only measure to one model?" Because the group operates as one. There is only need to measure to the closest.

The same is true in the reverse, since the firer must also be in range not just the "unit," the guy with the Pistol, cannot shoot 14" away even the though the unit (i.e others with bolters) are in range.

You will also notice that in order to target anything first you need Model to Model LOS.

So you have a rules quote to back that up? Because the actual rules state "Unit"

Unit:
"A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone Character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is
also considered to be a unit in its own right."

LOS:
"To target an enemy unit, at least one model must have line
of sight (see page 8) to at least one model in the target unit.
If no models have line of sight, then a different target must
be chosen."


Still waiting on you to define "conflict" in 40k Terms.

40k-noob wrote:
as for: "How can you check range to the unit if you only measure to one model?" Because the group operates as one. There is only need to measure to the closest.

Do you have any rules support for "the group operates as one"? Because that's just not true.

The same is true in the reverse, since the firer must also be in range not just the "unit," the guy with the Pistol, cannot shoot 14" away even the though the unit (i.e others with bolters) are in range.

Yes - because the shooting rules specify that range is determined by model.

You will also notice that in order to target anything first you need Model to Model LOS.

That's absolutely incorrect.

To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting.

Where does it say model?

Oh, under the instructions on how to check Line of Sight. And your target is still the unit, not "a unit of models".

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
as for: "How can you check range to the unit if you only measure to one model?" Because the group operates as one. There is only need to measure to the closest.

Do you have any rules support for "the group operates as one"? Because that's just not true.

Can Tactical Space Marine decide to leave the unit or shoot at something other than the rest of the squad? No, because the fight as one team.

rigeld2 wrote:

You will also notice that in order to target anything first you need Model to Model LOS.

That's absolutely incorrect.

To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting.

Where does it say model?

Oh, under the instructions on how to check Line of Sight. And your target is still the unit, not "a unit of models".

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
as for: "How can you check range to the unit if you only measure to one model?" Because the group operates as one. There is only need to measure to the closest.

Do you have any rules support for "the group operates as one"? Because that's just not true.

Can Tactical Space Marine decide to leave the unit or shoot at something other than the rest of the squad? No, because the fight as one team.

So... Fluff?

rigeld2 wrote:Oh, under the instructions on how to check Line of Sight. And your target is still the unit, not "a unit of models".

Says so right there in the rule book, page 12 under Line of Sight. In the Shooting Phase section of the BRB.

Which is not what you originally said, pre-edit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But that's all irrelevant.

Your target is absolutely a unit.
When rolling to wound, you are wounding your target (What's your target again?)
The rules make an absolute distinction between rolling to wound and allocating wounds.

Fluff? No, they are forced to act together since they are bound to stay in coherency (since there are no rules allowing them leave the unit) and basic shooting rules limit them to shooting at the same target (barring other rules that grant exemptions)



The edit was me asking Nos to define "conflict" in 40k terms which he has yet to do.
He is a good dodger that Nos, been dodging that question since way back in the DWA thread.
Must have studied with how to dodge by watching the Matrix movies.

Why does he need to define conflict? Dictionaries are the place to do that.

This has no bearing on the debate.

40k-noob wrote:
Fluff? No, they are forced to act together since they are bound to stay in coherency (since there are no rules allowing them leave the unit) and basic shooting rules limit them to shooting at the same target (barring other rules that grant exemptions)

So the group operates as one, except when they have to check range, or when they have to check LoS, or when they move (because a model with a Heavy weapon doesn't count as moving if his buddy does)... so ... yeah. Not really "always acting as a team".

The edit was me asking Nos to define "conflict" in 40k terms which he has yet to do.
He is a good dodger that Nos, been dodging that question since way back in the DWA thread.
Must have studied with how to dodge by watching the Matrix movies.

So you're trolling him by referring to another thread without any relevancy here? Bad form...

edit:

You will also notice that in order to target anything first you need Model to Model LOS.

And that's what I was referring to that changed in your edit. That sentence isn't what it said originally.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/513324.page#5381645
And that post doesn't have anything referring to Nos so...

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Why does he need to define conflict? Dictionaries are the place to do that.

This has no bearing on the debate.

LOL he accused me of dodging questions, so I pointed out that he has been dodging my question since way back in the DWA thread. (it is a glass house and stones thing)

Also the dictionary definition was not acceptable to Nos. He said that I did not know what "conflict" means in 40k terms.
So I am asked him to define it and educate me.

Anyway you are right, it has no bearing on this debate.

I will withdraw from this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
edit:

You will also notice that in order to target anything first you need Model to Model LOS.

And that's what I was referring to that changed in your edit. That sentence isn't what it said originally.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/513324.page#5381645
And that post doesn't have anything referring to Nos so...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you cannot target *units* you cannot see. There is a big difference between unit and model.

The Template rules require you to maximise number of hits, and you are not allowed to break this rule unless told you can. Once you have targetted a unit in LOS, you are then forced to maximise the number of models from that unit that are hit. Nothing in this places a restriction on which models are in LOS

So you can target a model that you can't see with a plasma cannon as long as you can see one model in the unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:
Fluff? No, they are forced to act together since they are bound to stay in coherency (since there are no rules allowing them leave the unit) and basic shooting rules limit them to shooting at the same target (barring other rules that grant exemptions)

You may find that when ever you make a point on RAW there are bound to be some folks that will dismiss it as "fluff" out of hand.

I once had a guy make an argument claiming that three words in a written rule were to be disallowed because they were fluff. Even while maintaining that the rest of the SAME sentence was 100% RAW.

Those three words were what folded his argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reaverX wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Which makes the sentence about wounding units out of LOS useless.

I'll disagree. It's useful because it allows you to add to the wound pool. If no one is in LOS then it sucks but if only one or a few guys, are they are allocated all the wounds from the pool. It can force a lot of saves against only a few models.

If you hit a unit that your shooting unit cannot see, according to you, no wounds from the pool can be allocated at all. You could add a thousand wounds to the pool.

If only a few guys from a unit can be seen, then the unit wouldn't be out of LoS, would it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you target a model or a unit with shooting?

Both

You target models in a unit when firing regular.
You target a specific model that can be seen in a unit when firing blast.
You target a specific model in a unit when firing blast as barrage.
You target models that can be seen in a unit when firing templates.
You target models that are not in cover when performing focus fire.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
You can't wound "Unit" because it is just a reference to a model or group of models.

When measuring distance between units, how many models to you measure between?

Just one. It's not always the closest model though.
AND, different models in a firing unit can target different models in the target unit.

Idolator - you are confusing Blast and Template. They have different rules. Stop comparing apples to oranges

With blasts you must place the hole over a model in LOS (for non-barrage) of the firing model. Note thsi is not a target but simply where in the targetted unit the marker is initially placed.

With templates you must place the template so it covers as many models as possible, with no requirement that this template is placed entirely in LOS.

This is where you are making your mistake - you have conflated two different objects rules and are trying to resolve all simultaneously. NOte taht even with Blasts only the *centre* of the marker has to be placed in LOS; it is entirely possible that it will cover models out of LOS, and this is 100% legally placed.

Lastly - rules quote on your "BOTH" answer. Yuo will find the Target is *always* the unit. The TARGET of a shooting attack does not alter, what is affected may do so. This is very clearly laid out.

For example the model you place the hole of the marker over is not the target of that shooting attack - the BRB never states that.

If you can't post without making personal attacks then don't post.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - you are confusing Blast and Template. They have different rules. Stop comparing apples to oranges

With blasts you must place the hole over a model in LOS (for non-barrage) of the firing model. Note thsi is not a target but simply where in the targetted unit the marker is initially placed.

With templates you must place the template so it covers as many models as possible, with no requirement that this template is placed entirely in LOS.

This is where you are making your mistake - you have conflated two different objects rules and are trying to resolve all simultaneously. NOte taht even with Blasts only the *centre* of the marker has to be placed in LOS; it is entirely possible that it will cover models out of LOS, and this is 100% legally placed.

Lastly - rules quote on your "BOTH" answer. Yuo will find the Target is *always* the unit. The TARGET of a shooting attack does not alter, what is affected may do so. This is very clearly laid out.

For example the model you place the hole of the marker over is not the target of that shooting attack - the BRB never states that.

A model cannot shoot at models that cannot be seen by the firing model.
Example: A five man unit armed with pistols is targeting a ten man unit that has nine models out of LoS.
All of the firing models can see the one enemy model that is in view.
Only the lead firing model is within 12" of the visible model in the firing unit. All are within 12" of the models that are not visible.
Only the lead model in the firing unit can fire.

example two. The five man unit is all armed with flamers.
only the lead firing model is within template range of the single visible model. All firing models are within range of the models that are out of LoS.
Only the lead firing model may fire.

Example three. a Dreadnought armed with a heavy flamer is firing at a unit of ten orks.
The orks are hidden in a clump just around the corner of a building, except the two that had made it around the corner.
The Dread, if the dread fires at the eight models that are out of LoS, he will not hit any models that are in LoS.
He must fire at the visible models.


You cannot fire at things that you cannot see.
I do understand that the template rules states that you place the template over the maximum amount of models in the target unit. However, at least one of the the targeted models must be in line of sight and those models that are in Line of Sight must be within range.

So here's the reasoning.
1. Models in a unit must be within Line of Sight and within range before a model can shoot at all.
2. Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of enemy models.
3. Firing models cannot target models in a unit that they cannot see.
4. Models that are out of sight from the firing models are not counted for determining the maximum enemy models placed under a template weapon.


That being said. It is quite possible that the maximium amount of visible models under the template may be the same no matter which way you place the template. In those cases it would be beneficial to place the template where models that are out of LoS would also be covered by the template.

Once again, I believe that template weapons, along with blast markers can wound models that are out of LoS and that those wounds can be allocated. As the nature of the weapon doesn't worry about direct line firing, it has an area of effect.

"A model cannot shoot at models that cannot be seen by the firing model."

No such rule actually exists. Or rather, it is a corruption of a few existing rules.

A model cannot shoot unless it has LOS to at least ONE model in the target unit.

You then cannot allocate wounds to models out of LOS of *any* model in the firing unit - not the model that actually fired the shot that caused the hit that caused the wound you are now allocating, but ANY model in the firing unit.

Your examples are not based in actual rules, as you have made a false initial premise and extrapolated from it.

The template rules CAN require you to place the template rules over models entirely out of LOS of the firing model. This is entirely, 100% supported in the rules, and does not cause any issues with causing hits and causing wounds. The issues comes in that both Blast and Template weapons do not have an exemption to the rules on page 16 which state you cannot allocate out of LOS of the firing unit, so are still bound by this requirement.

You have yet to provide a rules citation, please do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"A model cannot shoot at models that cannot be seen by the firing model."

No such rule actually exists. Or rather, it is a corruption of a few existing rules.

A model cannot shoot unless it has LOS to at least ONE model in the target unit.

You have yet to provide a rules citation, please do so.

pg 12 final paragraph.

Any model that is found to be out of range from any visible enemy models in the target unit, doesn't shoot.

If the firing model can only see one model in the target unit. He must shoot at that model.

If line of sight rules apply to all other forms of shooting it statnds to reason that they apply in this case as well. Any other interpretation would fall under the heading (and I'm being gracious here) "Gamesmanship".

It may be an RAI reading of the rules. But I was pretty clear about that when I gave the 4 point reasoning.

"Any model that is found to be out of range from any visible enemy models in the target unit, doesn't shoot. "

True.

"If the firing model can only see one model in the target unit. He must shoot at that model. "

Complete and utter leap. No such rule forces that - the bolded bit is not part of the rules. The model is still part of the firing unit and is still shooting at the target UNIT as a whole.

Your "RAI" is no such thing, and goes again 4 editions of how the rules are written and actually played.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Any model that is found to be out of range from any visible enemy models in the target unit, doesn't shoot. "

True.

"If the firing model can only see one model in the target unit. He must shoot at that model. "

Complete and utter leap. No such rule forces that - the bolded bit is not part of the rules. The model is still part of the firing unit and is still shooting at the target UNIT as a whole.

Your "RAI" is no such thing, and goes again 4 editions of how the rules are written and actually played.

This latest edition of rules are quite different in regards to Line of Sight, than they have been in the past. It's a much more cinematic style. A model would not have line of sight to 3 models and randomly shoot through a wall in the hopes that he might hit more guys than can be seen by members of his unit. The targets simply aren't there.

Then to claim that models that are hit by an area effect weapon(that doesn't take terrain into consideration at all) cannot have wounds assigned to them because of Line of Sight rules is absurd.

Ignoring LoS, then requiring it to be applied is more than a bit of a contradiction.

Gamesmanship.

Fine.

You dont have any rules to back you p your position

You dont have any ambiguity you can point to

You dont have any argument, just some assertions

Play it your way, you are however wrong on both RAW and RAI.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fine.

You dont have any rules to back you p your position

You dont have any ambiguity you can point to

You dont have any argument, just some assertions

Play it your way, you are however wrong on both RAW and RAI.

I believe that personal attacks are not following the spirit of this forum, please refrain from them.

The rules for Line of Sight are clear, combining Line of Sight rules with the rules for template weapons isn't an assertion. It's how the game is intended to be played.

GW doesn't reiterate every rule when explaining the special rules for certain weapons, we, the readers are expected to know that, unless specificaly adressed, established rules are included.

Line of Sight still applies in the targeting and to wound allocation, unless it is specificaly changed in the wording of the rules. Such as "can hit and wound units that are out of line of sight".

Yes, the rules for LOS are clear. You have to be able to see at least one model in the target unit in order to fire

You then make an entirely unsupported LEAP to decide that means that THAT model you can see is the target of your shooting, when that is 100% untrue - the target is, and remains, the unit.

There was no personal attack, I was pointing out your entire lack of any rules support, implied or explicit, and that you have no counter argument to the points raised, as you have yet to even address them (such as: target == unit, placement of marker does not alter this, and the template rules are silent on this topic, to name just a few you have failed to address with any rules argument whatsoever) in this thread

Please follow the tenets of YMDC. Find RULES to support your assertions. If you do not do so I will accept that as admission that you cannot do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, the rules for LOS are clear. You have to be able to see at least one model in the target unit in order to fire

You then make an entirely unsupported LEAP to decide that means that THAT model you can see is the target of your shooting, when that is 100% untrue - the target is, and remains, the unit.

There was no personal attack, I was pointing out your entire lack of any rules support, implied or explicit, and that you have no counter argument to the points raised, as you have yet to even address them (such as: target == unit, placement of marker does not alter this, and the template rules are silent on this topic, to name just a few you have failed to address with any rules argument whatsoever) in this thread

Please follow the tenets of YMDC. Find RULES to support your assertions. If you do not do so I will accept that as admission that you cannot do so.

Combining LoS rules with the template rule for hitting max models in a unit isn't citing rules???
Someone may not agree with my conclusions, but rules were cited.

It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see, many times, unless specified that it may do so. There is no rule in the template section that specificaly provides an exception to this established rule.

I assert that the claim, a player no longer follows the LoS rules for targeting when using template weapons, is the leap. As there is nothing to back this up.

A person claiming that personal attacks are not personal attacks, doesn't make it so. A claim that tenets weren't followed does not show evidence of a lack of proper procedure.

"It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see"

Again, this is not a rule. You have made this up

You cannot target the *unit* when you cannot draw LOS to at least *one model*

You are then claiming that the target of the attack by that model is now the model(s) they can see.

This has no basis in the rules

And no, you havent cited any rules, as you have made up a link between LOS and template that does not exist, because you have made up a rule in the first instance: to whit, there is no rule stating the target of a models shooting is the model(s) they can see in the target unit. It is, and remains, the unit they are targetting

You have no rules basis, absolutely none. I pointed this out, and said you are free to play it as you wish but that this is neither RAW nor RAI. That is not a personal attack. If you feel it is, report me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see"

Again, this is not a rule. You have made this up

You cannot target the *unit* when you cannot draw LOS to at least *one model*

You are then claiming that the target of the attack by that model is now the model(s) they can see.

This has no basis in the rules

And no, you havent cited any rules, as you have made up a link between LOS and template that does not exist, because you have made up a rule in the first instance: to whit, there is no rule stating the target of a models shooting is the model(s) they can see in the target unit. It is, and remains, the unit they are targetting

You have no rules basis, absolutely none. I pointed this out, and said you are free to play it as you wish but that this is neither RAW nor RAI. That is not a personal attack. If you feel it is, report me.

Again, very personal. Please desist.

A unit is a target, a model (or models) are targets when firing certain weapons, such as blast markers, templates and certain other weapons.
Just one example: Blast Markers referer to the TARGET MODEL.

There are target units for determining which unit may be assaulted after the shooting phase. There are target models for determining who is being hit.
In the case of the template weapon, the reference is to maximum models in the target unit, to ensure that someone doesn't fire at the single model at the end of the line in order to hit the closely clumped unit behind the "target unit".

The argument of "no no no no No No No No NO NO NONONONONONO!!!!! I can't hear you!!!" ignores the points that I have made.
Someone may disagree. That's fine.
Claiming that points haven't been made and rules haven't been cited is not fine.

Here's a template example. If the only visible model in a target unit is ten inches away from a model with a flamer, he wouldn't be allowed to shoot at all even if the remaining models in the target unit were two inches away, but out of sight.

Claiming that the flamer model would be able to shoot out of sight and ignore the visible model, because the visible model was seven inches away makes no sense.

Disagreeing with an argument is not a personal attack. Spamming the forum with unfounded accusations of personal attacks is against our Rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fine.

You dont have any rules to back you p your position

You dont have any ambiguity you can point to

You dont have any argument, just some assertions

Play it your way, you are however wrong on both RAW and RAI.

Tenet rule #1

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

I don't believe that I was spamming after this diatribe. I've cited rules. LoS and Template. I've clearly pointed out my reasoning and how I came to the conclusion.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

And no, you havent cited any rules, as you have made up a link between LOS and template that does not exist, because you have made up a rule in the first instance: to whit, there is no rule stating the target of a models shooting is the model(s) they can see in the target unit. It is, and remains, the unit they are targetting

You have no rules basis, absolutely none. I pointed this out, and said you are free to play it as you wish but that this is neither RAW nor RAI. That is not a personal attack. If you feel it is, report me.

This is acceptable? I see no resoning except "you are wrong". He's ignored the rules citations that I have made and going after me personaly. Note the repeated use of the accusative tone. He even addressed me directly and and dared me to report him.

I've seen no counter to the LoS argument that I have made. There is no exception to LoS rules in the template rules. I can find none and none have been cited. I have been told that I'm wrong several time with no rules citations to back this up.

He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

Why am I wrong? Honestly. Please tell me.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

 Idolator wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

Why am I wrong? Honestly. Please tell me.

careful, you are going off topic. Someone might report you.

Back to the point of the thread.

I agree with Idol on the template + LOS rules.

Stop being obtuse and just debate the rules. Everyone!

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Stop being obtuse and just debate the rules. Everyone!

But that's no fun. Therefore you are wrong because..umm...tacos. Yeah. Tacos rule.

This thread should probably be locked, nothing more useful to be found here I think.

 Happyjew wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Stop being obtuse and just debate the rules. Everyone!

But that's no fun. Therefore you are wrong because..umm...tacos. Yeah. Tacos rule.

Reported for being off topic...



jk.... I dont report folks, feels too much like crying to mama.

 Idolator wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
He's been explaining why you are wrong for a long time now, no violation here.

Why am I wrong? Honestly. Please tell me.

because your premise is incorrect.

Mainly this one:

 Idolator wrote:
It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see,

It is incorrect, there is no rule that states this.

If you think there is please follow the tenets of the forum. Mainly this one:

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC): wrote:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

 Grey Templar wrote:
This thread should probably be locked, nothing more useful to be found here I think.

I don't see it that way.

Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of models in the target unit.

I made the point that those models must be in LOS of the firing model. As the rules for LOS are still in effect and nothing in the rules for templates allow an exception to this.

It is completely within the topic at hand of "Torrent weapons and which models to remove first"

Models that are out of line of sight of template weapons are also not allocated wounds because there is no exception to this in the template rules either.

I've been repeatedly told that I was wrong. I've seen no citation that provides an exception to the LOS rules regarding template weapons.

The perfect example is the range example that I gave above.

I'll give give two more. for these examples lets assume that the flame template is 8 inches long.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 10 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 8 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers? No.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 7 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 7 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers at the models that he cannot see and ignore the only visible model? No.

LOS is still a determining factor when placing a template.

 Idolator wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
This thread should probably be locked, nothing more useful to be found here I think.

I don't see it that way.

Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of models in the target unit.

I made the point that those models must be in LOS of the firing model. As the rules for LOS are still in effect and nothing in the rules for templates allow an exception to this.

It is completely within the topic at hand of "Torrent weapons and which models to remove first"

Models that are out of line of sight of template weapons are also not allocated wounds because there is no exception to this in the template rules either.

I've been repeatedly told that I was wrong. I've seen no citation that provides an exception to the LOS rules regarding template weapons.

The perfect example is the range example that I gave above.

I'll give give two more. for these examples lets assume that the flame template is 8 inches long.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 10 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 8 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers? No.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 7 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 7 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers at the models that he cannot see and ignore the only visible model? No.

LOS is still a determining factor when placing a template.

I think the problem is that if you don't cite or quote rules in the way others on the forum do, meaning you have to follow their format or syntax, using quotation marks or page numbers etc then you are not actually citing or quoting rules.

No, there's no required syntax, there's just no rule that says "Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of models in the target unit that are in LOS."

A model has LOS to a unit. He is now required to cover the maximum amount of models in the unit.

Job done - without inserting an LOS requirement that just isn't there. We target units, not models.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see,

It is incorrect, there is no rule that states this.

pg 12 regarding the checking of range. When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit. Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible models in a target unit does not shoot.

It is the visiblility that determines if you can target models in a unit. Just because you have LOS to one model in a unit. It does not confer the ablility to intentionaly fire out of LOS.

This is further itterated in the blast rules. In those rules you must pick a model visible to the firer and that model is then refered to as the target model.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:

I think the problem is that if you don't cite or quote rules in the way others on the forum do, meaning you have to follow their format or syntax, using quotation marks or page numbers etc then you are not actually citing or quoting rules.

Yeah, I took care of that.

Blast rules are on pg 33. btw. Forgot to cite the page number.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, there's no required syntax, there's just no rule that says "Template weapons must be placed over the maximum amount of models in the target unit that are in LOS."

A model has LOS to a unit. He is now required to cover the maximum amount of models in the unit.

Job done - without inserting an LOS requirement that just isn't there. We target units, not models.

you are right, there is no requirement.

However each poster/reader sees things differently.
What you might see as citing or not citing a rule may be different from everyone else.

Idol may be thinking he is citing LoS rules by simply referring to LoS where as Nos obviously does not think he is citing the rules.

I sent this to GW yesterday. Hopefuly it will be addressed in the FAQ.

Are enemy models that are out of Line of Sight of the firing model, considered when placing a template weapon for the purpose of determining the number of enemy models covered by the template?

It's simple yes or no question.

That's all that we've been discussing here.

Obviously, if the firing model can't make the template hit visible models due to range, it is not allowed to fire at all, even if the unseen models would be in range..
My assertion is that it cannot intentionaly fire at unseen models at all, effectively ignoring the visible models.

40k-noob wrote:
you are right, there is no requirement.

However each poster/reader sees things differently.
What you might see as citing or not citing a rule may be different from everyone else.

Idol may be thinking he is citing LoS rules by simply referring to LoS where as Nos obviously does not think he is citing the rules.

You can tell when someone is citing a rule when they quote the rule or give a page number.
Saying "LOS rules" isn't citing anything. Because unless I'm missing a sentence or two (which is where citing helps) there's no rule supporting his statements.
Citation by the very definition of the word requires quoting (and giving the source for the quote). Idolator has done neither.

@40k-noob: "Citing" has a more precise meaning in the context of rules interpretation.

That is pretty weird. As written, it appears a model cannot fire a template weapon unless it is in range and line of sight of a model in the target unit, but then must place the template wherever it will achieve the largest number of hits on the target unit (keeping in mind restrictions, of which LoS is not one). It says it hits each model under the template.

Weird, but pretty clear as written.

It's not totally weird. I would think the point is to deal with cover.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It has been established that a model cannot target models that they cannot see,

It is incorrect, there is no rule that states this.

pg 12 regarding the checking of range. When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit. Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible models in a target unit does not shoot.

It is the visiblility that determines if you can target models in a unit.

Except you do not target models, you target a unit.

"Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a target for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting." P.12

Your premise of targeting models is incorrect, as you target units.

Well, the part that's weird is that your template-wielding model can't fire at a unit if it doesn't have LoS to the models in it, but it can (indeed, is required to) place the template where it hits models out of LoS if that covers the most models. I'm imagining a tactical squad with a flamer moving up to a wall and firing at a unit at close range. The flamer guy is firing blind over the wall at enemies he knows are there (perhaps his squad is telling him where they are) and hits them because it's a flamer and pretty indiscriminate, but if he can't personally see anyone in the enemy unit then he cannot fire at all.

It doesn't make sense that he can or can't fire at models he can't see based on whether he can see another model over to the side.

ETA: though again, to be clear, even though it doesn't make sense it does seem unambiguous that this is how it is played RAW.

 Manchu wrote:
It's not totally weird. I would think the point is to deal with cover.

But then folks fall back on the fact that the wounds inflicted can't be allocated to the models that are out of LOS. Even though the weapon description ignores cover.

I know that the rules for template don't address the LOS issue directly. I've maintained that my reading has been RAI.

Often times there are rules interpretaions that are counter to how the writters intended. I believe that this is the case here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except you do not target models, you target a unit.

Pg 33. Blast

Instead, pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the the relevant blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model.

Reply by: 40k-noob - click to view full reply 

53575

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 18:37:22

Post by: 40k-noob

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
you are right, there is no requirement.

However each poster/reader sees things differently.
What you might see as citing or not citing a rule may be different from everyone else.

Idol may be thinking he is citing LoS rules by simply referring to LoS where as Nos obviously does not think he is citing the rules.

You can tell when someone is citing a rule when they quote the rule or give a page number.
Saying "LOS rules" isn't citing anything. Because unless I'm missing a sentence or two (which is where citing helps) there's no rule supporting his statements.
Citation by the very definition of the word requires quoting (and giving the source for the quote). Idolator has done neither.

true enough. But if a poster is thinks he is citing a rule and someone keeps telling that poster that no you have not, rather then pointing out that the reference/citation is too general or lacking specifics doesn't help the debate.

Reply by: Idolator - click to view full reply 

37426

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 18:39:23

Post by: Idolator

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
(perhaps his squad is telling him where they are) and hits them because it's a flamer and pretty indiscriminate, but if he can't personally see anyone in the enemy unit then he cannot fire at all]

If a member of his unit could see them, then it would be perfectly ok. (He's told to shoot though a wall by a squad mate) I'm addressing the occasions when no one in the unit can see the guys that are out of LOS of the entire unit.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 18:40:30

Post by: rigeld2

40k-noob wrote:
true enough. But if a poster is thinks he is citing a rule and someone keeps telling that poster that no you have not, rather then pointing out that the reference/citation is too general or lacking specifics doesn't help the debate.

You're right. Understanding what citing is does help the debate.
Which is something you should do before saying "I've cited rules!" when you actually haven't.
I will say that I only have a tangential understanding of Idol's argument as I have him on ignore - but from what others have quoted him saying he hasn't cited anything.

Reply by: HiveFleetPlastic - click to view full reply 

68844

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 18:45:05

Post by: HiveFleetPlastic

There is no corresponding requirement for templates. It says you must place the template where it covers as many models as possible. That's all.

It seems to me that it would be more logical for the LoS requirement to be in error. If the Template section had a line saying that when firing a Template weapon the model does not require Line of Sight to fire then it would make sense. The section itself talks about them being fired over obstructions and so on.

 Idolator wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
(perhaps his squad is telling him where they are) and hits them because it's a flamer and pretty indiscriminate, but if he can't personally see anyone in the enemy unit then he cannot fire at all.

If a member of his unit could see them, then it would be perfectly ok. (He's told to shoot though a wall by a squad mate) I'm addressing the occasions when no one in the unit can see the guys that are out of LOS of the entire unit.

That's pretty weird, yeah, but it's not any weirder than the abstractions of the shooting system in general. Blast weapons do the same thing - they generate wounds on models that cannot be killed by the shooting attack. It's no stranger than all of a unit being able to see one model in the target unit except for one guy, who can see around the wall to the others, and the attacking unit thus being able to kill the entire target unit.

I don't have any particular problem with the template thing because the firing model might know or assume the enemy models are there, whether that's by having seen them move there earlier, hearing them or whatever, and it seems in line with the rules for blasts and such (other than the one that says blasts can generate wounds on units out of LoS, since that doesn't have any effect RAW due to not being able to allocate them).

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 19:00:18

Post by: DeathReaper

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except you do not target models, you target a unit.

Pg 33. Blast

Instead, pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the the relevant blast marker with its hole entirely over the base of the target model.

That in no way overrides the you target a unit wording of Page 12.

You pick a target unit to fire at.

You have to place the blast marker over a model. (But we are talking about template weapons, not blast markers).

The template rules tell us we must cover as many models as possible with the template in the target unit.

"Instead of rolling To Hit, simply place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the firing model and the rest of the template covers as many models in the target unit as possible..." P. 52

I underlined the targeting part of the Template rules for you.

Reply by: Idolator - click to view full reply 

37426

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 19:22:30

Post by: Idolator

I've not argued that the rules for template stating that you cover as many ememy models as possible.

I've just argued that LOS is involved.

Some agree. Some don't .

It's my RAI argument.

I put in a question to GW.
I know all the rules that y'all have cited (or implied). I still see it the same way.

I understand why others see it the way that they do. I think that it's a much too narrow interpretation.

Simple as that.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 19:26:13

Post by: Manchu

The trouble with RAI arguments is that their validity can only be established by the rule writer and, even then, the authentic intention may be hard to recapture. Unless you get an honest, clear answer from whoever wrote the rules as to what they actually intended, RAI arguments always boil down to a house rulings. I believe that's why most regular YMDC contributors talk about RAW.

Reply by: Idolator - click to view full reply 

37426

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 20:45:32

Post by: Idolator

 Manchu wrote:
The trouble with RAI arguments is that their validity can only be established by the rule writer and, even then, the authentic intention may be hard to recapture. Unless you get an honest, clear answer from whoever wrote the rules as to what they actually intended, RAI arguments always boil down to a house rulings. I believe that's why most regular YMDC contributors talk about RAW.

While RAI may be the harder argument to defintively prove, it is usually what is argued. As two people may read the exact same sentence and come to different conclusions. Many may quote the RAW, but it is the RAI that is always in question.

RAI is what's important to discern as the RAW often has conflicts or errors that must be reconciled before play.

No one can argue what is writtren. It's in black and white. A person can only argue what is intended by the written word.

The need for errata, amendments, and FAQ updates proves that it's the RAI is the important factor.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 20:48:37

Post by: Happyjew

When you are playing, yes. RAI (or at least HYWPI) is very important. In a discussion based on what the rules actually say...not so much.

Reply by: Idolator - click to view full reply 

37426

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:10:09

Post by: Idolator

 Happyjew wrote:
When you are playing, yes. RAI (or at least HYWPI) is very important. In a discussion based on what the rules actually say...not so much.

It is "You Make Da Call"

Not "What Was Printed"

There are discrepancies in the rules, mistakes, misprints, errors, bad editing. All of it leads back to RAI.

You can't argue what is printed. You can only argue what is intended by the printed word.

I've yet to see a sustained debate on what words exist, only on what they mean.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:12:32

Post by: DeathReaper

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.


Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:14:53

Post by: Happyjew

Hence the reason for the following:

 Lorek wrote:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

I agree there are discrepancies. I also agree that nobody who participates in these forums play strict RAW.

Reply by: Idolator - click to view full reply 

37426

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:20:04

Post by: Idolator

 DeathReaper wrote:
4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.


Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

I've stated that is my argument, over and over again. Cited the pages and explained my reasoning.

This is probably the 5th time that I've stated that it's RAI.

Hey everybody! It's my RAI interpretation that the LOS rules apply to firing template weapons.
Because the rules for templates don't provide an exception to line of sight .

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:25:13

Post by: DeathReaper

Well it is not RAW, and that is what most were discussing.

So if you play by RAW the Template can, indeed must, be placed over as many models in the target unit as possible, even if those models are out of Line of Sight.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:27:48

Post by: Happyjew

 Idolator wrote:
I've stated that is my argument, over and over again. Cited the pages and explained my reasoning.

This is probably the 5th time that I've stated that it's RAI.

Hey everybody! It's my RAI interpretation that the LOS rules apply to firing template weapons.
Because the rules for templates don't provide an exception to line of sight .

4th actually. But who's counting?

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:28:21

Post by: rigeld2

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5379650
Does not include anything pointing to you discussing RAI.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5381049
Here either.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5382036

You may find that when ever you make a point on RAW

So that's making a RAI argument?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5385180
Nope, still nothing about not being RAW...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5385447
The first hint!

It may be an RAI reading of the rules. But I was pretty clear about that when I gave the 4 point reasoning.

Darn. "may" isn't saying you're presenting a RAI argument at all, and you weren't "pretty clear" before either.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5386190
Darn. Fell back into not prefacing your argument at all.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5386386
Again.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389294
Nope, still nothing about not being a RAI argument.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389483
Again.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389573
Still appears to be asserting RAW - "I've seen no counter to the LoS argument that I have made. "
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389603
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389699
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389764
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389808
All of these appear to be RAW arguments.
And then we have:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/513324.page#5389853

I've maintained that my reading has been RAI.

No, no you have not. In fact, that's the first time you've come out and said it.

Reply by: HiveFleetPlastic - click to view full reply 

68844

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:29:12

Post by: HiveFleetPlastic

But the line of sight rules don't say anything about placing templates. They don't say anything about who a model shoots at all, because models shoot at units, not at models.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:32:25

Post by: Happyjew

I guess the question is does at least one model that is in LOS of the firing model have to be included under the template?

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:33:58

Post by: rigeld2

With the rules the way they are written right now, no - that's not a requirement.

I could easily see GW ruling that way though.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:35:33

Post by: Happyjew

The reason I ask is that in order to fire a model has to have range to a model in the target unit that is in LOS. So if no models in LOS are in range of the template that would preclude the flamer from firing.

Reply by: Idolator - click to view full reply 

37426

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:38:56

Post by: Idolator

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well it is not RAW, and that is what most were discussing.

So if you play by RAW the Template can, indeed must, be placed over as many models in the target unit as possible, even if those models are out of Line of Sight.

and that's where the rules come into direct conflict with one another. The only model visible to the firing unit is out of range of the template, but the remainder of the unit is within range but out of sight. That's a direct conflict with page 12 checking range and page 52 template.

What do you do?

Does having the visible model in range allow you to fire somewhere else? I don't think so. Crux of my reasoning.

Add to that, the fact that the template may only be able to hit one model in the target unit no matter how it's placed. Would that allow the firing model to fire at the model that cannot be seen in order to hit another unit behind the target? A strict RAW can cause more problems than it solves.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 21:40:27

Post by: rigeld2

Right - but that doesn't mean you have to cover him with the template. In fact, if the flamer fires you cannot cover the guy in LOS if there are more targets out of LOS.

Reply by: HiveFleetPlastic - click to view full reply 

68844

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 22:02:04

Post by: HiveFleetPlastic

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well it is not RAW, and that is what most were discussing.

So if you play by RAW the Template can, indeed must, be placed over as many models in the target unit as possible, even if those models are out of Line of Sight.

and that's where the rules come into direct conflict with one another. The only model visible to the firing unit is out of range of the template, but the remainder of the unit is within range but out of sight. That's a direct conflict with page 12 checking range and page 52 template.

What do you do?

Does having the visible model in range allow you to fire somewhere else? I don't think so. Crux of my reasoning.

Add to that, the fact that the template may only be able to hit one model in the target unit no matter how it's placed. Would that allow the firing model to fire at the model that cannot be seen in order to hit another unit behind the target? A strict RAW can cause more problems than it solves.

Models don't fire at models, they fire at units. That's why your bolter model who can only see one member of the unit can end up killing someone else in the unit. It's abstracted. It doesn't always make sense. It's clear, though. They don't "come into direct conflict" at all. The flamer cannot fire if its user cannot see any models in range in the target unit.

It might be a bad rule (it's really more that the Template special rule should allow you to fire at a unit if it's in range even if you don't have LoS) but it is very much workable.

Reply by: Idolator - click to view full reply 

37426

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 22:24:48

Post by: Idolator

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well it is not RAW, and that is what most were discussing.

So if you play by RAW the Template can, indeed must, be placed over as many models in the target unit as possible, even if those models are out of Line of Sight.

and that's where the rules come into direct conflict with one another. The only model visible to the firing unit is out of range of the template, but the remainder of the unit is within range but out of sight. That's a direct conflict with page 12 checking range and page 52 template.

What do you do?

Does having the visible model in range allow you to fire somewhere else? I don't think so. Crux of my reasoning.

Add to that, the fact that the template may only be able to hit one model in the target unit no matter how it's placed. Would that allow the firing model to fire at the model that cannot be seen in order to hit another unit behind the target? A strict RAW can cause more problems than it solves.

Models don't fire at models, they fire at units. That's why your bolter model who can only see one member of the unit can end up killing someone else in the unit. It's abstracted. It doesn't always make sense. It's clear, though. They don't "come into direct conflict" at all. The flamer cannot fire if its user cannot see any models in range in the target unit.

It might be a bad rule (it's really more that the Template special rule should allow you to fire at a unit if it's in range even if you don't have LoS) but it is very much workable.

That's where my disagreement with the prevailing attitiude here. Since range is measured to the nearest visible model, visiblility is key in determining the models that must be covered by the template. If the nearest visible model can't be reached by the template then the model can't shoot, but if it's an inch closer he can shoot in a different direction entirely??? I don't buy it.

It's more like the word "visible" should have been added to the template weapon when it states "place template so that it covers the most (Visible) enemy models in the target unit. Problem is also solved.

Unrelated: The German Errata for March has been up for almost a week. Nothing on the English (or other versions)...odd.

Reply by: HiveFleetPlastic - click to view full reply 

68844

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 22:38:29

Post by: HiveFleetPlastic

 Idolator wrote:
That's where my disagreement with the prevailing attitiude here. Since range is measured to the nearest visible model, visiblility is key in determining the models that must be covered by the template. If the nearest visible model can't be reached by the template then the model can't shoot, but if it's an inch closer he can shoot in a different direction entirely??? I don't buy it.

It's more like the word "visible" should have been added to the template weapon when it states "place template so that it covers the most (Visible) enemy models in the target unit. Problem is also solved.

The problem is the section on templates never says that the models have to be visible. You seem to be inferring that it matters because you can't fire without visibility, but it seems to me that the visibility section is the one that does not make sense in this instance (and the specific case overrides the general, as a rule - if the template section says LoS doesn't matter, it doesn't). I agree your alteration would bring it in line as well, though!

Reply by: Idolator - click to view full reply 

37426

Torrent weapons and which models to remove first @ 2013/03/14 23:06:09

Post by: Idolator

[quote=HiveFleetPlastic 513324 5390672 null- if the template section says LoS doesn't matter, it doesn't).!

That's part of the problem as well. It doesn't mention LOS at all. It doesn't provide an exception or tell you to follow it. Leaving it firmly in place.

In that case, I apply the rules for LOS.

The rules for Line of Sight tell us you can not shoot at a unit you can not see.

If the model with the flame template weapon can see, and has rage to, one model in the target unit then the flame template weapon can fire, but it is bound by covering the most models in the enemy unit, as nothing in the Line of Sight rules over-rides this clause.

 Idolator wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
This thread should probably be locked, nothing more useful to be found here I think.

I'll give give two more. for these examples lets assume that the flame template is 8 inches long.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 10 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 8 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers? No.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 7 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 7 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers at the models that he cannot see and ignore the only visible model? No.

LOS is still a determining factor when placing a template.

TL;DR Templates are a To-Hit mechanic, not a reflection of reality.

There is no conflict in the LOS, Range, and Template rules as far as I can see.

To Target a unit (p12) , you must be able to place the Template over at least one model in LOS of the firer (this is implied by the Check Range rule on p12, with the range defined by the size of the Template).

Template p52 places no restriction on us regarding LOS, and in fact tells us to covers as many enemy models as possible - the model you used to validate your target selection above may NOT be one of the ones under the Template.

Roll for Wounds as normal.

Allocate Wounds as normal - probably the most controversial one being that all those models that were under the Template for determining Hits that are actually our of LOS cannot have Wounds allocated to them.

Example 1 above - correct, you cannot target because it violates the Target selection rule for range (p12)

Example 2 above - you CAN target the unit because it satisfies the LOS and Range rules. To determine number of Hits you place the Template in such a way as you cover as many models as possible. Let's assume it doesn't even go over the one model in LOS, but catches 5 models out of LOS - 5 Hits. Roll to Wound, and let's say 4 succeed. Allocate the 4 Wound to the one model standing out in the open; when he dies the remaining wounds in the pool are discarded because we can't allocate to models out of LOS.

 Idolator wrote:
[quote=HiveFleetPlastic 513324 5390672 null- if the template section says LoS doesn't matter, it doesn't).!

That's part of the problem as well. It doesn't mention LOS at all. It doesn't provide an exception or tell you to follow it. Leaving it firmly in place.

In that case, I apply the rules for LOS.