Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hia,

In CSM (and C:Sm presumably) there is the option of giving the Rhino a combi flamer.

Now, seeing as the pintle mount is set on the top of the tank, and the flamer template starts at the gun barrell....do you need to resolve a flamer hit against the tank?

I may be wrong, but RAW wouldn't the flamer hit the tank as it is under the template?

Praxiss wrote:Hia,

In CSM (and C:Sm presumably) there is the option of giving the Rhino a combi flamer.

Now, seeing as the pintle mount is set on the top of the tank, and the flamer template starts at the gun barrell....do you need to resolve a flamer hit against the tank?

I may be wrong, but RAW wouldn't the flamer hit the tank as it is under the template?

RaW, you cannot fire Template Weapons from most Pintle or Turret Mounted Vehicle weapons, nor from most non-open topped Transports.

Hmm, so what's the point havign the option? Or is it a mis-print do you think?

My thinking was to put one on a rhino so the tank can give a squad a blast with a flamer before the squad it's carrying gets out.

Praxiss wrote:Hmm, so what's the point havign the option? Or is it a mis-print do you think?

My thinking was to put one on a rhino so the tank can give a squad a blast with a flamer before the squad it's carrying gets out.

It's a Misprint in the Main Rules. Obviously GW didn't realise it was impossible so forgot to make it so you could put the template over the tank firing it.

Knowing GW, this will never be Errata'd nor fixed in 6th ed.

Yeah Gwar! is correct you can't fire the template weapon by RaW, hence why most people just ignore the part about it hitting the firing tank. Not sure how they'll fix this without openning sponson mounted template weapons to abuse.

just out of curiosity do you enforce rules like this when you play Gwar?


Beasts of War (youtube) had a video talking about the Flamestorm cannon the new Baal Predator can only shoot to the sides

in the case of a rhino the normal flamer wouldn't be able to do any dame to the tank (as long as you fire it front or to the sides), so you might as well take the hit if you want to use it.

i forgot about the flamstorm cannon, in theory this coudl actually damage the pred. i forget the side armour...i think it is 11 or 12? So a damaging hit is actually posible from it's own turret!

General_Chaos wrote:just out of curiosity do you enforce rules like this when you play Gwar?

Why does this matter? The RaW is clear, how I play it is inconsequential.

In any case, I make a point of mentioning this if it might come up in a game and I generally ask the opponent how he wants to play it.

Praxiss wrote:in the case of a rhino the normal flamer wouldn't be able to do any dame to the tank (as long as you fire it front or to the sides), so you might as well take the hit if you want to use it.

i forgot about the flamstorm cannon, in theory this coudl actually damage the pred. i forget the side armour...i think it is 11 or 12? So a damaging hit is actually posible from it's own turret!

AV11

Irrelevant, as the rules forbid you from placing the template over a freiendly model - so you never ge to place it to resolve thehits...

Although I want to reiterate, almost every person will let you fire your flamers out of the top hatch, your template weapons off your turrets/pintle mounts or other similar circumstances without resolving a hit against the vehicle itself.

Also, take a combi-melta on it instead, it is much better.

i plan to. i just wanted some clarification. Thanks guys.

Uh, don't you place flamers from the base of the model?

And yes, I know what the vehicle firing rules say.

But doesn't the rule for firing the weapon itself overrule the general rule for vehicle shooting?

(not granted this doesn't help passengers with flamers, but it does help tanks with them)

Timmah wrote:Uh, don't you place flamers from the base of the model?

And yes, I know what the vehicle firing rules say.

But doesn't the rule for firing the weapon itself overrule the general rule for vehicle shooting?

(not granted this doesn't help passengers with flamers, but it does help tanks with them)

What? How can the rules for firing all weapons be more specific than the rules for firing weapons from vehicles?

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:Uh, don't you place flamers from the base of the model?

And yes, I know what the vehicle firing rules say.

But doesn't the rule for firing the weapon itself overrule the general rule for vehicle shooting?

(not granted this doesn't help passengers with flamers, but it does help tanks with them)

What? How can the rules for firing all weapons be more specific than the rules for firing weapons from vehicles?

Uh, the rule for firing all weapons from a vehicle vs the rule for how to fire 1 type of weapon?

Sounds like the rule for how to fire a single type of weapon is more specific.

If youre saying it is placed at the base of the model - whereabouts? Anywhere you like? The other side of the vehicle?

Uh, no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If youre saying it is placed at the base of the model - whereabouts? Anywhere you like? The other side of the vehicle?

Uh, no.

Why not? That's what the rules say. As long as you are playing strict RAW. Of course, you still need LOS from the gun.

On a infantry model I can place it anywhere on the base.

Timmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:If youre saying it is placed at the base of the model - whereabouts? Anywhere you like? The other side of the vehicle?

Uh, no.

Why not? That's what the rules say. As long as you are playing strict RAW. Of course, you still need LOS from the gun.

On a infantry model I can place it anywhere on the base.

Yes, because it is an Infantry model. The rules for firing weapons from a vehicle are more specific than the general rules for firing all weapons.

The rules also say I can run with an Infantry model, does that mean my Razorbacks can run too?

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:If youre saying it is placed at the base of the model - whereabouts? Anywhere you like? The other side of the vehicle?

Uh, no.

Why not? That's what the rules say. As long as you are playing strict RAW. Of course, you still need LOS from the gun.

On a infantry model I can place it anywhere on the base.

Yes, because it is an Infantry model. The rules for firing weapons from a vehicle are more specific than the general rules for firing all weapons.

The rules also say I can run with an Infantry model, does that mean my Razorbacks can run too?

Placing the template at the base of the model is not the rule for firing all weapons. It is the rule for firing a specific weapon.
That's why the rule for firing a template weapon overrules normal infantry shooting rules. (granted they are the same, but that's why you use the instructions in the flamer)

GWAR! according to your logic then the rules for normal infantry shooting overrule the flamer template because the rules for all infantry shooting are more specific.

WHAT?

The rules for Template weapons are the rules for Infantry Firing Template Weapons. The rules for firing Vehicle Weapons overrides the rules for firing Infantry Weapons, because Vehicles do not fire the same way as infantry.

By your logic Razorbacks can run and you can measure a Chimera's Hull Heavy Flamer off it's rear.

That isnt his logic at all....

All(flamers) is less specific than ALL(flamers firing from vehicles)

Gwar! wrote:The rules for Template weapons are the rules for Infantry Firing Template Weapons. The rules for firing Vehicle Weapons overrides the rules for firing Infantry Weapons, because Vehicles do not fire the same way as infantry.

By your logic Razorbacks can run and you can measure a Chimera's Hull Heavy Flamer off it's rear.

Uh, where does it say there rules for firing flamers are the rules for infantry firing template weapons?

nosferatu1001 wrote:That isnt his logic at all....

All(flamers) is less specific than ALL(flamers firing from vehicles)

All Weapons(from vehicles) is less specific than Flamers(from vehicles).

Timmah wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The rules for Template weapons are the rules for Infantry Firing Template Weapons. The rules for firing Vehicle Weapons overrides the rules for firing Infantry Weapons, because Vehicles do not fire the same way as infantry.

By your logic Razorbacks can run and you can measure a Chimera's Hull Heavy Flamer off it's rear.

Uh, where does it say there rules for firing flamers are the rules for infantry firing template weapons?.

Page 4: BRB

the first few sections of the book, covering Movement. Shooting. Assault and Morale are written with respect to infantry units

Therefore, the rules for firing Template weapons found on page 29 apply to Infantry, which is then overriden by the specific rules for firing weapons from vehicles.

Gwar! wrote:

Timmah wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The rules for Template weapons are the rules for Infantry Firing Template Weapons. The rules for firing Vehicle Weapons overrides the rules for firing Infantry Weapons, because Vehicles do not fire the same way as infantry.

By your logic Razorbacks can run and you can measure a Chimera's Hull Heavy Flamer off it's rear.

Uh, where does it say there rules for firing flamers are the rules for infantry firing template weapons?.

Page 4: BRB

the first few sections of the book, covering Movement. Shooting. Assault and Morale are written with respect to infantry units

Therefore, the rules for firing Template weapons found on page 29 apply to Infantry, which is then overriden by the specific rules for firing weapons from vehicles.

Fair enough.

Oh god, not this again.

Instead of rolling to hit, simply place the template so
that its narrow end is touching the base of the model
firing it and the rest of the template covers as many
models as possible in the target unit without touching
any friendly models.

"Friendly" means "Friend of"

"Friend of" is a 2 place predicate meaning "A is the friend of B" This cannot be used to say that "A is friend of A". Thus, a flame template coming from a vehicle can be placed over the vehicle's own hull because it does not violate this rule. I know you guys are all being facetious, but still, the rule as written is logically correct and logically allows a flame template to be placed over the hull of the firing vehicle.

So are you saying that all the models in the game really hate themselves and does not want to be friends with itself?

No, he’s explaining that grammatically the concept of friend requires a second party. That one cannot be friends with or friendly with oneself.

In military terminology "friendly" means "one's own side, not enemy". (Viz. Friendly fire.)

In which case the hull of your own tank is a friendly model.

I am not arguing that a tank should not be able to fire its own weapons safely.

I just oppose the use of distorted grammar to support a rule interpretation.

I see what you mean, but I don't think the usual military sense of "friendly fire" quite applies here. Shooting oneself in the foot isn't called a friendly fire incident, is it?

Shooting oneself in the foot isn't called a friendly fire incident, is it?

Yes it is.

FlingitNow wrote:

Shooting oneself in the foot isn't called a friendly fire incident, is it?

Yes it is.

no its not... Its called trying to get out of going to war and cowardice... its not friendly fire... But i'm sure you're going to just ignore reality again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:So are you saying that all the models in the game really hate themselves and does not want to be friends with itself?

Nope, you cannot infer the opposite by the lack of a property; just because someone is not friends with himself does not mean the opposite is true (he hates himself).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:No, he’s explaining that grammatically the concept of friend requires a second party. That one cannot be friends with or friendly with oneself.

Correct, the very concept of friend of and mother of, and father of, and taller than and to the right of etc. all require two entities (some allow for more than 2). All contained in the first few weeks of an intro to logic class.