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.

Thats not right: BGB The range of a weapon with Template for its range uses the flame template. Thus the range is NOT zero it is the flame template. (the book doesn't even get close to saying that the template weapons have no range) pg 31 The book goes even further in this statement "Casualties from the unit do not necessarily have to come from under the template but they must come from within RANGE of the of the firer". If that is true then the range MUST be the template itself NOT zero. If the range is zero then a flamer simply doesn't do anything (because, in order to be within range of the firer you have to have an actual range. If you have zero range than NO models will be within range of the firer). Thus I think your parallel argument for flamers is wrong. However the book says NOTHING about the range of a flamer being range zero, you need to provide better prove if you want to make that argument.

Next the range is 12" (every enemy unit with a model within 12" not locked in an assault makes a -2LD check as if from suffering a 25% casualty roll).
Also this phrase clearly states the following :This power replaces the firing of a shooting weapon. When that phrase is in the text that means it also suffers from regular shooting rules. This means that you have to be able to see the targets (not a problem because the FotD rules state that EVERY unit suffers not just hose in LoS this takes precedence over the regular shooting rules). But that means if what you say is true, and it has zero range that means it has NO ability to target anything because NO ONE will be within range zero (thats impossible)

Page 22 explains that the range is the maximum effect for any shooting weapons. If your max range is zero that means that the power can't ever happen. You can't center a power on a model if the range is zero. If hte range where even .0000000001 you could target yourself. But zero means NOTHING it translates mathematically into nothing, meaning that if you try and center something on your librarian you you have to have something for range. If you don't have range though, thats impossible. (alghouht I don't need this argument to win the point, the argument below is more important)

To make this even more clear, how about this, where does it say that the range of the psychic power is zero? that was your assumption and you need to prove it. Your third post doesn't get you to that conclusion because it is assumptive of a situation that doesn't exist. You are just asserting that the range is zero but if you want to make that argument you have to actually support it from the RAW. Remember, there is no statline, but that doesn't provide sufficient grounds that the range of the power is zero.

You're third post is immaterial. We don't have a power that doubles the range of every ranged attack (and it is hardly likely that such a thing will be incorporated into the rules) and therefore the pertinence of that question with regard to psychic powers is not establishable. In legal parlance you are simply creating a false dilema which is a logical fallacy in its own. Thus it functionally is not useful.

You avoided the third post becuase it blows a great big giant hole in your argument.

Shots from a flamer and FOTD work the same. They both have an area of effect, and are both centered on the model.

FOTD effects all units within 12 inches, a flamer effects all units touched by the template.

How would a flamer be effected if its range was "doubled" by a piece of wargear or power?

Also, the range of a psychic power is not 0, a flamers range is not 0, there is no 0, I just put that on there to help clarify things for you. I obviously failed.

Let me break this out a little more...... Lets create a new psycic power called "He over there fears the darkness"

1)A Tiggy can make other people really scary. This power can be cast on any friendly space marine with-in 30 inches of tiggy. If successfully cast all enemy units within 12 inches of the now scary space marine must test on a -2 ld.

This spell has a range "30 inches" and an area of effect "12 inches around the now scary space marine"

See where I am going with this.

I just avoid the whole issue by not running Tiggy. Boom, no issue.

Of course the RAW supports tiggy doubling fear of the darkness. The potential area of effect= range. A boltgun has a potential area of effect of 24 inches- potentially, it can affect stuff within 24 inches! Fear is no different.

Anyway, I dont followed rules as written. I followed rules as intended, and its blindingly obvious how it was intended.

Posted By the_last_marine on 10/26/2006 3:20 PM
Of course the RAW supports tiggy doubling fear of the darkness. The potential area of effect= range. A boltgun has a potential area of effect of 24 inches- potentially, it can affect stuff within 24 inches! Fear is no different.

Anyway, I dont followed rules as written. I followed rules as intended, and its blindingly obvious how it was intended.

Hmm.  Dismissive assertions.  An intent argument, with a nod to the long-running rapid-fire question no less.  I spy, with my little eye a...

What long running rapid fire debate?? And if you don't want to agree with my arguement, don't bother posting.

Well, at least the rapid fire question has been officially settled.

What rapid fire question???

Posted By the_last_marine on 10/26/2006 3:43 PM
 And if you don't want to agree with my arguement, don't bother posting.

Okay people.  Time to stop feeding the troll.

Well, this thread is ridiculously off topic.