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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does not work under p18-31 rules.

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

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

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

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

Only Template weapons use Templates.

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

if it's hit you roll to wound.

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

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

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

if it's hit you roll to wound.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From your own post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

emphasis mine, words not so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scatter out of range.

There are times in the RAW that it is possible.

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

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

psh... thanks Nurglitch. ^_^

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nurglitch

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

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

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

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

kirsanth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incidentally, what do you mean by logarithmic?

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

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

your PRIORITY statement > than your logic