Switch Theme:

Quick Fzorgle question!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh






Dallas, TX

Seems nobody's given the obvious answer yet.

It's not the "roll to hit" phase. It's the "check range" phase. You check range with a flamer by dropping the template down, so you'd HAVE to be seeing how many models are hit at the same time you're checking to see if they're in range of lash.

This of course goes out the window if attached to Obliterators that fire plasma cannons, in which case measuring the range is independent of the placing the blast marker and rolling to hit.

40k Armies I play:


Glory for Slaanesh!

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




....hence why moving models in the "To Wound" phase makes more sense, as it is consistent no matter the weapon.
   
Made in gb
Battlefield Professional





England

nosferatu1001 wrote:....hence why moving models in the "To Wound" phase makes more sense, as it is consistent no matter the weapon.


So, are we all agreed that this is correct, or are we all agreed that this is sensible but, as far as a definitive answer goes, well... there isn't one?

 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Los Angeles, CA

Tantras wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:....hence why moving models in the "To Wound" phase makes more sense, as it is consistent no matter the weapon.


So, are we all agreed that this is correct, or are we all agreed that this is sensible but, as far as a definitive answer goes, well... there isn't one?



You're not going to get a concrete answer because wacky psychic shooting attacks aren't always written in a way that we can comprehend where their effects fall into the normal steps for shooting. With that said, I think it is easier to make an argument that it occurs after the 'to hit' step then before or during that step, which is what would be required to allow the same firing unit to hit the lashed unit with a template.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in gb
Battlefield Professional





England

I'll stick it in the INAT FAQ submission thread, I suppose it'll need to be resolved one way or the other... especially with LoS being such a popular power.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: