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.

I think that arbitrarily deciding how much of the tank the template can pass over is going to lead to issues.

Far easier to just assume that the tank is ignored when firing its own weapon.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Brother Heinrich wrote: Additionally I highly doubt there is a vehicle mounted flame weapon in the 40k universe that is going to cause a vehicle to explode simply because it blistered the paint on the front of your landraider.

Actually you can glance your own immolator with a heavy flamer (and you get to roll twice to accomplish this). So you can destroy your own vehicle if you say that the flamer effects it as well as everyone else under the template.

I know that technically you can as per the rules, however I tend to err on the side of realism, wherein a tank crewman would have to point to the weapon between his legs and incinerate his crew in order to do any real harm to the vehicle. stuff with rubber tires or wooden planks nailed to it (orks I'm looking at you) I could see being damaged by indiscriminate use of flame weaponry, but most Imperial/Chaos/Necron/Eldar/Tau armor is going to laugh at flame weapons being used on its hull (except the eldar, who might weep bitterly over their ruined bodywork )

Yea real flamers don't shoot meters deep right out of the barrel. It is more than safe to say it would clear the hull enough to not do any damage. Even if it didn't (in the case of a side sponson touching the front) you could assume that the adeptus mechanicus thought about this before hand and solved the problem.

People that pull RAW's like that are people I don't play against.

Drummerboy wrote:Yea real flamers don't shoot meters deep right out of the barrel. It is more than safe to say it would clear the hull enough to not do any damage. Even if it didn't (in the case of a side sponson touching the front) you could assume that the adeptus mechanicus thought about this before hand and solved the problem.

People that pull RAW's like that are people I don't play against.

exactly my sentiments

Again. If you try to tell someone their turret can hit their own vehicle, you are a tool.

I'm with you on the side mounted weapons not being able to overlap hull area.

insaniak wrote:Far easier to just assume that the tank is ignored when firing its own weapon.

Dangerous words - we've already had a thread with someone claiming that tanks are able to shoot through their own hulls since you ignore members of your unit for LoS....

if thats a problem conv all your flame tanks
smaller hulls
bigger flamers

AFAIK (Damned hidden book syndrome)

The rulebook specifically states that you should place it OVER your own models, i'll edit in the junk tomorrow morning, though I am pretty sure it's there, and that its meaning is that.

I know it's dangerous territory but, honestly I've always been of the mind that you can place it over your own models, I mean if guys in the back of a squad can fire an automatic weapon I'm pretty sure the guy with the flame thrower can communicate to his squad mates to move when he shoots, once again too many players take things to a serious level wherein the game no longer becomes fun

Scott-S6 wrote:

insaniak wrote:Far easier to just assume that the tank is ignored when firing its own weapon.

Dangerous words - we've already had a thread with someone claiming that tanks are able to shoot through their own hulls since you ignore members of your unit for LoS....

That's a completely different issue. And specifically contradicted by the rules on vehicle fire arcs.

Brother Heinrich wrote:I know it's dangerous territory but, honestly I've always been of the mind that you can place it over your own models, I mean if guys in the back of a squad can fire an automatic weapon I'm pretty sure the guy with the flame thrower can communicate to his squad mates to move when he shoots, once again too many players take things to a serious level wherein the game no longer becomes fun

That's not a matter of taking things 'too seriously'... the rules specifically forbid you from placing the template over your own models. Whether or not having to make sure that guys from the same squad aren't in front of it is a deliberate design move or an accidental side-effect, we don't know.

But the issue here is with a situation where you're forced to place the template over the model that has the weapon, in order to fire it. That's not really the same thing.

The simple fact that vehicles come with turret-mounted template weapons should suggest that there's something awry. But how far you choose to alter the rules in order to accommodate that is down to personal preference. Let's not start maligning other people for not choosing to bend the rules as far as we would personally prefer...

insaniak wrote:I think that arbitrarily deciding how much of the tank the template can pass over is going to lead to issues.

Far easier to just assume that the tank is ignored when firing its own weapon.

This is how Ive ALWAYS played it. Seriously guys your looking way to much into these rules. Why would they put weapons on a vehicle that you either could not use, or would damage the vehicle every time you fired said weapon? Your all getting silly in a dumb way.

KingCracker wrote: Seriously guys your looking way to much into these rules.

And some folks are not looking into them at all.


The rules are clear.

If you want to shoot behind the LRR, turn it.

Most folks will not call someone on this either way, but complaining that someone follows the rules is at least a little . . . odd.

If it is yours, do it -- I do not care.
If it is mine, I will not do it, as the rules do not allow it.
If there is confusion, I will not claim the advantageous side for myself but I will allow my opponent to do so if he thinks that is what it takes to for him to win.
Debates are for the internet and post-game discussion.

kirsanth wrote:

KingCracker wrote: Seriously guys your looking way to much into these rules.

And some folks are not looking into them at all.


The rules are clear.

If you want to shoot behind the LRR, turn it.

Most folks will not call someone on this either way, but complaining that someone follows the rules is at least a little . . . odd.

If it is yours, do it -- I do not care.
If it is mine, I will not do it, as the rules do not allow it.
If there is confusion, I will not claim the advantageous side for myself but I will allow my opponent to do so if he thinks that is what it takes to for him to win.
Debates are for the internet and post-game discussion.

So I assume you don't play Sisters of Battle, and if you did, you would NEVER fire the immolator turret heavy flamers?

I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just curious how far you will take your consistency.

kirsanth wrote:

KingCracker wrote: Seriously guys your looking way to much into these rules.

And some folks are not looking into them at all.


The rules are clear.

If you want to shoot behind the LRR, turn it.

Most folks will not call someone on this either way, but complaining that someone follows the rules is at least a little . . . odd.

If it is yours, do it -- I do not care.
If it is mine, I will not do it, as the rules do not allow it.
If there is confusion, I will not claim the advantageous side for myself but I will allow my opponent to do so if he thinks that is what it takes to for him to win.
Debates are for the internet and post-game discussion.

The turret should give 360degree shooting arc. Ballistic weapons in a turret have that advantage. Instead you suggest turning the squishy rear armor towards the enemy. Might as well not have the turret at all.

Xca|iber wrote:
So I assume you don't play Sisters of Battle, and if you did, you would NEVER fire the immolator turret heavy flamers?

I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just curious how far you will take your consistency.

I play Tyranids, and am not offended. I tend to take consistency rather farther than most.


For example:
I am the guy who used 4e Leaping as it was written, as opposed to how people thought it was written (basically only allowing 3" coherency).

Doom of Malantai works on embarked units with the folks I play regularly (they all think it should) -- but I always assume new opponents have no idea about the debate and will not bring it up -- against them it does not function as per the (way we read the) rules and cannot hit embarked units.

@kirsanth
Me shooting a flame weapon out of a turret does not give mean that I'm going around a rule to win. It means the rule is not written correctly.

Turret weapon and firing ports are measured from weapon or port.

Side weapons can not cross over hull area's.

This should be universally understood. To look at it in any other way is being a tool.

Is the template over a friendly model?

The rules says it cannot be placed there.

See page 29.

Or are you asserting that a model is not friendly to itself?

Anyone who doesn't play my way is an obvious tool and doesn't understand how the game is meant to be played.

This isn't going anywhere productive.

Yes, the RAW result in turret mounted template weapons being unable to fire.

Nobody is actually going to play that way though. If in doubt, discuss it with your opponent... but frankly, I've never seen anyone even suggest it might be an issue at the table.