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.

Actually, RAW states, page 29, "place the template so that the narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it...". I don't see how this is going to effect the defiler? A freind of mine had something like this come up in an RTT in Baltimore years ago (SM dread was firing it's HF and the owning player was touching base not weapon, giving himself an extra inch or so) and it was ruled that it was the correct way to do it. So, wouldn't it stand to reason that as long as the template was measuring from the forward hull of the Defiler it would work?

Sounds like your gaming group needs a big dose of what us old timers call 'CSG' - Common Sense Gaming. This is used when something, such as this template placing BS comes up. I really don't care what the RAW states. If someone decided to argue something this trivial, I'd calmly let them have thier way and NEVER play them again. That simple. As it says on page 2 of the rule book "The most important rule then is that the rules aren't that important! So long as both players agree you can treat them as sancrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours." Personally, I think that statement applies in this situation.

JK you are dead on, the issue only occurs because the defiler does not have a base. I have been at all manner of tournaments and no judge in his right mind will rule the way the crazy RAW crowd wants. Its the same as firing a flamer out of a rhino hatch. slow RAW says no, Grand Tournement judge, yes. Ard boyz judge yes. Its only in silly theory craft threads like this it even comes up.

J'santai Khan wrote: Actually, RAW states, page 29, "place the template so that the narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it...". I don't see how this is going to effect the defiler? A freind of mine had something like this come up in an RTT in Baltimore years ago (SM dread was firing it's HF and the owning player was touching base not weapon, giving himself an extra inch or so) and it was ruled that it was the correct way to do it. So, wouldn't it stand to reason that as long as the template was measuring from the forward hull of the Defiler it would work?

Sounds like your gaming group needs a big dose of what us old timers call 'CSG' - Common Sense Gaming. This is used when something, such as this template placing BS comes up. I really don't care what the RAW states. If someone decided to argue something this trivial, I'd calmly let them have thier way and NEVER play them again. That simple. As it says on page 2 of the rule book "The most important rule then is that the rules aren't that important! So long as both players agree you can treat them as sancrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours." Personally, I think that statement applies in this situation.

First of all, the Defiler doesn't have a base. Second of all, that doesn't matter, because the Defiler is a vehicle, not infantry. Vehicles measure from the weapon, not the base. I thought stuff like this was basic enough that you'd know it if you actually played? You don't actually play, right? If you get simple rules like this wrong, I can't imagine what a mess you'd be on the tabletop. Your friend was cheating when he was measuring from the base, not the weapon, because that's not how the rules tell you to do it. ALL vehicles, NO exceptions, measure shooting from the weapon, NOT the base. NOT the hull. NOT any part but the WEAPON ITSELF.

tgf wrote:JK you are dead on, the issue only occurs because the defiler does not have a base. I have been at all manner of tournaments and no judge in his right mind will rule the way the crazy RAW crowd wants. Its the same as firing a flamer out of a rhino hatch. slow RAW says no, Grand Tournement judge, yes. Ard boyz judge yes. Its only in silly theory craft threads like this it even comes up.

No, he is NOT dead on, not even remotely close, for reasons stated above.

Seriously, do people actually mess up elementary stuff like this? Measuring shooting from the base of a vehicle, not the weapon? Come on now.

Which is why the heavy flamer on a defiler is a bad idea. It's just too short ranged, and it's stuck on a massive vehicle.

@SH: if the vehicle is based, you use the base as the reference point, or do you have RAW saying to ignore any base that a vehicle might be using?

JohnHwangDD wrote:@SH: if the vehicle is based, you use the base as the reference point, or do you have RAW saying to ignore any base that a vehicle might be using?

Page 56, "Vehicles & Measuring Distances":

"When firing the a vehicle's weapons, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon, whilst line of sight is determined from the weapon's mounting point and along its barrel"

Page 58, "Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight":

"When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models."

"Hull-mounted weapons can fire in a 45 degree arc from their mounting point"

Page 72, "Walkers Shooting":

"When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees, like hull-mounted weapons) and then measure the range from the weapon itself and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapon and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles."

There are only two instances where the base on a vehicle matters.

The first is movement. For a walker with a base, you measure movement from a consistent point on the base. Same for assaults, you use the base to measure distance for an assault, and then to determine BtB contact. This is explicitly allowed on page 72, "Measuring Ranges," for walkers with a base only. This is a general allowance for anything that isn't later specifically disallowed, such as shooting.

The more I read Internet forums, the more I am thankful for the group of players we have in our area.

I use the Reaper Autocannon and a Havok Launcher on my defilers. The twin linked autocannon is great for hurting transports, and then I use the battlecannon on the dismounted infantry and other targets. I use the Havok because I have them on every vehicle in my army and I like the way it looks.

@SH: In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on in the case of a based Vehicle firing a Template weapon.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@SH: In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on in the case of a based Vehicle firing a Template weapon.

Er.

Are you going to explain why you think I'm wrong, or are you going to sit there and continue to shout "NUH UH!!!!!11!!1" at me?

It's very simple. The general case that "vehicles with bases may measure range from the base" is overruled by the specific case of "walkers measure LOS and range from the weapon."

Let me ask you this: do you measure shooting from the base of a Hammerhead? A Land Speeder? What about a Valkyrie? These are all "vehicles with bases," but the general case is overruled by the specific case of "skimmers measure range and LOS for the purpose of shooting from the weapon."

So if you can place a template at the base of your Dreadnoughts, not the weapon, you also have to measure shooting from the bases of your Land Speeders. Not so advantageous now, is it? Wait until you're fielding a Fire Prism, then you'll really want to reverse your "measure shooting from the vehicle's base" house rule.

I'm not shouting anything at anyone - you're the one who's coming off as the strident rules lawyer here.

Nothing of what you quoted pertains to Template weapons. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant.

By default, we start with regular shooting rules for ranged weapons. I'll refer to this ruleset as "S"

Template is an exception to ruleset S , and has a specific set of rules governing how it fires - Template weapons are fired with the end touching the base of the model. I'll call this ruleset "S/T".

Vehicle has a separate series of exceptions to ruleset S, adding rules governing how to handle Vehicle mountings and so forth. This ruleset is "S/V", and only covers *ranged* fire.

S/V is silent with respect to S/T firing, ergo, the S/T rules remain in effect without any other modifications, and the S/T rules apply to the extent that they cannot be followed any further.

Nowhere in any of the S/V rules that you quoted does it state NOT to use the base when firing S/T weapons. In the case of a based Dreadnought firing a Flamer, S/T applies, there is no LOS or range measurement required when firing a Template. The *only* correct result is to place the Template with the edge in contact with the Dreadnought base.

For your claim to hold the slightest drop of water, you'll need to show me where the rulebook covers the intersection of S/V/T. At this, you fail.


If you're going to argue RAW, do it intelligently and correctly, please. Don't pick-and-choose which rules you want to apply, when there's no basis for such things in the actual rules.

Except that the rules for "Template Weapons" contain no instructions regarding firing them from a vehicle. So, by your logic, template weapons cannot be fired by vehicles at all, since there are no instructions in "Template Weapons" regarding how to fire them from vehicles. When a situation such as this arises (i.e. the rules that provide an exception to the normal rules) you default to the previous rules. Since "Template Weapons" tells us nothing about how vehicles fire "Template Weapons," we have to assume that since "Template Weapons" are also "Weapons," they fire like any other weapon being fired by a vehicle, e.g. from the barrel of the weapon.

However, by your logic, since Dreadnoughts are "vehicles with bases," you're substituting the instructions to place the flamer at the edge of the base instead of at the barrel of the weapon, and I can follow your logic here, but this brings me back to my Skimmer argument. Do you also place the template at the base of a Land Speeder with a HF?

The rules for Template weapons don't require instructions for firing from a based Vehicle - they work just fine as-is. Therefore, the Vehicle rules aren't needed.

If you want to push forward with tool-logic, you can't damage anything at all, because Vehicles don't have extra rules for weapon strength.

I'm not "substituting" any instructions - I'm following the rules for Template, *exactly* as stated in the rulebook.

For decades, GW has been very consistently calling the clear thing that skimmers use a "flying stand", not a "Base", so I'd say that Skimmer are non-based Vehicles.

Of course, the Valk actually has a proper Base, so if it fired Flamers, you'd have to place them against the oval.

Actually, they use the term "flying base." See here, and here. If that clear thing they stand on isn't a "base," then please explain how Jetbikes, Tau Gun Drones, or Necron Destroyers can ever be legally fielded? They're not based, by your logic! Those clear plastic things are bases, like it or not.

And logically, if you're going to use the "Template" rules in lieu of the normal "Shooting" rules, you are in fact making a substitution. Otherwise, "Template" weapons could never be fired. A shooting attack's range would be "Template" and it would mean exactly nothing, because there is no such thing as range "Template" in the normal shooting rules. Since there are special rules for "Template" weapons, you instead go to the rules for them, and substitute their rules for the normal "Shooting" rules. It's the only way to even fire "Template" weapons.

So let's recap. By your logic, Dreadnoughts are the only vehicles that can fire template weapons (and illegally, at that, according to the rules for Walkers Shooting), and Jetbikes, Tau Drones, and Necron Destroyers can never be legally fielded. What was that you said about arguing RAW "intelligently and correctly?"

Why is there an argument here?

The Template rules say place it in contact with the model's base. The Defiler has no base. If you want to be REALLLY RAW stringent, the Defiler cannot fire a template weapon. Period. However, ignoring this, we can say that instead we should follow the rules for walkers firing weapons. These rules state:

"...measure range from the weapon itself..." p72. Since the HF has Template range, the Template range is measured from the weapon, as we are measuring range. Unfortunately, this violates another one of the properties associated with Template weapons, namely that friendly models (own model is a friendly model) cannot be covered. Therefore we encounter another reason why the Defiler cannot fire its HF.

EDIT: This is why you shoot that way:

SaintHazard wrote:And logically, if you're going to use the "Template" rules in lieu of the normal "Shooting" rules, you are in fact making a substitution. Otherwise, "Template" weapons could never be fired. A shooting attack's range would be "Template" and it would mean exactly nothing, because there is no such thing as range "Template" in the normal shooting rules. Since there are special rules for "Template" weapons, you instead go to the rules for them, and substitute their rules for the normal "Shooting" rules. It's the only way to even fire "Template" weapons.

That said, of course: Nobody sane is going to prevent you from firing the weapon, so it's a non-issue.

From a tactics standpoint though (which is the point of the thread), the HF is not especially useful, as it's extremely short range means you won't fire it for half the game - and once you're in the ~15" range, Fleet+Assault is probably a better option anyway.

Xca|iber wrote:Why is there an argument here?

Because SH uses poor logic to argue nonsense.

I think it's a great thing that I don't have to play against TFGs like him.

As soon as your argument crashes and burns, you pull out the personal attacks.

Very classy.

I think I've made my point very clear. We're done here.

SaintHazard wrote:As soon as your argument crashes and burns,

you pull out the personal attacks.

I think I've made my point very clear.

We're done here.

What crash and burn? I'm simply following RAW. You're the one was grasping to apply rules that didn't apply.

Hey, if you're not really TFG, don't argue like one.

That using inapplicable rules produces nonsense results? Yes. I mean, for pity's sake, man, take a step back and look at what you're saying. You're saying that practically every legal Vehicle in CSM has an illegal build (combi-Flamer on all Tanks, HF on Dread & Deflier), and that players can't play their armies? That's a hell of a lot of "NO" to push down your opponent's throat, when the Rules aren't clearly supporting you. And to get there, you're arguing a variation of "it doesn't say I can't". That's just pure FAIL.

Would that the rest of the TFGs did the same...

So TFG is the one saying that vehicle firing rules apply when vehicles fire?

I must have missed something entirely.

kirsanth wrote:So TFG is the one saying that vehicle firing rules apply when vehicles fire?

I must have missed something entirely.

I know, right? Next I'm going to want him to use the Movement rules when he moves his infantry. Maybe I'll even insist his Jump Infantry use the Jump Infantry rules for movement!

When does it end?!

Yup. TFG is when you insist that Vehicle ranged & LOS rules apply when firing a non-ranged, non-LOS Template.



____


Oh, how nice, the TFGs are having a little circle.

I think that's gone far enough. Time for everyone to take a breath.