Move, disembark, fire.

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.

**Grakmar**

Pointing out a hilarious oversight with RAW but not actually expecting anyone to play that way: No big deal.

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and acting like you're doing someone a favor by letting them use their gun: You're being an

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and NOT letting them fire their gun: TFG who deserves to have no one ever play them, ever

The difference between 1 and 2 is fairly small and it all comes down to tone. Be careful how you come across when pointing out these inconsistencies. Not everyone enjoys finding loopholes as much as some of us do

**Gwar!**

Grakmar wrote:Pointing out a hilarious oversight with RAW but not actually expecting anyone to play that way: No big deal.

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and acting like you're doing someone a favor by letting them use their gun: You're being an

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and NOT letting them fire their gun: TFG who deserves to have no one ever play them, ever

The difference between 1 and 2 is fairly small and it all comes down to tone. Be careful how you come across when pointing out these inconsistencies. Not everyone enjoys finding loopholes as much as some of us do

Actually 3 is perfectly acceptable.

Would you call someone a TFG if they did not let Space Marine Scouts from assaulting after Running? After all, I can point out they they forgot to give them fleet, and therefore not let you run then assault.

**Grakmar**

Gwar! wrote:
Grakmar wrote:Pointing out a hilarious oversight with RAW but not actually expecting anyone to play that way: No big deal.

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and acting like you're doing someone a favor by letting them use their gun: You're being an

Pointing out an oversight with RAW and NOT letting them fire their gun: TFG who deserves to have no one ever play them, ever

The difference between 1 and 2 is fairly small and it all comes down to tone. Be careful how you come across when pointing out these inconsistencies. Not everyone enjoys finding loopholes as much as some of us do
Actually 3 is perfectly acceptable.

Would you call someone a TFG if they did not let Space Marine Scouts from assaulting after Running? After all, I can point out they they forgot to give them fleet, and therefore not let you run then assault.

There's a difference between poor wording of a rule or placement of a weapon resulting in a model with the rule or weapon being unable to use it, and a unit that you "feel" should get an ability that doesn't have it.

If scouts don't have the fleet rule, then they can't run and assault. But a Baal Predator has guns that it was intentionally given. It should be able to fire those guns.

**Gwar!**

Grakmar wrote:There's a difference between poor wording of a rule or placement of a weapon resulting in a model with the rule or weapon being unable to use it, and a unit that you "feel" should get an ability that doesn't have it.

If scouts don't have the fleet rule, then they can't run and assault. But a Baal Predator has guns that it was intentionally given. It should be able to fire those guns.

That os what you think, not what the rules say though.

The rules are clear. If they wanted to fix them, they could have. They didn't though, so either they know and want Baals to be unable to fire, or they simply don't care about their playerbase anymore (for what it's worth, I pick the latter).

**Fearspect**

So the tank hull is a friendly model to the turret? As in the tank is friendly to its own turrent? It seems that this is the point on which the argument turns.

**SaintHazard**

Fearspect wrote:So the tank hull is a friendly model to the turret? As in the tank is friendly to its own turrent? It seems that this is the point on which the argument turns.

Are your own models not friendly models? How can they be anything but?

**Fearspect**

Friendship seems like an external thing to me, maybe the tank is like a moody goth kid?

**SaintHazard**

Well the tank's certainly not its own worst enemy.

Yes, the tank's hull is "a friendly model."

**Hallowed_Da'Credo**

Fearspect wrote:Friendship seems like an external thing to me, maybe the tank is like a moody goth kid?

I'm inclined to agree with that. (external friendship, tanks can't cut themselves)
I wouldn't classify one's self as friendly, just by the connotation of friendly being to someone else.

Edit: Although internal passengers firing flamers out would consider the tank friendly.

**Fearspect**

Its not all enemies and friends, there are shades of gray, even in the grim darkness of the future!

**SaintHazard**

Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:
Fearspect wrote:Friendship seems like an external thing to me, maybe the tank is like a moody goth kid?

I'm inclined to agree with that. (external friendship, tanks can't cut themselves)
I wouldn't classify one's self as friendly, just by the connotation of friendly being to someone else.

Edit: Although internal passengers firing flamers out would consider the tank friendly.

That's not really how the rules work, but if you want to house rule it, as has been said, go wild.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Excuse me... but does the rulebook actually say anything about the template covering friendly models?

I can't find it. Enemy models must be covered by the template to be hit, and it simply states that friendly models cannot be touched by the template (excluding the base of the firing model or the vehicle weapon) when maximising the number of enemy models covered. Does 'touching' have two different meanings in the same sentence?

**don_mondo**

Fearspect wrote:So the tank hull is a friendly model to the turret? As in the tank is friendly to its own turrent? It seems that this is the point on which the argument turns.

Is it an enemy model? No. Far as I know, there are no 'neutral' models (barring some special scenario). That must mean that the firing model is itself a friendly model. And the template cannot be placed so that it touches a friendly model. SO due to the requirement that you place the template touching base of the firing model or touching the tip of the firing weapon, a flamer (other than Hellhound type flamers) can never be fired by RAW as it must touch the base/weapon but cannot be fired if it touches the base/weapon.

And no, I don't play that way. Just pointing out silly RAW.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Excuse me... but does the rulebook actually say anything about the template covering friendly models?

I can't find it. Enemy models must be covered by the template to be hit, and it simply states that friendly models cannot be touched by the template (excluding the base of the firing model or the vehicle weapon) when maximising the number of enemy models covered.

And where does it exclude the firing model. I've looked for such a statement and, as you said, I can't find it. Just the one saying it must touch the firing model and the other one saying it cannot touch any friendly models. Second one says nothing about 'except for the firing model'...............................

**Fearspect**

Hey, don mondo, just read through your signature there. So you know, they just made the Fantasy FAQs official, and are probably on the way to doing the same for the 40k ones. Excitement!

**MekanobSamael**

I suppose that nobody's going to buy that nonsense about turning you Baal so that the flamer peeks over one one side?

**SaintHazard**

MekanobSamael wrote:I suppose that nobody's going to buy that nonsense about turning you Baal so that the flamer peeks over one one side?

You have to expose side armor to do it. But it's a perfectly legal way, with no house ruling required, to fire the Baal predator's flamer.

**Lucid**

Back on topic, and just so I can clarify this.

IG vets using the Grave Chute rule from a Valk moving flat out can fire after they land?

**SaintHazard**

Lucid wrote:Back on topic, and just so I can clarify this.

IG vets using the Grave Chute rule from a Valk moving flat out can fire after they land?

Does it say they can?

I'm honestly asking, I don't have my IG codex on me, and I know it's a special kind of disembarkment. Disembarkation. Disembarkery.

I hate the word "disembark."

**Phototoxin**

Well with Baal preditors the solution is simple, model them to have an 18" long turret, you deploy only from the hull so it's all kosher. Then on turn 1 move up and fry the enemy in his deployment zone.

**don_mondo**

Lucid wrote:Back on topic, and just so I can clarify this.

IG vets using the Grave Chute rule from a Valk moving flat out can fire after they land?

Yes, they can. Nothing in Grav Chute Insertion prohibits shooting.

**Arctik_Firangi**

don_mondo wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Excuse me... but does the rulebook actually say anything about the template covering friendly models?

I can't find it. Enemy models must be covered by the template to be hit, and it simply states that friendly models cannot be touched by the template (excluding the base of the firing model or the vehicle weapon) when maximising the number of enemy models covered.

And where does it exclude the firing model. I've looked for such a statement and, as you said, I can't find it. Just the one saying it must touch the firing model and the other one saying it cannot touch any friendly models. Second one says nothing about 'except for the firing model'...............................

You are directed to place the 'narrow end' of the template so that it is touching the firer's weapon or base, depending on if it is a vehicle or not. You position 'the rest of the template' as directed - so that it covers the maximum number of enemy models without touching any 'friendly models'.

**Grakmar**

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
You are directed to place the 'narrow end' of the template so that it is touching the firer's weapon or base, depending on if it is a vehicle or not. You position 'the rest of the template' as directed - so that it covers the maximum number of enemy models without touching any 'friendly models'.

Is that an actual rules quote? I think we may have found our solution if it does change from "covers" to "touching".

**Arctik_Firangi**

Nowhere does it say you can't cover a friendly model with the template. You are exclusively permitted to touch the firing model's base (which would presumably become the weapon in the case of a vehicle) with the narrow end of the template. You must cover as many enemy models as possible (or greatest area of vehicle) and the template may not touch friendly models. It still says that everything completely or partially below the template is hit.

You want some weird RAW? Read the Blast weapons section on the next page. You aren't allowed to graze your own models with the blast template.

**Grakmar**

Well, then it turns out the Baal Predator can fire directly forward. At least, as long as you're firing the 2D template at an angle high enough to miss the front of the tank. Problem solved! (Although, it does always shoot itself)

**Gwar!**

I answered this not 2 days ago in another thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/321235.page#2012408

Gwar! the Fantastical Trolle of DakkaDakka wrote:Ah, but that is where you are incorrect good sir!

If I may direct you to page Twenty-Nine of the Main Warhammer 40,000 rulebook (commonly known as the "BRB" or "BGB"), which is found within the Chapter entitled "Weapons".

Within the aforementioned chapter, there are several Headers and Sub-headers. The sub-header currently of interest, entitled "Template", resides on page Twenty-Nine underneath the header entitled "Additional Weapon Characteristics".

Here, you will find that the rules instruct you to "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 touching any friendly models."

As I am sure you can appreciate kind intoxicated remover of old red blood cells, there are, in fact, two rules in effect here, as evidenced by the conjunction "and", which links together two separate sentences.

The first instructs one to "place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it", while the second requires "the rest of the template [to cover] as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."

I am sure you can agree that the first rule is, as a matter of fact, more specific than the second, as it takes into account only a single model that is firing a weapon for which the Template rules are applicable rather than the multitude of models that could be considered "friendly".

As such, you are permitted to place the Template touching the firing model, as you are given special dispensation to do so!

Furthermore, notice that the wording is indeed different when it comes to who is actually hit. Only models "fully or partially under the template are hit", not models touched. As such, the firing model will not be hit by his own weapon. I mention this as it is common misconception when debating these rules in the manner for which I am known.

**Grakmar**

But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.

**Gwar!**

Grakmar wrote:But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.

Except that the rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. Being covered is also being touched by the template...

**Grakmar**

Gwar! wrote:
Grakmar wrote:But, Gwar, we're saying that you place the template with the small end touching the Baal Predator's gun. You then move the template so that it covers as many enemy models as you possible.

In this configuration, the template will also be covering the front of the hull of the Baal Predator (as the gun doesn't extend over the hull), but that's ok, because the template isn't actually touching the hull.

So, models hit will be 1) any enemies being covered by the template, 2) any friendlies covered by the template, 3) front armor on the Baal.
Except that the rules explicitly state that you cannot touch friendly models whatsover. Being covered is also being touched by the template...

No, the template is a good 1/2 inch or so above the friendly models and the front of the tank. By strict RAW, that's not touching them. It's certainly covering them, but there's no restriction on that.

**calypso2ts**

So under this logic so long as my flamer template is over, but not touching, my models I can fire it wherever I want?

**SaintHazard**

I love it when people make up rules. It makes the game so much easier to win, when the made-up rules give one army an enormous advantage. Is it a coincidence that the army given the advantage is the one people making these rules up play? Can we talk about my Orks never losing, because their fluff says so yet, or have we yet to reach that level of absurdity?