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.

Well, if the problem is terrible dice, then there isn't really any advice available...

hehehehe yeah there is that but honestly I have tried many ways to deal with them, most of which are either ineffective or so many more points that it seems ineffective (to me anyway)

Real issue is dealing with this shooting into combat problem that I have

cheers

Papasmurf

So TLOS means that if you have a huge 50 man unit then you can see through it because the models have thin arms and legs that you can see by? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard and if someone I played tried to make that argument I would pack up my stuff and go home. Like units can't see through like units. If 2 units are head to head in combat then you cannot see through them because it is a swirling mass of blood and bodies, TLOS be damned.

So you would refuse to play the clear, unambiguous and clearly intended rules for no rules based reason? Just a "this is the way it used to be!!!!" reason?

Fair enough, sounds like its not a game I would have enjoyed playing, if I were your opponent.

A laser pointer can be useful for this- if you can light up the opposing model with a laser, then you can clearly see it.

If not, the fact that you can see it from the point of origin may only be in your imagination...

If I were playing in a tournament then I would be forced to hold by those rules then I would obviously have to. I don't play in many tournaments and in my opinion this rule is a very good reason not to. My friends and I are casual gamers and I'm sure they would agree with me that this rule by no means mirrors a real battle at all.

And yes I agree with you. It doesn't sound like a game I would enjoy either. Regardless of TLOS you cannot see through units or combat in the games we play. It just seems to make sense.

In a real battle you would have your flame belching monsters spit fire down the ranks of your enemy in a heart beat.

If you are really upset about units seeing through yours, model your lads staggered on their bases, and with large shields to block sight. It is a lot of work, but so is getting all worked up over this.

Still, I should think a single Hellcannon round would quiet a salamander squad pretty well. Likewise pretty much any magic missile etc.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
You better read that section again. MOST weapons ignore partials.
Stone throwers say ignore partials, so anything that says it fires like a stone thrower does. However, if the salamander wording says that 4+ to hit on partials, and it doesn't say resolve like a breathe, then you are rolling for partials.

I'm afraid you really should drop this already, the sallie wording does not mention partials, in fact it says to treat the template as if a breath weapon hit there and those have no partials.

Bengrold - as long as you realise youre playing houserules, and that attempts to play like that in tournaments is likely to get your changes rejected, that is all good

Wehrkind - that would fall under modelling for advantage, no?

Wehrkind wrote:Still, I should think a single Hellcannon round would quiet a salamander squad pretty well. Likewise pretty much any magic missile etc.

The cannon would need to hit wich is only about 33% chance, then there is the fact you only get one hit per sallie with handlers being counters top it off with the 5++ handler save and you can see why the canoon is a bit dubious. A magic missile of S5+ should clean them up right quick tho.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bengrold - as long as you realise youre playing houserules, and that attempts to play like that in tournaments is likely to get your changes rejected, that is all good

Wehrkind - that would fall under modelling for advantage, no?

Well, yes. Still, if it REALLY bothers someone as much as it seems to that fellow, that probably is his best bet. Easier to model for advantage and get people to play you than demand they play by your house rules. I wouldn't bother to do it myself, but then I am not terribly concerned about people shooting through my units (I would assume they shoot over them). I can understand the frustration though, going from 40k where for a long time you couldn't see through combats at all.

Good call on the durability of Sallie units Hoverboy. I keep forgetting handlers don't take hits themselves, just the beastie with randomization.

Well, this is quite the mess.

First, I'd like to step up to the defense of True Line of Sight. It is, in fact, possible to shoot at a unit through another unit. The fact that they're in combat makes it harder than if they were, say, standing still, but that's rarely the case. Usually, you get a -2 to hit your target to represent this. And that's fine by me. I do take a small issue with the fact that, when I miss my target because another unit got in the way, that unit is always 100% unharmed, despite being forced into the role of arrow-shield.

Okay, beyond that. It's obvious that Salamanders and Fire Throwers weren't meant to shoot in such a way as to hit units in combat. Cannons offer that proof; with all three of these attacks, you know, with absolute certainty, that the template will resolve somewhere between 2 and 10" from it's starting point, or not at all.

Stone Throwers and their ilk, on the other hand, have a 10" radius to contend with. Games Workshop clearly thought that the 2-10" line was a reasonable and easily avoided restriction, whereas the 10" swath of the table was not.

So, Papa Smurf, I would suggest talking to your friend, calmly and genially, about this. Ask him if he's willing to stop, and play the game as GW intended.
If not, then take a Disk-rider with a 2+ Ward, take advantage of Stegadons' cannon-allergies, and just plain deal with any bad luck you have. Poor dice-rolls shouldn't bare in the slightest how you feel about this given rule. It's completely human to feel generally frustrated, of course.

Now, beyond that, I'd like to toss around some quotes and attempt to weaken the RaW argument, if only a little:

- p.39 Shooting Into Combat "Some war machine weapons, particularly those that use templates, can accidentally hit friends..."

I'll start strong. According to RaW, you could argue that this statement only allows models with the troop type war machine to accidentally hit illegal targets. This would mean that Salamanders have to follow similar restrictions as cannons. Though it would create a world of problems for the Hellcannon, unless it counts as a war machine for purposes of shooting or whatever.

- p.39 Shooting Into Combat "the key word here is 'accidentally'--you cannot purposefully aim a template so that some of your models will be hit"

This sentence doesn't, as written, make much sense, due to the random element involved in almost all template attacks, and the impossibility of knowing, for sure, which models "will be hit".

- p.67 Breath Weapon Shooting Attack "...place the flame template...so that it is not touching any friendly units or enemy units that are in close combat."

Do we treat a Salamander's template as a breath weapon through-and-through? 'Cause if we do, it looks like, at least before the artillery die is rolled, it can't be touching any illegal targets.
Even if we're only supposed to "resolve the hit as if it were a breath weapon", I would argue that the vague steps of declaration and resolution are never explicitly defined in the BRB.

So...my main point is that it's a little shaky, either way. If I had the final say in the matter, I'd say no. But then again, I'd also do away with Stegadons and randomizing cannonballs and so on.

Oh goody RAI claims, i'm out.

Wehrkind - not true. You COULD shoot "through" a 4th ed fight, as long as it only contained models one height lower than yours. So a swarm vs swarm, height one, could be shot through by height 2 and above. And so on.

It isnt shaky. Not popular, but that has no bearing on the discussion.

You do realize that a cannon ball is now treated as an infinitely thin template for the purposes of models hit, so shooting it at a ridden monster means that all the models on that monster are hit (no partials remember) so a steggadon is even more afraid of cannon balls now, especially ones with skink priests on them

cheers

Papasmurf

No, theyre not. Because the stegadon rules still specifically state you randomise ALL shooting. Cannons are still shooting.

Specific > General

Warp I understand that you can shoot through other units and that there is a -2 penalty but the sallie is a template and does not use BS so there is no penalty there (a very frustrating occurrence)

I disagree in principle to the shooting through one unit to another, especially when the first is in combat

Yes clearing up exactly what kind of weapon the sallie is would help matters but we all know exactly how good GW is at clarifying things

cheers

Papasmurf

I thought that a cannon ball hit the stegadon, crew, whatever, and that each hit was randomized, resulting in what is more likely than not a very dead Stegadon.

At any rate. Yes, PapaSmurf, the lack of BS shooting makes it harder to swallow.
Beyond situations like this, though, there's really no reason that shooting through a unit (1) can't be done and (2) is particularly cheesy.

And HoverBoy, I understand the sentiment; I'm trying to keep it pretty simple and straight-forward here. The rest is all RaW.

So...does anyone care to refute me or back me up?

Cannons hit both the mont and the rider.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wehrkind - not true. You COULD shoot "through" a 4th ed fight, as long as it only contained models one height lower than yours. So a swarm vs swarm, height one, could be shot through by height 2 and above. And so on.

Oh indeed, you could shoot over it if you were of a taller height level than all the combatants, but you couldn't shoot through. Not like you can in Fantasy now where if you can see it you can shoot it. So if there was a dread in combat with a swarm, too bad, even if you can see over the swarm the dread was everywhere and so blocked all sight. Whee!

Actually, just to check my understanding, salamander models are about as tall as dwarfs, right? I never really compared size before, but they only looked about as tall as Skinks, which are definitely a good bit shorter than say Chaos Warriors. Just want to make certain about that while I am thinking about it.

Wehrkind wrote:Actually, just to check my understanding, salamander models are about as tall as dwarfs, right? I never really compared size before, but they only looked about as tall as Skinks, which are definitely a good bit shorter than say Chaos Warriors. Just want to make certain about that while I am thinking about it.

The eye level of a sallamander is about on the same level as that of a skink yes.

Warp and UNREAL - that would be true, apart from the Steg rules stating that ANY SHOOTING at them is randomised. As I said

You oculd shoot "through" - if you could see it, you could shoot it AND if you were a bigger height than the combat. It wasnt area terrain, but functioned a bit like it.

Well...wait a minute. The BRB says that a template hits everything. The Lizardmen book says any hits on a Stegadon are randomized. So...doesn't that mean that each "hit" (versus the mount, crew, rider, etc.) is randomized?
I know what you and everyone else is saying; I'm just waiting for a direct address to the above.

...and to my information on Salamanders. To briefly recap:

- p.39 states that some war machines can accidentally shoot into combat. Technically, it offers us nothing for spells/units/etc. that randomly place templates.

- p.67 says to place the flame template for a breath weapon so it is not touching any friendlies or enemies in combat. So, if the FaQ says we should treat the shooting attack as a breath weapon, then the template cannot be placed (before the artillery die moves it) in an "illegal" position.

So, what say you?

the faq says it is not a breath weapon but does not state what type of weapon it is, probably a "special attack" meaning "we don't have a clue"

As to the steg, sure lets make things more complicated, template hits everything and THEN RANDOMIZE? cause that makes complete sense - about as much sense as shooting into combat hehehe

cheers

Papasmurf

I've heard a lot of complaints about the Stegadon, for that reason. It does not make sense, that is true. But that's not the point. I want to know what the rules, as-written, say.

Well, HoverBoy, you say that the FaQ says to treat it as if it were a breath weapon, yes?

And if it's not...what would happen if we went by what p.39 said, and only war machines (or things that "shoot as war machines", I suppose) were aloud to drift onto illegal targets?

Q. Is the Salamander’s shooting attack treated as a Breath Weapon?
(p56)
A. No.

So that tangent is DOA.

So...where does it say that Salamanders don't do 4+ to hit partials, then?

Does the Salamander entry specifically mention 4+ partials? (I do not have the Lizardman book.)

If not, the BRB covers it, aka no partials. If it does, well, I can't comment as I do not have the book and/or a horse in this race

Warpsolution wrote:So...where does it say that Salamanders don't do 4+ to hit partials, then?

Because nothing says it does?

The entry for Sallies has no requirement to 4+ on partials, and the BRB doesnt either. So you dont.

As for the Argument - you dont need permission to accidentally place into combat; you need something explcitly denying it. Which there isnt.

Then its not an accident is it (explitive deleted)

its deliberate and its #$%@ing annoying and its the reason for this whole thread

there are rules explicitly denying the placing of templates in combat, problem is salamanders are not clearly defined allowing them to fall into this particular situation

cheers

Papasmurf