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.

Quick question, regarding IG Hellhound flame tank

In this situation:

The hit would be against:
A) Rear armour as the attack came from behind Batlle Wagon, and cover the rear armour.
B) Side armour as the attacking vehicle is in the side armour zone.

wish it was A since I'm a guard player but it would have to be B for me, as far as i know then only time a template type attack doesnt come from the direction of the firer is barrage.

The template is essentially coming onto the rear armour, so I would count it as rear armour.

Seems right to me. If the turret could move that way in the first place, it's probably legal.

B.

The firer is in the side-arc of the vehicle, you use the side armour value.

such as when you fire a blast at a vehicle, it lands behind it and does a 1/2 S hit. If does not hit the rear arc, it hits the arc the shot originated from.

such as when you fire a blast at a vehicle, it lands behind it and does a 1/2 S hit. If does not hit the rear arc, it hits the arc the shot originated from.

Well it's not true. Page 60 brb. Hit is resolved against armour facing the blast centre.

Template weapon is not the same as a blast weapon. Page 60 says "If a vehicle is even partially under a template weapon, it is hit on the armor value the firer is facing."

In your example the firer is facing side armor.

The attack should be based off of where the turret is. The flamer template doesn't represent a start/end point, merely an area of effect. As such the origin of the shot should be determitive of which armor is hit. I'm not sure that the placement is legal since it's obvious that more of the vehicle could be covered than what is shown. By rule the template must cover as much of the target as possible but since there is no other unit being affected it's not that important.

"template weapon, it is hit on the facing the firer is facing" p60

So side armour for the example. The way the template has been angled has nothing to do with it.

Yes, I understand the template rules. But in this case, the origin point is not turret, but point up to 12" away from it, chosen by player. That's why I'm asking.

The rule says direction from the firer, which is the tank. It does not matter where the actual template is.

Kubik wrote:Yes, I understand the template rules. But in this case, the origin point is not turret, but point up to 12" away from it, chosen by player. That's why I'm asking.

The origin point is not relevant. Only which facing the firer is facing.

You hit side Armour.

Also, that is not a legal placement since you must place the Template in such a way to cover as much of the wagon as possible, so you would need to shift it to the left a significant bit.

This is important because of the possibility for clipping other units.

Side armour. All previous information on firer's facing is correct. On a far more interesting note, this led me to do some research and figure out that with this you can really use extreme angle shots to your advantage if the right obstacle was present, since extreme angles give a 3+ cover, yet template denies cover... rear armor corner snipe , can still maintain your cover save well hitting him for rear armour, no save, since in whats going through my head is you unable to see his side armour but able to see an extreme angle of his rear.

Draggoon wrote:Side armour. All previous information on firer's facing is correct. On a far more interesting note, this led me to do some research and figure out that with this you can really use extreme angle shots to your advantage if the right obstacle was present, since extreme angles give a 3+ cover, yet template denies cover... rear armor corner snipe , can still maintain your cover save well hitting him for rear armour, no save, since in whats going through my head is you unable to see his side armour but able to see an extreme angle of his rear.

Correct.

Here is an example of such an occurrence:

Hm, ok i get it. Well It's a shame, it's not as effective as I hoped

Wouldn't you have to angel the template to cover the vehicle diagonally (the most possible) in that example Gwar!?

Ordo Dakka wrote:Wouldn't you have to angel the template to cover the vehicle diagonally (the most possible) in that example Gwar!?

Yes, you would.

Just checking to see if you kiddies are paying attention!

It would still be rear armour though, however it was angled.

Scott-S6 wrote:It would still be rear armour though, however it was angled.

In this case yes, because the Side Armour is completely obscured.

Were the battlewagon 1" to the left, RIGHT! I MEANT RIGHT! THIS IS WHY MY SHOES ARE LABELED! D: you would be forced to shoot the side.

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:It would still be rear armour though, however it was angled.

In this case yes, because the Side Armour is completely obscured.

Were the battlewagon 1" to the left, you would be forced to shoot the side.

No it wouldn't. If you cannot see the arc you are shooting into then you get a 3+ cover save. Seeing as templates ignore cover, you would resolve the shot on the side armour as normal.

BoyMac wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:It would still be rear armour though, however it was angled.

In this case yes, because the Side Armour is completely obscured.

Were the battlewagon 1" to the left, you would be forced to shoot the side.

No it wouldn't. If you cannot see the arc you are shooting into then you get a 3+ cover save. Seeing as templates ignore cover, you would resolve the shot on the side armour as normal.

Derp. By left I meant right!

I fail!

BoyMac wrote:No it wouldn't. If you cannot see the arc you are shooting into then you get a 3+ cover save. Seeing as templates ignore cover, you would resolve the shot on the side armour as normal.

Templates ignore cover, but they don't grant you LOS where you don't already have it.

The firer being unable to see the side for the arc they are in has two effects: you shoot the side you can see instead, and the vehicle gains a cover save.

Templates ignore cover, so you would ignore the latter effect. Templates have no stated effect on changing the side you shoot at, nor any ability allowing them to ignore blocked LOS, though... so you would still shoot at the side you can see rather than the side you are in.

insaniak wrote:

BoyMac wrote:No it wouldn't. If you cannot see the arc you are shooting into then you get a 3+ cover save. Seeing as templates ignore cover, you would resolve the shot on the side armour as normal.

Templates ignore cover, but they don't grant you LOS where you don't already have it.

The firer being unable to see the side for the arc they are in has two effects: you shoot the side you can see instead, and the vehicle gains a cover save.

Templates ignore cover, so you would ignore the latter effect. Templates have no stated effect on changing the side you shoot at, nor any ability allowing them to ignore blocked LOS, though... so you would still shoot at the side you can see rather than the side you are in.

It specifically says what to do when you see a vehicle but not the arc you are in. You will get the 3+ cover save that is ignored by the template. The side armour will be hit regardless of what you see. I don't have the rule book with me but I know that it is in the vehicle section.

BoyMac wrote:It specifically says what to do when you see a vehicle but not the arc you are in. You will get the 3+ cover save that is ignored by the template. The side armour will be hit regardless of what you see. I don't have the rule book with me but I know that it is in the vehicle section.

That's your problem. I would respectfully recommend that you refrain from engaging in rules debates without the necessary rules to hand to prevent mis-rememberings and embarrassment!

When you do get it, check out page 62, Under "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets", Paragraph 7, Sentence 2, Words 1 through 14.

Important note:

You can't fire direclt sideways with the hellhound:

*to fire the inferno cannon place the template so that the narrow end is within 12" of the weapon and the large end is no closer to the weapon then the narrow end. The inferno cannon is then treated like any normal template weappn.

Good to read the weapon details first.

I.e cant do this:

<---
||
[||]


But you can do this:

<--
\\
[|||]

Temporis wrote:Important note:

You can't fire direclt sideways with the hellhound:

*to fire the inferno cannon place the template so that the narrow end is within 12" of the weapon and the large end is no closer to the weapon then the narrow end. The inferno cannon is then treated like any normal template weappn.

Good to read the weapon details first.

I.e cant do this:

<---
||
[||]


But you can do this:

<--
\\
[|||]

What?

I assume you are trying to say this is is an illegal placement?

If so, I respectfully disagree, since the broad end is further from the weapon than the narrow end, and thus satisfies the aforementioned placement rule.

I can, however, respect that the rule is somewhat vague, as it does not define whether it means the "tip" of the broad edge or the entirety of the flamer template.

New avatar Gwar!? I dig it.

I'm so confused by this argument. Can someone make a CONCISE statement on this issue and how it should be resolved? Thanks.



ps. didn't recognize you gwar, the troll is strong in this one.

Gwar! wrote:You hit side Armour.

Also, that is not a legal placement since you must place the Template in such a way to cover as much of the wagon as possible, so you would need to shift it to the left a significant bit.

This is important because of the possibility for clipping other units.

sorry GWAR i think you maybe wrong here as the Hellhound has its own specific rules about the placement of the template.

the small end must be within 12" and the large end must not be closer to the turrent/nozzle (which is the origin in this case) - there is no other requirement as covering as much of the target unit/model as possible