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.

Don't worry, folks, this is a slightly different take on the old chestnut

We can say with pretty good certainty that if a unit with a flamer is firing at a vehicle and its flamer can't reach the target, then you cannot place the template in the hope that it will hit some enemy infantry between you and the tank. This is because the flamer is out of range, so automatically misses.

Let's change the scenario around, then.

We know you can do this: the IG unit is targeting the vehicle, so the flamer must be placed so that it covers as much of the vehicle as possible. In this scenario, the flamer template also hits two Marines.


But what about this? A friendly model is in the way of the vehicle, making it impossible to hit the vehicle without covering one of your own models. Can the template still be placed to cover the Marines instead? The flamer is still firing "at" the vehicle; it's just unable to hit it.


The argument that the flamer misses automatically because of range doesn't work, as it certainly is within range. My gut feeling says that you can't do this, but I can't for the life of me find a rule that prevents it.

(I know you could place the meltagunner that is in the way of the vehicle so that the template barely touches the vehicle, but that's beside the point. The idea is if this scenario happened completely by accident.)

How can it happen by accident when you could have moved the model out of the way? Also, when shooting you should be able to see that the model is in the way and would choose to target the infantry instead. Plus a flamer can't hurt the font armour of the Rhino in your diagram .

However, to answer you question look at page 35. "Check line of sight and pick a target. :"Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit (just as if they weren't there), as in reality, they would take up firing positions to maximise their own squad's firepower"

Although page 48 seems to directly contradict this rule in template weapons and says the template must cover as many models as possible without touching friendly models. Though I would interpret this as being friendly models of a different unit since, according to page 35, members of their own unit act "just as if they weren't there".

So yeah you can shoot your flamer through that guy and hit the vehicle.

The reason you can't do this is the part of the template rules that talks about "if you can't hit your target, the shot just doesn't fire". It doesn't 'go off' just anyways, otherwise you could do things like use a hellhound to shoot two units, one far away, and the other one right in front of your tank, using the logic that "the hull mounted flamer is out of range, but the template goes off anyways". If you can't touch your target with the template, it doesn't fire.

He can hit his target according to the rules though, and the other unit falls under the template and is hit as well. But he'd hit only the models in front of the tank. He couldn't of course say "I can't hit the tank I declared a shot against, so I'm going to move the template over onto all those infantry instead"; in which case you are right Darkjediben. Though he could position the template so it covers some of the tank and lots of infantry. Though they could get a cover save depending on the angle of shot and the tank. things like this make 40K look stupid.

Sucio Sanchez wrote:How can it happen by accident when you could have moved the model out of the way? Also, when shooting you should be able to see that the model is in the way and would choose to target the infantry instead. Plus a flamer can't hurt the font armour of the Rhino in your diagram .

It could happen if I'm careless with my movement (which I often am) and fail to notice this until the shooting phase

Also, that's the rear of the rhino. Doesn't matter whether you can hurt it or not, though, as you can still place the template down to hurt those two Marines.

However, to answer you question look at page 35. "Check line of sight and pick a target. :"Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit (just as if they weren't there), as in reality, they would take up firing positions to maximise their own squad's firepower"

Although page 48 seems to directly contradict this rule in template weapons and says the template must cover as many models as possible without touching friendly models. Though I would interpret this as being friendly models of a different unit since, according to page 35, members of their own unit act "just as if they weren't there".

So yeah you can shoot your flamer through that guy and hit the vehicle.

It's not a situation of contradiction, the issue has nothing to do with drawing line of sight. The flamer can see the vehicle just fine, but the rules for templates are very specific in that the template must cover as much of the vehicle as possible without covering friendly models (p30).

Not sure about the reference to p35 ("Who can fight?"), though.

Darkjediben wrote:The reason you can't do this is the part of the template rules that talks about "if you can't hit your target, the shot just doesn't fire". It doesn't 'go off' just anyways, otherwise you could do things like use a hellhound to shoot two units, one far away, and the other one right in front of your tank, using the logic that "the hull mounted flamer is out of range, but the template goes off anyways". If you can't touch your target with the template, it doesn't fire.

No such rule exists on p29 in the template section that I can see.

What you're thinking of is the rule for checking range on p17: "any model that is found to be out of range...misses automatically". I already addressed this in the OP: the flamer in my situation is not out of range, so this rule does not apply. In your situation, the Hellhound would only be able to fire its hull heavy flamer and hit a second unit if it is in range of both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sucio Sanchez wrote:He can hit his target according to the rules though and the other unit falls under the template and is hit as well. But he'd hit only the models in front of the tank. He couldn't of course say "I can't hit the tank I declared a shot against so I'm going to move the template over onto all those infantry. Though he could position the template so it covers some of the tank and lots of infantry. Though they could get a cover save depending on the angle of shot and the tank. things like this make 40K look stupid.

Why couldn't I say that?

They wouldn't get a cover save; it's a template weapon.

Why is it stupid?

You still need line of sight to fire the flamer and the model in your own unit does not block line of sight and in effect, quoting the rules is "just as if they weren't there". So it seems that the friendly model can't be under the template. But it physically is, hence the contradiction. The reference to friendly models could therefore be interpreted as other units.

You're right actually, nothing in the rules seem to say that you declare you are shooting at a target so you could move the template over onto units you can then in fact hit. The only thing that speaks to this is regarding checking range where if the model is out of range the shot is wasted. However in your case you are in range to something. And the line of sight rules say that if you cannot draw a line of sight then you must choose a different target.

Sucio Sanchez wrote:You still need line of sight to fire the flamer and the model in your own unit does not block line of sight and in effect, quoting the rules is "just as if they weren't there". So it seems that the friendly model can't be under the template. But it physically is, hence the contradiction. The reference to friendly models could therefore be interpreted as other units.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with line of sight.

I agree that the flamer can see the vehicle without a problem, but the player cannot in any way place the template so that it covers a friendly model. It doesn't matter if it's in the same unit or not, it doesn't matter how much line of sight he has...you cannot place the template over a friendly model. If it makes it any easier, let's pretend that the foremost meltagunner is from a different squad. What happens then?

Cheexsta wrote: If it makes it any easier, let's pretend that the foremost meltagunner is from a different squad. What happens then?

Only members of his own unit don't block line of sight. If the melta gunner was from a different unit he would interfere and therefore could potentially be hit and the template couldn't then be placed. This is why I mentioned the contradiction. However, its 4 am where I am and I may be too tired to think this through. I'm with you on this one guys, but reading the rules for line of sight and templates seem to muddy the waters.

Blocking LOS is irrelevant. It's this simple. You may not place the flamer template so that it covers/touches ANY friendly models. That's it.

Also, if you can't place the template to touch your declared target in any way, it would be out of range and automatically miss.

Jidmah wrote:Also, if you can't place the template to touch your declared target in any way, it would be out of range and automatically miss.

The main point of the question is that there is nothing in the rule book that speaks to this. This isn't specified in the section on Templates, nor is it in checking range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote:Blocking LOS is irrelevant. It's this simple. You may not place the flamer template so that it covers/touches ANY friendly models. That's it.

I would still argue this, but the way you mention is the convention I play as well so its a bit of a moot point. Still, the fact that the model in its own unit is treated "just as if it wasn't there" is still arguable. Something like this should never be forgotten about in the movement phase anyway to the point that I go ahead and let my opponent move the dam guy out of the way regardless. Makes for a smoother and more interesting game.

Oh and the rules for templates targeting vehicles do state that if you are placing it on a vehicle you must attempt to cover as much of the vehicle as you can. So you couldn't place the template in a way that favours a secondary target.

Sucio Sanchez wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Also, if you can't place the template to touch your declared target in any way, it would be out of range and automatically miss.

The main point of the question is that there is nothing in the rule book that speaks to this. This isn't specified in the section on Templates, nor is it in checking range.

It's in both.
Page 17 top left, "All weapons have a maximum effective range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot." It then goes on to say that when you check range, you measure from each firer to the nearest model in the target unit and if the model is found to be out of range to the models in the target unit that he can see, the shot misses automatically.

Page 29 under Template weapons tells us that the range of these weapons is 'Template", so they indeed have a range. It tells us the mechanic of firing them, "Instead of rolling to hit, simply 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."

So when you place the template, if you can't place it so that there are enemy models under the template, following the rules for firing the templae weapon, then the shot automatically misses.

The rules speak to this very clearly, in both the sections I cited.

We're losing site of the posters question. The tank AND the infantry are in range and LOS of the firer. Since the tank is blocked, as a mistake of movement, by a friendly model, he is saying that there is nothing in the rules that state that he cannot then switch targets and fire at the infantry instead.

I understand and know that if the tank wasn't in range then the shot is wasted. I got caught up in a discussion and didn't mention specifically this was a question of both targets being IN range. But can someone quote me the rule that says he can't change targets after realizing he can't actually shoot at the tank he wanted to? There is no "declare target" rule. In fact, I think most of us play the game as "crap I can't hit that guy, I'll shoot at this guy instead."

Sucio Sanchez wrote: Since the tank is blocked, as a mistake of movement, by a friendly model, he is saying that there is nothing in the rules that state that he cannot then switch targets and fire at the infantry instead.

Actually, if you read the post, that's NOT what the OP is asking. He's asking if he can target the vehicle(so that the Meltas can shoot at it), but place his squad in such a way(whether accidentally or intentionally) that the only way the flamer can fire legally, he can ONLY hit Marines(which he specifically states is NOT the unit's target).

Ah, you're right, my mistake. Wouldn't he then be targeting 2 different units? It says in check line of sight and picking a target that, "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat and may not split its fire among different targets."

Platuan4th wrote:

Sucio Sanchez wrote: Since the tank is blocked, as a mistake of movement, by a friendly model, he is saying that there is nothing in the rules that state that he cannot then switch targets and fire at the infantry instead.

Actually, if you read the post, that's NOT what the OP is asking. He's asking if he can target the vehicle(so that the Meltas can shoot at it), but place his squad in such a way(whether accidentally or intentionally) that the only way the flamer can fire legally, he can ONLY hit Marines(which he specifically states is NOT the unit's target).

Ah well my bad as well missing the OP point. In the OP question, if the marine unit targetted the rhino then the entire unit would have to fire at the rhino. If the flamer weapon template was unable to hit the rhino due to a friendly model being in the way, then the template would automatically miss. If, however, he placed the top most model differently and was able to get even a small piece of the template to hit the rhino, then the marines could also be hit. But they are 'hit' by the template, not 'targetted' by the firing unit, and there's the difference.

Sucio Sanchez wrote:Ah, you're right, my mistake. Wouldn't he then be targeting 2 different units? It says in check line of sight and picking a target that, "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat and may not split its fire among different targets."

Yes, as above, you can't target 2 different units with 1 unit.

It can't happen. It would be you targeting a second unit with the flamer, so no bueno.

-cgmckenzie

I would have to agree that he cant shoot the template. However all he really needed to do was knick the rhino for him to accomplish what he was trying to do. That could have been done with better placement of the front guardsman.

Also, if you look at the Flame template in the second pic, you can move the narrow end so that it touches the flame weapon model's base but shifted down in the picture, you can totally hit the rhino, and will catch a fair few amount of marines as well.

As I have shown here, this is about how the new (More green) template would have to be positioned. hitting maybe 3 marines.

I'm going to have to go with DeathReaper's solution on this one, as the only things which actually fire FROM the weapon, are vehicles. Thinking about it, when infantry fire, you measure from the base. So it would be safe to assume that you should measure the flamer from any part of said base.

Could you just barely touch the hull with the fat end and bathe the marines in glorious promethium in this new config?

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Could you just barely touch the hull with the fat end and bathe the marines in glorious promethium in this new config?

-cgmckenzie

You would have to get as much as the hull as possible

Does the rule say as much of the target or as many target models as possible? My BGB isn't handy ATM.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:Does the rule say as much of the target or as many target models as possible? My BGB isn't handy ATM.

-cgmckenzie

Yes on both counts

For vehicles it specifies you must cover as much of the vehicle as possible, and for non-vehicles it is as many models as possible.

time wizard wrote:So when you place the template, if you can't place it so that there are enemy models under the template, following the rules for firing the templae weapon, then the shot automatically misses.

The rules speak to this very clearly, in both the sections I cited.

That is what I was looking for. I was thinking of the "range" of the template being its length, rather than its area.

Now I see that anything not under the template is out of its range. Simple.

So thanks, question answered

DeathReaper wrote:Also, if you look at the Flame template in the second pic, you can move the narrow end so that it touches the flame weapon model's base but shifted down in the picture, you can totally hit the rhino, and will catch a fair few amount of marines as well.

As I have shown here, this is about how the new (More green) template would have to be positioned. hitting maybe 3 marines.

I knew someone would bring that up; truth is, I'm very clumsy with Vassal still and couldn't be bothered jigging everything to fit the situation in my head perfectly It was only meant to be a visual guide, not an accurate depiction of an exact scenario.

Thanks for the replies, everyone

Yeah, to reiterate what cheexsta said since timewizards comment seemed to slip past some other posters.

The range of the weapon is template. The range is NOT 8 inches. So if the template can not touch the vehicle for any reason whatsoever, it is not in the templates range and the shot does not fire, despite the flamer model being within 8 inches.

Through careful positioning you could probably scrape the side of the tank and hose the Marines but you would pretty much have to ball up around the Guardsman with the Flamer and leave only one path for the flamer to fire, which needs to skim the tank otherwise the shot doesn't go off.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Through careful positioning you could probably scrape the side of the tank and hose the Marines but you would pretty much have to ball up around the Guardsman with the Flamer and leave only one path for the flamer to fire, which needs to skim the tank otherwise the shot doesn't go off.

Not really,

All you need is 1 model to block the one side of the flamer model so that they can position the template to just skim the tank, I think rules-wise it's perfectly legal.

However I think this tactic is a little redundant.

YES you can 'target' the rhino and flame the marines, but if it's the marines you wanted dead, you could have just targetted the marines...

The only time I see this tactic being useful is if you had a IG squad (for example) with a lascannon and a flamer. So you would target the rhino with the squad, waste the lasgun shots, use the flamer to kill some marines (via above tactic) AND use the lascannon to pop the rhino. However again the rhino isn't much of a threat, so you could target the marine squad anyway (and not waste those rapid-fire lasgun shots).

Although I could see one (highly situational) use, on a small model count unit + transport, this would be quite effective against, say, 3 servitors in an INQ chimera that happens to have just disembarked AND be within template range of a squad with a flamer and a tank-killer (and of course all things are in the right position)


So...
Legal? Yes, useful? not really

Don't think of the infantry unit as being the "real target" for the unit. It'd just be an opportunity to maximise the flamer's usefulness (assuming it was intentional).

NuggzTheNinja: yep, this was already noted in the original post