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.

So I've recently been considering a Chimera for my lists. The Chimera has the option to take a flame weapon on its turret. When measuring shots from vehicles, you measure from the weapon mount. This would mean that my template would have to be placed over my own hull...which is illegal? Or do I just ignore my own hull in this instance, and maximize hits on the enemy while not touching other friendly models (besides the Chimera).
My other flame vehicle, a LR Redeemer, does not have this problem because the weapons are on sponsons. When I (rarely) use this vehicle, I have always avoided the LR hull with the template. So: must vehicles avoid their own hull with templates? And if so, how can the Chimera shoot?

Top turrent should always be a multilaser and if you want the flamer put it on the hull for certain situations. Problem solved.

The flame template will not hurt the vehicle that fires it.

Also if any passengers fire from fire points using template weapons, those shots will not hurt the transport vehicle on which the passengers are embarked.

Don't let some tool try to tell you different. There is often one TFG that tries to play that old song.

6th Edition clarified these points nicely.

See page 52, the paragraph on Template Weapons, and page 78, the paragraph on Fire Points.

This isn't an issue in 6th regardless of what the misguided rules lawyers have to say.

I believe this is in the FAQ.

Isn't. My mistake...

stripeydave wrote:
I believe this is in the FAQ.

Isn't. My mistake...

Part of it was FAQ for the 5th Edition 40K rule book. It is no longer a FAQ in 6th Edition because the rule book is so clear (finally).

Yeah - I got confused about roads a few weeks ago thinking they were in 6th. /facepalm...

 skycapt44 wrote:
turrent

I don't get it.
I can figure out a lot of weird stuff with the English language. When people say "could of gotten into the club" instead of "could have" I'm disgusted, but I can see how it happens, what with how English people pronounce "have." But "turrent." Where do you find that n!? I've never heard anyone pronounce it "turrent," yet I see this spelling of it all over the intertron!

Turrent is usuall a Turret that can fire a Torrent

Internet English is often full of errors for three reasons:

1. We're in a relaxed setting and willing to just let typos pass.

2. Silly mobile device autocorrection that often creates auto-mistakes.

3. Everyone is on the internet, and some of us are not so good with spelling and grammar for too many reasons to cover here.

Turret, ordnance, and sergeant are common mispelled words among IG players. Angel seems to be a SM player problem.

 JB wrote:
Internet English is often full of errors for three reasons:

1. We're in a relaxed setting and willing to just let typos pass.

2. Silly mobile device autocorrection that often creates auto-mistakes.

3. Everyone is on the internet, and some of us are not so good with spelling and grammar for too many reasons to cover here.

Turret, ordnance, and sergeant are common mispelled words among IG players. Angel seems to be a SM player problem.

I never mention typos or auto corrects. That happens, and it'll happen to everyone. "turrent" is neither of those. Turrent is a misunderstanding, or faulty knowledge. N is not close to E or T. Turrent isn't a word, so it doesn't auto correct to it. It is used much too frequently to be a typo. Sergeant is a hard word to spell. The same person can often spell it differently each time. Fair enough. It's hard. Turret though...

Many non-military people pronounced it "turrent" when I was growing up. After years of correcting them and it not sticking I just started to ignore it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Many non-military people pronounced it "turrent" when I was growing up. After years of correcting them and it not sticking I just started to ignore it.

I'm having a hard time squeezing the n in there when I say it... but fair enough. If people do say it a lot, I guess it makes sense that they spell it that way too.

I did not realize my spelling error would be a serious cause for concern. So sorry, should have read turret. Not sure it was that big of a deal, I'm certain you all knew what I was getting at. Perhaps I had torrent on my mind. Sometimes you just have to let things go. Like JB said, it is a relaxed setting and people tend to type fast on the internet.

It was fairly clear that you meant turret in that sentence. Not sure what the problem is.