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.

Glaive to answer your previous question with the squad of russes, yes the shot can be placed on the further away russ, even the one out of range as per unit rules you choose to allocate hits, unless specified otherwise, just keep in mind that your opponent would recieve the melta bonus, as one unit is under half range. This makes vehicle squadrons more susceptable to damge in this way, but also may eliminate them from overall being damged more quickly, its like wound allocation. Say that back russ lost its main cannon previously, he shoots the melta using the russ of his choice as a target, obviously the close one, shoots at the closest facing, then roles on the pentrattion tables. Lucky for you, its not a lone russ, its in a squadron, so if he were to get a destroyed result, then you could place it on the weapon destroyed tank previously mentioned.

Makes squadrons overall more susceptable for angles of attack on the squad, but less susceptable to damage overall.

Yeah, it looks like you're right if we use the "break no rule" law. I'm just not very happy about the extension of the melta effect!

Still though, it is more evidence that the melta effect is not always strictly dependent on where the shot lands.

Also, don't you allocate damage results on vehicles, not hits? In other words, don't you roll penetration before seeing which tank takes the shot? That being the case, you would have to assume the unit as a whole (not the individual tank) is within half range or it isn't, and just like infantry, if one tank is within, they all are.

Wehrkind wrote:Also, don't you allocate damage results on vehicles, not hits? In other words, don't you roll penetration before seeing which tank takes the shot? That being the case, you would have to assume the unit as a whole (not the individual tank) is within half range or it isn't, and just like infantry, if one tank is within, they all are.

Correct. You allocate the penetrating/glancing hits to the vehicles in the squadron after rolling for penetration, so your armor facing and penetration rolls are based upon the measurement and positioning of the closest vehicle in the squadron to the firing model.

I'm still not at all convinced that measuring to the tank for melta and to the blast for range is even close to an appropriate compromise. The mechanic for measuring range at blast placement is already well defined, I think that to argue that this shouldn't be used to also determine hlaf range for melta requires more that some dismissive rhetoric (sorry Yak, no offense, but that's how it looks).

Measuring for half range when you measure for max range makes the most sense. It's also consistent with GWs general approach to template weapons, which is that you place the template and you take your chances on range and scatter. If you want to place the template farther back to try and catch some extra models then you're taking the chance that you're out of half range.

We can all agree that the Melta rules in the BGB were not written to support Blast rules at all. So what we're talking about is how to reconcile the Blast rules with the Melta rules. All the Melta rules say is that if you're rolling to pen armour within half range you get the extra die, there's no mention of when or to what you measure (because normal melta weapons will always measure to the nearest point on the hull). Blast weapons don't work like that though, and you have to make allowances for the Blast mechanics. With a Blast template the only time you measure anything is after template placement and before scatter. You're using the Melta rules (which aren't written to support Blast rules) to over-ride the Blast rules. It makes just as much 'sense' to apply the Blast rules first and the Melta rules second, and in doing so you break less RAW (and RAI) statements. I'm pretty sure I'd go with the least 'changes' when I'm trying to decide how something should be played.

The Melta rules only cover distance, but the Blast rules cover placement, scatter, and everything else. In that context I think you need to apply the Blast rules first and the Melta rules second (as opposed to what you suggest, which is the opposite).

Think by the rules as written (and logic) this is pretty straight forward.

For blast weapons - you place the template where you want it to land - then measure to see if it is within range of the weapon. If it is - it hits - then you roll scatter to determine the end location of the shot. Basic blast weapon stuff - no new issues there.

Melta rolls an extra d6 when ROLLING TO PENETRATE a vehicles armor at half range or less.

Rolling to penetrate occurs AFTER scatter - hence that is when to see if you are within the melta BONUS range.

Logical and straightforward - and by the RAW.

error.

Fenris-77 wrote:
We can all agree that the Melta rules in the BGB were not written to support Blast rules at all. So what we're talking about is how to reconcile the Blast rules with the Melta rules. All the Melta rules say is that if you're rolling to pen armour within half range you get the extra die, there's no mention of when or to what you measure (because normal melta weapons will always measure to the nearest point on the hull). Blast weapons don't work like that though, and you have to make allowances for the Blast mechanics. With a Blast template the only time you measure anything is after template placement and before scatter. You're using the Melta rules (which aren't written to support Blast rules) to over-ride the Blast rules. It makes just as much 'sense' to apply the Blast rules first and the Melta rules second, and in doing so you break less RAW (and RAI) statements. I'm pretty sure I'd go with the least 'changes' when I'm trying to decide how something should be played.

The Melta rules only cover distance, but the Blast rules cover placement, scatter, and everything else. In that context I think you need to apply the Blast rules first and the Melta rules second (as opposed to what you suggest, which is the opposite).

I actually can't agree to that idea at all (that the melta weapon rule wasn't written with the blast weapon rule in mind). I think the two work perfectly fine together.

I am not advocating that the melta weapon rules "override" the blast weapon rules at all. You seem to keep ignoring what "range" actually is.

Range is defined as (pg 17):

"All weapons have a maximum effective range, which is the furthest distance they can shoot."

The listed maximum range for a melta cannon is 24".


Now what do the melta weapon rules state (pg 32)?

"They roll an extra D6 when rolling to penetrate a Vehicle's Armour Value at half range or less."


The rules for measuring distances on page 3 states:

". . .when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some vehicles) use the model's hull instead."

And for vehicle's firing (as the Melta-Cannon is mounted on a vehicle), pg 56:

"When firing a vehicle's weapons, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon. . ."


So:

P1. A Melta-Cannon's range is 24 inches.
P2. As a Melta weapon, the Melta-Cannon "roll[s] an extra D6 when rolling to penetrate a Vehicle's Armour Value at half range or less".
P3. Distance between models is measured from the muzzle of the Melta-Cannon to the closest point of the vehicle model.
C1. Therefore, a Melta-Cannon rolls an extra D6 when rolling to penetrate a Vehicle whose closest point is within 12" of the weapon's muzzle.


Whatever else you might want to try to claim about the situation, the facts remain solid that the only thing that matters concerning the MELTA rule is whether the vehicle model is within 12" of the muzzle of the weapon.

You can argue that the rules don't allow you to actually check for this range (which I believe is false) but no matter what you try to twist around you can't escape these facts I've presented above.


There never will be any basis to try to apply the Melta rule based on where a blast ends up. . .the Melta rule doesn't care where a blast ends up, it cares how far away the vehicle you are shooting at actually IS.

Essentially you're trying to re-write the Melta rule so that the final location of the blast's center hole is what matters when the rules do not say anything about that. Only the range of the vehicle to the firer matters.

Aldonis wrote:
Rolling to penetrate occurs AFTER scatter - hence that is when to see if you are within the melta BONUS range.

Logical and straightforward - and by the RAW.

I can't tell from your post. . .how do you contend that you establish the melta bonus range at that point?

OK, just returned after a few days absence. 3 pages of discussion and I´m a bit confused. What is the sticking point again? Are you even dicscussing the same thing? Lets see if I got this right, the problem is as follows:

- I aim a Blast Melta at Vehicle A which is close enough to trigger the bonus penetration.
- The shot scatters far off target and hits Vehicle B instead.
- Vehicle B´s physical distance is way beyond the range that would give the meltabonus.
- I roll penetration against Vehicle B with the melta bonus. ( What the Feth? )

Did I get this right ?

A-P wrote: OK, just returned after a few days absence. 3 pages of discussion and I´m a bit confused. What is the sticking point again? Are you even dicscussing the same thing? Lets see if I got this right, the problem is as follows:

- I aim a Blast Melta at Vehicle A which is close enough to trigger the bonus penetration.
- The shot scatters far off target and hits Vehicle B instead.
- Vehicle B´s physical distance is way beyond the range that would give the meltabonus.
- I roll penetration against Vehicle B with the melta bonus. ( What the Feth? )

Did I get this right ?

Not quite. What I was asking original is if you fire it at, say, a Land Raider. The Closest Part of the Land Raider is 11" away. If it scatters so they blast ends up 13" away but still on that Land Raider, do I get the bonus dice?

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Not quite. What I was asking original is if you fire it at, say, a Land Raider. The Closest Part of the Land Raider is 11" away. If it scatters so they blast ends up 13" away but still on that Land Raider, do I get the bonus dice?

Ah, OK. Thanks for clearing that up. Now I need to get a second mug of coffee. ( Note to self: get a minimum of two mugs of coffee before trying to catch up on forum discussions )

The melta rule comes into play when you're penetrating, not hitting. Once you've scattered, and hit, THEN you're checking if you're at half range to get the extra die.

Thats RAW surely?

Tek wrote:The melta rule comes into play when you're penetrating, not hitting. Once you've scattered, and hit, THEN you're checking if you're at half range to get the extra die.

Thats RAW surely?

It's not so much the timing as WHAT you are measuring.

I've been trying to point to the Melta rules which only care about the range from the firing weapon to the Vehicle. Others have tried to claim that somehow the Melta rule cares about where the blast actually ends up, which, (as far as I can tell) has absolutely no basis in the rules.

Tek wrote:The melta rule comes into play when you're penetrating, not hitting. Once you've scattered, and hit, THEN you're checking if you're at half range to get the extra die.

Thats RAW surely?

RAW is what Yakface has spent ages typing out.

yakface wrote:

Tek wrote:The melta rule comes into play when you're penetrating, not hitting. Once you've scattered, and hit, THEN you're checking if you're at half range to get the extra die.

Thats RAW surely?

It's not so much the timing as WHAT you are measuring.

I've been trying to point to the Melta rules which only care about the range from the firing weapon to the Vehicle. Others have tried to claim that somehow the Melta rule cares about where the blast actually ends up, which, (as far as I can tell) has absolutely no basis in the rules.

And thats your view.

YOu are choosing to use a weapons range argument. Instead of the blast firing rule. The range would only come into play after you hit.

At the end either increasing the 2d6 pentration rule if the weapon scatters or as has been brought up suggesting people re- measure if it hits a completely different target vechile.

Regretfully the most post agreeing or disagreeing on a subject does not win the argument. Becuase other sides would argue the opposite. But I was curious how it would be answered here.

It's not a view, its what the rules say. It's your view that you measure to where the blast lands. What Yakface has laid out is what the rules say.

sabote wrote:

And thats your view.

YOu are choosing to use a range argument. Instead of the blast firing rule. The range would only come into play after you hit.

At the end either increasing the 2d6 pentration rule if the weapon scatters or as has been brought up suggesting people re- measure if it hits a completely different target vechile.

Regretfully the most post agreeing or disagreeing on a subject does not win the argument. Becuase other sides would argue the opposite. But I was curious how it would be answered here.

But no one has yet to show any shred of any proof whatsoever of rules that can back up the idea that the melta rule will ever care about the placement of the blast as opposed to the range to the vehicle.

I would love to see someone try to construct a logical argument using any kind of rules quotes to back up how this melta rule can ever be affected by the location of the blast marker.

I'm not saying I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG. I just don't see any factual indication in the rules on how to play the way people have been advocating and I'm waiting for anybody to lay it out logically.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:It's not a view, its what the rules say. It's your view that you measure to where the blast lands. What Yakface has laid out is what the rules say.

sorry but thats incorrect. thats his interpretation of a rule that has a flaw. just like mine is.

yakface wrote:

sabote wrote:

And thats your view.

YOu are choosing to use a range argument. Instead of the blast firing rule. The range would only come into play after you hit.

At the end either increasing the 2d6 pentration rule if the weapon scatters or as has been brought up suggesting people re- measure if it hits a completely different target vechile.

Regretfully the most post agreeing or disagreeing on a subject does not win the argument. Becuase other sides would argue the opposite. But I was curious how it would be answered here.

But no one has yet to show any shred of any proof whatsoever of rules that can back up the idea that the melta rule will ever care about the placement of the blast as opposed to the range to the vehicle.

I would love to see someone try to construct a logical argument using any kind of rules quotes to back up how this melta rule can ever be affected by the location of the blast marker.

And thats humans for you. Because I would state the same of your argument.

sabote wrote:

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:It's not a view, its what the rules say. It's your view that you measure to where the blast lands. What Yakface has laid out is what the rules say.

sorry but thats incorrect. thats his interpretation of a rule that has a flaw. just like mine is.

Where is the flaw? I posted a logical argument up above.

And even if you can find a flaw in my logic, nobody has attempted to logically support the idea of the blast placement mattering for the melta rule yet.

sabote wrote:
And thats humans for you. Because I would state the same of your argument.

I posted a logical argument.

yakface wrote:

sabote wrote:

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:It's not a view, its what the rules say. It's your view that you measure to where the blast lands. What Yakface has laid out is what the rules say.

sorry but thats incorrect. thats his interpretation of a rule that has a flaw. just like mine is.

Where is the flaw? I posted a logical argument up above.

And even if you can find a flaw in my logic, nobody has attempted to logically support the idea of the blast placement mattering for the melta rule yet.

Your logic is based around a weapon firing straight at a target. ie a Meltagun. Where all the ranges and logic you have worked out would apply. However this is a blast weapon which has its own section under shooting. As I read the RAW version of that. I see no measurement for half distance. I do see a measurment for max range to determin a miss. Do I think you should be able to measure than. Of course. But thats not as written. But a logical jump of a thought process. However what is not logical is than allowing a scatter to have the same effect of a 1/2 range shot, even if it goes further. Meltas lessen over range.

sabote wrote:
Your logic is based around a weapon firing straight at a target. ie a Meltagun. Where all the ranges and logic you have worked out would apply. However this is a blast weapon which has its own section under shooting. As I read the RAW version of that. I see no measurement for half distance. I do see a measurment for max range to determin a miss. Do I think you should be able to measure than. Of course. But thats not as written. But a logical jump of a thought process. However what is not logical is than allowing a scatter to have the same effect of a 1/2 range shot, even if it goes further. Meltas lessen over range.

You have not even attempted to prove any of my premises false!

And again, you've failed to provide any sort of logical argument from your point of view!

Please ignore the timing of when you measure for range for now because it isn't integral to the argument (we can get to that later).

Let's just focus on what the RULES say regarding Melta weapons. How do Melta weapons work per the rules?

Please, give me *any* kind of logical argument about how the Melta rule can be determined by the placement of a blast marker. I don't see any possible logical argument (a logical conclusion backed up by premises of fact) to support this idea.

sabote wrote:

yakface wrote:

sabote wrote:

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:It's not a view, its what the rules say. It's your view that you measure to where the blast lands. What Yakface has laid out is what the rules say.

sorry but thats incorrect. thats his interpretation of a rule that has a flaw. just like mine is.

Where is the flaw? I posted a logical argument up above.

And even if you can find a flaw in my logic, nobody has attempted to logically support the idea of the blast placement mattering for the melta rule yet.

Your logic is based around a weapon firing straight at a target. ie a Meltagun. Where all the ranges and logic you have worked out would apply. However this is a blast weapon which has its own section under shooting. As I read the RAW version of that. I see no measurement for half distance. I do see a measurment for max range to determin a miss. Do I think you should be able to measure than. Of course. But thats not as written. But a logical jump of a thought process. However what is not logical is than allowing a scatter to have the same effect of a 1/2 range shot, even if it goes further. Meltas lessen over range.

You are not in the least way addressing the core rule mechanic of the Melta-cannon, namely the Melta rule. Yak has quoted verbatim the melta rule, and all relevant targeting rules. Though you may say he's ignored Blast marker rules, they are completely irrelevant to the use of Melta. All Melta cares about is the position of the target relative to the shooter. FIN, end of story. So long as the initial placement is within the max range of the weapon, and it doesn't scatter off the table or off a valid target, you will get bonus dice if the (final assuming scatter) target is within half range.

Your attempt to point out a 'flaw' in Yak's argument is poor at best. It seems to me that you are trying to join the Melta rule with the rules for resolving blast weapons fire. The melta rule itself does not permit this. Again, you need to somehow prove that the melta rule mechanic does not, in any way, care about the distance from the target to the weapon.

I too am backing Yak in this.

What you are arguing is two separate concepts.

Range is only the distance between point "a" and point "b". The rules are very specific in how we measure ranges. The Melta rule is a rule that only concerns itself with range.

For example, I could be flicking paper footballs at my monitor. I am 24" away from my monitor. No matter where the football ultimately lands changes the fact that I am 24" away from my monitor.

The Blast rules only determine what you hit and how you hit it. It doesn't somehow change the distances between objects.

Yak,

That sounds great, except that in order to set yourself up with that argument you have to ignore the only rule attached to blast weapons whereby you measure anything.

Your third example, about measuring range, is the general rule, the version in the Blast rules is the specific rule for Blasts. The specific usually over-rides the general, correct? The Blast rules have their own "Check Range" mechanic, so trying to hang your argument on the general mechanic instead seems, well, odd. Moreover, the "distance between models" generally defined, does not necessarily equal the range of the shot anyway. For a non-blast, non-template, weapon they are the same, but it doesn't follow from that that should always be the case.

If you change your third premise, and assume (as I am) that you're measuring to the blast (as the rules instruct you to do) then your whole argument falls apart. The fact that the Melta rules don't mention it certainly isn't the crippling point you want it to be either. The Melta rules only specifiy the "range within which". There's nothing there to obviate the rules presented in the Blast section.

My argument holds that a specific rule, one that states 'place the blast, check range to blast' over-rides the general comments about measuring range. It's not even complicated, replace the word 'maximum' with 'half'. You, on the other hand, want to measure range completely seperately from the mechanics for the rest of the shot. Of the two it's your reading that seems to lack evidentiary weight as well as precedent.

The Blast rules are clear that measuring to the central hole on the template is what determines whether the shot is in maximum range. It follows that measuring to the central hole would also determine what is in half range. You want to argue that you check for maximum range by measuring to the central hole on the template and that you measure half range by measuring to the vehicle's hull (instead of the template). The only way to get to your argument is to apply general commentary about range instead of the specific model presented in the Blast rules.

The fact that Blast weapons measure "within maximum range" differently than non-blast weapons strongly suggests that they should measure "within half range" differently as well.

*edit* to be more precise about the logic, I'm challenging P3 as insufficient

yakface wrote:

Aldonis wrote:
Rolling to penetrate occurs AFTER scatter - hence that is when to see if you are within the melta BONUS range.

Logical and straightforward - and by the RAW.

I can't tell from your post. . .how do you contend that you establish the melta bonus range at that point?

I interpret this from the rules for ARMOR Penetration and MELTA weapons:

First AP:

ARMOR PENETRATION
Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it. Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 and add the weapons's Strength to it, comparing this total with the Armour Value of the appropriate facing of the vehicle.

If the total is less than the Vehicle's Armor Value, blah blah blah

Now MELTA:

Melta weapons are lethal, short-ranged 'heat rays'. They roll an extra D6 when rolling to penetrate a vehicle's Armor Value at half range or less. If the weapon is more than half its maximum range away, a single D6 is rolled as normal. See the Vehicles rules later for more details on armour penetration.

So..IMHO, by the RAW:

First place Blast template and determine if in range of weapon

second - scatter said blast weapon

Third - determine AP based on where blast lands (this is where the melta rule comes into effect)

Roll 1d6 or 2d6 dependent on the range if it's a vehicle during the third stage above

Seem's very logical and staightforward to me....

Course I'm a Tennessean, and that's where the majority of the worlds genius minds live! <jk>

Fenris, you miss the point though.

You would have to argue that the blast rules somehow change the range of the weapon.

The blast rules only specify how you place the blast and how you determine where and if it hits.

It doesn't modify the range of the weapon. It doesn't change how we measure ranges. It doesn't change the distance between models.

You would have to make an argument that the position of the blast maker somehow modifies range, which it clearly doesn't.

Mahu wrote:Fenris, you miss the point though.

It doesn't modify the range of the weapon. It doesn't change how we measure ranges. It doesn't change the distance between models.

You would have to make an argument that the position of the blast maker somehow modifies range, which it clearly doesn't.

Actually, it specifically changes how we measure range. See my post above. You measure from the firing model to the template, not to the affected model. That's a entirely seperate mechanic. Changing that one mechanic means we can usefully argue whay I did above. Feel free to address the logic if you like.

Yakface is correct. The blast rules only determine which target is hit. It doesn't affect the actual range to the target. When a blast template scatters, but is still over the targeted vehicle you still strike the armor facing you. A blast from a non-barrage weapon does not strike the rear armor if the hole of the blast marker ends up directly behind the vehicle. It's still a direct fire shot.