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.

calypso2ts wrote:So under this logic so long as my flamer template is over, but not touching, my models I can fire it wherever I want?

Correct. But, be careful, you have to have the flame template touching the base of the model. So, to clear the heads of the models in front of you, you'll have to place it at a very steep angle, and it will lose quite a bit of range.

And, to clarify: No, I do NOT play this way. This is just my argument, using strict RAW, to counter the argument that a Baal Predator isn't allowed to shoot.

I don't see any reason why a baal predator can't fire forward. The rules say that the template shouldn't touch any 'friendly models'. Firstly the predator is not a friendly model, it is the firing unit. The rules don't have any problem with the template touching the firing unit.

Secondly the template is not technically 'touching' which is obvious if you view it from the side. The rules do say that any model under the template is hit... You could argue that the predator technically hits itself, but so long as the template doesn't touch I don't see why it can't fire.

But again my primary argument is that the pred is not a friendly unit, it is the firing unit so cannot therefore block its own shot.

So it's an enemy unit? So as long as your units have fired, you can fire at them?

Does this include close combats?

So if I have a unit of assault marines who fire their pistols, then rush into CC, next turn I can fire into the CC, because by your logic, they're not longer friendly models?

Cool! These are some of the best made-up rules I've ever seen.

The Baal predator is a friendly model. Always has been, always will be. At no time does that change, for any reason.

Gwar! wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:No, you are right

Well alright then.

Huzzah! Brother Ramses finally admits the people playing by the rules are, shockingly, in the right when it comes to playing by the rules!

And no, we don't do it "for the sake of being a dick", we do it for the sake of following the rules.

Would you call your opponent a dick when playing chess if he refused to let your pawns move 5 spaces a turn?

If the inventers of chess designed pawns to move 5 spaces a turn, I would let him. I would not deny him because the rules for chess use the term "squares" instead of "spaces" which it appears you would point out in your smug RAW manner.

Are you the kind of person that would add yourself as a a friend on facebook etc?

The predator is not a friendly towards the firing unit, it IS the firing unit.

So if I have a unit of assault marines who fire their pistols, then rush into CC, next turn I can fire into the CC, because by your logic, they're not longer friendly models?

What... the... hell... !...

If you are going to create a ridiculous strawman argument to fight against. At least have the decency to make one up that makes sense and is somewhat related to the subject at hand. How is that my logic? The rules are clear on firing into or out of combat, and how do assault mariner stop being friendly just because they are in CC?

Try again, and bring a real argument.

It is a friendly firing unit. It never magically becomes "not a friendly unit" because it starts shooting guns. Where are you getting that idea?

You are friendly to yourself because of a couple of clues. One is that a Sanguinary priest benefits from the chalice, which requires you to be a friendly unit.

You are not neutral as regards yourself, you are friendly. Unless you hate yourself....

Clearly, in the Grimdarkness of the Grimdark Future, there is only EMO!

It has nothing to do with it shooting guns or not. There are no friendly units between the predator and the enemy.

How can the predator be between itself and the enemy?

You are friendly to yourself because of a couple of clues. One is that a Sanguinary priest benefits from the chalice, which requires you to be a friendly unit.

That had to be FAQed. I'm pretty sure if the predator was FAQed GW would tell you that it can fire forward.

On the flip side Sanguinor gives friendly units +1 attack but not himself, so it is not universal.

SmackCakes wrote:It has nothing to do with it shooting guns or not. There are no friendly units between the predator and the enemy.

Except itself, which is a friendly unit. As I keep saying.

You have two kinds of units on the board - friendly and enemy. The Predator can't be neither, it has to be one or the other. If it's not an enemy unit, it's a friendly unit. It never stops being a friendly unit, even when it's firing its own weapon at itself.

The rules say that the template can touch the unit firing. It says it can't touch any friendly units. Clearly there is a distinction between the firing unit and other units which are friendly.

SmackCakes wrote:The rules say that the template can touch the unit firing. It says it can't touch any friendly units. Clearly there is a distinction between the firing unit and other units which are friendly.

No, read the rules for vehicles. It can only touch the gun barrel.

Gwar! wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:The rules say that the template can touch the unit firing. It says it can't touch any friendly units. Clearly there is a distinction between the firing unit and other units which are friendly.

No, read the rules for vehicles. It can only touch the gun barrel.

Would you be so kind as to provide a page number, I can't find this myself.

I can see a note on page 56 under Vehicles and Measuring distances, Which says range and LOS is from the weapons muzzle, but templates don't use range. According to this as the vehicle has no base you should use the hull.

SmackCakes wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:The rules say that the template can touch the unit firing. It says it can't touch any friendly units. Clearly there is a distinction between the firing unit and other units which are friendly.

No, read the rules for vehicles. It can only touch the gun barrel.

Would you be so kind as to provide a page number, I can't find this myself.

I can see a note on page 56 I see a note under Vehicles and Measuring distances, Which says range and LOS is from the weapons muzzle, but templates don't use range. According to this as the vehicle has no base you should use the hull.

... Seriously? Templates don't use range when a Template Weapons range is "Template"?

SmackCakes wrote:templates don't use range

Er, yes they do? They have range "Template." That's why under "Range" it says "Template." I kind of felt that should be fairly obvious?

Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?

Gwar! wrote:Seriously? Templates don't use range when a Template Weapons range is "Template"?

They use a template instead of a range. The rule say 'range is measured from the gun barrel" it makes sense that the template should also be from the gun barrel, but I don't think you can claim that RAW explicitly states that the template touches the gun because RAW doesn't mention templates.

I also don't see how the claim that the gun can't fire forward is supported anywhere. If the rules said that template weapons fired from vehicles mustn't be over the any part of the hull, then I would agree that the Baal can't fire forward. But the rules don't say that, what they say is ambiguous at best. I don't see anything in the rules that says you definitely can't fire forward.

Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?

Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol

SmackCakes wrote:

Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?

Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol

They do. They have an AP of "-".

Gwar! wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:

Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?

Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol

They do. They have an AP of "-".

Page 20 the rules say a weapon with AP"-" has no armour piercing value. Those are the exact words.

SmackCakes wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:

Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?

Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol

They do. They have an AP of "-".

Page 20 the rules say a weapon with AP"-" has no armour piercing value. Those are the exact words.

But they still have an AP of -. If they had no AP value, they wouldn't get -1 on the Vehicle Damage Table.

Gwar! wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:

Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?

Huh? but lasguns don't have an AP lol

They do. They have an AP of "-".

So glad you came back to Dakka even though you promised you were quitting for good.

Fearspect wrote:So glad you came back to Dakka even though you promised you were quitting for good.

And everything was coming along so well. . . .

What was this thread about again?

No Idea. Glad to see it has descended into petty personal attacks again however.

Gwar wrote:But they still have an AP of -. If they had no AP value, they wouldn't get -2 on the Vehicle Damage Table.

They don't get -2 they get -1. Their AP is shown as "-" because they have no AP value. The rules are very clear on this. How come you can draw so many of your own conclusions with certainty from rules that are at best ambiguous, yet when the rules explicitly state (page 20) "A weapon shown as 'AP -' has no armour piercing value" we are still debating it.

I win this point, no contest.

SaintHazzard wrote:Are you going to try to tell us that Lasguns don't have an AP value because where lists a lasgun's AP value, it says "--"?

Indeed I am going to tell you that Lasgans have no AP value, as explicitly stated on page 20 of the rule book.

No, I win, because Orks can never lose and I am an Ork!

Also, typo ftl.

I agree with SmackCakes on this. the hull is part of the firer, not a seperate model.
using the hull as a friendly model is like saying a SM's leg is a seperate friendly model.
now if the Baal had some SMs in between the target and itself would be a better example of a friendly model.

So the XXJY is not a friendly model? Then why isn't it taking a hit from your shooting?

alarmingrick wrote:I agree with SmackCakes on this. the hull is part of the firer, not a seperate model.
using the hull as a friendly model is like saying a SM's leg is a seperate friendly model.
now if the Baal had some SMs in between the target and itself would be a better example of a friendly model.

Nobody said the hull was not part of the firer.

Thing is, the firer is a friendly model.

Also, SmackCakes, let me go ahead and show you where your "Lasguns have no AP value" argument falls absolutely flat. Close combat attacks have no AP value. Lasguns have an AP value of "--". What's the difference? Weapons with an AP value of "--" are -1 on the vehicle damage table. Weapons with NO AP VALUE have no effect on the vehicle damage table.

So what you're telling us is that because Lasguns and close combat attacks have the same AP value (none), close combat attacks always, no exceptions, are -1 on the vehicle damage table? I mean, if it's the same thing as AP --, then they'd have to.

There is a difference between not having an AP value (which is only on shooting attacks) and not having an AP stat at all (close combat).

You keep taking hugely out of context situations to try on prove your points.

Fearspect wrote:There is a difference between not having an AP value (which is only on shooting attacks) and not having an AP stat at all (close combat).

You keep taking hugely out of context situations to try on prove your points.

Yeah, if only the BRB would clarify this by using the specific wording, "no AP value," when talking about close combat.

Oh wait, it does.

You're just making things up.

The rules say that in combat a pistol counts as normal CCW so strength and AP are ignored. CC don't have a -1 against armour because AP is ignored in CC. Laspistols also do not get -1 in CC with a vehicle.