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.

What about p.39? No units may shoot into combat. Some war machines may do so accidentally, however.

Going off of that on it's own, it seems like Salamanders don't get to.

Also, PapaSmurf, we know it's frustrating. We know.

Papa - how is rolling high (or low) on a dice roll a "deliberate" action?

Really? I place the template Knowing that no matter what I roll it will hit models in combat seems fairly deliberate to me
If you think different than we have VERY different ideas of what deliberate is

Cheers

Papasmurf

Now, hold on everyone.

PapaSmurf, the you see what he's saying, right? The situation is random, so, even though the outcome is always good for your friend, it's not technically possible for him to target the models in combat, even if they will probably or even definately get hit.

And Nosferatu, c'mon, you know what he means.

I'm being nice you should hear what I'm thinking!

cheers

Papasmurf

Wait, so hes placing so it will ALWAYS hit combat?

Thats entirely different to the initial post you gave, which suggested it needed a high ish roll to "get over" the unit he was next to.

Does that...matter? I mean, as long as the "target" is legal, the rest is still an "accident", right?

Buf it the initial placement is hitting combat, then surely the initial target wouldnt be legal?

Well, if the unit you're shooting through is in combat, but you're aiming at a unit that's not...

Does it really matter if he starts 9" away so the template is 1" away from the unit in combat (about normal) regardless of what he rolls he will hit the unit in combat

cheers

Papasmurf

Well, no. According to the RaW (and ignoring my latest observations, as people have yet to comment), you can't target a unit that is in combat. However, if your target is legal, and the template "just so happens" to land on some other dudes, well, shucks.

Of course, to me, it looks like this possibility is only allowed in terms of war machines, and then only some times. Thoughts?

Again, I understand the frustration. But you've just got to accept that, until someone confirms my current theory, the rules allow it. We know that's not what the designers really intended. We know it can suck. But saying "GW should have done it this way" isn't going to do much.

I'm with Warp on his conclusion.

Some warmachines explicitely state that they may not be fired in a way that can ever contact a close combat. The sally has no restrictions like that. Pick your target, roll, resolve. It does seem like this is a legal tactic according to RaW. Frankly, I'd never use it with my Lizardmen only because I think its an oversight.

Papa, if you intend to go to any tournaments, speak to the TO about it. If its just a problem in 'friendly' games, do not play that person again.

We have been pretty lucky in terms of FAQ's coming out at a decent rate (compared to FAQ's for 40k at least), but I would be surprised if this was FAQ'd before the next LM codex came around, which might be a long time.

Lehnsherr, I have to point out that my current position is not so. It would be, if certain things hadn't come to light.

On page 39, it clearly states that you may not, under any circumstances, shoot into a combat.
It then goes on to say that some war machines may do so accidentally.

So, if we're to really--really--follow this book as written, I would currently say that any unit without the troop type war machine, or without a clarifier that says it "shoots like a war machine", cannot aim a template in any way that would even potentially hit an illegal target.

There's also the whole issue with the completely useless sentence on p.39, but that's for an other time.

I'm sticking with this theory until proven wrong. Or at least until someone--anyone--notices I posted it a page back.

I noticed you posted it, I then responded that the unit, at the time it declres the target, isnt shooting into combat.

That doesn't address the issue.

I am claiming that the only things technically capable of accidentally shooting into combat are war machines.

they dont need a rule allowing it; they arent shooting into combat when they declare shooting, which is what would stop them declaring the shooting in the first place.

semantics and it doesn't help the situation, a clear definition of how the salamanders work, what type of unit it is are needed

I fully agree with Warp, if there is any chance that the template could scatter/move/be placed into combat then the shot is illegal, sallies are not warmachines so no scattering into combat for them

cheers

Papasmurf

Except that isnt what the rules require.

At the time you place the template, assuming it isnt touching combat, you are NOT firing into combat. So the shoot is 100% legal to be fired. When you resolve the shot you may end up in combat - which is fine.

BS semantics it is not a war machine therefore as per rules cannot scatter into combat, doesn't matter how the template was places originally

cheers

Papasmurf

Is it fine, Nosferatu? Warhammer tells us what we can do, not what we can't, blah blah blah you know better than I do. The only thing I found that says "it's okay for some templates to land on illegal targets by 'accident'" pertains to war machines.

Also, how does what it initially touches matter? I mean, as long as your "target" is legal, it shouldn't matter what your actual target is, right?

Papsmurf; we're discussing rules. Please attempt to remain civil - and given Semantics is *exactly* what is under discussion, calling it BS simply because you dont agree is not only rude but misses the point entirely.

I know you dont agree with the rules interpretation, but so far you have not proposed a rational argument as to why not. Warp has.

Warp - yes, it tells you waht you can do. You declare your target, which is legal as it is not in combat. The rules then allow you to roll the dice, and count hits based on the template position.

Nothing in the rules follwoing initial selection gives any amount of care to combat or not. They simply do not address it, but thats ok - you still have permission to resolve the shots, as your initial target for shooting was legal.

so nos you would be totally okay we me taking my cannon, declaring a shot at a fleeing salamander on the far side of your unit of temple guard engaged with my swordsmen then deliberately placing the initial landing point so that there was no possible way to hit the intended target but would be guaranteed to hit the temple guard and probably the slaan with the bounce?

cheers

Papasmurf

Yes. That is, essentially, the same thing.

So...Nosferatu, you're saying that, because there isn't a phrase along the lines of "you may not place the template in such a way as to possibly hit illegal targets", since the idea "war machines can accidentally hit illegal targets" does not, specifically, say that other things can't?

I think I can get behind that. I think.

PapaSmurf, if you're looking for someone who agrees with you that this whole thing disagrees with the Spirit of the Game, look no further. I'm here.
But this is You Make Da' Call, and such sympathies don't belong in analysis.

PapaSmurf wrote:so nos you would be totally okay we me taking my cannon, declaring a shot at a fleeing salamander on the far side of your unit of temple guard engaged with my swordsmen then deliberately placing the initial landing point so that there was no possible way to hit the intended target but would be guaranteed to hit the temple guard and probably the slaan with the bounce?

cheers

Papasmurf

This example is moot. Please read the cannon rules, as cannons specifically forbid this.

Salamanders do not

effect is the same

you dont get a cheers


Papasmurf

No, the effect is not the same. The cannon rules specifically prohibit this. It's on pg 122.

Show me where it does the same for Salamanders.

I'm not going to hold my breath as you can't.

Please don't compare apples to oranges.

We can only use the rules given to us for the sally to shoot. It tells us to declare a target, roll, place, determine what was hit. We know that the rules for sallies provide us with a "loophole" of sorts to shoot into combat. Yes, warhammer is a permissive ruleset, but once we are given those permissions, exceptions to those permissions need to be declared. In this case, we have permissions to pick a target, roll and fire.

Pg. 39 (as Warp pointed out) states "Models are not permitted to shoot at enemies that are engaged in close combat...", however, as Nos pointed out, this is in the Choose a target section. The sally is not choosing a target in close combat. His intention is to hit the combat, but his target is a legal one. Anything that happens after that is random. That really is the key to the loophole, as we are given rules on how to pick a target, and how to resolve the shooting, but are not given a restriction outside of the choosing a target section. Maybe there is something else in the BRB that I am missing, but I have yet to come across anything.

The next paragraph goes on to talk about war machines being able to hit friendly models. This is a different point altogether. The qualifier here is that "you cannot purposefully aim a template so that some of your models will be hit." That 2nd paragraph on page 39 is not very helpful for this particular case. The part about "purposefully aiming a template" is only in reference to your own models and does not mention an enemy unit in close combat.

Thats about the extent of the rules that we have for sallies.

Trying to compare sally shooting to a cannon is pointless. The cannon has a specific restriction on being able to shoot in a way that could come into contact with a unit in combat. The fire thrower is a more pertinent comparison. The fire thrower has no such restriction, and RAW it would be able to shoot into a combat in much the same way as a salamander. In fact, if you combine the rules with salamanders / fire throwers with page 39, its possible for these weapons to hit your own troops if you are not careful.

**Edit**

effect is the same

This is false. The cannon has a specific rule written in the BRB that prohibits firing into a combat. If we had such a rule for the salamanders we wouldnt even be having a discussion on the forum about it. We don't have one, and therefore cannot compare the salamander to a cannon.

Couldn't you employ the Golden Rule? You can't decide on the way the rules should be applied (as it doesn't seem very clear) so roll for it. 1-3 he can do it, 4-6 he can't.

If it's so muddy that 3 pages here hasn't solved the issue then I'd say let fate be the decider (until you can get GW or whatever to clarify)

All hail the warhammer rules gods, I bow down to your infinite wisdom and expertise

Lovely loophole you can jump through and go anywhere else

I realized the cannon example was bad but the effect is the same

extent of the rules being a major problem

nuff said

Papasmurf

Just because you don't like the answer you are getting doesn't mean it's wrong and you need to be a dink about it. I guess I need to add my first person here to some sort of an ignore list.

Sad days.