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.

cgmckenzie wrote:Sorry, poor wording on my choice. When the codex and BRB disagree, the codex is correct because it is dealing with a specific model/unit while the BRB is dealing with the entire game. Generally the codex is specific, BRB is general.

-cgmckenzie

The problem is, that's the incorrect way to approach things because the rulebook can be more specific on any given subject.

For example, Necrons have WBB which allows they can utilize anytime the model would be removed as a casualty. But then in the rulebook for Sweeping Advances it says that the models are removed from play from which, unless specified otherwise, no special rule can save them.


So which takes precedence? The codex? Or the rulebook even though it says that a special rule can specify otherwise?


The answer here is that the rulebook takes clear precedence because it says that no special rule can save the unit and WBB is a special rule. While the sweeping advance rules DO say that a special rule can 'specify otherwise' since the sweeping advance rule is MORE specific, it means that the WBB rule would have to say something like 'WBB can be used anytime the model would be removed as a casualty...including when destroyed by a sweeping advance'.

Specific always overrides general, regardless of where the rules are located.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:

Unless you hit at least one model of your declared target, the entire template would miss, just like a flamer firing at a unit out of range, but hitting models standing in front of it. You also may not chose units locked in combat as your target(prevented by shooting rules, not templates), but you may place the template in such a way that it still hits them, which would also work for a normal flamer. The only real loophole is being able to hit your own model with the template, but only if you declare and hit another target in the process.

Why would you say that? The rules for checking range state that you simply have to measure range to the nearest visible model in the target unit. That means as long as the template *could* reach the target unit, then it is in range and can hit. If you remove the restriction about having to place it over as many models in the target unit as possible then there is absolutely NOTHING commanding the template to actually be placed over the target unit at all.

You make some good points Yak. Really, in a lot of ways, it's kind of similar to the JotWW issue. It's a shooting attack that has unconventional targeting rules that don't really make for reasonable criteria when you actually look at them carefully, so you kind of just have to make the best of the situation.

Based upon the points you made, I could concede to playing it your way.

I'd have to insist that we consider it a 'rules change' though.

yakface wrote:Heh, *I'm* the INAT webmaster...you could have just PM'd me and pointed me to this thread if you wanted!

Will do so in the future, thanks

I am honestly not sure what is happening here any more.

If there are 3 solo tanks in a line, able to be covered by the template, all 3 could theoretically be targets. By hitting 3, it covers as many targets as possible. You don't have to rake the bow of the tank to get a hit with a template weapon, just cover part of the hull.

-cgmckenzie

Right but if your bound to declare your target and fire at that one by following the template rules you would most likely only be able to cover that single tank since you have to cover as much of that model as possible. So unless the vehicles you are shooting at are touching or close to it you wouldn't be able to hit multiples.

cgmckenzie wrote:I am honestly not sure what is happening here any more.

If there are 3 solo tanks in a line, able to be covered by the template, all 3 could theoretically be targets. By hitting 3, it covers as many targets as possible. You don't have to rake the bow of the tank to get a hit with a template weapon, just cover part of the hull.

-cgmckenzie

The rules don't tell you to cover as many units in as many different targets as you want. You have to cover as much of the target you are firing at as possible.

The only way your situation works is if the 3 tanks are in a squad.

Couldn't he theoretically fire declare the far tank as the target and only the little bit at the end is possible to cover it, getting the other 3 as collateral?

-cgmckenzie

I agree with the OP.

Positioning the template in such a way that does not override the other requirements for shooting a template. It only replaces the one about starting the narrow end at the gun barrel. Everything else is the same.

so if you want to cover multiple vehicles, just place the template so that it has no choice but to cover them. I.E. the narrow end is at the far end of a tank, and the larger end cannot cover the rest because it would be closer than the narrow end >.>

cgmckenzie wrote:Couldn't he theoretically fire declare the far tank as the target and only the little bit at the end is possible to cover it, getting the other 3 as collateral?

According to both interpretations, that sounds like it's the case, which is one of the reasons why I'm not pushing this too much anymore. Were it not for that fact, the inferno cannon would quickly become less useful than a multilaser. Yak did make some very solid rationalizations as to why it shouldn't be playe the way I was previously arguing, and I'm always a fan of the 'make something less awesome so that it doesn't make the game stupid' mindset.

Deuce11 wrote:I agree with the OP.

Positioning the template in such a way that does not override the other requirements for shooting a template. It only replaces the one about starting the narrow end at the gun barrel. Everything else is the same.

But do you say that because you think that's what it the book says, or because it comes out to be the least rule-breaking way of playing it?

Deuce11 wrote:I agree with the OP.

Positioning the template in such a way that does not override the other requirements for shooting a template. It only replaces the one about starting the narrow end at the gun barrel. Everything else is the same.

The problem with that is the rules for the gun tell you how to place it.

To fire the inferno cannon place the template so that the narrow end is within 12" of the weapon and the large end is no closer to the weapon than the narrow end. The inferno cannon is then treated like any other template weapon"

It tells you how to place the template, and then after it is placed it is treated like any other template.

Your way has us place the template, and then replace the template according to the BRB rules on templates. The Codex says nothing about only ignoring the "placing the template next to the gun" rules and EVERY thing else is the same. The Codex tells us exactly how to place the template. The Small end has to be no futher than 12" and the big end can not be closer than the small end. AFTER it is placed it is treated like a normal template. No where does it say it has to cover the most in a unit... No where does it say it has to cover as much of a hull as possible.

IF the rule was written like the following then you would have a leg to stand on.

"To fire the inferno cannon place the template so that the narrow end is within 12" of the weapon and the large end is no closer to the weapon than the narrow end. All other rules regarding templates must be meet" then I would agree completelyt with you.

But it does not. "The inferno cannon is then treated like any other template weapon" It is a completely different sentence. This sentence comes after the template is placed. Only after it is placed does it revert back to being a normal template. Well after checking to see if you have covered the most models or not.

I feel like the problem has finally been solved. Basically you just need the place the template ussing the rules in the codex and make sure it is in range. All vehicles are hit as long as the template partly covers them.

Am I correct in thnking this is what has been decided?

Yes, that is what it is.

-cgmckenzie

The Acolyte wrote:I feel like the problem has finally been solved. Basically you just need the place the template ussing the rules in the codex and make sure it is in range. All vehicles are hit as long as the template partly covers them.

Am I correct in thnking this is what has been decided?

cgmckenzie wrote:Yes, that is what it is.

-cgmckenzie

No, playing by that interpretation is both absurd (allowing the weapon to fire into close combats, through solid walls, etc) and unplayable in some situations (firing into a ruin, where with a template weapon you have to declare which level you're targeting, but with this weapon you're claiming it doesn't 'become' a template weapon until after the template is placed).

So again, regardless of how the rules can be interpreted here, the only way to play that makes sense within the context of the rules is to follow the normal restrictions for templates except for allowing the template to be placed away from the firing model.

The Acolyte wrote:I feel like the problem has finally been solved. Basically you just need the place the template ussing the rules in the codex and make sure it is in range. All vehicles are hit as long as the template partly covers them.

Am I correct in thnking this is what has been decided?

Nothing has really been decided. As often happens, the different sides are at an impasse. Personally, I will probably play at the half way point between the two interpretations. Super compromise.

Damn, thought we had it.

Placement is unique to the hellhound. It counts hits like a template(namely anything under it is BBQ and doesn't get cover). You can't fire into close combat because you can never do that. Same goes for shooting at friendlies.

For the ruin thing, I think you would have to decide which level you are firing into before you place it, but that is the only discrepancy I see with it.

-cgmckenzie

yakface wrote:

The Acolyte wrote:I feel like the problem has finally been solved. Basically you just need the place the template ussing the rules in the codex and make sure it is in range. All vehicles are hit as long as the template partly covers them.

Am I correct in thnking this is what has been decided?

cgmckenzie wrote:Yes, that is what it is.

-cgmckenzie

No, playing by that interpretation is both absurd (allowing the weapon to fire into close combats, through solid walls, etc) and unplayable in some situations (firing into a ruin, where with a template weapon you have to declare which level you're targeting, but with this weapon you're claiming it doesn't 'become' a template weapon until after the template is placed).

So again, regardless of how the rules can be interpreted here, the only way to play that makes sense within the context of the rules is to follow the normal restrictions for templates except for allowing the template to be placed away from the firing model.

I don't see this as that much of a problem - a regular template can fire through solid walls as well, as long as it hits it's original target (and as many models as possible). Also the weapon is still a template while placing, you just follow different rules for placing it. Longfangs are still shooting blast weapons, even if they can choose two targets. Note that the assault rules(in addition to template rules) explicitly forbid placing templates over models locked in combat, which would not be ignored by the inferno cannon. Also nothing contradicts the rule "template weapons may only affect models under the template on a single level"(BRB pg. 85), placing the template has no effect on which level is actually hit, as you would usually place it above the ruin anyway.

The interpretation you suggest still comes with a small problem: How do you decide that you actually did hit as many models as possible? Do you chose a point to shoot from within 12" and check from there or do check any possible placement for the template? This boils down to the same question as "what's the max range of a template weapon"? Do you factor the 12" into that, or not? How about rotating the turret?
If you did, this would make the inferno cannon much worse, as you could never hit anything besides the vehicle and very rarely hit anything other than the unit you're targeting. I wouldn't mind though, as I hate those damned flame tanks toasting my orks all the time.

RAW it can hit friendly units on purpose, which doesn't seem right, as well as shooting random other units than the secondary weapons(which might not be a problem at all, depending on the definition of template range). Simple disallowing those two counter-intuitive possibilities is a fix with less magnitude than basically disallowing any angled shots at all.

The interpretation you suggest still comes with a small problem: How do you decide that you actually did hit as many models as possible? Do you chose a point to shoot from within 12" and check from there or do check any possible placement for the template? This boils down to the same question as "what's the max range of a template weapon"? Do you factor the 12" into that, or not? How about rotating the turret?
If you did, this would make the inferno cannon much worse, as you could never hit anything besides the vehicle and very rarely hit anything other than the unit you're targeting. I wouldn't mind though, as I hate those damned flame tanks toasting my orks all the time.

These aren't really issues at all. They are the same problems a normal template weapon has to face. The only difference, is that the range of the template has been increased by 12 inches. Plus, the fact that you can actually rotate the template almost 90 degrees now (following the narrow end/ large end rule) makes it easier to fry infantry.

The only time you will have a problem is when firing it at a vehicle, which was already a problem, but got slightly worse. It's difficult to hit more than just the vehicle you are targeting.

This is kind of why you don't waste time firing a flame template at vehicles anyway; even weak armor ones, unless you absolutely don't have another target

omerakk wrote:

The interpretation you suggest still comes with a small problem: How do you decide that you actually did hit as many models as possible? Do you chose a point to shoot from within 12" and check from there or do check any possible placement for the template? This boils down to the same question as "what's the max range of a template weapon"? Do you factor the 12" into that, or not? How about rotating the turret?
If you did, this would make the inferno cannon much worse, as you could never hit anything besides the vehicle and very rarely hit anything other than the unit you're targeting. I wouldn't mind though, as I hate those damned flame tanks toasting my orks all the time.

These aren't really issues at all. They are the same problems a normal template weapon has to face. The only difference, is that the range of the template has been increased by 12 inches. Plus, the fact that you can actually rotate the template almost 90 degrees now (following the narrow end/ large end rule) makes it easier to fry infantry.

The only time you will have a problem is when firing it at a vehicle, which was already a problem, but got slightly worse. It's difficult to hit more than just the vehicle you are targeting.

This is kind of why you don't waste time firing a flame template at vehicles anyway; even weak armor ones, unless you absolutely don't have another target

I think you misread my post, how is this not an issue? If I can chose any point to fire from and then check if I hit most, there is no problem, and I can easily hit multiple vehicles/units while still hitting as much of the target as possible. If I take into account the 12"(and about 1" from the turret), there is almost no choice in most cases, as you'd basically be forced to drop the template into a unit with both ends touching some model in three out of four times. When shooting, for example, into a mob of 20+ orks, figuring out which shot actually hit the most can be quite time consuming, as, unlike regular template weapons, you'd can have a dozen of possible shots, instead of just two or three.

Also note that, depending on the distance to the target, you can rotate the template up to a little less than 180°.

Jidmah wrote:When shooting, for example, into a mob of 20+ orks, figuring out which shot actually hit the most can be quite time consuming, as, unlike regular template weapons, you'd can have a dozen of possible shots, instead of just two or three.

I'm a little confused on how this is worded, time consuming or not whenever you are shooting you have to pick a target so if your opponent has multiple models bunched up you would have to ask him which models are a unit. Now as long as you are hitting as many as possible from that group it can then hit models from other units... Not that confusing or time consuming

It just seems that this section on template placement from the rulebook has been widely ignored by most people that play with templates and now that it has come to light there are tons of excuses on why it shouldn't be played that way.

Aglobalthreat wrote:I'm a little confused on how this is worded, time consuming or not whenever you are shooting you have to pick a target so if your opponent has multiple models bunched up you would have to ask him which models are a unit. Now as long as you are hitting as many as possible from that group it can then hit models from other units... Not that confusing or time consuming

It is virtually impossible to ever hit as many orks as possible and still hit another unit. That's what I wanted to say. You'd also have to place down the template and count models hit seven or eight times, instead of two or three for regular flamers.

It just seems that this section on template placement from the rulebook has been widely ignored by most people that play with templates and now that it has come to light there are tons of excuses on why it shouldn't be played that way.

Unneeded rant. As I already mentioned, I'm usually the one getting toasted by Inferno Cannons 1-3 times a week. Funny how everyone just happens to bring them allong "because they like the model" when playing vs orks

I noticed there has been kind of a complaint as far as the realism of hitting three raiders with a flamethrower on here but I think this video should clear things up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD89Z0_Rav8

I know it's not furthering the rules argument but it certainly shows the grimdarkness of a flamethrower...