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.

As was pointed out: the effect is NOT THE SAME. You are overriding a specific prohibition against shooting into combat, with no permission to do so.

So, as was pointed out 3 pages ago: feel free to HOUSERULE this, but, like all houserules, you friend has to agree to it as well.

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

I think you are taking the rules discussion a little too personally. Based off your post here, and your posts in the Lists subforum, its obvious you are frustrated with playing this particular player who is utilizing this tactic against you. The only person / people you should be upset with is GW. Their intention with the rules is muddy due to the changes from 7th to 8th with cannons. It *seems* like they do not want us to be able to fire in a way that comes into contact with any unit in a combat. Arguing RAI is pointless, however. The player you are playing against might seem like the obvious choice to get angry at, but he is just using the rules he has been provided with.

As I pointed out earlier, its not something I would use myself. I have no clue how GW intends it to work, although I lean heavily towards this being an oversight and a tactic that will be changed in the future. That being said, RAW there really isn't anything we can say to rule against it.

However, the example is bad, and the effect is not the same. Compare the sally to the firethrower. You end up with the exact same ruling. You roll the dice, and move the template. Where it lands is what it hits. For a sally, the only thing different is that you have to pick a target. As long as your target is legal, the extent of the remaining rules allows it to be fired in this manner.

And just because I am passionate about something and yes disagree with some of what has been said I should just smile and turn the other cheek? get down off your high horse

As I have stated I believe that the rule is wrong, there is exactly one army that has rules allowing them to shoot into combat - it makes them kind of unique, lizards are unique all on their own

I guess I am just applying common sense thinking to the situation that is not present in the written rules - you can't do it this this situation but in this almost identical situation it is fine because its not in the rulebook, rules lawyering at its finest

cheers

Papasmurf

And just because I am passionate about something and yes disagree with some of what has been said I should just smile and turn the other cheek? get down off your high horse

As I have stated I believe that the rule is wrong, there is exactly one army that has rules allowing them to shoot into combat - it makes them kind of unique, lizards are unique all on their own

You are entirely within your rights to be passionate about it. You are also within your rights to disagree with what has been said. Generally though, you would need to provide some kind of counter argument to what has been said, otherwise you are disagreeing because you simply don't like the outcome.

The fire-thrower would be a weapon that would also be able to shoot into combat, as would stone throwers (scattering into combat).

The list of armies that could fire into combat would then include
Brets, O&G, Empire, Dwarves, TK, Skaven, WoC, and potentially Ogres (I am not sure how the scrapfire launcher fires). I'd hardly call Llizardmen unique in this manner.

And I don't see this as the same thing, the salamander template does not "scatter" as do these other weapons - it moves forward an artillery dice, that to me is not a scatter, scatter requires some change of direction

For me it is the INTENTIONAL nature that is the big issue, these other warmachines do it unintentionally, unless they have a loaded scatter dice

And a flamer-thrower belongs to what army? (and yes I know dwarves have one too, when was the last time you saw one used?)

Papasmurf

This is one of those rules that is completely technically legal, but will get your tires slashed in the parkinglot of the gaming store, similar to two wide Eternal Guard tarpirs, Goblin Fanaticapults, and Zombie Torpedos. Its legal, but you are a massive douche for pulling it in a game.

You'll have to explain the examples cause I haven't seen/run into any of them

cheers

Papasmurf

The two wide eternal guard thing is because they are stubborn, so its not just eternal guard, but any unit that stubborn... Essentially you make your frontage as small as possible and dont care that you lose combat every round cause your ld 10 stubborn rerollable.

Flank plus challenge with something fighty should take care of that shouldn't it? Plus how the heck do you maneuver a formation like that?

cheers

Papasmurf

And I don't see this as the same thing, the salamander template does not "scatter" as do these other weapons - it moves forward an artillery dice, that to me is not a scatter, scatter requires some change of direction

For me it is the INTENTIONAL nature that is the big issue, these other warmachines do it unintentionally, unless they have a loaded scatter dice

The salamander template does not scatter in the same way as a stone thrower, that is true. There are however elements of randomness in both. There is definitive intent of the player opposing you, however there is still an element of randomness involved. You claimed that only 1 army could fire into combat, which is false. The way in which they fire into combat is different from other armies, but they are not the only ones. That was my point in bringing up the stone throwers.

And a flamer-thrower belongs to what army? (and yes I know dwarves have one too, when was the last time you saw one used?)

Lizardmen do not have a flame-thrower, but Dwarves do have one. The last time I saw one on the field is entirely irrelevent. They fire identically to a salamander. It is the best comparison we have available to us. Intentional or not, a flame thrower is allowed to fire into a combat. Choose a target in LoS, roll the die, place the template that far away. Everything under the template is hit. Its identical to the situation you had used against you with the Salamander, and the main reason I see the sally shooting that way as legal.

Its clear this is a rule you disagree with, but there really isn't anything in the book that disallows it. I wouldn't put the two wide eternal guard on the same level as the salamander firing into combat. The eternal guard situation is a smart use of the rule for stubborn. I don't see that as a rules loophole. Same goes for the Fanaticpult, if that is in reference to Hand of Gork on a unit of Goblins. Again, great use of a spell to get your fanatics into a great position to do damage. The salamander thing *seems* a bit dodgy, but its legal RAW.

There is only one army that can intentionally fire into combat and no matter how YOU interpret it if you place a template and then move it forward you have intentionally fired at that unit - rules as written or not

cheers

Papasmurf

Dwarves would make it 2.

Did he choose a legal target?

Did he follow the rules for resolving the attack?

The answers to these questions is yes.

**Edit**

Intentions are irrelevant. He may not declare his target to be a unit that is in close combat. That is what we can take away from page 39, "Shooting into Combat" heading, first paragraph. He hasn't done so in your example. His target unit was one that was not in combat. I get what you are saying in that his *actual target* unit is the one that is in combat, but he all he has to do by the rules is to declare a legal target, which he has done so.

The 2nd paragraph is the paragraph that uses the word "purposefully aim" and this paragraph is in reference to aiming in a way that would hit your own troops. The 2nd paragraph has no bearing on the situation you are describing.

Yes and what you feel are "smart" examples of combining elements others would call douchebaggery, I'll leave it for you to decide which side of the fence I fall on

cheers

Papasmurf

I thought i made it pretty clear that I felt the same way throughout this thread.

Go back and reread each of my posts and how I have referred to it as dodgy, and something I would never personally do.

How I feel about players using this strategy has no bearing on whether or not it is legal according to the rules. The problem you are clearly having is in making a distinction between personal feelings and rules.

Your implication of me in this

Yes and what you feel are "smart" examples of combining elements others would call douchebaggery

is disgusting. I posess the ability to put aside personal feelings on a ruling (I think it should be changed to the way you think it should be played) yet I can see that RAW it simply isn't that way.

So why then put them forward as examples? If not to elicit a response such as the one I made? Do I think this applies to you? Don't know, don't know you personally, do I agree with the rules as written? Guess I have to, enough people have quoted them to me, will I continue to argue that despite following the letter of the law you are still doing something illegal in game terms? Hells yes

cheers

Papasmurf

as an aside do you game at GW in Missassauga? Gonna be down there this weekend for a bball tourny, I'm really not such a bad guy in person

So why then put them forward as examples? If not to elicit a response such as the one I made?

Because you asked for opinions on a ruling. That is the purpose of this forum, to discuss rules. The rules are what they are, regardless of how I, you, or anyone feel about them.

Do I think this applies to you? Don't know, don't know you personally,

Yet you implied I played the game a certain way a mere post ago.

do I agree with the rules as written? Guess I have to, enough people have quoted them to me,

And that should /thread this.

will I continue to argue that despite following the letter of the law you are still doing something illegal in game terms? Hells yes

Thats great provided you make an argument. However, if someone is following the letter of the law, I'm not sure how you could make an argument that they are doing something illegal. Seems a bit oxymoronic to me.

I'm really not such a bad guy in person

Never said you were. I think you are passionate about this, and thats fine. You should however be able to discuss rules without personal bias. The rule sucks. I don't think anyone argues that.

hehehe yeah rules suck

Personal bias will creep into any argument, usually the reason for the argument in the first place, try to keep mine in check but when something feels this wrong well....

my argument would be that he is targeting the unit in combat through the placement of the template

cheers

Papasmurf


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ooohhhh arrrgghhh, just reread updated faq, base is considered part of the model for purposes of being hit by templates but not for LOS why why why its like having your cake and eating it too!!!


cheers

Papasmurf

Seems like this has gone about as far as it can productively go.