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.

But the line of sight rules don't say anything about placing templates. They don't say anything about who a model shoots at all, because models shoot at units, not at models.

I guess the question is does at least one model that is in LOS of the firing model have to be included under the template?

With the rules the way they are written right now, no - that's not a requirement.

I could easily see GW ruling that way though.

The reason I ask is that in order to fire a model has to have range to a model in the target unit that is in LOS. So if no models in LOS are in range of the template that would preclude the flamer from firing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well it is not RAW, and that is what most were discussing.

So if you play by RAW the Template can, indeed must, be placed over as many models in the target unit as possible, even if those models are out of Line of Sight.

and that's where the rules come into direct conflict with one another. The only model visible to the firing unit is out of range of the template, but the remainder of the unit is within range but out of sight. That's a direct conflict with page 12 checking range and page 52 template.

What do you do?

Does having the visible model in range allow you to fire somewhere else? I don't think so. Crux of my reasoning.

Add to that, the fact that the template may only be able to hit one model in the target unit no matter how it's placed. Would that allow the firing model to fire at the model that cannot be seen in order to hit another unit behind the target? A strict RAW can cause more problems than it solves.

Right - but that doesn't mean you have to cover him with the template. In fact, if the flamer fires you cannot cover the guy in LOS if there are more targets out of LOS.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well it is not RAW, and that is what most were discussing.

So if you play by RAW the Template can, indeed must, be placed over as many models in the target unit as possible, even if those models are out of Line of Sight.

and that's where the rules come into direct conflict with one another. The only model visible to the firing unit is out of range of the template, but the remainder of the unit is within range but out of sight. That's a direct conflict with page 12 checking range and page 52 template.

What do you do?

Does having the visible model in range allow you to fire somewhere else? I don't think so. Crux of my reasoning.

Add to that, the fact that the template may only be able to hit one model in the target unit no matter how it's placed. Would that allow the firing model to fire at the model that cannot be seen in order to hit another unit behind the target? A strict RAW can cause more problems than it solves.

Models don't fire at models, they fire at units. That's why your bolter model who can only see one member of the unit can end up killing someone else in the unit. It's abstracted. It doesn't always make sense. It's clear, though. They don't "come into direct conflict" at all. The flamer cannot fire if its user cannot see any models in range in the target unit.

It might be a bad rule (it's really more that the Template special rule should allow you to fire at a unit if it's in range even if you don't have LoS) but it is very much workable.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well it is not RAW, and that is what most were discussing.

So if you play by RAW the Template can, indeed must, be placed over as many models in the target unit as possible, even if those models are out of Line of Sight.

and that's where the rules come into direct conflict with one another. The only model visible to the firing unit is out of range of the template, but the remainder of the unit is within range but out of sight. That's a direct conflict with page 12 checking range and page 52 template.

What do you do?

Does having the visible model in range allow you to fire somewhere else? I don't think so. Crux of my reasoning.

Add to that, the fact that the template may only be able to hit one model in the target unit no matter how it's placed. Would that allow the firing model to fire at the model that cannot be seen in order to hit another unit behind the target? A strict RAW can cause more problems than it solves.

Models don't fire at models, they fire at units. That's why your bolter model who can only see one member of the unit can end up killing someone else in the unit. It's abstracted. It doesn't always make sense. It's clear, though. They don't "come into direct conflict" at all. The flamer cannot fire if its user cannot see any models in range in the target unit.

It might be a bad rule (it's really more that the Template special rule should allow you to fire at a unit if it's in range even if you don't have LoS) but it is very much workable.

That's where my disagreement with the prevailing attitiude here. Since range is measured to the nearest visible model, visiblility is key in determining the models that must be covered by the template. If the nearest visible model can't be reached by the template then the model can't shoot, but if it's an inch closer he can shoot in a different direction entirely??? I don't buy it.

It's more like the word "visible" should have been added to the template weapon when it states "place template so that it covers the most (Visible) enemy models in the target unit. Problem is also solved.

Unrelated: The German Errata for March has been up for almost a week. Nothing on the English (or other versions)...odd.

 Idolator wrote:
That's where my disagreement with the prevailing attitiude here. Since range is measured to the nearest visible model, visiblility is key in determining the models that must be covered by the template. If the nearest visible model can't be reached by the template then the model can't shoot, but if it's an inch closer he can shoot in a different direction entirely??? I don't buy it.

It's more like the word "visible" should have been added to the template weapon when it states "place template so that it covers the most (Visible) enemy models in the target unit. Problem is also solved.

The problem is the section on templates never says that the models have to be visible. You seem to be inferring that it matters because you can't fire without visibility, but it seems to me that the visibility section is the one that does not make sense in this instance (and the specific case overrides the general, as a rule - if the template section says LoS doesn't matter, it doesn't). I agree your alteration would bring it in line as well, though!

[quote=HiveFleetPlastic 513324 5390672 null- if the template section says LoS doesn't matter, it doesn't).!

The rules for Line of Sight tell us you can not shoot at a unit you can not see.

If the model with the flame template weapon can see, and has rage to, one model in the target unit then the flame template weapon can fire, but it is bound by covering the most models in the enemy unit, as nothing in the Line of Sight rules over-rides this clause.

 Idolator wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
This thread should probably be locked, nothing more useful to be found here I think.

I'll give give two more. for these examples lets assume that the flame template is 8 inches long.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 10 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 8 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers? No.

A unit is hidden Out of LOS behind a wall. A dreadnought with a two heavy flamers can see the last model sticking out from the end of the wall. The only visible model is 7 inches away. while the reamainder of the unit is well within 7 inches, but out of sight. Can the dreadnouht fire the Heavy flamers at the models that he cannot see and ignore the only visible model? No.

LOS is still a determining factor when placing a template.

TL;DR Templates are a To-Hit mechanic, not a reflection of reality.

There is no conflict in the LOS, Range, and Template rules as far as I can see.

To Target a unit (p12) , you must be able to place the Template over at least one model in LOS of the firer (this is implied by the Check Range rule on p12, with the range defined by the size of the Template).

Template p52 places no restriction on us regarding LOS, and in fact tells us to covers as many enemy models as possible - the model you used to validate your target selection above may NOT be one of the ones under the Template.

Roll for Wounds as normal.

Allocate Wounds as normal - probably the most controversial one being that all those models that were under the Template for determining Hits that are actually our of LOS cannot have Wounds allocated to them.

Example 1 above - correct, you cannot target because it violates the Target selection rule for range (p12)

Example 2 above - you CAN target the unit because it satisfies the LOS and Range rules. To determine number of Hits you place the Template in such a way as you cover as many models as possible. Let's assume it doesn't even go over the one model in LOS, but catches 5 models out of LOS - 5 Hits. Roll to Wound, and let's say 4 succeed. Allocate the 4 Wound to the one model standing out in the open; when he dies the remaining wounds in the pool are discarded because we can't allocate to models out of LOS.

 Idolator wrote:
[quote=HiveFleetPlastic 513324 5390672 null- if the template section says LoS doesn't matter, it doesn't).!

That's part of the problem as well. It doesn't mention LOS at all. It doesn't provide an exception or tell you to follow it. Leaving it firmly in place.

In that case, I apply the rules for LOS.