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.

The salient rules points:

BRB p.52 wrote:...place the template so that the narrow end is touching the base of the firing model, and the rest of the template covers as many models in the target unit as possible, without touching any other friendly models...

So...which of the three flamer placements above are valid, legal placements? (Let us assume that the template is covering enemy models, and not touching any other friendly models.)

Provided they hit as many enemies as possible in the target unit, all are legal.

 Krellnus wrote:
Provided they hit as many enemies as possible in the target unit, all are legal.

I was just about to say, none are legal because none of them are touching any enemy models.

I posted this because some people have claimed that you can't fire from the back or the side of the base.

A is obviously the normal way, and I've often seen people do C, but never seen anyone try B.

After a read through p52 though, I can see nothing wrong with it with the exception of when firing at vehicles "without touching a friendly model", but further on it does say "never hits the model firing it.".

So I've voted all.

I'm curious as to the reasoning of whomever voted A only.

 Krellnus wrote:
Provided they hit as many enemies as possible in the target unit, all are legal.

this

I can understand why people may quip at option B, as its not common sense that you can fire through yourself, but there is nothing preventing you from doing so for infantry.

All are legal, B is gamey though

Onerios wrote:
I can understand why people may quip at option B, as its not common sense that you can fire through yourself, but there is nothing preventing you from doing so for infantry.

The BRB explicitly states the flamer can not hit itself,so commen sense should have nothing to do with it.

All are legal as long as you hit as many enemy models as possible and none of your own unit not counting the flamer guy himself.

Does this mean that I need to use "B" if it would end up covering the most enemy units? Because while RAW, it feels wrong.

I guess I'm just a dirty cheater for playing it as "A"

I voted for all, and my reasoning is the same as the previous points which have been made. Personally in game I just place the tip of the template over the weapon, so 98% of the time Im using something very close to A or B.

I said A and C would be acceptable. My issue with B is that it says the template must be "touching" and doesn't mention allowing it to be "over" the base. If you refer to the multiple barrage rules there is a distinction. People who vote for A only are following the example in the rulebook that only shows the template in that configuration.

I voted A and C, though I suppose there's nothing to stop B from being legal - I don't suppose it's ever been done.

I voted none of them. I don't like template weapons. They ignore my cover. Gants only get a 6+ armour save they *need* cover.
Also, so it got one vote.
In all seriousness though, while all are legal, I've only seen people use method A.

OK I guess they are all technically illegal as they do not cover any enemy models, but...

Edited the original post to include the assumption that the template is hitting some enemies.

Personally, I've been using method B for some time, and while I've had some opponents express surprise, I don't think anyone has complained (certainly not to my face) yet.

Psss: Jim, also stick in there that it is not touching any friendly models either....

Anyway, B is the interesting one, I can see it being very useful in a lot of situations and voted Yes on it being legal. There is a few requirements before a template can be legally placed and the check list appears to be all full. The narrow end touches the base of the firing model. I assume in this situation it does not lie over other friendly models. We also know now that it is hitting as many enemy models as possible. It would of normally generated a hit against itself, but that last sentence that indicates it is immune from it's own damage is there.

Which brings up the question, why have a sentence stating that the firing model will not damage itself if you can not place the template in a way to make a self-inflicted hit possible?

JinxDragon wrote:
Which brings up the question, why have a sentence stating that the firing model will not damage itself if you can not place the template in a way to make a self-inflicted hit possible?

Vehicles maybe?

 Ghaz wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Which brings up the question, why have a sentence stating that the firing model will not damage itself if you can not place the template in a way to make a self-inflicted hit possible?

Vehicles maybe?

I know that the baal preds flamestorm hits itself iirc or maybe I'm thinking of the heavy flamer on a razorback

Or a template weapon from an access point.

Edit: ignore that, it's not hitting itself but it's transport.

If that was the case, wouldn't the rule be better written as 'a vehicle firing a template weapon can never hit itself?'

We know that Game Workshop does differentiates between vehicle and non-vehicle models. This is even apparent within the section detailing what different weapon types do, of which template is a part. Ordinance weapons inform us that a non-vehicle model can not fire an additional weapon, if they where allowed in the first place. Given that the word 'model' normally means anything with a model profile, and the section of the book has previously called out non-vehicle models, it is very difficult to support an argument that it exists only for those rare situations where measuring down a weapons barrel makes the template fall over-top the vehicle.

JinxDragon wrote:
If that was the case, wouldn't the rule be better written as 'a vehicle firing a template weapon can never hit itself?'

No, because the way it is written covers it just fine.

out of pure laziness, i been measuring it up only once per unit and multiply the hits by how many flamers are in that unit

shadowsfm wrote:
out of pure laziness, i been measuring it up only once per unit and multiply the hits by how many flamers are in that unit

That's more then lazy, it's wrong. Normally there is one "sweet spot" where you can have one guy drop a template and hit a large number of targets. If only have two flamers, they may be able to share that spot. Normal unit spacing will push additional shooters out of that spot and they will be hitting less targets. Especially if you are talking about 4-10 flamers in a squad.

I voted all are legal.

I commonly use both A and C, A as it is the most 'obvious' method, and C can be very useful at times. Though a lot of people don't even think about it.

Never done or seen B, but I can see no reason why is is not allowed. Even if it will only be really useful in very specific circumstances.

DeathReaper,

Can you explain why it 'covers it just fine?'

My post was in direct relation to the possibility that single sentence was designed only for vehicles. If this was the case then it was far from 'covers it just fine' as the sentence is applicable to all models and not just vehicles. So, pray tell how you come to the conclusion that the last sentence is 'just fine' at covering that this particular step of the rules apply to just vehicles because I am finding it very hard to say that sentence is meant for anything bar permission to ignore the fire using a template weapon regardless of whom that model is.

I voted for all of them. I can't see a reason that any of the three would be illegal.

I see nothing wrong with any of the placements. Each of them meet RAW and there isn't much of a case to argue that RAI is any different.

Even HIWPI is all are legal.

Page 10 in the the Turning and Facing section. "Whilst the direction a model is facing won't impact its ability to shoot or charge..." essentially gives us permission to treat the model as facing in any direction we want.

So even if your models are facing forward they can be treated as if they have turned around...

I'm more interested in why this is even a question.

clively wrote:
I see nothing wrong with any of the placements. Each of them meet RAW and there isn't much of a case to argue that RAI is any different.

Even HIWPI is all are legal.

Page 10 in the the Turning and Facing section. "Whilst the direction a model is facing won't impact its ability to shoot or charge..." essentially gives us permission to treat the model as facing in any direction we want.

So even if your models are facing forward they can be treated as if they have turned around...

I'm more interested in why this is even a question.

One of our players questioned the legality of B + C, since I tend to use them both. I figured that, as a flamer heavy army, I'm not exactly unbiased, so I wanted to get some objective feedback.

So if you've modeled a figure with a flamer leaning backwards, say a jp model... why then is b not possible?