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.

This has come up in a couple of games. My friend, who plays Guard, tries to maximise the damage of his blast templates by placing them on the edges of vehicles so that they also cover other units.

While I'm fine with this, he sometimes places the centre of the blast template on a part of the vehicle that is out of LoS, reasoning that, as he can target the vehicle, and the rule says to place the blast template so that the centre is entirely over the model, he can place the blast template where he wants on the target vehicle.

So, can a blast template be placed anywhere on a vehicle [even if that particular part of the vehicle is out of LoS], or must it be placed on a part of the vehicle that can be seen?

Thanks is advance for responses.

He has to be able to see where he's placing the marker.
And the center of the marker must be in LoS and must be on the vehicle he's targeting.

Edit: Going back for a citation I can't see where this restriction is RAW.
So he's right, RAW, that he can place it anywhere on the base of the model (hull for vehicles) as long as the center of the marker is in range and the target is in LoS.

While we're on the subject, what about flame templates, I have been told several times that they must cover as much of the enemy model as possible?

I don't know of any rules reason as to why he couldn't, the rules as I know, specify that the center of the blast needs to be fully on the vehicle's hull, but nothing about -where- on the hull.

It does stand to reason that you'd need LoS, but not per RAW. You can circumvent this pretty easily by just not having models so close to your vehicles though...

 Formosa wrote:
While we're on the subject, what about flame templates, I have been told several times that they must cover as much of the enemy model as possible?

BRB, Page 52, Template Weapons explains this.

 Formosa wrote:
While we're on the subject, what about flame templates, I have been told several times that they must cover as much of the enemy model as possible?

For vehicles, it was my understanding that you had to do that (though I can't find a mention of that in the rules, maybe I'm thinking of 5th edition?). Against infantry, you can place flame templates however you like.

rigeld2 wrote:

Edit: Going back for a citation I can't see where this restriction is RAW.
So he's right, RAW, that he can place it anywhere on the base of the model (hull for vehicles) as long as the center of the marker is in range and the target is in LoS.

^ This for blast/large blast - As odd as it may sound to be able to do this, 40K rules aren't necessarily written to make real-world sense as we all know.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
While we're on the subject, what about flame templates, I have been told several times that they must cover as much of the enemy model as possible?

For vehicles, it was my understanding that you had to do that (though I can't find a mention of that in the rules, maybe I'm thinking of 5th edition?). Against infantry, you can place flame templates however you like.

Re-read Template Weapons on page 52 of the BRB.

I do apologize for not having the page on hand but do take a look through the rules concerning the placement of the blast marker. If I am recalling correctly, there is a section within that states that the marker must cover as much of the vehicle. Little torn if you will find it in the Special Rules concerning Blast Markers or if you will find it in the Shooting at Vehicle section of the rule book, this is what happens when you make old men go of memory....

Edit for Ninja,
I look away for just a moment and come back to half a dozen posts... I might be thinking on Templates.

Indeed, templates must cover as much as possible, not blast markers

The rule for blast markers explain must be visible to the firer and with in the range. Placing the blast template where the firing model can't see is a no go. Only the center hole must be completely on the hull, or targeted infantry unit. So placing it on a corner with the hole is completely over the hull but catching models around the tank is legal, just not out of line of sight.

Lungpickle wrote:
The rule for blast markers explain must be visible to the firer and with in the range. Placing the blast template where the firing model can't see is a no go. Only the center hole must be completely on the hull, or targeted infantry unit. So placing it on a corner with the hole is completely over the hull but catching models around the tank is legal, just not out of line of sight.

Citation required. Unless you've found something I haven't, this requirement doesn't exist.
edit: citation for the bold, underlined.

He is correct in what he said. Just didn't explain it well. What he hasn't cited is the rule where the hole must be in LOS of the firer. You'd think buy now someone would have caught that but I don't recall this particular discussion coming up before. Especially since I have fielded 9 Grotzookas before in my Kanwall list. I'd have thought that would have come up at least once by now.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
He is correct in what he said. Just didn't explain it well. What he hasn't cited is the rule where the hole must be in LOS of the firer. You'd think buy now someone would have caught that but I don't recall this particular discussion coming up before.

Well yes - I emphasized the portion of his statement that doesn't exist.
I just didn't call it out - sorry.

Lung, cite support for the bolded.

Can I recommend underlined rather than bolding?
Sometimes it's damn hard to see what's bolded.

"just not out of line of sight."

That was the bolded part.

That is interesting though. I don't recall anyone bringing up that they didn't need to have the hole in LOS of the firer. I guess I always just took it for granted it did. Danged if I can find the rule to state that thought.

 grendel083 wrote:
Can I recommend underlined rather than bolding?
Sometimes it's damn hard to see what's bolded.

That's fair. It's easy on the print friendly (less color) theme but I'm not sure about the others because I can barely read them in the first place.
Thanks for pointing it out - I'll change to that in the future (and changed this one).

rigeld2 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Can I recommend underlined rather than bolding?
Sometimes it's damn hard to see what's bolded.

That's fair. It's easy on the print friendly (less color) theme but I'm not sure about the others because I can barely read them in the first place.
Thanks for pointing it out - I'll change to that in the future (and changed this one).

Much appreciated!
For tablet and mobile use it will be a lot easier to see.