Heavy Flamers on a turret

[SeattleDV8]

BRB pg. 56 "As vehicle models do not usually have a base....... for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels,dozer blades........and other decorative elements."

[nighthawks]

BRB pg. 56 "There is however a notable exception, a vehicle's weaponry. When firing a vehicles weapons, ranges are measured from the muzzle..."

[Bannus]

Yes, but templates do not have a "range" that is measured - such as 24", 36" or 48". You simply place the template to determine what models are affected - there is no determining range and no rolling to hit. Just place the template. The template instructions say to place it so it touches the base of the model.

[nighthawks]

but following the exception noted above, wouldn't the correct location to place the tempate against be the weapon muzzle, maybe the mount? base/hull is not really a 1:1, particularly given that quote.

 

either way, it can cause problems. the redeamer would give you an inch or more "extra" range at certain angles if you "measured" from the muzzle (place the template small side against the muzzle), the base rule adds inches where the weapon doesn't reach by allowing the placement of the template against the hull - such as the immolator or TLHF razorback examples where the gun is a few inches back from the font of the hull. and it could removes firing arcs - allowing the redeemer to fire from a point on the front of the hull that the weapon itself cannot see - this adds range too!

 

going from the weapon muzzzle creates the problem with hull/template interaction i.e. shooting ones self. This is also more or less RAW given that based-models measure all weapon ranges from their bases, including templates while vehicle weapons are measured from the muzzle - the vehicle rules measurement exception makes no distinction between weapons and so it leaves the door open to this reading. placing the template is a form of measurement of range, effectivey, thoguh not in the traditional sense

 

I'll dig into this more when I get home tonight. I'll list all the relevant rules I can find and see what conclusions I can trace from the RAW.

[Bannus]

and it could removes firing arcs - allowing the redeemer to fire from a point on the front of the hull that the weapon itself cannot see - this adds range too!

You still have to determine LOS - and nothing about the template rules suggests that you don't establish LOS before firing. :)

[jeffersonian000]

Well, templates ignore cover, which could be a wall. No LOS there.

 

SJ

[Bannus]

Well, templates ignore cover, which could be a wall. No LOS there.

They do ignore cover saves, but you still need LOS unless it is a barrage weapon.

[nighthawks]

ok so that example is wrong - LOS from mount needed before shooting. this will effectively maintain fire arcs as described in the BRB.

 

what about the template from the front hull when the weapon mount CAN draw LOS to the target - it still adds the distance from muzzle to vehicle front edge to the "range".

 

on the other hand, the redeamer/baal pred style sponson mounted template weapons could loose range by firing from the hull to the side, or gain shooting fore/aft as in the turret example.

 

both of these seem entirely inconsistant with the measuring rules regarding vehicles from BRB P56. also counter intuitive, not that matters necessarily.

 

What say any of you to these?

[Steelmage99]

In my opinion a weapons that uses the flamer template must, when mounted on a vehicle, place the template so that it is touching the muzzle of the weapon.

 

We know that measurement to and from a vehicle uses the hull as measuring-point.

We are told the exception to this rule is when we measure range o a weapon shooting from the vehicle.

I am of the opinion that placing the template, is measuring range. Granted it is a special way of measuring range and it is a range that uniquely has a width as well as a length. But I believe it is still measuring range.

My strongest argument is not one of rules, but rather one of words.

 

When placing the template, in an attempt to apply some righteous fire right to the face of the enemies of the Emperor, and finding that you cannot reach your target, you exclaim;

 

 

"Damn, I was out of range!".

 

And that is my argument. Not much but there it is. :D

[Bannus]

In my opinion a weapons that uses the flamer template must, when mounted on a vehicle, place the template so that it is touching the muzzle of the weapon.

I would only agree to this if my opponent also accepted the vehicle itself is an exception when determining hits.

 

It seems silly that anyone would be forced to hit themselves with a flamer template. True, it is the 41st millenium and technology is in decline. but I think the AM would still be smart enough to place the weapon so that it didn't fry the tank itself. :P

[nighthawks]

I think this exception is a given, in practice. RAW says no, but RAW screws up a lot.

[Steelmage99]

In my opinion a weapons that uses the flamer template must, when mounted on a vehicle, place the template so that it is touching the muzzle of the weapon.

I would only agree to this if my opponent also accepted the vehicle itself is an exception when determining hits.

 

It seems silly that anyone would be forced to hit themselves with a flamer template. True, it is the 41st millenium and technology is in decline. but I think the AM would still be smart enough to place the weapon so that it didn't fry the tank itself. :lol:

 

Oh, I agree. my statement wasn't made to the effect that the vehicle hits itself but rather that the template cannot be placed whereever the owner likes to.

[Isiah]

In my opinion a weapons that uses the flamer template must, when mounted on a vehicle, place the template so that it is touching the muzzle of the weapon.

 

That would seem eminently sensible :yes:, and given that it is how most people play it anyway conveniently ignoring the flamer damaging their own vehicle where this would occur.

 

Cheers

I

[Steelmage99]

Yeah, it's just one of those (few) cases where RAW is......very odd, to say the least ("patently idiotic" also springs to mind :yes:).

[jeffersonian000]

One of the problems with 40K is that GW has always allowed common sense to fill in the blanks in their rules, while the average competitive gamer tends to throw common sense out the window by dissecting the meaning of each and every word in each and every sentence of the "rules as written" looking for some loop-hole to exploit. The issue with turret mounted flamers has a common sense solution of “doesn’t effect the firer” while the rules, as written, make no such declaration.

 

Those of us that have played Hellhounds and Immolators since 2nd Ed tend to use the common sense solution to this issue, while those that are picking apart the 5th Ed rule book tend to point out that us oldsters are in the wrong. They say, “show me a rule that says you can do that” or “show me a rule that says I can’t do that.”

 

I just point out the first rule in the book, on page 2: The Most Important Rule!

 

“The most important rule … is that the rules aren’t all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines – the choice is entirely yours.”

 

I choose to treat them as guidelines when the rules begin to stop making sense, and switch to a common sense solution to resolve issues when they arise. Example: Turreted Flamers. No where in the current rule set does it state that the firer of a template that is placed touching the firer is affected by the template. In all examples of this action, the firer is immune to this type of attack. While never stated as such, it is heavily implied.

 

So, the common sense solution is to follow the rules as written by placing the tip of the template against the muzzle of the flamer and the body of the template over the most enemies as you can while avoiding friendly models. All //enemy// models under the template are hit automatically, just roll to wound. Since you cannot place the template over friendly models yet have no choice but to place the tip in contact with the firer, the issue is non-issue as the firer is never affected. And that is it. No fuss, no muss.

 

SJ

[Grey Mage]

Check out the picture at the bottom of page 29. Four Marines are touching the template, but only three are hit. The one that isn't hit is the firer. Hence, the firer is immune to their own template if the template has to touch the firer in order to attack. This is the case with flamers and certain damaging psychic powers that use templates that are placed touching the psyker. In all cases, the template is placed in contact with the firer, but only the models touching the template other than the firer are hit.

 

As to which AV is used for the top of a vehicle, you use the side AV, per the first bullet point under "Template and Balst Weapons against vehicles" on page 60.

 

SJ

 

What about vortex of doom?

[jeffersonian000]

What about it? Do the rules for it state that you place the template so that it touches the firing model, or is it a range attack that scatters? Are the rules clear, or are there gray areas that need clarification?

 

SJ

[minigun762]

So would the same logic apply to firing a Template weapon from a fire point?

[Captain Malachi]

I'd assume so, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't.

[minigun762]

I'd assume so, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't.

 

Same here. It makes sense that you'd just use the fire point for LOS.