Templates and LoS

[Jacinda]

This came up during a friendly game. See below for the setting. The battle sister are outside of their rhino shooting at an enemy squad not shown. The large rock outcropping easily hid most of the squad from view of the previously immobilized dreadnought. One Sister model could be seen just around the corner of the rock.

The dread still had his heavy flamer and wanted to fire on the squad. So the question is, where do we lay the template?

What we compormised with is the first option. We laid the center line of the template along the LoS just at the edge of the rock. This caused 3 hits to the squad plus one on the rhino.

We could not see anywhere in the rules about anything blocking a template weapon. Templates ignore cover. As silly as it may be, I now think this is correct. (Note that the rock is about 6" tall, much taller than the dreadnought or the Sisters) The template goes straight through the solid rock wall to cover 5 models.

But if you go by true line of sight, the template could not cover what could not bee seen, so it would be laid beside the rock to cover one sister and the rhino.

So my question is, what is the correct template placement with line of sight blocking terrain? Is it just ignored?

[greatcrusade08]

as silly as it sounds by RAW number two is correct.

 

LOS is used to see if you can shoot the unit (and cover saves).. since the dread can see one model from the unit then it can shoot.

the rules for templates says they must place the template so it covers as many models as possible, and as you say it ignores cover

 

edit: of course for fairness and own piece of mind, you can play it your way, i would probably do the same tbh

[Seahawk]

Picture #3 is the correct way to do it; it goes "through" the wall to hit as many models as possible (in this case 5), with the caveat that it must stay in the 45 degree angle of the heavy flamer (the dreadnought is immobilized and cannot spin).

 

Flames go everywhere and the combat is never as static as our primitive gaming materials show. This way makes sense both rules-wise and fluff-wise.

[Something Wycked]

RAW requires that templates are placed to cover as many models as possible, so picture #3 is correct. As Seahawk says, the fluff justification for the RAW makes sense: the big gout of flame that the TL-Heavy Flamer sends out doesn't act like a static template, and the Sisters aren't standing statue-still behind that rock.

[Frosty the Pyro]

indeed, you only need LoS to be able to shoot at them in the first place, and once you have determined that you have LOS (you do) and deduced any cover save aplicable, the terrain stop mattering (for the shooting attack in question).

[timmytool]

Picture #3 is the correct way to do it; it goes "through" the wall to hit as many models as possible (in this case 5), with the caveat that it must stay in the 45 degree angle of the heavy flamer (the dreadnought is immobilized and cannot spin).

 

Flames go everywhere and the combat is never as static as our primitive gaming materials show. This way makes sense both rules-wise and fluff-wise.

 

While i agree with using pic #3 I dont agree with the "the dreadnought is immobilized and cannot spin"

The dread has its own shooting procedures (BRB p72 "Walkers Shooting") it clearly says the pivot is not movement it occurs in the shooting phase not the movement and is a separate action due to "...the vastly superior agility of walkers....". The fact that the armor facings are based on the body and not the tracks like tanks does not change the shooting rules for walkers, the hips are/like a turret and in the immobilised result rule it allows turrets to rotate.

[Morollan]

Timmytool seems to be correct as the rules do clearly state that pivoting does not count as movement for Walkers. I suppose it's similar to turrets on immobilised vehicles.

 

The scenario with the template weapons is one of those strange situations where only one model is in range and/or LOS but for some strange reason the entire unit is vulnerable. Seems bizarre that in a game system that uses true LOS we have rules that completely ignore that. Nonetheless, picture 3 does seem to be the RAW way of doing it.

[greatcrusade08]

Seems bizarre that in a game system that uses true LOS we have rules that completely ignore that. Nonetheless, picture 3 does seem to be the RAW way of doing it.

 

it doesnt ignore true LOS though, you still need to see the unit to shot at it..

[Morollan]

Seems bizarre that in a game system that uses true LOS we have rules that completely ignore that. Nonetheless, picture 3 does seem to be the RAW way of doing it.

 

it doesnt ignore true LOS though, you still need to see the unit to shot at it..

 

Not quite. You need to see a small part of 1 member of the unit and for some reason the rest of them decide to run to their deaths straight into the huge gout of flame that would completely miss them if they stayed behind that massive rock formation they were hiding behind.

 

It's just something that has always bugged me.

[Seahawk]

, the hips are/like a turret and in the immobilised result rule it allows turrets to rotate.

Hips being like a turret does not make them turrets. The issue was already debated here, and concluded that dreadnoughts cannot pivot once immobilized.

[Morollan]

Ah yes. Good spot. The vehicle rules (pg57) clearly state that immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot.

[Elric the Silvercoat]

Ah yes. Good spot. The vehicle rules (pg57) clearly state that immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot.

Too bad that isn't how Walkers pivot because they pivot in the Shooting and Assault phase and it isn't affected by being immobilised or not. Its stated that Walker Pivot at the waist not with feet.

[Morollan]

Ah yes. Good spot. The vehicle rules (pg57) clearly state that immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot.

Too bad that isn't how Walkers pivot because they pivot in the Shooting and Assault phase and it isn't affected by being immobilised or not. Its stated that Walker Pivot at the waist not with feet.

 

And that changes the rules how?

[Seahawk]

Not all walkers have a "waist." Warwalkers, Deff Dreads, Kans, Penitent Engines, Soul Grinders, Triarch Stalkers, OOP Sentinels and Dreadnoughts...so despite them suffering a result that says "The vehicle has taken a hit that has crippled a wheel, track, grav plate, or leg" they can still pivot?

 

Walkers "pivot on the spot" and "immobilized vehicles may not even pivot," and both the rules for regular vehicles and walkers say that pivoting does not count as moving. Despite this, as shown immobilized vehicles may not even pivot.

 

Fluff (a "waist") does not equal rules (as shown above).

 

they pivot in the Shooting and Assault phase

They never pivot in the Assault Phase unless they are initiating or concluding a combat.

 

Its stated that Walker Pivot at the waist not with feet.

Nowhere in any set of current rules does it say this. Stop making up rules without backing by any published books in the OR, as they do not contribute to the discussion.

[Elric the Silvercoat]

they pivot in the Shooting and Assault phase

They never pivot in the Assault Phase unless they are initiating or concluding a combat.

 

Its stated that Walker Pivot at the waist not with feet.

Nowhere in any set of current rules does it say this. Stop making up rules without backing by any published books in the OR, as they do not contribute to the discussion.

Its the reason you can't hit a walker in the rear armour in the assault phase because it pivots to face everything it is fighting in assault even if its immoblised its stated in the rules for Walkers in assault.

[Seahawk]

But it doesn't actually turn or pivot. That's just the fluff/flavor text. Otherwise our little plastic models could "rampage" as well...mine doesn't have an "on/off" switch for that, though it would make for a neat conversion.

[Something Wycked]

That rule for Walkers in assault is simply that they are always hit on their front armor; the "pivoting" is simply the fluff justification. Fluff =/= rules.

[Morollan]

Also, if you check out pg61 of the rules, the immobilised damage result it refers only to turrets being able to continue to rotate. As far as I know, no walker has a turreted weapon.

[timmytool]

in the Immobilised damage result it says "....its turrets may continue to rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arc of fire."

 

Then when we go to the vehicle shooting section (BRB p58-59) when read fully it becomes clear the walker rule section on rotating to face the target is only needed for the non-hipped walkers as the SM walkers have to move the weapons to face the target as part of the normal vehicle shooting procedure.

 

Normal arc of fire rules, for "hipped" walkers moves the weapons in addition to the armour facings and is unaffected by immobilsed results(it does not use the word Pivot.... I personially believe the walkers shooting rules override the immobiled results affects for non-hipped walkers as well but for SM like walkers the normal firing ark rules still allow them to move their weapons to bear and in turn change their armour facings.

 

Back on my previous posts lines of reasons that a walker pivots to face the target in the shooting phase.... the only parts of the rule that "could" stops "pivoting" for immobilized walkers are in the vehicle movement section the same section that walkers dont use as they have superseding movement rules(aka the same as infantry) so the only rules the affect a immobilised walker are on p61 so the generic vehicle movements restriction on "pivoting" does not apply.(like a model using a power weapon instead of a power fist so it does not strike last/Iniative1, it's no longer using the rules that make it strike last even though it still has the weapon)

[Something Wycked]

1. Are Walkers Vehicles? > Yes

2. Can Immobilized Vehicles pivot? > No

3. Do Walkers have a special rule that states they ignore Immobilized results for the purposes of pivoting and firing? > No

4. Ergo, can Immobilized Walkers pivot? > No

 

What we need from you is a citation of a rule that satisfies #3 :)

[Leonaides]

There are no rules for 'hipped' and 'non-hipped' walkers. To quote Seahawk above:

Nowhere in any set of current rules does it say this. Stop making up rules without backing by any published books in the OR, as they do not contribute to the discussion.

[timmytool]

1. Are Walkers Vehicles? > Yes

2. Can Immobilized Vehicles pivot? > No

3. Do Walkers have a special rule that states they ignore Immobilized results for the purposes of pivoting and firing? > No

4. Ergo, can Immobilized Walkers pivot? > No

 

What we need from you is a citation of a rule that satisfies #3 :huh:

 

1 agreed

2

3 walkers have alternate rules for movement aka "walkers move in exactly the same way as infantry....." infantry movement rules dont have a clause in them that stops them from pivoting like vehicles, the text in the "immobilised" result still affects the walker but it does not mention "pivoting" once.

4 even if your correct most can still hinge on their hips as it is part of the arc of fire rules for shooting... regular vehicle shooting rules.

 

There are no rules for 'hipped' and 'non-hipped' walkers. To quote Seahawk above:

Nowhere in any set of current rules does it say this. Stop making up rules without backing by any published books in the OR, as they do not contribute to the discussion.

 

thats right their is no "hipped/non-hipped" walker section but the arc of fire rules(BRB58-59 "vehicle weapons & line of sight") do make provisions for movement points depicted on vehicles that affect the facing of weapons, hips does this so even if you dont subscribe to the "immobilised" walkers can still face the enemy it's shooting line of logic it would come into affect.

[Seahawk]

even if your correct most can still hinge on their hips as it is part of the arc of fire rules for shooting... regular vehicle shooting rules

Incorrect/unsupported/prove it. All walker vehicles clearly have a 45 degree arc as stated on page 72, no more. Stating it as being anything else is against the rules.

 

thats right their is no "hipped/non-hipped" walker section but the arc of fire rules(BRB58-59 "vehicle weapons & line of sight") do make provisions for movement points depicted on vehicles that affect the facing of weapons, hips does this so even if you dont subscribe to the "immobilised" walkers can still face the enemy it's shooting line of logic it would come into affect.

You continue to make up rules that do not exist, please stop as it doesn't contribute to the discussion. The only rules I can try to even possibly connect to this idea are the following:

 

- "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target..." (them refers to the weapons, not the vehicle)

- "...players should assume that the guns on a vehicle are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings. In order to make clear how much any gun is supposed to rotate, refer to the vehicle's entry...Then apply the following guidelines:"

 

This absolutely does not say anything about the hips of a vehicle. Again, page 72 explicitly states that all walker weapons "swivel 45 degrees, like hull-mounted weapons."

 

 

You have yet to provide any proof for your claims.

[Something Wycked]

3 walkers have alternate rules for movement aka "walkers move in exactly the same way as infantry....." infantry movement rules dont have a clause in them that stops them from pivoting like vehicles, the text in the "immobilised" result still affects the walker but it does not mention "pivoting" once.

Infantry movement rules do not have a clause regarding pivoting because Infantry have a 360 degree arc of fire. No Infantry model's firing is restricted by a vehicle mounted weapon's arc of fire- where the Dreadnought's weapons are limited because it is a Vehicle and, as Seahawk quoted, the Dreadnought's weapons are limited to a 45 degree arc of fire.

 

If the Immobilized damage result entry doesn't mention "pivoting," it is because the Immobilized result says the vehicle cannot move. Pivoting, by definition, is movement and ergo is disallowed if the vehicle is Immobilized.

 

4 even if your correct most can still hinge on their hips as it is part of the arc of fire rules for shooting... regular vehicle shooting rules.

What is this "most" you describe? Where in the BRB or codex does it describe this group of hipped versus non-hipped Walkers?

 

You've now stated that the hipped versus non-hipped rules can be found in the regular Vehicle shooting rules; please supply a citation, like Seahawk has provided. BRB page number and quotation, please.

 

(I don't intend any of the above to sound mean or angry- the +OR+ is a place for serious discussions of the rules and that is my objective :) )

[timmytool]

The vehicle shooting rules say "when firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel, ..." (BRB p58) it does not limit the weapons movement to the weapons individual mounting, in fact only one limitation has been put on the weapons movements (which is not a concrete limitation), being the vertical movement of the weapons. If a physical limitation has been imposed by the gluing of the model etc then they have supplies "guidelines" to approximate but the physical characteristics of the model determines the movement even within these guidelines(BRB p59).

 

It is quite easy to move the arm mounted weapons on a SM dreadnought to any 360* facing (even 360* in the vertical movements) without moving the base of the model(dreadnoughts use their bases for movement etc when the have them). so as long as the model is limber and the base does not move then any other movement is fare game under the "immobilised" rules (BRB p61) note the base not moving is satisfying the "it may not move for the rest of the game" as all measurements are based off of the base with one exception for measuring a weapons range "after" moving the weapon to face.

If the base does not move then no movement has occurred as the base is the sole measurement point outside of weapons range (BRB p72 "measuring ranges").

 

Walkers have a facing in addition to its infantry status but this is in the walkers movement rules and it doesn't involve the vehicle movement rules(which does not mention facings anyway).

 

The rules do not make distinction between hipped and non hipped walkers, but being hipped affect the directions you can face your weapons and this is what the rules use. The 45* mentioning in the walkers shooting rules does not preclude other articulations.

 

Think of it as a game of stick in the mud.... you cant "move" but this does not stop you from articulating your joints to see more then your field of vision. Your version of immobilized does assumes all walkers have a big "immobilised" button that once hit the only joint in its whole "body" it can use it its 2 pinkies.