Templates and LoS

[Squirrelloid]

I'm getting very tired of retyping the same things over and over again.

 

(1) "Where does it say that Template is a special rule set?"

 

No one except me has dealt with the actual language used in descibing the placement of 'template' in the 'range' column. It never says 'the range is template', it says "given as 'template'". This implies its a special rules set and not itself a range.

 

Consider a list of items and prices. All prices are given in a currency (much like all ranges are given in inches). However, in the price column some items are given as "negotiable". The price is not "negotiable", that is, you do not pay "negotiable" for it - nor would you be able to. Negotiable is effectively a 'special rule' that replaces regular pricing (wherein the actual price is subject to negotiation).

 

"Given as" (p27) and "indicated by having the word 'template'" are explicit indications that 'template' is not a range, but special rules that replace range. Further, the game specifically says "Ranges are all given in inches" (p27), so any claim that 'template' is a range is patently false, and the language "given as" on p27 can in fact only reasonably be interpreted as template being a special rule rather than a range.

 

Further, p27 tells us that the "exact method is explained later" for templates, specifically p29. Exact method literally means that all the rules you need to fire a template weapon are covered under the section on Templates - those are the exact method for doing so. Anything not included there explicitly does not apply.

 

So that's how we know template is a special rules set. Its very explicit for a competent english reader, and only verbal shenanigans or wishful thinking to meet a preconceived notion allow one to even suggest that template is an actual range.

 

There is, on the other hand, not a single rule that tells you to measure range for templates (the rules for templates under range (p27) specifically refer you to the template rules after all), or how to do so.

 

(2) "Where does it say template weapons do not need to check range?"

 

The rules for weapon range refer you to the rules for templates explicitly, so we refer to page 29.

 

Page 29 rules for template immediately move to step 3, rolling to hit. Ie, the exact method for firing a template weapon which the range rules directed us to explicitly skips checking range, because it starts us in the next phase.

 

Further, we are not allowed to place the template until it tells us to do so. It tells us to do so in Step 3, at which point we're past Step 2 (check range) and in Step 3. Therefore once the template is down the rules for Step 2 no longer apply and are irrelevant.

 

ie, the explicit instructions for firing template weapons, the "exact method", do not call for us to check range, and indeed, do not permit us to place the template marker until step 3.

 

Even if we wanted to check range, no range is given by which we could check range by the rules provided (ie, with a tape measure or similar device). "Ranges are all given in inches", no exception, and templates DO NOT HAVE ONE. Checking range is therefore an impossibility. You cannot measure or check NAN (not a number).

 

(3) "Where does it say that a range cannot be measured with a template?"

p27: "Ranges are all given in inches" - even if you could measure range with a template, 'template' is not a range and thus cannot be measured.

pvi: "A tape measure or some other measuring device marked in inches is REQUIRED to measure movement distances and RANGES OF WEAPONS" (ie, you cannot use a template to do so, it is not a measuring device marked in inches).

p29: Only permits you to place the template in Step 3, Rolling to Hit.

-As per the rules, you are not allowed to place templates or measure distances until explicitly instructed to do so. Nothing permits you to place the template earlier.

p27: Range rules refer you to page 29 for template weapons, and thus p29 takes precedence to any rules about range, as you're explicitly told the method for firing the weapon is covered there. That p29 gives no rules for checking range means you don't, you're *NOT EVEN PERMITTED TO*.

 

 

Remember, rules are permissive. If it doesn't tell you to do something explicitly, you don't do it. The rules even say as much with regards to measuring distances. Without explicit instructions to do so, you *cannot* measure a distance. (See p3 under Measuring Distances). So if there is a gap in the rules the default is to not check - the rules specifically told you only to measure when instructed to do so.

 

My solution is: I am never told to check range (Range rules refer me to p29 which never tells me to check range), so I don't check range because the rules don't permit me to. I can only check range when specifically permitted.

 

So yes, I'm skipping what I'm not told to do because the rules told me 'don't measure a distance unless you're told to do it'. Ie, i'm following the rules by not doing what i'm told not to do.

[SeattleDV8]

It's still a shooting attack, the rules on page 15 and 17 are in affect without a specific over ride. which your argument still lacks.

Therefore it is you that is 'making things up'

[Squirrelloid]

It's still a shooting attack, the rules on page 15 and 17 are in affect without a specific over ride. which your argument still lacks.

Therefore it is you that is 'making things up'

 

Page 27 under "Range" refers you to the template rules (on page 29) as the "exact method" of firing them. As its under the range rules, this is clearly replacing the normal Step 2. The template rules do not refer to Step 2 at all, so its clearly skipped, as this is the exact method, whole and complete, for firing template weapons. As per page 3 - you aren't allowed to measure unless it explicitly tells you to do so, so you can't even try to measure its range.

 

(Not that its given you anything you can measure - "Ranges are ALL given in inches", no exceptions. Template is not a range).

 

Clearly backed up by the rules.

 

At best you could argue that its unclear whether you can fire a template weapon at all. The two options available are (1) you don't check range because the rules for firing templates skip that step OR (2) templates have no range, so you can't check range in step 2. Therefore they are never in range (cannot be checked) and can never be fired. 2 is not only a less logical reading of the rules omission (because the template rules are intended to be the "exact method" for firing them, and you're directed there from the range rules, so skipping step 2 is obviously intended), but also leads to the even less logical conclusion of never being able to fire them despite the rules expecting you to be able to do so.

[PyronusSouria]

Squirrelloid, your entire argument is based on the absence of telling you that you can't do otherwise, along with a very rigid belief in picking particular definitions of words.

 

(1) Just because something is "given", that does not mean it changes. An Xbox is given as a gift. Does that mean that the gift is no longer an Xbox? No. That just means that an Xbox is being given to someone by someone. On my birth certificate, my name is "given as" Harrison. As it turns out, my name is Harrison. Also, page six, TRB, regarding characteristics. "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 to 10" Noone would argue that my Space Marine Captain's Strength value is actually 7, but is given as 4. They would realize that it's 4. Ranges are all "given" in inches, a keystone of your argument. Well, what if I say "They're given in inches, that doesn't mean that they really are in inches." Your example of prices. The price is "given" as negotiable, because contrary to what you say that's exactly what the price is. Negotiable. That is the price's current state of being.

 

(2) The book clearly indicates that template weapons need to check, and here's why, using simple logic.

All weapons have a maximum range. (TRB, 17)

Template weapons are weapons. (Do I really?)

Template weapons check range.

 

Another thing. If we follow your rule of skipping everything that comes before where the rules for Additional Weapon Characteristics pick up, here's what happens to some other guns. Gets Hot! rules start at rolling to hit. Therefore, we do not need to check range for weapons that have the Gets Hot! special rule. Rending picks up at rolls to wound, specifically those which are sixes. Therefore, Rending weapons do not need to do anything except roll sixes to wound. Sniper weapons begin with "...hits wound on a 4+", so all we need to do is roll to hit and wound. Barrage weapons don't discuss anything other than units that have already been wounded, so I guess it rolls to wound, but that's it. Melta weapons only roll an additional D6 within half range to pierce armour. I suppose that means I can't shoot infantry with them, since Melta is a special ruleset and it doesn't discuss Aiming, Checking Range, Rolling to Hit, or Rolling to wound, only armour penetration.

 

My point is that when we look at the whole game like you're looking at this situation, it shatters into a thousand over-literally interpreted pieces. (Each of which may or may not grow up to be a Space Marine)

 

(3) First of all, stop quoting page vi. While it holds the potential to be something important, it can easily be considered a desperate grab at evidence that isn't present in the rulebooks of those of us who don't particularly want a $70 hardcover. Also, template is a range, and it can easily be measured. You measure it by using the template. Seems awfully circular, but it works. If we use your reasoning where the rule is absolute and holy law, then the rule that says all weapons have a maximum range applied to this means that a template weapon is no longer a weapon, and then you can't use it. If you use our reasoning, it's maximum range is template and I can fire it and get on with losing the game to some Tyranids.

 

Also, regarding rules. If rules are permissive, then I hope you brought a lot of dice and templates, because it never "permits" you to remove the template after you place it. Also, they never permit you to skip checking range for templates. Often, rules are referred to as rules and guidelines. The reason for this is in theory, rules are restrictive, while guidelines are instructive. Rules has been drawn from the full saying rules and guidelines. The rules for Pistol weapons don't permit me to fire them, so I can't.

 

 

What we're doing is expressing two solutions to the same problem. You feel yours is right because nothing rules wise tells you it is wrong. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work with the rest if the game, doesn't make any sense with the rest of the rules, and creates situations in game that will make other players irritated and ignore any reality the game attempts to convey to the player. I feel mine is right because although a couple of obscure rules can be looked at in a way they contradict it, it blends seamlessly with the rest of the game, other gamers will not mind if my flamer misses, and it makes sense in terms of the reality of the game.

 

EDIT: They had this discussion over on Dakka Dakka, it was settled in about 8 posts.

[Squirrelloid]

Show me where the rules permit you to place the template before Step 3: Rolling to hit. If you can do that, I'll conceed. If you can't do that, you need to conceed. End of story.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Show me where the rules permit you to place the template before Step 3: Rolling to hit. If you can do that, I'll conceed. If you can't do that, you need to conceed. End of story.

 

 

Range column: "Template"

[Squirrelloid]

Show me where the rules permit you to place the template before Step 3: Rolling to hit. If you can do that, I'll conceed. If you can't do that, you need to conceed. End of story.

 

 

Range column: "Template"

 

Does not permit me to place the template.

 

How do you measure "the word 'template'", in inches? Please quote me the instructions to do so.

[Squirrelloid]

Its worth pointing out that the rules for RANGE on page 27 specify "the weapon fires using the tear-shaped flamer template." Not 'checks range' using the template, fires. Which is exactly what the template rules on page 29 tell you to do. You don't fire when you check range, you fire in Step 3: Rolling to Hit. Steps 1 and 2 only determine who can potentially fire, and who can roll to hit. Firing specifically happens in step 3 when you roll the dice, since this is the step where you can choose not to fire a weapon by not rolling to hit with it.

 

Despite being the section on range, the sentences about templates tell you 3 things (1) these weapons are designated by the word template, (2) the "exact method" for firing them is detailed later (on p29), (3) they fire using the template. It never makes an exception for the rule "All ranges are given in inches" despite that immediately preceeding the template rules on p27, and it never tells you how to check range for them.

[Squirrelloid]

This deserved a more detailed response, and my random insomnia might as well be put to some use.

 

Squirrelloid, your entire argument is based on the absence of telling you that you can't do otherwise, along with a very rigid belief in picking particular definitions of words.

 

Not true at all. From p3: "Players are not allowed to measure any distance unless the rules call for it". If you aren't explicitly instructed to measure, you don't. And that is ultimately the basis of my argument. There is a blanket prohibition on measuring unless instructed to do so.

 

The second part of my objection is that no range is given for template weapons. "All ranges are given in inches" (p27) is explicit, and immediately proximal to a reference to templates - indeed one occurs in the very next sentence. If it was going to tell you 'this is an exception which is not in inches', it would do so there. Instead, what it tells you is 'templates operate differently than other weapons, complete instructions are provided on a later page' (29 in fact). Ie, its acknowledging template weapons don't have a range and telling you where to find instructions to use them because they can't use the normal rules.

 

(1) Just because something is "given", that does not mean it changes. An Xbox is given as a gift. Does that mean that the gift is no longer an Xbox? No. That just means that an Xbox is being given to someone by someone. On my birth certificate, my name is "given as" Harrison. As it turns out, my name is Harrison. Also, page six, TRB, regarding characteristics. "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 to 10" Noone would argue that my Space Marine Captain's Strength value is actually 7, but is given as 4. They would realize that it's 4. Ranges are all "given" in inches, a keystone of your argument. Well, what if I say "They're given in inches, that doesn't mean that they really are in inches." Your example of prices. The price is "given" as negotiable, because contrary to what you say that's exactly what the price is. Negotiable. That is the price's current state of being.

 

The range of a particular weapon is 6". You would say "the range is 6"." You would not say "The range is given as 6"." The latter is bad grammatically and carries connotations that are inappropriate. If 'template' were an actual range, it would just say "The range is 'template'." But if 'template' is instead a rules set that replaces range characteristics, you would want to use language such as 'given as' to denote that the signifier 'template' is used to indicate such weapons. Indeed, p29 says template weapons are _indicated_ by the word template. Would you say 24" range weapons are indicated by the word '24"'? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

Similarly, the Space Marine Captain's strength is not 'given as 4', it IS 4.

 

In my example you fail english once again. The price is not literally 'negotiable'. You can't pay 'negotiable'. The price will only be decided after negotiation. The item HAS NO PRICE until negotiation has concluded and a price is determined. All actual prices are denoted in currency, just like all actual ranges in the game are denoted in inches. And just like range is a measure of distance, price is a measure of value. $5 is a measure of an items value. "Negotiable" means the value has *not yet been measured* and needs to be agreed upon by the buyer and the seller. "Negotiable" is not itself a measure of value, it is in effect special rules. And yet it is abundantly clear why you would place such a label in a price column.

 

Are you not a native english speaker?

 

(2) The book clearly indicates that template weapons need to check, and here's why, using simple logic.

All weapons have a maximum range. (TRB, 17)

Template weapons are weapons. (Do I really?)

Template weapons check range.

 

You left out quite a bit, such as:

 

"All ranges are given in inches (p27)"

 

Therefore template weapons have no range ('template' is not in inches). QED

=><=

Therefore the rulebook is clearly wrong on page 17.

 

Justification: Either not all weapons have a maximum range (counter example: Template weapons) OR 'template' is a measurement given in inches OR not all ranges are given in inches.

 

The second option is patently false and assuming it makes it impossible to actually do anything because assuming doesn't make it so. Even if i say 'template is a range given in inches', it doesn't tell me how many inches those are or how I am supposed to measure that with a game-legal measuring device. Even measuring the length of the template is not a sufficient remedy to the problem, because we are specifically told "template weapons are indicated by the word 'template'" (p29), so we'd have to construe the "word 'template'" as a measure in inches.

 

The last is also useless to suppose, because the game never instructs us on how to check range given in something other than inches. How do you check range? You 'measure the distance' between the target squad and each model. If your flame weapon firer is within 5" or within 24" of the target, neither tells you if its <= template. Yet the only procedure laid out in the rules is to _measure_ the distance. Clearly this interpretation also fails mechanically - we have no way of judging whether a template weapon is in range or not by measuring distance. And indeed, if 'template' was a range it wouldn't direct you to the special rules. 'Type' does not say template, it typically says 'Assault 1' for most template weapons. So if 'template' was a literal measurable range it could not fulfill the function of referring you to the template rules. You'd roll to hit as normal for an assault 1 weapon.

 

And as much as you denigrate page vi, surely you won't dispute that you need a measuring device marked in inches, dice, and template and blast markers to play the game? None of those are actually required if you start the rules on page 1. If you don't believe these are rules, I invite you to attempt to play a game without using a measuring device marked in inches and telling your opponent the rules don't state its required. Its pretty obvious page vi requires these things, and attempting to play without them is cheating.

 

Finally, I will again note that the proximity of "Ranges are all given in inches" to the initial mention of template weapons strongly indicates template weapons do not have a range. If they did, the claim would not be a blanket claim, but 'All ranges except template weapons are given in inches'. I mean, its the VERY NEXT SENTENCE. If 'template' was interpreted as a RANGE by the game writers they couldn't possibly fail to see the contradiction and work to correct it. The only tenable explanation for this is 'template' is not understood as a RANGE by gamesworkshop but as special rules that are denoted in the range column and replace range entirely. Contradicting a statement 10 pages earlier, however, probably means entirely different people wrote and copyedited them, and the contradiction was never caught before it went to printing.

 

Thus we must go with the first. The rulebook is clearly wrong. The game includes a weapon without a range, because in the game "Ranges are all given in inches" and thus anything not given in inches is not a range. Assuming anything else is mechanically untenable and leaves you unable to play the game because the procedures detailed in the rules cannot be followed.

 

Another thing. If we follow your rule of skipping everything that comes before where the rules for Additional Weapon Characteristics pick up, here's what happens to some other guns. Gets Hot! rules start at rolling to hit. Therefore, we do not need to check range for weapons that have the Gets Hot! special rule. Rending picks up at rolls to wound, specifically those which are sixes. Therefore, Rending weapons do not need to do anything except roll sixes to wound. Sniper weapons begin with "...hits wound on a 4+", so all we need to do is roll to hit and wound. Barrage weapons don't discuss anything other than units that have already been wounded, so I guess it rolls to wound, but that's it. Melta weapons only roll an additional D6 within half range to pierce armour. I suppose that means I can't shoot infantry with them, since Melta is a special ruleset and it doesn't discuss Aiming, Checking Range, Rolling to Hit, or Rolling to wound, only armour penetration.

 

Templates are special in this regards. The Range rules on p27 specifically refer you to the Template rules on p29. So when you're looking up how to read the Range entry for template weapons, it specifically directs you AT THAT TIME to the template special rules. NO OTHER WEAPON DOES THIS, and not coincidentally, no other weapon special rules is listed in the 'range' field.

 

No other weapon type has a reference to it from the Range rules, because they all work mechanically within the framework of the established rules. They all have valid ranges. And NONE OF THEM REPLACE THE RANGE in the weapon information. They are additional special characteristics - as indicated by their placement under 'Type'. Template REPLACES the range characteristic with "the word 'template'", which refers you to its particular section of the rules when you look at range rather than later. 'Template' is basically a goto statement, and its placement in the weapon information instructs you as to when you're supposed to refer to the rules.

 

So your objection here is entirely without merit. None of the special rules you mention here are at all similar to template. They are referenced differently in the weapon listings, and thus apply at different times during firing and override different parts of the rules.

 

My point is that when we look at the whole game like you're looking at this situation, it shatters into a thousand over-literally interpreted pieces. (Each of which may or may not grow up to be a Space Marine)

 

Um, no. If you look at the game as a whole you can see that the Template special rule is referenced in a wholly different way than EVERY OTHER WEAPON SPECIAL RULE in the game, and so is handled differently than all of them. It is certainly the case that all weapon rules override or modify some portion of the firing rules, which portion is subject to when the rules tell you to use them.

 

(3) First of all, stop quoting page vi. While it holds the potential to be something important, it can easily be considered a desperate grab at evidence that isn't present in the rulebooks of those of us who don't particularly want a $70 hardcover. Also, template is a range, and it can easily be measured. You measure it by using the template. Seems awfully circular, but it works. If we use your reasoning where the rule is absolute and holy law, then the rule that says all weapons have a maximum range applied to this means that a template weapon is no longer a weapon, and then you can't use it. If you use our reasoning, it's maximum range is template and I can fire it and get on with losing the game to some Tyranids.

 

I know it used to be true in previous editions, and I'm pretty sure its still true now, that whenever the hardcover and the mini version conflict, the hardcover is always right. The hardcover is the definitive rulebook, the mini-manual is simply a reference.

 

Its hardly desperate to insist your opponent use a tape measure marked in inches during a game. Are you going to insist that's not a rule? Without page vi it isn't. Page vi is a necessary part of the rulebook, it specifies the materials needed to play the game and what their basic functions are. This is covered nowhere else in the rulebook.

 

The rules on measuring distance provide no procedure for measuring with the template.

 

No rules anywhere instruct you to 'measure distance' or 'check range' with the template. They tell you that it is used to "fire" the weapon (p27 and p29, and firing is Step 3, explicitly). Page vii is specific in that templates are only used to work out which models are HIT, which is equivalent to p27 and p29 (as which models are hit is worked out when you fire the weapon).

 

As amusing as concluding templates are not weapons sounds, i'm not convinced it would prevent them from firing. (Although it may prevent them from needing to check LoS at all to fire, but any such comprehensive analysis to determine what this means is premature). This is irrelevant, because they are frequently referred to as template weapons, and so are implicitly weapons. Again, the rulebook is in error when it claims all weapons have a maximum range, as any other conclusion creates an irresolvable and unplayable contradiction. Only accepting that as the error allows you to actually play the (remainder of the) RAW without needing to make stuff up.

 

Also, regarding rules. If rules are permissive, then I hope you brought a lot of dice and templates, because it never "permits" you to remove the template after you place it. Also, they never permit you to skip checking range for templates. Often, rules are referred to as rules and guidelines. The reason for this is in theory, rules are restrictive, while guidelines are instructive. Rules has been drawn from the full saying rules and guidelines. The rules for Pistol weapons don't permit me to fire them, so I can't.

 

The rules are permissive and restrictive. You are restricted to only doing what the rules permit.

 

I'm firing a Pistol. I follow the steps. Step 1: I check LoS - I can see a model in the target squad. Step 2: I check range. I start by looking up the weapon's range, find 12". I flip to the weapon Range rules and find 12" is a valid range (because its in inches), so i go ahead and I measure the distance from the model with the pistol to a model in the target squad that is in LoS. I compare to the weapon's range of 12". Lets say I measured 10" and we fire. Step 3: Roll to hit - i roll a 5. Step 4: Roll to wound: I roll a 2 and fail to wound. I check the pistol special rules and note i can still assault this turn.

 

I'm firing a flamer. I follow the steps. Step 1: I check LoS - I can see a model in the target squad. Step 2: I try to check range. I start by looking up the weapon's range, find 'template'. I turn to the weapon Range rules, which tells me the exact method is explained later, so i go looking for the method to fire it. I find those rules on p29 which tells me that the first thing to do is to place the template (with restrictions) and all touched models are hit during the Rolling to Hit phase. So i immediately proceed to doing that. And so on.

 

Ie, the reference to the template rules is given under Range, so you immediately flip to the Template rules during the Check Range step and find yourself instructed to immediately proceed to Step 3: Rolling to Hit.

 

What we're doing is expressing two solutions to the same problem. You feel yours is right because nothing rules wise tells you it is wrong. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work with the rest if the game, doesn't make any sense with the rest of the rules, and creates situations in game that will make other players irritated and ignore any reality the game attempts to convey to the player. I feel mine is right because although a couple of obscure rules can be looked at in a way they contradict it, it blends seamlessly with the rest of the game, other gamers will not mind if my flamer misses, and it makes sense in terms of the reality of the game.

 

Its not that nothing tells me my way is wrong, its that following the flow of the rules as things are referenced leads me immediately from checking LoS to placing the template and determining hit models. The Range rules direct me to the Template rules which proceed to skip checking range.

 

Further, the rules specifically tell me i can't measure or place a template unless instructed to do so. As such, I'm only instructed to place a template in step 3, and once i've placed it legally all touched models are hit. I'm doing exactly and precisely what the rules tell me to do. Attempting to place the template before Step 3 is cheating - the rules do not permit you to do it and have already told you that such actions are not permitted unless explicitly called for.

 

My way does blend seemlessly with the rest of the game. You follow the template rules in the "exact method" instructed and it resolves with no problems whatsoever. Your method, however, attempts to treat 'template' as a range, which leads you to violate the rules in one way or another, generally by placing the template when you are not allowed to do so, but also by trying to measure a distance for something not given in inches (for which there is no procedure and the game legal measuring device you are required to use is useless). You way violates at least 3 if not more rules. My way requires the simple assumption that one line of text is in error, and only because its LOGICALLY REQUIRED TO BE because no other solution leads to resolveable mechanics, and no other solution escapes violating the rules in some other manner.

 

And the rules your way violates are in no way obscure. Not being allowed to measure or place a template before being instructed to do so is a fundamental rule of the game. Ranges all being given in inches is a fundamental rule of the game that's essential for following the procedures detailed for doing things like measuring distances.

 

Whereas ignoring 'All weapons have a maximum range' is without problem because template weapons are given explicit instructions on how to fire them that don't require a maximum range. Instead of checking range they 'attempt to touch as many models as possible in the target unit' during Step 3. ONLY MY SOLUTION IS PROVIDED WITH ALTERNATIVE RULES THAT MAKE THE CONTRADICTED RULE UNNECESSARY.

[PyronusSouria]

"ONLY MY SOLUTION IS PROVIDED WITH ALTERNATIVE RULES THAT MAKE THE CONTRADICTED RULE UNNECESSARY."

 

First off, caps lock isn't necessary, the B&C reply system provides us with the bold function if we want emphasis.

 

Secondly, your solution creates alternative rules that are not covered anywhere, nor suggested, nor implied by the rulebook, whatever the objective of that is, it violates a rule in the rulebook. So while you keep telling everyone you're only playing the rules as written, you expressly ignore one of them.

 

Also, you're misquoting the rules about measurement. It says "In general, players are not allowed to measure any distance unless the rules call for it." Nice try though.

 

"All ranges are given in inches" is obviously not meant to be completely restrictive and absolute. It's a generalization. Hence why the next sentence says a range can be given as template.

 

First off, when I first saw 24" I didn't know what the " meant, because I use metric. That " indicates inches.

 

The price is literally negotiable. Let me explain why my foreign Canada english might be confusing you. Negotiable is an adjective. The black cat. The cat is black. Similarly, the negotiable price. The price is negotiable. Just because it isn't a noun, doesn't mean that something cannot be it. I can be running or I can be white, both of those are. That's how being works.

 

Who says that the rulebook is wrong on 17? Maybe it's wrong on 27 where it says all ranges are given in inches. Argument invalid.

 

You don't need a tape measure to play 40k. This is true.

 

Template is described as something "added" to a weapon's type. Not replacing it's rules, just adding to it. Template is grouped in with a number of other weapon characteristics, and they are all collectively called Additional Weapon Characteristics.

 

The rules about striking first are in proximity to the name Ghazghkull Thraka. He must have something to do with those rules, because they are close together. Just because two rules are close together in a book, that doesn't make them more relevant. Dice are used through the whole game, yet are only really explained at the beginning, closest to the movement phase, where they have arguably the least impact on the game.

 

You keep saying that template is a special rule set. What if it's a special rule set that ignores page 27 and uses a flamer template for range? You can't say "It only changes the rules for me and the way I like." I say it's a special rule set that ignores that ranges are only in inches and that template is the range as per that special rule set.

 

Maybe the reason a template is referenced from the Range rules isn't because they don't check range, but rather they do it differently from other weapons. Wouldn't they just say "templates don't check range" to us instead of referencing us from a section that has supposedly no bearing on the weapon?

 

Also, you accuse my method of being wrong because I violate the rules. Then you say "But my method works because it assumes that one of the rules is just wrong." Don't claim to follow the RAW if you just say "Oh, that part's wrong" when it contradicts what you say. My method doesn't violate the rules, it interprets words like "all" as generalizations. Which they almost always are.

 

I'm sure there's more wrong with what you said, but I have to go to my English classes now.

[Squirrelloid]

"ONLY MY SOLUTION IS PROVIDED WITH ALTERNATIVE RULES THAT MAKE THE CONTRADICTED RULE UNNECESSARY."

 

Secondly, your solution creates alternative rules that are not covered anywhere, nor suggested, nor implied by the rulebook, whatever the objective of that is, it violates a rule in the rulebook. So while you keep telling everyone you're only playing the rules as written, you expressly ignore one of them.

 

Um, no. I am explicitly following page 29 as the "exact method" of firing a template, just like p27 tells me it is. Exact method means just that - it is the totality of the rules needed to use a template. Its not just the method, its the "exact method". Nothing not included is part of the rules for using them. Not following those rules to the letter and nothing more is doing it wrong.

 

Also, you're misquoting the rules about measurement. It says "In general, players are not allowed to measure any distance unless the rules call for it." Nice try though.

 

I left out "in general". Please tell me a situation in the game in which you're allowed to measure distance without the rules calling for it.

 

"All ranges are given in inches" is obviously not meant to be completely restrictive and absolute. It's a generalization. Hence why the next sentence says a range can be given as template.

 

Why? I provided a detailed analysis using textual clues, mechanical functionality, and so on as to why 'all weapons have a maximum range' was more likely to be violated than "All ranges are given in inches". Your reasoning applies just as well to 'all weapons have a maximum range' as it does to any other line in the rulebook.

 

As such, my argument has a lot more weight why my interpretation is to be preferred.

 

Nonetheless, can we both agree the following necessarily creates a contradiction and something has to be wrong?

 

All weapons have a maximum range. (All w have K)

Ranges are all given in inches. (All K subset of Y)

Templates are a weapon (w1 subset of w)

Templates have a range given as the word 'template'. (w1 has K not in Y)

=><=

 

At which point the RAW requires us to use the textual clues and rules to choose one of these rules to ignore.

 

The price is literally negotiable. Let me explain why my foreign Canada english might be confusing you. Negotiable is an adjective. The black cat. The cat is black. Similarly, the negotiable price. The price is negotiable. Just because it isn't a noun, doesn't mean that something cannot be it. I can be running or I can be white, both of those are. That's how being works.

 

The price is negotiable, but 'negotiable' is not the price. You're totally missing the point of the analogy. We're trying to reach into our pocket to get money to pay the man - which we can't do until we actually arrive at a price that is denominated in currency. Just like in 40k we can't actually check range until we have a range denominated in inches.

 

Who says that the rulebook is wrong on 17? Maybe it's wrong on 27 where it says all ranges are given in inches. Argument invalid.

 

I just gave abundant analysis why assuming p27 is the one in error is mechanically untenable and textually unlikely. Whereas assuming p17 is in error is textually plausible and there are alternative rules which instruct you _exactly_ how to fire a template which makes them having a maximum range procedurally unnecessary. Ie, only by ignoring the p17 line can you actually otherwise play by RAW without having to invent other rules.

 

The rules for templates are the "exact method" which you need to follow precisely - and they never tell you to check range or even how to do it. The "exact method" according to the rules does not involve checking range. And these are the rules you are immediately directed to when you look up the rules for "Range" on p27.

 

Whereas even if we assume that not all ranges are in inches, we don't know how to measure a distance not given in inches, the rulebook never tells us. And the rulebook is pretty explicit that "a measuring device marked in inches" is "required" for "measuring ranges of weapons".

 

You don't need a tape measure to play 40k. This is true.

 

You do need "a measuring device marked in inches". Pretending otherwise is just stupid. You cannot play the game without it.

 

Template is described as something "added" to a weapon's type. Not replacing it's rules, just adding to it. Template is grouped in with a number of other weapon characteristics, and they are all collectively called Additional Weapon Characteristics.

 

Template is not an "Additional Weapon Characteristic". Those are listed under "Type". Template is not referred to by the Additional Weapon Characteristics rules, its referred to by the Range rules. Additional characteristics "are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile." Template is not in Type, and thus not an additional weapon characteristic.

 

Further, additional weapons characteristics do *modify* the rules for firing, wounding, or armor penetration, and thus *replace* or *change* the standard rules for doing so. They allow you to do things the standard rules for the appropriate step (as applicable) does not permit you to do. Consider sniper weapons. The standard rules instruct you to "consult the chart below [on p19], and cross-reference the weapon's Strength (S) with the target's Toughness (T). The number indicated is the minimum score on a D6needed to convert the hit into a wound." The sniper rules replace this by telling you "Sniper hits wound on a 4+, regardless of the victim's Toughness." (p31) This clearly supersedes the normal rules for rolling to wound.

 

In this respect templates are similar insofar as they also change how the rules work when firing them. And the way they work is you follow the "exact method" given on p29 and ignoring all the other rules for firing. p29 are specifically described as being the "exact method", the whole and complete rules for firing templates.

 

The rules about striking first are in proximity to the name Ghazghkull Thraka. He must have something to do with those rules, because they are close together. Just because two rules are close together in a book, that doesn't make them more relevant. Dice are used through the whole game, yet are only really explained at the beginning, closest to the movement phase, where they have arguably the least impact on the game.

 

It does when the two rules immediately impact each other. Thraka may be proximal to the rules about striking first, but Thraka doesn't even have rules in the 40k book, much less rules which are part of the same rules as striking first.

 

Template weapons are given rules in the Range rules in the *sentence* immediately following "Ranges are all given in inches". They're given rules in the same rules section governing how range functions for both of them, and the writer saw no contradiction between "Ranges are all given in inches" and templates having as range the word 'template', which is obvious to anyone that its not in inches. The copyeditor also saw no issue. Clearly, no one at GW is interpreting 'template' as a range, at which point there is no immediate contradiction. That the other language used is also suggestive of Template being a special rule rather than a literal range confirms this. And the text for templates on p27 under Range specifically directs you to the "exact method" for firing on p29. Any logical person attempting to check range for a template would come to this, immediately flip to p29, and follow the procedure described as the "exact method". They would not go back to check range - the range rules told them to go to p29 instead!

 

You keep saying that template is a special rule set. What if it's a special rule set that ignores page 27 and uses a flamer template for range? You can't say "It only changes the rules for me and the way I like." I say it's a special rule set that ignores that ranges are only in inches and that template is the range as per that special rule set.

 

You are never given a procedure for measuring with anything other than a device marked in inches. The rules for templates do not provide a method for checking range with the template. Indeed, once you place the template you are in Step 3 - that is the first time the rules permit you to play it.

 

So its not the way *I like*, the rules themselves instruct me to ignore checking for range by immediately directing me to p29 from the Range section. The rules themselves told me to ignore step 2: Check for range. Your method requires procedures not described in the rulebook. My method only relies on procedures laid out in the rulebook.

 

When the rules tell you to ignore a rule, such as by directing you in Step 2 to rules that start in Step 3 (and thus you have never done step 2 for that weapon), then its not "the way I like", its "the way the rules are telling me to play it."

 

Maybe the reason a template is referenced from the Range rules isn't because they don't check range, but rather they do it differently from other weapons. Wouldn't they just say "templates don't check range" to us instead of referencing us from a section that has supposedly no bearing on the weapon?

 

Please quote the rules which instructs us how to measure "the word 'template'".

 

Also, you accuse my method of being wrong because I violate the rules. Then you say "But my method works because it assumes that one of the rules is just wrong." Don't claim to follow the RAW if you just say "Oh, that part's wrong" when it contradicts what you say. My method doesn't violate the rules, it interprets words like "all" as generalizations. Which they almost always are.

 

I'm sure there's more wrong with what you said, but I have to go to my English classes now.

 

All is not a generalization, its a specific type of logical claim. All x are y is false if there exists an x which is not also a y (by counter-example). "Most" is a generalization.

 

The essential difference is the rules explicitly tell me to ignore 'all weapons have a maximum range' by referring me to an "exact method" for firing a template from the rules section on range, and then not only give no procedure for checking the given range, but by immediately instructing me to 'place the template' instead of Rolling to Hit. "Exact method" means you are meant to follow it *exactly*, and so i do. I am literally following the rules, and if the rules ignore some other section of the rules, well that's their perogative. That's what special rules do - FNP allows you a second save before the model is killed (in violation of the rules on making saves), snipers always wound on 4+ (in violation of the rules on rolling to wound), etc... But they only ignore rules when they tell you how to do it otherwise. Template weapons tell you to, instead of checking range (because the range rules sent us here), place the template, maximize touched models in target squad, don't touch friendlies, and all touched models are hit. That's the exact procedure, the "exact method". Anything not included, such as checking range, is not even permitted by the rules.

 

On the other hand, the rules never tell you or even suggest you should ignore "Ranges are all given in inches", and they assume they are because they only give procedures for measuring distances in inches. Your method involves making up a whole procedure for checking range on template weapons that is nowhere given in the rules and thus not permitted.

 

I add nothing to the rulebook. I ignore the rules the rulebook tells me to ignore and follow the procedures exactly as laid out in the rulebook. And that is the fundamental difference between our positions. You assume a general rule has to still hold despite specific rules to the contrary, and make up entire rules procedures detailed nowhere to make that possible. RAW requires nothing be added that isn't in the rulebook.

 

Which is why I will conceed if anyone can provide a method for measuring "the word 'template'" that is given in the rules. Without that procedure, any interpretation which requires "the word 'template'" to be a range that is checked fails as a rules interpretation. Making rules up is not permitted.

[PyronusSouria]

Okay.

 

The Price Thing. "Negotiable" is not the price, but negotiable is. Storekeepers don't put quotes around the word. The reason we don't say negotiable is the price is because we don't live on Dagobah.

 

Movement. All it says is that most models can move 6". It doesn't tell you you're allowed to measure that, but you do.

 

Infantry move up to six inches (6") in the Movement phase. This represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, etc. Even warriors who are moving in a part of the battlefield where no enemies are apparent can only move 6". This is because your units lack your own god-like knowledge that there are no enemies around. It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all.

 

It says you can measure it in one direction and then change your mind and move it another, or not at all. Nowhere does it say you are allowed to measure a move and then make that move, but we all know you are.

 

Creating Contradiction. The book only creates a contradiction on this topic when you over-analyse the wording of the rules, and hold dictionary definition to it. Most people don't speak completely pristine and proper English, and generalizations and stereotypes exist just as much in the 40k rulebook as anywhere else.

 

Tape Measure. A tape measure is a specific device, rolled like tape with markings on it to measure inches and/or centimetres. However, you can play with a plastic stick with notches or lines on it marked 1, 2, 3 etc. It's not marked in inches, just in numbers. The are next to lines that happen to occur every inch along the stick.

 

Additional Weapon Characteristics (AWCs). Template most certainly is one. That's why it's the first entry under the AWCs section.

 

Thraka. He does have rules in the book, in the index reference at the back. Basing the relativity of rules based on their proximity is ridiculous. The rules for dice are at the beginning of the book, but have more bearing on the sections they are further from, Shooting and Assault.

 

Procedure. The rules never told you to skip range. They didn't. They tell you how to resolve hitting with templates, because that's what's different between a template weapon and a non-template weapon. If we follow your ruling, it doesn't tell you to check LoS with a flamer either, so I guess they can shoot through walls.

 

Measuring the word Template. Stop telling me to, because it's a ridiculous argument. You don't measure ' 48" ' when you shoot a Heavy Bolter, you measure 48 inches. So by that, you measure template. Since you probably have a template, you either measure it's dimensions and apply them, or you save yourself some time and use the template.

 

 

And finally, an argument that has absolutely no effect on grammatical tyrants, but I will list anyway.

 

Sense. It makes sense for the template to be the range of that weapon, because if I had that weapon and I fired it, that's how far it would go. If I was bound by God or some other supreme power to aim and shoot at the same thing as the guy next to me, I would. It would be too far away and I would miss. I would not say, "I cannot hit that." and spin to my side and shoot some other people through a wall.

[Squirrelloid]

As per the rules for debate, I will be assuming any dropped points are conceeded, since you fail to refute or even address key points I make, which is otherwise unfair to me.

 

Notably ignored points:

-Never addressed "exact method" language on p27.

-Never provided evidence you can measure a distance without the rules explicitly calling for it.

-Never provided rules which allow you to determine the length of the template in inches and measure it, or measure 'template' in some other way. Must be a direct rules quote.

-Never addressed that all weapon special rules replace some or all portions of relevant standard rules. ie, Templates are not unique in altering the way the basic rules work. (This is important because it means Template weapons not having a maximum range is perfectly permissible given the way the rules are written, as is it permissible that templates don't check range. The template rules supersede the regular rules as directed, just like every other special rules.)

 

Okay.

 

The Price Thing. "Negotiable" is not the price, but negotiable is. Storekeepers don't put quotes around the word. The reason we don't say negotiable is the price is because we don't live on Dagobah.

 

$5: The price is $5 and $5 is the price. Both are true. We do say "$5 is the price".

Negotiable: The price is negotiable but negotiable is not the price.

 

You're being intentionally dense and its not endearing. When we say "The price is negotiable", we don't literally mean the price _is_ "negotiable" in the same way we mean the price _is_ $5 literally when we say 'the price is $5'. That we say the price is negotiable is metaphoric language meaning that the price can be negotiated. "The price is $5" is meant to be interpreted literally as a statement of the price, "the price is negotiable" is not a statement of the price but a statement of how the price is to be determined.

 

Similarly, 'the range is 48"' literally means that 48" is the range. Literally. 'The range is given as the word "template"' means that we determine how to fire the template according to the rules for templates. The range is not literally "the word 'template'". We can't measure that.

 

Movement. All it says is that most models can move 6". It doesn't tell you you're allowed to measure that, but you do.

 

Infantry move up to six inches (6") in the Movement phase. This represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, etc. Even warriors who are moving in a part of the battlefield where no enemies are apparent can only move 6". This is because your units lack your own god-like knowledge that there are no enemies around. It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all.

 

It says you can measure it in one direction and then change your mind and move it another, or not at all. Nowhere does it say you are allowed to measure a move and then make that move, but we all know you are.

 

It helps when you read all the relevant rules. Also from page 11: "In his turn, a player may move any of his units - all of them if he wishes - up to their maximum movement distance." That's specific permission to actually move models right there. You are wrong as a matter of fact here.

 

Creating Contradiction. The book only creates a contradiction on this topic when you over-analyse the wording of the rules, and hold dictionary definition to it. Most people don't speak completely pristine and proper English, and generalizations and stereotypes exist just as much in the 40k rulebook as anywhere else.

 

So, you're saying we aren't to play by the rules as written, but by something else? Some nebulous fluffy not-actually-in-the-text idea of the rules that you and only you know?

 

There's nothing else but the wording. The literal wording exactly as its written. There's no such thing as over-analysis. Anything not in the text itself is not part of the rules. Any flaws in the language of the rules are flaws we are forced to abide by. Period. This is the +OR+ board, not the 'Rules as we think they should read board' or the 'Rules as I imagine them' board.

 

If my analysis holds up, I'm right. "Over-analysis" is a cop out to avoid accepting what the rules say. Its non-existent. No analysis is over analyzed. Either the rules say something or they don't. Dctionary definitions (if necessary) OR (more appropriately) rule-specific definitions enforced.

 

Tape Measure. A tape measure is a specific device, rolled like tape with markings on it to measure inches and/or centimetres. However, you can play with a plastic stick with notches or lines on it marked 1, 2, 3 etc. It's not marked in inches, just in numbers. The are next to lines that happen to occur every inch along the stick.

 

It is marked in inches. Those numbers are the numbers of inches. This argument is ridiculous.

 

If its not required to be marked in inches, can i get a plastic stick, mark 1, 2, 3, etc... at any spacing i want, and use that. "When the rules say 6" its actually 6 arbitrary units of measurement, and i'm using my specially marked plastic stick that is not in inches"? It doesn't need to *say* inches, but it does need to be *marked in inches*. Not labeled, marked. Ie, the distance between 1 and 2 must be 1". Period. This is required to play the game. That's what marked in inches means.

 

You are again being intentionally dense. And you are wrong, because you seem to not actually understand what the phrase "marked in inches" means.

 

Additional Weapon Characteristics (AWCs). Template most certainly is one. That's why it's the first entry under the AWCs section.

 

P27 Additional Weapon Characteristics rules: [Additional weapon characteristics] "are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile." Template is not added to the weapon type, so its not an AWC. The rules for it on P29 happen to be in the AWC section, but that neither stops us from reading them (we were specifically referred here from the p27 Range rules after all) nor does it actually make them an AWC according to the rules (which specifically define AWCs as being listed under 'Type').

 

Thraka. He does have rules in the book, in the index reference at the back. Basing the relativity of rules based on their proximity is ridiculous. The rules for dice are at the beginning of the book, but have more bearing on the sections they are further from, Shooting and Assault.

 

Please cite rules for Thraka that occur in the rulebook, I cannot find them.

 

And its hardly ridiculous to assume that two *adjacent sentences* in the *same rule section* are related to each other in some way and the writer was aware of both of them.

 

Procedure. The rules never told you to skip range. They didn't. They tell you how to resolve hitting with templates, because that's what's different between a template weapon and a non-template weapon. If we follow your ruling, it doesn't tell you to check LoS with a flamer either, so I guess they can shoot through walls.

 

The rules for Range direct you to p29 to use the template weapon. Thus, the rules for Range tell you to immediately proceed to the Rolling to Hit step and place the template. Because its the rules for Range, if you were meant to check Range in step 2 you'd expect and in fact need it to tell you how to do so. In point of fact, the Range rules tell you that the rules for templates on page 29 are the exact method for using the template. Exact. According to the Range rules. To be followed precisely with no deviation starting in the Range step as directed by the Range rules.

 

You'll note I'm bolding the word Range an awful lot. Because this is what the Range rules tell you to do. And tells you that its the "exact method" for doing so. It doesn't get much more explicit than that, even with all GW's foibles in writing rules. That's clear as day and only a willful unwillingness to actually understand the rules could prevent that conclusion.

 

You keep ignoring those words "exact method". They're pretty critical and informative. In fact, I'd argue they're conclusive. The range rules think p29 is the "exact method", whole and complete and to be followed to the letter and to the exclusion of anything to the contrary. If it were relevant to using the flamer, it would be included in the "exact method". This is a smoking gun which you have repeatedly ignored, and it alone and by itself carries the discussion.

 

Measuring the word Template. Stop telling me to, because it's a ridiculous argument. You don't measure ' 48" ' when you shoot a Heavy Bolter, you measure 48 inches. So by that, you measure template. Since you probably have a template, you either measure it's dimensions and apply them, or you save yourself some time and use the template.

 

'48"' is 48", literally.

 

Its what the rules say. They say "Ranges are all given in inches" (p27). They give a measure in inches, you measure that in inches, no problem. But they literally say "They [templates] are indicated by having the word 'template' for their range." They don't use 'template' as the range (like they use measures in inches), they mention 'template' as the range. (Use and Mention are technical terms, please refer to Russell's works on language). That's literally what the rules say, that's what we have to interpret and use, and thus if you want to argue its a measure of distance you have to explain how you measure that. Ignoring it is ignoring the RAW.

 

In your own home games you can play RAI and homebrew rules to your heart's content, I don't care. But quit trying to pretend the rules are written other than they are.

 

Nor is there any justification to measuring the template to get a number in inches and using that as the range. The rules never instruct you to do that. If that were the case, the rules would just state the range as the length of the template, and list 'template' under 'Type'. Ie, there's a far more appropriate and logical way to write the rules if what you want to be true were true. That they didn't do that speaks *volumes* about what is meant, so its even hard to argue that it was the *intention* the rules be played like you want. But they certainly aren't *written* the way you want.

 

And finally, an argument that has absolutely no effect on grammatical tyrants, but I will list anyway.

 

Sense. It makes sense for the template to be the range of that weapon, because if I had that weapon and I fired it, that's how far it would go. If I was bound by God or some other supreme power to aim and shoot at the same thing as the guy next to me, I would. It would be too far away and I would miss. I would not say, "I cannot hit that." and spin to my side and shoot some other people through a wall.

 

While sense has absolutely no bearing on the RAW, I think you're wrong. Templates are specifically given the following flavor which has no rules value: "These are particularly indiscriminate short-ranged devices..." This argues there's no sensible basis for auto-misses or removing the template without hits being determined - the flavor doesn't involve aiming at all. You click the trigger, there's a gout of flame. (When weapons auto-miss they still fire, the shots simply don't land at what was fired at - there is no sensible interpretation of this for a template).

 

That you can 'spin and light up a squad in a totally different direction' is simply a consequence of the way the rules for templates are written. And as that's how the rules are written, we are obligated to follow them to the letter, sense or no sense. But the sense of how you point the template has no bearing on whether there is sense in the template being placed on the table regardless, which there most definitely is.

[SeattleDV8]

That you can 'spin and light up a squad in a totally different direction' is simply a consequence of the way the rules for templates are written. And as that's how the rules are written, we are obligated to follow them to the letter, sense or no sense. But the sense of how you point the template has no bearing on whether there is sense in the template being placed on the table regardless, which there most definitely is.

 

Yes we do, and this 'consequence' breaks the rules as Seahawk pointed out in the Vote thread, you may not split fire.

You also (wall of text aside) have not shown where you get the permission to skip 'Check Range'.

 

If "The price is negotiable" and I offer the shop keeper 0$, he is going to say no deal, just as the rules say "automatic miss"

 

Your loophole does not work.

[dswanick]

Yes we do, and this 'consequence' breaks the rules as Seahawk pointed out in the Vote thread, you may not split fire.

Except any weapon that uses a marker can, in fact, "split fire" by affecting all models under them when all of the models found to be under the marker are not from a single squad.

You also (wall of text aside) have not shown where you get the permission to skip 'Check Range'.

Actually, he showed pretty well were the Flamer rules completely override the normal rules as outlined in the Shooting Phase summary, starting with "Step 2 Check range". Pretending one can't see it, doesn't make it not there.

[SeattleDV8]

Indeed markers and templates can cause damage to multiple units, but you still can only target one unit.

If we follow the squirrels logic you are allowed to break that rule, by targeting the unit in front of you and then shooting another unit with the flamer.

His reason he thinks we skip 'Check Range' doesn't stand up.

For example we have a unit that moved ( 2 bolters and a meltagun) shooting at another unit 12" away from the nearest model.

The shooter declares his target and will shoot with all his models, when checking the range both bolters are over 12" and 'miss automatically'

The bolters have fired, no assaults would be allowed as they are Rapid fire weapons.

The wording is a bit murky but we 'check range' after the weapons fires.

This is no different for a flamer, we 'check range ' by placing the template when we shoot, if the target unit is beyond the template it misses automatically.

Yes In the real world this is very silly as the flames would still cover the area, but this is an abstraction.

It gives us an odd effect but does not break rules as the squirrels version would.

[Squirrelloid]

I am not debating the vote thread. I am no longer looking at the vote thread. That thread is pointless. You want to make an argument based on RAW, make it here.

 

If "The price is negotiable" and I offer the shop keeper 0$, he is going to say no deal, just as the rules say "automatic miss"

 

I have no idea how this relates to the comparison made by the analogy, or how that translates back into the rules. I'm confused. You're going to have to give a better explanation of how this applies in a sensible way to the analogy, because right now this is just pointless text with no meaning.

 

On the one hand, I agree, if you offer 0$ and he says no deal, no sale was made. But we still don't have an actual price, we don't know when a sale can be made. So if anything this reinforces what I said - negotiable is not a price that you can measure.

 

On the other hand, that statement in no way leads us to 'automatic miss' in the rules. Analogies are supposed to be illustrative by taking something common to two situations in a relevant way. No sale because we failed to measure does not equal 'automatic miss' because we did measure. What it tells us is because negotiable doesn't give us a measure we can use, and similarly template doesn't give us a measure we can use, so no measurement can be made, and thus price nor range cannot be checked against some target value given only 'negotiable' or only 'template'.

 

The wording is a bit murky but we 'check range' after the weapons fires.

 

Absolutely not for templates. The rules forbid that. Once we place the template we are on step 3: Rolling to Hit (as explicitly stated on p29), and cannot go back to check range.

 

Further, the "exact method" for "firing" a template weapon is given on page 29. As its the exact method, its all the rules you need to fire a template. It never tells you to check range. Since these are the complete rules for firing it, we don't check range. We aren't permitted to. Because its the exact method, it replaces all other rules for firing, as these rules are complete in themselves.

[SeattleDV8]

Stuff and nonsense, your house of cards is falling apart.

The price equaling 0$ is a direct analogy to having 0 models (from the target unit) under the template.

I can't help it if your analogy is a better argument against your point.

Was the rule that we are not allowed to split fire ruin your convoluted defence of an loophole?

Besides that thread is not for debate just a question of GAP, and as such not really very helpful in parsing what a rule is.

That said the point still stands, you are only allowed to target one unit.

 

It still stands that if the template is the range only has one minor hiccup where yours involves the breaking of rules.

[Squirrelloid]

Stuff and nonsense, your house of cards is falling apart.

The price equaling 0$ is a direct analogy to having 0 models (from the target unit) under the template.

 

What? Seriously, what?

 

Price is a direct analogy to *range*, not touched models. A price of 'negotiable' is a direct analogy to a range of 'template', in that neither is actually a measure of value or distance, but a special signifier that forces you to do something different than the typical procedure.

 

The analogy is in no way built to handle what you're saying, and what you're saying makes no sense as an analogy.

 

Finally, the price never equals $0. In your scenario, you offered $0. That offer was rejected. 0$ was not the price - and thus the offer failed to measure the price, which is why it was rejected. But the specifics of that analogy are irrelevant: once we get to teh actual mechanics of haggling, the analogy ceases to hold because the mechanics of haggling are not at all similar to the mechanics of using a template. The analogy only worked insofar as 'negotiable' and 'template' shared something in common - that they had special rules relative to 'price' and 'range' listings. It was never claimed that the special rules are at all similar (and they aren't!)

 

IF you wanted to argue the special rules ARE similar and we can draw an analogy between them, you actually have to build up that analogy so people can understand how they're similar and how the comparison helps. I'm not seeing it at all. You are totally failing argument by analogy because you have not established a similarity of circumstance between the things you are comparing.

 

I can't help it if your analogy is a better argument against your point.

 

You might care to actually refer to my analogy, which did establish similarity of circumstance, and had nothing to do with the mechanics of negotiation.

 

Your analogy is not my analogy. It is also nonsensical and no similarities are ever established to lead any reader to believe that anything from one scenario can be used to interpret the other.

 

Do not even try to pretend what you're passing off as the analogy is mine. You're talking about a totally different aspect than I was, and that aspect has no established similarities (and none i can even see nor imagine).

 

Was the rule that we are not allowed to split fire ruin your convoluted defence of an loophole?

 

Technically i never argue for splitting fire. The template is still taking the same target as the other weapons in the squad. Thus, it is not 'splitting fire' as the rules define it. Splitting fire is about declared targets, not hit models, and thus has nothing to say about this section of rules whatsoever. I am explicitly following the rules of only firing at one target.

 

Besides that thread is not for debate just a question of GAP, and as such not really very helpful in parsing what a rule is.

That said the point still stands, you are only allowed to target one unit.

 

The bolded word is exactly right. And i follow that to the letter. I touch as many models as possible from the target squad. If that number is zero, then any orientation of the template touches as many as possible: 0. 0 is a valid number for 'as many as possible', its mathematically interpretable, its procedurally interpretable in the rules, and its never excluded by the rules.

 

That other touched models are hit is a consequence of the templates special rules. It doesn't change the fact that i targeted a different squad and touched all 0 of them that i had to because that was as many as I could touch.

 

It still stands that if the template is the range only has one minor hiccup where yours involves the breaking of rules.

 

No, it has many major hiccups.

 

(1) It ignores that the rules for range specifically tell you all ranges are in inches.

(2) It ignores that the rules for range specifically tell you that the exact method for firing a template weapon are given on p29. The words "exact method" are right there in the rulebook. They're conclusive. p29 is everything you need to fire a template weapon - no other rules apply.

(3) It ignores that the rules for templates specifically tell you to place the template during Step 3, Rolling to Hit. You cannot check range in Step 3, you are not permitted to do so.

(4) It ignores that nowhere in the rules permits you to place the template before Step 3 when firing a template weapon (and at no other time if not firing a template weapon)

 

In short, it requires you to ignore rules like the "exact method" for firing a template weapon which the rules cover in sufficient detail to fulfill procedurally exactly as specified. And then it requires you to make up rules to cover perceived deficiencies in the rules that you have created by ignoring the RAW.

 

My interpretation breaks absolutely no rules. It follows the exact and literal text for template weapons, the "exact method" of firing them, to the letter. This happens to make an exception to "All weapons have a maximum range" - the only rule in the rulebook even remotely opposed to my interpretation - and that's exactly what special rules do. They make exceptions to general rules. Just like FNP makes exceptions to the normal rules for rolling saves. No one sensible would claim you don't get your FNP save because the general rules for making saves don't say that you get it and specifically tell you to apply a wound to models after they fail a save. The correct reading of the RAW gives you the second FNP save. So no rule is actually broken in my interpretation - an exception is made to a rule, and all the necessary procedures are specified so that the excepted rules are not necessary to resolve the mechanics.

[SeattleDV8]

LOL...in other words you are sticking to your silly argument....fine

I and others have shown that your interpretation does not work and indeed does break rules, is not RAW and is gaming the system.,

I'm though going over the same points again and again.

As Mark Twain said

Never try to teach a pig to sing, i wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[Gentlemanloser]

Except any weapon that uses a marker can, in fact, "split fire" by affecting all models under them when all of the models found to be under the marker are not from a single squad.

 

You're not 'splitting fire'.

 

You're hitting and wounding additional (or secondary/tertiary, or whatever label you want to use here) targets. A spill over due to Area of Effect, that you damage as a bonus, while you target and damage the single selected enemy unit your unit is firing at.

 

Hitting two (or more) distinctly seperate units, where part of your Squad damage one, and another part damage another, is splitting fire.

 

Which is dsallowed.

 

Damaging extra/additional targets to the single selected enemy unit is allowed. Splitting your damage amost seperate units, isn't.

 

And the line from the template rules about hitting any mini under the template *does not* allow you to bypass the 'no splitting fire' rule.

[dswanick]

Except any weapon that uses a marker can, in fact, "split fire" by affecting all models under them when all of the models found to be under the marker are not from a single squad.

 

You're not 'splitting fire'.

 

You're hitting and wounding additional (or secondary/tertiary, or whatever label you want to use here) targets. A spill over due to Area of Effect, that you damage as a bonus, while you target and damage the single selected enemy unit your unit is firing at.

 

Hitting two (or more) distinctly seperate units, where part of your Squad damage one, and another part damage another, is splitting fire.

 

Which is dsallowed.

 

Damaging extra/additional targets to the single selected enemy unit is allowed. Splitting your damage amost seperate units, isn't.

 

And the line from the template rules about hitting any mini under the template *does not* allow you to bypass the 'no splitting fire' rule.

Your above argument relies too much on semantics. Let me give an example that's been bothering me this entire debate and see how this affects everyones thinking.

 

I have a squad of five marines armed with Bolters, Bolt Pistols, and a Flamer facing an enemy squad. I fire at it in preparation for a charge. Per the RAW, I :

1. Check line of sight & pick a target- Checked and found to be valid. I can see a model in the target unit and none of the models is obscured. I declare that I am targeting the unit with Bolt Pistols and Flamer. Step 1 is satisfied - correct?

2. Check range - I find that the range between the all of my models and the closest model in the enemy unit is 6". My Codex tells me that the range of a Bolt Pistol is 12". 6" < 12". So the Bolt Pistols don't 'automatically miss'. However the range of the Flamer is 'given as' Template. So I open up my trusty MRB and follow the rules as laid out in the section on Pg.29 about Templates. I place the Template with the narrow end touching my Flamer-armed model and position the larger end touching as many enemy models as possible. Step 2 is satisfied, correct?

3. Roll to hit - Fortunately the template covers several models so no argument is needed as has gone round and round these last few days. The Template has hit several models, and then I roll to hit several more with the Bolt Psitols.

I don't think there is anything worth arguing in the above example, so based on that assumption I'll move on.

I have a squad of five marines armed with Bolters, Bolt Pistols, and a Flamer facing two enemy squads. I fire at one in preparation for a charge, in this instance I'm going to charge the closest unit. Per the RAW, I :

1. Check line of sight & pick a target - Checked and found to be valid, I can see all the models in both enemy units and as I wish to charge the nearer unit it can not claim a cover save for intervening models. I declare that I am targeting the front unit with Bolt Pistols and Flamer. Step 1 is satisfied correct?

2. Check range - I find that the range between all of my models and the closest models in the enemy unit is 4". My codex tells me that the range of a Bolt Pistol is 12". 6" < 12". So the Bolt Pistols don't 'automatically miss'. However the range of the Flamer is 'given as' Template. So I open my trusty MRB and follow the rules as laid out on Pg.29 about Templates. I place the Template with the narrow end touching my Flamer-armed model and the larger end touching as many enemy models as possible. Step 2 is satisfied, correct?

3. Roll to hit - Fortunately the template covers several models in my target unit so no argument is needed as has gone round and round these last few days. Additionally, I find that the Template is touching one or more models in the unit behind the target unit. The Template has hit several models in the target unit and several models in the other enemy unit, and then I roll to hit several more with the Bolt Psitols. I haven't "split fire". My target unit is and remains the unit I declared my shooting against. I have simply reaped an additional benefit of applying some hits to another unit due to the nature of the Template weapon. 'Spil over', as Gentl;emanloser dubbed it.

Again, I don't think there is anything worth arguing over in this example so I will move on.

I have a squad of marines armed with Bolter, Bolt Psitols, and Flamers facing two enemy squads. I fire at one in preparation for a charge. In this case I wish to charge the unit in the back because it has Furious Charge and the unit in front is an ineffectual meat-shield. For the sake of this case, I'm declaring that there is enough room between the bases of the front unit to allow my marines to assault between the models. And I'm assuming that there is noone who wishes to argue that it is allowed. If there is - this point of RAW needs to be, and has been, debated in other threads. Per the RAW, I:

1. Check line of sight & pick a target - Checked and found to be valid, I can see all the models in both enemy units. As I wish to target the rear unit, I know that this will offer them a Cover Save due to my firing through an enemy unit. I am willing to accept this because I don't want to be charged by a unit with Furious Charge. I declare that I am targeting the rear unit with Bolt Pistols and Flamer. Step 1 is satisfied correct?

2. Check range - I find the range between all of my models and the closes enemy models I wish to charge (the back group) to be 6". My Codex tells me that the range of a Bolt Pistol is 12". 6" < 12". So the Bolt Pistols don't 'automatically miss'. However the range of the Flamer is 'given as' Template. So I open my trusty MRB and follow the rules as laid out on Pg.29 about Templates. I place the Template with the narrow end touching my Flamer-armed model and the larger end touching as many enemy models as possible. Step 2 is satisfied, correct?

3. Roll to hit - Fortunately the template covers several models in my target unit so no argument is needed as has gone round and round these last few days. Additionally, I find that the Template is touching one or more models in the unit in front of the target unit. The Template has hit several models in the target unit and several models in the other enemy unit, and then I roll to hit several more with the Bolt Psitols. I haven't "split fire". My target unit is and remains the unit I declared my shooting against. I have simply reaped an additional benefit of applying some hits to another unit due to the nature of the Template weapon.

Other than the non-issue of being able to "charge through" one unit to assault another(which is not relevant to this discussion), I don't think there is anything worth arguing over in this example so I will move on.

I have a squad of marines armed with Bolter, Bolt Psitols, and Flamers facing two enemy squads. I fire at one in preparation for a charge. In this case I wish to charge the unit in the back because it has Furious Charge and the unit in front is an ineffectual meat-shield. For the sake of this case, I'm declaring that there is enough room between the bases of the front unit to allow my marines to assault between the models. And I'm assuming that there is noone who wishes to argue that it is allowed. If there is - this point of RAW needs to be, and has been, debated in other threads. Per the RAW, I:

1. Check line of sight & pick a target - Checked and found to be valid, I can see all the models in both enemy units. As I wish to target the rear unit, I know that this will offer them a Cover Save due to my firing through an enemy unit. I am willing to accept this because I don't want to be charged by a unit with Furious Charge. I declare that I am targeting the rear unit with Bolt Pistols and Flamer. Step 1 is satisfied correct?

2. Check range - I find the range between all of my models and the closes enemy models I wish to charge (the back group) to be 6". My Codex tells me that the range of a Bolt Pistol is 12". 6" < 12". So the Bolt Pistols don't 'automatically miss'. However the range of the Flamer is 'given as' Template. So I open my trusty MRB and follow the rules as laid out on Pg.29 about Templates. I place the Template with the narrow end touching my Flamer-armed model and the larger end touching as many enemy models as possible. Step 2 is satisfied, correct?

3. Roll to hit - Fortunately, the template covers several models in my target unit so no argument is needed as has gone round and round these last few days. In this instance there are clusters of models in the target unit such that there are two viable Template placements which result in the same maximum number of models in the target unit being touched. One placement covers one model in the other unit, the other placement covers three models. I choose the later placement so as to maximize my hits on the non-target unit while still also hitting the maximum number of models in the target unit.The Template has hit several models in the target unit and several models in the other enemy unit, and then I roll to hit several more with the Bolt Psitols. I haven't "split fire". My target unit is and remains the unit I declared my shooting against. I have simply reaped an additional benefit of applying some hits to another unit due to the nature of the Template weapon.

Again, I don't think there is anything in the preceding case which anyone really needs to debate so I will move on to my final case - the one where the problems arise.

I have a squad of marines armed with Bolter, Bolt Psitols, and Flamers facing two enemy squads. I fire at one in preparation for a charge. In this case I wish to charge the unit in the back because it has Furious Charge and the unit in front is an ineffectual meat-shield. For the sake of this case, I'm declaring that there is enough room between the bases of the front unit to allow my marines to assault between the models. And I'm assuming that there is noone who wishes to argue that it is allowed. If there is - this point of RAW needs to be, and has been, debated in other threads. Per the RAW, I:

1. Check line of sight & pick a target - Checked and found to be valid, I can see all the models in both enemy units. As I wish to target the rear unit, I know that this will offer them a Cover Save due to my firing through an enemy unit. I am willing to accept this because I don't want to be charged by a unit with Furious Charge. I declare that I am targeting the rear unit with Bolt Pistols and Flamer. Step 1 is satisfied correct?

2. Check range - I find the range between all of my models and the closes enemy models I wish to charge (the back group) to be 8½". Oh, no! I now know that my charge will fail because I am more than 6" away from my target unit. But the shooting still goes on and I have to finish my process. My Codex tells me that the range of a Bolt Pistol is 12". 8½" < 12". So the Bolt Pistols don't 'automatically miss'. However the range of the Flamer is 'given as' Template. So I open my trusty MRB and follow the rules as laid out on Pg.29 about Templates. I place the Template with the narrow end touching my Flamer-armed model and the larger end touching as many enemy models as possible. Step 2 is satisfied, correct?

3. Roll to hit - Unortunately, the template is ¼" short of covering any models in my target unit, but it still covers several models in the intervening meat-shield.

So now what? Do I take the template back and pretend that it was never placed?

 

I have no RAW telling me to do this, unlike in the case of the Blast marker which tells you that if the hole is placed beyond the waepons range the marker is removed. But the Blast marker also tells me that in the case where the marker ends up scattering out of range it is still placed, this is fine and the hits are still resolved.

 

The Template rules are referenced during Step 2 because when I looked at the weapon Range I found the word Template. 'Template' is not a numerical value which can be compared to the measured range of 8½" without some additional rules explaining this There is no RAW which says 'Template' > 8" or 'Template' < 8½". But when I reference the rules it says to place the template with the narrow end touching the firing model and the large end touching as many models in the target unit as possible and all models touched are hit. The most models the template can touch in the target unit, in this case, is zero(0) models. But the rules don't say that you haven't placed the template due to this fact. Further there are models in the other unit which are touched, therefore 'hit'. This doesn't change the fact that I have one(1) target unit and those models are just additional hits just as in cases 2 through 4 above, Gentlemanloser's "Spill over hits'.

So by what logic would one argue that in cases 2-4 the additional hits on the non-target unit are fine, but in case 5 they are not resolved?

 

The problem is that GW wrote some rules and didn't carefully consider all the possible cases where the rules might be applied. They therefore didn't write rules to cover every contingency. If they had written that the template is to be removed if no models in the target unit are touched - this would have solved the problem (although it breaks common sense to imagine that the burning Prometheum simply dissipates harmlessly because it doesn't reach the target unit). It would also be solved if the rules required you to place the large end of the template as close as possible to the nearest enemy model if the template doesn't reach - this would prevent the 'horrible' situation where the Flamer dude wheels around and roasts a completely seperate unit in the opposite direction from the target unit. Lastly, this debate could have been avoided had GW simply added that "These (Template) rules supercede all the normal shooting rules found in the previous section except Step 1." so that we would at least know that the RAW is in fact what was intended.

[Gentlemanloser]

So now what? Do I take the template back and pretend that it was never placed?

 

Yes.

 

For one of two reasons.

 

1: The Template is out of range of any minis int he target unit, so it automatically misses.

 

2: As the tmeplate doesn't hit the target unit, but instead only hits a seperate unit, you are splitting fire, which you're not allowed to do, so the Template *can't be placed* in that location. In effect, it can't be placed at all.

 

Your above argument relies too much on semantics. Let me give an example that's been bothering me this entire debate and see how this affects everyones thinking.

 

Semantics?

 

How would you 'split your fire'? You decalre you're attacking squad A, and attacking squad B.

 

What happens when you shoot (or template even) squad A and template Squad B? How is that *not* splitting your fire?

 

How can you possibly (scatter aside) hit/wound a target you don't declare you are attacking?

 

Edit: To my mind the sematnics is saying;

 

"Oh I'm not attacking/targetting unit B. I'm just laying my template over them. And oh look, it damages them."

 

That's semantics.

 

You're not laying your template randomly. It doesn't scatter.

 

You're *choosing* to place your template to attack/shot a specific target.

 

That is decalring a target and splitting your fire.

 

Which is prohibated.

[dswanick]

So now what? Do I take the template back and pretend that it was never placed?

 

Yes.

 

For one of two reasons.

 

1: The Template is out of range of any minis int he target unit, so it automatically misses.

This is an assumption - one you are making up in the absence of any RAW saying that you actually do so. There is absolutely no RAW telling you to pick the Template back up and consider it never placed, under any circumstances - this is what you are making up.

2: As the tmeplate doesn't hit the target unit, but instead only hits a seperate unit, you are splitting fire, which you're not allowed to do, so the Template *can't be placed* in that location. In effect, it can't be placed at all.

As you pointed out, you're not "splitting fire". You are not declaring two target units for your shooting. Per RAW, you have one declared target unit, and the only unit you could charge would be that one declared target unit. You are simply getting "spill over" hits on a second target. The same as you would if you legally placed a Blast marker and it scattered off of your declared (and only) target unit and ended up only hitting models from a second unit.

Your above argument relies too much on semantics. Let me give an example that's been bothering me this entire debate and see how this affects everyones thinking.

 

Semantics?

 

How would you 'split your fire'? You decalre you're attacking squad A, and attacking squad B.

Yes, semantics. In case 5 I have only declared the one unit as my target unit. The hits on the models of the other unit are "spill over" hits and do not change or add to my declared targets. Which is also the unit my Pistols fired at. I declared that I am shooting at unit A, I get some hits on unit B due to the nature of the Template rules. It's your misrepresentation of Case 4 & 5 that declares this as "splitting fire".

What happens when you shoot (or template even) squad A and template Squad B? How is that *not* splitting your fire?

The same way it's not 'splitting fire' when models from unit A are affected along with models from unit B, as in Case 4.

How can you possibly (scatter aside) hit/wound a target you don't declare you are attacking?

Really? You've never had a Blast marker scatter completely off the target unit and only affect models from a non-targeted unit? You've never had a Blast marker hit dead-on and still affect models from two seperate units(like maybe a disembarked squad and the transport they just disembarked from or models from two seperate, interwoven squads?

Edit: To my mind the sematnics is saying;

 

"Oh I'm not attacking/targetting unit B. I'm just laying my template over them. And oh look, it damages them."

And yet, in Case 4, that's an allowed situation...

That's semantics.

 

You're not laying your template randomly. It doesn't scatter.

And how does this matter one bit?

You're *choosing* to place your template to attack/shot a specific target.

Within the letter of the Rules As Written for Template weapons! No differently than I choose who to affect in Case #4.

That is decalring a target and splitting your fire.

 

Which is prohibated.

D'oh! It absolutely, positively, categorically is not. "Splitting fire" is declaring two targets for a units shooting. Most units can't do this(Long Fangs being a notable exception because they have a special rule). In none of the 5 cases I gave did I ever declare more than one target unit.

 

Answer me this :

Do you agree that a legally placed Blast marker(hole within range and centered on a model in the target unit) can scatter such that it completely misses all models in the target unit?

If you agree that the above is possible, so you further agree that if, after scatter, there are any models from non-target units under the Blast marker that they are hit?

Since I'm expecting a 'yes' to each of those questions :

Then why do you insist on stating that a legally placed Template (narrow end touching the firing model, Template covering as many models in the target unit as possible without touching any of your own models) can not affect models from other, non-targeted units.

And if you don't argue with the above question, on what RAW basis do you suddenly argue with it if the maximum number of models which can possibly be affected from the target unit is zero(0)?

[Gentlemanloser]

This is an assumption - one you are making up in the absence of any RAW saying that you actually do so. There is absolutely no RAW telling you to pick the Template back up and consider it never placed, under any circumstances - this is what you are making up.

 

There's also no RAW to tell you to pick it up after you've successfully wounded a unit hit. But no one leaves it there as a DoT for the rest of the game.

 

And there's no RAW to tell you to pick up your dice after you roll them.

 

This could go on for ever. ;)

 

Yes, semantics. In case 5 I have only declared the one unit as my target unit. The hits on the models of the other unit are "spill over" hits and do not change or add to my declared targets. Which is also the unit my Pistols fired at. I declared that I am shooting at unit A, I get some hits on unit B due to the nature of the Template rules. It's your misrepresentation of Case 4 & 5 that declares this as "splitting fire".

 

They're not 'spill over' hits, as you don't hit the original target. You can't 'spill over' form nothing.

 

The same way it's not 'splitting fire' when models from unit A are affected along with models from unit B, as in Case 4.

 

As I said, that's not splittign fire, as you hit the selected target. You just 'spill over' on others.

 

Really? You've never had a Blast marker scatter completely off the target unit and only affect models from a non-targeted unit? You've never had a Blast marker hit dead-on and still affect models from two seperate units(like maybe a disembarked squad and the transport they just disembarked from or models from two seperate, interwoven squads?

 

I said scatter... And for the Blast hitting dead on, it's exactly like a template. You hit the selected target and anything else under the blast is more 'spill over'.

 

And yet, in Case 4, that's an allowed situation...

 

No. You hit the selected target. Spill over again. Not "I'm spinning 180 degrees and landing my template on another unit, that I'm not actually selecting to hit..."

 

And how does this matter one bit?

 

As it's not a random scatter, you're actively choosing where to lay and target your template. You're actively declaring to hit a unit other than the one the rest of your unit is attacking.

 

Within the letter of the Rules As Written for Template weapons! No differently than I choose who to affect in Case #4.

 

The RAW of Templates don't allow you to bypass the 'splitting fire' restriction.

 

Again, spill over when you hit the selected unit isn't splitting fire. Hitting a seocnd unit when you don't hit the selected unit *is* splitting fire.

 

D'oh! It absolutely, positively, categorically is not. "Splitting fire" is declaring two targets for a units shooting. Most units can't do this(Long Fangs being a notable exception because they have a special rule). In none of the 5 cases I gave did I ever declare more than one target unit.

 

Again, without involuntary or random movement/placement (like a scatter), the *only* way to hit a target is to actively choose to target it. That's selecting an enemy unit to attack.

 

Answer me this :

Do you agree that a legally placed Blast marker(hole within range and centered on a model in the target unit) can scatter such that it completely misses all models in the target unit?

 

Yes.

 

If you agree that the above is possible, so you further agree that if, after scatter, there are any models from non-target units under the Blast marker that they are hit?

 

Yes.

 

Since I'm expecting a 'yes' to each of those questions :

Then why do you insist on stating that a legally placed Template (narrow end touching the firing model, Template covering as many models in the target unit as possible without touching any of your own models) can not affect models from other, non-targeted units.

 

Splitting fire. You're choosing to target a different unit to the one the rest of the squad has selected.

 

If you placed the template randomly, or it scatter, it would be different.

 

And if you don't argue with the above question, on what RAW basis do you suddenly argue with it if the maximum number of models which can possibly be affected from the target unit is zero(0)?

 

Eh?