Situational questions if template is a literal range

[thade]

Fallacy. Argument ad populum. Also argument from authority (with the assumption that being on this board longer means more authority on the intent of the rules).

In any other arena, what you are saying would be valid. It doesn't fly in Warhammer. It can get frustrating, I'll grant you, but that's the way of it.

 

The rules are simply not written rigidly enough to withstand legal-level analysis. If you are doing that in such a way to garner an advantage (which is what it seems is happening) you are not going to make a lot of friends at your local club. This kind of stuff is frowned upon; the system is full of holes and too easy to game for an advantage.

 

You may not appreciate my appeal to authority and I can't blame you; but really it's all we have here.

[Quixus]

That last part is simply not true; the game isn't so black & white. If you declare the shot then find out that you can't actually place the template correctly, it misses (i.e. the template doesn't go down). It's got to hit something in the declared-target unit or it can't be placed it all.

 

Bolded is patently false. Unless you'd like to actually provide any quote from the rules that this is true. You're claiming something is part of the rules of the game, surely you can provide an actual rule which makes it true or even plausibly true?

 

As has been stated many, many times before

 

Any model that is found to be out of range of all of the models he can see in the target unit misses automatically

 

Cue further rant about template weapons not having a range.

I hope I'm not ranting, but where does it say that automatically missing has the same effect on enemy models as not firing at all? Yes, if the target squad is farther away than the template can reach, it will not be hit. This rule does not say at all what happens to any model that is under the template, nor does it say that the weapon does not fire. To be able to fire a model has to have LOS to the targeted squad, it does not need to be in range. Being out of range only causes the weapon to miss the targeted unit, and in case of Blast weapons to not have any effect at all.

 

BTW, what happens to limited use weapons like the Blood Strike Missiles? Are they expended or not if the target is out of range? I'm guessing yes.

[Squirrelloid]

See scenario 2: The template weapon is explicitly in range but unable to touch a model in the target squad.

This was already answered. If he can't hit a model in the target unit, he misses. The rules for template weapons both add to and modify the rules for normal shooting. Yes it hits models underneath it, yes it must be placed to maximize, and yes it cannot fire if it's placed such that a friendly model is underneath it. Nothing in the template rule specifically overrides anything about "If you can't reach you miss." So that's that.

 

Also, stop being antagonistic.

 

It was not answered because not one person has managed to answer it while actually following the rules for measuring range.

 

You can reach. You measured range and found you were in range.

 

Placing the template has nothing to do with measuring range. It is explicitly placed in Step 3.

 

Bolded is actually made up by you. The actual line is: "Any model that is found to be out of range of all the models he can see in the target unit misses automatically - his shots simply do not reach."

 

Notable features of the rule: (1) 'not reach' is a consequence of 'found to be out of range'. We were found to be in range, so by the rules the template 'reaches' even if it can't actually be placed to 'touch' those models. (2) Only units found to be out of range automatically miss. Again, scenario 2 is explicitly in range.

[thade]

I want to see where it says "If I can't place the flamer on anything in the target unit, I can place it wherever I want to." So far all I've seen is the following: hand-waving and a smoke screen that allows for a dodgy interpretation where this can be done; a lot of antagonistic remarks in the spirit of "If you can't show me where in the rules it's so, I'm obviously right and you're obviously foolish."

 

Not going to lie. I don't appreciate it.

 

It was not answered because not one person has managed to answer it while actually following the rules for measuring range.

 

You can reach. You measured range and found you were in range.

Measured range for what? The flamer? It doesn't have range so you can't measure for it; vacuously true then that it always misses as with it's defacto NULL range it can't ever make range.

 

By your arguments it seems like a boltgun can rapid-fire provided a lascannon in the unit can reach. :huh:

[Squirrelloid]

Fallacy. Argument ad populum. Also argument from authority (with the assumption that being on this board longer means more authority on the intent of the rules).

In any other arena, what you are saying would be valid. It doesn't fly in Warhammer. It can get frustrating, I'll grant you, but that's the way of it.

 

The rules are simply not written rigidly enough to withstand legal-level analysis. If you are doing that in such a way to garner an advantage (which is what it seems is happening) you are not going to make a lot of friends at your local club. This kind of stuff is frowned upon; the system is full of holes and too easy to game for an advantage.

 

You may not appreciate my appeal to authority and I can't blame you; but really it's all we have here.

 

There are at least 3 people who have explicitly supported my view. And they are the only people who can reliably cite what is actually in the rulebook.

 

I need only appeal to the authority of the rules. Which is the only legitimate authority in deciding what the rules say.

 

This is not legal level analysis. This is following the procedures as specified. This is choosing not to make stuff up to suit my fancy.

 

And finally, what I don't appreciate is your continual attempts to argue things are rules which you can provide no quotation, no citation, and no reason to believe that it exists anywhere outside your own thoughts. How can anyone possibly believe that such things are 'intended' to be part of the rules.

[thade]

And finally, what I don't appreciate is your continual attempts to argue things are rules which you can provide no quotation, no citation, and no reason to believe that it exists anywhere outside your own thoughts. How can anyone possibly believe that such things are 'intended' to be part of the rules.

This isn't Warmachine, man. It's Warhammer. The game is designed around models and model sales; the rules are a side-line and they're poorly done.

 

Your citations are circumstantial and involve a great deal of interpretation on your part. Smoke and mirrors.

 

You can't measure range for the flamer as it has no range. If the flamer's not in range, it automatically misses. Vacuously true that it always misses. Guess we're not taking flamers anymore.

[Quixus]

Measured range for what? The flamer? It doesn't have range so you can't measure for it; vacuously true then that it always misses as with it's defacto NULL range it can't ever make range.

In example 2 the target was in reach of the flamer but friendlies were placed in such a way that there was no way to place the template over it without also touching friendlies. There were however positions where it would neither touch the target squad nor any friendlies.

 

By your arguments it seems like a boltgun can rapid-fire provided a lascannon in the unit can reach. :huh:

Of course they can, but they won't hit anything as they are not allowed to roll to hit on anything out of range. Since the lascannon is a heavy weapon anyway it does not make any difference if they shoot or not. The unit cannot assault either way.

[thade]

What you guys are trying to do here is exercise a loophole.

 

The rules say "If it can't reach, it can't fire." Well, it can reach and so you're taking that and running with it...then placing a template such that it hit some unit other than the target.

 

That you don't see why this isn't okay sort of blows my mind.

[Something Wycked]

Bolded text is made up. It is not in the rulebook.

Is it really? Or are you making up yet another antagonistic argument? The template rules state to place the template such that it covers the maximum amount of models in the targeted enemy squad and touches no friendly models. Ergo, if the template may not be placed in such a way that it does not touch friendly models, it may not be placed.

 

Templates are never prevented from firing according to the rules. They place according to the rules on p29. I suggest you review those rules, since you are obviously unfamiliar with them.

:huh: Or templates are prevented from firing when they are found to be out of range and/or have no legal placements on the board. I suggest you review those rules, since you are obviously unfamiliar with them.

 

Any such position is a valid placement according to p29 if 0 is the most models in the target squad it can touch.

The rules do not state placing the template such that it covers 0 models from the targeted squad is a valid placement. In fact, "covering 0 models of the targeted squad" equates to two states for the template:

 

1. Out of range.

2. Prevented from being placed due to friendly models.

 

The onus of proof is therefore on you to show that the rulebook permits placement of the template such that it may cover 0 models in the targeted squad.

 

.... But you cannot, because the rulebook does not so state, and all of this is rules lawyering to try and make it so.

 

You can't measure range for the flamer as it has no range. If the flamer's not in range, it automatically misses. Vacuously true that it always misses. Guess we're not taking flamers anymore.

:lol: Absolutely golden.

[Squirrelloid]

I want to see where it says "If I can't place the flamer on anything in the target unit, I can place it wherever I want to." So far all I've seen is the following: hand-waving and a smoke screen that allows for a dodgy interpretation where this can be done; a lot of antagonistic remarks in the spirit of "If you can't show me where in the rules it's so, I'm obviously right and you're obviously foolish."

 

Not going to lie. I don't appreciate it.

 

And I don't appreciate people making things up and claiming those things are rules.

 

First, I direct you to p16 about taking targets, declaring firing, etc... I've already cited this at length.

 

I will, once again, cite p29. "...simply place the template so its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it and the rest of the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models."

 

I will assume we can agree on what is meant by 'touching the base of the model firing it'.

 

So, we need to touch as many models as possible in the target unit *while* touching no friendly models. Is 0 an integer? Does touching 0 models make sense conceptually? (Ie, can we understand what it means to touch 0 models?) The answer to all those questions is clearly yes. 0 is a valid solution to 'as many models as possible', no problems of interpretation or breakdowns. And its a procedurally useful solution too. Knowing that we can touch at most 0 models does not make it impossible to follow the rule. Its possible to place a template and touch 0 models in the target unit.

 

So we follow the procedure, exactly as specified, and figure out what the most models in the target unit we can touch is while not touching a friendly model. We then choose a placement of the template that touches that many models in the target squad (there may be more than one legitimate placement, and in the case of a max touched models of 0 there will likely be more than one - so we will need to choose one. Remember, it says place it so those things are true, so we need only choose a placement that fulfills those conditions. A unique solution is not required to follow the instructions)

 

Lets be more rigorous about this. Lets define some characteristics of a given placement. Let F be the number of friendly models touched by the template. Let m be the number of models in the target squad touched by the placement. Let M be the maximum touched models in the target squad out of all placements when F=0.

 

Given those definitions, we can translate the rules into a mathematical statement. We must find a position which satisfies the following: F=0 AND m=M. Any position which satisifes those 2 conditions is a legal placement under the rules.

 

M is whatever it is. If M = 0, those conditions are still interpretable and implementable. F=0 and m=M=0 is sensible.

 

 

It was not answered because not one person has managed to answer it while actually following the rules for measuring range.

 

You can reach. You measured range and found you were in range.

Measured range for what? The flamer? It doesn't have range so you can't measure for it; vacuously true then that it always misses as with it's defacto NULL range it can't ever make range.

 

The entire point of this thread was to grant the assertions of posters like Gentlemanloser that templates have a range and measure it like any other weapon. That we're assuming it has a range is NOT MY FAULT.

 

I actually agree with you, flamers do not have a range and therefore never check range. Fullstop. You skip step 2 entirely. You simply place the template in step 3 as instructed. But tons of people disagreed with that, so i nicely granted their (imo arbitrary assertion) that template was a literal range to be treated exactly as any other range. (They then proceed to try to treat it differently than other ranges, for which there is 0 rules support).

 

So, tbh, i don't care if its a range or not. Either its a range and it checks range like every other weapon, or its not a range and it doesn't check range at all. But it doesn't measure range totally unlike anything detailed in the rules. No special rules are given for checking the range of a template weapon, ergo, any proposed rules for checking range with a template weapon that don't follow the rules layed out on p17 are made up. Whether or not templates actually check range seems to be an open question on this board. (And all that 'authority' that you think agrees with you will actually disagree with you vehemently on this point. They will insist templates must check range.)

 

I will also note that the only way to invoke the automatic miss rule is to have first checked range. If templates don't check range, they can not automatically miss. (Whatever that would even mean for templates is unknown).

 

By your arguments it seems like a boltgun can rapid-fire provided a lascannon in the unit can reach. :huh:

 

Nope, if the bolter is found to be out of range it fires but misses automatically. But it still fires, and that's important.

 

The problem is, firing a template weapon means placing the template. And misses are never defined for templates. Indeed "All touched models are hit." Fullstop. So if we measure range for templates and invoke the out of range rule, then what?

 

You may note that blast weapons explicitly place the blast before checking range, check range, and are explicitly instructed to remove the blast marker if its found to be out of range. Templates are explicitly instructed to place the template in Step 3: Rolling to Hit, not in Step 2 at all. There is no instruction to remove the template without effect, which means it places and has an effect regardless. They were very thorough on the Blast marker rules - if templates worked at all similarly, why are the rules not at all similar?

 

But, again assuming we measure range for templates, if the template is in range then there's no cause to even invoke the automatic miss rule. Regardless of whether we can touch a model in the target unit or not. Ie, Scenario 1. Explicitly in range according to the rules for measuring range. Cannot touch a single model in the target unit. Can find a valid template placement according to p29. All the rules expressly permit it to place the template without any possible objection under the rules. The only way to object is to make rules up.

[thade]

Wait.

 

Where does it say "If a weapon does not have a range then you need not measure for its range"? I haven't seen that.

 

You have to measure for range before weapon fires; the flamer has no range therefore it cannot measure for range and thus automatically misses.

 

That's all I'm hearing from you. That very style of discussion. Bogged down in a sea of Logic 101 terminology and convenient rule citations and oversights. :\

 

Splitting Fire is a special ability that very few units in the game have; example: Long Fangs. It's not something any unit with a Flamer can do. If it was, it would be noted as an exception, just as Long Fangs are.

[Squirrelloid]

I have quoted all the relevant rules in this thread. Repeatedly.

 

You have quoted not a single rule.

 

Would you care to supply a quote that says "if you can touch no model in the target unit the template weapon does not fire."?

 

I'd need a page number to confirm of course. I have been unable to find this rule. What I have been able to find is

-A model with LoS may declare he is firing (p16)

-Models that declare they are firing must fire (p16-17)

-You fire the template as per p29 (p27)

-You must place the template such that you touch as many models as possible from the target squad while touching no friendly models (p29). 0 is a valid number for 'as many as possible' (basic math).

-All touched models are hit. (p29)

 

All these quotes are provided elsewhere in the thread. I am well and truly tired of retyping them.

 

Bolded text is made up. It is not in the rulebook.

Is it really? Or are you making up yet another antagonistic argument? The template rules state to place the template such that it covers the maximum amount of models in the targeted enemy squad and touches no friendly models. Ergo, if the template may not be placed in such a way that it does not touch friendly models, it may not be placed.

 

Templates are never prevented from firing according to the rules. They place according to the rules on p29. I suggest you review those rules, since you are obviously unfamiliar with them.

:rolleyes: Or templates are prevented from firing when they are found to be out of range and/or have no legal placements on the board. I suggest you review those rules, since you are obviously unfamiliar with them.

 

Any such position is a valid placement according to p29 if 0 is the most models in the target squad it can touch.

The rules do not state placing the template such that it covers 0 models from the targeted squad is a valid placement. In fact, "covering 0 models of the targeted squad" equates to two states for the template:

 

1. Out of range.

2. Prevented from being placed due to friendly models.

 

The onus of proof is therefore on you to show that the rulebook permits placement of the template such that it may cover 0 models in the targeted squad.

 

.... But you cannot, because the rulebook does not so state, and all of this is rules lawyering to try and make it so.

 

You can't measure range for the flamer as it has no range. If the flamer's not in range, it automatically misses. Vacuously true that it always misses. Guess we're not taking flamers anymore.

:lol: Absolutely golden.

[Quixus]

Something Wycked, this is not a guide how to create a pleasurable gaming experience for the opponents and one's self this is the OR board. Here we discuss the rules as written. I never said I would play like that and IIRC squirrelloid explicitly said he would not play according to RAW in this case.

The rules however do not say automatically misses = does not fire. For most weapons this creates the same result though, either by rules design (no roll to hit ergo no effect on enemy models) or by explicit ruling (the blast marker is removed without doing anything). It would get really interesting if there were rapid fire or heavy weapons with a range of 6'' or less....

 

In the other case where the target unit is in range, but the template cannot be placed without touching friendlies and touching enemy models, the rules say you have to cover as many models of the target squad as possible and not touch any friendlies. Zero models in this case is the maximum and an orientation without touching friendlies will be somewhere in the opposite 180°. There is no mention that the number of touched enemy models must be greater than zero.

 

If you judge there has to be a hierarchy to the two conditions you get a lot of other problems. For example if you could cover two enemy models only while covering a friendly but only 1 legally (i.e. not covering friendlies). You would not be able fire as the maximum models is obviously 2. So both conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously or the maximum can be lowered by the other condition. Nothing says it cannot be lowered to zero.

 

Squirrelloid is just too quick.

[Gentlemanloser]

And they are the only people who can reliably cite what is actually in the rulebook.

 

LoL.

 

"You disagree with me, therefore you can't read the rulebook."

 

Well, seems like time to once again ask for this topic to be locked...

[Something Wycked]

I have quoted all the relevant rules in this thread. Repeatedly.

 

You have quoted not a single rule.

 

Would you care to supply a quote that says "if you can touch no model in the target unit the template weapon does not fire."?

Sure Squirrelloid, if I must.

 

If a target is beyond [the weapon's] maximum range , the shot misses automatically.

In step 2 of a shooting attack, you check the weapon's range to see if it is in range of the target. As the above rules quote states, if the weapon is out of range, it misses automatically.

 

But you claim that templates do not have a range.

 

Uh oh. If templates do not have a range to check, then they may not fire at all.

 

Edit:

 

Something Wycked, this is not a guide how to create a pleasurable gaming experience for the opponents and one's self this is the OR board. Here we discuss the rules as written. I never said I would play like that and IIRC squirrelloid explicitly said he would not play according to RAW in this case.

You may have me confused with thade. For that, I thank you- thade is a paragon of human and 40k virtue.

 

However, you're wrong; Squirrelloid is advocating playing to the RAW in this case.

 

The rules however do not say automatically misses = does not fire.

And I've never said that, either. The weapon fires, and misses. A weapon "missing" means it has no effect.

 

Zero models in this case is the maximum and an orientation without touching friendlies will be somewhere in the opposite 180°.

To quote Squirrelloid, rules citation, please. This is a permissive rules set. The rules must say you may do something before it is legal. And as I've pointed out before, the rules do not state that 0 is a valid number for "maximum." That is a made up rule from Squirrelloid that you are supporting.

[Squirrelloid]

Wait.

 

Where does it say "If a weapon does not have a range then you need not measure for its range"? I haven't seen that.

 

Ok, so we measure range. The range is 10". We don't have a range. Is 10" > NaN? Is 10" < NaN? (NaN = Not a Number). I have no idea. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world have no idea. Not having a range is not the same as having a range of 0". To be out of range, we'd have to be able to say that 10" > NaN is a true statement (please refer to p17). Its not. Thus we are not out of range.

 

Goedel, Escher, Bach might be a useful introduction to dealing with logical prepositions to which we can not logically determine if they are true or false.

 

You have to measure for range before weapon fires; the flamer has no range therefore it cannot measure for range and thus automatically misses.

 

false conclusion. The flamer has no range, therefore it cannot *meaningfully* measure for range, and thus it cannot be found to be out of range. Thus it never invokes the automatically misses rule. Only weapons which are out of range automatically miss. If it has no range, it can never be found to be out of range.

 

Even if you can reach the automatically miss rule, its unclear what that means for templates. Templates don't miss. They have no rules for missing. (All other weapons do!) "All touched models are hit." At worst, the template rules supersede the automatic miss rule because their own rules say they automatically hit, and specific overrides general.

 

That's all I'm hearing from you. That very style of discussion. Bogged down in a sea of Logic 101 terminology and convenient rule citations and oversights. :\

 

Splitting Fire is a special ability that very few units in the game have; example: Long Fangs. It's not something any unit with a Flamer can do. If it was, it would be noted as an exception, just as Long Fangs are.

 

Splitting fire specifically involves taking multiple targets as detailed on p16, which has not ever been done in any example I have provided.

 

Any rule which interprets a flamer as splitting fire when it hits squad B instead of target squad A would also necessarily involve it splitting fire if it hits squad B when also hitting target squad A. Ie, if affecting models outside the target squad is splitting fire, then that's true whenever models outside the target squad are affected. The fact that templates specifically 'Hit all touched models' would be specific permission to split fire if affecting a unit is enough to target it, so under that interpretation they would have specific permission to split fire.

 

Edit: My rules citations are hardly 'convenient'. I have dealt with all the rules anyone has mentioned that I can find in the rulebook. I have cited the rules governing fire *exhaustively*. If my citations were 'convenient', you'd be able to find rules which say I am wrong.

[Squirrelloid]

I have quoted all the relevant rules in this thread. Repeatedly.

 

You have quoted not a single rule.

 

Would you care to supply a quote that says "if you can touch no model in the target unit the template weapon does not fire."?

Sure Squirrelloid, if I must.

 

If a target is beyond [the weapon's] maximum range , the shot misses automatically.

In step 2 of a shooting attack, you check the weapon's range to see if it is in range of the target. As the above rules quote states, if the weapon is out of range, it misses automatically.

 

But you claim that templates do not have a range.

 

Uh oh. If templates do not have a range to check, then they may not fire at all.

 

If template is a range, scenario 2 is explicitly in range. I refer you to it.

 

If template is not a range, you can never be found to be out of range. You would measure teh distance to the target and be unable to compare it to a range. This can neither be in range nor out of range. As 'automatic miss' is a consequence of specifically being found to be out of range (p17), it does not apply.

[Something Wycked]

If template is a range, scenario 2 is explicitly in range. I refer you to it.

And I'll refer you to the RAW for templates quoted in previous posts that say they may not be placed over friendly models. You're driving us around in circles here.

[Squirrelloid]

If template is a range, scenario 2 is explicitly in range. I refer you to it.

And I'll refer you to the RAW for templates quoted in previous posts that say they may not be placed over friendly models. You're driving us around in circles here.

 

That has nothing to do with Checking Range. That's part of Step 3, Rolling to Hit.

 

We can't *place* the template over friendly models, I agree. We still must place the template, somewhere that is *not* over friendly models. Where have I ever claimed otherwise?

 

Edit: You're the one driving us in circles. You want to talk about range so i explain range. But then object because of stuff that happens in step 3, so i explain step 3. But then you say its out of range because of stuff that's happening in step 2, so i explain range.

 

Stop jumping around and shifting goalposts. Present a coherent argument. Get your order of operations in order and proceed through the rules as the rules instruct you to on p15. The only one confusing the issue is you and other posters like you who can't keep the steps separated and object to stuff in Step 2 based on stuff that only happens in Step 3 and vice versa.

[Ming]

Scenario 1: The SMART marine player would flame the enemy tank, thus being able hit the enemy unit regardless and with impunity. And then he would CHARGE the tank, hitting it with his grenades vs the rear armor.

 

Scenario 2: The SMART marine player would have had the flamer in the front rank in order to use it (and these guys woul be spread out). Otherwise in this case the model would fire a pistol instead, to keep the flames off his battle brothers to the front. Nobody likes to light their buddies on fire...when you might live over a hundred years as a marine, it's a long time to carry a grudge.

 

Maybe the thread should have been rewritten to...."I have this situation...what is the best tactical play for it?" ratther than "can I intrepret the rules I see fit to meet my own goals and cultural approach to the game?"

[thade]

I've read GEB times enough to know that it doesn't apply here. It only applies when logic is actually at the root of what you're discussing, which isn't the case in WH40k.

 

That was pretty elitist of you; you should take it down a notch. And maybe actually read some of the stuff I said regarding the rule you are overtly omitting. The first rule in the book. The golden one.

 

You have to measure for range before weapon fires; the flamer has no range therefore it cannot measure for range and thus automatically misses.

 

false conclusion. The flamer has no range, therefore it cannot *meaningfully* measure for range, and thus it cannot be found to be out of range. Thus it never invokes the automatically misses rule. Only weapons which are out of range automatically miss. If it has no range, it can never be found to be out of range.

Sorry, I missed the part where your RAI was better than my RAI, I guess. What do you mean "it cannot *meaningfully* measure". It certainly can. It's extremely meaningful not to measure. :rolleyes: It's like you're not shooting at all.

[Squirrelloid]

I've read GEB times enough to know that it doesn't apply here. It only applies when logic is actually at the root of what you're discussing, which isn't the case in WH40k.

 

That was pretty elitist of you; you should take it down a notch. And maybe actually read some of the stuff I said regarding the rule you are overtly omitting. The first rule in the book. The golden one.

 

Rule one only applies during the course of a game, explicitly =)

 

More seriously, what's the point of discussing the rules if your solution is 'don't discuss the rules'?

 

Edit: Logic must be at the root of what we're discussing. Rules are a body of logic. Otherwise its impossible to play.

 

Sorry, I missed the part where your RAI was better than my RAI, I guess. What do you mean "it cannot *meaningfully* measure". It certainly can. It's extremely meaningful not to measure. It's like you're not shooting at all.

 

By not meaningfully measure range i mean 10" > NaN is not a true statement, so its not out of range. It doesn't matter what number you measure - 2", 12", 360". None of them are out of range. Thus you can not meaningfully measure range because any range returns the same result - you are not out of range.

 

No RAI at all. Just logic.

[Something Wycked]

Maybe the thread should have been rewritten to...."I have this situation...what is the best tactical play for it?" ratther than "can I intrepret the rules I see fit to meet my own goals and cultural approach to the game?"

:rolleyes: We'd all be better off if he'd stop being intentionally disingenuous.

 

Edit: You're the one driving us in circles. You want to talk about range so i explain range. But then object because of stuff that happens in step 3, so i explain step 3. But then you say its out of range because of stuff that's happening in step 2, so i explain range.

 

Stop jumping around and shifting goalposts. Present a coherent argument. Get your order of operations in order and proceed through the rules as the rules instruct you to on p15. The only one confusing the issue is you and other posters like you who can't keep the steps separated and object to stuff in Step 2 based on stuff that only happens in Step 3 and vice versa.

I've already done that, but you want another go at it? Okay, here we go again.

 

Step 1: Unit w/template checks LoS and declares a target.

 

Step 2: Range is checked; if any of the squad's weapons are not found to be in range of the target, they automatically miss. If the target is found to be in range, proceed to step 3.

 

Step 3: Determine hits; roll to hit with weapons that require it, and place templates in the only legal fashion. That is: the template must cover models from the target unit, and may not cover models from a friendly unit. If both of those conditions are not met, the template may not be placed.

 

Step 4: Roll to wound, etc.

[Squirrelloid]

I've already done that, but you want another go at it? Okay, here we go again.

 

Step 1: Unit w/template checks LoS and declares a target.

 

Step 2: Range is checked; if any of the squad's weapons are not found to be in range of the target, they automatically miss. If the target is found to be in range, proceed to step 3.

 

Step 3: Determine hits; roll to hit with weapons that require it, and place templates in the only legal fashion. That is: the template must cover models from the target unit, and may not cover models from a friendly unit. If both of those conditions are not met, the template may not be placed.

 

Step 4: Roll to wound, etc.

 

Quote please.

[thade]

My solution does discuss the rules; that's really the mind-bender I'm trying to get across to you. I sense you haven't read much of what I've said or have simply disregarded it. The rules are ambiguous in many places and so we fill them in. One extreme example is something like INAT which flat out makes rules changes and amendments to deal with things like this. The funny part, INAT isn't official so it isn't used at WH40k tournaments. You know what is? Whatever the random TO that's in earshot of your table says. "Official" in 40k rules is as much an oxymoron as you might imagine. We do our best with what we have. If you find a hole, best course is to scale it down and move on.

 

If the target is not within range, the gun misses. The flamer not having a range does not preclude it from this restriction.

Edit: Logic must be at the root of what we're discussing. Rules are a body of logic. Otherwise its impossible to play.

Fallacy. <3 It's very possible to play. WH players have been doing it for like two decades now in the face of grosser rules conundrums than this one.

 

EDIT: Spacing.