Sketchy Template Placement

[ElectricPaladin]

This hasn't come up yet in an actual game, but I'm curious to hear how you think it should be adjudicated.

A model capable of firing more than one weapon - let's call it a dreadnought - shoots at a distant unit with a long range weapon. In between the model and its target is an intervening unit. Can the firing model choose to fire a template weapon - say, a heavy flamer - "at" its target, even though the only unit it can actually hit is the intervening unit?

Like this

Dread ----> Gaunts ---> Carnifex

Can the dread fire its lascannon at the carnifex and "fire" its heavy flamer at the carnifex, too, even though when the template is placed, it can only cover the gaunts?

I've read the rulebook and I don't believe that it's clear. The book says that the template must cover "as many members of the target unit as possible," but doesn't say what to do if that number is zero.

[Nabterayl]

I think the answer turns on whether we think that each firing weapon on a vehicle is treated like a separate firing unit or not. Attend:

You're quite right that no rule states what to do if the number of models in the target unit the template can hit is zero. You're also quite right to observe that page 52 says, "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit," not "any models in the target unit," so if the template could be fired in your example, it could hit the gaunts.

Here are what I believe are the two rules that control this scenario:

Page 12 states, "Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit doesn't shoot - his shots would not be not accurate enough to hit anything."

Page 72 states, "When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them at the target and then trace line of sight from each weapon's rnounting and along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models. If the target unit is in cover from only some of the vehicle's weapons, then work out the target's cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing unit."

So we can see, if the flamer couldn't see the carnifex (even if, somehow, it could see the gaunts), it wouldn't fire at all, and the gaunts would not get toasted. Here is the question: do we work out range as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing unit, or line of sight only?

If the former, then the flamer does not fire (because the flamer "unit" is out of range, even though it has line of sight), and the gaunts are not toasted.
If the latter, then the flamer does fire (because the dreadnought unit is in range, and the flamer "unit" has line of sight), and the gaunts are toasted.

I think most people would go with treating each firing weapon like a separate unit for line of sight and range purposes (though not for targeting purposes, obviously). I can certainly see the argument for treating each firing weapon like a separate unit for line of sight purposes only, though.

[Kevin48220]

I think that you should look at that in light of "Which Models Can Fire" on P. 13. The rule there states that a firing unit has to fire all of its weapons at the same target unit. If a model cannot shoot at the target unit "for any reason" then it cannot fire at all. I think that being out of range for the template attack would fall well within the "for any reason" language of that rule. I think that is supported by the "Shooting Sequence" sidebar on P. 12, which states that models that are not within range cannot shoot.

In that case, your dread would not be able to fire the flamer at the Carnifex (out of range) but could still opt to fire its lascannon (in range).

[Tepogue]

The local players here, pull this all the time. "i'm shooting at the unit behind the closest one, oops I just happen to dump 3 combi flamers into the close unit while the furter unit also takes hits. LOL"

I gave up trying to reason with them, so now I switched to Demons and just burn them all.
Go Go Over Powered Flamers.

[magickbk]

This has never been legal, in any edition of 40k since split firing was removed from the game.

[Kevin48220]

Tepogue, I think your situation falls into the language on P. 12 in Point 2 of "shooting sequence"--says that every model in the unit that is firing has to have range on a model in the target unit in order to fire. The combi-flamers would have to have range on the target unit in order to be able to catch the intervening unit in the same blast.

[ElectricPaladin]

Tepogue, I think your situation falls into the language on P. 12 in Point 2 of "shooting sequence"--says that every model in the unit that is firing has to have range on a model in the target unit in order to fire. The combi-flamers would have to have range on the target unit in order to be able to catch the intervening unit in the same blast.

Yeah, the difference is between one model capable of firing multiple weapons and members of one unit firing different weapons.

[DarkLink]

This has never been legal, in any edition of 40k since split firing was removed from the game.

But explain the rational, because we already know you can hit multiple enemy units. The only difference here is that you're out of range of the target unit, and as mentioned there are no rules covering that. So why are you so certain that you lose the ability to hit multiple enemy units when the main target is more than ~9" away?

[Nabterayl]

Yeah ... past history can be a guide when something is ambiguous, but it's not a reason to decide that something is ambiguous. The plain language of 6th edition, I think, allows for firing a template weapon at a target that is out of its range, so long as that target is in range of the firing model's (not unit's) other weapons. The rules are not ambiguous, they just have an unexpected meaning. We can certainly choose to ignore that meaning, but we shouldn't pretend that something is ambiguous when it isn't.

In 5th edition this was not true. As page 17 said, "If a target is beyond this maximum range, the shot misses automatically." There is no such rule in 6th edition.

[magickbk]

I started digging through the rulebook, comparing the text on p13 with the rules for drawing line of sight for vehicles, etc, and that's when the rationale hit me:

Nowhere in the book does it say I cannot rip the flamer off your model, claim WYSIWYG, and say the model is not equipped with a flamer. It's an extreme example, but there comes a time when you have to decide why you are playing this game. Are you playing to have fun? Can you have fun without mercilessly slaughtering your opponent's toy soldiers? Can you have fun if your opponent wins?

If someone tried to do this in a game against me, I would simply allow them to do whatever they wanted in that game, and then not play that person again, and if I discovered everyone in the store played that way, I would just play elsewhere.

If you are playing in a tournament? Ask the TO. As a matter of fact, the TOs should probably write a new book, because those people are not playing the same game I am.