PDA

View Full Version : flame thrower targets



kirkus
03-02-2014, 15:11
A flame thrower places the teardrop template with the narrow end touching the flame thrower barrel and the large end aiming at any target in its line of sight. Can a target be a hill? We had this come up yesterday in a game where my unit was out of line of sight behind a hill, but the argument was that his target was the hill (like a canon can target a spot on the ground) and scatters onto the unit. Is this legal? Canons actually have a more clear targetting rule in that they say you're allowed to target a spot on the ground, whereas flame thrower doesn't say what a target is.

Also if a single model charges another single model, how do their bases have to match? Is it ok to just touch the corners since you are still technically maximizing contact or does the majority of the 2 bases have to be in contact? This came up yesterday as a wizard charged a single model and aligned it's base in such a way that it could cast a flame template spell without touching the model it was in combat with. If the models had to match as much as possible it is likely that he would not be able to cast this spell as it was a direct damage spell and the rules state that you cannot place a direct damage template on a unit in combat.

JDV311
03-02-2014, 15:47
No to both questions.

Blkc57
03-02-2014, 16:36
Hmm fire throwers are very funky things. But I'm gonna side with JDV311 on the first part and say no. At least one target must be within LOS of a fire thrower to start shooting. Only a cannon has the rule that lets you target a spot on the ground to start with.

As for the second part, I believe by RAW there is nothing preventing it if he can get into base contact all he needs to do is maneuver to maximize the number of models fighting. Thus he can be corner to corner (I've seen this done by people wishing to maximize overrun potential with chariots and monsters into a prime target behind their initial charge). But most consider the point of the rule to maximize base contact in order to symbolize a raging combat, It seems silly to picture a fight where the models just touch corners daintily rather than get directly in each other's face.

Squishy1979
03-02-2014, 17:43
Hmm fire throwers are very funky things. But I'm gonna side with JDV311 on the first part and say no. At least one target must be within LOS of a fire thrower to start shooting. Only a cannon has the rule that lets you target a spot on the ground to start with.

Stone Throwers also have this rule. We were wondering if there is a general ruling on what a target is (such as with Direct Damage spells it specifically says that when choosing a target, you much choose a model within a unit). You would think that if you had to word something to specifically allow cannons/stone throwers to pick a specific spot, that those examples are exceptions....but if the exception with DD spells is that you can't pick a spot, then what is the norm for targets?


As for the second part, I believe by RAW there is nothing preventing it if he can get into base contact all he needs to do is maneuver to maximize the number of models fighting. Thus he can be corner to corner (I've seen this done by people wishing to maximize overrun potential with chariots and monsters into a prime target behind their initial charge). But most consider the point of the rule to maximize base contact in order to symbolize a raging combat, It seems silly to picture a fight where the models just touch corners daintily rather than get directly in each other's face.

We played it so that you maximize base contact (same frontage in the specific example), but the rules did not seem to define a specific answer that would stop you from going corner to corner when a single model charges a single model.

FatTrucker
03-02-2014, 18:49
The most reasonable and sportsmanlike way to resolve these things is to look at the whole point behind the rules.

Do you want to play arguing semantics and wording in order to gain an unintended advantage or do you want to play fairly in the spirit of the game and rules.
Either are acceptable depending on the type of games you play and the kind of people you game with.

With shooting, manipulating rules or wording so a player can shoot at something his troops can't actually see or target goes against the whole point of Line of sight.

Why bother with the rule at all if players are going to aim at them anyway because they can see them even if the army can't?
In the same way shooting into combat is prohibited because troops won't fire on friendlies but a controlling player will deliberately target a point on the ground next to a combat hoping to scatter into it, completely contradicting the point of the rules.

Similarly with maximising, its perfectly legal to stick two lone characters corner to corner but you're not really playing WFB at that point, it becomes a technical exercise purely about numbers and RAW, why bother with models at all. Just sit opposite each other with an army book and a calculator.

3eland
03-02-2014, 18:54
The most reasonable and sportsmanlike way to resolve these things is to look at the whole point behind the rules.

Do you want to play arguing semantics and wording in order to gain an unintended advantage or do you want to play fairly in the spirit of the game and rules.
Either are acceptable depending on the type of games you play and the kind of people you game with.

With shooting, manipulating rules or wording so a player can shoot at something his troops can't actually see or target goes against the whole point of Line of sight.

Why bother with the rule at all if players are going to aim at them anyway because they can see them even if the army can't?
In the same way shooting into combat is prohibited because troops won't fire on friendlies but a controlling player will deliberately target a point on the ground next to a combat hoping to scatter into it, completely contradicting the point of the rules.

Similarly with maximising, its perfectly legal to stick two lone characters corner to corner but you're not really playing WFB at that point, it becomes a technical exercise purely about numbers and RAW, why bother with models at all. Just sit opposite each other with an army book and a calculator.

Very well said! I agree completely.

yeknoMehT
03-02-2014, 19:07
Hmm fire throwers are very funky things. But I'm gonna side with JDV311 on the first part and say no. At least one target must be within LOS of a fire thrower to start shooting. Only a cannon has the rule that lets you target a spot on the ground to start with.

As for the second part, I believe by RAW there is nothing preventing it if he can get into base contact all he needs to do is maneuver to maximize the number of models fighting. Thus he can be corner to corner (I've seen this done by people wishing to maximize overrun potential with chariots and monsters into a prime target behind their initial charge). But most consider the point of the rule to maximize base contact in order to symbolize a raging combat, It seems silly to picture a fight where the models just touch corners daintily rather than get directly in each other's face.

I'd actually be tempted to say that fire throwers can very legally target points on the ground (in fact, they pretty much always have to). If you start saying 'you must have a model in LOS to target something which may or may not hit them' you end up with a bit of a ridiculous scenario where you can target a point on the ground towards something on the other side of the table and 'accidentally' drop the template on the unit behind the hill, but not if there's nobody off doing backflips well out of range?

OK, so that example could clearly be corrected by stating you must be in LOS and in range of what you're trying to hit. But then does that mean if you're shooting round the side of a hill and one unit that is next to another and you catch it in the template (accidentally-on-purpose, of course)?

This way leads confusion - maybe a 'more realistic' game, but hey there's always a level of abstraction to these games.

As for the second, that's the sort of thing that I can't see immediately why you couldn't do it, but there would be a strong urge to never again play against the opponent who insists on doing it.

Squishy1979
03-02-2014, 19:37
The most reasonable and sportsmanlike way to resolve these things is to look at the whole point behind the rules.

Do you want to play arguing semantics and wording in order to gain an unintended advantage or do you want to play fairly in the spirit of the game and rules.
Either are acceptable depending on the type of games you play and the kind of people you game with.

With shooting, manipulating rules or wording so a player can shoot at something his troops can't actually see or target goes against the whole point of Line of sight.

Why bother with the rule at all if players are going to aim at them anyway because they can see them even if the army can't?
In the same way shooting into combat is prohibited because troops won't fire on friendlies but a controlling player will deliberately target a point on the ground next to a combat hoping to scatter into it, completely contradicting the point of the rules.

Similarly with maximising, its perfectly legal to stick two lone characters corner to corner but you're not really playing WFB at that point, it becomes a technical exercise purely about numbers and RAW, why bother with models at all. Just sit opposite each other with an army book and a calculator.

I understand what you're trying to get at here, but I completely disagree. I am all about friendly games and such, but without the rules to clarify the game play why bother playing the game using the BRB at all? You can't really play with rules that leave ambiguity, as each time you play a game, the rules could be different (depending on the bias of the players that will be affected by the rule). The purpose of having the rules is so that when tricky situations come up, you can have a rule to outline how the situation is handled, and therefore avoid heated arguements with your opponent.

At this point I mostly play against my brother. We both want to play a friendly game (and do), but we are also both competitive. The nature of this means that there are going to be biases on rulings depending on the immediate effect for themselves. I personally enjoy the competitive edge of my brother and I, and in recent years we have been pretty good at discussing rules instead of arguing (or fighting) about them. This is why we look to have resolutions on rules questions once we run into a situation, so that we know how to play it properly the next time it (or a similar situation) comes up.

Blkc57
03-02-2014, 20:53
Well Squishy, you have to understand that there is no perfect game system out there. I play everything from Warmachine/Hordes to Covrus Belli's Infinity, and there are rules loop holes and errors in every system. Often the company doesn't have the time or the desire to bother fixing those errors. So it is left to the players to come to a reasonable manner in which to play them. In some cases it is so ambiguous as to there being no definitive answer, and we have those situation often times here in the rules forum for WHFB. Many times we do not agree with each other's opinions on rules disputes, but by voicing each argument here we can come to a better understanding of both sides and arrive at a reasoned and logical compromise.

Now I share your desire to play fully competitive and by the book. And for such purpose playing by the letter of RAW and going Hard Boyz seems to be the easiest answer, but you still need to take issues of sportsmanship as well as the intent of the game into the equation. In the above case you can by RAW go corner to corner with single models, however that is obviously not the intent of what the game is trying to portray (this is a game of Heroic fantasy with clashing monsters and brave characters). RAW is not always the answer you want to seek, often there times when RAW will net you very very unfortunate situations such as the infamous Eagle Charge Block, the crazy Fanatic Fling, or the Skirmisher Contraction. These are usually titled the Worst Play Abuses and by strict reading have never been proven to be illegal, but doing them intentionally will often get you warned or even banned from many GTs.

Squishy1979
03-02-2014, 21:32
Well Squishy, you have to understand that there is no perfect game system out there. I play everything from Warmachine/Hordes to Covrus Belli's Infinity, and there are rules loop holes and errors in every system. Often the company doesn't have the time or the desire to bother fixing those errors. So it is left to the players to come to a reasonable manner in which to play them. In some cases it is so ambiguous as to there being no definitive answer, and we have those situation often times here in the rules forum for WHFB. Many times we do not agree with each other's opinions on rules disputes, but by voicing each argument here we can come to a better understanding of both sides and arrive at a reasoned and logical compromise.

Now I share your desire to play fully competitive and by the book. And for such purpose playing by the letter of RAW and going Hard Boyz seems to be the easiest answer, but you still need to take issues of sportsmanship as well as the intent of the game into the equation. In the above case you can by RAW go corner to corner with single models, however that is obviously not the intent of what the game is trying to portray (this is a game of Heroic fantasy with clashing monsters and brave characters). RAW is not always the answer you want to seek, often there times when RAW will net you very very unfortunate situations such as the infamous Eagle Charge Block, the crazy Fanatic Fling, or the Skirmisher Contraction. These are usually titled the Worst Play Abuses and by strict reading have never been proven to be illegal, but doing them intentionally will often get you warned or even banned from many GTs.

Blkc57, it sounds like you are exactly the type of person I would enjoy playing against! Fun AND competitive people seem hard to find (too fun, and you feel a bit ripped off on stretching the rules, too competitive and people take things personally when they lose). I like to be competitive, but would prefer to lose and play correctly, than to win and have arguments about how things should be played. If you're ever in Edmonton, AB, Canada, we should hook up for a game!

For a little background on where I am coming from with "rules lawyering" is that I used to play World of Warcraft TCG (basically the same as Magic the Gathering). There were a TON of complex interactions between different cards, which could be interpreted on bias to work multiple ways. The Maintainers of the game (Upper Deck at first, and then Cryptozoic) did a very good job of making sure that rules mechanics were not ambiguous. There were definitely confusing rules to understand, but it was all laid out and explained (either by the actual "rulebook" or by the forums which explained the rulebook). I am also used to about 5 or 6 guys on that forum that were always 99.99% right, and were active in the forum explaining why things worked the way they did in the game. There was no room for lawyering in that game...you had to play it the way it was designed.

The more and more I visit this site, the more I realize that this is not going to be a reality for this game....which I find unfortunate. Thankfully my main opponent is my brother, and he is of the same mindset as I am. We will continue to have friendly competitive games, but we would also like to make sure that we are playing correctly. Especially since I play 5 armies (Dwarfs, Ogres, Daemons, Orcs, and WoC) and he plays Skaven...and we all know the Skaven book doesn't really follow any rules (P.S. I hate that they allow for unique troop types too).

In any regard, this is probably a super long post just to say that we will probably keep harassing you guys on the forums, and then disagreeing with you when you do make a ruling :P

P.S. If we do disagree with you, please don't take it personally, we are just trying to figure out how to play correctly.

SanDiegoSurrealist
04-02-2014, 13:22
Similarly with maximising, its perfectly legal to stick two lone characters corner to corner but you're not really playing WFB at that point, it becomes a technical exercise purely about numbers and RAW, why bother with models at all. Just sit opposite each other with an army book and a calculator.

I disagree this is a legal tactical maneuver, the base of a model is just representing the physical space that a warrior takes up on the battle field.
I just picture as the character trying to hack down an opponent as he charges across the battle field, you know William Wallace style.

Squishy1979
04-02-2014, 13:45
I disagree this is a legal tactical maneuver, the base of a model is just representing the physical space that a warrior takes up on the battle field.
I just picture as the character trying to hack down an opponent as he charges across the battle field, you know William Wallace style.

Thanks Surrealist, pretty much everyone is saying the same thing...however, there has been nobody that can offer anything more than opinion on this point yet. What we are looking for here is somewhere withing the rules/faqs that say you can't do this...and nobody has quoted me anything yet to say that you can't, just that it is not realistic.

3eland
04-02-2014, 14:07
Warhammer rules are permissive, meaning they tell you what you CAN do, not what you CANNOT do. Otherwise the book would be huge!

That's what I was told anyways, and it makes sense (although I am well aware there are some do nots in the book too). When it comes to things that break down to how the rules were intended, I was told to use your best judgment. If you are seeking an advantage by doing something, then it is probably wrong to do. Did GW intend for solo characters to fight corner to corner to gain an advantage of throwing fire templates while in CC? Probably not, there is no rule that says you can or that you cannot though. Use your best judgment when playing with friends, but don't be surprised if it is ruled the other way at a tournament. There is no rule/FAQ stating you cannot do it but there is also no rule/FAQ that says you can. It goes both ways.

Plus, if two models are beating down in the middle of the battlefield I highly doubt they would stand corner to corner, they would want the most surface to strike at their foe. Unless your Achilles or Legolas, then your doing ninja stuff, dancing and jumping around your foe.

In the end though, unless they bring out a FAQ that specifically says you can or cannot do that... Talk to your opponent and come to a civil arrangement. I know my group would not warrant such a thing, but that doesn't mean yours cannot play it differently.

theunwantedbeing
04-02-2014, 14:58
Thanks Surrealist, pretty much everyone is saying the same thing...however, there has been nobody that can offer anything more than opinion on this point yet. What we are looking for here is somewhere withing the rules/faqs that say you can't do this...and nobody has quoted me anything yet to say that you can't, just that it is not realistic.

That's because they can't.

It's not just disproving a negative either, there aren't any rules saying you have to align centrally or to maximise base contact.
You just have to maximise the number of models on both sides in base contact, which you have done, so it's legal.

If you look hard enough you'll find similar rule abuses all over the place.

Squishy1979
04-02-2014, 20:27
Thanks for all your feedback guys. I do appreciate the amount of active members in the forums to help on out, I am just disappointed in how GW has written things to allow for "loopholes" or different interpretations on rules, instead of clarifying them. This allows for exactly what you guys are talking about (and probably how things work too) where showing up a different gaming groups, or different tournaments can cause the game to be played in totally different ways...which also affects your strategy when playing. Perhaps I was spoiled by WoWTCG in that this did not happen with their game....perhaps most games allow for interpretations, and different tournaments/groups playing in different ways.

My brother and I have already started listing out rules we feel are not properly defined, and have come up with decisions on how we want to play those already. Personally I don't like the way the cannon ball vs stone thrower works with characters on mounts, and my brother and I have come up with a compromise to deal with that.

Again, thanks for all your input!

Jinxed Mojo
05-02-2014, 11:27
Hi! On another note on firing a flame thrower, can you shoot over your own units, granted that you have LoS to the target? I read something about Lizardmen salamanders being able to shoot over skinks at a target on the other side of them, is this possible?

theunwantedbeing
05-02-2014, 11:44
Hi! On another note on firing a flame thrower, can you shoot over your own units, granted that you have LoS to the target? I read something about Lizardmen salamanders being able to shoot over skinks at a target on the other side of them, is this possible?

You cannot purposefully aim a template so that some of your models will be hit.

Basically, you need to be guaranteed to overshoot your own guys to be able to do it.
Or perhaps near enough guaranteed for a roll that hits them to be "accidental".

Squishy1979
05-02-2014, 12:27
Hi! On another note on firing a flame thrower, can you shoot over your own units, granted that you have LoS to the target? I read something about Lizardmen salamanders being able to shoot over skinks at a target on the other side of them, is this possible?

Well, I can't quote you the War Machine flame thrower rules, but it probably works the same a the DD flame thrower rules. If you had a Direct Damage spell that shoots a flame thrower, you may potentially hit your own units as long as the following criteria are met:

1) When you place the flame template down it is not touching any friendly models, or models that you are in close combat with
2) The target you pick must not be in close combat.

As long as those criteria are met, you can scatter into your own units, or into units currently engaged in close combat.

shargrim
06-02-2014, 16:55
Pg 38 and 39 of the rule book explain that war machines follow the same rules as a regular bow for targeting and LOS. The war machine section gives the exceptions quoted about cannons and stone throwers, but no exception is made for flame throwers and thus must follow the basic rules for selecting a target and what a target is. So, in a nut shell a flame thrower needs target (a non engaged unit in range that is in the throwers LOS and front arc) to shot at. Hope that helps.