zoanthrope and death or glory

[wyvirn]

Well what would happen if the model with the flamer cannot place the flamer? For example, if the tank shock affected multiple units, and the flamer could not be placed to hit the tankwithout hitting a friendly model? The way I see it, the model wouldn't be able to DoG with the flamer.

[Egaeus]

I didn't really intend for it to turn into a rules debate (although see how easily and quickly it can? )...it is just one of many situations that isn't covered by specific written rules.

And that is the fundamental issue I have with the original issue...for as much as one side wants to state "it doesn't absolutely say they can" the rules aren't specific on many instances where special rules interact. And while it does say "weapon" this may simply be the case that this is the normal state for models...most (if not all) models posses some form of "weapon" because this is a war game. And it's not a far stretch of logic at all to say that something that is used "as" or "like" a weapon should be included under this heading. Of course the point does stand that PSAs are special rules that are outside the bounds of the usual rules...so it may well be that the "normal" case doesn't consider them.

I suppose another question I could as: If one were to delete that entire sentence would the section lose all meaning? We are told we can make an attack...we are told if we use a weapon it only gets one shot...would we perhaps believe that such an attack could only come from a ranged weapon if we weren't also told it could be a CCW or grenade? Fundamentally, what is the necessity of that sentence, or is it one of the occaisional superfluous "rules examples" that exist throughout the rules that don't actually help but often muddy the clarity of the rules?

[lantzkev]

if it had simply stated one attack, it would include anything that was a attack. Which would make this whole thread silly...

the problem is that it qualified it.

It's like if we had in a PSA no text about needing to roll to hit, would we assume it auto hits per normal shooting rules or not? we would assume normal rules because there's nothing specific. In a PSA that general assumption was clarified to require a to hit roll like shooting attacks. It had specific mention to need it, even though it truely doesn't.

Likewise in this DoG we have specific mentions, where it didn't, unlike the PSA though, it does not follow the general shooting/melee/grenade rules and has its own, which does not include shooting attacks, only carried shooting weapons

[TheGreatDalmuti]

The tank is in front of the model and all other models have moved out of the way, how can you not place the template?

[Vipoid]

The tank is in front of the model and all other models have moved out of the way, how can you not place the template?

No models are moved unless they would be under the tank (or touching it) when it actually completes its move. Other models left in its wake are left in place, unless they are forced to fall back.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

Yes but if you want to shoot the tank at that time is right in front of the model performing a DOG. So if you want to place the template (for reasons of cool, I don't know for what else) you move other models out of the way, and if the tank passes you move them back. If it gets immobilised or wrecked you leave them there. RAW you don't even place the template, there is no need agreed.

[DoctorTom]

I agree on the template. A large blast, however, might potentially catch someone else (say, there's another enemy vehicle or an enemy unit right next to the tank that's trying to run you down), and there I think you'd place the blast marker. If you're obviously going to be placing it without anything else being affected you could probably ignore that step as redundant.

[Archangelion]

I think that template/marker placement is part of the 'hitting' process. The scattering simply locates the 'hit' template/marker. Everything under the template/marker is hit. Since this attack auto hits, there is no need to place a template/marker to see what it hits, as the rules for DoG! are telling you that it automatically hits, and that you are only making 1 attack/shot, hitting multiple models would consist of hitting multiple targets, thus could be said to be making multiple attacks/shots. Though this isn't the case, DoG! doesn't cover this, thus, we should stick to the what the rules do cover, and simply allocate 1 auto hit from the template/marker attack on the vehicles front armour, using the weapons strenth, and if the AP is 1 or -, that will also get worked into the mix.

[lantzkev]

I don't think you can say it's more than one attack, you could but it wouldn't be accurate in the game terms.

Are there any flame templates that get to do two shots, rather than twin link?

[TheGreatDalmuti]

DOG perfectly covers this. When you resolve the attacl (not the hit to the vehicle, the entire attack) you just hit the front armor of the vehicle. No other models, not yourself, nothing. That is why I said it makes no difference. You still will only try to damage the vehicle.

[Archangelion]

That IS what the rules say TGD, but we like to read between the lines here (that's where we write our own rules!)

[lantzkev]

well it's assumed you're hitting the front armour, but what about say my 8 man strong unit of psykers that will do a large blast str 10 ap 1... if they can do a PSA in DoG, do we now have that template centered on the psyker in question? over the whole vehicle without scatter? or can I knick the vehicle and hit the demon prince standing next to it as well? =p

[Egaeus]

And that was basically my whole point in bringing up the issue in the first place (and not to derail the thread )...the rules don't specifically say what to do..."blasts" and "templates" are weapon characteristics just like "lance" or "melta" (and I don't think anyone would suggest that those aspects don't work in DoG)...so we have to interpret the rules by taking what is said in multiple places and trying to form a cohesive whole from it...but any choice we make is merely going to be an interpretation based on how we think the rules were "meant to work".

[Sons of Lorgar]

The problem with that lantzkev is that they are using the PSA as a unit, thus they can't use THAT PSA since only a single model is allowed a DoG

[Reivax26]

Wow. This thread actually got to 19 pages. I am speechless.

[lantzkev]

Sons of Lorgar, I'd love something raw to back that up, but since there's nothing about PSAs to begin with in DoG I know you can't =P

Besides, it's irrelevant for the whole point of the question, which was where does a large template get placed and how.

[Fle]

DOG perfectly covers this. When you resolve the attacl (not the hit to the vehicle, the entire attack) you just hit the front armor of the vehicle. No other models, not yourself, nothing. That is why I said it makes no difference. You still will only try to damage the vehicle.

Unless of course you are a Grey Knight Librarian, and you fail your psychic test when trying to cast vortex of doom. In theory you coulds still hit the tank if it was close enough - you may even take out a few enemy models as well.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

Even them, you fail the test, and the resolution of the blast attack as per DoG rules is not the normal one (so look who is under the template then roll to wound and to penetrate and so forth), it just hits the front armor. It is pretty spesific at that at least.

[CaptainGallas]

Is this rule clearer in 6th?

[Morgrad]

No. Same language of "weapon carried by the model". So although it's still amazingly clear, it's not "clearer" than it was in 5th.