Shooting blast/template & "unaffected" friendly models

[Guest]

The Eldar avatar, in example, is specifically unaffected by melta, flamer and soul blaze weapons. If one of these weapons is fired by a friendly model, does the "unaffected" status excempt it from normal rules that prevent firing at friendly models?

 

Example, Avatar is next to some enemy cultists which are bubble wrapping a CSM land raider. If my storm guardians only have the shot with their flamer to shoot in a manner that the template overlaps the avatar's base, can they still fire?

 

I figured I'd double check. Honestly, answer seems pretty clear that if a model is unaffected, the attack doesn't touch them even if the template does visually.

 

[pretre]

No, because you're still targeting or touching them even though they can't hurt it.

[WestRider]

Agreed. The restriction says you can't put it over any of your own Models, not that you can't put it over any of your own Models that it can't hurt. Similarly, the Culties can't fire their Flamer back at your Guardians if it would clip their Land Raider.

[Guest]

No, because you're still targeting or touching them even though they can't hurt it.

I agree if the avatar said it was immune to flamer weapons. The term they use is "unaffected" which seems different. Are the two terms interchange-able, and if so, where is this written?

[WestRider]

Regardless of whether it's affected or not, the restriction is that you can't place the Template touching your own Models. The Avatar is one of your own Models, so the Template cannot touch it.

 

EDIT: This actually reminds me of something I was wondering about in the SW Codex: What, exactly, does "unaffected" mean? More specifically, Harald Deathwolf's Mantle of the Ice Troll King says that he is unaffected by Pyromancy Powers and Flamer Weapons. So if he's Joined to a Unit, and is closest to an enemy Unit that's firing a bunch of Flamers at them, does that mean that all the Wounds caused get Allocated to him and then do nothing, or do they just bypass him and get put on the dude behind him? Because if he can just Tank Baleflamers and Flamestorm Cannon, not to mention all the auto-hits from Overwatching Flamers, that's potentially pretty powerful.

[Guest]

Regardless of whether it's affected or not, the restriction is that you can't place the Template touching your own Models. The Avatar is one of your own Models, so the Template cannot touch it.

 

EDIT: This actually reminds me of something I was wondering about in the SW Codex: What, exactly, does "unaffected" mean? More specifically, Harald Deathwolf's Mantle of the Ice Troll King says that he is unaffected by Pyromancy Powers and Flamer Weapons. So if he's Joined to a Unit, and is closest to an enemy Unit that's firing a bunch of Flamers at them, does that mean that all the Wounds caused get Allocated to him and then do nothing, or do they just bypass him and get put on the dude behind him? Because if he can just Tank Baleflamers and Flamestorm Cannon, not to mention all the auto-hits from Overwatching Flamers, that's potentially pretty powerful.

I'm all around unclear. Seems like if the weapon he's unaffected by, requires a template to aim and that template touches him, he's not going to affect the template. This isn't because he's immune to the template, or because his toughness is so high it doesn't hurt him, but because he is specifically unaffected by they type of weapon entirely.

 

In your example, I'd argue that he couldn't be allocated any wounds for the flamer, his model didn't count for adding up hits, and so forth. He isn't affected by flamers. I'd certainly change my mind on this point if we get even a slightly clearer answer on this one.

 

Still, I don't have a rules basis for this. I'm mostly just confused what GW means by the unaffected term.

 

I'll note that the DE Lady Malys is "immune to the effects of psychic powers." In this case, I think you could target her normally, it just wouldn't do anything to her, but it should still be able to affect, normally, the other units within it's area of effect. This is an old codex, but this one isn't in the current FAQ.

 

Any other examples of immunities, unaffected by, or immune to effect abilities?

[pretre]

If he's the closest model, he would tank them all in my opinion. You'd just keep applying flamer wounds to him using allocation and each one wouldn't affect him.

[Guest]

If he's the closest model, he would tank them all in my opinion. You'd just keep applying flamer wounds to him using allocation and each one wouldn't affect him.

Issue with this is that he's unaffected by flamer weapons, not immune to flamer damage. Your allowing him to be hit, which he can't be, so tanking the wounds should be impossible.

[pretre]

According to what?

[Guest]

According to what?

Here's the Avatar's entry:

 

 

Molten Body: The Avatar is unaffected by all Pyromancy psychic powers, all flamer weapons as defined in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, and all attacks that have the Melta and/or Soul Blaze special rules.

At no point does it say you can allocate any hits to him at all from a flamer weapon. It's pretty clear that he's unaffected by flamer weapons. He's not immune to damage, he's just unaffected by the weapon type entirely.

 

Maybe the SW character's is worded differently, but it seems absurd to allow a model that unaffected by flamers to stand and soak away all the flamer attacks - they don't affect him so he can't tank them.

[pretre]

Absurdity has nothing to do with it. Show me where you can't target or allocate to that model with rules, not 'that's crazy!'

[Guest]

Absurdity has nothing to do with it. Show me where you can't target or allocate to that model with rules, not 'that's crazy!'

Actually, you've hit on the core issue. There are no rules defining what "unaffected" means in 40k. It's another one of those things that GW probably defined in their secret rulebook, but it isn't something they deem us worthy to see.

 

Okay, so if the rules were to say "treat all wounds caused by flamer weapons allocated to this model as saved even if they cannot normally be saved against," I see no issue with tanking the wounds for the squad because it's clear that wounds can be given to this character from flamer weapons.

 

They've decided that the entire weapon type can't affect this character. I have no idea how far this goes in the rules.

 

If I were unaffected by bullets, would I be able to block them, would they go around me, or would people just choose not to fire guns near me for seemingly unrelated reasons?

[pretre]

Well, if we are skipping rules and going to fluff... Fire doesn't hurt him. It still hits him; it just doesn't hurt.

[Guest]

Well, if we are skipping rules and going to fluff... Fire doesn't hurt him. It still hits him; it just doesn't hurt.

I'm not skipping rules, but it was relevant. Your stance is basically that he blocks fire, and I was just saying that blocking fire is only one possible interpretation of how "unaffected by fire" would function. Fire passing through him is equally possible. Blocking fire, as you've been going on about, is already a fluff argument.

 

There is no rules basis to say he can be hit by flamer weapons. You're confusing templates and flamers, as 7th separated the two. To shoot a flamer weapon, you'd declare a target, then refer to the weapon's profile to determine range. In this case, range is template. However, as a flamer weapon, you already know that the avatar is unaffected. This is determined after the target is declare, but before range is measured.

[pretre]

There's no rules basis for anything you said...

 

Immune/unaffected by something gives no exemption from targeting. There's no 'our weapons are useless' rule for shooting. You want to fire your lasguns at a land raider? You can do so. You then roll armor pen and guess what? Unaffected. Same as the Avatar getting shot by a melta or Harald by a flamer.

 

So if Harald is in the front of the squad and you fire flamers at him, guess who is taking those wounds because no exemption has been given by any rule to not give them to him first.

 

He could still LoS them or take saves on them as normal, but he's not going to lose any wounds.

[Guest]

There's no rules basis for anything you said...

 

You keep saying that, but have yet to produce any rules yourself.

 

Okay, since just referencing rules without page numbers is too much for you, here:

 

Page 30 (Mini BRB)

The Shooting Sequence

 

1 Nominate a unit to shoot

This would be your unit with the flamer

2 Choose a target

This would be my avatar

3 Select a weapon.

 

Our weapon is a flamer, found on mini BRB page 176. It's in the Flamer weapon group.

 

The avatar is unaffected by the flamer weapon type as per the Molten Body rule on page 26 of the physical eldar codex.

 

Before you go on about templates, the deal is that template rule is a subset of the flamer's weapon profile. The target model is the avatar and it cannot be affect by the flamer, so the template doesn't get used. Remember, this is 40k were you can't fire at empty spaces on the ground, you need a viable target....

 

Now, if we target a unit beyond the avatar, and the avatar happens to be touched by the template (friend or foe doesn't matter), the avatar remains unaffected by the flamer of which the template is part of.

 

As to your SW special character, I haven't seen it, but as a character of a unit, the easiest way to avoid this whole encounter would be to fire the flamer from the other side of the unit....the avatar is not a viable target for shooting with a flamer weapon.

 

Assuming the rule is the same, it does create new issues. The easiest way to resolve this would be to treat the flamer-immune model as being "out of sight" for wound allocation. It is reasonable to say a person firing a flamer may have difficulty distinguishing between flaming enemies and molten enemies, so say the molten enemy is invisible for flamer shooting would be a fluffy way to resolve.

 

I will note that the Avatar's immunity to flamer weapons is specific to those that state they are of the Flamer weapon group as per the BRB. The CSM baleflamer, in example, is not listed there nor is specifically described as a flamer weapon in the CSM book, despite the similar name and description. This means that the Molten body would not apply here. In 6th, the definition of flamer weapons was better described, this is not the case in 7th.

[pretre]

Here's the thing though. 40k is a permissive/exception based ruleset. You follow the rules until an exception tells you to stop following them. So for example:

 

Page 30 (Mini BRB)

The Shooting Sequence

 

1 Nominate a unit to shoot

This would be your unit with the flamer

2 Choose a target

This would be my avatar

3 Select a weapon.

Our weapon is a flamer, found on mini BRB page 176. It's in the Flamer weapon group.

 

You have broken no rules so far.

4) Roll to hit. Flamer auto-hits. So count up how many models are touched by the template.

One

5) Roll to wound

Flamer wounds him on a 6. Let's say he's wounded.

6) Roll to save

Let's say he fails his save.

7) Remove a wound from the Avatar

His special rule kicks in and says he is unaffected. You could really have applied this at any step after 4. His rule does not say he is untargetable by flamer weapons; it says unaffected.

 

As a contrast, let's pretend we were shooting at a Flyer.

1 Nominate a unit to shoot

This would be your unit with the flamer

2 Choose a target

This would be my flyer.

3 Select a weapon.

Our weapon is a flamer, found on mini BRB page 176. It's in the Flamer weapon group.

4. Roll to hit.

The exception to the rules kicks in here on step 3 because the rules for flyers say they cannot be hit  by templates. Not that they are unaffected by them, but that they cannot be hit.

"Template and Blast weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers."

 

This is a rules based argument and has foundation in the rules. :)

[pretre]

 

Before you go on about templates, the deal is that template rule is a subset of the flamer's weapon profile. The target model is the avatar and it cannot be affect by the flamer, so the template doesn't get used. Remember, this is 40k were you can't fire at empty spaces on the ground, you need a viable target....

Where is the rule that says you can't target the avatar?

 

 

Now, if we target a unit beyond the avatar, and the avatar happens to be touched by the template (friend or foe doesn't matter), the avatar remains unaffected by the flamer of which the template is part of.

Agreed.

 

As to your SW special character, I haven't seen it, but as a character of a unit, the easiest way to avoid this whole encounter would be to fire the flamer from the other side of the unit....the avatar is not a viable target for shooting with a flamer weapon.

 

Agree with the first part and second.

 

Assuming the rule is the same, it does create new issues. The easiest way to resolve this would be to treat the flamer-immune model as being "out of sight" for wound allocation. It is reasonable to say a person firing a flamer may have difficulty distinguishing between flaming enemies and molten enemies, so say the molten enemy is invisible for flamer shooting would be a fluffy way to resolve.

No. That is house ruling and is not the easiest way. The easiest way is to follow the rules until you can't anymore. For me, that's applying the hit to the avatar after you hit. He's immune, so it's not worth going any further. Saying he's invisible is adding additional complexity to the rules for no reason.

 

 

I will note that the Avatar's immunity to flamer weapons is specific to those that state they are of the Flamer weapon group as per the BRB. The CSM baleflamer, in example, is not listed there nor is specifically described as a flamer weapon in the CSM book, despite the similar name and description. This means that the Molten body would not apply here. In 6th, the definition of flamer weapons was better described, this is not the case in 7th.

 

No argument.

[Guest]

Where is the rule that says you can't target the avatar?

You can target the avatar, as that step is done prior to selecting the weapon to shoot. That's the step where you check that he's in LOS. Once we know that the weapon cannot affect the target, it should cease to be an eligible target, just like if the target were out of range or had intervening models that prevented placement of the template. This is done at the stage where weapons are selected.

 

Rolls to hit and wound are all at later stages of the shooting phase. These are resolved after the weapon is selected. This is important because the avatar's molten body rule is specific to the weapon type, not to wounds caused by the weapon type.

 

Anyway, this is an RAW arguement. I've no idea the RAI.

 

 

Here's the thing though. 40k is a permissive/exception based ruleset. You follow the rules until an exception tells you to stop following them.

Seems pretty clear that flamer weapons don't affect the avatar. Seems like a specific exception.

[pretre]

 Once we know that the weapon cannot affect the target, it should cease to be an eligible target, just like if the target were out of range or had intervening models that prevented placement of the template. This is done at the stage where weapons are selected.

Why? What rule tells you to do that?

 

 

 

Rolls to hit and wound are all at later stages of the shooting phase. These are resolved after the weapon is selected. This is important because the avatar's molten body rule is specific to the weapon type, not to wounds caused by the weapon type.

I can accept this argument. One might say once he is hit with the weapon that you stop at that point.

 

Seems pretty clear that flamer weapons don't affect the avatar. Seems like a specific exception.

 

No one is against that. But that means the only affect that weapons have on people (short of extra special rules) are to do wounds. So that would mean that the Avatar is not affected by the only effect that weapons have (i.e. wounds). After all, targeting a model/unit or hitting it does not affect it; applying wounds does.

[Guest]

Why? What rule tells you to do that?

Ugh...Okay, we got those stages in the shooting phase. Pick a unit to shoot, pick a target, then pick a weapon to shoot the target with, then roll to hit, roll to wound and so forth.

 

Once we pick our weapon we know that our weapon cannot affect the target. Checking range is also part of this step. We'd put the template out to verify our target was in range. There are rules for models out of range with their selected weapon to not be able to shoot. They don't specifically address being otherwise unable to affect a targeted model, but it is as close as can be found. This bit is page 30-31.

 

If you read the template rules on page 173, you'll note that template is both the range and replaces the roll to hit. In practice, you'd place the template and auto-hit all the models under it. In rules, you technically place it once in the weapon step, to check range, and a second time in the roll to hit, to verify the number of models auto-hit. This is because the template weapon rules specifically happen "instead of the roll to hit," but do not say to alter the weapon selection stage which checks range.

[pretre]

None of that answered my question. What rule allows you to do this:

 

" Once we know that the weapon cannot affect the target, it should cease to be an eligible target, just like if the target were out of range or had intervening models that prevented placement of the template. This is done at the stage where weapons are selected."

 

There's nothing in the Weapon Selection stage that tells you 'ignore this step if your weapons can't affect the target'.

[Guest]

None of that answered my question. What rule allows you to do this:

 

" Once we know that the weapon cannot affect the target, it should cease to be an eligible target, just like if the target were out of range or had intervening models that prevented placement of the template. This is done at the stage where weapons are selected."

 

There's nothing in the Weapon Selection stage that tells you 'ignore this step if your weapons can't affect the target'.

And we're back to GW lacking any sort of description at how "unaffected" plays out in rules. I'm not ignoring the weapon selection step, that's the one I stop at. Once we establish the weapon, we know that the roll to hit further stages are not going to affect the target. So we stop.

 

I suppose, the question I've been wondering, why would you keep going? You described this as a permissive based ruleset, a term I don't think the BRB directly uses. I'm not sure why I'd have permission, in the rules, to continue along the steps against a model that I can't affect.

 

Loosely speaking, a model out of range is a model unaffected by a weapon. That's how I would handle it. I think your solution is more house rule than mine, though I've been saying all along that there isn't any GW specific solution here.

[pretre]

And we're back to GW lacking any sort of description at how "unaffected" plays out in rules. I'm not ignoring the weapon selection step, that's the one I stop at. Once we establish the weapon, we know that the roll to hit further stages are not going to affect the target. So we stop.

 

I suppose, the question I've been wondering, why would you keep going? You described this as a permissive based ruleset, a term I don't think the BRB directly uses. I'm not sure why I'd have permission, in the rules, to continue along the steps against a model that I can't affect.

 

Loosely speaking, a model out of range is a model unaffected by a weapon. That's how I would handle it. I think your solution is more house rule than mine, though I've been saying all along that there isn't any GW specific solution here.

You're getting it backwards. Permissive ruleset means you can only do what you have permission to do. You don't have permission to treat him as invisible. You do have permission to say he is unaffected by the weapon. The only affect that a flamer has on a model is to put a wound on him. Hence he ignores that effect of the flamer.

 

Or are you saying that a Flamer has some other effect on an Avatar? Put differently, what effect does targeting an avatar have on him? The answer is none. So you continue until some effect has been generated for him to be unaffected by.

[pretre]

Basically, you are making it WAAAAY too complicated.

 

The avatar is unaffected by flamer weapons.

 

This means he does not take the effects of flamer weapons.

 

What are the effects of flamer weapons? Wounds.

 

The avatar does not take wounds from flamer weapons.