8th Ed. Salamanders and impassable terrain

Hello,

could not find an answer to this one on any of the older threads. Neither I think the rulebook gives a clear answer to my issue. So the question is: can you place the flame template so that it is partially over an impassable terrain before the roll of the artillery dice when there is a change that after the roll it will not be hitting it anymore. Quite hard to understand from this so I drew a couple of pictures.

So the situation at hand:


The red square represents the salamander. As the point of impact or the place of optimal shot in the target unit is clearly visible to the salamander unit is this legal? What happens if the artillery roll is not sufficient for the template to fully clear the impassable terrain? Would the models behind the impassable terrain be affected or just those that are not behind it? (the latter wouldn't really make any sense...)

We actually had quite a strong argument about this whether this is possible or not. My standpoint was that this shot is not legal and should be as below:

The red line indicates the direction in which the template would move.

I was not able to find anything in the rulebook supporting or against the matter. I don't remember which way we did resolve this in the end at the time but the result was a misfire so it never played any part of the game anyhow.

What are your opinions on this?

Also what would be the interaction with breath weapon? Could you place the breath template over the terrain? Would the models behind the terrain be affected?

Discuss...

BR
Agrem

hmmm... depends on weather you are using the true line of sight rules or not, and what the rules for shooting over impassible terrain is.
I do recall that the initial placement for the template has to be legal though. (think it's under the flame cannon rules in the BRB?)

The only requirement for firing a flame thrower, the weapon that governs the firing rules for sallies, is that the large end of the template must be aimed at a target that is in LOS (p. 114). Accordingly, either of the diagrams above would be legal.

maybe it was in the Skaven FAQ for their warp fire thrower, it uses the same basic mechanic.

I've looked through the BRB and thus far have not been able to find any RAW that would directly prevent playing the interpretation displayed in your first diagram (i.e. "clipping" the impassable terrain). However, I think a little common sense has to be considered as well. As a result, I believe that the type of impassable terrain must be taken into account when determining how to play situation.

For instance, I think that clipping the impassable terrain would be okay in instances where the impassable terrain is something that a model could realistically shoot over. For example...

• lava fields
• chasms
• deep lake

On the flip side, I believe that clipping the impassable terrain would NOT be permissible in situations where the impassable terrain is such that a model could not realistically shoot over it. For example...

• mountains
• sheer cliffs

Other than being common sense (and keeping with the spirit of the game), the closest support I can find for this interpretation is the following rule pertaining to a bouncing cannonball...

"If the cannonball bounces into impassable terrain that would, in reality, stand in the way of the shot, such as a sheer cliff, it stops immediately." BRB p. 112

I'm not trying to present the above passage as RAW for the situation presented by Agrem in the original post, since the situations are admittedly slightly different (cannonball vs. breath weapon). However, since they both involve "moving" templates (bouncing cannonballs count as templates according to the BRB) I feel that it offers at least some insight into our discussion.

That's how I would play it; for whatever that's worth.

The initial placement of the template represents what exactly? ....merely direction of aim?
The final placement of the template represents where the stuff (projectiles?) is falling out of the sky?

Is the following correct:
For battles outdoors: The sky is always passable / the shooting unit can arc the shot higher than intervening terrain.

(The way the phrase "impassable terrain" is tossed around in the rules has always bothered me.)

I agree with nightbringer, let it depend on the kind of terrain.

In the rules there is basically nothing that prevents you from shooting, flying over impassable terrain. But if it is indeed a big obstacle just use common sense and have it block (part) of the shot. According to the first drawing it is quite possible to draw a staight line to the target, though. So, it kinda depends on how you define the first part of the shot (the artydice roll). To me that is a very thin line, so i would allow the shot In the first picture.

@pendrake

I dont really agree with stuff falling from the sky. I do think there needs to be a logical path from the shooter to the target. Perhaps this is the "historical" wargamer in me speaking. And the fact that it uses a long tear shaped template basically means the spouting flames from the sally use a rather flat trajectory (and not a mortar like curve)

pendrake said:

For battles outdoors: The sky is always passable / the shooting unit can arc the shot higher than intervening terrain.

Click to expand...

Personally I think context is important. For instance, it doesn't make much sense for a salamander to be able to spit fire over a mountain, IMHO.

I don't disagree with either of you. But I wonder if the rules do. (This is yet another reason to scrap 8 and 9 in favor of Lizardhammer.)
Last time I actually fielded lizards the template was not involved for salamanders (6th?).
So I am, as much as anything, asking how does it work now?

I think the problem is that height of terrain is undefined and the arc / flightpath / whatever of a salamander's shot is undefined.

I would be inclined to rule that if a Terradon can fly over it a Salamander can shoot over it. Also, mountains? nobody ever has tabletop terrain that can reasonably be called or abstractly considered a mountain. How often do you see a terrain item on a table that is taller than a siege tower?

@pendrake, yeah you are quite right about that. And the 'unrealistic" terrain makes me not a supporter of true los. And yeah, it is indeed not well specified in the rules.

I think I'm inclined to agree with pendrake on this one.

IIRC, the rulebook specifically sates that the Salamander's breath weapon can miss its target by arcing over them. Thus, if the unit is within line-of-sight as it is within the initial example, then I don't see the problem of considering the breath weapon to be "angled" over the terrain.

Of course, some impassable terrain (such as aforementioned towers, mountains (perhaps a type of teflon peak?) may not be arced over but then the Salamander wouldn't have line-of-sight anyway which makes the point moot.

Thanks for the replies all. I must admit that I should have indicated the type of terrain better than I did in the example. My main idea was that the terrain would block line of sight. For example rocks or buildings or whatever.

@Slanputin but in my example the salamander has line of sight - not through the terrain but besides it. However since the original placement of the template is in the middle of the salamander base and not on the side (we play it this way and not as suggested in the rulebook to avoid stupid situations of the placement of the head). Therefore it can see the spot it is aiming for but the template is crossing the terrain.

I don't really know if there is any rock solid answer to this because of how the rules are written or not written at all. I've always interpret the rulebook so that it has to be specifically said that you are allowed to do something rather than the other way around. However nowadays I find more and more stuff in the current rulebook that kind of contradicts with my interpretation.

BR
Agrem

It is a rather ambiguous rule, and my interpretation really comes to how you class the terrain which isn't exactly ideal.

My point is if the Salamander has line of sight of the unit but impassable terrain does get in the way partially, but that terrain isn't anything that could be classed as having a large degree of blockage (e.g. a chasm, rocks, etc.) then I'd think it's safe to assume the Salamander can arc its shot overhead: the flame template does not need to be adjusted.

However, applying the rule of common sense, if that particular terrain does have a large degree of blockage (e.g. a building, hill, woods etc.) then it cannot shoot over the terrain: the template needs to be adjusted.

The problem with this is that how you define which terrain is which is arbitrary. If you want to play it safe then I'd always assume you cannot fire over impassable terrain and thus will have to readjust (i.e. my second option/the second image), however it's probably worth a discussion with your opponent.

Still, as Salamander's a skirmish units can't you just do a quick reform at the end of the movement phase to make sure the terrain isn't in your way?

Yea it could do it but the position really doesn't change even after the reform. And yes it is a good thing to discuss with your opponent but these situations rarely come forth. Although there are some benefits of leaving the salamander partly behind the terrain also but that is a topic for another discussion.

Again, thanks everyone for the input. I guess it the consensus is that there is no clear ruling on this one as I was afraid.

BR
Agrem

I hate to go into realism here, but do you see a Salamander flame as arcing up into the air and falling down, or is it a wave of fire coming in a more or less straight line from the Salamanders mouth.

The former, most raised impassable features would be too tall to go over, but a flat impassable terrain feature would be no problem. The latter, the raised feature wouldn't matter because the flames would "wash" around it.

Scalenex said:

I hate to go into realism here, but do you see a Salamander flame as arcing up into the air and falling down, or is it a wave of fire coming in a more or less straight line from the Salamanders mouth.

The former, most raised impassable features would be too tall to go over, but a flat impassable terrain feature would be no problem. The latter, the raised feature wouldn't matter because the flames would "wash" around it.

Click to expand...

No matter what the case, I don't see salamander fire go through or around a mountain (or other similar feature). To assume otherwise ruins the sense of realism for me.

Scalenex said:

I hate to go into realism here, but do you see a Salamander flame as arcing up into the air and falling down, or is it a wave of fire coming in a more or less straight line from the Salamanders mouth.

Click to expand...

Salamanders/Realism ....

Both. Depending on range to the target or rather range achieved by the template (which is randomized? now) sometimes the beastie aims along the ground but sometimes he sends it high? Last time I fielded Salamanders I don't think they had to mess with the template...maybe that makes a huge difference (...where do I look at those rules?)

Scalenex said:

The former, most raised impassable features would be too tall to go over, but a flat impassable terrain feature would be no problem.

Click to expand...

This is the problem with labeling terrain "impassable" and with so many rules just generically mentioning "impassable" terrain.

The only truly impassable piece of terrain I ever placed on a table was a cavern pillar. The scenario was a fight in a cave, underground, and it featured some floor to ceiling columns of rock. Every other kind of terrain is passable to something. This is why it is vital to go over each terrain item after they are placed but before units are placed. That is the point in the game where you destroy the stupid "impassable" terrain rules...by defining all pieces of terrain as passable to some things ahead of time.

Back to Salamanders:
Salamanders walk up near a standard, unmodified, right out of the box, Warhammer Fortress Wall. There are troops on its battlement and they are in range:

Scalenex said:

The former, most raised impassable features would be too tall to go over, but a flat impassable terrain feature would be no problem. The latter, the raised feature wouldn't matter because the flames would "wash" around it.

Click to expand...

Iit can't be the latter however, as the rulebook specifically states that the Salamander can miss the target by the fire arcing overhead.

pendrake said:

Back to Salamanders:
Salamanders walk up near a standard, unmodified, right out of the box, Warhammer Fortress Wall. There are troops on its battlement and they are in range:

What is the firing procedure used to hit those troops with Salamander shooting?

Click to expand...

Aim the template upwards and measure from there?

Slanputin said:

Aim the template upwards and measure from there?

Click to expand...

That seems like a logical and fair interpretation. Just treat vertical distance traveled the same as you would for horizontal distance.

Slanputin said:

Aim the template upwards and measure from there?

Click to expand...

NIGHTBRINGER said:

That seems like a logical and fair interpretation. Just treat vertical distance traveled the same as you would for horizontal distance.

Click to expand...

If a Salamander could do that, does that answer the original question? regarding whether the Salamander's fire can shoot over a rock formation. [?]