Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

The Ordnance Weapons rules on page 29 of the rulebook say: "Scatter rolls can take the Blast marker beyond range or out of sight, representing the chance of ricochets, the round blasting through cover and other random chance."

The Games Workshop online rulebook FAQ says:

"Q: What happens when an Ordnance blast scatters out of LOS and/or Range (possibly onto a different unit)? Do the casualties have to be within range and LOS per the normal shooting rules, or do these not apply to a scattering Ordnance shot?  

A: A Scattering Ordnance shot can hit and kill models that are out of LOS and range. These models would of course get their cover saves for any intervening terrain."

QUESTION: Based off of the new GW rulebook FAQ answer, When an Ordnance blast scatters, how do you play those wounds may/have to be allocated to models out of range and/or line of sight?

OPTION A. If an Ordnance marker scatters (regardless of whether or not it actually scatters out of range and/or line of sight), then any model in a unit affected by the blast is a potential casualty, regardless of whether they are within range and/or line of sight of the firing model and regardless of wether the blast actually covers them or not.

OPTION B. If an Ordnance marker scatters out of range and/or line of sight (and only if it scatters out of range and/or line of sight), then any model in a unit affected by the blast is a potential casualty, regardless of whether they are within range and/or line of sight of the firing model and regardless of wether the blast actually covers them or not.

OPTION C. If an Ordnance marker scatters out of range and/or line of sight then any model in a unit that falls under the scattered marker is a potential casualty, regardless of whether they are within range and/or line of sight of the firing model. Of course models in the affected unit that are within range and/or line of sight of the firing model are (as always) also potential casualties.

 

OPTION D. Any model in a unit affected by an Ordnance weapon may always be removed as a casualty, regardless of whether the blast scatters or not and regardless of whether the model is within range and/or line of sight of the firing model.

 

OPTION E. Something else entirely. Reply exactly what it is in the thread below.

 

I don't know how to read this any other than what is in the rules. Ordinance blasts can take casualties from anywhere in the unit, not just under the blast marker. The new FAQ extends this for ordinance by saying that the LOS and range limitations are removed when the blast scatters out of range and LOS.

A seems to be the most RAW.

I'd have to agree with ATI on that.

Anything but D allows for range/LOS sniping from ordnance blasts that do not scatter. Also, it seems silly to allow more destruction on a miss (scatter) than on a direct hit.

While A is certainly more RAW, I play D to make the game better. I see it as an obvious oversight/bad wording on GW's part.

i went with d, i had more trouble with your explanation wording than GWs

it's real simple-any unit hit by the ordinance template, rather it scatters or not. takes the hits(and partials) and possible casualties. but since it is a template you are not required to only remove the models under the template. they can come from anywhere in the unit that was hit.

I don't see then how D contradicts with A then. To me it seems that the following is true regarding choice A and how it conforms to the rules:
1: Blasts can potentially wound models under the blast template, or other models in the unit (check)
2: Blasts aren't allowed to snipe, except for I guess Necrons (boo urns) (check)
3: Blasts from ordinance barrage weapons don't need to have LoS and must initially be in range (check)
4: Blasts that scatter out of LoS and out of range are still acceptable as causing damage (check)
5: Blasts that scatter out of range are still allowed to wound models either under or outside of the blast within a unit affected by the blast (this is not to be construed as an either/or proposition but as an owners choice rule) (check)

To me this is all A which seems to be the reason why some cited D. Can you all tell me what the difference is, I'm not seeing it.

EDIT: Furthermore I don't see how C can be played at all as C seems to ignore the fact that blasts can wound models while at the same time those wound DO NOT have to come from under the template.  this provision in the rules is entirely designed to prevent sniping, while C would certainly lead to some kinds of sniping.

Well, according to A, *only* scattering rounds would allow removal of casualties outside of range and LOS. An ordnance round that scores a direct hit would only allow casualties that are in range and LOS to be removed.

Whereas with D, casualties can be removed from anywhere in the unit, regardless of range or LOS, on a hit or a scatter. Which seems more consistent to me. Even though it is at variance with the RAW, since the FAQ only refers to *scattering* ordnance, and says nothing about ordnance that scores a direct hit.

So essentially RAW if a blast template scores a direct hit and say is 47.5 inches out the models outside of the 48 inches are NOT counted. That to me is ludicrous and I would then want to change my vote to D, as any hit regardless of scatter or direct hit should affect models either under or outside of the template, which is what I believe the framers intended to correct with the faq (they even say they intended to fix this problem in the FAQ with scattering) and once again the problem of imprecise rules writing from non-professional legal writers has led to a niche of a rule in which everything makes sense EXCEPT for this instance of direct hits not affecting units outside of Range. Heavens.

Well, It seems I'm moving from A to D.

Indeed D makes most sense. It's a big piece of plastic, why shouldn't it hurt those models? Oh wait, you're removing the models from the other side of the unit now? HOW DARE YOU!

Now I'm not making any sense.

Hmmmm.

I'm a little confused by this result. It appears that most people have chosen 'D' which essentially means that you don't apply range and LOS restrictions to Ordnance shots ever, whether they scatter or not.


That's interesting. I guess I need to make a basic blast weapon poll to see if people play the same way with basic blast weapons.

I have a question Yakface, is your sig sarcastic or are you actually extolling the values of using modeling to your advantage?

Simply put:

I was tired of people using this type of "rules" argument: "that can't be the rule because then you could model XXX and all hell will break lose!"

For example, "The new GW online FAQ about measuring range from the barrel of the gun on vehicles CAN'T be correct because then players can just make gigantic barrels on their vehicles to gain extra range!"


My whole point was/is: That is not a rules argument; it has no bearing on what the rules actually say. The rules, for better or for worse allow you to use modelling to your advantage in order to win games if you choose to do so.

Now, whether or not a player chooses to use modelling to their in-game advantage is an ethical choice that each person must make. I personally do not take advantage of modelling to win games because I believe that the rules were left wide open for aesthetic converion reasons, not so players could gain advantages in the game from the way their models are converted.


Hopefully that answers your question!

Thats what I thought, as for the ordinance issue I think D is poorely worded, for example I certainly don't think that you can fire your whirlwind an initial 60 Inches, (that would be abuse of the "regardless of range" phrase). I do however think that the preliminary targeting must be within the 48 inches, and if that template scatters our of range, the scatter is still valid. As per the Faq, and absent the wording issue in D; D seems to make the most sense.

On the other side I don't know why the regular blast rules would be affected regardless of whether or not the blast is or is not within in range. Simply you can always decide to take models from under and/or outside the blast template (for the unit that is hit of course), I don't see why LoS, Range, or scatter should make a difference to that rule.

EDIT:  To me the authors intention is relatively clear.  If the FAQ applies to a scattered hit, I don't know why a direct hit should not follow the same rules.  Sure RAW there is no mention of a direct hit and thus a direct hit can't count models outside of Range, that is simply wrong as per authors intent.  Again because GW has poor rule writing capability doesn't prevent the very obvious understanding that can be derived here.  Perhaps a "clear intent" principle could be applied here.

Option D: (with a note)

Initial target point must ALWAYS be in range and a potential target.

If it hits - any unit(s) under the template must take a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template as usual (rolls for partials)- but casualties can come from anywhere in the squad.

If it scatters - well, that load of high explosive death is going somewhere. Where ever the template winds up - the unit(s) under the template suffer damage just like above (a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template, casualites removed from anywhere in the squad).

Simplest interpretation, fewest arguements.

We play by D.