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.

hmm, I've read all 4 pages and the relevant sections in the book and I'm still not convinced either way. I'm pretty sure units entirely out of LOS can have models removed as that's almost exactly what the pg 33 rules say - can hit and wound units...

I don't think that the interpretation that wound means roll to wound is right, I think it includes allocating wounds and making the model take a save to prevent the wound, which overrides the normal shooting attack rules. It's still a mess for working out what the cover save is (calculated from the firing unit possibly through the middle of a ruin, a forest and a tank, still only 4+?- for the ruin)

Can you only assign wounds to a model out of LOS if the entire unit is out of LOS? That seems to be implied but leads to awkward situations where you do 4 wounds and 1 model is in LOS so 3 wounds are lost but if you can kill that model first with normal shooting you can apply all 4 wounds, ik.

Would be nice if GW FAQ'd it ofc but I'd argue for wounding outside of LOS in any game I played as that seems the stronger argument and roll off or get a ref call if we couldn't agree.

As above.

Rigeld - if you stop at emptying the wound pool, you havent caused the unit to be wounded, breakng the allowance.

It's a stretch, but is at least consistent in application

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

Rigeld - if you stop at emptying the wound pool, you havent caused the unit to be wounded, breakng the allowance.

It's a stretch, but is at least consistent in application

So if I pass all my saves, you haven't caused the unit to be wounded either.

@all

As a reminder: Rule Number One is Be Polite. "You're just trolling/whining/flaming" as a counterargument in the face of disagreement is not polite and not allowed.

Also, users who encounter this should report it to moderators rather than confront other users themselves.

Thanks.

rigeld2 wrote:So if I pass all my saves, you haven't caused the unit to be wounded either.

p33 give categorical permission to wound Units out of LoS with scattering blast weapons.

Your example gives a statistical possibility, not a permission or denial of permission.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

Rigeld - if you stop at emptying the wound pool, you havent caused the unit to be wounded, breakng the allowance.

It's a stretch, but is at least consistent in application

So if I pass all my saves, you haven't caused the unit to be wounded either.

No, you just havent caused any unsaved Wounds. Hence the little w in their rule.

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So if I pass all my saves, you haven't caused the unit to be wounded either.

p33 give categorical permission to wound Units out of LoS with scattering blast weapons.

Your example gives a statistical possibility, not a permission or denial of permission.

Populating the wound pool and then emptying it due to LoS is the same as populating the wound pool and then emptying it by making all my saves as far as this is concerned.

Wounds were caused to the unit in both cases. No rules were broken.

rigeld2 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So if I pass all my saves, you haven't caused the unit to be wounded either.

p33 give categorical permission to wound Units out of LoS with scattering blast weapons.

Your example gives a statistical possibility, not a permission or denial of permission.

Populating the wound pool and then emptying it due to LoS is the same as populating the wound pool and then emptying it by making all my saves as far as this is concerned.

Wounds were caused to the unit in both cases. No rules were broken.

Not quite the same, unless you think "can wound" and "will wound" are the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

Rigeld - if you stop at emptying the wound pool, you havent caused the unit to be wounded, breakng the allowance.

It's a stretch, but is at least consistent in application

So if I pass all my saves, you haven't caused the unit to be wounded either.

No, you just havent caused any unsaved Wounds. Hence the little w in their rule.

So wounds were caused to the unit, right?
So what's the difference between populating the wound pool and making all my saves
and populating the wound pool then emptying it because of LoS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So if I pass all my saves, you haven't caused the unit to be wounded either.

p33 give categorical permission to wound Units out of LoS with scattering blast weapons.

Your example gives a statistical possibility, not a permission or denial of permission.

Populating the wound pool and then emptying it due to LoS is the same as populating the wound pool and then emptying it by making all my saves as far as this is concerned.

Wounds were caused to the unit in both cases. No rules were broken.

Not quite the same, unless you thing "can wound" and "will wound" are the same.

You're confusing two different steps.

nos was saying that if you don't allow the wounds to go to saves you're breaking the rule because you're not allowing wounds to be caused to the unit.
In both cases (LoS and saves) the wound pool is populated them emptied.

As far as the wound pool is concerned, what's the difference?

Because the rule specifies "out of LOS", indicating that blocking something because they are not in LOS is directly ignoring the rule.

DOes scattering blast have anything to say about making saves? No? then it has no relevance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because the rule specifies "out of LOS", indicating that blocking something because they are not in LOS is directly ignoring the rule.

DOes scattering blast have anything to say about making saves? No? then it has no relevance.

It does have relevance.
You're asserting that the only way for the rule to be satisfied is if the wound pool is emptied by allowing saves.
I don't see that there's a difference between the wound pool being emptied due to saves or due to out of LoS.
The unit suffered wounds. This is evidenced by the wound pool being populated.

IMHO, applying rules in such a way that they invalidate themselves has little sense... The sentence ""even models out of LOS can be wounded" is very explicit and attempts to somehow invalidate it won't bring you anywhere, even if they are logically and grammatically correct... It's just a way to get yourself involved in a fight, IMHO, since its a RAW interpretation that very few people seems to share, and an obviously wrong RAI interpretation...

punkow wrote:IMHO, applying rules in such a way that they invalidate themselves has little sense... The sentence ""even models out of LOS can be wounded" is very explicit and attempts to somehow invalidate it won't bring you anywhere, even if they are logically and grammatically correct... It's just a way to get yourself involved in a fight, IMHO, since its a RAW interpretation that very few people seems to share, and an obviously wrong RAI interpretation...

That's great.

I'm not trying to start a fight. I've agreed that the intent is to force armor saves on models out of LoS.
That's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about if the RAW already says that.

Seriously, why are people assigning negative motivations to me?

Oh I don't think you are trying to start a fight here... I think that trying to interpret a rule in such way during an actual game, you only risk to start a fight... Just my 2 cents... I didn't mean to offend or ridicule anybody.

What I actually think is that the rules are pretty clear on this, and you can support a different point of view only following a very strict (even if legitimate)interpretation, which has been shown to be very difficult to accept. That's why I'm saying you only risk to get caught in a fight... It's easy to misinterpret your reasoning...

Sorry if I have been rude...

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because the rule specifies "out of LOS", indicating that blocking something because they are not in LOS is directly ignoring the rule.

DOes scattering blast have anything to say about making saves? No? then it has no relevance.

It does have relevance.
You're asserting that the only way for the rule to be satisfied is if the wound pool is emptied by allowing saves.
I don't see that there's a difference between the wound pool being emptied due to saves or due to out of LoS.
The unit suffered wounds. This is evidenced by the wound pool being populated.

It doesn't have relevance because.

If the unit is not in LOS then
if you say you can discount wound allocation as out of LOS you cannot actually wound (as in deduct a wound from a models profile), it is a statistical impossibility as there is no way to successfully apply a wound

if you allow saves then even if you successfully make all your saves you haven't caused a wound but you could have, it is a statistical possibility as that would could be applied, it just wasn't

And that's the difference between "can wound", "can't wound" and "wounds"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rigeld - if you stop at emptying the wound pool, you havent caused the unit to be wounded, breakng the allowance.

maxcarrion wrote:If the unit is not in LOS then
if you say you can discount wound allocation as out of LOS you cannot actually wound (as in deduct a wound from a models profile), it is a statistical impossibility as there is no way to successfully apply a wound

if you allow saves then even if you successfully make all your saves you haven't caused a wound but you could have, it is a statistical possibility as that would could be applied, it just wasn't

And that's the difference between "can wound", "can't wound" and "wounds"

I quoted nos' statement that I'm discussing.
If I empty the wound pool and haven't caused a wound, then I have broken the allowance according to his statement.

If I allow saves and make them all I still haven't caused a wound. Therefore I've broken a rule, according to his statement.

Even if you can't wound models out of LOS, the rule still has an affect. If a unit has 1/2 its members out of LOS, you shoot at said unit and scatter onto those out of LOS, the rule means you can still kill 1/2 the unit, but only those in LOS.

If an entire unit is out of LOS in the first place then your going to struggle to hit them anyway unless you get that one lucky scatter, and then you can't remove models due to wound allocation.

And to those saying we're arguing this for personal gain....just no, I'm arguing this as this is how I think the rule is played

Rigeld - again, you havent broken a rule because the rule only allows you to wound even if you have no LOS. If it said "and doesnt allow any saves" then making all your saves would be breaking a rule - but it doesnt.

Emptying the wound pool may have the same effect (no unsaved wounds caused), but only one has a requirement that you are breaking.

You allowed to cause wounds, meaning a save must be made against them otherwise you have simply caused a wounding-hit.

Warlord - and, again. The rule says UNITS that are out of LOS. As in, that UNIT is out of LOS -not partially. This rule literally has no meaning under your interpretation, as we already have rules covering units in LOS.

...well how do you still hit the out of LOS members of a unit without the blast rules?

Due to page 6, which tells you that you get a hit for every model under the marker / template. No requirement for LOS at that point.

Again, address that the rule specifies UNITS OUT OF LOS. Not models. Entire Units.

Your interpretation renders that rule meaningless. When you have two possible interpretations, and one renders the rule entirely meaningless, the other one is correct as a general rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You allowed to cause wounds, meaning a save must be made against them otherwise you have simply caused a wounding-hit.

I've caused wounds to the unit - I populated the wound pool.

In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat).

If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

I've hit the unit as allowed. I've wounded the unit as allowed. The Wound Pool has been populated. Where is the permission to move on to making armor saves?

Also, if you're keeping with your capitalization matters assertion, you're allowed to wound - but the entire section on page 15 deals with Wounds.
In 6th, I would say Wounds and wounds are equated.

Last Paragraph of the blast rules
"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll to Wound as normal. Any unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack Emphasise mine

The special blast thing lets you hit and wound as normal but out of LOS and range, but you still use the normal wound allocation. Wound allocation is as equally seperate from rolling to wound as to hit is

So you are saying a rule is functionally useless?

when/ where have I said that?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I completely agree with how you see the RAI, its just on the RAW we differ

By your reading the rule allowing you to hit and wound UNITS, NOT models, out of LOS has no functional use

The rules says ********UNITS********* note the word ******UNITS******, and not MODELS.

It was also applied to Rigeld as well.

Well then yes, it has no use whatsoever in that respect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you are saying a rule is functionally useless?

Essentially yes. I get what the intent is, and agree that I'd play it as intended. I don't see it as doing anything RAW.

And, again, I have given an interpretation of *wound* that allows it to function.
When you have two interpretations, and one means a rule has function, its safer to go with that one.

I think we all agree on RAI, its pretty clear that a random ricocheting missile that explodes in your face will hurt you...but the RAW doesn't say that this happens as such, to wound =/= able to allocate a wound in every circumstance.

If you shoot a bolter at a group of enemies out in the open 18" away and your opponent refuses to let you allocate wounds he has broken a rule. The unit is in los and in range so they can be hit and wounded. If he allows you to allocate wounds but makes all his saves no rule is broken because the wounds were allocated, but ignored. In both situations no models were removed, but one resulted in a breaking of the rules.

If a blast scatters and hits a unit behind the Landraider and your opponent does not allow you to allocate wounds a rule has been broken. The unit may not be in range or LOS, but LOS and range are not considered with blasts so not having either cannot stop the unit from having wounds allocated to them.

The rule says that a scattering blast can hit AND wound units out of los/range. There are four restrictions to hitting a unit under the normal rules for shooting. The target must be in range, at least one model in the shooting unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit, the unit cannot be friendly, and the unit cannot be locked in combat. These are all ignored if a blast scatters. There are only two restrictions to allocating wounds to a model: the model must be in los and in range. A scattering blast ignores all 4 restrictions to hitting and no one has a problem with that. Try to ignore the wounding restrictions and people throw a fit. The rule says and. And is a conjunction combining two elements. In logic and is a modifier that requires all premises to be present in a conclusion. So if I can hit, ignoring the rules for normal shooting attack, and cannot wound then both premises are not in the conclusion and the rule is broken. If I can hit and wound but you make your saves no rule is broken because wounds were allocated but ignored following the rules for a normal shooting attack.