28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Why create that weird circular feedback loop when if that was the intent they could have just not put in that line about hitting models out of line of sight.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dooley - so you are arguing that the intent was for the rule to have absolutely no purpose?
That is an incredibly unsafe position to hold. Entirely
55201
Post by: pie zuri
 KamikazeCanuck wrote:Why create that weird circular feedback loop when if that was the intent they could have just not put in that line about hitting models out of line of sight.
Perhaps the intent is to allow you to add wounds to the wound pool, even when the blast scatters out of range and out of LOS. Without the that particular wording (in 6th) your opponent could potentially say your blast would be voided completely if it scattered out of range or LOS.
With the wording the way it currently is, on a scatter you still have a chance to cause some wounds, albeit to models in LOS of the firing unit.
In games with friends your welcome to create house rules however you like. The strong opinions your facing here are those you'll potentially face if you play with random people or at tournaments. The RAW is pretty clear which is the way to play (for better or worse). Is that the intent of GW. I don't know, but since they're mum on the subject you probably want to adjust to playing it the RAW way for now.
PS in your reading of the rule you put "models" in where it actually reads "units". There is a distinction in 40k rules.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
davebrickheart wrote:I understand what you're saying, but even on a direct hit you may still place the center of the template at maximum range. It doesn't look to me like it would not count people past that center or if it was next to a wall and part of the unit was on the other side but still under they would count. However the "in these cases" exception makes it sound like it would be more beneficial to scatter in these cases if it may now allow you to remove more models.
I completely understand both sides of this argument. GW really wrote itself a somewhat confused rulebook.
Interesting point.
On a direct hit (non-scatter), you can count models out of range and line of sight for hits inflicted on the target unit.
The range restriction on shooting prevents you from firing, as does the Line of Sight restriction. If anyone in the unit is in range, and anyone in the unit is in line of sight, you can fire, and you don't check line of sight again, until you are at step 5 (page 12) appling wounds.
-Matt
46128
Post by: Happyjew
HawaiiMatt wrote:If anyone in the unit is in range, and anyone in the unit is in line of sight, you can fire, and you don't check line of sight again, until you are at step 5 (page 12) appling wounds.
-Matt
Not necessarily, each model has to be within range to a model in the unit within line of sight, so if all of the enemy models that are within range to your model, are not within line of sight, that model may not fire at all.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
 pie zuri wrote: KamikazeCanuck wrote:Why create that weird circular feedback loop when if that was the intent they could have just not put in that line about hitting models out of line of sight.
Perhaps the intent is to allow you to add wounds to the wound pool, even when the blast scatters out of range and out of LOS. Without the that particular wording (in 6th) your opponent could potentially say your blast would be voided completely if it scattered out of range or LOS.
With the wording the way it currently is, on a scatter you still have a chance to cause some wounds, albeit to models in LOS of the firing unit.
In games with friends your welcome to create house rules however you like. The strong opinions your facing here are those you'll potentially face if you play with random people or at tournaments. The RAW is pretty clear which is the way to play (for better or worse). Is that the intent of GW. I don't know, but since they're mum on the subject you probably want to adjust to playing it the RAW way for now.
PS in your reading of the rule you put "models" in where it actually reads "units". There is a distinction in 40k rules.
Oh yeah. Way to confuse me again.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
i find the rulebook to be very clear on this one and the RAI is obvious as well.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Yes, RAW is clear that you cannot allocate wounds to models that have no LOS to the shooter.
RAI... who knows 
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
Happyjew wrote:HawaiiMatt wrote:If anyone in the unit is in range, and anyone in the unit is in line of sight, you can fire, and you don't check line of sight again, until you are at step 5 (page 12) appling wounds.
-Matt
Not necessarily, each model has to be within range to a model in the unit within line of sight, so if all of the enemy models that are within range to your model, are not within line of sight, that model may not fire at all.
My bad, I mean to say:
At the time of firing, you check range and line of sight, you don't check range again at all, and you only check line of sight when applying wounds, and can apply wounds to an enemy that anyone in your unit can see.
-Matt
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Fragile wrote:Yes, RAW is clear that you cannot allocate wounds to models that have no LOS to the shooter.
RAI... who knows
Given that " RAW" (i do not agree with this interpretation) results ina rule having absolutely no function, RAI is easy to determine.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Actually the rule functions fine, but without the ability to show it, either in person or with something like Vassal software to draw pictures, its not something easily explained by text.
55201
Post by: pie zuri
nosferatu1001 wrote:Fragile wrote:Yes, RAW is clear that you cannot allocate wounds to models that have no LOS to the shooter.
RAI... who knows
Given that " RAW" (i do not agree with this interpretation) results ina rule having absolutely no function, RAI is easy to determine.
It does have a function. It just doesn't have the function you want it to have. Just a couple posts ago (this same page) I wrote what the possible intention of the rule could be, based off how RAW operates. I'm not saying this was GW's ultimate intention but it does fit RAW and it doesn't involve me trying to twist a rule based on what I think GW's intending
NOS- You have been with this thread since it's initial conception. Through that entire time you've held tight to the notion that If you can't wound models out of LOS than that rule is without purpose. I've on multiple occasions(among others) have demonstrated why it does have a purpose. Just not the one you want. I get the impression you don't seriously consider what other people have wrote on this topic and ignore any evidence that contradicts your own. It's okay to disagree, but you never attempt to directly address those responses that talk about the possible intention of the blast rules and how it would fit into RAW.
I know it can be a check to the ego when you get a rule wrong (I do it all the time), and hard to let go those opinions especially when you've put yourself so strongly behind them (this is human nature). This isn't a attack on you. You just should consider all the possibility's when it comes to interpreting the rules. Who knows, maybe this will get FAQ'd in your favor and than you can flip us the bird for doubting your powers of prognostication.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I ignored your post as it ignored that the rule is worded to allow you to wound
UNITS
Out of LOS. Not models, *units* entire. An entire UNIT out of LOS can be hit and wounded according to the rule. Not models IN los, but UNITS out of it. This is a very, very clear distinction you are avoiding in your attempt to cling to RAW which results in an absurd result.
Under the interpretation that this cannot ever allocate wounds, the rule has no function as written - units out of LOS can, under thsi interpretation of RAW, never be hurt.
I'd avoid the condescension in your posts in future, and note that I have posted this same point a number of times to no avail.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
Raw it hits, adds wounds to the wound pool regardless of los issues, and then wounds are allocated from the pool to the closest model in the unit that the shooting unit has los to. If the shooting unit can't allocate wounds from the pool to a model in los the remaining wounds are lost.
60374
Post by: Dooley
[quote=pie zuri 463917 4683896 0e397a51ea75d6ec092a527846cf3151.jpg
Perhaps the intent is to allow you to add wounds to the wound pool, even when the blast scatters out of range and out of LOS. Without the that particular wording (in 6th) your opponent could potentially say your blast would be voided completely if it scattered out of range or LOS.
With the wording the way it currently is, on a scatter you still have a chance to cause some wounds, albeit to models in LOS of the firing unit.
Nofuratu101 this sums up my point right here! Automatically Appended Next Post:  schadenfreude wrote:Raw it hits, adds wounds to the wound pool regardless of los issues, and then wounds are allocated from the pool to the closest model in the unit that the shooting unit has los to. If the shooting unit can't allocate wounds from the pool to a model in los the remaining wounds are lost.
This too!
55201
Post by: pie zuri
nosferatu1001 wrote:I ignored your post as it ignored that the rule is worded to allow you to wound
UNITS
Out of LOS. Not models, *units* entire. An entire UNIT out of LOS can be hit and wounded according to the rule. Not models IN los, but UNITS out of it. This is a very, very clear distinction you are avoiding in your attempt to cling to RAW which results in an absurd result.
Under the interpretation that this cannot ever allocate wounds, the rule has no function as written - units out of LOS can, under thsi interpretation of RAW, never be hurt.
I'd avoid the condescension in your posts in future, and note that I have posted this same point a number of times to no avail.
You do get to potentially wound the "UNIT" out of LOS and range. What do you think that part is when you count the hits under the blast maker and than roll to wound? That doesn't satisfy your definition of hit and wound units?
I understand this doesn't make sense to you in context of a unit completely out of LOS doesn't get any wounds allocated. The rules in that section just deal with creating a wound pool. The blast can fall on models out of LOS and end up killing different models in that unit altogether(those in LOS). If it just so happens your blast scatters over a unit completely out of LOS, you can skip rolling to wound, as they wont be used at all
Nowhere is it giving you permission to ignore the rules of normal wound allocation.
I'm sure why you feel your interpretation is more RAI than mine.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
The rule is useless because while the wound pool is populated (and subsequently emptied) that essentially means nothing.
They could have left the rule out of the book and had zero effect on anything.
That being the case, the fact that the rule is there demonstrates intent to have something happen. They just worded it poorly.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
pie zuri wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:I ignored your post as it ignored that the rule is worded to allow you to wound
UNITS
Out of LOS. Not models, *units* entire. An entire UNIT out of LOS can be hit and wounded according to the rule. Not models IN los, but UNITS out of it. This is a very, very clear distinction you are avoiding in your attempt to cling to RAW which results in an absurd result.
Under the interpretation that this cannot ever allocate wounds, the rule has no function as written - units out of LOS can, under thsi interpretation of RAW, never be hurt.
I'd avoid the condescension in your posts in future, and note that I have posted this same point a number of times to no avail.
You do get to potentially wound the "UNIT" out of LOS and range. What do you think that part is when you count the hits under the blast maker and than roll to wound? That doesn't satisfy your definition of hit and wound units?
I understand this doesn't make sense to you in context of a unit completely out of LOS doesn't get any wounds allocated. The rules in that section just deal with creating a wound pool. The blast can fall on models out of LOS and end up killing different models in that unit altogether(those in LOS). If it just so happens your blast scatters over a unit completely out of LOS, you can skip rolling to wound, as they wont be used at all
Nowhere is it giving you permission to ignore the rules of normal wound allocation.
I'm sure why you feel your interpretation is more RAI than mine.
It doesnt make sense that they wrote a rule that, in your opinion, has NO FUNCTIONAL USE
Anytime you come to a conclusion that results in a rule, in the new rulebook about basic rules, has no effect, you do have to perhaps consider that your " RAW" may be off, and certainly your " RAI" is.
Currently if you removed that rule you would not alter the functionality of Blasts one jot - to your interpretation.
Dooley - it entirely ignores the rule stating "Units" out of LOS, and tries to pretend that wounding models out of LOS is somehow equivalent. It isnt. Your point is wrong, and has been since the start - your interpretation of RAW leads to an absurd result, so is automatically suspect.
60374
Post by: Dooley
I am afraid YOUR interprataiton of the rule is the one that is in the wrong here. In your "interpratation" you would have to apply a new set of de facto rules in order to allocate wounds to models/units out of line of site.
If a Missile Launcher model fires at a unit and the shot scatters out side of its LOS and Range and hits a separate UNIT as long as a member of the missile launchers squad can see that second UNIT then models may be allocated wounds to them and thus die. If it scatters and NO ONE from the firers unit can see the new UNIT no one dies as NO ONE can have wounds allocated to them by RAW in the BRB..
You may be able to Hit and wound units out of LOS but unless a member of the firer's squad can see the unit then all wounds will be lost (EXCLUDES BARAGE WEAPONS)
Again I have provided an example of HOW and WHY the rule has a function. Am I NOT explaining this well enough (asked to the ENTIRE community)
Edited due to an education on Tyranid Weaponry.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Then also explain how the Smart Missile System works. From the Tau FAQ The smart missile system can be fired at any target in range regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer.
By your interpretation of RAW this is a weapon which can be shot at an enemy out of sight (as it has permission to target them) but cannot remove models as casualties as the rule does not give it permission to ignore the LOS requirements when allocating wounds. Unless this weapon really is completely useless for its designed purpose it must be assumed that being allowed to target or hit an enemy out of sight also confers the ability to remove models as casualties from out of sight.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
a) Don't use Tyranid examples if you're not familiar with the codex - what you used as an example makes literally zero sense. Impaler Cannons ignore LOS and are only on Hive Guard.
b)
BRB wrote: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).
They don't say "of the firing model". They just say out of line of sight.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Well then I appologize for my butchery of the Tyranid Codex. The example still stands, Switch Hive Guard with Hive Tyrant.
As far as Smart Missile Systems this is different as it is NOT a BLAST WEAPON (as far as I can remember). It is a weapon that does not need LOS to fire and is NOT barage and THAT needs to be ERRATA'd. Again I recommend E-mailing the GW people on Non Los NON Blast NON Barage Weapons. I have, but all they told me was THANK YOU WE WILL LOOK INTO IT.
Yes the Impaler Canon is no longer as good as it once was. Smart Missiles/Seeker Missiles dont work as intended but then again neither does Snik Rot, Outflanking Landraiders, Al Rahiem, Gean Stealers and any other Researve arriving assault Unit!!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:Well then I appologize for my butchery of the Tyranid Codex. The example still stands, Switch Hive Guard with Hive Tyrant.
Impaler Cannon's aren't blast either. Just FYI.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Then why the HELL WERE THEY EVEN BEING BROUGHT UP!!! 
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:Then why the HELL WERE THEY EVEN BEING BROUGHT UP!!!
Because it's a similar situation. They have permission to shoot at targets out of LoS. They don't even have permission to wound targets out of LoS because that wasn't a restriction in 5th. Essentially, RAW, the ability to "shoot at any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not" is useless in 6th ed, because there's no permission to even populate the wound pool. Blast weapons can hit a unit out of LoS but can't actually wound that unit. Your argument also fails in that the emptied wound pool rule says: If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lostandthe shootingattack ends.
Note that if a SM Frag Missile scatters out of sight of the firing model, but the bolter marine over there can still see the unit the scattering blast rule still does nothing. You have permission to wound as long as any model in your unit can see the target. The only way to read the intent is if they meant you are allowed to allocate wounds to models in a unit entirely out of LOS from the firing unit. edit: Also, it'd be great if you could discuss this calmly and without caps.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
I've changed my mind from my original mind changing. If a squad shoots a bunch of bolters and a frag missle at a sqaud of 10 men and only 5 can be seen by the unit then only 5 can be killed. Even if that frag missle hits the other 5 out of sight. That frag missle just tops off the wound pool being used on the models in LoS. If the bolters kill those 5 guys then the extra wounds are disgarded. I don't see why that would be any different for a unit that is completely out of LoS.
60374
Post by: Dooley
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I've changed my mind from my original mind changing. If a squad shoots a bunch of bolters and a frag missle at a sqaud of 10 men and only 5 can be seen by the unit then only 5 can be killed. Even if that frag missle hits the other 5 out of sight. That frag missle just tops off the wound pool being used on the models in LoS. If the bolters kill those 5 guys then the extra wounds are disgarded. I don't see why that would be any different for a unit that is completely out of LoS.
YES YES EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! 
Also note: many of my CAPS LOCK comments (minus the one above) are for EMPHASIS. I would recomned reading in a calm manner regardles of font size or capitilization of words,
4244
Post by: Pyrian
Impalers and smart missiles have the same issue as scattering blasts: you have an ability to hit models out of LOS, but no corresponding ability to have such models removed as casualties.
It looks to me like a general oversight caused by the insertion of the latter rule without checking the consequences it adds to the overall rule system. I don't think there's any serious chance it will be confirmed in an official FAQ. (Whether it's addressed at all is another matter.) And I agree with nosferatu1001 that the explicit ability to hit, wound, but not damage a unit completely out of LOS is a rule too broken to possibly be RaI.
Consider the following for a moment: You check LOS for three things while shooting. 1st, you have to have some LOS to select a target. 2nd, each model in the firing unit must have LOS to a model in the target unit. 3rd, each model assigned wounds must have LOS drawn to them.
Conspicuously missing is any LOS requirement for wounding. Do you check LOS when rolling to-wound? No! You don't! We're explicitly given permission to accomplish something that there is no need to accomplish. (The same is true for hitting. You check LOS to fire at all, but not to-hit. Arguably, there was nothing in the rules preventing a blast from generating hits on models out of LOS in the first place.)
But that's just one interpretation. As we've shown above, it's a terrible interpretation that makes no sense and has little or no in-game effect. But one of the concepts in this interpretation is actually very wide: "Wound". Wound is, rather unfortunately in my opinion, used for some pretty distinct stages of resolution. Wounds rolled, unsaved wounds, wounds on a profile, wounds assigned to a model.
Let's take that last one for a second.
My scattered blast has explicit permission to wound units (and therefore models in the unit, as a unit is by definition a group of models) regardless of LOS. You're arguing that I cannot assign a wound to a specific model in the unit struck due to LOS. I can very easily argue that ability to-wound overrides that restriction, and I have a rather compelling reason to think that this IS in fact the RaI (in addition to being RaW on account of "wound" fuzziness): That is the ONLY LOS-based restriction on "wounds" that exists in the first place.
So, if the rules refers to overriding LOS on a wound, it can ONLY reasonably refer to the fact that you cannot normally apply a wound to a specific model outside of LOS, as there are no other LOS-based restrictions on wounds to apply an exception to.
That's RaW, RaI, and done.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Ok so you have hit and wounded a unit. The unit has taken its saves and has faild a few of them generating a "WOUND POOL" (not yelling emphasis). How then do you allocate the wounds form the wound pool to models in the wounded unit that are out of LOS?
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Dooley wrote:Ok so you have hit and wounded a unit. The unit has taken its saves and has faild a few of them generating a "WOUND POOL" (not yelling emphasis). How then do you allocate the wounds form the wound pool to models in the wounded unit that are out of LOS?
Closest model first, as per page 15.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Even if pg 16 tells you that if all models are out of LOS the shots are lost and the shooting attack ends?
4244
Post by: Pyrian
Dooley wrote:How then do you allocate the wounds form the wound pool to models in the wounded unit that are out of LOS?
Via the permission given in the blast rules to wound out of LOS.
Dooley wrote:Even if pg 16 tells you that if all models are out of LOS the shots are lost and the shooting attack ends?
Yes, because the blast rule under discussion overrides that corollary, and indeed is nothing more than an exception to that rule (and the corollary you're talking about).
EDIT: Seriously, I know my post was long, but if you read the whole thing it answers all your questions. I suspect another poster is going to try to argue that units are not groups of models, but that's incorrect by rulebook definition and the fact that it would ruin many other rules, including, for example, most blessings and maledictions.
60374
Post by: Dooley
The Blast rules tell one to treat them like any other normal shooting attack. It does not allow one to pick and choose which part of the "normal shooting attack" rules to apply or ignore.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dooley wrote:I am afraid YOUR interprataiton of the rule is the one that is in the wrong here. In your "interpratation" you would have to apply a new set of de facto rules in order to allocate wounds to models/units out of line of site.
You have yet ot show that with any ability.
Dooley wrote:
If a Missile Launcher model fires at a unit and the shot scatters out side of its LOS and Range and hits a separate UNIT as long as a member of the missile launchers squad can see that second UNIT then models may be allocated wounds to them and thus die. If it scatters and NO ONE from the firers unit can see the new UNIT no one dies as NO ONE can have wounds allocated to them by RAW in the BRB..
So, yet again you entirely missed the actual rule. The one that says you can wound units out of LOS. Note that the "out of LOS" isnt caveated - the unit is 100% out of line of sight. Your "example" has a unit where models are IN line of Sight. How can you not understand the difference?
Dooley wrote:You may be able to Hit and wound units out of LOS but unless a member of the firer's squad can see the unit then all wounds will be lost (EXCLUDES BARAGE WEAPONS)
Again I have provided an example of HOW and WHY the rule has a function. Am I NOT explaining this well enough (asked to the ENTIRE community)
No, you have NOT explained anything, as you have yet again entirely misread the rule. Your example is of a unit NOT "out of LOS", but one which is IN LOS. Try to understand there is a difference
Again, under your interpretation the rule has ZERO FUNCTION. Absolutely none.
4244
Post by: Pyrian
Dooley wrote:The Blast rules tell one to treat them like any other normal shooting attack. It does not allow one to pick and choose which part of the "normal shooting attack" rules to apply or ignore.
It tells you exactly which parts of the "normal shooting attack" rules to ignore. One of those is that you can wound units out of sight, which you're claiming you cannot. Another is placing and scattering a template instead of rolling to hit. How far are you going with that?
(And why is it that every single rule that acts like another rule, but with exceptions, has somebody pointing out that it acts like the first rule, as if that magically allows them to ignore the exceptions? Why is that even an argument?)
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Question 1) When GW specifies you can "wound the unit" do they mean you generate a Wound Pool, or do they mean you can allocate wounds from the Wound Pool to the unit.
Question 2) Who does the unit need to be out of sight from in regards to the rule? Is it the firing model or the unit as a whole?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote: KamikazeCanuck wrote:I've changed my mind from my original mind changing. If a squad shoots a bunch of bolters and a frag missle at a sqaud of 10 men and only 5 can be seen by the unit then only 5 can be killed. Even if that frag missle hits the other 5 out of sight. That frag missle just tops off the wound pool being used on the models in LoS. If the bolters kill those 5 guys then the extra wounds are disgarded. I don't see why that would be any different for a unit that is completely out of LoS.
YES YES EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!
Also note: many of my CAPS LOCK comments (minus the one above) are for EMPHASIS. I would recomned reading in a calm manner regardles of font size or capitilization of words,
It'd be great if you could address more of my post than just the edit.
If a missile scatters but a bolter guy is the only one that can still see the unit the wound pool isn't emptied.
So again, your interpretation leaves a useless rule.
57235
Post by: Daemonhammer
If they are on an open area will they even get cover from a blast weapon?
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
In my aforementioned scenario that would mean you'd have to make two wound pools. One for wounds that hit models in LoS and ones that can hit models out of LoS. I mean are people really playing it that way out there IRL? Who's to say which wounds are even allocated first? I know I'd allocate the LoS ignoring wounds first so can't use their special powers. I just have a tough time believing that's the RAI.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In my aforementioned scenario that would mean you'd have to make two wound pools. One for wounds that hit models in LoS and ones that can hit models out of LoS. I mean are people really playing it that way out there IRL? Who's to say which wounds are even allocated first? I know I'd allocate the LoS ignoring wounds first so can't use their special powers. I just have a tough time believing that's the RAI.
The wound pool is already split if you have weapons with different strength values, AP values and/or special rules.
8520
Post by: Leth
Ehh, I have a hard time seeing the distinction between being able to wound units and wound models. Way I see it units are just groups(or singular) models and as such anything that applies to units would also work on models. Otherwise anything that affects the unit no longer works cause they are models.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 Leth wrote:Ehh, I have a hard time seeing the distinction between being able to wound units and wound models. Way I see it units are just groups(or singular) models and as such anything that applies to units would also work on models. Otherwise anything that affects the unit no longer works cause they are models.
In 6th you cannot directly wound models with shooting.
You roll to hit, then roll to wound. This populates the wound pool. You then allocate wounds from the pool to models, making saves as appropriate.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
 A Town Called Malus wrote: KamikazeCanuck wrote:In my aforementioned scenario that would mean you'd have to make two wound pools. One for wounds that hit models in LoS and ones that can hit models out of LoS. I mean are people really playing it that way out there IRL? Who's to say which wounds are even allocated first? I know I'd allocate the LoS ignoring wounds first so can't use their special powers. I just have a tough time believing that's the RAI.
The wound pool is already split if you have weapons with different strength values, AP values and/or special rules.
I know but as I asked are people out there really splitting their wound pools into LoS rounds and Non- LoS rounds? Raise hand if you are.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
KamikazeCanuck wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: KamikazeCanuck wrote:In my aforementioned scenario that would mean you'd have to make two wound pools. One for wounds that hit models in LoS and ones that can hit models out of LoS. I mean are people really playing it that way out there IRL? Who's to say which wounds are even allocated first? I know I'd allocate the LoS ignoring wounds first so can't use their special powers. I just have a tough time believing that's the RAI.
The wound pool is already split if you have weapons with different strength values, AP values and/or special rules.
I know but as I asked are people out there really splitting their wound pools into LoS rounds and Non- LoS rounds? Raise hand if you are.
No - but you're wrong about how that's handled.
In your scenario, 5 guys behind a wall, 5 guys in the open and the missile scatters behind the wall, hitting 3 models.
We'll assume all 3 missile hits wound and 5 bolter wounds come in.
Wound Pool is now populated.
Opponent rolls 5 saves, fails all 5, remaining wounds are lost.
Using the current rules the fact that you scattered out of LoS means nothing - there's nothing preventing you from rolling to wound models you can't see. You just empty the wound pool if no one in your unit can see anyone in the target unit. The fact that the launcher can't see where the shot landed is irrelevant as long as his buddy can see the unit the shot landed on.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
rigeld2 wrote: KamikazeCanuck wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: KamikazeCanuck wrote:In my aforementioned scenario that would mean you'd have to make two wound pools. One for wounds that hit models in LoS and ones that can hit models out of LoS. I mean are people really playing it that way out there IRL? Who's to say which wounds are even allocated first? I know I'd allocate the LoS ignoring wounds first so can't use their special powers. I just have a tough time believing that's the RAI.
The wound pool is already split if you have weapons with different strength values, AP values and/or special rules.
I know but as I asked are people out there really splitting their wound pools into LoS rounds and Non- LoS rounds? Raise hand if you are.
No - but you're wrong about how that's handled.
In your scenario, 5 guys behind a wall, 5 guys in the open and the missile scatters behind the wall, hitting 3 models.
We'll assume all 3 missile hits wound and 5 bolter wounds come in.
Wound Pool is now populated.
Opponent rolls 5 saves, fails all 5, remaining wounds are lost.
Using the current rules the fact that you scattered out of LoS means nothing - there's nothing preventing you from rolling to wound models you can't see. You just empty the wound pool if no one in your unit can see anyone in the target unit. The fact that the launcher can't see where the shot landed is irrelevant as long as his buddy can see the unit the shot landed on.
No, that is how I think it is handled. Some people seem to think those 3 missile launcher wounds would in fact kill the 3 guys out of LoS.
2633
Post by: Yad
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dooley wrote:
If a Missile Launcher model fires at a unit and the shot scatters out side of its LOS and Range and hits a separate UNIT as long as a member of the missile launchers squad can see that second UNIT then models may be allocated wounds to them and thus die. If it scatters and NO ONE from the firers unit can see the new UNIT no one dies as NO ONE can have wounds allocated to them by RAW in the BRB..
So, yet again you entirely missed the actual rule. The one that says you can wound units out of LOS. Note that the "out of LOS" isnt caveated - the unit is 100% out of line of sight. Your "example" has a unit where models are IN line of Sight. How can you not understand the difference?
Just to play devil's advocate. Perhaps the bit that says you can wound units out of LOS is about generating wounds against the unit. That with make sense as the latter part of the rule talks about allocating the wounds following the rules for a normal shooting attack.
So the whole point of this would be to be able to generate hits and wounds on part of a unit that is out of LOS and then apply (allocate) those wounds to the part of the unit that is in LOS.
-Yad
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Yad wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dooley wrote:
If a Missile Launcher model fires at a unit and the shot scatters out side of its LOS and Range and hits a separate UNIT as long as a member of the missile launchers squad can see that second UNIT then models may be allocated wounds to them and thus die. If it scatters and NO ONE from the firers unit can see the new UNIT no one dies as NO ONE can have wounds allocated to them by RAW in the BRB..
So, yet again you entirely missed the actual rule. The one that says you can wound units out of LOS. Note that the "out of LOS" isnt caveated - the unit is 100% out of line of sight. Your "example" has a unit where models are IN line of Sight. How can you not understand the difference?
Just to play devil's advocate. Perhaps the bit that says you can bound units out of LOS is about generating wounds against the unit. That with make sense as the latter part of the rule talks about allocating the wounds following the rules for a normal shooting attack.
So the whole point of this would be to be able to generate hits and wounds on part of a unit that is out of LOS and then apply (allocate) those wounds to the part of the unit that is in LOS.
-Yad
But you can do that without needing the wording in the blast special rule as adding wounds to the wound pool doesn't need LOS, only the allocation part of wounding does.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Yad wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dooley wrote:
If a Missile Launcher model fires at a unit and the shot scatters out side of its LOS and Range and hits a separate UNIT as long as a member of the missile launchers squad can see that second UNIT then models may be allocated wounds to them and thus die. If it scatters and NO ONE from the firers unit can see the new UNIT no one dies as NO ONE can have wounds allocated to them by RAW in the BRB..
So, yet again you entirely missed the actual rule. The one that says you can wound units out of LOS. Note that the "out of LOS" isnt caveated - the unit is 100% out of line of sight. Your "example" has a unit where models are IN line of Sight. How can you not understand the difference?
Just to play devil's advocate. Perhaps the bit that says you can wound units out of LOS is about generating wounds against the unit. That with make sense as the latter part of the rule talks about allocating the wounds following the rules for a normal shooting attack.
So the whole point of this would be to be able to generate hits and wounds on part of a unit that is out of LOS and then apply (allocate) those wounds to the part of the unit that is in LOS.
-Yad
Which you dont need this rule to do. You hit all models under the marker - that does not rely on LOS at all. Only allocating wounds has the caveat on in LOS! only.
AGain - the rule states you can wound *units* out of LOS - an entire Unit *wholly* and *utterly* out of LOS. Your example, like Dooleys, is NOT of a unit entirely out of LOS.
Again - you are reaching an interpretation which renders a rule as entirely redundant and no function. An absurd result like that tells you the interpretation is likely to be wrong
46128
Post by: Happyjew
nos, for all we know, the rules are referring to a unit that is out of sight from the firing model, not the firing unit. If that is what the rules are saying (who knows) then the part of allocating wounds as normal makes sense, as for wound allocation, the wounded unit needs to be in sight of the unit that wounded it, not the specific model.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
AGain - "out of LOS" has no caveats. So it is oiut of LOS from the firing unit entire
2633
Post by: Yad
nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dooley wrote:
If a Missile Launcher model fires at a unit and the shot scatters out side of its LOS and Range and hits a separate UNIT as long as a member of the missile launchers squad can see that second UNIT then models may be allocated wounds to them and thus die. If it scatters and NO ONE from the firers unit can see the new UNIT no one dies as NO ONE can have wounds allocated to them by RAW in the BRB..
So, yet again you entirely missed the actual rule. The one that says you can wound units out of LOS. Note that the "out of LOS" isnt caveated - the unit is 100% out of line of sight. Your "example" has a unit where models are IN line of Sight. How can you not understand the difference?
Just to play devil's advocate. Perhaps the bit that says you can wound units out of LOS is about generating wounds against the unit. That with make sense as the latter part of the rule talks about allocating the wounds following the rules for a normal shooting attack.
So the whole point of this would be to be able to generate hits and wounds on part of a unit that is out of LOS and then apply (allocate) those wounds to the part of the unit that is in LOS.
-Yad
Which you dont need this rule to do. You hit all models under the marker - that does not rely on LOS at all. Only allocating wounds has the caveat on in LOS! only.
AGain - the rule states you can wound *units* out of LOS - an entire Unit *wholly* and *utterly* out of LOS. Your example, like Dooleys, is NOT of a unit entirely out of LOS.
Again - you are reaching an interpretation which renders a rule as entirely redundant and no function. An absurd result like that tells you the interpretation is likely to be wrong
I must have misunderstood your earlier post, because I think we're arguing the same position just going about it differently. I do think that if a blast scatters completely out of sight from the firing unit, you are still allow to calculate hits and generate wounds (which go into the wound pool). What you aren't allowed to then do (assuming the 'target' unit is still completely out of LOS) is then allocate those wounds to the unit. The wound pool would be lost. If though there were some models still in LOS to the firing unit you could allocate those wounds to the models in LOS.
If I did misunderstand your earlier post the oops on me If I didn't then I think you're doing it wrong The assumption that you must always be able to hit and wound something when the blast marker lands on it is not necessarily true because of the rule about not being able to wound models that are out of sight.
-Yad
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Happyjew wrote:nos, for all we know, the rules are referring to a unit that is out of sight from the firing model, not the firing unit. If that is what the rules are saying (who knows) then the part of allocating wounds as normal makes sense, as for wound allocation, the wounded unit needs to be in sight of the unit that wounded it, not the specific model.
Except, again, you already have permission to do that.
The firing unit has to have Los to the target unit to allocate.
Models don't need line of sight to allow allocation.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
rigeld2 wrote:Happyjew wrote:nos, for all we know, the rules are referring to a unit that is out of sight from the firing model, not the firing unit. If that is what the rules are saying (who knows) then the part of allocating wounds as normal makes sense, as for wound allocation, the wounded unit needs to be in sight of the unit that wounded it, not the specific model.
Except, again, you already have permission to do that.
The firing unit has to have Los to the target unit to allocate.
Models don't need line of sight to allow allocation.
No, but a model does need LOS to fire his weapon, and generate wound.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Happyjew wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Happyjew wrote:nos, for all we know, the rules are referring to a unit that is out of sight from the firing model, not the firing unit. If that is what the rules are saying (who knows) then the part of allocating wounds as normal makes sense, as for wound allocation, the wounded unit needs to be in sight of the unit that wounded it, not the specific model.
Except, again, you already have permission to do that.
The firing unit has to have Los to the target unit to allocate.
Models don't need line of sight to allow allocation.
No, but a model does need LOS to fire his weapon, and generate wound.
A model needs LOS to fire. It does not need LOS to wound. The unit does.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
rigeld2 wrote:A model needs LOS to fire. It does not need LOS to wound.
This baffled me for a bit, since in the situations mentioned, firing comes before wounding.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
 kirsanth wrote:rigeld2 wrote:A model needs LOS to fire. It does not need LOS to wound.
This baffled me for a bit, since in the situations mentioned, firing comes before wounding.
Indeed and the original target of the non-barrage blast weapon must be in LOS for the shot to be legal. If that shot scatters and hits a target completely out of LOS, however, LOS no longer applies when it comes to hitting and wounding as per the Blast rules. Since the only step of wounding that requires LOS is allocation it is either that you ignore the LOS requirement for wound allocation and allocate closest to furthest or that the entry in the blast special rule concerning wounding is completely useless and a waste of ink.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
kirsanth wrote:rigeld2 wrote:A model needs LOS to fire. It does not need LOS to wound.
This baffled me for a bit, since in the situations mentioned, firing comes before wounding.
Absolutely correct.
Missile is fired. Missile scatters out of firing models LOS but hits the target unit. As long as any model in the firing unit can see any model in the now-hit unit, the blast permission to wound doesn't come into play.
That's my point - people are saying that the blast scatter rule is needed for the blast scattering out of LOS of the firing model, but still hits the target unit. That's absolutely incorrect.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
....which is the point
The rule that states you can wound ******UNITS****** out of LOS has no purpose, if you assume the "wound" allowance stops before allocation.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Ok lets try this then:
Unit A fires at Unit B
Units A's Missle Launcher scatters out of los of unit A and hits Unit C (completley out of LOS of Unit A)
Wounds are generated and a wound pool is established for Unit C. Allocation of these wounds Cannot happen because NO MODELS in unit C are visible to UNIT A and the shots are lost.
/ End Thought
I have covered "The shot scatters and wounds UNITS out of LOS", I have also covered why it does nothing and how it also does SOMETHING at the same time (Shrodengers Cat Style). Please tell me, with cited rules, HOW you then Alocate wounds to Models in Units of of LOS. Yes the blast rules state you can WOUND UNITS out of LOS however, it still requires you to follow wound allocation as per normal shots.
And I am sorry if YOU (or anyone else) feels like I am being condecending, or attacking anyone or what ever. I am TRYING to explain how and why I am MAKING THE CALL the way I am. I have yet to see HOW non LOS non Barage weapons ACTUALLY wound anyone. Astral Aim is functionally useless at this time as are many other weapons. Again PLEASE send this to the GW people so we can be sure it is included in the latest ERRATA which MAY come out next weekend (here's hopin).
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Sigh.
You have just proven that that rule makes absolutely no difference to the game, under your interpretation. You can remove the rule and it makes no difference to the game, at all. You would know this if you had paid attention to Rigelds posts
WHich is why i am pointing out htat, when you come to an interpretaiton that renders a rule meaningless, your interpretation is less likely to be correct.
I have already given my interpretation, many times, why i think it works otherwise.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.
You have just proven that that rule makes absolutely no difference to the game, under your interpretation. You can remove the rule and it makes no difference to the game, at all. You would know this if you had paid attention to Rigelds posts
WHich is why i am pointing out htat, when you come to an interpretaiton that renders a rule meaningless, your interpretation is less likely to be correct.
I have already given my interpretation, many times, why i think it works otherwise.
And I absolutely agree with you that's what is intended.
It just isn't written that way.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
rigeld2 wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.
You have just proven that that rule makes absolutely no difference to the game, under your interpretation. You can remove the rule and it makes no difference to the game, at all. You would know this if you had paid attention to Rigelds posts
WHich is why i am pointing out htat, when you come to an interpretaiton that renders a rule meaningless, your interpretation is less likely to be correct.
I have already given my interpretation, many times, why i think it works otherwise.
And I absolutely agree with you that's what is intended.
It just isn't written that way.
As rigeld says. In my opinion being able to wound units out of sight is in reference to the firing model, not the firing unit, as normally you cannot fire if all models in unit within range are out of sight. This interpretation works perfectly with the rules. It allows you to wound a unit out of range/sight (from the firing model), and when it comes to allocating wounds you need line of sight from any model in the unit.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Except the rule isnt needed - there is no prohibition on wounding out of LOS, jut of firing (and then allocating from the wound pool)
No matter what the rule is EITHER entirely useless OR under another interpretation the allowance to wound of of LOS includes allocation.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the rule isnt needed - there is no prohibition on wounding out of LOS, jut of firing (and then allocating from the wound pool)
No matter what the rule is EITHER entirely useless OR under another interpretation the allowance to wound of of LOS includes allocation.
Right. RAW the rule isn't needed. Since its there, however, the intent is (in this rare case) indisputably clear.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
nosferatu1001 wrote:....which is the point
The rule that states you can wound ******UNITS****** out of LOS has no purpose, if you assume the "wound" allowance stops before allocation.
Which page 12 shows wounding and wound allocation as 2 different steps.
I do think you're correct, I just think it is incredibly poorly worded and lacks useful examples.
-Matt
58133
Post by: WangoFett
How about if unit A fires on unit B with among other things a blast weapon.
Blast weapon scatters and hits and wounds unit C.
Unit C happens to be out of LoS of the model that fired the blast weapon, but within LoS of other models in his unit.
These wounds are resolved in the usual way and can be allocated.
This explains the explicit permission to hit and wound a unit that is out of LoS in combination with the normal resolution of wounds.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Again, Wango - no, it does not. Because the restriction is on initially firing the weapon, NOT on wounding. After 13 pages and umpteen repetitions of this as a reason for the rule, it is still not an answer.
Rigeld - i agree that intent is certainly clear, however i also believe (going back to what, page 2?) the rules are also in support of it.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
WangoFett wrote:How about if unit A fires on unit B with among other things a blast weapon.
Blast weapon scatters and hits and wounds unit C.
Unit C happens to be out of LoS of the model that fired the blast weapon, but within LoS of other models in his unit.
These wounds are resolved in the usual way and can be allocated.
This explains the explicit permission to hit and wound a unit that is out of LoS in combination with the normal resolution of wounds.
As nos said - that example doesn't use the rule in question.
The firing model never needs LOS to wound, only the unit does. So if the blast scatters out of the models sight it doesn't matter - as long as the unit can see the unit that the blast hit. This isn't even referencing the blast scatter rules.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
So.. under the "no wounds out of LOS" interpretation the tactic, especially for horde type armies would be big tough unit up front to bounce light fire and block LOS to more average units behind, thus any scattering blasts would be useless at wounding (but not hitting) those models behind the front line.
Kanlines anyone?
58133
Post by: WangoFett
rigeld2 wrote:WangoFett wrote:How about if unit A fires on unit B with among other things a blast weapon.
Blast weapon scatters and hits and wounds unit C.
Unit C happens to be out of LoS of the model that fired the blast weapon, but within LoS of other models in his unit.
These wounds are resolved in the usual way and can be allocated.
This explains the explicit permission to hit and wound a unit that is out of LoS in combination with the normal resolution of wounds.
As nos said - that example doesn't use the rule in question.
The firing model never needs LOS to wound, only the unit does. So if the blast scatters out of the models sight it doesn't matter - as long as the unit can see the unit that the blast hit. This isn't even referencing the blast scatter rules.
That is true. Therefore perhaps the mention of hitting and wounding units out of range and line of sight is an attempt at clarification rather than granting some special ability to blast weapons.
63154
Post by: XxlDwarf
Okay let me jump in on this.
First let me say that I think you can hit and wound units out of your line of sight.
Let's start with the scatter rule on page 6 that never says a roll of a hit is not a scatter just it does not MOVE.
So a Blast always scatters in my opinion.
Next the rule where this whole debate starts "any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack." Would we still be debating this if we took a rule from up above and put it in after? The one that says "and wound units out of range and line of sight"? Minus we don't need the out of range at this point? So I guess what I'm saying is do we really need to put "and wound units out of line of sight"after that? Tho it would say it a little different like " even out of line of sight units"
But isn't it a little redundant?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
You've completely missed the argument.
The unit is hit.
You roll to wound.
The wound pool is populated.
Find permission to allocate wounds when the firing unit has no LOS to the target unit.
63154
Post by: XxlDwarf
The permission to allocated wounds when the firing unit has no Los to the target unit. Is when it says you can wound units out range and line of sight. You can't wound something if you can't allocate wounds to it.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
XxlDwarf wrote:The permission to allocated wounds when the firing unit has no Los to the target unit. Is when it says you can wound units out range and line of sight. You can't wound something if you can't allocate wounds to it.
Not true. Rolling to wound is wounding the unit. Allocating wounds is a completely different step with different restrictions.
2633
Post by: Yad
XxlDwarf wrote:The permission to allocated wounds when the firing unit has no Los to the target unit. Is when it says you can wound units out range and line of sight. You can't wound something if you can't allocate wounds to it.
As rigeld2 said, rolling for wounds is for creating and populating the wound pool. It is not for allocating wounds. Wound allocation is a separate step. According the blast rules you allocate per the normal rules for shooting. Thus no allocating of wounds to models out of sight.
-Yad
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
Yad wrote:XxlDwarf wrote:The permission to allocated wounds when the firing unit has no Los to the target unit. Is when it says you can wound units out range and line of sight. You can't wound something if you can't allocate wounds to it.
As rigeld2 said, rolling for wounds is for creating and populating the wound pool. It is not for allocating wounds. Wound allocation is a separate step. According the blast rules you allocate per the normal rules for shooting. Thus no allocating of wounds to models out of sight.
-Yad
It's possible that allocate per normal rules means pull the closest guys, you aren't pulling guys under the blast. It could be clairity so that you can't snipe with blasts (like you can with barrages).
-Matt
47462
Post by: rigeld2
HawaiiMatt wrote:It's possible that allocate per normal rules means pull the closest guys, you aren't pulling guys under the blast. It could be clairity so that you can't snipe with blasts (like you can with barrages).
It's possible that's the intent, but I doubt it. It's absolutely not what's written.
40878
Post by: Meade
I agree with the conclusion that units can be wounded, but you can only allocate to models in sight. Except for how they cause wounds, there is no difference between blast weapons and normal weapons. In other words, only 2 dudes could be visible but they might have wounds allocated to them from the rest of their squad that go wounded out of sight.
As for scattering, even if the blast marker doesn't move it still scatters 0. That's why they're called 'scatter dice'. You roll for scatter.
63154
Post by: XxlDwarf
Why would it say you can wound units out of line of sight if it was not for the wound allocating rule on pg 16? Where else does it ever say I can't wound something out of line sight in the rules?
Not trying to be a punk or anything
61964
Post by: Fragile
Because the blast can scatter out of LOS, and wound those it hits. IF the unit that fired the blast can see any of the unit that was hit (even though it might not see where the blast landed) the unit will take casualties.
63154
Post by: XxlDwarf
But it could do that without the rule saying it can wound models out of line of sight. Once you hit something you no longer need line of sight till wound allocation.
Don't get me wrong I do see where you are coming from and an FAQ would be nice on this
61964
Post by: Fragile
And if they didnt include the line, then people would argue that the blast was out of range and couldnt wound, or out of los and cant wound. So they add it in, and we argue what it means
63154
Post by: XxlDwarf
Sounds good to me lol lets keep it up till we get an FAQ
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Sorry to interject but a lot of people are indicating LoS isn't traced from a specific weapon. So for example, I wouldn't use my actual guy with the Missle Launcher to determine the Missle Launcher's LoS. Is that true or am I just misinterpreting some of you guys?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Sorry to interject but a lot of people are indicating LoS isn't traced from a specific weapon. So for example, I wouldn't use my actual guy with the Missle Launcher to determine the Missle Launcher's LoS. Is that true or am I just misinterpreting some of you guys?
No, that's not what we're saying. Each model needs LOS to fire.
But after firing individual models don't need line of sight to the target unit (for example, if wounds cause losses that cause half of the firing unit to not be able to see the target unit).
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Ah ok, that makes sense.
63154
Post by: XxlDwarf
But that's how it normally works so you don't need a special rule for that , which says you can wound units out of line of sight? Or am I wrong?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
XxlDwarf wrote:But that's how it normally works so you don't need a special rule for that , which says you can wound units out of line of sight? Or am I wrong?
Reading the thread should make this clear, but the rule in question doesn't really do anything as written.
It allows you to wound units out of LOS. It doesn't say anything about allocating wounds.
Therefore you can hit and roll to wound, but have no permission to allocate.
56663
Post by: Indarys
roland9382 wrote:Interesting enough I was also in the military and if you honestly dont like the wall deal take the guys sheltering behind the land raider scenario, lemme guess it blew through that and hit the guys behind it right? What i'm saying is there are a lot of people out there who rules lawyer their way into breaking the game which totally eliminates the enjoyment value, play the game and enjoy it, otherwise use your broken list and try the break the rules in tournament play and leave the rest of us alone.
If you were in the military, you should know what a ricochet is. The ML being fired at the one space marine outside of the wall missed the Space Marine, skipped off the ground and tumbled behind the wall, then detonated.
Hell, the rulebook specifically says "This represents.... ricochets, etc."
60374
Post by: Dooley
And anyone in the military would know the vagrances of missiles, RPG's and mortars that dont explode when they hit the ground. PLEASE do not try and apply "REAL WORLD" Physics to this. Becasue if we try and do that we will have to imagine curving rokits and plasma balsts and such. Also if a missile can richochett why cant a Bolter round?? Automatically Appended Next Post: WangoFett wrote:How about if unit A fires on unit B with among other things a blast weapon.
Blast weapon scatters and hits and wounds unit C.
Unit C happens to be out of LoS of the model that fired the blast weapon, but within LoS of other models in his unit.
These wounds are resolved in the usual way and can be allocated.
This explains the explicit permission to hit and wound a unit that is out of LoS in combination with the normal resolution of wounds.
How is this NOT an example of WHY the rule was included?? This is EXACTLY my point on why the rule MAY exist and is valid in ALL accounts!! Automatically Appended Next Post:  helgrenze wrote:So.. under the "no wounds out of LOS" interpretation the tactic, especially for horde type armies would be big tough unit up front to bounce light fire and block LOS to more average units behind, thus any scattering blasts would be useless at wounding (but not hitting) those models behind the front line.
Kanlines anyone?
Sure Kan line it up. But if I can see any part of your models under around or over those cans (they are rather spindly in the leg department) those scattering blast markers are gonna do some wounds. Also if you Put your Kans up front they will be taking Krakk missiles to the face and will be killed off first from concentrated Las, Melta, Autocannon, Assault Cannon fire!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:WangoFett wrote:How about if unit A fires on unit B with among other things a blast weapon.
Blast weapon scatters and hits and wounds unit C.
Unit C happens to be out of LoS of the model that fired the blast weapon, but within LoS of other models in his unit.
These wounds are resolved in the usual way and can be allocated.
This explains the explicit permission to hit and wound a unit that is out of LoS in combination with the normal resolution of wounds.
How is this NOT an example of WHY the rule was included?? This is EXACTLY my point on why the rule MAY exist and is valid in ALL accounts!!
Because that example is possible without the included rule.
As long as the firing unit can see the target there's nothing preventing the scattering blast from rolling and allocating wounds.
The only time the rule could have any effect is if the unit the blast lands on is completely out of sight from the entirety of the firing unit.
And even then, it only allows you to wound the unit. That means rolling to wound. You have no permission to allocate, and the wound pool is emptied if there's no line of sight.
60374
Post by: Dooley
That is NOT posible without the rule. If the Blast Template weapon cannot see any models in the squad his unit is shooting at the blast template weapon CANNOT FIRE.. So if the BW should scatter out of ITS LOS and RANGE but a member of its squad has LOS to the new unit, wounds can be generated AND Allocated.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Dooley wrote:That is NOT posible without the rule. If the Blast Template weapon cannot see any models in the squad his unit is shooting at the blast template weapon CANNOT FIRE.. So if the BW should scatter out of ITS LOS and RANGE but a member of its squad has LOS to the new unit, wounds can be generated AND Allocated.
But if the blast weapon scatters off its aimed target and onto a unit completely out of sight to the firing model and every model in the same unit then it could still wound that unit without the permission given in the Blast rules, since wounding a unit (i.e rolling to wound) has no restrictions imposed on it with regards to LOS. The only things which LOS restricts in a shooting attack is models firing (if a model can't see the unit it can't shoot at it) and wound allocation. It does not restrict rolling to hit or rolling to wound. With this in mind the Blast Weapon rule giving permission to wound a unit out of LOS does nothing unless it is, in fact, giving permission to allocate wounds to a unit out of LOS, albeit in a very poorly worded way. Lets go through a couple of hypothetical situations to clearly explain what rigeld2 was saying. Example number one. Missile launcher in a unit of tac marines shoots a frag at a mob of boyz, half of which are out of sight behind a trukk. The blast template scatters off one of the visible boys and onto to a non-visible boyz, hitting a total of 4 boyz who are out of sight. That frag missile could roll to wound those boys out of LOS without the Blast Weapon rule saying it could, as rolling to wound has no restrictions imposed on it by LOS. Wounds are allocated onto models in LOS. Example number two. Missile Launcher in a unit of tac marines shoots a frag at a mob of boyz in the open. Blast scatters and hits a separate mob of boyz completely out of sight behind a trukk. Frag missile rolls to wound, without needing the blast rule allowing it to as rolling to wound has no restrictions imposed on it by LOS. Wounds are lost as no models in LOS. So as it stands the blast weapon rule does nothing when it says you can wound units out of line of sight as rolling to wound has no interactions with LOS. So either that part of the rule is useless or it was intended to allow allocation onto models out of sight after wounding out of sight.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:That is NOT posible without the rule. If the Blast Template weapon cannot see any models in the squad his unit is shooting at the blast template weapon CANNOT FIRE..
Correct.
So if the BW should scatter out of ITS LOS and RANGE but a member of its squad has LOS to the new unit, wounds can be generated AND Allocated.
Correct. And if you took the rule in question out of the rulebook it would still be correct.
The rule only comes into play when the firing unit cannot see the "target unit" (in quotes because it wasn't an intentional target obviously).
Unit A and Unit B. Some members of Firing Unit can see either squad, but the missile launcher guy can only see Unit A.
Missile launcher guy (and the rest of Firing Unit) fire on Unit A.
Frag missile rolls a 12 inch scatter, blast marker ending on Unit B.
"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker."
We'll say 2 models are partially beneath the blast marker.
We roll to wound as normal - there's no rule restricting it right now.
We got lucky - 2 wounds!
Now we get to allocation.
"If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends."
The wound pool is emptied if "there are no visible models in the target unit". Since the bolter guy on the end can see Unit B, there are visible models in the target unit and therefore a wound is allocated. If, after resolving that wound, the bolter guy can still see anyone in Unit B, the second wound is allocated. After that the wound pool is emptied and we're done.
Nowhere in that attack did I have to reference the rule "and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat)" because at all times models were in range and in LOS.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dooley wrote:That is NOT posible without the rule. If the Blast Template weapon cannot see any models in the squad his unit is shooting at the blast template weapon CANNOT FIRE.. So if the BW should scatter out of ITS LOS and RANGE but a member of its squad has LOS to the new unit, wounds can be generated AND Allocated.
Again, you are missing the point, by a mile
You start off in LOS of target unit A and fire
You scatter to a point that is still over target unit A, but out of LOS from the firing model
The rules allow you to roll to wound / allocate wounds / etc asw long as the firing UNIT can still see.
This is contained within the rules for shooting blasts.
Now, we gt to the rule you seem to not understand. THis rule is wher you scatter out of LOS of the *entire* firing unit. THe blast rules ALREADY allow you to roll to wound against this unit, WITHOUT. THIS. RULE. existing
That is why we have been telling you, over and over and over, that under your reading of the rules this rule has no purpose None. Nil. Zilch.
WHen you come to a conclusion that renders a rule irrelevant, your interpretation is immediately suspect as you assume the rules designers are rational players.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
nosferatu1001 wrote:WHen you come to a conclusion that renders a rule irrelevant, your interpretation is immediately suspect as you assume the rules designers are rational players.
And when you come to a conclusion that means the rules designers intended something that wasn't written, you're discussing RAI not RAW.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
rigeld2 wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:WHen you come to a conclusion that renders a rule irrelevant, your interpretation is immediately suspect as you assume the rules designers are rational players.
And when you come to a conclusion that means the rules designers intended something that wasn't written, you're discussing RAI not RAW.
Yet in my opinion the rules can be read such that this rule has purpose. (not reiterating here, we've all seen it)
Where 2 interpretations exist, and one is absurd, the other is more likely to be correct.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
nosferatu1001 wrote:rigeld2 wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:WHen you come to a conclusion that renders a rule irrelevant, your interpretation is immediately suspect as you assume the rules designers are rational players.
And when you come to a conclusion that means the rules designers intended something that wasn't written, you're discussing RAI not RAW.
Yet in my opinion the rules can be read such that this rule has purpose. (not reiterating here, we've all seen it)
And I contend you're wrong - there isn't a way
Given that wounding is two distinct steps, each with their own restrictions, and the blast scatter rules only refer to wounding the unit, that can only mean populating the wound pool. I just don't see anywhere that grants permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool.
Where 2 interpretations exist, and one is absurd, the other is more likely to be correct.
I absolutely agree that what I'm saying is RAW is absurd and should not be played that way.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Ok I just read the Blast & Large Blast rules AGAIN and I think I found where YOU may be confused in MY thinking.
Pg33 Blasts & Large Blasts 3rd paragraph
"Note that it is possible,,,for a shot to scatter beyond theweapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight."
Ok so now what do we do when this happens? Keep reading
"In theses cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight,,,,"
Ok so if the blast marker scatters out of range and line of sight of the weapon units can still be hit and wounded
"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out....Unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack"
If the weapon cannot see you but a memebr of the squad can wounds can be allocated.
No where does it mention UNITS being out of line of sight from the fiering UNIT. The rule only allows for wounds to be generated out of LOS and Range from the WEAPON.. You still need LOS to and from both Units in order to allocate wounds,
This is NOT a separate rule this is a CONTINUATION of the same paragraph in a rule. I have NOT discredited the B&LB rule or any part of it. YOU have separated the rule into separate parts. The rule HAS a function, which has been exampled MANY times. The B&LB rule allows for a blast marker to scatter out of Range and LOS of the weapon and still put wounds into the Wound pool. The Unit under the Blast marker must remain in LOS of the unit in order to satisfy the NORMAL SHOOTING Attack rules. If it does not all remaining shots are lost.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:Ok I just read the Blast & Large Blast rules AGAIN and I think I found where YOU may be confused in MY thinking.
Pg33 Blasts & Large Blasts 3rd paragraph
"Note that it is possible,,,for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight."
Ok so now what do we do when this happens? Keep reading
"In theses cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight,,,,"
Ok so if the blast marker scatters out of range and line of sight of the weapon units can still be hit and wounded
"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out....Unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack"
If the weapon cannot see you but a memebr of the squad can wounds can be allocated.
No where does it mention UNITS being out of line of sight from the fiering UNIT. The rule only allows for wounds to be generated out of LOS and Range from the WEAPON.. You still need LOS to and from both Units in order to allocate wounds,
This is NOT a separate rule this is a CONTINUATION of the same paragraph in a rule. I have NOT discredited the B&LB rule or any part of it. YOU have separated the rule into separate parts. The rule HAS a function, which has been exampled MANY times. The B&LB rule allows for a blast marker to scatter out of Range and LOS of the weapon and still put wounds into the Wound pool. The Unit under the Blast marker must remain in LOS of the unit in order to satisfy the NORMAL SHOOTING Attack rules. If it does not all remaining shots are lost.
Right.
Now.
If you take the rule in your post that I bolded out of the book, does that change the theoretical scenario in any way?
No? Then it's a useless rule.
And yet it's there. Which means that the intent must be to wound units out of LOS, units in combat, your own units... but the rules don't currently allow for it.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Your Theoretical scenario abides and uses ALL of the B&LB rules
Also you can still wound units out of LOS and in combat etc so long as the UNIT can draw LOS to those units as per the rules.
"But the rules dont currently allow for it".
Yes they do....See above. If it scatters into a CC and hits friendly and enemy units the models that are in LOS and closest get the wounds allocated to them. If the fireing unit cannot see the units in cc then the wounds are lost. Automatically Appended Next Post:
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:Also you can still wound units out of LOS and in combat etc so long as the UNIT can draw LOS to those units as per the rules.
But you see, there's no restriction on causing hits to your own units or units in a combat - you're just not allowed to target them.
So if the blast scatters onto a unit like that you're already allowed to roll to wound.
And I apologize - I bolded the wrong rule. I meant this one:
Page 33 BRB wrote: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).
The only restriction in the rules is on targeting these units, and on allocating wounds to units out of line of sight.
Since a scattered blast is by definition not targeted on these units, there is already permission to count hits and roll wounds. This rule is 100% useless.
60374
Post by: Dooley
The only place that allows you to hit your friendly units or units in CC is in the B&LB rules so how is this rule useless. It seems like you have tried negating a rules value by applying the rule in your non value sitiuation?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:The only place that allows you to hit your friendly units or units in CC is in the B&LB rules so how is this rule useless. It seems like you have tried negating a rules value by applying the rule in your non value sitiuation?
You fire a blast weapon.
The blast scatters.
You have permission to hit any unit under the template - there's no restriction on units in CC, etc.
You have permission to wound any unit you hit - there's no restriction on units in CC, etc.
The. Rule. Does. Nothing.
60374
Post by: Dooley
The rule is what allows you to do that? You lost me on this one!!
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Dooley wrote:The rule is what allows you to do that? You lost me on this one!!
No, there is no restriction on hitting or wounding targets in CC from any shooting attack.
There is a restriction on targeting them.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:The rule is what allows you to do that? You lost me on this one!!
No, the general rules for shooting allow you to hit and wound models under the marker.
The only restriction related to models in CC, etc. has to do with targeting.
Pretend the rule doesn't exist. What is stopping you from wounding a model in CC? Cite the rule.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Right so basic rules tell us you cannot target units in cc or your own friendly models.
The B&LB Special rule allows for a b&LB template to scatter onto units friend and Foe Locked in CC. And it allows wounds to be created and allocated to those models. How is this NOT the rule???
Long story short, If the fireing unit cant see the Unit under the blast template no wounds are allocated and all the wounds are lost.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:Right so basic rules tell us you cannot target units in cc or your own friendly models.
The B&LB Special rule allows for a b&LB template to scatter onto units friend and Foe Locked in CC. And it allows wounds to be created and allocated to those models. How is this NOT the rule???
You're equating targeting to hitting. They are not the same thing.
Long story short, If the fireing unit cant see the Unit under the blast template no wounds are allocated and all the wounds are lost.
As the rules are currently, yes. It's obviously not intended that way. It's intended to work like pretty much every other edition afaik.
61964
Post by: Fragile
rigeld2 wrote:Dooley wrote:Right so basic rules tell us you cannot target units in cc or your own friendly models.
The B&LB Special rule allows for a b&LB template to scatter onto units friend and Foe Locked in CC. And it allows wounds to be created and allocated to those models. How is this NOT the rule???
You're equating targeting to hitting. They are not the same thing.
Long story short, If the fireing unit cant see the Unit under the blast template no wounds are allocated and all the wounds are lost.
As the rules are currently, yes. It's obviously not intended that way. It's intended to work like pretty much every other edition afaik.
I disagree. I think it is a change from the previous and consistent with their LOS for shooting.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Fragile wrote:rigeld2 wrote:[
I disagree. I think it is a change from the previous and consistent with their LOS for shooting.
I like the way you think sir 
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Fragile wrote:I disagree. I think it is a change from the previous and consistent with their LOS for shooting.
So the sentence in question means nothing? Here, I'll quote it again.
Page 33 BRB wrote: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).
There's nothing new here - normal shooting rules allow all of this to happen as long as you're not targeting the units that are out of range, out of sight, or your own units or those locked in combat.
60374
Post by: Dooley
You again are under the assumption that "out of los" relates to the entire UNIT and not just the Weapon being fired. The sentance you are quoting comes from an entire paragraph relating to Blast weapons NOT units firering blast weapons!
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Dooley wrote:You again are under the assumption that "out of los" relates to the entire UNIT and not just the Weapon being fired. The sentance you are quoting comes from an entire paragraph relating to Blast weapons NOT units firering blast weapons!
But again, as has been pointed out countless times, there is no restriction on hitting or wounding (populating the wound pool) a unit with regards to LOS, only targeting units and allocating wounds to them have LOS requirements. The "exception" in the Blast rules does nothing.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Fragile - so they wrote a rule that has no functional use? THat is your contention?
Dooley - again, you are equating two separate concepts: targetting and hitting.
the two are not the same.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Nos, I think the rule works fine and has a purpose.
Someone PM me with how to load a .bmp from my computer to these boards and I'll show you exactly how and why it works.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Just explain it , in words, or show where Rigelds summary is wrong. It is a simple enough concept that a diagram really isnt needed, when people take the time to actually read the rules.
The rules,under the "no" camp, are not altered by removal of this rule, meaning it has no function. None whatsoever.
60374
Post by: Dooley
nosferatu1001 wrote:Fragile - so they wrote a rule that has no functional use? THat is your contention?
Dooley - again, you are equating two separate concepts: targetting and hitting.
the two are not the same.
I am aware that Targetting, Hitting, Wounding and Allocating wounds are COMPLETLY different things. That has ben my point all along!
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Then your point is still wrong
Did you understand the part where you went wrong in your example?
You equated Hitting and Targetting as being the same. You claim otherwise, but your example has this error in it. Try rereading it, more slowly, and see your error
60374
Post by: Dooley
How is my point wrong again? The rule has a purpose which has been demonstrated and you can only kill what you can see (My POINTS). My points have been validated and proven true with cited RAW and I am confidant in my decision. Now you are just attacking how I got to that conclusion and providing no facts ot substance other than "NO YOU ARE WRONG" I think I am done with this and will be moving on.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Apart from where we pointed out you were conflating two terms (target and hit), that part?
Two diffferent people have pointed out your error, i would suggest listening rather than ragequitting.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Dooley wrote:How is my point wrong again? The rule has a purpose which has been demonstrated and you can only kill what you can see (My POINTS). My points have been validated and proven true with cited RAW and I am confidant in my decision. Now you are just attacking how I got to that conclusion and providing no facts ot substance other than "NO YOU ARE WRONG" I think I am done with this and will be moving on.
Answer this. How does the rule telling you that when scattering you can hit and wound units out the firing units line of sight have any purpose, considering that hitting (rolling to hit) and wounding (rolling to wound) are not restricted by Line of Sight in any way?
60374
Post by: Dooley
ugghh they keep drawing me in!!!
The rule telling you that when scattering you can hit and wound units out the firing units line of sight has a purpose because, under the normal rules for hitting (rolling to hit) and wounding (rolling to wound) are restricted by Line of Sight in that one must first be in los and range in order to be initialy targeted. If a balst weapon were to scatter out of line of sight or range they may still inflict wounds on the new unit even if it was not target by the initial fiering unit. That is to say, that even if a unit was not the initial target they may still be hit and wounded by the blast marker even if they do not satisfy the rule that they must initialy be in range and los. However, once hits and wounds and saves have been resolved one is still required to resort to the normal rules for shooting in order to work out allocations and removal of models.
Without the B&LB rule if a blast weapon were to scatter out of range and los it could be argued that the unit cannot be hit and wounded becasue it does not satisfy the normal rule requireing a unit to be in range and los for targeting. However, because the B&LB rule states that you can infact wound units out of los and range this argument cannot be made.
There I did it the best I can. I really cant explain it any more. Had that been a college level essay question I feel as if I have answered the question to the best of my ability and would expect a 90% at least on this question. I am not rage quitting, I am simply ending a conversation with a 3 year old that keeps asking "WHY" ( I am not calling you a 3 year old it is simply an example).
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Except, as pointed out:
the rules already allow this.
There is NO REQUIREMENT for the unit scattered onto to be in range OR LOS to be hit and wounded under the normal Blast rules
They then add in an entirely NEW rule which specifically allows you to wound units entirely out of los, as long as you scatter. Which has, under your interpretation, no purpose
If this were a college level essay question you would get an F for missing the wood (the blast rules) for the trees (that you cant tell the difference between target and hit)
And just to make this clear: we have explained your errors every. single. step of the way. We are not 3 year olds going "WHY", we have explained to you in meticulous detail your error failure of logic, reasoning and basic English reading comprehension, yet you continually miss the point.
60374
Post by: Dooley
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except, as pointed out:
the rules already allow this.
There is NO REQUIREMENT for the unit scattered onto to be in range OR LOS to be hit and wounded under the normal Blast rules
They then add in an entirely NEW rule which specifically allows you to wound units entirely out of los, as long as you scatter. Which has, under your interpretation, no purpose
If this were a college level essay question you would get an F for missing the wood (the blast rules) for the trees (that you cant tell the difference between target and hit)
And just to make this clear: we have explained your errors every. single. step of the way. We are not 3 year olds going "WHY", we have explained to you in meticulous detail your error failure of logic, reasoning and basic English reading comprehension, yet you continually miss the point.
What the hell are you talking about!!!!
1. The rule (not plural, not normal and advanced, Blast and large blast is ONE rule) is what allows this. THE RULE (Blast and Large Blast) ALLOWS THIS!!!
2. The initial target for the blast weapon MUST be within range and LOS of the weapon (again under the Blast and Large Blast Rule). If it scatters it can hit and wound units out of los from the weapon with the B&LB rule. However it can only KILL models in units that the fireing unit can see not JUST the weapon.
Its not 2 rules its not an added rule it is one rule. That states (paraphrased) You dont roll to hit (your BS is NOT USED), simply pick a model in the target unit within los and range of the weapon, roll scatter, if it scatters out of los and range of the weapon it can still wound units, if the fiering unit cannot see the new unit all wounds are lost.
Im really starting to think you are jsut messing with me on this!! You are splitting the same sentance into two things. Can it scatter onto unit out of los and range of the weapon? Yes. Can it wound units out of los and range of the weapon? Yes. Can you allocate WOUNDS to units out of los and range of the weapon? If any member of the weapons squad can see the wounded unit, YES if not NO.
If I STILL have not clarified this could SOMEONE ELSE please explain to me what I am NOT GETTING!
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
What the hell are you talking about!!!!
1. The rule (not plural, not normal and advanced, Blast and large blast is ONE rule) is what allows this. THE RULE (Blast and Large Blast) ALLOWS THIS!!!
No it doesn't, more to come later. 2. The initial target for the blast weapon MUST be within range and LOS of the weapon (again under the Blast and Large Blast Rule).
Yes. If it scatters it can hit and wound units out of los from the weapon with the B&LB rule.
Let's go through the Blast shooting process, step by step. Step 1, declare target. Target must be in LOS and in range. Step 2, scatter. move template number of inches required. The area under the blast is where it lands. Step 3, count number of models under the template. These are hit automatically. Nowhere do the rules state to check LOS when rolling to hit. Hitting a unit has no LOS restrictions so the section of the Blast rule allowing you to hit a target out of LOS has no effect. Step 4, wounding. Roll to wound. Nowhere do the rules state to check LOS when rolling to wound. Wounding a unit has no LOS restrictions so the section of the Blast rule rule allowing you to wound a target out of LOS has no effect. Step 5, make saves. Player makes saving throws if they are allowed. Step 6, allocate unsaved wounds. Starting from closest model in LOS to the firing unit, allocate wounds until the wound pool is empty, the wounded unit is completely destroyed or until there are no more models in LOS. So which steps in this process require LOS? Step 1, the act of declaring your initial target and step 6, the allocation of wounds. The section of the blast rule which expressly allows you to hit and wound models out of LOS is not needed as there are no LOS requirements when hitting and wounding, only when declaring a target and when allocating wounds. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dooley wrote:That states (paraphrased) You dont roll to hit (your BS is NOT USED), simply pick a model in the target unit within los and range of the weapon, roll scatter, if it scatters out of los and range of the weapon it can still wound units, if the fiering unit cannot see the new unit all wounds are lost.
And it would work the exact same way if there wasn't a sentence in the Blast rule which "allows" it to hit and wound units out of LOS, since hitting and wounding have nothing to do with LOS in the first place as I demonstrated above.
60374
Post by: Dooley
OK NOW your point is starting to become clearer. This is how I will rebut your statement:
No, wounding and hitting DO NOT require LOS (although the initial step of targeting does, so one cannot simply skip to hitting and wounding without the LOS requirement normally). In MY "interpretation" the rule allows you to circumvent the need of the LOS requirement because the template MAY scatter out of the original LOS and range. Without the rule that is in place THIS is a scenario that would come up:
The shot scatters and falls out of line of sight and range of the weapon. Does the shot still count? Well it shouldnt because the blast template has scattered out of range and LOS and is no longer a valid shot.
However, because the B&LB rule STATES that one CAN hit AND wound units out of range and los of the weapon the shot is still valid and still scores hits and wounds, After hits and wounds have been worked out (even if it is out of range and los) wound allocation reverts back to NORMAL shooting attacks.
So again YES it is needed to clarify what happens when the blast marker falls out of range and los as normally units our of range and los locked in cc or are friendly are NOT able to be hit and wounded by shooting weapons.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:The shot scatters and falls out of line of sight and range of the weapon. Does the shot still count? Well it shouldnt because the blast template has scattered out of range and LOS and is no longer a valid shot.
Rules citation please. The only restriction on range is for targeting. Lack of LOS prevents targeting and allocating wounds.
However, because the B&LB rule STATES that one CAN hit AND wound units out of range and los of the weapon the shot is still valid and still scores hits and wounds, After hits and wounds have been worked out (even if it is out of range and los) wound allocation reverts back to NORMAL shooting attacks.
And what's normal for shooting attacks? Emptying the wound pool if you're out of LOS.
So again YES it is needed to clarify what happens when the blast marker falls out of range and los as normally units our of range and los locked in cc or are friendly are NOT able to be hit and wounded by shooting weapons.
Rules citation please.
There are rules against targeting those things. There's no restriction on hitting and wounding those units.
You're understanding the intent of the rule. You haven't shown that it allows allocation as written.
60374
Post by: Dooley
NO thats the point!! You cant allocate wounds to models/units you cant see. That is how the rules work and thats my point the entire time. This thread has unraveled into something entirely different now and I am loosing track of what we are arguing now!!
7150
Post by: helgrenze
After looking over previous editions of the game, the Blast rules are word for word lifted from 5th ed.
The issue then is with the NEW "Wound Allocation Rules". which now require LOS to apply wounds on anything, which was not a previous metric for wounding with template weapons.
I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.
In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.
53292
Post by: Kevlar
helgrenze wrote:
I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.
In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.
It has a purpose, say a unit has 3 visible members and 5 out of view. If the blast scatters onto the 5 out of view you still record and roll wounds for five models even though you can only actually remove 3. The benefit to this is you force more saves giving a greater chance to remove those three models that you can see.
2633
Post by: Yad
helgrenze wrote:After looking over previous editions of the game, the Blast rules are word for word lifted from 5th ed.
The issue then is with the NEW "Wound Allocation Rules". which now require LOS to apply wounds on anything, which was not a previous metric for wounding with template weapons.
I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.
In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.
Yes. This! Though the purists here may point out that it's not a Template weapon, but a blast weapon All snark aside, the only use for this is if your unlucky enough to scatter onto a unit that only has a few models in LoS. If you're really unlucky you'll scatter to a unit that is completely out of LoS. Bottom line is that 6th edition ends the notion that you will always have a chance to hit, wound and 'kill' a model if a blast scatters on to it.
-Yad
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Kevlar wrote: helgrenze wrote:
I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.
In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.
It has a purpose, say a unit has 3 visible members and 5 out of view. If the blast scatters onto the 5 out of view you still record and roll wounds for five models even though you can only actually remove 3. The benefit to this is you force more saves giving a greater chance to remove those three models that you can see.
Here's an experiment. Take the rule in question out of your book - put a postit over it or something.
Now, cite the rule that doesn't allow your example to happen. Remember, you're allowed to count hits under a marker without that rule, and you're allowed to allocate wounds to a unit partially in LOS without that rule.
I'll wait for a page number reference. Automatically Appended Next Post: Yad wrote: helgrenze wrote:After looking over previous editions of the game, the Blast rules are word for word lifted from 5th ed.
The issue then is with the NEW "Wound Allocation Rules". which now require LOS to apply wounds on anything, which was not a previous metric for wounding with template weapons.
I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.
In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.
Yes. This! Though the purists here may point out that it's not a Template weapon, but a blast weapon All snark aside, the only use for this is if your unlucky enough to scatter onto a unit that only has a few models in LoS. If you're really unlucky you'll scatter to a unit that is completely out of LoS. Bottom line is that 6th edition ends the notion that you will always have a chance to hit, wound and 'kill' a model if a blast scatters on to it.
-Yad
Except, as has been repeated over and over, a unit partially in LOS can be hit an wounded just fine without that rule. The rule does nothing as written.
53292
Post by: Kevlar
rigeld2 wrote:
Here's an experiment. Take the rule in question out of your book - put a postit over it or something.
Now, cite the rule that doesn't allow your example to happen. Remember, you're allowed to count hits under a marker without that rule, and you're allowed to allocate wounds to a unit partially in LOS without that rule.
I'll wait for a page number reference.
I have no idea what you are on about, but the "Out Of Sight" rule on page 16 clearly explains how you remove casualties.
61964
Post by: Fragile
We are no longer arguing about wounding out of LOS, but instead about GW making a redundant statement in a rule.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Kevlar wrote: helgrenze wrote:
I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.
In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.
It has a purpose, say a unit has 3 visible members and 5 out of view. If the blast scatters onto the 5 out of view you still record and roll wounds for five models even though you can only actually remove 3. The benefit to this is you force more saves giving a greater chance to remove those three models that you can see.
BUT... Once those models that are in LOS are removed the rest of the wounds are lost....in your example, if the 3 in los are taken away, the 5 hit by the blast still survive as they are not in LOS and cannot have wounds allocated to them, thus invalidating the permission to wound them in the first place. Even if the only "Hits" that cause wounds are those from the blast, 2 wounds cause by the blast are lost as those models are out of LOS.
I would much rather see the blast affecting only those models that are actually under the template. Far more realistic, cinematic and sensible.
2633
Post by: Yad
Except, as has been repeated over and over, a unit partially in LOS can be hit an wounded just fine without that rule. The rule does nothing as written.
Potatoe/Potahto. The end result is the same. Poor wordsmithing on GW's part still makes it redundant.
-Yad
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Kevlar wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Here's an experiment. Take the rule in question out of your book - put a postit over it or something.
Now, cite the rule that doesn't allow your example to happen. Remember, you're allowed to count hits under a marker without that rule, and you're allowed to allocate wounds to a unit partially in LOS without that rule.
I'll wait for a page number reference.
I have no idea what you are on about, but the "Out Of Sight" rule on page 16 clearly explains how you remove casualties.
Yes. And the example you gave, ignoring the rule that's been pointed out, is possible using those rules.
Read the thread to see what I'm on about.
53292
Post by: Kevlar
helgrenze wrote:
BUT... Once those models that are in LOS are removed the rest of the wounds are lost....in your example, if the 3 in los are taken away, the 5 hit by the blast still survive as they are not in LOS and cannot have wounds allocated to them, thus invalidating the permission to wound them in the first place. Even if the only "Hits" that cause wounds are those from the blast, 2 wounds cause by the blast are lost as those models are out of LOS.
I would much rather see the blast affecting only those models that are actually under the template. Far more realistic, cinematic and sensible.
I agree I think it easier to play that blasts "hit who they hit". But the wounds aren't lost per se. You can still force five saves, the excess wounds only being lost if more than three of them fail the saves. You can only remove three models, but you can force five saves.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dooley wrote:NO thats the point!! You cant allocate wounds to models/units you cant see. That is how the rules work and thats my point the entire time. This thread has unraveled into something entirely different now and I am loosing track of what we are arguing now!!
That the rule stating you can wound models out of los if you scatter is redundant
Its been very plainly said half a dozen times now.
It has absolutely no functional use in the game , as the only restrictions are on targeting a unit, not onhitting iit rolling to wound
None is messing with you, you just seem to have not grasped rather a fundamentally simple premise, and that is causing you comprehension issues
Edit: they tried blast sniping in 3rd, and it was a terrible system. Its bad enough that you can now do it with barrags
61964
Post by: Fragile
nosferatu1001 wrote:It has absolutely no functional use in the game , as the only restrictions are on targeting a unit, not onhitting iit rolling to wound
And yet, 5th had to have a FAQ about blasts scattering out of range ( I dont recall LOS) because people would argue that since the weapon was beyond its maximum range it could not wound. So for 6th, they add in that redundant statement and you all throw a fit over it. The irony is killer.
60374
Post by: Dooley
You want people to ignore the First block of rules on the second colum of the B&LB rule I am assuming. The chunk that talks about hitting and wounding units out of LOS and range yes? That chuck of text is part of the same paragraph stating that it can scatter out of line of sight and range of the weapon on the bottom of the other paragraph. You cant just ignore it because it provides a clarification on what happens if it does indeed scatter onto out of los and range units. Redundancy is redundant but NOT useless.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Fragile wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:It has absolutely no functional use in the game , as the only restrictions are on targeting a unit, not onhitting iit rolling to wound
And yet, 5th had to have a FAQ about blasts scattering out of range ( I dont recall LOS) because people would argue that since the weapon was beyond its maximum range it could not wound. So for 6th, they add in that redundant statement and you all throw a fit over it. The irony is killer.
5th didn't have a statement preventing wounds if the hit unit is out of LOS.
6th does. In the context of 6th, the rule is redundant and useless. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dooley wrote:You want people to ignore the First block of rules on the second colum of the B&LB rule I am assuming. The chunk that talks about hitting and wounding units out of LOS and range yes? That chuck of text is part of the same paragraph stating that it can scatter out of line of sight and range of the weapon on the bottom of the other paragraph. You cant just ignore it because it provides a clarification on what happens if it does indeed scatter onto out of los and range units. Redundancy is redundant but NOT useless.
It is useless.
There's zero reason for that paragraph to exist. None. If they had left it out of the book nothing at all would change.
Every scenario presented as a reason for that sentence to exist works without that sentence even in the book.
For reference, the rule we're talking about (quoting it because the way you referenced it is confusing, and it's been quoted a few times in this thread already)
Page 33 BRB wrote: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).
60374
Post by: Dooley
Yeah thats the one I was refering to. Keep in mind that it is talking about being out of line of sight and range of the weapon not the Unit the weapon is in. With out the second part telling us how to work out what happens once the blast marker (not a template for you snarky folk ) lands on top of units out of line of sight. Part 1 allows the template to land out of sight and range Part 2 tells us what happens when it does. One needs to read the paragraph as a whole in order to make the connection. It is NOT 2 paragraphs it is 1 paragraph that continues onto the next column.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Its called a clarification Rigeld. The very fact you are arguing about something like this shows that it needed to be put in.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:Yeah thats the one I was refering to. Keep in mind that it is talking about being out of line of sight and range of the weapon not the Unit the weapon is in.
No it's not. Since the only requirement for Line of Sight from the model is firing, it doesn't matter where it scatters.
With out the second part telling us how to work out what happens once the blast marker (not a template for you snarky folk ) lands on top of units out of line of sight. Part 1 allows the template to land out of sight and range Part 2 tells us what happens when it does. One needs to read the paragraph as a whole in order to make the connection. It is NOT 2 paragraphs it is 1 paragraph that continues onto the next column.
Part 1 tells allows the template to land out of sight and nothing in part 2 changes any rules anywhere else in the book.
You have not been able to provide a scenario that requires the usage of that sentence.
You keep saying it's required to be there. You haven't supported that statement. Automatically Appended Next Post: Fragile wrote:Its called a clarification Rigeld. The very fact you are arguing about something like this shows that it needed to be put in.
No, really. It's being argued about because it's there.
If it wasn't there there'd be far less arguing.
"Hey, my shot scattered - can I still wound?"
"Check the wound rules. Anything prevent it?"
"Nope."
"Game on!"
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Fragile wrote:Its called a clarification Rigeld. The very fact you are arguing about something like this shows that it needed to be put in.
It isn't a clarification, but a brand new rule
61964
Post by: Fragile
What is new about it?
2633
Post by: Yad
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he means wound allocation. As in, you can't allocate wounds to models out of LoS.
-Yad
60374
Post by: Dooley
Its not a brand new rule it is a continuation of the same paragraph.
Here is an example:
Shot is fired and scatters out of lin of site.
Does it still wound? Chechk the book. Well if a unit is outside of los and range it normally cant be wounded however the B&LB rules say the template can hit units out of sight so its still good. How do you resolve that shot then?
In the NEXT sentance of the rule it tells you how to resolve that shot.
You are arguing that the 4th sentance of a rule has no use because it is not neccesary.
Are you in agreement that you cannot allocate wounds to things you cant see?
Or are you now arguing that the second part of a scentance is redundant and does not need to be included?
If you are arguing the second question you are simply arguing scemantics and are just arguing to argue at this point. People HAVE pointed out WHY the clarification has been included and provided examples to support their claims. I am sure there are numorus rules that overlap in description and re-hash themselves throught the book.
I recommend that a moderator CLOSE THIS THREAD as the OP question has been answered. If YOU want to open a NEW THREAD called "Is this rule neccesary" Im sure people will be more than happy to engage in discussion with you.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Dooley wrote:Well if a unit is outside of los and range it normally cant be wounded
Yes it can because wounding has no LOS or range requirements. A unit out of LOS and range cannot be targeted, which has the side effect of not being able to shoot and therefore not wound. All the blast rule needs to say is that it can scatter out of LOS and Range and that the shot is then resolved normally where it lands. It doesn't need to say anything about being able to wound units out of LOS or in close combat as that is something which is not forbidden in the rules, only targeting these units is forbidden. Since the shot was not targeted at them then there are no problems.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dooley wrote:Its not a brand new rule it is a continuation of the same paragraph.
Here is an example:
Shot is fired and scatters out of lin of site.
Does it still wound? Chechk the book. Well if a unit is outside of los and range it normally cant be wounded however the B&LB rules say the template can hit units out of sight so its still good. How do you resolve that shot then?
this is the bit you continually get wrong despite it having been pointed out to you half a dozen times
THere are restrictions on [b]targeting[/b[ a unit of of range or LOS. Once you fire a shot there is no restriction in the blast rules on wounding or hitting models out of range or LOS, prior to this rule.
Hopefully now you will understand your error, or if you disagree find an actual rule this time that backs up the restriction you are claiming.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Ok how do you hit and wound a unit out of line of site and range without useing a B&LB weapon, or a special rule (ie. Astral Aim, Seeker misssiles etc)??
Again, it can be argued that since the blast weapon scattered out of range and LOS the unit could not be wounded because the weapon could not TARGET that unit because it is Out of LOS and range. The RULE clarifies that this IS acceptable for the reasons listed in the rule.
You are making a hypothetical situation that cant possibly happen!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:
Here is an example:
Shot is fired and scatters out of lin of site.
Does it still wound? Chechk the book. Well if a unit is outside of los and range it normally cant be wounded however the B&LB rules say the template can hit units out of sight so its still good. How do you resolve that shot then?
If a shot scatters out of line of sight but still hits the target unit, there's no issue.
If a shot scatters out of line of sight and hits a unit that wasn't targeted, but is still in LOS to part of the firing unit, there's no issue.
We still don't have to refer to the B&LB rules.
If a shot scatters out of line of sight and hits a unit that wasn't targeted, and is out of LOS to the entirety of the firing out, there's an issue.
In the NEXT sentance of the rule it tells you how to resolve that shot.
Yes, let's (again) look at what the rule says. It says to hit and wound the unit, then allocate wounds as normal.
How do you allocate wounds normally when you can see no models in the unit that was hit and wounded?
Are you in agreement that you cannot allocate wounds to things you cant see?
Yes, that's absolutely correct.
Or are you now arguing that the second part of a scentance is redundant and does not need to be included?
What?
If you are arguing the second question you are simply arguing scemantics and are just arguing to argue at this point. People HAVE pointed out WHY the clarification has been included and provided examples to support their claims. I am sure there are numorus rules that overlap in description and re-hash themselves throught the book.
Except - and I'll repeat this because you're apparently not understanding - the examples put forth can be resolved without ever reading the sentence in question.
It can be removed from the book entirely and there will be no effect on how the rules work. The only reason it exists is because GW intended to allow blasts to wound out of LOS on a scatter, just like every other edition.
The only reason I'm bringing it up that this rule is useless is because people are questioning the intent at this point. That or people are misapplying the RAW and assuming that because you can wound a unit means you're allowed to allocate wounds to models, despite the fact that they're two distinct sections of the rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dooley wrote:Ok how do you hit and wound a unit out of line of site and range without useing a B&LB weapon, or a special rule (ie. Astral Aim, Seeker misssiles etc)??
Again, it can be argued that since the blast weapon scattered out of range and LOS the unit could not be wounded because the weapon could not TARGET that unit because it is Out of LOS and range.
No it can't. There's no requirement to target a unit to wound it. If there was Blood Lance, Vibrocannons and a few other line weapons would cease to function.
The RULE clarifies that this IS acceptable for the reasons listed in the rule.
You are making a hypothetical situation that cant possibly happen!
As I've asked - take some of the examples I've put forward and cite rules as to why they don't work, even pretending the "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)." sentence doesn't exist.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Ok now what happens if the blast marker scatters out of range and los of the WEAPON. The weapon cannot see were the blast marker landed and the marker has gone past the range of the weapon. Is that still a valid shot? YES becasue the rule tells us this is still a valid shot becasue you can still hit and wound units out of line of sight and range of the weapon.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Dooley wrote:Ok now what happens if the blast marker scatters out of range and los of the WEAPON. The weapon cannot see were the blast marker landed and the marker has gone past the range of the weapon. Is that still a valid shot? YES becasue the rule tells us this is still a valid shot becasue you can still hit and wound units out of line of sight and range of the weapon.
Please read my post again. All the blast rule needs to say is that it can scatter out of LOS and Range and that the shot is then resolved normally where it lands.
Having the Blast rules swap out all those meaningless words about hitting and wounding out of range and LOS with that one sentence will make the blast rule function in the exact same way as it does now, with less confusion. Hitting a target and wounding a target are not limited by range or LOS, only Targeting a unit is limited by range and LOS whilst wound allocation is only limited by LOS.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
But we are still in consense about the actual practical use of this rule, that models out of sight are in fact unharmed by blast weapons right?
So why bothering about the necessity or redundancy or whatever of a certain sentence, that only distracts from the main question...
60374
Post by: Dooley
 -Nazdreg- wrote:But we are still in consense about the actual practical use of this rule, that models out of sight are in fact unharmed by blast weapons right?
So why bothering about the necessity or redundancy or whatever of a certain sentence, that only distracts from the main question...
Give that man a promotion!!!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:Ok now what happens if the blast marker scatters out of range and los of the WEAPON.
Can the unit see the unit the blast ended up hitting?
If so, there's no rules preventing the hitting and wounding and allocation of those wounds.
The weapon cannot see were the blast marker landed and the marker has gone past the range of the weapon. Is that still a valid shot? YES becasue the rule tells us this is still a valid shot becasue you can still hit and wound units out of line of sight and range of the weapon.
It's still a valid shot because nothing in the rules says it isn't.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
-Nazdreg- wrote:But we are still in consense about the actual practical use of this rule, that models out of sight are in fact unharmed by blast weapons right? So why bothering about the necessity or redundancy or whatever of a certain sentence, that only distracts from the main question...
The fact that part of the rule is completely useless as it is yet is still in the rulebook can be viewed as evidence that the intent of the rule was to allow a blast weapon to allocate wounds to a unit out of LOS if it scattered onto it. None of us are arguing that as the rule is written you can allocate wounds to a unit out of LOS. Where the debate is rising is that Dooley seems to think that that part of the rule is the only thing which allows us to wound units out of LOS, despite the fact that the rules do not put any form of constraints in the form of range and/or LOS on hitting or wounding a unit, only on targeting a unit. We are just trying (with little success, it must be said) to explain why the section of the Blast rule which allows you to hit and wound a unit out of range and/or LOS by a scattering shot does nothing due to the lack of LOS or Range requirements when hitting or wounding.
60374
Post by: Dooley
rigeld2 wrote:
Can the unit see the unit the blast ended up hitting?
If so, there's no rules preventing the hitting and wounding and allocation of those wounds.
.
It's still a valid shot because nothing in the rules says it isn't.
But if the Blast weapon ends up scattering out of range, the shot would normaly be considered to have gone OVER its maximum range and wouldnt be valid. However, thanks to the rules presented it is still a valid shot. Take away the squad and imagine a single model fireing a Blast weapon. Say a tank. If the shot goes 30" (6" farther than the 24" allowed by the weapon) the weapon has gone farther than its maximium range and SHOULD no longer count becasue the unit it landed on was outside of its range. Same with Los. If the shot takes a 90 degrre turn and hits a unit out of los again NORMALLY that shot would not count as the unit is out of Los and not a valid target for the tank (Yes I am aware I am uesing words like Target and hit).
However, thanks to the B&LB rules BOTH those scenarios allow for units to be hit and wounded thanks to the B&LB rules that state Units under the template can still be hit even if out of Range and Los AND they can also be wounded If out of range and Los EVEN if Friendly and locked into Close combat. Then once you get to the ALLOCATE WOUNDS part you revert back to the NORMAL rules for shooting attacks.
Under normal circumstances a unit cannot be hit or wounded if they cannot be targeted. B&LB markers circumvent this since they can scatter and hit units that were not being targeted by them.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:But if the Blast weapon ends up scattering out of range, the shot would normaly be considered to have gone OVER its maximum range and wouldnt be valid.
Cite the rule. Page 16 disagrees with you.
However, thanks to the B&LB rules BOTH those scenarios allow for units to be hit and wounded thanks to the B&LB rules that state Units under the template can still be hit even if out of Range and Los AND they can also be wounded If out of range and Los EVEN if Friendly and locked into Close combat. Then once you get to the ALLOCATE WOUNDS part you revert back to the NORMAL rules for shooting attacks.
And, normally, what happens to the wound pool when you cannot see the unit hit by your attack?
60374
Post by: Dooley
Ok how bout YOU cite the rule instead of alluding to something YOU obviously CANNOT EXPLAIN VERY WELL!
Secondly if you cant see any models in a unit because they are out of LOS All the shots are lost! What is your point with this?
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Dooley, 3 different people have attempted to explain it to you, using clear examples.
We have been doing this for 9 pages, using every variation of words that the English language allows that we can manage.
Either you're blind to any and all arguments contrary to your point of view, you are lacking basic English comprehension skills or you're trolling. Possibly all three.
60374
Post by: Dooley
The same could be stated for your statements. Also a 4th posibility. We BOTH dont have the mental capsity to explain our standings in an internet forum. I recomend Pistols at Dawn!
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Dooley wrote:The same could be stated for your statements. Also a 4th posibility. We BOTH dont have the mental capsity to explain our standings in an internet forum. I recomend Pistols at Dawn!
That might be a possibility, if it weren't for the fact that 3 different people have said the same thing to you in several different ways with several different examples.
With that much variance, the odds of all of our explanations being completely incomprehensible are small, especially considering other posters have understood our meaning where you did not.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dooley wrote:Ok how bout YOU cite the rule instead of alluding to something YOU obviously CANNOT EXPLAIN VERY WELL!
Wait. I asked you to cite the rule that says a shot "would normaly be considered to have gone OVER its maximum range and wouldnt be valid." and you're saying I'm not explaining myself well?
I'm not sure what you're asking me to cite.
Secondly if you cant see any models in a unit because they are out of LOS All the shots are lost! What is your point with this?
No, the wound pool is emptied. There's a difference.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
We are just trying (with little success, it must be said) to explain why the section of the Blast rule which allows you to hit and wound a unit out of range and/or LOS by a scattering shot does nothing due to the lack of LOS or Range requirements when hitting or wounding.
Yes you are right, hitting and wounding is not dependent on LOS, but this is because the target has to be in LOS anyways when you fire a regular weapon. So a reference to LOS during the normal hit and wound process would be quite oblivious as well. But when you fire a blast weapon and it scatters, it may happen that it hits units out of LOS (Which is impossible with regular weaponry). Therefore it is good to remind the players that they still can hit and wound normally. (Maybe the word still is missing in the rules to satisfy you?)
What seems to make it ridiculous is, that wound allocation happens in the same way as it is resolved with regular shots as well. So you can't allocate wounds to models out of sight anyways.
BUT
You have the possibility to hit a crowded area out of LOS and still score wounds which are then allocated amongst a not so crowded area of models you are able to see. If you weren't able to hit and wound models out of LOS you would just fail the shot.
So in my opinion useless would be too harsh. It is worded a bit awkward but inherently correct.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
-Nazdreg- wrote:You have the possibility to hit a crowded area out of LOS and still score wounds which are then allocated amongst a not so crowded area of models you are able to see. If you weren't able to hit and wound models out of LOS you would just fail the shot.
No we wouldn't fail the shot. We could do all that even if the blast rules didn't expressly say we could hit and wound units out of range or line of sight
47462
Post by: rigeld2
-Nazdreg- wrote:You have the possibility to hit a crowded area out of LOS and still score wounds which are then allocated amongst a not so crowded area of models you are able to see. If you weren't able to hit and wound models out of LOS you would just fail the shot.
Absolutely. False.
You can hit units out of LOS - there's no rule preventing it.
You can wound units out of LOS - there's no rule preventing it.
You cannot allocate wounds to units that are out of LOS. If the unit is partially in LOS there's no rule denying permission to wound it, even if your shot landed out of your LOS.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
AS above - Dooley seriously, you are the only one who doesnt seem to get that the rules make NO REQUIREMENTS ON LOS between targetting and allocating wounds. Thats it.
There is no requirement to have LOS when hitting a unit
There is no requirement to have LOS when wounding a unit
You are making up a requirement which does not exist. THe rule added in at the end, which specifies that a unit that the blast scatters onto can be wounded even if out of LOS is not required - the normal shooting rules cover this already - therefore surely this is intended to have some function - else why mention entirely out of LOS?
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
Post 2012/08/30 20:57:29 Subject: Re:Blast weapons scattering into troops out of line of sight
-Nazdreg- wrote:
You have the possibility to hit a crowded area out of LOS and still score wounds which are then allocated amongst a not so crowded area of models you are able to see. If you weren't able to hit and wound models out of LOS you would just fail the shot.
Absolutely. False.
You can hit units out of LOS - there's no rule preventing it.
You can wound units out of LOS - there's no rule preventing it.
You cannot allocate wounds to units that are out of LOS. If the unit is partially in LOS there's no rule denying permission to wound it, even if your shot landed out of your LOS.
What? Am I anywhere stating any different? Maybe you didnt notice the weren't and would part... Normally that means the contrary but it seemed to slip past your observation and in your eagerness you just posted an overhasty reply. So calm down please.
No we wouldn't fail the shot. We could do all that even if the blast rules didn't expressly say we could hit and wound units out of range or line of sight
Yes the shot would be failed by MY given circumstances... same thing here. I know what you mean but you don't seem to understand me properly.
All I was saying is, that the sentence has no value ruleswise apart from being a simple reminder. (Scattering out of sight and range doesnt prevent hits and wounds to be scored normally. This is what it says. Nothing wrong with that.)
46348
Post by: balsak_da_mighty
-Nazdreg- wrote:
Post 2012/08/30 20:57:29 Subject: Re:Blast weapons scattering into troops out of line of sight
-Nazdreg- wrote:
You have the possibility to hit a crowded area out of LOS and still score wounds which are then allocated amongst a not so crowded area of models you are able to see. If you weren't able to hit and wound models out of LOS you would just fail the shot.
Absolutely. False.
You can hit units out of LOS - there's no rule preventing it.
You can wound units out of LOS - there's no rule preventing it.
You cannot allocate wounds to units that are out of LOS. If the unit is partially in LOS there's no rule denying permission to wound it, even if your shot landed out of your LOS.[/quote]
What? Am I anywhere stating any different? Maybe you didnt notice the weren't and would part... Normally that means the contrary but it seemed to slip past your observation and in your eagerness you just posted an overhasty reply. So calm down please.
No we wouldn't fail the shot. We could do all that even if the blast rules didn't expressly say we could hit and wound units out of range or line of sight
Yes the shot would be failed by MY given circumstances... same thing here. I know what you mean but you don't seem to understand me properly.
All I was saying is, that the sentence has no value ruleswise apart from being a simple reminder. (Scattering out of sight and range doesnt prevent hits and wounds to be scored normally. This is what it says. Nothing wrong with that.)
Ok I understand that it can hit and wound normally if out of LOS. But doesn't the rules cover that if the models are out of LOS then the wound pool is lost (in red)
.
63154
Post by: XxlDwarf
I see where you guys are coming from saying the rule is useless .
But really is a unit wounded if you never allocated wounds to it?
I'd say no and thus making the rule usefull.
Say the blast landed out of sight on my hive tyrant and you rolled to wound, scored some wounds made a wound pool. Then lost all wound cause my hive tyrant was out so sight. Would you say you caused a wound on my hive tyrant? I wouldn't.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
No, the model suffered no wounds. The unit was wounded though.
Just like if you make your saves - the unit was wounded, the Hive Tyrant wasn't. Now that wounding has two separate steps (populating the wound pool and emptying it) you need permission to allocate.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
Wait, so if a unit is hit, and wounded, it takes no wounds due to LOS. That is paradoxical. The last part contradicts the second part and always will.
Unless that second part is supported by another established rule. In this case, the Blast Marker "Special" rule, which specifically states that if the blast marker scatters and hits anything, regardless of position, Range, LOS or even allegiance, then the shot is to be resolved normally. Given that the first part categorically states that anything it hits will be hit and wounded, any positioning, Range, LOS and friendly fire restriction would be treated as though they were not there, as the very first part of the "Special" Rule tells you that if there are any issues regarding any part of anything usually covered by the first part of a normal shooting phase, they are to be ignored.
Other wise, you could claim Cover Saves against Flamers. As being in cover grants a Cover Save, and even though the Flamer has the 'Ignore Cover Save' special rule, after the Flamer has been fired and the template positioned, wounding is still resolved "Normally" in regards to Invulnerable saves and what not. And the Rules state that units in cover receive a Cover Save. Even though the "Special" part of the Flamer "Special" Rule says it ignores cover, it is contradicted by the Core Rules, which says that units in cover get a Cover Save.
The Blast Marker "Special" Rule states at the outset, that if the scatter positions the template over a unit that is behind a wall, then they have been hit and wounded, meaning that in effect, the wall was never there. With that firmly in mind, when the wounds are resolved, the wall, for the purposes of that particular shot, does not exist, but only models under the template, as it is a template weapon, can be harmed.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, there is no paradox - an allowance to wound a unit has absolutely no bearing on allowance to wound a model. They are two separate concepts.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
The unit is wounded. The models are never allocated wounds.
55262
Post by: Jacko4smackos
Beefmiester wrote:Wait, so if a unit is hit, and wounded, it takes no wounds due to LOS. That is paradoxical. The last part contradicts the second part and always will.
Unless that second part is supported by another established rule. In this case, the Blast Marker "Special" rule, which specifically states that if the blast marker scatters and hits anything, regardless of position, Range, LOS or even allegiance, then the shot is to be resolved normally. Given that the first part categorically states that anything it hits will be hit and wounded, any positioning, Range, LOS and friendly fire restriction would be treated as though they were not there, as the very first part of the "Special" Rule tells you that if there are any issues regarding any part of anything usually covered by the first part of a normal shooting phase, they are to be ignored.
Other wise, you could claim Cover Saves against Flamers. As being in cover grants a Cover Save, and even though the Flamer has the 'Ignore Cover Save' special rule, after the Flamer has been fired and the template positioned, wounding is still resolved "Normally" in regards to Invulnerable saves and what not. And the Rules state that units in cover receive a Cover Save. Even though the "Special" part of the Flamer "Special" Rule says it ignores cover, it is contradicted by the Core Rules, which says that units in cover get a Cover Save.
The Blast Marker "Special" Rule states at the outset, that if the scatter positions the template over a unit that is behind a wall, then they have been hit and wounded, meaning that in effect, the wall was never there. With that firmly in mind, when the wounds are resolved, the wall, for the purposes of that particular shot, does not exist, but only models under the template, as it is a template weapon, can be harmed.
Although flamers ignore cover, they can't wound things out of LOS.
The unlike blasts, there is no exception to flamers. Flaming a predator and you hit the guys behind it?
Too bad, you can't allocate wounds to stuff you can't see.
61964
Post by: Fragile
 Jacko4smackos wrote:Beefmiester wrote:Wait, so if a unit is hit, and wounded, it takes no wounds due to LOS. That is paradoxical. The last part contradicts the second part and always will.
Unless that second part is supported by another established rule. In this case, the Blast Marker "Special" rule, which specifically states that if the blast marker scatters and hits anything, regardless of position, Range, LOS or even allegiance, then the shot is to be resolved normally. Given that the first part categorically states that anything it hits will be hit and wounded, any positioning, Range, LOS and friendly fire restriction would be treated as though they were not there, as the very first part of the "Special" Rule tells you that if there are any issues regarding any part of anything usually covered by the first part of a normal shooting phase, they are to be ignored.
Other wise, you could claim Cover Saves against Flamers. As being in cover grants a Cover Save, and even though the Flamer has the 'Ignore Cover Save' special rule, after the Flamer has been fired and the template positioned, wounding is still resolved "Normally" in regards to Invulnerable saves and what not. And the Rules state that units in cover receive a Cover Save. Even though the "Special" part of the Flamer "Special" Rule says it ignores cover, it is contradicted by the Core Rules, which says that units in cover get a Cover Save.
The Blast Marker "Special" Rule states at the outset, that if the scatter positions the template over a unit that is behind a wall, then they have been hit and wounded, meaning that in effect, the wall was never there. With that firmly in mind, when the wounds are resolved, the wall, for the purposes of that particular shot, does not exist, but only models under the template, as it is a template weapon, can be harmed.
Although flamers ignore cover, they can't wound things out of LOS.
The unlike blasts, there is no exception to flamers. Flaming a predator and you hit the guys behind it?
Too bad, you can't allocate wounds to stuff you can't see.
The same procedure would apply to both in that example. You can roll to wound, but could not allocate a wound to any model out of LOS.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
Then what would be the point of saying that a template can hit units out of the LOS? If even a single model from that unit is in some form of LOS, then that 'unit' is counted as being in LOS until the visible model is dead or moves. So you could target them, buyt then, only the model visible. If you could not wound a unit outside of LOS, why does the "Special" Rule specifically state that you can hit them? It should state at the outset, "If a shot scatters out of the Line Of Sight, that shot is lost." Basically because there is no point is stating it can hit and wound if it can't.
I don't believe wounding and allocation of wounds are separate. I think it's only separate when it's convienient for people. Other wise, I would target a Character, and if the scatter takes the template off the Character, but remains over the unit he is attached too, I would say all wounds are to be dumped on him, as is the original aim, and because he is part of the unit that is hit. Sure, he wasn't hit by the template, and wasn't wounded by it, but then, ability to wound and allocation of wounds are two separate concepts. I would have to in that case revert back to my original intention, totally disregarding the template rule, but not for the "generation" of wounds - only for the purpose of "allocation" of those wounds. Because at the allocation of wounds stage, it's ok to ignore any special rules that apply to the shot.
Also, I never said that Flamers could hit out of LOS, i simply said that if you were going to ignore the special rules for Blast, you may as well ignore the "Ignore Cover" rule on Flamers, because after the shot is taken, special rules no longer have any bearing on the outcome.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Beefmiester wrote:Then what would be the point of saying that a template can hit units out of the LOS? If even a single model from that unit is in some form of LOS, then that 'unit' is counted as being in LOS until the visible model is dead or moves. So you could target them, buyt then, only the model visible. If you could not wound a unit outside of LOS, why does the "Special" Rule specifically state that you can hit them? It should state at the outset, "If a shot scatters out of the Line Of Sight, that shot is lost." Basically because there is no point is stating it can hit and wound if it can't.
Because otherwise people would argue that the blast and those under it were out of LOS and couldnt be wounded without that redundant line.
I don't believe wounding and allocation of wounds are separate. I think it's only separate when it's convienient for people. Other wise, I would target a Character, and if the scatter takes the template off the Character, but remains over the unit he is attached too, I would say all wounds are to be dumped on him, as is the original aim, and because he is part of the unit that is hit. Sure, he wasn't hit by the template, and wasn't wounded by it, but then, ability to wound and allocation of wounds are two separate concepts. I would have to in that case revert back to my original intention, totally disregarding the template rule, but not for the "generation" of wounds - only for the purpose of "allocation" of those wounds. Because at the allocation of wounds stage, it's ok to ignore any special rules that apply to the shot.
Not sure what your saying here as that made no sense rules wise.
Also, I never said that Flamers could hit out of LOS, i simply said that if you were going to ignore the special rules for Blast, you may as well ignore the "Ignore Cover" rule on Flamers, because after the shot is taken, special rules no longer have any bearing on the outcome.
They very much do have a bearing on the outcome. The Flamers ignore cover saves.
33735
Post by: White Ninja
Ok I have not bothered to read the whole thing but the from what I can see then Yes if the whole unit is out of line of sight then nothing happens. But If you get five hits and only one guy is in like of site then that guy is likely to die isn't he.
61964
Post by: Fragile
 White Ninja wrote:Ok I have not bothered to read the whole thing but the from what I can see then Yes if the whole unit is out of line of sight then nothing happens. But If you get five hits and only one guy is in like of site then that guy is likely to die isn't he.
Pretty much.. Just dont be the guy looking around the corner
53292
Post by: Kevlar
White Ninja wrote:Ok I have not bothered to read the whole thing but the from what I can see then Yes if the whole unit is out of line of sight then nothing happens. But If you get five hits and only one guy is in like of site then that guy is likely to die isn't he.
Yes that is the way I read it. You can hit and wound 5 models, but if only one of them is in LOS then only one can be removed. So that guy would be taking 5 armor saves.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
I'm not sure if this has been brought up already, but:
Rulebook page 15 wrote:
Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties
Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit. [...]
Rulebook page 16
Out of Sight[
[...] If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.
Rulebook page 33
[.. If the blast scatters ..] 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).
The requirements to allocate wounds on enemy models also means that even if a blast scatters onto your own troops, you cannot hurt them. This would apply for *any* shooting attack that hits your own troops (Chaos dreads? and others?)
I know this has been covered, but it also means that the various non- LOS weapons in the game (Hive Guard, Smart Missiles/Seeker Missiles) can not use their non- LOS rules.
This reading of the rules is nonsensical. The clearly stated RAW is that it can hit and wound units out of LOS (read 'entire units completely out of LOS'), and even your own models. What would be the point of writing this sentence at all, if it had no use?
Now you'll come back and say 'it doesn't matter that the rule has no use.' To which I counter: if you're going for a strict, RAW conclusion, it is fallacious to discard entire passages of the rules. There are rules written in the BRB and they would not be written there if they had no purpose. Any reading of the rules which requires you to ignore or claim irrelevant other specifically relevant passages, and reading of the rules which renders other special rules of no use, is an incorrect reading.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
No, it's not incorrect. It's just obvious what the intent is.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Do you agree that this reading of the rules means that you can never hurt friendly models with shooting?
61964
Post by: Fragile
You can hurt your own models.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
How? The rulebook on page 15 says you can only allocate wounds to enemy models.
(I'm being facetious here in an attempt to point out that this fallacious reading of the rules leads to nonsensical situations)
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Trasvi wrote:Do you agree that this reading of the rules means that you can never hurt friendly models with shooting?
Don't phrase it like that - it's not "this reading" of the rules.
To read it otherwise is to insert intent. The intent of the rule is absolutely obvious.
Wounding a unit and allocating wounds are two completely different steps. Blasts have permission to do the former, but the latter gets tripped when the unit is out of LOS.
Yes, this means that you cannot wound your own models - but you can hit them just fine.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
rigeld2 wrote:Trasvi wrote:Do you agree that this reading of the rules means that you can never hurt friendly models with shooting?
Don't phrase it like that - it's not "this reading" of the rules.
To read it otherwise is to insert intent. The intent of the rule is absolutely obvious. (
Wounding a unit and allocating wounds are two completely different steps. Blasts have permission to do the former, but the latter gets tripped when the unit is out of LOS.
Yes, this means that you cannot wound your own models - but you can hit them just fine.
The reason many try to stay away from arguments of intent on this forum is that intent is often unclear even in the best of situations, and can be used to spin interpretations . If intent is blindingly clear (as you agree it is in this case), then intent can certainly be used to guide the interpretation.
In this example, the intent is blindingly clear that blasts can damage your own units if they scatter, in disregard of the normal shooting rules that you can't hurt friendly models. Similarly with units out of line of sight.
I also don't understand why you insist 'wounding a unit' and 'allocating wounds' are two completely different steps. It seems to me that the latter is a part of the former. At least, I can't see anywhere in the normal rules for shooting where 'wounding a unit' is ever defined, so it doesn't make sense that you can assert that they are 'completely different'.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Trasvi wrote: At least, I can't see anywhere in the normal rules for shooting where 'wounding a unit' is ever defined, so it doesn't make sense that you can assert that they are 'completely different'.
Populating the wound pool and allocating wounds from the wound pool are different steps entirely. The former is by definition rolled against the unit as a whole, the latter is allocated and rolled against individual models.
If you've rolled to populate the wound pool, you've wounded the unit.
Allocating wounds isn't wounding the unit, it's wounding models.
And yes, the RAI is blindingly obvious and how I play. That doesn't change the words that are actually written - you know, the definition of RAW?
9230
Post by: Trasvi
I asked for the difference between 'wounding a unit' and 'allocating wounds'. You provided 'populating the wound pool'.
There is no step in the shooting phase called 'Wounding a unit'. You have inferred that 'wounding a unit' = 'populate the wound pool', but this is never, you know, written.
Can you provide an example that makes any kind of sense where 'wounding a unit' is not dependant upon subsequent allocation of wounds?
My argument is:
1) There is no sensible difference between being able to wound a unit and being able to allocate wounds to models within that unit.
2) There are a number of rules and occurrences which give explicit exceptions to the normal shooting procedure (ie, 'may hit and wound a friendly unit')
3) These exceptions make no sense if you assume that 'wound a unit' does not include wound allocation
4) These exceptions would have no point if they would inherently fail upon wound allocation
5) (optional) These exceptions exist, therefore they have a purpose
6) These exceptions do make sense if 'wound a unit' includes wound allocation
7) There is no reason to believe 'wound a unit' does not include wound allocation, re point 1.
8) Thus, the interpretation of the rules that is most congruent with other rules, precedent and intent, and not in any way against the written rules, is that 'wound a [x] unit' does include wound allocation. Furthermore, the ability to 'hit and wound a [exceptional] unit' extends the exceptions to every point where there would otherwise be conflict with the normal rules.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
Finally.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Trasvi wrote:I asked for the difference between 'wounding a unit' and 'allocating wounds'. You provided 'populating the wound pool'.
There is no step in the shooting phase called 'Wounding a unit'. You have inferred that 'wounding a unit' = 'populate the wound pool', but this is never, you know, written.
Page 14 BRB wrote:To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart.
Do you target units or models?
Page 14 BRB wrote:Quite rarely, a unit will contain models with differing Toughness characteristics. When this occurs, roll To Wound using the Toughness characteristic that is in the majority in the target unit.
This proves that you are rolling to wound the unit, hence wounding the unit. At no time during the "Roll to Wound" step are you wounding models.
Also reference the fact (not my opinion or inference) that "Rolling to Wound" is a separate and distinct section from "Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties".
4) These exceptions would have no point if they would inherently fail upon wound allocation
Yes, they demonstrate intent very well.
5) (optional) These exceptions exist, therefore they have a purpose
You act like GW hasn't written rules that have no purpose in the past. Reference the Blood Angel IC/Black Rage question in the FAQ.
8) Thus, the interpretation of the rules that is most congruent with other rules, precedent and intent, and not in any way against the written rules, is that 'wound a [x] unit' does include wound allocation.
You haven't proven the bolded section. I've cited why "Roll to Wound" is unit based and a separate, distinct section from Allocating wounds. You have to prove that Allocating wounds is also unit based.
60374
Post by: Dooley
That just made my head hurt 
61964
Post by: Fragile
Trasvi wrote:I asked for the difference between 'wounding a unit' and 'allocating wounds'. You provided 'populating the wound pool'.
There is no step in the shooting phase called 'Wounding a unit'. You have inferred that 'wounding a unit' = 'populate the wound pool', but this is never, you know, written.
Can you provide an example that makes any kind of sense where 'wounding a unit' is not dependant upon subsequent allocation of wounds
The summary on page 12. There are 5 distinct steps. Note #4 and #5 are your answer.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
If you break it down, right at the beginning, It's says in order to "Hit" a unit, you must target a unit, and in order to do so, you must have LOS.
But then a special rule for a particular weapon gives the opportunity to "Hit" a unit that is not in LOS.
From the moment that weapon is fired, there is a possibility of certain rules being suspended.
And then, halfway through, the special rule becomes void?
What about the provision for extending the range? When it comes time to allocate wounds, are they made void by exceeding that weapons maximum range? If it does not fit the weapon profile that shot is voided. While it satisfies other parts of the hit/wound mechanic it fails the range limit.
What if it lands over half friendly units and half enemy units? Does the blast stop being a blast for some of those units while damaging others? You can't wound friendlies, or shoot into combat. While all provisions in this section are satisfied, others are failed. So even though it's in range and in LOS, that shot also does no damage? Or does it damage some but not others? Do the damaged models get a cover save from the undamaged ones?
Do grenades suddenly become selective in where they spray their shrapnel? Do explosives stop being volatile in the presence of friendly troops? Does plasma lose it's potency if you stop looking at it?
Never once did I read the "as normal" in the blast weapon resolution and think that meant to disregard everything else said in the passage. I read that, given that it was in the blast weapon passage - treat the shot as you would normally, taking into account the modifiers attributed to this weapon, as just described.
Sure, it mentions LOS again, but that was rendered obsolete earlier by the modified rule-set applied to this weapons profile, which allowed the shooting phase to move to this stage of the resolution.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
False. Please quote actual rules.
The rules say that the only restriction on range is targeting.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
The shot is void. How could it not be?
It could not be considered a legal shot because the unit hit could not have been targeted in accordance to the rules. The rules state state you can't target a unit beyond the maximum range.
But if that is lifted by a special rule, in this case the Scatter of a Blast template, then it's accepted.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Beefmiester wrote:The shot is void. How could it not be?
It could not be considered a legal shot because the unit hit could not have been targeted in accordance to the rules. The rules state state you can't target a unit beyond the maximum range.
Hitting and targeting are two different things.
Once you declare your target and roll scatter dice there's no restriction on range. Please cite a rule.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
I can't help but feel that this has all been said before...
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Oh, it has. People just don't feel like reading the 17 page thread evidently.
Whatever.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
Hitting and targeting are two separate things?
That statement makes my cancer hurt.
The ONLY time targeting and hitting are separate is when a template or Special rule of similar mechanics can be applied. In all other cases, you can't do one without the other.
And also, threads like this will always run out of control. People will always look to find one word, or a sentence, or maybe a quirk of grammar or syntax that will give them an advantage, or prevent another from gaining an advantage, and no matter how eloquently or blunt the case presented, there will always be another way to interpret the wording to suit.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Yes. Targeting has some restrictions on it, one of them being that the target must be in range.
Hitting does not.
Wounding doesn't have a range restriction on it either - explicitly in fact.
And also, threads like this will always run out of control. People will always look to find one word, or a sentence, or maybe a quirk of grammar or syntax that will give them an advantage, or prevent another from gaining an advantage, and no matter how eloquently or blunt the case presented, there will always be another way to interpret the wording to suit.
It's rather insulting to insinuate a bias or trying to gain an advantage when I've said explicitly I don't play this way multiple times. I'd like an apology please.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
Woah now. You'd like an apology for what?
I know dozen of people that play this way and rule lawyer everyone else into submission. That's how people are. Everybody is out to climb the ladder, and in being competitive they take some rules too literally, and others too laterally - whichever benefit them more. I HAVE DONE IT, and can't make promises that I won't do it again. But then I've let some things slide that I thought was questionable, but well argued. That's way this forum exists. That's the purpose of an intelligent discourse and dissection of game mechanics.
Saying that people will always seek to turn an advantage by exploiting little loopholes - whether they are black and white written, or an interpretation of the rule - coaches in such broad generalisations that feeling you have been wronged by such a statement seems a little... off.
Stating that a topic will continue to generate responses due to the myriad of different ways of approaching certain words, meanings or interpretations is a realisation of a sad fact, not an insult, and I can't see how it could be construed as one.
I especially resent the insinuation that people haven't read the 17 pages of responses ("Whatever") when they have, but still haven't been satisfied by the arguments presented, and want a chance to state their case. I do understand however, that for people who have polarized into certain views will continue to press the issue long after it should be dead and gone - just as others will defend it when it's dis-proven or discredited. But, as always, I could not begrudge them the opportunity to express their thoughts and share their interpretation of any rules.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
The insinuation that the only reason I'm holding this stance is because it gives me some advantage. I don't care about an advantage or lack thereof. I care about actual rules.
I know dozen of people that play this way and rule lawyer everyone else into submission. That's how people are. Everybody is out to climb the ladder, and in being competitive they take some rules too literally, and others too laterally - whichever benefit them more.
And accusing others of inserting this bias without evidence is insulting. I do my absolute best to remove all bias when I process rules.
That's way this forum exists. That's the purpose of an intelligent discourse and dissection of game mechanics.
Right - without bias.
Saying that people will always seek to turn an advantage by exploiting little loopholes - whether they are black and white written, or an interpretation of the rule - coaches in such broad generalisations that feeling you have been wronged by such a statement seems a little... off.
Anyone who plays Grey Knights is a jerk.
See how broad statements don't always apply to everyone and can be insulting?
I do my absolute best to remove bias when I look at rules and when I post about them - which is why I come off as dry.
It absolutely is insulting when, without evidence, it's implied that anyone posting that doesn't share your viewpoint is trying to exploit something.
I especially resent the insinuation that people haven't read the 17 pages of responses ("Whatever") when they have, but still haven't been satisfied by the arguments presented, and want a chance to state their case. I do understand however, that for people who have polarized into certain views will continue to press the issue long after it should be dead and gone - just as others will defend it when it's dis-proven or discredited. But, as always, I could not begrudge them the opportunity to express their thoughts and share their interpretation of any rules.
You brought up things that were *literally* covered - word for word - in the thread.
The right way to have discourse is to address the last time that argument was covered.
The way to make it seem like you haven't read the thread is to repeat the argument - basically word for word - without acknowledging that it's been said before.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
I said that these things will always barrel on due to the way that people will always interpret a rule that another will disagree with, and so there will always be a yearning need to quantify one's stance. I sated this was a byproduct of human competitiveness. Whether this is because they have a lack of understanding, or know the rules enough to try and bend them to their advantage, the point of the game is to win, and people will side with whatever suits them most. I never said "Rigeld, it's obvious by the way you are arguing that you use this turn of phrase to your advantage while playing," or "Everyone that is on X side of this argument are misinformed, loutish prigs that are wrong, just plain wrong," as that would be insulting.
I offered up an explanation to Malus as to why a thread would continue for 17 pages.
And as I tried to make painfully obvious, the explanations offered over the course of this whole discussion do not satisfactorily end the argument, to my mind.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Beefmiester wrote:And as I tried to make painfully obvious, the explanations offered over the course of this whole discussion do not satisfactorily end the argument, to my mind.
So argue against them. Literally repeating what's been said and argued against gains nothing - it just makes you look like you didn't read the thread.
58669
Post by: Grugknuckle
I can't believe this thread is still alive.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I can't believe it's not butter. 
4244
Post by: Pyrian
I can't believe the FAQ doesn't say anything on the subject (except allowing a blast that doesn't scatter to count hits on models out of LoS).
61964
Post by: Fragile
Pyrian wrote:I can't believe the FAQ doesn't say anything on the subject (except allowing a blast that doesn't scatter to count hits on models out of LoS).
That FAQ did not even answer the question really :(. You can count hits on models out of LOS if you can see a model in the Unit... which we already knew :(
58669
Post by: Grugknuckle
I can't believe this post is not exalted.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Q: Can blast markers hit a model that is not in the attacker’s line of
sight if they do NOT scatter? (p33)
A: Yes, as long as the target enemy model for the blast
weapon is within the firer’s line of sight.
Ok so what happens if it DOES scatter? It would apear that you can still hit a model that is not in the attackers line of sight if it DID scatter (this we know). However note that it still says ATTACKERS line of sight, so in order to actually allocate wounds to the unit that model is in a member of the ATTACKERS squad must be able to draw line of sight to that unit.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Dooley wrote:Q: Can blast markers hit a model that is not in the attacker’s line of
sight if they do NOT scatter? (p33)
A: Yes, as long as the target enemy model for the blast
weapon is within the firer’s line of sight.
Ok so what happens if it DOES scatter? It would apear that you can still hit a model that is not in the attackers line of sight if it DID scatter (this we know). However note that it still says ATTACKERS line of sight, so in order to actually allocate wounds to the unit that model is in a member of the ATTACKERS squad must be able to draw line of sight to that unit.
Yes, this did nothing to clarify anything
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Like the sentences within the rule itself, the FAQ is useless.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Balls!
47418
Post by: Adrian Fue Fue
Lame, I still cant believe this thread....
Rules say you can allocate wounds to "Enemy Models" but you can still scatter to hit your own unit.....?
Then how could you wound your own models?
Likewise you need line of site to make a hit, so why would you ever in the entire game EVER use a scatter die?
Simple, the scatter die makes the wounds off the template; the template controlled by the scatter die depicts the line of site (as in: if you are under the template you are in line of site of the explosion which causes wounds to all models friendly or enemy that are under the template).
Cover: behind a tank is cover from line of site from a shooting model, true. From a blast marker it is not. Area cover is cover from all shooting expect weapons that ignore cover.
So where do you loose line of site from a blast marker, where can you hide?
Answer: In a building; a blast may only hit one floor, so if it hits the second or third level of the building, then all the models under that level have a floor that blocks the blast markers line of site.
It is really just that easy, everything is covered.
Oh, and range. The shooter has to target a model within line of site and within range of the weapon. Once he declares that enemy model, he puts down a template, in the center of the model. Then the scatter die will show where the blast actually happens.
Honestly I cant see any way this can be confusing.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
 Adrian Fue Fue wrote:Lame, I still cant believe this thread....
Rules say you can allocate wounds to "Enemy Models" but you can still scatter to hit your own unit.....?
Then how could you wound your own models?
Likewise you need line of site to make a hit, so why would you ever in the entire game EVER use a scatter die?
Simple, the scatter die makes the wounds off the template; the template controlled by the scatter die depicts the line of site (as in: if you are under the template you are in line of site of the explosion which causes wounds to all models friendly or enemy that are under the template).
Cover: behind a tank is cover from line of site from a shooting model, true. From a blast marker it is not. Area cover is cover from all shooting expect weapons that ignore cover.
So where do you loose line of site from a blast marker, where can you hide?
Answer: In a building; a blast may only hit one floor, so if it hits the second or third level of the building, then all the models under that level have a floor that blocks the blast markers line of site.
It is really just that easy, everything is covered.
Oh, and range. The shooter has to target a model within line of site and within range of the weapon. Once he declares that enemy model, he puts down a template, in the center of the model. Then the scatter die will show where the blast actually happens.
Honestly I cant see any way this can be confusing.
Some people have mysteriously decided that a blast that scatters and hits a unit hidden behind a cloths line with some hanging bedsheets cannot hurt the unit because the firer can't see them.
Next up: if your unit digs some holes and performs a Put Head In Hole, then no other unit in the game may draw LoS to them.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
How about instead of insisting its ludicrous and attempting to mock me you provide rules support as to why I'm wrong? Can you do that?
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote:How about instead of insisting its ludicrous and attempting to mock me you provide rules support as to why I'm wrong? Can you do that?
You've been on this board long enough to see cases where people can interpret a sentence in more than 1 way. These are all RAW interpretations, neither of which is wrong per say according to the RAW. However, often in these cases one 'makes sense' and the other leads to ludicrous situations so the RAW clearly favors one understanding of the text over the other.
The RAW gives you permission to treat the hits as if in LOS and range. Intervening terrain still gives a cover save, but the unit is treated as visible.
What cover is between them and the firer? Example if the model is behind a ruin, it gets a 4+ cover save. Which wound group do they fall into? 4+ cover saves group. It's not that hard to follow RAW and still not be invulnerable to a scattered blast for being hidden behind a wet paper bag.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
No, the rules don't give permission to do that. You're assuming that by applying intent.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Yeah you still remove models closests to closest and in los from the attacking unit. If the Blast template lands in the back of the unit the models under the template ARE NOT THE ONES THAT DIE, models are removed from the front in relation to the two units. That entire "RANT" was baseless and full of factual errors.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
The rules could indeed state that, depending on which context you take the "and" part of "Hit and wound," or the "wound" part of "Hit and Wound" or even the "normal" part of "as normal" that come into the B&LB special rule.
Whilst the most literal interpretation is yes, a model out of LOS cannot be touched, The rule does say hit and then it says wound. The system does separate the hit/wound pool/allocate wounds, but where exactly does the wound part of the "hit and wound" statement kick in? It is just the wound pool, but not the allocation? Or does the word refer to the whole of the wounding process? Is determining wound pool even part of wounding, or hitting? Or is it distinct again? Given that 'and' could be used as a bridging verb, meaning an inclusive action meaning hit, wound and everything in-between. Like buying a car, saying it comes with built-in stereo and air-conditioning, but finding a wall-mounted split-stream air-conditioner in the back seat. Under a very literal reading of the statement, it's not false, but as a logical interpretation, the bridge of 'and' meant the second article should have just as built-in as the first article.
But then the end of the paragraph does clearly state that it's to be resolved "As normal." The shot resolution is explicit in stating that units out of LOS are invulnerable. All wounds that would be allocated are lost. However, as the "as normal" is in a paragraph that has already modified the rules, reading it as "resolve as you normally would given this new set of parameters," still follows rules regarding the interpretation of written English. And so, when the shot resolution mentions something that has been modified by the "Special" rule, then the "Special" rule wins out.
But that interpretation is based on reading the paragraph and treating it as one - for lack of a better word - interference. The special rule tells us to treat the scattered shot that hits a unit as being a successful shot, as though the hindering circumstance was no longer there. From there, a completely literal reading could mean either:
-hit and wound being chance to hit and wound generation only; or
-determine to-hit and then determine wounds, with the "wound pool" system, armour saves, cover saves etc being included as part of the "wound" mechanic covered by the inherent bridge of "and."
and as the wound allocation "step" begins, the "as normal" could be read as either:
-"As you would" normally resolve wounds; or
-"As per" the normal wounding rules.
Whilst at first glance, there seem the same, the differing connotations of 'normal' vs 'normally' means in one case, the rules are unyielding and veto any previous mentioned modifications. The other presents a scenario that has it's own previously determined parameters, and you apply the rules whilst still maintaining those.
Each reading closes out the process, and each step supports other parts of the reading, but one with a definitive linear step by step application of the words - and the other being a contextual reading with each interpretation applied as it relates to other parts of the scenario.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
And none of this was addressed in the most recent FAQ.....
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote:No, the rules don't give permission to do that. You're assuming that by applying intent.
Here is the great conundrum. I've colored the related text for easy comparison.
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.
Resolving hits and wounds as normal :
BRB p. 15
Continue allocating wounds to the closest model, taking saves and removing casualties until the Wound pool is empty, or all models in the unit have been removed as casualties.
OUT OF RANGE
BRB p. 16
As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.
In range? Check. This entire unit is now considered in range for the duration of this attack.
OUT OF SIGHT
BRB p. 16
If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.
Visible? Gotcha GW! Unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack and are lost? Oops, no wait, you're still wrong. These guys can be wounded.
Only you are saying this "can hit and wound" means strictly having an unsaved wound allocated to the unit, when in fact everyone else is reading this correctly as continue allocating wounds to the closest model taking saves and removing casualties.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Except you have already wounded the unit by rolling To Wound rolls. Allocating Wounds wounds individual models.
63435
Post by: Beefmiester
Again, the "as for" part of "as for a normal shooting attack" can be, quite legitimately, interpreted to mean "as if a normal shooting attack following the given parameters had occurred."
As a "normal" shooting attack COULD NOT have occurred, given the modified situation, any restrictions to the allocation of said wounds must have the relevant inhibition lifted to accommodate the new set of circumstances. It outlines which circumstances these are in the weapon description.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
Happyjew wrote:Except you have already wounded the unit by rolling To Wound rolls. Allocating Wounds wounds individual models.
True, normally you allocate wounds to the closest model, take saves and remove casualties. They messed up and say you allocate unsaved wounds. The problem then is a completely messed up set of rules where you allocate, take saves, then allocate unsaved wounds. Removing the word "unsaved" seems to clear everything up. Or rather just remove that last sentence about unsaved wounds completely.
This doesn't need a FAQ as it's still clear HWYPI, but it does need an errata to fix this double allocation.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Beefmiester wrote:As a "normal" shooting attack COULD NOT have occurred, given the modified situation, any restrictions to the allocation of said wounds must have the relevant inhibition lifted to accommodate the new set of circumstances. It outlines which circumstances these are in the weapon description.
What because the shot scattered? A normal shooting attack did occur, pretty much by definition.
There's no rules restricting hitting the out of LOS unit.
There's no rules restricting wounding the out of LOS unit.
There's an inference (interpretation of intent) that says they really mean you can allocate wounds even though you can't see the unit.
You're still making an assumption of intent. A well founded one, and one I agree with - but it's not how the sentences are worded. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote:No, the rules don't give permission to do that. You're assuming that by applying intent.
Here is the great conundrum. I've colored the related text for easy comparison.
Actually coloring the text makes it literally impossible to read - I have to quote the post to read it.
Visible? Gotcha GW! Unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack and are lost? Oops, no wait, you're still wrong. These guys can be wounded.
Only you are saying this "can hit and wound" means strictly having an unsaved wound allocated to the unit, when in fact everyone else is reading this correctly as continue allocating wounds to the closest model taking saves and removing casualties.
Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?
As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote:
Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?
As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.
Actually I think Happy helped me notice this:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.
The last two sentences:
1. we work out the hits under the template.
2. roll to wound (as normal)
3. save (you must allocate to the closest model and save according to intervening terrain) as normal.
You're with me so far I believe.
(sentence 2)
4. UNSAVED wounds are allocated on the unit. This was strange to me, because you don't allocate unsaved wounds. But wait, you do. You allocate an unsaved wound to the model that failed the save. We're not used to "allocating" a wound from a failed save, but we do - normally to the same model that failed the save.
So there's the missing link. You have now put an unsaved wound on a model. If it's a 1 wound model remove the model "as normal".
Are we done here?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Yes, because you need a rule saying you can allocate unsaved wounds out of los. The rules for allocating wounds require LOS.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?
As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.
Actually I think Happy helped me notice this:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.
The last two sentences:
1. we work out the hits under the template.
2. roll to wound (as normal)
3. save (you must allocate to the closest model and save according to intervening terrain) as normal.
You're with me so far I believe.
(sentence 2)
4. UNSAVED wounds are allocated on the unit. This was strange to me, because you don't allocate unsaved wounds. But wait, you do. You allocate an unsaved wound to the model that failed the save. We're not used to "allocating" a wound from a failed save, but we do - normally to the same model that failed the save.
So there's the missing link. You have now put an unsaved wound on a model. If it's a 1 wound model remove the model "as normal".
Are we done here?
No, we aren't. You've allocated a wound to a model you can't see. Please show permission to ignore the rule that says if you don't have line of sight, the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over.
Scattering allows you to do what you can already do - hit and wound units out of LoS.
You then allocate as normal for a shooting attack. What's normal for a shooting attack?
37477
Post by: Battlesong
This is REALLY an 18 page topic!? Wow. So, the argument is: even though blast templates can wound units out of range and LOS (BRB P.33), said units would not actually take wounds from the blast. Really? So, why specify that the unit can be wounded, then? As far as the FAQ, I'd be willing to bet that the NOT in "Does not Scatter" was not supposed to be there, same as the I1 in the Tyranid Lashwhip FAQ or when they had Gliding instead of Swooping on the question about beams etc hitting Fliers and FMCs; apparently GW's proofreader took the day off when they were getting ready to post these things. In any case, I come back to how you can wound a unit and then not actually wound the unit? I believe this is one of those cases where specific (blast rule) overrides general (normal shooting wound rules).
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 Battlesong wrote:This is REALLY an 18 page topic!? Wow. So, the argument is: even though blast templates can wound units out of range and LOS ( BRB P.33), said units would not actually take wounds from the blast. Really? So, why specify that the unit can be wounded, then? As far as the FAQ, I'd be willing to bet that the NOT in "Does not Scatter" was not supposed to be there, same as the I1 in the Tyranid Lashwhip FAQ or when they had Gliding instead of Swooping on the question about beams etc hitting Fliers and FMCs; apparently GW's proofreader took the day off when they were getting ready to post these things. In any case, I come back to how you can wound a unit and then not actually wound the unit? I believe this is one of those cases where specific (blast rule) overrides general (normal shooting wound rules).
By populating the wound pool, the unit has been wounded.
The rules say you empty the wound pool if there are no models in LoS.
Yes, you have the argument correct. Now, provide actual rules to the contrary. The B&LB rules don't override the wound allocation rules -quite explicitly actually. Hence why it says to follow the normal rules for allocation.
61775
Post by: ClassicCarraway
I'm just curious, has anybody actually tried to use the idea of not allocating wounds to targets hit but not in LOS in a tournament setting?
61964
Post by: Fragile
Saw it at a tourney yesterday. Wasn't an issue. They determined there was no LOS and moved on.
49704
Post by: sfshilo
It didn't need clarifying...its pretty clear how it works.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?
As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.
Actually I think Happy helped me notice this:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.
The last two sentences:
1. we work out the hits under the template.
2. roll to wound (as normal)
3. save (you must allocate to the closest model and save according to intervening terrain) as normal.
You're with me so far I believe.
(sentence 2)
4. UNSAVED wounds are allocated on the unit. This was strange to me, because you don't allocate unsaved wounds. But wait, you do. You allocate an unsaved wound to the model that failed the save. We're not used to "allocating" a wound from a failed save, but we do - normally to the same model that failed the save.
So there's the missing link. You have now put an unsaved wound on a model. If it's a 1 wound model remove the model "as normal".
Are we done here?
No, we aren't. You've allocated a wound to a model you can't see. Please show permission to ignore the rule that says if you don't have line of sight, the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over.
Scattering allows you to do what you can already do - hit and wound units out of LoS.
You then allocate as normal for a shooting attack. What's normal for a shooting attack?
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
OUT OF RANGE
BRB p. 16
As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.
There you go. You're considered in range when getting hit. And if youre in range when hit, you're considered in range for the duration.
Done yet?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Yes, as you still cannot show permission to WOUND models out of LOS.
This has nothing to do with range.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Indeed. It's stupid but clear.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Battlesong wrote:This is REALLY an 18 page topic!? Wow. So, the argument is: even though blast templates can wound units out of range and LOS ( BRB P.33), said units would not actually take wounds from the blast. Really? So, why specify that the unit can be wounded, then? As far as the FAQ, I'd be willing to bet that the NOT in "Does not Scatter" was not supposed to be there, same as the I1 in the Tyranid Lashwhip FAQ or when they had Gliding instead of Swooping on the question about beams etc hitting Fliers and FMCs; apparently GW's proofreader took the day off when they were getting ready to post these things. In any case, I come back to how you can wound a unit and then not actually wound the unit? I believe this is one of those cases where specific (blast rule) overrides general (normal shooting wound rules).
By populating the wound pool, the unit has been wounded.
The rules say you empty the wound pool if there are no models in LoS.
Yes, you have the argument correct. Now, provide actual rules to the contrary. The B&LB rules don't override the wound allocation rules -quite explicitly actually. Hence why it says to follow the normal rules for allocation.
What you're saying here is incorrect. It does not say follow the normal rules for wound allocation. It says to allocate unsaved wounds as normal. Normally unsaved wounds are allocated to the model that failed the save. See the difference? You've allocated an unsaved wound to a model and skipped the part where you even consider LOS and the wound pool. The 1 wound model now dies and end of story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, as you still cannot show permission to WOUND models out of LOS.
This has nothing to do with range.
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
This sentence directly contradicts you. Notice the permission to wound units out of LOS.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?
As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.
Actually I think Happy helped me notice this:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.
The last two sentences:
1. we work out the hits under the template.
2. roll to wound (as normal)
3. save (you must allocate to the closest model and save according to intervening terrain) as normal.
You're with me so far I believe.
(sentence 2)
4. UNSAVED wounds are allocated on the unit. This was strange to me, because you don't allocate unsaved wounds. But wait, you do. You allocate an unsaved wound to the model that failed the save. We're not used to "allocating" a wound from a failed save, but we do - normally to the same model that failed the save.
So there's the missing link. You have now put an unsaved wound on a model. If it's a 1 wound model remove the model "as normal".
Are we done here?
No, we aren't. You've allocated a wound to a model you can't see. Please show permission to ignore the rule that says if you don't have line of sight, the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over.
Scattering allows you to do what you can already do - hit and wound units out of LoS.
You then allocate as normal for a shooting attack. What's normal for a shooting attack?
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
OUT OF RANGE
BRB p. 16
As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.
There you go. You're considered in range when getting hit. And if youre in range when hit, you're considered in range for the duration.
Done yet?
So... What does range have to do with line of sight? Automatically Appended Next Post: Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Battlesong wrote:This is REALLY an 18 page topic!? Wow. So, the argument is: even though blast templates can wound units out of range and LOS ( BRB P.33), said units would not actually take wounds from the blast. Really? So, why specify that the unit can be wounded, then? As far as the FAQ, I'd be willing to bet that the NOT in "Does not Scatter" was not supposed to be there, same as the I1 in the Tyranid Lashwhip FAQ or when they had Gliding instead of Swooping on the question about beams etc hitting Fliers and FMCs; apparently GW's proofreader took the day off when they were getting ready to post these things. In any case, I come back to how you can wound a unit and then not actually wound the unit? I believe this is one of those cases where specific (blast rule) overrides general (normal shooting wound rules).
By populating the wound pool, the unit has been wounded.
The rules say you empty the wound pool if there are no models in LoS.
Yes, you have the argument correct. Now, provide actual rules to the contrary. The B&LB rules don't override the wound allocation rules -quite explicitly actually. Hence why it says to follow the normal rules for allocation.
What you're saying here is incorrect. It does not say follow the normal rules for wound allocation. It says to allocate unsaved wounds as normal. Normally unsaved wounds are allocated to the model that failed the save. See the difference? You've allocated an unsaved wound to a model and skipped the part where you even consider LOS and the wound pool. The 1 wound model now dies and end of story.
I have a mixed save unit. It is against the rules - and impossible - for me to roll saves and then allocate wounds. You're inventing a process for allocation with no rules support.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, as you still cannot show permission to WOUND models out of LOS.
This has nothing to do with range.
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
This sentence directly contradicts you. Notice the permission to wound units out of LOS.
And what does range have to do with LOS? Scattering out of range doesn't stop anything from happening except targeting.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS
It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS
It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models. Following the normal rule you put them on the nearest models first.
Did you purposely ignore the part that says "models in close combat"? Just asking because at least that part actually breaks your misinterpretation (assuming we agree on RAI) because it specifically says "models".
Anyway, the section about blasts takes you step by step through the shot resolution. It gives permission to hit out of LoS and range, permission to allocate wounds to the unit, take saves and allocate unsaved wounds to the models. The only thing it doesn't specifically tell you to do is tell you to remove casualties which I assume you agree with having permission to remove models that have 0 remaining wounds.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS
It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models. Following the normal rule you put them on the nearest models first.
Did you purposely ignore the part that says "models in close combat"? Just asking because at least that part actually breaks your misinterpretation (assuming we agree on RAI) because it specifically says "models".
Anyway, the section about blasts takes you step by step through the shot resolution. It gives permission to hit out of LoS and range, permission to allocate wounds to the unit, take saves and allocate unsaved wounds to the models. The only thing it doesn't specifically tell you to do is tell you to remove casualties which I assume you agree with having permission to remove models that have 0 remaining wounds.
So, since you asserted that "Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models" I'm sure you have rules supporting that assertion. Could you show them to me this time? I've asked at least 3 times and havent seen them yet.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS
It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models. Following the normal rule you put them on the nearest models first.
Did you purposely ignore the part that says "models in close combat"? Just asking because at least that part actually breaks your misinterpretation (assuming we agree on RAI) because it specifically says "models".
Anyway, the section about blasts takes you step by step through the shot resolution. It gives permission to hit out of LoS and range, permission to allocate wounds to the unit, take saves and allocate unsaved wounds to the models. The only thing it doesn't specifically tell you to do is tell you to remove casualties which I assume you agree with having permission to remove models that have 0 remaining wounds.
So, since you asserted that "Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models" I'm sure you have rules supporting that assertion. Could you show them to me this time? I've asked at least 3 times and havent seen them yet.
Sorry I can't respond to your above message, the multi-quoting and huge blocks of text make it just impossible. Basically my response was that the sentence mentioning range also mentions LoS.
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
1. This says you may wound units out of range.
Allocate Wounds (mixed saves)
BRB p. 15
First, allocate wounds from the
Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.
2. We allocate these wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.
I'm not sure what you're missing here. We have our hits (under the template) and we have our wounds now applied to models.
Where do you think the chain breaks?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Nemesor Dave wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS
It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.
Find a rule that says the allocating wounds to a unit is the same as allocaitng wounds to models. You have been asked for this a few times now, and fail to do so each time
Just this rule, and this one only. It is pointless you going further in any argument as it all hinges from that statement you are claiming exists, but have shown no proof for.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
nosferatu1001 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS
It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.
Find a rule that says the allocating wounds to a unit is the same as allocaitng wounds to models. You have been asked for this a few times now, and fail to do so each time
Just this rule, and this one only. It is pointless you going further in any argument as it all hinges from that statement you are claiming exists, but have shown no proof for.
The process, which you have been permission to do, is to wound the unit. This process involves a step allocating wounds to models. You obviously can't wound a unit without wounding a model.
What you're saying is a bit like saying you have permission to chop down a forest, but no permission to chop down any tree.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 Nemesor Dave wrote:Sorry I can't respond to your above message, the multi-quoting and huge blocks of text make it just impossible.
Nice mocking me. Thanks for that. FYI I'm color blind and yellow on white is literally impossible for me to read.
Basically my response was that the sentence mentioning range also mentions LoS.
You're answering a question I didn't ask.
Nemesor Dave wrote:Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.
I asked for rules support for that assertion. The B&LB quote you keep providing like ivenever seen it before has nothing to do with this.
1. This says you may wound units out of range.
Who cares? You keep bringing up range like its relevant - remember, theres no restriction on range outside of targeting. Therefore the sentence allowing me to wound units out of range is giving me no extra permission than is already allowed in the rules.
2. We allocate these wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.
I'm not sure what you're missing here. We have our hits (under the template) and we have our wounds now applied to models.
Your step 2 ignores the rules for how to handle the wound pool when there is no line of sight to the unit. You haven't demonstrated permission to ignore that. Also, the mixed saves portion you're quoting ignores your previous argument - that you make saves and then allocate unsaved wounds. Mixed save units never allocate unsaved wounds. Automatically Appended Next Post: Nemesor Dave wrote:What you're saying is a bit like saying you have permission to chop down a forest, but no permission to chop down any tree.
Yes. If its illegal to chop down a tree and you have permission to clear a forest, it would still be illegal to chop down a tree.
It's illegal to open carry a rifle. It's legal to hunt with a rifle. If you walk down the road with a rifle, it's still illegal, even if you are going hunting with it.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Nemesor Dave wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS
It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.
Find a rule that says the allocating wounds to a unit is the same as allocaitng wounds to models. You have been asked for this a few times now, and fail to do so each time
Just this rule, and this one only. It is pointless you going further in any argument as it all hinges from that statement you are claiming exists, but have shown no proof for.
The process, which you have been permission to do, is to wound the unit. This process involves a step allocating wounds to models. You obviously can't wound a unit without wounding a model.
What you're saying is a bit like saying you have permission to chop down a forest, but no permission to chop down any tree.
Wounding a unit is a discrete step, before allocating wounds from the wound pool and populating the wound pool
What youre saying without actually saying it is that, no, you do not have an actual *rule* allowing you to do what you claim. Making your assertion " HIWPI", not actual rules.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:Sorry I can't respond to your above message, the multi-quoting and huge blocks of text make it just impossible.
Nice mocking me. Thanks for that. FYI I'm color blind and yellow on white is literally impossible for me to read.
You keep thinking I'm mocking you, but I'm not. I clicked reply, started scanning through a multi quote that had about three pages of text fit in a little reply window, and I wanted to reply to multiple lines of yours that were separated by huge blocks of my text mixed with responses to other posts too. At this point I was searching for the bits I wanted and to cut down on some of the interference from mass text and said forget it, I'll just try to summarize
Basically my response was that the sentence mentioning range also mentions LoS.
You're answering a question I didn't ask.
Nemesor Dave wrote:Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.
I asked for rules support for that assertion. The B&LB quote you keep providing like ivenever seen it before has nothing to do with this.
1. This says you may wound units out of range.
Who cares? You keep bringing up range like its relevant - remember, theres no restriction on range outside of targeting. Therefore the sentence allowing me to wound units out of range is giving me no extra permission than is already allowed in the rules.
2. We allocate these wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.
I'm not sure what you're missing here. We have our hits (under the template) and we have our wounds now applied to models.
Your step 2 ignores the rules for how to handle the wound pool when there is no line of sight to the unit. You haven't demonstrated permission to ignore that. Also, the mixed saves portion you're quoting ignores your previous argument - that you make saves and then allocate unsaved wounds. Mixed save units never allocate unsaved wounds.
You mean this line?
p. 16
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.
Yes, that is handled here:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
1. B&LB rule: You may wound the model out of line of site, and follow the normal rules
2. Normal rules: you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight. - permission to override this has been granted, see #1.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
1) Is incorrect. Again, with absolutey zero rules backing, you are equating Models with Units.
You are misquoting the rule. Dont.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:
You mean this line?
p. 16
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.
Yes, that is handled here:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
1. B&LB rule: You may wound the model out of line of site, and follow the normal rules
2. Normal rules: you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight. - permission to override this has been granted, see #1.
It's amazing how you can quote the rule correctly and then misquote it 2 lines later.
Nemesor Dave wrote:Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.
I asked for rules support for that assertion. The B&LB quote you keep providing like I've never seen it before has nothing to do with this.
And your #2 is not what I'm arguing - the wound pool is emptied when there is no LoS. You're not even allowed to attempt to allocate because as soon as you get to the allocation step with no LoS the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over. You've shown nothing that overrides that.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
nosferatu1001 wrote:1) Is incorrect. Again, with absolutey zero rules backing, you are equating Models with Units.
You are misquoting the rule. Dont.
Just to show how rediculous what you're saying is:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
Did you miss the last part? "Models locked in combat."
Models.
Now be truthful and explain your interpretation of this RAW and don't exclude how you read permission to wound "models locked in combat"
47462
Post by: rigeld2
I'm not sure what your point is there - I don't see how models and units are equated in any way with that statement. In fact, it looks like they went out of their way to say models in combat and units everywhere else.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
A parenthetical statement can be removed without altering the sentence meaning.
So, again, please find a rule saying that permission to wound a unit is permission to allocate wounds from a wound pool to models out of LOS, as you have so far entirely failed this.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:
You mean this line?
p. 16
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.
Yes, that is handled here:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
1. B&LB rule: You may wound the model out of line of site, and follow the normal rules
2. Normal rules: you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight. - permission to override this has been granted, see #1.
It's amazing how you can quote the rule correctly and then misquote it 2 lines later.
Nemesor Dave wrote:Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.
I asked for rules support for that assertion. The B&LB quote you keep providing like I've never seen it before has nothing to do with this.
And your #2 is not what I'm arguing - the wound pool is emptied when there is no LoS. You're not even allowed to attempt to allocate because as soon as you get to the allocation step with no LoS the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over. You've shown nothing that overrides that.
You need to be clearer about your assertion. Are you saying that wounding models is not part of wounding a unit?
If I start reading the BRB I see a section - Roll To Wound p. 14. This might be a hint that the section describing "wounding a unit" is starting.
1 Now it starts with a whole section about how to work out hits. The B&LB section tells how to do hits, so we know to ignore this part.
2 Now we have Wound Pool which all go in a single pool since we have a single shot.
3 Allocate Wounds p.15. That word "wounds" is a hint telling you we're still in the part of the book describing "wounding a unit".
4. Next we're at Allocate Unsaved Wounds and Remove Casualties: "Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."
There you go. We started down the "shooting/hitting to wound a unit" and have shown in detail it requires you to apply a wound to a model.
Lets step back a second and just look at "Taking Savings Throws" p. 15:
"First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page l5), for each wound being resolved."
This line must be extremely confusing to you, since units don't have savings throws, models do.
If you truthfully can't tell that permission to wound a unit includes permission to allocate a wound to a model, then understanding B&LB is not going to help you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
What planet are you on?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:You need to be clearer about your assertion. Are you saying that wounding models is not part of wounding a unit?
I'm saying that permission to wound a unit does not in and of itself grant permission to wound models in 6th edition. I've said as much throughout the thread. This isn't a new stance for me.
If I start reading the BRB I see a section - Roll To Wound p. 14. This might be a hint that the section describing "wounding a unit" is starting.
1 Now it starts with a whole section about how to work out hits. The B&LB section tells how to do hits, so we know to ignore this part.
2 Now we have Wound Pool which all go in a single pool since we have a single shot.
3 Allocate Wounds p.15. That word "wounds" is a hint telling you we're still in the part of the book describing "wounding a unit".
4. Next we're at Allocate Unsaved Wounds and Remove Casualties: "Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."
Allocating wounds and rolling to wound are separate distinct steps. One is not a subset of the other, as you seem to think they are.
This line must be extremely confusing to you, since units don't have savings throws, models do.
Wow, look! Finally something that appears to support your assertion!
Fortunately it explains that the saves are model based otherwise that would be confusing. If the save was unit based you'd have a point.
If you truthfully can't tell that permission to wound a unit includes permission to allocate a wound to a model, then understanding B&LB is not going to help you.
You're under the (mistaken) impression I don't understand B&LB. I do. I also understand that permission to do one thing does not always grant permission to do everything after that one thing.
Earth. Where is statement is true. If a sentence includes a parenthetical then you should be able to remove the parenthetical without effecting the meaning of the sentence. Simple English grammar.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:You need to be clearer about your assertion. Are you saying that wounding models is not part of wounding a unit?
I'm saying that permission to wound a unit does not in and of itself grant permission to wound models in 6th edition. I've said as much throughout the thread. This isn't a new stance for me.
If I start reading the BRB I see a section - Roll To Wound p. 14. This might be a hint that the section describing "wounding a unit" is starting.
1 Now it starts with a whole section about how to work out hits. The B&LB section tells how to do hits, so we know to ignore this part.
2 Now we have Wound Pool which all go in a single pool since we have a single shot.
3 Allocate Wounds p.15. That word "wounds" is a hint telling you we're still in the part of the book describing "wounding a unit".
4. Next we're at Allocate Unsaved Wounds and Remove Casualties: "Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."
Allocating wounds and rolling to wound are separate distinct steps. One is not a subset of the other, as you seem to think they are.
I am not saying these are a subset of each other. What I am saying is "Allocating wounds to models", and "allocating wounds to models" are a subset of "Wounding a unit".
This line must be extremely confusing to you, since units don't have savings throws, models do.
Wow, look! Finally something that appears to support your assertion!
Fortunately it explains that the saves are model based otherwise that would be confusing. If the save was unit based you'd have a point.
It explains it in the same way that it explains wounds are model based. You never actually wound a unit. Models become wounded and thereby you have wounded the unit. "You may wound this unit" grants you permission to wound models in the unit.
Earth. Where is statement is true. If a sentence includes a parenthetical then you should be able to remove the parenthetical without effecting the meaning of the sentence. Simple English grammar.
Sooo,
p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:I am not saying these are a subset of each other. What I am saying is "Allocating wounds to models", and "allocating wounds to models" are a subset of "Wounding a unit".
I don't see a "Wounding a unit" definition. Can you point out the page for me?
It explains it in the same way that it explains wounds are model based. You never actually wound a unit. Models become wounded and thereby you have wounded the unit. "You may wound this unit" grants you permission to wound models in the unit.
So you roll to wound against a model? What toughness do you use?
p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?
No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:I am not saying these are a subset of each other. What I am saying is "Allocating wounds to models", and "allocating wounds to models" are a subset of "Wounding a unit".
I don't see a "Wounding a unit" definition. Can you point out the page for me?
Certainly.
BRB p.3 Units
"A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."
English has this lingual construct where an action done to an individual of a group, may be spoken of as that action being done to the group. So to speak, if I have damaged a part a car, it is correct in English to say I have damaged the car. It is also correct to say if I have harmed a model of the unit, I have harmed the unit. You may also feel free to understand that the reverse is true also. Permission to damage the car, would mean you must also have permission to damage a part of the car. Permission to wound the unit, must include permission to wound a model of that unit.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
ND - except that they are not a subset of "wounding a unit", as "wounding a unit" is a step all by itself. You have no rule stating otherwise, and still continue to find no rule otherwise
Being told you cannot improve a save beyond 2+, without the parenthesis, does not mean your armour *save* can be 1+. the clue is the word "Save", that you ignored. Your example proved our point EXACTLY, and the fact you believe otherwise is amusing.
Edit: just seen your made up last post. Rules. Post actual rules that state that permisison to wound a unit is equivalent to permission to allocate an unsaved wound to a model. You have yet to do so.
You believe wounding a unitl is equivalent to allocating an unsaved wound to a model, and have provided no single rule to support this. Please provide one.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote:
p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?
No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.
"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 I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote: p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?
No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+." Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.
"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 I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.
Except that there is nothing stopping you from hitting or wounding your own units even if that were removed. Only targeting a unit has such a limitation.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?
No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.
"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 I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.
Correct. And yet you still have permission to do so. Odd that.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?
No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.
"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 I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.
Correct. And yet you still have permission to do so. Odd that.
So you do have permission to wound models locked in combat that are not in LoS? So your actual interpretation of the rules gets stranger. Your scattered blast may not kill models out of LoS UNLESS they are in combat.
Seriously? Automatically Appended Next Post:  A Town Called Malus wrote:Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?
No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.
"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 I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.
Except that there is nothing stopping you from hitting or wounding your own units even if that were removed. Only targeting a unit has such a limitation.
The point of contention is not hitting or wounding "units", its hitting or wounding "models". Automatically Appended Next Post: nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - except that they are not a subset of "wounding a unit", as "wounding a unit" is a step all by itself. You have no rule stating otherwise, and still continue to find no rule otherwise
Being told you cannot improve a save beyond 2+, without the parenthesis, does not mean your armour *save* can be 1+. the clue is the word "Save", that you ignored. Your example proved our point EXACTLY, and the fact you believe otherwise is amusing.
Edit: just seen your made up last post. Rules. Post actual rules that state that permisison to wound a unit is equivalent to permission to allocate an unsaved wound to a model. You have yet to do so.
You believe wounding a unitl is equivalent to allocating an unsaved wound to a model, and have provided no single rule to support this. Please provide one.
Yes, the actual rule, and I'll post it again:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
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).
A unit consists of models. Permission to wounding a unit as you know is permission to wound a model. And you have still not address the fact that regardless of your problem with the word "unit" the sentence explicitly mentions "models locked in combat".
That sentence says you may hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. This leaves you with a rather convoluted and ridiculous interpretation of RAW where only models in combat can be killed if they are out of LOS and a blast scatters onto them..
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?
No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.
"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 I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.
Correct. And yet you still have permission to do so. Odd that.
So you do have permission to wound models locked in combat that are not in LoS? So your actual interpretation of the rules gets stranger. Your scattered blast may not kill models out of LoS UNLESS they are in combat.
Seriously?
No, and that's not even what I implied.
I said you have permission to wound friendly units and units in combat even if you remove the parenthetical. Because the normal shooting rules grant that. The extra permission in B&LB is redundant.
Did you read the thread at all?
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?
No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.
"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 I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.
Correct. And yet you still have permission to do so. Odd that.
So you do have permission to wound models locked in combat that are not in LoS? So your actual interpretation of the rules gets stranger. Your scattered blast may not kill models out of LoS UNLESS they are in combat.
Seriously?
No, and that's not even what I implied.
I said you have permission to wound friendly units and units in combat even if you remove the parenthetical. Because the normal shooting rules grant that. The extra permission in B&LB is redundant.
Did you read the thread at all?
Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range. I am really seeing why this sentence has you so confused.
Breaking it down for you:
In these cases, hits are worked out as normal
In these cases, hits can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight.
In these cases, hits can hit and wound your own units out of range and line of sight.
In these cases, hits can hit and wound models locked in combat out of range and line of sight.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Nemesor Dave wrote:Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range.
No normal shooting rules do not allow you to target a unit locked in combat/out of sight and range.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Normal shooting does allow you to wound models out of range.
If a unit is in range of the firing model when the shot is declared then it is in range for the entire attack. Range has no bearing on wounding, only on targeting.
Normal shooting doesn't allow you to target units or models locked in combat. There is no restriction on hitting or wounding them.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
A Town Called Malus wrote:Normal shooting does allow you to wound models out of range.
If a unit is in range of the firing model when the shot is declared then it is in range for the entire attack. Range has no bearing on wounding, only on targeting.
Normal shooting doesn't allow you to target units or models locked in combat. There is no restriction on hitting or wounding them.
Good point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range.
No normal shooting rules do not allow you to target a unit locked in combat/out of sight and range.
True enough, but the main point is 'hitting a model in combat out of range and LoS' which I think this sentence explicitly allows.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range. I am really seeing why this sentence has you so confused.
No, seriously, I'm not confused.
You can hit and wound units out of range.
You can hit and wound units out of LoS.
You can hit and wound units in combat.
The B&LB rules don't alter any of that. You could completely ignore the sentence you keep insisting is important and it wouldn't change those 3 facts.
You have not shown permission to allocate wounds. Perhaps it's not me that's confused? Automatically Appended Next Post: Nemesor Dave wrote:True enough, but the main point is 'hitting a model in combat out of range and LoS' which I think this sentence explicitly allows.
So you agree that you can remove a parenthetical and not change the meaning of a sentence?
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range. I am really seeing why this sentence has you so confused.
No, seriously, I'm not confused.
You can hit and wound units out of range.
You can hit and wound units out of LoS.
You can hit and wound units in combat.
The B&LB rules don't alter any of that. You could completely ignore the sentence you keep insisting is important and it wouldn't change those 3 facts.
You have not shown permission to allocate wounds. Perhaps it's not me that's confused?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nemesor Dave wrote:True enough, but the main point is 'hitting a model in combat out of range and LoS' which I think this sentence explicitly allows.
So you agree that you can remove a parenthetical and not change the meaning of a sentence?
No. You missed this:
In these cases, hits can hit and wound models locked in combat out of range and line of sight.
Back to permission to allocate a wounds to a model:
An right, well allocating wounds is a step in wounding a model. Wounding a model is necessary to wound a unit.
You cannot wound a unit without wounding a model. You cannot wound a model without allocating a wound to a model.
Therefore permission to wound a unit is permission to allocate a wound to a model following the normal rules for allocating wounds.
51673
Post by: Necron123
Lucky shot
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:An right, well allocating wounds is a step in wounding a model. Wounding a model is necessary to wound a unit.
You cannot wound a unit without wounding a model. You cannot wound a model without allocating a wound to a model.
Therefore permission to wound a unit is permission to allocate a wound to a model following the normal rules for allocating wounds.
Please prove the bolded assertion.
All of what you're saying has been said in this thread. Some of it in your exact phrasing.
Serious question - have you read all 19 pages?
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:An right, well allocating wounds is a step in wounding a model. Wounding a model is necessary to wound a unit.
You cannot wound a unit without wounding a model. You cannot wound a model without allocating a wound to a model.
Therefore permission to wound a unit is permission to allocate a wound to a model following the normal rules for allocating wounds.
Please prove the bolded assertion.
All of what you're saying has been said in this thread. Some of it in your exact phrasing.
Serious question - have you read all 19 pages?
Yes, definitely, but not today and I have not memorized them nor do I plan to.
I hope it clarifies my points I have numbered them as they relate to the chain of events.
My bold assertion proven:
Firstly any correct interpretation of RAW must have a possible result. An elaborate sequence of steps regarding a major game mechanic like B&LB that has no possible result is ridiculous. Any conclusion that involves a 100% failure rate will be discarded.
1. Are we talking about a shot partially out of LoS or fully out of Los?
"Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight."
If the shot scatters "beyond LoS" this rule is regarding shots completely out of LoS. "absolutely fine" means unit "beyond LoS" can be killed.
We have permission to "wound a unit." But do we have permission to allocate wounds to models out of LoS? Lets look at how the rule tells us to proceed.
A. determine hits
We agree on this.
B. roll to wound as normal
We agree on this.
C. Out of Sight
"If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends."
2. A unit that is completely out of LoS can NEVER be the "target unit". So this rule does not even apply in this case.
D. roll to save as normal
Normally you allocate a wound to roll saves. You already accept that you must allocate wounds at this stage or the game breaks and you can't play B&LB AT ALL.
3. So you already accept an implied "allocate wounds" step for B&LB in LoS.
It is inconsistent to require an explicit "allocate wounds" step for B&LB out of LoS.
E. Allocate unsaved wounds.
"Allocate" implies a choice, but in no way have you ever been given a choice to apply a wound to any model but the exact model that failed it's save.
4. We can say we wounded the unit at (B) and at (E). To say (B) satisfies wounding the unit out of LoS and range it means we identify hits, (allocate), roll saves and allocate unsaved wounds against a unit that is invulnerable to the shot and thus is a ridiculous conclusion. That leaves permission to wound a unit must mean permission for steps (A) through (D) to actually have a chance at wounding a model.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
So I just noticed something in the Out of Sight rule on page 16 (thanks Dave fro bringing this to my attention).
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.
In other words, if a blast scatters into a different unit that is completely out of sight, all the wounds generated go to the target unit. Oops?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Nemesor Dave wrote:My bold assertion proven:
Firstly any correct interpretation of RAW must have a possible result. An elaborate sequence of steps regarding a major game mechanic like B&LB that has no possible result is ridiculous. Any conclusion that involves a 100% failure rate will be discarded.
So you're going with intent then? Awesome. We agree.
Normally you allocate a wound to roll saves. You already accept that you must allocate wounds at this stage or the game breaks and you can't play B&LB AT ALL.
When did I accept that? Because I don't think I have, and I don't agree with that.
4. We can say we wounded the unit at (B) and at (E). To say (B) satisfies wounding the unit out of LoS and range it means we identify hits, (allocate), roll saves and allocate unsaved wounds against a unit that is invulnerable to the shot and thus is a ridiculous conclusion. That leaves permission to wound a unit must mean permission for steps (A) through (D) to actually have a chance at wounding a model.
Yes, if you insert intent into how the rules read we absolutely agree. I've said as much over the last 19 pages. You're saying the rules don't work without intent. I'm saying the rules work fine, just not like the last few editions and not the way I believe the studio wants them to.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Happyjew wrote:So I just noticed something in the Out of Sight rule on page 16 (thanks Dave fro bringing this to my attention).
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.
In other words, if a blast scatters into a different unit that is completely out of sight, all the wounds generated go to the target unit. Oops?
Your overthinking this Happy. "If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model (in the target unit) , then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit."
The bold is what it should have said.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
A : "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 I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.
B: Correct. And yet you still have permission to do so. Odd that.
A : So you do have permission to wound models locked in combat that are not in LoS? So your actual interpretation of the rules gets stranger. Your scattered blast may not kill models out of LoS UNLESS they are in combat.
Seriously?
B: No, and that's not even what I implied.
I said you have permission to wound friendly units and units in combat even if you remove the parenthetical. Because the normal shooting rules grant that. The extra permission in B&LB is redundant.
Actually, you NEVER have permission to 'wound' friendly units, as you can only ever allocate wounds to ENEMY MODELS under your interpretation of the rules (see pg15, first sentence under 'allocate unsaved wounds & remove models'). But, the parenthetical statement is good enough to clear up for us that we can indeed hit and wound MODELS out of LOS in close combat.
So this leads to the incredibly stupid situation where a blast can scatter out of LOS, and it it does it can hit anything, but can only wound a model if it is an enemy model locked in close combat.
I continue to support the interpretation that the process of 'wounding unit' is not just rolling to wound but also allocating wounds to models. There is no hard definition of 'wound a unit' to disprove this statement, and seeing as the rolling to wound is useless without the ability to allocate wounds, it is a logical conclusion that the nebulous wound a unit' part is a conglomeration of both rolling and allocating.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Trasvi wrote:Actually, you NEVER have permission to 'wound' friendly units, as you can only ever allocate wounds to ENEMY MODELS under your interpretation of the rules (see pg15, first sentence under 'allocate unsaved wounds & remove models'). But, the parenthetical statement is good enough to clear up for us that we can indeed hit and wound MODELS out of LOS in close combat.
I don't have by book with me right now, so I'll give you that one. Context may prove you wrong though.
So this leads to the incredibly stupid situation where a blast can scatter out of LOS, and it it does it can hit anything, but can only wound a model if it is an enemy model locked in close combat.
Yes, sometimes the actual rules result in stupid situations. That doesn't mean the rules are wrong.
I continue to support the interpretation that the process of 'wounding unit' is not just rolling to wound but also allocating wounds to models. There is no hard definition of 'wound a unit' to disprove this statement, and seeing as the rolling to wound is useless without the ability to allocate wounds, it is a logical conclusion that the nebulous wound a unit' part is a conglomeration of both rolling and allocating.
Yes, intent is clear. It's also irrelevant.
37477
Post by: Battlesong
Ok, to the argument that "Unit =/= Models" - From the BRB P. 15: First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page l5), for each wound being resolved - does this mean that the models can't make saves since the unit has to? No, this means that the model(s) in the unit make their saves.... Cripes, this is why the Magic:The Gathering rules read like a legal document. The blast rules state that you can wound a unit that you can't see; why, in the name of all that is holy, do you think they would add this to the rules if you can't functionally wound the unit?
I'm trying to picture this: "What was that?!" "Sarge, some kind of missile just blew up right in the middle of the squad - don't worry though, none of us could see where it came from, so it was harmless"
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Battlesong wrote:Ok, to the argument that "Unit =/= Models" - From the BRB P. 15: First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page l5), for each wound being resolved - does this mean that the models can't make saves since the unit has to? No, this means that the model(s) in the unit make their saves.... Cripes, this is why the Magic:The Gathering rules read like a legal document. The blast rules state that you can wound a unit that you can't see; why, in the name of all that is holy, do you think they would add this to the rules if you can't functionally wound the unit?
Man I've got this feeling of deja vu...
Are you saying that GW has never, ever, put a rule out there that had no effect?
Yes, I agree with you about what the intent is. That doesn't change the black and white.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
rigeld2 wrote:I continue to support the interpretation that the process of 'wounding unit' is not just rolling to wound but also allocating wounds to models. There is no hard definition of 'wound a unit' to disprove this statement, and seeing as the rolling to wound is useless without the ability to allocate wounds, it is a logical conclusion that the nebulous wound a unit' part is a conglomeration of both rolling and allocating.
Yes, intent is clear. It's also irrelevant.
The reason people don't argue intent is because it is most often inferred from ideas or from the rules description rather than their mechanics. Here, there is no inference. It is clearly written as part of the rule mechanics.
However, I'm not arguing intent.
The overriding statement is that 'you can hit and wound units out of LOS'. Seeing as there is no rule telling you how to 'wound units', I interpret this as "you can hit and [roll to wound and allocate wounds to models within] units out of LOS". This gives you an overriding directive to ignore any and all references to being within range and LOS for the remainder of the resolution of the shot. That is how I see the rules as they are written.
You present an opposing but equally legitimate reading. However, your reading creates some really stupid situations, and mine does not.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Nemesor Dave wrote:My bold assertion proven:
Firstly any correct interpretation of RAW must have a possible result. An elaborate sequence of steps regarding a major game mechanic like B&LB that has no possible result is ridiculous. Any conclusion that involves a 100% failure rate will be discarded.
So you're going with intent then? Awesome. We agree.
Glad we can agree in RAI, but my focus is only RAW. I put this out there as an Occams razor of sorts, where we can distinguish between two RAW interpretations.
Normally you allocate a wound to roll saves. You already accept that you must allocate wounds at this stage or the game breaks and you can't play B&LB AT ALL.
When did I accept that? Because I don't think I have, and I don't agree with that.
If you would, please show me where in the rules for B&LB it tells you that you may allocate wounds.
"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll to wound and save as normal."
If it's not there, you must accept that you are already 'allocate wounds' at this point or the B&LB rules are unplayable by your RAW understanding.
You can't claim to be following the black and white while treating the exact same paragraph differently for units in LoS and out of Los.
4. We can say we wounded the unit at (B) and at (E). To say (B) satisfies wounding the unit out of LoS and range it means we identify hits, (allocate), roll saves and allocate unsaved wounds against a unit that is invulnerable to the shot and thus is a ridiculous conclusion. That leaves permission to wound a unit must mean permission for steps (A) through (D) to actually have a chance at wounding a model.
Yes, if you insert intent into how the rules read we absolutely agree. I've said as much over the last 19 pages. You're saying the rules don't work without intent. I'm saying the rules work fine, just not like the last few editions and not the way I believe the studio wants them to.
The rules do not work fine the way you're saying. Show me where in your strict RAW interpretation you're allowed to discard these wounds. Remember Out of Sight only refers to the "target unit". Since this example unit is completely out of LoS it will never be the target unit.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Nemesor Dave wrote:rigeld2 wrote: I'm saying the rules work fine, just not like the last few editions and not the way I believe the studio wants them to.
The rules do not work fine the way you're saying. Show me where in your strict RAW interpretation you're allowed to discard these wounds. Remember Out of Sight only refers to the "target unit". Since this example unit is completely out of LoS it will never be the target unit.
Actually, you get to allocate it to the nearest model in the target unit.
So, lets say we fire a blast weapon at a single model unit, but it scatters onto a guardsmen blob out of LOS and scores 15 hits. Can't allocate wounds onto the guardsmen, as they are out of LOS. So allocate the remaining 15 wounds on the original model..
....
61964
Post by: Fragile
Trasvi wrote:. Seeing as there is no rule telling you how to 'wound units', I interpret this as "you can hit and [roll to wound and allocate wounds to models within] units out of LOS". This gives you an overriding directive to ignore any and all references to being within range and LOS for the remainder of the resolution of the shot. That is how I see the rules as they are written.
You present an opposing but equally legitimate reading. However, your reading creates some really stupid situations, and mine does not.
The rule quite clearly tells you how to wound units. Read the shooting sequence on pg 12. Wounding a unit is step 4. Then flip to pg14 for the full version. It tells you how to populate the wound pool. Then you go to Step 5. Allocating the wounds. Note you already "wounded" the unit. Here is where you empty the pool because there is no model in LOS. pg 16.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
Fragile wrote:Trasvi wrote:. Seeing as there is no rule telling you how to 'wound units', I interpret this as "you can hit and [roll to wound and allocate wounds to models within] units out of LOS". This gives you an overriding directive to ignore any and all references to being within range and LOS for the remainder of the resolution of the shot. That is how I see the rules as they are written.
You present an opposing but equally legitimate reading. However, your reading creates some really stupid situations, and mine does not.
The rule quite clearly tells you how to wound units. Read the shooting sequence on pg 12. Wounding a unit is step 4. Then flip to pg14 for the full version. It tells you how to populate the wound pool. Then you go to Step 5. Allocating the wounds. Note you already "wounded" the unit. Here is where you empty the pool because there is no model in LOS. pg 16.
You only empty the wound pool if there are no visible models in the TARGET UNIT. We're now talking about a different unit that the marker has scattered on. Please show where you have permission to empty the wound pool for a unit that is NOT the "target unit".
If you're going to claim there's a crack in the rules that allows ridiculous scenarios (like Nyaah, can't see me so your bomb can't ricochet on me), make sure you're not being loose with the rest of your interpretation.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Rules for hitting and wounding a MODEL are in the rules, even if out of range and LOS.
1) Unit: Pg 3, 2nd column, under "Forming a Unit" '.... a single powerful model ... is also considered to be a unit in its own right.'
A single model can be a unit.
2) B&LB: Pg 33... Been quoted repeatedly.
If a single model is a unit and a unit of a single model is hit by a blast or lg blast, you roll to wound, roll to save.
3) B&LB: Pg 33, 3rd column, "wounds are then allocated on the unit...."
If there is only a single model in the unit and the unit is hit and wounded and fails it's save, the wounds must then be allocated to that model. Once the wound is rolled for that wound is, by default, placed on the single model unit.
The point of contention arises here.... wounds cannot be allocated to models that cannot be seen, but can be allocated to the unit..... which in this case is a single model.
This creates a catch22 style logic loop.
So is the single model unit wounded or not?
The rules say both.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Fragile wrote:Happyjew wrote:So I just noticed something in the Out of Sight rule on page 16 (thanks Dave fro bringing this to my attention).
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.
In other words, if a blast scatters into a different unit that is completely out of sight, all the wounds generated go to the target unit. Oops?
Your overthinking this Happy. "If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model (in the target unit) , then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit."
The bold is what it should have said.
It is what it should say but unfortunately it does not. From a strict RAW reading, you can scatter 11" into a unit you cannot see a single model of and the target unit is the one allocated the wounds.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Assuming your jumping context then yes Happy. But by context.. no. Automatically Appended Next Post: Nemesor Dave wrote:You only empty the wound pool if there are no visible models in the TARGET UNIT. We're now talking about a different unit that the marker has scattered on. Please show where you have permission to empty the wound pool for a unit that is NOT the "target unit".
If you're going to claim there's a crack in the rules that allows ridiculous scenarios (like Nyaah, can't see me so your bomb can't ricochet on me), make sure you're not being loose with the rest of your interpretation.
Read the B&LB. 4th-6th paragraphs spell it out for you.
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
Fragile wrote:Assuming your jumping context then yes Happy. But by context.. no.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nemesor Dave wrote:You only empty the wound pool if there are no visible models in the TARGET UNIT. We're now talking about a different unit that the marker has scattered on. Please show where you have permission to empty the wound pool for a unit that is NOT the "target unit".
If you're going to claim there's a crack in the rules that allows ridiculous scenarios (like Nyaah, can't see me so your bomb can't ricochet on me), make sure you're not being loose with the rest of your interpretation.
Read the B&LB. 4th-6th paragraphs spell it out for you.
We are not discussing the target unit. We're discussing another unit that the blast scattered on to. Re-read it yourself. Out of Sight only applies to the target unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Happyjew wrote:Fragile wrote:Happyjew wrote:So I just noticed something in the Out of Sight rule on page 16 (thanks Dave fro bringing this to my attention).
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.
In other words, if a blast scatters into a different unit that is completely out of sight, all the wounds generated go to the target unit. Oops?
Your overthinking this Happy. "If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model (in the target unit) , then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit."
The bold is what it should have said.
It is what it should say but unfortunately it does not. From a strict RAW reading, you can scatter 11" into a unit you cannot see a single model of and the target unit is the one allocated the wounds.
Actually from a strict RAW reading, in context the subject is the Target Unit. It's re-stated in the end, but it's quite alright for the rule not to say " from the target unit" every single time it mentions a model. At least this is how I understand that sentence. In any case in no way, contextually or otherwise does it mention a unit that is not the 'target unit'.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Your deliberately ignoring the context of "hits are worked out as normal'.... "roll saves as normal"..... "allocate wounds as normal."
37477
Post by: Battlesong
I just thought of the other issues that arise from this: Astral Aim and Impaler Cannons (or anything that doesn't require LOS, but these were the only 2 that I could think of atm). So, following the logic here, these abilities also cannot wound any model that they use their specific rules to shoot at, because while you can TARGET a unit not in LOS, there is no way to allocate wounds to the unit that you shot at.
Here's illogical reasoning part 2. If I fire a Vindicator at a unit, but say scatter 9" behind a building on top of a Chimera and some IG, I can certainly damage the Chimera (because you don't wound vehicles) but those guardsmen are a-ok
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Battlesong wrote:I just thought of the other issues that arise from this: Astral Aim and Impaler Cannons (or anything that doesn't require LOS, but these were the only 2 that I could think of atm). So, following the logic here, these abilities also cannot wound any model that they use their specific rules to shoot at, because while you can TARGET a unit not in LOS, there is no way to allocate wounds to the unit that you shot at.
Absolutely correct. And if you'll read the thread I was one of the first to bring that up.
Here's illogical reasoning part 2. If I fire a Vindicator at a unit, but say scatter 9" behind a building on top of a Chimera and some IG, I can certainly damage the Chimera (because you don't wound vehicles) but those guardsmen are a-ok
Wrong. Wounds and penetrating/glancing hits are equivilant.
61964
Post by: Fragile
You can make an argument for weapons that state they ignore LOS to wound, but there are other threads on that.
Here's illogical reasoning part 2. If I fire a Vindicator at a unit, but say scatter 9" behind a building on top of a Chimera and some IG, I can certainly damage the Chimera (because you don't wound vehicles) but those guardsmen are a-ok
Well if someone fired an RPG at me, I would certainly dive behind a tank for cover
53428
Post by: Nemesor Dave
rigeld2 wrote: Battlesong wrote:I just thought of the other issues that arise from this: Astral Aim and Impaler Cannons (or anything that doesn't require LOS, but these were the only 2 that I could think of atm). So, following the logic here, these abilities also cannot wound any model that they use their specific rules to shoot at, because while you can TARGET a unit not in LOS, there is no way to allocate wounds to the unit that you shot at.
Absolutely correct. And if you'll read the thread I was one of the first to bring that up.
Here's illogical reasoning part 2. If I fire a Vindicator at a unit, but say scatter 9" behind a building on top of a Chimera and some IG, I can certainly damage the Chimera (because you don't wound vehicles) but those guardsmen are a-ok
Wrong. Wounds and penetrating/glancing hits are equivilant.
So B&LB that don't require LOS are definitely screwed by the RAW. Those wounds are plainly discarded at the Out of Sight step. It's a shame really, like they blindly just said - ok do it like normal shooting. This needs an errata.
I have shown that the normal B&LB shot that hits it's target also has no permission to allocate wounds to models - feel free to point out something I've missed. If you require an explicit step that tells you to 'allocate wounds to models' then the B&LB rules are broken and unplayable by RAW. If you believe it's implied for shots that hit, then it's implied for shots that scatter using the same RAW and there is no problem hitting, wounding and killing models out of LoS and range with a scattered blast according to RAW.
|
|
