Here is an interesting situation:

Lets say typical Blood Angels player is hiding a squad of Assault Marines behind a predator, out of line of sight.

Enemy marine player has a devastator squad that can see the predator but cannot see the assault marines behind it.

Enemy marine player fires plasma cannons at the predator hoping to glance it to death, plasma cannon scatters onto the assault marines behind the predator.

Rule book says page 33:, blast weapons can hit and would other models out of line of sight and range if it scatters.

Rule book also says, once hits and wounds are resolved, allocate them as per a normal shooting attack.

Normal shooting attacks, cannot be allocated to models out of line of sight.

So the question is: Do you hit, roll to wound as normal, but cannot allocate to the Assault marines? so nothing dies?

Or do the marines still get boned by the plasma cannon?

EDIT: BEFORE POSTING: Please read -
Page 16 of rulebook - wound allocation to models out of line of sight
Page 33 of rulebook - blast weapons

Marines get boned, but they certainly get cover.

The blast rules make it clear. Those boys get a poor cover save and burn.

Actually if you look under blast templates specifically in the barrage explanations I believe, It states that LoS and cover saves are taken from the hole of the blast marker. IE if they aren't in area terrain or something, they don't even gain the cover save.

icefire78 wrote:Actually if you look under blast templates specifically in the barrage explanations I believe, It states that LoS and cover saves are taken from the hole of the blast marker. IE if they aren't in area terrain or something, they don't even gain the cover save.

Where is that?

give me a sec will get a page number up. We came across it while trying to figure out if indirect fire scatters on a hit. Oddly enough it doesn't now

icefire78 wrote:Actually if you look under blast templates specifically in the barrage explanations I believe, It states that LoS and cover saves are taken from the hole of the blast marker. IE if they aren't in area terrain or something, they don't even gain the cover save.

This is true of barrage weapons, but not all blast weapons.

-Normal blast weapons require line of sight from the shooter and grant cover to match.

-Barrage weapons don't require line of sight (though you don't reduce scatter by your BS if you don't have LoS) and cover is determined from the hole of the blast marker, like he said.

In this hypothetical case, the weapons being used are plasma cannons, which are normal blast, meaning that the assault marines are indeed hit, and get a cover save, likely 4+ I'd say.

Sorry, the wound coming from the hole only applies to barrage weapons, still quite a bonus for guardsmen. Exactly Leonus

Assault marines are safe. If the cannon touches 5, you'd roll to wound. Then you cannot apply any wounds as none of the marines are in line of sight.

You fullfilled all the rules. Hits are properly counted, rolls to wound are made, and none are applied, as per line of sight and wounding rules.

So what does that out of LOS blasts do?
Lets say you have 15 orks hiding behind a trukk. 10 are totally out of sight, and 5 can be seen. Plasma Cannon shot scatters out of LOS and touches 7 orks.
7 rolls to wound are made, and the wound pool is applied as normal to the closest model in line of sight.
With the majority of the unit behind an interveining unit (trukk) the boyz would get a 5+ cover, unless plasma cannon had declared focus fire on boyz in the open.

Even though the template "Hit" models out of sight, the wounds are still processed as normal.



Barrage weapons, on the other hand, force wounds to be applied closest to the center hole, and do not require LOS.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
With the majority of the unit behind an interveining unit (trukk) the boyz would get a 5+ cover, unless plasma cannon had declared focus fire on boyz in the open.

Even though the template "Hit" models out of sight, the wounds are still processed as normal.

No more majority cover in 6th edition, each model's cover is determined individually.

So, hitting seven orks out of LOS results in the five orks in the open dying without a cover save.

Hawaii - you have permission to wound models out of LOS, if the blast scatters.

Actually nos, since you allocate wounds as normal, per the normal Shooting rules, once a unit is no longer in LoS, any remaining Wounds are lost. So if the unit is completely out of LoS, a scattered blast technically cannot wound the unit. Unless it is a barrage weapon of course.

It specifically states under the Blast rules that it can scatter beyong the weapons maximum range or minimum range and line of sight. It goes on to state that "In these cases, hits are worked out as normal AND CAN HIT AND WOUND UNITS OUT OF RANGE AND LINE OF SIGHT. (first paragraph on upper right corner of p.33)

Its clear. If it scatters out of LoS, treat it exactly as you would as if you had LoS, and it's also clear that since it states it CAN wound, then they overwrite the normal rules for shooting where you DO need to be in LoS. Its clearly an exception for Blasts type weapons.

Tjolle79 wrote:It specifically states under the Blast rules that it can scatter beyong the weapons maximum range or minimum range and line of sight. It goes on to state that "In these cases, hits are worked out as normal AND CAN HIT AND WOUND UNITS OUT OF RANGE AND LINE OF SIGHT. (first paragraph on upper right corner of p.33)

Its clear. If it scatters out of LoS, treat it exactly as you would as if you had LoS, and it's also clear that since it states it CAN wound, then they overwrite the normal rules for shooting where you DO need to be in LoS. Its clearly an exception for Blasts type weapons.

Except that the rest of the rule reads:
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.

So how do you allocate wounds to a unit using the normal shooting attack rules?
Apply them to the closest model in line of sight. Once all models in line of sight are dead, the rest are lost.

All the blast rules allow for is hits to be generated on models not in sight, but failed saves are applied as normal to models in line of sight. The blast rules do not tell you to resolve the wounds against the models under the blast. It tells you to roll to wound and save as normal, and apply wounds as if normal shooting.

-Matt

Line of sight only applies to hitting. Once you are hit wounding has nothing to do with los.

Captain Antivas wrote:Line of sight only applies to hitting. Once you are hit wounding has nothing to do with los.

False. Read the 6th edition wound allocation rules please.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Tjolle79 wrote:It specifically states under the Blast rules that it can scatter beyong the weapons maximum range or minimum range and line of sight. It goes on to state that "In these cases, hits are worked out as normal AND CAN HIT AND WOUND UNITS OUT OF RANGE AND LINE OF SIGHT. (first paragraph on upper right corner of p.33)

Its clear. If it scatters out of LoS, treat it exactly as you would as if you had LoS, and it's also clear that since it states it CAN wound, then they overwrite the normal rules for shooting where you DO need to be in LoS. Its clearly an exception for Blasts type weapons.

Except that the rest of the rule reads:
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.

So how do you allocate wounds to a unit using the normal shooting attack rules?
Apply them to the closest model in line of sight. Once all models in line of sight are dead, the rest are lost.

All the blast rules allow for is hits to be generated on models not in sight, but failed saves are applied as normal to models in line of sight. The blast rules do not tell you to resolve the wounds against the models under the blast. It tells you to roll to wound and save as normal, and apply wounds as if normal shooting.

-Matt

Matt,

I totally agree with your assessment except for the fact that GW wrote that blasts that scatter can hit and wound UNITS (not models) out of line of sight.

Shooting attacks cannot normally hit or wound units completely out of line of sight, so once that restriction out of the window I think you have to allow it.

IMHO, the rule does not have a clear RAW path to follow for the reasons you highlighted. Therefore my 'best guess' house rule is as follows:

Blasts that are on target (don't scatter) follow all the normal rules for casualty removal.
Blasts that scatter, but end up hitting units that are still within range & LOS of the firing unit are still resolved normally, allocating wounds to models in the target unit that are within LOS of at least one firing model.
Blasts that scatter and end up hitting units completely out of range & LOS of the firing unit are resolved as normal, but ignoring the usual restrictions for range & LOS.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Tjolle79 wrote:It specifically states under the Blast rules that it can scatter beyong the weapons maximum range or minimum range and line of sight. It goes on to state that "In these cases, hits are worked out as normal AND CAN HIT AND WOUND UNITS OUT OF RANGE AND LINE OF SIGHT. (first paragraph on upper right corner of p.33)

Its clear. If it scatters out of LoS, treat it exactly as you would as if you had LoS, and it's also clear that since it states it CAN wound, then they overwrite the normal rules for shooting where you DO need to be in LoS. Its clearly an exception for Blasts type weapons.

Except that the rest of the rule reads:
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.

So how do you allocate wounds to a unit using the normal shooting attack rules?
Apply them to the closest model in line of sight. Once all models in line of sight are dead, the rest are lost.

All the blast rules allow for is hits to be generated on models not in sight, but failed saves are applied as normal to models in line of sight. The blast rules do not tell you to resolve the wounds against the models under the blast. It tells you to roll to wound and save as normal, and apply wounds as if normal shooting.

-Matt

The normal shooting rules for to-hit and to wound as that you compare S vs T (usually) and AP vs Save etc. After that you allocate wounds. NORMALLY you cant allocate wounds to models that are not in LoS from the firing model. The Blast weapon specifically states that you CAN wound them even though they're not in LoS. This clearly states that the usual restriction of wound allocations for models outside of LoS is ignored.

Some people are confusing blasts with barrages... Plasma cannons are a direct fire weapon that explodes, not a manticore that drops missiles from the sky.

It is failry clear which is which in the rule book and in the OP.

Jacko4smackos wrote:Some people are confusing blasts with barrages... Plasma cannons are a direct fire weapon that explodes, not a manticore that drops missiles from the sky.

The information listed by Tjolle is straight from the Blasts section of the rules. Not barrage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:Line of sight only applies to hitting. Once you are hit wounding has nothing to do with los.

False. Read the 6th edition wound allocation rules please.

I should rephrase. Since the rules for Blasts says that it can hit and wound units out of LOS then wounding has nothing to do with LOS anymore.

Wounding happens before saves are taken, and successful wounding puts dice into the wounding pool.
Below is a little lengthy, but I think it's right.
I've numbered the steps to keep the sequence strait and make it easy to reference how blasts interact with normal shooting rules.
Please point out where in the process I've mistaken, if I'm wrong, because this seems to make sense.


Let me walk through the shooting process, now that I'm at home with my rulebook. This is basic shooting process.

Starting on page 12.
1) Who can shoot. (can't run or be in melee)
2) Line of sight, one model in the firing unit must be able to see at least 1 enemy in the target unit.
3)In Range
4)Which MODELS can fire, those in range and LoS.
5) Roll to hit.
6) Roll to Wound.
7) Wounding pool; group successful wounds into pools based on AP, Strength and Special Rules (like instant Death).
8) Allocate Wounds and remove casualties.
8a Take saves
8b Apply Failed Saves to closest model
8c Remove models

Ok, that takes us up to page 15.

Then we get a curve ball on 16.
OUT OF SIGHT: If nobody in the shooting unit can see a model, you can't allocate wounds to him. If you can't see any remaining models, the remaining wounds in the wound pool (My #7) are lost.

So where do blasts influence this normal process?
Page33
On a scatter that goes out of line of sight, can hit and wound models out of line of sight (normally disallowed in step 2).
Then it says For each model partially or fully under the template the unit suffers 1 hit (which replaces the normal process for 5).
Once the number of hits as been worked out, roll to wound and save as normal, so Steps 6,7 and 8 would process normally.
The scatter tells us we get hits not normally allowed, and once they are generated, we then apply them as normal.

If you apply wounds as normal, you'll be discarding the remaining wound pool once no models in the shooting unit can draw line of sight to models in the target unit.



-Matt

What would be the point of saying blast weapons can hit units out of line of sight if they cannot wound them? Don't try to rules lawyer so hard. If it can hit units out of sight obviously (a rare case where "obviously" is not an exaggeration) it is supposed to be able to wound said units.
Have fun trying to pull this stuff during an actual game. You'll run out of friends real quick.

It says you get hits AND wounds not normally allowed in the Normal method for allocating wounds. You can't choose 1 part of the rule to interpret then go on and quote rules and factor in things like LoS since its no longer valid, because its cancelled out by the Blast rule. Which is why im done with this discussion from now on.

Tjolle79 wrote:It says you get hits AND wounds not normally allowed in the Normal method for allocating wounds. You can't choose 1 part of the rule to interpret then go on and quote rules and factor in things like LoS since its no longer valid, because its cancelled out by the Blast rule. Which is why im done with this discussion from now on.

You're missing the Blast special rules:
"Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon'smaximum or minimum range and line of sight. [Snip fluff]. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight." (pg 33)
I do realise that Blasts has the "Any unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack." (pg 33) in the end, but the previous paragraph obviously does override the 'Wounds can only be allocated to models in LOS' part of the normal shooting rules, assuming that the blast scatters.

Fafnir13 wrote:What would be the point of saying blast weapons can hit units out of line of sight if they cannot wound them? Don't try to rules lawyer so hard. If it can hit units out of sight obviously (a rare case where "obviously" is not an exaggeration) it is supposed to be able to wound said units.
Have fun trying to pull this stuff during an actual game. You'll run out of friends real quick.

Ah yes, outlining rules and asking for where I've made a mistake is "rules lawyering".

So how does a plasma cannon kill something THAT THE PLASMA CANNOT SEE?
Easy.
Line of sight from the shooter is determined model by model.
The wounding pool is assigned by line of sight from my whole unit.

Example 1
Lets say you have a company command squad, hiding behind a chimmera.
Lets say I have a devistator squad with a plasma cannon in a ruin, with the plasma cannon on the base floor, and bolter marines on the 2nd and 3rd story.
My plasma shot scatters behind the chimmera and tags the company command, outside of the plasma cannons range and line of sight.
Hits are generate, rolls are made to wound, as per blast rules.
Models in my unit can see your company command, so the wounding pool is fully used. The devistator marine in the top story is coordinating the shots to his squadmates below.

Example 2
Company command 2.0 is afraid of getting PC'd to death. They get out the back of the chimmera, using it to block line of sight to the base level of the ruins where the cannons are dug in.
The Company command unloads a hail of plasma fire from the 4 plasmaguns and kill off the marines on the upper floors (as the lower floor models cannot be seen, and cannot be allocated to).
Chimmera dumps in it's 6 shots for good measure.
Marines return firing, with a plasma cannon shot scattering out of sight and onto the company command. With no devistator being able to draw line of sight, the wound pool is dumped.

Tactically, being large and spread out gives you a better kill box.
But, being large and spread out lets opponents snipe off portions of your unit with line of sight blocking tactics.

You are specifically told you can wound (little w) units out of LOS, meaning you DO have permission to cause a model out of LOS to be "wounded" - meaning a wound being allocated.

....................... o o o O O O O
...................... o o o o O O O
............. ____________
............. | |
............. | ___________|



....................................() () ()

o and O are the unit being shot at
() are the unit shooting
___
|___| line of site blocking, eg, tank

Say the shot scatters off the tank and hits all unit members 'o'. Usually, the blast wouldn't hit anuone out of LOS, but because of the blast rules. we are allowed to hit and wound. If all wounds are successful, we then allocate the wounds that we were allowed to cause onto the models closedt and in line of sight, so all the unit members O will be removed

Now look at this case

..............o o o o o
................o o o o o
.............. ____________
............. | |
............. | ___________|


.......................() () ()

Say the blast scatters and hits 5 models, we roll to wound and all are succesful, we are only allowed to roll to wound because of the blast rules as they are out of LOS. We then follow normal wound allocation, we have been allowed to wound the models, but the wound caused must still go to modeld in LOS, there are none so although wounds are caused, no wounds are allocated

I would say the being able to hit/wound models out of line of sight dealing with units with both models in and out of LOS. You can hit the models out of LOS, but the models in LOS die, if there are no models in LOS, no one dies

EDIT: Not the best diagrams but you should get the idea :/

interesting discussion, seems like there is no clear answer yet

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Fafnir13 wrote:What would be the point of saying blast weapons can hit units out of line of sight if they cannot wound them? Don't try to rules lawyer so hard. If it can hit units out of sight obviously (a rare case where "obviously" is not an exaggeration) it is supposed to be able to wound said units.
Have fun trying to pull this stuff during an actual game. You'll run out of friends real quick.

Ah yes, outlining rules and asking for where I've made a mistake is "rules lawyering".

So how does a plasma cannon kill something THAT THE PLASMA CANNOT SEE?
Easy.
Line of sight from the shooter is determined model by model.
The wounding pool is assigned by line of sight from my whole unit.

Example 1
Lets say you have a company command squad, hiding behind a chimmera.
Lets say I have a devistator squad with a plasma cannon in a ruin, with the plasma cannon on the base floor, and bolter marines on the 2nd and 3rd story.
My plasma shot scatters behind the chimmera and tags the company command, outside of the plasma cannons range and line of sight.
Hits are generate, rolls are made to wound, as per blast rules.
Models in my unit can see your company command, so the wounding pool is fully used. The devistator marine in the top story is coordinating the shots to his squadmates below.

Example 2
Company command 2.0 is afraid of getting PC'd to death. They get out the back of the chimmera, using it to block line of sight to the base level of the ruins where the cannons are dug in.
The Company command unloads a hail of plasma fire from the 4 plasmaguns and kill off the marines on the upper floors (as the lower floor models cannot be seen, and cannot be allocated to).
Chimmera dumps in it's 6 shots for good measure.
Marines return firing, with a plasma cannon shot scattering out of sight and onto the company command. With no devistator being able to draw line of sight, the wound pool is dumped.

Tactically, being large and spread out gives you a better kill box.
But, being large and spread out lets opponents snipe off portions of your unit with line of sight blocking tactics.

What you are not taking into account is that the shot missed its intended target and hit something else. It can.cause wounds because the huge ball of burning plasma went over the Chimera and landed behind it in the middle of the Company Command. You don't have to be able to see something to be able to kill it by accident with a scattering explosion. What would be the point of being able to hit and wound a unit outside of LOS if you then can't allocate wounds to the part you can't see? If you have to have LOS to allocate a wound how do you wound a unit ignoring LOS like the rules say you can do?

So am I the only one that feels you should just use comon sense in non-tourney games? When in any reality will a direct fire missile go directly towards a target only making a 90 degree turn at the last second to hit guys behind a wall? Roll your hits and wounds for those under the template but if I can't see you then you aren't dead. Thats how I will be playing it and my gaming group agrees.

It enables you "to wound" models out of LoS which you normally cant. One important part of the "to wound" process from the normal rules is allocating those wounds to models. Normally you cant allocate wounds to models out of LoS as they would then be lost, but since Blasts enables you to do so you can.

Isn't allocating wounds a different stage to actually wounding, just as to hit is seperate to wound .... I may be wrong though

If you take the kill models not in line of sight approach, then:

Plasma cannon hits 5 assault marines behind a land raider. All get hit and wounded. Save? AP2 ignores armor. Cover save? Nope.
RAW: Models Partially obscured from view from interveining models get a 5+ cover save.
The Assault squad is not partially obscured from view, it is totally obscured, and by RAW, no cover save.

"Roll To Wound" and "Allocate Wounds" are separate steps. But the rule says "And can hit and wound units out of sight". Problem is that "wound units" is not defined game term.

If we interpret "can hit units" as "can cause unit to suffer hits" and "can wound units" as "can cause unit to suffer wounds" then it's obvious that scattered Blasts will allow 'normal' wound allocation (except for the "Out of Sight" part of the wound allocation rules).

RAI is blindingly obvious in this case and I think RAW supports RAI.

roland9382 wrote:So am I the only one that feels you should just use comon sense in non-tourney games? When in any reality will a direct fire missile go directly towards a target only making a 90 degree turn at the last second to hit guys behind a wall? Roll your hits and wounds for those under the template but if I can't see you then you aren't dead. Thats how I will be playing it and my gaming group agrees.

Really, you're gonna throw in "How it would be in real life" in GW rules? Ok. then we do, as per GW standard some fluffing to make the rules look more realistic. It's not a problem in Warhammer games to do this.

The shot was fired at a wrong angle. the shot missed completely and went into a ruined wall. As it turns out the wall they took as shelter wasn't built to take a direct hit from a plasma cannon. The shot ripped out a hole in the wall, spraying the people behind it with plasma and molten rock fragments. The shelter still stands, but you may not want to poke your head through the hole that was just hurled in the form of liquid concrete at you.

A little bit of imagination and your "reality" discussions are always nullified.

Do you know what one of the first things I learned in the army was? Bullets don't kill nearly as many people in war as shrapnel does.

roland9382 wrote:So am I the only one that feels you should just use comon sense in non-tourney games? When in any reality will a direct fire missile go directly towards a target only making a 90 degree turn at the last second to hit guys behind a wall? Roll your hits and wounds for those under the template but if I can't see you then you aren't dead. Thats how I will be playing it and my gaming group agrees.

Are you actually suggesting that a brick wall could stand up to an explosion that is described as similar to a small sun...besides where does it say that it makes a 90 degree turn at the end?

So back on topic, so once the blast hits and wounds I then have to allocate those wounds starting from the closest model in LoS. If I have say 10 marines, 1 is visible. I score 5 wounds with the plasma cannon.

I allocate to the visible one first, as per a normal shooting attack I cannot allocate the rest Of the wounds and the wound pool is lost.

However the rules says we are able to hit and wound models out of Los and range with blasts, whether or not this means allocating wounds or simply just rolling to wound is the argument here

Arn't you suppost to allocate wounds suffered from blast weapons to models under the blast template?
I may be thinking of another entery entirely but it would solve this problem.

Doomhunter, that only applies to barrage weapons, not normal blast or template ones.

Edited to remove the shame of my mistake.

Leonus wrote:
Actually, the wound allocation section never mentions line of sight.

Page 16 disagress with you.

-Matt

Oh man, my bad. I totally didn't turn the page. x_x

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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are specifically told you can wound (little w) units out of LOS, meaning you DO have permission to cause a model out of LOS to be "wounded" - meaning a wound being allocated.

Citation please.

If you cannot allocate a wound to a model, it cannot be wounded/become a casualty.

Blasts cannot allocate wounds to models out of line of sight, per reference of rules on page 16.



The Blast rules give permission to use models out of line of sight that have fallen under a scattered template to calculate wounds for the wound pool. Blast rules then state wound allocation is done as normal, meaning you allocate wounds/make saves until the wound pool is exhausted or the remaining models are all out of line of sight of the firer.

Welcome to 6th ed, where you cannot kill models out of line of sight, and cannot charge units out of line of sight. Exception: Indirect fire.

Nice to see you clearly wrong about something for once.

Not wrong.

You have been told the unit CAN be wounded, meaning a wound has permission to be allocated. If you fail to allocate a wound, you have broken the rule allowing the unit to be wounded [which has a prerequisite of allocation]

If you can be wounded, that is permission to BE wounded which requires allocation being allowed.

Nothing you stated is different to the other pages on this. I just differ on that when it says units out of LOS can be wounded, that means you must be able to be allocated to - if not you cannot be wounded, and the rule has stated that this is possible.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are specifically told you can wound (little w) units out of LOS, meaning you DO have permission to cause a model out of LOS to be "wounded" - meaning a wound being allocated.

Citation please.

If you cannot allocate a wound to a model, it cannot be wounded/become a casualty.

Blasts cannot allocate wounds to models out of line of sight, per reference of rules on page 16.

The Blast rules give permission to use models out of line of sight that have fallen under a scattered template to calculate wounds for the wound pool. Blast rules then state wound allocation is done as normal, meaning you allocate wounds/make saves until the wound pool is exhausted or the remaining models are all out of line of sight of the firer.

Welcome to 6th ed, where you cannot kill models out of line of sight, and cannot charge units out of line of sight. Exception: Indirect fire.

Nice to see you clearly wrong about something for once.

The only question I have for you is why does the Blast special rule specifically say I can wound models out of LOS if I can't allocate wounds to them? Being able to wound is predicated by its ability to have a wound allocated to it.

You are simply misunderstanding a couple of things. The purpose of the wounds only allocated to models you can see applies to shooting at things. It made no sense in 5th ed that models from behind a rock could be killed because they replace the units who got shot. It just makes no sense. Now it does. If you are hiding behind a rock you cannot be shot at or have wounds allocated to you. But, this is not that situation. Notice the blast rules say that you can hit and wound models out of LOS if it scattered. So they still have the rule in place that if you can't see it you can't allocate a wound to it, but if your shot misses its target then you can hit and wound models out of LOS. You cannot target a unit you can't see, but a blast can be scattered over a unit you cannot see. You still determine cover saves from the position of the firing unit, which of course implies that you can wound since cover saves can only be taken when wounds are allocated to you.

The point is that the explosion caused by the weapon is caused even if the firing unit cannot see you. Are you really suggesting that an exploding ball of plasma doesn't explode simply because the firer can't see you? Units out of LOS can be wounded, and since they can be wounded they can have wounds allocated to them. Generally a model out of LOS can't have a wound allocated to it, but the specific blast rules override that limitation.

" Generally a model out of LOS can't have a wound allocated to it, but the specific blast rules override that limitation."



Where does it say this???

Warlord Sniksgraga wrote:
" Generally a model out of LOS can't have a wound allocated to it, but the specific blast rules override that limitation."
Where does it say this???

The limitation is on page 16. Overriding the limitation is on page 33.Both rules have been quoted with page refences in this thread already.
Question like this just proves you haven't actually read the thread.

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.

Following the rules is not rules lawyering. (And even if it were, THIS IS YMDC! It's all about rules.) Interestingly, I find people like you cheesing to save their troops from legit hits to be ruining the game.
If you don't want to follow the rules, then never mind buying the rulebook. Just set your figurines up and say they like totally shot those other guys and now they are dead.

Landraider, the hit blew apart a wall to the right of the landraider. Shrapnel went 90 degrees from where the shot hit.
Landraider, the shot hit under the landraider, spraying shrapnel from the ground up and out the back of the raider. Freak accident.

And that's exactly what hits like these are. Freak accidents. You just want the unlikely to be impossible.

I enjoy games where the unlikely happens. I find them much better in the Forging the Narrative sense.

Oh i get it so your freak accident caused S10 ap2 demolisher shrapnel to pepper my guys? That definitely makes more sense. As stated above the new thing in this edition is creating a "wound pool" that you take wounds out of as model die or make saves, being able to wound models out of sight means that you add to this pool, just like in regular shooting though you can only allocate these wound on models that arent completely blocked from you view by say, an entire building, a tank etc. In essence this gives you a greater chance to smash whatever models in that unit are actually in your line of site. The other option is giving the guy a ridiculous cover save as you have to blow an entire building down in an attempt to wound guys you cant see, or blow completely through a tank. Last time i checked if you shoot a rocket, or fill in the blank and it was to hit a building or a tank it will explode. I will follow your rules as long as you arent taking your full strength full ap for "shrapnel" hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. Yes this is you make da call but if you don't read the rules in their entirety and also take into account context then yes you are just picking apart the rules in hopes of abusing them.

roland9382 wrote:Oh i get it so your freak accident caused S10 ap2 demolisher shrapnel to pepper my guys? That definitely makes more sense. As stated above the new thing in this edition is creating a "wound pool" that you take wounds out of as model die or make saves, being able to wound models out of sight means that you add to this pool, just like in regular shooting though you can only allocate these wound on models that arent completely blocked from you view by say, an entire building, a tank etc. In essence this gives you a greater chance to smash whatever models in that unit are actually in your line of site. The other option is giving the guy a ridiculous cover save as you have to blow an entire building down in an attempt to wound guys you cant see, or blow completely through a tank. Last time i checked if you shoot a rocket, or fill in the blank and it was to hit a building or a tank it will explode. I will follow your rules as long as you arent taking your full strength full ap for "shrapnel" hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. Yes this is you make da call but if you don't read the rules in their entirety and also take into account context then yes you are just picking apart the rules in hopes of abusing them.

The blast marker is exactly what it is: where the explosion happened. If whatever it was that exploded did not explode on the Landraider but rolled under it and exploded in your unit's faces then yes it does hit your unit with its full impact. If it scattered through a building then it flew through the windows and landed in front of you. It is a miss. Stop trying to justify it as if it hit the Landraider first then ignores the Landraider and kills your other unit instead. It missed the Landraider completely and hit your unit. Therefore I can wound them. I don't care how or why it didn't hit the Landraider, the bottom line is it didn't.

I dont justify it as ignoring the landraider, as the marker didnt land on your intended target it glanced off it at a weird angle or had a bad fuse, there are any number of explainations for that. It says that weird occurances do happen in the blast rules but it also says you remove models as per normal shooting rules which means whats in line of sight in the unit you are shooting at. This is not 5th edition people, I know some things are new and possibly dissappointing but it is what it is. In the spirit of the game just discuss with your opponent before hand and figure out how you wanna play it, last I checked most people in this hobby are pretty flexible as you can interpret rules in many ways.

roland9382 wrote:I dont justify it as ignoring the landraider, as the marker didnt land on your intended target it glanced off it at a weird angle or had a bad fuse, there are any number of explainations for that. It says that weird occurances do happen in the blast rules but it also says you remove models as per normal shooting rules which means whats in line of sight in the unit you are shooting at.

You should really read the rules again. Especially Universal Special Rules, Blast & Large Blast, page 33.

Rulebook page 33 wrote: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. [Snip fluff explanations] In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight

roland9382 wrote:being able to wound models out of sight means that you add to this pool, just like in regular shooting though you can only allocate these wound on models that arent completely blocked from you view by say, an entire building, a tank etc.

That doesn't match at all with the explanation the rulebook gives. That's your very contrived interpretation where you just dismiss a part of the rulebook becauyse it is only explaning.

This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events

According to your definition it only basts through the cover on the people not in the cover. The RAI is pretty obvious here to anyone that isn't trying to bend the rules to their own ends. And it goes in stark contrast with your opinion.
Your idea of how it works has the wounding and wound allocation being completely contradictory in their logic. It would make no sense to make a rule so contradictory to itself.

The problem is the wording of the rule:
"...can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight..."
and then:
"...unsaved Wounds are allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack."

It seems to me, that although you can hit and wound a unit completely out of line of sight, you then allocate wounds as normal, starting with the closest model in line of sight. Once there are no more models in line of sight, any remaining wounds are lost. Of course this is definitely not how I would play it. As far as I am concerned, (RAW or not) things that can hit a unit out of LoS (i.e. Impaler Cannon) can wound said unit, ignoring the normal LoS restriction.

Normal wound allocation states that you apply wounds to the closest models first until they are reduced to 0 wounds, then continue to allocate wounds. This is covered in the Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties section. The next section is Out of Range. This says that any model found to be out of range is not hurt. Does this mean that a plasma cannon shot at a Landraider 48" away that scattered 4" away from the Devastators who shot it cannot hit the unit because it is now 52" away? No. Why? The rule for Blasts says you can hit it. So then it says you cannot normally allocate wounds to a unit out of LOS? So can you not allocate wounds to them because you are out of LOS? No, because the rule says you can wound units out of LOS.

I have a skill on my purgators called Astral aim. The rule says:

the unit (and any accompanying character chosen from
Codex: Grey Knights) can shoot at any enemy unit within
range, even if they do not have line of sight to it.

It doesn't say the wound allocation is changed in any way from normal.

So, anyone against applying wounds that scatter, are you of the opinion that my Astral Aim is a skill that effectively does absolutely nothing (except give me a chance to get perils of the warp) since I can shoot at people out of LOS, sure, but I can't apply any wounds to them!

RAW, Purifier, yes, Astral Aim does nothing. THere are other weapons and abilities that can shoot units that are completely out of LoS, i.e. Impaler Cannon and Template weapons.

The part your skipping over in the models outside los part is the removing of models after failed saves, which it clearly states is done with the models in your line of sight, and once your out of those then the wound pool is lost. Normal shooting rules. You hit and wound models out of line of sight, roll saves then remove models till you can no longer see a model.The issue being argued is models clearly out of sight due to cover, not in los but out of weapon range. Pretty simple. People keep saying it and you guys keep denying it, see a pattern? And please dont bring up weapons like the impaler as it isnt a blast. We are talking about weapons that fire in a direct line. Astral aim is a rule from your codex, as you have no blast weapons then it doesnt really apply to this argument. Also if i remember correctly doesnt that cause your rounds to circumvent cover?

If you look at my last post I was not arguing for or against either side. I simply made an observation, and then stated HIWPI, regardless of RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have been told the unit CAN be wounded, meaning a wound has permission to be allocated. If you fail to allocate a wound, you have broken the rule allowing the unit to be wounded [which has a prerequisite of allocation]

This is an unsupported leap in logic, and not part of the rules in any capacity.

If the Blast marker scatters out of LOS/range, you still work out hits and roll to wound wound, create a wound pool, etc.
You then follow the rules for allocation as normal, which is clear that models out of LOS of the firer cannot be removed. It's black and white rulebook text mate, just follow what it says without adding your own spin.

Warlord Sniksgraga's diagrams on page 1 explain it perfectly.

So, you have failed to wound (little w) the unit, as required in the rules?

You have broken a rule.

the only way you can apply the rules is that this is a more specific rule that requires the LOS requirement for the wound pool to be overridden, as it conflicts.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have been told the unit CAN be wounded, meaning a wound has permission to be allocated. If you fail to allocate a wound, you have broken the rule allowing the unit to be wounded [which has a prerequisite of allocation]

This is an unsupported leap in logic, and not part of the rules in any capacity.

If the Blast marker scatters out of LOS/range, you still work out hits and roll to wound wound, create a wound pool, etc.
You then follow the rules for allocation as normal, which is clear that models out of LOS of the firer cannot be removed. It's black and white rulebook text mate, just follow what it says without adding your own spin.

Warlord Sniksgraga's diagrams on page 1 explain it perfectly.

This is actually a sound logical argument. To say that a model can be wounded requires all conditions to be met. They must be in range and in los. The blast rules specifically say this is not required. The bottom line is that the paragraph before the one you are claiming says this is not possible would also make blasts not work as written since it says that you can't allocate wounds to models who are out of range. If you ignore that paragraph due to blast rules why can't you ignore the next paragraph since it says the same thing just about los.

roland9382 wrote:Also if i remember correctly doesnt that cause your rounds to circumvent cover?

No, it gives the target a 4+ unmodifiable cover save.

roland9382 wrote:Astral aim is a rule from your codex, as you have no blast weapons then it doesnt really apply to this argument.

It applies very much, since hits being put onto the models is not being disputed. It's only wound allocation due to LOS rules being disputed.
And the EXACT same issue comes up with my astral aim. And yes, RAW it is a skill that can only harm myself now, if you nitpick every rule and give no concessions. Wound allocation have the exact same problem as blasts scattering.. In both cases, GW are not explicitly telling us we can allocate wounds on the people being hit, which is the issue here. They are implying it. GW have obviously failed here as in so many other places in the rulebook. But the RAI is pretty obvious, and anyone pushing for the RAW and then accusing me of being the rules lawyer needs to look in the mirror.

If anyone tries to tell me astral aim can't allocate wounds, I'm packing my plastic dollies then and there. on a 4+ I won't sweep his dollies off the table with the broad sweep of an arm, claiming Catachan storm.

I honestly can't believe that you are using Astral Aim as your trump card, I looked at this rule and it does provide an unmodifiable cover save. The rule also state it trumps line of sight I.E. your bullets go over and around cover in order to hit the enemy. Codex always trumps BRB so this argument is not valid. Comon, please try a bit harder. You have a fluffy army with a fluffy rule that you are hoping makes other rules not work as they are written. Your main argument is that you should always be able to hurt everything regardless of line of sight because the book doesn't tell you specifically that you can't. It just kinda hints at it...This argument is gonna keep rolling, I believe its safe to say that me and you would never play a game against each other. Especially if you are threatening to break the other guys stuff because he doesn't agree with you. Its a game friend, if it makes you that mad sell your stuff on ebay and find a new hobby. RAW is RAW, just how it is, call GW and complain to them that you want it to be something else, when you do though you could also mention that some of our codexes arent as OP as yours and mention kindly that the rest of us would appreciate an update before we are 3 or 4 editions behind.

Codex beats rulebook, specific beats general. It's the same argument for the same thing. Astral aim says it bypassed los, so does blasts. It's relevant and proves a point. Chill out a bit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you have failed to wound (little w) the unit, as required in the rules?

You have broken a rule.

the only way you can apply the rules is that this is a more specific rule that requires the LOS requirement for the wound pool to be overridden, as it conflicts.

Wounds are caused. They populate the wound pool. The rule is satisfied.

During allocation you're not in LoS. Excess wounds are lost.

I am just adding to a valid argument, Ive read the disclaimer that things can get heated in this type of forum but it bothers me that someone would say he would destroy someones army which cost a lot of money on a dice roll even if it was just an angry jest. Astral aim is a specific rule for a specific situation in a specific army so no you can not claim to use it in regards to arguing normal blast rules. The grey knights book is not the BRB.

Happyjew wrote:The problem is the wording of the rule:
"...can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight..."
and then:
"...unsaved Wounds are allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack."

It seems to me, that although you can hit and wound a unit completely out of line of sight, you then allocate wounds as normal, starting with the closest model in line of sight. Once there are no more models in line of sight, any remaining wounds are lost. Of course this is definitely not how I would play it. As far as I am concerned, (RAW or not) things that can hit a unit out of LoS (i.e. Impaler Cannon) can wound said unit, ignoring the normal LoS restriction.

Looking at the rules for Allocate unsaved wounds... (Pg15) LoS is not even mentioned as a factor in removing casualties just "Closest Model". The Blast rules (Specific) override the Out of Sight and Out of Range rules (general).

If it didn't, then why roll for scatter? Just make it hit or miss like everything else.

helgrenze wrote:

Happyjew wrote:The problem is the wording of the rule:
"...can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight..."
and then:
"...unsaved Wounds are allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack."

It seems to me, that although you can hit and wound a unit completely out of line of sight, you then allocate wounds as normal, starting with the closest model in line of sight. Once there are no more models in line of sight, any remaining wounds are lost. Of course this is definitely not how I would play it. As far as I am concerned, (RAW or not) things that can hit a unit out of LoS (i.e. Impaler Cannon) can wound said unit, ignoring the normal LoS restriction.

Looking at the rules for Allocate unsaved wounds... (Pg15) LoS is not even mentioned as a factor in removing casualties just "Closest Model". The Blast rules (Specific) override the Out of Sight and Out of Range rules (general).

If it didn't, then why roll for scatter? Just make it hit or miss like everything else.

Turn over a page. Pg 16 mentions LoS.

That's what he is saying. There is nothing on page 15 so the only limitation on wounds and los is on page 16. So the blast rules saying you can wound models out of los has to override that rule.

roland9382 wrote:I am just adding to a valid argument, Ive read the disclaimer that things can get heated in this type of forum but it bothers me that someone would say he would destroy someones army which cost a lot of money on a dice roll even if it was just an angry jest. Astral aim is a specific rule for a specific situation in a specific army so no you can not claim to use it in regards to arguing normal blast rules. The grey knights book is not the BRB.

If you look at the rules for nemisis force weapons, and the rules for force sword/halberd/stave, it's pretty obvious that the rules from grey knights didn't totally line up with what was planned for 6th edition.


Here's another question for the out of sight = death crowd.
How do you process the hit if it lands on models out of sight, but models in line of sight are closer?

And more complicated:
How do you process allocation for a shot that lands half in sight?
It could scatter touching 3 models you see, 3 you can't see, and miss 2 models that are closer and out of sight.


The reason I like my interpretation, is that it doesn't create a mess of allocation during scatter events that do come up.



-Matt

Our way doesn't create any confusion. You allocate wounds to models that are closest first regardless of los. Following the rules for wound allocation.

Is this not a case where we simply apply the Basic versus Advanced section on Page 7 ? So wounding out of sight models with scattered blasts being an advanced rule , overrides the basic Out if Sight rule on pg 16 .

Captain Antivas wrote:Our way doesn't create any confusion. You allocate wounds to models that are closest first regardless of los. Following the rules for wound allocation.

So if the blast doesn't scatter, it hits models in the open.
If it does scatter, it hits the closer models out of line of sight?


Please quote me the page number that gives the cover save for a unit completely blocked from view by a land raider. Not terrain, but totally blocked from view by another unit.
I cannot find it.

-Matt

We've tried that. Doesn't sink in.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:Our way doesn't create any confusion. You allocate wounds to models that are closest first regardless of los. Following the rules for wound allocation.

So if the blast doesn't scatter, it hits models in the open.
If it does scatter, it hits the closer models out of line of sight?


Please quote me the page number that gives the cover save for a unit completely blocked from view by a land raider. Not terrain, but totally blocked from view by another unit.
I cannot find it.

-Matt

My thoughts exactly, it seems they are ok with killing the guys but have no clue as to the actual save this shot would provide.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Please quote me the page number that gives the cover save for a unit completely blocked from view by a land raider. Not terrain, but totally blocked from view by another unit.
I cannot find it.
-Matt

Page 18, "Intervening Models". 5+ save.

Umm yeah that rule is for partially hidden, we are saying completely. I.E. you can see exactly 0% of the model.

A model that is at least 25% obscured (I am pretty sure 100% is covered by at least 25%) gets a cover save depending on what it is in the way. Most things are 4-5+. I would say this would count as a 4+ save. Not quite a fortification but also more than a forest.

roland9382 wrote:I looked at this rule and it does provide an unmodifiable cover save.

Yes, I just told you that in the post you replied to. Wat?

roland9382 wrote:I honestly can't believe that you are using Astral Aim as your trump card, I looked at this rule and it does provide an unmodifiable cover save. The rule also state it trumps line of sight I.E. your bullets go over and around cover in order to hit the enemy.

So does scattering blasts. It says it can hitt regardless of line of sight AND range. I don't see the difference.

The part of the rule that is in question here is exactly the same. You can't have it one way in one case and the other in the other case. It proves the point perfectly.

And the rule I quoted is from how it is in the errata, not the original codex. So this has been changed to be in line with 6th.

And for christ's sake, learn to identify hyperbole.

roland9382 wrote:The grey knights book is not the BRB.

No, but it is still the same game. It belongs to Warhammer 40k and is made to play with the same rules. You can't just claim it isn't canon because it doesn't suit your argument.

You can't say that the Codex trumps it because the codex isn't technically refuting any rule in the BRB, just like how blast scatters isn't technically refuting the rule of how wounds are allocated.

As for saves for scattered blasts, the obvious decision would be to count the LOS being from the center of the blast marker, giving saves thereafter. Just like how it was in fifth.

This is 6th not 5th as such nothing from the old rules apply. You are accusing me of picking apart the rules for my interpretation yet telling me RAI in this case would trump RAW. If you would like to continue bickering in order to state your opinion instead of using the wording in the book just PM me so we won't be overloading this forum with garbage. It seems like this is a case of it doesn't tell me I cant take it that way so I must be allowed to do it.

P.S. Your book does belong to the 40k game but I don't play grey knights so rules that are unique to your codex, Astral Aim for instance, have no place in this argument because those who play Eldar, Tau, tyranids, etc. don't have access to that psychic power. We use the regular wording for blasts and how LOS works from the rulebook.

roland9382 wrote:
RAI in this case would trump RAW.

I'm saying I would play it by the RAI. I'm saying the RAW is obviously flawed.

roland9382 wrote:If you would like to continue bickering in order to state your opinion instead of using the wording in the book

I did use the wording in the book. You are conveniently disregarding it.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll play the game as I feel it was obviously intended but poorly worded, and you can hang on every letter in the BRB to save your men from a blast.

The BRB is almost the bible in its inconsistancies, and we, the players, are not far from religious men in our interpretations of it. It's idiotic and GW is to blame for being so bad at writing a rulebook.

roland9382 wrote:Your book does belong to the 40k game but I don't play grey knights so rules that are unique to your codex, Astral Aim for instance, have no place in this argument because those who play Eldar, Tau, tyranids, etc. don't have access to that psychic power. We use the regular wording for blasts and how LOS works from the rulebook.

So what? I'm using a rule from the same game to prove a point. Your specific plastic men not having access to it means NOTHING. It's still a part of the game you play and YOUR plastic men will sometimes have to face Astral aim, and for those games you suggest reading a rule in two different ways.

Examples from codexes are often used to clarify things in YMDC. Why this one is relevant is glaringly obvious.

Purifier wrote:

roland9382 wrote:
RAI in this case would trump RAW.

I'm saying I would play it by the RAI. I'm saying the RAW is obviously flawed.

roland9382 wrote:If you would like to continue bickering in order to state your opinion instead of using the wording in the book

I did use the wording in the book. You are conveniently disregarding it.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll play the game as I feel it was obviously intended but poorly worded, and you can hang on every letter in the BRB to save your men from a blast.

The BRB is almost the bible in its inconsistancies, and we, the players, are not far from religious men in our interpretations of it. It's idiotic and GW is to blame for being so bad at writing a rulebook.

See I disagree, the rules here are very clear. Ignores limitations caused by range and line of sight. Clear as day.

Captain Antivas wrote:See I disagree, the rules here are very clear. Ignores limitations caused by range and line of sight. Clear as day.

If that was what the rulebook said, it would be clear as day. It isn't though. It is how GW SHOULD have worded it.

roland9382 wrote:This is 6th not 5th as such nothing from the old rules apply. You are accusing me of picking apart the rules for my interpretation yet telling me RAI in this case would trump RAW. If you would like to continue bickering in order to state your opinion instead of using the wording in the book just PM me so we won't be overloading this forum with garbage. It seems like this is a case of it doesn't tell me I cant take it that way so I must be allowed to do it.

P.S. Your book does belong to the 40k game but I don't play grey knights so rules that are unique to your codex, Astral Aim for instance, have no place in this argument because those who play Eldar, Tau, tyranids, etc. don't have access to that psychic power. We use the regular wording for blasts and how LOS works from the rulebook.

Wow, calm down chief. As we have both stated before the rules are the same in their scope so it is relevant. But please follow through and keep this forum free from garbage rather than having to listen to your i-hate-everyone-who-plays-grey-knights whining because GW hasn't updated your codex yet. This ranting is bringing nothing to the conversation so dial it back a bit and relax.

Its not about any specific army, the only reason Grey knights are currently being brought into this is due to the astral aim argument. You can scatter, hit and do wounds to models outside line of sight. This is not an issue in the argument, the rub as it were is at the end of the blast rules it say you then follow the normal rules for shooting i.e. you cant remove models you can't see. Is it flawed, yes more than likely but different rules have been in every edition. I can argue RAI all I want but unless I work for GW and write a rulebook myself then I wont know why they worded it a particular way. Bringing up codexes, according to your take if I fire a missile with my dark reaper exarch which then scatters and hits guys say behind a building, they would not be allowed to take a cover save as crack shot says it ignores cover. RAI theres no way that could happen as something big is in the way but why not right?

So youre saying the rule has no function whatsoever?

Blast scatters to unit entirely out of LOS. They wrote that you can hit and wound that unit. You believe that they wrote that rule to have NO effect? None whatsoever?

Astral aim DOES use the normal rules for wound allocation, because it doesnt say otherwise - and as I'm sure youre aware you follow the general rule for something when no replacement is given - meaning astral aim is entirely relevant
So, again - Hive Guard special rule does nothing, yes? Astral Aim does nothing, yes? Blast scattering does nothing, yes?

You are given permission to wound the unit, implying you are allowed to allocate to models within the unit. If you dont then you have broken the blast rule.

Again as I said look at my example, how is that not broken? Also the rules for the impaler cannon you keep mentioning are in your FAQ, ignore line of sight restrictions and only provides cover for units in area terrain. Its also not a blast so has no chance of scatter.

roland9382 wrote:Umm yeah that rule is for partially hidden, we are saying completely. I.E. you can see exactly 0% of the model.

The rules for cover saves don't ask for the model to be 'partially hidden'... they allow a model to take the save if it is at least 25% obscured.

A model that is completely obscured is at least 25% obscured.

I know it's not exactly the same issue, but I think that opening a new thread would be unnecessary...
My question is: What is the cover save that models receive for being out of LOS?
In fact it happened to me that a plasma cannon shot scattered from an assault squad dircetly on the top of a Razorback that was completely out of LOS for the firer (it was covered by a dense forest). How would you solve the issue? We initially thought that the vehicle should receive a 5+ for the forest but then we also thought that being totally out of LOS should be somewhat different and we agreed for a 4+ save, practically using the 5th ed rules... It's a rough solution, I know, but it's the only one we thought about ATM.

Since this kind of issue will present pretty often, especially with vehicles (now that area weapons are so effective against them), how would you rule that?

Note that I'm implicitly seconding the interpretation of the rule that allows the wound to be allocated to models out of LOS, since IMHO it's the interpretation that most follows "the spirit of the rule" but YMMV...

Honestly I give up, you guys win. I will just play with my gaming group with the interpretation we agree on. Maybe GW will be nice and FAQ the rulebook sometime soon.

roland9382 wrote:Again as I said look at my example, how is that not broken?

Because it isnt? You cannot control scatter to achieve that result every time.

Presumably your answer to the question "so you believe they wrote a rule that has no function" is yes then? Given you ignored it entirely

roland9382 wrote: Also the rules for the impaler cannon you keep mentioning are in your FAQ, ignore line of sight restrictions and only provides cover for units in area terrain. Its also not a blast so has no chance of scatter.

How about you quote the FAQ entry, given that the only entry for Impaler Cannon make no mention of LOS restrictions at all.

As for it being analogous, you dont seem to be understanding: the Impaler cannon AS WRITTEN has no purpose to its special rule, because it has no allowance to ignore wound allocation. Same as you are saying scattering Blasts have no purpose to their rules. That is the analogy.

And you are still ignoring that you do have permission to allocate, because otherwise you cannot wound the unit. - little w meaning any part of wound, including causing unsaved ones.

Maybe I should start another thread...

punkow - at least 25% obscured, so 100% obscures fits with no alteration to the rules. This means only a 5+ a lot of the time

roland - if you cant argue rules, this probably isnt the forum for you.

Obviously not, I thought this was about figuring out what the rules were not just fighting about them, it seems more like A "im right and youre wrong so suck it" kinda forum. Doubt ill post here again.

Uhu... I forgot to add a thing... To come up to this solution we beared in mind also the fact that if the facing you are firing to is completely invisible, the vehicle receive a +1 to the cover save (page 75 core rulebook)... the situation described in the rulebook is slightly different from the one I described but we thought that and xtensive interpretation fitted nicely.

Sorry if I forgot to mention this, probably fundamental, thing...

roland9382 wrote:Obviously not, I thought this was about figuring out what the rules were not just fighting about them, it seems more like A "im right and youre wrong so suck it" kinda forum. Doubt ill post here again.

Figuring out what the rules are, where there are multiple interpretations being presented, involves discussing why people think those interpretations are right or wrong.

So yes, if people disagree with the validity of your interpretation, they will point out that they think it is wrong. That's not some peculiarity of this forum. It's how discussion works.

roland9382 wrote:Obviously not, I thought this was about figuring out what the rules were not just fighting about them, it seems more like A "im right and youre wrong so suck it" kinda forum. Doubt ill post here again.

Noone has been doing that here - all we've asked is for you to support your assertions with rules. For example you asserted that the Impaler has been "fixed" via FAQ - yet I cannot find that in the current FAQ. Similarly with the blast rules, you are essentially asserting they wrote a few rules that have no function - now generally that isnt a good interpretation, as you assume some form of functionality in rules, especially core rulebook rules.

My contention is that the specific permission to wound (little w) units overrides the LOS allocation rules.

I can see arguments for both sides looking over this thread(go figure GW dropping the ball on rules right?) Does anyone think that the cover should just be modified depending on whats in between the shot and the target?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So youre saying the rule has no function whatsoever?

Blast scatters to unit entirely out of LOS. They wrote that you can hit and wound that unit. You believe that they wrote that rule to have NO effect? None whatsoever?

The point of the part of the rule as written that you're throwing a hissy over is that when you target a unit that has some of it's models out of line of sight, and the blast scatters onto those models, you still get hits and roll wounds against the unit from the blast. How that isn't plainly obvious to a proponent of RAW I don't know.

Yes, this sometimes will result in the blast scattering onto a unit you didn't target in the first place with no models in line of sight of the firing unit and so you won't be able to allocate any wounds from the resultant wound pool. Boohoo, that's how shooting works in 6th, get used to it.

The rule plainly works every single time you have a unit where every model isn't in LOS, it obviously has an effect, and one that will apply to no small set of circumstances, unlike the blast marker hitting a separate untargetted unit completely out of LOS of the firer.

You are given permission to wound the unit, implying you are allowed to allocate to models within the unit. If you don't then you have broken the blast rule.

You may imagine their is an implication, I strongly disagree for reasons listed above, the rule is self contained and makes perfect sense within the context of the rest of the rules (how shooting works) without adding your 'implication'. Even if there was an implication, RAW is clear.

No rule is broken, because

Rigeld2 wrote:
Wounds are caused. They populate the wound pool. The rule is satisfied.

During allocation you're not in LoS. Excess wounds are lost.

This is the crux of our interpretation. Bearing it in mind, read the entire shooting section instead of skimming and applying your 5th ed knowledge, read the Blast rules, embrace enlightenment.

Additionally,
The Astral Aim in Codex GK has nothing to do with these rules so I won't bother addressing that red herring argument.

If roland9382 is struggling to articulate an argument, that's fine, he's bowed out. Others here including beside myself have made the pertinent points you should concentrate on rebutting if you want your argument to stop leaking.

No hissy, but thanls for the negative assertions you are making about others - it is a GREAT way to make your argument look water tight.

Astral Aim is not a red herring, given the entire point of the rule is to allow you to wound models out of LOS. Ditto Impaler Cannon.

I answered your and Rigelds points - if you lose wounds from the wound pool, you have not wounded (little w) the unit, as no wounds have been caused. Breaks the rule.

This is how blasts work in 6th - "get used to it"

Are people normally this angry in this forum?

It can get quite heated, as the sticky warns you, however people deliberately being insulting is generally frowned upon, as per the rules of the forum in general.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No hissy, but thanls for the negative assertions you are making about others - it is a GREAT way to make your argument look water tight.

Astral Aim is not a red herring, given the entire point of the rule is to allow you to wound models out of LOS. Ditto Impaler Cannon.

I answered your and Rigelds points - if you lose wounds from the wound pool, you have not wounded (little w) the unit, as no wounds have been caused. Breaks the rule.

This is how blasts work in 6th - "get used to it"

Astral aim has it's own rules worded completely differently. It has nothing to do with the standard blast rules, so I don't see how you can lean on it at all.

1) It's a 5th edition rule. It plainly references the old Nightfight rules. If it was written in 5th ed and references old rules, why would you expect to be able to use it's wording to support how a 6th ed rule should be interpreted? Obviously, you can't.

2) "Can shoot any unit in range, even if you don't have Line of Sight to it" Is quite different to a rule that states a scattering blast can be used to calculate hits and wounds out of line of sight. The first specifies an exception to LOS for 'shooting', encompassing any and all aspects of shooting. The second specifies the steps of the shooting process that the exception to LOS applies to, ie, not the whole she-bang.


So your position is

if you lose wounds from the wound pool, you have not wounded (little w) the unit, as no wounds have been caused.

and hinges a vague appeal to capitalisation.

I'm pretty happy to let ours sit in opposition to that.

1) Because its an analogous situation, thats why.

2) So you are allowed to claim an implicit exception for one thing but not another?

Inconsistent arguments are a clue that an argument isnt a good one.

the capitalisation is important - you do understand the difference between wound and Wound, yes?

Edit: simply put, you have a rule that is analogous to two other rules that do not currently have any purpose, despite your hurried assertion that one rule (AA) is implicitly allowed to override the wound allocsation rules, and something else isnt.

Be happy if you want, i know what makes more sense to me.

Why are people saying the rule has no use ? It comes into play when part of a unit is out of LOS, you can still wound the unit if you scatter onto those out of LOS, I'd just like to see someone actually hide an entire unit, especially if you're shooting from elevation.

Seems like they are arguing about missing the unit you aimed for and hitting a different unit out of LOS. Probably a dumb question but has anyone tried contacting GW for clarification?

BloodKnight82 wrote:Probably a dumb question but has anyone tried contacting GW for clarification?

The only people at GW who can be contacted for rules queries are the customer service people, who were hired for their ability to sell stuff, not their knowledge of the game rules.

Warlord Sniksgraga wrote:Why are people saying the rule has no use ? It comes into play when part of a unit is out of LOS, you can still wound the unit if you scatter onto those out of LOS, I'd just like to see someone actually hide an entire unit, especially if you're shooting from elevation.

So if it scatters 9" onto a unit you cant see, that unit shouldnt be harmed? You are told you can wound UNITS out of LOS, not just *models* but entire *units* out of LOS

Those claiming this rule was clearly "intended" to only work where you scatter onto a unit with some in and some out of LOS have been unable to deal with this issue.

I agree that the intent of the rul eis clearly to cause actual wounds and potentially kill models.

I don't the the RAW allows it, however.

Happyjew wrote:The problem is the wording of the rule:
"...can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight..."
and then:
"...unsaved Wounds are allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack."

It seems to me, that although you can hit and wound a unit completely out of line of sight, you then allocate wounds as normal, starting with the closest model in line of sight. Once there are no more models in line of sight, any remaining wounds are lost. Of course this is definitely not how I would play it. As far as I am concerned, (RAW or not) things that can hit a unit out of LoS (i.e. Impaler Cannon) can wound said unit, ignoring the normal LoS restriction.

The period at the end of the 2nd quote is not in the original text. IMO, the whole sentence is relevant to this discussion. Sadly, that whole sentence has a lot of "and"s in it, leading to some ambiguity.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have been told the unit CAN be wounded, meaning a wound has permission to be allocated. If you fail to allocate a wound, you have broken the rule allowing the unit to be wounded [which has a prerequisite of allocation]

This is an unsupported leap in logic, and not part of the rules in any capacity.

See the full sentence above.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you have failed to wound (little w) the unit, as required in the rules?

You have broken a rule.

the only way you can apply the rules is that this is a more specific rule that requires the LOS requirement for the wound pool to be overridden, as it conflicts.

Wounds are caused. They populate the wound pool. The rule is satisfied.

During allocation you're not in LoS. Excess wounds are lost.

See the full sentence above.

insaniak wrote:

roland9382 wrote:Umm yeah that rule is for partially hidden, we are saying completely. I.E. you can see exactly 0% of the model.

The rules for cover saves don't ask for the model to be 'partially hidden'... they allow a model to take the save if it is at least 25% obscured.

A model that is completely obscured is at least 25% obscured.

Yep.

Warlord Sniksgraga wrote:Why are people saying the rule has no use ? It comes into play when part of a unit is out of LOS, you can still wound the unit if you scatter onto those out of LOS, I'd just like to see someone actually hide an entire unit, especially if you're shooting from elevation.

This is actually quite easy to do, especially if you have some GW or FW terrain.

Here is a simple illustration
------ = a 3" (76mm) high wall
X = a space marine
VwBW = a vehicle with a blast weapon

..............X X X X
........X X X X X X
----------------------------------------
..............X X X X
........X X X X X X




...............VwBW

The vehicle with a blast weapon shoots at the Visible SM squad. The shot scatters, landing on the SM squad out of line of sight.

From p33 "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. [Snip fluff]. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight." (underlining mine)

The underlined "and" modifies how hits are worked out. They are not worked out like normal. They are worked out like normal and something else.

Another Fishing Trip in these Pages.

The rules with blast weapons are not going to to tell you how to resolve out of line of sight wounds and then take it away from you at the end.

GW is in this for the money. They might write bad rules but they would never start you down a path and then close that path off. Waste of ink and money.

So I think everyone is in agreement until the "wording "use normal rules of a shooting attack."

Now normal rules say you need LOS but in the SPECIAL RULES section Blasts have a different wording. So if Blasts can wound units out of LOS then you simply ignore anything that is blocking LOS and see who is the closest model.

GW implies that you know LOS is not needed. It walks you through every part after the hit. But......people do not want to play a war game where their unit die. So they will find anything to help them not lose models. I don't understand this because I know that war means death to units.

The Blast Special Rule clearly states that units outside long, min ranges and unit that have blocked LOS can still be wounded.

How do we determine the casualties? Closest model to the firing unit. LOS has nothing to do with this because BLAST says so.

For those that think it's impossible for a shell to land where it landed! Talk to some military people that have seen some weird shots.

MJThurston wrote:So I think everyone is in agreement until the "wording "use normal rules of a shooting attack."

Sigh... now I have to go down to my car and grab my 6th ed book. I swear, if that period is not there...

EDIT - not sure what MJT was referring to in his quote. I did not see the quoted phrase on p15-16 or 33.

Anyways, p33, 5th paragraph of BLAST & LARGE BLAST "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 scattering blast CAN hit and wound friendly troops
A scattering blast CAN hit and wound troops locked in combat

These are both clear exceptions to "normal rules".
Why is the idea of a scattering blast hitting and wounding units out of LoS so different?

The 7th paragraph of the BLAST & LARGE BLAST entry on p33 has some compelling language for the "no" argument, IF it was the only thing written about the situation. It is not. Quoting the 7th and ignoring the 5th is cherry-picking rules and ignoring context.

I believe it's "for a shooting attack" and not "of".

MJThurston wrote:I believe it's "for a shooting attack" and not "of".

Do you mean p33, last sentence of BLAST & LARGE BLAST - "for a normal shooting attack."?

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Astral aim has it's own rules worded completely differently. It has nothing to do with the standard blast rules, so I don't see how you can lean on it at all.

1) It's a 5th edition rule. It plainly references the old Nightfight rules. If it was written in 5th ed and references old rules, why would you expect to be able to use it's wording to support how a 6th ed rule should be interpreted? Obviously, you can't.

2) "Can shoot any unit in range, even if you don't have Line of Sight to it" Is quite different to a rule that states a scattering blast can be used to calculate hits and wounds out of line of sight. The first specifies an exception to LOS for 'shooting', encompassing any and all aspects of shooting. The second specifies the steps of the shooting process that the exception to LOS applies to, ie, not the whole she-bang.

The thing in question really has nothing to do with the blast as such, but with wounds being assigned to units outside of LOS.


1) I quoted the 6th ed errata of the rule. So it's a 6th ed rule.

2) Yes, can shoot at them. But doesn't state anywhere that the normal rules for assigning wounds from shooting do not apply. Just like with blast templates. And if it is your opinion that they don't, then how do you suggest I place the wounds from it? You can't tell me a part of it applies but the rest don't. The Astral Aim rule has no specifications of its own as how to resolve the wounds from the shooting, so we have to assume it uses the rules from the rulebook. The blast says it can hit and wound people out of LOS. This isn't a red herring, and just waving it off as one is just as bad as me waving off the fact that the rulebook says that the shooting is resolved "as normal."

The definition of "shooting at them" meaning the whole shebang is your definition. It is not supported by anything. Especially since it isn't replacing the whole shebang with its own rules.

For arguments sake, this example is considering only Plasma cannons / frag missiles / venom cannon / other direct fire blast weapons.

Astral aim and Hive guard are codex entries, we are talking basic rulebook mechanics. Perhaps there is no clear answer until an FAQ is out.

However it seems RAW says wounds are allocated as per a normal shooting attack and until an FAQ is out nobody can be sure what RAI are.

Edit: Updated original post to give page references.

No FAQ is needed.

Rule is clear. No need for LOS for scattered shots.

Some want to argue it because they don't want to lose models. Sorry buddy you have no leg to stand on.

GW wants you to use the closest model to the unit that fired. LOS has no effect on these shots as per the rule.

Remember that Blast is in the SPECIAL RULES SECTION. THEY BREAK THE OTHER RULES.

GW could have said use the center hole for LOS but wanted you to get a cover save from direct fire weapons. Is this not the case? So take your cover saves and stop crying.

MJThurston wrote:Some want to argue it because they don't want to lose models. Sorry buddy you have no leg to stand on.

That's a lie. Stop propagating it. Those who disagree with you must have some hidden agenda? Are you serious?

GW wants you to use the closest model to the unit that fired. LOS has no effect on these shots as per the rule.

Remember that Blast is in the SPECIAL RULES SECTION. THEY BREAK THE OTHER RULES.

GW could have said use the center hole for LOS but wanted you to get a cover save from direct fire weapons. Is this not the case? So take your cover saves and stop crying.

I agree with intent. I don't agree that's what the RAW says.

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

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

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

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

As above.

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

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

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

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

@all

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

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

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

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

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

foolishmortal wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're confusing two different steps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's great.

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

Seriously, why are people assigning negative motivations to me?

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

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

Sorry if I have been rude...

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

It doesn't have relevance because.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you are saying a rule is functionally useless?

when/ where have I said that?



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

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

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

It was also applied to Rigeld as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, being able to wound =/= able to allocate a wound too, their seperate sections of the shooting resoloution thing

nosferatu1001 wrote:And, again, I have given an interpretation of *wound* that allows it to function.
When you have two interpretations, and one means a rule has function, its safer to go with that one.

The problem becomes that now you have to make that fit into the rest of the rules. I haven't done a deep check yet but I'd bet it will cause issues in other areas.

edit: also, you're straying away from what's written and inserting intent. I agree on the intent of the rule.

Warlord - the rule doesnt specify To Wound, which is a defined process, but "hit and wound".

Rigeld -

Im not inserting intent - just a general principle.

If you are saying a core rule has no function, but there is another RAW parsing which causes it to function, then only one of them should be adhered to. Absurd results are generally unsound.

How does it cause issues elsewhere? Follow allocation, ignoring LOS.

well 'wound' isn't defined in the BRB, there is To Wound, Wounds, Wound Pool and Wound allocation

check the index

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rigeld -

Im not inserting intent - just a general principle.

If you are saying a core rule has no function, but there is another RAW parsing which causes it to function, then only one of them should be adhered to. Absurd results are generally unsound.

How does it cause issues elsewhere? Follow allocation, ignoring LOS.

Right - in this specific discussion there's no problems equating wound and Wound.
And there's no problems equating "wound" and "following the Wound allocation process"

I can't say that this will cause no other issues with other rules. And I'd wager you can't either.

From what i've read so far - it causes no issues. Not saying that 100% there are no issues, but i cant find any so far.

If you can equate "wound" with "wound allocation process", then you can substitute in "follow the wound allocation process without having LOS"

Being able to wound may not equal being able to allocate a wound, but it is required to be able to allocate a wound to be able to wound it. All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.

Not sure how that helps....sorry :/

nosferatu1001 wrote:From what i've read so far - it causes no issues. Not saying that 100% there are no issues, but i cant find any so far.

If you can equate "wound" with "wound allocation process", then you can substitute in "follow the wound allocation process without having LOS"

I agree with this post 100%.
I wish I had more time over the next couple of weeks to read through the book more

RAW, doesn't work, RAI it does, I'll play it RAI
though I still stand by my point

Being able to wound and not allowing to allocate wounds.....

Special Rules....uncommon rules to govern uncommon circumstances.

Blasts that scatter beyond the weapon's max or minimum range and line of sight can hit and wound units.

This is obvious a uncommon circumstance. Giving wounds to models out of line of sight is uncommon but is in black and white.

So what do we get out of this....."use normal shooting rules at the end of Blast description. This simply says closest model first. Doesn't mean ignore the part where it says LOS is not needed.

Wound Allocation Page 16 2nd Paragraph...

Warlord Sniksgraga wrote:Wound Allocation Page 16 2nd Paragraph...

From p33 "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. [Snip fluff]. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal [this would include your quote from p16] and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight." (comments in brackets mine)

p32 A special rule "breaks or bends one of the main game rules"

p33 Blast & Large Blast tells you to do it as normal but with some modifications.

Why are you going back to the normal rule and pointing out that the special rule modifications are not mentioned there?

Can I just get across that I agree with you on how it SHOULD be played, I only commented in this in the first place to point out that it said 'follow normal wound allocation' As I said , Rai I agree with, Raw is up for debate

Warlord Sniksgraga wrote:Can I just get across that I agree with you on how it SHOULD be played, I only commented in this in the first place to point out that it said 'follow normal wound allocation' As I said , Rai I agree with, Raw is up for debate

9 times out of 10, I am ridiculously easygoing in conversations on forums like this. One could say horrible, horrible things and I would respond with "Really.... ? Please cite your source for your very interesting claims about what time traveling dinosaurs had to do with the recent economic troubles."

I think many (if not most) people here have settled on RAI = yeah, sure, obviously.

As far as RAW = no... I have yet to see a persuasive case laid out clearly. Points have been brought up, but those points have been convincingly (to me) answered.

The "how it works in the normal/main/basic rules" seems to be answered by the nature of Special Rules

The 7th paragraph of Blast & Large Blast seems to be answered by the context of the 5th paragraph.

Etc.

If there is an argument in favor of RAW = No, that has not yet been answered, please refresh our memory.

In the meantime, If you want a good case of RAW = No, check out Tau Smart Missile Systems and the entry for them on p2 of their new faq. Here you have permission to fire a weapon at something out of LoS, but no permission to wound it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:From what i've read so far - it causes no issues. Not saying that 100% there are no issues, but i cant find any so far.

If you can equate "wound" with "wound allocation process", then you can substitute in "follow the wound allocation process without having LOS"

So if I fire 4 frag missiles at 30 orks coming down a hill, with ruins at base of the hill, how do I allocate?
2 blasts hit in line of sight, 1 partially in line of sight, and 1 out of sight.
The closest orks are out of sight behind the ruins, the bulk of the orks are exposed on the hill.

Kind of need to know how allocation works so I know where to hide the nob.

You are saying blasts ignore line of sight for wound allocations.
Is that all of the time, some of the time? When?
You can call this an "issue".

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:From what i've read so far - it causes no issues. Not saying that 100% there are no issues, but i cant find any so far.

If you can equate "wound" with "wound allocation process", then you can substitute in "follow the wound allocation process without having LOS"

So if I fire 4 frag missiles at 30 orks coming down a hill, with ruins at base of the hill, how do I allocate?
2 blasts hit in line of sight, 1 partially in line of sight, and 1 out of sight.
The closest orks are out of sight behind the ruins, the bulk of the orks are exposed on the hill.

Kind of need to know how allocation works so I know where to hide the nob.

You are saying blasts ignore line of sight for wound allocations.
Is that all of the time, some of the time? When?
You can call this an "issue".

-Matt

And this is why LOS of blast weapons should have been explained as "from the center of the blast marker"

I can't believe we are going to have to use house rules for something that should so obviously have been in the rulebook.

Wound allocation is a seperate step.

Say I had guys in this formation

X=Plasma cannon
O = Marine
C = Independant Character
| = Wall


X ------------- O | C O O O


Lets say the blast scatters on top of the Character,

Plasma cannon is allowed to HIT and Wound the Character. (Page 33)

But who do I ALLOCATE it to?

the O in the front? isn't that correct?

So even though the rules say I can hit and wound models out of LOS, I allocate normally.

Normally means cannot allocate to models out of LOS. (Page 16)

The wound is allocated to the closest model, within LOS.

Jacko4smackos wrote:So even though the rules say I can hit and wound models out of LOS, I allocate normally.

The rule actually says "units" not "models"

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:From what i've read so far - it causes no issues. Not saying that 100% there are no issues, but i cant find any so far.

If you can equate "wound" with "wound allocation process", then you can substitute in "follow the wound allocation process without having LOS"

So if I fire 4 frag missiles at 30 orks coming down a hill, with ruins at base of the hill, how do I allocate?
2 blasts hit in line of sight, 1 partially in line of sight, and 1 out of sight.
The closest orks are out of sight behind the ruins, the bulk of the orks are exposed on the hill.

Kind of need to know how allocation works so I know where to hide the nob.

You are saying blasts ignore line of sight for wound allocations.
Is that all of the time, some of the time? When?
You can call this an "issue".

-Matt

You are overcomplicating it. Also, read the rules. Multiple blasts are allocated together to determine the number of wounds done to each unit. Then, wounds are allocated to the model in each unit that is closest to the firer. Simple. All the time.

In order to lay the blast marker it must be centered over a model that is in los and range. So, being out of los has no relevance as the models have to be in los to lay the way down. Then, it scatters and range and los no longer matter. Simple. Asking many questions with a simple answer does not make something complicated.

Matt - only the scattering blasts have permission to wound units out of LOS, not the ones that hit. Split into two groups.

Done.

Not, at all, difficult.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Matt - only the scattering blasts have permission to wound units out of LOS, not the ones that hit. Split into two groups.

Done.

Not, at all, difficult.

But you can have a blast scatter, and still be in line of sight.
You can have a blast scatter and be partially in line of sight, striking models both in, and out of line of sight.

-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Matt - only the scattering blasts have permission to wound units out of LOS, not the ones that hit. Split into two groups.

Done.

Not, at all, difficult.

But you can have a blast scatter, and still be in line of sight.
You can have a blast scatter and be partially in line of sight, striking models both in, and out of line of sight.

-Matt

Interestingly, the barrage weapons don't give permission to allocate to out of line of sight.
This must mean that GW meant to include allocation in wound out of sight.

More interesting though, is that only blasts that scatter are given permission to wound models out of sight.
So when my Russ squadron fires 3 battle cannons through building windows:
Russ1 rolls a hit, the template touches the only model in line of sight and 4 out of sight, but only a single roll to wound can be made, as only scatters have permission to wound out of sight models.
Russ 2 rolls a scatter, and the shot drifts out of sight touching 5 models, 5 rolls to wound are made, and this is put into a different wound pool than the first shot, as these have different rules (can wound out of sight)
Russ 3 rolls a scatter, but scatters 3", minus my BS of 3 for a zero inch scatter. This touches 5 models (one happens to be in line of sight) and 5 hits are generate on the unit.
Russ 2 and Russ 3 add their hits together in 1 wound pool, Russ 1 is worked out seperately.

Then all 3 also fire their hull lascannons, sponson heavy bolters and pintle heavy stubbers.
The net effect is 3 models firing from 1 unit, generating 5 wound pools (Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Stubber, Direct hit battlecannon, and Riccochet Battle Cannons).
The Roccochet shots would be resolved Against the closest, while the other 4 pools would be resolved against closest in line of sight.


If you want to bring the game to a screeching halt, take a blob squad of IG.
50 Guardsmen, 5 grenade launchers, 5 mortars. Each mortar hit is it's own wound pool (as each has to allocate to the center hole of the shot), and you've got 5 more blasts that scatter before you roll the bucket of lasguns.


So you're all correct in that the wound and save excemption must include the actual allocation and removal, but a bit incorrect in that it is "easy or clean".

-Matt

A scattering blast can wound out of LOS. So even if it scatters and hits models IN LOS, it CAN wound models in that unit that are out of LOS - so it goes into its own wound pool. Any blast that hits cannot wound out of LOS, so they go int their own wound pool.

With Barrage you get LOS from the centre, which means if it hits it cannot wound anything that is out of LOS from the centre. If it scatters, it can wound anything out of LOS of the centre, as it is a scattering blast still.

Nothing about scattering blasts affects that 5 single mortar shots are painful, no matter what.

So from your interpretation its better to scatter, as in his example of the Russ getting a lucky hit by threading the needle he actually only gets one wound?

Or better to aim your blast so you can hit more than 1 model. If you shoot a blast that can only hit 1 model you deserve to lose those wounds.

BloodKnight82 wrote:So from your interpretation its better to scatter, as in his example of the Russ getting a lucky hit by threading the needle he actually only gets one wound?

It is sometimes better to scatter. Usually its better to hit.

ok new question this happened this past weekend

Shooting Doomsday cannon at a unit of Terminators
can only see 1 terminator but when placing the blast marker i hit 3 models.
When rolling to hit i Roll an arrow and not a "hit" but only roll 4"
how many to wound rolls do i get?
how many actual models can be removed?

You hit 3 models so you get 3 Hits and 3 opportunities To Wound. Assuming you get all 3 Wounds and the Termies fail their saves you can remove up to 3 taking from the closest model to the shooter first.

Keep in mind, the blast rules on page 33 say that you may hit and wound "units" that are out of LOS and range of the weapon (units always references to the group as a whole). If the word "models" had been used instead there would be a stronger argument for blasts affecting those models under the blast template.

You still got to hit and wound the unit (the rule was honored). But if nothing is in LOS your otherwise awesome shot got stopped by terrain or what not.

Some are asking themselves "why would they bother to mention being able hit and wound out of LOS and range if they didn't mean for those models to be killed?"

The answer is that in all liklyhood not all the models (in target unit) will be out of LOS. Sure, small groups might be able to do it, but for the most part some member of the group will be visible to the firing unit as a whole. Remember, if some guy with a bolter (even out of range) is in a unit firing a blast and can see a model in a unit, that model is a viable casualty. It might not be realistic but fits into the RAW fine.

Another good reason to abide by the no killing out of LOS rule is that it adds a layer of complication to the game as a whole. Keeping track of hits and wounds caused by blast, applicable cover saves, who is has LOS of what model. It can be done but it certainly isn't speedy. We already have multiple barrage rules to slow things down. Do you really want to slow the game down with ambiguous rules, for the sake that a blast in real life can hurt guys unseen?

I've mentioned this before in a another topic, but I'll say it again. Don't think of the blast (from direct fire weapons) as the literal location of where the blast ends up. Think of the blast template as a abstracted means of calculating hits and and potential wounds (to models in LOS).

Nothing about the shooting rules is all that realistic. Why did all my guys shoot at a mega nob in front of some boys? Why can't I shoot a barrage over 36" during night fight if they don't need LOS? Why can't I assualt from reserves? Why are all my deep strikers huddled up holding hands?Etc, Etc.

If in your games you're find lots of shennanegins with LOS and blasts, create house rules. Though I think you'll find for the most part the rules as they're written (no killing out of LOS) still makes for cinematic battles that move forward without a lot of fiddleyness.

pie zuri wrote:
I've mentioned this before in a another topic, but I'll say it again. Don't think of the blast (from direct fire weapons) as the literal location of where the blast ends up. Think of the blast template as a abstracted means of calculating hits and and potential wounds (to models in LOS).

I think its crap... We went to True Line of Sight in 5th and gave up the abstraction of cover that was granted in 4th. Only to go to abstraction of blasts in 6th... ????

I had a vindicator fire a shell at 1 necron in sight out of 4 that were hiding behind a wreck. Dead on. no scatter. covers all 4. Only 1 dies because I cant see the other 3, which are standing right next to him. ????

Yet, firing at the same necrons again, it scatters and hits a vehicle 100% out of sight, it can still destroy that vehicle. (because they don't allocate wounds as normal)

For the pro-killing out of LoS camp: what kind of cover saves do models entirely out of LoS receive?

Are they at least 25% covered?

You realise this was covered on oage 2, approx?

I was hoping for a better answer than what was there.

There's no way I'm going to be able to convince someone that a model partially within LoS gets a cover save, but a model totally out of LoS does not. Even if those guys are in area terrain (which page 2 says you'd still ignore).

Sorry if this has been covered already, but I haven't taken the time to read every post in the thread.

What about weapons that don't offer / ignore cover saves? (Certain ammo types for Thunderfire Cannon and Whirlwind, Leman Russ Eradicator)

The other day my friends TFC rounds that ignore cover scattered onto one of my IG squads that was completely out of LOS but still in cover. We played it out that it hit and wounded as normal. Mainly because I still got my armor save (that particular round is ap6) and it kept the game rolling rather than grinding to a halt over a rules debate.

However it brought up the question of "What if that had been a shot from a Leman Russ Nova Cannon (this is the one that ignores cover) that wouldn't have offered even an armor save due to it's AP?

How is this going on for 7 pages?? Im not going to lie I read about 1.5 pages of this and am having a hard time understanding HOW this is confusing to people.
If models are out of line of sight you cant kill them "THE WOUNDS IN THE WOUND POOL ARE LOST". However with a BARAGE weapon LOS is drawn form the center hole (Which a plasma cannon frag missile etc ARE NOT). So whats the point of scattering around a corner and doing wounds? Well if you do 6 wouinds to a group of guys behind a solid wall but can only see three models next to the wall the Three guys you can see will take the 6 hits once they die the remaining shots ARE LOST. So going back to the original posting: If you cant SEE the command squad behind the Chimera (which was your original target) you cant allocate wounds to them unless you hit them with a barage weapon! Yes you can still Hit, and Wound them but you cany allocate wounds to them so those wounds are LOST!

I'm just going to go with the Tau FAQ on Smart Missiles for cover saves on all weapons that don't require LoS then. That one is at least believable.

Dooley wrote:How is this going on for 7 pages?? Im not going to lie I read about 1.5 pages of this and am having a hard time understanding HOW this is confusing to people.
If models are out of line of sight you cant kill them "THE WOUNDS IN THE WOUND POOL ARE LOST". However with a BARAGE weapon LOS is drawn form the center hole (Which a plasma cannon frag missile etc ARE NOT). So whats the point of scattering around a corner and doing wounds? Well if you do 6 wouinds to a group of guys behind a solid wall but can only see three models next to the wall the Three guys you can see will take the 6 hits once they die the remaining shots ARE LOST. So going back to the original posting: If you cant SEE the command squad behind the Chimera (which was your original target) you cant allocate wounds to them unless you hit them with a barage weapon! Yes you can still Hit, and Wound them but you cant allocate wounds to them so those wounds are LOST!

But why follow what's written in the book about allocation and ignore a compelling argument hinged on capitalisation.

DarknessEternal wrote:I was hoping for a better answer than what was there.

There's no way I'm going to be able to convince someone that a model partially within LoS gets a cover save, but a model totally out of LoS does not. Even if those guys are in area terrain (which page 2 says you'd still ignore).

If you are out of LOS you ARE at least 25% covered. It is a hurdle to go over, not a limit.


Dooley - guess you missed the "units out of LOS can be hit and wounded" part. Are you saying that rule has no use? Explain.

Yes they are hit, yes they are wounded. That is to say they add wounds to the wound pool. Now how do you allocate those wounds?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dooley - guess you missed the "units out of LOS can be hit and wounded" part. Are you saying that rule has no use? Explain.

As you apparently missed it the first time. Try reading ALL of a post.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dooley - guess you missed the "units out of LOS can be hit and wounded" part. Are you saying that rule has no use? Explain.

As you apparently missed it the first time. Try reading ALL of a post.

????Vague comment is vague. ????

Are. You. Saying. That. Rule. Has. No. Use?

How is that vague? Your premise is they wrote an entire rule that has no use.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Are. You. Saying. That. Rule. Has. No. Use?

How is that vague? Your premise is they wrote an entire rule that has no use.

Yes, they wrote a rule that has no use when considering all the rules in the book.
Intent is obvious. RAW means that yes that rule has no use.

No the rule has a CLEAR USE. Normaly one cannot hit or wound models that are out of line of sight or range (unless they are uesing a barage weapon) THe Blast template rules allow for the template to move out of line of sight and range in order to garner a few more hits on the targeted squad. The rules for ALLOCATING those wounds still take effect and thus limit the number of models that are able to be removed as casualties. Shooting is a multipart procecss remember.
1. Check range and LOS
2. Roll to hit
3. Roll to wound
4 Take appropriate saves
5 Allocate wounds
6 Remove models

I ask you this. What happens if a flame template goes through a wall and hits one guy on the visible side of the wall but 5 people on the non visible side? Would you be able to loose 6 models or only 1? The rules would say only 1, why would a blast template be any different?

Again, Dooley, read the ACTUAL rule.

The rule says [b]UNITS[/;b] out of LOS.

AS written that rule has no use, in your eyes. None.

Read the actual rule, not what youre making up, and you will see your issue.

Dooley wrote:
I ask you this. What happens if a flame template goes through a wall and hits one guy on the visible side of the wall but 5 people on the non visible side? Would you be able to loose 6 models or only 1? The rules would say only 1, why would a blast template be any different?

Because there is a special rule allowing it to happen.

Templates don't have a special rule allowing them to hit and wound out of LOS so this is irrelevant.

Special Rules Pg 33
"....Note that it is possible, and absolutley fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapons maximum or minimum range and line of sight."
"....-the unit suffers one hit for each model fully or partially beneath the blast marker."
"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit have been worked out....Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack"

The Shooting Phase, Allocating wounds and Removing Casualties Pg 16
Out of Sight
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, the Wounds cannot be allocated to it......If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends. (Their emphasis not mine)

This is NOT Basic vs Advance rules as the Advance rules TELL YOU to referance the basic rules. It is NOT a "NULL" rule as it clearly has a purpose. The purpose being that the blast marker can STILL HIT things out of its range and LOS. However, it is still restricted to the Out of sight rules found on page 16.

In regards to BARRAGE weapons
Special Rules pg 34
"...and when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model."

Normal wound allocation is to place the wound on the closest models first. I can wound a model out of LOS. If I scatter a blast onto a unit I cannot see and cannot allocate a wound to them then I cannot wound them. If I cannot wound them you have broken a rule.

Captain Antivas wrote:Normal wound allocation is to place the wound on the closest models in line of sight first..

FTFY.

Captain Antivas wrote:Normal wound allocation is to place the wound on the closest models first. I can wound a model out of LOS. If I scatter a blast onto a unit I cannot see and cannot allocate a wound to them then I cannot wound them. If I cannot wound them you have broken a rule.

You wounded the unit - the wound pool was populated. It is automatically emptied when there are no more models in LOS.

If I cannot allocate a wound to them I did not Wound them.

Captain Antivas wrote:If I cannot allocate a wound to them I did not Wound them.

You've wounded the unit which is all the rule allows.
You're trying to make "wound" mean "allocate a wound to a model" when the rules are not defined that way.

This is really not that hard...

Consider if it was a real world situation.... soldier fires missle at tank.... and misses. The missle flies past the tank and detonates in a group of opposing soldiers. Do the other guys not get hurt simply because the firer could not see them?

That would make for one hell of a comic moment in a war movie...
missle detonates among troops
One soldier falls to the ground as if wounded
Second soldier (Brit accent) "Oh get up, Reg, That bloke couldn't even see us."

I guess in terms of RAW you can't wound them...which is fething weird.

But with RAI I am fairly sure a blast is a blast whether the shooter sees where it lands are not. When they say as "a normal shooting attack" they just mean count up the wounds and deliver the wounds to the models.

It's a little waac to play the first way, but I suppose it's perfectly legal.

helgrenze wrote:This is really not that hard...

Consider if it was a real world situation.... soldier fires missle at tank.... and misses. The missle flies past the tank and detonates in a group of opposing soldiers. Do the other guys not get hurt simply because the firer could not see them?

That would make for one hell of a comic moment in a war movie...
missle detonates among troops
One soldier falls to the ground as if wounded
Second soldier (Brit accent) "Oh get up, Reg, That bloke couldn't even see us."

Yeah, real world examples totally apply here. Good job!

Or, this is a rules discussion and the people that say you can't wound have also said that RAI is obvious, but RAW doesn't allow it.
You know. Whichever way makes you feel better as a person.

rigeld2 wrote:
Or, this is a rules discussion and the people that say you can't wound have also said that RAI is obvious, but RAW doesn't allow it.
You know. Whichever way makes you feel better as a person.

Or you could just not field anything that has a possibility of scattering until GW decides it is a big enough issue to release an update to the FAQ.

It probably WONT get FAQed as the rules are pretty clear how it works. Now weather or not thats how one wants it to work is irrelavant.

The models ARE wounded however, in this current edition of the rules being wounded does not equal getting dead! They have introduced the "wound pool" mechanic and this is something we are all going to have to get used to.

Again, dooley - can you finally admit the rule has no purpose, under your interpretation? Since you have ignored that question, repeatedly. Rigeld answered it.

This whole pull makes me upset. Maybe I should just stop listening to these things.....

Scatter is not a normal shot, even if "A Plasma Cannon is a line of site weapon." If it scatters it is not a normal shot. Its template is its line of site, the weapon shot something that went wild and blew up. Scatter hits all the models under it. ITS A HIT. Line of site is pointless at that point.

The line of site matters when the firer was shooting; he could not see the troops but he could see the tank, so he shot at it.

If it scatters anywhere on the table, the blast template will determine the "hit" and the template does not need a line of site.

The real question is do the models get any cover at all. Last I checked, when a squad is walking on a road and a rocket flies over the tank they walk behind, they would all be dead dead. IF they went into the terrain like trees, they would be able to hide from the blast.

This rule said that, that rule said this, read the blast rule, it says allocate as normal cause no one wants to read the same rules over over in different sections of the same book.

Dooley wrote:Yes they are hit, yes they are wounded. That is to say they add wounds to the wound pool. Now how do you allocate those wounds?

Then what about Tau Smart Missile Systems which are specifically allowed to target a unit out of sight?

What is the point of that ability if after you've wounded that unit you can't physically see you can't actually kill anything, as wounds caused still follow normal allocation procedures?

A special rule granting the ability to wound a unit out of sight overrides the requirement to have LOS to allocate a wound and the wounds just go on the nearest models, as per page 15.

The more I read this the more I see people not understanding why there is a blast marker at all.

It represents a blast. In real life and this game, things that blast don't always hit their targets strait on. In almost all cases I have seen them first hand it was always out of line of site. Meant to suppress an area. If your guys were unlucky enough to be in that area then the weapon was successful. These are blasts people, not sniper rifles, or assault rifles.

After reading all these post I am a believer in "Blast Templates are their own line of site." Models within the blast template are treated as hit from the blast, which happens to be touching the models. AKA within line of site. If the models hit are not in area cover they are not allowed a cover save, as the blast is within their ranks, and count as within line of site. The model firing the blast weapon must have line of site of his target. If the blast scatters (as is the intention of all blast weapons) the blast marker will determine which models are in line of site of the blast marker. These units will be hit as if they were in line of site and take only the cover save they are allowed as being models located within a blast.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dooley wrote:Yes they are hit, yes they are wounded. That is to say they add wounds to the wound pool. Now how do you allocate those wounds?

Then what about Tau Smart Missile Systems which are specifically allowed to target a unit out of sight?

What is the point of that ability if after you've wounded that unit you can't physically see you can't actually kill anything, as wounds caused still follow normal allocation procedures?

RAW there isn't a point. Yes it's dumb. Yes it means that some weapons (Impaler Cannons) are practically useless.
RAI is obvious.

Adrian Fue Fue wrote:
The real question is do the models get any cover at all. Last I checked, when a squad is walking on a road and a rocket flies over the tank they walk behind, they would all be dead dead. IF they went into the terrain like trees, they would be able to hide from the blast.

Impaler Cannons and Smart Missiles only allow cover saves for models in or touching terrain. I suggest playing like that since it is a precedent.

Impaler cannons ignore all cover saves, but the issue here is they also ignore LOS requirements. So without a bit of a logical step here some will say RAW they cannot wound something they cannot see.

As far as blasts go, the rule states to and wound like a normal shot. IE. you can hit, wound and kill enemies out of LOS with a scattered blast.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, dooley - can you finally admit the rule has no purpose, under your interpretation? Since you have ignored that question, repeatedly. Rigeld answered it.

Can you finally admit that the rule DOES have a point. The POINT of the rule is to allow blast templates to add wounds to the wound pool even if the template scatters out of los and range. Again YOU are forgetting about the wound pool mechanics. If the blast template froma battle cannon misses a rhino and scatters onto a unit of guys behind it but the Defiler/Leman Russ etc CANNOT SEE the squad of guys the Squad of guys DOES NOT loose any models because as they were HIT AND WOUNDED they had no models in LOS and thus the wounds CANNOT be allocated to them and the shooting attack ENDS. Now if a Devistator squad were shooting at a squad PARTIALLY behind a Rhino any models HIT AND WOUNDED by scattering templates out of LOS or Range of the Plasma cannons they would add wounds to the wound pool and then the wounds would be allocated to the closest models IN LOS to the Devistator squad. Once there are NO MORE MODLES IN LOS THE SHOOTING ATTACK ENDS.

Attacks that dont require LOS (ASTRAL AIM, Seeker Missiles ETC) are covered in their respective FAQs and or Codecies. I do not play Tau so I do not have a copy of their book so I dont know what the rules for them state. Nor have I had a reason to look at their FAQ. However as far as I can remember a Seeker Missile does NOT have the BLAST special rule NOR does it Scatter so I would have to call "OBJECTION IRRELAVANT" on that one and move on.

Also I fail to see how I have provided an "interpritation" of ANY of the rules. I have cited all the relavant rules and have added NOTHING of my own to them. I know ask YOU to do the same. Please show me, with sited sources, how a model will get a wound allocated to it by a NON Barage Blast weapon. I also ask that you stay with the scenario at hand. Meaning, your examples should stick with NON Barage Blast weapons and please leave out any mention of RAI, WAAC etc

Dooley wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, dooley - can you finally admit the rule has no purpose, under your interpretation? Since you have ignored that question, repeatedly. Rigeld answered it.

Can you finally admit that the rule DOES have a point. The POINT of the rule is to allow blast templates to add wounds to the wound pool even if the template scatters out of los and range. Again YOU are forgetting about the wound pool mechanics. If the blast template froma battle cannon misses a rhino and scatters onto a unit of guys behind it but the Defiler/Leman Russ etc CANNOT SEE the squad of guys the Squad of guys DOES NOT loose any models because as they were HIT AND WOUNDED they had no models in LOS and thus the wounds CANNOT be allocated to them and the shooting attack ENDS. Now if a Devistator squad were shooting at a squad PARTIALLY behind a Rhino any models HIT AND WOUNDED by scattering templates out of LOS or Range of the Plasma cannons they would add wounds to the wound pool and then the wounds would be allocated to the closest models IN LOS to the Devistator squad. Once there are NO MORE MODLES IN LOS THE SHOOTING ATTACK ENDS.

Attacks that dont require LOS (ASTRAL AIM, Seeker Missiles ETC) are covered in their respective FAQs and or Codecies. I do not play Tau so I do not have a copy of their book so I dont know what the rules for them state. Nor have I had a reason to look at their FAQ. However as far as I can remember a Seeker Missile does NOT have the BLAST special rule NOR does it Scatter so I would have to call "OBJECTION IRRELAVANT" on that one and move on.

Also I fail to see how I have provided an "interpritation" of ANY of the rules. I have cited all the relavant rules and have added NOTHING of my own to them. I know ask YOU to do the same. Please show me, with sited sources, how a model will get a wound allocated to it by a NON Barage Blast weapon. I also ask that you stay with the scenario at hand. Meaning, your examples should stick with NON Barage Blast weapons and please leave out any mention of RAI, WAAC etc

Actually the Tau FAQ and Codex doesn't cover this situation for either of the two weapons which ignore LOS, the Smart Missile System and Seeker Missile.

The fact that these weapons are not blast weapons is irrelevant. Both can be fired at a target which the firing unit cannot see and the interpretation of wounding units out of LOS not being able to allocate wounds onto models out of LOS makes them useless for that purpose.

Well, then Weapons that "Do not need LOS to fire" and that are NOT Barrage Weapons are a case of "In a game the size and complexity of Warhammer 40,000 there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules,..." (pg 4). For those situations you will have to "roll a die" to see who's interpratation will aply for the rest of the game.

However, weapons that require LOS and ARE blast weapons are clearly covered in the rule book and no "INTERPRETING" is required.

Dooley - "The POINT of the rule is to allow blast templates to add wounds to the wound pool even if the template scatters out of los and range"

UNITS. It allows you to wound UNITS out of LOS. Stop ignoring that it says UNIT

AS in, unit Y is *entirely out of LOS*, yet this rule allows you to wound unit Y

So according to you this cannot work, at all - because a UNIT out of LOS cannot ever have wounds allocated

So, again: under your interpretation they wrote a rule for NO POINT whatsoever.

Stop ignoring facts

Alright NOW I see what you are talking about. It does say you can hit and wound UNITS out of line of sight and range. Sure you can hit them, wound them and they can even fail their saves all day long however, you cant allocate the unsaved wounds to them so they cannot die. Yeah that part is odd? I have sent a question to CustServ@gwplc.com I would also request that others do the same.

Although, getting hit and wounded would STILL trigger a pinning test as the pinning rule says nothing about having to actually loose a model!! So AGAIN IT STILL HAS A POINT!

Special Rules Pg 42 Pinning
"if a non-vehicle unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with the Pinning rule, it must immediately take a Leadership test. This is called a pinning test"

Notice it just says if the UNIT takes an unsaved-wound. Following the rules for shooting it is still posible for a unit to fail its saves but not take any casualties because they are out of Line of sight. This game is silly

Wrong. Unsaved wounds are not what populates the wound pool.

Populating the wound pool is done when you roll to wound. As soon as you're done rolling to wound, if no models in the unit are in LOS the wound pool is emptied. You have no permission to attempt saves or allocate wounds. No Pinning.

Roll to hit,
Roll to wound
(Wound Pool)
Take Saving throws *
Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Caualties
(No models in LOS Wounds are lost)

*Immediately take pinning test

I still see these examples coming from the idea of a normal shooting weapon. But a BLAST is not a NORMAL shooting weapon. AFTER the blast marker has found its already HIT models, then you treat it as NORMAL.

To me this is 100% the template itself decides what is within range. If it lands and the Blast Template is placed, every model in that unit is hit. There is no measuring range, no line of site, and no to-hit roles; that blast template is the all knowing decider of what is hit.

All that stuff about what is allocated as wounds... It is referring to a NORMAL shooting weapon being an inch or so out of range AND a unit within range that is not visible to the mussel of that NORMAL weapon.

There is nothing blocking a Blast template from line of site EXCEPT a second and third story. This is the reason your blast template has to choose which floor blows up.

If there is no second and third story; if the models have no roof over their heads, then they are all in line of site of the blast template right above them. The woulds are then treated as normal (as the template already made line of sight and hit them).

You are mistaken in that the special rules for blast tell you they act just like normal shooting attacks. By your logic a plasma cannon is better at snipping characters and special weapons troops than a sniper rifle. It is not as simple as:
Place Marker
Roll Scatter
Models under template are hit, wounded, and removed as casualties

If it were I would be centering ALL of my template weapons on characters and special weapons troops and hoping for a direct hit!

And if you treat a blast that scattered onto a unit that was out of LOS normally, you would hit, wound, and remove those units as a casualty. Your skipping the "normally" part of the rule. Normally you have LOS to shoot.. wound.. etc.

.........I am mistaken........

Quote the rules again, I don't want to read all this all over. I don't understand why they wouldn't be better. Sniper's ignore toughness, add pining, have a chance to delegate wounds, and may hit at a higher AP. AKA they are one for one not a blast for an area of affect.

Blasts weapons are heavy and have weapon profiles like everything else, this means they loose there movement phase. These weapons with Blast Templates cost more then a bolt-gun, sniper rifle, ex. Troops can only wield a very small number of these blast weapons. Blast vehicles, or dedicated blast weapon groups take up a heavy support slot, and cannot claim objectives.

All this together: A Plasma Cannon is better, in that it will get you the most kills. You will have to sacrifice more points, more movement phases, more objective opportunities, and a Heavy Support Slot.... But would it be worth it just to target characters and specular weapon groups? Would this cause such a blast weapon to get targeted by other special weapons?

Seriously, why even compare sniper rifles to plasma cannons? Its like a Rhino versus a Land Raider. Why not snipe with a Lascannon too or field every Troop choice with a ML and hope the template lands on something?

Technically the scatter is the chance of the rocket/plasma/whatever is moved from the point of the original place that it was going to hit for some reason or another. If your, say, rokkit launcha's rokkit got blown by the wind, it would still hit where it hits, no matter how it got there

Let me put forth a hypothetical situation.

A 50 man IG blob squad with 5 missile launchers and 5 grenade launchers shoots at a a enemy unit. Some enemy are in the open some are in area terrain and some are out of LOS.

Pro RAW resolution would involve:
Roll to hit with laz weapons and place and determine scatter on the ten blast markers (counting up total hits under blasts). Now roll to wound in groups of similar strength weapons. Than with this one wound pool (if nothing is APor ID applicable) start applying them to the closest models giving them applicable saving throws. Stop when you run out of wound pools or models in LOS of the unit firing

Pro RAI resolution would involve: (at least how I would see it)
Roll to hit with laz weapons and place and determine scatter on ten blast markers. For each blast marker make note on where it landed, who it hit and what kind cover they can claim. Roll to wound with laz weapons and make a wound pile for them. Now roll to wound for each blast marker, keeping track of which blast went where. You now may have up to 11 wound pools (1 laz and 10 blast groups). Follow standard LOS rules for the laz shots. Now for each blast group go over which models were under each marker applying them closet first, then give them applicable saving throws. Stop when you're out of that wound pool or run out of models that were under that blast marker. Repeat the process for each blast marker.

Now I ask you this.
Do you really want to play the way that adds an extra layer of of complexity, just for the sake that in real life blast weapons can hurt guys unseen?

That being said, I think we can agree this is an unusual circumstance. Most units don't have these kind of blast capabilities. It just highlight the difficulties that can arise when trying to apply ones interpretations of rules across the board evenly. Though it would still slow things down if the example involved just ten guys with a missile launcher.

I don't know about other people but I like my games to go quick and without a lot of record keeping on what hit what where and under what models. I know it sucks not to have a blast kill those guys the marker is over, but I find those circumstances actually don't arise that often. At least not enough to make me want to over complicate the game to compensate.

pie zuri wrote:
Now I ask you this.
Do you really want to play the way that adds an extra layer of of complexity, just for the sake that in real life blast weapons can hurt guys unseen?

Anyone who wants to play at all with Impaler Cannons, Smart Missiles, or line based powers/weapons must play this way.

Do you really want to play the way that makes those weapons completely worthless?

DarknessEternal wrote:

pie zuri wrote:
Now I ask you this.
Do you really want to play the way that adds an extra layer of of complexity, just for the sake that in real life blast weapons can hurt guys unseen?

Anyone who wants to play at all with Impaler Cannons, Smart Missiles, or line based powers/weapons must play this way.

Do you really want to play the way that makes those weapons completely worthless?

I think "worthless" is kind of a over statement. They may have lost capabilities from 5th but it's not like they can't hurt anyone now. Worse case scenario you play those weapon systems less now.

I don't know about you but I find situations involving total LOS blocking to be infrequent. Generally some target can be seen by the firing unit. And if someone has gone through the trouble hiding a unit behind LOS blocking things they've done so too the detriment of the unit, seeing as it potentially doesn't have as good of a firing lane or is just bunched up begging for a barrage.

It says UNITS, because if it said MODELS, we'd be having a silly discussion about Blast markers sniping. That is all.

pie zuri wrote:Let me put forth a hypothetical situation.

A 50 man IG blob squad with 5 missile launchers and 5 grenade launchers shoots at a a enemy unit.

Full Stop.... Totaly hypothetical..... ive never, ever seen it............. its been vets in chimys and vendettas for the last 4 years...

Actually, my hive guard did quite well the other day popping open two land raiders while night fighting was in effect. It was quite beautiful.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dooley wrote:Yes they are hit, yes they are wounded. That is to say they add wounds to the wound pool. Now how do you allocate those wounds?

Then what about Tau Smart Missile Systems which are specifically allowed to target a unit out of sight?

What is the point of that ability if after you've wounded that unit you can't physically see you can't actually kill anything, as wounds caused still follow normal allocation procedures?

A special rule granting the ability to wound a unit out of sight overrides the requirement to have LOS to allocate a wound and the wounds just go on the nearest models, as per page 15.

This. Good luck telling all the Tau players their Smart Missiles can't wound a model out of LOS.

Captain Antivas wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dooley wrote:Yes they are hit, yes they are wounded. That is to say they add wounds to the wound pool. Now how do you allocate those wounds?

Then what about Tau Smart Missile Systems which are specifically allowed to target a unit out of sight?

What is the point of that ability if after you've wounded that unit you can't physically see you can't actually kill anything, as wounds caused still follow normal allocation procedures?

A special rule granting the ability to wound a unit out of sight overrides the requirement to have LOS to allocate a wound and the wounds just go on the nearest models, as per page 15.

This. Good luck telling all the Tau players their Smart Missiles can't wound a model out of LOS.

Again, if I was playing strict RAW I'd tell them that.

In this instance, RAI is absolutely obvious in my opinion, so I'll play that way.

Captain Antivas wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dooley wrote:Yes they are hit, yes they are wounded. That is to say they add wounds to the wound pool. Now how do you allocate those wounds?

Then what about Tau Smart Missile Systems which are specifically allowed to target a unit out of sight?

What is the point of that ability if after you've wounded that unit you can't physically see you can't actually kill anything, as wounds caused still follow normal allocation procedures?

A special rule granting the ability to wound a unit out of sight overrides the requirement to have LOS to allocate a wound and the wounds just go on the nearest models, as per page 15.

This. Good luck telling all the Tau players their Smart Missiles can't wound a model out of LOS.

Honestly if I ran into this situation. Or any other situations in which the weapon specifically said it can target out of LOS. I would offer my opponent the house rule of giving the weapon the barrage special rule. It would probably come with the caveat that wounds still need to be taken closest first so it didn't become a super sniper.

I personally wouldn't want people to feel their gear has been stripped of viability especially if the background of the weapon seems to contradict how RAW is played out. It's really for best, if both players don't feel cheated.

Granted this is personal take on how I would do it. TFG's and WAAC players are within their right to say no to those weapons from actually killing anything, but it seems a petty thing to do and not very sportsmanlike.

pie zuri wrote:Honestly if I ran into this situation. Or any other situations in which the weapon specifically said it can target out of LOS. I would offer my opponent the house rule of giving the weapon the barrage special rule. It would probably come with the caveat that wounds still need to be taken closest first so it didn't become a super sniper.

I personally wouldn't want people to feel their gear has been stripped of viability especially if the background of the weapon seems to contradict how RAW is played out. It's really for best, if both players don't feel cheated.

Granted this is personal take on how I would do it. TFG's and WAAC players are within their right to say no to those weapons from actually killing anything, but it seems a petty thing to do and not very sportsmanlike.

If the weapon ignores line of sight for shooting, just simply remove any LOS restrictions on wounds. You cant really give "Barrage" to an Impaler cannon (although that would be awesome for Nid's).

Fragile wrote:

pie zuri wrote:Honestly if I ran into this situation. Or any other situations in which the weapon specifically said it can target out of LOS. I would offer my opponent the house rule of giving the weapon the barrage special rule. It would probably come with the caveat that wounds still need to be taken closest first so it didn't become a super sniper.

I personally wouldn't want people to feel their gear has been stripped of viability especially if the background of the weapon seems to contradict how RAW is played out. It's really for best, if both players don't feel cheated.

Granted this is personal take on how I would do it. TFG's and WAAC players are within their right to say no to those weapons from actually killing anything, but it seems a petty thing to do and not very sportsmanlike.

If the weapon ignores line of sight for shooting, just simply remove any LOS restrictions on wounds. You cant really give "Barrage" to an Impaler cannon (although that would be awesome for Nid's).

It all seems reasonable to me. Plus, how many "direct fire" weapons have the ability to target out of LOS? From what I can tell, not many.

Any weapon carried by a purgation squad, and SMS for Tau

I've never come across the interpretation that a scattered blast can't kill things outside of LOS. If a blast scatters, then it moved to that area the blast template ends up, anything under it whether its in LOS or out of it, has been 'hit'. If I was working on multiple units, Marines with bolters firing and a missile launcher, then the bolters are restricted by what they see, the missile launcher hits whatever the blast template ends up on.

If I came across someone saying my scattered blast couldn't kill, then I'd happily concede and call the player a cheat, scratching the game from the record. Its like saying if I threw a frag grenade into a room and shut the door, since I can't see it going off, then it never exploded and can't have killed anything.
Since that scenario wouldn't work, unless the frag was a dud, then even with the door closed, even though I can't see it, if it went off, chances are it killed or wounded.
A scattered blast, if it lands on something or not, has scattered and landed in that area. You don't roll for empty land, but the blast would still occur, it doesn't have a to hit, to wound, or saving throw though. But if the blast landed on a friendly or enemy unit, then they get the surprise of explosion sauce to the face.

SkyD wrote:I've never come across the interpretation that a scattered blast can't kill things outside of LOS. If a blast scatters, then it moved to that area the blast template ends up, anything under it whether its in LOS or out of it, has been 'hit'. If I was working on multiple units, Marines with bolters firing and a missile launcher, then the bolters are restricted by what they see, the missile launcher hits whatever the blast template ends up on.

If I came across someone saying my scattered blast couldn't kill, then I'd happily concede and call the player a cheat, scratching the game from the record. Its like saying if I threw a frag grenade into a room and shut the door, since I can't see it going off, then it never exploded and can't have killed anything.
Since that scenario wouldn't work, unless the frag was a dud, then even with the door closed, even though I can't see it, if it went off, chances are it killed or wounded.
A scattered blast, if it lands on something or not, has scattered and landed in that area. You don't roll for empty land, but the blast would still occur, it doesn't have a to hit, to wound, or saving throw though. But if the blast landed on a friendly or enemy unit, then they get the surprise of explosion sauce to the face.

As rigeld has pointed out those of us arguing that RAW the scattered blast can not allocate Wounds to a unit out of sight, do not play this way. In a game this would not even come up. I think everyone agrees that RAI at least the unit is allocated Wounds even if out of sight. RAW, however, which is what this forum is for "discussion"-wise, is slightly more ambiguous.

It's a similar situation as what happens when an Init 5 model is in base contact with a Wraith that is then killed at Init 4?

SkyD wrote:I've never come across the interpretation that a scattered blast can't kill things outside of LOS. If a blast scatters, then it moved to that area the blast template ends up, anything under it whether its in LOS or out of it, has been 'hit'. If I was working on multiple units, Marines with bolters firing and a missile launcher, then the bolters are restricted by what they see, the missile launcher hits whatever the blast template ends up on.

If I came across someone saying my scattered blast couldn't kill, then I'd happily concede and call the player a cheat, scratching the game from the record. Its like saying if I threw a frag grenade into a room and shut the door, since I can't see it going off, then it never exploded and can't have killed anything.
Since that scenario wouldn't work, unless the frag was a dud, then even with the door closed, even though I can't see it, if it went off, chances are it killed or wounded.
A scattered blast, if it lands on something or not, has scattered and landed in that area. You don't roll for empty land, but the blast would still occur, it doesn't have a to hit, to wound, or saving throw though. But if the blast landed on a friendly or enemy unit, then they get the surprise of explosion sauce to the face.

Nice, dummy spit when player a new player who is following the new rules for wound allocation plays you. You have your grenade example which isn't even relevant because we're not discussing doors, we're discussing HE howitzer rounds passing through 15 feet of solid rock and hurting troops behind it, explain that?
Very typical NZ attitude though, I'll give you that.

What I'm unsure of though is why smart missiles keep coming up. They don't have a closure statement which says they follow the normal rules for wound allocation, thus it's obvious that the LOS waiver extends to the wound allocation step for them.

And I'll put in that I play the RAW at my LGS, everyone else there does too, and the tournament held there will play it that way. I guess we're Pariahs.

I didn't know putting your troops in a cave was in the game these days?

Ordinance and most blast weapons come in from above so if it scatters in that way, things get hit. If your troops were in a building being shot, then its come through an opening or blasted through the 'solid' wall. Since most 40k games take place in building like terrain, the walls aren't 500feet thick, they're not in a bunker. Its a building. The walls will be less than the thickness of tank armour. So if it can blast through tank armour, its can sure as hell blow through a weaker material, which most buildings are made out of.

And don't bring my country of origin into it. I don't insult you on your origin or intelligence, show me the same respect.

I do think it odd that they moved away from any kind of template, Flame, Blast, Lg Blast wounding models that are actually touched by the template, which would eliminate this entire issue.

helgrenze wrote:I do think it odd that they moved away from any kind of template, Flame, Blast, Lg Blast wounding models that are actually touched by the template, which would eliminate this entire issue.

I think they did it to make the shooting more streamlined. It potentially complicates any shooting that involves both normal guns and blast templates. You would have to keep track of wounds from blast markers and normal guns sepparetly. Otherwise you might have shennanegins involving using blast markers to create opportunity's for normal guns to shoot out of LOS. I know it all seems pretty straight forward when you think of single blast hitting guys out of LOS. But add in a couple more blasts and some normal guns in that unit and you suddenly have a shooting phase that last a lot longer.

I think those that are getting worked up over the loss of blasts hitting out LOS are making a bigger deal of it than it is. Yes, you can get screwed out of some shots but it's something you just plan around, when doing your turn. I think the biggest thing you can take a way from this thread is this. Currently the RAW stipulates you can't take wounds outside of LOS on direct fire blasts. Unless it gets FAQ'd from GW you just have to accept the way it is(for better or worse), at least on the tournament scene and pickup games with strangers. In friendly games, create house rules that both players agree upon.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote: we're discussing HE howitzer rounds passing through 15 feet of solid rock and hurting troops behind it,

No we aren't, we're talking about 40k.

pie zuri wrote:

I think they did it to make the shooting more streamlined. It potentially complicates any shooting that involves both normal guns and blast templates. You would have to keep track of wounds from blast markers and normal guns sepparetly.

You do have to. A squad of 5 marines with bolters shoot and wound as one, 1 wound pool. A squad of 5 bolters, 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher make 3 wound pools. 5 bolters hit and wound what they see, the flamer hits and wounds what he can see and that gets covered by his template only, a missile launcher firing a krak missile hits a single model in sight. If he uses a frag missile, then the template gets centred on a single model, anything under his blast marker gets hit. If it scatters then you resolve where it scatters to, anything under that template now is what takes the hit. The centre hole of the template shows where the krak missile 'hits', it then fragments (into the green) and hits anything under the template. So a small or large blast template is resolved as being from the centre hole, not from the model closest to the firer.

You can't mix up the wounds on a miniature unless its hit by multiple things. So if 1 miniature is hit by bolter shots, is under the flame template and the blast template he takes a possible unsaved wound from all of those 3 pools. If another miniature is directly behind him 2", is not covered by the flame template and the blast template then he takes his wound from the bolter wound pool only, if he is also within LOS of the bolter firer. Thats why when you roll to hit and wound with multiple weapons, you use different dice (different colour normally) or you must roll them in separate groups so that the different weapons wounds aren't mixed up. A flamer can't kill someone that his template hasn't hit, a bolter marine can't fire a shot that goes 6" straight and then makes a 90 degree turn around a piece of terrain, neither can a marine firing a missile launcher firing a krak missile. Just like a group that isn't under the blast template can't be wounded by the template thats hit 6" away.

They did it to avoid sniping with blasts; in 3rd ed ICs and special weapons didnt last long if blasts were about.

Of course if you have barrage and hit, 1/3rd of the time (ish) you can still snipe, to some extent

SkyD wrote:

pie zuri wrote:

I think they did it to make the shooting more streamlined. It potentially complicates any shooting that involves both normal guns and blast templates. You would have to keep track of wounds from blast markers and normal guns sepparetly.

You do have to. A squad of 5 marines with bolters shoot and wound as one, 1 wound pool. A squad of 5 bolters, 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher make 3 wound pools. 5 bolters hit and wound what they see, the flamer hits and wounds what he can see and that gets covered by his template only, a missile launcher firing a krak missile hits a single model in sight. If he uses a frag missile, then the template gets centred on a single model, anything under his blast marker gets hit. If it scatters then you resolve where it scatters to, anything under that template now is what takes the hit. The centre hole of the template shows where the krak missile 'hits', it then fragments (into the green) and hits anything under the template. So a small or large blast template is resolved as being from the centre hole, not from the model closest to the firer.

You can't mix up the wounds on a miniature unless its hit by multiple things. So if 1 miniature is hit by bolter shots, is under the flame template and the blast template he takes a possible unsaved wound from all of those 3 pools. If another miniature is directly behind him 2", is not covered by the flame template and the blast template then he takes his wound from the bolter wound pool only, if he is also within LOS of the bolter firer. Thats why when you roll to hit and wound with multiple weapons, you use different dice (different colour normally) or you must roll them in separate groups so that the different weapons wounds aren't mixed up. A flamer can't kill someone that his template hasn't hit, a bolter marine can't fire a shot that goes 6" straight and then makes a 90 degree turn around a piece of terrain, neither can a marine firing a missile launcher firing a krak missile. Just like a group that isn't under the blast template can't be wounded by the template thats hit 6" away.

Had to read your post a couple of times to figure out exactly what your saying. Not sure if these are your house rules or if this is how you think the rules are supposed to play out. Regardless...

From what I can gather these are the pertinent points your trying to make on how the weapons are used.

-You believe blast markers are used the same way as barrage markers with the only difference being you have to initially target it on a unit in LOS.

- You believe flame template markers only effect those models directly under it. Instead of of just adding to the wound pool.

-You believe it's a straightforward simple process to keep track of multiple blast/template locations in mass of figures, what models were underneath each of them, which pools allocated to which template along with any potential saving throws that might arise.

My thoughts on this.

First of all this process sounds really complicated compared to how RAW is actually stated. In your space marine example the RAW way to play it would be as follows.

Roll to hit with the three bolters. Place your blast marker on a model in LOS roll for potential scatter on blast and count up the models under it. and finally place the template and count up models underneath. Place the flame template, and count up the models underneath.

In this particular example all the weapons have the same strength and around the same AP value. You will only need to segregate the hit pools if the enemy could possibly be wanting to use cover because the AP will go through the armor (or the cover is better)or if the weapon causes instant death (and the target unit has a model with multiple wounds). That being said, if someones a new to 40k it's perfectly acceptable to have these hit piles segregated as it can be a headache to know exactly what does what.

Moving on. You now roll all those hit dice versus the majority. Using the strength of the weapon versus the majority toughness of the unit.

You now have a wound pool that you can start allocating to the enemy unit starting with the closest model. You stop when you run out of wound pool or models in in LOS of the firing unit.

This is how you suggested playing it.

Roll to hit with the three bolters. Place the blast marker down on a model in LOS, count up the models under and make sure to keep track of which models were under the blast and the spot where blast originates. Place the flame template and count the models underneath it, making sure to keep track of which models were underneath the template.

You should have three hit pools at this time. Make sure you keep them segregated as the blasts and templates only affect those models underneath them.

Roll wound on the bolters making sure to keep this wound pile separate. I can only assume this is against a majority toughness, as these are your special rules. Roll to wound the blasts. And finally roll to wound the models that were under the flame template

At this point you will hopefully have three wound piles. First start with the bolters. Wait, In your version is there a "right order"? Seeing as the "order" can make subtle changes too wound allocation. With this bolter wound pile start with the closest model until you run out of wounds or models in LOS. Next allocate blasts starting with models in the center of the blast, stopping only when out of wounds or models that were originally under the blast. Finally allocate flame template wounds to models that were originally under the template starting with what I assume is closest first (fingers crossed the bolters didn't kill them).

My question for you is. Do you really think that was a better system. In this example there weren't necessarily models out of LOS. You complicated it, just in case you come into a situation were a model was out of LOS. Remember you got to apply the rule evenly across the entire game.

This brings me to my second question. What happens when the shooting involves multiple blasts and multiple templates? Will you being taking detailed notes on where each of those blasts ends up, the models under them and it's center. Perhaps you could diagram it on a photo or just sketch it out. It all seems kinda complicated to me just so I can have the opportunity to wound models out of LOS.

In addition to making shooting take longer, Now that were treating blasts like barrages we'll now have to deal with blast sniping, granted it's a small price to pay if I can hit models out of LOS (just like in real life).

Sorry if I seem like I'm being hard on you, but you did address me directly, and I get the distinct impression you didn't bother reading any of the previous pages of the topic. Otherwise You wouldn't have come strolling in, late to the party, bringing up points that have already been discussed.

In short yes, I can see how you could possibly interpret the rules as you did (at least at first). But I think you'll find if you go over the BRB with a critical eye instead of just looking for ways to support the way you want to play the answer to what is RAW will jump out at you.

P.S. I think NZ is a beautiful country and quite jealous you live there (at least I think you were the NZ guy)

Page 15- Mixed Wounds

"If, after rolling To Wound, the wound pool contains groups of wounds with different strengths, ap values or special rules, then each of these groups is resolved separately, using the relevant method described above. You as the shooting player get to choose the order in which these groups are resolved. This allows you to place your shots where they'll do the most damage. once one group of wounds is resolved, simply move on to the next until the wound pool is empty."

Page 33- Multiple Blasts- "Roll each shot one at a time, etc"

This is how we play it and as how we have read it from the book;

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/845/40kexplanation.png/

I will admit I skipped posts because they seemed to be the same "I say", "You say" but the examples given always seem to be based off a normal shot like a krak or bolter shot. Which goes from point A to point B in one line, like a flamer goes from the base of the firing model to whatever it is firing at but can't hit anything beyond its template just the same as a bolter round can't go beyond its maximum distance. But a blast template has a special rule meaning it may go above its maximum distance, below it, etc due to the scatter and it can hit anything friendly or enemy. The only time the shot is discounted and does no damage is if it doesn't hit anything but bare ground or scatters off the table. Otherwise it hits a unit. Scattering blasts can affect a 2nd unit or your own if they happen to be where the shot lands.

SkyD wrote:Page 15- Mixed Wounds

"If, after rolling To Wound, the wound pool contains groups of wounds with different strengths, ap values or special rules, then each of these groups is resolved separately, using the relevant method described above. You as the shooting player get to choose the order in which these groups are resolved. This allows you to place your shots where they'll do the most damage. once one group of wounds is resolved, simply move on to the next until the wound pool is empty."

Page 33- Multiple Blasts- "Roll each shot one at a time, etc"

This is how we play it and as how we have read it from the book;

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/845/40kexplanation.png/

I will admit I skipped posts because they seemed to be the same "I say", "You say" but the examples given always seem to be based off a normal shot like a krak or bolter shot. Which goes from point A to point B in one line, like a flamer goes from the base of the firing model to whatever it is firing at but can't hit anything beyond its template just the same as a bolter round can't go beyond its maximum distance. But a blast template has a special rule meaning it may go above its maximum distance, below it, etc due to the scatter and it can hit anything friendly or enemy. The only time the shot is discounted and does no damage is if it doesn't hit anything but bare ground or scatters off the table. Otherwise it hits a unit. Scattering blasts can affect a 2nd unit or your own if they happen to be where the shot lands.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume the thing that is hanging you up is the line in the blast paragraph that says "hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and out of LOS"

This is of course the cornerstone to the whole debate on this topic.

Things to note in the statement.
-The term "units" is used and not "models". The book uses "unit" to reference a total group.
-You do hits and wounds before before allocating models to kill.
-Latter in the blast description they tell you to allocate as normal. Not allocate as normal excluding LOS restriction.


I know the sentence reads like blasts should hurt the models it touches(at first glance). Though that is more of a RAI thing. Read it carefully using 40k word definitions. This is generaly a case of people putting real life expectations on a fantasy weapon.

One of peoples other arguments has been why would they put a useless rule in the blast. Surly they meant for me to kill models out of LOS.

The answer of course is that the rule isn't worthless. Without it, if your blast scattered your opponent could look at the board at tell you your blast didn't have effect because it was out of LOS or range. Guaranteed we would be dealing with those topics right now.
In the end you got to some hits and rolls to wound. If luck would have it no models could be seen by the firing unit, the shot is a wiff. Most likely you'll see some model in the unit, even if your blast didn't hit them they're eligible for wound allocation. Also remember the person who fired the doesn't have to see the model. LOS is done on a unit by unit basis.

The next part of my argument is what happens if you apply wounding out of LOS. Does it integrate itself well? The answer of course is in the description I wrote in the previous post. If at the end of the day applying wounds smoothly integrated themselves into how the rules were written you would probably see me house ruling that way. But since they don't(way to much potential record keeping)I firmly put myself in the RAW camp. Not cause I'm a rules lawyer. I just like things to go without a lot of fiddlyness. I don't know about you but keeping track of multiple blasts and templates(where it hit, models underneath, which pool is which) would drive me insane.

Everything I said apply's to flame template as well. with the exception, it don't scatter.

Regarding your nicely done sketch
The resolution to the combat would be. take the 10 unsaved (I assume there was a roll to wound) and start applying them to the guys in red, closest first). Giving them any applicable saving throws. The guys in white are safe. You would also get to resolve a side hit on the vehicle. If the flamer could have potentially damaged the vehicle you could have tried hitting it also as you only need to get as many models in the target unit as possible (it couldn't have been more than one model)

Regarding mixed wounds
I've never mentioned anything against this. Certainly, nothing I've ever wrote contradicts this rule. If you have special wounds, you can save them in allocation till when you get to a model you feel it would be good on.

Multiple Blasts
Oh course you roll them one at a time. have you ever tried balancing three templates simultaneously rolling the three dice and then apply the result.

I read it as if they are out of LOS with a blast weapon post scatter, you treat them as normal, the scattered blast marker makes them come under 'normal', they were out of sight before the scatter, but being hit by a scattering blast makes them "in sight" for the duration of that attack. For those models or 'units' under the blast marker.

Otherwise you can't use wounds taken from a scattered blast that hits out of sight models on models that are within LOS. As you are no longer hitting an "in sight" part of the unit, something you can't do with a normal shooting attack. With a bolter, flamer and krak you may only hit and wound what you see. In my pic you'll see what I've meant with the scatter, its gone from that green circle on (A) and scattered to (C), only 3 models and the tank are 'hit' by that, those hits don't contribute to the reds, as only the bolters and the flamer 'hit' that area. As it scattered and 'hit' the (C) area, those models, are now treated as "in sight" for wounding and are then 'hit' and 'wounded' as per normal shooting attacks.

Just the same, if that scatter went 9" and hit a different unit or one of mine, they are then forced to take hits, wounds and saves, as per a normal attack. But if that happened and I followed the above you have given, then if I struck my unit, then I can use those wounds on my own units, to force you to 'wound' your own models. Ones I didn't hit, is that fair? No. That would be ripping you off in the game. Being my units, hit by an indiscriminate weapon after firing, I lose my unit.

From what I played in 5th, if too many models were outside of cover, then the whole unit was fair game. In 6th the rules changed, if I can't see a unit with LOS, then they are not part of the units that can be rolled "to hit" for. The blast marker works in the same way, the firing model must see what he is firing at initially, but once its fired, then events can conspire to make that shot scatter, if it scatters to an out of sight part of the unit, that part of the unit counts as "in sight" for the attacks resolution, the wounds from it will not affect people outside of the blast area, in game.

So in my example, the flamer affects one mini in red, the bolters affect the other mini's in red (Flamer goes first, he takes down 1, the bolters then come through and can hit models directly behind the mini marked A, who would have previously been out of LOS, the blast was meant to hit A but scattered to C, instead of hitting anything red like it should have, its now gone into 'hidden' units and the tank which are affected by the blast. Unit C and the 2 units by him which are also under the blast template have all died).

At the end of the shooting phase the example now appears as;

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4180/40kexplanation2.png

Ok during the whole procedure we have different steps:

1 step: to hit
2. step: to wound
3. step: allocate wounds+saving throws+removing casualties (its one thing because these 3 parts of step 3 are made model based now)

I can see step 1 and step 2 replaced by blast rule, but it says wound allocation follows the normal rules which necessarily leads to the general rules on step 3.
That would mean models out of LOS can't be allocated a wound to. Yep their unit can be wounded, but no models will suffer any unsaved wounds.
Yes that would mean the same for Hiveguards unless written otherwise in the codex (I don't have the rule present) as well as Astral aim.

stupid but it needs FAQ clarification to remove that mistake.

And I refuse to accept that GW wrote a rule that doesn't work. They made sure to include it, so it must have a purpose. Wounding is a 2 step process. You check to see if you cause a wound, then you apply that wound to a model. If you cannot do one of the two you cannot wound. Wounding and allocating are not two separate processes that don't overlap or rely on each other.

Captain Antivas wrote:And I refuse to accept that GW wrote a rule that doesn't work. They made sure to include it, so it must have a purpose. Wounding is a 2 step process. You check to see if you cause a wound, then you apply that wound to a model. If you cannot do one of the two you cannot wound. Wounding and allocating are not two separate processes that don't overlap or rely on each other.

They absolutely are separate. Rolling to wound populates the wound pool which you allocate from. They're different steps in the process.

And you're surprised that GW wrote unclear/useless rules? Do you think it's never happened before?

P. 33 BRB "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.

This represents the chance of ricochets,
the missile blasdng through cover and
other random events. In these cases, hits
are worked out as normal and can hit
and wound units out of range and line ol
sight (or even your own units, or models
locked in combat)."


Two things this rule addresses:

1. Maximum Range
2. Line of sight.

It tells you two things about these:

1. Disregard maximum range - "it's fine"
2. Disregard LOS - "it's fine"


Let's not be obtuse and try to follow ALL the normal rules for shooting. IF IT FOLLOWED ALL THE NORMAL SHOOTING RULES, YOU WOULDN'T BE USING A BLAST TEMPLATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Obviously this RAW means to use the remaining normal rules for shooting ignoring the two mentioned exceptions.

You allocate wounds based on distance from the firer. Out of range? That's OK. Out of LOS That's OK. In other words do everything as if the whole unit is in range and in LOS to the firer.

Cover saves are taken based on the intervening terrain(p.18). Sorry, but you lose the requirement to be 25% obscured, because it is "possible, and absolutely fine" to hit such models.

@Nemesor Dave

The problem is, the process of "to wound" and the process of "to allocate wounds+to remove casualties" are two different things.
If not, you had to remove models under the blast template because only those were hit and wounded. (Like it is done with barrage weapons)

But this is obviously not the case. Yes you can hit and wound models out of LOS but you can't remove models out of LOS because it is neither part of the wounding process (which is described in the blast weapons rule) nor is it possible using the general rules for allocating wounds and remove casualties.

I need something after that little sentence "Any unsaved wonds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack" like "with the exception that models out of LOS can be removed as well".

If this is not given then I must assume that the wounds are treated as if they had come from a normal shooting attack for all purposes. Which clearly means that models out of LOS are safe.

-Naz-

So you think if something scatters on top of units OUT of LOS, the wounds don't matter?

Based on rules, wouldn't the wounds just transfer to the the closest LOS units?

Remember we're not here to make the game "Unfun" by trying to use the rules against our enemy.

Thanks
Dan

No because the closest unit in sight does not have any Wound pools to allocate to it.

Remember Stormbreed, while some of us are arguing that you cannot allocate the wounds to a unit completely out of sight, most (if not all) of us don;t play that way.

Happyjew wrote:No because the closest unit in sight does not have any Wound pools to allocate to it.

Remember Stormbreed, while some of us are arguing that you cannot allocate the wounds to a unit completely out of sight, most (if not all) of us don;t play that way.

I see your point about scattering onto a whole new "Unit" out of LOS. That would throw me for a loop for sure!

Thanks
Dan

Has everyone gone mental? these rules are pretty clear and are no different from 5th ed. you scatter. if it lands on anything else, it hits them instead, even out of LOS. wounds go on that unit instead.

its really pretty cut and dry. I dont even think its written all that different from previous editions.