I have a question about Blast weapons and ranges that I'm not sure about...

Suppose I have a model firing a Blast weapon at some target A, and it scatters and hits target infantry unit B which is outside the max range of the weapon. While the Blast may hit and wound B, since all of the models are outside max range, no wounds can be allocated because the allocation follows normal shooting rules (p33) and you can't allocate to models out of range (p16).

Now what if unit B is a vehicle? Do the Out of Range and Out of Sight rules apply (which are written in the context of Wound Allocation)?

Read up on blast weapons, it says that if it scatters out of the weapon range or out of line of sight it functions as normal.
Meaning: if it scatters out of range it still hit, wound and kill.

I dunno if the out of LOS vehicle get a cover save however, but the rules for blast weapons says this is not a problem and still hit.

Per the rules a blast that scatters out of sight/range can still hit and wound units. However, wounds are still allocated as normal. This means if the unit that is hit is completely out of sight (for example) then no models in the unit can be wounded.

 Happyjew wrote:
Per the rules a blast that scatters out of sight/range can still hit and wound units. However, wounds are still allocated as normal. This means if the unit that is hit is completely out of sight (for example) then no models in the unit can be wounded.

How about the strange new FAQ though, it seems that blasts can now wound AND kill out of line of sight

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

 Happyjew wrote:
Per the rules a blast that scatters out of sight/range can still hit and wound units. However, wounds are still allocated as normal. This means if the unit that is hit is completely out of sight (for example) then no models in the unit can be wounded.

Newest Errata updates include this;

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight

Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

(I bolded the relevant portion) So does this mean that if the blast scatters out of sight, hits and wounds, those wounds can now be allocated to models out of sight, despite the arguments made against this recently? I believe so. However, it also says "the target unit" .. if the unit the blast hits is NOT the target unit, can you allocate wounds to it, or do you take those wounds and allocate them TO the target unit and not the separate unit it hit? Or are those wounds then lost?

I love when erratas bring about more questions!

Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

I do not see what you mean by that.
I believe you are ignoring the rest of the Blast & Large Blast rules in the BRB.

Edit: Not ignoring... forgetting is a better term.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Per the rules a blast that scatters out of sight/range can still hit and wound units. However, wounds are still allocated as normal. This means if the unit that is hit is completely out of sight (for example) then no models in the unit can be wounded.

Newest Errata updates include this;

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight

Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

(I bolded the relevant portion) So does this mean that if the blast scatters out of sight, hits and wounds, those wounds can now be allocated to models out of sight, despite the arguments made against this recently? I believe so. However, it also says "the target unit" .. if the unit the blast hits is NOT the target unit, can you allocate wounds to it, or do you take those wounds and allocate them TO the target unit and not the separate unit it hit? Or are those wounds then lost?

I love when erratas bring about more questions!

Units hit by blast markers are considered the target unit. Let's not make things more complicated than what they are. It works that way for all area effect weapons, if a unit is hit it is considered a targeted unit.

It's the same for those "straight line" weapons, Nova weapons, etc, etc.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

I do not see what you mean by that.
I believe you are ignoring the rest of the Blast & Large Blast rules in the BRB.

Edit: Not ignoring... forgetting is a better term.

Nope. Read the B&LB rules. You can wound units out of LoS but there's no permission to allocate.
The errata backs that interpretation up as you're only targeting the unit you initially placed the marker over, not the unit it scattered to.
Didn't change anything.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

I do not see what you mean by that.
I believe you are ignoring the rest of the Blast & Large Blast rules in the BRB.

Edit: Not ignoring... forgetting is a better term.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that someone might be construed as ignoring clearly written rules, or obvious intent, in order to sustain their prior position as being correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

I do not see what you mean by that.
I believe you are ignoring the rest of the Blast & Large Blast rules in the BRB.

Edit: Not ignoring... forgetting is a better term.

Nope. Read the B&LB rules. You can wound units out of LoS but there's no permission to allocate.
The errata backs that interpretation up as you're only targeting the unit you initially placed the marker over, not the unit it scattered to.
Didn't change anything.

What about this part of the rules?

"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."

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

I do not see what you mean by that.
I believe you are ignoring the rest of the Blast & Large Blast rules in the BRB.

Edit: Not ignoring... forgetting is a better term.

Nope. Read the B&LB rules. You can wound units out of LoS but there's no permission to allocate.
The errata backs that interpretation up as you're only targeting the unit you initially placed the marker over, not the unit it scattered to.
Didn't change anything.

According to this interpretation, you can only ever allocate to the unit that you declared as a target. So no more wounding more than one unit with a template, jaws, nova, etc, etc, You then never have to worry about scattering onto your own units. This is obviously incorrect.


Units hit by area effect weapons are considered the target unit.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

I do not see what you mean by that.
I believe you are ignoring the rest of the Blast & Large Blast rules in the BRB.

Edit: Not ignoring... forgetting is a better term.

Nope. Read the B&LB rules. You can wound units out of LoS but there's no permission to allocate.
The errata backs that interpretation up as you're only targeting the unit you initially placed the marker over, not the unit it scattered to.
Didn't change anything.

What about this part of the rules?

"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."

And what's normal for a unit with no models in line of sight? Is there anything that lifts the restriction set by Out of Sight?

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

I do not see what you mean by that.
I believe you are ignoring the rest of the Blast & Large Blast rules in the BRB.

Edit: Not ignoring... forgetting is a better term.

Nope. Read the B&LB rules. You can wound units out of LoS but there's no permission to allocate.
The errata backs that interpretation up as you're only targeting the unit you initially placed the marker over, not the unit it scattered to.
Didn't change anything.

What about this part of the rules?

"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."

And what's normal for a unit with no models in line of sight? Is there anything that lifts the restriction set by Out of Sight?

You mean other than the FAQ that was just released?

40k-noob wrote:
You mean other than the FAQ that was just released?

The FAQ that refers to the target unit?
How many units do you target when shooting?

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
You mean other than the FAQ that was just released?

The FAQ that refers to the target unit?
How many units do you target when shooting?

Just one and place the Marker over a model in the unit. But again, I think you are overlooking the rest of the rules for B&LB.

The rules allow for units other than the initial target to be hit/wounded by the B&LB when it scatters.
The third and fourth para address scatter, out of range and LOS and say it is perfectly fine and can hit/wound these units.

And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

rigeld2 wrote:
And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

So then you DO feel that ONLY the "target" unit can be hit/wounded by blasts?

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

So then you DO feel that ONLY the "target" unit can be hit/wounded by blasts?

That appears to be the case, therefor breaking all other shooting conventions as well.

This is one of those cases where you have to consider being right and correct enough of a victory. Getting someone to admit that they were wrong will just not happen.

If you really want to prove your point, just ask how a barrage weapon can allocate to units that are "Out of Sight" . Nothing in the barrage rules overrides Out of Sight either. Then sit back and watch the rhetorical Jiu Jitsu with their own logic.

I think you can clearly see they mean for out of sight models to be hit/killed by blasts or else they would have worded the errata to state - Blasts do not affect models out of line of sight.

Instead they give a poorly worded errata that still lets people have some doubt about what is going on.

 Mythra wrote:
I think you can clearly see they mean for out of sight models to be hit/killed by blasts or else they would have worded the errata to state - Blasts do not affect models out of line of sight.

Instead they give a poorly worded errata that still lets people have some doubt about what is going on.

What?

They have clear rules that allow you to hit and wound units that are out of line of sight. They now have clear rules that allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of line of sight. I truly do not see where any confusion could be found.

SInce the rule clearly states that models that are out of line of sight can have wounds allocated to them, this overides the portion of allocation that requires line of sight. You then begin applying the wounds to the model that is closest to the firing unit. Done.

 Idolator wrote:
They have clear rules that allow you to hit and wound units that are out of line of sight.

Correct.

They now have clear rules that allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of line of sight. I truly do not see where any confusion could be found.

Only for the target unit. For example I have a Devastator squad. One has a missile launcher. I fire a frag missile at a group of Termagants and scatters into a unit of Hormagaunts. Which is the target unit? Why?

See still unclear. I think they meant it to hit any unit not just target unit.



I mean why does the target unit get hurt but anything next to it is magically invulnerable.


RAW Other units don't take the wounds only the target unit. RAI I think they meant blasts to hurt any out sight model/unit.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
They have clear rules that allow you to hit and wound units that are out of line of sight.

Correct.

They now have clear rules that allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of line of sight. I truly do not see where any confusion could be found.

Only for the target unit. For example I have a Devastator squad. One has a missile launcher. I fire a frag missile at a group of Termagants and scatters into a unit of Hormagaunts. Which is the target unit? Why?

Last two paragraphs of the blast &large blast rules on page 33. No mention of the term target unit. simple.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

So then you DO feel that ONLY the "target" unit can be hit/wounded by blasts?

No. You're conflating hits/wounds/allocated wounds. The shooting rules don't do that and neither should you.

A blast weapon can generate hits on a unit out of LoS that it scatters onto.
It can generate wounds and populate a wound pool.
It cannot allocate wounds as there are no models in Line of Sight and therefore you empty the wound pool.

 Idolator wrote:

If you really want to prove your point, just ask how a barrage weapon can allocate to units that are "Out of Sight" . Nothing in the barrage rules overrides Out of Sight either. Then sit back and watch the rhetorical Jiu Jitsu with their own logic.

Easy, the barrage rules don't exempt barrage weapons from out of sight. They do however change the frame of reference, for cover saves and wound allocation, to the center of the blast maker instead of the firing model, thus allowing a barrage weapon to fire indirectly.

 Idolator wrote:
Last two paragraphs of the blast &large blast rules on page 33. No mention of the term target unit. simple.

Re-read the errata. You're 100% incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

So then you DO feel that ONLY the "target" unit can be hit/wounded by blasts?

No. You're conflating hits/wounds/allocated wounds. The shooting rules don't do that and neither should you.

A blast weapon can generate hits on a unit out of LoS that it scatters onto.
It can generate wounds and populate a wound pool.
It cannot allocate wounds as there are no models in Line of Sight and therefore you empty the wound pool.

That is true only if you ignore the fact that you are specificaly allowed to allocate wounds to models that are out of sight.

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

So then you DO feel that ONLY the "target" unit can be hit/wounded by blasts?

No. You're conflating hits/wounds/allocated wounds. The shooting rules don't do that and neither should you.

A blast weapon can generate hits on a unit out of LoS that it scatters onto.
It can generate wounds and populate a wound pool.
It cannot allocate wounds as there are no models in Line of Sight and therefore you empty the wound pool.

That is true only if you ignore the fact that you are specificaly allowed to allocate wounds to models that are out of sight.

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

I highlighted the part you seem to be missing.

 Idolator wrote:

That is true only if you ignore the fact that you are specificaly allowed to allocate wounds to models that are out of sight.

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

I bolded the phrase you keep missing.
How many targets do you have in a shooting phase?

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

If you really want to prove your point, just ask how a barrage weapon can allocate to units that are "Out of Sight" . Nothing in the barrage rules overrides Out of Sight either. Then sit back and watch the rhetorical Jiu Jitsu with their own logic.

Easy, the barrage rules don't exempt barrage weapons from out of sight. They do however change the frame of reference, for cover saves and wound allocation, to the center of the blast maker instead of the firing model, thus allowing a barrage weapon to fire indirectly.

I know that they can and do, Hit, Wound and Allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS. So do regular blast . It's when people attempt to allow one and disallow the other that their logic collapses. Especial now, that the rules specifically allow you to hit, wound and allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS that are hit with blast markers.

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

It allows you to get models in the target unit that were out of sight, that one is new. Though for non target units nothing changes.

 Idolator wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

If you really want to prove your point, just ask how a barrage weapon can allocate to units that are "Out of Sight" . Nothing in the barrage rules overrides Out of Sight either. Then sit back and watch the rhetorical Jiu Jitsu with their own logic.

Easy, the barrage rules don't exempt barrage weapons from out of sight. They do however change the frame of reference, for cover saves and wound allocation, to the center of the blast maker instead of the firing model, thus allowing a barrage weapon to fire indirectly.

I know that they can and do, Hit, Wound and Allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS. So do regular blast . It's when people attempt to allow one and disallow the other that their logic collapses. Especial now, that the rules specifically allow you to hit, wound and allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS that are hit with blast markers.

Only with the TARGET unit can a blast weapon allocate to models out of sight. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

So then you DO feel that ONLY the "target" unit can be hit/wounded by blasts?

No. You're conflating hits/wounds/allocated wounds. The shooting rules don't do that and neither should you.

A blast weapon can generate hits on a unit out of LoS that it scatters onto.
It can generate wounds and populate a wound pool.
It cannot allocate wounds as there are no models in Line of Sight and therefore you empty the wound pool.

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

If you really want to prove your point, just ask how a barrage weapon can allocate to units that are "Out of Sight" . Nothing in the barrage rules overrides Out of Sight either. Then sit back and watch the rhetorical Jiu Jitsu with their own logic.

Easy, the barrage rules don't exempt barrage weapons from out of sight. They do however change the frame of reference, for cover saves and wound allocation, to the center of the blast maker instead of the firing model, thus allowing a barrage weapon to fire indirectly.

I know that they can and do, Hit, Wound and Allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS. So do regular blast . It's when people attempt to allow one and disallow the other that their logic collapses. Especial now, that the rules specifically allow you to hit, wound and allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS that are hit with blast markers.

Only with the TARGET unit can a blast weapon allocate to models out of sight. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Yes, absolutely. Look at page 12 for the beginning of where a target unit is mentioned/defined.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

For the target unit, that's correct.

 Tarrasq wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

It allows you to get models in the target unit that were out of sight, that one is new. Though for non target units nothing changes.

No according to Rig even non target units in LOS cannot be killed as they are not the "target unit"

40k-noob wrote:

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

The Errata only pertains to the target unit, however the blast rules still allow for wounds to be allocated to non-target models in LOS.

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Actually the rules for Out of Sight and Blast Weapons are all out of whack. For example - I target a Tac squad out in the open. The blast scatters into a Scout squad completely out of sight. I fill a Wound pool (as normal). Now when I go to allocate the Wounds per the out of sight rules, since no models in the Scot unit is in LoS, all the wounds are instead allocated to the target unit (Tac squad).

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Yes, absolutely. Look at page 12 for the beginning of where a target unit is mentioned/defined.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

For the target unit, that's correct.

I think that completely ignores the rules for Scatter and IMO wrong.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

So then you DO feel that ONLY the "target" unit can be hit/wounded by blasts?

No. You're conflating hits/wounds/allocated wounds. The shooting rules don't do that and neither should you.

A blast weapon can generate hits on a unit out of LoS that it scatters onto.
It can generate wounds and populate a wound pool.
It cannot allocate wounds as there are no models in Line of Sight and therefore you empty the wound pool.

That is true only if you ignore the fact that you are specificaly allowed to allocate wounds to models that are out of sight.

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

I highlighted the part you seem to be missing.

I wasn't missing it. Any and all units hit by the blast markers, beam weapons, templates and any other areas of effect are the targeted unit.

Since all wound allocation is based on target units, not units hit, your reasoning would prevent wounds from ever being allocated to any unit other that the declared target. Effectively making a large portion of weapons either unreliable or useless. (I'm looking at you Deathstrike Missle)

As all rules for wound allocation use the wording "Target Unit".


Can blast, templates, beam,, templates and area effect weapons have wounds allocated to units that are not the declared target?

Edit, I took out maelstrom

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Yes, absolutely. Look at page 12 for the beginning of where a target unit is mentioned/defined.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

For the target unit, that's correct.

I think that completely ignores the rules for Scatter and IMO wrong.

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

 Tarrasq wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

The Errata only pertains to the target unit, however the blast rules still allow for wounds to be allocated to non-target models in LOS.

No that would be incorrect, the Errata adds to the end of the B&LB rules and tells you to "remember" to keep B&LB wounds separate and then only the target unit can have those wounds allocated to them.

 Idolator wrote:
I wasn't missing it. Any and all units hit by the blast markers, beam weapons, Maelstom, templates and any other areas of effect are the targeted unit.

Citation needed.

Since all wound allocation is based on target units, not units hit, your reasoning would prevent wounds from ever being allocated to any unit other that the declared target. Effectively making a large portion of weapons either unreliable or useless. (I'm looking at you Deathstrike Missle)

As all rules for wound allocation use the wording "Target Unit".

I' currently looking at pg 15 of the BRB. Specifically "Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties". I'm not seeing the word "Target" in there at all.

Can blast, templates, beam, Maelstrom, templates and area effect weapons have wounds allocated to units that are not the declared target?

Yes. However any model out of sight cannot have a wound allocated to it (per out of sight) and the wound is instead allocated to the nearest model in line of sight in the target unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

We've never talked about this subject in person, but I am going by your interpretation about the "target unit."

The Errata is clarifying what to do with wounds from a B&LB and makes it clear that only the "target unit" can have those wounds allocated to them.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

We've never talked about this subject in person, but I am going by your interpretation about the "target unit."

The Errata is clarifying what to do with wounds from a B&LB and makes it clear that only the "target unit" can have those wounds allocated to them.

Here's a little bit of fun....Beam Weapons have no target unit. Meaning that no wounds from beam weapons can be allocated. According to some here on this thread.

Neither does vehicle explosions.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

We've never talked about this subject in person,

We have actually, but I usually don't bother actually arguing things in person because it's more fun to just play.

but I am going by your interpretation about the "target unit."

The Errata is clarifying what to do with wounds from a B&LB and makes it clear that only the "target unit" can have those wounds allocated to them.

Yes, correct. Only the target unit can have wounds allocated from a B&LB.

40k-noob wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

The Errata only pertains to the target unit, however the blast rules still allow for wounds to be allocated to non-target models in LOS.

No that would be incorrect, the Errata adds to the end of the B&LB rules and tells you to "remember" to keep B&LB wounds separate and then only the target unit can have those wounds allocated to them.

It says "CAN be allocated to the closest model in the target unit..." it does not say "MUST be allocated..."

 Tarrasq wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

The Errata only pertains to the target unit, however the blast rules still allow for wounds to be allocated to non-target models in LOS.

No that would be incorrect, the Errata adds to the end of the B&LB rules and tells you to "remember" to keep B&LB wounds separate and then only the target unit can have those wounds allocated to them.

It says "CAN be allocated to the closest model in the target unit..." it does not say "MUST be allocated..."

ok, I am sure your opponent would love for you to elect not to allocate wounds from B&LB.

Considering you don't allocate wounds to your own models in 6th I don't see how this is relevant?

 Happyjew wrote:

As all rules for wound allocation use the wording "Target Unit".

I' currently looking at pg 15 of the BRB. Specifically "Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties". I'm not seeing the word "Target" in there at all.

Can blast, templates, beam, Maelstrom, templates and area effect weapons have wounds allocated to units that are not the declared target?

Yes. However any model out of sight cannot have a wound allocated to it (per out of sight) and the wound is instead allocated to the nearest model in line of sight in the target unit.

Whatever you think this errata is absurd. The wound pool bit was unnecessary and leads to blasts completely missing their target yet still potentially generating wounds and allocating back to the target unit.

They should have just added the barrage center of the LOS paragraph. Sure it allows for blast sniping, but people are already trying not to take blasts if they can, this may reverse that trend.

 Tarrasq wrote:
Whatever you think this errata is absurd. The wound pool bit was unnecessary and leads to blasts completely missing their target yet still potentially generating wounds and allocating back to the target unit.

They should have just added the barrage center of the LOS paragraph. Sure it allows for blast sniping, but people are already trying not to take blasts if they can, this may reverse that trend.

The unit hit, is considered the target unit!

No matter if the unit hit is in line of sight or out of line of sight. It doesn't allow you to allocate wounds from a different unit to the intended target. Hitting a unit that is out of line of sight is treated just like scattering onto a unit that is in line of sight.

Jeez!!!

The wound pool bit is in there to prevent a crafty player from using the blast wound pool to remove the visible models first, then declaring that the rest of the wounds can no longer be allocated due to LOS restrictions.

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

I do not see what you mean by that.
I believe you are ignoring the rest of the Blast & Large Blast rules in the BRB.

Edit: Not ignoring... forgetting is a better term.

Nope. Read the B&LB rules. You can wound units out of LoS but there's no permission to allocate.
The errata backs that interpretation up as you're only targeting the unit you initially placed the marker over, not the unit it scattered to.
Didn't change anything.

According to this interpretation, you can only ever allocate to the unit that you declared as a target. So no more wounding more than one unit with a template, jaws, nova, etc, etc, You then never have to worry about scattering onto your own units. This is obviously incorrect.

Units hit by area effect weapons are considered the target unit.

AGREED

Folks. Keep in mind that there's a difference between a FAQ and an Amendment. An amendment will try to re-write the rules clearly where a FAQ could be seen as a specific question. We need to look at the rules as written from the viewpoint of this FAQ. Nothing in the actual rules exempts the other units than the original target unit from damage. The FAQ is just answering a specific question from which we can extrapolate the intent that any models hit by a blast out of Line of Sight can have wounds allocated to them.


To reiterate: do not treat FAQs as re-writes. Only Amendments and Errata do that.

My question is, what cover save do they get? LOL.

I know the answer is the cover save of the thing they're hiding behind but the fact that they get a cover save at all kind of poops on the entire concept we're investigating here. LOL.

 Idolator wrote:
The unit hit, is considered the target unit!

Page and paragraph please.

 Loopy wrote:
To reiterate: do not treat FAQs as re-writes. Only Amendments and Errata do that.

Um. It's an Errata, not an FAQ.

BRB FAQ page 1 wrote:Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Rememberto keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast specialrule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

Idolator wrote:
The unit hit, is considered the target unit!

Page and paragraph, or you have violated the tenets of this forum (again) as you have been asked to actually provide proof for this assertion.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
To reiterate: do not treat FAQs as re-writes. Only Amendments and Errata do that.

Um. It's an Errata, not an FAQ.

BRB FAQ page 1 wrote:Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Rememberto keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast specialrule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

I'm a jackass.

 Loopy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
To reiterate: do not treat FAQs as re-writes. Only Amendments and Errata do that.

Um. It's an Errata, not an FAQ.

BRB FAQ page 1 wrote:Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Rememberto keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast specialrule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

I'm a jackass.

No, you did not realise we were discussing an actual errata instead of a FAQ. However, FAQs do change rules - DA PFG, SitW vs embarked Psykers, Embarked Farseers and Farseer powers...

Hmm. Seems like a reminder paragraph to me. I hate these little reminders they sprinkle in with the rules sometimes because it gives people the impression of exclusion where there shouldn't be any. Harrumph. I'm not sure what to say about it. I doubt very highly the intent is to exclude the units other than the originally targeted unit, but if my play group followed strict RAW, I'm not sure I'd have much of a leg to stand on.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
The unit hit, is considered the target unit!

Page and paragraph please.

You are right. There is nothing specific that states this. This means that beam weapons cannot have wounds allocated, nor vehicle explsions nor any unit that is not the declared target.
If it is true for models that are out of line of sight because of the use of the word "target unit" then it stands true for any unit hit that is not the declared target

You didn't answer my question.

Can wounds be allocated to models in a unit that is not the declared target??? Please answer with page references.

I can find nothing in the rules that allow this. All rules for wound allocation regard the target unit only.

.

I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

Do pens/glances get emptied from a pool if the squadron is out of sight?

From wrote:
I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

It means those too, but people will be obtuse and claim that since it's not expressly mentioned, no such ability exists.



About the whole, Target unit, kerfufle. The last two paragraphs of blast cover where the wounds go. Pg 33.

Here's the quote.
"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above- the unit suffers one hit for each model with it's base fully or partially beneath the blast marker.

Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll to wound and save as normal. Any Unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for normal shooting."

The wounds are allocated to the unit under the marker. Plain and simple.

What is the page number that defines a target unit?

 DJGietzen wrote:
What is the page number that defines a target unit?

Page 12, Choose a Target (step 2 of the firing process)

From wrote:
I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

The damaging vehicle squadrons section of the BRB describes what to with with hits. This errata does not change anything for them.

 DJGietzen wrote:
What is the page number that defines a target unit?

That's the point. You pick a target unit. You fire at a target unit. Rules for wound allocation only cover target units.


You are either allowed to allocate wounds to units that are hit, but are not the target unit, or you are not. There is no middle ground.

If it applies to units that are out of line of sight hit by a blast, then it also applies to units that are within line of sight.

They've painted themselves into a corner.

So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
**edit - my initial characterization of item 3 was incorrect. This seems more accurate.**
3. Scatter - no LOS - wounds can't be resolved due to Out of Sight (pg 16).

OR we go by Idolator's interpretation:
1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.

Quite frankly, the only way to read this without any mental gymnastics is that the unit(s) upon which the blast template ends up over after the scatter is to be considered the "target unit."

Imagine this situation, I have surrounded one of my opponents units on all sides. Normally I'd be hesitant to drop a blast marker on it as it may scatter onto my guys. With Rigeld2's reading, if I can somehow angle things such that most of my surrounding units are out of LOS of my firing unit then I increase the chances of taking out casualties on the enemy simply because if *my* out of sight unit takes wounds from the blast they get allocated to the "target". That's just dumb.

See below for a simple diagram. X are my units, O is the enemy, F is the firer. F has LOS to the enemy, but not my other units. Blast put on the enemy, then scatters into my guys. But... the enemy unit has to take the saves. No one in their right mind will play it that way. By extension, no one would consider "target unit" to be solely the unit where the marker was initially placed.

x
xx xxx
xxx xxxx
______
..........| O O
..........| O O O O O
..........|
..........|

F
FF

clively wrote:
So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - original unit that blast was "targeted" on takes the wounds. -- even if it was a friendly unit which the blast ended up over.

That's incorrect and not what I've said at all.

Once people start trying to make me look foolish when I've explained my point in dozens of threads exactly like this I'm done. Have fun guys.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Yes, absolutely. Look at page 12 for the beginning of where a target unit is mentioned/defined.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

For the target unit, that's correct.

I think that completely ignores the rules for Scatter and IMO wrong.

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

For Riggled to be wrong he needs more FAQs.

In truth the addition of this new FAQ makes RAI very clear, as, to most people it always has been.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - original unit that blast was "targeted" on takes the wounds. -- even if it was a friendly unit which the blast ended up over.

That's incorrect and not what I've said at all.

Once people start trying to make me look foolish when I've explained my point in dozens of threads exactly like this I'm done. Have fun guys.

Could you care to take those 3 situations and very simply state what you believe RAW says? I've read over everything you've posted and that really looks like your position. I'll absolutely apologize if I've misstated.

40k-noob wrote:

From wrote:
I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

The damaging vehicle squadrons section of the BRB describes what to with with hits. This errata does not change anything for them.

Thank you for directing me to this! Could you perhaps post the page # so that I might read into it when I get home?

Rigeld2: I apologize. Item 3 should have stated:
Scatter - no LOS. Wounds magically disappear.

**edited to remove the /sarcasm remark**

 DJGietzen wrote:
What is the page number that defines a target unit?

Target Unit is never defined. It is used in both the "Pick a Target" section to refer to the initial unit targeted for shooting pg 12. It is used again on pg 15 to refer to ANY unit taking a wound. By every argument I've seen rigeld2 make the Errata removes the restriction for killing models out of LoS. Their previous points being that it was "Out of Sight" that prevented the wounds from a scattered blast from being allocated. Since the errata'd section of the Blast rule applies to wounding and allocation we should use the definition of "Target Unit" provided in that section, which is any unit that has taken a wound.

From wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

From wrote:
I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

The damaging vehicle squadrons section of the BRB describes what to with with hits. This errata does not change anything for them.

Thank you for directing me to this! Could you perhaps post the page # so that I might read into it when I get home?

Page 77

clively wrote:
Rigeld2: I apologize. Item 3 should have stated:
Scatter - no LOS. Wounds magically disappear.

Yeah, that makes sense. /sarcasm

Read Out of Sight. Cite permission to ignore that.
I don't appreciate the sarcasm. At all.

rigeld2 wrote:
Read Out of Sight. Cite permission to ignore that.
I don't appreciate the sarcasm. At all.

I know you want to get into it with the other poster, but the permission is in the update:

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

It does not override "Out of Sight" by name, but does provide permission to allocate wounds out of LoS. As I mentioned in my previous post there is no set definition for "target unit" it is used to describe the unit selected by the firing unit in the first section of Shooting, but then used against to refer to any unit wounded in the Allocation section of Shooting. This also would bring the RAW in line with the fourth paragraph of Blast "This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. "

It provides permission to allocate to models in the target unit that are outside of LoS. It does not say anything about the wound pool not being emptied an doesn't give permission to not empty the wound pool if no model in the "target unit" can be seen - even following your interpretation of "target unit" (which I disagree with, but is irrelevant).

I think Rigeld2 is right the sarcasm isn't needed.

Rigeld2 - I think peoples problem here is why would they FAQ it to allow you to allocate wounds just to clear out the pool once they give you permission to allocate. It doesn't make any sense. It is clear that blasts are meant to hit, wound, and kill models out of sight. If they wanted to FAQ it to not allow out of sight wounds the FAQ would have stated - Models out of line line of sight can't have wounds allocated to them.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - original unit that blast was "targeted" on takes the wounds. -- even if it was a friendly unit which the blast ended up over.

That's incorrect and not what I've said at all.

Once people start trying to make me look foolish when I've explained my point in dozens of threads exactly like this I'm done. Have fun guys.

This does seem to be the only way of playing with how you are stating the rules. Could you please explain what you think happens?

rigeld2 wrote:
It provides permission to allocate to models in the target unit that are outside of LoS. It does not say anything about the wound pool not being emptied an doesn't give permission to not empty the wound pool if no model in the "target unit" can be seen - even following your interpretation of "target unit" (which I disagree with, but is irrelevant).

Clarify for me please, how can the wound pool be emptied? The only methods I am aware of are allocation or discarding because you are unable to allocate. If we take "target unit" as used in the Allocation section of the shooting rules (pg 15) then the errata provides the permission and the method to allocate the wounds. The Blast rules as originally written allowed for shots beyond max range and to hit and wound out of LoS, the update allows for the allocation of the wounds generated when a unit out of LoS is hit on scatter. If we combine this new addition to the original FAQ about Blasts hitting models out of LoS with no scatter they tell us that when any unit is hit by a Blast or Large Blast any unsaved wounds are taken from the nearest models ignoring terrain.

rigeld2 wrote:
It provides permission to allocate to models in the target unit that are outside of LoS. It does not say anything about the wound pool not being emptied an doesn't give permission to not empty the wound pool if no model in the "target unit" can be seen - even following your interpretation of "target unit" (which I disagree with, but is irrelevant).

Blast rules allow you to hit and wound units that are out of line of sight and out of range. Blast rules also allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of sight in the target unit.

Your entire argument hinges on the interpretation that if the out of sight unit hit is not the declared target then the wounds cannot be allocated. If this interpretation is used (that only the declared target may have wounds allocated to it), then hits on any undeclared target may not be allocated.

Placing the entire rules interpretation on the words, TARGET UNIT, doesn't work as all rules for wound allocation are based on target unit and no others. When using certain weapons such as blast, template, beam, vehicle explosions, crashing flyers, and many others you must use the unit hit as the target unit. Otherwise, none of these things would work properly.


This guy wont respond to this as he ignored me a while back. So it's for the rest of you. None of them have answered the question: What rule allows you to allocate wounds to a unit other than the target unit?

Obviously they believe that there is one, as they all seem to agree that wounds can be allocated to units other than the target unit as long as it's within LOS. They haven't mentioned what to do if you wound models in a unit that is not the intended target but some of them are out of LOS.

Here's another question for them. What is the target unit of a Beam weapon? Can wounds be allocated to a unit that is not the target of a beam weapon? What if they are out of LOS?

After just sitting and reading this entire thread I've come to the same conclusion of this pumpkin fellow.

It may not directly say "target unit" - and since we "target" a unit when we fire we would make the assumption that this is the target unit. HOWEVER, it would seem that the text in the BRB goes along with the assumption that the "target unit" from a template, blast, vehicle explosion, beam, etc is any unit that takes a hit from said attack.

As far as I see it unless you can - as he has requested multiple times tell us how beam weapons, explosions, blasts, templates, flyers crashing would work.

Under your assumption of "target unit" none of these would work as most beam weapons do not have targets or target the ground. Same with exploding vehicles and flyers crashing.

Mythra wrote:I think Rigeld2 is right the sarcasm isn't needed.

Rigeld2 - I think peoples problem here is why would they FAQ it to allow you to allocate wounds just to clear out the pool once they give you permission to allocate. It doesn't make any sense. It is clear that blasts are meant to hit, wound, and kill models out of sight. If they wanted to FAQ it to not allow out of sight wounds the FAQ would have stated - Models out of line line of sight can't have wounds allocated to them.

But they can have wounds allocated to them. A Blast is the only type of weapon that can kill everything out of LoS.

Trasvi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - original unit that blast was "targeted" on takes the wounds. -- even if it was a friendly unit which the blast ended up over.

That's incorrect and not what I've said at all.

Once people start trying to make me look foolish when I've explained my point in dozens of threads exactly like this I'm done. Have fun guys.

This does seem to be the only way of playing with how you are stating the rules. Could you please explain what you think happens?

Read further in the thread. His summation of 3 is wholly incorrect.

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It provides permission to allocate to models in the target unit that are outside of LoS. It does not say anything about the wound pool not being emptied an doesn't give permission to not empty the wound pool if no model in the "target unit" can be seen - even following your interpretation of "target unit" (which I disagree with, but is irrelevant).

Clarify for me please, how can the wound pool be emptied? The only methods I am aware of are allocation or discarding because you are unable to allocate. If we take "target unit" as used in the Allocation section of the shooting rules (pg 15) then the errata provides the permission and the method to allocate the wounds. The Blast rules as originally written allowed for shots beyond max range and to hit and wound out of LoS, the update allows for the allocation of the wounds generated when a unit out of LoS is hit on scatter. If we combine this new addition to the original FAQ about Blasts hitting models out of LoS with no scatter they tell us that when any unit is hit by a Blast or Large Blast any unsaved wounds are taken from the nearest models ignoring terrain.

You're conflating hit, populating the wound pool, and allocating wounds - something the actual shooting rules don't do.
The B&LB rules (prior to the errata) allowed the first 2 to happen against things out of LoS, but never allowed the 3rd.
The update doesn't change the fact that, according to the Out of Sight rules, the wound pool is emptied if no model in the firing unit can see any model in the "target" unit.

It's not that you're unable to allocate, Out of Sight tells you to empty the pool if you can't see them. This is the exact same reason that, RAW, weapons like the Impaler Cannon cannot wound out of LoS despite having permission to target and fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Budikah wrote:
After just sitting and reading this entire thread I've come to the same conclusion of this pumpkin fellow.

It may not directly say "target unit" - and since we "target" a unit when we fire we would make the assumption that this is the target unit. HOWEVER, it would seem that the text in the BRB goes along with the assumption that the "target unit" from a template, blast, vehicle explosion, beam, etc is any unit that takes a hit from said attack.

As far as I see it unless you can - as he has requested multiple times tell us how beam weapons, explosions, blasts, templates, flyers crashing would work.

Under your assumption of "target unit" none of these would work as most beam weapons do not have targets or target the ground. Same with exploding vehicles and flyers crashing.

I disagree with that assumption but its irrelevant so I'm not arguing it. If you're referring to Idolator I have him on ignore so I'm not sure what he's actually trying to argue and couldn't care much less.

rigeld2 - Not going to quote to save space here, but this snippet is what I'm talking about:

"The update doesn't change the fact that, according to the Out of Sight rules, the wound pool is emptied if no model in the firing unit can see any model in the "target" unit."

Then doesn't this invalidate your whole position? I have to place my template on a unit I can see, therefore I must have LoS to the 'target unit'. Having LoS to the 'target unit' takes Out of Sight out of the equation.

I completely disagree with you, anything with a blast can, should, and by my reading does kill whatever it lands on, but I would like to understand your position.

andystache wrote:
rigeld2 - Not going to quote to save space here, but this snippet is what I'm talking about:

"The update doesn't change the fact that, according to the Out of Sight rules, the wound pool is emptied if no model in the firing unit can see any model in the "target" unit."

Then doesn't this invalidate your whole position? I have to place my template on a unit I can see, therefore I must have LoS to the 'target unit'. Having LoS to the 'target unit' takes Out of Sight out of the equation.

I completely disagree with you, anything with a blast can, should, and by my reading does kill whatever it lands on, but I would like to understand your position.

No, remember that while I disagree with your assertion that "target unit" refers to anything the blast lands on, I'm not willing to argue it right now and it actually supports my point.

Since the "target unit" is put of LoS, Out of Sight triggers.

The thing is, it is not irrelevant.

You are using the term "target unit" as the mainstay of your argument as to why these units that had a blast scattered onto them, yet out of LoS from the firer - cannot be killed.

"Target unit" is the problem here. It is the original unit that the player targeted or does it include anything hit by a scatter, beam, explosion, etc?

How does a Death Ray work if there is no "target unit" - therefore you cannot allocate wounds?

 Budikah wrote:
The thing is, it is not irrelevant.

You are using the term "target unit" as the mainstay of your argument as to why these units that had a blast scattered onto them, yet out of LoS from the firer - cannot be killed.

"Target unit" is the problem here. It is the original unit that the player targeted or does it include anything hit by a scatter, beam, explosion, etc?

How does a Death Ray work if there is no "target unit" - therefore you cannot allocate wounds?

I'm really not. I've conceded that point for this argument.
Nothing in the B&LB rules - including the errata - ignores Out of Sight. Even accounting for "target unit" meaning "whatever the blast lands on".

rigeld2 wrote:
]
I disagree with that assumption but its irrelevant so I'm not arguing it. If you're referring to Idolator I have him on ignore so I'm not sure what he's actually trying to argue and couldn't care much less.

He has to click on my posts to read them.

The reason that no one answers it is simple. There is no answer. According to the RAW wounds can only be allocated to a target unit, which is the unit that you declared as a target. Then the game becomes unplayable as we know it.

If you apply their line of reasoning, a boat load of weapons and effects don't work. That's why you simply consider the unit hit as the target unit, just like you do every other time an undeclared unit is hit with a weapon or area effect.

Disregarding valid points and simple questions to one's reasoning is par for the course.


By the way, that is not a pumpkin. It is a cat, you can clearly see the deffinition listed at the top. As someone once pointed out to me, a word is indeed all the deffinition you need to determine what a thing is. I'll give you three guesses whom that may have been!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Budikah wrote:
The thing is, it is not irrelevant.

You are using the term "target unit" as the mainstay of your argument as to why these units that had a blast scattered onto them, yet out of LoS from the firer - cannot be killed.

"Target unit" is the problem here. It is the original unit that the player targeted or does it include anything hit by a scatter, beam, explosion, etc?

How does a Death Ray work if there is no "target unit" - therefore you cannot allocate wounds?

I'm really not. I've conceded that point for this argument.
Nothing in the B&LB rules - including the errata - ignores Out of Sight. Even accounting for "target unit" meaning "whatever the blast lands on".

That would mean, wounds caused by barrage, to a unit that is Out of Sight, cannot have wounds allocated to it. Wow, that is quite a reversal from your previous position.

 Idolator wrote:

That would mean, wounds caused by barrage, to a unit that is Out of Sight, cannot have wounds allocated to it. Wow, that is quite a reversal from your previous position.

No, as I've stated before in this thread Barrage gets around out of sight by drawing LOS from the center of the blast marker for wound allocation purposes.

To break it down, rigeld2's position as I have read it is that if a unit has wounds in the wound pool and no model in the unit is in LOS of any model in the firing unit, the wound pool is emptied.

However due to the errata, this only happens under certain circumstances if you hit the target unit with a blast.

A) You can't target a unit that you don't have at least LOS to part of it.
B) If you generate wounds in the wound pool you have permission to allocate to the closest enemy model without LOS (due to the errata) to that particular model and you have to allocate to the closest enemy model as per normal allocation rules.
C) Out of sight doesn't trigger until every visible model is dead, which means you can kill the whole unit if the visible models are the furthest away. If the visible models are closest, the wound pool empties when the visible ones all die.

I don't understand the reasoning behind adding the separate wound pool, then there is the whole "target unit" bit. The whole paragraph is rather inelegant. Again I say borrowing the barrage LOS swap would've been simpler.

Allocating wounds I believe explicitly refers to 'target unit' and 'enemy unit' at many points.
Blindly following RAW with no context means that you can only ever wound enemy units and can only ever wound a single unit which was the target. And weapons/abilities without targets cannot hurt anyone. And multiple weapons and abilities are given the ability to affect units out of line of sight for no effect.

Re: allocating to a target unit.
The way I follow the 'logic' that only the target unit can be allocated wounds, is that if a blast marker scatters onto a unit that is completely out of LOS, the wounds are still allocated to the closest model in the target unit (even if the target unit was not hit at all).
If you disagree with this, can you explain exactly why?

I mean, I don't agree because I think target unit is inseparable from and used interchangeably within the rules with 'unit taking the hits'. rigeld2, you don't seem to feel this way, so can you explain why/not the above situation occurs?

Thanks to all for the vigorous discussion about LOS and the new FAQ (which I didn't realise was out when I made the post).

Now, does the concept of B&LB being allowed to scatter and wound stuff out of sight also apply to out of range?

Trasvi wrote:
Allocating wounds I believe explicitly refers to 'target unit' and 'enemy unit' at many points.
Blindly following RAW with no context means that you can only ever wound enemy units and can only ever wound a single unit which was the target. And weapons/abilities without targets cannot hurt anyone. And multiple weapons and abilities are given the ability to affect units out of line of sight for no effect.

Re: allocating to a target unit.
The way I follow the 'logic' that only the target unit can be allocated wounds, is that if a blast marker scatters onto a unit that is completely out of LOS, the wounds are still allocated to the closest model in the target unit (even if the target unit was not hit at all).
If you disagree with this, can you explain exactly why?

I mean, I don't agree because I think target unit is inseparable from and used interchangeably within the rules with 'unit taking the hits'. rigeld2, you don't seem to feel this way, so can you explain why/not the above situation occurs?

The Out of Sight rule triggers if no models in the enemy unit are in LOS, and empties the wound pool. Sure you have permission to allocate wounds, but you have no wounds anymore to allocate. If you had one visible enemy model in the target unit things would be different, until it dies of course.

Trasvi wrote:
I mean, I don't agree because I think target unit is inseparable from and used interchangeably within the rules with 'unit taking the hits'. rigeld2, you don't seem to feel this way, so can you explain why/not the above situation occurs?

Seriously, how many times do I have to say this?
I've conceded that point for this argument.
Your interpretation actually supports my statement that the wound pool is lost.

I WILL STIPULATE FOR THIS DISCUSSION THAT TARGET UNIT REFERS TO ANY UNIT UNDER THE BLAST MARKER.

There. Maybe that will get people to read it for the 4th or 5th time.
Now - why does that matter? At all? Have you found permission to ignore Out of Sight yet?

rigeld2 wrote:
Now - why does that matter? At all? Have you found permission to ignore Out of Sight yet?

I don't have the rulebook on me, could you provide a quote?

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

That said, amusingly the errata actual breaks rules as you can only ever have one wound pool and it says to create a second one.
Irrelevant though - still no permission to ignore OoS.

Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded? I am glad I don't play against players like this or I would be thrown out of a tourney for punching the player... . Play the game and have fun.. If we have a dispute.. We roll off and get the game going.. Then discuss the rule afterward.

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

That would mean, wounds caused by barrage, to a unit that is Out of Sight, cannot have wounds allocated to it. Wow, that is quite a reversal from your previous position.

No, as I've stated before in this thread Barrage gets around out of sight by drawing LOS from the center of the blast marker for wound allocation purposes.

To break it down, rigeld2's position as I have read it is that if a unit has wounds in the wound pool and no model in the unit is in LOS of any model in the firing unit, the wound pool is emptied.

However due to the errata, this only happens under certain circumstances if you hit the target unit with a blast.

A) You can't target a unit that you don't have at least LOS to part of it.
B) If you generate wounds in the wound pool you have permission to allocate to the closest enemy model without LOS (due to the errata) to that particular model and you have to allocate to the closest enemy model as per normal allocation rules.
C) Out of sight doesn't trigger until every visible model is dead, which means you can kill the whole unit if the visible models are the furthest away. If the visible models are closest, the wound pool empties when the visible ones all die.

I don't understand the reasoning behind adding the separate wound pool, then there is the whole "target unit" bit. The whole paragraph is rather inelegant. Again I say borrowing the barrage LOS swap would've been simpler.

Blast rules allow you to scatter onto units that are out of sight. Blast rules allow hitting and wounding models that are in a unit that is out of sight. Blast rules allow allocation to models in a unit that is out of sight.

A) that is correct, you must target a model in a unit that can be seen by firing model.
B) correct, but not complete. Since blast carries it's own separate wound pool (due to rules differentiation) only those wound in the blast pool are allowed to wound models that are out of sight. (there is why it has a separate wound pool. Only allowing the blast to take out hidden models)
C) Out of Sight is always in effect. Weapons that do not have an exception to the Out of Sight restriction cannot have wounds allocated to models that are not seen by the firing unit. The wounds from the blast template can and are allocated to models regardless of whether they are out of Sight.

Example: Five lonely guardsmen are trying to hide behind a wall. The ten man units of space marines can only see three closest guardsman. The Marines fire nine bolters and a plasma cannon. All hit and wound, with the plasma blast hitting and wounding three guardsmen. The shooting player has the bolt gun wounds allocated first killing all three visible guardsmen, he then has the remaining wounds allocated to what is left killing the hidden guardsmen. (because they failed their saves.)

Hits and wounds are made before they can be allocated. Once a blast marker has wounded it may still be allocated to hidden models even after all visible models have been removed.

That, however, has not been the topic of discusion.

The entire argument has been over what to do if a UNIT that is Out of Sight, has a blast template scatter onto it. His position is that even though the rules for blast allow for hits and wounds to be made on the UNIT that is Out of Sight, the wounds are not allocated because it is not the target unit.

His position is convoluted because he claims that wounds to be allocated to units that are not the target unit if they are within Line of Sight. This position relies solely on the this portion of the errata:
and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit

I highlighted the crux of the argument. There is a problem with this reasoning.

All wound allocation rules rely on allocating wounds to the Target Unit. There is nothing in the rules that allow wounds to be allocated to models in a unit that is not declared as the target unit.

It is understood, by one and all, that unit hit or effected by a weapon, condition, or area of effect are considered the target unit. It is universaly accepted. Otherwise, gameplay would no longer function. Beam weapons would become useless, vehicle explosions wouldn't affect anything, scattering onto your own troops wouldn't matter.

What is it that makes scattering onto a unit that is Out of Sight different than any other instance? Now that they fixed the error and blast weapon wounds are to be allocated to models that are Out of Sight, there is nothing that makes it any different from any other scatter result.

Selectively applying it in this one instance while allowing wounds to be allocated to non-target units in all other instances is simply the wrong thing to do.

Edit: I highlighted the portion that allows you to allocate wounds even if the model is out of sight. (It is clear in blast rules that you can hit and wound units that are Out of Sight, this is just for the wound allocation point)

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded? I am glad I don't play against players like this or I would be thrown out of a tourney for punching the player... . Play the game and have fun.. If we have a dispute.. We roll off and get the game going.. Then discuss the rule afterward.

So... You'd rather roll off and have fun, but you'd get thrown out for punching someone?

Also, what I'm arguing has literally nothing to do with how I'd play it. Perhaps you should read the tenets of this forum.
HIWPI is I just don't care. If you say they can wound, they can wound. If you say they can't, they can't. Ill likely even forget to ask until it comes up because I just don't care during a game and would rather have fun playing.

When I'm not playing, however, I enjoy friendly discussions.

rigeld2 wrote:
If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

That said, amusingly the errata actual breaks rules as you can only ever have one wound pool and it says to create a second one.
Irrelevant though - still no permission to ignore OoS.

Without the rest of the rule it is hard to comment, but I believe that sentence is placed in the context that you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight, and this is then the way to empty the would pool and resolve shooting when no further wounds can be allocated. Combined with the FAQ and the rules in Blasts saying that you may allocate wounds to units out of LOS, surely they override this sentence.

This then also leads to the (IMO) ridiculous RAW situation where, so long as you can see a the furthest away model in a unit, you can kill the entire unit with a blast even if they are out of LOS. But if you kill 5 out of LOS models then the 1 in LOS model, the remaining 5 out of LOS models suddenly become immune?

Trasvi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

That said, amusingly the errata actual breaks rules as you can only ever have one wound pool and it says to create a second one.
Irrelevant though - still no permission to ignore OoS.

Without the rest of the rule it is hard to comment, but I believe that sentence is placed in the context that you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight, and this is then the way to empty the would pool and resolve shooting when no further wounds can be allocated. Combined with the FAQ and the rules in Blasts saying that you may allocate wounds to units out of LOS, surely they override this sentence.

Just so you don't think I'm selectively quoting,

OUT OF SIGHT
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Now, the second sentence is completely separate and not dependent on the first. It's bolded as the more important part of the paragraph rule. The errata overrides the first sentence but not the second. You can argue intent if you like (and you'd have a good argument IMO) but the OoS rule is pretty clear.

This then also leads to the (IMO) ridiculous RAW situation where, so long as you can see a the furthest away model in a unit, you can kill the entire unit with a blast even if they are out of LOS. But if you kill 5 out of LOS models then the 1 in LOS model, the remaining 5 out of LOS models suddenly become immune?

And this is less ridiculous than pre-errata where you could land the blast on 9 models out of LoS but could only allocate wounds on the one you could see?
And "ridiculous" situations are hardly grounds for discussing how the rules are written.

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded? I am glad I don't play against players like this or I would be thrown out of a tourney for punching the player... . Play the game and have fun.. If we have a dispute.. We roll off and get the game going.. Then discuss the rule afterward.

You a re mistaking having a debate on a forum for how the debater actually plays.

I disagree with Rig on this one, but I would play 40k with/or against him any day of the week.

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded?

How does it make sense that it can wound models it can't see? It's a missile. It travels in a generally straight line. It's not like it can go to your target, then yoyo around and head to where it scattered. If you miss, it would go in a straight line to wherever you aimed it, and hit the intervening obstacle. There are some cases that make sense for it to do damage (like when it splashes onto a location that was in line of sight and tags someone just out of LoS) but there are plenty where it makes perfect sense for it to do no damage.

 Idolator wrote:
The entire argument has been over what to do if a UNIT that is Out of Sight, has a blast template scatter onto it. His position is that even though the rules for blast allow for hits and wounds to be made on the UNIT that is Out of Sight, the wounds are not allocated because it is not the target unit.

No, his position is that you can't wound units out of LoS because "Out of Sight" (p.22) says that if you can't see any visible models in the target unit then all remaining wounds in the pool are lost. (It also says "and the shooting attack ends", which is a potential problem of its own, but that's beside the point here.)

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded?

How does it make sense that it can wound models it can't see? It's a missile. It travels in a generally straight line. It's not like it can go to your target, then yoyo around and head to where it scattered. If you miss, it would go in a straight line to wherever you aimed it, and hit the intervening obstacle. There are some cases that make sense for it to do damage (like when it splashes onto a location that was in line of sight and tags someone just out of LoS) but there are plenty where it makes perfect sense for it to do no damage.

 Idolator wrote:
The entire argument has been over what to do if a UNIT that is Out of Sight, has a blast template scatter onto it. His position is that even though the rules for blast allow for hits and wounds to be made on the UNIT that is Out of Sight, the wounds are not allocated because it is not the target unit.

No, his position is that you can't wound units out of LoS because "Out of Sight" (p.22) says that if you can't see any visible models in the target unit then all remaining wounds in the pool are lost. (It also says "and the shooting attack ends", which is a potential problem of its own, but that's beside the point here.)

My first guess is that you have never fired a missle. I could be wrong.

They don't always travel in a straight line. They can dip, dive, corkscrew ( quite badly if a fin gets knocked off in transit), veer straight up and come down no where near the location that you intended and any number of things, including blowing up in the tube or not detonating at all.

I have been party to several missle firings.

Secondly, his position changed later on in the thread. He wasn't very clear about the change in his argument until just a few posts ago. Not only did I miss it, a lot of people did.

I admit that it is a better argument as the first argument was demonstrably false.

That does shift it to a RAI argument.
It is rather obvious in my opinion, that it is intended for blasts and barrage blasts to hit and wound models out of sight and that those wounds can be allocated as the rules for each are excepted from Out of Sight rules.

Edit: several is an overstatement... party to two missle firings. Witnessed three others.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded?

How does it make sense that it can wound models it can't see? It's a missile. It travels in a generally straight line. It's not like it can go to your target, then yoyo around and head to where it scattered.

I guess you've never seen a missile take an immediate right turn when one of it's stabilizers is damaged. Common enough that you might want to track down a few early nasa rocket test videos.

Could the FAQ have used different language? Sure. However, it's pretty clear that they say wounds can be allocated even if it is out of sight. Which clearly ignores the OoS section of pg 16.

clively wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded?

How does it make sense that it can wound models it can't see? It's a missile. It travels in a generally straight line. It's not like it can go to your target, then yoyo around and head to where it scattered.

I guess you've never seen a missile take an immediate right turn when one of it's stabilizers is damaged. Common enough that you might want to track down a few early nasa rocket test videos.

Could the FAQ have used different language? Sure. However, it's pretty clear that they say wounds can be allocated even if it is out of sight. Which clearly ignores the OoS section of pg 16.

I don't disagree that it's possible for a missile to veer off course, but if an unguided missile taking a sudden sharp turn midflight is the majority of cases where they miss (as opposed to, say, the operator missing the target for whatever reason) then they are certainly a lot less reliable than I've been led to believe.

The FAQ does not ignore Out of Sight. It changes the pre-FAQ rules by allowing* you to allocate wounds made with a blast weapon to models that are not in LoS of the firing unit. It doesn't appear to interact with Out of Sight at all.

I think the obvious question here is to ask why they didn't just give blasts a blanket exception to Out of Sight or make them resolve based on the position of the blast marker, like barrages. Perhaps they don't intend for blasts to kill random unseen units and feel that would be bad for the game?

rigeld2 wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

That said, amusingly the errata actual breaks rules as you can only ever have one wound pool and it says to create a second one.
Irrelevant though - still no permission to ignore OoS.

Without the rest of the rule it is hard to comment, but I believe that sentence is placed in the context that you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight, and this is then the way to empty the would pool and resolve shooting when no further wounds can be allocated. Combined with the FAQ and the rules in Blasts saying that you may allocate wounds to units out of LOS, surely they override this sentence.

Just so you don't think I'm selectively quoting,

OUT OF SIGHT
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Now, the second sentence is completely separate and not dependent on the first. It's bolded as the more important part of the paragraph rule. The errata overrides the first sentence but not the second. You can argue intent if you like (and you'd have a good argument IMO) but the OoS rule is pretty clear.

The two are not completely independent just because they are separate sentences. This is pretty much the definition of 'reading with context'. The part about discarding wounds you can't allocate is clearly dependent on the first part telling you where you can allocate wounds.

This then also leads to the (IMO) ridiculous RAW situation where, so long as you can see a the furthest away model in a unit, you can kill the entire unit with a blast even if they are out of LOS. But if you kill 5 out of LOS models then the 1 in LOS model, the remaining 5 out of LOS models suddenly become immune?

And this is less ridiculous than pre-errata where you could land the blast on 9 models out of LoS but could only allocate wounds on the one you could see?
And "ridiculous" situations are hardly grounds for discussing how the rules are written.

Well IMO it worked the same way before and after the FAQ.... the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

The second sentence says nothing about discarding wounds you can't allocate - you've invented that.

the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

To clarify the errata does give the ability for blast weapons to kill individual models that are out of LOS. It does not let them do so if the whole unit is out of LOS.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't disagree that it's possible for a missile to veer off course, but if an unguided missile taking a sudden sharp turn midflight is the majority of cases where they miss (as opposed to, say, the operator missing the target for whatever reason) then they are certainly a lot less reliable than I've been led to believe.

The FAQ does not ignore Out of Sight. It changes the pre-FAQ rules by allowing* you to allocate wounds made with a blast weapon to models that are not in LoS of the firing unit. It doesn't appear to interact with Out of Sight at all.

I think the obvious question here is to ask why they didn't just give blasts a blanket exception to Out of Sight or make them resolve based on the position of the blast marker, like barrages. Perhaps they don't intend for blasts to kill random unseen units and feel that would be bad for the game?

no one stated that sudden turns or catastrophic failures cause the majority of poorly targeted missles. Just that it does happen.

On a separate note, the thing that may be blocking line of sight to a unit may not be study or stable enough cause the projectile to detonate. Such as bushes, grass, massonite, sheet metal. "Hey, I'm glad that I hid behing this rice paper wall...otherwise that bomb that exploded on the other side might have killed me!" Said no Tokyo resident ever.

The rules for allocation adressed in Out Of Sight are based on visibility of models in a unit. If you no longer apply the restrictions requiring a model to be visible it would be odd to apply the second part of the rule. In regards to blast rules. Especialy if the rules for blast and barrage expressly allow you to hit and wound those units that are completely out of sight.


Where is this exception to the Out of Sight rule for Barrage weapons. I have never read it. It is assumed and understood that you can allocate those wounds. But according to how this forum works, that is just a widely accepted house rule. The rules for barrage provide diretion on how to determine cover and how to allocate wounds from the blast, it doesn't state that models that are Out of Sight can have wounds allocated to them, doesn't discuss Line of Sight at all.

If there is a written rule providing an exception to Out of Sight in the Barrage rules could you please provide a reference. Every argument that I have seen allowing for the allocation of these wounds has been based on inference and RAI not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tarrasq wrote:

the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

To clarify the errata does give the ability for blast weapons to kill individual models that are out of LOS. It does not let them do so if the whole unit is out of LOS.

It would be absurd to provide rules allowing a player to hit and wound units that out of LoS, then provide rules that allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LoS, only to disallow those rules that were expressly written allowing you to do so.

They obviously intended for you to be able to allocate the wounds caused by scattering onto other units, whether they were Out of Sight or not.

 Idolator wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The FAQ does not ignore Out of Sight. It changes the pre-FAQ rules by allowing* you to allocate wounds made with a blast weapon to models that are not in LoS of the firing unit. It doesn't appear to interact with Out of Sight at all.

I think the obvious question here is to ask why they didn't just give blasts a blanket exception to Out of Sight or make them resolve based on the position of the blast marker, like barrages. Perhaps they don't intend for blasts to kill random unseen units and feel that would be bad for the game?

The rules for allocation adressed in Out Of Sight are based on visibility of models in a unit. If you no longer apply the restrictions requiring a model to be visible it would be odd to apply the second part of the rule. In regards to blast rules. Especialy if the rules for blast and barrage expressly allow you to hit and wound those units that are completely out of sight.


Where is this exception to the Out of Sight rule for Barrage weapons. I have never read it. It is assumed and understood that you can allocate those wounds. But according to how this forum works, that is just a widely accepted house rule. The rules for barrage provide diretion on how to determine cover and how to allocate wounds from the blast, it doesn't state that models that are Out of Sight can have wounds allocated to them, doesn't discuss Line of Sight at all.

If there is a written rule providing an exception to Out of Sight in the Barrage rules could you please provide a reference. Every argument that I have seen allowing for the allocation of these wounds has been based on inference and RAI not RAW.

p.34, Barrage, "...when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model." Out of Sight is applied during wound allocation.

 Idolator wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tarrasq wrote:

the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

To clarify the errata does give the ability for blast weapons to kill individual models that are out of LOS. It does not let them do so if the whole unit is out of LOS.

It would be absurd to provide rules allowing a player to hit and wound units that out of LoS, then provide rules that allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LoS, only to disallow those rules that were expressly written allowing you to do so.

They obviously intended for you to be able to allocate the wounds caused by scattering onto other units, whether they were Out of Sight or not.

It's absurd for 19 hormagaunts to strike at Initiative 1 because hormagaunt #20 had to step over a rock at some point. The rules don't have to follow logical sense (though I'd argue they should where possible). They often, at least in theory, make tradeoffs for playability.

The hit and wound units out of LoS does have a gameplay effect - it allows you to wound units that aren't out of LoS while allowing players to shield units relatively reliably using LoS. Whether that's deliberate or not, we can only speculate.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
p.34, Barrage, "...when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model." Out of Sight is applied during wound allocation.

.

Yes, out of sight is indeed applied during wound allocation. Based on the visibility of the firing unit. Nothing in the above quote mentions a change in visibilty to the firing unit. In fact it doesn't mention the visibility of the firing model. It does give instructions on the direction from which to allocate the wounds, if the unit can, of course, be seen by the firing unit.

If the firing unit can see models in the target unit, you allocate wounds from the center of the blast template. If they cannot see models in the target unit then Out of Sight prevents wounds from being allocated.

It just tells you how to allocate wounds, and doesn't provide the ability to allocate them if they are out of sight.

Like I said before, inference and RAI. It's just accepted by just about everyone. Just as the regular blast should.

Did they intend to keep barrage from being able to stay completely hidden while still being able to shoot at enemy units. Maybe, who knows.

 Tarrasq wrote:

the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

To clarify the errata does give the ability for blast weapons to kill individual models that are out of LOS. It does not let them do so if the whole unit is out of LOS.

The blast rules give the ability to wound units out of LOS.

Unless being able to wound units out of LOS AND being able to wound models out of LOS = not being able to wound units out of LOS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
Like I said before, inference and RAI. It's just accepted by just about everyone. Just as the regular blast should.

It's not even RAI, it's basic reading comprehension.

Trasvi wrote:
It's not even RAI, it's basic reading comprehension.

I concur. Sometimes you have to use the language of the natives to get your point across though.

Trasvi wrote:

The blast rules give the ability to wound units out of LOS.

Unless being able to wound units out of LOS AND being able to wound models out of LOS = not being able to wound units out of LOS?

If it worked that way there would be no need for the Errata. So obviously GW agreed that the blast rules were not enough.

The fact is that no one has given rules that EXPLICITLY give blasts permission to ignore the second part of Out of Sight. If a firing unit cannot see any model in the unit being fired upon (at any point of wound allocation) the wound pool is cleared and the attack ends. There are no exceptions... yet. There is no room for interpretation here. It's like the rule that you can't end your move on top of enemy models. I don't see anyone try to ignore that one. Yet it seems that how people want blasts to work takes root in some people's head and they can't possibly believe that any rule would tell them otherwise. How many FAQs are we in for this edition? If GW really didn't want the Out of Sight rule to work the way it did they would've changed it, kind of how they changed the rules in the section right before it. I mean for God's sake it's in bold.

As above.

Idolator - please prove that "target unit" is different to the rules given on page 12. Page and graph. If you insist on stating it is just anythign the blast hits you have to provide rules or concede.

Trasvi wrote:

The fact is that no one has given rules that EXPLICITLY give blasts permission to ignore the second part of Out of Sight.

Isn't that what this FAQ has done? They don't have to change the Out of Sight section to validate the FAQ Amendment because the Amendment is to a more specific rule and therefore takes precedence.

How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

It is specific to wounds caused by blasts and large blasts. I think that is very clear. I can't imagine how you could argue that it is not.

Seemly it seems that whereever the blast scatters is the target, The scatter will hit and wound anyting whats under the blast marker as long as it is on the same level ( as in you can only hit people on the first floor, and not the 2nd )

And the "allocating" is a wound on the models under the blast, remembering the rules for multiply wounds you start taking casualties from the models closest to the unit that fired the blast, and in the case of barrage you take it from the center of the blast.

So if you fire a Large blast at a Termagant unit and it scatters 12" away from them onto genestealers behind a LOS block and outside the wapon range, they are still hit and take wounds as normal. ( As per rules of the BRB and the further explaination of the FAQ )

So what is REALLY the problem here? it just sounds like someone is digging for a loop hole to escape blast effects.

Dracoknight wrote:
Seemly it seems that whereever the blast scatters is the target, The scatter will hit and wound anyting whats under the blast marker as long as it is on the same level ( as in you can only hit people on the first floor, and not the 2nd )

And the "allocating" is a wound on the models under the blast, remembering the rules for multiply wounds you start taking casualties from the models closest to the unit that fired the blast, and in the case of barrage you take it from the center of the blast.

So if you fire a Large blast at a Termagant unit and it scatters 12" away from them onto genestealers behind a LOS block and outside the wapon range, they are still hit and take wounds as normal. ( As per rules of the BRB and the further explaination of the FAQ )

And what's normal for models in a unit you cannot see? Read the Out of Sight rules for clarification.

So what is REALLY the problem here? it just sounds like someone is digging for a loop hole to escape blast effects.

Assigning negative motivations to someone who disagrees with you isn't the right way to have a debate, especially when you've demonstrated that you don't understand the argument in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Loopy wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

The fact is that no one has given rules that EXPLICITLY give blasts permission to ignore the second part of Out of Sight.

Isn't that what this FAQ has done? They don't have to change the Out of Sight section to validate the FAQ Amendment because the Amendment is to a more specific rule and therefore takes precedence.

No, they don't have to change Out of Sight.

They do, however, need to say that the wound pool doesn't empty because advanced rules only "win" in a conflict. Right now there isn't a conflict and Out of Sight empties the wound pool.

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

It is specific to wounds caused by blasts and large blasts. I think that is very clear. I can't imagine how you could argue that it is not.

Good, because Im not arguing that.

Does it specify that the wound pool does NOT empty? ANswer yes or no
THen, once you have that answer, you will have learnt whether it specifies or not. Hint: it doesnt specify. There is no conflict, so the wound pool still empties. You only habve permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool, yet the wound pool is empty. note how one thing (permission to allocate wounds) is not the same as saying that the wound pool is not emptied

Trasvi wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:

the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

To clarify the errata does give the ability for blast weapons to kill individual models that are out of LOS. It does not let them do so if the whole unit is out of LOS.

The blast rules give the ability to wound units out of LOS.

Unless being able to wound units out of LOS AND being able to wound models out of LOS = not being able to wound units out of LOS?

They're not able to wound units hat are entirely out of LoS, no.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
Like I said before, inference and RAI. It's just accepted by just about everyone. Just as the regular blast should.

It's not even RAI, it's basic reading comprehension.

That's pretty insulting. Ad hominems aren't necessary.
And Swarms being IDed by blasts 2 at a time was "accepted by about everyone" and "basic reading comprehension" because it worked that way for multiple editions in the past.

Rules change. This edition is different from the last. Get over it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

It is specific to wounds caused by blasts and large blasts. I think that is very clear. I can't imagine how you could argue that it is not.

Good, because Im not arguing that.

Does it specify that the wound pool does NOT empty? ANswer yes or no
THen, once you have that answer, you will have learnt whether it specifies or not. Hint: it doesnt specify. There is no conflict, so the wound pool still empties. You only habve permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool, yet the wound pool is empty. note how one thing (permission to allocate wounds) is not the same as saying that the wound pool is not emptied

So you are choosing to interpret the FAQ as doing absolutely nothing?

@rideld2:

As normal: scattered blast weapons IGNORE LOS. Read up on blast weapons.

as in: you can target a blast weapon on a target in LOS, but it can scatter into a target out of LOS.

Dracoknight wrote:
@rideld2:

As normal: scattered blast weapons IGNORE LOS. Read up on blast weapons.

That's absolutely false and I've proven that multiple times. Please quote in the rule where it ignores LoS. (Hint: it never says that)

clively wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded?

How does it make sense that it can wound models it can't see? It's a missile. It travels in a generally straight line. It's not like it can go to your target, then yoyo around and head to where it scattered.

I guess you've never seen a missile take an immediate right turn when one of it's stabilizers is damaged. Common enough that you might want to track down a few early nasa rocket test videos..

Never seen that, but I did see a Torpedo make a 72,000 G turn into a small thermal exhaust port.

You are correct. The rules don't say blast weapons ignore LoS. But they do say: " Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum range or minimum range and line of sight." It goes on to say and I paraphrase that the shot can hit units out of range and LoS.

whill4 wrote:
You are correct. The rules don't say blast weapons ignore LoS. But they do say: " Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum range or minimum range and line of sight." It goes on to say and I paraphrase that the shot can hit units out of range and LoS.

Which has nothing to do with Wound Allocation and Out of Sight.

Wound allocation rules are on page 15.

whill4 wrote:
You are correct. The rules don't say blast weapons ignore LoS. But they do say: " Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum range or minimum range and line of sight." It goes on to say and I paraphrase that the shot can hit units out of range and LoS.

Correct. It never mentions allocating (note that wounding a unit and allocating wounds are two completely separate steps that many people incorrectly conflate).

You still haven't cited permission in the B&LB rules to allocate wounds out of LoS - the only thing that adds it is the new errata and nothing in there overrides Out of Sight.

Pg 33 Last two paragraphs of the Blast special rule.

whill4 wrote:
Pg 33 Last two paragraphs of the Blast special rule.

Which does not override the actual allocation of wounds.

whill4 wrote:
Pg 33 Last two paragraphs of the Blast special rule.

So... still nothing relevant?

That's okay. You tried and that's what counts.

You know - you deserve more than that.

Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker(see diagram).

I've never disagreed that hits are generated.

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.

What's normal for a shooting attack where your unit cannot see any models in the "target unit"?
And remember - wounding the unit (the step where you roll To Wound) is a completely different step from allocating wounds.

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

Still doesn't override Out of Sight - it just allows you to allocate wounds to models in the unit that you can't see.

The last paragraph which I paraphrase tells us that once the number of hits has been worked out to roll to wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as normal.

Please explain to me how this is not relevant?

whill4 wrote:
The last paragraph which I paraphrase tells us that once the number of hits has been worked out to roll to wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as normal.

Please explain to me how this is not relevant?

Read my edit please - I explained sentence/paragraph by sentence.

Right the wounds are allocated as normal. This means you follow the normal rules for wound allocation which tells us that if no model in the target unit is visible, the wound pool is emptied.

You missed the part where it is OK for a blast template to hit and wound units that are out range and LoS.

whill4 wrote:
You missed the part where it is OK for a blast template to hit and wound units that are out range and LoS.

No, I didn't. At all.
You're ignoring that wounding a unit has nothing to do with allocating wounds. Which I've explained multiple times now.
Address the actual rules (which I've helpfully quoted) instead of what you want them to say.

What is Out of Sight? I can't seem to find this rule in the BRB>

No. As was pointed out by rigeld, wounding a unit (rolling To Wound) and allocating wounds is two completely different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whill4 wrote:
What is Out of Sight? I can't seem to find this rule in the BRB>

Page 16.

I do not understand why Blast makes an exception to the normal rules and you want to discount the exception.

whill4 wrote:
I do not understand why Blast makes an exception to the normal rules and you want to discount the exception.

I'm not discounting the exception. At all.

I'm saying there is no exception to Out of Sight (the complete rule as in both sentences). You haven't cited one yet.

If it is OK to hit and wound a unit that is not the original target with a blast. If it is OK to to hit and wound a unit that is not within max or min range with a blast. If it is OK to hit and wound a unit not in LoS with blast. Why would you not allocate wounds?

Strict RAW. Rigeld is absolutely correct. Context not so much.

The basic problem here is that the second sentence in the OoS rule is taken as an absolute. The context of the second sentence modifies the first. It shows what happens when wounds cannot be allocated due to OoS.

The first states that if no models are in LOS wounds cannot be allocated to them. The second states if no models are in LOS then the wound pool empties. The second sentence is required because otherwise the game would hang up with wounds in the pool and no instruction what to do with them and no permission to move on. The sentence should be reworded to say that if No wounds can be allocated then the wound pool empties which would remove this argument.

whill4 wrote:
If it is OK to hit and wound a unit that is not the original target with a blast. If it is OK to to hit and wound a unit that is not within max or min range with a blast. If it is OK to hit and wound a unit not in LoS with blast. Why would you not allocate wounds?

Because Out of Sight tells you to empty the wound pool if you cannot see the unit.
You're conflating wounding a unit with allocating wounds. You shouldn't - the actual rules don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Strict RAW. Rigeld is absolutely correct. Context not so much.

I disagree - I think people are inserting what they want to think to make "context" work as it has in previous editions. We know, for a fact, that not all intent carries forward (Swarm and ID Blast wounds).

The sentence should be reworded to say that if No wounds can be allocated then the wound pool empties which would remove this argument.

Agreed - if the intent is that invisible units should have allocatable wounds.

Why would you decide to take the Out of Sight rule as absolute while discounting the exception made in the Blast special rule?

whill4 wrote:
Why would you decide to take the Out of Sight rule as absolute while discounting the exception made in the Blast special rule?

Because there isn't an exception in the blast rule to the second sentence of Out of Sight.

This whole argument just doesn't make since to me. It just seems so illogical.

Whill4, because nothing addresses the second sentence of that rule.

I disagree - I think people are inserting what they want to think to make "context" work as it has in previous editions. We know, for a fact, that not all intent carries forward (Swarm and ID Blast wounds).

I think intent is clearly spelled out in the FAQ. I do not think they would make such a clear statement about wounding and allocating wounds to OoS models without the intent to override the OoS rule. Again your correct on RAW without that second sentence being addressed, but this will not fall into the First Blood/ Purge the Alien type of arguments.

It makes perfect sense if you ignore previous editions.
Just like the Swarm and ID blast rules.

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

It is specific to wounds caused by blasts and large blasts. I think that is very clear. I can't imagine how you could argue that it is not.

Good, because Im not arguing that.

Does it specify that the wound pool does NOT empty? ANswer yes or no
THen, once you have that answer, you will have learnt whether it specifies or not. Hint: it doesnt specify. There is no conflict, so the wound pool still empties. You only habve permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool, yet the wound pool is empty. note how one thing (permission to allocate wounds) is not the same as saying that the wound pool is not emptied

So you are choosing to interpret the FAQ as doing absolutely nothing?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above.

Idolator - please prove that "target unit" is different to the rules given on page 12. Page and graph. If you insist on stating it is just anythign the blast hits you have to provide rules or concede.

Once again, it is the only conclusion possible. Any unit hit by a weapon or effect must be considered the target unit.

If it is not the case, then no weapon could ever possibly wound more than one unit at a time. Vehicle explosions couldn't have their wounds allocated at all! Having your transports or bastions destroyed wouldn't effect the occupants in any way, other than pinning tests.

There is no concession.

The Death strike missle would be almost pointless to take, beam weapons would be pointless to take.

I would like to clarify your position however.

Do you posit that only the declared target unit may have wounds allocated to it?

No, but only the target unit can take saves.

Dracoknight wrote:

So what is REALLY the problem here? it just sounds like someone is digging for a loop hole to escape blast effects.

Digging for something, like not having to admit that their long and closely held opinions were wrong.

 Idolator wrote:

Dracoknight wrote:

So what is REALLY the problem here? it just sounds like someone is digging for a loop hole to escape blast effects.

Digging for something, like not having to admit that their long and closely held opinions were wrong.

How? We are discussing what the rules actually state, not what we perceive the writers to intend. I for one play that you can allocate blast wounds to models out of sight, and the non-targeted unit gets saves, etc. I've also played it that way since 6th edition came out.

rigeld2 wrote:

whill4 wrote:
Why would you decide to take the Out of Sight rule as absolute while discounting the exception made in the Blast special rule?

Because there isn't an exception in the blast rule to the second sentence of Out of Sight.

I seriously never understand how people stick to this belief while insisting that there is one for barrage.

Blast say allocate as normal, barrage says allocate from the center of the marker. Neither specificaly override that second sentence of Out of Sight.

But hey, who am I to say that you can't argue both sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Dracoknight wrote:

So what is REALLY the problem here? it just sounds like someone is digging for a loop hole to escape blast effects.

Digging for something, like not having to admit that their long and closely held opinions were wrong.

How? We are discussing what the rules actually state, not what we perceive the writers to intend. I for one play that you can allocate blast wounds to models out of sight, and the non-targeted unit gets saves, etc. I've also played it that way since 6th edition came out.

The rules for allocation state that wounds are allocated to the target unit and only the target unit. Could you provide an example where wounds are allocted to a unit other than the target unit.
I cannot find one.

The rules for barrage don't provide an exception to Out of Sight either. But many argue vehemently that they do.

I posit that the rule for blasts provide exception to the Out of Sight rule as a whole (always have for that matter). Others here argue that it only allows an exception for part. No amount of argument will change my opinion. Nor will it change what is written.

You have the opinion that the exception only covers part of the rule. Good. I am however not wrong on this. And no one would ever play it that way.

I seriously never understand how people stick to this belief while insisting that there is one for barrage.

Those people do not. You fail to realize that this is a RAW discussion not a HIWPI one.

rigeld2 wrote:

whill4 wrote:
Why would you decide to take the Out of Sight rule as absolute while discounting the exception made in the Blast special rule?

Because there isn't an exception in the blast rule to the second sentence of Out of Sight.

Going to offer up my opinion:

Here's the exception to the Out of Sight:

"Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

As I read it, this errata places wounds from blast weapons in it's own pool that overrides the Out of Sight.

So as I understand it, Pre-errata the process is:

Roll direct, non blast shots
Roll wounds.
Roll saves.
Place initial target and then roll deviation of blast weapon.
Determine the number of models hit. Blast rules state that range and sight do not apply.
Roll wounds.
Roll saves.
Create wound pool.
Allocate unsaved wounds. (At this point, Out of Sight kicks in. The example of a large blast causing 9 wounds on the one visible chump would be the proper wound apply)

Now the pre errata process is:
Roll direct, non blast shots
Roll wounds.
Roll saves.
Create wound pool A
Place initial target and then roll deviation of blast weapon.
Determine the number of models hit. Blast rules state that range and sight do not apply.
Roll wounds.
Roll saves.
Create wound pool B
Allocate unsaved wounds from pool A (Out of Sight rule applies)
Allocate unsaved wounds from pool B (Out of Sight rule does NOT apply, as the errata for this wound pool states that this pool can be allocated to models Out of Sight and Out of Range)
Note that A and B are not a defined order, and as the shooter, choosing the weapon allocation order, one could do the blast weapon pool first, it's not really tactically sound.

This errata allows blast wounds to be allocated without sight (or range) being an issue, the key point being that blast caused wounds now exist in their own separate wound pool with exceptions to range and sight.

To me, that reduces the issue down to the whole "target unit" and if the target for a blast weapon is A) the original unit being shot at or B) the unit(s) that fall under the template. That seems to be all that needs clarification now.

FlyingLandon wrote:
Here's the exception to the Out of Sight:

"Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

As I read it, this errata places wounds from blast weapons in it's own pool that overrides the Out of Sight.

It overrides the first sentence (about not being able to allocate wounds to models out of sight).
What overrides the second sentence?

rigeld2 wrote:

FlyingLandon wrote:
Here's the exception to the Out of Sight:

"Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

As I read it, this errata places wounds from blast weapons in it's own pool that overrides the Out of Sight.

It overrides the first sentence (about not being able to allocate wounds to models out of sight).
What overrides the second sentence?

There is no need to override the second sentence. The rule is Out of Sight, the errata provides Blast wounds the ability to allocate to units out of LoS. If the rule (OoS) is not applicable then the entire rule is not applicable. Another way to view it is prove that the second sentence of OoS disallows Blasts to allocate the wounds to units/models out of LoS. Blast is an advanced rule and OoS is a basic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

It is specific to wounds caused by blasts and large blasts. I think that is very clear. I can't imagine how you could argue that it is not.

Good, because Im not arguing that.

Does it specify that the wound pool does NOT empty? ANswer yes or no
THen, once you have that answer, you will have learnt whether it specifies or not. Hint: it doesnt specify. There is no conflict, so the wound pool still empties. You only habve permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool, yet the wound pool is empty. note how one thing (permission to allocate wounds) is not the same as saying that the wound pool is not emptied

So you are choosing to interpret the FAQ as doing absolutely nothing?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

Okay. The rules Amendment in FAQ 1.4 say that wounds may be ALLOCATED to models out of sight. I can only assume you haven't really read this yet because I can conjure no other way of interpreting this in a reasonable manner.

Fragile wrote:

I seriously never understand how people stick to this belief while insisting that there is one for barrage.

Those people do not. You fail to realize that this is a RAW discussion not a HIWPI one.

You took this quote out of context. There are many people. That insist that Blast does not provide an exception to Out of Sight (RAW) while also maintaining that Barrage does (RAW).

When the truth is, if one insists that there is no exception to out of sight for blast (RAW) then there is also no exception for barrage (RAW).

Both Rules provide instructions on HOW to allocate wounds but, according to the super strict RAW crowd, neither rules says that you CAN allocate those wounds if the unit hit is Out of Sight.

By the way rules are classified in this forum, allowing the allocation is just a house rule. No failure on my part at all, perhaps you should re-read my points.










Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

It is specific to wounds caused by blasts and large blasts. I think that is very clear. I can't imagine how you could argue that it is not.

Good, because Im not arguing that.

Does it specify that the wound pool does NOT empty? ANswer yes or no
THen, once you have that answer, you will have learnt whether it specifies or not. Hint: it doesnt specify. There is no conflict, so the wound pool still empties. You only habve permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool, yet the wound pool is empty. note how one thing (permission to allocate wounds) is not the same as saying that the wound pool is not emptied

So you are choosing to interpret the FAQ as doing absolutely nothing?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

That was a question, directed to you. Not a statement attributing something that you did not say to you.

I came to this conclusion based on the puctuation and sentence structure

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

FlyingLandon wrote:
Here's the exception to the Out of Sight:

"Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

As I read it, this errata places wounds from blast weapons in it's own pool that overrides the Out of Sight.

It overrides the first sentence (about not being able to allocate wounds to models out of sight).
What overrides the second sentence?

There is no need to override the second sentence. The rule is Out of Sight, the errata provides Blast wounds the ability to allocate to units out of LoS. If the rule (OoS) is not applicable then the entire rule is not applicable. Another way to view it is prove that the second sentence of OoS disallows Blasts to allocate the wounds to units/models out of LoS. Blast is an advanced rule and OoS is a basic.

Pretty much as stated above. I'd say it overrides the whole rule.


Otherwise the errata is absolutely pointless, as the only time it EVER takes effect is when there are no more models in LoS. That's the entirety of what this errata does, is wound allocation outside of LoS.

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

It is specific to wounds caused by blasts and large blasts. I think that is very clear. I can't imagine how you could argue that it is not.

Good, because Im not arguing that.

Does it specify that the wound pool does NOT empty? ANswer yes or no
THen, once you have that answer, you will have learnt whether it specifies or not. Hint: it doesnt specify. There is no conflict, so the wound pool still empties. You only habve permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool, yet the wound pool is empty. note how one thing (permission to allocate wounds) is not the same as saying that the wound pool is not emptied

So you are choosing to interpret the FAQ as doing absolutely nothing?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

Okay. The rules Amendment in FAQ 1.4 say that wounds may be ALLOCATED to models out of sight. I can only assume you haven't really read this yet because I can conjure no other way of interpreting this in a reasonable manner.

OK, as you have apparently missed it the first time round, or in the 2nd quote, or now in the 3rd quote, I have bolded the bit you keep failing to answer.

I have NOT said it does not mention *allocation*. I have stated, quite accurately, that it does not override the requirement that the wound pool empties. I have asked you to answer this question, and you have not done so.

Can you, maybe, spend a few seconds reading the posts a little more carefully? Answer this question, and you have a rules answer.

Idolator - erm, I wasnt actually quoting you. You can understand that by reading the "quoted" name.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Idolator - erm, I wasnt actually quoting you. You can understand that by reading the "quoted" name.

When did I ever claim that you quoted me?

I will thank you for the update on your choice not to do something and the instruction on how to determine that you did not do something.

To return the favor, I'll let you know that i didn't make a ham sandwhich. You can tell that by the lack of ham sandwiches made in my house today.

Still cannot prove that target unit is anything you hit then?

Given you cannot prove this, you have conceded your argument as far as rules are concerned.

Good day.

FlyingLandon wrote:

andystache wrote:
There is no need to override the second sentence. The rule is Out of Sight, the errata provides Blast wounds the ability to allocate to units out of LoS. If the rule (OoS) is not applicable then the entire rule is not applicable. Another way to view it is prove that the second sentence of OoS disallows Blasts to allocate the wounds to units/models out of LoS. Blast is an advanced rule and OoS is a basic.

Pretty much as stated above. I'd say it overrides the whole rule.

You have permission to ignore part of the rule, that does not give permission to ignore all of it. Cavalry has permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction that generally exists. Does that mean that they ignore all other movement rules?

Otherwise the errata is absolutely pointless, as the only time it EVER takes effect is when there are no more models in LoS. That's the entirety of what this errata does, is wound allocation outside of LoS.

So it's pointless except for one instance... so it's not pointless.
And you're wrong - if you have 5 models covered by a blast that are hiding in a ruin (out of LoS) but close to you and 5 models in LoS but farther away, you can use the blast wounds to kill the hiding guys and then all other shooting from that unit can kill the unit that isn't hiding. This errata enables that - prior to this errata it wasn't possible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

It is specific to wounds caused by blasts and large blasts. I think that is very clear. I can't imagine how you could argue that it is not.

Good, because Im not arguing that.

Does it specify that the wound pool does NOT empty? ANswer yes or no
THen, once you have that answer, you will have learnt whether it specifies or not. Hint: it doesnt specify. There is no conflict, so the wound pool still empties. You only habve permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool, yet the wound pool is empty. note how one thing (permission to allocate wounds) is not the same as saying that the wound pool is not emptied

So you are choosing to interpret the FAQ as doing absolutely nothing?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

Okay. The rules Amendment in FAQ 1.4 say that wounds may be ALLOCATED to models out of sight. I can only assume you haven't really read this yet because I can conjure no other way of interpreting this in a reasonable manner.

OK, as you have apparently missed it the first time round, or in the 2nd quote, or now in the 3rd quote, I have bolded the bit you keep failing to answer.

I have NOT said it does not mention *allocation*. I have stated, quite accurately, that it does not override the requirement that the wound pool empties. I have asked you to answer this question, and you have not done so.

Can you, maybe, spend a few seconds reading the posts a little more carefully? Answer this question, and you have a rules answer.

Idolator - erm, I wasnt actually quoting you. You can understand that by reading the "quoted" name.

I read your posts, sir. I must have angry kittens for brains because I am quite literally incapable of wrapping my head around your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Still cannot prove that target unit is anything you hit then?

Given you cannot prove this, you have conceded your argument as far as rules are concerned.

Good day.

Other than it breaking the game as we know it? No, I have no proof.

You are right there is nothing designating how to allocate wounds to anything other than the declared target unit.

Blast template wounds can only be allocated to the declared target.
Vehicle Explosions wounds cannot be allocated at all as the explosion hits and wounds models that are not in the target unit.
Beam weapon wounds can only be allocated if the type of beam weapon allows you to declare a specific unit as the target unit, then only to that one unit.
Beam weapons that fire to a point on the table cannot have their wounds allocated at all.
Template weapons can only have wounds allocated to a single declared target unit.
Crashing flyers wounds cannot be allocated as there is no target unit.
Wounds caused by mysterious terrain cannot be allocated as there in no target unit.
Dangerous terrain wounds cannot be allocated as there is no target unit.


Is it your stance that wounds can only be allocated to target units???
I doubt this question will be answered as the position is untenable.

On a separate note. I noticed that you failed to address your false claim that Loopy "put words in your mouth" when clearly he did not.
I also noticed that there no example given of when I claimed that you quoted me.

Bonus edit: Concede is a term used when someone agrees that they have lost. I make no such agreement. Your disregard for the proof provided doesn't mean that that i accept my position is wrong. I belive what you meant to say was.
"Can't convince me...then in my opinion, you have lost the argument."

Idolator - your concession is accepted.

Loopy - yet you havent answered the question. You should do so, as it might clue you in to the part of the rules you are just not reading.

Does the FAQ allow the wound pool to remain full when no models are in LOS? DOes the FAQ address this part of Out of Sight? If the answer is No, which it is, then reread Out of Sight, and note that the wound pool MUST EMPTY if no models are in LOS.

If you dont have any wounds in the wound pool, you cannot allocate any wounds.

Does that help any? If you had just answered the question it would have been a ton easier.....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - your concession is accepted.

Loopy - yet you havent answered the question. You should do so, as it might clue you in to the part of the rules you are just not reading.

Does the FAQ allow the wound pool to remain full when no models are in LOS? DOes the FAQ address this part of Out of Sight? If the answer is No, which it is, then reread Out of Sight, and note that the wound pool MUST EMPTY if no models are in LOS.

If you dont have any wounds in the wound pool, you cannot allocate any wounds.

Does that help any? If you had just answered the question it would have been a ton easier.....

Concede is a term used when someone agrees that they have lost. I make no such agreement. Your disregard for the proof provided doesn't mean that that i accept my position is wrong. I belive what you meant to say was.
"Can't convince me...then in my opinion, you have lost the argument."


The fact that there are many, MANY occurences where there is no delcared target unit is proof that wounds can be allocated to units that are not the declared target unit.

Is it your opinion that wounds can only be allocated to target units???


Edit: Let me set it down here so it doesn't get lost.


Is it your position that wounds may only be allocated to target units?

Nope, I mean it. Your position is based on the target being any unit hit. The rules do not say that, meaning your argument is flawed from the start. As you have admitted you CANNOT support your position, you have conceded the argumnt. You are also continualy breaking the rules of this forum. Shock.

I have not stated my position further than that, as you are attempting to twist arguments away from a debate on the rules, and the effect of this FAQ, to suit what you THINK the rules say.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, I mean it. Your position is based on the target being any unit hit. The rules do not say that, meaning your argument is flawed from the start. As you have admitted you CANNOT support your position, you have conceded the argumnt. You are also continualy breaking the rules of this forum. Shock.

I have not stated my position further than that, as you are attempting to twist arguments away from a debate on the rules, and the effect of this FAQ, to suit what you THINK the rules say.

The rules don't define target unit anywhere. On page 12 "target unit" is used to refer to the unit targeted by shooting. On pg 15 "target unit" is used without qualifiers to describe a unit that has been hit and wounded. So I've just shown you the two pages that use that term and they differ from one another. You cannot show me a section that categorically defines "target unit" for the entire turn/phase. You can point to pg 12 where it is the unit selected to be fired against, I can point to pg 15 where it refers to any unit hit and wounded.

Rigeld2 - "You have permission to ignore part of the rule, that does not give permission to ignore all of it. Cavalry has permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction that generally exists. Does that mean that they ignore all other movement rules?" Cavalry do not have permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction because no such restriction exists. You are citing pg 10 "Movement Distance" for this claim, but paragraph 1 specifies that the movement rules described are only for Infantry and that other unit types have different modes of movement.

Pg 10, paragraph 1, third sentence: "For the time being, we'll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Wehicles, Jump Pack units, Bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later on (see pages 44-49)"

So again, please show that the second sentence in Out of Sight can be used when the rule itself is not being invoked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, I mean it. Your position is based on the target being any unit hit. The rules do not say that, meaning your argument is flawed from the start. As you have admitted you CANNOT support your position, you have conceded the argumnt. You are also continualy breaking the rules of this forum. Shock.

I have not stated my position further than that, as you are attempting to twist arguments away from a debate on the rules, and the effect of this FAQ, to suit what you THINK the rules say.

My position is supported by the fact the there are numerous examples of wounds that must be allocated to units other than the target unit.

You requested an explicit rules citiation. There is nothing explicit. That doesn't mean that I have conceded.

I am trying to understand your position. Since you will not state your position, it becomes increasingly hard to have a cogent conversation. I made my case, your position is, basicaly, "your wrong, now prove that your not."

I've given several examples of situations where wounds must be allocated to units other than the target unit, proving that it can be done.

I am not trying to twist the argument away from the debate. The position that was posited was: wounds cannot be allocated to the unit hit, that was Out of Sight, because it was not the target unit. . My point is that this is invalid as there are numerous examples of wounds being allocated to units that are not designated as target units. VERY VERY on topic.

If that is their stance, the the obvious question would be: When can wounds be allocated to a unit that is not declared as a target unit? It is essential to the debate. Without this point being clear then the entire discussion is pointless.

If you would be so kind as to point out instances when I broke the rules of the forum I will be glad to address them. Please follow the rules of the forum and provide citations, otherwise it would be an unsubstantiated accusation. (which I believe is a violation of the rules)

rigeld2 wrote:

FlyingLandon wrote:

andystache wrote:
There is no need to override the second sentence. The rule is Out of Sight, the errata provides Blast wounds the ability to allocate to units out of LoS. If the rule (OoS) is not applicable then the entire rule is not applicable. Another way to view it is prove that the second sentence of OoS disallows Blasts to allocate the wounds to units/models out of LoS. Blast is an advanced rule and OoS is a basic.

Pretty much as stated above. I'd say it overrides the whole rule.

You have permission to ignore part of the rule, that does not give permission to ignore all of it. Cavalry has permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction that generally exists. Does that mean that they ignore all other movement rules?

Otherwise the errata is absolutely pointless, as the only time it EVER takes effect is when there are no more models in LoS. That's the entirety of what this errata does, is wound allocation outside of LoS.

So it's pointless except for one instance... so it's not pointless.
And you're wrong - if you have 5 models covered by a blast that are hiding in a ruin (out of LoS) but close to you and 5 models in LoS but farther away, you can use the blast wounds to kill the hiding guys and then all other shooting from that unit can kill the unit that isn't hiding. This errata enables that - prior to this errata it wasn't possible.

Then I stand corrected. Per your reading, it's only useful in the one specific instance where a out of sight part of a unit is closer than the visible part of a unit. (Which I think we can all agree is pretty dumb.)

Per my reading, out of sight no longer applies as the errata says I can allocate wounds to models that are not in LOS.

I guess until they errata the errata, and finally say what they mean to say, this is going to be a problem. This is why lawyers have very specific words for specific things, instead of shifting around interchangeable words that almost mean the same thing and having shoddy, shifting layout for what is essentially a technical document.

andystache wrote:
Rigeld2 - "You have permission to ignore part of the rule, that does not give permission to ignore all of it. Cavalry has permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction that generally exists. Does that mean that they ignore all other movement rules?" Cavalry do not have permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction because no such restriction exists. You are citing pg 10 "Movement Distance" for this claim, but paragraph 1 specifies that the movement rules described are only for Infantry and that other unit types have different modes of movement.

Pg 10, paragraph 1, third sentence: "For the time being, we'll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Wehicles, Jump Pack units, Bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later on (see pages 44-49)"

So again, please show that the second sentence in Out of Sight can be used when the rule itself is not being invoked.

Fair enough, poor example.
The Out of Sight rule is invoked, you're just allowed to ignore the first sentence.

BRB 13 wrote:All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit.

A vehicle with Power of the Machine Spirit is allowed to ignore that restriction.
Does that mean all targeting rules are ignored? PotMS doesn't specify so according to your interpretation, all targeting rules are voided and you can fire at things out of range and out of LoS.

 Happyjew wrote:
No, but only the target unit can take saves.

 Happyjew wrote:
I for one play that you can allocate blast wounds to models out of sight, and the non-targeted unit gets saves, etc. I've also played it that way since 6th edition came out.

I'm confused....

Why would you allocate wounds but deny saves for those wounds?
What unit is being denied saves? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

rigeld2 wrote:
A vehicle with Power of the Machine Spirit is allowed to ignore that restriction.
Does that mean all targeting rules are ignored? PotMS doesn't specify so according to your interpretation, all targeting rules are voided and you can fire at things out of range and out of LoS.

The power of the maching spirit rule specificaly states that it may fire at a separate target but is then subject to the normal rules for shooting.

So if it fired a blast weapon it would be able to target a model in a unit that it could see, but scatter onto, hit and wound another unit that is out of sight, then have those wounds allocated as blast wounds don't follow out of sight rules.

No such caveat is placed on the blast rules, the entire Out of Sight rule is ignored.

rigeld2 wrote:

BRB 13 wrote:All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit.

A vehicle with Power of the Machine Spirit is allowed to ignore that restriction.
Does that mean all targeting rules are ignored? PotMS doesn't specify so according to your interpretation, all targeting rules are voided and you can fire at things out of range and out of LoS.

PotMS allows you to ignore that restriction specifically in selection of a target, with no other specification. Blast, otoh, has it's own specific caveats to the whole process. Targeting - follows normal shooting rules, model must be in LoS, within max range, and be the same unit targeted by the squad. Hitting - uses scatter dice rather than a d6 to determine result, has permission to hit models and/or units outside of max range and LoS. Wounding - as per normal shooting, number of wounds inflicted based on number of models under the templates final resting place, has permission to wound units out of LoS. Allocation - wounds are allocated to the nearest model to the firing unit regardless of LoS. Aside from the initial placement of the template Blast has permission to ignore LoS in all cases and if LoS is ignored after initial placement how do you invoke Out of Sight?

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No, but only the target unit can take saves.

 Happyjew wrote:
I for one play that you can allocate blast wounds to models out of sight, and the non-targeted unit gets saves, etc. I've also played it that way since 6th edition came out.

I'm confused....

Why would you allocate wounds but deny saves for those wounds?
What unit is being denied saves? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

Only the target unit gets saves. Since the unit that the blast scattered into isn't the target unit, they do not have permission to take saves.

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

BRB 13 wrote:All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit.

A vehicle with Power of the Machine Spirit is allowed to ignore that restriction.
Does that mean all targeting rules are ignored? PotMS doesn't specify so according to your interpretation, all targeting rules are voided and you can fire at things out of range and out of LoS.

PotMS allows you to ignore that restriction specifically in selection of a target, with no other specification. Blast, otoh, has it's own specific caveats to the whole process. Targeting - follows normal shooting rules, model must be in LoS, within max range, and be the same unit targeted by the squad. Hitting - uses scatter dice rather than a d6 to determine result, has permission to hit models and/or units outside of max range and LoS. Wounding - as per normal shooting, number of wounds inflicted based on number of models under the templates final resting place, has permission to wound units out of LoS. Allocation - wounds are allocated to the nearest model to the firing unit regardless of LoS. Aside from the initial placement of the template Blast has permission to ignore LoS in all cases and if LoS is ignored after initial placement how do you invoke Out of Sight?

By having the entire target unit out of sight of the firing unit. Since you have no exception for that and all.

To expand on that:
The number of rules Blast replaces/augments doesn't matter. You're trying to use one very specific rule to override two very different rules.
It's exactly like the Night Scythe and Crash and Burn discussion, exactly like PotMS and ignoring LoS/Range, exactly like, well... lots of cases.
Blasts aren't a special case. You can't pick and choose rules to replace, there has to be a conflict. There isn't one.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No, but only the target unit can take saves.

 Happyjew wrote:
I for one play that you can allocate blast wounds to models out of sight, and the non-targeted unit gets saves, etc. I've also played it that way since 6th edition came out.

I'm confused....

Why would you allocate wounds but deny saves for those wounds?
What unit is being denied saves? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

Only the target unit gets saves. Since the unit that the blast scattered into isn't the target unit, they do not have permission to take saves.

I don't see why you follow this line. Blast rules don't say anything about it having to the targeted unit, just that the unit suffers wounds based on the number of models under it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - your concession is accepted.

Loopy - yet you havent answered the question. You should do so, as it might clue you in to the part of the rules you are just not reading.

Does the FAQ allow the wound pool to remain full when no models are in LOS? DOes the FAQ address this part of Out of Sight? If the answer is No, which it is, then reread Out of Sight, and note that the wound pool MUST EMPTY if no models are in LOS.

If you dont have any wounds in the wound pool, you cannot allocate any wounds.

Does that help any? If you had just answered the question it would have been a ton easier.....

Actually, it did help and I do get it now. I just made the connection. I can understand where you'd want to interpret it that way and I do see a situation where it would come into play...

Example: If there are models in the target unit visible, but they aren't the closest, the models that ARE closest, but not in line of sight could be removed by a blast. If there were no models visible in the unit, by this interpretation, then no models could be removed, even if they were in the same spot as the former situation.

However, I do not play with a single person who would agree with this very improbable RAW interpretation, so I think I'm ok, but thanks for spelling it out for me.

 Happyjew wrote:
Only the target unit gets saves. Since the unit that the blast scattered into isn't the target unit, they do not have permission to take saves.

Oh, sweet merciful Bazinga!

HA! Very nice, Happyjew. Very very nice!

FlyingLandon wrote:

I don't see why you follow this line. Blast rules don't say anything about it having to the targeted unit, just that the unit suffers wounds based on the number of models under it.

Page 15, paragraph 2.

Was there ever a final verdict on this?

FunJohn wrote:
Was there ever a final verdict on this?

That depends on what you are looking for.

If you are looking for an answer on how to play it? Then, no.

If you are looking for a consensus on what is intended by the rules? Then, no.

If you are looking for a consensus on what the rules mean? Then, no.

If you are looking for a consensus on what words were used to form the rules? Then, yes.

The final verdict is that the rules are badly written and some people will never agree.

I suspect most people will have a fairly sensible way of playing it, but I think we can all agree that the rules are a mess.

As per the newest rulebook FAQ Blasts and Large blasts now have permission to inflict wounds from their own specific wound pools, onto any models in the unit hit regardless of range or line of sight.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
As per the newest rulebook FAQ Blasts and Large blasts now have permission to inflict wounds from their own specific wound pools, onto any models in the unit hit regardless of range or line of sight.

And I think that with HappyJew's fantastic contribution there can be no doubt about this, because if you do only consider the initial target to be considered the targeted unit, the rules take a serious and unfortunate turn for the insane.

 Loopy wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
As per the newest rulebook FAQ Blasts and Large blasts now have permission to inflict wounds from their own specific wound pools, onto any models in the unit hit regardless of range or line of sight.

And I think that with HappyJew's fantastic contribution there can be no doubt about this, because if you do only consider the initial target to be considered the targeted unit, the rules take a serious and unfortunate turn for the insane.

So you're completely ignoring my arguments that don't care about the "target unit" wording?

Awesome.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
As per the newest rulebook FAQ Blasts and Large blasts now have permission to inflict wounds from their own specific wound pools, onto any models in the unit hit regardless of range or line of sight.

And I think that with HappyJew's fantastic contribution there can be no doubt about this, because if you do only consider the initial target to be considered the targeted unit, the rules take a serious and unfortunate turn for the insane.

So you're completely ignoring my arguments that don't care about the "target unit" wording?

Awesome.

My apologies. I honestly don't understand how you can argue the Amendment does not supersede "Out of Sight" using the specific/general rule. If that's not what you're saying, then my addled brains certainly haven't been able to summon the mental agility required to navigate the turbulent stream of logic required to come to your conclusions. If you are simply saying the same things (or similar things) as nosferatu1001 regarding the FAQ Amendment applying only to allocation and not the vaporous concept of "wound pool emptying", then I must say that I guess there's some janky logic to it, but I don't play with a single person who'd agree with it and I'd hope that there are few who would.

I've outlined how the amendment doesn't ignore Out of Sight.
Permission to ignore part of a rule (the first sentence) does not give permission to ignore the rule in its entirety.
Or can PotMS target units out of LoS and Range?

rigeld2 wrote:
I've outlined how the amendment doesn't ignore Out of Sight.
Permission to ignore part of a rule (the first sentence) does not give permission to ignore the rule in its entirety.
Or can PotMS target units out of LoS and Range?

No, but the Blast rules and the Amendment say that scattering blasts may do so.

 Loopy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've outlined how the amendment doesn't ignore Out of Sight.
Permission to ignore part of a rule (the first sentence) does not give permission to ignore the rule in its entirety.
Or can PotMS target units out of LoS and Range?

No, but the Amendment says that scattering blasts may do so.

No, it doesn't. The amendment allows scattering blast to ignore part of the Out of Sight rule.
Please cite the rule allowing them to not empty the wound pool.

So you ARE arguing the "Target Unit" language which HappyJew has helped us define? I thought you just said that you weren't.


Edit: Okay. Delete instead of edit. Got it. Never mind.


To answer your next question, refer to my post above which I agree could be a janky interpretation of the Amendment in some circles. If you want to live your game that way, fine by me, but we don't roll that way.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, I guess here's the thing:

The argument that the blast can't wound models out of sight is done. The "Target Unit" language cannot be interpreted as just the initial target because doing so would hopelessly break the game.

The argument that the blast cant wound models in units that are completely out of sight is still a contentious rule because, even though the FAQ states that models may have wounds allocated to them, there's some legerdemain of language that implies that the wounds disappear before they're allocated because no models are visible to the firer.

So, in this interpretation...

If a unit has 1 model showing, and 10 models out of LOS which are closer, those 10 models can die.

If a unit didn't have that 1 model showing, then those same 10 models can't die.

That's madness, in my opinion.

 Loopy wrote:
So you ARE arguing the "Target Unit" language which HappyJew has helped us define? I thought you just said that you weren't.

... No, no I'm not. Regardless of how you define target unit, what allows the wound pool to not be emptied when you cannot see any model in the unit?

To answer your next question, refer to my post above which I agree could be a janky interpretation of the Amendment in some circles. If you want to live your game that way, fine by me, but we don't roll that way.

I'm not using any "janky" interpretation and I resent the implication.

How about instead of sideways insults and patronizing speech you actually quote rules in a rules debate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Loopy wrote:
So, I guess here's the thing:

The argument that the blast can't wound models out of sight is done. The "Target Unit" language cannot be interpreted as just the initial target because doing so would hopelessly break the game.

The argument that the blast cant wound models in units that are completely out of sight is still a contentious rule because, even though the FAQ states that models may have wounds allocated to them, there's some legerdemain of language that implies that the wounds disappear before they're allocated because no models are visible to the firer.

So, in this interpretation...

If a unit has 1 model showing, and 10 models out of LOS which are closer, those 10 models can die.

If a unit didn't have that 1 model showing, then those same 10 models can't die.

That's madness, in my opinion.

Read the current Out of Range rules (including the FAQ). Still madness?
Read GW rules in general. Still madness?

I'm not using any "janky" interpretation and I resent the implication.

How about instead of sideways insults and patronizing speech you actually quote rules in a rules debate?

You are reading emotions that do not exist. I and my friends would literally never dream of using this interpretation because the RAI is very clear.

Read the current Out of Range rules (including the FAQ). Still madness?
Read GW rules in general. Still madness?

I did read them, sir. Several times. I still believe the Rules Amendment applies to the entire section because the Blast rules allow for hitting units out of range and sight and the Amendment allows for allocation to them.

As for the wound pool emptying before the wounds are allocated, it may hold some kind of water on a strictly literal level, I would expect my local players (and most people in genera) to not accept that interpretation and would hope that national tournament organizers to rule RAI on this one as they have said they'd be doing more of on a case-by-case basis.

And yes, GW rules can be pretty weird at times, but I don't think anyone would intend for a situation where the same models can or can't be accidentally wounded would depend on whether you can see someone in the unit or not.

@Loopy : Rigeld2 is arguing RAW, not RAI. They are two separate things. "on a strictly literal level' is RAW. So, you do agree with him on that.

RAI or HIWPI are separate issues and I'm pretty sure Rigeld would agree to play it that way regardless of the literal interpretation of this mess of a rule.

You keep saying that RAI is very clear because you're carrying forward ideas from previous editions that blasts must ignore all LoS and Range restrictions.

If you accept the fact that GW can change things from how they worked in previous editions (ref Swarms and ID) my interpretation becomes absolutely valid.

Edit: and I've said multiple times that during games I don't care how its played. I just don't. Because I play for fun and debate rules for fun.

I'm saying its actually tough to divine a conclusion without invoking intent to some extent. The amendment is a little broad and, par for the course, poorly written. Are the separated blast wounds a separate pool? Does their status of "may be located to models out of LOS mean that they are not emptied from the pool?

The rule says that the pool empties when no models are left LOS, right? So, consequently, by this interpretation, since wounds are applied one at a time, even if you did have this pool of dice available, once all visible models are dead, the pool would empty.

I agree that for RAW, an amendment or other anecdotal evidence is needed to ascertain whether a wound's ability to be allocated to a model which is not visible supersedes its removal from the wound pool due to the unit not being visible.

I'd love to go hunting for that anecdotal evidence but I can't at the moment.

So you agree with me on RAW and agree that RAI isn't as clear as you originally made it out to be?

Great. Thanks.