In a recent game, I got 1st turn and fired my buble chunkas (Heay 1, Large Blast) at a unit that I could see.

3 of them scattered big (9, 11, 11) and the blasts ended up over a tightly clustered group of infantry that were completely out of line of sight of the Bubble Chunkas.

We know from the rules for blasts that they can indeed cause wounds to models out of line of sight.

What Cover Save do those models get? They were 100% obscured by ruins. Does that mean they get a 4+ cover save?

Generally only ruins give a 4+ cover save, with obscurement just being a 5+. I think the rules would be a 5+ in the situation, but I'd gladly give my opponent a 4+.

It seems odd, but I think that is correct. Because it is a ruin that they are behind, it is a 4+.

tag8833 wrote:
We know from the rules for blasts that they can indeed cause wounds to models out of line of sight.

First of all, this is only true for Barrage weapons, and even then, debatable.

Secondly, Blast ("only") weapons cannot allocate Wounds to models out of line of sight, so you need not worry about Cover saves. However, in the case you describe, and IF you had minimal LoS, this rule exists:

Unless specifically noted otherwise, a model in cover behind difficult terrain has a 5+ cover save.

For them to get the 4+ Cover of the Ruins, they have to be within the terrain, not behind it:

Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
We know from the rules for blasts that they can indeed cause wounds to models out of line of sight.

First of all, this is only true for Barrage weapons, and even then, debatable.

There is always one person that tries to debate this. I don't think it is unclear. Page 158 of the rulebook says:
"Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight."

Your argument is based on the "Out of Sight" provision of wound allocation on page 35 which explicitly doesn't apply due to the line I quoted above, in the same way that the "Out of Range" provision also doesn't apply. (Do you think we should apply that provision as well?) If you followup that "Wounding" and allocating wounds are different things, I would argue that allocating wounds is a component of "Wounding" as is "Rolling to Wound". You would counter that "Rolling to Wound" is the entirety of "Wounding", and our semantic argument would degrade ad nauseum. Suffice to say, I have never played a game where your interpretation was used. I have never been to a tournament where your interpretation was used. While a case could be made that our Semantic argument doesn't have a clear conclusion one way or the other, in practice it is purely an academic exercise.

However, if you want to keep arguing your case on Template weapons against the slew of events that are allowing them to add wounds to the wound pool but not allocate wounds based on models out of line of sight, I would support you there based on what I feel is a relatively strong RAW argument.

It does not "explicitly" apply. The line from blasts only overrides one part of out of sight. It does not override the emptying pool requirement.

"Wounds must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any model in the attacking unit."

You guys understand that special rules override general rules, right?

I would give them a 5+ cover since they are not in the ruin but are obscured. As far as I can tell from the rules you can absolutely hit and wound units out of line of site should the blast scatter on to them.

The point, as been raised before, is that there are two events to keep track of:

#1: Apply the wound to the nearest model. Explicitly ignores LoS.

#2: If there are no models in LoS, you empty the wound pool.

The claim is that, while the first event is explicitly allowed, the second event still triggers. So the wound pool is empty. So you can't allocate, because there are no wounds left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(RAI is plain as day. RAW I'm not that well read on.)

 jokerkd wrote:
"Wounds must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any model in the attacking unit."

You guys understand that special rules override general rules, right?

Sorry, I missed the part where that rule says that the wound pool does not empty if no models are in Los. Can you highlight it?

Well from a RAW point it isn't unclear.
It can hit and wound models out of range and line of sight.

so Any model that is out of line of sight, can in fact be wounded.

so
...................................l
A.................................l B
....................................l

No matter what way you look at it, B can be wounded, end of.
You can't come up with some reason that B can't be wounded due to line of sight, when we are explicitly told
"may hit and wound models out of line of sight"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just think about your point. If someone tries to wound them, are you saying, "sorry you can't wound them because they are out of line of sight" ?
Regardless of the wound pool clause, you are in fact saying. "You cannot wound them , because they are out of line of sight."

This is explicitly overridden

Number 2 is not RAW

Picking sentences out of paragraphs is not read as written, its read how you want it to read.

A quick flick through the book shows how quickly the game would break if this kind of stupidity were allowed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But seriously, if you ignore the first part of the paragraph, as you are, and claim the last sentence is RAW, then they can be wounded because that sentence does not say they have to be visible to the attacking unit. If they are visible to anything (including the player) then the wound pool is not empty

harkequin wrote:
Well from a RAW point it isn't unclear.
It can hit and wound models out of range and line of sight.

so Any model that is out of line of sight, can in fact be wounded.

Indeed they can. Any wounds that you have in the wound pool can be applied to models out of line of sight.


However, if there are no models in line of sight, how many wounds are in the wound pool?

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Well from a RAW point it isn't unclear.
It can hit and wound models out of range and line of sight.

so Any model that is out of line of sight, can in fact be wounded.

Indeed they can. Any wounds that you have in the wound pool can be applied to models out of line of sight.


However, if there are no models in line of sight, how many wounds are in the wound pool?

In line of sight of what?

The firing unit. Context matters.

But it doesn't matter when you want to take the one one sentence out of a paragraph?

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Well from a RAW point it isn't unclear.
It can hit and wound models out of range and line of sight.

so Any model that is out of line of sight, can in fact be wounded.

Indeed they can. Any wounds that you have in the wound pool can be applied to models out of line of sight.


However, if there are no models in line of sight, how many wounds are in the wound pool?

So what you are trying to say, is they cannot be wounded because they are out of line of sight?

You are ignoring the specific permission given. The BRB doesn't have to say, this model may have a wound allocated to it, saved, then removed. Model 2 may have a wound ..... It uses some extrapolation.
If you try to break the game, it breaks. No surprise there. You have to ignore the specific permission given to you for your ruling to work.

Basically.
May wound out of LoS models -> Things that would prevent this no longer apply -> wound pool issues no longer exist.

 jokerkd wrote:
But it doesn't matter when you want to take the one one sentence out of a paragraph?

No, the point is that you can't just take one sentence out of a paragraph.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
So what you are trying to say, is they cannot be wounded because they are out of line of sight?

If the entire unit is out of sight, yes, the 'Out of Sight' rule kicks in and the wound pool immediately empties.

If at least one model from the unit is visible, then wounds can be allocated to models that are out of sight, so long as they are closer than the visible model.



It's probably not how it's supposed to work, but since there is no specific statement in the Blast rule to ignore the Out of Sight rule, that's how it works by the rules as written.

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
But it doesn't matter when you want to take the one one sentence out of a paragraph?

No, the point is that you can't just take one sentence out of a paragraph.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
So what you are trying to say, is they cannot be wounded because they are out of line of sight?

If the entire unit is out of sight, yes, the 'Out of Sight' rule kicks in and the wound pool immediately empties.

If at least one model from the unit is visible, then wounds can be allocated to models that are out of sight, so long as they are closer than the visible model.



It's probably not how it's supposed to work, but since there is no specific statement in the Blast rule to ignore the Out of Sight rule, that's how it works by the rules as written.

There is a specific rule. It literally says "may hit and wound models out of line of sight" You are trying to semantically dance around this.


The wound pool issue prevents you from wounding models because they are out of sight, correct?
Therefore it is overridden by the other rule that explicitly allows it.

It's like saying, a super heavy dies to explodes results. "but it has an exception" , doesn't matter, it says vehicles die to explodes ....

Exceptions are exceptions.

harkequin wrote:
May wound out of LoS models -> Things that would prevent this no longer apply....

So... once you have allocated all of the wounds that are in the wound pool, you can continue to apply wounds to the unit?

For how long?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
There is a specific rule. It literally says "may hit and wound models out of line of sight" .

Yup. So, as I said, you can assign wounds from the wound pool to models that are out of line of sight.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be allocated to models?

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
But it doesn't matter when you want to take the one one sentence out of a paragraph?

No, the point is that you can't just take one sentence out of context

the paragraph on pg35 that is overridden by the special rule includes the sentence which says you empty the pool. Unless you ignore the rest of the paragraph (the context), you obviously cant claim the one sentence has an effect

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
May wound out of LoS models -> Things that would prevent this no longer apply....

So... once you have allocated all of the wounds that are in the wound pool, you can continue to apply wounds to the unit?

For how long?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
There is a specific rule. It literally says "may hit and wound models out of line of sight" .

Yup. So, as I said, you can assign wounds from the wound pool to models that are out of line of sight.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be allocated to models?

You are still ignoring the exception.
What it says -> "It may hit and wound models out of line of sight."
What you are saying "It may not hit and wound them because they are out of line of sight"

The simple answer is usually the correct one.
We know how to do the shooting phase, we are given an exception, therefore we follow all the usual steps except the overridden ones.

So once there is a wound pool, Instead of the clause preventing them being wounded kicking in, the one overriding that does.
You have to try to break the rule to break it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Out of Sight

If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost."

The rule. ^

"may be hit and wounded even if they are out of range and LoS"

The exception. ^

You are taking the wound pool sentence out of context. The entire paragraph is about wounding models out of line of sight. The entire thing is overridden.

harkequin wrote:

The rule. ^

"may be hit and wounded even if they are out of range and LoS".

In this context 'be wounded' means 'have wounds from the wound pool assigned to them'.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be assigned to models?

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:

The rule. ^

"may be hit and wounded even if they are out of range and LoS".

In this context 'be wounded' means 'have wounds from the wound pool assigned to them'.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be assigned to models?

A pointless hypothetical considering the scenario in question has wounds in the pool.

As i said before, if the only part of the paragraph that isnt overridden is the last sentence then you cannot say there are "no visible models" because that sentence does not mention attacking units. Given that anyone at the table can see the models, they are visible and therefore the wound pool is not emptied.

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:

The rule. ^

"may be hit and wounded even if they are out of range and LoS".

In this context 'be wounded' means 'have wounds from the wound pool assigned to them'.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be assigned to models?

No. In this context, 'be wounded' means 'suffer a wound from the attack'

Your interpretation only works if you selectively read the rule.

For all intents and purposes it says.
" you can't do x, because of y & z"

We are told, "although you normally can't, you may do x"

And you are arguing, "according to rule z, you can't do it"

And you're totally ignoring the fact that the rule you keep quoting does not allow you to keep wounds in the Wound Pool if there are no models in LOS.

 Ghaz wrote:
And you're totally ignoring the fact that the rule you keep quoting does not allow you to keep wounds in the Wound Pool if there are no models in LOS.

We are told that it is allowed. The quote says they may be wounded, you are saying they may not be wounded because they are out of LoS.
You are only reading 50% of the rule as overridden.
See Jokerkd 's point. If you only use one part of the rule out of context the whole thing falls apart. If you use context, and take the whole thing together, it makes perfect sense.

Note the exception doesn't say "may have wounds allocated from the wound pool" . It says, "may be wounded"

Out of Sight

If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

The entire thing is overridden. If only the bold part was overridden it would have specified that wounds from the wound pool may be allocated, or something along those lines.
As it stands, we are told they may be wounded. If the underlined part conflicts with that, it is overridden.

From 'Out of Sight' in the rules for the Shooting phase in the main rulebook:

Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

The rule you keep harping on only affects the first sentence of the Out of Sight rule. It has no effect whatsoever on the second sentence.

What is the point of this? Does anyone actually play it that way?

Why would it say it ignores the restriction, but still not work?

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Out of Sight' in the rules for the Shooting phase in the main rulebook:

Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

The rule you keep harping on only affects the first sentence of the Out of Sight rule. It has no effect whatsoever on the second sentence.

Lets say that's true. The second sentence does not require the modeks to be visible to anyone in particular.
Without adding words to the rules, how can you insist that attackers los is necessary?

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Out of Sight' in the rules for the Shooting phase in the main rulebook:

Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

The rule you keep harping on only affects the first sentence of the Out of Sight rule. It has no effect whatsoever on the second sentence.

You have to back that up. Your interpretation selectively reads the rule.
The exception makes no mention of "allocating wounds" or anything that specific. It mentions wounding the models, the second sentence prevents you wounding a model because they are out of line of sight, therefore it is overridden.

There are no wounds to allocate, so how are you wounding the model?

Up until you allocate to a model, you are affecting a unit. Not a model

harkequin wrote:
Note the exception doesn't say "may have wounds allocated from the wound pool" . It says, "may be wounded"

Where are those wounds coming from, if not from the wound pool?

The entire thing is overridden.

By what?



Nothing in the Blast rule says to ignore the Out of Sight rule. It just tells us that wounds may be assigned to models out of sight. If you have no wounds in the pool to assign, you don't have any wounds to assign, whether the model is visible or not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There are no wounds to allocate, so how are you wounding the model?

Up until you allocate to a model, you are affecting a unit. Not a model

"models may be hit and wounded even if they are out of LoS"

"these models cannot be wounded because there is no wound pool because they are out of LOS"

The first sentence overrides the second.

You are given permission to wound them regardless of LOS, therefore, the rules preventing you from wounding models due to LOS are not in effect.

On top of this. The overridden part, is literally part of the same paragraph that deals with wounding models out of LOS, but people are saying that the "out of sight" rule is only affected partly, despite the rule saying you may wound them regardless of them being out of sight

People are reading it 2 ways.
1. The entire rule is overwritten. no issues
2. Part of the rule is overwritten. This creates a literally null rule, with no effect.

There is nothing that makes the 2nd reading more legitimate than the first. And when faced with 2 options, and one is gamebreaking, you go with the one that doesn't break it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nothing in the Blast rule says to ignore the Out of Sight rule. It just tells us that wounds may be assigned to models out of sight. If you have no wounds in the pool to assign, you don't have any wounds to assign, whether the model is visible or not.

It does not say, "you may assign wounds from the wound pool to them"

It says "they may be wounded"
If the wound pool clause conflicts with the override(by preventing said, out of sight models from being wounded), the override wins, because it is an override.

harkequin wrote:
You are given permission to wound them regardless of LOS, therefore, the rules preventing you from wounding models due to LOS are not in effect.

Indeed they are.

However, along with the rule that prevents you from assigning wounds to models that are out of LOS, there is another rule that empties the wound pool if there are no visible models in the target unit.

So this:

People are reading it 2 ways.
1. The entire rule is overwritten. no issues
2. Part of the rule is overwritten. This creates a literally null rule, with no effect.

...is inaccurate.

The 'second' way of reading it (which is actually the RAW way of reading it) is that the rule forbidding you from assigning wounds to models out of LOS is overwritten, but the rule that empties the wound pool when there are no visible models in the target unit is not.

They're two separate rules.

It does not say, "you may assign wounds from the wound pool to them"

It says "they may be wounded"

Excellent. So I can just continue applying non-existent wounds to them for as long as I like?

That's going to get a bit tedious for my opponent.


If you have no wounds to assign, how are you assigning wounds?

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
You are given permission to wound them regardless of LOS, therefore, the rules preventing you from wounding models due to LOS are not in effect.

Indeed they are.

However, along with the rule that prevents you from assigning wounds to models that are out of LOS, there is another rule that empties the wound pool if there are no visible models in the target unit.

So this:

People are reading it 2 ways.
1. The entire rule is overwritten. no issues
2. Part of the rule is overwritten. This creates a literally null rule, with no effect.

...is inaccurate.

The 'second' way of reading it (which is actually the RAW way of reading it) is that the rule forbidding you from assigning wounds to models out of LOS is overwritten, but the rule that empties the wound pool when there are no visible models in the target unit is not.

They're two separate rules.

It does not say, "you may assign wounds from the wound pool to them"

It says "they may be wounded"

Excellent. So I can just continue applying non-existent wounds to them for as long as I like?

That's going to get a bit tedious for my opponent.


If you have no wounds to assign, how are you assigning wounds?

Option 2 is in no way RAW over option 1. You are making an assumption that is not backed by RAW. Show me the quote that says you may override half of the rule.
Nonexistant wounds are no issue here. They have no relevance.
You are pretending I'm saying to allocate regardless of a wound pool, when it is clear I am saying not to empty the wound pool, as this would prevent you from wounding models due to LOS

Nowhere does it tell you what part of the rule specifically to override, there are 2 ways to read it. 1 leads to a null rule and broken game, the other works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again It mentions nothing of wound allocation, which you are fixating on. It tells you to ignore Rules that prevent you wounding due to Los.
The wound pool emptying is included as It prevents you from wounding someone due to LOS

harkequin wrote:
Show me the quote that says you may override half of the rule.

I'm not claiming that you override half of the rule, so that seems a tad pointless.

Nonexistant wounds are no issue here. They have no relevance.

They're very relevant if you're trying to claim that you can assign wounds that aren't in the wound pool.

You are pretending I'm saying to allocate regardless of a wound pool, when it is clear I am saying not to empty the wound pool, as this would prevent you from wounding models due to LOS

RIght.

So when I have the last wound in the wound pool, and I assign that to a model, I now have no wounds remaining in the wound pool. This would prevent me from wounding models that are not in LOS... so I may continue to assign wounds to those models, despite the wound pool being empty.

No?

Nowhere does it tell you what part of the rule specifically to override,

That's correct. It just tells you that you can assign wounds to models that are out of LOS.

So that overrides the rule that says that wounds may not be assigned to models that are out of LOS.


It has no effect whatsoever on the number of wounds that you have to allocate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not "explicitly" apply. The line from blasts only overrides one part of out of sight. It does not override the emptying pool requirement.

insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Well from a RAW point it isn't unclear.
It can hit and wound models out of range and line of sight.

so Any model that is out of line of sight, can in fact be wounded.

Indeed they can. Any wounds that you have in the wound pool can be applied to models out of line of sight.


However, if there are no models in line of sight, how many wounds are in the wound pool?

Do the two of you actually insist it be played this way?

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do the two of you actually insist it be played this way?

I truly believe a large, even major, number of disagreements that occur in YMDC would be avoided entirely if people simply prefaced their arguments with a clear disclaimer of it being either HIWPI or RAW, and/or would not continue arguments on the basis of, "Your RAW/HIWPI is stupid and my HIWPI/RAW is better."

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
What is the point of this? Does anyone actually play it that way?

Yes, it seem the OP does, so it needs to be pointed out that he is incorrect in the matter:

tag8833 wrote:
We know from the rules for blasts that they can indeed cause wounds to models out of line of sight.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do the two of you actually insist it be played this way?

I do, if the Unit in question is completely out of sight. If there's a fine mesh, a few small windows, anything that makes it seem like there could be LoS, i'm sure i'd agree that a scattering explosion inflicts some wounds.

If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

tag8833 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
We know from the rules for blasts that they can indeed cause wounds to models out of line of sight.

First of all, this is only true for Barrage weapons, and even then, debatable.

There is always one person that tries to debate this. I don't think it is unclear. Page 158 of the rulebook says:
"Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight."

Your argument is based on the "Out of Sight" provision of wound allocation on page 35 which explicitly doesn't apply due to the line I quoted above, in the same way that the "Out of Range" provision also doesn't apply. (Do you think we should apply that provision as well?) If you followup that "Wounding" and allocating wounds are different things, I would argue that allocating wounds is a component of "Wounding" as is "Rolling to Wound". You would counter that "Rolling to Wound" is the entirety of "Wounding", and our semantic argument would degrade ad nauseum. Suffice to say, I have never played a game where your interpretation was used. I have never been to a tournament where your interpretation was used. While a case could be made that our Semantic argument doesn't have a clear conclusion one way or the other, in practice it is purely an academic exercise.

However, if you want to keep arguing your case on Template weapons against the slew of events that are allowing them to add wounds to the wound pool but not allocate wounds based on models out of line of sight, I would support you there based on what I feel is a relatively strong RAW argument.

As for RaW, i was of course referring to your example, where the WHOLE Unit was out of sight. If that is the case, the Wound pool is emptied, as per the Rules.

If your buble chunkas could actually see even just 1 Infantry (i assumed not when you said "that were completely out of line of sight") then yes, you can allocate and remove models that are out of line of sight AND closer to the buble chunkas than the model you can see. If that 1 model is killed, because he was the closest, or you removed closer model and then killed him, the Wound pool empties.

If your Wound pool is empty, how do you cause more Wounds?

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do the two of you actually insist it be played this way?

I said in my first post in this thread that I don't think this is how it's supposed to work.

I believe that GW simply overlooked the way the Out of Sight rule interacts with attacks that don't need LOS, and that in cases like this it should be ignored. That's just a guess, though. It's entirely possible that they did intend for Blasts to only be able to wound out of sight models if at least one model in the unit is visible. Since they no longer believe in explaining their less clear scribblings, it's a little hard to say for sure.

So when I have the last wound in the wound pool, and I assign that to a model, I now have no wounds remaining in the wound pool. This would prevent me from wounding models that are not in LOS... so I may continue to assign wounds to those models, despite the wound pool being empty.

No?

No again. You are being deliberately obtuse here.
The underlined part is entirely irrelevant. Unless it prevents you wounding because of los (which the emptying does) then it doesn't matter.

You conveniently ignored the part where i mentioned it's the emptying that is also overwritten. not allocating non existant wounds. Of course if you try to break the game it breaks. Non existant wounds are irrelevant still.

That's correct. It just tells you that you can assign wounds to models that are out of LOS.

So that overrides the rule that says that wounds may not be assigned to models that are out of LOS.

You are too obsessed with the "wound allocation" . The rule does not mention this.

Lets break it down to it's constituent parts.

Do you agree, that being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

Talos, is that first quote response supposed to be a joke? You must realize he was referring to the "no wounds" crowd, right?

tag8833 wrote:
What Cover Save do those models get? They were 100% obscured by ruins. Does that mean they get a 4+ cover save?

As for your question about the Save (Or were you just making sure to insist that they were 100% Obscured and Blasts could kill them all?):
I have answered above but it did not seem that it was the main purpose of the Thread, was it?

They would get a 5+ for cover through Terrain. Everything is a 5+ "across" Terrain. Some Terrain, like the Ruins they were behind, give better (4+) Saves if you are inside the Ruin.

harkequin wrote:
You conveniently ignored the part where i mentioned it's the emptying that is also overwritten.

So assigning the last wound doesn't empty the wound pool?

You are too obsessed with the "wound allocation" . The rule does not mention this.

Assigning wounds is wound allocation.

You follow the wound allocation rules for assigning wounds.

Do you agree, that being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

No.

Emptying the wound pool just means that you have no wounds to assign.

You're allowed to assign however many wounds you have in the pool to models that are out of LOS. Once the pool is empty, you have no more wounds to assign. The reason you have no wounds to assign makes no difference.

Harkequin, he's being obtuse because he has no argument against what either of us are saying. So he creates a straw man and argues with that

If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

I wouldn't agree, thatHIWPI seems a bit unfair, the example even given is a rocket ricocheting or behaving erratically. A 90* turn isn't even unrealistic if you look at a firework.

It's the entire purpose of scattering, rockets do crazy things.

 jokerkd wrote:
Talos, is that first quote response supposed to be a joke? You must realize he was referring to the "no wounds" crowd, right?

It's not like i could tell from such a minimalistic post?
And this one of yours does not seem to be doing much more than "He's with us, so we're better than you".

Please follow the YMDC Tenets and How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate

Let's get back to discussing the Rules...

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
You conveniently ignored the part where i mentioned it's the emptying that is also overwritten.

So assigning the last wound doesn't empty the wound pool?

You are too obsessed with the "wound allocation" . The rule does not mention this.

Assigning wounds is wound allocation.

You follow the wound allocation rules for assigning wounds.

Do you agree, that being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

No.

Emptying the wound pool just means that you have no wounds to assign.

You're allowed to assign however many wounds you have in the pool to models that are out of LOS. Once the pool is empty, you have no more wounds to assign. The reason you have no wounds to assign makes no difference.

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse here? You know as well as i do, that emptying a wound pool because there are no wounds left is not the same as emptying a wound pool because the target is out of sight.

And as for assigning wounds = wound allocation.
The exception doesn't mention assigning wounds.

Finally. If you do not agree that being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight.
Then we have found the issue.

To break it down further.
What part of the statement do you disagree with?
A)Being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding models.
B)You are forced to empty the wound pool due to models being out of LOS.

harkequin wrote:

If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

I wouldn't agree, thatHIWPI seems a bit unfair, the example even given is a rocket ricocheting or behaving erratically. A 90* turn isn't even unrealistic if you look at a firework.

It's the entire purpose of scattering, rockets do crazy things.

Well then you have a great Houserule for when you play Orks.

If we're going down the fluff route, you are aware the Battle Canon is part of these Blast Weapons? Do you know how 120mm guns fire? (Any main gun on modern tanks)
You are telling me these do 90° Turns? I'd love to hear your explanation of this

 BlackTalos wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Talos, is that first quote response supposed to be a joke? You must realize he was referring to the "no wounds" crowd, right?

It's not like i could tell from such a minimalistic post?
And this one of yours does not seem to be doing much more than "He's with us, so we're better than you".

Please follow the YMDC Tenets and How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate

Let's get back to discussing the Rules...

I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

Why would you play contrary to that Rule?
1) Blasts can Wound models out of LOS, and they most certainly can Hit out of LOS.

2) This generates a Wound pool.

3) That Wound pool is emptied if there are no more models in LOS.

Being forced to follow Rule "3" does not mean you can't do "1" any more?

 BlackTalos wrote:

harkequin wrote:

If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

I wouldn't agree, thatHIWPI seems a bit unfair, the example even given is a rocket ricocheting or behaving erratically. A 90* turn isn't even unrealistic if you look at a firework.

It's the entire purpose of scattering, rockets do crazy things.

Well then you have a great Houserule for when you play Orks.

If we're going down the fluff route, you are aware the Battle Canon is part of these Blast Weapons? Do you know how 120mm guns fire? (Any main gun on modern tanks)
You are telling me these do 90° Turns? I'd love to hear your explanation of this

Warp schenanigans

Seriously though, although Battle cannons are part of the rule, so are Particle weapons. Do you know how they fire? You may have an issue with the Blasts/Barrage system as a whole, and want some re-designations. But I think it's your responsibility to house rule your Auto cannons rather than everyone else to house rule their blast weapons (including frag grenades, which I'm pretty certain can kill Boyz on the other side of a wall)

In anycase as a houserule, fire away. It's just It would nees to clearly be a houserule everyone is clear on (maybe even case by case) rather than, springing your disagreement on them against the BRB.

harkequin wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

harkequin wrote:

If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

I wouldn't agree, thatHIWPI seems a bit unfair, the example even given is a rocket ricocheting or behaving erratically. A 90* turn isn't even unrealistic if you look at a firework.

It's the entire purpose of scattering, rockets do crazy things.

Well then you have a great Houserule for when you play Orks.

If we're going down the fluff route, you are aware the Battle Canon is part of these Blast Weapons? Do you know how 120mm guns fire? (Any main gun on modern tanks)
You are telling me these do 90° Turns? I'd love to hear your explanation of this

Warp schenanigans

Seriously though, although Battle cannons are part of the rule, so are Particle weapons. Do you know how they fire? You may have an issue with the Blasts/Barrage system as a whole, and want some re-designations. But I think it's your responsibility to house rule your Auto cannons rather than everyone else to house rule their blast weapons (including frag grenades, which I'm pretty certain can kill Boyz on the other side of a wall)

In anycase as a houserule, fire away. It's just It would nees to clearly be a houserule everyone is clear on (maybe even case by case) rather than, springing your disagreement on them against the BRB.

Well, whichever houserule you decide to use in your games is up to you.

The rulebook is very clear on how the game is played normally:
If no models are in LOS, the Wound pool empties.

In the OP's example, Bubble Chunkas could not cause any Wounds on a Unit "that were completely out of line of sight". Simple as.

harkequin wrote:
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse here? You know as well as i do, that emptying a wound pool because there are no wounds left is not the same as emptying a wound pool because the target is out of sight.

It's really not. In either case, the end result is an empty wound pool. Which means there are no wounds to apply to models.

To break it down further.
What part of the statement do you disagree with?
A)Being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding models.
B)You are forced to empty the wound pool due to models being out of LOS.

Both of those statements are correct.

The conclusion that you're going to try to draw from that is not.

Being allowed to assign wounds to models that are out of LOS does nothing more than allow you to assign wounds to models that are out of LOS. You still need to have wounds to assign for that to happen.

If you're going to argue that you have to apply the rule retroactively to any other action that could conceivably stop you from at some point later in the game wounding those models, you're going to wind up with one hell of a confusing game.

 BlackTalos wrote:

harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

Why would you play contrary to that Rule?
1) Blasts can Wound models out of LOS, and they most certainly can Hit out of LOS.

2) This generates a Wound pool.

3) That Wound pool is emptied if there are no more models in LOS.

Being forced to follow Rule "3" does not mean you can't do "1" any more?

Being forced to do 3 literally makes the rule unplayable .....
The instant you have noone in LOS, you may not wound them, so you may not wound models out of LOS.
Unless you are talking about a situation like this?

A.........................................................B
.................................-------------------B
.................................l C C C C C C C

So you could kill off all of C(assuming C&B are one squad) as long as you can see B? But if B was a different Squad, the same blast cannot hurt C? That's just ridiculous. (also hoping the diagram came out right)

harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

I suspect that this here may be part of the confusion... Nobody is arguing that blasts can't wound models that are out of LOS. They very definitely can.


However, because of the Out of Sight rule, they can (by RAW) only do so if there is at least one visible model in the unit. Because otherwise, the wound pool empties before you get to the bit where you actually assign those wounds to models.

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse here? You know as well as i do, that emptying a wound pool because there are no wounds left is not the same as emptying a wound pool because the target is out of sight.

It's really not. In either case, the end result is an empty wound pool. Which means there are no wounds to apply to models.

To break it down further.
What part of the statement do you disagree with?
A)Being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding models.
B)You are forced to empty the wound pool due to models being out of LOS.

Both of those statements are correct.

The conclusion that you're going to try to draw from that is not.

Being allowed to assign wounds to models that are out of LOS does nothing more than allow you to assign wounds to models that are out of LOS. You still need to have wounds to assign for that to happen.

If you're going to argue that you have to apply the rule retroactively to any other action that could conceivably stop you from at some point later in the game wounding those models, you're going to wind up with one hell of a confusing game.

How are you arguing that
You are forced to empty the wound pool prevents wounds.
That you are forced to empty due to LOS.
And still disagreeing with
"you are forced to empty the wound pool (due to LOS), and this prevents wounds."

Therefore
"being froced to empty the wound pool prevents wounds (due to LOS)"

This is overridden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

I suspect that this here may be part of the confusion... Nobody is arguing that blasts can't wound models that are out of LOS. They very definitely can.


However, because of the Out of Sight rule, they can (by RAW) only do so if there is at least one visible model in the unit. Because otherwise, the wound pool empties before you get to the bit where you actually assign those wounds to models.

Umm , Talos is....

In addition, Not only (in your opinion) would you need a visible model, but the model can't die or you lose the wounds. See the above diagram for ridiculousness .
I know why you are trying to argue RAW is stupid, usually i am on that side.
I'm actually arguing that RAW is actually ok this time, and RAI isn't even needed

harkequin wrote:

So you could kill off all of C(assuming C&B are one squad) as long as you can see B? But if B was a different Squad, the same blast cannot hurt C? That's just ridiculous. (also hoping the diagram came out right)

Yes, it is. But it's also how the rules currently work, thanks to the Out of Sight rule.

harkequin wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

Why would you play contrary to that Rule?
1) Blasts can Wound models out of LOS, and they most certainly can Hit out of LOS.

2) This generates a Wound pool.

3) That Wound pool is emptied if there are no more models in LOS.

Being forced to follow Rule "3" does not mean you can't do "1" any more?

Being forced to do 3 literally makes the rule unplayable .....
The instant you have noone in LOS, you may not wound them, so you may not wound models out of LOS.
Unless you are talking about a situation like this?

...........................................................B
A...............................-------------------B
.................................l C C C C C C.....D D

So you could kill off all of C(assuming C&B are one squad) as long as you can see B? But if B was a different Squad, the same blast cannot hurt C? That's just ridiculous. (also hoping the diagram came out right)

If B & C are one Unit, then yes, you start allocating to the closest model even if it is out of LOS. That what the Blast Rule is for, and actually account for all of your "spinning Shells" fluffs stories.
However you want to explain it realistically, in game Terms it is only because that's how the Rules work:
#1 Allocate to closest first
#2 Empty Pool once both "B" are dead: "D" added above (same Unit) can never be killed by Unit "A"

harkequin wrote:
How are you arguing that
You are forced to empty the wound pool prevents wounds.
That you are forced to empty due to LOS.
And still disagreeing with
"you are forced to empty the wound pool (due to LOS), and this prevents wounds."

Therefore
"being froced to empty the wound pool prevents wounds (due to LOS)"

This is overridden.

Except it's not.

You're taking an allowance to wound models out of LOS as a prohibition on doing anything that would prevent you from wounding models that are out of LOS... which is backwards.

Being able to wound models that are not in sight means that you can assign wounds to them. You still have to have wounds to assign in order for that to happen.

Umm , Talos is....

No, he isn't.

harkequin wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

I suspect that this here may be part of the confusion... Nobody is arguing that blasts can't wound models that are out of LOS. They very definitely can.


However, because of the Out of Sight rule, they can (by RAW) only do so if there is at least one visible model in the unit. Because otherwise, the wound pool empties before you get to the bit where you actually assign those wounds to models.

Umm , Talos is....

In addition, Not only (in your opinion) would you need a visible model, but the model can't die or you lose the wounds. The the above diagram for ridiculousness .
I know why you are trying to argue RAW is stupid, usually i am on that side.
I'm actually arguing that RAW is actually ok this time, and RAI isn't even needed

Where? Please do not put words in my mouth.

harkequin wrote:
In addition, Not only (in your opinion) would you need a visible model, but the model can't die or you lose the wounds. See the above diagram for ridiculousness .

That's correct. The moment the one visible model dies, the wound pool empties. Because that's what the Out of Sight rule says to do... If at any time you have no visible targets, the wound pool immediately empties.

Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

As you can't target a unit you cant see, you have necessarily scattered onto a different unit to hit a unit completely out of line of sight. As the unit hit is not the unit being targeted by the shooters it is not the target unit, therefore I would say RAW the wound pool would not be emptied.

roflmajog wrote:
As the unit hit is not the unit being targeted by the shooters it is not the target unit, therefore I would say RAW the wound pool would not be emptied.

By that logic, you also can't roll to wound, because that also references the target unit.

Or, at best, you roll to wound against the original target's toughness instead of the toughness of the unit the blast lands on.




The general assumption is that the unit the blast hits becomes the 'target' for the purposes of resolving the shot. Otherwise the rules break down completely.

So.... RAW the rules break down completely?

You all keep ignoring it, so I'll keep saying it.

If the rule that says you empty the wound pool is RAW, the models in the unit just have to be visible, and not necessarily to the attacking unit. Which is why RAW is broken

 jokerkd wrote:
You all keep ignoring it, so I'll keep saying it.

If the rule that says you empty the wound pool is RAW, the models in the unit just have to be visible, and not necessarily to the attacking unit. Which is why RAW is broken

Repetition of it is being ignored because I already pointed out that this is incorrect. Again, context matters.

Never mind.

"Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.
"

....Wouldn't the target unit be the one you initially fired at (ie targetted for your attack??)... And if so wouldn't you always have LOS since the shots went elsewhere and didn't kill anyone from the unit you targetted?

sm3g wrote:
"Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.
"

....Wouldn't the target unit be the one you initially fired at (ie targetted for your attack??)... And if so wouldn't you always have LOS since the shots went elsewhere and didn't kill anyone from the unit you targetted?

From just up the page...

 insaniak wrote:

roflmajog wrote:
As the unit hit is not the unit being targeted by the shooters it is not the target unit, therefore I would say RAW the wound pool would not be emptied.

By that logic, you also can't roll to wound, because that also references the target unit.

Or, at best, you roll to wound against the original target's toughness instead of the toughness of the unit the blast lands on.




The general assumption is that the unit the blast hits becomes the 'target' for the purposes of resolving the shot. Otherwise the rules break down completely.

In that case, the wounds would have to be allocated to the first unit and not the unit under the blast

"The general assumption is that the unit the blast hits becomes the 'target' for the purposes of resolving the shot. Otherwise the rules break down completely."

So general assumptions are okay when they suit you but not other times?

For instance the general assumption is you can wound a unit that is out of site because the shot scattered...gust of wind moved the rocket behind a building....the rocket didn't magically disappear...it still hit something...

sm3g wrote:
"The general assumption is that the unit the blast hits becomes the 'target' for the purposes of resolving the shot. Otherwise the rules break down completely."

So general assumptions are okay when they suit you but not other times?

Yes, I tend to agree with the things I agree with. It's a habit of mine.

For instance the general assumption is you can wound a unit that is out of site because the shot scattered...gust of wind moved the rocket behind a building....the rocket didn't magically disappear...it still hit something...

Sure. The difference is that the assumption about targeting is made due to a rule completely breaking the game if you don't ignore it. It would be absurd for a blast to scatter onto a different unit, but have the wounds still apply to the original target unit instead. And so people fairly universally accept that where the rules refer to the 'target' that they mean the unit that is actually hit by the blast, rather than the one it was originally aimed at.


The issue with models out of sight is somewhat murkier, because the rules as they are written aren't broken... just a little silly. So some people (myself included) might assume that we're supposed to ignore the Out of Sight rule for the pruposes of resolving Blasts. Other assume it still applies... because being a little silly is ultimately a fairly poor criteria for choosing to ignore rules, where 40K is concerned.


Basically, the target issue is one that is (from my experience) fairly universally accepted that we just ignore what the rules say. Whereas the Out of Sight rule has one camp who say to just ignore what the rules say (or in this case, [i]don't[i] say) and another camp who think that the way everyone is playing it is actually what the rules say anyway... and a third, much smaller camp who play it as written.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do the two of you actually insist it be played this way?

I said in my first post in this thread that I don't think this is how it's supposed to work.

I believe that GW simply overlooked the way the Out of Sight rule interacts with attacks that don't need LOS, and that in cases like this it should be ignored. That's just a guess, though. It's entirely possible that they did intend for Blasts to only be able to wound out of sight models if at least one model in the unit is visible. Since they no longer believe in explaining their less clear scribblings, it's a little hard to say for sure.

Sorry, I missed that in your first post. My bad.

You're not really covering (hah) the cover-saves part correctly. Yes its a default 5+ but just if there is nothing else stated.
The BRB only mentions "in" when pertaining ruins, but most people dont know that if youre using the nice models from GW they have their own rules.

Cities of death, CITY RUINS: "City ruins provide a 4+ cover save". No mention of "in" at all. So yeah, if you buy the models, use the correct rules. If you use your self made models, go right ahead. But a manufactorum is a manufactorum. Sure you can house rule wtf you want but then state that before i plop my models on the board...

RAI there's a big possibility they meant that "ruins" should give 4+ even in the 25% cover rule, just that they somehow brainfarted the sentence... as usual.

RAW I believe the wound pool would be emptied if no models can be seen. If going to to tournament I would expect this.

HIWPI is that wounds from blast weapon act just like barrage weapons with regards to whether the wounds they inflict can cause casualties, and that the centre of the blast is used to determine if models can get a cover save. Models are still removed from those closest to the firing unit. This just makes it a little more realistic. If we suppose a tank shell gets fired through a wall, why would the guys on the other side be immune?

-Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1

Yonasu wrote:
You're not really covering (hah) the cover-saves part correctly. Yes its a default 5+ but just if there is nothing else stated.
The BRB only mentions "in" when pertaining ruins, but most people dont know that if youre using the nice models from GW they have their own rules.

Cities of death, CITY RUINS: "City ruins provide a 4+ cover save". No mention of "in" at all. So yeah, if you buy the models, use the correct rules. If you use your self made models, go right ahead. But a manufactorum is a manufactorum. Sure you can house rule wtf you want but then state that before i plop my models on the board...

RAI there's a big possibility they meant that "ruins" should give 4+ even in the 25% cover rule, just that they somehow brainfarted the sentence... as usual.

Nope, Ruins are covered in the Rulebook.

Look at the heading "TERRAIN TYPES","RUINS":

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

I highlighted the "in" for you as you seem to have missed it....

Some specific cases are higher: "A model in cover behind Imperial Statuary has a 3+ cover save." But the 25% Rule applies for these.

You mention the manufactorum, and the Rule is there too:

Terrain type:
Ruins: Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
You're not really covering (hah) the cover-saves part correctly. Yes its a default 5+ but just if there is nothing else stated.
The BRB only mentions "in" when pertaining ruins, but most people dont know that if youre using the nice models from GW they have their own rules.

Cities of death, CITY RUINS: "City ruins provide a 4+ cover save". No mention of "in" at all. So yeah, if you buy the models, use the correct rules. If you use your self made models, go right ahead. But a manufactorum is a manufactorum. Sure you can house rule wtf you want but then state that before i plop my models on the board...

RAI there's a big possibility they meant that "ruins" should give 4+ even in the 25% cover rule, just that they somehow brainfarted the sentence... as usual.

Nope, Ruins are covered in the Rulebook.

Look at the heading "TERRAIN TYPES","RUINS":

RUINS
Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

I highlighted the "in" for you as you seem to have missed it....

Some specific cases are higher: "A model in cover behind Imperial Statuary has a 3+ cover save." But the 25% Rule applies for these.

You mention the manufactorum, and the Rule is there too:

Terrain type:
Ruins: Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

see, now you tried to cover the rules a bit, was that so hard? First you dont read my post where i talk about IN ruins. I capitalized it so you perhaps read it this time, or is it not big enough? Let me know and ill try to make it clearer next time.
Yes manufactorum has a post in the BRB so i guess it was a bad example.
I was civil and you talk down to me, where is the civility in that. I'm sure the tenants have something about that but it's pretty obvious that goes out the window as soon as you start going. God forbid someone posts in here, no wonder it's either you 5k+ post guys or someone with 1 post being active, after a few threads you despair of humanity trolling this place to bits.

Let's keep it civil, folks. If you're seeing posts that you think cross the line, the appropriate response is to report them, not try to escalate the situation.

sm3g wrote:
"Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.
"

....Wouldn't the target unit be the one you initially fired at (ie targetted for your attack??)... And if so wouldn't you always have LOS since the shots went elsewhere and didn't kill anyone from the unit you targetted?

And along those lines of always having Line of Sight...you would have to roll for wounds against the unit you targeted and assign wounds to the unit you targeted instead of the unit that the blast landed on...

Which is of course incorrect.

Yonasu wrote:

see, now you tried to cover the rules a bit, was that so hard? First you dont read my post where i talk about IN ruins. I capitalized it so you perhaps read it this time, or is it not big enough? Let me know and ill try to make it clearer next time.
Yes manufactorum has a post in the BRB so i guess it was a bad example.
I was civil and you talk down to me, where is the civility in that. I'm sure the tenants have something about that but it's pretty obvious that goes out the window as soon as you start going. God forbid someone posts in here, no wonder it's either you 5k+ post guys or someone with 1 post being active, after a few threads you despair of humanity trolling this place to bits.

I.... have no idea what point you are trying to make? If my post, pointing that you were incorrect and providing the Rules as support to show you why were "talking down" to you then I apologise.

Do you have a complaint about how the Forum works? I would recommend flagging the specific posts or getting into contact with a Mod (one's been participating in the thread).
If you have any further queries about the Rules for cover, go ahead.

Ruins (and Rubble) in the Rules provide 4+ cover if you are "IN" them. These terms cover pretty much most of the Terrain (even custom-built) that tend to be used (in my community anyway).

Unless it is a piece of Terrain that specifically refers to "in cover behind" granting a higher value, it will be 5+.
As such, firing across Ruins will be a 5+, and as such, i disagreed when you said:
"You're not really covering the cover-saves part correctly. Yes its a default 5+ but just if there is nothing else stated."
and conclude with
" there's a big possibility they meant that "ruins" should give 4+ even in the 25% cover rule"

I cannot believe people what I am reading in this thread *shakes head*.

I will say this in the most polite way possible, but you really have to be a real twonk if you are saying that blasts cannot wound models out of line of site when they scatter. I would hate to play against any of you who are arguing this.

It is plain as day what the rules say, cherry picking bits here and there to justify what you are saying is just silly.

I have played in many many tournaments and leagues and my meta is super competitive, and not once has there been any confusion on how this rule work. For flips sake I went Caledonian Uprising last year (most competitive European tournament) and this never came up once!

If I was a new to the area where you guys play and this was our first game and you came out with this nonsense I would just pack up, leave and never go back. You are actively discouraging play with this behavior.

Take a good hard look at yourself, because you all are being really hardcore TFGs, and remember "no one wants to face TFG".

Yes, it is totally clear that the ruels require the Wound Pool to be emptied if NO models are in LOS. As no part of the Blasts rules override this, your "super competitive" meta has a poor handle on this rule.

So you are saying the blast magically stops hurting people because the shooter cannot see anyone?

I am pretty sure if you are caught within a blast radius whether the person can see you or not you are gonna get hurt.

Are you saying a bolt magically stops travelling because the firing model cant see the 3rd model in, but could see the 1st and 2nd that are now dead?

Shucks, its almost like this abstracted game of IGOUGO set 38k years into the future isnt "realistic"

"whether"

Do you have a rules argument, or are you simply arguing "HYWPI", knowing full well it is a house rule?

It doesn't matter if it is 30 years in the future or 3000000000000000 years in the future, an explosive blast is always going to function on the same. Therefor when interpreting the rules this must be taken into account.

And its not a "house rule". This is rules as played by the top 120 players in Europe. This was the rules decision made by some of the best judges in Europe. This was the interpretation of the rules made by some of the most picky players Win at all Costs players you will ever come across.

And at the end of the day this is about people interpreting the rules in different ways. I think that not only does my way make sense, but it also fits well within "rules as written". Your way is just .... Blegh!

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
And its not a "house rule". This is rules as played by the top 120 players in Europe. This was the rules decision made by some of the best judges in Europe. This was the interpretation of the rules made by some of the most picky players Win at all Costs players you will ever come across.

House rule is still a house rule. Only GW can officially change the rules without it being a house rule.

Its not a house rule its a rule interpretation.

How I choose to interpret them is as follows:

1) I choose a target in line of site.
2) The blast scatters onto a unit out of line of site.
3) The Blast special rule kicks in.
4) Wounds are calculated.
5) Nearest models removed.

Nice and simple, makes sense, falls within the rules.
It follows the simple rules step GW uses which is:

1) I want to do X
2) The basic rules say I cant.
3) I have a special rule that says I can.
4) Special rules override basic rules.
5) Resolve the result of the action.

And if it really comes down to it, if we ever met on the field of battle (assuming I would still play after hearing such silliness), we would have to use the D6 rule which is actually in the book.

No, its a house rule. Being able to wound models out of line of sight doesn't keep the wound pool from emptying if there are no models in line of sight. They are two totally separate situations. You're trying to keep the wound pool from emptying as long as you can potentially allocate wounds when the rules don't allow you to do so. The wound pool empties if there are no models in line of sight, regardless of whether those wounds could be allocated to models out of line of sight or not.

The rules says that they can be wounded from out of line of site.

If they can be wounded then wounds can be allocated to them.

Your interpretation of the rules would make all barrage weapons useless.

And again, the wound pool empties if there are no models in line of sight regardless of whether or not you can allocate wounds to the models out of line of sight. My 'interpretation' is based on the rules, yours is not.

So Barrage is useless?

From 'Out of Sight' in the main rulebook:

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

Please provide an exception that says this does not apply if you have the ability to allocate wounds to models out of line of sight. Whether you think it makes Barrage 'useless' doesn't change what is written, it just proves that the rules are poorly written.

Yes it does hit them, yes it does wound them.

It's pretty simple to be fair, if you don't understand the concept of exceptions you might want to go read up on it.

This thread is now 4 pages long. Lock it already...

Please answer my question.

By your interpretation of the rules, is the Barrage rule useless (literally) ?

Yes or No please.

Blast weapons don't follow standard wound pool rules quite obviously - Their wound pool is everything they could have possibly scatterd into. Pretty sure the rules don't cover what kind of cover you should receive when a blast goes out of LOS from the model firing it. I'd say cover should be determined by LOS from the target they were aiming the blast at.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Please answer my question.

By your interpretation of the rules, is the Barrage rule useless (literally) ?

Yes or No please.

You had your answer. Now answer my question and show what allows you to ignore the 'Out of Sight' rules.

 Ghaz wrote:

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Please answer my question.

By your interpretation of the rules, is the Barrage rule useless (literally) ?

Yes or No please.

You had your answer. Now answer my question and show what allows you to ignore the 'Out of Sight' rules.

You aren't actually answering his question - which when you answer it - will kinda make your point of view obsolete wont it? Clearly - your rules interpretation makes barrage weapons useless and therefore needs revision.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Please answer my question.

By your interpretation of the rules, is the Barrage rule useless (literally) ?

Yes or No please.

You had your answer. Now answer my question and show what allows you to ignore the 'Out of Sight' rules.

You aren't actually answering his question - which when you answer it - will kinda make your point of view obsolete wont it? Clearly - your rules interpretation makes barrage weapons useless and therefore needs revision.

Exactly, which is why they will not answer the question. Atleast someone round here is sane

So I will ask the question again until it answered. Under your (and the others who agree with you) interpretation of the rules is any weapon with the barrage special rule unable to kill anything out of line of site (despite the fact it can target it)?

Is Barrage useless?

Barrage is useless. As are smart missile systems and impaler cannons.

It's obvious how GW intended the rule to work. They just failed to address it in the rules.

And again, does that actually change what the rules say? No. It just proves that GW can't write clear, consistent rules. I'm not the one claiming that the rules say something that they don't just because it may make another rule appear to be 'useless'. If that happens, you fix it with a house rule instead of pretending the rules say something they don't say.

Don't shift the blame to GW, the rules are clear enough if one applies a modicum of common sense.

I think the problem with GW rules is that people forget the golden rule at the front of the book.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
The rules says that they can be wounded from out of line of site.

If they can be wounded then wounds can be allocated to them.

Indeed they can. Any wounds that are in the wound pool may be allocated to them.

How many wounds can be allocated if the wound pool is empty?




Your interpretation of the rules would make all barrage weapons useless.

Incorrect.

The wording is:

"Barrage can fire indirectly. this means they can fire at a target that they do not have line of sight to." (then it goes on about the scatter, just saying this so you know I am not cherry picking)

It then says in the second bullet point:

"to determine whether a unit is WOUNDED by a barrage weapon is allowed a cover save and WHEN DETERMINING WOUND ALLOCATION ALWAYS ASSUME THE SHOT IS COMING FROM THE CENTRE OF THE BLAST MARKER".

It does not say the shot draws line of site from the blast marker. therefore by your rules interpretation no line of site can be drawn and thus the wound pool is emptied and barrage is useless by your own argument.

If you're assuming the shot came from the centre of the marker, then that's where you draw LOS from... because you draw LOS from the origin of the shot.


I'm not really sure what you're hoping to prove with this line of argument, though. Most people are quite happy to agree that the interaction between Blast and Out of Sight is probably unintentional. Barrage being broken (or not) doesn't change that.

"WHEN DETERMINING WOUND ALLOCATION assume the shot came from the centre of the blast"

It states no where that line of site is involved.

It also states no where in the book that LOS is determined from the origin of the shot, it specifically says on every occasion that the LOS is drawn from the unit.

So using your line of reasoning stated earlier, a unit could declare its target using the barrage rule, but then the Out of Sight rule would kick in and so the wound pool would be dropped. So following your argument an entire category of weapons is rendered unusable.

What I am trying to prove is the argument you are using is obviously wrong and is detrimental to the game. And I am using barrage as my main evidence. Barrage being broken is absolutely key and changes the whole argument!

Its pretty convenient for all the people arguing for this line of thought to suddenly change course from "this is how the rule book says it should be played so everyone should be playing it this way" to "Well its GWs fault not mine" or "Most people play it that way anyway".

The reason why the line must be drawn here is because TFGs will try and use this messed up interpretation of the rules to ruin games. Ruining games puts people off the hobby which is a bad thing. I am not saying the rules are perfect and we are on the same page with the how the game SHOULD be played. But where we differ is you are defending this RAW mentality.

And specific overides basic.

"WHEN DETERMINING WOUND ALLOCATION assume the shot came from the centre of the blast"

Is more specific than the general Line of Sight rules

Fatboy, its honestly seems that you have no idea what you are arguing here.

Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

The entire problem with Barrage, Impaler Cannons and SMS is the underlined RULE. If there is no LOS from the firing unit to the target unit, then the wound pool empties. There are Zero wounds to allocate. Its a simple oversight in all their rules for weapons that can fire without LOS.

Sorry, I will summarise.

I am arguing that if a blast scatters from one target to one out of line of site then the out of site target can still be hurt.

Some people in the thread are arguing that the wound pool empties as nothing can be seen.

I am saying that the special rules for blast overrule the basic rule. I am using barrage weapons as a specific example to help prove my point, and was using the opposing argument against itself.

TL;DR: Specific does override basic, Therefore blasts and barrage can kill units out of line of site

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Sorry, I will summarise.

I am arguing that if a blast scatters from one target to one out of line of site then the out of site target can still be hurt.

Some people in the thread are arguing that the wound pool empties as nothing can be seen.

I am saying that the special rules for blast overrule the basic rule. I am using barrage weapons as a specific example to help prove my point, and was using the opposing argument against itself.

TL;DR: Specific does override basic, Therefore blasts and barrage can kill units out of line of site

Except nothing in the Blast rules overrides the rule about the wound pool emptying.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
"WHEN DETERMINING WOUND ALLOCATION assume the shot came from the centre of the blast"

It states no where that line of site is involved.

No, that's handled by the wound allocation rules themselves.

For wound allocation, you go from the centre of the marker. That means that all of the rules for wound allocation treat the centre of the marker as the origin of the shot. That will therefore include establishing LOS for the Out of Sight rule... because the Out of Sight rule is a part of the wound allocation rules.

What I am trying to prove is the argument you are using is obviously wrong and is detrimental to the game.

You're not establishing that, however. Even if we assume that your Barrage argument is correct (which it isn't), all you prove is that the rules are broken. It doesn't prove that people claiming that the rules are broken are incorrect... exactly the opposite, in fact.


You seem to be trying to argue from the position that the rules can't possibly contain a flaw, and so any argument that reveals a flaw must be incorrect. Which is a really, really odd way to approach a rules argument where 40K is concerned... because the rules are flawed.

Its pretty convenient for all the people arguing for this line of thought to suddenly change course from "this is how the rule book says it should be played so everyone should be playing it this way" to "Well its GWs fault not mine" or "Most people play it that way anyway".

Who are you referring to here? So far, there's been one poster in this thread who claims to actually play by the RAW for Blasts. And he's remained pretty consistent with his argument.

The reason why the line must be drawn here is because TFGs will try and use this messed up interpretation of the rules to ruin games. Ruining games puts people off the hobby which is a bad thing. I am not saying the rules are perfect and we are on the same page with the how the game SHOULD be played. But where we differ is you are defending this RAW mentality.

Of course I am. Because it's important for people to actually know when the way they are playing differs from the actual rules... precisely because it helps prevent shenanigans from that hypothetical TFG.

Far better for someone to be aware of the fact that the Blast rules are flawed, and that the way they are playing it is a house rule that fixes the situation, than to have the game derailed by a rules argument when they run into someone who does play by the rules as written, or who wants to apply the actual rules for their own purposes in game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
I am saying that the special rules for blast overrule the basic rule.

And it does.

The basic rule is that wounds have to be allocated to models in LOS.

The Blast rule over-rides that, by allowing you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS.

The Blast rule does not, however, address the Out of Sight rule at all. So Blast allows wounds in your wound pool to be allocated to models that are no in LOS. It has no effect on how many wounds are in your wound pool.

The rules only break when you try to break them, you are as bad as people arguing for a 2+ reanimate, by "RAW".

You are given specific permission to hit and wound enemies regardless of LOS.

Therefore, the wound pool clause That prevents you wounding someone due to LOS Is not in play.
It's how exceptions work.

You are busy assuming that "may be wounded" means "may have wounds from the wound pool allocated".
This is unsupported.

"may be wounded" means "it may be wounded."
You are not forced to empty the wound pool, as this is one of the issue preventing models from being wounded due to LOS .
And as such, is overridden.

This has nothing to do with imagniary wounds like you kept bringing up, as they prevent wounds due to lack of wounds.

When the wound pool naturally empties, that was caused naturally, and is not exempt to the rules, as it is not due to LOS.

harkequin wrote:

You are given specific permission to hit and wound enemies regardless of LOS.

Indeed you do. And so any wounds that you have in the wound pool can be assigned to enemy models regardless of LOS.

You are busy assuming that "may be wounded" means "may have wounds from the wound pool allocated".

Yes, indeed I am. Because that's how wounding from shooting attacks works.

"may be wounded" means "it may be wounded."

Yup. And being wounded by a shooting attack involves having a wound allocated from the wound pool.

You are not forced to empty the wound pool, as this is one of the issue preventing models from being wounded due to LOS .

And this is the crux of it, I think.

You're taking permission to assign wounds regardless of LOS as a binding prohibition on anything ever happening that might prevent a wound from being applied to a model that is out of LOS.

I'm taking permission to assign wounds regardless of LOS as permission to ignore the rule that says that wounds have to be assigned to models in LOS.

Insaniak, In regards to the barrage thing, I get what your saying and that's how I do play it. But you keep saying that when it comes to special rules the Out of Sight rule still applies (like with the Blast special rule). So how this would work for barrage:

1) A unit can target a unit it can not see.
2) It can assign wounds, which are coming from the centre of the blast.
3) But then, if the Out of Sight rule is not overruled, a model in the firing unit can not draw line of sight so the wound pool is emptied.

So yes, the origin of the shot is from the blast, but the Out of Sight special rule is not concerned with the origin of the shot, It is concerned with the models in the unit. Is that making sense?

So we can then apply the same thing to Blasts:

"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To Wound and save as normal. Remember any wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special Rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it out of sight of any models from the attacking unit"

so following your line of thinking:

1) The blast scatters and hits a unit out of line of sight (pseudo barrage?)
2) wounds can be calculated
3) But then, if the Out of Sight rule is not overruled, a "model in the firing unit" can not draw line of sight so the wound pool is emptied as no wounds can be allocated.

I am arguing that the Out of Sight basic rule is overruled by the special rules.

Therefore the steps involved would be:

Barrage:
1) Target unit out of line of sight.
2) Resolve how many wounds are caused.
3) Out of Sight is overruled due the Barrage special rule, as it allows you to assign wounds from the wound pool to a unit out of LOS.
4) Wounds from the pool can be allocated.

Blast:
1) Blast Scatters from one unit to an Out of Sight target.
2) Resolve how many wounds are caused.
3) Out of Sight is overruled due the Blast special rule, as it allows you to assign wounds from the wound pool to a unit out of LOS.
4) Wounds from the pool can be allocated

. And being wounded by a shooting attack involves having a wound allocated from the wound pool.

I am being allowed to allocate a wound from the wound pool using the special rule.

The special rules we are talking about specifically state the wounds from the "Wound Pool" may be allocated to units out of Line of sight. Therefore Line of Sight special rule is overridden and no longer in play when resolving wound allocation.

Out of sight states "if none of the firing models can draw LINE OF SIGHT". As line of sight is being specifically being overridden due to the special rules, the Out of Sight basic rule is also no longer in play (as the rule it is based on and directly worded around is not in play).

So playing RAW actually does allow you to allocate wounds to units out of line of site due to barrage and blast special rules.

Except nothing in the Blast rules overrides the rule about the wound pool emptying.

Blast (page 158):

"each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker EVEN IF THOSE MODELS ARE OUT OF LINE OF SIGHT" - Line of sight basic rule overridden in this sentence.
"Remember that any wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast Special rule MUST BE ALLOCATED to the closet model in the unit EVEN OF IT IS OUT OF LINE OF SIGHT OF ANY MODELS FROM THE ATTACKING UNIT" - this stops the pool from emptying as wounds are allowed to be allocated.

As line of sight is being specifically being overridden due to the special rules, the Out of Sight basic rule is also no longer in play (as the rule it is based on and directly worded around is not in play).
I am allowed to allocate wounds from the pool, regardless of line of sight.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
So yes, the origin of the shot is from the blast, but the Out of Sight special rule is not concerned with the origin of the shot, It is concerned with the models in the unit.

All Line of Sight is concerned with the models in the unit. Barrage changes that for the purposes of wound allocation. Out of Sight is a function of the wound allocation rules.

I am arguing that the Out of Sight basic rule is overruled by the special rules.

Yes, you are. But the only reason you have provided for this to be the case is 'the rules don't work otherwise'... which is precisely the point being made by the other side of the argument as well.

The special rules we are talking about specifically state the wounds from the "Wound Pool" may be allocated to units out of Line of sight. Therefore Line of Sight special rule is overridden and no longer in play when resolving wound allocation.

Except that the rule in question doesn't say that any rule that has anything whatsoever to do with LOS is ignored. It just says that you can allocate a wound regardless of Line of Sight.

In order to allocate a wound, you need to have a wound to allocate.

Which you don't, because the wound pool empties the moment there are no models visible to the firing unit.

I was going to use some Mek Gunz but now I'm totally confused. What are the two sides of the argument?

Pro being you allocate wounds and remove casualities as normal as Blast rules override LOS?
Con being the wound pool empties as there is no LOS?

 Frozocrone wrote:
I was going to use some Mek Gunz but now I'm totally confused. What are the two sides of the argument?

Pro being you allocate wounds and remove casualities as normal as Blast rules override LOS?
Con being the wound pool empties as there is no LOS?

More accurately:
Pro being you allocate wounds and remove casualities as normal as Blast rules override LOS?
Con being you allocate wounds and remove casualities as normal as Blast rules override LOS... you just have no wounds to allocate unless at least one model in the target unit is visible, as otherwise the wound pool empties.

However, the vast majority (at least going by this and previous discussions on this topic) of people who argue that the 'con' side is the RAW will also say that this is most likely not how it's supposed to work, and will play that you ignore the Out of Sight rule for anything that can allocate wounds to models out of LOS.

Ahh so it's a RAI thing then. Best to clear with opponent if you ever come across it then

Except that the rule in question doesn't say that any rule that has anything whatsoever to do with LOS is ignored. It just says that you can allocate a wound regardless of Line of Sight.

******It just says that you can allocate a wound regardless of Line of Sight******

So line of site IS being disregarded. And a Wound can be Allocated.

In order to allocate a wound, you need to have a wound to allocate.

Page 158: "Any wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast Special rule MUST BE ALLOCATED to the closet model in the target unit"

I have no choice. I must allocate the wound. This is my override of the basic rule. This is my wound that I need to allocate.

"even if it is OUT OF SIGHT of any models from the attacking unit"

It even uses the name of rule that is being overridden.

This is my clause to disregard line of sight and viability, so RAW Out of Sight Rule is not in play, as whilst it is in the Wound Allocation Rules, is it is a rule clearly based on visibility and LOS.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

Except that the rule in question doesn't say that any rule that has anything whatsoever to do with LOS is ignored. It just says that you can allocate a wound regardless of Line of Sight.

******regardless of Line of Sight.******

So line of site IS being disregarded.

For allocating wounds to models, yes.

But you don't have any wounds to allocate, because the wound pool is empty.


If I have a rule saying that I can't wear blue hats on Sundays, and then I gain a rule that says that I can ignore that first rule if I also wear a matching cravat... I still won't be able to wear a blue hat on Sunday if I take all of my blue hats out into the yard first thing Sunday morning and set fire to them. I don't have any blue hats to wear... Just a rule that would allow me to wear one if I had one.

Page 158: "Any wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast Special rule MUST BE ALLOCATED to the closet model in the target unit"

I have no choice. I must allocate the wound. This is my override of the basic rule. This is my wound that I need to allocate.

That argument would prevent the Out of Sight Rule from ever applying, since you're always required to allocate wounds from the wound pool.


The problem is the ' at any time ' part of the Out of Sight Rule. If you have no visible models, you don't get as far as the part where you're allocating the wounds. They disappear before you get there.

"EVEN IF IT IS OUT OF SIGHT OF ANY MODELS FROM THE ATTACKING UNIT"

There is my clause to disregard line of sight and viability, so RAW Out of Sight Rule is not in play,

Except it's not. It's a clause that let's you allocate wounds to models that are out of sight. Nothing more.

For allocating wounds to models, yes.

But you don't have any wounds to allocate, because the wound pool is empty.


If I have a rule saying that I can't wear blue hats on Sundays, and then I gain a rule that says that I can ignore that first rule if I also wear a matching cravat... I still won't be able to wear a blue hat on Sunday if I take all of my blue hats out into the yard first thing Sunday morning and set fire to them. I don't have any blue hats to wear... Just a rule that would allow me to wear one if I had one.

Except at this point the wound pool is full.

You roll to hit, then wound and then you have the wound pool, then you allocate wounds. You don't allocate wounds then generate a wound pool, I have to have the pool before I can lose it. You don't burn all the hats first, first you get the hats.

That argument would prevent the Out of Sight Rule from ever applying, since you're always required to allocate wounds from the wound pool.

No. It only stops in in this case because Out of sight is not in play.
Normally it would go hit, wound, generate pool, cannot allocate because of out of sight, wounds lost.
instead it goes: hit, wound, generate pool, MUST allocate regardless of line of site or out of sight, resolve causalities.

Before you say "where does it say disregard line of site or out of sight?" I direct you (again) to page 158 of the main rule book:

"each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker, even if those models are not within the firer's LINE OF SIGHT (first basic rule discarded). Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, Roll To Wound and save as normal. Remember that an Wounds inflicted by weapons with the blast special rule must be allocated to the closet model in the target unit even if it OUT OF SIGHT of any models from the attacking unit (second basic rule discarded)."

The problem is the ' at any time ' part of the Out of Sight Rule. If you have no visible models, you don't get as far as the part where you're allocating the wounds. They disappear before you get there.

It does not say in the book "at any time". Also its not 'if any part of the rule is in play then the whole rule is in play'. It is 'if the whole rule is in pay then it is in play'. Every criteria for the rule must be in play for it to be active. Otherwise a player could say "well I can see my target but i'm not range, but as part of the rule is in play the whole rule kicks in" ( page 30, Choose a target: You must check range and line of site from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting).

And in this instance I have provided full quotes and evidence that disregards both parts that make up the out of sight rule anyway.

Except it's not. It's a clause that let's you allocate wounds to models that are out of sight. Nothing more.

Basic rule says: You need line of site to allocate rule.
Special rule says: You do not need line of site to allocate wounds.
Result special rule overrides basic, the model has wounds allocated to it, it gets to then make a saving throw after wounds have been allocated to it.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Except at this point the wound pool is full.

You roll to hit, then wound and then you have the wound pool, then you allocate wounds. You don't allocate wounds then generate a wound pool, I have to have the pool before I can lose it. You don't burn all the hats first, first you get the hats.

That's correct. But it's only at that last step that you're actually dealing with models.

You roll to hit against the unit.
You roll to wound against the unit, which generates a wound pool.
You then allocate wounds to individual models, starting with the nearest model in range and LOS.

The only change that Blast makes to that process is in the last step - by allowing you to allocate wounds to models out of LOS.

But as soon as you have a wound pool, you're going to have to apply Out of Sight. So it will kick in before you get to allocating wounds to models... and so will also therefore apply before any rule that modifies how those wounds are allocated to models.

No. It only stops in in this case because Out of sight is not in play.
Normally it would go hit, wound, generate pool, cannot allocate because of out of sight, wounds lost.
instead it goes: hit, wound, generate pool, MUST allocate regardless of line of site or out of sight, resolve causalities.

You've missed the point here. The normal rules also say that you MUST allocate the wounds. So if you're claiming that a statement that you 'must' allocate the wounds means that you ignore Out of Sight, then Out of Sight is always ignored.

Basic rule says: You need line of site to allocate rule.
Special rule says: You do not need line of site to allocate wounds.
Result special rule overrides basic, the model has wounds allocated to it, it gets to then make a saving throw after wounds have been allocated to it.

Yes, that's exactly how it works, as I've been saying all along.

That has no effect whatsoever on the Out of Sight rule.

You keep ignoring the fact that it actually says in the book regardless of OUT OF SITE.

I guess I will have to keep posting it until you actually read it:

page 158, paragraph 4: Once the number of hits has been worked out, roll to wound and save as normal. Remember hat any wounds inflicted by weapons with the blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF IT IS *****OUT OF SIGHT***** OF ANY MODEL FROM THE ATTACKING UNIT".

How many times do I have to post the same thing, It literally says regardless of the out of site rule!

You've missed the point here. The normal rules also say that you MUST allocate the wounds. So if you're claiming that a statement that you 'must' allocate the wounds means that you ignore Out of Sight, then Out of Sight is always ignored.

No you have missed the point.
In the normal rules its says you must allocate the wounds to the nearest model, but that you also need to apply the out of site rule. So out of site is in effect.
The special rule says that must allocate the wounds to the nearest model, BUT THE OUT OF SITE RULE IS NOT IN EFFECT. It is the whole purpose of the special rule! it is different to a normal rule, an exception!

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
You keep ignoring the fact that it actually says in the book regardless of OUT OF SITE.

If by 'ignoring' you mean 'address repeatedly' then yes, I guess I do.

I guess I will have to keep posting it until you actually read it:

page 158, paragraph 4: Once the number of hits has been worked out, roll to wound and save as normal. Remember hat any wounds inflicted by weapons with the blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF IT IS *****OUT OF SIGHT***** OF ANY MODEL FROM THE ATTACKING UNIT".

How many times do I have to post the same thing, It literally says regardless of the out of site rule!

You can post it as many times as you like, it still won't mean what you're trying to make it mean.

That rule means that wounds can be assigned even if the model is out of sight.

It has no effect whatsoever on whether or not there are wounds to assign. You are given no permission to ignore the Out of Sight rule, only permission to allocate to models that are not in LOS.

In the normal rules its says you must allocate the wounds to the nearest model, but that you also need to apply the out of site rule.

Which would leave you with a problem, if your claim that 'must allocate' trumps everything else was correct.

The wording is very specific in the book.

Page 158:

The third paragraph uses the words "line of sight"

The forth paragraph uses the words "out of site"

Clearly this is saying that the line of sight rule and out of site rule are not in play. Otherwise they would say line of sight in both paragraphs.


I am not saying it always trumps everything. I am saying that this special rule has the exact wording that allows it to trump the basic rules.

The out of site rule is the entire paragraph under the heading of "out of sight"

"Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and it must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining wounds in the pool are lost."

So you see, if a rule says "even if out of sight" then it ignores the ENTIRE paragraph, including the part where you empty the wound pool.

The out of site rule is the entire paragraph under the heading of "out of sight"

"Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and it must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining wounds in the pool are lost."

So you see, if a rule says "even if out of sight" then it ignores the ENTIRE paragraph, including the part where you empty the wound pool.

Thank you!

It does not use "Out of Sight", which would reference the rule. It states "out of sight".

There is still no allowance, none, to ignore the requirement to empty the wound pool. If there was it would, have been posted by now.

Page 158: even if it is out of site of any models from the attacking unit.

page 35: if none of the firing models can draw line a line of sight to the target unit.

Seems pretty clear to me that I have an allowance.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Page 158: even if it is out of site of any models from the attacking unit.

page 35: if none of the firing models can draw line a line of sight to the target unit.

Seems pretty clear to me that I have an allowance.

Except it is not an allowance to keep wounds in the wound pool, as the Out of Sight rule will still apply and empty the wound pool before you get to the allocate wounds step.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Page 158: even if it is out of site of any models from the attacking unit.

page 35: if none of the firing models can draw line a line of sight to the target unit.

Seems pretty clear to me that I have an allowance.

Yes... an allowance to allocate wounds to models that are out of sight.

Not an allowance to ignore the Out of Sight rule. Just the rule requiring LOS in order to allocate wounds.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Page 158: even if it is out of site of any models from the attacking unit.

page 35: if none of the firing models can draw line a line of sight to the target unit.

Seems pretty clear to me that I have an allowance.

SIGHT, not "site". Seriously.

Wondrous selective quoting. Now read what it refers to. Oh look, allocating a wound vs emptying the wound pool. Something you do before allocating a wound to a model.

Before citing quotes, please debate honestly by including the entire rule, and not quoting parts that at the surface appear to support your contention.

The case is proven. Continue arguing in circles if you want, but you have yet to address the actual rules in any meaningful way.

Wondrous selective quoting. Now read what it refers to. Oh look, allocating a wound vs emptying the wound pool. Something you do before allocating a wound to a model.

Before citing quotes, please debate honestly by including the entire rule, and not quoting parts that at the surface appear to support your contention.

If you read my other posts, I have actually time and time again quoted the whole rule.

I'm just getting tired of butting my head against a brick wall.

This is what this debate has come down to:

You guys: It doesnt say you ignore the out of site rule.
I Say: Look at the rule, it uses the exact wording and name of the rule I can overrule.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore.
I say: It does, and it even uses the wording from the out of sight rule in the special rule, referring to firing model visibility.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore.
I say:It uses the names of both rules. Look see, here is the page number and exact quote.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore.
I say: But it does!
You say: no it doesn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

The case is proven. Continue arguing in circles if you want, but you have yet to address the actual rules in any meaningful way.

I am using page numbers, multiple quotes and other examples. You guys are just saying "nah".

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

This is what this debate has come down to:

You guys: It doesnt say you ignore the out of site rule.
I Say: Look at the rule, it uses the exact wording and name of the rule I can overrule.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore.
I say: It does, and it even uses the wording from the out of sight rule in the special rule, referring to firing model visibility.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore..

Not saying which rule to ignore is not the issue. Nobody has claimed that.

The issue is that it tells you to ignore the rule that requires LOS for wound allocation, not the rule that empties the wound pool if there are no visible models.



Yes, you're quoting rules... But then you're trying to claim that they say something that they don't.

But if we've come this far and you are still completely misunderstood the opposing argument, I'm not sure that there is anything to be gained by continuing here.

I understand the opposing argument.

Your saying "yes line of site is no longer needed for wound allocation, but the wound pool empties as there are no visible models so the out of site rule kicks in".

I am saying that the 4th paragraph on page 158 specifically uses the words "out of site" and "visible models" as a means of letting a player ignore the out of site rule, which is the only rule causing the wound pool to empty.

I am not trying to make a rule mean something it doesn't, I am trying to say that the wording is very specifically laid out in the order it is to make it clear that both the LOS rule and the OOS rule are being overrulled.

As line of site is the first rule that must be over ridden that one is addressed first out of the 2, in the 3rd paragraph. This allows a player to allocate wounds we would normally not be allowed to.

The second rule that must be over ridden is the out of sight when following the sequence of events that allows you to remove enemy models, it is purposely mentioned 2nd out of the 2 rules, as it is second in the sequence of events that normally restrict the number of casualties you can inflict.

Using the words 'out of sight' and actually referencing the 'Out of Sight' rule are not the same thing.

And we disagree. No-one is changing their mind on the subject and no new argument has been put forward in the last few pages.

HIWPI is the same as HYWPI, but it's a house rule. Simple as that

Using the words 'out of sight' and actually referencing the 'Out of Sight' rule are not the same thing.

I know.

I am saying look at the wording in both rules (not using full quote because I have already done that 3-4 times).

Blast: even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
OOS: if there are no visible models in the target unit.

The words in Blast are the counter/opposite to words in OOS.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
I know.

I am saying look at the wording in both rules (not using full quote because I have already done that 3-4 times).

Blast: even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
OOS: if there are no visible models in the target unit.

The words in Blast are the counter/opposite to words in OOS.

And that's exactly the problem with not using the full quote.

The fact that the Blast rule uses the words 'out of sight' does not, in any way, change the context provided by the rest of the rule. It is a rule that applies to allocating wounds from the wound pool. So it affects the allocation of wounds from the wound pool.

It doesn't affect whether or not you have wounds in the wound pool to allocate. Just the way those wounds are allocated, if they exist.

But it also says roll To Wound and save as normal . Which is the next part of the shooting phase directly after Out of Sight.

Why would it mention your opponent getting to make his saving roll if he hasn't got any saves to make due to the wound pool emptying?

Any way I got work soon. Gonna have to pick this up in a bit.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

Why would it mention your opponent getting to make his saving roll if he hasn't got any saves to make due to the wound pool emptying?

Because enemy units aren't always out of sight...?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Out of Sight apples to a specific situation. If that situation doesn't arise, you allocate wounds and roll saves.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
But it also says roll To Wound and save as normal . Which is the next part of the shooting phase directly after Out of Sight.

Why would it mention your opponent getting to make his saving roll if he hasn't got any saves to make due to the wound pool emptying?

Because there are situations where a wound from a blast weapon would be able to be allocated to a model out of line of sight without the wound pool being emptied beforehand?

If there are models from the target unit in line of sight but the closest model is out of line of sight, and wounds from a Blast weapon are being allocated to models in that unit then "Out of Sight" is not triggered, the wound pool is not emptied and wounds from the Blast weapon can be allocated to models out of line of sight, as allowed by the Blast rules.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

Using the words 'out of sight' and actually referencing the 'Out of Sight' rule are not the same thing.

I know.

I am saying look at the wording in both rules (not using full quote because I have already done that 3-4 times).

Blast: even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
OOS: if there are no visible models in the target unit.

The words in Blast are the counter/opposite to words in OOS.

But not when you included the context. You know, the point you were asked to include the entire rule when arguing, because it's key? That bit says you ignore line of sight when allocating wounds

It does not state you ignore line of sight when seeing if the wound pool empties. As such Out of Sight, the rule, kicks in, and the pool empties. The blast rule would then allocate wounds, but there are none left.

It's unit vs model you're not getting here. Out of Sight refers to unit and models, and you're ignoring that distinction.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

Using the words 'out of sight' and actually referencing the 'Out of Sight' rule are not the same thing.

I know.

I am saying look at the wording in both rules (not using full quote because I have already done that 3-4 times).

Blast: even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
OOS: if there are no visible models in the target unit.

The words in Blast are the counter/opposite to words in OOS.

But not when you included the context. You know, the point you were asked to include the entire rule when arguing, because it's key? That bit says you ignore line of sight when allocating wounds

It does not state you ignore line of sight when seeing if the wound pool empties. As such Out of Sight, the rule, kicks in, and the pool empties. The blast rule would then allocate wounds, but there are none left.

It's unit vs model you're not getting here. Out of Sight refers to unit and models, and you're ignoring that distinction.

It does not say you ignore LOS when allocating wounds either .
The blast rule makes no mention of allocating wounds. You are assuming that when it says "wounds" it means "allocates wounds from the wound pool". You need to support this, where does it say that this only applies to the step of allocating wounds from the wound pool, rather than all of wounding.

You may wound regardless of LOS.
Therefore, any clause that prevents you from wounding because of line of sight is overridden.
This includes being forced to empty the wound pool , which prevents you wounding models because of LOS
It also includes not being able to allocate wounds to someone because they are out of LOS

I refer you to units vs models

The on,y time you are wounding models is at the allocation step. All steps before that are unit level actions.

You are required to prove otherwise.

You are thinking of the real world definition of "wounding"

The Process of wounding in the BRB goes;

1. roll to wound
2. put successful wounds in the wound pool
3. allocate wounds to models

the "wounding" that is allowed to ignore LOS step 1


Yes, it's stupid. No, I will never play it that way. But this is an argument you can't win.

Units are made up of models. The point still stands.

Does being forced to empty the wound pool, prevent you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

If so, then you are not forced to empty the wound pool, as it is overridden by your permission to wound them even if they are out of line of sight.

I would like to bring back the subject of Barrage again though.

the Barrage rule specifies using the centre of the blast as the source of the shot for granting cover saves and wound allocation only. I can't see where it overrides the same Out Of Sight rule we are currently discussing

can someone tell me what i'm missing?

 jokerkd wrote:
You are thinking of the real world definition of "wounding"

The Process of wounding in the BRB goes;

1. roll to wound
2. put successful wounds in the wound pool
3. allocate wounds to models

the "wounding" that is allowed to ignore LOS step 1


Yes, it's stupid. No, I will never play it that way. But this is an argument you can't win.

Step 1 never required line of sight, only 2 and 3 ever did.
I know your argument, I'm pointing out that the RAW actually holds up in this situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jokerkd wrote:
I would like to bring back the subject of Barrage again though.

the Barrage rule specifies using the centre of the blast as the source of the shot for granting cover saves and wound allocation only. I can see where it overrides the same Out Of Sight rule we are currently discussing

can someone tell me what i'm missing?

You would have to treat it the same as blasts ie. You are never told that for the purposes of emptying the wound pool, consider the firing unit to be the centre of the blast.

You are told in out of sight "if no model from the firing unit has sight" , this doesn't care for where the shot came from, just the unit that fired it.

harkequin wrote:
Units are made up of models. The point still stands.

Does being forced to empty the wound pool, prevent you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

If so, then you are not forced to empty the wound pool, as it is overridden by your permission to wound them even if they are out of line of sight.

Sigh. No, the point remains defeated. As in, your argument is refuted at every step, by the same lack of understanding on your part.

The unit is out of sight. You empty the wound pool. You may now allocate any wounds to models out of line of sight - the actual permission given, not your entire rewrite of rules - but have none. All rules satisfied, none broken.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Units are made up of models. The point still stands.

Does being forced to empty the wound pool, prevent you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

If so, then you are not forced to empty the wound pool, as it is overridden by your permission to wound them even if they are out of line of sight.

Sigh. No, the point remains defeated. As in, your argument is refuted at every step, by the same lack of understanding on your part.

The unit is out of sight. You empty the wound pool. You may now allocate any wounds to models out of line of sight - the actual permission given, not your entire rewrite of rules - but have none. All rules satisfied, none broken.

I can say the exact same about you. Here you keep assuming that it means "allocating wounds from the wound pool" when you have no support for it. I have provided points for mine.

The unit is out of sight. You empty the wound pool.

Bold prevents you wounding models. Under lined is why it is done. You are being prevented from wounding models, because they are out of line of sight.
This is literally the exact situation we have permission to override.

Please answer the question to help me see where we are misreading the situation compared to each other.
Does being forced to empty the wound pool, prevent you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

No, again at the point you are emptying the pool, you are not doing anything with models

You are considering the unit

The unit is not the same thing as models. There is a clue in the different words used.

Emptying the wound pool because the unit is out of sight has no bearing on wounding models. Because you aren't wounding models

You cannot say the same about me, as I'm not changing words and rules to suit my viewpoint. Im simply showing the two steps to out of sight has only one override in the blasts rule.

You cannot say the same about me, as I'm not changing words and rules to suit my viewpoint. Im simply showing the two steps to out of sight has only one override in the blasts rule.

Every time you brought up wound allocation you were changing words.

Does being forced to empty the wound pool prevent you from wounding models?

If you have wounds in the pool, you can wound models. If you are forced to empty the pool , you can no longer wound them.

This has prevented you from wounding models.
Do you agree with this section?

Are you forced to empty the pool due to models being out of LOS ? Yes.

Therefore, you are being prevented from wounding this group of models, because this group of models is out of line of sight.

Whether this group happens to be a unit or not makes no difference to the scenario.

As it stands. If you are forced to empty the wound pool, it prevents you wounding them. It is done because of LOS.

This is changing words to point out how the exception works. You may hit and wound models even if they are out of LOS.

I don't know how to make it clearer than what I wrote earlier.

You may wound regardless of LOS.
Therefore, any clause that prevents you from wounding models because of line of sight is overridden.
This includes being forced to empty the wound pool , which prevents you wounding models because of LOS
It also includes not being able to allocate wounds to models because they are out of LOS

harkequin wrote:
Does being forced to empty the wound pool prevent you from wounding models?

Yes, because you don't have any wounds to allocate to the models.

So being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding. Okay.

This is forced by the models being out of LOS, correct?

Now if we put the two together, we get.

The models are prevented from being wounded ( by the wound pool being auto emptied) because they are out of LOS (why the wound pool is emptied).

We are given specific permission to wound regardless of LOS. As such, because the bold (the prevention) is contingent on underlined (the reason), then it is overridden by the exception.

Since we have permission to wound models regardless of LOS.

If there is something that prevents us from wounding a model because they are out of LOS. We have permission to ignore it.
Do you agree with the last paragraph?

harkequin wrote:
So being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding. Okay.

This is forced by the models being out of LOS, correct?

Now if we put the two together, we get.

The models are prevented from being wounded ( by the wound pool being auto emptied) because they are out of LOS (why the wound pool is emptied).

We are given specific permission to wound regardless of LOS. As such, because the bold (the prevention) is contingent on underlined (the reason), then it is overridden by the exception.

Since we have permission to wound models regardless of LOS.

If there is something that prevents us from wounding a model because they are out of LOS. We have permission to ignore it.
Do you agree with the last paragraph?

That is incorrect, your correlation is forced and the Out of sight rule is not overriden. As Nos and others have proven with rules.

Point out how it is incorrect or forced. We literally have an exception. People are forcing the rule to break by saying, the rule only overrides half of the rule it overrides.

The correlation is in no way forced.

We are allowed to wound regardless of LOS.
Therefore, any rule that prevents wounding due to LOS is not in effect.
How on earth is that forced?

You can't wound models if the wound pool is empty. Why the wound pool is empty doesn't matter. Barrage does not allow you to keep wounds in the wound pool if there are no models in line of sight.

 Ghaz wrote:
You can't wound models if the wound pool is empty. Why the wound pool is empty doesn't matter. Barrage does not allow you to keep wounds in the wound pool if there are no models in line of sight.

And why is the wound pool emptied? LoS, yes? The emptying of the wound pool is contingent on LoS not existing, so something that ignores the LoS restrictions would then ignore the emptying of the wound pool do to no LoS.

Every rule in the out of sight section is ignored because the blast rule says "even if it is out of sight of any models in the attacking unit" which includes the loss of wounds in the wound pool. Oddly enough, you can still be out of range from a blast weapon. Barrage literally replaces the firing model with the center of the blast marker.

No. The wound pool doesn't care if there are models that can have wounds allocated to it or not. All it cares about is if you have line of sight, with no exceptions listed. No line of sight, and the wound pool empties even if there would be models that those wounds could be allocated to.

Since we're back to people making gak up - that "quote" above, for example, it's time to call this one.

The actual written rules are clear. Some will try anything to break them.

 Ghaz wrote:
No. The wound pool doesn't care if there are models that can have wounds allocated to it or not. All it cares about is if you have line of sight, with no exceptions listed. No line of sight, and the wound pool empties even if there would be models that those wounds could be allocated to.

Because the exception is listed in the rules for blast and barrage. They don't care about the out of sight rule, or the LoS rule. As these ignore these rules then they beat out the empty the wound pool rule, which is in the out of sight rule, which is ignored. You can not put the end effect of a rule before the beginning of the rule, you know the part that is ignored.

They don't ignore the Out of Sight rule (note the precise reference there) , it ignores the requirement for the model allocated to to be in line of sight. Out of Sight, the rule, is not referenced. The line is "out of sight", and is very specific in the permission granted.

Two rules within Out of Sight. Blast ignores only the one stated. Nothing else. As proven, every other post.

Out of range has the same rule.

And barrage does not say the firing model is the centre of the blast. It specifically says that you use the centre for determining cover saves and wound allocation only. Therefore, though it can hit a unit that is completely out of sight, it then would suffer the same emptying of the wound pool as a normal blast.

By this point, it would appear that all of the available ground has been well and truly trampled. Time to give it a rest, as everyone is just repeating the same points now.