Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DJGietzen wrote:

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

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

I'm confused....

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

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

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 Happyjew wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

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

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

I'm confused....

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - your concession is accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, sweet merciful Bazinga!

HA! Very nice, Happyjew. Very very nice!

FlyingLandon wrote:

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

Page 15, paragraph 2.

Was there ever a final verdict on this?

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

That depends on what you are looking for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I think that with HappyJew's fantastic contribution there can be no doubt about this, because if you do only consider the initial target to be considered the targeted unit, the rules take a serious and unfortunate turn for the insane.

 Loopy wrote:

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

And I think that with HappyJew's fantastic contribution there can be no doubt about this, because if you do only consider the initial target to be considered the targeted unit, the rules take a serious and unfortunate turn for the insane.

So you're completely ignoring my arguments that don't care about the "target unit" wording?

Awesome.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

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

And I think that with HappyJew's fantastic contribution there can be no doubt about this, because if you do only consider the initial target to be considered the targeted unit, the rules take a serious and unfortunate turn for the insane.

So you're completely ignoring my arguments that don't care about the "target unit" wording?

Awesome.

My apologies. I honestly don't understand how you can argue the Amendment does not supersede "Out of Sight" using the specific/general rule. If that's not what you're saying, then my addled brains certainly haven't been able to summon the mental agility required to navigate the turbulent stream of logic required to come to your conclusions. If you are simply saying the same things (or similar things) as nosferatu1001 regarding the FAQ Amendment applying only to allocation and not the vaporous concept of "wound pool emptying", then I must say that I guess there's some janky logic to it, but I don't play with a single person who'd agree with it and I'd hope that there are few who would.

I've outlined how the amendment doesn't ignore Out of Sight.
Permission to ignore part of a rule (the first sentence) does not give permission to ignore the rule in its entirety.
Or can PotMS target units out of LoS and Range?

rigeld2 wrote:
I've outlined how the amendment doesn't ignore Out of Sight.
Permission to ignore part of a rule (the first sentence) does not give permission to ignore the rule in its entirety.
Or can PotMS target units out of LoS and Range?

No, but the Blast rules and the Amendment say that scattering blasts may do so.

 Loopy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've outlined how the amendment doesn't ignore Out of Sight.
Permission to ignore part of a rule (the first sentence) does not give permission to ignore the rule in its entirety.
Or can PotMS target units out of LoS and Range?

No, but the Amendment says that scattering blasts may do so.

No, it doesn't. The amendment allows scattering blast to ignore part of the Out of Sight rule.
Please cite the rule allowing them to not empty the wound pool.

So you ARE arguing the "Target Unit" language which HappyJew has helped us define? I thought you just said that you weren't.


Edit: Okay. Delete instead of edit. Got it. Never mind.


To answer your next question, refer to my post above which I agree could be a janky interpretation of the Amendment in some circles. If you want to live your game that way, fine by me, but we don't roll that way.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, I guess here's the thing:

The argument that the blast can't wound models out of sight is done. The "Target Unit" language cannot be interpreted as just the initial target because doing so would hopelessly break the game.

The argument that the blast cant wound models in units that are completely out of sight is still a contentious rule because, even though the FAQ states that models may have wounds allocated to them, there's some legerdemain of language that implies that the wounds disappear before they're allocated because no models are visible to the firer.

So, in this interpretation...

If a unit has 1 model showing, and 10 models out of LOS which are closer, those 10 models can die.

If a unit didn't have that 1 model showing, then those same 10 models can't die.

That's madness, in my opinion.

 Loopy wrote:
So you ARE arguing the "Target Unit" language which HappyJew has helped us define? I thought you just said that you weren't.

... No, no I'm not. Regardless of how you define target unit, what allows the wound pool to not be emptied when you cannot see any model in the unit?

To answer your next question, refer to my post above which I agree could be a janky interpretation of the Amendment in some circles. If you want to live your game that way, fine by me, but we don't roll that way.

I'm not using any "janky" interpretation and I resent the implication.

How about instead of sideways insults and patronizing speech you actually quote rules in a rules debate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Loopy wrote:
So, I guess here's the thing:

The argument that the blast can't wound models out of sight is done. The "Target Unit" language cannot be interpreted as just the initial target because doing so would hopelessly break the game.

The argument that the blast cant wound models in units that are completely out of sight is still a contentious rule because, even though the FAQ states that models may have wounds allocated to them, there's some legerdemain of language that implies that the wounds disappear before they're allocated because no models are visible to the firer.

So, in this interpretation...

If a unit has 1 model showing, and 10 models out of LOS which are closer, those 10 models can die.

If a unit didn't have that 1 model showing, then those same 10 models can't die.

That's madness, in my opinion.

Read the current Out of Range rules (including the FAQ). Still madness?
Read GW rules in general. Still madness?

I'm not using any "janky" interpretation and I resent the implication.

How about instead of sideways insults and patronizing speech you actually quote rules in a rules debate?

You are reading emotions that do not exist. I and my friends would literally never dream of using this interpretation because the RAI is very clear.

Read the current Out of Range rules (including the FAQ). Still madness?
Read GW rules in general. Still madness?

I did read them, sir. Several times. I still believe the Rules Amendment applies to the entire section because the Blast rules allow for hitting units out of range and sight and the Amendment allows for allocation to them.

As for the wound pool emptying before the wounds are allocated, it may hold some kind of water on a strictly literal level, I would expect my local players (and most people in genera) to not accept that interpretation and would hope that national tournament organizers to rule RAI on this one as they have said they'd be doing more of on a case-by-case basis.

And yes, GW rules can be pretty weird at times, but I don't think anyone would intend for a situation where the same models can or can't be accidentally wounded would depend on whether you can see someone in the unit or not.

@Loopy : Rigeld2 is arguing RAW, not RAI. They are two separate things. "on a strictly literal level' is RAW. So, you do agree with him on that.

RAI or HIWPI are separate issues and I'm pretty sure Rigeld would agree to play it that way regardless of the literal interpretation of this mess of a rule.

You keep saying that RAI is very clear because you're carrying forward ideas from previous editions that blasts must ignore all LoS and Range restrictions.

If you accept the fact that GW can change things from how they worked in previous editions (ref Swarms and ID) my interpretation becomes absolutely valid.

Edit: and I've said multiple times that during games I don't care how its played. I just don't. Because I play for fun and debate rules for fun.

I'm saying its actually tough to divine a conclusion without invoking intent to some extent. The amendment is a little broad and, par for the course, poorly written. Are the separated blast wounds a separate pool? Does their status of "may be located to models out of LOS mean that they are not emptied from the pool?

The rule says that the pool empties when no models are left LOS, right? So, consequently, by this interpretation, since wounds are applied one at a time, even if you did have this pool of dice available, once all visible models are dead, the pool would empty.

I agree that for RAW, an amendment or other anecdotal evidence is needed to ascertain whether a wound's ability to be allocated to a model which is not visible supersedes its removal from the wound pool due to the unit not being visible.

I'd love to go hunting for that anecdotal evidence but I can't at the moment.

So you agree with me on RAW and agree that RAI isn't as clear as you originally made it out to be?

Great. Thanks.

I agree that RAW is not clear and in your favor.

I do, however, feel that RAI is very clearly meant to allow wounds to pass on to any hidden model regardless of the unit's LOS status. I think the Amendment becomes nearly pointless without that interpretation.

I think this debate has been "Rig'd" to going in "Loops"

 Loopy wrote:
I agree that RAW is not clear and in your favor.

I do, however, feel that RAI is very clearly meant to allow wounds to pass on to any hidden model regardless of the unit's LOS status. I think the Amendment becomes nearly pointless without that interpretation.

I think it's ambiguous at best and not clear in either direction - unless you try and bring how it worked in old editions in. Which you of course shouldn't do.

The amendment works fine with my interpretation. It makes exactly as much sense as a unit losing one model to a bunch of bolters because everyone else was at 24.1 inches, but if you throw a lascannon in there you can kill them all even if the lascannon missed.

rigeld2 wrote:
I think it's ambiguous at best and not clear in either direction

That, of course, is an opinion to which you are entitled.

rigeld2 wrote:
- unless you try and bring how it worked in old editions in. Which you of course shouldn't do.

I don't even really know how it worked in old editions. - EDIT - Oh wait right in 5th they just bounced wherever. I forgot. My opinion doesn't stem from that, I assure you.

rigeld2 wrote:
The amendment works fine with my interpretation. It makes exactly as much sense as a unit losing one model to a bunch of bolters because everyone else was at 24.1 inches, but if you throw a lascannon in there you can kill them all even if the lascannon missed.

Don't even get me started on this. I was EXTREMELY disappointed when the Frontline Gaming/National Tournament FAQ supported that nonsense. I don't support that ruling and I would not support this ruling if it's made in this direction because it makes zero sense.

Loopy - as you were making a "HIWPI" agrument please follow the tenets and mark it as such.

The basis for discussion is RAW, so you must mark when your argument is not on that basis, as it helps people to understand your POV.

Here tehre is still no allowance to avoid emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties.

I guess my aim was to help facilitate a reasonable recommendation on how to adjudicate this at a real game table or to help generate a good interpretation for the national tourney folks to make a ruling.

I guess the interpretation you guys are using does have a place, such as submitting to the GW FAQ department in order to hopefully further clarify remaining inconsistencies or loose ends. I'll do so immediately.

Firstly, There is no such thing as a "strictly rules as written" argument. It cannot be done as a level of inference is required and what is written cannot be taken literally. ( I don't believe that anyone disputes this, but if you do let me know because that will be fun!)

That being said, the words on the page are not in dispute, everyone has been debating what those words mean and how they should be applied. In that regard everyone has been arguning RAI.

"What did they mean by wounds can be allocated to models out of sight?!?!"
a) "I believe that it negates the Out of Sight rule!"
b)" I believe that it only negates part of the Out of Sight rule!"

Both people read the same thing and come to different determinations. Both have their reasons. Both of the participants reasonings are valid and it comes down to a difference of opinion. This can and does happen all the time, especially here.

example: Don't rock the stage!
I can think of three ways to that this can be interpreted. Intent, or meaning, is the only thing that can be discussed.

It's the same in this situation. It's my opinion that the determination that is most correct is the one that takes the most holistic approach.

Loopy has been clear that he was arguing RAW until he changed his argument to RAI, which he was also clear about. (the fact that everyone has been arguning RAI this entire time not withstanding)

The real problem is that Out of Sight is a terrible rule from a game play stand point and the "cinematic" stand point that they were trying to acheive.

If your really telling me that GW wrote into the BRB a section on barrage weapons not needing LOS, and therefore not getting to subtract their WS when they are using INDIRECT fire, to be able to not cause a wound I really would never want to play a game with you.

Read the section for crying out loud and then explain to me why they would write a whole rules section based on not having LOS to allow for someone to fire without causing wounds?

Bloodynecronight wrote:
If your really telling me that GW wrote into the BRB a section on barrage weapons not needing LOS, and therefore not getting to subtract their WS when they are using INDIRECT fire, to be able to not cause a wound I really would never want to play a game with you.

Read the section for crying out loud and then explain to me why they would write a whole rules section based on not having LOS to allow for someone to fire without causing wounds?

You got it. Right there. Why would they make a point to write several paragraphs and an errata describing how LoS is not a restriction for blast templates and wounding, if the rules would never be used?

They wouldn't.