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.

My friend and I often disagree over the rules but we need some help on this one.

He says: Someone said on a forum(this one in fact) that you can fire an ordinance weapon and/or barrage weapon at the space right behind another unit in assault while Technically not shooting at them.

I say: You can't because it says the rules say you can't. On the first few lines of the section of the shooting phase call Picking a target and line of site it says (i might not have this word for word because i can’t find my rule book momentarily)"Your target may be any enemy unit not in assault"(when i tried to show him that he called me a rules lawyer?) it says nothing about aiming at a twig behind a unit. He also says the rules are guide lines not meant to be strictly followed.

Example: A unit of necron warriors is in close combat with a unit of imperial guard and he wants to fire their demolisher cannon at the crons but can't because they're in close combat so he decides to fire right behind them but not "at them". My question is can he do that?

No. You have to place the blast marker over a model not in close combat. See pages 15 and 30 of the rulebook.l

Tell your friend he is a donkey-cave and that playing by the rules doesn't make you a rules lawyer.

Whenever you fire any sort of weapon that uses a Blast marker (Small or Large), you must place the hole so it is over the base of a single enemy model, that is not engaged in close combat. You cannot aim a Blast Marker onto empty space. See page 30 of the rulebook.

To answer your question: No he cannot attack the Warriors.

This brings us to a better question however. What happens if a blast marker scatters onto a cluster of units engaged in close combat????

The fluff always describes CC as a "whirling melee," if I remember correctly. In other words, units in CC are suddenly no longer static therefore making it impossible to target a unit engaged in CC during the shooting phase.

I imagine it would play out the simplest way possible; whatever models are caught under the marker are hit.

IMHO, a better way would be to determine how many hits would occur (by counting the number of models under the marker) and rolling off between the opposing players which side takes each hit. This would best represent the feeling of the game and accomplish the goals GW strives for.

What do you think?

Deuce11 wrote:This brings us to a better question however. What happens if a blast marker scatters onto a cluster of units engaged in close combat????

The fluff always describes CC as a "whirling melee," if I remember correctly. In other words, units in CC are suddenly no longer static therefore making it impossible to target a unit engaged in CC during the shooting phase.

The fluff can stick it where the sun don't shine because the fluff has no bearing on the rules.

The rules state that should a Blast marker scatter onto models in Close Combat, you resolve the hits as you would any other shooting. That means whatever models are under the blast marker are hit by whatever horrible projectile of death was being lobbed utterly uselessly by the firing unit.

Deuce11 wrote:IMHO, a better way would be to determine how many hits would occur (by counting the number of models under the marker) and rolling off between the opposing players which side takes each hit. This would best represent the feeling of the game and accomplish the goals GW strives for.

I mean no offence by this, but your opinion on what "GW Strives for" or what you think "Best represents the feeling of the game", while well intended, is nothing like what the rules say. If it scatters, and ends up covering only your models, whether locked in combat or not, it hits your models. Likewise for enemy models. The rules are very clear about this (for once)

Some rules are arbitrary and vague.
Some rules are pretty damned specific.

This particular case falls under the latter category.

Deuce, that was 2nd ed rules, and back then we could shoot into combat as well. Also back then you could indeed target a spot on the ground, -1 modifier to hit IIRC.
We're now in 5th ed, so the blast marker must be placed so that the center hole is over a model in the targeted unit, not on a spot on the ground. And Gwar has already answered how 5th says to deal with scatter onto combat.

1. So I was correct about how it plays out. Thank you for telling me I am correct.

2. My opinion regarding how I feel the game should play out was exactly that, an opinion. This is a forum for discussion. Discussion often includes opinion. Otherwise this would just be a site for posting FAQs and RAW. I don't appreciate rudeness for one airing an opinion. Rudeness will chill newbs from posting and engaging in the hobby.

3. Outside of $$$ incentives, GW wouldn't keep updating rule sets if it didn't have greater aspirations for the game. If you listen to the podcasts 40K designers uploaded when 5th was released, they provided amazing insight on their reasoning and methods for rule changes.
Of course the RAW and FAQs are the only true place to seek answers. But where there is ambiguity OR discussion of improvement, GW's intent is good support for arguments.

Deuce11 wrote:1. So I was correct about how it plays out. Thank you for telling me I am correct.

Um. Huh? no you were 9001% utterly wrong, all you got "right" was how it worked in a totally different set of rules. Thats like saying you won a game of Backgammon because you Checkmated your opponent.

2. My opinion regarding how I feel the game should play out was exactly that, an opinion. This is a forum for discussion. Discussion often includes opinion. Otherwise this would just be a site for posting FAQs and RAW. I don't appreciate rudeness for one airing an opinion. Rudeness will chill newbs from posting and engaging in the hobby.

Discussion involves opinion. Luckily this isnt a forum for discussing rules, its one for debating rules. Big Difference. Also, I do not intend to be rude. If me being utterly honest without sugar coating it for you makes you think I am rude, that is something for you to deal with, not me. If a newbie actually feels like they shouldn't post because someone is tart with them, then again, their problem, not mine.

Deuce11 wrote:3. Outside of $$$ incentives, GW wouldn't keep updating rule sets if it didn't have greater aspirations for the game. If you listen to the podcasts 40K designers uploaded when 5th was released, they provided amazing insight on their reasoning and methods for rule changes.
Of course the RAW and FAQs are the only true place to seek answers. But where there is ambiguity OR discussion of improvement, GW's intent is good support for arguments.

At this stage, the only reason GW updates the rules is to make more money by getting people to buy more models (because the points are reduced) and new models (Thunderfire, LS Storm, LR Redeemer). There is a reason why the Dark Eldar or Space Wolves haven't gotten updates, unlike the Space Marines who have had three times as many codex's as those two armies. And that's because they don't sell well.

And has it occurred to you that maybe, oh I dunno, they were told to say that in the Podcasts by the only people who actually can, the Shareholders?

And also, there is a difference between opinion and RaW being ambiguous. Your Opinion means nothing (I am of the opinion that blasts hitting close combats should work like this, despite the rules being clear as day), your stance on what way an ambiguous rule works does (I think Deffrollas are/aren't usable in a tank shock for XYZ reasons)

GWAR,

Maybe you want to re-read my quote. I said any models under the scattered blast are hit. That is how I imagined it would play out and you all said it would. Thanks again.

discussions/debates/arguments...semantics.

Shareholders would not go to an annual meeting and ask that the company to release podcasts about rules changes to hide incentives. You show me proof that a Shareholder as opposed to a Director doing such a thing, I'll concede.

I'm done bickering. I was seeking peoples opinions. It was why the post was open ended.

You may know how to play a board game, but there is much you obviously do not know about the world we live in.

Deuce11 wrote:Maybe you want to re-read my quote. I said any models under the scattered blast are hit. That is how I imagined it would play out and you all said it would. Thanks again.

Actually you said "IMHO, a better way would be to determine how many hits would occur (by counting the number of models under the marker) and rolling off between the opposing players which side takes each hit. This would best represent the feeling of the game and accomplish the goals GW strives for. "

discussions/debates/arguments...semantics.

No, not semantics at all. A Debate is not the Same as a Discussion which in turn is different from an Argument. Do I need to pull the dictionary out here?

Deuce11 wrote:Shareholders would not go to an annual meeting and ask that the company to release podcasts about rules changes to hide incentives. You show me proof that a Shareholder as opposed to a Director doing such a thing, I'll concede.

The Shareholders have final say in whatever the directors do. If the Director says "Hey guys, we're gonna invest in revamping some of our poorer selling lines so that the fans will be happy, even though it wont be as Profitable" the shareholders will tell him "Um... No.". Whereas if the Director says "So, we're gonna just re-release the best selling model line. We wont have to much work at all, and we will make oodles of profit" the Shareholders will go "Yay! Money!". And by that note, can you prove they are not? I provided some (albeit circumstantial) evidence of my claim. Do you have any at all of yours?

Deuce11 wrote:I'm done bickering. I was seeking peoples opinions. It was why the post was open ended.

Open ended? it wasn't open ended it all. it was "What happens if a blast marker scatters onto a cluster of units engaged in close combat?" The answer for which doesn't need anyone's opinions on how it works, because the rules are nice and clear. If, in your Opinion its not a good rule, then house rule it wherever you are and if you so wish make a Post in the correct forum to start discussion about it.

Deuce11 wrote:You may know how to play a board game, but there is much you obviously do not know about the world we live in.

Now that's just borderline insulting.

give it a rest now, your starting to sound like bitching girls

the question has been answered, whats the point in fighting about it afterwards?

JD21290 wrote:give it a rest now, your starting to sound like bitching girls

the question has been answered, whats the point in fighting about it afterwards?

Good Sir, I am no girl, but a Woman*!

All I have done is offer logical thought out counterpoints to his unsubstantiated arguments. Can you really fault me for that?

And what's the internet without epic drama anyway?

*Disclaimer: I am a Guy

1: a smart person knows when to simply walk away


2: internet without drama would result in alot less people with high blood pressure.
on a funny ish side note (kinda twisted that is)
someone came over to the UK from germany and killed someone over an argument on the 360.


i just find it ironic that people talk alot knowing that nothing will come of it, in this case that didnt really turn out too well.

I imagine it would play out the simplest way possible; whatever models are caught under the marker are hit.

What do you think?

= open ended

Corporate law is harddd stuffff

i know, i know JD21290 is right