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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited to remove the shame of my mistake.

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

Page 16 disagress with you.

-Matt

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

Interesting enough I was also in the military and if you honestly dont like the wall deal take the guys sheltering behind the land raider scenario, lemme guess it blew through that and hit the guys behind it right? What i'm saying is there are a lot of people out there who rules lawyer their way into breaking the game which totally eliminates the enjoyment value, play the game and enjoy it, otherwise use your broken list and try the break the rules in tournament play and leave the rest of us alone.

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

Citation please.

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

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



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

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

Nice to see you clearly wrong about something for once.

Not wrong.

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

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

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

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

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

Citation please.

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

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

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

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

Nice to see you clearly wrong about something for once.

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

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

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

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



Where does it say this???

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

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

roland9382 wrote:Interesting enough I was also in the military and if you honestly dont like the wall deal take the guys sheltering behind the land raider scenario, lemme guess it blew through that and hit the guys behind it right? What i'm saying is there are a lot of people out there who rules lawyer their way into breaking the game which totally eliminates the enjoyment value, play the game and enjoy it, otherwise use your broken list and try the break the rules in tournament play and leave the rest of us alone.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Rulebook page 33 wrote:Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight. [Snip fluff explanations] In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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