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.

Rigeld, you didn't emphasize the part that actually matters: weapon.

I know you like ignoring pesky words that get in the way of your point. Further I know you like restating rules to bend their meaning: it doesn't say "all markers" follow those rules at all. It says blast or large blast weapons.

A blast weapon is not the same as a blast marker. One has a profile, the other is a piece of plastic used to *mark* things.

So tell me where it says that a crash and burn is to use any of the weapon rules? Regarding 1st paragraph, page 100: again, it says "weapons" not markers so it doesn't apply.

But he's already made the point that all the rules for resolving blasts refer to blast weapons. If we're pretending that references to a blast "weapon" mean the rule is inapplicable, than we can't use any of the rules for a blast marker, can we?

clively wrote:
Rigeld, you didn't emphasize the part that actually matters: weapon.

I know you like ignoring pesky words that get in the way of your point. Further I know you like restating rules to bend their meaning: it doesn't say "all markers" follow those rules at all. It says blast or large blast weapons.

A blast weapon is not the same as a blast marker. One has a profile, the other is a piece of plastic used to *mark* things.

So tell me where it says that a crash and burn is to use any of the weapon rules? Regarding 1st paragraph, page 100: again, it says "weapons" not markers so it doesn't apply.

Did you read my post at all? The entire thing I mean. It'd be great if you did.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Why are you all referencing rules that pertain to weapons? Crash and burn does not use the Blast/Large Blast USR, it uses the MARKER to designate how many models are hit.

Let me start here...

We know Designer's Notes are rules, yes? (Reference the BRB FAQ on Nobz, etc.)
Would you consider the following a Designer's Note?
"Multi-level ruins require certain conventions and clarifications to ensure that Template, Blast or Large Blast weapons behave in a consistent fashion, and to keep the game moving."
(emphasis mine)
It's obviously not fluff (its not describing a "cinematic" reason why these rules exist).

To make sure the game progresses in a consistent fashion and to keep the game moving, all markers must follow those rules. That or they do not interact with Ruins whatsoever.

Saying that C&B doesn't follow page 100 because it doesn't have the USR is ludicrous. First of all, the Random Allocation rules are in the shooting section - where's your permission to reference them without being a shooting attack? (Note that they're part of step 4 in resolving a shooting attack). Second, we have the designers note - its as much a rule as the rest of the text.

It's ludicrous to say it's not a blast attack when the rule says they suffer a Str 6 AP - hit....not a Str 6 AP - Large Blast hit? Your designers note reference has no bearing here, also Rigeld "Randomising" is mentioned on page 5, long before "shooting attacks". As well, it states to randomize in the shooting phase but it does not make any mention of it needing to be a shooting attack. Re-read the rule.

And your statement would posit that it's impossible to randomize wounds in the game if it's not in the shooting phase. That's ludicrous.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It's ludicrous to say it's not a blast attack when the rule says they suffer a Str 6 AP - hit....not a Str 6 AP - Large Blast hit? Your designers note reference has no bearing here, also Rigeld "Randomising" is mentioned on page 5, long before "shooting attacks". As well, it states to randomize in the shooting phase but it does not make any mention of it needing to be a shooting attack. Re-read the rule.

I've read it many times. Cite permission to reference the random allocation rules without following the shooting attack rules.
Randomising on page 5 - does that tell you how to allocate wounds? Oh, no it doesn't. Hm.
So the Random Allocation rules - where are they again? Because that's what I said is in the shooting section. Oh look, that's where it is!
Why did you bring up page 5 again? Because it has the word Random?

And your statement would posit that it's impossible to randomize wounds in the game if it's not in the shooting phase. That's ludicrous.

Well, no - that's the rules. And it's something that I've brought up many times before and defended many times before.

it is simple really. "..any model under the blast marker...."
roll saves for each model separately.

Yes, rigeld I read the entire thing. Repeatedly and without fail it referenced weapons. Which a flyer falling out of the sky is not.

I think it's very telling what the intent here is simply because of the absence of calling it a weapon or, like transports, telling us its a shooting attack. Quite frankly it would have been far easier for them to say that it follows the rules for exploding transports with some minor changes.

However, they didn't. That language wasn't used at all. Instead it mentions markers and repeats other rules which cover scatter, for example. We are here to discuss RAW and RAW on the flyers c&b section makes no mention of treating the hit as coming from a weapon and goes out of its way to do so.

If, on the other hand you want to talk RAI then I've made that case above. If you want to talk HIWPI, then I'd go with the least surprise and still not treat it as a weapon as it only makes sense that several tons of burning metal would rip right through a ruin. Which, given the start of that section sure seems RAI.

Regardless of method chosen to resolve, it is still not a weapon.

Getting back to RAW, the rule for wounding references "models" not the unit anyway. So the models under the marker take the hits. No need to randomize or determine the point of origin of the "attack". So pretty much the only outstanding rule here is letting the models take a save.

I've always used the barrage method for determining which floor it hit and allocated the wounds from the center of the blast marker. LoS has no meaning as there is no firing unit, it's an effect.

All models under the template (on the level impacted) are hit regardless of friend or foe, engaged or unengaged.

It's a simple solution, it may not be perfect but it works in lieu of truly clear rules.


There is no deffinetive rules argument here. It could just go on and on forever, and it will based on what I have seen and some of the players involved.

The best thing to do is come up with a workable solution amongst those that you play (get it adopted as the house solution at your gaming place) with and stick to it. That way you have some consistency.

 Idolator wrote:
I've always used the barrage method for determining which floor it hit and allocated the wounds from the center of the blast marker. LoS has no meaning as there is no firing unit, it's an effect.

All models under the template (on the level impacted) are hit regardless of friend or foe, engaged or unengaged.

It's a simple solution, it may not be perfect but it works in lieu of truly clear rules.


There is no deffinetive rules argument here. It could just go on and on forever, and it will based on what I have seen and some of the players involved.

The best thing to do is come up with a workable solution amongst those that you play (get it adopted as the house solution at your gaming place) with and stick to it. That way you have some consistency.

I tend to agree this is a very workable interpretation. Regarding LoS, if a model is protected by an obstruction relative to the centre of the Blast marker, and he is completely concealed, can he have a wound allocated to him? If so, do you allow him a cover save?

Snapshot wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I've always used the barrage method for determining which floor it hit and allocated the wounds from the center of the blast marker. LoS has no meaning as there is no firing unit, it's an effect.

All models under the template (on the level impacted) are hit regardless of friend or foe, engaged or unengaged.

It's a simple solution, it may not be perfect but it works in lieu of truly clear rules.


There is no deffinetive rules argument here. It could just go on and on forever, and it will based on what I have seen and some of the players involved.

The best thing to do is come up with a workable solution amongst those that you play (get it adopted as the house solution at your gaming place) with and stick to it. That way you have some consistency.

I tend to agree this is a very workable interpretation. Regarding LoS, if a model is protected by an obstruction relative to the centre of the Blast marker, and he is completely concealed, can he have a wound allocated to him? If so, do you allow him a cover save?

I would give the appropriate cover for the type of terrain. They still get hit though, and the wound could still be allocated, in keeping with the wording of the rule. (all models under the template get hit)
The fluffy explaination would be that the resulting explosion would just penetrate the wall/structure.

40k-noob wrote:
it is simple really. "..any model under the blast marker...."
roll saves for each model separately.

Cute. So there's no wound pool for normal blast weapons either?

It's the same text. Why are you treating it differently?

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
it is simple really. "..any model under the blast marker...."
roll saves for each model separately.

Cute. So there's no wound pool for normal blast weapons either?

It's the same text. Why are you treating it differently?

Just to answer your question from last night. I read the 2nd line on page 15 of random allocation as being open ended. I don't think the Moloc or polymorphine are shooting attacks so I think it's permission for this type of scenario without mandating shooting attack.
I don't think it has to be a shooting attack for random allocation to apply. For example look at ID, it's in shooting but doesn't reference shooting attacks, while OOS does reference shooting attacks.
That's just my 2 cents, however I do still think you resolve the wounding and populate a wound pool as if it were shooting.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Just to answer your question from last night. I read the 2nd line on page 15 of random allocation as being open ended. I don't think the Moloc or polymorphine are shooting attacks so I think it's permission for this type of scenario without mandating shooting attack.

They aren't shooting attacks. And them being named there isn't permission. You know how permission works, right? The rules have to say you can do something.
Do the rules say you can reference Random Allocation?

I don't think it has to be a shooting attack for random allocation to apply. For example look at ID, it's in shooting but doesn't reference shooting attacks, while OOS does reference shooting attacks.
That's just my 2 cents, however I do still think you resolve the wounding and populate a wound pool as if it were shooting.

Why does it matter that ID from double Strength is in the shooting attack rules?
In CC we have this:

Page 25 wrote:Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase.

Part of resolving wounds in the shooting phase is - wait for it - Instant Death from double Strength.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:
Regardless of method chosen to resolve, it is still not a weapon.

So you aren't using Random Allocation then.
It also can never pen a vehicle (unless one has been chewed on by Scarabs) as you cannot add the Strength of the attack to an armor pen roll unless it's a weapon.

Getting back to RAW, the rule for wounding references "models" not the unit anyway. So the models under the marker take the hits. No need to randomize or determine the point of origin of the "attack". So pretty much the only outstanding rule here is letting the models take a save.

Which rule are you talking about with the bold?
Also, with your argument, a blast that has an AP can never actually ignore armor as that requires a weapon (irrelevant in this case, but absolutely consistent with your argument).

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
it is simple really. "..any model under the blast marker...."
roll saves for each model separately.

Cute. So there's no wound pool for normal blast weapons either?

It's the same text. Why are you treating it differently?

No need to equivocate the two.


Normal blast template weapons are weapons and follow the rules set forth in the blasts, shooting and weapons section where applicable for their use.

C&B is not a weapon, nor a shooting attack, it can even happen in the movement phase.
Seems pretty clear that C&B is a one-off or unique type situation, in the absence of specifics, the simplest way to resolve it i fairly is to roll separately for any model under the marker.

HIWPI though is to use the rules for Barrage as it just seems the most appropriate given that a flyer is crashing down from the sky above. my .02 cents

Rigeld, the important bit I think is permission is "but can also occur if the position of the attacker is unclear,"
I do know what permission is, thanks.
In this case is it clear where the attacker's position is?

The reason I brought up ID is that it is universally applied as it says suffers wounds which is very different from OOS and OOR as they talk specifically about ranged shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

In CC we have this:

Page 25 wrote:Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase.

Part of resolving wounds in the shooting phase is - wait for it - Instant Death from double Strength.

I never said that wasn't part of shooting, no need to be a dick about it and also read what I said this time.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Rigeld, the important bit I think is permission is "but can also occur if the position of the attacker is unclear,"

How is that permission? How is that granting anything outside the shooting phase? How are you even referencing that rule when you haven't entered the shooting procedure first?

Because it says to use it when the position of the attacker is unclear.....

Is the position of the attacker, the model inflicting the damage clear?

The next line is also the bit that allows for it outside of shooting with the non-shooting attacks.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Because it says to use it when the position of the attacker is unclear during a shooting attack.....

Is the position of the attacker, the model inflicting the damage clear?

You're missing the context which is the bold. It's part of step 4 of a shooting attack resolution.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Because it says to use it when the position of the attacker is unclear during a shooting attack.....

Is the position of the attacker, the model inflicting the damage clear?

You're missing the context which is the bold. It's part of step 4 of a shooting attack resolution.

That context isn't there just like those words in fact the next two things mentioned aren't even shooting attacks at all by your admission so that cannot be the meaning.
The bit after the "but" in that sentence isn't applying to shooting.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
That context isn't there just like those words in fact the next two things mentioned aren't even shooting attacks at all by your admission so that cannot be the context.

It can't be the context?
What section of the book is it in? Top right corner of the page over the picture.
What part of that section is it in? Heading at the top of the page, for more clarification see page 12 step 4.

The fact that it mentions two things that aren't shooting attacks is irrelevant - that's permission for those rules to use Random Allocation (at best - RAW they'd need FAQ/errata to grant that permission, but this is at least a demonstration of obvious intent).

If it's not a shooting attack there's no reason to even look in "The Shooting Phase" section of the book to resolve it. You need a reason to do so. Find it please. You haven't yet.

Then why do you refer to shooting every time wounds are inflicted when it's not in the shooting phase?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Then why do you refer to shooting every time wounds are inflicted when it's not in the shooting phase?

If you're talking about CC, because the CC rules tell you to.
For anything else, I'd have to know what you're talking about.

rigeld2 wrote:

If its not a shot or CC it doesn't wound.

This for a start.

From the vector strike thread:

rigeld2 wrote:

We impose Out of Sight because we aren't told not to. There's a wound pool, agreed? Why are you trying to use some rules but not others when there's no guidance on which ones to use?

Wounds in CC don't have this restriction because CC tells you how to allocate wounds - and it doesn't include the shooting methods.

You apply OOS because we aren't told not to rather then when we are told to, which is shooting attacks.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If its not a shot or CC it doesn't wound.

This for a start.

Right, that's what I said.

From the vector strike thread:

rigeld2 wrote:

We impose Out of Sight because we aren't told not to. There's a wound pool, agreed? Why are you trying to use some rules but not others when there's no guidance on which ones to use?

Wounds in CC don't have this restriction because CC tells you how to allocate wounds - and it doesn't include the shooting methods.

You apply OOS because we aren't told not to rather then when we are told to, which is shooting attacks.

No you are applying OOS to things that aren't shooting.
You have a restriction for shooting attacks that you are applying across the board without permission.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No you are applying OOS to things that aren't shooting.

You want to use rules from the Shooting Attack process.
To do so, you must consider it a shooting attack - otherwise why are you entering the process?
Since it's a shooting attack you need to exempt yourself from OoS or it applies.

I'm not entering the process, I'm using the rule for when you don't know where the attacker is.
Same as I don't enter the shooting for virus outbreak on page 105 just because it's using random allocation doesn't make it shooting.

You have again asserted that it is a shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are sweep attacks shooting and are they subject to oos?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I'm not entering the process, I'm using the rule for when you don't know where the attacker is.

Which you have no permission to use unless it's a shooting attack. As I've explained.

Same as I don't enter the shooting for virus outbreak on page 105 just because it's using random allocation doesn't make it shooting.

You mean 106, and it specifies Random Allocation.
Show me where Crash and Burn does. Page number will be enough.

Are sweep attacks shooting and are they subject to oos?

No, but they specify to use Random Allocation, like they should.

You have yet to actually show permission to use a Shooting rule without permission. You're assuming you can.

No you never explained that you need to be a shooting attack to use random allocation, you just said it. There are other rules in the shooting section that apply outside of the shooting rules. ID and Random allocation are the two that spring to mind.

Page15

"At times, you will not be able to tell which model is closest. This usually happens when two or more models are equidistant from the shooting unit, but can also occur if the position of the attacker is unclear, such as with.... ..... or any attack said to use Random Allocation."

Line one and the first clause of sentence two are shooting, the rest isn't or at least isn't exclusively.
The italic is only for shooting attacks.
The underlined you agree isn't exclusive for shooting, since it's an open condition?
Why is the bold section limited only to shooting? A page number should do to show where it is in the rules.

So when I "enter the process" as you put it because I don't know where the attacker is how is that different from being an attack said to use Random Allocation?
Both are cases where I have permission to use random allocation.

So I ask you again, is it clear where the attacker is?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No you never explained that you need to be a shooting attack to use random allocation, you just said it.

It's a permissive rules set. Agreed?
This means that you need permission to use rules. Agreed?
The shooting process includes wound allocation. Agreed?
One of the wound allocation methods in the shooting phase is Random Allocation. Agreed?
So you need a rule giving you permission to reference Random Allocation. Agreed?

So when I "enter the process" as you put it because I don't know where the attacker is how is that different from being an attack said to use Random Allocation?

One is explicit permission, one you're assuming you have permission.
Guess which one is relevant RAW.