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.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you empty the wound pool, have you allocated a wound to a model? Yes or no.

No. But I am following a rule that requires me to empty the pool. You've (again) refused to cite a rule contradicting the one I'm following.

This was the intent of my question:

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

How can you have "remaining" Wounds if you did not assign even 1 in the first place?

Yes, the flaw is that after the 1st kill the blast could not Wound further, but even if the whole squad is out of LoS, it must still be assigned 1 Wound before you can obey "remaining".

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you empty the wound pool, have you allocated a wound to a model? Yes or no.

No. But I am following a rule that requires me to empty the pool. You've (again) refused to cite a rule contradicting the one I'm following.

This was the intent of my question:

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

How can you have "remaining" Wounds if you did not assign even 1 in the first place?

Yes, the flaw is that after the 1st kill the blast could not Wound further, but even if the whole squad is out of LoS, it must still be assigned 1 Wound before you can obey "remaining".

Except that isn't what the word "remaining" means. I hand you 12 candies to eat. You've eaten none. How many do you have remaining? If your answer is anything but "12" I'd love to know why.

If you asked: "Where are the remaining 12?"

I'd say you ONLY gave me 12, and not sure why you're asking if i had more.

The word "remaining" simply implies "others" were lost / gone / absent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And i would really like to see if you could find any other instance of the word "remaining" in the RaW, where you did not lose / remove / (etc) something in the first place.

Im not denying the rules, just really unsure you'd find anything with those parameters: "remaining" is always worded after at least 1 has been dealt / assigned / removed...

 BlackTalos wrote:
If you asked: "Where are the remaining 12?"

I'd say you ONLY gave me 12, and not sure why you're asking if i had more.

The word "remaining" simply implies "others" were lost / gone / absent.

You're focusing on one definition and ignoring all others. That's not the correct way to read things.

And i would really like to see if you could find any other instance of the word "remaining" in the RaW, where you did not lose / remove / (etc) something in the first place.

Im not denying the rules, just really unsure you'd find anything with those parameters: "remaining" is always worded after at least 1 has been dealt / assigned / removed...

But that's not how the word is defined. It may very well be what they meant - I don't know.
It's demonstrably not what is written.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you empty the wound pool, have you allocated a wound to a model? Yes or no.

No. But I am following a rule that requires me to empty the pool. You've (again) refused to cite a rule contradicting the one I'm following.

Yet you're not following the one that requires you to allocate a wound. You haven't cited why you are allowed to ignore that rule

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
If you asked: "Where are the remaining 12?"

I'd say you ONLY gave me 12, and not sure why you're asking if i had more.

The word "remaining" simply implies "others" were lost / gone / absent.

You're focusing on one definition and ignoring all others. That's not the correct way to read things.

And i would really like to see if you could find any other instance of the word "remaining" in the RaW, where you did not lose / remove / (etc) something in the first place.

Im not denying the rules, just really unsure you'd find anything with those parameters: "remaining" is always worded after at least 1 has been dealt / assigned / removed...

But that's not how the word is defined. It may very well be what they meant - I don't know.
It's demonstrably not what is written.

Well i am focusing on the singular word that give sense to this phrase:

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

It follows from this:

First allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit,(...)

So after you've allocated that first Wound, remaining Wounds will be discounted due to LoS. Which is a phrase that make much more sense.

And actually, that one line is slightly extended, it follows from this:

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

This entire paragraph is what the rule "Remember that 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 models from the attacking unit" is actually countering via General V Specific
You can't say it ignores the 1st phrase but not the second, as the paragraph works as a whole (imo)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you empty the wound pool, have you allocated a wound to a model? Yes or no.

No. But I am following a rule that requires me to empty the pool. You've (again) refused to cite a rule contradicting the one I'm following.

Yet you're not following the one that requires you to allocate a wound. You haven't cited why you are allowed to ignore that rule

Because the wound pool is empty so there are no wounds to allocate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you empty the wound pool, have you allocated a wound to a model? Yes or no.

No. But I am following a rule that requires me to empty the pool. You've (again) refused to cite a rule contradicting the one I'm following.

Yet you're not following the one that requires you to allocate a wound. You haven't cited why you are allowed to ignore that rule

I'm not ignoring it at all. I move to the Allocate Wounds step.
Under that step we have Closest Models, Random Allocation, Out of Range, and Out of Sight.
You must apply the Out of Sight rules as there's nothing saying they don't apply, correct? Just like you apply the Out of Range rules if they apply, and the Random Allocation rules if they apply.

BlackTalos wrote:So after you've allocated that first Wound, remaining Wounds will be discounted due to LoS. Which is a phrase that make much more sense.

Again, you're using a single definition of "remaining" and ignoring the possibility of all others. Mine is consistent with all potential definitions.

This entire paragraph is what the rule "Remember that 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 models from the attacking unit" is actually countering via General V Specific
You can't say it ignores the 1st phrase but not the second, as the paragraph works as a whole (imo)

Actually, I can say that. Because you can't assume what rules are countered - they have to be specifically countered.
Your method makes an assumption (that the Blast rules counter more than they say they do). Mine makes none. Yours inserts rules, mine doesn't. How is yours RAW?

rigeld2 wrote:

BlackTalos wrote:So after you've allocated that first Wound, remaining Wounds will be discounted due to LoS. Which is a phrase that make much more sense.

Again, you're using a single definition of "remaining" and ignoring the possibility of all others. Mine is consistent with all potential definitions.

Potential definition? I was only aware of 1 form of definition for it...

rigeld2 wrote:

This entire paragraph is what the rule "Remember that 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 models from the attacking unit" is actually countering via General V Specific
You can't say it ignores the 1st phrase but not the second, as the paragraph works as a whole (imo)

Actually, I can say that. Because you can't assume what rules are countered - they have to be specifically countered.
Your method makes an assumption (that the Blast rules counter more than they say they do). Mine makes none. Yours inserts rules, mine doesn't. How is yours RAW?

I guess the Blast rule would have to say "do not empty the wound pool" for you to agree. I personally think that the blast rule "ignores" this, but it doesn't actually say it, so i'll concede here.
HIWPI is clear though, a scattered blast will always wound unless it's specified.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

BlackTalos wrote:So after you've allocated that first Wound, remaining Wounds will be discounted due to LoS. Which is a phrase that make much more sense.

Again, you're using a single definition of "remaining" and ignoring the possibility of all others. Mine is consistent with all potential definitions.

Potential definition? I was only aware of 1 form of definition for it...

You're unaware of other definitions? There's your problem.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/remaining?q=remaining
You're asserting that #1 is the only possible definition. That's demonstrably false.

I guess the Blast rule would have to say "do not empty the wound pool" for you to agree. I personally think that the blast rule "ignores" this, but it doesn't actually say it, so i'll concede here.
HIWPI is clear though, a scattered blast will always wound unless it's specified.

Not specifically that, but something like that, yes.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

BlackTalos wrote:So after you've allocated that first Wound, remaining Wounds will be discounted due to LoS. Which is a phrase that make much more sense.

Again, you're using a single definition of "remaining" and ignoring the possibility of all others. Mine is consistent with all potential definitions.

Potential definition? I was only aware of 1 form of definition for it...

You're unaware of other definitions? There's your problem.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/remaining?q=remaining
You're asserting that #1 is the only possible definition. That's demonstrably false.

No, i missed out 3, although not really because they all imply something has been used already:

1) "Still existing, present, or in use; surviving:" you've used up and existing/present/surviving 1.
2) "Not yet used, dealt with, or resolved; outstanding:" but you've used/dealt with/resolved 1.
3) "Still to happen; future:" but 1 has already happened, past.

For none of the examples they list can you say "that is true and none have been used" so like:
"In the second week, a single researcher interviewed four of the remaining respondents." there were other respondents.
"The best chance of the match for Portlaoise came with minutes remaining." Some minutes have already past.

With the Wounds issue, you are saying:
"She lived out her remaining days alone, having just been born"
It just.... doesn't work :/

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

BlackTalos wrote:So after you've allocated that first Wound, remaining Wounds will be discounted due to LoS. Which is a phrase that make much more sense.

Again, you're using a single definition of "remaining" and ignoring the possibility of all others. Mine is consistent with all potential definitions.

Potential definition? I was only aware of 1 form of definition for it...

You're unaware of other definitions? There's your problem.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/remaining?q=remaining
You're asserting that #1 is the only possible definition. That's demonstrably false.

No, i missed out 3, although not really because they all imply something has been used already:

No, they don't.

1) "Still existing, present, or in use; surviving:" you've used up and existing/present/surviving 1.

How does this follow? I leave 5 people on an island for a year, 5 are remaining (survived, still existing) the next year.

2) "Not yet used, dealt with, or resolved; outstanding:" but you've used/dealt with/resolved 1.

Another assumption - the word doesn't require that.

3) "Still to happen; future:" but 1 has already happened, past.

No, it really hasn't.

"In the second week, a single researcher interviewed four of the remaining respondents." there were other respondents.

Again, your assumption without basis. The definition of the word doesn't require it - you're assuming it does and inserting a bias.
When you invent facts it's a poor method of debate.

With the Wounds issue, you are saying:
"She lived out her remaining days alone, having just been born"
It just.... doesn't work :/

It... really does.

rigeld2 wrote:
How does this follow? I leave 5 people on an island for a year, 5 are remaining (survived, still existing) the next year.

I guess that works.

The paint is peeling off the walls in this thread.

So if a Blast hits a multi-level ruin, units completely out of LOS from the firing unit are safe from Wound Allocation. Right or wrong?

If a Barrage hits an upper level of a ruin, a unit under the Blast but completely out of LOS of the centre of said Blast (ie, they're on a lower level completely covered by an intervening floor), cannot have Wounds Allocated to them. Right or wrong?

(Personally, I think the concealed units are safe - Blasts are extremely strong and we might as well play on an open battlefield without these limitations).

If theyre safe, then the Blast weapon rule, requiring you to allocate wounds to models out of sight, is a complete waste of ink as it serves no purpose.

I try to assume rules have a purpose.

It does indeed seem that the Wound pool would also empty for Barrage... where is the specification that it doesn't?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If theyre safe, then the Blast weapon rule, requiring you to allocate wounds to models out of sight, is a complete waste of ink as it serves no purpose.

I try to assume rules have a purpose.

Wholly incorrect. If the model in line of sight is farther than the closest model in the unit, the closest model in the unit is allocated a wound, regardless of LoS.

Which is all the rule says. You're attempting to add more to the rule, just like you did in 6th with no more rules basis.

this is a terrible thread but here's some more red meat from the BAO FAQ:

"""Models completely out of LoS of the firing unit can be hit by a template weapon and add wounds to the wound pool for the shooting attack. However, unless the template weapon does not require LoS, models completely of out of LoS of the firing unit cannot have unsaved wounds allocated to them, and so cannot be removed as casualties. Similarly, a template cannot affect vehicles that are completely out of the firing unit’s LoS either (unless the weapon does not require LoS, of course)."""

axisofentropy wrote:
this is a terrible thread but here's some more red meat from the BAO FAQ:

Which has nothing to do with the actual rules...

 BlackTalos wrote:
It does indeed seem that the Wound pool would also empty for Barrage... where is the specification that it doesn't?

Rigeld, just double checking that you also use the same RaW for Barrage and the Wound pool gets emptied with Indirect fire?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
It does indeed seem that the Wound pool would also empty for Barrage... where is the specification that it doesn't?

Rigeld, just double checking that you also use the same RaW for Barrage and the Wound pool gets emptied with Indirect fire?

RAW yes. HIWPI no - similar to homing weapons.

Ok then, consistent.
And i would agree (following the same HIWPI for scattered blast & homing).