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.
Fragile wrote: And neither of them address the emptied wound pool. Changing point of LoS does not change the fact that if do not have LoS, the wound pool empties.
That's correct. The difference is that Barrage changes how you determine LOS.
But none of the various weapons that can apply wounds to models out of LOS currently over-ride the Out of Sight rule, meaning that those weapons technically need at least one model in the target unit to be visible (by whatever mechanism is used to determine visibility) in order for the wound pool to not immediately empty.
Which makes Tau Smart Missile Systems and Hive Guard Impaler Cannons Homing rule useless.
Fragile, I see what you are getting at now, they are two different Lines of Sights being drawn with the only connection being that both occur during Wound Allocation. Still requires more thinking, for the Out Of Sight Rule is one used for Wound Allocation... so how does ìnstead` work in this situation is a very good pondering.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/04 02:02:25
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
JinxDragon wrote: Fragile,
I see what you are getting at now, they are two different Lines of Sights being drawn with the only connection being that both occur during Wound Allocation.
Still requires more thinking, for the Out Of Sight Rule is one used for Wound Allocation... so how does ìnstead` work in this situation is a very good pondering.
I don't see a problem.
Barrage + Out of Sight
If none of the [centers of the blast markers] can draw a line of sight to a particular model in
the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be
allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models
in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.
[note: visible can only refer to the line of sight drawn from the centers of the blast markers]
JinxDragon wrote: Fragile,
I see what you are getting at now, they are two different Lines of Sights being drawn with the only connection being that both occur during Wound Allocation.
Still requires more thinking, for the Out Of Sight Rule is one used for Wound Allocation... so how does ìnstead` work in this situation is a very good pondering.
I don't see a problem.
Barrage + Out of Sight
If none of the [centers of the blast markers] can draw a line of sight to a particular model in
the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be
allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models
in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.
[note: visible can only refer to the line of sight drawn from the centers of the blast markers]
You would be correct. And this is half the issue we were talking about.
2014/12/04 06:08:53
Subject: Re:Blast Template weapons and Line of Site
Fragile wrote: The blast rules were given an exception to the cover the Line of Sight restriction.
Can you please quote the statement in the Blast rule that addresses the Out of Sight rule?
Can you please quote the statement in Homing that addresses the Out of Sight rule. Or Barrage.
The problem is that you are not being forthcoming with your argument. If you have an argument to make, I suggest you start citing rules and making an argument.
The Blast rules require you to allocate to the closest model even if he is out of sight. So as long as there are other models closer to the firer than your one visible model, wounds can be allocated to them.
As soon as the visible model is the closest, wounds are allocated to him until he dies or you run out of wounds. If he dies, then due to the 'Out of Sight' rule, the wound pool immediately empties.
Fragile, do you have some other way of playing it out? If so, cite rules and make a clear argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/04 06:09:16
Fragile,
Which is over-writing a clause in the Out of Sight Rule, to inject 'centre of the blast marker' where 'Firing Model' once was.
This was one of the two possible outcomes of applying Basic Vs Advance that I talked about, and that you seemed to have objection to. I thought your words of Jinx, you have not shown any permission to overturn any rule that applies to OoS... was to point out that I did not have a true conflict between two Rules, so therefore could not apply the Rule we use to resolve such situations. Now I wonder what the objection was about given that I brought up your intended solution, just draw line of sight from the centre for all 'firing model' references, and believe it is the best case scenario from applying Basic vs Advanced.
The Worse simply stems from personal concern over a direct reading of Basic vs Advanced:
Does it mention over-riding individual parts of Rules anywhere within this Rule?
- No need to answer, the Rule Interactions with Blast and Out of Sight are broken enough... just think on it.
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
2014/12/04 13:05:02
Subject: Re:Blast Template weapons and Line of Site
col_impact wrote: The problem is that you are not being forthcoming with your argument. If you have an argument to make, I suggest you start citing rules and making an argument.
If you dont understand the argument either ask, or just not post.
Jinx. The barrage rule tells us to assume that the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker rather than the firing model. It in no way gives any indication that it overrides OoS.
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.
Replacing "firing model" with "center of the blast marker" is how that rule would play out with Barrage. You then would have to restructure the sentence a bit, but the outcome is the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/04 13:05:46
2014/12/04 13:41:29
Subject: Re:Blast Template weapons and Line of Site
Insaniak, in some cases you are correct about people just ignoring it. The problem comes from when your opponent is losing in the tournament and he is trying to weasel in anything he can for advantage, thats what the main problem is. I also meant standard blast weapons ie. ordinance, NOT barrage. I do understand logic cannot be applied to this game. But as the rules seem to be written is that the wounds allocated in this case will be to the first and only model in the unit drawing LOS will take a 'wound pool' until he dies and the rest of the wounds are discarded. This seems to be it....still unclear though.
col_impact wrote: The problem is that you are not being forthcoming with your argument. If you have an argument to make, I suggest you start citing rules and making an argument.
If you dont understand the argument either ask, or just not post.
I just asked you to clearly state your argument and cite the rules that support your argument. You are being deliberately vague and continue to not be forthcoming.
This is what happens (from Insaniak).
The Blast rules require you to allocate to the closest model even if he is out of sight. So as long as there are other models closer to the firer than your one visible model, wounds can be allocated to them.
As soon as the visible model is the closest, wounds are allocated to him until he dies or you run out of wounds. If he dies, then due to the 'Out of Sight' rule, the wound pool immediately empties.
Do you have some alternate way of resolving it than what is described above? If so, then clearly state your alternate way of resolving it and point out what rules support your argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/04 13:59:34
Lungpickle wrote: Read the rule for blast. It has specific exception to the out of site rule. then look up pedantic.
page 646 digi ipad . Blast
Websters for Pedantic
That's fine. Specify how it resolves differently than what is described below.
The Blast rules require you to allocate to the closest model even if he is out of sight. So as long as there are other models closer to the firer than your one visible model, wounds can be allocated to them.
As soon as the visible model is the closest, wounds are allocated to him until he dies or you run out of wounds. If he dies, then due to the 'Out of Sight' rule, the wound pool immediately empties.
Fragile,
Basic vs Advanced is what grants us permission to over-ride Rules, without it we can not do what you are requiring as a resolution....
Either the two do not interact at all and Out of Sight still draws Line of Sight from a Model in the Firing Unit, draining if there are none.
Or the two Interact and there can only be one Line of Sight for Wound Allocation, including sub-set Rules, so we apply Basic vs Advance.
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
Jinx you still fail to show how your interpretation overrides OoS. Using BvA and putting LoS from the center of the blast marker in no way tells us to ignore the rest of the rules.
Fragile, When I get back I will post the Rule, and underline the part which gives me concern.... Maybe that can explain why I have some concerns with Basic Vs Advanced from a pure Rule as Written perspective.
Re-writing the Clause is probably the Intent, hence why it is my 'best case' outcome, but it does require Basic vs Advanced to grant us permission to do thus.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/04 19:52:09
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
JinxDragon wrote: Fragile,
When I get back I will post the Rule, and underline the part which gives me concern....
Maybe that can explain why I have some concerns with Basic Vs Advanced from a pure Rule as Written perspective.
Re-writing the Clause is probably the Intent, hence why it is my 'best case' outcome, but it does require Basic vs Advanced to grant us permission to do thus.
Basic Versus Advanced
Spoiler:
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They
include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules
for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability
to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader
or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike,
a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games
Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override
any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a
model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does
not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions,
a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex.
Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always
takes precedence.
JinxDragon wrote: Fragile,
When I get back I will post the Rule, and underline the part which gives me concern....
Maybe that can explain why I have some concerns with Basic Vs Advanced from a pure Rule as Written perspective.
Re-writing the Clause is probably the Intent, hence why it is my 'best case' outcome, but it does require Basic vs Advanced to grant us permission to do thus.
Basic Versus Advanced
Spoiler:
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They
include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules
for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability
to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader
or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike,
a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games
Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override
any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a
model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does
not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions,
a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex.
Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always
takes precedence.
JinxDragon wrote: Fragile,
When I get back I will post the Rule, and underline the part which gives me concern....
Maybe that can explain why I have some concerns with Basic Vs Advanced from a pure Rule as Written perspective.
Re-writing the Clause is probably the Intent, hence why it is my 'best case' outcome, but it does require Basic vs Advanced to grant us permission to do thus.
Basic Versus Advanced
Spoiler:
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They
include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules
for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability
to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader
or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike,
a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games
Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override
any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a
model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does
not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions,
a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex.
Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always
takes precedence.
You again show you fail to understand the issue.
I was quoting that for JinxDragon's reference.
I suggest instead of repeating that I don't understand the issue I suggest you address this question I have posed to you twice already.
This is what happens (from Insaniak).
The Blast rules require you to allocate to the closest model even if he is out of sight. So as long as there are other models closer to the firer than your one visible model, wounds can be allocated to them.
As soon as the visible model is the closest, wounds are allocated to him until he dies or you run out of wounds. If he dies, then due to the 'Out of Sight' rule, the wound pool immediately empties.
Do you have some alternate way of resolving it than what is described above? If so, then clearly state your alternate way of resolving it and point out what rules support your argument.
The Blast rules require you to allocate to the closest model even if he is out of sight. So as long as there are other models closer to the firer than your one visible model, wounds can be allocated to them.
As soon as the visible model is the closest, wounds are allocated to him until he dies or you run out of wounds. If he dies, then due to the 'Out of Sight' rule, the wound pool immediately empties.
Do you have some alternate way of resolving it than what is described above? If so, then clearly state your alternate way of resolving it and point out what rules support your argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/04 22:49:10
Fragile, If I am not understanding the issue you can assist me by filling in the hole in this Rule as Written debate: I simply need you to quote The Rules where it informs us how and when to go about modifying the contents of another Rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/04 23:06:16
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
Fragile, What you posted does not contain a quote from the book explaining How and When we go about modifying the contents of a second Rule.
As for the conflict, as I explained prior: Line of Sight is drawn from the Firing Model in the Basic Rule Line of Sight is drawn from the Center of the Marker in the Advanced Rule Both methods can not be applied to the scenario, one method returns Line of Sight = Yes while the other method returns Line of Sight = No Therefore we have conflicting instructions, triggering Basic vs Advance to grant us permission to discard one of the conflicting results!
Instructions of 'Instead' do nothing more then automatically create a conflict for we can't do X instead of Y while we also do Y, so what else would this be but a conflict?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/05 01:18:24
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
Yes Jinx, that is all pretty standard application of BvA. But you still have not applied that to our specific situation. Show me how you think that matters in LoS vs OoS.
Out of Sight requires us to draw Line of Sight from a Model in the Firing Unit Blast Markers require us to draw Line of Sight from the Center of the Marker
If it does not conflict: We do not have permission to Draw Line of Sight from any other location but a Firing Model for the purpose of Out of Sight. If it does conflict: Then we have permission to over-write the Out of Sight Rule with the instructions to draw Line of Sight from the center of the marker.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/05 02:58:57
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
, 8k 
, 7k 
, 8k 
, 5k 
In a dog eat dog be a cat.