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.

die toten hosen wrote:
Oh hey, its this dead horse again.

Seriously these threads are turning into the "can i take 2 coteaz in an army" threads. Need a sticky for topics that have been resolved(like this one) so they stop being brought up over and over.

A sticky with links? That would actually be a super good idea.

 Jimsolo wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
Oh hey, its this dead horse again.

Seriously these threads are turning into the "can i take 2 coteaz in an army" threads. Need a sticky for topics that have been resolved(like this one) so they stop being brought up over and over.

A sticky with links? That would actually be a super good idea.

Not really.

 Janthkin wrote:
We run with a minimum number of stickies, and Lego's metrics have demonstrated that stickied threads are actually less likely to be read than others; people just tend to ignore them. As such, stickies are generally reserved for forum/subforum rules & reference materials. Feel free to "Exalt" posts that you find particularly helpful; doing so increases the likelihood that they will appear on Dakka's front page (which does impact views).

If you see a subject come up again that you don't want to read, simply don't read it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rule interaction is not their strong point, so I don't take that as a joke....

Them fixing bad rules interactions is the joke.

So to clear up RaW yes only the selected target can jink. However only that unit can have wounds allocated to it so it doesn't matter that the other unit can't jink as RaW any wounds caused to that unit get allocated to the selected target anyway.

So say you Target a Wraithknight with a S4 Ap3 large blast and it covers 2 Jetbikes as well. Those jetbikes can't jink. When the shot scatters missing the Wraithknight and covers say 6 jetbikes you roll to wound those jetbikes. Say you get lucky and wound with all 6, the Wraithknight must take 6 FnP rolls, if it fails them all it dies. This is RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So to clear up RaW yes only the selected target can jink. However only that unit can have wounds allocated to it so it doesn't matter that the other unit can't jink as RaW any wounds caused to that unit get allocated to the selected target anyway.

So say you Target a Wraithknight with a S4 Ap3 large blast and it covers 2 Jetbikes as well. Those jetbikes can't jink. When the shot scatters missing the Wraithknight and covers say 6 jetbikes you roll to wound those jetbikes. Say you get lucky and wound with all 6, the Wraithknight must take 6 FnP rolls, if it fails them all it dies. This is RaW.

Are you being facetious? Because Blast rules do not run that way.
"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above – each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker, even if those models are not within the firer’s line of sight.

Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To Wound and save as normal. 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. "

Of course, Blast rules do not say a unit covered by the template is targeted, you just start over a model in the target UNIT.

Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit
- Blast Markers

That is the clause that causes the unusual, and hilarious, outcome....

JinxDragon wrote:
Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit
- Blast Markers

That is the clause that causes the unusual, and hilarious, outcome....

Is it the target of the Shot or the target of the Wounds?

Neither. It is the target unit

Is there any definition of "target unit" other than the unit that was chosen as the target?

That is... odd.

So:

-Target WK with Demolisher Cannon
-Scatter onto 6 Guardians
-6 hits
-Roll 6 to-pen rolls on WK

Wat.

Or:

-Target WK with Demolisher Cannon
-Scatter onto 6 Guardians
-6 hits
-5 wounds
-WK takes 5 wounds

Double wat.

Replace WK with IK, and Guardians with SM. Even less sense is made.

The 2nd one. You'd roll to wound vs the guardians and then assign those wounds to the WK.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The 2nd one. You'd roll to wound vs the guardians and then assign those wounds to the WK.

While I could see that working out okay in-game, if a little (a lot) strange, it falls apart on vehicles (and makes them even moar useless than they already are):

-Target Leman Russ (vs Av14, and a 5+ cover) with a Demolisher Cannon (Str 10, Ap 1)
-Scatter into 10 IG in the open
-8 kills
-LR Takes 8 HP, no saves, no damage table, no Front AV

Please don't bypass the language filter like this.

Reds8n

 Selym wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The 2nd one. You'd roll to wound vs the guardians and then assign those wounds to the WK.

While I could see that working out okay in-game, if a little (a lot) strange, it falls apart on vehicles (and makes them even moar useless than they already are):

-Target Leman Russ (vs Av14, and a 5+ cover) with a Demolisher Cannon (Str 10, Ap 1)
-Scatter into 10 IG in the open
-8 kills
-LR Takes 8 HP, no saves, no damage table, no Front AV

Please don't bypass the language filter like this.

Reds8n

Nope 8 wounds not 8 HPs, so in that case the Russ is fine (unless you play Psychic Shriek rolls to hit in which case the Russ has 1 wound and dies straight away).

 jokerkd wrote:
Neither. It is the target unit

Is there any definition of "target unit" other than the unit that was chosen as the target?

Yes I think there is. The "target unit" in this case is the unit that has suffered the wounds under the blast marker, not the original "targeted unit".
I can see the problems with the wording, and it is possible that someone thinks they're being a smartarse when they try to play rules lawyer to gain unintended advantage .
Using the same word, in different contexts, is an unfortunate part of the English language, which is why we have to try and interpret the intention of the written word.

 r_squared wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Neither. It is the target unit

Is there any definition of "target unit" other than the unit that was chosen as the target?

Yes I think there is. The "target unit" in this case is the unit that has suffered the wounds under the blast marker, not the original "targeted unit".
I can see the problems with the wording, and it is possible that someone thinks they're being a smartarse when they try to play rules lawyer to gain unintended advantage .
Using the same word, in different contexts, is an unfortunate part of the English language, which is why we have to try and interpret the intention of the written word.

In most cases, the target unit is the one that had the Hits and Wounds applied to it in regular vernacular. The line is mostly as a direction to that the Wound Allocation does not start with the center of the Blast template, but from the shooting unit. In classic GW language use, though, they mixed that line in with the same paragraph as applying Hits to a separate unit.

However, that is only RAI.

Trust us, no one debating on these boards will ever play 'strict Rules as Written.'

The system presented to us by Game Workshop has many errors, to many for me to count on one hand and I have even categorized some together, for us to ever be able to play it with the most strict reading of the Written Rules. While I could rant on the reasons behind this, most of them because Game Workshop sells only Models as far as they are concerned, the simple truth is some situations are broken. Classic Game Workshop language use is probably the easiest way to boil this problem down, indeed, and the easiest fix is play it as all of us do... resolve the Wounds against the actual Unit's struck while laughing at the possible broken Rule.

JinxDragon wrote:
Trust us, no one debating on these boards will ever play 'strict Rules as Written.'

The system presented to us by Game Workshop has many errors, to many for me to count on one hand and I have even categorized some together, for us to ever be able to play it with the most strict reading of the Written Rules. While I could rant on the reasons behind this, most of them because Game Workshop sells only Models as far as they are concerned, the simple truth is some situations are broken. Classic Game Workshop language use is probably the easiest way to boil this problem down, indeed, and the easiest fix is play it as all of us do... resolve the Wounds against the actual Unit's struck while laughing at the possible broken Rule.

In the case of blast and jink i play strict RAW. If you were not chosen as the target and you get scattered onto, you cannot jink. Period. Zero ambiguity.

die toten hosen wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Trust us, no one debating on these boards will ever play 'strict Rules as Written.'

The system presented to us by Game Workshop has many errors, to many for me to count on one hand and I have even categorized some together, for us to ever be able to play it with the most strict reading of the Written Rules. While I could rant on the reasons behind this, most of them because Game Workshop sells only Models as far as they are concerned, the simple truth is some situations are broken. Classic Game Workshop language use is probably the easiest way to boil this problem down, indeed, and the easiest fix is play it as all of us do... resolve the Wounds against the actual Unit's struck while laughing at the possible broken Rule.

In the case of blast and jink i play strict RAW. If you were not chosen as the target and you get scattered onto, you cannot jink. Period. Zero ambiguity.

You play strict RaW so that wounds are always assigned to that target regardless of what unit the blast hits? This is correct right?

 FlingitNow wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Trust us, no one debating on these boards will ever play 'strict Rules as Written.'

The system presented to us by Game Workshop has many errors, to many for me to count on one hand and I have even categorized some together, for us to ever be able to play it with the most strict reading of the Written Rules. While I could rant on the reasons behind this, most of them because Game Workshop sells only Models as far as they are concerned, the simple truth is some situations are broken. Classic Game Workshop language use is probably the easiest way to boil this problem down, indeed, and the easiest fix is play it as all of us do... resolve the Wounds against the actual Unit's struck while laughing at the possible broken Rule.

In the case of blast and jink i play strict RAW. If you were not chosen as the target and you get scattered onto, you cannot jink. Period. Zero ambiguity.

You play strict RaW so that wounds are always assigned to that target regardless of what unit the blast hits? This is correct right?

haha

Nice to see that in my 2-day ban this thread has not advanced at all.

Seems RAW is being silly.

So far as I can see the RAW is contradictory on this, rather than clearly advocating wounds from hits on non-target (per choosing a target) units being allocated against the chosen target unit.

The rules say hits on units with models under the marker take hits which are rolled to wound and allocated as normal. Subsequent to that they say that wounds are allocated to the target unit.

Either we accept the target unit is referring to each unit under the blast or we ignore the part of the RAW where it says they are resolved as normal to follow the part of the RAW where we are told to resolve them against the target unit (assuming we accept target unit as necessarily meaning the "choose a target" unit).