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.

The question is, how do you decide how many models are hit under a template when there are walls between?

I'm talking full walls, not just cover save walls, but a fully vision blocking wall.

Here's the first situation (courtesy of MS paint.)

As you can see we have a guy with a flamer, lining it in on the one guy in the unit he can see (let's not argue what he is doing out there, he is just there. He is in unit coerency, but not exactly a bro with his friends inside)

Does this mean:
1) The unit takes 1 hit, as only 1 model is visible to the flamer and a big wall blocks the flame from the others.
2) The unit takes 4 hits, as 4 models are covered by the flamer, however, wounds can only be allocated to the visible model, so that guy will have a good chance of dying and the rest are safe and sound.
3) The unit takes 4 hits and when the visible guy dies, the wounds flow into the rest of the unit.



Second, same situation but with a guy shooting some kind of blast weapon (looks like it's a big blast from the image, but that's of little importance.) I placed him so that he shot the blast straight forward because let's not get bogged into a discussion regarding if the line of sight is from the middle of the blast or from the guy. That discussion can be found elsewhere. This guy aimed for the one guy he can see and scattered only a very small distance. It shouldn't make a difference in this situation if it's counted from him or the center of the blast.

same questions, does it matter that its not a flamer but a blast?

In both cases.

2) The unit takes 4 hits, as 4 models are covered by the flamer, however, wounds can only be allocated to the visible model, so that guy will have a good chance of dying and the rest are safe and sound.

For the flamer, you take four hits, but only one model can be removed. For a scattering blast, all four models are hit and can be removed - see the other thread for the full discussion and controversy.

Pyrian wrote:
For the flamer, you take four hits, but only one model can be removed. For a scattering blast, all four models are hit and can be removed - see the other thread for the full discussion and controversy.

50% correct!

The Flame template will inflict 4 hits but will only kill 1 model as you can only allocate wounds onto models you can see.

With the blast template the same thing happens. 4 are hit but you can only see one model so only one model gets wounds allocated to him. If this were a barage weapon again only one model is in LOS from the center hole so only one guy is allocated the wound. If he dies on the first allocated wound all remaining wounds are lost.

Had it been a barrage weapon and the hole landed on the other side of the wall four wounds would be generated but the single guy on the close side of the wall would be safe from death.

Dooley wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
For the flamer, you take four hits, but only one model can be removed. For a scattering blast, all four models are hit and can be removed - see the other thread for the full discussion and controversy.

50% correct!

The Flame template will inflict 4 hits but will only kill 1 model as you can only allocate wounds onto models you can see.

With the blast template the same thing happens. 4 are hit but you can only see one model so only one model gets wounds allocated to him. If this were a barage weapon again only one model is in LOS from the center hole so only one guy is allocated the wound. If he dies on the first allocated wound all remaining wounds are lost.

Had it been a barrage weapon and the hole landed on the other side of the wall four wounds would be generated but the single guy on the close side of the wall would be safe from death.

I placed it intentionally as I did exactly so that barrage weapons or LoS from center or LoS from character would be a moot point. The interesting part is whether or not the blast hits and whether or not it wounds the characters beyond the wall.

It seems so far that most people subscribe to the theory that it DOES hit, but does NOT wound people on the other side of the wall.

Yes it hit AND WOUNDS the models on the far side of the wall. If they are all wounded (no 1's with a St 8 weapon) and all 4 fail their saves (4 1's :( ) It would generate 4 wounds into the wound pool. When it comes to emptying the wound pool you can only allocate wounds to models closest to the firer first and in los. Any remaing wounds are Lost. The same is true for the Flame template scenario.

PS I giggled at the *pew*. Yeah! I giggled, big deal want to fight about it!

Dooley wrote:
Yes it hit AND WOUNDS the models on the far side of the wall. If they are all wounded (no 1's with a St 8 weapon) and all 4 fail their saves (4 1's :( ) It would generate 4 wounds into the wound pool. When it comes to emptying the wound pool you can only allocate wounds to models closest to the firer first and in los. Any remaing wounds are Lost. The same is true for the Flame template scenario.

PS I giggled at the *pew*. Yeah! I giggled, big deal want to fight about it!

Just to mess up your scenario: One of the guys has a 3+ save, the others have 5+. Yeah. I just did that.

Which one? Now you have a mixed Armor save unit and would have to revert to the rules perscribed by the BRB. Dont have the book at hand but IIRC you use the majority save or use the best in the case of a tie. What else you got

Dooley wrote:
Which one? Now you have a mixed Armor save unit and would have to revert to the rules perscribed by the BRB. Dont have the book at hand but IIRC you use the majority save or use the best in the case of a tie. What else you got

You're thinking 5ed. In sixth, it moves the order around.

if the target unit contains several different saving throws, you'll need to follow this process instead [of the one presented above]
1) Allocate Wounds
2) Take Saves & Remove casualties: [...]Continue allocating wounds to the closest model, taking saves and removing casualties until the wound pool is empty

Everyone gets their own save!

Oh right I was thinking about Toughness for some reason *DURP* Well what is the SV of the ONE guy you can see. If he has the 3+ save he is taking all 3+ saves untill he dies. If he has a 5+ save he is taking 5+ saves until he dies. Once he dies and you now have 3+ save guys behind the wall it would not matter as the only guy you COULD see is dead and all remaining wounds are lost!

It wouldnt matter as only the guy outside the wall will be making saves The rest are safe as long as there is no LOS.

Even though in the other thread squabbling over this I said all units take the wounds, in this case I don't. As you can clearly see, the centre point - being the origin point of the "Blast" part of the Blast radius is firmly on the close side.

If the blast point was on the other side of the wall, then it would be those models that were damaged, and the one guy outside would be safe.

Also, flamer only hits the one guy, as it ignores cover, not LOS.

If you are using a Blast weapon it would not matter where the center point is. The rule is applied the same. You are thinking Barrage weapons.

Beefmiester wrote:
Even though in the other thread squabbling over this I said all units take the wounds, in this case I don't. As you can clearly see, the centre point - being the origin point of the "Blast" part of the Blast radius is firmly on the close side.

If the blast point was on the other side of the wall, then it would be those models that were damaged, and the one guy outside would be safe.

Also, flamer only hits the one guy, as it ignores cover, not LOS.

Blast weapons do not care about were the center hole is when working out who is hit, BARRAGE WEAPONS however do. One simply looks at the template from above and counts how many models are under or partially under the template.

The Flamer Template would STILL score 3 wounds on the unit even if the models are behind the wall. LOS was needed to TARGET the unit. The models that is seen was the target and the other guys were caught under the template and thus could still be wounded, that is to say their wounds are added to the wound pool,

Assuming we're going for the plainly obvious RAI interpretation of scattering Blasts (ie explicitly written permission to hit and wound units of sight is also implicit permission to wound models out of sight) answer is:
flamer: 4 hits, only visible model can die
blast that scattered: 4 hits, all models may die, starting from closest.

There is hugely long thread arguing is that implicit permission enough by RAW. Note that RAW, currently all special abilities that allow you to shoot without LOS do not work as none of them have explicit permission to wound models out of LOS.

Again I do not see how people are claiming that 4 guys will BE REMOVED AS CASUALTIES from the blast scenario. You still hit 4, you still wounded 4, you then must resort to NORMAL RULES for casualty removal so only ones in LOS can be removed. Yes the blast rules say you can hit and wound units out of LOS (which has happend) but then you resort to the Normal Rules for shooting, leaving you with only 1 model removed as a casualty.

Dooley wrote:
Again I do not see how people are claiming that 4 guys will BE REMOVED AS CASUALTIES from the blast scenario.

There was a huge thread on the subject. You could look there.

Dooley wrote:
You still hit 4, you still wounded 4, you then must resort to NORMAL RULES for casualty removal so only ones in LOS can be removed.

There's a couple glaring errors, there. You hit 4 models, yes. But you get 4 wounds, you don't wound 4 models. Those wounds are not yet assigned to any specific models, so the allowance to-wound out of LoS cannot possibly be referring to making wound rolls, as to-wound rolls have no LoS requirement in the first place. Second, the "NORMAL RULES" you like to put in CAPS is not referring to the scatter exception, so the scatter exception still applies.

EDIT: This is already one more post on the subject than I probably should've made here, so I'm out of this thread.

I am very familiar with the other thread as I have commented MANY times on it. The Normal Rules I keep pointing out is in referance to the Blast and Large Blast rules itself. You will notice that the B&LB rules tell you you can hit and wound units, it then tells you to revert back to normal shooting attack rules. So you just hit and wounded 4 models in that unit. Now in order to work out how to empty the wound pool and alocate wounds and remove models you revert back to the normal shooting attack rules which state "Remove models closest to the fireing unit and in los. All remaining shots are lost." (paraphrased). So Only ONE model will be removed even if you still have 3 more wounds to allocate to the squad. You have satisfied the Hit, and wound part, you must now revert back to the normal rules in order to remove models.

I would have genuine thought that a Special rule would be in place from the moment you stated that you were using the weapon, to the last model removed during the resolution of that shot. I.E: the Shooting Phase in it's entirety, not select parts.

So if the special rule removes LOS , range, Friendly Fire and CC or BTB restrictions, then they were removed for the Shooting Phase as a whole. The "as normal" in that paragraph - taking into account the previous sentences - means Str vs T, armour, Inv. Saves, etc... not to disregard any previous steps actioned by the use of the special rule.

You do use the Special rule in its entierty all the way to the completion of the shooting phase. Part of that rule is to utilize Normal Shooting Attack rules. Instead of retyping the Allocation and removal of models rule they simply telly ou to refer to the rules already presented. You are not combining two rules or flipping back and forth between them at a whim. The B&LB rules tell you to use Normal Shooting Attack Rules after hitting and wounding has been worked out. It is STILL the same rule just the specifics are in a different already covered part of the book.

Beefmiester wrote:
I would have genuine thought that a Special rule would be in place from the moment you stated that you were using the weapon, to the last model removed during the resolution of that shot. I.E: the Shooting Phase in it's entirety, not select parts.

So if the special rule removes LOS , range, Friendly Fire and CC or BTB restrictions, then they were removed for the Shooting Phase as a whole. The "as normal" in that paragraph - taking into account the previous sentences - means Str vs T, armour, Inv. Saves, etc... not to disregard any previous steps actioned by the use of the special rule.

It removes the LOS restriction for wounding the unit (which isn't there to begin with). You still haven't proven that wounding the unit also means allocating wounds - which is explicitly a separate step and not unit based at all.

And when you read it, certain parts of that Core rule has been covered by the other rule.

It's like those mathematical equations that have 21 ones and a single multiply by 0. People always say that it's 0, as you can't multiply by 0, but the answer is 20, because the multiple is done first. Unless there are brackets.

In this metaphor, the bracket is a special rule that modifies everything in it. I don't see how part of the equation is modified, but then the next part isn't, when it isn't really distinct, it's just a different part of the same action.

If it wasn't meant to, then the possible exceptions wouldn't have been described, it would have simply stated after the scatter has been determined, resolve per normal shooting attacks. Instead, it goes on to state the possible scenarios in which you can treat the scattered shot as though it was normal.

Beefmiester wrote:
And when you read it, certain parts of that Core rule has been covered by the other rule.

It's like those mathematical equations that have 21 ones and a single multiply by 0. People always say that it's 0, as you can't multiply by 0, but the answer is 20, because the multiple is done first. Unless there are brackets.

In this metaphor, the bracket is a special rule that modifies everything in it. I don't see how part of the equation is modified, but then the next part isn't, when it isn't really distinct, it's just a different part of the same action.

If it wasn't meant to, then the possible exceptions wouldn't have been described, it would have simply stated after the scatter has been determined, resolve per normal shooting attacks. Instead, it goes on to state the possible scenarios in which you can treat the scattered shot as though it was normal.

Now you're trying to divine intent - and I agree with you on intent.
But that's not what the rules say.

I don't think the rules are meant to separate the Hit/ wound/ populate wound table/ Allocate Wounds as much as treating each step as a distinct phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I meant to say "each step WITHIN a distinct phase."

Beefmiester wrote:
I don't think the rules are meant to separate the Hit/ wound/ populate wound table/ Allocate Wounds as much as treating each step as a distinct phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I meant to say "each step WITHIN a distinct phase."

But they separate it into distinct steps on pg 12, making it very clear they are separate.

Beefmiester wrote:
I don't think the rules are meant to separate the Hit/ wound/ populate wound table/ Allocate Wounds as much as treating each step as a distinct phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I meant to say "each step WITHIN a distinct phase."

They have to be separate. Otherwise what you're trying to say is that hits directly cause allocated wounds, which can't be true.

There separation the for ease of computation, but come under the same basic "action." I have always read that as hits cause wounds, that being the entire purpose of determining what hits, and which of those hits wound.

I never thought that I could then differentiate which of those "wounds" "wound" after the unit has been established as being "wounded", or if something was "hit" that it couldn't then be "wounded" by the shot that "hit" it.

Beefmiester wrote:
There separation the for ease of computation, but come under the same basic "action." I have always read that as hits cause wounds, that being the entire purpose of determining what hits, and which of those hits wound.

I never thought that I could then differentiate which of those "wounds" "wound" after the unit has been established as being "wounded", or if something was "hit" that it couldn't then be "wounded" by the shot that "hit" it.

There are things that cause wounds without causing hits. Under your interpretation that wouldn't be possible.
Shots have the potential to cause Hits which have the potential to cause Wounds which have the potential to cause unsaved Wounds.
Each must be separate from the other because you can have a Hit that doesn't wound at all (Markerlights) and you can have Wounds that do not result from Hits (Doom of Mal's Spirit Leech).
And because of the way allocation is done, Wounds must be separate from unsaved Wounds - because sometimes you allocate Wounds, sometimes you allocate unsaved Wounds.

There are weapons out there that cause wounds without hits?
I can think of a few Psyker abilities or terrain maybe but can't recall a single weapon that doesn't require at least some per-functional roll of a die.

I can however think of alot of things (Markerlights, Annihilation Barges) that have special rules attributed to them that modifies their function beyond that of the standard rules, that may require a "hit" in the simplest sense to become activated, or attribute wounds without a hit test being taken.

But these are special rules, with specific sets of attributes. They modify the core rules to achieve a specific result.

Wouldn't the allocation of unsaved wounds merely be an extension of the wounds mechanic, as after any saves are taken, unsaved wounds are allocated on a first come first served basis... if there is another special rule or ability that allows specific allocation of "Unsaved" wound, would that not also be a "Special" rule?