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.

Then what would be the point of saying that a template can hit units out of the LOS? If even a single model from that unit is in some form of LOS, then that 'unit' is counted as being in LOS until the visible model is dead or moves. So you could target them, buyt then, only the model visible. If you could not wound a unit outside of LOS, why does the "Special" Rule specifically state that you can hit them? It should state at the outset, "If a shot scatters out of the Line Of Sight, that shot is lost." Basically because there is no point is stating it can hit and wound if it can't.

I don't believe wounding and allocation of wounds are separate. I think it's only separate when it's convienient for people. Other wise, I would target a Character, and if the scatter takes the template off the Character, but remains over the unit he is attached too, I would say all wounds are to be dumped on him, as is the original aim, and because he is part of the unit that is hit. Sure, he wasn't hit by the template, and wasn't wounded by it, but then, ability to wound and allocation of wounds are two separate concepts. I would have to in that case revert back to my original intention, totally disregarding the template rule, but not for the "generation" of wounds - only for the purpose of "allocation" of those wounds. Because at the allocation of wounds stage, it's ok to ignore any special rules that apply to the shot.

Also, I never said that Flamers could hit out of LOS, i simply said that if you were going to ignore the special rules for Blast, you may as well ignore the "Ignore Cover" rule on Flamers, because after the shot is taken, special rules no longer have any bearing on the outcome.

Beefmiester wrote:
Then what would be the point of saying that a template can hit units out of the LOS? If even a single model from that unit is in some form of LOS, then that 'unit' is counted as being in LOS until the visible model is dead or moves. So you could target them, buyt then, only the model visible. If you could not wound a unit outside of LOS, why does the "Special" Rule specifically state that you can hit them? It should state at the outset, "If a shot scatters out of the Line Of Sight, that shot is lost." Basically because there is no point is stating it can hit and wound if it can't.

Because otherwise people would argue that the blast and those under it were out of LOS and couldnt be wounded without that redundant line.

I don't believe wounding and allocation of wounds are separate. I think it's only separate when it's convienient for people. Other wise, I would target a Character, and if the scatter takes the template off the Character, but remains over the unit he is attached too, I would say all wounds are to be dumped on him, as is the original aim, and because he is part of the unit that is hit. Sure, he wasn't hit by the template, and wasn't wounded by it, but then, ability to wound and allocation of wounds are two separate concepts. I would have to in that case revert back to my original intention, totally disregarding the template rule, but not for the "generation" of wounds - only for the purpose of "allocation" of those wounds. Because at the allocation of wounds stage, it's ok to ignore any special rules that apply to the shot.

Not sure what your saying here as that made no sense rules wise.

Also, I never said that Flamers could hit out of LOS, i simply said that if you were going to ignore the special rules for Blast, you may as well ignore the "Ignore Cover" rule on Flamers, because after the shot is taken, special rules no longer have any bearing on the outcome.

They very much do have a bearing on the outcome. The Flamers ignore cover saves.

Ok I have not bothered to read the whole thing but the from what I can see then Yes if the whole unit is out of line of sight then nothing happens. But If you get five hits and only one guy is in like of site then that guy is likely to die isn't he.

 White Ninja wrote:
Ok I have not bothered to read the whole thing but the from what I can see then Yes if the whole unit is out of line of sight then nothing happens. But If you get five hits and only one guy is in like of site then that guy is likely to die isn't he.

Pretty much.. Just dont be the guy looking around the corner

 White Ninja wrote:
Ok I have not bothered to read the whole thing but the from what I can see then Yes if the whole unit is out of line of sight then nothing happens. But If you get five hits and only one guy is in like of site then that guy is likely to die isn't he.

Yes that is the way I read it. You can hit and wound 5 models, but if only one of them is in LOS then only one can be removed. So that guy would be taking 5 armor saves.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up already, but:

Rulebook page 15 wrote:
Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties
Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit. [...]

Rulebook page 16
Out of Sight[
[...] If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

Rulebook page 33
[.. If the blast scatters ..] Hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat).

The requirements to allocate wounds on enemy models also means that even if a blast scatters onto your own troops, you cannot hurt them. This would apply for *any* shooting attack that hits your own troops (Chaos dreads? and others?)

I know this has been covered, but it also means that the various non-LOS weapons in the game (Hive Guard, Smart Missiles/Seeker Missiles) can not use their non-LOS rules.


This reading of the rules is nonsensical. The clearly stated RAW is that it can hit and wound units out of LOS (read 'entire units completely out of LOS'), and even your own models. What would be the point of writing this sentence at all, if it had no use?
Now you'll come back and say 'it doesn't matter that the rule has no use.' To which I counter: if you're going for a strict, RAW conclusion, it is fallacious to discard entire passages of the rules. There are rules written in the BRB and they would not be written there if they had no purpose. Any reading of the rules which requires you to ignore or claim irrelevant other specifically relevant passages, and reading of the rules which renders other special rules of no use, is an incorrect reading.

No, it's not incorrect. It's just obvious what the intent is.

Do you agree that this reading of the rules means that you can never hurt friendly models with shooting?

You can hurt your own models.

How? The rulebook on page 15 says you can only allocate wounds to enemy models.


(I'm being facetious here in an attempt to point out that this fallacious reading of the rules leads to nonsensical situations)

Trasvi wrote:
Do you agree that this reading of the rules means that you can never hurt friendly models with shooting?

Don't phrase it like that - it's not "this reading" of the rules.
To read it otherwise is to insert intent. The intent of the rule is absolutely obvious.
Wounding a unit and allocating wounds are two completely different steps. Blasts have permission to do the former, but the latter gets tripped when the unit is out of LOS.

Yes, this means that you cannot wound your own models - but you can hit them just fine.

rigeld2 wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Do you agree that this reading of the rules means that you can never hurt friendly models with shooting?

Don't phrase it like that - it's not "this reading" of the rules.
To read it otherwise is to insert intent. The intent of the rule is absolutely obvious. (
Wounding a unit and allocating wounds are two completely different steps. Blasts have permission to do the former, but the latter gets tripped when the unit is out of LOS.

Yes, this means that you cannot wound your own models - but you can hit them just fine.

The reason many try to stay away from arguments of intent on this forum is that intent is often unclear even in the best of situations, and can be used to spin interpretations . If intent is blindingly clear (as you agree it is in this case), then intent can certainly be used to guide the interpretation.
In this example, the intent is blindingly clear that blasts can damage your own units if they scatter, in disregard of the normal shooting rules that you can't hurt friendly models. Similarly with units out of line of sight.

I also don't understand why you insist 'wounding a unit' and 'allocating wounds' are two completely different steps. It seems to me that the latter is a part of the former. At least, I can't see anywhere in the normal rules for shooting where 'wounding a unit' is ever defined, so it doesn't make sense that you can assert that they are 'completely different'.

Trasvi wrote:
At least, I can't see anywhere in the normal rules for shooting where 'wounding a unit' is ever defined, so it doesn't make sense that you can assert that they are 'completely different'.

Populating the wound pool and allocating wounds from the wound pool are different steps entirely. The former is by definition rolled against the unit as a whole, the latter is allocated and rolled against individual models.
If you've rolled to populate the wound pool, you've wounded the unit.
Allocating wounds isn't wounding the unit, it's wounding models.

And yes, the RAI is blindingly obvious and how I play. That doesn't change the words that are actually written - you know, the definition of RAW?

I asked for the difference between 'wounding a unit' and 'allocating wounds'. You provided 'populating the wound pool'.
There is no step in the shooting phase called 'Wounding a unit'. You have inferred that 'wounding a unit' = 'populate the wound pool', but this is never, you know, written.

Can you provide an example that makes any kind of sense where 'wounding a unit' is not dependant upon subsequent allocation of wounds?

My argument is:
1) There is no sensible difference between being able to wound a unit and being able to allocate wounds to models within that unit.
2) There are a number of rules and occurrences which give explicit exceptions to the normal shooting procedure (ie, 'may hit and wound a friendly unit')
3) These exceptions make no sense if you assume that 'wound a unit' does not include wound allocation
4) These exceptions would have no point if they would inherently fail upon wound allocation
5) (optional) These exceptions exist, therefore they have a purpose
6) These exceptions do make sense if 'wound a unit' includes wound allocation
7) There is no reason to believe 'wound a unit' does not include wound allocation, re point 1.
8) Thus, the interpretation of the rules that is most congruent with other rules, precedent and intent, and not in any way against the written rules, is that 'wound a [x] unit' does include wound allocation. Furthermore, the ability to 'hit and wound a [exceptional] unit' extends the exceptions to every point where there would otherwise be conflict with the normal rules.

Finally.

Trasvi wrote:
I asked for the difference between 'wounding a unit' and 'allocating wounds'. You provided 'populating the wound pool'.
There is no step in the shooting phase called 'Wounding a unit'. You have inferred that 'wounding a unit' = 'populate the wound pool', but this is never, you know, written.

Page 14 BRB wrote:To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart.

Do you target units or models?

Page 14 BRB wrote:Quite rarely, a unit will contain models with differing Toughness characteristics. When this occurs, roll To Wound using the Toughness characteristic that is in the majority in the target unit.

This proves that you are rolling to wound the unit, hence wounding the unit. At no time during the "Roll to Wound" step are you wounding models.

Also reference the fact (not my opinion or inference) that "Rolling to Wound" is a separate and distinct section from "Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties".

4) These exceptions would have no point if they would inherently fail upon wound allocation

Yes, they demonstrate intent very well.

5) (optional) These exceptions exist, therefore they have a purpose

You act like GW hasn't written rules that have no purpose in the past. Reference the Blood Angel IC/Black Rage question in the FAQ.

8) Thus, the interpretation of the rules that is most congruent with other rules, precedent and intent, and not in any way against the written rules, is that 'wound a [x] unit' does include wound allocation.

You haven't proven the bolded section. I've cited why "Roll to Wound" is unit based and a separate, distinct section from Allocating wounds. You have to prove that Allocating wounds is also unit based.

That just made my head hurt

Trasvi wrote:
I asked for the difference between 'wounding a unit' and 'allocating wounds'. You provided 'populating the wound pool'.
There is no step in the shooting phase called 'Wounding a unit'. You have inferred that 'wounding a unit' = 'populate the wound pool', but this is never, you know, written.

Can you provide an example that makes any kind of sense where 'wounding a unit' is not dependant upon subsequent allocation of wounds

The summary on page 12. There are 5 distinct steps. Note #4 and #5 are your answer.

If you break it down, right at the beginning, It's says in order to "Hit" a unit, you must target a unit, and in order to do so, you must have LOS.
But then a special rule for a particular weapon gives the opportunity to "Hit" a unit that is not in LOS.
From the moment that weapon is fired, there is a possibility of certain rules being suspended.

And then, halfway through, the special rule becomes void?

What about the provision for extending the range? When it comes time to allocate wounds, are they made void by exceeding that weapons maximum range? If it does not fit the weapon profile that shot is voided. While it satisfies other parts of the hit/wound mechanic it fails the range limit.

What if it lands over half friendly units and half enemy units? Does the blast stop being a blast for some of those units while damaging others? You can't wound friendlies, or shoot into combat. While all provisions in this section are satisfied, others are failed. So even though it's in range and in LOS, that shot also does no damage? Or does it damage some but not others? Do the damaged models get a cover save from the undamaged ones?

Do grenades suddenly become selective in where they spray their shrapnel? Do explosives stop being volatile in the presence of friendly troops? Does plasma lose it's potency if you stop looking at it?

Never once did I read the "as normal" in the blast weapon resolution and think that meant to disregard everything else said in the passage. I read that, given that it was in the blast weapon passage - treat the shot as you would normally, taking into account the modifiers attributed to this weapon, as just described.

Sure, it mentions LOS again, but that was rendered obsolete earlier by the modified rule-set applied to this weapons profile, which allowed the shooting phase to move to this stage of the resolution.

Beefmiester wrote:
If it does not fit the weapon profile that shot is voided.

False. Please quote actual rules.
The rules say that the only restriction on range is targeting.

The shot is void. How could it not be?
It could not be considered a legal shot because the unit hit could not have been targeted in accordance to the rules. The rules state state you can't target a unit beyond the maximum range.

But if that is lifted by a special rule, in this case the Scatter of a Blast template, then it's accepted.

Beefmiester wrote:
The shot is void. How could it not be?
It could not be considered a legal shot because the unit hit could not have been targeted in accordance to the rules. The rules state state you can't target a unit beyond the maximum range.

Hitting and targeting are two different things.
Once you declare your target and roll scatter dice there's no restriction on range. Please cite a rule.

I can't help but feel that this has all been said before...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I can't help but feel that this has all been said before...

Oh, it has. People just don't feel like reading the 17 page thread evidently.
Whatever.

Hitting and targeting are two separate things?

That statement makes my cancer hurt.

The ONLY time targeting and hitting are separate is when a template or Special rule of similar mechanics can be applied. In all other cases, you can't do one without the other.

And also, threads like this will always run out of control. People will always look to find one word, or a sentence, or maybe a quirk of grammar or syntax that will give them an advantage, or prevent another from gaining an advantage, and no matter how eloquently or blunt the case presented, there will always be another way to interpret the wording to suit.

Beefmiester wrote:
Hitting and targeting are two separate things?

Yes. Targeting has some restrictions on it, one of them being that the target must be in range.
Hitting does not.
Wounding doesn't have a range restriction on it either - explicitly in fact.

And also, threads like this will always run out of control. People will always look to find one word, or a sentence, or maybe a quirk of grammar or syntax that will give them an advantage, or prevent another from gaining an advantage, and no matter how eloquently or blunt the case presented, there will always be another way to interpret the wording to suit.

It's rather insulting to insinuate a bias or trying to gain an advantage when I've said explicitly I don't play this way multiple times. I'd like an apology please.

Woah now. You'd like an apology for what?

I know dozen of people that play this way and rule lawyer everyone else into submission. That's how people are. Everybody is out to climb the ladder, and in being competitive they take some rules too literally, and others too laterally - whichever benefit them more. I HAVE DONE IT, and can't make promises that I won't do it again. But then I've let some things slide that I thought was questionable, but well argued. That's way this forum exists. That's the purpose of an intelligent discourse and dissection of game mechanics.

Saying that people will always seek to turn an advantage by exploiting little loopholes - whether they are black and white written, or an interpretation of the rule - coaches in such broad generalisations that feeling you have been wronged by such a statement seems a little... off.

Stating that a topic will continue to generate responses due to the myriad of different ways of approaching certain words, meanings or interpretations is a realisation of a sad fact, not an insult, and I can't see how it could be construed as one.

I especially resent the insinuation that people haven't read the 17 pages of responses ("Whatever") when they have, but still haven't been satisfied by the arguments presented, and want a chance to state their case. I do understand however, that for people who have polarized into certain views will continue to press the issue long after it should be dead and gone - just as others will defend it when it's dis-proven or discredited. But, as always, I could not begrudge them the opportunity to express their thoughts and share their interpretation of any rules.

Beefmiester wrote:
Woah now. You'd like an apology for what?

The insinuation that the only reason I'm holding this stance is because it gives me some advantage. I don't care about an advantage or lack thereof. I care about actual rules.

I know dozen of people that play this way and rule lawyer everyone else into submission. That's how people are. Everybody is out to climb the ladder, and in being competitive they take some rules too literally, and others too laterally - whichever benefit them more.

And accusing others of inserting this bias without evidence is insulting. I do my absolute best to remove all bias when I process rules.

That's way this forum exists. That's the purpose of an intelligent discourse and dissection of game mechanics.

Right - without bias.

Saying that people will always seek to turn an advantage by exploiting little loopholes - whether they are black and white written, or an interpretation of the rule - coaches in such broad generalisations that feeling you have been wronged by such a statement seems a little... off.

Anyone who plays Grey Knights is a jerk.
See how broad statements don't always apply to everyone and can be insulting?
I do my absolute best to remove bias when I look at rules and when I post about them - which is why I come off as dry.
It absolutely is insulting when, without evidence, it's implied that anyone posting that doesn't share your viewpoint is trying to exploit something.

I especially resent the insinuation that people haven't read the 17 pages of responses ("Whatever") when they have, but still haven't been satisfied by the arguments presented, and want a chance to state their case. I do understand however, that for people who have polarized into certain views will continue to press the issue long after it should be dead and gone - just as others will defend it when it's dis-proven or discredited. But, as always, I could not begrudge them the opportunity to express their thoughts and share their interpretation of any rules.

You brought up things that were *literally* covered - word for word - in the thread.
The right way to have discourse is to address the last time that argument was covered.
The way to make it seem like you haven't read the thread is to repeat the argument - basically word for word - without acknowledging that it's been said before.

I said that these things will always barrel on due to the way that people will always interpret a rule that another will disagree with, and so there will always be a yearning need to quantify one's stance. I sated this was a byproduct of human competitiveness. Whether this is because they have a lack of understanding, or know the rules enough to try and bend them to their advantage, the point of the game is to win, and people will side with whatever suits them most. I never said "Rigeld, it's obvious by the way you are arguing that you use this turn of phrase to your advantage while playing," or "Everyone that is on X side of this argument are misinformed, loutish prigs that are wrong, just plain wrong," as that would be insulting.

I offered up an explanation to Malus as to why a thread would continue for 17 pages.

And as I tried to make painfully obvious, the explanations offered over the course of this whole discussion do not satisfactorily end the argument, to my mind.

Beefmiester wrote:
And as I tried to make painfully obvious, the explanations offered over the course of this whole discussion do not satisfactorily end the argument, to my mind.

So argue against them. Literally repeating what's been said and argued against gains nothing - it just makes you look like you didn't read the thread.