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.

It clearly says any unit under the blast suffers a s6 hit........its not a weapon so shots arent resolved from the direction the flyer came from so if the blast lands on a unit in cover or behind an aegis they dont take cover saves do they?

i hope not
then it was a draw

Hmm... Tricky one, there's not much to go on in the Crash and Burn rule. It doesn't say how to allocate wounds or cover.

Personally I'd treat it as a blast weapon coming from the aircraft and follow those rules for allocation and cover. Since it scatters from the aircraft (which is still in place at this point). Not really RAW, just my suggestion.

Does it say it ignores cover? Nope, ergo you get cover saves.

Makes as much sense as getting cover saves from the deff rolla.

Unless the weapon has the rule "Ignores Cover" (which can also be conferred by Templates and by a psychic power), then you get cover saves against it.

HIWPI is that it's random allocation on the unit hit but no line of sight based cover saves.

I think his question is more along the lines of where do you draw the LOS from. This might not be an issue for the likes of area terrain, but when you are hiding behind something like a wall it can greatly change what cover saves you would get. If you draw from the center of the blast, such as a barrage weapon, then a cover save is denied but if you draw it through the wall it would therefore provide a cover save.

I can't agree with the interpretation that you assign the wounds randomly and ignore the cover unless it is area terrain. If they wanted you to measure from the center of the blast they would of either stated so in the rule, or given the blast the barrage rule instead of just calling it a blast. Should they have wanted you to randomly removed models as a casualty they would of informed you do to it that way. Neither is addressed at all in the rules, and as they are not the standard method of wound allotment they can not be applied here. In order to use anything but the standard, basic rule, system of wound allotment you need written permission to do so.

Therefore a more rule as written interpretation is to measure line of sight from the unit that brought down the flyer.

The normal method to determine cover saves when it comes to scattered blast templates is to still measure from the unit that is currently in the process of resolving it's attack. Given that the aircraft is not removed from the table till after Crash and Burn is resolved, the unit which brought down the aircraft is still on step five and has yet to finish resolving said attack. That only ends after casualties are removed from the table after all. Therefore, without any other rules telling us otherwise, we have to take line of sights from them to determine cover save.

Assuming they have clear line of sight to the scattered point, that would be one nasty trick shot!

Barrage doesn't ignore cover, it is possible to still get a los based cover save using barrage.

Fair enough, as you can still get cover saves from barrage.

I brought it up because one of the options available was measuring from the center of the blast. If the group being hit where behind a wall, battlement, a baseless ruin or some other obscuring cover the line of sight would have to be drawn through the terrain for them to take a cover save. If the blast template hit in such a way that the center of the blast was on the other side of the unit, and the LOS didn't go through said terrain, they would be denied a cover save.

It was in that specific situation, clear line of sight between center of blast and the targeted unit, that I was addressing barrage as being able to ignore cover.

However, without a rule stating to measure in such a method we do not have permission to treat the template as a barrage weapon. While it does seem to be one of the more reasonable methods it has no support in Rules as Written. Therefore that option is out, unless I missed something in the Crash and Burn rules, and we need to look towards the other two obvious options to see which is more supported by Rules As Written.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Unless the weapon has the rule "Ignores Cover" (which can also be conferred by Templates and by a psychic power), then you get cover saves against it.

Yes but the thing is the crash and burn rule isn't a weapon. Don't get me wrong here folks i'm not trying to bend the rules i'm just trying play as the rules are written. As it says is "Any model under the Blastmarkers Final Position Suffers a Strength 6 ap- hit." Who is saying its a weapon? where is its saying its to be treated as a barrage weapon? wheres it saying it isn't? it just seems its unclear and im just looking for a solid answer. as at the moment i can only assume that all units under the final position of the 2d6 scattered blast sufferes s6 hit as stated on p 81.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

martainiusmaximus wrote:
i hope not
then it was a draw

Hope is for weak imperialists !!!

 Sebbyp538 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Unless the weapon has the rule "Ignores Cover" (which can also be conferred by Templates and by a psychic power), then you get cover saves against it.

Yes but the thing is the crash and burn rule isn't a weapon. Don't get me wrong here folks i'm not trying to bend the rules i'm just trying play as the rules are written. As it says is "Any model under the Blastmarkers Final Position Suffers a Strength 6 ap- hit." Who is saying its a weapon? where is its saying its to be treated as a barrage weapon? wheres it saying it isn't? it just seems its unclear and im just looking for a solid answer. as at the moment i can only assume that all units under the final position of the 2d6 scattered blast sufferes s6 hit as stated on p 81.

It doesn't have to say it's a weapon. Many wound-causing abilities have been FAQed to allow cover saves ( deff-rolla, the doom of malan'tai ability , the mawloc's deep strike blast ...) It seems that unless otherwise noted, you get your cover save.

We always play it as the shot comes from the original position of the flyer. To me, that's the only way it makes sense.

ok cheers guys i guess ill just play it as the shot comes from the original position of the flyer.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
We always play it as the shot comes from the original position of the flyer. To me, that's the only way it makes sense.

It doesn't, because that only applies to blasts that are fired from a model. Crash and Burn's blast was not fired from anywhere. Ergo, if it crashes behind an ADL, you can't claim cover as it's a directional cover save, but you can claim cover in Area Terrain.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
We always play it as the shot comes from the original position of the flyer. To me, that's the only way it makes sense.

It doesn't, because that only applies to blasts that are fired from a model. Crash and Burn's blast was not fired from anywhere. Ergo, if it crashes behind an ADL, you can't claim cover as it's a directional cover save, but you can claim cover in Area Terrain.

And how would you allocate wounds?

 grendel083 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
We always play it as the shot comes from the original position of the flyer. To me, that's the only way it makes sense.

It doesn't, because that only applies to blasts that are fired from a model. Crash and Burn's blast was not fired from anywhere. Ergo, if it crashes behind an ADL, you can't claim cover as it's a directional cover save, but you can claim cover in Area Terrain.

And how would you allocate wounds?

From the blast marker, as per indirect fire Barrage weapons.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
And how would you allocate wounds?

From the blast marker, as per indirect fire Barrage weapons.

Fair enough if you and your opponent want to treat it that way.
I suggested the Blast rules earlier because it has direction (flyer going from original position to crash position) rather than an attack from stright down.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
And how would you allocate wounds?

From the blast marker, as per indirect fire Barrage weapons.

From the centre?
So you'd treat it as a barrage attack?

Well, technically, that's where the flyer is at the time of the "attack."

 Purifier wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
And how would you allocate wounds?

From the blast marker, as per indirect fire Barrage weapons.

From the centre?
So you'd treat it as a barrage attack?

Well, technically, that's where the flyer is at the time of the "attack."

This.

Technically, HIWPI is the models that are under the template suffer the hits, since that's the explicit ruling: "Any model under the blast marker's final position suffers..." But it's a harder way to play it.

 Purifier wrote:
Well, technically, that's where the flyer is at the time of the "attack."

Well, it's coming from a direction rather than straight down...
Blast or Barrage both seem like viable house rules since the rule itself doesn't give enough to go on.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Well, technically, that's where the flyer is at the time of the "attack."

Well, it's coming from a direction rather than straight down...
Blast or Barrage both seem like viable house rules since the rule itself doesn't give enough to go on.

RAW, only the models under the template suffer the hit. It's different from a blast weapon being fired at a unit, where the unit suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template.

 Purifier wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
And how would you allocate wounds?

From the blast marker, as per indirect fire Barrage weapons.

From the centre?
So you'd treat it as a barrage attack?

Well, technically, that's where the flyer is at the time of the "attack."

No, the Flyer isn't removed until after the blast is resolved.

 Enigwolf wrote:
RAW, only the models under the template suffer the hit. It's different from a blast weapon being fired at a unit, where the unit suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template.

Very similar wording to Template weapons:
"Any models fully or partially under the template are hit"
It then goes on to say they use the standard allocation rules. Crash and Burn doesn't say what allocation method to use, so I'm more inclined to use Standard and play it safe then use Barrage allocation.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
RAW, only the models under the template suffer the hit. It's different from a blast weapon being fired at a unit, where the unit suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template.

Very similar wording to Template weapons:
"Any models fully or partially under the template are hit"
It then goes on to say they use the standard allocation rules. Crash and Burn doesn't say what allocation method to use, so I'm more inclined to use Standard and play it safe then use Barrage allocation.

Permissive ruleset. Crash and Burn doesn't say to use standard wound allocation rules, which makes sense, given that there is no firing model for standard wound allocation rules. I think the better way to state it isn't "Barrage allocation", it's merely resolving hits and wounds against each model under the blast as if they were individual units.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
RAW, only the models under the template suffer the hit. It's different from a blast weapon being fired at a unit, where the unit suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template.

Very similar wording to Template weapons:
"Any models fully or partially under the template are hit"
It then goes on to say they use the standard allocation rules. Crash and Burn doesn't say what allocation method to use, so I'm more inclined to use Standard and play it safe then use Barrage allocation.

Permissive ruleset. Crash and Burn doesn't say to use standard wound allocation rules, which makes sense, given that there is no firing model for standard wound allocation rules. I think the better way to state it isn't "Barrage allocation", it's merely resolving hits and wounds against each model under the blast as if they were individual units.

Don't get me wrong, that's a valid way of playing it.
But it isn't RAW. Neither is my sugestion to use the Blast rules.
RAW there is no method. to allocate the wounds.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
RAW, only the models under the template suffer the hit. It's different from a blast weapon being fired at a unit, where the unit suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models under the template.

Very similar wording to Template weapons:
"Any models fully or partially under the template are hit"
It then goes on to say they use the standard allocation rules. Crash and Burn doesn't say what allocation method to use, so I'm more inclined to use Standard and play it safe then use Barrage allocation.

Permissive ruleset. Crash and Burn doesn't say to use standard wound allocation rules, which makes sense, given that there is no firing model for standard wound allocation rules. I think the better way to state it isn't "Barrage allocation", it's merely resolving hits and wounds against each model under the blast as if they were individual units.

Don't get me wrong, that's a valid way of playing it.
But it isn't RAW. Neither is my sugestion to use the Blast rules.
RAW there is no method. to allocate the wounds.

I don't disagree with you. In fact, I concur. Ah well... so technically RAW, although hits are allocated, wounds cannot be allocated. Ergo, nothing can die from getting hit by Crash & Burn, RAW.

Yep. Wish they'd spent a bit more time writting that section.

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:

 Sebbyp538 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Unless the weapon has the rule "Ignores Cover" (which can also be conferred by Templates and by a psychic power), then you get cover saves against it.

Yes but the thing is the crash and burn rule isn't a weapon. Don't get me wrong here folks i'm not trying to bend the rules i'm just trying play as the rules are written. As it says is "Any model under the Blastmarkers Final Position Suffers a Strength 6 ap- hit." Who is saying its a weapon? where is its saying its to be treated as a barrage weapon? wheres it saying it isn't? it just seems its unclear and im just looking for a solid answer. as at the moment i can only assume that all units under the final position of the 2d6 scattered blast sufferes s6 hit as stated on p 81.

It doesn't have to say it's a weapon. Many wound-causing abilities have been FAQed to allow cover saves ( deff-rolla, the doom of malan'tai ability , the mawloc's deep strike blast ...) It seems that unless otherwise noted, you get your cover save.

That is how cover works.

Unless cover is specifically not allowed you can take it.