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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?

As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.

Actually I think Happy helped me notice this:

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
In these cases, 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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.

The last two sentences:
1. we work out the hits under the template.
2. roll to wound (as normal)
3. save (you must allocate to the closest model and save according to intervening terrain) as normal.
You're with me so far I believe.
(sentence 2)
4. UNSAVED wounds are allocated on the unit. This was strange to me, because you don't allocate unsaved wounds. But wait, you do. You allocate an unsaved wound to the model that failed the save. We're not used to "allocating" a wound from a failed save, but we do - normally to the same model that failed the save.
So there's the missing link. You have now put an unsaved wound on a model. If it's a 1 wound model remove the model "as normal".

Are we done here?

No, we aren't. You've allocated a wound to a model you can't see. Please show permission to ignore the rule that says if you don't have line of sight, the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over.
Scattering allows you to do what you can already do - hit and wound units out of LoS.
You then allocate as normal for a shooting attack. What's normal for a shooting attack?

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

OUT OF RANGE
BRB p. 16
As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

There you go. You're considered in range when getting hit. And if youre in range when hit, you're considered in range for the duration.

Done yet?

Yes, as you still cannot show permission to WOUND models out of LOS.

This has nothing to do with range.

Indeed. It's stupid but clear.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:
This is REALLY an 18 page topic!? Wow. So, the argument is: even though blast templates can wound units out of range and LOS (BRB P.33), said units would not actually take wounds from the blast. Really? So, why specify that the unit can be wounded, then? As far as the FAQ, I'd be willing to bet that the NOT in "Does not Scatter" was not supposed to be there, same as the I1 in the Tyranid Lashwhip FAQ or when they had Gliding instead of Swooping on the question about beams etc hitting Fliers and FMCs; apparently GW's proofreader took the day off when they were getting ready to post these things. In any case, I come back to how you can wound a unit and then not actually wound the unit? I believe this is one of those cases where specific (blast rule) overrides general (normal shooting wound rules).

By populating the wound pool, the unit has been wounded.
The rules say you empty the wound pool if there are no models in LoS.

Yes, you have the argument correct. Now, provide actual rules to the contrary. The B&LB rules don't override the wound allocation rules -quite explicitly actually. Hence why it says to follow the normal rules for allocation.

What you're saying here is incorrect. It does not say follow the normal rules for wound allocation. It says to allocate unsaved wounds as normal. Normally unsaved wounds are allocated to the model that failed the save. See the difference? You've allocated an unsaved wound to a model and skipped the part where you even consider LOS and the wound pool. The 1 wound model now dies and end of story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as you still cannot show permission to WOUND models out of LOS.

This has nothing to do with range.

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

This sentence directly contradicts you. Notice the permission to wound units out of LOS.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?

As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.

Actually I think Happy helped me notice this:

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
In these cases, 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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.

The last two sentences:
1. we work out the hits under the template.
2. roll to wound (as normal)
3. save (you must allocate to the closest model and save according to intervening terrain) as normal.
You're with me so far I believe.
(sentence 2)
4. UNSAVED wounds are allocated on the unit. This was strange to me, because you don't allocate unsaved wounds. But wait, you do. You allocate an unsaved wound to the model that failed the save. We're not used to "allocating" a wound from a failed save, but we do - normally to the same model that failed the save.
So there's the missing link. You have now put an unsaved wound on a model. If it's a 1 wound model remove the model "as normal".

Are we done here?

No, we aren't. You've allocated a wound to a model you can't see. Please show permission to ignore the rule that says if you don't have line of sight, the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over.
Scattering allows you to do what you can already do - hit and wound units out of LoS.
You then allocate as normal for a shooting attack. What's normal for a shooting attack?

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

OUT OF RANGE
BRB p. 16
As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

There you go. You're considered in range when getting hit. And if youre in range when hit, you're considered in range for the duration.

Done yet?

So... What does range have to do with line of sight?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:
This is REALLY an 18 page topic!? Wow. So, the argument is: even though blast templates can wound units out of range and LOS (BRB P.33), said units would not actually take wounds from the blast. Really? So, why specify that the unit can be wounded, then? As far as the FAQ, I'd be willing to bet that the NOT in "Does not Scatter" was not supposed to be there, same as the I1 in the Tyranid Lashwhip FAQ or when they had Gliding instead of Swooping on the question about beams etc hitting Fliers and FMCs; apparently GW's proofreader took the day off when they were getting ready to post these things. In any case, I come back to how you can wound a unit and then not actually wound the unit? I believe this is one of those cases where specific (blast rule) overrides general (normal shooting wound rules).

By populating the wound pool, the unit has been wounded.
The rules say you empty the wound pool if there are no models in LoS.

Yes, you have the argument correct. Now, provide actual rules to the contrary. The B&LB rules don't override the wound allocation rules -quite explicitly actually. Hence why it says to follow the normal rules for allocation.

What you're saying here is incorrect. It does not say follow the normal rules for wound allocation. It says to allocate unsaved wounds as normal. Normally unsaved wounds are allocated to the model that failed the save. See the difference? You've allocated an unsaved wound to a model and skipped the part where you even consider LOS and the wound pool. The 1 wound model now dies and end of story.

I have a mixed save unit. It is against the rules - and impossible - for me to roll saves and then allocate wounds. You're inventing a process for allocation with no rules support.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as you still cannot show permission to WOUND models out of LOS.

This has nothing to do with range.

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

This sentence directly contradicts you. Notice the permission to wound units out of LOS.

And what does range have to do with LOS? Scattering out of range doesn't stop anything from happening except targeting.

ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS

It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS

It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?

Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models. Following the normal rule you put them on the nearest models first.

Did you purposely ignore the part that says "models in close combat"? Just asking because at least that part actually breaks your misinterpretation (assuming we agree on RAI) because it specifically says "models".

Anyway, the section about blasts takes you step by step through the shot resolution. It gives permission to hit out of LoS and range, permission to allocate wounds to the unit, take saves and allocate unsaved wounds to the models. The only thing it doesn't specifically tell you to do is tell you to remove casualties which I assume you agree with having permission to remove models that have 0 remaining wounds.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS

It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?

Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models. Following the normal rule you put them on the nearest models first.

Did you purposely ignore the part that says "models in close combat"? Just asking because at least that part actually breaks your misinterpretation (assuming we agree on RAI) because it specifically says "models".

Anyway, the section about blasts takes you step by step through the shot resolution. It gives permission to hit out of LoS and range, permission to allocate wounds to the unit, take saves and allocate unsaved wounds to the models. The only thing it doesn't specifically tell you to do is tell you to remove casualties which I assume you agree with having permission to remove models that have 0 remaining wounds.

So, since you asserted that "Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models" I'm sure you have rules supporting that assertion. Could you show them to me this time? I've asked at least 3 times and havent seen them yet.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS

It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?

Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models. Following the normal rule you put them on the nearest models first.

Did you purposely ignore the part that says "models in close combat"? Just asking because at least that part actually breaks your misinterpretation (assuming we agree on RAI) because it specifically says "models".

Anyway, the section about blasts takes you step by step through the shot resolution. It gives permission to hit out of LoS and range, permission to allocate wounds to the unit, take saves and allocate unsaved wounds to the models. The only thing it doesn't specifically tell you to do is tell you to remove casualties which I assume you agree with having permission to remove models that have 0 remaining wounds.

So, since you asserted that "Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models" I'm sure you have rules supporting that assertion. Could you show them to me this time? I've asked at least 3 times and havent seen them yet.

Sorry I can't respond to your above message, the multi-quoting and huge blocks of text make it just impossible. Basically my response was that the sentence mentioning range also mentions LoS.

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

1. This says you may wound units out of range.

Allocate Wounds (mixed saves)
BRB p. 15
First, allocate wounds from the
Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.

2. We allocate these wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.

I'm not sure what you're missing here. We have our hits (under the template) and we have our wounds now applied to models.

Where do you think the chain breaks?

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS

It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?

Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.

Find a rule that says the allocating wounds to a unit is the same as allocaitng wounds to models. You have been asked for this a few times now, and fail to do so each time

Just this rule, and this one only. It is pointless you going further in any argument as it all hinges from that statement you are claiming exists, but have shown no proof for.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS

It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?

Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.

Find a rule that says the allocating wounds to a unit is the same as allocaitng wounds to models. You have been asked for this a few times now, and fail to do so each time

Just this rule, and this one only. It is pointless you going further in any argument as it all hinges from that statement you are claiming exists, but have shown no proof for.

The process, which you have been permission to do, is to wound the unit. This process involves a step allocating wounds to models. You obviously can't wound a unit without wounding a model.

What you're saying is a bit like saying you have permission to chop down a forest, but no permission to chop down any tree.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Sorry I can't respond to your above message, the multi-quoting and huge blocks of text make it just impossible.

Nice mocking me. Thanks for that. FYI I'm color blind and yellow on white is literally impossible for me to read.

Basically my response was that the sentence mentioning range also mentions LoS.

You're answering a question I didn't ask.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.

I asked for rules support for that assertion. The B&LB quote you keep providing like ivenever seen it before has nothing to do with this.

1. This says you may wound units out of range.

Who cares? You keep bringing up range like its relevant - remember, theres no restriction on range outside of targeting. Therefore the sentence allowing me to wound units out of range is giving me no extra permission than is already allowed in the rules.

2. We allocate these wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.

I'm not sure what you're missing here. We have our hits (under the template) and we have our wounds now applied to models.

Your step 2 ignores the rules for how to handle the wound pool when there is no line of sight to the unit. You haven't demonstrated permission to ignore that. Also, the mixed saves portion you're quoting ignores your previous argument - that you make saves and then allocate unsaved wounds. Mixed save units never allocate unsaved wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
What you're saying is a bit like saying you have permission to chop down a forest, but no permission to chop down any tree.

Yes. If its illegal to chop down a tree and you have permission to clear a forest, it would still be illegal to chop down a tree.
It's illegal to open carry a rifle. It's legal to hunt with a rifle. If you walk down the road with a rifle, it's still illegal, even if you are going hunting with it.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - note that you can wound the unit? That isnt the same as taking wounds out of the wound pool and allocting them to MODELS

It only directly contradicts in a world where unit == model. Is this the claim you are making?

Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.

Find a rule that says the allocating wounds to a unit is the same as allocaitng wounds to models. You have been asked for this a few times now, and fail to do so each time

Just this rule, and this one only. It is pointless you going further in any argument as it all hinges from that statement you are claiming exists, but have shown no proof for.

The process, which you have been permission to do, is to wound the unit. This process involves a step allocating wounds to models. You obviously can't wound a unit without wounding a model.

What you're saying is a bit like saying you have permission to chop down a forest, but no permission to chop down any tree.

Wounding a unit is a discrete step, before allocating wounds from the wound pool and populating the wound pool

What youre saying without actually saying it is that, no, you do not have an actual *rule* allowing you to do what you claim. Making your assertion "HIWPI", not actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Sorry I can't respond to your above message, the multi-quoting and huge blocks of text make it just impossible.

Nice mocking me. Thanks for that. FYI I'm color blind and yellow on white is literally impossible for me to read.

You keep thinking I'm mocking you, but I'm not. I clicked reply, started scanning through a multi quote that had about three pages of text fit in a little reply window, and I wanted to reply to multiple lines of yours that were separated by huge blocks of my text mixed with responses to other posts too. At this point I was searching for the bits I wanted and to cut down on some of the interference from mass text and said forget it, I'll just try to summarize

Basically my response was that the sentence mentioning range also mentions LoS.

You're answering a question I didn't ask.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.

I asked for rules support for that assertion. The B&LB quote you keep providing like ivenever seen it before has nothing to do with this.

1. This says you may wound units out of range.

Who cares? You keep bringing up range like its relevant - remember, theres no restriction on range outside of targeting. Therefore the sentence allowing me to wound units out of range is giving me no extra permission than is already allowed in the rules.

2. We allocate these wounds to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.

I'm not sure what you're missing here. We have our hits (under the template) and we have our wounds now applied to models.

Your step 2 ignores the rules for how to handle the wound pool when there is no line of sight to the unit. You haven't demonstrated permission to ignore that. Also, the mixed saves portion you're quoting ignores your previous argument - that you make saves and then allocate unsaved wounds. Mixed save units never allocate unsaved wounds.

You mean this line?
p. 16
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Yes, that is handled here:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

1. B&LB rule: You may wound the model out of line of site, and follow the normal rules
2. Normal rules: you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight. - permission to override this has been granted, see #1.

1) Is incorrect. Again, with absolutey zero rules backing, you are equating Models with Units.

You are misquoting the rule. Dont.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:


You mean this line?
p. 16
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Yes, that is handled here:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

1. B&LB rule: You may wound the model out of line of site, and follow the normal rules
2. Normal rules: you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight. - permission to override this has been granted, see #1.

It's amazing how you can quote the rule correctly and then misquote it 2 lines later.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.

I asked for rules support for that assertion. The B&LB quote you keep providing like I've never seen it before has nothing to do with this.
And your #2 is not what I'm arguing - the wound pool is emptied when there is no LoS. You're not even allowed to attempt to allocate because as soon as you get to the allocation step with no LoS the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over. You've shown nothing that overrides that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) Is incorrect. Again, with absolutey zero rules backing, you are equating Models with Units.

You are misquoting the rule. Dont.

Just to show how rediculous what you're saying is:

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

Did you miss the last part? "Models locked in combat."

Models.

Now be truthful and explain your interpretation of this RAW and don't exclude how you read permission to wound "models locked in combat"

I'm not sure what your point is there - I don't see how models and units are equated in any way with that statement. In fact, it looks like they went out of their way to say models in combat and units everywhere else.

A parenthetical statement can be removed without altering the sentence meaning.

So, again, please find a rule saying that permission to wound a unit is permission to allocate wounds from a wound pool to models out of LOS, as you have so far entirely failed this.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:


You mean this line?
p. 16
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Yes, that is handled here:
Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

1. B&LB rule: You may wound the model out of line of site, and follow the normal rules
2. Normal rules: you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight. - permission to override this has been granted, see #1.

It's amazing how you can quote the rule correctly and then misquote it 2 lines later.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Permission to allocate wounds to a unit, means just that, putting wounds on models.

I asked for rules support for that assertion. The B&LB quote you keep providing like I've never seen it before has nothing to do with this.
And your #2 is not what I'm arguing - the wound pool is emptied when there is no LoS. You're not even allowed to attempt to allocate because as soon as you get to the allocation step with no LoS the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over. You've shown nothing that overrides that.

You need to be clearer about your assertion. Are you saying that wounding models is not part of wounding a unit?

If I start reading the BRB I see a section - Roll To Wound p. 14. This might be a hint that the section describing "wounding a unit" is starting.

1 Now it starts with a whole section about how to work out hits. The B&LB section tells how to do hits, so we know to ignore this part.
2 Now we have Wound Pool which all go in a single pool since we have a single shot.
3 Allocate Wounds p.15. That word "wounds" is a hint telling you we're still in the part of the book describing "wounding a unit".
4. Next we're at Allocate Unsaved Wounds and Remove Casualties: "Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."

There you go. We started down the "shooting/hitting to wound a unit" and have shown in detail it requires you to apply a wound to a model.

Lets step back a second and just look at "Taking Savings Throws" p. 15:
"First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page l5), for each wound being resolved."

This line must be extremely confusing to you, since units don't have savings throws, models do.

If you truthfully can't tell that permission to wound a unit includes permission to allocate a wound to a model, then understanding B&LB is not going to help you.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A parenthetical statement can be removed without altering the sentence meaning.

What planet are you on?

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
You need to be clearer about your assertion. Are you saying that wounding models is not part of wounding a unit?

I'm saying that permission to wound a unit does not in and of itself grant permission to wound models in 6th edition. I've said as much throughout the thread. This isn't a new stance for me.

If I start reading the BRB I see a section - Roll To Wound p. 14. This might be a hint that the section describing "wounding a unit" is starting.

1 Now it starts with a whole section about how to work out hits. The B&LB section tells how to do hits, so we know to ignore this part.
2 Now we have Wound Pool which all go in a single pool since we have a single shot.
3 Allocate Wounds p.15. That word "wounds" is a hint telling you we're still in the part of the book describing "wounding a unit".
4. Next we're at Allocate Unsaved Wounds and Remove Casualties: "Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."

Allocating wounds and rolling to wound are separate distinct steps. One is not a subset of the other, as you seem to think they are.

This line must be extremely confusing to you, since units don't have savings throws, models do.

Wow, look! Finally something that appears to support your assertion!
Fortunately it explains that the saves are model based otherwise that would be confusing. If the save was unit based you'd have a point.

If you truthfully can't tell that permission to wound a unit includes permission to allocate a wound to a model, then understanding B&LB is not going to help you.

You're under the (mistaken) impression I don't understand B&LB. I do. I also understand that permission to do one thing does not always grant permission to do everything after that one thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A parenthetical statement can be removed without altering the sentence meaning.

What planet are you on?

Earth. Where is statement is true. If a sentence includes a parenthetical then you should be able to remove the parenthetical without effecting the meaning of the sentence. Simple English grammar.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
You need to be clearer about your assertion. Are you saying that wounding models is not part of wounding a unit?

I'm saying that permission to wound a unit does not in and of itself grant permission to wound models in 6th edition. I've said as much throughout the thread. This isn't a new stance for me.

If I start reading the BRB I see a section - Roll To Wound p. 14. This might be a hint that the section describing "wounding a unit" is starting.

1 Now it starts with a whole section about how to work out hits. The B&LB section tells how to do hits, so we know to ignore this part.
2 Now we have Wound Pool which all go in a single pool since we have a single shot.
3 Allocate Wounds p.15. That word "wounds" is a hint telling you we're still in the part of the book describing "wounding a unit".
4. Next we're at Allocate Unsaved Wounds and Remove Casualties: "Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."

Allocating wounds and rolling to wound are separate distinct steps. One is not a subset of the other, as you seem to think they are.

I am not saying these are a subset of each other. What I am saying is "Allocating wounds to models", and "allocating wounds to models" are a subset of "Wounding a unit".

This line must be extremely confusing to you, since units don't have savings throws, models do.

Wow, look! Finally something that appears to support your assertion!
Fortunately it explains that the saves are model based otherwise that would be confusing. If the save was unit based you'd have a point.

It explains it in the same way that it explains wounds are model based. You never actually wound a unit. Models become wounded and thereby you have wounded the unit. "You may wound this unit" grants you permission to wound models in the unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A parenthetical statement can be removed without altering the sentence meaning.

What planet are you on?

Earth. Where is statement is true. If a sentence includes a parenthetical then you should be able to remove the parenthetical without effecting the meaning of the sentence. Simple English grammar.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
I am not saying these are a subset of each other. What I am saying is "Allocating wounds to models", and "allocating wounds to models" are a subset of "Wounding a unit".

I don't see a "Wounding a unit" definition. Can you point out the page for me?

It explains it in the same way that it explains wounds are model based. You never actually wound a unit. Models become wounded and thereby you have wounded the unit. "You may wound this unit" grants you permission to wound models in the unit.

So you roll to wound against a model? What toughness do you use?

p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."

Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?

No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
I am not saying these are a subset of each other. What I am saying is "Allocating wounds to models", and "allocating wounds to models" are a subset of "Wounding a unit".

I don't see a "Wounding a unit" definition. Can you point out the page for me?

Certainly.
BRB p.3 Units

"A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

English has this lingual construct where an action done to an individual of a group, may be spoken of as that action being done to the group. So to speak, if I have damaged a part a car, it is correct in English to say I have damaged the car. It is also correct to say if I have harmed a model of the unit, I have harmed the unit. You may also feel free to understand that the reverse is true also. Permission to damage the car, would mean you must also have permission to damage a part of the car. Permission to wound the unit, must include permission to wound a model of that unit.

ND - except that they are not a subset of "wounding a unit", as "wounding a unit" is a step all by itself. You have no rule stating otherwise, and still continue to find no rule otherwise

Being told you cannot improve a save beyond 2+, without the parenthesis, does not mean your armour *save* can be 1+. the clue is the word "Save", that you ignored. Your example proved our point EXACTLY, and the fact you believe otherwise is amusing.

Edit: just seen your made up last post. Rules. Post actual rules that state that permisison to wound a unit is equivalent to permission to allocate an unsaved wound to a model. You have yet to do so.

You believe wounding a unitl is equivalent to allocating an unsaved wound to a model, and have provided no single rule to support this. Please provide one.

rigeld2 wrote:

p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."

Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?

No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."

Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?

No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.

"In these cases, 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). "

If I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.

Except that there is nothing stopping you from hitting or wounding your own units even if that were removed. Only targeting a unit has such a limitation.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."

Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?

No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.

"In these cases, 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). "

If I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.

Correct. And yet you still have permission to do so. Odd that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."

Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?

No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.

"In these cases, 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). "

If I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.

Correct. And yet you still have permission to do so. Odd that.

So you do have permission to wound models locked in combat that are not in LoS? So your actual interpretation of the rules gets stranger. Your scattered blast may not kill models out of LoS UNLESS they are in combat.

Seriously?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."

Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?

No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.

"In these cases, 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). "

If I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.

Except that there is nothing stopping you from hitting or wounding your own units even if that were removed. Only targeting a unit has such a limitation.

The point of contention is not hitting or wounding "units", its hitting or wounding "models".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - except that they are not a subset of "wounding a unit", as "wounding a unit" is a step all by itself. You have no rule stating otherwise, and still continue to find no rule otherwise

Being told you cannot improve a save beyond 2+, without the parenthesis, does not mean your armour *save* can be 1+. the clue is the word "Save", that you ignored. Your example proved our point EXACTLY, and the fact you believe otherwise is amusing.

Edit: just seen your made up last post. Rules. Post actual rules that state that permisison to wound a unit is equivalent to permission to allocate an unsaved wound to a model. You have yet to do so.

You believe wounding a unitl is equivalent to allocating an unsaved wound to a model, and have provided no single rule to support this. Please provide one.

Yes, the actual rule, and I'll post it again:

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
BRB. p.33
In these cases, 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).

A unit consists of models. Permission to wounding a unit as you know is permission to wound a model. And you have still not address the fact that regardless of your problem with the word "unit" the sentence explicitly mentions "models locked in combat".

That sentence says you may hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. This leaves you with a rather convoluted and ridiculous interpretation of RAW where only models in combat can be killed if they are out of LOS and a blast scatters onto them..

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p. 19 "However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."

Now I can have an amour save of 1+ right?

No. Removing the parenthetical makes the sentence "However, no save can ever be improved beyond 2+."
Is the armor save a save? Yes, therefore it cannot be better than a 2+.

"In these cases, 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). "

If I removed the part in parenthesis, what part of this sentence mentions combat? In that case the meaning has definitely changed. You may not simply ignore parts of the rules that have parenthesis. In this case it refers to permission to hit and wound MODELS locked in combat. Removing the section in parenthesis changes this sentence to not mention models and combat at all.

Correct. And yet you still have permission to do so. Odd that.

So you do have permission to wound models locked in combat that are not in LoS? So your actual interpretation of the rules gets stranger. Your scattered blast may not kill models out of LoS UNLESS they are in combat.

Seriously?

No, and that's not even what I implied.
I said you have permission to wound friendly units and units in combat even if you remove the parenthetical. Because the normal shooting rules grant that. The extra permission in B&LB is redundant.

Did you read the thread at all?