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:

 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?

Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range. I am really seeing why this sentence has you so confused.

Breaking it down for you:
In these cases, hits are worked out as normal
In these cases, hits can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight.
In these cases, hits can hit and wound your own units out of range and line of sight.
In these cases, hits can hit and wound models locked in combat out of range and line of sight.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range.

No normal shooting rules do not allow you to target a unit locked in combat/out of sight and range.

Normal shooting does allow you to wound models out of range.

If a unit is in range of the firing model when the shot is declared then it is in range for the entire attack. Range has no bearing on wounding, only on targeting.

Normal shooting doesn't allow you to target units or models locked in combat. There is no restriction on hitting or wounding them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Normal shooting does allow you to wound models out of range.

If a unit is in range of the firing model when the shot is declared then it is in range for the entire attack. Range has no bearing on wounding, only on targeting.

Normal shooting doesn't allow you to target units or models locked in combat. There is no restriction on hitting or wounding them.

Good point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range.

No normal shooting rules do not allow you to target a unit locked in combat/out of sight and range.

True enough, but the main point is 'hitting a model in combat out of range and LoS' which I think this sentence explicitly allows.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range. I am really seeing why this sentence has you so confused.

No, seriously, I'm not confused.
You can hit and wound units out of range.
You can hit and wound units out of LoS.
You can hit and wound units in combat.
The B&LB rules don't alter any of that. You could completely ignore the sentence you keep insisting is important and it wouldn't change those 3 facts.

You have not shown permission to allocate wounds. Perhaps it's not me that's confused?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
True enough, but the main point is 'hitting a model in combat out of range and LoS' which I think this sentence explicitly allows.

So you agree that you can remove a parenthetical and not change the meaning of a sentence?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
Normal shooting rules do not allow you to hit and wound models that are locked in combat and out of LoS and range. I am really seeing why this sentence has you so confused.

No, seriously, I'm not confused.
You can hit and wound units out of range.
You can hit and wound units out of LoS.
You can hit and wound units in combat.
The B&LB rules don't alter any of that. You could completely ignore the sentence you keep insisting is important and it wouldn't change those 3 facts.

You have not shown permission to allocate wounds. Perhaps it's not me that's confused?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
True enough, but the main point is 'hitting a model in combat out of range and LoS' which I think this sentence explicitly allows.

So you agree that you can remove a parenthetical and not change the meaning of a sentence?

No. You missed this:

In these cases, hits can hit and wound models locked in combat out of range and line of sight.


Back to permission to allocate a wounds to a model:

An right, well allocating wounds is a step in wounding a model. Wounding a model is necessary to wound a unit.
You cannot wound a unit without wounding a model. You cannot wound a model without allocating a wound to a model.

Therefore permission to wound a unit is permission to allocate a wound to a model following the normal rules for allocating wounds.

Lucky shot

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
An right, well allocating wounds is a step in wounding a model. Wounding a model is necessary to wound a unit.
You cannot wound a unit without wounding a model. You cannot wound a model without allocating a wound to a model.

Therefore permission to wound a unit is permission to allocate a wound to a model following the normal rules for allocating wounds.

Please prove the bolded assertion.

All of what you're saying has been said in this thread. Some of it in your exact phrasing.
Serious question - have you read all 19 pages?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
An right, well allocating wounds is a step in wounding a model. Wounding a model is necessary to wound a unit.
You cannot wound a unit without wounding a model. You cannot wound a model without allocating a wound to a model.

Therefore permission to wound a unit is permission to allocate a wound to a model following the normal rules for allocating wounds.

Please prove the bolded assertion.

All of what you're saying has been said in this thread. Some of it in your exact phrasing.
Serious question - have you read all 19 pages?

Yes, definitely, but not today and I have not memorized them nor do I plan to.

I hope it clarifies my points I have numbered them as they relate to the chain of events.

My bold assertion proven:
Firstly any correct interpretation of RAW must have a possible result. An elaborate sequence of steps regarding a major game mechanic like B&LB that has no possible result is ridiculous. Any conclusion that involves a 100% failure rate will be discarded.

1. Are we talking about a shot partially out of LoS or fully out of Los?
"Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight."
If the shot scatters "beyond LoS" this rule is regarding shots completely out of LoS. "absolutely fine" means unit "beyond LoS" can be killed.

We have permission to "wound a unit." But do we have permission to allocate wounds to models out of LoS? Lets look at how the rule tells us to proceed.

A. determine hits
We agree on this.
B. roll to wound as normal
We agree on this.
C. 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."
2. A unit that is completely out of LoS can NEVER be the "target unit". So this rule does not even apply in this case.
D. roll to save as normal
Normally you allocate a wound to roll saves. You already accept that you must allocate wounds at this stage or the game breaks and you can't play B&LB AT ALL.
3. So you already accept an implied "allocate wounds" step for B&LB in LoS.
It is inconsistent to require an explicit "allocate wounds" step for B&LB out of LoS.
E. Allocate unsaved wounds.
"Allocate" implies a choice, but in no way have you ever been given a choice to apply a wound to any model but the exact model that failed it's save.

4. We can say we wounded the unit at (B) and at (E). To say (B) satisfies wounding the unit out of LoS and range it means we identify hits, (allocate), roll saves and allocate unsaved wounds against a unit that is invulnerable to the shot and thus is a ridiculous conclusion. That leaves permission to wound a unit must mean permission for steps (A) through (D) to actually have a chance at wounding a model.

So I just noticed something in the Out of Sight rule on page 16 (thanks Dave fro bringing this to my attention).

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.

In other words, if a blast scatters into a different unit that is completely out of sight, all the wounds generated go to the target unit. Oops?

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
My bold assertion proven:
Firstly any correct interpretation of RAW must have a possible result. An elaborate sequence of steps regarding a major game mechanic like B&LB that has no possible result is ridiculous. Any conclusion that involves a 100% failure rate will be discarded.

So you're going with intent then? Awesome. We agree.

Normally you allocate a wound to roll saves. You already accept that you must allocate wounds at this stage or the game breaks and you can't play B&LB AT ALL.

When did I accept that? Because I don't think I have, and I don't agree with that.

4. We can say we wounded the unit at (B) and at (E). To say (B) satisfies wounding the unit out of LoS and range it means we identify hits, (allocate), roll saves and allocate unsaved wounds against a unit that is invulnerable to the shot and thus is a ridiculous conclusion. That leaves permission to wound a unit must mean permission for steps (A) through (D) to actually have a chance at wounding a model.

Yes, if you insert intent into how the rules read we absolutely agree. I've said as much over the last 19 pages. You're saying the rules don't work without intent. I'm saying the rules work fine, just not like the last few editions and not the way I believe the studio wants them to.

Happyjew wrote:
So I just noticed something in the Out of Sight rule on page 16 (thanks Dave fro bringing this to my attention).

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.

In other words, if a blast scatters into a different unit that is completely out of sight, all the wounds generated go to the target unit. Oops?

Your overthinking this Happy. "If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model (in the target unit) , then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit."

The bold is what it should have said.

A : "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.

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

A : 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?

B: 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.

Actually, you NEVER have permission to 'wound' friendly units, as you can only ever allocate wounds to ENEMY MODELS under your interpretation of the rules (see pg15, first sentence under 'allocate unsaved wounds & remove models'). But, the parenthetical statement is good enough to clear up for us that we can indeed hit and wound MODELS out of LOS in close combat.
So this leads to the incredibly stupid situation where a blast can scatter out of LOS, and it it does it can hit anything, but can only wound a model if it is an enemy model locked in close combat.

I continue to support the interpretation that the process of 'wounding unit' is not just rolling to wound but also allocating wounds to models. There is no hard definition of 'wound a unit' to disprove this statement, and seeing as the rolling to wound is useless without the ability to allocate wounds, it is a logical conclusion that the nebulous wound a unit' part is a conglomeration of both rolling and allocating.

Trasvi wrote:
Actually, you NEVER have permission to 'wound' friendly units, as you can only ever allocate wounds to ENEMY MODELS under your interpretation of the rules (see pg15, first sentence under 'allocate unsaved wounds & remove models'). But, the parenthetical statement is good enough to clear up for us that we can indeed hit and wound MODELS out of LOS in close combat.

I don't have by book with me right now, so I'll give you that one. Context may prove you wrong though.

So this leads to the incredibly stupid situation where a blast can scatter out of LOS, and it it does it can hit anything, but can only wound a model if it is an enemy model locked in close combat.

Yes, sometimes the actual rules result in stupid situations. That doesn't mean the rules are wrong.

I continue to support the interpretation that the process of 'wounding unit' is not just rolling to wound but also allocating wounds to models. There is no hard definition of 'wound a unit' to disprove this statement, and seeing as the rolling to wound is useless without the ability to allocate wounds, it is a logical conclusion that the nebulous wound a unit' part is a conglomeration of both rolling and allocating.

Yes, intent is clear. It's also irrelevant.

Ok, to the argument that "Unit =/= Models" - From the BRB 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 - does this mean that the models can't make saves since the unit has to? No, this means that the model(s) in the unit make their saves.... Cripes, this is why the Magic:The Gathering rules read like a legal document. The blast rules state that you can wound a unit that you can't see; why, in the name of all that is holy, do you think they would add this to the rules if you can't functionally wound the unit?

I'm trying to picture this: "What was that?!" "Sarge, some kind of missile just blew up right in the middle of the squad - don't worry though, none of us could see where it came from, so it was harmless"

 Battlesong wrote:
Ok, to the argument that "Unit =/= Models" - From the BRB 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 - does this mean that the models can't make saves since the unit has to? No, this means that the model(s) in the unit make their saves.... Cripes, this is why the Magic:The Gathering rules read like a legal document. The blast rules state that you can wound a unit that you can't see; why, in the name of all that is holy, do you think they would add this to the rules if you can't functionally wound the unit?

Man I've got this feeling of deja vu...
Are you saying that GW has never, ever, put a rule out there that had no effect?
Yes, I agree with you about what the intent is. That doesn't change the black and white.

rigeld2 wrote:

I continue to support the interpretation that the process of 'wounding unit' is not just rolling to wound but also allocating wounds to models. There is no hard definition of 'wound a unit' to disprove this statement, and seeing as the rolling to wound is useless without the ability to allocate wounds, it is a logical conclusion that the nebulous wound a unit' part is a conglomeration of both rolling and allocating.

Yes, intent is clear. It's also irrelevant.

The reason people don't argue intent is because it is most often inferred from ideas or from the rules description rather than their mechanics. Here, there is no inference. It is clearly written as part of the rule mechanics.

However, I'm not arguing intent.

The overriding statement is that 'you can hit and wound units out of LOS'. Seeing as there is no rule telling you how to 'wound units', I interpret this as "you can hit and [roll to wound and allocate wounds to models within] units out of LOS". This gives you an overriding directive to ignore any and all references to being within range and LOS for the remainder of the resolution of the shot. That is how I see the rules as they are written.

You present an opposing but equally legitimate reading. However, your reading creates some really stupid situations, and mine does not.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
My bold assertion proven:
Firstly any correct interpretation of RAW must have a possible result. An elaborate sequence of steps regarding a major game mechanic like B&LB that has no possible result is ridiculous. Any conclusion that involves a 100% failure rate will be discarded.

So you're going with intent then? Awesome. We agree.

Glad we can agree in RAI, but my focus is only RAW. I put this out there as an Occams razor of sorts, where we can distinguish between two RAW interpretations.

Normally you allocate a wound to roll saves. You already accept that you must allocate wounds at this stage or the game breaks and you can't play B&LB AT ALL.

When did I accept that? Because I don't think I have, and I don't agree with that.

If you would, please show me where in the rules for B&LB it tells you that you may allocate wounds.
"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll to wound and save as normal."
If it's not there, you must accept that you are already 'allocate wounds' at this point or the B&LB rules are unplayable by your RAW understanding.
You can't claim to be following the black and white while treating the exact same paragraph differently for units in LoS and out of Los.

4. We can say we wounded the unit at (B) and at (E). To say (B) satisfies wounding the unit out of LoS and range it means we identify hits, (allocate), roll saves and allocate unsaved wounds against a unit that is invulnerable to the shot and thus is a ridiculous conclusion. That leaves permission to wound a unit must mean permission for steps (A) through (D) to actually have a chance at wounding a model.

Yes, if you insert intent into how the rules read we absolutely agree. I've said as much over the last 19 pages. You're saying the rules don't work without intent. I'm saying the rules work fine, just not like the last few editions and not the way I believe the studio wants them to.

The rules do not work fine the way you're saying. Show me where in your strict RAW interpretation you're allowed to discard these wounds. Remember Out of Sight only refers to the "target unit". Since this example unit is completely out of LoS it will never be the target unit.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm saying the rules work fine, just not like the last few editions and not the way I believe the studio wants them to.

The rules do not work fine the way you're saying. Show me where in your strict RAW interpretation you're allowed to discard these wounds. Remember Out of Sight only refers to the "target unit". Since this example unit is completely out of LoS it will never be the target unit.

Actually, you get to allocate it to the nearest model in the target unit.
So, lets say we fire a blast weapon at a single model unit, but it scatters onto a guardsmen blob out of LOS and scores 15 hits. Can't allocate wounds onto the guardsmen, as they are out of LOS. So allocate the remaining 15 wounds on the original model..
....

Trasvi wrote:
. Seeing as there is no rule telling you how to 'wound units', I interpret this as "you can hit and [roll to wound and allocate wounds to models within] units out of LOS". This gives you an overriding directive to ignore any and all references to being within range and LOS for the remainder of the resolution of the shot. That is how I see the rules as they are written.

You present an opposing but equally legitimate reading. However, your reading creates some really stupid situations, and mine does not.

The rule quite clearly tells you how to wound units. Read the shooting sequence on pg 12. Wounding a unit is step 4. Then flip to pg14 for the full version. It tells you how to populate the wound pool. Then you go to Step 5. Allocating the wounds. Note you already "wounded" the unit. Here is where you empty the pool because there is no model in LOS. pg 16.

Fragile wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
. Seeing as there is no rule telling you how to 'wound units', I interpret this as "you can hit and [roll to wound and allocate wounds to models within] units out of LOS". This gives you an overriding directive to ignore any and all references to being within range and LOS for the remainder of the resolution of the shot. That is how I see the rules as they are written.

You present an opposing but equally legitimate reading. However, your reading creates some really stupid situations, and mine does not.

The rule quite clearly tells you how to wound units. Read the shooting sequence on pg 12. Wounding a unit is step 4. Then flip to pg14 for the full version. It tells you how to populate the wound pool. Then you go to Step 5. Allocating the wounds. Note you already "wounded" the unit. Here is where you empty the pool because there is no model in LOS. pg 16.

You only empty the wound pool if there are no visible models in the TARGET UNIT. We're now talking about a different unit that the marker has scattered on. Please show where you have permission to empty the wound pool for a unit that is NOT the "target unit".

If you're going to claim there's a crack in the rules that allows ridiculous scenarios (like Nyaah, can't see me so your bomb can't ricochet on me), make sure you're not being loose with the rest of your interpretation.

Rules for hitting and wounding a MODEL are in the rules, even if out of range and LOS.

1) Unit: Pg 3, 2nd column, under "Forming a Unit" '.... a single powerful model ... is also considered to be a unit in its own right.'
A single model can be a unit.
2) B&LB: Pg 33... Been quoted repeatedly.
If a single model is a unit and a unit of a single model is hit by a blast or lg blast, you roll to wound, roll to save.
3) B&LB: Pg 33, 3rd column, "wounds are then allocated on the unit...."
If there is only a single model in the unit and the unit is hit and wounded and fails it's save, the wounds must then be allocated to that model. Once the wound is rolled for that wound is, by default, placed on the single model unit.

The point of contention arises here.... wounds cannot be allocated to models that cannot be seen, but can be allocated to the unit..... which in this case is a single model.
This creates a catch22 style logic loop.
So is the single model unit wounded or not?

The rules say both.

Fragile wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
So I just noticed something in the Out of Sight rule on page 16 (thanks Dave fro bringing this to my attention).

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.

In other words, if a blast scatters into a different unit that is completely out of sight, all the wounds generated go to the target unit. Oops?

Your overthinking this Happy. "If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model (in the target unit) , then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit."

The bold is what it should have said.

It is what it should say but unfortunately it does not. From a strict RAW reading, you can scatter 11" into a unit you cannot see a single model of and the target unit is the one allocated the wounds.

Assuming your jumping context then yes Happy. But by context.. no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
You only empty the wound pool if there are no visible models in the TARGET UNIT. We're now talking about a different unit that the marker has scattered on. Please show where you have permission to empty the wound pool for a unit that is NOT the "target unit".

If you're going to claim there's a crack in the rules that allows ridiculous scenarios (like Nyaah, can't see me so your bomb can't ricochet on me), make sure you're not being loose with the rest of your interpretation.

Read the B&LB. 4th-6th paragraphs spell it out for you.

Fragile wrote:
Assuming your jumping context then yes Happy. But by context.. no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
You only empty the wound pool if there are no visible models in the TARGET UNIT. We're now talking about a different unit that the marker has scattered on. Please show where you have permission to empty the wound pool for a unit that is NOT the "target unit".

If you're going to claim there's a crack in the rules that allows ridiculous scenarios (like Nyaah, can't see me so your bomb can't ricochet on me), make sure you're not being loose with the rest of your interpretation.

Read the B&LB. 4th-6th paragraphs spell it out for you.

We are not discussing the target unit. We're discussing another unit that the blast scattered on to. Re-read it yourself. Out of Sight only applies to the target unit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
So I just noticed something in the Out of Sight rule on page 16 (thanks Dave fro bringing this to my attention).

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.

In other words, if a blast scatters into a different unit that is completely out of sight, all the wounds generated go to the target unit. Oops?

Your overthinking this Happy. "If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model (in the target unit) , then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit."

The bold is what it should have said.

It is what it should say but unfortunately it does not. From a strict RAW reading, you can scatter 11" into a unit you cannot see a single model of and the target unit is the one allocated the wounds.

Actually from a strict RAW reading, in context the subject is the Target Unit. It's re-stated in the end, but it's quite alright for the rule not to say " from the target unit" every single time it mentions a model. At least this is how I understand that sentence. In any case in no way, contextually or otherwise does it mention a unit that is not the 'target unit'.

Your deliberately ignoring the context of "hits are worked out as normal'.... "roll saves as normal"..... "allocate wounds as normal."

I just thought of the other issues that arise from this: Astral Aim and Impaler Cannons (or anything that doesn't require LOS, but these were the only 2 that I could think of atm). So, following the logic here, these abilities also cannot wound any model that they use their specific rules to shoot at, because while you can TARGET a unit not in LOS, there is no way to allocate wounds to the unit that you shot at.

Here's illogical reasoning part 2. If I fire a Vindicator at a unit, but say scatter 9" behind a building on top of a Chimera and some IG, I can certainly damage the Chimera (because you don't wound vehicles) but those guardsmen are a-ok

 Battlesong wrote:
I just thought of the other issues that arise from this: Astral Aim and Impaler Cannons (or anything that doesn't require LOS, but these were the only 2 that I could think of atm). So, following the logic here, these abilities also cannot wound any model that they use their specific rules to shoot at, because while you can TARGET a unit not in LOS, there is no way to allocate wounds to the unit that you shot at.

Absolutely correct. And if you'll read the thread I was one of the first to bring that up.

Here's illogical reasoning part 2. If I fire a Vindicator at a unit, but say scatter 9" behind a building on top of a Chimera and some IG, I can certainly damage the Chimera (because you don't wound vehicles) but those guardsmen are a-ok

Wrong. Wounds and penetrating/glancing hits are equivilant.

You can make an argument for weapons that state they ignore LOS to wound, but there are other threads on that.

Here's illogical reasoning part 2. If I fire a Vindicator at a unit, but say scatter 9" behind a building on top of a Chimera and some IG, I can certainly damage the Chimera (because you don't wound vehicles) but those guardsmen are a-ok

Well if someone fired an RPG at me, I would certainly dive behind a tank for cover

rigeld2 wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:
I just thought of the other issues that arise from this: Astral Aim and Impaler Cannons (or anything that doesn't require LOS, but these were the only 2 that I could think of atm). So, following the logic here, these abilities also cannot wound any model that they use their specific rules to shoot at, because while you can TARGET a unit not in LOS, there is no way to allocate wounds to the unit that you shot at.

Absolutely correct. And if you'll read the thread I was one of the first to bring that up.

Here's illogical reasoning part 2. If I fire a Vindicator at a unit, but say scatter 9" behind a building on top of a Chimera and some IG, I can certainly damage the Chimera (because you don't wound vehicles) but those guardsmen are a-ok

Wrong. Wounds and penetrating/glancing hits are equivilant.

So B&LB that don't require LOS are definitely screwed by the RAW. Those wounds are plainly discarded at the Out of Sight step. It's a shame really, like they blindly just said - ok do it like normal shooting. This needs an errata.

I have shown that the normal B&LB shot that hits it's target also has no permission to allocate wounds to models - feel free to point out something I've missed. If you require an explicit step that tells you to 'allocate wounds to models' then the B&LB rules are broken and unplayable by RAW. If you believe it's implied for shots that hit, then it's implied for shots that scatter using the same RAW and there is no problem hitting, wounding and killing models out of LoS and range with a scattered blast according to RAW.