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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have been told the unit CAN be wounded, meaning a wound has permission to be allocated. If you fail to allocate a wound, you have broken the rule allowing the unit to be wounded [which has a prerequisite of allocation]

This is an unsupported leap in logic, and not part of the rules in any capacity.

If the Blast marker scatters out of LOS/range, you still work out hits and roll to wound wound, create a wound pool, etc.
You then follow the rules for allocation as normal, which is clear that models out of LOS of the firer cannot be removed. It's black and white rulebook text mate, just follow what it says without adding your own spin.

Warlord Sniksgraga's diagrams on page 1 explain it perfectly.

So, you have failed to wound (little w) the unit, as required in the rules?

You have broken a rule.

the only way you can apply the rules is that this is a more specific rule that requires the LOS requirement for the wound pool to be overridden, as it conflicts.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have been told the unit CAN be wounded, meaning a wound has permission to be allocated. If you fail to allocate a wound, you have broken the rule allowing the unit to be wounded [which has a prerequisite of allocation]

This is an unsupported leap in logic, and not part of the rules in any capacity.

If the Blast marker scatters out of LOS/range, you still work out hits and roll to wound wound, create a wound pool, etc.
You then follow the rules for allocation as normal, which is clear that models out of LOS of the firer cannot be removed. It's black and white rulebook text mate, just follow what it says without adding your own spin.

Warlord Sniksgraga's diagrams on page 1 explain it perfectly.

This is actually a sound logical argument. To say that a model can be wounded requires all conditions to be met. They must be in range and in los. The blast rules specifically say this is not required. The bottom line is that the paragraph before the one you are claiming says this is not possible would also make blasts not work as written since it says that you can't allocate wounds to models who are out of range. If you ignore that paragraph due to blast rules why can't you ignore the next paragraph since it says the same thing just about los.

roland9382 wrote:Also if i remember correctly doesnt that cause your rounds to circumvent cover?

No, it gives the target a 4+ unmodifiable cover save.

roland9382 wrote:Astral aim is a rule from your codex, as you have no blast weapons then it doesnt really apply to this argument.

It applies very much, since hits being put onto the models is not being disputed. It's only wound allocation due to LOS rules being disputed.
And the EXACT same issue comes up with my astral aim. And yes, RAW it is a skill that can only harm myself now, if you nitpick every rule and give no concessions. Wound allocation have the exact same problem as blasts scattering.. In both cases, GW are not explicitly telling us we can allocate wounds on the people being hit, which is the issue here. They are implying it. GW have obviously failed here as in so many other places in the rulebook. But the RAI is pretty obvious, and anyone pushing for the RAW and then accusing me of being the rules lawyer needs to look in the mirror.

If anyone tries to tell me astral aim can't allocate wounds, I'm packing my plastic dollies then and there. on a 4+ I won't sweep his dollies off the table with the broad sweep of an arm, claiming Catachan storm.

I honestly can't believe that you are using Astral Aim as your trump card, I looked at this rule and it does provide an unmodifiable cover save. The rule also state it trumps line of sight I.E. your bullets go over and around cover in order to hit the enemy. Codex always trumps BRB so this argument is not valid. Comon, please try a bit harder. You have a fluffy army with a fluffy rule that you are hoping makes other rules not work as they are written. Your main argument is that you should always be able to hurt everything regardless of line of sight because the book doesn't tell you specifically that you can't. It just kinda hints at it...This argument is gonna keep rolling, I believe its safe to say that me and you would never play a game against each other. Especially if you are threatening to break the other guys stuff because he doesn't agree with you. Its a game friend, if it makes you that mad sell your stuff on ebay and find a new hobby. RAW is RAW, just how it is, call GW and complain to them that you want it to be something else, when you do though you could also mention that some of our codexes arent as OP as yours and mention kindly that the rest of us would appreciate an update before we are 3 or 4 editions behind.

Codex beats rulebook, specific beats general. It's the same argument for the same thing. Astral aim says it bypassed los, so does blasts. It's relevant and proves a point. Chill out a bit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, you have failed to wound (little w) the unit, as required in the rules?

You have broken a rule.

the only way you can apply the rules is that this is a more specific rule that requires the LOS requirement for the wound pool to be overridden, as it conflicts.

Wounds are caused. They populate the wound pool. The rule is satisfied.

During allocation you're not in LoS. Excess wounds are lost.

I am just adding to a valid argument, Ive read the disclaimer that things can get heated in this type of forum but it bothers me that someone would say he would destroy someones army which cost a lot of money on a dice roll even if it was just an angry jest. Astral aim is a specific rule for a specific situation in a specific army so no you can not claim to use it in regards to arguing normal blast rules. The grey knights book is not the BRB.

Happyjew wrote:The problem is the wording of the rule:
"...can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight..."
and then:
"...unsaved Wounds are allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack."

It seems to me, that although you can hit and wound a unit completely out of line of sight, you then allocate wounds as normal, starting with the closest model in line of sight. Once there are no more models in line of sight, any remaining wounds are lost. Of course this is definitely not how I would play it. As far as I am concerned, (RAW or not) things that can hit a unit out of LoS (i.e. Impaler Cannon) can wound said unit, ignoring the normal LoS restriction.

Looking at the rules for Allocate unsaved wounds... (Pg15) LoS is not even mentioned as a factor in removing casualties just "Closest Model". The Blast rules (Specific) override the Out of Sight and Out of Range rules (general).

If it didn't, then why roll for scatter? Just make it hit or miss like everything else.

helgrenze wrote:

Happyjew wrote:The problem is the wording of the rule:
"...can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight..."
and then:
"...unsaved Wounds are allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack."

It seems to me, that although you can hit and wound a unit completely out of line of sight, you then allocate wounds as normal, starting with the closest model in line of sight. Once there are no more models in line of sight, any remaining wounds are lost. Of course this is definitely not how I would play it. As far as I am concerned, (RAW or not) things that can hit a unit out of LoS (i.e. Impaler Cannon) can wound said unit, ignoring the normal LoS restriction.

Looking at the rules for Allocate unsaved wounds... (Pg15) LoS is not even mentioned as a factor in removing casualties just "Closest Model". The Blast rules (Specific) override the Out of Sight and Out of Range rules (general).

If it didn't, then why roll for scatter? Just make it hit or miss like everything else.

Turn over a page. Pg 16 mentions LoS.

That's what he is saying. There is nothing on page 15 so the only limitation on wounds and los is on page 16. So the blast rules saying you can wound models out of los has to override that rule.

roland9382 wrote:I am just adding to a valid argument, Ive read the disclaimer that things can get heated in this type of forum but it bothers me that someone would say he would destroy someones army which cost a lot of money on a dice roll even if it was just an angry jest. Astral aim is a specific rule for a specific situation in a specific army so no you can not claim to use it in regards to arguing normal blast rules. The grey knights book is not the BRB.

If you look at the rules for nemisis force weapons, and the rules for force sword/halberd/stave, it's pretty obvious that the rules from grey knights didn't totally line up with what was planned for 6th edition.


Here's another question for the out of sight = death crowd.
How do you process the hit if it lands on models out of sight, but models in line of sight are closer?

And more complicated:
How do you process allocation for a shot that lands half in sight?
It could scatter touching 3 models you see, 3 you can't see, and miss 2 models that are closer and out of sight.


The reason I like my interpretation, is that it doesn't create a mess of allocation during scatter events that do come up.



-Matt

Our way doesn't create any confusion. You allocate wounds to models that are closest first regardless of los. Following the rules for wound allocation.

Is this not a case where we simply apply the Basic versus Advanced section on Page 7 ? So wounding out of sight models with scattered blasts being an advanced rule , overrides the basic Out if Sight rule on pg 16 .

Captain Antivas wrote:Our way doesn't create any confusion. You allocate wounds to models that are closest first regardless of los. Following the rules for wound allocation.

So if the blast doesn't scatter, it hits models in the open.
If it does scatter, it hits the closer models out of line of sight?


Please quote me the page number that gives the cover save for a unit completely blocked from view by a land raider. Not terrain, but totally blocked from view by another unit.
I cannot find it.

-Matt

We've tried that. Doesn't sink in.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:Our way doesn't create any confusion. You allocate wounds to models that are closest first regardless of los. Following the rules for wound allocation.

So if the blast doesn't scatter, it hits models in the open.
If it does scatter, it hits the closer models out of line of sight?


Please quote me the page number that gives the cover save for a unit completely blocked from view by a land raider. Not terrain, but totally blocked from view by another unit.
I cannot find it.

-Matt

My thoughts exactly, it seems they are ok with killing the guys but have no clue as to the actual save this shot would provide.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Please quote me the page number that gives the cover save for a unit completely blocked from view by a land raider. Not terrain, but totally blocked from view by another unit.
I cannot find it.
-Matt

Page 18, "Intervening Models". 5+ save.

Umm yeah that rule is for partially hidden, we are saying completely. I.E. you can see exactly 0% of the model.

A model that is at least 25% obscured (I am pretty sure 100% is covered by at least 25%) gets a cover save depending on what it is in the way. Most things are 4-5+. I would say this would count as a 4+ save. Not quite a fortification but also more than a forest.

roland9382 wrote:I looked at this rule and it does provide an unmodifiable cover save.

Yes, I just told you that in the post you replied to. Wat?

roland9382 wrote:I honestly can't believe that you are using Astral Aim as your trump card, I looked at this rule and it does provide an unmodifiable cover save. The rule also state it trumps line of sight I.E. your bullets go over and around cover in order to hit the enemy.

So does scattering blasts. It says it can hitt regardless of line of sight AND range. I don't see the difference.

The part of the rule that is in question here is exactly the same. You can't have it one way in one case and the other in the other case. It proves the point perfectly.

And the rule I quoted is from how it is in the errata, not the original codex. So this has been changed to be in line with 6th.

And for christ's sake, learn to identify hyperbole.

roland9382 wrote:The grey knights book is not the BRB.

No, but it is still the same game. It belongs to Warhammer 40k and is made to play with the same rules. You can't just claim it isn't canon because it doesn't suit your argument.

You can't say that the Codex trumps it because the codex isn't technically refuting any rule in the BRB, just like how blast scatters isn't technically refuting the rule of how wounds are allocated.

As for saves for scattered blasts, the obvious decision would be to count the LOS being from the center of the blast marker, giving saves thereafter. Just like how it was in fifth.

This is 6th not 5th as such nothing from the old rules apply. You are accusing me of picking apart the rules for my interpretation yet telling me RAI in this case would trump RAW. If you would like to continue bickering in order to state your opinion instead of using the wording in the book just PM me so we won't be overloading this forum with garbage. It seems like this is a case of it doesn't tell me I cant take it that way so I must be allowed to do it.

P.S. Your book does belong to the 40k game but I don't play grey knights so rules that are unique to your codex, Astral Aim for instance, have no place in this argument because those who play Eldar, Tau, tyranids, etc. don't have access to that psychic power. We use the regular wording for blasts and how LOS works from the rulebook.

roland9382 wrote:
RAI in this case would trump RAW.

I'm saying I would play it by the RAI. I'm saying the RAW is obviously flawed.

roland9382 wrote:If you would like to continue bickering in order to state your opinion instead of using the wording in the book

I did use the wording in the book. You are conveniently disregarding it.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll play the game as I feel it was obviously intended but poorly worded, and you can hang on every letter in the BRB to save your men from a blast.

The BRB is almost the bible in its inconsistancies, and we, the players, are not far from religious men in our interpretations of it. It's idiotic and GW is to blame for being so bad at writing a rulebook.

roland9382 wrote:Your book does belong to the 40k game but I don't play grey knights so rules that are unique to your codex, Astral Aim for instance, have no place in this argument because those who play Eldar, Tau, tyranids, etc. don't have access to that psychic power. We use the regular wording for blasts and how LOS works from the rulebook.

So what? I'm using a rule from the same game to prove a point. Your specific plastic men not having access to it means NOTHING. It's still a part of the game you play and YOUR plastic men will sometimes have to face Astral aim, and for those games you suggest reading a rule in two different ways.

Examples from codexes are often used to clarify things in YMDC. Why this one is relevant is glaringly obvious.

Purifier wrote:

roland9382 wrote:
RAI in this case would trump RAW.

I'm saying I would play it by the RAI. I'm saying the RAW is obviously flawed.

roland9382 wrote:If you would like to continue bickering in order to state your opinion instead of using the wording in the book

I did use the wording in the book. You are conveniently disregarding it.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll play the game as I feel it was obviously intended but poorly worded, and you can hang on every letter in the BRB to save your men from a blast.

The BRB is almost the bible in its inconsistancies, and we, the players, are not far from religious men in our interpretations of it. It's idiotic and GW is to blame for being so bad at writing a rulebook.

See I disagree, the rules here are very clear. Ignores limitations caused by range and line of sight. Clear as day.

Captain Antivas wrote:See I disagree, the rules here are very clear. Ignores limitations caused by range and line of sight. Clear as day.

If that was what the rulebook said, it would be clear as day. It isn't though. It is how GW SHOULD have worded it.

roland9382 wrote:This is 6th not 5th as such nothing from the old rules apply. You are accusing me of picking apart the rules for my interpretation yet telling me RAI in this case would trump RAW. If you would like to continue bickering in order to state your opinion instead of using the wording in the book just PM me so we won't be overloading this forum with garbage. It seems like this is a case of it doesn't tell me I cant take it that way so I must be allowed to do it.

P.S. Your book does belong to the 40k game but I don't play grey knights so rules that are unique to your codex, Astral Aim for instance, have no place in this argument because those who play Eldar, Tau, tyranids, etc. don't have access to that psychic power. We use the regular wording for blasts and how LOS works from the rulebook.

Wow, calm down chief. As we have both stated before the rules are the same in their scope so it is relevant. But please follow through and keep this forum free from garbage rather than having to listen to your i-hate-everyone-who-plays-grey-knights whining because GW hasn't updated your codex yet. This ranting is bringing nothing to the conversation so dial it back a bit and relax.

Its not about any specific army, the only reason Grey knights are currently being brought into this is due to the astral aim argument. You can scatter, hit and do wounds to models outside line of sight. This is not an issue in the argument, the rub as it were is at the end of the blast rules it say you then follow the normal rules for shooting i.e. you cant remove models you can't see. Is it flawed, yes more than likely but different rules have been in every edition. I can argue RAI all I want but unless I work for GW and write a rulebook myself then I wont know why they worded it a particular way. Bringing up codexes, according to your take if I fire a missile with my dark reaper exarch which then scatters and hits guys say behind a building, they would not be allowed to take a cover save as crack shot says it ignores cover. RAI theres no way that could happen as something big is in the way but why not right?

So youre saying the rule has no function whatsoever?

Blast scatters to unit entirely out of LOS. They wrote that you can hit and wound that unit. You believe that they wrote that rule to have NO effect? None whatsoever?

Astral aim DOES use the normal rules for wound allocation, because it doesnt say otherwise - and as I'm sure youre aware you follow the general rule for something when no replacement is given - meaning astral aim is entirely relevant
So, again - Hive Guard special rule does nothing, yes? Astral Aim does nothing, yes? Blast scattering does nothing, yes?

You are given permission to wound the unit, implying you are allowed to allocate to models within the unit. If you dont then you have broken the blast rule.

Again as I said look at my example, how is that not broken? Also the rules for the impaler cannon you keep mentioning are in your FAQ, ignore line of sight restrictions and only provides cover for units in area terrain. Its also not a blast so has no chance of scatter.

roland9382 wrote:Umm yeah that rule is for partially hidden, we are saying completely. I.E. you can see exactly 0% of the model.

The rules for cover saves don't ask for the model to be 'partially hidden'... they allow a model to take the save if it is at least 25% obscured.

A model that is completely obscured is at least 25% obscured.