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.

 Idolator wrote:
If you can wound units that are out LoS, that means that you can wound models that are out of sight.

And there is where you are making an assumption that is unsupported in the rules.
Populating the wound pool is wounding the unit.

Once again, the barrage rules says: "To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation, always assume the shot is comming from the centre of the blast marker instead of the firing model."

Out of sight: If no models in the FIRING UNIT can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. One rule says the shots are coming from the center of the marker but the other says that you can't allocate the wounds because the firing model can't see them. The blast template is not the firing model.

You really need to stop doing that. You even capitalized unit but said model later.
Regardless, the Barrage rules change where the shot is coming from when they say "always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker".

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
If you can wound units that are out LoS, that means that you can wound models that are out of sight.

And there is where you are making an assumption that is unsupported in the rules.
Populating the wound pool is wounding the unit.

Once again, the barrage rules says: "To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation, always assume the shot is comming from the centre of the blast marker instead of the firing model."

Out of sight: If no models in the FIRING UNIT can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. One rule says the shots are coming from the center of the marker but the other says that you can't allocate the wounds because the firing model can't see them. The blast template is not the firing model.

You really need to stop doing that. You even capitalized unit but said model later.
Regardless, the Barrage rules change where the shot is coming from when they say "always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker".

Once again, where is the problem? Are you arguing that the blast template is the firing model? Are you arguing that the blast template is the firing unit? My statement was true, the blast template is not the firing model. I later editted it to unit, seconds after posting, to try to avoid a specious argument. (TOO LATE)

However, my point is a basic "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander". If a rule states that wounds can't be allocated if the firing unit cannot see the target, then wounds can't be allocated if the firing unit cannot see the target. I took the ball and ran for the oppositions goal line.

If it applies to one it applies to the other. Just because the barrage rules changes the way you determine cover and how you would roll saves/remove models, it in no way changes the Out of Sight rule.

Perhaps the wrote the rule this was to prevent people from placing barrage units hidden behind sight blocking terrain.

Or the conflicting rules could just be an editting error.

 Idolator wrote:
Once again, where is the problem? Are you arguing that the blast template is the firing model? Are you arguing that the blast template is the firing unit? My statement was true, the blast template is not the firing model. I later editted it to unit, seconds after posting, to try to avoid a specious argument. (TOO LATE)

A specious argument would be if I said you were wrong because you used the wrong word. That's not what I did - I simply corrected it.
Also - seconds? Your original post was at 11:56:55. My post was at 11:59:43. 3 minutes isn't "seconds".

However, my point is a basic "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander". If a rule states that wounds can't be allocated if the firing unit cannot see the target, then wounds can't be allocated if the firing unit cannot see the target. I took the ball and ran for the oppositions goal line.

If it applies to one it applies to the other. Just because the barrage rules changes the way you determine cover and how you would roll saves/remove models, it in no way changes the Out of Sight rule.

You mean when it changes where the shot comes from? If it's coming from the marker, is the marker part of the unit now?

Based on the wound allocation rules and the fact that all models have characteristic profiles the answer is no - the marker is not part of the unit.
So the marker must be used for LoS determination. I'm not being selective in how I apply Out of Sight at all (which is what you're implying if not outright stating).
edit: accidently hit quote instead of edit once. Oops.

You mean when it changes where the shot comes from? If it's coming from the marker, is the marker part of the unit now?

Based on the wound allocation rules and the fact that all models have characteristic profiles the answer is no - the marker is not part of the unit.
So the marker must be used for LoS determination. I'm not being selective in how I apply Out of Sight at all (which is what you're implying if not outright stating).
edit: accidently hit quote instead of edit once. Oops.

 Idolator wrote:
I'm just reading the RaW. The RaW states that models that are out of sight of the firing unit (not model) cannot have wounds allocated to them. We all agree that the blast template is not the firing unit.
The Barrage rule says the shot is coming from the center of the blast, not the firing model.(notice that this does not say "Firing Unit")

Right - so we've established that the marker is not part of the unit.
We know that the center of the marker is where shots originate.

Why are you using the Line of Sight for a unit that is not firing to determine if you can see models for Out of Sight?
The Barrage marker *must* be treated as a separate unit - the rules state as much when they say the shot originates from the center of the marker.

I believe that 3 minutes is 180 seconds. I could be wrong.

It's not in the RaW.

Cute. Just like 1 year is 525600*60. Keep it up.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I'm just reading the RaW. The RaW states that models that are out of sight of the firing unit (not model) cannot have wounds allocated to them. We all agree that the blast template is not the firing unit.
The Barrage rule says the shot is coming from the center of the blast, not the firing model.(notice that this does not say "Firing Unit")

Right - so we've established that the marker is not part of the unit.
We know that the center of the marker is where shots originate.

Why are you using the Line of Sight for a unit that is not firing to determine if you can see models for Out of Sight?
The Barrage marker *must* be treated as a separate unit - the rules state as much when they say the shot originates from the center of the marker.

I believe that 3 minutes is 180 seconds. I could be wrong.

It's not in the RaW.

Cute. Just like 1 year is 525600*60. Keep it up.

Then the unit didn't fire? So they could move, run and assault as normal. Since the firing unit is not to have been considered to be the firing unit. I would also postulate that I would get a kill point for each of the blast templates as those "seperate units" are no longer on the table at the end of the game.

 Idolator wrote:
Then the unit didn't fire? So they could move, run and assault as normal. Since the firing unit is not to have been considered to be the firing unit. I would also postulate that I would get a kill point for each of the blast templates as those "seperate units" are no longer on the table at the end of the game.

They are not the firing unit for the purposes of wound allocation. You know, like the rule says?
Is running, assaulting, kill points, or whatever other scenario you can come up with part of "determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation"?
Because those are the only times the marker would count as a separate unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Then the unit didn't fire? So they could move, run and assault as normal. Since the firing unit is not to have been considered to be the firing unit. I would also postulate that I would get a kill point for each of the blast templates as those "seperate units" are no longer on the table at the end of the game.

They are not the firing unit for the purposes of wound allocation. You know, like the rule says?
Is running, assaulting, kill points, or whatever other scenario you can come up with part of "determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation"?
Because those are the only times the marker would count as a separate unit.

??????

The unit is the firing unit in regards to wound allocation, the firing model is not. The Out of Sight rule specificaly references the firing unit not the firing model. Unless model and unit are interchangable terms.

I don't understand the rest of the post.

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Then the unit didn't fire? So they could move, run and assault as normal. Since the firing unit is not to have been considered to be the firing unit. I would also postulate that I would get a kill point for each of the blast templates as those "seperate units" are no longer on the table at the end of the game.

They are not the firing unit for the purposes of wound allocation. You know, like the rule says?
Is running, assaulting, kill points, or whatever other scenario you can come up with part of "determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation"?
Because those are the only times the marker would count as a separate unit.

??????

The unit is the firing unit in regards to wound allocation, the firing model is not. The Out of Sight rule specificaly references the firing unit not the firing model. Unless model and unit are interchangable terms.

I don't understand the rest of the post.

Sigh.
The marker is not part of the firing unit, correct?
Assuming you answer "correct", that means the marker is part of a different unit, correct?
Assuming you answer "correct", that means that the OoS rule can not be referring to the original firing unit in this scenario, but rather it must be referring to the sight line from the Blast Marker.

The rest of the post that you didn't understand was addressing your straw man.

[Sigh.
The marker is not part of the firing unit, correct?
Assuming you answer "correct", that means the marker is part of a different unit, correct?
Assuming you answer "correct", that means that the OoS rule can not be referring to the original firing unit in this scenario, but rather it must be referring to the sight line from the Blast Marker.

The rest of the post that you didn't understand was addressing your straw man.

 Idolator wrote:

Sigh.
The marker is not part of the firing unit, correct?
Assuming you answer "correct", that means the marker is part of a different unit, correct?
Assuming you answer "correct", that means that the OoS rule can not be referring to the original firing unit in this scenario, but rather it must be referring to the sight line from the Blast Marker.

The rest of the post that you didn't understand was addressing your straw man.

It wasn't a straw man argument, you stated that the unit that has barrage weapons is not considered to have fired at the target. If a unit doesn't fire it can do all sorts of things, including ,to that point of reasoning, not fire barrage weapons at another target.

It was a straw man, I was never asserting any of those things. And no, it can't do all sorts of things - as I said.

I agree that a marker is not part of a firing unit, neither are templates. They are a physical representation of an effected area due to shooting a fragmentary/destructive device.

They are also not part of any other unit. If you disagree with this, could you please tell me which unit?

All models are members of a unit. The center of the blast marker is treated as a model, and therefore a unit.

The rules in barage attributes wounds from the center of the blast, regardless of the position of the MODEL.

The Out of Sight rule over rides this citing the position of the UNIT.

There's no "overriding". The blast marker cannot be a member of the firing unit and must be treated as a model which means that it must also be treated as a unit.

rigeld2Why are you using the Line of Sight for a unit that is not firing to determine if you can see models for Out of Sight?
The Barrage marker *must* be treated as a separate unit - the rules state as much when they say the shot originates from the center of the marker.

quote wrote:


It wasn't a straw man argument, you stated that the unit that has barrage weapons is not considered to have fired at the target. If a unit doesn't fire it can do all sorts of things, including ,to that point of reasoning, not fire barrage weapons at another target.

It was a straw man, I was never asserting any of those things. And no, it can't do all sorts of things - as I said.

I agree that a marker is not part of a firing unit, neither are templates. They are a physical representation of an effected area due to shooting a fragmentary/destructive device.

They are also not part of any other unit. If you disagree with this, could you please tell me which unit?

All models are members of a unit. The center of the blast marker is treated as a model, and therefore a unit.

The rules in barage attributes wounds from the center of the blast, regardless of the position of the MODEL.

The Out of Sight rule over rides this citing the position of the UNIT.

There's no "overriding". The blast marker cannot be a member of the firing unit and must be treated as a model which means that it must also be treated as a unit.

 Idolator wrote:
So a template is now a model and a model is now a unit. Then I would assume that they give kill points to you opponent, like sporemines.

Yeah, that's not what I said at all. I've already addressed your "kill point" assumption and proved it false, but go ahead and tilt at that windmill.

Still don't quite have the hang of this multiquote thing!

Most of what it looks like you're doing can be handled with the "quote" button above a post. Once in the editor you can highlight what you want to be a quote and click the "quote" button to separate it.

Pg 2
The Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are refered to as 'models' in the rules that follow, Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble space marines and brutal orks to warp spawned daemons. To reflect the differences, each model has it's own characteristics profile.

I don't think that a blast marker fits into the RaW or RaI in any way.

Pg 3
Forming a unit: the models that make up your warhammer 40,000 army must organize into units.

It's not a model so it can't be a unit.

Except for the rule that says to treat it as a model. You know. Those pesky rule things.

I agree that a marker is not part of a firing unit, neither are templates. They are a physical representation of an effected area due to shooting a fragmentary/destructive device.

They are also not part of any other unit. If you disagree with this, could you please tell me which unit?

All models are members of a unit. The center of the blast marker is treated as a model, and therefore a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
So a template is now a model and a model is now a unit. Then I would assume that they give kill points to you opponent, like sporemines.

Yeah, that's not what I said at all. I've already addressed your "kill point" assumption and proved it false, but go ahead and tilt at that windmill.

It's not a model so it can't be a unit.

Except for the rule that says to treat it as a model. You know. Those pesky rule things.

What page or FAQ tells you to treat the blast marker as if it's a model? I can't find it. Where does it tell you to treat the blast marker as if it were the firing unit?

Still janked up the multi quote! Dang it!


Where was the kill point issue addressed? I didn't see it.

 Idolator wrote:
What page or FAQ tells you to treat the blast marker as if it's a model? I can't find it. Where does it tell you to treat the blast marker as if it were the firing unit?

 Idolator wrote:
Once again, the barrage rules says: "To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation, always assume the shot is comming from the centre of the blast marker instead of the firing model."

So lets break this down.
How do you normally determine cover saves? Oh, you trace LoS from the firing model. In this case we are told that we must trace LoS from the centre of the blast marker. Since every rule related to LoS uses models for reference, the marker must be treated as a model for the purposes of tracing LoS and wound allocation.

Where was the kill point issue addressed? I didn't see it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Then the unit didn't fire? So they could move, run and assault as normal. Since the firing unit is not to have been considered to be the firing unit. I would also postulate that I would get a kill point for each of the blast templates as those "seperate units" are no longer on the table at the end of the game.

They are not the firing unit for the purposes of wound allocation. You know, like the rule says?
Is running, assaulting, kill points, or whatever other scenario you can come up with part of "determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation"?
Because those are the only times the marker would count as a separate unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What page or FAQ tells you to treat the blast marker as if it's a model? I can't find it. Where does it tell you to treat the blast marker as if it were the firing unit?

 Idolator wrote:
Once again, the barrage rules says: "To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation, always assume the shot is comming from the centre of the blast marker instead of the firing model."

So lets break this down.
How do you normally determine cover saves? Oh, you trace LoS from the firing model. In this case we are told that we must trace LoS from the centre of the blast marker. Since every rule related to LoS uses models for reference, the marker must be treated as a model for the purposes of tracing LoS and wound allocation.

So there is no written rule stating that you treat the blast template as a model and there is, for sure, no written rule to treat a blast template as a firing unit.

Where was the kill point issue addressed? I didn't see it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Then the unit didn't fire? So they could move, run and assault as normal. Since the firing unit is not to have been considered to be the firing unit. I would also postulate that I would get a kill point for each of the blast templates as those "seperate units" are no longer on the table at the end of the game.

They are not the firing unit for the purposes of wound allocation. You know, like the rule says?
Is running, assaulting, kill points, or whatever other scenario you can come up with part of "determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation"?
Because those are the only times the marker would count as a separate unit.

You postulated that the unit with the barrage weapon was not to be considered to have been the firing unit, that the firing unit is the blast template itself. If it was not considered to have fired the shot, then they could not have been considered to have fired at all. Freeing up the unit that contained the barrage weapons to do other things like (not) firing more barrage weapons, or running in the shooting phase. That point had little to do with the blast template giving a kill point.

Futhermore, if the blast template is to be considered a model and aunit unto itself, then the removal of the unit from the field of play would confer a kill point to your opponent. As enemy units not on the table at the end of a game give the opponent a kill point. A model cannot be a unit and not a unit at the same time. You can however have a model that is not a unit (bomb squig, ammo runt,etc.)

If the blast template were to be considered a model in the barrage unit, then it would have to follow all rules of coherency and would have to remain within 2" or 4" from another model in the unit that "didn't fire" the blast template.

Now, the rules don't say that the firing unit is not considered to be the firing unit. Unit is not mentioned in the barrage entry, only model. It is quite possible to have models in a unit that cannot see a target while still having the unit see the target.

 Idolator wrote:
You postulated that the unit with the barrage weapon was not to be considered to have been the firing unit, that the firing unit is the blast template itself. If it was not considered to have fired the shot, then they could not have been considered to have fired at all. Freeing up the unit that contained the barrage weapons to do other things like (not) firing more barrage weapons, or running in the shooting phase. That point had little to do with the blast template giving a kill point.

No, that would never be true as I proved.

Futhermore, if the blast template is to be considered a model and aunit unto itself, then the removal of the unit from the field of play would confer a kill point to your opponent. As enemy units not on the table at the end of a game give the opponent a kill point. A model cannot be a unit and not a unit at the same time. You can however have a model that is not a unit (bomb squig, ammo runt,etc.)

I'm curious, could you show me the exact things a blast marker is considered to have fired the shot are?

Now, the rules don't say that the firing unit is not considered to be the firing unit. Unit is not mentioned in the barrage entry, only model. It is quite possible to have models in a unit that cannot see a target while still having the unit see the target.

So you're back to saying that the blast marker is part of the unit, after agreeing that it wasn't and could not be?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
You postulated that the unit with the barrage weapon was not to be considered to have been the firing unit, that the firing unit is the blast template itself. If it was not considered to have fired the shot, then they could not have been considered to have fired at all. Freeing up the unit that contained the barrage weapons to do other things like (not) firing more barrage weapons, or running in the shooting phase. That point had little to do with the blast template giving a kill point.

No, that would never be true as I proved.

Which part would never be true?
1. The fact that you postulated that the unit with barage weapons was not to be considered to be the firing unit. (Which is it? is the firing unit the firing unit or not.)
2. If it isnt considered to have fired, then it's free to act as if it hadn't fired

Futhermore, if the blast template is to be considered a model and aunit unto itself, then the removal of the unit from the field of play would confer a kill point to your opponent. As enemy units not on the table at the end of a game give the opponent a kill point. A model cannot be a unit and not a unit at the same time. You can however have a model that is not a unit (bomb squig, ammo runt,etc.)

I'm curious, could you show me the exact things a blast marker is considered to have fired the shot are?

I can't even follow this question. Was that last word supposed to be "at" or was the question supposed to end after the word "fired"?

Now, the rules don't say that the firing unit is not considered to be the firing unit. Unit is not mentioned in the barrage entry, only model. It is quite possible to have models in a unit that cannot see a target while still having the unit see the target.

So you're back to saying that the blast marker is part of the unit, after agreeing that it wasn't and could not be?

i don't follow how you could possibly infer that. I stated that the rules do not say that the firing unit is not to be considered the firing unit (they don't even say that the model isn't supposed to be considered the firing model, for that matter) It is possible to have a model in a unit (such a guardsman) placed in such a way that the target can be seen thereby giving the UNIT LoS, even though the model firing the barrage weapon cannot see the target.

So far, you've argued that the barrage unit is not the firing unit, that the empty hole in the center of a blast template is in fact a model and a unit unto itself that does not give kill points. That even though the unit with barrage didn't really fire anything they fired something. You've posted statements and then denied posting them, claimed to have found words and rules that can't be proven to exist. You've argued both sides of the same issue. When I've argued the points of consistancy (such as the veractiy of an empty space surrounded by a plastic disc being a model) I lead off with the word "if", showing that while I accept the premise for the sake of the argument I do not accept the premise as fact. I then use a syllogism to take the premise to it's logical conclusion.

Bottom line, blast markers can and do hit and wound models that are out of range and line of sight. No matter if they are shot directly or as barrage. The rules state that both can hit and wound units that are outside of range and out of line of sight. If regularly fired blast templates wounds cannot be allocated due to the "Out of Sight" rule then Barrage blasts are subject to the same treatment.

Templates and markers are not models. Your posts have become rather deragatory.

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
You postulated that the unit with the barrage weapon was not to be considered to have been the firing unit, that the firing unit is the blast template itself. If it was not considered to have fired the shot, then they could not have been considered to have fired at all. Freeing up the unit that contained the barrage weapons to do other things like (not) firing more barrage weapons, or running in the shooting phase. That point had little to do with the blast template giving a kill point.

No, that would never be true as I proved.

Which part would never be true?
1. The fact that you postulated that the unit with barage weapons was not to be considered to be the firing unit. (Which is it? is the firing unit the firing unit or not.)
2. If it isnt considered to have fired, then it's free to act as if it hadn't fired

Number 2.

Futhermore, if the blast template is to be considered a model and aunit unto itself, then the removal of the unit from the field of play would confer a kill point to your opponent. As enemy units not on the table at the end of a game give the opponent a kill point. A model cannot be a unit and not a unit at the same time. You can however have a model that is not a unit (bomb squig, ammo runt,etc.)

I'm curious, could you show me the exact things a blast marker is considered to have fired the shot are?

I can't even follow this question. Was that last word supposed to be "at" or was the question supposed to end after the word "fired"?

A blast marker is considered to have fired in what exact circumstances?
Do those circumstances include kill points or the originating unit running or firing in the first place?

Now, the rules don't say that the firing unit is not considered to be the firing unit. Unit is not mentioned in the barrage entry, only model. It is quite possible to have models in a unit that cannot see a target while still having the unit see the target.

So you're back to saying that the blast marker is part of the unit, after agreeing that it wasn't and could not be?

i don't follow how you could possibly infer that. I stated that the rules do not say that the firing unit is not to be considered the firing unit (they don't even say that the model isn't supposed to be considered the firing model, for that matter) It is possible to have a model in a unit (such a guardsman) placed in such a way that the target can be seen thereby giving the UNIT LoS, even though the model firing the barrage weapon cannot see the target.

... Correct. It is possible. That doesn't mean it's required for Barrages, but the statement is true.

So far, you've argued that the barrage unit is not the firing unit, that the empty hole in the center of a blast template is in fact a model and a unit unto itself that does not give kill points. That even though the unit with barrage didn't really fire anything they fired something. You've posted statements and then denied posting them, claimed to have found words and rules that can't be proven to exist. You've argued both sides of the same issue. When I've argued the points of consistancy (such as the veractiy of an empty space surrounded by a plastic disc being a model) I lead off with the word "if", showing that while I accept the premise for the sake of the argument I do not accept the premise as fact. I then use a syllogism to take the premise to it's logical conclusion.

The bolded is a lie. Please cite what you're referring to or retract it.

Bottom line, blast markers can and do hit and wound models that are out of range and line of sight. No matter if they are shot directly or as barrage. The rules state that both can hit and wound units that are outside of range and out of line of sight. If regularly fired blast templates wounds cannot be allocated due to the "Out of Sight" rule then Barrage blasts are subject to the same treatment.

That's not true at all - are you ignoring everything I've said?

Templates and markers are not models. Your posts have become rather deragatory.

For specific instances the rules require you treat them as such.
Mind quoting where I've insulted you? Ill retract it if I have.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
You postulated that the unit with the barrage weapon was not to be considered to have been the firing unit, that the firing unit is the blast template itself. If it was not considered to have fired the shot, then they could not have been considered to have fired at all. Freeing up the unit that contained the barrage weapons to do other things like (not) firing more barrage weapons, or running in the shooting phase. That point had little to do with the blast template giving a kill point.

No, that would never be true as I proved.

Which part would never be true?
1. The fact that you postulated that the unit with barage weapons was not to be considered to be the firing unit. (Which is it? is the firing unit the firing unit or not.)
2. If it isnt considered to have fired, then it's free to act as if it hadn't fired

Number 2.

Futhermore, if the blast template is to be considered a model and aunit unto itself, then the removal of the unit from the field of play would confer a kill point to your opponent. As enemy units not on the table at the end of a game give the opponent a kill point. A model cannot be a unit and not a unit at the same time. You can however have a model that is not a unit (bomb squig, ammo runt,etc.)

I'm curious, could you show me the exact things a blast marker is considered to have fired the shot are?

I can't even follow this question. Was that last word supposed to be "at" or was the question supposed to end after the word "fired"?

A blast marker is considered to have fired in what exact circumstances?
Do those circumstances include kill points or the originating unit running or firing in the first place?

Now, the rules don't say that the firing unit is not considered to be the firing unit. Unit is not mentioned in the barrage entry, only model. It is quite possible to have models in a unit that cannot see a target while still having the unit see the target.

So you're back to saying that the blast marker is part of the unit, after agreeing that it wasn't and could not be?

i don't follow how you could possibly infer that. I stated that the rules do not say that the firing unit is not to be considered the firing unit (they don't even say that the model isn't supposed to be considered the firing model, for that matter) It is possible to have a model in a unit (such a guardsman) placed in such a way that the target can be seen thereby giving the UNIT LoS, even though the model firing the barrage weapon cannot see the target.

... Correct. It is possible. That doesn't mean it's required for Barrages, but the statement is true.

So far, you've argued that the barrage unit is not the firing unit, that the empty hole in the center of a blast template is in fact a model and a unit unto itself that does not give kill points. That even though the unit with barrage didn't really fire anything they fired something. You've posted statements and then denied posting them, claimed to have found words and rules that can't be proven to exist. You've argued both sides of the same issue. When I've argued the points of consistancy (such as the veractiy of an empty space surrounded by a plastic disc being a model) I lead off with the word "if", showing that while I accept the premise for the sake of the argument I do not accept the premise as fact. I then use a syllogism to take the premise to it's logical conclusion.

The bolded is a lie. Please cite what you're referring to or retract it.

Bottom line, blast markers can and do hit and wound models that are out of range and line of sight. No matter if they are shot directly or as barrage. The rules state that both can hit and wound units that are outside of range and out of line of sight. If regularly fired blast templates wounds cannot be allocated due to the "Out of Sight" rule then Barrage blasts are subject to the same treatment.

That's not true at all - are you ignoring everything I've said?

Templates and markers are not models. Your posts have become rather deragatory.

For specific instances the rules require you treat them as such.
Mind quoting where I've insulted you? Ill retract it if I have.

This will take a while. I'll respond in sections as the amount of quotes that I will have to put will be quite a chore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
This is getting off a bit, since you just rephrased my first point. Secondly, I haven't discussed how I play it. I've confined myself to the rules as written and rules as intended and "Made Da Call". I don't believe that I strayed into how I play it. If if I did I'm sure someone would be kind enough to quote me.

You honestly don't understand the difference between RAW and RAI?

Deragatory


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
You're right, there are an entire page of rules for blast and barrage that allow you to hit and wound models out of LoS and a rule that allows the opponent to ignore those hits and wounds. It's a conflict. A direct conflict. That's why you have to look at the RAI.

The bolded is 100% incorrect. You can keep pretending it's true, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't.
They allow you to cause hits on models that are out of LoS - but there isn't anything allowing you to wound models out of LoS.
Without the exception to allow hitting/wounding a unit out of LoS a blast that scattered to where the firing unit had no LoS (but still on the original target unit) would be nullified. As it is, it counts and those wounds can be allocated to visible models.

Neither the Blast or Barrage rules have exceptions for the Out of Sight rule. Blast says you allocate wounds starting from the firing model, Barrage says to allocate from the center of the blast, but neither allow you to allocate to models that can't be seen by the firing model.

You should re-read the Barrage rules. You treat the shot as coming from the center of the marker, not from the firing model.

Did they intend to nulify the majority of shots fired by blast templates? No, it was a mistake. Probably due to two different people working on different sets of rules and poor editing. It wouldn't be the first (or 50th) editing issue in this rule book.

Cute assumption. The majority of blast markers do not fling off into oblivion - at least against me they always seem to either hit, barely scatter, or scatter onto another visible unit.

As a marine you'll hit/scatter 0 inches ~60% of the time.. As a BS3 marker firing model you'll hit/scatter 0" about 50% of the time. That's far from the "majority" you claim.

This whole this is deragatory. Right down to the "Cute"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Once again, where is the problem? Are you arguing that the blast template is the firing model? Are you arguing that the blast template is the firing unit? My statement was true, the blast template is not the firing model. I later editted it to unit, seconds after posting, to try to avoid a specious argument. (TOO LATE)

A specious argument would be if I said you were wrong because you used the wrong word. That's not what I did - I simply corrected it.
Also - seconds? Your original post was at 11:56:55. My post was at 11:59:43. 3 minutes isn't "seconds".

Derogatory


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[Cute. Just like 1 year is 525600*60. Keep it up.

derogatory


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigh.
The marker is not part of the firing unit, correct?
Assuming you answer "correct", that means the marker is part of a different unit, correct?
Assuming you answer "correct", that means that the OoS rule can not be referring to the original firing unit in this scenario, but rather it must be referring to the sight line from the Blast Marker.

The rest of the post that you didn't understand was addressing your straw man.

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Secondly, I haven't discussed how I play it. I've confined myself to the rules as written and rules as intended and "Made Da Call".

You honestly don't understand the difference between RAW and RAI?

Deragatory

Not at all. I've cut the quote down to the reason I said that. You can't argue RAW and RAI at the same time, especially not when you haven't said you're arguing RAI.

This whole this is deragatory. Right down to the "Cute"

It really wasn't intended to be. I'd say "You mad bro?" But you'd likely take it the wrong way.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Once again, where is the problem? Are you arguing that the blast template is the firing model? Are you arguing that the blast template is the firing unit? My statement was true, the blast template is not the firing model. I later editted it to unit, seconds after posting, to try to avoid a specious argument. (TOO LATE)

A specious argument would be if I said you were wrong because you used the wrong word. That's not what I did - I simply corrected it.
Also - seconds? Your original post was at 11:56:55. My post was at 11:59:43. 3 minutes isn't "seconds".

Derogatory

Wrong. You said I made a specious argument - I clarified that I didn't and explained why. And then I mentioned that the "rage" you showed (the capital "TOO LATE" in case it isn't clear what I mean) was undeserved as its not like I was camping the thread to catch your next typo.

Cute. Just like 1 year is 525600*60. Keep it up.

derogatory

Yeah, that was a little far. I apologize.

"Sigh." really condescending

I was showing genuine frustration at having to repeat points that you had already (it seemed anyway) conceded.

Regardless, you haven't shown anywhere that I've said one thing and then never said it, or where I've claimed to find rules that didn't exist.
I'd love an apology for saying that I did those things, but I don't expect one.


Back to the rules debate - could you answer my last post with a rules discussion instead of feeling insulted? I assure you that no insult is meant (aside from where I've admitted it and apologized).

Edit: I see you've added more but with all the misquotes its extremely hard to read. Ill wait till they're fixed before responding more.

Now, the rules don't say that the firing unit is not considered to be the firing unit. Unit is not mentioned in the barrage entry, only model. It is quite possible to have models in a unit that cannot see a target while still having the unit see the target.

So you're back to saying that the blast marker is part of the unit, after agreeing that it wasn't and could not be?

 Idolator wrote:

Now, the rules don't say that the firing unit is not considered to be the firing unit. Unit is not mentioned in the barrage entry, only model. It is quite possible to have models in a unit that cannot see a target while still having the unit see the target.

So you're back to saying that the blast marker is part of the unit, after agreeing that it wasn't and could not be?

My position was always that blast markers are not models nor were they units. I had posed that if they had been models/units then they would either grant a kill point or be unable to be moved beyond 2-4".

That's putting words in my mouth (figuratively), and mischaracterized what I had said. Since the mention of whether a blast template is a model or unit does not exist in this post. Mischaracterization is demeaning.

And I proved your "pose" wrong and you continued to defend it. Therefore it seemed like you were defending that position. Also, you absolutely did say

 Idolator wrote:
We all agree that the blast template is not the firing unit.

So it's possible I simply misunderstood your position.

Regardless, you haven't shown anywhere that I've said one thing and then never said it, or where I've claimed to find rules that didn't exist.
I'd love an apology for saying that I did those things, but I don't expect one.


Back to the rules debate - could you answer my last post with a rules discussion instead of feeling insulted? I assure you that no insult is meant (aside from where I've admitted it and apologized).

Edit: I see you've added more but with all the misquotes its extremely hard to read. Ill wait till they're fixed before responding more.

 Idolator wrote:
Regardless, you haven't shown anywhere that I've said one thing and then never said it, or where I've claimed to find rules that didn't exist.
I'd love an apology for saying that I did those things, but I don't expect one.


Back to the rules debate - could you answer my last post with a rules discussion instead of feeling insulted? I assure you that no insult is meant (aside from where I've admitted it and apologized).

Edit: I see you've added more but with all the misquotes its extremely hard to read. Ill wait till they're fixed before responding more.

I can't help how the dang thing quotes out. I don't make post that often and it's rather unfamilliar to me. Now, if you wanted me to make some beer.....That I got down in spades.

Upper right hand corner of this post there's the Mod Alert triangle, an up arrow in a box that I never use so don't even know what it does, and the quote button.

Hit the quote button - you'll arrive at a "WYSIWYG" sort of editing interface with the post already quoted for you.
Play with all the buttons, hitting "Preview" below where you type so you can see what does what. If you don't want to post what's being shown, hit the back button in your browser and you can start at square one again.

Also, clicking Edit (next to the quote button) will let you go back and fix a mistake. Again, use the Preview button instead of the Submit button to make sure everything looks right.

rigeld2 wrote:
an up arrow in a box that I never use so don't even know what it does

Brings you to the top of the page.

 Idolator wrote:
In my response there were two instances where you made a claim and then refuted to have made the claim.

It's really difficult to read with the misquotes, but I'm pretty sure you were misunderstanding me.
I never said that the original unit doesn't fire. Ever. You won't be able to quote me saying that.
I said that, for the purposes of determining cover and wound allocation for the barrage, the original unit is treated as not firing.
There's a massive difference between what you seem to think I said and what I actually said.

There was also the reference that you made, claiming that the rules state that you treat a blast template as a model. You even finished the post with the statement "Those pesky rules."

Yes, and I explained why I said that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
an up arrow in a box that I never use so don't even know what it does

Brings you to the top of the page.

Ah. Figures. I surf on my iPad 99% of the time so just touch the clock and I'm at the top of the page. On my PC my freewheeling mouse wheel takes me to the top in less than a second.

I honestly can see how people can come to their conclusions about the blast template rules.

I do stand by my "Call" that the rules have serious conflicts, probably due to editing errors. There were a ton of them.

The change of the word from units to models in the pg 33 blast rules would clarify the whole thing.

I read the last line. "Wounds are allocated as per normal shooting" to mean closest model to the firing unit first. Since it was established that units that cannot be seen can indeed be hit and wounded.

Reading "Wounds are allocated as per normal shooting" to mean that you have to abide by all the normal rules for shooting before allocating wounds would preclude you from allocating wounds to models out of line of sight, your own models, and models locked in combat since the normal rules for shooting do not allow you to shoot, much less wound, these models.

 Idolator wrote:
I honestly can see how people can come to their conclusions about the blast template rules.

Can or can't?

The change of the word from units to models in the pg 33 blast rules would clarify the whole thing.

Agreed.

Reading "Wounds are allocated as per normal shooting" to mean that you have to abide by all the normal rules for shooting before allocating wounds would preclude you from allocating wounds to models out of line of sight, your own models, and models locked in combat since the normal rules for shooting do not allow you to shoot, much less wound, these models.

Actually, the only restriction on models in combat and friendly models is on targeting - there's no rules saying they can't be hit or wounded.
Since a scattered blast doesn't target the unit(s) it ends up hitting there's no conflict.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Page 16 states you are wrong.

You have no permission to allocate wounds to the 3 models out of LOS. So while you hit 4 times, and potentially wound 4 times, only ONE model may be removed.

If you disagree, please show explicit and unambiguous permission to override page 16. Note: you have yet to do so.

...having reread everything, I stand corrected. Page 16 shows me that if OTHER models in the unit can see the enemy models, the blast can still hit and wound them. Thank you.