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.

I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

Do pens/glances get emptied from a pool if the squadron is out of sight?

From wrote:
I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

It means those too, but people will be obtuse and claim that since it's not expressly mentioned, no such ability exists.



About the whole, Target unit, kerfufle. The last two paragraphs of blast cover where the wounds go. Pg 33.

Here's the quote.
"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above- the unit suffers one hit for each model with it's base fully or partially beneath the blast marker.

Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll to wound and save as normal. Any Unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for normal shooting."

The wounds are allocated to the unit under the marker. Plain and simple.

What is the page number that defines a target unit?

 DJGietzen wrote:
What is the page number that defines a target unit?

Page 12, Choose a Target (step 2 of the firing process)

From wrote:
I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

The damaging vehicle squadrons section of the BRB describes what to with with hits. This errata does not change anything for them.

 DJGietzen wrote:
What is the page number that defines a target unit?

That's the point. You pick a target unit. You fire at a target unit. Rules for wound allocation only cover target units.


You are either allowed to allocate wounds to units that are hit, but are not the target unit, or you are not. There is no middle ground.

If it applies to units that are out of line of sight hit by a blast, then it also applies to units that are within line of sight.

They've painted themselves into a corner.

So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
**edit - my initial characterization of item 3 was incorrect. This seems more accurate.**
3. Scatter - no LOS - wounds can't be resolved due to Out of Sight (pg 16).

OR we go by Idolator's interpretation:
1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.

Quite frankly, the only way to read this without any mental gymnastics is that the unit(s) upon which the blast template ends up over after the scatter is to be considered the "target unit."

Imagine this situation, I have surrounded one of my opponents units on all sides. Normally I'd be hesitant to drop a blast marker on it as it may scatter onto my guys. With Rigeld2's reading, if I can somehow angle things such that most of my surrounding units are out of LOS of my firing unit then I increase the chances of taking out casualties on the enemy simply because if *my* out of sight unit takes wounds from the blast they get allocated to the "target". That's just dumb.

See below for a simple diagram. X are my units, O is the enemy, F is the firer. F has LOS to the enemy, but not my other units. Blast put on the enemy, then scatters into my guys. But... the enemy unit has to take the saves. No one in their right mind will play it that way. By extension, no one would consider "target unit" to be solely the unit where the marker was initially placed.

x
xx xxx
xxx xxxx
______
..........| O O
..........| O O O O O
..........|
..........|

F
FF

clively wrote:
So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - original unit that blast was "targeted" on takes the wounds. -- even if it was a friendly unit which the blast ended up over.

That's incorrect and not what I've said at all.

Once people start trying to make me look foolish when I've explained my point in dozens of threads exactly like this I'm done. Have fun guys.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Yes, absolutely. Look at page 12 for the beginning of where a target unit is mentioned/defined.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

For the target unit, that's correct.

I think that completely ignores the rules for Scatter and IMO wrong.

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

For Riggled to be wrong he needs more FAQs.

In truth the addition of this new FAQ makes RAI very clear, as, to most people it always has been.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - original unit that blast was "targeted" on takes the wounds. -- even if it was a friendly unit which the blast ended up over.

That's incorrect and not what I've said at all.

Once people start trying to make me look foolish when I've explained my point in dozens of threads exactly like this I'm done. Have fun guys.

Could you care to take those 3 situations and very simply state what you believe RAW says? I've read over everything you've posted and that really looks like your position. I'll absolutely apologize if I've misstated.

40k-noob wrote:

From wrote:
I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

The damaging vehicle squadrons section of the BRB describes what to with with hits. This errata does not change anything for them.

Thank you for directing me to this! Could you perhaps post the page # so that I might read into it when I get home?

Rigeld2: I apologize. Item 3 should have stated:
Scatter - no LOS. Wounds magically disappear.

**edited to remove the /sarcasm remark**

 DJGietzen wrote:
What is the page number that defines a target unit?

Target Unit is never defined. It is used in both the "Pick a Target" section to refer to the initial unit targeted for shooting pg 12. It is used again on pg 15 to refer to ANY unit taking a wound. By every argument I've seen rigeld2 make the Errata removes the restriction for killing models out of LoS. Their previous points being that it was "Out of Sight" that prevented the wounds from a scattered blast from being allocated. Since the errata'd section of the Blast rule applies to wounding and allocation we should use the definition of "Target Unit" provided in that section, which is any unit that has taken a wound.

From wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

From wrote:
I'm just going to chime in here with a question of my own.


Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.


what about vehicle squadrons? You have explicit permission to allocate wounds to the target unit. How about glances / penetrating hits? Those aren't wounds.

The damaging vehicle squadrons section of the BRB describes what to with with hits. This errata does not change anything for them.

Thank you for directing me to this! Could you perhaps post the page # so that I might read into it when I get home?

Page 77

clively wrote:
Rigeld2: I apologize. Item 3 should have stated:
Scatter - no LOS. Wounds magically disappear.

Yeah, that makes sense. /sarcasm

Read Out of Sight. Cite permission to ignore that.
I don't appreciate the sarcasm. At all.

rigeld2 wrote:
Read Out of Sight. Cite permission to ignore that.
I don't appreciate the sarcasm. At all.

I know you want to get into it with the other poster, but the permission is in the update:

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

It does not override "Out of Sight" by name, but does provide permission to allocate wounds out of LoS. As I mentioned in my previous post there is no set definition for "target unit" it is used to describe the unit selected by the firing unit in the first section of Shooting, but then used against to refer to any unit wounded in the Allocation section of Shooting. This also would bring the RAW in line with the fourth paragraph of Blast "This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. "

It provides permission to allocate to models in the target unit that are outside of LoS. It does not say anything about the wound pool not being emptied an doesn't give permission to not empty the wound pool if no model in the "target unit" can be seen - even following your interpretation of "target unit" (which I disagree with, but is irrelevant).

I think Rigeld2 is right the sarcasm isn't needed.

Rigeld2 - I think peoples problem here is why would they FAQ it to allow you to allocate wounds just to clear out the pool once they give you permission to allocate. It doesn't make any sense. It is clear that blasts are meant to hit, wound, and kill models out of sight. If they wanted to FAQ it to not allow out of sight wounds the FAQ would have stated - Models out of line line of sight can't have wounds allocated to them.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - original unit that blast was "targeted" on takes the wounds. -- even if it was a friendly unit which the blast ended up over.

That's incorrect and not what I've said at all.

Once people start trying to make me look foolish when I've explained my point in dozens of threads exactly like this I'm done. Have fun guys.

This does seem to be the only way of playing with how you are stating the rules. Could you please explain what you think happens?

rigeld2 wrote:
It provides permission to allocate to models in the target unit that are outside of LoS. It does not say anything about the wound pool not being emptied an doesn't give permission to not empty the wound pool if no model in the "target unit" can be seen - even following your interpretation of "target unit" (which I disagree with, but is irrelevant).

Clarify for me please, how can the wound pool be emptied? The only methods I am aware of are allocation or discarding because you are unable to allocate. If we take "target unit" as used in the Allocation section of the shooting rules (pg 15) then the errata provides the permission and the method to allocate the wounds. The Blast rules as originally written allowed for shots beyond max range and to hit and wound out of LoS, the update allows for the allocation of the wounds generated when a unit out of LoS is hit on scatter. If we combine this new addition to the original FAQ about Blasts hitting models out of LoS with no scatter they tell us that when any unit is hit by a Blast or Large Blast any unsaved wounds are taken from the nearest models ignoring terrain.

rigeld2 wrote:
It provides permission to allocate to models in the target unit that are outside of LoS. It does not say anything about the wound pool not being emptied an doesn't give permission to not empty the wound pool if no model in the "target unit" can be seen - even following your interpretation of "target unit" (which I disagree with, but is irrelevant).

Blast rules allow you to hit and wound units that are out of line of sight and out of range. Blast rules also allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of sight in the target unit.

Your entire argument hinges on the interpretation that if the out of sight unit hit is not the declared target then the wounds cannot be allocated. If this interpretation is used (that only the declared target may have wounds allocated to it), then hits on any undeclared target may not be allocated.

Placing the entire rules interpretation on the words, TARGET UNIT, doesn't work as all rules for wound allocation are based on target unit and no others. When using certain weapons such as blast, template, beam, vehicle explosions, crashing flyers, and many others you must use the unit hit as the target unit. Otherwise, none of these things would work properly.


This guy wont respond to this as he ignored me a while back. So it's for the rest of you. None of them have answered the question: What rule allows you to allocate wounds to a unit other than the target unit?

Obviously they believe that there is one, as they all seem to agree that wounds can be allocated to units other than the target unit as long as it's within LOS. They haven't mentioned what to do if you wound models in a unit that is not the intended target but some of them are out of LOS.

Here's another question for them. What is the target unit of a Beam weapon? Can wounds be allocated to a unit that is not the target of a beam weapon? What if they are out of LOS?

After just sitting and reading this entire thread I've come to the same conclusion of this pumpkin fellow.

It may not directly say "target unit" - and since we "target" a unit when we fire we would make the assumption that this is the target unit. HOWEVER, it would seem that the text in the BRB goes along with the assumption that the "target unit" from a template, blast, vehicle explosion, beam, etc is any unit that takes a hit from said attack.

As far as I see it unless you can - as he has requested multiple times tell us how beam weapons, explosions, blasts, templates, flyers crashing would work.

Under your assumption of "target unit" none of these would work as most beam weapons do not have targets or target the ground. Same with exploding vehicles and flyers crashing.

Mythra wrote:I think Rigeld2 is right the sarcasm isn't needed.

Rigeld2 - I think peoples problem here is why would they FAQ it to allow you to allocate wounds just to clear out the pool once they give you permission to allocate. It doesn't make any sense. It is clear that blasts are meant to hit, wound, and kill models out of sight. If they wanted to FAQ it to not allow out of sight wounds the FAQ would have stated - Models out of line line of sight can't have wounds allocated to them.

But they can have wounds allocated to them. A Blast is the only type of weapon that can kill everything out of LoS.

Trasvi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
So, going by rigeld2's interpretation we have the following situations from a blast weapon.

1. No scatter - all models in unit, even out of LOS, may be killed
2. Scatter - with LOS - unit that marker scattered on takes wounds.
3. Scatter - no LOS - original unit that blast was "targeted" on takes the wounds. -- even if it was a friendly unit which the blast ended up over.

That's incorrect and not what I've said at all.

Once people start trying to make me look foolish when I've explained my point in dozens of threads exactly like this I'm done. Have fun guys.

This does seem to be the only way of playing with how you are stating the rules. Could you please explain what you think happens?

Read further in the thread. His summation of 3 is wholly incorrect.

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It provides permission to allocate to models in the target unit that are outside of LoS. It does not say anything about the wound pool not being emptied an doesn't give permission to not empty the wound pool if no model in the "target unit" can be seen - even following your interpretation of "target unit" (which I disagree with, but is irrelevant).

Clarify for me please, how can the wound pool be emptied? The only methods I am aware of are allocation or discarding because you are unable to allocate. If we take "target unit" as used in the Allocation section of the shooting rules (pg 15) then the errata provides the permission and the method to allocate the wounds. The Blast rules as originally written allowed for shots beyond max range and to hit and wound out of LoS, the update allows for the allocation of the wounds generated when a unit out of LoS is hit on scatter. If we combine this new addition to the original FAQ about Blasts hitting models out of LoS with no scatter they tell us that when any unit is hit by a Blast or Large Blast any unsaved wounds are taken from the nearest models ignoring terrain.

You're conflating hit, populating the wound pool, and allocating wounds - something the actual shooting rules don't do.
The B&LB rules (prior to the errata) allowed the first 2 to happen against things out of LoS, but never allowed the 3rd.
The update doesn't change the fact that, according to the Out of Sight rules, the wound pool is emptied if no model in the firing unit can see any model in the "target" unit.

It's not that you're unable to allocate, Out of Sight tells you to empty the pool if you can't see them. This is the exact same reason that, RAW, weapons like the Impaler Cannon cannot wound out of LoS despite having permission to target and fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Budikah wrote:
After just sitting and reading this entire thread I've come to the same conclusion of this pumpkin fellow.

It may not directly say "target unit" - and since we "target" a unit when we fire we would make the assumption that this is the target unit. HOWEVER, it would seem that the text in the BRB goes along with the assumption that the "target unit" from a template, blast, vehicle explosion, beam, etc is any unit that takes a hit from said attack.

As far as I see it unless you can - as he has requested multiple times tell us how beam weapons, explosions, blasts, templates, flyers crashing would work.

Under your assumption of "target unit" none of these would work as most beam weapons do not have targets or target the ground. Same with exploding vehicles and flyers crashing.

I disagree with that assumption but its irrelevant so I'm not arguing it. If you're referring to Idolator I have him on ignore so I'm not sure what he's actually trying to argue and couldn't care much less.

rigeld2 - Not going to quote to save space here, but this snippet is what I'm talking about:

"The update doesn't change the fact that, according to the Out of Sight rules, the wound pool is emptied if no model in the firing unit can see any model in the "target" unit."

Then doesn't this invalidate your whole position? I have to place my template on a unit I can see, therefore I must have LoS to the 'target unit'. Having LoS to the 'target unit' takes Out of Sight out of the equation.

I completely disagree with you, anything with a blast can, should, and by my reading does kill whatever it lands on, but I would like to understand your position.

andystache wrote:
rigeld2 - Not going to quote to save space here, but this snippet is what I'm talking about:

"The update doesn't change the fact that, according to the Out of Sight rules, the wound pool is emptied if no model in the firing unit can see any model in the "target" unit."

Then doesn't this invalidate your whole position? I have to place my template on a unit I can see, therefore I must have LoS to the 'target unit'. Having LoS to the 'target unit' takes Out of Sight out of the equation.

I completely disagree with you, anything with a blast can, should, and by my reading does kill whatever it lands on, but I would like to understand your position.

No, remember that while I disagree with your assertion that "target unit" refers to anything the blast lands on, I'm not willing to argue it right now and it actually supports my point.

Since the "target unit" is put of LoS, Out of Sight triggers.

The thing is, it is not irrelevant.

You are using the term "target unit" as the mainstay of your argument as to why these units that had a blast scattered onto them, yet out of LoS from the firer - cannot be killed.

"Target unit" is the problem here. It is the original unit that the player targeted or does it include anything hit by a scatter, beam, explosion, etc?

How does a Death Ray work if there is no "target unit" - therefore you cannot allocate wounds?

 Budikah wrote:
The thing is, it is not irrelevant.

You are using the term "target unit" as the mainstay of your argument as to why these units that had a blast scattered onto them, yet out of LoS from the firer - cannot be killed.

"Target unit" is the problem here. It is the original unit that the player targeted or does it include anything hit by a scatter, beam, explosion, etc?

How does a Death Ray work if there is no "target unit" - therefore you cannot allocate wounds?

I'm really not. I've conceded that point for this argument.
Nothing in the B&LB rules - including the errata - ignores Out of Sight. Even accounting for "target unit" meaning "whatever the blast lands on".

rigeld2 wrote:
]
I disagree with that assumption but its irrelevant so I'm not arguing it. If you're referring to Idolator I have him on ignore so I'm not sure what he's actually trying to argue and couldn't care much less.

He has to click on my posts to read them.

The reason that no one answers it is simple. There is no answer. According to the RAW wounds can only be allocated to a target unit, which is the unit that you declared as a target. Then the game becomes unplayable as we know it.

If you apply their line of reasoning, a boat load of weapons and effects don't work. That's why you simply consider the unit hit as the target unit, just like you do every other time an undeclared unit is hit with a weapon or area effect.

Disregarding valid points and simple questions to one's reasoning is par for the course.


By the way, that is not a pumpkin. It is a cat, you can clearly see the deffinition listed at the top. As someone once pointed out to me, a word is indeed all the deffinition you need to determine what a thing is. I'll give you three guesses whom that may have been!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Budikah wrote:
The thing is, it is not irrelevant.

You are using the term "target unit" as the mainstay of your argument as to why these units that had a blast scattered onto them, yet out of LoS from the firer - cannot be killed.

"Target unit" is the problem here. It is the original unit that the player targeted or does it include anything hit by a scatter, beam, explosion, etc?

How does a Death Ray work if there is no "target unit" - therefore you cannot allocate wounds?

I'm really not. I've conceded that point for this argument.
Nothing in the B&LB rules - including the errata - ignores Out of Sight. Even accounting for "target unit" meaning "whatever the blast lands on".

That would mean, wounds caused by barrage, to a unit that is Out of Sight, cannot have wounds allocated to it. Wow, that is quite a reversal from your previous position.

 Idolator wrote:

That would mean, wounds caused by barrage, to a unit that is Out of Sight, cannot have wounds allocated to it. Wow, that is quite a reversal from your previous position.

No, as I've stated before in this thread Barrage gets around out of sight by drawing LOS from the center of the blast marker for wound allocation purposes.

To break it down, rigeld2's position as I have read it is that if a unit has wounds in the wound pool and no model in the unit is in LOS of any model in the firing unit, the wound pool is emptied.

However due to the errata, this only happens under certain circumstances if you hit the target unit with a blast.

A) You can't target a unit that you don't have at least LOS to part of it.
B) If you generate wounds in the wound pool you have permission to allocate to the closest enemy model without LOS (due to the errata) to that particular model and you have to allocate to the closest enemy model as per normal allocation rules.
C) Out of sight doesn't trigger until every visible model is dead, which means you can kill the whole unit if the visible models are the furthest away. If the visible models are closest, the wound pool empties when the visible ones all die.

I don't understand the reasoning behind adding the separate wound pool, then there is the whole "target unit" bit. The whole paragraph is rather inelegant. Again I say borrowing the barrage LOS swap would've been simpler.