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.

Sordyn wrote:
ok, ok.... First of all Blast is a universal special rule, special rules are exceptions to the standard rules. Hence the word special.

Irrelevant statement.

Page 35 of the Warhammer 7th edition states :
Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

You italicized a part of the rule I'm not arguing. I underlined the relevant part.

Page 158 of the Warhammer 7th edition, Blast special rule:
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll to Wound and save as normal. Remember that any Wounds inflicted by a weapon with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.

The key phrase here is that wounds MUST be allocated to the closest model regardless of line of sight which clearly contravenes and because it is a special rule trumps the normal rules for Line of Sight wound allocation, and the "If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost clause is effectively ignored as ANY wounds MUST be allocated to the closest model.

You're conflating two things here. The rules forbidding allocation to an out of sight model are ignored due to the blast rules. You're making an assumption without merit to apply the exact same blast rules to the would pool clearing.
All wounds are allocated to the closest model, even if that model is out of sight.
That doesn't mean you get to ignore all rules related to wound allocation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:
Blast says you can allocate to things out of range.

You're correct. sorry.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sordyn wrote:
Incase I didn't state my case for wound pool emptying clear enough earlier:

Blast weapon: Aha! I have 4 wounds that must allocated to closest model even though I can't seem them!

Out of Sight: Excuse me you can't allocate them to out of sight models.

Blast weapon: Dude I totally can I'm a special, and I trump you!

Out of Sight: Aww shucks, but wait you get one wound then the rest must be emptied because no one is in Line of Sight aha!

Blast weapon: Dude i'm sorry but my wounds MUST be allocated which trumps your emptying rule... sorry bro.

No, it does not trump the emptying rule. All wounds *are* allocated until the pool is emptied.

Are you saying that if the out of sight models are also out of range, you have permission to allocate to them?

It does trump the emptying rule as "any wounds from a blast weapon MUST be allocated to the closest blah blah blah" so all the wounds ARE allocated, in this case to the closest model. In other words the wounds MUST be allocated they cannot just simply dissapear!

I struggle to envisage a scenario where a legally targeted accurate blast strike would cause models closest to the firing unit to be out of range of the firer.

Sordyn wrote:
It does trump the emptying rule as "any wounds from a blast weapon MUST be allocated to the closest blah blah blah" so all the wounds ARE allocated, in this case to the closest model. In other words the wounds MUST be allocated they cannot just simply dissapear!

They can - and do. The Out of Sight rule requires it. All wounds are allocated until there are no models in LoS. When that happens the second half of the rule kicks in, and there isn't a single thing in the blast rules to override it.
Not that you've cited anyway - care to cite a relevant rule?

I struggle to envisage a scenario where a legally targeted accurate blast strike would cause models closest to the firing unit to be out of range of the firer.

Why is scattering not in your envisaged scenarios?

Sordyn wrote:


It does trump the emptying rule as "any wounds from a blast weapon MUST be allocated to the closest blah blah blah" so all the wounds ARE allocated, in this case to the closest model. In other words the wounds MUST be allocated they cannot just simply dissapear!

Citation needed, because nothing you have posted says to ignore the Out of Sight rules.

I struggle to envisage a scenario where a legally targeted accurate blast strike would cause models closest to the firing unit to be out of range of the firer.

Out of range? easy: .Unit is behind a wall. The closest model is visible to the firing unit and standing in front of a wall, he is 47 inches from the space marine Dev squad with Missile launchers. The next three closest models are behind the wall and not visible to the attacking unit and they are 49 inches from the closest model in the Dev unit, while the remaining 6 models are 51 inches from the dev unit and within the Line of sight of the Dev unit.

The blast is targeted at the closest model, and scatters straight back into the three models behind the wall out of line of sight. lets say they score 6 total wounds, you would allocate to the closest visible model, and if he fails his armor save, he dies, then you would start allocating to the next closest model even though he is out of line of sight and out of range of the firing unit.

Now, if there were only 4 models in the unit in that same scenario, you would allocate the first wound to the visible model, then the wound pool would empty because there are not any visible models in the target unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sordyn wrote:
It does trump the emptying rule as "any wounds from a blast weapon MUST be allocated to the closest blah blah blah" so all the wounds ARE allocated, in this case to the closest model. In other words the wounds MUST be allocated they cannot just simply dissapear!

They can - and do. The Out of Sight rule requires it. All wounds are allocated until there are no models in LoS. When that happens the second half of the rule kicks in, and there isn't a single thing in the blast rules to override it.
Not that you've cited anyway - care to cite a relevant rule?

I struggle to envisage a scenario where a legally targeted accurate blast strike would cause models closest to the firing unit to be out of range of the firer.

Why is scattering not in your envisaged scenarios?

Ok 3 Blast Wounds.

1st wound : Ignores First Line of Sight Clause.
Resolves.
Second line of sight clause triggers and attempts to empty wound pool.
Blast rule states that "ANY wound" potentialy including the ones about to be emptied "MUST be allocated to closest target". Special rule overrides basic rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once the last model in LOS is killed, there are no Wounds left in the wound pool so they can't be allocated.

Am I supposed to say brah or bro here now?

Snapshot wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once the last model in LOS is killed, there are no Wounds left in the wound pool so they can't be allocated.

Am I supposed to say brah or bro here now?

I'm not fussy bro/brah, but I still believe that the wound's wouldn't be lost to the 2nd clause, because they have to be allocated via the blast special rule which contradicts them being lost, so therefore the special rule wins.

Sordyn wrote:
... because they have to be allocated via the blast special rule which contradicts them being lost, so therefore the special rule wins.

By that logic, the out of sight rule would never apply, as wounds always have to be allocated to the closest model.

Wounds are allocated from your wound pool.
Once there are no models in LOS, the wound pool is emptied.
This means that there are no longer any wounds in the wound pool to be allocated.

FWIW, I'm fairly certain that this is an oversight, and I would play it as Blasts ignoring the out of sight rule. But as the rules currently stand, once there are no models remaining in LOS, you can no longer allocate wounds to models out of sight.

Blast says they must be allocated to closest even if out-of-los - but allocation is defined elsewhere, which includes the out-of-sight rule, which is not overridden/cancelled by Blast.

I admit that the way the rules are written, this is not an obvious connection to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
.FWIW, I'm fairly certain that this is an oversight, and I would play it as Blasts ignoring the out of sight rule. But as the rules currently stand, once there are no models remaining in LOS, you can no longer allocate wounds to models out of sight.

Until it's addressed by GW I guess we'll never know, but I'm not convinced it's an oversight. The way it works RAW, means there is a clear differentiation between Blast and Barrage weapons when it comes to shooting stuff that has some form of protection, and I like the distinction (it might also be because my army can field a crap-ton of Barrage weapons if I want to, but that's beside the point )

 insaniak wrote:

Sordyn wrote:
... because they have to be allocated via the blast special rule which contradicts them being lost, so therefore the special rule wins.

By that logic, the out of sight rule would never apply, as wounds always have to be allocated to the closest model.

Wounds are allocated from your wound pool.
Once there are no models in LOS, the wound pool is emptied.
This means that there are no longer any wounds in the wound pool to be allocated.

FWIW, I'm fairly certain that this is an oversight, and I would play it as Blasts ignoring the out of sight rule. But as the rules currently stand, once there are no models remaining in LOS, you can no longer allocate wounds to models out of sight.

Actually the out of sight rule would apply as the "Allocate wounds" says : "First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused the wound." so you allocate the wound then check the Out of Range, Out of Sight Clauses.

Blast differs by saying you *must* allocate to the closest model, just as it says you *must* allocate any wounds caused it doesn't care if those wounds would like to slip away and have a holiday in greece they *have* to be allocated, maybe i'm splitting hairs .... it's late and I'm tired.

Snapshot wrote:
The way it works RAW, means there is a clear differentiation between Blast and Barrage weapons when it comes to shooting stuff that has some form of protection, and I like the distinction (it might also be because my army can field a crap-ton of Barrage weapons if I want to, but that's beside the point )

The distinction between Blast and Barrage is that you can choose to target a Barrage weapon at a unit you can't see. Blasts need the target to be in LOS to start with. You don't need a different method of wound allocation to further differentiate them... that's just adding confusing complexity for no good reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sordyn wrote:
Actually the out of sight rule would apply as the "Allocate wounds" says : "First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused the wound." so you allocate the wound then check the Out of Range, Out of Sight Clauses.

Blast differs by saying you *must* allocate to the closest model, just as it says you *must* allocate any wounds caused it doesn't care if those wounds would like to slip away and have a holiday in greece they *have* to be allocated, maybe i'm splitting hairs .... it's late and I'm tired.

That's no effective difference. The statements 'Allocate wounds to a model' and 'You must allocate wounds to a model' are functionally identical when no other option is given to the first statement.



Your interpretation would only work if all of the wounds were applied at the same time. They're not. You apply the wounds from the would pool one at a time. If at any point in that process you have no more models in LOS or range, then the wound pool empties.

The Blast rule requires you to allocate the wounds, yes. But in order for that to happen, there has to be a wound to allocate. The moment there are no more models in LOS, there are no wounds to allocate.

 insaniak wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
The way it works RAW, means there is a clear differentiation between Blast and Barrage weapons when it comes to shooting stuff that has some form of protection, and I like the distinction (it might also be because my army can field a crap-ton of Barrage weapons if I want to, but that's beside the point )

The distinction between Blast and Barrage is that you can choose to target a Barrage weapon at a unit you can't see. Blasts need the target to be in LOS to start with. You don't need a different method of wound allocation to further differentiate them... that's just adding confusing complexity for no good reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sordyn wrote:
Actually the out of sight rule would apply as the "Allocate wounds" says : "First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused the wound." so you allocate the wound then check the Out of Range, Out of Sight Clauses.

Blast differs by saying you *must* allocate to the closest model, just as it says you *must* allocate any wounds caused it doesn't care if those wounds would like to slip away and have a holiday in greece they *have* to be allocated, maybe i'm splitting hairs .... it's late and I'm tired.

That's no effective difference. The statements 'Allocate wounds to a model' and 'You must allocate wounds to a model' are functionally identical when no other option is given to the first statement.



Your interpretation would only work if all of the wounds were applied at the same time. They're not. You apply the wounds from the would pool one at a time. If at any point in that process you have no more models in LOS or range, then the wound pool empties.

The Blast rule requires you to allocate the wounds, yes. But in order for that to happen, there has to be a wound to allocate. The moment there are no more models in LOS, there are no wounds to allocate.

Then my question is this: What is the wording on Barrage? Because wouldn't that in turn mean they are useless weapons? Sure, you can fire a Barrage on me. But you can't see me...so you can't wound me. So...that weapon is stupidly useless and why would you bother taking it?

Barrage draws line of sight from the center of the marker.
The basic rulebook is clear on that.

rigeld2 wrote:
Barrage draws line of sight from the center of the marker.
The basic rulebook is clear on that.

Well, line of sight for cover and wound allocation, yep. Just brought up my BRB on my tablet now that work has simmered down. But it still seems that Blasts are intended to still wound models out of sight, though they are obviously granted the cover opportunity.

Melevolence wrote:
... But it still seems that Blasts are intended to still wound models out of sight, though they are obviously granted the cover opportunity.

Yup, I agree, as I pointed out already... that's the likely intention. But the rules as they currently stand simply don't actually allow it, unless there is at least one model visible.

 insaniak wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
... But it still seems that Blasts are intended to still wound models out of sight, though they are obviously granted the cover opportunity.

Yup, I agree, as I pointed out already... that's the likely intention. But the rules as they currently stand simply don't actually allow it, unless there is at least one model visible.

Ah well. Our group will more than likely keep playing as it's intended to play. Never bothered me anyway. *shrug* Just means I gotta hide my Boyz bettah! Or....just KFF and forgo cover all together! :p

Melevolence wrote:
Then my question is this: What is the wording on Barrage? Because wouldn't that in turn mean they are useless weapons? Sure, you can fire a Barrage on me. But you can't see me...so you can't wound me. So...that weapon is stupidly useless and why would you bother taking it?

Barrage lets you draw line of sight from the center of the marker.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
Then my question is this: What is the wording on Barrage? Because wouldn't that in turn mean they are useless weapons? Sure, you can fire a Barrage on me. But you can't see me...so you can't wound me. So...that weapon is stupidly useless and why would you bother taking it?

Barrage lets you draw line of sight from the center of the marker.

Well, it specifically says you use the center of the marker for determining who is wounded and who gets a cover save, yes. But you technically don't have 'line of sight' to the enemy unit if the firing models literally can't see them. But the point is the same.

 insaniak wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
The way it works RAW, means there is a clear differentiation between Blast and Barrage weapons when it comes to shooting stuff that has some form of protection, and I like the distinction (it might also be because my army can field a crap-ton of Barrage weapons if I want to, but that's beside the point )

The distinction between Blast and Barrage is that you can choose to target a Barrage weapon at a unit you can't see. Blasts need the target to be in LOS to start with. You don't need a different method of wound allocation to further differentiate them... that's just adding confusing complexity for no good reason.

I know that. I was thinking more of the different mechanic for wound allocation - Blast gives you a sort of "half-way house" ability to kill models out of LOS, compared to the Barrage weapon's ability to measure LOS from it's centre. If you don't have the disinction in wound allocation, Blast weapons become almost as effective as Barrage at killing hidden stuff - just saying I like the differentiation.

Melevolence wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
Then my question is this: What is the wording on Barrage? Because wouldn't that in turn mean they are useless weapons? Sure, you can fire a Barrage on me. But you can't see me...so you can't wound me. So...that weapon is stupidly useless and why would you bother taking it?

Barrage lets you draw line of sight from the center of the marker.

Well, it specifically says you use the center of the marker for determining who is wounded and who gets a cover save, yes. But you technically don't have 'line of sight' to the enemy unit if the firing models literally can't see them. But the point is the same.

"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 coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model." (Barrage rules)

You use the "centre of the blast marker" for cover saves and when determining Wound allocation, instead of the firing model. This implies that Line of Sight is from the center of the marker.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Melevolence wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
Then my question is this: What is the wording on Barrage? Because wouldn't that in turn mean they are useless weapons? Sure, you can fire a Barrage on me. But you can't see me...so you can't wound me. So...that weapon is stupidly useless and why would you bother taking it?

Barrage lets you draw line of sight from the center of the marker.

Well, it specifically says you use the center of the marker for determining who is wounded and who gets a cover save, yes. But you technically don't have 'line of sight' to the enemy unit if the firing models literally can't see them. But the point is the same.

"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 coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model." (Barrage rules)

You use the "centre of the blast marker" for cover saves and when determining Wound allocation, instead of the firing model. This implies that Line of Sight is from the center of the marker.

+1 to this.

If you have made it to the cover save part you obviously were allowed to allocate the wound.

How do you draw line of sight from a non-model?

 insaniak wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
... But it still seems that Blasts are intended to still wound models out of sight, though they are obviously granted the cover opportunity.

Yup, I agree, as I pointed out already... that's the likely intention. But the rules as they currently stand simply don't actually allow it, unless there is at least one model visible.

True, but the rules currently do not allow any non Los weapon to work. Tau smart missiles, impaler canons, indirect fire etc. You have to assume that all of the OOS rule is ignored and not just part of it

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How do you draw line of sight from a non-model?

"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 coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model.

Underlined.

If the shot is coming from a direction you draw the line from whence it came, if the line can make it to the model, its in LoS from where it came.

Yes, now find LOS. Given you are told that is model to model. This rule does not obviate that requirement.

Having read through this and looked up the cited rules, its appareant that blast weapons can indeed inflict wounds on models not visible to the firer. It's also clear that to any one who prefers some semblence of realism, its a silly rule. And it's not the only one. And I won't be using them., because thankfully there's also a way to bypass them:

"Above all else it's important to remember that the rules are just a framework to support an enjoyable game...what's more Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas,drama and ceativity to the game. Much of the appeall of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written."
-6th ed rulebook, page 8. Heading: The Spirit of the Game

You don't actually need a rule in the rulebook to tell you that you can modify the rules if you and your opponent choose to do so...


Meanwhile. this appears to have gone about as far as is likely to be productive. Moving on.