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.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
I have shown that the normal B&LB shot that hits it's target also has no permission to allocate wounds to models - feel free to point out something I've missed

Maybe the 6th paragraph of the B&LB section that tells you to wound and save as normal.

Fragile wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
I have shown that the normal B&LB shot that hits it's target also has no permission to allocate wounds to models - feel free to point out something I've missed

Maybe the 6th paragraph of the B&LB section that tells you to wound and save as normal.

And, As was pointed out recently....
on pg16 under "Out of Sight" the rule reads "If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model then wounds cannot be allocated to it and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model IN THE TARGET UNIT."
Meaning if the shot scatters into a unit that cannot be seen, then any wound generated must then be allocated to the original target unit.

Problem solved.
You missed your target unit, hit something else and still get to wound the models in the original target unit.

Thats not what that line says and has no bearing on what Dave just said.

 helgrenze wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:
I have shown that the normal B&LB shot that hits it's target also has no permission to allocate wounds to models - feel free to point out something I've missed

Maybe the 6th paragraph of the B&LB section that tells you to wound and save as normal.

And, As was pointed out recently....
on pg16 under "Out of Sight" the rule reads "If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model then wounds cannot be allocated to it and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model IN THE TARGET UNIT."
Meaning if the shot scatters into a unit that cannot be seen, then any wound generated must then be allocated to the original target unit.

Problem solved.
You missed your target unit, hit something else and still get to wound the models in the original target unit.

So, the fact that the rules say for scattering blasts that you can hit and wound as normal against targets out of LOS just doesn't mean anything anymore?

Fragile.... look it up. That is a direct quote.

Kevin949.... That is the arguement. But with that line the wounds generated by the out of LOS blast hit are taken out on the "Target Unit", that is the unit that WAS targetted not the one that was HIT.

 helgrenze wrote:
Fragile.... look it up. That is a direct quote.

Kevin949.... That is the arguement. But with that line the wounds generated by the out of LOS blast hit are taken out on the "Target Unit", that is the unit that WAS targetted not the one that was HIT.

I guess I fail to see what the argument is about. The rule for blasts says you can hit and wound units out of LOS or locked in combat and that 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.

The whole system for wounding units and models out of LOS is just for basic shooting, i.e. weapons that don't use blast/template/beams.

The "Out of Sight" rule is a general rule to all firing models, blast & large blast is a special rule that supercedes the LoS limitations.

Heck, it really doesn't even matter if the blast marker scatters or not since you simply "determine the final position" which includes rolling a "hit" on the scatter die.

*edit*
Sorry, I really haven't read the entire 20+ pages of this thread, but decided to pop in since it seemed to still be going on (ridiculous as it may seem, to me at least).

Its a direct quote and still not what that line says. Your taking a single line out of context to argue something. Honestly Im not sure what. Something about blasts not being able to allocate wounds to the unit they hit.

That line means that if the closest model in the unit you just shot is not visible you apply the wounds to the closest visible unit. Its pretty simple.

Fragile.... that is what this entire 21 page thread is about.
RAW does not allow you to allocate wounds to the models in a unit that a scattered blast hits if those models are not visible to the unit that fired the shot.
RAW also states that if there is no model visible in the unit that was hit, then the wounds are allocated to the unit that was originally targetted.

I have shown that the normal B&LB shot that hits it's target also has no permission to allocate wounds to models

This is what I started referring to. A B&LB that HIT has no permission to wound models.

RAW does not allow you to allocate wounds to the models in a unit that a scattered blast hits if those models are not visible to the unit that fired the shot.

Correct.

RAW also states that if there is no model visible in the unit that was hit, then the wounds are allocated to the unit that was originally targetted.

Incorrect. Your taking that line out of context.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because you need a rule saying you can allocate unsaved wounds out of los. The rules for allocating wounds require LOS.

likewise we need a rule that says we can wound our own guys.

as the BRB states "allocate wounds to ENEMY models"

so scatter will never wound a FRIENDLY model, and defiantly never your own models as you are not your own enemy.

Lets just babble on about this some more..... then we can go into bolt pistols... they cant really fit in those pouches, and the model is not holding one....so how can they fire them before and during an assault
???

I was having this discussion with a friend of mine and we both came to a realization today. The reason the FAQ stressed the Does NOT scatter in the question they answered is they figured that the rules on P. 33 for blasts already covered Units other than the target unit. Silly GW thinking that people don't need everything absolutely spelled out to the letter; why, oh why would they think that expressly stating that you can wound a unit would not cover being able to wound the unit?
If things keep going this way, the book is going to end up being over 1,000 pages and reading like a legal document. For reference as to how this could potentially end up, just take a glance at the comprehensive rules for Magic:the Gathering, which WOTC can no longer package with it's product. It is a legal document with sections and subsections covering every possible rules interaction.

Fragile wrote:

Incorrect. Your taking that line out of context.

You're going to say someone is incorrect because of context? seriously?

This is possibly the single most ridiculous debate I've ever seen on YMDC. Intent is abundantly clear, and we're quibbling over extremely minor wordings of the rules. Given that we're arguing over minor wordings, its perfectly legitimate to bring up other minor wordings to show that a) its a stupid argument and b) if you want to argue ridiculous wording out of context, others can do that too, so watch out where it takes you.

Trasvi wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Incorrect. Your taking that line out of context.

You're going to say someone is incorrect because of context? seriously?

This is possibly the single most ridiculous debate I've ever seen on YMDC. Intent is abundantly clear, and we're quibbling over extremely minor wordings of the rules. Given that we're arguing over minor wordings, its perfectly legitimate to bring up other minor wordings to show that a) its a stupid argument and b) if you want to argue ridiculous wording out of context, others can do that too, so watch out where it takes you.

Absolutely agree. You cannot argue that you need to play the RAW and then argue that you have to read context into the RAW just because it makes even less sense than not being able to wound the unit your explosives actually landed on

 Adrian Fue Fue wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because you need a rule saying you can allocate unsaved wounds out of los. The rules for allocating wounds require LOS.

likewise we need a rule that says we can wound our own guys.

as the BRB states "allocate wounds to ENEMY models"

so scatter will never wound a FRIENDLY model, and defiantly never your own models as you are not your own enemy.

Lets just babble on about this some more..... then we can go into bolt pistols... they cant really fit in those pouches, and the model is not holding one....so how can they fire them before and during an assault
???

The rules in the book for blasts and large blast say they can hit and wound your own units if they scatter.

Fragile wrote:

RAW also states that if there is no model visible in the unit that was hit, then the wounds are allocated to the unit that was originally targetted.

Incorrect. Your taking that line out of context.

Perhaps you can put it into the proper context.......

Trasvi wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Incorrect. Your taking that line out of context.

You're going to say someone is incorrect because of context? seriously?

This is possibly the single most ridiculous debate I've ever seen on YMDC. Intent is abundantly clear, and we're quibbling over extremely minor wordings of the rules. Given that we're arguing over minor wordings, its perfectly legitimate to bring up other minor wordings to show that a) its a stupid argument and b) if you want to argue ridiculous wording out of context, others can do that too, so watch out where it takes you.

Then I guess you play the First Blood secondary objective as only non vehicle are counted. And Purge the Alien only counts vehicles. Context is always important.

Absolutely agree. You cannot argue that you need to play the RAW and then argue that you have to read context into the RAW just because it makes even less sense than not being able to wound the unit your explosives actually landed

You can argue it. Again, your trying to take 1 line and apply it to something it doesnt apply it to.

Perhaps you can put it into the proper context.......

If you read further back, you will see where I did. Applying the "hits, wounds, allocates" as "normal" from the B&LB section to the Out of Sight rule that he was taking 1 line out of and you will get your context.

Some would say that people are reading the "as for a normal shooting attack" out of context, but then, even if you take that at it's primary motivation, that is to direct your attention to the "Normal" shooting resolution and wound allocation, then anything contain therein must be assessed as it pertains to the shot that you currently have wounds for. As such you must go through the process, and if targeting is indeed being distinct from hitting/ wounding and wound allocation, then it explicitly states that only the unit that has been "targeted" can, under a direct interpretation of that rule, be allocated wounds. And in the case of B&LB templates, going back to the "targeted" unit ignores scatter.

Out of context? Depends on how you break down the process. But as a totally literal reading, it is still legitimate.

Fragile wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Incorrect. Your taking that line out of context.

You're going to say someone is incorrect because of context? seriously?

This is possibly the single most ridiculous debate I've ever seen on YMDC. Intent is abundantly clear, and we're quibbling over extremely minor wordings of the rules. Given that we're arguing over minor wordings, its perfectly legitimate to bring up other minor wordings to show that a) its a stupid argument and b) if you want to argue ridiculous wording out of context, others can do that too, so watch out where it takes you.

Then I guess you play the First Blood secondary objective as only non vehicle are counted. And Purge the Alien only counts vehicles. Context is always important.

Absolutely agree. You cannot argue that you need to play the RAW and then argue that you have to read context into the RAW just because it makes even less sense than not being able to wound the unit your explosives actually landed

You can argue it. Again, your trying to take 1 line and apply it to something it doesnt apply it to.

Perhaps you can put it into the proper context.......

If you read further back, you will see where I did. Applying the "hits, wounds, allocates" as "normal" from the B&LB section to the Out of Sight rule that he was taking 1 line out of and you will get your context.

No, I don't play that. I think the RAW clearly states in this case that you can wound (and therefore allocate damage to models in) units out of LOS. This is because you MUST take into *context* the explicit instruction, you can wound units out of LOS.
This is the most important piece of context in the rules we're discussing here. If you try to play 'resolve wounds as normal' out of the context of that instruction, then you need to ignore *all* context, which leads to the silly situations allocating wounds back to the 'target' unit.

As for your above scenarios, I see what you mean, I believe the interchangeability of 'destroyed' and 'removed as a casualty' within the 'first blood' objective proves context that they mean the same thing, and units are also destroyed if they deep strike mishap or are swept from combat. I am a very RAI player, but if someone tries to use strict no-intent no-context RAW at me then they should be prepared for me to turn it around on them worse and with all the gak that entails.

Trasvi wrote:
No, I don't play that. I think the RAW clearly states in this case that you can wound (and therefore allocate damage to models in) units out of LOS. This is because you MUST take into *context* the explicit instruction, you can wound units out of LOS.

Ok, here's where we disagree. It makes just as much sense to me that if you fire a blast weapon and miss, that it won't hurt a unit out of LOS. Missiles and such, do not make 90 degree turns and shoot off from the targetted unit. They would come from the shooter. And if your hiding behind a building that blocked LOS to the shooter, then it makes as much sense that the missile that the shooter fired so badly just hit the outside of the building you were hiding behind rather than come around it like some high tech homing missile.

This is the most important piece of context in the rules we're discussing here. If you try to play 'resolve wounds as normal' out of the context of that instruction, then you need to ignore *all* context, which leads to the silly situations allocating wounds back to the 'target' unit.

Again this is not possible unless someone deliberately misinterprets the rules. That line is used for shooting at a unit where the closest models are out of LOS and therefore cannot have a wound assigned to them. Therefore, by that rule, you assign the wound to the closest model in the targeted unit that is in LOS.

If you apply "as normal" context to the scattered blast then you are following the same steps you would be if you were shooting at them (Steps 1-5) on pg 12, since those are the normal rules for shooting at a unit. In which case, the unit under that scattered blast becomes the target unit.

As for your above scenarios, I see what you mean, I believe the interchangeability of 'destroyed' and 'removed as a casualty' within the 'first blood' objective proves context that they mean the same thing, and units are also destroyed if they deep strike mishap or are swept from combat. I am a very RAI player, but if someone tries to use strict no-intent no-context RAW at me then they should be prepared for me to turn it around on them worse and with all the gak that entails.

Yeah, those are just very obvious cases of GW using casual language in the game, which can make things difficult.

Fragile wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
No, I don't play that. I think the RAW clearly states in this case that you can wound (and therefore allocate damage to models in) units out of LOS. This is because you MUST take into *context* the explicit instruction, you can wound units out of LOS.

Ok, here's where we disagree. It makes just as much sense to me that if you fire a blast weapon and miss, that it won't hurt a unit out of LOS. Missiles and such, do not make 90 degree turns and shoot off from the targetted unit. They would come from the shooter. And if your hiding behind a building that blocked LOS to the shooter, then it makes as much sense that the missile that the shooter fired so badly just hit the outside of the building you were hiding behind rather than come around it like some high tech homing missile.

Except that isn't what the rules SAY. This Thread started as a RAW vs RAI discussion. What "Makes sense" is not part of the rules for scatter. However, Things can happen that damage the control surfaces of a rocket or missle that could cause it to veer wildly off course through mishandling in a combat situation.

This is the most important piece of context in the rules we're discussing here. If you try to play 'resolve wounds as normal' out of the context of that instruction, then you need to ignore *all* context, which leads to the silly situations allocating wounds back to the 'target' unit.

Again this is not possible unless someone deliberately misinterprets the rules. That line is used for shooting at a unit where the closest models are out of LOS and therefore cannot have a wound assigned to them. Therefore, by that rule, you assign the wound to the closest model in the targeted unit that is in LOS.

If you apply "as normal" context to the scattered blast then you are following the same steps you would be if you were shooting at them (Steps 1-5) on pg 12, since those are the normal rules for shooting at a unit. In which case, the unit under that scattered blast becomes the target unit.

 helgrenze wrote:
Except that isn't what the rules SAY. This Thread started as a RAW vs RAI discussion. What "Makes sense" is not part of the rules for scatter. However, Things can happen that damage the control surfaces of a rocket or missle that could cause it to veer wildly off course through mishandling in a combat situation.

Thats what the rules do say. You cannot wound a model out of LOS.

There is nothing in the rules that moves the designation of "Target" from one unit to another after the shooting starts. The Scatter and Blast rules allow the template to be relocated, but do not change the original target. If it does, post the page and line.

They allow the blast template to be moved and "hits, wounds and allocation" against that unit as normal.

Fragile wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
Except that isn't what the rules SAY. This Thread started as a RAW vs RAI discussion. What "Makes sense" is not part of the rules for scatter. However, Things can happen that damage the control surfaces of a rocket or missle that could cause it to veer wildly off course through mishandling in a combat situation.

Thats what the rules do say. You cannot wound a model out of LOS.

Wrong.. you can wound models out of LOS.... The rules say you cannot ALLOCATE wounds to models out of LOS and they also say to allocate those wounds to models in the target unit that are in LOS.

There is nothing in the rules that moves the designation of "Target" from one unit to another after the shooting starts. The Scatter and Blast rules allow the template to be relocated, but do not change the original target. If it does, post the page and line.

They allow the blast template to be moved and "hits, wounds and allocation" against that unit as normal.

This does not change the "target unit", only the unit hit and wounded, and if the unit hit (and wounded) is out of LOS, since wounds cannot be allocated to models in that unit then the wounds must be allocated to the "Target Unit", that is, the unit that was the target of the shot before the shot scattered.

Your trying to apply a sentence that does not apply.

Blast.
....the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker......

....Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To Wound as normal....

Wounding...

..Hitting your target is not always enough to put it out of action..
..compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic..
...Quite rarely, a unit will contain models with differing Toughness characteristics. \7hen this occurs, roll To \Wound using the Toughness characteristic that is in the majority in the target unit.

Roll saves as normal....

....To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed....

....Take Saving Throws...
...First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, for each Wound.


Again, the rules clearly show that the unit the attack is being resolved on would be the target of the attack in the context of a "normal" shooting attack. That line you keep quoting doesn't redirect the attack back to the unit it scattered from regardless of whether you consider that the first "target" of the attack.

Ok.... So how do you allocate wounds to the models that are hit while out of LOS since the rules for such say that it cannot be done?

Hits are generated, saves are generated, unsaved wounds are generated.... Allocate them. and remember that the unit that was hit is out of los to all models in the shooting unit.

 helgrenze wrote:
Ok.... So how do you allocate wounds to the models that are hit while out of LOS since the rules for such say that it cannot be done?

Hits are generated, saves are generated, unsaved wounds are generated.... Allocate them. and remember that the unit that was hit is out of los to all models in the shooting unit.

You don't. If there is no LOS to the unit that the blast scattered on to, the wound pool empties.

Well if gw faq this the naysayer who claim that a scattered blast template will not kill any models you cant see will find their argument a moot point.

The LOS ruling is for non scattering direct fire like bullets. It is a rediculas argument to aplly the los rule to another rule that says you hit and wound and resolve the damage like a normal shooting attack removing the closest model to the fireing unit first then so on so forth.

The LOS rule they wrote is a great rule ince whole squads where wipped out do to things like assault 3 weapons yet some couldnt even be seen. Now they cant because this isnt the matrix and bullets cant trun corners. Blast however can go off point and kill. When they clarify for you rules squabblers in that your wrong there will be alot of people vindicated AGAin by something that didnt need to be clarified. Most of you RAW people where all wrong in the last FAQ update and theres a great chance your going to be wrong again since your arguments are rediculas at best.

Based on your arguments here astral aim cant wound anyone either. They cant be seen....
Oh wait theres a rule that says it can, just like blast templates scattering has a rule that says it can, but only when it scatters.

Which negates the whole process.

Makes as much sense as allocating those wounds to the original target.

Lungpickle wrote:
Well if gw faq this the naysayer who claim that a scattered blast template will not kill any models you cant see will find their argument a moot point.

And I'd bet 99% of the "naysayers" agree with that and don't play it this way. That doesn't mean the rules don't currently work that way.

In case no one has pointed this out before lets say because of bad scattering you manage to claim 40 hits on a massive unit that only has one model in like of site. Well you roll to wound on every hit and then watch one model die. The 39 you cannot see cannot be killed by the attack but it may make it more likely that the models the shooting unit can see from the squad will die.

Wow, this is still going on. @.@