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.

There was a previous thread locked, here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/610812.page#7133763
but I didn't see this come up there, nor did it show up in a forum search:

Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons 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.

It's the first sentence before Multiple Blasts in the Blast section. Given this, is there any RAW reason to still think you can't blast people you can't see once the blast hits?

For barrage it's the closest to where the "shell" explodes, and for straight up blasts, I assume the fluff it that you are blasting chunks of shrapnel from whatever LoS blocker the shell would have hit to explain why you use closest model mechanics.

No, Blasts can hit stuff they cant see, and can scatter beyond max range (generally) They just cant target them.

And if there are no visible models in the target unit the wound pool empties.

So if the entire unit is out of Line of Sight, there are no wounds to be allocated to the closest out of sight model.

Yeah, Blasts are currently messed up.

The rules allow you to allocate wounds from Blasts to models out of LOS, but the LOS rules empty the wound pool as soon as there are no visible models left.

So the end result is that Blasts can kill models that are out of sight, but only so long as there is at least one model visible. The moment that all of the visible models are gone, the wound pool empties and there are therefore no more wounds to allocate.


This is probably an oversight.

I'm sure its an oversight because the "No LoS empties wound pool" rule also make weapons that don't use LoS (like Smart Missles Systems) completely useless

 CrownAxe wrote:
I'm sure its an oversight because the "No LoS empties wound pool" rule also make weapons that don't use LoS (like Smart Missles Systems) completely useless

It's for sure an oversight there, but blasts is less clear.

What about Templates, can they hit out of LoS?

Mymearan wrote:
What about Templates, can they hit out of LoS?

Everything can hit out of LoS but unlike blasts, templates have no permission to allocate wounds to models out of LoS

I'm not convinced the empty the wound pool view is correct. Here's why:
First the "empty the pool" premise:
P1:

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 instead 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.

Not no use of "always" or other strengthening rule+1 verbiage there.

P2:

All Wounds with exactly the same Strength, AP value and special rules must go into the same pool.

(underline added)

Now, if we look at the Blast rule:
P3:

Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons 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.

(underline added)

My view is that the "must" verbiage from P2 trumps P2 with it's weaker verbiage. That's weak support because parsing English only takes you so far, but P3 is the real RAW basis as I see it.

My reading is that the (P3) Blast weapon's special rule (even if out of sight) follows those wounds into that wound pool. Is there a RAW counter to that anywhere?

The counter would be to say that the must be allocated portion of P3 would be referring to the first sentence of P1 (requirement to allocate to the nearest model in LoS), and would not affect the last sentence of P1 (empty wound pool when can't see a model in the unit).

Say you have a unit with 3 models in a zig zag pattern. The middle model is out of LoS (hiding behind a wall), but the front and back models are visible. Normally, that middle model would not be able to have wounds allocated to it, as it is out of line of sight. The Blast special rule would allow you to allocate to that model before allocating to the third model. The argument is that this is what P3's rule wants you to do normally. If you can see a model, keep allocating (even to models outside of LoS), otherwise empty the wound pool.

RAW, the Out of Sight rule under Wound Allocation interacts poorly with many other rules, especially blasts and barrages, and can behave oddly as a result. In this case, having one model visible in the back of your unit can have your entire unit killed by a blast, opposed to having your entire unit hidden and alive.

HIWPI, when something says it ignores LoS, I will typically ask to ignore the Out of Sight rule under Wound Allocation as well, when it would make sense to.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
My view is that the "must" verbiage from P2 trumps P2 with it's weaker verbiage. That's weak support because parsing English only takes you so far, but P3 is the real RAW basis as I see it.

My reading is that the (P3) Blast weapon's special rule (even if out of sight) follows those wounds into that wound pool. Is there a RAW counter to that anywhere?

Yes. The moment there are no models in LOS, the wound pool empties, so there are no longer any wounds to allocate.

Your take on it would only work if wounds were all allocated at the same time. They're not. And because the process breaks it down to one wound at a time, the 'out of sight' rule gets to kick in before the allocation rule does.

So let's say you shoot at a 5-model unit, with the closest model being the only one visible. You allocate the first wound to the closest model, and he dies. At that point, no other model is visible, and so the wound pool empties. You don't proceed to further allocation, because there are no more wounds to allocate.

Same situation, but the visible model is, say, the second closest... In that case, you would allocate wounds to the closest model (even though he is out of sight) until he dies, and then would move onto the next closest. But the moment that sole visible model dies, the wound pool empties and there are thus no further wounds to allocate.

The 'must' in the Blast rules doesn't trump anything, because it relies on there actually being wounds to allocate in the first place. As soon as the wound pool is emptied, this is no longer the case.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
My reading is that the (P3) Blast weapon's special rule (even if out of sight) follows those wounds into that wound pool. Is there a RAW counter to that anywhere?

Yes, the wound pool empties when there are no models in Line of Sight, so you can populate the wound pool with those wounds, but they are lost he instant there are no models in Line of Sight.

I it the rulebook specifically allows models out of line of sight hit and wounded by blast templates can be killed even if not visible to the firing unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yup under the blast rules. Brb digital ipad.

So the premise the wound pool is empty when Los stops is incorrect for 3 inch on up to the largest circular blast marker.

Lungpickle wrote:
I it the rulebook specifically allows models out of line of sight hit and wounded by blast templates can be killed even if not visible to the firing unit.

Yes, it does. However, for that to happen, there have to be wounds waiting in the pool to be allocated.

As soon as there is no model visible, the pool empties, as per the Out of Sight rule.

The Blast rules remove the requirement for a model to be visible to have a wound allocated to it. They don't remove the Out of Sight rule.

 insaniak wrote:

The Blast rules remove the requirement for a model to be visible to have a wound allocated to it. They don't remove the Out of Sight rule.

I'm going to disagree here.
Blast Weapons have the special "Blast" rules and special/advanced rules trump basic ones where a conflict exists.

Blast... Remember that any Wounds inflicted by weapons 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

So while the basic rule "out of sight" may say to empty the wound pool, I read it as the "blast" special rule follows the blast wounds into that wound pool. I don't see it as just a "3 wound AP5 pool" but as a "3 wound, AP5, Blast special rule" pool.

Similarly

Barrage... when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model.

Barrage weapons explicitly state that you work out line of sight from the center of the blast marker for example, so I don't agree that the wound pool empties there either.

I think these rules could be worded better, but I think the RAW actually do allow for the out of sight wounds to.... wound out of sight models.

So here are my premises:
G1:

any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight

P1: Blast weapons have the Blast special rules, including the ability to ignore line of sight once the template lands.

G2:

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

P2: The special Blast weapon rules for wound allocation override the basic rule "Out of Sight"

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 instead 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.

OoS: "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"
Blast: "any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight"


Note that, by that basic OoS rule, if you do NOT have line of sight then you can NOT allocate wounds to a model. If one wants to hinge their counter argument on the second OoS sentence having no connection to the first, I think that's an "English parsing" argument and can then be countered by any other English parsing argument.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

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 instead 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.

OoS: "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"
Blast: "any Wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight"

Note that, by that basic OoS rule, if you do NOT have line of sight then you can NOT allocate wounds to a model. If one wants to hinge their counter argument on the second OoS sentence having no connection to the first, I think that's an "English parsing" argument and can then be countered by any other English parsing argument.

What? The second sentence stands alone. So, using the conflict from the Blast rule, OoS is modified to read:
"If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds can be allocated to it. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost."

Please, counter that argument. You only have permission to override a rule when there's a conflict. Please show me where a conflict exists between the blast rules and the second sentence of the OoS rules. It should be trivial - prove it.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
Blast Weapons have the special "Blast" rules and special/advanced rules trump basic ones where a conflict exists.

There is no conflict.

Blast gives you permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool to models that are out of LOS.

It has no effect whatsoever on whether or not wounds are in the wound pool to begin with.

Barrage weapons explicitly state that you work out line of sight from the center of the blast marker for example, so I don't agree that the wound pool empties there either.

I don't recall mentioning Barrage at all. But yes, Barrage works fine, so long as you have nothing LOS-blocking in between the model and the centre of the marker.