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.

So lets say there is one model in a 10 man unit that can be seen from around the corner of a building while the rest of the 9 are hidden out of LOS behind the building. If I fire a blast targeting the model seen and scatters into the others in the group hitting 5 others, do I only get 5 wounds to allocate to the one model that can be seen effectively only able to kill one model or is the 5 wounds taken against the squad? I hope I explained it right.

Allocate all wounds to the unit. Even the ones out of LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Under blast rules page 646 digi iPad.

An interesting excision into 'Broken Rule as Written' exists here though:
Out of Sight drained the Wound Pools the moment no Models are in sight
Blast Allows for us to Allocate Wounds to Models regardless of Line of Sight

How do you Allocate Wounds that are no longer there?

RAW, it fills the wound pool, and then immediately empties because there's no line of sight. But this leads to ridiculous situations like Tau Seeker Missiles not being able to wound models outside of LOS even though they have explicit permission to shoot at units outside of LOS. HIWPI is that wound pool caused by a blast doesn't drain automatically when there is no model in LOS - this seems to fit the thematic intent better than a strict RAW reading does.

 typhus40k wrote:
So lets say there is one model in a 10 man unit that can be seen from around the corner of a building while the rest of the 9 are hidden out of LOS behind the building. If I fire a blast targeting the model seen and scatters into the others in the group hitting 5 others, do I only get 5 wounds to allocate to the one model that can be seen effectively only able to kill one model or is the 5 wounds taken against the squad? I hope I explained it right.

It depends on whethe or not the visible model is the closest.


The Blast rules require you to allocate to the closest model even if he is out of sight. So as long as there are other models closer to the firer than your one visible model, wounds can be allocated to them.

As soon as the visible model is the closest, wounds are allocated to him until he dies or you run out of wounds. If he dies, then due to the 'Out of Sight' rule, the wound pool immediately empties.


This is generally considered to be an oversight, with the assumption being that we're probably supposed to ignore the Out Of Sight rule for anything that would allow wounds to be allocated to models that are out of LOS.

One neat little house rule is to draw line of sight from the center of the blast, so that the wounding step actually makes sense. <---- HOUSE RULE

col_impact wrote:
One neat little house rule is to draw line of sight from the center of the blast, so that the wounding step actually makes sense. <---- HOUSE RULE

I find this - allow me the term - "interpretation" perfectly logical and with realistic-like results... concrete walls may be able to stop shrapnel from a small(ish) explosion...

There are problems with such a House Rule, mostly along the lines of 'doesn't this steal Barrage's thunder a little?' but it is one I personally like.

This part of the abstract system has always made me wonder what Game Workshop was thinking, seeing they keep stating they want to recreate battles that might be fought in the far distance future and this seems... far from recreation. The Rules regularly leave us within the situation where the Blast Marker scatters completely to clips the back of the Targeted Unit, which ends up killing someone on the other side of the field. This is also a very common issue, if any Army involved has a Blast Weapon it is likely to happen at least once a Game.

Not only is it unusual for someone at the front of a Unit to suddenly die when it was the back of the Unit hit, but these situations can open another twist on things when they clip the front of a second Unit:
The distance between the first Model removed as a Casualty and the second is often larger then the Blast Marker itself!

I've seen distance between casualties in Horde based armies greater then the shooting range of standard infantry weapons. I do understand that this is an Abstract System, but this requires a complete suspension of reality in order for it to make any sense. Otherwise we are looking at a standard man-portable rocket launcher producing an explosion that out-does any of our Ballistic Missiles but at the same time has the punching power of a kitten to the Models caught in the middle of the explosion, only those on the fringes are at risk....

... GW probably gets confused by its strange uses of the terms "Blast" and "Barrage", and forgets that one does what the other suggests that it does.

So the consensus are that it will just add to the wound pool until the one model in LOS is out of LOS? Also in my reference I was assuming the model in LOS was the closest model.

 typhus40k wrote:
So the consensus are that it will just add to the wound pool until the one model in LOS is out of LOS? Also in my reference I was assuming the model in LOS was the closest model.

If the model in LOS was the closest, the consensus would be this:

By RaW - He would be allocated 5 wounds until he dies and the rest are lost. So if he dies (failed save) on the 3rd Wound, 2 Wounds in the pool left over are discarded.
By Intent: Tau Seeker Missiles would never work with the above rule, so HYWPI / House Rules are usually made so that the Wounds continue.

If he is not the closest in his unit:

 insaniak wrote:
The Blast rules require you to allocate to the closest model even if he is out of sight. So as long as there are other models closer to the firer than your one visible model, wounds can be allocated to them.

As soon as the visible model is the closest, wounds are allocated to him until he dies or you run out of wounds. If he dies, then due to the 'Out of Sight' rule, the wound pool immediately empties.

This is generally considered to be an oversight, with the assumption being that we're probably supposed to ignore the Out Of Sight rule for anything that would allow wounds to be allocated to models that are out of LOS.

 typhus40k wrote:
So the consensus are that it will just add to the wound pool until the one model in LOS is out of LOS? Also in my reference I was assuming the model in LOS was the closest model.

In general, your blast will kill the models out of LOS as well as the one in class. The blast rules were given an exception to the cover the Line of Sight restriction. The same permission is given to Homing weapons. Neither of those address the emptied wound pool restriction that everyone cites.

Fragile wrote:
The blast rules were given an exception to the cover the Line of Sight restriction.

Can you please quote the statement in the Blast rule that addresses the Out of Sight rule?

 insaniak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The blast rules were given an exception to the cover the Line of Sight restriction.

Can you please quote the statement in the Blast rule that addresses the Out of Sight rule?

Can you please quote the statement in Homing that addresses the Out of Sight rule. Or Barrage.

So that's a 'no' then?

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The blast rules were given an exception to the cover the Line of Sight restriction.

Can you please quote the statement in the Blast rule that addresses the Out of Sight rule?

Can you please quote the statement in Homing that addresses the Out of Sight rule. Or Barrage.

For Barrage

 insaniak wrote:
So that's a 'no' then?

You tell me.

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The blast rules were given an exception to the cover the Line of Sight restriction.

Can you please quote the statement in the Blast rule that addresses the Out of Sight rule?

Can you please quote the statement in Homing that addresses the Out of Sight rule. Or Barrage.

For Barrage

Spoiler:

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. Hits against vehicles are
always resolved against their side armour.

Nothing there addresses it.

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So that's a 'no' then?

You tell me.

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The blast rules were given an exception to the cover the Line of Sight restriction.

Can you please quote the statement in the Blast rule that addresses the Out of Sight rule?

Can you please quote the statement in Homing that addresses the Out of Sight rule. Or Barrage.

For Barrage

Spoiler:

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. Hits against vehicles are
always resolved against their side armour.

Nothing there addresses it.

Barrage



Out of Sight

Col, you obviously do not understand the point being debated. Your cut and paste spoilers fail to address it.

Fragile,
Col_Impact is pointing out that the Barrage Special Rule changes where Line of Sight is drawn from, so a set of instructions telling us to draw Line of Sight from the Firing Model are in direct conflict. Direct conflicts are always resolved by one of the two conflicting Rules being discarded, based entirely on a very poorly written three tier system. The clause within the old instructions telling us If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost will either be thrown out with the rest of the Rule in a worse-case outcome, or applied to the Line of Sight drawn from the center of the Blast Marker in the best-case outcome.

If anything, it is the only Special Rule which has permission to Allocate to Models out-of-sight of the Firing Model... that there is the problem!

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So that's a 'no' then?

You tell me.

I already said that there was no relationship between the Blast rule and Out of Sight. You claimed otherwise, and so I asked for a rule to support that position.

Do you have one?

Fragile wrote:
Col, you obviously do not understand the point being debated. Your cut and paste spoilers fail to address it.

Barrage modifies how Out of Sight is determined by changing how line of sight is drawn for the purpose of wound allocation.

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
Col_Impact is pointing out that the Barrage Special Rule changes where Line of Sight is drawn from, so a set of instructions telling us to draw Line of Sight from the Firing Model are in direct conflict. Direct conflicts are always resolved by one of the two conflicting Rules being discarded, based entirely on a very poorly written three tier system. The clause within the old instructions telling us If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost will either be thrown out with the rest of the Rule in a worse-case outcome, or applied to the Line of Sight drawn from the center of the Blast Marker in the best-case outcome.

If anything, it is the only Special Rule which has permission to Allocate to Models out-of-sight of the Firing Model... that there is the problem!

This is the full rule Jinx.

All Barrage weapons use blast markers and consequently use the rules for Blast weapons,as indicated by their profile, with the following exceptions.

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.

It is clear what the center of the marker is used for. That in no way addresses the Out of Sight Rule. He does not understand the debate.

I already said that there was no relationship between the Blast rule and Out of Sight. You claimed otherwise, and so I asked for a rule to support that position.

Do you have one?

Just the same basic permissions that Homing has. Does Homing work?

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Col, you obviously do not understand the point being debated. Your cut and paste spoilers fail to address it.

Barrage modifies how Out of Sight is determined by changing how line of sight is drawn for the purpose of wound allocation.

Great for barrage. What does that have to do with Homing and regular blasts?

Fragile wrote:


It is clear what the center of the marker is used for. That in no way addresses the Out of Sight Rule. He does not understand the debate.

Barrage modifies how Out of Sight is determined by changing how line of sight is drawn for the purpose of wound allocation.

Just the same basic permissions that Homing has. Does Homing work?

Homing works by house rule if it works any differently than Blast at all. Otherwise it works as Blast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Col, you obviously do not understand the point being debated. Your cut and paste spoilers fail to address it.

Barrage modifies how Out of Sight is determined by changing how line of sight is drawn for the purpose of wound allocation.

Great for barrage. What does that have to do with Homing and regular blasts?

Blast has to adhere to Out Of Sight rule.

Fragile,
Instructions to draw Line of Sight via method X and instructions to draw Line of Sight via method Y are directly conflicting, unless X equals Y.

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
Instructions to draw Line of Sight via method X and instructions to draw Line of Sight via method Y are directly conflicting, unless X equals Y.

And neither of them address the emptied wound pool. Changing point of LoS does not change the fact that if do not have LoS, the wound pool empties.

As I mentioned in the best/worse case scenario:
Best Case - The clause about emptying the wound pool remains, but every clause containing the words 'firing model' are modified to read 'center of Blast Marker.'
Worse Case - We only have permission to overturn the whole Rule, not individual Clauses, so the 'empty the wound pool' clause is also discarded with the rest of the clauses creating the conflict.

Jinx, you have not shown any permission to overturn any rule that applies to OoS. You simply are using the center as the firing model. What allows you to allocate wounds when LoS is blocked from the center of the barrage marker to the model being wounded.

Fragile wrote:
And neither of them address the emptied wound pool. Changing point of LoS does not change the fact that if do not have LoS, the wound pool empties.

That's correct. The difference is that Barrage changes how you determine LOS.


But none of the various weapons that can apply wounds to models out of LOS currently over-ride the Out of Sight rule, meaning that those weapons technically need at least one model in the target unit to be visible (by whatever mechanism is used to determine visibility) in order for the wound pool to not immediately empty.