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 I was glancing through my rule book to see how some interactions worked when I noticed the wording under Allocating Wounds and Removing Models: It states that if none of the models in the firing unit can draw line of sight to a model, then it goes onto the next visible model. If there is none, then the pool is lost.

That got me thinking, so I checked both the Homing special rule and the new Psychic power Phase Form from Angels of death. Both of them are worded so that you can shoot and target a unit that you don't have line of sight to. But neither of them state that you can wound them. So does this actually mean those two rules are completely worthless? I'm certain that RAI you can wound models you can't see using those rules, but RAW, you can't.

If someone can please prove me wrong on this, do so. And if you do, please give me the locations of where to find these rulings so I can verify for myself that they work as intended.

You would be correct. Strict RAW allows you to generate Wounds, but the Wound pool is immediately emptied before allocation.

IIRC, Blasts have a similar issue, in that they can allocate wounds to models out of sight if they are closer. Otherwise, I don't think it overrides the Out of sight rule.

Blasts partially override wound allocation, but don't stop the pool emptying if all models are out of line of sight.

This is (another) one those scenarios where strict RAW breaks down. Most people would reasonably assume that a permission to target with a weapon or effect that generates wounds is also a permission to allocate those rules.

If you ignore Line of Sight for shooting, why would you not continue to ignore Light of Sight for Wounding? From what I understand in these cases, it does not change from one step of the Shooting Sequence to the other any more than Ignoring Cover stops when Roll To Wound.

 Charistoph wrote:
If you ignore Line of Sight for shooting, why would you not continue to ignore Light of Sight for Wounding?

Two reasons...
For one, rolling to hit and allocating wounds are separate processes within the shooting sequence. So a rule that only references one of them only affects one of them.

For two, by strict RAW it doesn't matter of a weapon allows you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS... The moment there are no visible models in the target unit, the Out Of Sight Rule kicks in and empties the wound pool, so there are no longer any wounds to allocate.


It's reasonable to assume that you're supposed to be able to allocate wounds from wraps that don't need LOS to hit on to models that are out of LOS... But the rules as they currently stand are broken where such weapons are concerned.

 insaniak wrote:
Two reasons...
For one, rolling to hit and allocating wounds are separate processes within the shooting sequence. So a rule that only references one of them only affects one of them.

For two, by strict RAW it doesn't matter of a weapon allows you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS... The moment there are no visible models in the target unit, the Out Of Sight Rule kicks in and empties the wound pool, so there are no longer any wounds to allocate.


It's reasonable to assume that you're supposed to be able to allocate wounds from wraps that don't need LOS to hit on to models that are out of LOS... But the rules as they currently stand are broken where such weapons are concerned.

Can you provide one single case where the ability to ignore LOS is limited only to targeting and not applied to the shots/attacks in question?

Can you provide a single case where a shot loses part of its rules just because it transitions from point to another? (not being able to use them is not the same thing)

You need to demonstrate out of Line of Sight in order to classify it Out of Sight, just like when you target the unit and Select a Weapon.

Or in other words, the ability to ignore Line of Sight does not stop just because you Roll to Hit any more then Ignore Cover or Melta does unless the specific rule in question specifically states as such.

If a Spess Muhreen's plasma gun overheats in the woods and no one has line of sight, does his agonizing scream still make a sound?

Anyway, RAI I'd say you can surely wound models hit by a weapon that ignores LOS. Otherwise this rule would be completely asinine.

We do intend to play RAI, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some rule I missed somewhere that makes it legal RAW.

RAI is a slippery slope, since it all to often ends up being "rules as I believe them to be" and not "rules as intended".

Its clearly not RAW but, in this case I would assume that though the Model has no line of sight, the bullet/power does. In the sense of a homing missile its own targeting system draws LOS from its position therefore allowing a wound to be allocated.

It's where logic steps in and corrects these slippery slope / ambiguous rules.

So the wound pool stopping to be used when no model can be seen is for this type of senario.

You shoot 50000 shots at a unit of 10 guys. Of those ten only 3 are visable to the firing unit. That's permission to shoot covered you can draw line of sight. 25500 hit, 20000 wound. The 3 guys die with 19997 wound left in the pool. The other 7 cannot be seen, nor is the firing unit using manlicker carcano magic bullets . The rest are lost.

Now the tau and others have the opportunity to use homing technology. No line of sight required. (This is where logic takes over) plus ignores cover. They shoot hit wound. Are you honestly going to say they aren't wounded because you can't see them. Puhlease.

RAW/RAI Are never used as a reference in any of GW's rule books that I've seen. Play the game, don't break it.
Rules debate they do say to roll it off.

Raw and Rai has been used twice that I can think of. Slaughtermasters getting to use magical armour (they said it's all ok, but we'd rather you didn't do it) and similarly chapter masters in demi companies, a lot more recently.

Although I have no issue with denying Tau any form of shooting - actually, I take great pleasure in it - I'd pretty much throw it in the same basket as a blast template that scatters out of the throwing/shooting model's LOS. The center of the blast becomes the new line of sight, I've let a few models survive because there was something between the center of the blast template and them. Once your community knows you make allowances like that they tend to get on board with the idea and lend support when it is argued.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'd pretty much throw it in the same basket as a blast template that scatters out of the throwing/shooting model's LOS. The center of the blast becomes the new line of sight,.

That's only for Barrage...

 insaniak wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'd pretty much throw it in the same basket as a blast template that scatters out of the throwing/shooting model's LOS. The center of the blast becomes the new line of sight,.

That's only for Barrage...

Barrage is the basis of the thread, if you're firing a barrage weapon you can target units you can't see but according to "Allocating Wounds and Removing Models: It states that if none of the models in the firing unit can draw line of sight to a model, then it goes onto the next visible model. If there is none, then the pool is lost." and it doesn't make any exceptions, nor does barrage itself specifically over-rule this meaning you can target them but can't actually wound them. Similarly, if you throw a flakk grenade or fire a flakk missile you have to target a model you can see but if it scatters behind a piece of terrain you lose that explosion template.

House rule where I play is once the shot is airborne the new line of sight becomes the center of the blast marker.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Barrage is the basis of the thread, if you're firing a barrage weapon you can target units you can't see but according to "Allocating Wounds and Removing Models: It states that if none of the models in the firing unit can draw line of sight to a model, then it goes onto the next visible model. If there is none, then the pool is lost." and it doesn't make any exceptions, nor does barrage itself specifically over-rule this meaning you can target them but can't actually wound them. Similarly, if you throw a flakk grenade or fire a flakk missile you have to target a model you can see but if it scatters behind a piece of terrain you lose that explosion template.

House rule where I play is once the shot is airborne the new line of sight becomes the center of the blast marker.

Incorrect.

Barrage allows you to fire on units that are not in LOS. Targetting is never actually mentioned, but is requisite in order to fire.

In addition, Barrage Weapons are also Blast and when Blast Weapons go to Wound, "hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat)." - Blast, second paragraph.

But hey, if you want to ignore those rules, that is your choice.

 Ghaz wrote:
RAI is a slippery slope, since it all to often ends up being "rules as I believe them to be" and not "rules as intended".

I believe you should play raw as often as you can, but sometimes (more often than you should have to) you have to set raw aside for a rule and play by rai because raw breaks and goes "derp"

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I'd pretty much throw it in the same basket as a blast template that scatters out of the throwing/shooting model's LOS. The center of the blast becomes the new line of sight,.

That's only for Barrage...

Barrage is the basis of the thread, if you're firing a barrage weapon you can target units you can't see but according to "Allocating Wounds and Removing Models: It states that if none of the models in the firing unit can draw line of sight to a model, then it goes onto the next visible model. If there is none, then the pool is lost." and it doesn't make any exceptions, nor does barrage itself specifically over-rule this meaning you can target them but can't actually wound them. Similarly, if you throw a flakk grenade or fire a flakk missile you have to target a model you can see but if it scatters behind a piece of terrain you lose that explosion template.

House rule where I play is once the shot is airborne the new line of sight becomes the center of the blast marker.

You're confusing a bunch of different rules here...


The Barrage rules explicitly allow you to fire at a unit you can't see, and for wound allocation treat the shot as coming from the centre of the blast marker.

Regular (non-Barrage) Blasts and other weapons that allow you to target units that are not in LOS without explicitly over-riding the normal wound allocation rules are where the issues with the Out of Sight rule arise.

As above

And blasts still dont allow you to overcome Out of Sight either - its just you can allocate to a model OUT OF line of sight of theunit, AS LONG AS the wound pool hasnt already been emptied because none are in LOS of the unit (Or, in the case of barrage, "from the centre of the blast markr")

Targeting is mentioned. Page 160 Barrage.
"Barrage Weapons fire indirectly. This means they can fire at a target they do not have line of sight to, as long as the target is beyond their minimum range (if applicable)."
Clearly they're just being called targets for the fun of it.

It's a house rule and it's not confusing anything, it's simplifying things.

Grenades and missiles just like barrage weapons (grenades and missiles themselves ironically enough) aren't linear like bullets or lances, they get thrown or shot in an arc, when they hit the ground they bounce, they roll, or they just stick in the dirt. By making the new line of sight the center of the blast just like a barrage attack you don't have, for example a grenade being lobbed to the back of a unit only for the wounds to wind up being resolved against the models a solid foot away in the front of a conga line or not going off just because it scattered onto another unit that has a rock blocking the throwing model's line of sight.
Simple.

Yeah, I'll support the ignoring of dumb rules, even GW supports that.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Targeting is mentioned. Page 160 Barrage.
"Barrage Weapons fire indirectly. This means they can fire at a target they do not have line of sight to, as long as the target is beyond their minimum range (if applicable)."
Clearly they're just being called targets for the fun of it.

It's a house rule and it's not confusing anything, it's simplifying things.

Do not confuse a noun with a verb.

As I said, the verb being used is "fire", and in order to "fire" a weapon, you have to target it. But again, no House Rules needed unless you want to prevent Barrage and Blast Weapons to not Wound outside of Line of Sight.