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.

I have been on leave for a week and this is STILL kicking! Any word on when them updated FAQ's Come out? I sent the question to the FAQ people over at GW but never got an answere back from em.

Dooley wrote:
I have been on leave for a week and this is STILL kicking! Any word on when them updated FAQ's Come out? I sent the question to the FAQ people over at GW but never got an answere back from em.

I believe the answer was "When we get around to it... sometime after the Olympics and Premier League finals..... maybe"

Oh thos silly British people with their cultural differances lol

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
Ok during the whole procedure we have different steps:

1 step: to hit
2. step: to wound
3. step: allocate wounds+saving throws+removing casualties (its one thing because these 3 parts of step 3 are made model based now)

I can see step 1 and step 2 replaced by blast rule, but it says wound allocation follows the normal rules which necessarily leads to the general rules on step 3.
That would mean models out of LOS can't be allocated a wound to. Yep their unit can be wounded, but no models will suffer any unsaved wounds.
Yes that would mean the same for Hiveguards unless written otherwise in the codex (I don't have the rule present) as well as Astral aim.

stupid but it needs FAQ clarification to remove that mistake.

On Page 12, GW outlines shooting at 5 steps.
1) Select unit.
2) choose target
3) roll to hit
4) roll to wound
5) Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties.

I believe blasts to be the most poorly worded rule in 6th edition.
Permission is only given to wound UNITS (not models) out of line of sight. So if you can see 1 tactical marine, and drift into the 9 out of line of sight, you're limited to 1 kill. If you drift completely out of sight, you can wound them all, and then argue about if the "can wound" with scattering blasts applies to step 4 or step 5 of the shooting process.

Either Blasts need a FAQ to be cleaned up, or every other 5th edition non-line of sight shooting effect does.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Either Blasts need a FAQ to be cleaned up, or every other 5th edition non-line of sight shooting effect does.

-Matt

Both, actually.

The real question here is should I be allocating my Krak missile wounds first or last? It makes a huge difference depending on your interpretation.

davebrickheart wrote:
The real question here is should I be allocating my Krak missile wounds first or last? It makes a huge difference depending on your interpretation.

You want to kill off all models in line of sight first, so that the can wound units out of line of sight applies (if you take "Wound" to mean GW's step 5).

-Matt

Either Dave, it won't wound out of los. Unless you are talking about scattering, but after reading the section, I now agree with Rigeld that a scattered blast will not kill anyone out of LOS.

It will hit and wound models and add wounds to the wound pool. However once there are no more models in LOS all the remaining wounds are lost.

Dooley wrote:
It will hit and wound models and add wounds to the wound pool. However once there are no more models in LOS all the remaining wounds are lost.

The RAW is definitely written this way.

The problem that is arising is that people are taking the section about blasts wounding "units" out of LOS and range, and interpreting the word "units" to be "models". They than further disregard afterwords the part that tells them to "roll to wound and save as normal" as opposed to it saying roll to wound and save as normal excluding LOS restrictions.

That being said, I understand their frustration. In real life blasts don't require you to see your target. We however don't know GW's intention with the rule.

Until it's FAQ'd people will continue to disagree with the RAW.

 pie zuri wrote:
In real life blasts don't require you to see your target. We however don't know GW's intention with the rule.

In real life, bullets don't either.

See my quote.

 kirsanth wrote:

 pie zuri wrote:
In real life blasts don't require you to see your target. We however don't know GW's intention with the rule.

In real life, bullets don't either.

See my quote.

???... I don't get it. Are you threatening to shoot me over the internet? Do you feel LOS shouldn't apply to any shooting in general? I'm just confused.


While were at it, pointing down at our quotes, read mine. It's kinda applicable to the whole existence of this thread.

 pie zuri wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 pie zuri wrote:
In real life blasts don't require you to see your target. We however don't know GW's intention with the rule.

In real life, bullets don't either.

See my quote.

???... I don't get it. Are you threatening to shoot me over the internet? Do you feel LOS shouldn't apply to any shooting in general? I'm just confused.


While were at it, pointing down at our quotes, read mine. It's kinda applicable to the whole existence of this thread.

What Kirsanth was saying is that in real life a bullet can pass through a wall and hit someone on the other side. You might have been shooting at someone you could see, missed and hit the wall behind them and killed someone standing behind it. Not being able to see that person has no effect on whether that bullet will hit and kill them.

The signature quote is about the fact that it is possible that the bullet which kills you was not even meant to hit you, hence it not being the one with your name on but rather one with a catch-all phrase.

Pie Zuri,

I am in COMPLETE AGREEANCE WITH YOU! Had me a squad of guys get saved from an errant Battle cannon blast because of it. Guy was shooting at my drop pod with his defiler. The round scattered left and hit a squad of guys completly out of line of sight thanks to a Rhino. We looked at it and he was bummed that he diddnt kill anyone but we came to the conclusion that unless he did some Wanted bullet curving around the rhino then there would have been no way they would have actually been able to be wounded without the round going THROUGH the Rhino. But since the template diddnt hit the Rhino the Rhino wasnt hit either. So he LOST all the wounds and my guys were safe. We concluded that the round skipped off the ground but diddnt explode

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 pie zuri wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 pie zuri wrote:
In real life blasts don't require you to see your target. We however don't know GW's intention with the rule.

In real life, bullets don't either.

See my quote.

???... I don't get it. Are you threatening to shoot me over the internet? Do you feel LOS shouldn't apply to any shooting in general? I'm just confused.


While were at it, pointing down at our quotes, read mine. It's kinda applicable to the whole existence of this thread.

What Kirsanth was saying is that in real life a bullet can pass through a wall and hit someone on the other side. You might have been shooting at someone you could see, missed and hit the wall behind them and killed someone standing behind it. Not being able to see that person has no effect on whether that bullet will hit and kill them.

The signature quote is about the fact that it is possible that the bullet which kills you was not even meant to hit you, hence it not being the one with your name on but rather one with a catch-all phrase.

Umm, ok... I get it. But I don't recall ever saying bullets in real life don't hit people unexpectedly or through walls. In fact, I don't consider 40k a realistic depiction of warfare. It's a game with abstract rules that approximate battle.

I am however going to say if you wrote that quote on a card along with the line "read my quote" and sent it to some random people. You would probably get the police at your door.

Just for the record I didn't consider it a threat. It just left me puzzled as to what it was referencing.

You were comparing real-life explosions to in-game blasts.

The exact same analogy applies to non-blast weapons, despite the rules disagreeing with both.

 kirsanth wrote:
You were comparing real-life explosions to in-game blasts.

The exact same analogy applies to non-blast weapons, despite the rules disagreeing with both.

Just to be clear, I agree with how the RAW plays out (no wounding out of LOS). It's a much more straight forward process, compared to keeping track of where each blast landed and whether it scattered, or if wounding out of LOS only happens on scatter, which models were under each blast, how it interacts with normal shots, etc etc.

I used the example of blasts because if you go through the thread a few pages, that example comes up time and time again on why people think blasts should hurt units out of LOS. RAW doesn't support it, but peoples arguments revolve around GW's alleged RAI of the wording.

Reading your posts I'm still not sure where you stand on the whole issue. Do you disagree with my interpretation of how the RAW is written out. If you do that's fine, it's just your post was cryptic and didn't really explain if you were disagreeing with me, adding to what I was saying or you just really wanted to highlight your quote.

 pie zuri wrote:

Dooley wrote:
It will hit and wound models and add wounds to the wound pool. However once there are no more models in LOS all the remaining wounds are lost.

The RAW is definitely written this way.

The problem that is arising is that people are taking the section about blasts wounding "units" out of LOS and range, and interpreting the word "units" to be "models". They than further disregard afterwords the part that tells them to "roll to wound and save as normal" as opposed to it saying roll to wound and save as normal excluding LOS restrictions.

That being said, I understand their frustration. In real life blasts don't require you to see your target. We however don't know GW's intention with the rule.

Until it's FAQ'd people will continue to disagree with the RAW.

Raw Rai Have no bearing in the game. They are not rule deciders from GW.

Second point Matt i understand what your saying, however that rule your quoting is for direct fire non blast type weapons. See 10 guys shooting at 10 guy who have 5 behind a wall out of sight cant be hit by bullets , there fore can't die. AWESOME rule. The blast however due to deviation did hit them and are allowed to die.

There is way to much of this nit picking going on here. way too much

Lungpickle wrote:

Raw Rai Have no bearing in the game. They are not rule deciders from GW.

Second point Matt i understand what your saying, however that rule your quoting is for direct fire non blast type weapons. See 10 guys shooting at 10 guy who have 5 behind a wall out of sight cant be hit by bullets , there fore can't die. AWESOME rule. The blast however due to deviation did hit them and are allowed to die.

There is way to much of this nit picking going on here. way too much

RAW has no bearing?
What?

Care to provide some rules for discussion in the section of the forum where we discuss rules?
It's not nit picking - it's reading actual rules.

Lungpickle wrote:

Raw Rai Have no bearing in the game. They are not rule deciders from GW.

Second point Matt i understand what your saying, however that rule your quoting is for direct fire non blast type weapons. See 10 guys shooting at 10 guy who have 5 behind a wall out of sight cant be hit by bullets , there fore can't die. AWESOME rule. The blast however due to deviation did hit them and are allowed to die.

There is way to much of this nit picking going on here. way too much

Your fluff explanation can be extended to the blast too. See 1 guy shooting a rocket at 10 guys who have 5 behind a wall out of sight who can't be hit by the blast and shrapnel of the shell.

RAW is less subjective than RAI. We're not here to ask "what did the author mean by this?", we're here to ask "what did the author actually say?".

Its been a long, interesting read. At first I didn't think it was possible to allocate wounds to models out of line of sight with a blast even if you could put such wounds in the wound pool.

I think it was around page 5 that I came around. I think this rule is not really written very well, and if not actually ambiguous, it certainly promotes misinterpretations by virtue of how its written.

Thanks for the discussion guys.

 pie zuri wrote:
The problem that is arising is that people are taking the section about blasts wounding "units" out of LOS and range, and interpreting the word "units" to be "models".

That's an entirely legitimate argument, as the definition of a unit is a group of models (main rulebook, page 3, "UNITS"). Anything that affects a unit, affects all models in the unit, by definition. Frankly, without that understanding, there are much bigger problems with the rules than whether blasts can kill models out of LOS. For example, most maledictions and blessings won't have any effect.

My only point being that if you ignore the range and LOS restrictions with blasts, it doesn't say that they are ignored only if it scatters. Even on a hit you can still be gaining hits from models out of sight or range. So if you play so that blast weapons can wound out of sight then a unit that is partially out of sight you'd always resolve these wounds last to gain extra kills. Kinda see what I meant?

davebrickheart wrote:
My only point being that if you ignore the range and LOS restrictions with blasts, it doesn't say that they are ignored only if it scatters. Even on a hit you can still be gaining hits from models out of sight or range. So if you play so that blast weapons can wound out of sight then a unit that is partially out of sight you'd always resolve these wounds last to gain extra kills. Kinda see what I meant?

Actually, it does limit it to out of range/sight.

Note that it is possible and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum range or minimum range and line of sight.
This represensts the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events.
In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight.

So the permission to wound is given with the limitation of "In these Cases", which references a scatter.
Without the scatter, you don't have one of "these cases" and do not have permission to wound outside of range and line of sight.

If permission is given to wound models out of line of sight, where in the rules is this normally restricted?
The only restriction involving 'wounding' and line of sight is in step 5 (as outlined on page 12) which is when you are actually applying wounds.

With an unclear rule, I'm going to say that being allowed to wound out of line of sight must be in the process of allocation, because it is stated as if an exception, with the only reference being the allocation step.


If this is correct (which I believe it is), then all we need to know is if the target is mixed in and out of sight, where do we apply wound; and if a scatter is reduced to Zero by BS, does it still count as a "In These Cases" which would allow out of sight kills?


If it seems like I'm waffling, I am. Reading the shooting process on page 12, and then looking at how that rule could interact with blasts has changed my thoughts on this (again).

-Matt

davebrickheart wrote:
My only point being that if you ignore the range and LOS restrictions with blasts, it doesn't say that they are ignored only if it scatters. Even on a hit you can still be gaining hits from models out of sight or range. So if you play so that blast weapons can wound out of sight then a unit that is partially out of sight you'd always resolve these wounds last to gain extra kills. Kinda see what I meant?

I understand what you want, though RAW contradicts it when it tells you to than allocate the wounds as normal. The ability to hit and wound "units" rule was honored, it just so happens that if you run out of models in LOS of the firing unit as a whole (not just the firing model) you lose the rest of the wound pool.

Assuming you house rule it so you ignore the LOS issue, you open up a can of worms to a more complicated shooting phase when multiple blasts are introduced, especially if combined with normal weapons. It seems pretty straight forward when you think of only just one blast. But what happens if you have six separate blasts along with the normal weapons firing on a unit partially out of LOS. You would have to keep track of where each of those markers ended up and the models that were under each. You also open up the door to someone wanting to play this way with templates. Not saying it impossible to do, but it doesn't seem to add a whole lot for the extra complication. If RAW supported playing this way (through a FAQ perhaps) I would be more than happy to do it. I'm just more inclined to take the path of least resistance on this one.

I understand what you're saying, but even on a direct hit you may still place the center of the template at maximum range. It doesn't look to me like it would not count people past that center or if it was next to a wall and part of the unit was on the other side but still under they would count. However the "in these cases" exception makes it sound like it would be more beneficial to scatter in these cases if it may now allow you to remove more models.

I completely understand both sides of this argument. GW really wrote itself a somewhat confused rulebook.

I really am STILL not seeing how this is confusing?!

The rule isnt really THAT vague, it seems like people are trying to make it fit how THEY want it to fit. If you remove all the hypatheticals, "real world situations" and the "BUT WHY NOTS" and look at how the rule(s) are written a conclusion can be drawn on how it works. A better question to ask is how to resolve non-line of sight non-barage weapons.

I'm going with blasts can hit models out of LoS. I wasn't at first but then why would they put that line in there specifically saying it can ignore LoS? Seems the way it's meant to be.

If that is the way it is SUPPOSED TO BE why then would you revert back to the "NORMAL SHOOTING ATTACK" rules after you have hit and wounded a UNIT out of LOS of the TEMPLATE WEAPON. I do not understand how people claim to understand the INTENT of a rule if they are not the Author or did not write the rules. Sounds to me the INTIENT is clearly written in the rule. If you dont have LOS and it is NOT a barage weapon wounds cannot be allocated to models and the shots are LOST.