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.

Why create that weird circular feedback loop when if that was the intent they could have just not put in that line about hitting models out of line of sight.

Dooley - so you are arguing that the intent was for the rule to have absolutely no purpose?

That is an incredibly unsafe position to hold. Entirely

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Why create that weird circular feedback loop when if that was the intent they could have just not put in that line about hitting models out of line of sight.

Perhaps the intent is to allow you to add wounds to the wound pool, even when the blast scatters out of range and out of LOS. Without the that particular wording (in 6th) your opponent could potentially say your blast would be voided completely if it scattered out of range or LOS.

With the wording the way it currently is, on a scatter you still have a chance to cause some wounds, albeit to models in LOS of the firing unit.

In games with friends your welcome to create house rules however you like. The strong opinions your facing here are those you'll potentially face if you play with random people or at tournaments. The RAW is pretty clear which is the way to play (for better or worse). Is that the intent of GW. I don't know, but since they're mum on the subject you probably want to adjust to playing it the RAW way for now.

PS in your reading of the rule you put "models" in where it actually reads "units". There is a distinction in 40k rules.

davebrickheart wrote:
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.

Interesting point.
On a direct hit (non-scatter), you can count models out of range and line of sight for hits inflicted on the target unit.
The range restriction on shooting prevents you from firing, as does the Line of Sight restriction. If anyone in the unit is in range, and anyone in the unit is in line of sight, you can fire, and you don't check line of sight again, until you are at step 5 (page 12) appling wounds.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
If anyone in the unit is in range, and anyone in the unit is in line of sight, you can fire, and you don't check line of sight again, until you are at step 5 (page 12) appling wounds.

-Matt

Not necessarily, each model has to be within range to a model in the unit within line of sight, so if all of the enemy models that are within range to your model, are not within line of sight, that model may not fire at all.

 pie zuri wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Why create that weird circular feedback loop when if that was the intent they could have just not put in that line about hitting models out of line of sight.

Perhaps the intent is to allow you to add wounds to the wound pool, even when the blast scatters out of range and out of LOS. Without the that particular wording (in 6th) your opponent could potentially say your blast would be voided completely if it scattered out of range or LOS.

With the wording the way it currently is, on a scatter you still have a chance to cause some wounds, albeit to models in LOS of the firing unit.

In games with friends your welcome to create house rules however you like. The strong opinions your facing here are those you'll potentially face if you play with random people or at tournaments. The RAW is pretty clear which is the way to play (for better or worse). Is that the intent of GW. I don't know, but since they're mum on the subject you probably want to adjust to playing it the RAW way for now.

PS in your reading of the rule you put "models" in where it actually reads "units". There is a distinction in 40k rules.

Oh yeah. Way to confuse me again.

 Jacko4smackos wrote:
interesting discussion, seems like there is no clear answer yet

i find the rulebook to be very clear on this one and the RAI is obvious as well.

Yes, RAW is clear that you cannot allocate wounds to models that have no LOS to the shooter.

RAI... who knows

Happyjew wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
If anyone in the unit is in range, and anyone in the unit is in line of sight, you can fire, and you don't check line of sight again, until you are at step 5 (page 12) appling wounds.

-Matt

Not necessarily, each model has to be within range to a model in the unit within line of sight, so if all of the enemy models that are within range to your model, are not within line of sight, that model may not fire at all.

My bad, I mean to say:
At the time of firing, you check range and line of sight, you don't check range again at all, and you only check line of sight when applying wounds, and can apply wounds to an enemy that anyone in your unit can see.

-Matt

Fragile wrote:
Yes, RAW is clear that you cannot allocate wounds to models that have no LOS to the shooter.

RAI... who knows

Given that "RAW" (i do not agree with this interpretation) results ina rule having absolutely no function, RAI is easy to determine.

Actually the rule functions fine, but without the ability to show it, either in person or with something like Vassal software to draw pictures, its not something easily explained by text.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Yes, RAW is clear that you cannot allocate wounds to models that have no LOS to the shooter.

RAI... who knows

Given that "RAW" (i do not agree with this interpretation) results ina rule having absolutely no function, RAI is easy to determine.

It does have a function. It just doesn't have the function you want it to have. Just a couple posts ago (this same page) I wrote what the possible intention of the rule could be, based off how RAW operates. I'm not saying this was GW's ultimate intention but it does fit RAW and it doesn't involve me trying to twist a rule based on what I think GW's intending

NOS- You have been with this thread since it's initial conception. Through that entire time you've held tight to the notion that If you can't wound models out of LOS than that rule is without purpose. I've on multiple occasions(among others) have demonstrated why it does have a purpose. Just not the one you want. I get the impression you don't seriously consider what other people have wrote on this topic and ignore any evidence that contradicts your own. It's okay to disagree, but you never attempt to directly address those responses that talk about the possible intention of the blast rules and how it would fit into RAW.

I know it can be a check to the ego when you get a rule wrong (I do it all the time), and hard to let go those opinions especially when you've put yourself so strongly behind them (this is human nature). This isn't a attack on you. You just should consider all the possibility's when it comes to interpreting the rules. Who knows, maybe this will get FAQ'd in your favor and than you can flip us the bird for doubting your powers of prognostication.

I ignored your post as it ignored that the rule is worded to allow you to wound

UNITS

Out of LOS. Not models, *units* entire. An entire UNIT out of LOS can be hit and wounded according to the rule. Not models IN los, but UNITS out of it. This is a very, very clear distinction you are avoiding in your attempt to cling to RAW which results in an absurd result.

Under the interpretation that this cannot ever allocate wounds, the rule has no function as written - units out of LOS can, under thsi interpretation of RAW, never be hurt.

I'd avoid the condescension in your posts in future, and note that I have posted this same point a number of times to no avail.

Raw it hits, adds wounds to the wound pool regardless of los issues, and then wounds are allocated from the pool to the closest model in the unit that the shooting unit has los to. If the shooting unit can't allocate wounds from the pool to a model in los the remaining wounds are lost.

[quote=pie zuri 463917 4683896 0e397a51ea75d6ec092a527846cf3151.jpg
Perhaps the intent is to allow you to add wounds to the wound pool, even when the blast scatters out of range and out of LOS. Without the that particular wording (in 6th) your opponent could potentially say your blast would be voided completely if it scattered out of range or LOS.

With the wording the way it currently is, on a scatter you still have a chance to cause some wounds, albeit to models in LOS of the firing unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I ignored your post as it ignored that the rule is worded to allow you to wound

UNITS

Out of LOS. Not models, *units* entire. An entire UNIT out of LOS can be hit and wounded according to the rule. Not models IN los, but UNITS out of it. This is a very, very clear distinction you are avoiding in your attempt to cling to RAW which results in an absurd result.

Under the interpretation that this cannot ever allocate wounds, the rule has no function as written - units out of LOS can, under thsi interpretation of RAW, never be hurt.

I'd avoid the condescension in your posts in future, and note that I have posted this same point a number of times to no avail.

You do get to potentially wound the "UNIT" out of LOS and range. What do you think that part is when you count the hits under the blast maker and than roll to wound? That doesn't satisfy your definition of hit and wound units?

I understand this doesn't make sense to you in context of a unit completely out of LOS doesn't get any wounds allocated. The rules in that section just deal with creating a wound pool. The blast can fall on models out of LOS and end up killing different models in that unit altogether(those in LOS). If it just so happens your blast scatters over a unit completely out of LOS, you can skip rolling to wound, as they wont be used at all

Nowhere is it giving you permission to ignore the rules of normal wound allocation.

I'm sure why you feel your interpretation is more RAI than mine.

The rule is useless because while the wound pool is populated (and subsequently emptied) that essentially means nothing.

They could have left the rule out of the book and had zero effect on anything.

That being the case, the fact that the rule is there demonstrates intent to have something happen. They just worded it poorly.

pie zuri wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I ignored your post as it ignored that the rule is worded to allow you to wound

UNITS

Out of LOS. Not models, *units* entire. An entire UNIT out of LOS can be hit and wounded according to the rule. Not models IN los, but UNITS out of it. This is a very, very clear distinction you are avoiding in your attempt to cling to RAW which results in an absurd result.

Under the interpretation that this cannot ever allocate wounds, the rule has no function as written - units out of LOS can, under thsi interpretation of RAW, never be hurt.

I'd avoid the condescension in your posts in future, and note that I have posted this same point a number of times to no avail.

You do get to potentially wound the "UNIT" out of LOS and range. What do you think that part is when you count the hits under the blast maker and than roll to wound? That doesn't satisfy your definition of hit and wound units?

I understand this doesn't make sense to you in context of a unit completely out of LOS doesn't get any wounds allocated. The rules in that section just deal with creating a wound pool. The blast can fall on models out of LOS and end up killing different models in that unit altogether(those in LOS). If it just so happens your blast scatters over a unit completely out of LOS, you can skip rolling to wound, as they wont be used at all

Nowhere is it giving you permission to ignore the rules of normal wound allocation.

I'm sure why you feel your interpretation is more RAI than mine.

It doesnt make sense that they wrote a rule that, in your opinion, has NO FUNCTIONAL USE

Anytime you come to a conclusion that results in a rule, in the new rulebook about basic rules, has no effect, you do have to perhaps consider that your "RAW" may be off, and certainly your "RAI" is.

Currently if you removed that rule you would not alter the functionality of Blasts one jot - to your interpretation.

Dooley - it entirely ignores the rule stating "Units" out of LOS, and tries to pretend that wounding models out of LOS is somehow equivalent. It isnt. Your point is wrong, and has been since the start - your interpretation of RAW leads to an absurd result, so is automatically suspect.

I am afraid YOUR interprataiton of the rule is the one that is in the wrong here. In your "interpratation" you would have to apply a new set of de facto rules in order to allocate wounds to models/units out of line of site.

If a Missile Launcher model fires at a unit and the shot scatters out side of its LOS and Range and hits a separate UNIT as long as a member of the missile launchers squad can see that second UNIT then models may be allocated wounds to them and thus die. If it scatters and NO ONE from the firers unit can see the new UNIT no one dies as NO ONE can have wounds allocated to them by RAW in the BRB..

You may be able to Hit and wound units out of LOS but unless a member of the firer's squad can see the unit then all wounds will be lost (EXCLUDES BARAGE WEAPONS)

Again I have provided an example of HOW and WHY the rule has a function. Am I NOT explaining this well enough (asked to the ENTIRE community)

Edited due to an education on Tyranid Weaponry.

Then also explain how the Smart Missile System works.

From the Tau FAQ

The smart missile system can be fired at any target in range regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer.

By your interpretation of RAW this is a weapon which can be shot at an enemy out of sight (as it has permission to target them) but cannot remove models as casualties as the rule does not give it permission to ignore the LOS requirements when allocating wounds.

Unless this weapon really is completely useless for its designed purpose it must be assumed that being allowed to target or hit an enemy out of sight also confers the ability to remove models as casualties from out of sight.

a) Don't use Tyranid examples if you're not familiar with the codex - what you used as an example makes literally zero sense. Impaler Cannons ignore LOS and are only on Hive Guard.
b)

BRB wrote:In these cases, 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).

They don't say "of the firing model". They just say out of line of sight.

Well then I appologize for my butchery of the Tyranid Codex. The example still stands, Switch Hive Guard with Hive Tyrant.

As far as Smart Missile Systems this is different as it is NOT a BLAST WEAPON (as far as I can remember). It is a weapon that does not need LOS to fire and is NOT barage and THAT needs to be ERRATA'd. Again I recommend E-mailing the GW people on Non Los NON Blast NON Barage Weapons. I have, but all they told me was THANK YOU WE WILL LOOK INTO IT.

Yes the Impaler Canon is no longer as good as it once was. Smart Missiles/Seeker Missiles dont work as intended but then again neither does Snik Rot, Outflanking Landraiders, Al Rahiem, Gean Stealers and any other Researve arriving assault Unit!!

Dooley wrote:
Well then I appologize for my butchery of the Tyranid Codex. The example still stands, Switch Hive Guard with Hive Tyrant.

Impaler Cannon's aren't blast either. Just FYI.

Then why the HELL WERE THEY EVEN BEING BROUGHT UP!!!

Dooley wrote:
Then why the HELL WERE THEY EVEN BEING BROUGHT UP!!!

Because it's a similar situation.

They have permission to shoot at targets out of LoS. They don't even have permission to wound targets out of LoS because that wasn't a restriction in 5th.
Essentially, RAW, the ability to "shoot at any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not" is useless in 6th ed, because there's no permission to even populate the wound pool.

Blast weapons can hit a unit out of LoS but can't actually wound that unit.

Your argument also fails in that the emptied wound pool rule says:

If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lostandthe shootingattack ends.

Note that if a SM Frag Missile scatters out of sight of the firing model, but the bolter marine over there can still see the unit the scattering blast rule still does nothing. You have permission to wound as long as any model in your unit can see the target.

The only way to read the intent is if they meant you are allowed to allocate wounds to models in a unit entirely out of LOS from the firing unit.

edit: Also, it'd be great if you could discuss this calmly and without caps.

I've changed my mind from my original mind changing. If a squad shoots a bunch of bolters and a frag missle at a sqaud of 10 men and only 5 can be seen by the unit then only 5 can be killed. Even if that frag missle hits the other 5 out of sight. That frag missle just tops off the wound pool being used on the models in LoS. If the bolters kill those 5 guys then the extra wounds are disgarded. I don't see why that would be any different for a unit that is completely out of LoS.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I've changed my mind from my original mind changing. If a squad shoots a bunch of bolters and a frag missle at a sqaud of 10 men and only 5 can be seen by the unit then only 5 can be killed. Even if that frag missle hits the other 5 out of sight. That frag missle just tops off the wound pool being used on the models in LoS. If the bolters kill those 5 guys then the extra wounds are disgarded. I don't see why that would be any different for a unit that is completely out of LoS.

YES YES EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

Also note: many of my CAPS LOCK comments (minus the one above) are for EMPHASIS. I would recomned reading in a calm manner regardles of font size or capitilization of words,

Impalers and smart missiles have the same issue as scattering blasts: you have an ability to hit models out of LOS, but no corresponding ability to have such models removed as casualties.

It looks to me like a general oversight caused by the insertion of the latter rule without checking the consequences it adds to the overall rule system. I don't think there's any serious chance it will be confirmed in an official FAQ. (Whether it's addressed at all is another matter.) And I agree with nosferatu1001 that the explicit ability to hit, wound, but not damage a unit completely out of LOS is a rule too broken to possibly be RaI.

Consider the following for a moment: You check LOS for three things while shooting. 1st, you have to have some LOS to select a target. 2nd, each model in the firing unit must have LOS to a model in the target unit. 3rd, each model assigned wounds must have LOS drawn to them.

Conspicuously missing is any LOS requirement for wounding. Do you check LOS when rolling to-wound? No! You don't! We're explicitly given permission to accomplish something that there is no need to accomplish. (The same is true for hitting. You check LOS to fire at all, but not to-hit. Arguably, there was nothing in the rules preventing a blast from generating hits on models out of LOS in the first place.)

But that's just one interpretation. As we've shown above, it's a terrible interpretation that makes no sense and has little or no in-game effect. But one of the concepts in this interpretation is actually very wide: "Wound". Wound is, rather unfortunately in my opinion, used for some pretty distinct stages of resolution. Wounds rolled, unsaved wounds, wounds on a profile, wounds assigned to a model.

Let's take that last one for a second.

My scattered blast has explicit permission to wound units (and therefore models in the unit, as a unit is by definition a group of models) regardless of LOS. You're arguing that I cannot assign a wound to a specific model in the unit struck due to LOS. I can very easily argue that ability to-wound overrides that restriction, and I have a rather compelling reason to think that this IS in fact the RaI (in addition to being RaW on account of "wound" fuzziness): That is the ONLY LOS-based restriction on "wounds" that exists in the first place.

So, if the rules refers to overriding LOS on a wound, it can ONLY reasonably refer to the fact that you cannot normally apply a wound to a specific model outside of LOS, as there are no other LOS-based restrictions on wounds to apply an exception to.

That's RaW, RaI, and done.

Ok so you have hit and wounded a unit. The unit has taken its saves and has faild a few of them generating a "WOUND POOL" (not yelling emphasis). How then do you allocate the wounds form the wound pool to models in the wounded unit that are out of LOS?

Dooley wrote:
Ok so you have hit and wounded a unit. The unit has taken its saves and has faild a few of them generating a "WOUND POOL" (not yelling emphasis). How then do you allocate the wounds form the wound pool to models in the wounded unit that are out of LOS?

Closest model first, as per page 15.