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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh.

You have just proven that that rule makes absolutely no difference to the game, under your interpretation. You can remove the rule and it makes no difference to the game, at all. You would know this if you had paid attention to Rigelds posts

WHich is why i am pointing out htat, when you come to an interpretaiton that renders a rule meaningless, your interpretation is less likely to be correct.

I have already given my interpretation, many times, why i think it works otherwise.

And I absolutely agree with you that's what is intended.
It just isn't written that way.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh.

You have just proven that that rule makes absolutely no difference to the game, under your interpretation. You can remove the rule and it makes no difference to the game, at all. You would know this if you had paid attention to Rigelds posts

WHich is why i am pointing out htat, when you come to an interpretaiton that renders a rule meaningless, your interpretation is less likely to be correct.

I have already given my interpretation, many times, why i think it works otherwise.

And I absolutely agree with you that's what is intended.
It just isn't written that way.

As rigeld says. In my opinion being able to wound units out of sight is in reference to the firing model, not the firing unit, as normally you cannot fire if all models in unit within range are out of sight. This interpretation works perfectly with the rules. It allows you to wound a unit out of range/sight (from the firing model), and when it comes to allocating wounds you need line of sight from any model in the unit.

Except the rule isnt needed - there is no prohibition on wounding out of LOS, jut of firing (and then allocating from the wound pool)

No matter what the rule is EITHER entirely useless OR under another interpretation the allowance to wound of of LOS includes allocation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the rule isnt needed - there is no prohibition on wounding out of LOS, jut of firing (and then allocating from the wound pool)

No matter what the rule is EITHER entirely useless OR under another interpretation the allowance to wound of of LOS includes allocation.

Right. RAW the rule isn't needed. Since its there, however, the intent is (in this rare case) indisputably clear.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
....which is the point

The rule that states you can wound ******UNITS****** out of LOS has no purpose, if you assume the "wound" allowance stops before allocation.

Which page 12 shows wounding and wound allocation as 2 different steps.

I do think you're correct, I just think it is incredibly poorly worded and lacks useful examples.

-Matt

How about if unit A fires on unit B with among other things a blast weapon.
Blast weapon scatters and hits and wounds unit C.
Unit C happens to be out of LoS of the model that fired the blast weapon, but within LoS of other models in his unit.
These wounds are resolved in the usual way and can be allocated.

This explains the explicit permission to hit and wound a unit that is out of LoS in combination with the normal resolution of wounds.

Again, Wango - no, it does not. Because the restriction is on initially firing the weapon, NOT on wounding. After 13 pages and umpteen repetitions of this as a reason for the rule, it is still not an answer.

Rigeld - i agree that intent is certainly clear, however i also believe (going back to what, page 2?) the rules are also in support of it.

WangoFett wrote:
How about if unit A fires on unit B with among other things a blast weapon.
Blast weapon scatters and hits and wounds unit C.
Unit C happens to be out of LoS of the model that fired the blast weapon, but within LoS of other models in his unit.
These wounds are resolved in the usual way and can be allocated.

This explains the explicit permission to hit and wound a unit that is out of LoS in combination with the normal resolution of wounds.

As nos said - that example doesn't use the rule in question.
The firing model never needs LOS to wound, only the unit does. So if the blast scatters out of the models sight it doesn't matter - as long as the unit can see the unit that the blast hit. This isn't even referencing the blast scatter rules.

So.. under the "no wounds out of LOS" interpretation the tactic, especially for horde type armies would be big tough unit up front to bounce light fire and block LOS to more average units behind, thus any scattering blasts would be useless at wounding (but not hitting) those models behind the front line.
Kanlines anyone?

rigeld2 wrote:

WangoFett wrote:
How about if unit A fires on unit B with among other things a blast weapon.
Blast weapon scatters and hits and wounds unit C.
Unit C happens to be out of LoS of the model that fired the blast weapon, but within LoS of other models in his unit.
These wounds are resolved in the usual way and can be allocated.

This explains the explicit permission to hit and wound a unit that is out of LoS in combination with the normal resolution of wounds.

As nos said - that example doesn't use the rule in question.
The firing model never needs LOS to wound, only the unit does. So if the blast scatters out of the models sight it doesn't matter - as long as the unit can see the unit that the blast hit. This isn't even referencing the blast scatter rules.

That is true. Therefore perhaps the mention of hitting and wounding units out of range and line of sight is an attempt at clarification rather than granting some special ability to blast weapons.

Okay let me jump in on this.
First let me say that I think you can hit and wound units out of your line of sight.
Let's start with the scatter rule on page 6 that never says a roll of a hit is not a scatter just it does not MOVE.
So a Blast always scatters in my opinion.
Next the rule where this whole debate starts "any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack." Would we still be debating this if we took a rule from up above and put it in after? The one that says "and wound units out of range and line of sight"? Minus we don't need the out of range at this point? So I guess what I'm saying is do we really need to put "and wound units out of line of sight"after that? Tho it would say it a little different like " even out of line of sight units"
But isn't it a little redundant?

You've completely missed the argument.

The unit is hit.
You roll to wound.
The wound pool is populated.
Find permission to allocate wounds when the firing unit has no LOS to the target unit.

The permission to allocated wounds when the firing unit has no Los to the target unit. Is when it says you can wound units out range and line of sight. You can't wound something if you can't allocate wounds to it.

XxlDwarf wrote:
The permission to allocated wounds when the firing unit has no Los to the target unit. Is when it says you can wound units out range and line of sight. You can't wound something if you can't allocate wounds to it.

Not true. Rolling to wound is wounding the unit. Allocating wounds is a completely different step with different restrictions.

XxlDwarf wrote:
The permission to allocated wounds when the firing unit has no Los to the target unit. Is when it says you can wound units out range and line of sight. You can't wound something if you can't allocate wounds to it.

As rigeld2 said, rolling for wounds is for creating and populating the wound pool. It is not for allocating wounds. Wound allocation is a separate step. According the blast rules you allocate per the normal rules for shooting. Thus no allocating of wounds to models out of sight.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

XxlDwarf wrote:
The permission to allocated wounds when the firing unit has no Los to the target unit. Is when it says you can wound units out range and line of sight. You can't wound something if you can't allocate wounds to it.

As rigeld2 said, rolling for wounds is for creating and populating the wound pool. It is not for allocating wounds. Wound allocation is a separate step. According the blast rules you allocate per the normal rules for shooting. Thus no allocating of wounds to models out of sight.

-Yad

It's possible that allocate per normal rules means pull the closest guys, you aren't pulling guys under the blast. It could be clairity so that you can't snipe with blasts (like you can with barrages).


-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
It's possible that allocate per normal rules means pull the closest guys, you aren't pulling guys under the blast. It could be clairity so that you can't snipe with blasts (like you can with barrages).

It's possible that's the intent, but I doubt it. It's absolutely not what's written.

I agree with the conclusion that units can be wounded, but you can only allocate to models in sight. Except for how they cause wounds, there is no difference between blast weapons and normal weapons. In other words, only 2 dudes could be visible but they might have wounds allocated to them from the rest of their squad that go wounded out of sight.

As for scattering, even if the blast marker doesn't move it still scatters 0. That's why they're called 'scatter dice'. You roll for scatter.

Why would it say you can wound units out of line of sight if it was not for the wound allocating rule on pg 16? Where else does it ever say I can't wound something out of line sight in the rules?

Not trying to be a punk or anything

Because the blast can scatter out of LOS, and wound those it hits. IF the unit that fired the blast can see any of the unit that was hit (even though it might not see where the blast landed) the unit will take casualties.

But it could do that without the rule saying it can wound models out of line of sight. Once you hit something you no longer need line of sight till wound allocation.

Don't get me wrong I do see where you are coming from and an FAQ would be nice on this

And if they didnt include the line, then people would argue that the blast was out of range and couldnt wound, or out of los and cant wound. So they add it in, and we argue what it means

Sounds good to me lol lets keep it up till we get an FAQ

Sorry to interject but a lot of people are indicating LoS isn't traced from a specific weapon. So for example, I wouldn't use my actual guy with the Missle Launcher to determine the Missle Launcher's LoS. Is that true or am I just misinterpreting some of you guys?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Sorry to interject but a lot of people are indicating LoS isn't traced from a specific weapon. So for example, I wouldn't use my actual guy with the Missle Launcher to determine the Missle Launcher's LoS. Is that true or am I just misinterpreting some of you guys?

No, that's not what we're saying. Each model needs LOS to fire.
But after firing individual models don't need line of sight to the target unit (for example, if wounds cause losses that cause half of the firing unit to not be able to see the target unit).

Ah ok, that makes sense.

But that's how it normally works so you don't need a special rule for that , which says you can wound units out of line of sight? Or am I wrong?

XxlDwarf wrote:
But that's how it normally works so you don't need a special rule for that , which says you can wound units out of line of sight? Or am I wrong?

Reading the thread should make this clear, but the rule in question doesn't really do anything as written.
It allows you to wound units out of LOS. It doesn't say anything about allocating wounds.
Therefore you can hit and roll to wound, but have no permission to allocate.

roland9382 wrote:
Interesting enough I was also in the military and if you honestly dont like the wall deal take the guys sheltering behind the land raider scenario, lemme guess it blew through that and hit the guys behind it right? What i'm saying is there are a lot of people out there who rules lawyer their way into breaking the game which totally eliminates the enjoyment value, play the game and enjoy it, otherwise use your broken list and try the break the rules in tournament play and leave the rest of us alone.

If you were in the military, you should know what a ricochet is. The ML being fired at the one space marine outside of the wall missed the Space Marine, skipped off the ground and tumbled behind the wall, then detonated.

Hell, the rulebook specifically says "This represents.... ricochets, etc."

And anyone in the military would know the vagrances of missiles, RPG's and mortars that dont explode when they hit the ground. PLEASE do not try and apply "REAL WORLD" Physics to this. Becasue if we try and do that we will have to imagine curving rokits and plasma balsts and such. Also if a missile can richochett why cant a Bolter round??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WangoFett wrote:
How about if unit A fires on unit B with among other things a blast weapon.
Blast weapon scatters and hits and wounds unit C.
Unit C happens to be out of LoS of the model that fired the blast weapon, but within LoS of other models in his unit.
These wounds are resolved in the usual way and can be allocated.

This explains the explicit permission to hit and wound a unit that is out of LoS in combination with the normal resolution of wounds.

How is this NOT an example of WHY the rule was included?? This is EXACTLY my point on why the rule MAY exist and is valid in ALL accounts!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 helgrenze wrote:
So.. under the "no wounds out of LOS" interpretation the tactic, especially for horde type armies would be big tough unit up front to bounce light fire and block LOS to more average units behind, thus any scattering blasts would be useless at wounding (but not hitting) those models behind the front line.
Kanlines anyone?

Sure Kan line it up. But if I can see any part of your models under around or over those cans (they are rather spindly in the leg department) those scattering blast markers are gonna do some wounds. Also if you Put your Kans up front they will be taking Krakk missiles to the face and will be killed off first from concentrated Las, Melta, Autocannon, Assault Cannon fire!