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.

Dooley 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.

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!!

Because that example is possible without the included rule.
As long as the firing unit can see the target there's nothing preventing the scattering blast from rolling and allocating wounds.
The only time the rule could have any effect is if the unit the blast lands on is completely out of sight from the entirety of the firing unit.
And even then, it only allows you to wound the unit. That means rolling to wound. You have no permission to allocate, and the wound pool is emptied if there's no line of sight.

That is NOT posible without the rule. If the Blast Template weapon cannot see any models in the squad his unit is shooting at the blast template weapon CANNOT FIRE.. So if the BW should scatter out of ITS LOS and RANGE but a member of its squad has LOS to the new unit, wounds can be generated AND Allocated.

Dooley wrote:
That is NOT posible without the rule. If the Blast Template weapon cannot see any models in the squad his unit is shooting at the blast template weapon CANNOT FIRE.. So if the BW should scatter out of ITS LOS and RANGE but a member of its squad has LOS to the new unit, wounds can be generated AND Allocated.

But if the blast weapon scatters off its aimed target and onto a unit completely out of sight to the firing model and every model in the same unit then it could still wound that unit without the permission given in the Blast rules, since wounding a unit (i.e rolling to wound) has no restrictions imposed on it with regards to LOS.

The only things which LOS restricts in a shooting attack is models firing (if a model can't see the unit it can't shoot at it) and wound allocation. It does not restrict rolling to hit or rolling to wound. With this in mind the Blast Weapon rule giving permission to wound a unit out of LOS does nothing unless it is, in fact, giving permission to allocate wounds to a unit out of LOS, albeit in a very poorly worded way.

Lets go through a couple of hypothetical situations to clearly explain what rigeld2 was saying.

Example number one.
Missile launcher in a unit of tac marines shoots a frag at a mob of boyz, half of which are out of sight behind a trukk.
The blast template scatters off one of the visible boys and onto to a non-visible boyz, hitting a total of 4 boyz who are out of sight.
That frag missile could roll to wound those boys out of LOS without the Blast Weapon rule saying it could, as rolling to wound has no restrictions imposed on it by LOS.
Wounds are allocated onto models in LOS.

Example number two.
Missile Launcher in a unit of tac marines shoots a frag at a mob of boyz in the open.
Blast scatters and hits a separate mob of boyz completely out of sight behind a trukk.
Frag missile rolls to wound, without needing the blast rule allowing it to as rolling to wound has no restrictions imposed on it by LOS.
Wounds are lost as no models in LOS.

So as it stands the blast weapon rule does nothing when it says you can wound units out of line of sight as rolling to wound has no interactions with LOS. So either that part of the rule is useless or it was intended to allow allocation onto models out of sight after wounding out of sight.

Dooley wrote:
That is NOT posible without the rule. If the Blast Template weapon cannot see any models in the squad his unit is shooting at the blast template weapon CANNOT FIRE..

Correct.

So if the BW should scatter out of ITS LOS and RANGE but a member of its squad has LOS to the new unit, wounds can be generated AND Allocated.

Correct. And if you took the rule in question out of the rulebook it would still be correct.

The rule only comes into play when the firing unit cannot see the "target unit" (in quotes because it wasn't an intentional target obviously).

Unit A and Unit B. Some members of Firing Unit can see either squad, but the missile launcher guy can only see Unit A.
Missile launcher guy (and the rest of Firing Unit) fire on Unit A.
Frag missile rolls a 12 inch scatter, blast marker ending on Unit B.

"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker."

We'll say 2 models are partially beneath the blast marker.
We roll to wound as normal - there's no rule restricting it right now.
We got lucky - 2 wounds!
Now we get to allocation.
"If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends."
The wound pool is emptied if "there are no visible models in the target unit". Since the bolter guy on the end can see Unit B, there are visible models in the target unit and therefore a wound is allocated. If, after resolving that wound, the bolter guy can still see anyone in Unit B, the second wound is allocated. After that the wound pool is emptied and we're done.

Nowhere in that attack did I have to reference the rule "and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat)" because at all times models were in range and in LOS.

Dooley wrote:
That is NOT posible without the rule. If the Blast Template weapon cannot see any models in the squad his unit is shooting at the blast template weapon CANNOT FIRE.. So if the BW should scatter out of ITS LOS and RANGE but a member of its squad has LOS to the new unit, wounds can be generated AND Allocated.

Again, you are missing the point, by a mile

You start off in LOS of target unit A and fire
You scatter to a point that is still over target unit A, but out of LOS from the firing model
The rules allow you to roll to wound / allocate wounds / etc asw long as the firing UNIT can still see.

This is contained within the rules for shooting blasts.

Now, we gt to the rule you seem to not understand. THis rule is wher you scatter out of LOS of the *entire* firing unit. THe blast rules ALREADY allow you to roll to wound against this unit, WITHOUT. THIS. RULE. existing

That is why we have been telling you, over and over and over, that under your reading of the rules this rule has no purpose None. Nil. Zilch.

WHen you come to a conclusion that renders a rule irrelevant, your interpretation is immediately suspect as you assume the rules designers are rational players.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WHen you come to a conclusion that renders a rule irrelevant, your interpretation is immediately suspect as you assume the rules designers are rational players.

And when you come to a conclusion that means the rules designers intended something that wasn't written, you're discussing RAI not RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WHen you come to a conclusion that renders a rule irrelevant, your interpretation is immediately suspect as you assume the rules designers are rational players.

And when you come to a conclusion that means the rules designers intended something that wasn't written, you're discussing RAI not RAW.

Yet in my opinion the rules can be read such that this rule has purpose. (not reiterating here, we've all seen it)

Where 2 interpretations exist, and one is absurd, the other is more likely to be correct.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WHen you come to a conclusion that renders a rule irrelevant, your interpretation is immediately suspect as you assume the rules designers are rational players.

And when you come to a conclusion that means the rules designers intended something that wasn't written, you're discussing RAI not RAW.

Yet in my opinion the rules can be read such that this rule has purpose. (not reiterating here, we've all seen it)

And I contend you're wrong - there isn't a way
Given that wounding is two distinct steps, each with their own restrictions, and the blast scatter rules only refer to wounding the unit, that can only mean populating the wound pool. I just don't see anywhere that grants permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool.

Where 2 interpretations exist, and one is absurd, the other is more likely to be correct.

I absolutely agree that what I'm saying is RAW is absurd and should not be played that way.

Ok I just read the Blast & Large Blast rules AGAIN and I think I found where YOU may be confused in MY thinking.

Pg33 Blasts & Large Blasts 3rd paragraph

"Note that it is possible,,,for a shot to scatter beyond theweapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight."
Ok so now what do we do when this happens? Keep reading

"In theses cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight,,,,"
Ok so if the blast marker scatters out of range and line of sight of the weapon units can still be hit and wounded

"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out....Unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack"
If the weapon cannot see you but a memebr of the squad can wounds can be allocated.


No where does it mention UNITS being out of line of sight from the fiering UNIT. The rule only allows for wounds to be generated out of LOS and Range from the WEAPON.. You still need LOS to and from both Units in order to allocate wounds,

This is NOT a separate rule this is a CONTINUATION of the same paragraph in a rule. I have NOT discredited the B&LB rule or any part of it. YOU have separated the rule into separate parts. The rule HAS a function, which has been exampled MANY times. The B&LB rule allows for a blast marker to scatter out of Range and LOS of the weapon and still put wounds into the Wound pool. The Unit under the Blast marker must remain in LOS of the unit in order to satisfy the NORMAL SHOOTING Attack rules. If it does not all remaining shots are lost.

Dooley wrote:
Ok I just read the Blast & Large Blast rules AGAIN and I think I found where YOU may be confused in MY thinking.

Pg33 Blasts & Large Blasts 3rd paragraph

"Note that it is possible,,,for a shot to scatter beyond theweapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight."
Ok so now what do we do when this happens? Keep reading

"In theses cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight,,,,"
Ok so if the blast marker scatters out of range and line of sight of the weapon units can still be hit and wounded

"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out....Unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack"
If the weapon cannot see you but a memebr of the squad can wounds can be allocated.


No where does it mention UNITS being out of line of sight from the fiering UNIT. The rule only allows for wounds to be generated out of LOS and Range from the WEAPON.. You still need LOS to and from both Units in order to allocate wounds,

This is NOT a separate rule this is a CONTINUATION of the same paragraph in a rule. I have NOT discredited the B&LB rule or any part of it. YOU have separated the rule into separate parts. The rule HAS a function, which has been exampled MANY times. The B&LB rule allows for a blast marker to scatter out of Range and LOS of the weapon and still put wounds into the Wound pool. The Unit under the Blast marker must remain in LOS of the unit in order to satisfy the NORMAL SHOOTING Attack rules. If it does not all remaining shots are lost.

Right.
Now.

If you take the rule in your post that I bolded out of the book, does that change the theoretical scenario in any way?
No? Then it's a useless rule.
And yet it's there. Which means that the intent must be to wound units out of LOS, units in combat, your own units... but the rules don't currently allow for it.

Your Theoretical scenario abides and uses ALL of the B&LB rules

Also you can still wound units out of LOS and in combat etc so long as the UNIT can draw LOS to those units as per the rules.

"But the rules dont currently allow for it".

Yes they do....See above. If it scatters into a CC and hits friendly and enemy units the models that are in LOS and closest get the wounds allocated to them. If the fireing unit cannot see the units in cc then the wounds are lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Where 2 interpretations exist, and one is absurd, the other is more likely to be correct.

Tell that to Christopher Columbus, Galaleio (sp), The Wright Brothers, Newton, Evel Knievel, Ghangis Khan etc

Dooley wrote:
Also you can still wound units out of LOS and in combat etc so long as the UNIT can draw LOS to those units as per the rules.

But you see, there's no restriction on causing hits to your own units or units in a combat - you're just not allowed to target them.
So if the blast scatters onto a unit like that you're already allowed to roll to wound.

And I apologize - I bolded the wrong rule. I meant this one:

Page 33 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).

The only restriction in the rules is on targeting these units, and on allocating wounds to units out of line of sight.
Since a scattered blast is by definition not targeted on these units, there is already permission to count hits and roll wounds. This rule is 100% useless.

The only place that allows you to hit your friendly units or units in CC is in the B&LB rules so how is this rule useless. It seems like you have tried negating a rules value by applying the rule in your non value sitiuation?

Dooley wrote:
The only place that allows you to hit your friendly units or units in CC is in the B&LB rules so how is this rule useless. It seems like you have tried negating a rules value by applying the rule in your non value sitiuation?

You fire a blast weapon.
The blast scatters.
You have permission to hit any unit under the template - there's no restriction on units in CC, etc.
You have permission to wound any unit you hit - there's no restriction on units in CC, etc.

The. Rule. Does. Nothing.

The rule is what allows you to do that? You lost me on this one!!

Dooley wrote:
The rule is what allows you to do that? You lost me on this one!!

No, there is no restriction on hitting or wounding targets in CC from any shooting attack.

There is a restriction on targeting them.

Dooley wrote:
The rule is what allows you to do that? You lost me on this one!!

No, the general rules for shooting allow you to hit and wound models under the marker.
The only restriction related to models in CC, etc. has to do with targeting.
Pretend the rule doesn't exist. What is stopping you from wounding a model in CC? Cite the rule.

Right so basic rules tell us you cannot target units in cc or your own friendly models.

The B&LB Special rule allows for a b&LB template to scatter onto units friend and Foe Locked in CC. And it allows wounds to be created and allocated to those models. How is this NOT the rule???

Long story short, If the fireing unit cant see the Unit under the blast template no wounds are allocated and all the wounds are lost.

Dooley wrote:
Right so basic rules tell us you cannot target units in cc or your own friendly models.

The B&LB Special rule allows for a b&LB template to scatter onto units friend and Foe Locked in CC. And it allows wounds to be created and allocated to those models. How is this NOT the rule???

You're equating targeting to hitting. They are not the same thing.

Long story short, If the fireing unit cant see the Unit under the blast template no wounds are allocated and all the wounds are lost.

As the rules are currently, yes. It's obviously not intended that way. It's intended to work like pretty much every other edition afaik.

rigeld2 wrote:

Dooley wrote:
Right so basic rules tell us you cannot target units in cc or your own friendly models.

The B&LB Special rule allows for a b&LB template to scatter onto units friend and Foe Locked in CC. And it allows wounds to be created and allocated to those models. How is this NOT the rule???

You're equating targeting to hitting. They are not the same thing.

Long story short, If the fireing unit cant see the Unit under the blast template no wounds are allocated and all the wounds are lost.

As the rules are currently, yes. It's obviously not intended that way. It's intended to work like pretty much every other edition afaik.

I disagree. I think it is a change from the previous and consistent with their LOS for shooting.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
[
I disagree. I think it is a change from the previous and consistent with their LOS for shooting.

I like the way you think sir

Fragile wrote:
I disagree. I think it is a change from the previous and consistent with their LOS for shooting.

So the sentence in question means nothing? Here, I'll quote it again.

Page 33 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).

There's nothing new here - normal shooting rules allow all of this to happen as long as you're not targeting the units that are out of range, out of sight, or your own units or those locked in combat.

You again are under the assumption that "out of los" relates to the entire UNIT and not just the Weapon being fired. The sentance you are quoting comes from an entire paragraph relating to Blast weapons NOT units firering blast weapons!

Dooley wrote:
You again are under the assumption that "out of los" relates to the entire UNIT and not just the Weapon being fired. The sentance you are quoting comes from an entire paragraph relating to Blast weapons NOT units firering blast weapons!

But again, as has been pointed out countless times, there is no restriction on hitting or wounding (populating the wound pool) a unit with regards to LOS, only targeting units and allocating wounds to them have LOS requirements.

The "exception" in the Blast rules does nothing.

Fragile - so they wrote a rule that has no functional use? THat is your contention?

Dooley - again, you are equating two separate concepts: targetting and hitting.

the two are not the same.

Nos, I think the rule works fine and has a purpose.

Someone PM me with how to load a .bmp from my computer to these boards and I'll show you exactly how and why it works.

Just explain it , in words, or show where Rigelds summary is wrong. It is a simple enough concept that a diagram really isnt needed, when people take the time to actually read the rules.

The rules,under the "no" camp, are not altered by removal of this rule, meaning it has no function. None whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fragile - so they wrote a rule that has no functional use? THat is your contention?

Dooley - again, you are equating two separate concepts: targetting and hitting.

the two are not the same.

I am aware that Targetting, Hitting, Wounding and Allocating wounds are COMPLETLY different things. That has ben my point all along!

Then your point is still wrong

Did you understand the part where you went wrong in your example?

You equated Hitting and Targetting as being the same. You claim otherwise, but your example has this error in it. Try rereading it, more slowly, and see your error

How is my point wrong again? The rule has a purpose which has been demonstrated and you can only kill what you can see (My POINTS). My points have been validated and proven true with cited RAW and I am confidant in my decision. Now you are just attacking how I got to that conclusion and providing no facts ot substance other than "NO YOU ARE WRONG" I think I am done with this and will be moving on.