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.

Apart from where we pointed out you were conflating two terms (target and hit), that part?

Two diffferent people have pointed out your error, i would suggest listening rather than ragequitting.

Dooley wrote:
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.

Answer this. How does the rule telling you that when scattering you can hit and wound units out the firing units line of sight have any purpose, considering that hitting (rolling to hit) and wounding (rolling to wound) are not restricted by Line of Sight in any way?

ugghh they keep drawing me in!!!

The rule telling you that when scattering you can hit and wound units out the firing units line of sight has a purpose because, under the normal rules for hitting (rolling to hit) and wounding (rolling to wound) are restricted by Line of Sight in that one must first be in los and range in order to be initialy targeted. If a balst weapon were to scatter out of line of sight or range they may still inflict wounds on the new unit even if it was not target by the initial fiering unit. That is to say, that even if a unit was not the initial target they may still be hit and wounded by the blast marker even if they do not satisfy the rule that they must initialy be in range and los. However, once hits and wounds and saves have been resolved one is still required to resort to the normal rules for shooting in order to work out allocations and removal of models.

Without the B&LB rule if a blast weapon were to scatter out of range and los it could be argued that the unit cannot be hit and wounded becasue it does not satisfy the normal rule requireing a unit to be in range and los for targeting. However, because the B&LB rule states that you can infact wound units out of los and range this argument cannot be made.

There I did it the best I can. I really cant explain it any more. Had that been a college level essay question I feel as if I have answered the question to the best of my ability and would expect a 90% at least on this question. I am not rage quitting, I am simply ending a conversation with a 3 year old that keeps asking "WHY" ( I am not calling you a 3 year old it is simply an example).

Except, as pointed out:

the rules already allow this.

There is NO REQUIREMENT for the unit scattered onto to be in range OR LOS to be hit and wounded under the normal Blast rules

They then add in an entirely NEW rule which specifically allows you to wound units entirely out of los, as long as you scatter. Which has, under your interpretation, no purpose

If this were a college level essay question you would get an F for missing the wood (the blast rules) for the trees (that you cant tell the difference between target and hit)

And just to make this clear: we have explained your errors every. single. step of the way. We are not 3 year olds going "WHY", we have explained to you in meticulous detail your error failure of logic, reasoning and basic English reading comprehension, yet you continually miss the point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except, as pointed out:

the rules already allow this.

There is NO REQUIREMENT for the unit scattered onto to be in range OR LOS to be hit and wounded under the normal Blast rules

They then add in an entirely NEW rule which specifically allows you to wound units entirely out of los, as long as you scatter. Which has, under your interpretation, no purpose

If this were a college level essay question you would get an F for missing the wood (the blast rules) for the trees (that you cant tell the difference between target and hit)

And just to make this clear: we have explained your errors every. single. step of the way. We are not 3 year olds going "WHY", we have explained to you in meticulous detail your error failure of logic, reasoning and basic English reading comprehension, yet you continually miss the point.

What the hell are you talking about!!!!

1. The rule (not plural, not normal and advanced, Blast and large blast is ONE rule) is what allows this. THE RULE (Blast and Large Blast) ALLOWS THIS!!!

2. The initial target for the blast weapon MUST be within range and LOS of the weapon (again under the Blast and Large Blast Rule). If it scatters it can hit and wound units out of los from the weapon with the B&LB rule. However it can only KILL models in units that the fireing unit can see not JUST the weapon.

Its not 2 rules its not an added rule it is one rule. That states (paraphrased) You dont roll to hit (your BS is NOT USED), simply pick a model in the target unit within los and range of the weapon, roll scatter, if it scatters out of los and range of the weapon it can still wound units, if the fiering unit cannot see the new unit all wounds are lost.

Im really starting to think you are jsut messing with me on this!! You are splitting the same sentance into two things. Can it scatter onto unit out of los and range of the weapon? Yes. Can it wound units out of los and range of the weapon? Yes. Can you allocate WOUNDS to units out of los and range of the weapon? If any member of the weapons squad can see the wounded unit, YES if not NO.

If I STILL have not clarified this could SOMEONE ELSE please explain to me what I am NOT GETTING!

What the hell are you talking about!!!!

1. The rule (not plural, not normal and advanced, Blast and large blast is ONE rule) is what allows this. THE RULE (Blast and Large Blast) ALLOWS THIS!!!

No it doesn't, more to come later.

2. The initial target for the blast weapon MUST be within range and LOS of the weapon (again under the Blast and Large Blast Rule).

Yes.

If it scatters it can hit and wound units out of los from the weapon with the B&LB rule.

Let's go through the Blast shooting process, step by step.
Step 1, declare target. Target must be in LOS and in range.
Step 2, scatter. move template number of inches required. The area under the blast is where it lands.
Step 3, count number of models under the template. These are hit automatically. Nowhere do the rules state to check LOS when rolling to hit. Hitting a unit has no LOS restrictions so the section of the Blast rule allowing you to hit a target out of LOS has no effect.
Step 4, wounding. Roll to wound. Nowhere do the rules state to check LOS when rolling to wound. Wounding a unit has no LOS restrictions so the section of the Blast rule rule allowing you to wound a target out of LOS has no effect.
Step 5, make saves. Player makes saving throws if they are allowed.
Step 6, allocate unsaved wounds. Starting from closest model in LOS to the firing unit, allocate wounds until the wound pool is empty, the wounded unit is completely destroyed or until there are no more models in LOS.

So which steps in this process require LOS? Step 1, the act of declaring your initial target and step 6, the allocation of wounds.

The section of the blast rule which expressly allows you to hit and wound models out of LOS is not needed as there are no LOS requirements when hitting and wounding, only when declaring a target and when allocating wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dooley wrote:
That states (paraphrased) You dont roll to hit (your BS is NOT USED), simply pick a model in the target unit within los and range of the weapon, roll scatter, if it scatters out of los and range of the weapon it can still wound units, if the fiering unit cannot see the new unit all wounds are lost.

And it would work the exact same way if there wasn't a sentence in the Blast rule which "allows" it to hit and wound units out of LOS, since hitting and wounding have nothing to do with LOS in the first place as I demonstrated above.

OK NOW your point is starting to become clearer. This is how I will rebut your statement:

No, wounding and hitting DO NOT require LOS (although the initial step of targeting does, so one cannot simply skip to hitting and wounding without the LOS requirement normally). In MY "interpretation" the rule allows you to circumvent the need of the LOS requirement because the template MAY scatter out of the original LOS and range. Without the rule that is in place THIS is a scenario that would come up:

The shot scatters and falls out of line of sight and range of the weapon. Does the shot still count? Well it shouldnt because the blast template has scattered out of range and LOS and is no longer a valid shot.

However, because the B&LB rule STATES that one CAN hit AND wound units out of range and los of the weapon the shot is still valid and still scores hits and wounds, After hits and wounds have been worked out (even if it is out of range and los) wound allocation reverts back to NORMAL shooting attacks.

So again YES it is needed to clarify what happens when the blast marker falls out of range and los as normally units our of range and los locked in cc or are friendly are NOT able to be hit and wounded by shooting weapons.

Dooley wrote:
The shot scatters and falls out of line of sight and range of the weapon. Does the shot still count? Well it shouldnt because the blast template has scattered out of range and LOS and is no longer a valid shot.

Rules citation please. The only restriction on range is for targeting. Lack of LOS prevents targeting and allocating wounds.

However, because the B&LB rule STATES that one CAN hit AND wound units out of range and los of the weapon the shot is still valid and still scores hits and wounds, After hits and wounds have been worked out (even if it is out of range and los) wound allocation reverts back to NORMAL shooting attacks.

And what's normal for shooting attacks? Emptying the wound pool if you're out of LOS.

So again YES it is needed to clarify what happens when the blast marker falls out of range and los as normally units our of range and los locked in cc or are friendly are NOT able to be hit and wounded by shooting weapons.

Rules citation please.
There are rules against targeting those things. There's no restriction on hitting and wounding those units.

You're understanding the intent of the rule. You haven't shown that it allows allocation as written.

NO thats the point!! You cant allocate wounds to models/units you cant see. That is how the rules work and thats my point the entire time. This thread has unraveled into something entirely different now and I am loosing track of what we are arguing now!!

After looking over previous editions of the game, the Blast rules are word for word lifted from 5th ed.
The issue then is with the NEW "Wound Allocation Rules". which now require LOS to apply wounds on anything, which was not a previous metric for wounding with template weapons.

I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.

In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.

 helgrenze wrote:


I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.

In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.

It has a purpose, say a unit has 3 visible members and 5 out of view. If the blast scatters onto the 5 out of view you still record and roll wounds for five models even though you can only actually remove 3. The benefit to this is you force more saves giving a greater chance to remove those three models that you can see.

 helgrenze wrote:
After looking over previous editions of the game, the Blast rules are word for word lifted from 5th ed.
The issue then is with the NEW "Wound Allocation Rules". which now require LOS to apply wounds on anything, which was not a previous metric for wounding with template weapons.

I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.

In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.

Yes. This! Though the purists here may point out that it's not a Template weapon, but a blast weapon All snark aside, the only use for this is if your unlucky enough to scatter onto a unit that only has a few models in LoS. If you're really unlucky you'll scatter to a unit that is completely out of LoS. Bottom line is that 6th edition ends the notion that you will always have a chance to hit, wound and 'kill' a model if a blast scatters on to it.

-Yad

Kevlar wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:


I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.

In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.

It has a purpose, say a unit has 3 visible members and 5 out of view. If the blast scatters onto the 5 out of view you still record and roll wounds for five models even though you can only actually remove 3. The benefit to this is you force more saves giving a greater chance to remove those three models that you can see.

Here's an experiment. Take the rule in question out of your book - put a postit over it or something.
Now, cite the rule that doesn't allow your example to happen. Remember, you're allowed to count hits under a marker without that rule, and you're allowed to allocate wounds to a unit partially in LOS without that rule.

I'll wait for a page number reference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
After looking over previous editions of the game, the Blast rules are word for word lifted from 5th ed.
The issue then is with the NEW "Wound Allocation Rules". which now require LOS to apply wounds on anything, which was not a previous metric for wounding with template weapons.

I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.

In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.

Yes. This! Though the purists here may point out that it's not a Template weapon, but a blast weapon All snark aside, the only use for this is if your unlucky enough to scatter onto a unit that only has a few models in LoS. If you're really unlucky you'll scatter to a unit that is completely out of LoS. Bottom line is that 6th edition ends the notion that you will always have a chance to hit, wound and 'kill' a model if a blast scatters on to it.

-Yad

Except, as has been repeated over and over, a unit partially in LOS can be hit an wounded just fine without that rule. The rule does nothing as written.

rigeld2 wrote:

Here's an experiment. Take the rule in question out of your book - put a postit over it or something.
Now, cite the rule that doesn't allow your example to happen. Remember, you're allowed to count hits under a marker without that rule, and you're allowed to allocate wounds to a unit partially in LOS without that rule.

I'll wait for a page number reference.

I have no idea what you are on about, but the "Out Of Sight" rule on page 16 clearly explains how you remove casualties.

We are no longer arguing about wounding out of LOS, but instead about GW making a redundant statement in a rule.

Kevlar wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:


I agree with those that state the rules for a scattered shot has not purpose given the NEW restrictions for allocating wounds.
Permission is given to hit and wound but not to allocate those wounds which invalidates the permission given to wound in the first place.
Thus, If the shot scatters to a unit that cannot be seen from the firing unit then there should be no need to roll for wounds as there is no permission given to allocate wound to the unit that was subsequently hit by the scattered shot.

In short, If the shot scatters into a second unit out of LOS, since no wounds can be allocated, no wounds should be needed to be generated.

It has a purpose, say a unit has 3 visible members and 5 out of view. If the blast scatters onto the 5 out of view you still record and roll wounds for five models even though you can only actually remove 3. The benefit to this is you force more saves giving a greater chance to remove those three models that you can see.

BUT... Once those models that are in LOS are removed the rest of the wounds are lost....in your example, if the 3 in los are taken away, the 5 hit by the blast still survive as they are not in LOS and cannot have wounds allocated to them, thus invalidating the permission to wound them in the first place. Even if the only "Hits" that cause wounds are those from the blast, 2 wounds cause by the blast are lost as those models are out of LOS.

I would much rather see the blast affecting only those models that are actually under the template. Far more realistic, cinematic and sensible.

rigeld2 wrote:


-Yad

Except, as has been repeated over and over, a unit partially in LOS can be hit an wounded just fine without that rule. The rule does nothing as written.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Here's an experiment. Take the rule in question out of your book - put a postit over it or something.
Now, cite the rule that doesn't allow your example to happen. Remember, you're allowed to count hits under a marker without that rule, and you're allowed to allocate wounds to a unit partially in LOS without that rule.

I'll wait for a page number reference.

I have no idea what you are on about, but the "Out Of Sight" rule on page 16 clearly explains how you remove casualties.

Yes. And the example you gave, ignoring the rule that's been pointed out, is possible using those rules.
Read the thread to see what I'm on about.

 helgrenze wrote:


BUT... Once those models that are in LOS are removed the rest of the wounds are lost....in your example, if the 3 in los are taken away, the 5 hit by the blast still survive as they are not in LOS and cannot have wounds allocated to them, thus invalidating the permission to wound them in the first place. Even if the only "Hits" that cause wounds are those from the blast, 2 wounds cause by the blast are lost as those models are out of LOS.

I would much rather see the blast affecting only those models that are actually under the template. Far more realistic, cinematic and sensible.

I agree I think it easier to play that blasts "hit who they hit". But the wounds aren't lost per se. You can still force five saves, the excess wounds only being lost if more than three of them fail the saves. You can only remove three models, but you can force five saves.

Dooley wrote:
NO thats the point!! You cant allocate wounds to models/units you cant see. That is how the rules work and thats my point the entire time. This thread has unraveled into something entirely different now and I am loosing track of what we are arguing now!!

That the rule stating you can wound models out of los if you scatter is redundant

Its been very plainly said half a dozen times now.

It has absolutely no functional use in the game , as the only restrictions are on targeting a unit, not onhitting iit rolling to wound

None is messing with you, you just seem to have not grasped rather a fundamentally simple premise, and that is causing you comprehension issues

Edit: they tried blast sniping in 3rd, and it was a terrible system. Its bad enough that you can now do it with barrags

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It has absolutely no functional use in the game , as the only restrictions are on targeting a unit, not onhitting iit rolling to wound

And yet, 5th had to have a FAQ about blasts scattering out of range ( I dont recall LOS) because people would argue that since the weapon was beyond its maximum range it could not wound. So for 6th, they add in that redundant statement and you all throw a fit over it. The irony is killer.

You want people to ignore the First block of rules on the second colum of the B&LB rule I am assuming. The chunk that talks about hitting and wounding units out of LOS and range yes? That chuck of text is part of the same paragraph stating that it can scatter out of line of sight and range of the weapon on the bottom of the other paragraph. You cant just ignore it because it provides a clarification on what happens if it does indeed scatter onto out of los and range units. Redundancy is redundant but NOT useless.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It has absolutely no functional use in the game , as the only restrictions are on targeting a unit, not onhitting iit rolling to wound

And yet, 5th had to have a FAQ about blasts scattering out of range ( I dont recall LOS) because people would argue that since the weapon was beyond its maximum range it could not wound. So for 6th, they add in that redundant statement and you all throw a fit over it. The irony is killer.

5th didn't have a statement preventing wounds if the hit unit is out of LOS.
6th does. In the context of 6th, the rule is redundant and useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dooley wrote:
You want people to ignore the First block of rules on the second colum of the B&LB rule I am assuming. The chunk that talks about hitting and wounding units out of LOS and range yes? That chuck of text is part of the same paragraph stating that it can scatter out of line of sight and range of the weapon on the bottom of the other paragraph. You cant just ignore it because it provides a clarification on what happens if it does indeed scatter onto out of los and range units. Redundancy is redundant but NOT useless.

It is useless.
There's zero reason for that paragraph to exist. None. If they had left it out of the book nothing at all would change.
Every scenario presented as a reason for that sentence to exist works without that sentence even in the book.

For reference, the rule we're talking about (quoting it because the way you referenced it is confusing, and it's been quoted a few times in this thread already)

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).

Yeah thats the one I was refering to. Keep in mind that it is talking about being out of line of sight and range of the weapon not the Unit the weapon is in. With out the second part telling us how to work out what happens once the blast marker (not a template for you snarky folk ) lands on top of units out of line of sight. Part 1 allows the template to land out of sight and range Part 2 tells us what happens when it does. One needs to read the paragraph as a whole in order to make the connection. It is NOT 2 paragraphs it is 1 paragraph that continues onto the next column.

Its called a clarification Rigeld. The very fact you are arguing about something like this shows that it needed to be put in.

Dooley wrote:
Yeah thats the one I was refering to. Keep in mind that it is talking about being out of line of sight and range of the weapon not the Unit the weapon is in.

No it's not. Since the only requirement for Line of Sight from the model is firing, it doesn't matter where it scatters.

With out the second part telling us how to work out what happens once the blast marker (not a template for you snarky folk ) lands on top of units out of line of sight. Part 1 allows the template to land out of sight and range Part 2 tells us what happens when it does. One needs to read the paragraph as a whole in order to make the connection. It is NOT 2 paragraphs it is 1 paragraph that continues onto the next column.

Part 1 tells allows the template to land out of sight and nothing in part 2 changes any rules anywhere else in the book.
You have not been able to provide a scenario that requires the usage of that sentence.
You keep saying it's required to be there. You haven't supported that statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Its called a clarification Rigeld. The very fact you are arguing about something like this shows that it needed to be put in.

No, really. It's being argued about because it's there.
If it wasn't there there'd be far less arguing.
"Hey, my shot scattered - can I still wound?"
"Check the wound rules. Anything prevent it?"
"Nope."
"Game on!"

Fragile wrote:
Its called a clarification Rigeld. The very fact you are arguing about something like this shows that it needed to be put in.

It isn't a clarification, but a brand new rule

What is new about it?

Fragile wrote:
What is new about it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he means wound allocation. As in, you can't allocate wounds to models out of LoS.

-Yad

Its not a brand new rule it is a continuation of the same paragraph.

Here is an example:
Shot is fired and scatters out of lin of site.

Does it still wound? Chechk the book. Well if a unit is outside of los and range it normally cant be wounded however the B&LB rules say the template can hit units out of sight so its still good. How do you resolve that shot then?

In the NEXT sentance of the rule it tells you how to resolve that shot.

You are arguing that the 4th sentance of a rule has no use because it is not neccesary.

Are you in agreement that you cannot allocate wounds to things you cant see?
Or are you now arguing that the second part of a scentance is redundant and does not need to be included?

If you are arguing the second question you are simply arguing scemantics and are just arguing to argue at this point. People HAVE pointed out WHY the clarification has been included and provided examples to support their claims. I am sure there are numorus rules that overlap in description and re-hash themselves throught the book.

I recommend that a moderator CLOSE THIS THREAD as the OP question has been answered. If YOU want to open a NEW THREAD called "Is this rule neccesary" Im sure people will be more than happy to engage in discussion with you.