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 can't believe this thread is still alive.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
I can't believe this thread is still alive.

I can't believe it's not butter.

I can't believe the FAQ doesn't say anything on the subject (except allowing a blast that doesn't scatter to count hits on models out of LoS).

Pyrian wrote:
I can't believe the FAQ doesn't say anything on the subject (except allowing a blast that doesn't scatter to count hits on models out of LoS).

That FAQ did not even answer the question really :(. You can count hits on models out of LOS if you can see a model in the Unit... which we already knew :(

Happyjew wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
I can't believe this thread is still alive.

I can't believe it's not butter.

I can't believe this post is not exalted.

Q: Can blast markers hit a model that is not in the attacker’s line of
sight if they do NOT scatter? (p33)
A: Yes, as long as the target enemy model for the blast
weapon is within the firer’s line of sight.

Ok so what happens if it DOES scatter? It would apear that you can still hit a model that is not in the attackers line of sight if it DID scatter (this we know). However note that it still says ATTACKERS line of sight, so in order to actually allocate wounds to the unit that model is in a member of the ATTACKERS squad must be able to draw line of sight to that unit.

Dooley wrote:
Q: Can blast markers hit a model that is not in the attacker’s line of
sight if they do NOT scatter? (p33)
A: Yes, as long as the target enemy model for the blast
weapon is within the firer’s line of sight.

Ok so what happens if it DOES scatter? It would apear that you can still hit a model that is not in the attackers line of sight if it DID scatter (this we know). However note that it still says ATTACKERS line of sight, so in order to actually allocate wounds to the unit that model is in a member of the ATTACKERS squad must be able to draw line of sight to that unit.

Yes, this did nothing to clarify anything

Like the sentences within the rule itself, the FAQ is useless.

Balls!

Lame, I still cant believe this thread....

Rules say you can allocate wounds to "Enemy Models" but you can still scatter to hit your own unit.....?

Then how could you wound your own models?

Likewise you need line of site to make a hit, so why would you ever in the entire game EVER use a scatter die?

Simple, the scatter die makes the wounds off the template; the template controlled by the scatter die depicts the line of site (as in: if you are under the template you are in line of site of the explosion which causes wounds to all models friendly or enemy that are under the template).

Cover: behind a tank is cover from line of site from a shooting model, true. From a blast marker it is not. Area cover is cover from all shooting expect weapons that ignore cover.

So where do you loose line of site from a blast marker, where can you hide?

Answer: In a building; a blast may only hit one floor, so if it hits the second or third level of the building, then all the models under that level have a floor that blocks the blast markers line of site.

It is really just that easy, everything is covered.

Oh, and range. The shooter has to target a model within line of site and within range of the weapon. Once he declares that enemy model, he puts down a template, in the center of the model. Then the scatter die will show where the blast actually happens.

Honestly I cant see any way this can be confusing.

 Adrian Fue Fue wrote:
Lame, I still cant believe this thread....

Rules say you can allocate wounds to "Enemy Models" but you can still scatter to hit your own unit.....?

Then how could you wound your own models?

Likewise you need line of site to make a hit, so why would you ever in the entire game EVER use a scatter die?

Simple, the scatter die makes the wounds off the template; the template controlled by the scatter die depicts the line of site (as in: if you are under the template you are in line of site of the explosion which causes wounds to all models friendly or enemy that are under the template).

Cover: behind a tank is cover from line of site from a shooting model, true. From a blast marker it is not. Area cover is cover from all shooting expect weapons that ignore cover.

So where do you loose line of site from a blast marker, where can you hide?

Answer: In a building; a blast may only hit one floor, so if it hits the second or third level of the building, then all the models under that level have a floor that blocks the blast markers line of site.

It is really just that easy, everything is covered.

Oh, and range. The shooter has to target a model within line of site and within range of the weapon. Once he declares that enemy model, he puts down a template, in the center of the model. Then the scatter die will show where the blast actually happens.

Honestly I cant see any way this can be confusing.

Some people have mysteriously decided that a blast that scatters and hits a unit hidden behind a cloths line with some hanging bedsheets cannot hurt the unit because the firer can't see them.

Next up: if your unit digs some holes and performs a Put Head In Hole, then no other unit in the game may draw LoS to them.

How about instead of insisting its ludicrous and attempting to mock me you provide rules support as to why I'm wrong? Can you do that?

rigeld2 wrote:
How about instead of insisting its ludicrous and attempting to mock me you provide rules support as to why I'm wrong? Can you do that?

You've been on this board long enough to see cases where people can interpret a sentence in more than 1 way. These are all RAW interpretations, neither of which is wrong per say according to the RAW. However, often in these cases one 'makes sense' and the other leads to ludicrous situations so the RAW clearly favors one understanding of the text over the other.

The RAW gives you permission to treat the hits as if in LOS and range. Intervening terrain still gives a cover save, but the unit is treated as visible.
What cover is between them and the firer? Example if the model is behind a ruin, it gets a 4+ cover save. Which wound group do they fall into? 4+ cover saves group. It's not that hard to follow RAW and still not be invulnerable to a scattered blast for being hidden behind a wet paper bag.

No, the rules don't give permission to do that. You're assuming that by applying intent.

Yeah you still remove models closests to closest and in los from the attacking unit. If the Blast template lands in the back of the unit the models under the template ARE NOT THE ONES THAT DIE, models are removed from the front in relation to the two units. That entire "RANT" was baseless and full of factual errors.

The rules could indeed state that, depending on which context you take the "and" part of "Hit and wound," or the "wound" part of "Hit and Wound" or even the "normal" part of "as normal" that come into the B&LB special rule.

Whilst the most literal interpretation is yes, a model out of LOS cannot be touched, The rule does say hit and then it says wound. The system does separate the hit/wound pool/allocate wounds, but where exactly does the wound part of the "hit and wound" statement kick in? It is just the wound pool, but not the allocation? Or does the word refer to the whole of the wounding process? Is determining wound pool even part of wounding, or hitting? Or is it distinct again? Given that 'and' could be used as a bridging verb, meaning an inclusive action meaning hit, wound and everything in-between. Like buying a car, saying it comes with built-in stereo and air-conditioning, but finding a wall-mounted split-stream air-conditioner in the back seat. Under a very literal reading of the statement, it's not false, but as a logical interpretation, the bridge of 'and' meant the second article should have just as built-in as the first article.

But then the end of the paragraph does clearly state that it's to be resolved "As normal." The shot resolution is explicit in stating that units out of LOS are invulnerable. All wounds that would be allocated are lost. However, as the "as normal" is in a paragraph that has already modified the rules, reading it as "resolve as you normally would given this new set of parameters," still follows rules regarding the interpretation of written English. And so, when the shot resolution mentions something that has been modified by the "Special" rule, then the "Special" rule wins out.

But that interpretation is based on reading the paragraph and treating it as one - for lack of a better word - interference. The special rule tells us to treat the scattered shot that hits a unit as being a successful shot, as though the hindering circumstance was no longer there. From there, a completely literal reading could mean either:
-hit and wound being chance to hit and wound generation only; or
-determine to-hit and then determine wounds, with the "wound pool" system, armour saves, cover saves etc being included as part of the "wound" mechanic covered by the inherent bridge of "and."

and as the wound allocation "step" begins, the "as normal" could be read as either:
-"As you would" normally resolve wounds; or
-"As per" the normal wounding rules.

Whilst at first glance, there seem the same, the differing connotations of 'normal' vs 'normally' means in one case, the rules are unyielding and veto any previous mentioned modifications. The other presents a scenario that has it's own previously determined parameters, and you apply the rules whilst still maintaining those.

Each reading closes out the process, and each step supports other parts of the reading, but one with a definitive linear step by step application of the words - and the other being a contextual reading with each interpretation applied as it relates to other parts of the scenario.

And none of this was addressed in the most recent FAQ.....

rigeld2 wrote:
No, the rules don't give permission to do that. You're assuming that by applying intent.

Here is the great conundrum. I've colored the related text for easy comparison.

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.


Resolving hits and wounds as normal :

BRB p. 15
Continue allocating wounds to the closest model, taking saves and removing casualties until the Wound pool is empty, or all models in the unit have been removed as casualties.

OUT OF RANGE
BRB p. 16
As long as a model was in range of the enemy when To Hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the Shooting attack, even if the removal of casualties means that the closest model now lies out of range.

In range? Check. This entire unit is now considered in range for the duration of this attack.


OUT OF SIGHT
BRB p. 16
If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

Visible? Gotcha GW! Unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack and are lost? Oops, no wait, you're still wrong. These guys can be wounded.
Only you are saying this "can hit and wound" means strictly having an unsaved wound allocated to the unit, when in fact everyone else is reading this correctly as continue allocating wounds to the closest model taking saves and removing casualties.

Except you have already wounded the unit by rolling To Wound rolls. Allocating Wounds wounds individual models.

Again, the "as for" part of "as for a normal shooting attack" can be, quite legitimately, interpreted to mean "as if a normal shooting attack following the given parameters had occurred."

As a "normal" shooting attack COULD NOT have occurred, given the modified situation, any restrictions to the allocation of said wounds must have the relevant inhibition lifted to accommodate the new set of circumstances. It outlines which circumstances these are in the weapon description.

Happyjew wrote:
Except you have already wounded the unit by rolling To Wound rolls. Allocating Wounds wounds individual models.

True, normally you allocate wounds to the closest model, take saves and remove casualties. They messed up and say you allocate unsaved wounds. The problem then is a completely messed up set of rules where you allocate, take saves, then allocate unsaved wounds. Removing the word "unsaved" seems to clear everything up. Or rather just remove that last sentence about unsaved wounds completely.

This doesn't need a FAQ as it's still clear HWYPI, but it does need an errata to fix this double allocation.

Beefmiester wrote:
As a "normal" shooting attack COULD NOT have occurred, given the modified situation, any restrictions to the allocation of said wounds must have the relevant inhibition lifted to accommodate the new set of circumstances. It outlines which circumstances these are in the weapon description.

What because the shot scattered? A normal shooting attack did occur, pretty much by definition.
There's no rules restricting hitting the out of LOS unit.
There's no rules restricting wounding the out of LOS unit.
There's an inference (interpretation of intent) that says they really mean you can allocate wounds even though you can't see the unit.

You're still making an assumption of intent. A well founded one, and one I agree with - but it's not how the sentences are worded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, the rules don't give permission to do that. You're assuming that by applying intent.

Here is the great conundrum. I've colored the related text for easy comparison.

Actually coloring the text makes it literally impossible to read - I have to quote the post to read it.

Visible? Gotcha GW! Unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack and are lost? Oops, no wait, you're still wrong. These guys can be wounded.
Only you are saying this "can hit and wound" means strictly having an unsaved wound allocated to the unit, when in fact everyone else is reading this correctly as continue allocating wounds to the closest model taking saves and removing casualties.

Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?

As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.

rigeld2 wrote:

Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?

As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.

Actually I think Happy helped me notice this:

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.

The last two sentences:
1. we work out the hits under the template.
2. roll to wound (as normal)
3. save (you must allocate to the closest model and save according to intervening terrain) as normal.
You're with me so far I believe.
(sentence 2)
4. UNSAVED wounds are allocated on the unit. This was strange to me, because you don't allocate unsaved wounds. But wait, you do. You allocate an unsaved wound to the model that failed the save. We're not used to "allocating" a wound from a failed save, but we do - normally to the same model that failed the save.
So there's the missing link. You have now put an unsaved wound on a model. If it's a 1 wound model remove the model "as normal".

Are we done here?

Yes, because you need a rule saying you can allocate unsaved wounds out of los. The rules for allocating wounds require LOS.

 Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Really? Wheres your support for saying that wounding a unit requires a wound to be allocated? What happens if you fail to roll a wound - have you broken a rule because you're unable to allocate a wound?

As I've asked for quite a few times in this thread - show me evidence of a rule equating wounding a unit to a model taking wounds and I'll concede that what I've said isn't RAW. It hasn't been put forth yet - just people insisting I'm wrong with zero evidence.
Please support your assertion that your reading is the only correct one with actual rules - you posted rules that I've posted many times and then just said I'm wrong with no evidence.

Actually I think Happy helped me notice this:

Blasts Scatter Out of Range and LOS
1. p.33
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).
(hits according to the number of models at least partially under the blast marker)
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.

The last two sentences:
1. we work out the hits under the template.
2. roll to wound (as normal)
3. save (you must allocate to the closest model and save according to intervening terrain) as normal.
You're with me so far I believe.
(sentence 2)
4. UNSAVED wounds are allocated on the unit. This was strange to me, because you don't allocate unsaved wounds. But wait, you do. You allocate an unsaved wound to the model that failed the save. We're not used to "allocating" a wound from a failed save, but we do - normally to the same model that failed the save.
So there's the missing link. You have now put an unsaved wound on a model. If it's a 1 wound model remove the model "as normal".

Are we done here?

No, we aren't. You've allocated a wound to a model you can't see. Please show permission to ignore the rule that says if you don't have line of sight, the wound pool is emptied and the shooting attack is over.
Scattering allows you to do what you can already do - hit and wound units out of LoS.
You then allocate as normal for a shooting attack. What's normal for a shooting attack?

This is REALLY an 18 page topic!? Wow. So, the argument is: even though blast templates can wound units out of range and LOS (BRB P.33), said units would not actually take wounds from the blast. Really? So, why specify that the unit can be wounded, then? As far as the FAQ, I'd be willing to bet that the NOT in "Does not Scatter" was not supposed to be there, same as the I1 in the Tyranid Lashwhip FAQ or when they had Gliding instead of Swooping on the question about beams etc hitting Fliers and FMCs; apparently GW's proofreader took the day off when they were getting ready to post these things. In any case, I come back to how you can wound a unit and then not actually wound the unit? I believe this is one of those cases where specific (blast rule) overrides general (normal shooting wound rules).

 Battlesong wrote:
This is REALLY an 18 page topic!? Wow. So, the argument is: even though blast templates can wound units out of range and LOS (BRB P.33), said units would not actually take wounds from the blast. Really? So, why specify that the unit can be wounded, then? As far as the FAQ, I'd be willing to bet that the NOT in "Does not Scatter" was not supposed to be there, same as the I1 in the Tyranid Lashwhip FAQ or when they had Gliding instead of Swooping on the question about beams etc hitting Fliers and FMCs; apparently GW's proofreader took the day off when they were getting ready to post these things. In any case, I come back to how you can wound a unit and then not actually wound the unit? I believe this is one of those cases where specific (blast rule) overrides general (normal shooting wound rules).

By populating the wound pool, the unit has been wounded.
The rules say you empty the wound pool if there are no models in LoS.

Yes, you have the argument correct. Now, provide actual rules to the contrary. The B&LB rules don't override the wound allocation rules -quite explicitly actually. Hence why it says to follow the normal rules for allocation.

I'm just curious, has anybody actually tried to use the idea of not allocating wounds to targets hit but not in LOS in a tournament setting?

Saw it at a tourney yesterday. Wasn't an issue. They determined there was no LOS and moved on.

It didn't need clarifying...its pretty clear how it works.