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.

Yes, the category "Shooting".

Is it shooting? No? THen why are you reading them

You have this all wrong - the game is permission based. Why are you using rules for shooting when you are not shooting? Where is your permission to do so?

Do I need permission to empty the wound pool? What happens if I don't have a specific way of doing it?

Do we fall back on the BRB "Spirit of the Game"?

Not even that. It states in random allocation what too do and even provides examples of allocating wounds that cannot be classified as shooting or CC. Thats all the permission you need.

Backlash wrote:
Not even that. It states in random allocation what too do and even provides examples of allocating wounds that cannot be classified as shooting or CC. Thats all the permission you need.

Awesome! I didn't notice that before, good to know, thanks!

Backlash wrote:
Not even that. It states in random allocation what too do and even provides examples of allocating wounds that cannot be classified as shooting or CC. Thats all the permission you need.

Which is all part of the SHOOTING PHASE rules. Why are you only using SOME of those rules, and not Page 16?

Specifically, the rules you keep quoting on page 15 are part of "Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties", after Roll to Wound etc. All part of rules to determine shooting wounds.

Except youre not shooting, so, again, where is your permission? Answer it this time.

It is obviously superior to assume that only shooting attacks can wound anything in the game than to assume the lazy writers did not copy paste another section.

I have already answered and proven the fact. Just because it was in the shooting portion doesn't mean it only applies to shooting. Could that be why they provided two examples of allocating wounds that DON'T happen in the shooting phase! *gasp*

Its a matter of common sense. The fact is there are lots of abilities in the current edition that don't follow the standard shoot and CC rule set yet use rules from both. To say they cant actually allocate to anything is just being a TFG. Do you expect GW to list every ability that wounds outside of shooting and CC in the BRB and explain each ones individual mechanics?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Specifically, the rules you keep quoting on page 15 are part of "Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties", after Roll to Wound etc. All part of rules to determine shooting wounds.

Except youre not shooting, so, again, where is your permission? Answer it this time.

Nosferatu, your argument is pretty poorly thought out. You've personally argued that rules about "Models with more than one armour save" and "Maximum save" apply in all situations, not just during Shooting phase. They're only mentioned in the Shooting section of the rules, so now you're saying that those rules don't apply in CC ? Or are you having double standards, requiring Backlash permission to use any portion of the rules described in the Shooting Phase while not following that same requirement yourself?

Yeah I'd have to agree that these would fall under the 'unusual' category and therefor use random allocation. However if Nosferatu is right, does that also mean the same applies for damage to termagant units when a tervigon dies?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Insaniak - just assume 360 LOS around it, ...

Based on what?

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Insaniak - just assume 360 LOS around it, ...

Based on what?

Units have 360 degree line of sight, and we only face units in the direction they are firing because it looks good.

No, they don't. That's a commonly used house rule, but nowhere in the rules does it grant non-vehicle models a 360 degree LOS. It doesn't define LOS arcs at all, aside from telling you to check what the model can 'see'.

Backlash wrote:
I have already answered and proven the fact. Just because it was in the shooting portion doesn't mean it only applies to shooting. Could that be why they provided two examples of allocating wounds that DON'T happen in the shooting phase! *gasp*

Its a matter of common sense. The fact is there are lots of abilities in the current edition that don't follow the standard shoot and CC rule set yet use rules from both. To say they cant actually allocate to anything is just being a TFG. Do you expect GW to list every ability that wounds outside of shooting and CC in the BRB and explain each ones individual mechanics?

Sigh

Permissive RuleSet. If it doesnt say you CAN do something, you CANNOT

So, why are you following the Shooting Rules for a non Shooting Power? You have *assumed* you can do so, repeatedly. Find an actual page reference.

You cant? Shucks, then picking and choosing to only use *some* of the shooting rules, because you dont want to use all of them in X situation, is a little bit tenuous, no?

You have no permission to use shooting or CC rules, for non-shooting or -cc attacks, because they do not say you can. If you wish to use them, then use ALL of them - dont suddenly say "well this isnt shooting so this doesnt apply" - which is your ENTIRE argument against using p16

In other words - be consistent

Luide - try to understand context, please. I am all for using the shooting rules, but using ALL of them - including the one saying you cannot apply wounds out of LOS

Insaniak - because "compromise"

You have no ability to use Spirit Leech to actually cause damage. This seems stupid. So, we compromise and use the shooting rules, including page 16, but allow it to imagine LOS 360 degrees around the model. So anything entirely out of this LOS cannot be wounded, as per page 16. Good compromise, as it more accurately meets, in my opinion, 6th editions concepts.

To summarise - I am NOT saying you cannot use the shooting rules - even though the rules dont actually allow you to use them - just that IF you want to use them, use ALL of them. You dont get to ignore the disadvantages.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Insaniak - because "compromise"

You have no ability to use Spirit Leech to actually cause damage. This seems stupid. So, we compromise and use the shooting rules, including page 16, but allow it to imagine LOS 360 degrees around the model. So anything entirely out of this LOS cannot be wounded, as per page 16. Good compromise, as it more accurately meets, in my opinion, 6th editions concepts.

To summarise - I am NOT saying you cannot use the shooting rules - even though the rules dont actually allow you to use them - just that IF you want to use them, use ALL of them. You dont get to ignore the disadvantages.

Which is fine. But as you are well aware, we prefer that when you are presenting a 'HYWPI' viewpoint or a house rule in a rules discussion, that you make that clear, which you didn't do initially.

So given that, I would agree that your variation is a reasonable one given the current state of the rules, although I fully expect that if GW FAQ it they will allow casualties outside LOS and would have no problem with playing it either way.

Ah apologies, I thought I had made that clear - as I have agreed a number of times that the rules for at least 3 editions have this unspoken assumption of 3 60 degree LOS, without ever saying it!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah apologies, I thought I had made that clear - as I have agreed a number of times that the rules for at least 3 editions have this unspoken assumption of 3 60 degree LOS, without ever saying it!

Yeah, although I have just looked and this edition does actually state you draw LOS from the eyes of the model.

Pg 8, top right hand corner, ironically opposite 'The Spirit of the Game'

Eldercaveman wrote:
Yeah, although I have just looked and this edition does actually state you draw LOS from the eyes of the model.

Every edition has stated that you draw LOS from the eyes of the model. But from 3rd edition onwards, they also allowed you to turn your models to face their targets in the shooting phase, which effectively allows a 360 degree arc of sight.

This edition did away with that allowance. We're left with drawing LOS from the eyes of the model, but no clue as to just how far around to either side they should be able to see, or whether we're supposed to still turn them to face their targets and this was just one more thing that was overlooked as the book was rushed out to print.

I think for situations like that, they have literally left it, for you to go back to the 'The Most Important Rule'

The Most Important Rule is simply intended as a way of encouraging players to resolve rules disputes in an amicable fashion and get on with the game.

It's not supposed to be a catch all to cover the fact that they didn't bother to finish writing the rules.

Really when you start looking at these things there is a whole list of situations that have similar problems, and I think it's best to do what ever breaks the game the least.

 insaniak wrote:
The Most Important Rule is simply intended as a way of encouraging players to resolve rules disputes in an amicable fashion and get on with the game.

It's not supposed to be a catch all to cover the fact that they didn't bother to finish writing the rules.

I find it funny a mod is telling anyone what "the most important rule" in a BRB under a year old means. The rule is there to be followed just as much as any other rule until you can find me a rule saying otherwise.

Stormbreed wrote:
I find it funny a mod is telling anyone what "the most important rule" in a BRB under a year old means.

Me being a moderator has absolutely nothing to do with my ability or lack thereof to read a rulebook. My opinion in a rules discussion is my own opinion... and offering your opinion is how discussion works.

The rule is there to be followed just as much as any other rule until you can find me a rule saying otherwise.

The thing is, that 'rule' is not really a rule. It's a statement that the game is best if everybody tries to not take it to seriously... which I don't. When a rules dispute arises at the table, I'm generally more than happy to go along with whatever allows the game to continue with the least amount of fuss.

But when you're discussing the rules of the game in order to determine how they work, a 'rule' that says 'Don't worry about it, it's just a game' isn't particularly useful... which is why the Tenets of YMDC ask people to refrain from introducing it into rules discussions in the first place.

And it should never be an excuse for writing incomplete rules in the first place.

 insaniak wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
I find it funny a mod is telling anyone what "the most important rule" in a BRB under a year old means.

Me being a moderator has absolutely nothing to do with my ability or lack thereof to read a rulebook. My opinion in a rules discussion is my own opinion... and offering your opinion is how discussion works.

The rule is there to be followed just as much as any other rule until you can find me a rule saying otherwise.

The thing is, that 'rule' is not really a rule. It's a statement that the game is best if everybody tries to not take it to seriously... which I don't. When a rules dispute arises at the table, I'm generally more than happy to go along with whatever allows the game to continue with the least amount of fuss.

But when you're discussing the rules of the game in order to determine how they work, a 'rule' that says 'Don't worry about it, it's just a game' isn't particularly useful... which is why the Tenets of YMDC ask people to refrain from introducing it into rules discussions in the first place.

And it should never be an excuse for writing incomplete rules in the first place.

That came off wrong and I'm sorry.

That being said the reason we have YMTC is because the rules leave out a lot of important things. However they give us a back door. One. They remind us we are playing a game. True a very expensive one, and 2 another rule saying to roll a dice if we can't agree. It may be a cheap way out but sadly those are the rules.

I'd have to also disagree. In a rule book if something is called "most important" then I'd say it is indeed a rule,and to not follow it would be breaking the rules.

IMHO the rule says Doom wounds all units within 6 that fail the test. I just follow the rules and it always goes well

Yep, the rule does say he wounds everything. However anything he does not have LOS to, just like other cases, you lose those wounds from the wounds pool

That follows the rules 100%

Read the tenets, and realise why using the deus ex machina that is TMIR in a rules ****debate**** is a little useless

Stormbreed wrote:
I'd have to also disagree. In a rule book if something is called "most important" then I'd say it is indeed a rule,and to not follow it would be breaking the rules.

It's not a matter of not following it. It's a matter of it not being relevant to the rules discussion, because it doesn't give you an actual answer. TMIR is just telling you to be prepared to compromise when you come to something in the rules that you and your opponent don't agree on. That's not a resolution to the actual issue... it just lets you move past it to get on with the game.

Afterwards, you still haven't resolved how whatever it was you disagreed on is actually supposed to work.

IMHO the rule says Doom wounds all units within 6 that fail the test. I just follow the rules and it always goes well

Nobody has disagreed with the fact that it says to wound all units within 6". The point of the discussion here is to determine what that actually means within the current rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, the rule does say he wounds everything. However anything he does not have LOS to, just like other cases, you lose those wounds from the wounds pool

That follows the rules 100%

Read the tenets, and realise why using the deus ex machina that is TMIR in a rules ****debate**** is a little useless

I completely the agree that TMIR doesn't aid in getting a resolution to an argument amongst other debates, I think it really is the only thing that can be applied here, until 2 things happen, first an official FAQ, and secondly an official model is realeased, otherwise things will continue going in circles.

However, since the rule says he wounds. Everything within 6" and codex trumps rulebook, does the not make it an exception from the LOS limitations?

Eldercaveman wrote:
However, since the rule says he wounds. Everything within 6" and codex trumps rulebook, does the not make it an exception from the LOS limitations?

He wounds units within 6". To then apply those wounds to specific models, you need to follow the rules for allocating wounds... and the Spirit Leach entry says nothing about it having any effect on that process.

 insaniak wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
However, since the rule says he wounds. Everything within 6" and codex trumps rulebook, does the not make it an exception from the LOS limitations?

He wounds units within 6". To then apply those wounds to specific models, you need to follow the rules for allocating wounds... and the Spirit Leach entry says nothing about it having any effect on that process.

So as my first point in that post says, until FAQ, this a pointless debate as it will continue in circles. I'm nit saying I don't agree with what you say, as I think as pure RAW you are correct, however I don't think this was the intent when the rules were written, and it is just a paradox that has been created with the transition between editions, and I believe it will get FAQ'd back to how it worked before hand.

It's Nids. If a tying it'll get FAQed to remove Spirit Leech as an ability.

Eldercaveman wrote:
however I don't think this was the intent when the rules were written, ...

It most certainly wasn't the intent when the rules were written, as they were written for an edition that didn't require casualties to be taken from within LOS.