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.

Idolator or anyone else, Please work out this situation for me.

Vidicator shoots a round at the marine tac squad that is in coherency (my paint shop skills might be a bit off) . It hits on target. 4 models are hit as shown. Please walk me though the rest. Citing page #s how to work out the remaining wounding and allocation.

Note that the FAQ states that blasts can HIT and WOUND models that are out of line of sight. It doesnt say can roll to hit, or roll to wound, which is what line of sight normally restricts. It states you can actually wound models out of line of sight. This can only take place if the roll to wound, allocation and any permissible saves have already taken place.

Incorrect. Please show actual rules that override page 16

In this case a hit is rolled or the scatter distance is less than the firers balistic skill. Causing a scatter distance of 0".

The rules on page 33 state that a shot can scatter beyond the range and line of sight of the weapon. It states that hits are worked out as normal, Hitting all four models. It further states that it can hit and wound units that are out of range and out of sight. Even though part of the unit is out of sight it is still subject to being hit and wounded by a blast marker.

Rolls to wound are made, cover saves are rolled for the units in cover (a minimum of 4 up here, as a wall that large should be considered a ruin or wreckage/rubble). Let's say 3 wounds are rolled and only one save is made. Two models would be removed starting with the closest model and ramdomized for the ones behind the wall as they seem to be equidistant from the firing unit.

If the Vindicator had fired it's storm bolter, the storm bolter could only hit and wound the model that was visible. There are no rules or references allowing non-blast/template weapons to wound outside of LoS.

The basic problem here is two conflicting rules. Ons states that blast allow for units out of sight and out of range to be wounded (pg33) and the other stating that models that can't be seen cannot have wounds allocated to them (pg 16). The real rub is the last paragraph of the blast rules (pg 33) that states "Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has bee 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 rules specificaly inform you to calculate the hits, resolve wounds. Why would this be needed if you hit an entire unit that was out of LoS and couldn't allocate the generated wounds?

In your example the target of the marker was a valid target and the scatter (0") encompased models out of LoS. The rules for blast allow those models to be hit and wounded.

Page 16 states you are wrong.

You have no permission to allocate wounds to the 3 models out of LOS. So while you hit 4 times, and potentially wound 4 times, only ONE model may be removed.

If you disagree, please show explicit and unambiguous permission to override page 16. Note: you have yet to do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Page 16 states you are wrong.

You have no permission to allocate wounds to the 3 models out of LOS. So while you hit 4 times, and potentially wound 4 times, only ONE model may be removed.

If you disagree, please show explicit and unambiguous permission to override page 16. Note: you have yet to do so.

We play this way at our LGS, I think it's people just wishing all blasts were barrages.

The out of sight rule states: "

If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be allocated to the nearest visible model in the TARGET unit."

That would mean that if I scatter and hit a unit that is out of LoS, meaning that it cannot be seen at all, all the wounds that are caused would still be inflicted on the visible models in the unit that I targeted.

If y'all want to get all lawyered up, I can do that,

I try to interpret rules in a practical way. Not in a manner that would cause confusion. I like to have fun and anything or anyone that gets in the way of that for me or for others tends to cause frustration. We all know that blast templates hit what they land on, the rules for blast even state that they can wound what the land on (regardless of LoS/range). Using a fairly minor contradiction, and it is an obvious contradiction, to casue consternation is rediculous.

 Super Ready wrote:
It doesnt say can roll to hit, or roll to wound, which is what line of sight normally restricts.

False. Re-read Out of Sight on page 16.

It states you can actually wound models out of line of sight.

That's a lie - it does not state you can wound models out of line of sight.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
The out of sight rule states: "

If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be allocated to the nearest visible model in the TARGET unit."

That would mean that if I scatter and hit a unit that is out of LoS, meaning that it cannot be seen at all, all the wounds that are caused would still be inflicted on the visible models in the unit that I targeted.

If y'all want to get all lawyered up, I can do that,

The context of the Out of Sight rule does not take into account that the unit receiving wounds is not the target unit. Looking at it in the context of multiple units receiving wounds, it's obvious what TARGET is referring to. As written, you're wrong.

I try to interpret rules in a practical way. Not in a manner that would cause confusion. I like to have fun and anything or anyone that gets in the way of that for me or for others tends to cause frustration. We all know that blast templates hit what they land on, the rules for blast even state that they can wound what the land on (regardless of LoS/range). Using a fairly minor contradiction, and it is an obvious contradiction, to casue consternation is rediculous.

Please do me a favor and quote where anyone has not been reasonable in discussing rules as intended.
Note that this is different from the rules as they're written - 2 completely different things.

How I usually play it is that if a blast scatters and hits a unit out of line of sight nothing happens. If it hits a unit partially out of Line of Sight it can roll to wound a bunch, but can only kill as many models as the firing unit can see.

How do you allocate wounds to a unit in a transport that explodes due to shooting, since they couldn't be seen by the firing unit? It does say that the wounds are allocated by the controlling player, but since they can't be seen by the firing unit then the wound pool is lost. After all, transport vehicles only explode due to shooting.

How do you allocate wounds caused to a unit that is out of LoS caused by a vehicle explosion caused by shooting?

How do you allocate wounds to a unit that is hit with a blast marker from an exploding flyer? From the models closest to the firing unit, from the center of the blast or from where ever you see fit?

Units in a building take hits and wounds when its damaged, but since you can't actually see them the wounds aren't allocated.

Unless of course you want to argue that these are exceptions to the can't see 'em, can't kill 'em rule.

 Idolator wrote:
How do you allocate wounds to a unit in a transport that explodes due to shooting, since they couldn't be seen by the firing unit? It does say that the wounds are allocated by the controlling player, but since they can't be seen by the firing unit then the wound pool is lost. After all, transport vehicles only explode due to shooting.

By the rules, you don't. I'd use random allocation.

How do you allocate wounds caused to a unit that is out of LoS caused by a vehicle explosion caused by shooting?

By the rules, you don't. I'd use random allocation.

How do you allocate wounds to a unit that is hit with a blast marker from an exploding flyer? From the models closest to the firing unit, from the center of the blast or from where ever you see fit?

Random allocation fits this to a T.

Units in a building take hits and wounds when its damaged, but since you can't actually see them the wounds aren't allocated.

Correct.

Unless of course you want to argue that these are exceptions to the can't see 'em, can't kill 'em rule.

I don't. You've done well at pointing out why RAW 100% of the time is a flawed way to play. That does not mean it's a flawed way to discuss the rules.
Feel free to discuss how you would play it - but as the Tenets of this subforum require, please mention that before hand.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. Please show actual rules that override page 16

Page 33. Blasts can hit and wound units that are out of line of sight.

 Idolator wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. Please show actual rules that override page 16

Page 33. Blasts can hit and wound units that are out of line of sight.

That doesn't give permission to allocate, just wound the unit. Populating the wound pool has met that allowance.

I don't. You've done well at pointing out why RAW 100% of the time is a flawed way to play. That does not mean it's a flawed way to discuss the rules.
Feel free to discuss how you would play it - but as the Tenets of this subforum require, please mention that before hand.

 Idolator wrote:
This entire subforum is desgined to discuss how something should be played. If you aren't discussing it from the perspective of how you understand it and would personaly would play it, then that is being disengenuine.

I do understand that there are more than a few in here that do just that and I can tell that their entire goal is to cause a stir.

Actually the idea behind this subforum is to discuss what the rules actually say (aka RAW) and figure out the best way to play it (aka HYWPI or possibly RAI).

Is GW's intent to allow blasts to allocate wounds to models that cannot be seen? Probably. Is that what the rules say? No.

 Idolator wrote:
Quite honestly, these are they way I see the rules as intended. Look me up and check out some of the other rules I've interpreted. I don't have that many posts.

Discussing how you plat it is fine, but per the tenets you must specify that is what you are discussing.

I think this confuses people because in 5th ed LOS had no bearing on allocation. GW did quite a shoddy job writing the blast rules in 6th.. errrr… I mean the did a shoddy job COPYING the blast rules from 5th ed. They deleted the 2nd paragraph about blasts not landing on target if it’s out of range (which isn’t a concern now because of premeasuring), and then changed the last 2 lines which are as follows.

5th
Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit have
been worked out, the firer rolls to wound as normal
and then the controlling player may allocate these
wounds on any model in the unit, not just the ones
under the marker.

6th
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.

See the difference.....?? I put it in bold just in case you didn't.

Could they have done a better job writing it? Providing examples? clairification? hell ya..... They unfortunatly copy & pasted over this one and called for lunch..




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

Is GW's intent to allow blasts to allocate wounds to models that cannot be seen? Probably. Is that what the rules say? No.

I'm not so sure. They have made it clear that they dont want allocation to models out of LOS.. Now they've made it somewhat clearer from the latest FAQ restricting range. I wouldnt put it past them to restrict blasts. (well they do under RAW) For that matter I wouldn't put it past them to come out with a errata/FAQ tomarrow, stating "oh ya.. you can allocate to things out of sight with blasts/barrage" Striking the whole paragraph about "out of sight" from the book.

 Idolator wrote:
This entire subforum is desgined to discuss how something should be played. If you aren't discussing it from the perspective of how you understand it and would personaly would play it, then that is being disengenuine.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
Point 4: Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

No, it's not - and I resent the accusation.

I do understand that there are more than a few in here that do just that and I can tell that their entire goal is to cause a stir.

Again, familiarize yourself with the Tenets of YMDC before throwing phrases like that around.

Quite honestly, these are they way I see the rules as intended. Look me up and check out some of the other rules I've interpreted. I don't have that many posts.

That's fine - you can feel free to see them intended this way. Others might agree with you - I couldn't care less.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
This entire subforum is desgined to discuss how something should be played. If you aren't discussing it from the perspective of how you understand it and would personaly would play it, then that is being disengenuine.

I do understand that there are more than a few in here that do just that and I can tell that their entire goal is to cause a stir.

Actually the idea behind this subforum is to discuss what the rules actually say (aka RAW) and figure out the best way to play it (aka HYWPI or possibly RAI).

Is GW's intent to allow blasts to allocate wounds to models that cannot be seen? Probably. Is that what the rules say? No.

 Idolator wrote:
Quite honestly, these are they way I see the rules as intended. Look me up and check out some of the other rules I've interpreted. I don't have that many posts.

Discussing how you plat it is fine, but per the tenets you must specify that is what you are discussing.

This is getting off a bit, since you just rephrased my first point. Secondly, I haven't discussed how I play it. I've confined myself to the rules as written and rules as intended and "Made Da Call". I don't believe that I strayed into how I play it. If if I did I'm sure someone would be kind enough to quote me.

Just to point out. Pg 34
The rules for barrage allow you to target units out of sight. It doesn't allow you to remove as casualites model that cannot be seen by the firer.
The rules for barrage tell you how to allocate wounds, it does not, anywhere, lift the Out of Sight rule. You would only be able to allocate wounds to the models that can be seen by the firing unit. Starting from the center of the blast marker. That is, if the rule for Out of Sight take preceedence.

 Idolator wrote:
This is getting off a bit, since you just rephrased my first point. Secondly, I haven't discussed how I play it. I've confined myself to the rules as written and rules as intended and "Made Da Call". I don't believe that I strayed into how I play it. If if I did I'm sure someone would be kind enough to quote me.

You honestly don't understand the difference between RAW and RAI?

Units in a building take hits and wounds when its damaged, but since you can't actually see them the wounds aren't allocated.

Correct.

Incorrect, this is a special mechanic that is part of buildings taking damage. LOS is not required to kill occupying models with damage results to buildings.Read page 94 Building Damage Results. and Wound Allocation & Occupying Units.

Thanks for reminding me - they do have an exemption to the Out of Sight rule.

I shouldn't assume the person I'm quoting is correct when they assert a rule.

tgf wrote:

Units in a building take hits and wounds when its damaged, but since you can't actually see them the wounds aren't allocated.

Correct.

Incorrect, this is a special mechanic that is part of buildings taking damage. LOS is not required to kill occupying models with damage results to buildings.Read page 94 Building Damage Results. and Wound Allocation & Occupying Units.

Your right. Forgot about that at the beginning of the page. I was looking at the damage chart. good catch.

 Idolator wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. Please show actual rules that override page 16

Page 33. Blasts can hit and wound units that are out of line of sight.

Nope, nothing there states you can ***ALLOCATE*** to models out of LOS

PLease find actual rules stating you can ALLOCATE to models out of LOS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. Please show actual rules that override page 16

Page 33. Blasts can hit and wound units that are out of line of sight.

Nope, nothing there states you can ***ALLOCATE*** to models out of LOS

PLease find actual rules stating you can ALLOCATE to models out of LOS.

You're right, there are an entire page of rules for blast and barrage that allow you to hit and wound models out of LoS and a rule that allows the opponent to ignore those hits and wounds. It's a conflict. A direct conflict. That's why you have to look at the RAI.

Neither the Blast or Barrage rules have exceptions for the Out of Sight rule. Blast says you allocate wounds starting from the firing model, Barrage says to allocate from the center of the blast, but neither allow you to allocate to models that can't be seen by the firing model.

Did they intend to nulify the majority of shots fired by blast templates? No, it was a mistake. Probably due to two different people working on different sets of rules and poor editing. It wouldn't be the first (or 50th) editing issue in this rule book.

 Idolator wrote:
You're right, there are an entire page of rules for blast and barrage that allow you to hit and wound models out of LoS and a rule that allows the opponent to ignore those hits and wounds. It's a conflict. A direct conflict. That's why you have to look at the RAI.

The bolded is 100% incorrect. You can keep pretending it's true, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't.
They allow you to cause hits on models that are out of LoS - but there isn't anything allowing you to wound models out of LoS.
Without the exception to allow hitting/wounding a unit out of LoS a blast that scattered to where the firing unit had no LoS (but still on the original target unit) would be nullified. As it is, it counts and those wounds can be allocated to visible models.

Neither the Blast or Barrage rules have exceptions for the Out of Sight rule. Blast says you allocate wounds starting from the firing model, Barrage says to allocate from the center of the blast, but neither allow you to allocate to models that can't be seen by the firing model.

You should re-read the Barrage rules. You treat the shot as coming from the center of the marker, not from the firing model.

Did they intend to nulify the majority of shots fired by blast templates? No, it was a mistake. Probably due to two different people working on different sets of rules and poor editing. It wouldn't be the first (or 50th) editing issue in this rule book.

Cute assumption. The majority of blast markers do not fling off into oblivion - at least against me they always seem to either hit, barely scatter, or scatter onto another visible unit.

As a marine you'll hit/scatter 0 inches ~60% of the time.. As a BS3 marker firing model you'll hit/scatter 0" about 50% of the time. That's far from the "majority" you claim.

Neither the Blast or Barrage rules have exceptions for the Out of Sight rule. Blast says you allocate wounds starting from the firing model, Barrage says to allocate from the center of the blast, but neither allow you to allocate to models that can't be seen by the firing model.

You should re-read the Barrage rules. You treat the shot as coming from the center of the marker, not from the firing model.

[quote

Please quote the rule. It treats the shot as coming from the center of of the blast for determining cover and how to allocate wounds. It doesn't nullify the out of sight rule. If the unit is in full LoS of the firing unit you determine cover and allocate from the center of the blast not the firing unit. Nothing is mentioned that allows you to allocate wounds to models out of LoS to the firing model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Did they intend to nulify the majority of shots fired by blast templates? No, it was a mistake. Probably due to two different people working on different sets of rules and poor editing. It wouldn't be the first (or 50th) editing issue in this rule book.

Cute assumption. The majority of blast markers do not fling off into oblivion - at least against me they always seem to either hit, barely scatter, or scatter onto another visible unit.

As a marine you'll hit/scatter 0 inches ~60% of the time.. As a BS3 marker firing model you'll hit/scatter 0" about 50% of the time. That's far from the "majority" you claim.

rigeld2 wrote:
You can keep pretending it's true, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't.

That's exactly how I feel about your side of the argument. "Can wound despite LoS" overrides "wound cannot be allocated because of LoS" in this situation on account of being more specific. You're pretending that "wound cannot be allocated because of LoS" means something different from "cannot wound because of LoS" and therefore overrides by "can wound despite LoS", but it doesn't - it's the same thing, and is consequently overridden by the scattering blast rule.

 Idolator wrote:
Please quote the rule. It treats the shot as coming from the center of of the blast for determining cover and how to allocate wounds. It doesn't nullify the out of sight rule. If the unit is in full LoS of the firing unit you determine cover and allocate from the center of the blast not the firing unit. Nothing is mentioned that allows you to allocate wounds to models out of LoS to the firing model.

To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model.

So for determining wound allocation (which is where Out of Sight comes in to play) you assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast. Is the model hidden from the center of the marker?
You also didn't address that you were wrong when you said page 33 allowed you to wound models. I'll assume you're conceding that point unless you say otherwise.

Did they intend to nulify the majority of shots fired by blast templates? No, it was a mistake. Probably due to two different people working on different sets of rules and poor editing. It wouldn't be the first (or 50th) editing issue in this rule book.

Cute assumption. The majority of blast markers do not fling off into oblivion - at least against me they always seem to either hit, barely scatter, or scatter onto another visible unit.

As a marine you'll hit/scatter 0 inches ~60% of the time.. As a BS3 marker firing model you'll hit/scatter 0" about 50% of the time. That's far from the "majority" you claim.

So for determining wound allocation (which is where Out of Sight comes in to play) you assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast. Is the model hidden from the center of the marker?
You also didn't address that you were wrong when you said page 33 allowed you to wound models. I'll assume you're conceding that point unless you say otherwise.

pg 33 direct quote "In these cases hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (including even your own units, or models locked in combat). What's to concede? I had addressed it several times.


http://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/2_dice_rolls.htm
33% hit + 17% 0" scatter == 50% hit/0" scatter.
33% hit + 8% 0" scatter == 41 % hit/0" scatter.

My math was wrong originally, sorry. I still wouldn't call that the "majority" especially since scatters of 1-3 inches will still often hit the unit.

These numbers are incorrect as well. I understand the flaw in their reasoning. They are calculating the percentages off of a base of 100% and then adding the percentages. This cannot be done in this case. 33% of all shots will roll a hit, leaving 67% of the shots to scatter. Of those 67% only a portion of those will has sufficient BS subtraction to reduce the scatter to 0".

If 100 scatter die rolls are made, 33 will roll a hit, leaving 67 to scatter. Of those 67 scatters, 11 rolls will be low enough to reduce the scatter to 0", leaving 56 to scatter, therefore 56% scatter. It's an easy mistake to make when calculating percentages to include the portion that doesn't matter in the calculation.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Please quote the rule. It treats the shot as coming from the center of of the blast for determining cover and how to allocate wounds. It doesn't nullify the out of sight rule. If the unit is in full LoS of the firing unit you determine cover and allocate from the center of the blast not the firing unit. Nothing is mentioned that allows you to allocate wounds to models out of LoS to the firing model.

To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model.

So for determining wound allocation (which is where Out of Sight comes in to play) you assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast. Is the model hidden from the center of the marker?
You also didn't address that you were wrong when you said page 33 allowed you to wound models. I'll assume you're conceding that point unless you say otherwise.

The out of sight rule doesn't address where the shot is considered to have originated. It is based of the LoS of the Firing model. This was my response I don't know why it placed it in the quote.

 Idolator wrote:
pg 33 direct quote "In these cases hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (including even your own units, or models locked in combat). What's to concede? I had addressed it several times.

I bolded your misunderstanding. You continue to assert it says "models" when it does not.

If 100 scatter die rolls are made, 33 will roll a hit, leaving 67 to scatter. Of those 67 scatters, 11 rolls will be low enough to reduce the scatter to 0", leaving 56 to scatter, therefore 56% scatter. It's an easy mistake to make when calculating percentages to include the portion that doesn't matter in the calculation.

That's fair and a good point. And of those scatters there's still a significant number that will scatter low enough to still wound the unit.

The out of sight rule doesn't address where the shot is considered to have originated. It is based of the LoS of the Firing model.

For wound allocation (which is where the Out of Sight rule is used) where does the shot come from?
In other words, for wound allocation where does line of sight get traced to?
Also, I bolded an incorrect word - you keep mixing up unit and model when they're two vastly different things.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
pg 33 direct quote "In these cases hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (including even your own units, or models locked in combat). What's to concede? I had addressed it several times.

I bolded your misunderstanding. You continue to assert it says "models" when it does not.

If 100 scatter die rolls are made, 33 will roll a hit, leaving 67 to scatter. Of those 67 scatters, 11 rolls will be low enough to reduce the scatter to 0", leaving 56 to scatter, therefore 56% scatter. It's an easy mistake to make when calculating percentages to include the portion that doesn't matter in the calculation.

That's fair and a good point. And of those scatters there's still a significant number that will scatter low enough to still wound the unit.

The out of sight rule doesn't address where the shot is considered to have originated. It is based of the LoS of the Firing model.

For wound allocation (which is where the Out of Sight rule is used) where does the shot come from?
In other words, for wound allocation where does line of sight get traced to?
Also, I bolded an incorrect word - you keep mixing up unit and model when they're two vastly different things.

You have invented incorrections where none exist and attributed arguments that I didn't make. The rules state that you can hit and wound units that are out of sight. If you can wound units that are out LoS, that means that you can wound models that are out of sight. Unless units are made up of something other than models, in that case I don't know what game is being played.

Once again, the barrage rules says: "To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining wound allocation, always assume the shot is comming from the centre of the blast marker instead of the firing model."

Out of sight: If no models in the FIRING UNIT can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. One rule says the shots are coming from the center of the marker but the other says that you can't allocate the wounds because the firing model can't see them. The blast template is not the firing unit.