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 just felt like complaining and figured I'd put it here.
Personally, I'm ok with the rule until you apply 90% of the special rules in the game to it.
When one new rule causes fiery debates over:
Vector strikes
Flamers
Blasts
Doom of Malan'tai
Impaler Cannons
And about a 100 more things. Can we not all just agree that we should toss this baby out with the bathwater?
How do other people feel about a rule that makes all other rules not work the way they're clearly intended to work? (You can wound it, but you can't ACTUALLY wound it.)
I'm curious to see if I'm the only person who feels this is god-awful.

Look Out, Sir! is a venerable rule that makes a lot of sense in a lot of situations.

Flamers, blast markers and vector strikes make sense - if the soldier can see the attack coming, he can push the officer out of the way.

Invisible waves of psionic doom, maybe not so much.

Look out sir, or Line of sight?

If he meant the new wound allocation rules, then no, I don't think they're stupid. They make sense.

You can only kill what you can see.

Again, though, it does run into issues with the invisible psionic death wave.

This thread may be pretty close to the worst thing in 6th.

Meant line-of-site, and again, I don't see the logic of "you can't kill what you can't see" with things like blasts, etc. If an explosive round scatters to a group of people, just because you don't see the explosion doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.

You know blasts can scatter onto models out of LOS and do wounds, right?

 pretre wrote:
You know blasts can scatter onto models out of LOS and do wounds, right?

I thought this was still up for debate, in that you could populate the wound pool, but had no permission to actually assign the wounds? I must be thinking of something else.
But regardless, the other examples still stand. And please don't be rude; a simple "I don't think it's an issue because ____" Would be fine.

Oh trust me, that wasn't rude.

 pretre wrote:
Oh trust me, that wasn't rude.

Just a very big fan of 6th? lol

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Oh trust me, that wasn't rude.

Just a very big fan of 6th? lol

Nope, just a big fan of facts over hyperbole.

 pretre wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Oh trust me, that wasn't rude.

Just a very big fan of 6th? lol

Nope, just a big fan of facts over hyperbole.

Cool, well feel free to continue to bump a thread that you feel isn't worth even discussing or worth adding anything significant to other than snide remarks. I'll hope for some actually constructive opinions to come out, maybe how others are dealing with it in their own play groups.

We've always played "you can't kill what you can't see"

I agree this occasionally leads to areas where a ruling needs to be made but as long as you stick to playing it the same way every time there's no problem.

It is a fine part of the rules in the majority of instances.

If a large template lands on a unit, and you only can see half it will still hit the other models under it is what my group runs with. But if you shoot at said unit with a HB or las cannon its another mater

 Eldarain wrote:
We've always played "you can't kill what you can't see"

I agree this occasionally leads to areas where a ruling needs to be made but as long as you stick to playing it the same way every time there's no problem.

It is a fine part of the rules in the majority of instances.

So for things like Doom and Impaler Cannons, which specify that they "hit" models outside of their LoS, are you playing that they can or can't wound them?

You can hit what you can't see. You just can't shoot it.

If I fire at a line of three guys, fire at the middle guy, and the guy on the left is behind a wall.

I can put my Large Blast Marker on the right guy or the middle guy, but not the left guy because I can't see him.

But if I put it on the middle guy and it covers the left guy, I can wound the left guy.

You can't shoot out of line of sight, but you can still hit it. Just like when a blast marker scatters out of LoS. It doesn't disappear. You hit where it lands. Even if you couldn't place it there when firing due to LoS.

To be fair, he is not disputing that you can hit things out of LOS, but that you cannot wound things out of LOS.

They are two different things.

 pretre wrote:
To be fair, he is not disputing that you can hit things out of LOS, but that you cannot wound things out of LOS.

They are two different things.

But where is this substantiated?

AFAIK, the only LOS rules relate to focus fire and what you can target with shooting.

Man, now I have to defend his point. Argh.
His point is that although impalers, etc allow you to hit models out of LOS, they don't allow you to wound them.
Page 16
OUT OF SIGHT
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then
Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated
to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no
visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds
in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

I disagree with his interpretation, but understand the basis.

 pretre wrote:
Man, now I have to defend his point. Argh.
His point is that although impalers, etc allow you to hit models out of LOS, they don't allow you to wound them.
Page 16
OUT OF SIGHT
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then
Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated
to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no
visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds
in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

I disagree with his interpretation, but understand the basis.

Oh. Well this is simple.

If Impalers are a shooting attack, then they can wound stuff out of LoS, but those wounds have to go on guys "in sight". If there are none, the wounds go away.

If Impalers are not a shooting attack, then they can wound stuff out of LoS, and those wounds go on the closest model (in or out of LoS)

Pretty simple.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Man, now I have to defend his point. Argh.
His point is that although impalers, etc allow you to hit models out of LOS, they don't allow you to wound them.
Page 16
OUT OF SIGHT
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then
Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated
to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no
visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds
in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

I disagree with his interpretation, but understand the basis.

Oh. Well this is simple.

If Impalers are a shooting attack, then they can wound stuff out of LoS, but those wounds have to go on guys "in sight". If there are none, the wounds go away.

If Impalers are not a shooting attack, then they can wound stuff out of LoS, and those wounds go on the closest model (in or out of LoS)

Pretty simple.

They are a shooting attack, and therefore the current stand is that they have a special rule that allows them to shoot at things that they can't do anything to.
This is the basis of my point that the rule is flawed.
And it's not my interpretation Pretre, it's just the one that everyone on YMDC seems to all shake hands and agree on any time Out of Site can be applied. Personally I think it's stupid, I'm just curious how others are treating it, as the issue was one I wasn't playing with or even considering until it was presented to me.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Man, now I have to defend his point. Argh.
His point is that although impalers, etc allow you to hit models out of LOS, they don't allow you to wound them.
Page 16
OUT OF SIGHT
If no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then
Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must be instead allocated
to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no
visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds
in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

I disagree with his interpretation, but understand the basis.

Oh. Well this is simple.

If Impalers are a shooting attack, then they can wound stuff out of LoS, but those wounds have to go on guys "in sight". If there are none, the wounds go away.

If Impalers are not a shooting attack, then they can wound stuff out of LoS, and those wounds go on the closest model (in or out of LoS)

Pretty simple.

They are a shooting attack, and therefore the current stand is that they have a special rule that allows them to shoot at things that they can't do anything to.
This is the basis of my point that the rule is flawed.
And it's not my interpretation Pretre, it's just the one that everyone on YMDC seems to all shake hands and agree on any time Out of Site can be applied. Personally I think it's stupid, I'm just curious how others are treating it, as the issue was one I wasn't playing with or even considering until it was presented to me.

Yeah. They can hit stuff out of LoS. But the wounds still go on the closest visible model to the firer.

Quick answer - yes, the rule is very stupid. Shooting at something out of LOS yet not being able to wound it is not just ridiculous but further evidence of GW's naff rules writing. This is up to your group to resolve, as following current GW RAW is a misadventure in circular reasoning.

I personally don't think it makes a lot of sense that blast weapons and template weapons can only wound what they can see, since they're deliberately meant to be indiscriminate weapons, but other than that I don't really have any issues with 6th edition and line of sight stuff.

 amanita wrote:
Quick answer - yes, the rule is very stupid. Shooting at something out of LOS yet not being able to wound it is not just ridiculous but further evidence of GW's naff rules writing. This is up to your group to resolve, as following current GW RAW is a misadventure in circular reasoning.

Agreed. I'm curious if any big tournament FAQs, etc are touching this issue.

 amanita wrote:
Shooting at something out of LOS yet not being able to wound.

How is it people can not figure out that a rule which allows you to shoot at something out of LoS implicitly means you can wound it.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Shooting at something out of LOS yet not being able to wound.

How is it people can not figure out that a rule which allows you to shoot at something out of LoS implicitly means you can wound it.

Simple it specifically contradicts what you are saying...applying common sense is not the problem

It happened to me, I dropped a template on genestealers, and the dude only removed a couple models in line of sight...even though I did 7 wounds.

Blast templates ignore LOS per rules when shooting...but then that stupid wound allocation rule technically removes remaining wounds.

Spirit of Law vs letter of law...

Scattering blast weapons are explicitly allowed to wound things out of LoS.

Alot of people whinging about LoS wounding here. I like that its back. If you can't see it you can't shoot at it is how I've always played ever since the dark days of 2nd edition. Blast and large blast can still wound if they scatter out of LoS as well as Barrage weapons (as a Guard player its sort of mandatory when using artillery). I take the wounds from directly under the marker and that's that. Never had any one complain (apart from the moans of my Manticore is over powered) about the way I do it.
Those that complain are not adapting to the new style of play and sticking all their killie stuff up on the forward ranks just to have them shot down before they get to do any thing with it.
Don't like it well you could always go back to playing 5th edition...and good luck finding any one to play now

 Ribon Fox wrote:
Alot of people whinging about LoS wounding here. I like that its back. If you can't see it you can't shoot at it is how I've always played ever since the dark days of 2nd edition. Blast and large blast can still wound if they scatter out of LoS as well as Barrage weapons (as a Guard player its sort of mandatory when using artillery). I take the wounds from directly under the marker and that's that. Never had any one complain (apart from the moans of my Manticore is over powered) about the way I do it.
Those that complain are not adapting to the new style of play and sticking all their killie stuff up on the forward ranks just to have them shot down before they get to do any thing with it.
Don't like it well you could always go back to playing 5th edition...and good luck finding any one to play now

But that's the problem. Given the current rules for wounding, you're "wrong" according to the RAW interpretation, and it's you that's 'stuck in 5th edition' where you had permission to wound things you couldn't see.
6th edition blasts rule:
"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.

So, according to the written rule, blast wounds can not be assigned to models that aren't in LoS. This is what I'm saying is a poorly written rule/problem. It's not how I play it, but I've already ran into people that do play it this way and, RAW, they're correct. I'm looking for how other people were playing it as this is a HIWP thread as I'm saying I think the RAW are jank, but there they are.