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.

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

If you really want to prove your point, just ask how a barrage weapon can allocate to units that are "Out of Sight" . Nothing in the barrage rules overrides Out of Sight either. Then sit back and watch the rhetorical Jiu Jitsu with their own logic.

Easy, the barrage rules don't exempt barrage weapons from out of sight. They do however change the frame of reference, for cover saves and wound allocation, to the center of the blast maker instead of the firing model, thus allowing a barrage weapon to fire indirectly.

I know that they can and do, Hit, Wound and Allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS. So do regular blast . It's when people attempt to allow one and disallow the other that their logic collapses. Especial now, that the rules specifically allow you to hit, wound and allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS that are hit with blast markers.

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

It allows you to get models in the target unit that were out of sight, that one is new. Though for non target units nothing changes.

 Idolator wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

If you really want to prove your point, just ask how a barrage weapon can allocate to units that are "Out of Sight" . Nothing in the barrage rules overrides Out of Sight either. Then sit back and watch the rhetorical Jiu Jitsu with their own logic.

Easy, the barrage rules don't exempt barrage weapons from out of sight. They do however change the frame of reference, for cover saves and wound allocation, to the center of the blast maker instead of the firing model, thus allowing a barrage weapon to fire indirectly.

I know that they can and do, Hit, Wound and Allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS. So do regular blast . It's when people attempt to allow one and disallow the other that their logic collapses. Especial now, that the rules specifically allow you to hit, wound and allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS that are hit with blast markers.

Only with the TARGET unit can a blast weapon allocate to models out of sight. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

So then you DO feel that ONLY the "target" unit can be hit/wounded by blasts?

No. You're conflating hits/wounds/allocated wounds. The shooting rules don't do that and neither should you.

A blast weapon can generate hits on a unit out of LoS that it scatters onto.
It can generate wounds and populate a wound pool.
It cannot allocate wounds as there are no models in Line of Sight and therefore you empty the wound pool.

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

If you really want to prove your point, just ask how a barrage weapon can allocate to units that are "Out of Sight" . Nothing in the barrage rules overrides Out of Sight either. Then sit back and watch the rhetorical Jiu Jitsu with their own logic.

Easy, the barrage rules don't exempt barrage weapons from out of sight. They do however change the frame of reference, for cover saves and wound allocation, to the center of the blast maker instead of the firing model, thus allowing a barrage weapon to fire indirectly.

I know that they can and do, Hit, Wound and Allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS. So do regular blast . It's when people attempt to allow one and disallow the other that their logic collapses. Especial now, that the rules specifically allow you to hit, wound and allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS that are hit with blast markers.

Only with the TARGET unit can a blast weapon allocate to models out of sight. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Yes, absolutely. Look at page 12 for the beginning of where a target unit is mentioned/defined.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

For the target unit, that's correct.

 Tarrasq wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

It allows you to get models in the target unit that were out of sight, that one is new. Though for non target units nothing changes.

No according to Rig even non target units in LOS cannot be killed as they are not the "target unit"

40k-noob wrote:

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

The Errata only pertains to the target unit, however the blast rules still allow for wounds to be allocated to non-target models in LOS.

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Actually the rules for Out of Sight and Blast Weapons are all out of whack. For example - I target a Tac squad out in the open. The blast scatters into a Scout squad completely out of sight. I fill a Wound pool (as normal). Now when I go to allocate the Wounds per the out of sight rules, since no models in the Scot unit is in LoS, all the wounds are instead allocated to the target unit (Tac squad).

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Yes, absolutely. Look at page 12 for the beginning of where a target unit is mentioned/defined.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

For the target unit, that's correct.

I think that completely ignores the rules for Scatter and IMO wrong.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And there's no permission to allocate - and the last paragraph (including the errata) reference the target unit.

Nothing in the B&LB rules overrides Out of Sight. This isn't new.

So then you DO feel that ONLY the "target" unit can be hit/wounded by blasts?

No. You're conflating hits/wounds/allocated wounds. The shooting rules don't do that and neither should you.

A blast weapon can generate hits on a unit out of LoS that it scatters onto.
It can generate wounds and populate a wound pool.
It cannot allocate wounds as there are no models in Line of Sight and therefore you empty the wound pool.

That is true only if you ignore the fact that you are specificaly allowed to allocate wounds to models that are out of sight.

Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

I highlighted the part you seem to be missing.

I wasn't missing it. Any and all units hit by the blast markers, beam weapons, templates and any other areas of effect are the targeted unit.

Since all wound allocation is based on target units, not units hit, your reasoning would prevent wounds from ever being allocated to any unit other that the declared target. Effectively making a large portion of weapons either unreliable or useless. (I'm looking at you Deathstrike Missle)

As all rules for wound allocation use the wording "Target Unit".


Can blast, templates, beam,, templates and area effect weapons have wounds allocated to units that are not the declared target?

Edit, I took out maelstrom

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

Yes, absolutely. Look at page 12 for the beginning of where a target unit is mentioned/defined.

LOS doesn't matter then, the rule says "allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit” emphasis mine.

For the target unit, that's correct.

I think that completely ignores the rules for Scatter and IMO wrong.

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

 Tarrasq wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

The Errata only pertains to the target unit, however the blast rules still allow for wounds to be allocated to non-target models in LOS.

No that would be incorrect, the Errata adds to the end of the B&LB rules and tells you to "remember" to keep B&LB wounds separate and then only the target unit can have those wounds allocated to them.

 Idolator wrote:
I wasn't missing it. Any and all units hit by the blast markers, beam weapons, Maelstom, templates and any other areas of effect are the targeted unit.

Citation needed.

Since all wound allocation is based on target units, not units hit, your reasoning would prevent wounds from ever being allocated to any unit other that the declared target. Effectively making a large portion of weapons either unreliable or useless. (I'm looking at you Deathstrike Missle)

As all rules for wound allocation use the wording "Target Unit".

I' currently looking at pg 15 of the BRB. Specifically "Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties". I'm not seeing the word "Target" in there at all.

Can blast, templates, beam, Maelstrom, templates and area effect weapons have wounds allocated to units that are not the declared target?

Yes. However any model out of sight cannot have a wound allocated to it (per out of sight) and the wound is instead allocated to the nearest model in line of sight in the target unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

We've never talked about this subject in person, but I am going by your interpretation about the "target unit."

The Errata is clarifying what to do with wounds from a B&LB and makes it clear that only the "target unit" can have those wounds allocated to them.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

We've never talked about this subject in person, but I am going by your interpretation about the "target unit."

The Errata is clarifying what to do with wounds from a B&LB and makes it clear that only the "target unit" can have those wounds allocated to them.

Here's a little bit of fun....Beam Weapons have no target unit. Meaning that no wounds from beam weapons can be allocated. According to some here on this thread.

Neither does vehicle explosions.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I've shown how it does not. In person and on this forum. Please cite what rules are being ignored.

We've never talked about this subject in person,

We have actually, but I usually don't bother actually arguing things in person because it's more fun to just play.

but I am going by your interpretation about the "target unit."

The Errata is clarifying what to do with wounds from a B&LB and makes it clear that only the "target unit" can have those wounds allocated to them.

Yes, correct. Only the target unit can have wounds allocated from a B&LB.

40k-noob wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

The Errata only pertains to the target unit, however the blast rules still allow for wounds to be allocated to non-target models in LOS.

No that would be incorrect, the Errata adds to the end of the B&LB rules and tells you to "remember" to keep B&LB wounds separate and then only the target unit can have those wounds allocated to them.

It says "CAN be allocated to the closest model in the target unit..." it does not say "MUST be allocated..."

 Tarrasq wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Tarrasq wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Are you claiming that the term "target unit" is and can only be the unit where the blast was originally placed and thus then even if it scatters over another unit whether in LOS or not, that other unit cannot be killed by the blast as it is not the "target unit"?

The Errata only pertains to the target unit, however the blast rules still allow for wounds to be allocated to non-target models in LOS.

No that would be incorrect, the Errata adds to the end of the B&LB rules and tells you to "remember" to keep B&LB wounds separate and then only the target unit can have those wounds allocated to them.

It says "CAN be allocated to the closest model in the target unit..." it does not say "MUST be allocated..."

ok, I am sure your opponent would love for you to elect not to allocate wounds from B&LB.

Considering you don't allocate wounds to your own models in 6th I don't see how this is relevant?

 Happyjew wrote:

As all rules for wound allocation use the wording "Target Unit".

I' currently looking at pg 15 of the BRB. Specifically "Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties". I'm not seeing the word "Target" in there at all.

Can blast, templates, beam, Maelstrom, templates and area effect weapons have wounds allocated to units that are not the declared target?

Yes. However any model out of sight cannot have a wound allocated to it (per out of sight) and the wound is instead allocated to the nearest model in line of sight in the target unit.

Whatever you think this errata is absurd. The wound pool bit was unnecessary and leads to blasts completely missing their target yet still potentially generating wounds and allocating back to the target unit.

They should have just added the barrage center of the LOS paragraph. Sure it allows for blast sniping, but people are already trying not to take blasts if they can, this may reverse that trend.

 Tarrasq wrote:
Whatever you think this errata is absurd. The wound pool bit was unnecessary and leads to blasts completely missing their target yet still potentially generating wounds and allocating back to the target unit.

They should have just added the barrage center of the LOS paragraph. Sure it allows for blast sniping, but people are already trying not to take blasts if they can, this may reverse that trend.

The unit hit, is considered the target unit!

No matter if the unit hit is in line of sight or out of line of sight. It doesn't allow you to allocate wounds from a different unit to the intended target. Hitting a unit that is out of line of sight is treated just like scattering onto a unit that is in line of sight.

Jeez!!!

The wound pool bit is in there to prevent a crafty player from using the blast wound pool to remove the visible models first, then declaring that the rest of the wounds can no longer be allocated due to LOS restrictions.

 Idolator wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Amusingly this errata didn't actually change anything. It does make it clearer that if you scatter on to a different unit out of LoS you get nothing.

I do not see what you mean by that.
I believe you are ignoring the rest of the Blast & Large Blast rules in the BRB.

Edit: Not ignoring... forgetting is a better term.

Nope. Read the B&LB rules. You can wound units out of LoS but there's no permission to allocate.
The errata backs that interpretation up as you're only targeting the unit you initially placed the marker over, not the unit it scattered to.
Didn't change anything.

According to this interpretation, you can only ever allocate to the unit that you declared as a target. So no more wounding more than one unit with a template, jaws, nova, etc, etc, You then never have to worry about scattering onto your own units. This is obviously incorrect.

Units hit by area effect weapons are considered the target unit.

AGREED

Folks. Keep in mind that there's a difference between a FAQ and an Amendment. An amendment will try to re-write the rules clearly where a FAQ could be seen as a specific question. We need to look at the rules as written from the viewpoint of this FAQ. Nothing in the actual rules exempts the other units than the original target unit from damage. The FAQ is just answering a specific question from which we can extrapolate the intent that any models hit by a blast out of Line of Sight can have wounds allocated to them.


To reiterate: do not treat FAQs as re-writes. Only Amendments and Errata do that.

My question is, what cover save do they get? LOL.

I know the answer is the cover save of the thing they're hiding behind but the fact that they get a cover save at all kind of poops on the entire concept we're investigating here. LOL.

 Idolator wrote:
The unit hit, is considered the target unit!

Page and paragraph please.

 Loopy wrote:
To reiterate: do not treat FAQs as re-writes. Only Amendments and Errata do that.

Um. It's an Errata, not an FAQ.

BRB FAQ page 1 wrote:Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Rememberto keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast specialrule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

Idolator wrote:
The unit hit, is considered the target unit!

Page and paragraph, or you have violated the tenets of this forum (again) as you have been asked to actually provide proof for this assertion.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
To reiterate: do not treat FAQs as re-writes. Only Amendments and Errata do that.

Um. It's an Errata, not an FAQ.

BRB FAQ page 1 wrote:Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Rememberto keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast specialrule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

I'm a jackass.

 Loopy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
To reiterate: do not treat FAQs as re-writes. Only Amendments and Errata do that.

Um. It's an Errata, not an FAQ.

BRB FAQ page 1 wrote:Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph:“Rememberto keep the
wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast specialrule in their
own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out
of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

I'm a jackass.

No, you did not realise we were discussing an actual errata instead of a FAQ. However, FAQs do change rules - DA PFG, SitW vs embarked Psykers, Embarked Farseers and Farseer powers...

Hmm. Seems like a reminder paragraph to me. I hate these little reminders they sprinkle in with the rules sometimes because it gives people the impression of exclusion where there shouldn't be any. Harrumph. I'm not sure what to say about it. I doubt very highly the intent is to exclude the units other than the originally targeted unit, but if my play group followed strict RAW, I'm not sure I'd have much of a leg to stand on.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
The unit hit, is considered the target unit!

Page and paragraph please.

You are right. There is nothing specific that states this. This means that beam weapons cannot have wounds allocated, nor vehicle explsions nor any unit that is not the declared target.
If it is true for models that are out of line of sight because of the use of the word "target unit" then it stands true for any unit hit that is not the declared target

You didn't answer my question.

Can wounds be allocated to models in a unit that is not the declared target??? Please answer with page references.

I can find nothing in the rules that allow this. All rules for wound allocation regard the target unit only.

.