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.

Allocating wounds I believe explicitly refers to 'target unit' and 'enemy unit' at many points.
Blindly following RAW with no context means that you can only ever wound enemy units and can only ever wound a single unit which was the target. And weapons/abilities without targets cannot hurt anyone. And multiple weapons and abilities are given the ability to affect units out of line of sight for no effect.

Re: allocating to a target unit.
The way I follow the 'logic' that only the target unit can be allocated wounds, is that if a blast marker scatters onto a unit that is completely out of LOS, the wounds are still allocated to the closest model in the target unit (even if the target unit was not hit at all).
If you disagree with this, can you explain exactly why?

I mean, I don't agree because I think target unit is inseparable from and used interchangeably within the rules with 'unit taking the hits'. rigeld2, you don't seem to feel this way, so can you explain why/not the above situation occurs?

Thanks to all for the vigorous discussion about LOS and the new FAQ (which I didn't realise was out when I made the post).

Now, does the concept of B&LB being allowed to scatter and wound stuff out of sight also apply to out of range?

Trasvi wrote:
Allocating wounds I believe explicitly refers to 'target unit' and 'enemy unit' at many points.
Blindly following RAW with no context means that you can only ever wound enemy units and can only ever wound a single unit which was the target. And weapons/abilities without targets cannot hurt anyone. And multiple weapons and abilities are given the ability to affect units out of line of sight for no effect.

Re: allocating to a target unit.
The way I follow the 'logic' that only the target unit can be allocated wounds, is that if a blast marker scatters onto a unit that is completely out of LOS, the wounds are still allocated to the closest model in the target unit (even if the target unit was not hit at all).
If you disagree with this, can you explain exactly why?

I mean, I don't agree because I think target unit is inseparable from and used interchangeably within the rules with 'unit taking the hits'. rigeld2, you don't seem to feel this way, so can you explain why/not the above situation occurs?

The Out of Sight rule triggers if no models in the enemy unit are in LOS, and empties the wound pool. Sure you have permission to allocate wounds, but you have no wounds anymore to allocate. If you had one visible enemy model in the target unit things would be different, until it dies of course.

Trasvi wrote:
I mean, I don't agree because I think target unit is inseparable from and used interchangeably within the rules with 'unit taking the hits'. rigeld2, you don't seem to feel this way, so can you explain why/not the above situation occurs?

Seriously, how many times do I have to say this?
I've conceded that point for this argument.
Your interpretation actually supports my statement that the wound pool is lost.

I WILL STIPULATE FOR THIS DISCUSSION THAT TARGET UNIT REFERS TO ANY UNIT UNDER THE BLAST MARKER.

There. Maybe that will get people to read it for the 4th or 5th time.
Now - why does that matter? At all? Have you found permission to ignore Out of Sight yet?

rigeld2 wrote:
Now - why does that matter? At all? Have you found permission to ignore Out of Sight yet?

I don't have the rulebook on me, could you provide a quote?

If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

That said, amusingly the errata actual breaks rules as you can only ever have one wound pool and it says to create a second one.
Irrelevant though - still no permission to ignore OoS.

Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded? I am glad I don't play against players like this or I would be thrown out of a tourney for punching the player... . Play the game and have fun.. If we have a dispute.. We roll off and get the game going.. Then discuss the rule afterward.

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

That would mean, wounds caused by barrage, to a unit that is Out of Sight, cannot have wounds allocated to it. Wow, that is quite a reversal from your previous position.

No, as I've stated before in this thread Barrage gets around out of sight by drawing LOS from the center of the blast marker for wound allocation purposes.

To break it down, rigeld2's position as I have read it is that if a unit has wounds in the wound pool and no model in the unit is in LOS of any model in the firing unit, the wound pool is emptied.

However due to the errata, this only happens under certain circumstances if you hit the target unit with a blast.

A) You can't target a unit that you don't have at least LOS to part of it.
B) If you generate wounds in the wound pool you have permission to allocate to the closest enemy model without LOS (due to the errata) to that particular model and you have to allocate to the closest enemy model as per normal allocation rules.
C) Out of sight doesn't trigger until every visible model is dead, which means you can kill the whole unit if the visible models are the furthest away. If the visible models are closest, the wound pool empties when the visible ones all die.

I don't understand the reasoning behind adding the separate wound pool, then there is the whole "target unit" bit. The whole paragraph is rather inelegant. Again I say borrowing the barrage LOS swap would've been simpler.

Blast rules allow you to scatter onto units that are out of sight. Blast rules allow hitting and wounding models that are in a unit that is out of sight. Blast rules allow allocation to models in a unit that is out of sight.

A) that is correct, you must target a model in a unit that can be seen by firing model.
B) correct, but not complete. Since blast carries it's own separate wound pool (due to rules differentiation) only those wound in the blast pool are allowed to wound models that are out of sight. (there is why it has a separate wound pool. Only allowing the blast to take out hidden models)
C) Out of Sight is always in effect. Weapons that do not have an exception to the Out of Sight restriction cannot have wounds allocated to models that are not seen by the firing unit. The wounds from the blast template can and are allocated to models regardless of whether they are out of Sight.

Example: Five lonely guardsmen are trying to hide behind a wall. The ten man units of space marines can only see three closest guardsman. The Marines fire nine bolters and a plasma cannon. All hit and wound, with the plasma blast hitting and wounding three guardsmen. The shooting player has the bolt gun wounds allocated first killing all three visible guardsmen, he then has the remaining wounds allocated to what is left killing the hidden guardsmen. (because they failed their saves.)

Hits and wounds are made before they can be allocated. Once a blast marker has wounded it may still be allocated to hidden models even after all visible models have been removed.

That, however, has not been the topic of discusion.

The entire argument has been over what to do if a UNIT that is Out of Sight, has a blast template scatter onto it. His position is that even though the rules for blast allow for hits and wounds to be made on the UNIT that is Out of Sight, the wounds are not allocated because it is not the target unit.

His position is convoluted because he claims that wounds to be allocated to units that are not the target unit if they are within Line of Sight. This position relies solely on the this portion of the errata:
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 crux of the argument. There is a problem with this reasoning.

All wound allocation rules rely on allocating wounds to the Target Unit. There is nothing in the rules that allow wounds to be allocated to models in a unit that is not declared as the target unit.

It is understood, by one and all, that unit hit or effected by a weapon, condition, or area of effect are considered the target unit. It is universaly accepted. Otherwise, gameplay would no longer function. Beam weapons would become useless, vehicle explosions wouldn't affect anything, scattering onto your own troops wouldn't matter.

What is it that makes scattering onto a unit that is Out of Sight different than any other instance? Now that they fixed the error and blast weapon wounds are to be allocated to models that are Out of Sight, there is nothing that makes it any different from any other scatter result.

Selectively applying it in this one instance while allowing wounds to be allocated to non-target units in all other instances is simply the wrong thing to do.

Edit: I highlighted the portion that allows you to allocate wounds even if the model is out of sight. (It is clear in blast rules that you can hit and wound units that are Out of Sight, this is just for the wound allocation point)

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded? I am glad I don't play against players like this or I would be thrown out of a tourney for punching the player... . Play the game and have fun.. If we have a dispute.. We roll off and get the game going.. Then discuss the rule afterward.

So... You'd rather roll off and have fun, but you'd get thrown out for punching someone?

Also, what I'm arguing has literally nothing to do with how I'd play it. Perhaps you should read the tenets of this forum.
HIWPI is I just don't care. If you say they can wound, they can wound. If you say they can't, they can't. Ill likely even forget to ask until it comes up because I just don't care during a game and would rather have fun playing.

When I'm not playing, however, I enjoy friendly discussions.

rigeld2 wrote:
If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

That said, amusingly the errata actual breaks rules as you can only ever have one wound pool and it says to create a second one.
Irrelevant though - still no permission to ignore OoS.

Without the rest of the rule it is hard to comment, but I believe that sentence is placed in the context that you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight, and this is then the way to empty the would pool and resolve shooting when no further wounds can be allocated. Combined with the FAQ and the rules in Blasts saying that you may allocate wounds to units out of LOS, surely they override this sentence.

This then also leads to the (IMO) ridiculous RAW situation where, so long as you can see a the furthest away model in a unit, you can kill the entire unit with a blast even if they are out of LOS. But if you kill 5 out of LOS models then the 1 in LOS model, the remaining 5 out of LOS models suddenly become immune?

Trasvi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

That said, amusingly the errata actual breaks rules as you can only ever have one wound pool and it says to create a second one.
Irrelevant though - still no permission to ignore OoS.

Without the rest of the rule it is hard to comment, but I believe that sentence is placed in the context that you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight, and this is then the way to empty the would pool and resolve shooting when no further wounds can be allocated. Combined with the FAQ and the rules in Blasts saying that you may allocate wounds to units out of LOS, surely they override this sentence.

Just so you don't think I'm selectively quoting,

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.

Now, the second sentence is completely separate and not dependent on the first. It's bolded as the more important part of the paragraph rule. The errata overrides the first sentence but not the second. You can argue intent if you like (and you'd have a good argument IMO) but the OoS rule is pretty clear.

This then also leads to the (IMO) ridiculous RAW situation where, so long as you can see a the furthest away model in a unit, you can kill the entire unit with a blast even if they are out of LOS. But if you kill 5 out of LOS models then the 1 in LOS model, the remaining 5 out of LOS models suddenly become immune?

And this is less ridiculous than pre-errata where you could land the blast on 9 models out of LoS but could only allocate wounds on the one you could see?
And "ridiculous" situations are hardly grounds for discussing how the rules are written.

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded? I am glad I don't play against players like this or I would be thrown out of a tourney for punching the player... . Play the game and have fun.. If we have a dispute.. We roll off and get the game going.. Then discuss the rule afterward.

You a re mistaking having a debate on a forum for how the debater actually plays.

I disagree with Rig on this one, but I would play 40k with/or against him any day of the week.

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded?

How does it make sense that it can wound models it can't see? It's a missile. It travels in a generally straight line. It's not like it can go to your target, then yoyo around and head to where it scattered. If you miss, it would go in a straight line to wherever you aimed it, and hit the intervening obstacle. There are some cases that make sense for it to do damage (like when it splashes onto a location that was in line of sight and tags someone just out of LoS) but there are plenty where it makes perfect sense for it to do no damage.

 Idolator wrote:
The entire argument has been over what to do if a UNIT that is Out of Sight, has a blast template scatter onto it. His position is that even though the rules for blast allow for hits and wounds to be made on the UNIT that is Out of Sight, the wounds are not allocated because it is not the target unit.

No, his position is that you can't wound units out of LoS because "Out of Sight" (p.22) says that if you can't see any visible models in the target unit then all remaining wounds in the pool are lost. (It also says "and the shooting attack ends", which is a potential problem of its own, but that's beside the point here.)

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded?

How does it make sense that it can wound models it can't see? It's a missile. It travels in a generally straight line. It's not like it can go to your target, then yoyo around and head to where it scattered. If you miss, it would go in a straight line to wherever you aimed it, and hit the intervening obstacle. There are some cases that make sense for it to do damage (like when it splashes onto a location that was in line of sight and tags someone just out of LoS) but there are plenty where it makes perfect sense for it to do no damage.

 Idolator wrote:
The entire argument has been over what to do if a UNIT that is Out of Sight, has a blast template scatter onto it. His position is that even though the rules for blast allow for hits and wounds to be made on the UNIT that is Out of Sight, the wounds are not allocated because it is not the target unit.

No, his position is that you can't wound units out of LoS because "Out of Sight" (p.22) says that if you can't see any visible models in the target unit then all remaining wounds in the pool are lost. (It also says "and the shooting attack ends", which is a potential problem of its own, but that's beside the point here.)

My first guess is that you have never fired a missle. I could be wrong.

They don't always travel in a straight line. They can dip, dive, corkscrew ( quite badly if a fin gets knocked off in transit), veer straight up and come down no where near the location that you intended and any number of things, including blowing up in the tube or not detonating at all.

I have been party to several missle firings.

Secondly, his position changed later on in the thread. He wasn't very clear about the change in his argument until just a few posts ago. Not only did I miss it, a lot of people did.

I admit that it is a better argument as the first argument was demonstrably false.

That does shift it to a RAI argument.
It is rather obvious in my opinion, that it is intended for blasts and barrage blasts to hit and wound models out of sight and that those wounds can be allocated as the rules for each are excepted from Out of Sight rules.

Edit: several is an overstatement... party to two missle firings. Witnessed three others.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded?

How does it make sense that it can wound models it can't see? It's a missile. It travels in a generally straight line. It's not like it can go to your target, then yoyo around and head to where it scattered.

I guess you've never seen a missile take an immediate right turn when one of it's stabilizers is damaged. Common enough that you might want to track down a few early nasa rocket test videos.

Could the FAQ have used different language? Sure. However, it's pretty clear that they say wounds can be allocated even if it is out of sight. Which clearly ignores the OoS section of pg 16.

clively wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dewgan wrote:
Oh.. My missile missed my intended target and hit something behind a building.. Because none of my troops can see it.. They cannot be wounded.. Who in their right mind would argue that they cannot be wounded?

How does it make sense that it can wound models it can't see? It's a missile. It travels in a generally straight line. It's not like it can go to your target, then yoyo around and head to where it scattered.

I guess you've never seen a missile take an immediate right turn when one of it's stabilizers is damaged. Common enough that you might want to track down a few early nasa rocket test videos.

Could the FAQ have used different language? Sure. However, it's pretty clear that they say wounds can be allocated even if it is out of sight. Which clearly ignores the OoS section of pg 16.

I don't disagree that it's possible for a missile to veer off course, but if an unguided missile taking a sudden sharp turn midflight is the majority of cases where they miss (as opposed to, say, the operator missing the target for whatever reason) then they are certainly a lot less reliable than I've been led to believe.

The FAQ does not ignore Out of Sight. It changes the pre-FAQ rules by allowing* you to allocate wounds made with a blast weapon to models that are not in LoS of the firing unit. It doesn't appear to interact with Out of Sight at all.

I think the obvious question here is to ask why they didn't just give blasts a blanket exception to Out of Sight or make them resolve based on the position of the blast marker, like barrages. Perhaps they don't intend for blasts to kill random unseen units and feel that would be bad for the game?

rigeld2 wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost and the shooting attack ends.

That said, amusingly the errata actual breaks rules as you can only ever have one wound pool and it says to create a second one.
Irrelevant though - still no permission to ignore OoS.

Without the rest of the rule it is hard to comment, but I believe that sentence is placed in the context that you may not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight, and this is then the way to empty the would pool and resolve shooting when no further wounds can be allocated. Combined with the FAQ and the rules in Blasts saying that you may allocate wounds to units out of LOS, surely they override this sentence.

Just so you don't think I'm selectively quoting,

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.

Now, the second sentence is completely separate and not dependent on the first. It's bolded as the more important part of the paragraph rule. The errata overrides the first sentence but not the second. You can argue intent if you like (and you'd have a good argument IMO) but the OoS rule is pretty clear.

The two are not completely independent just because they are separate sentences. This is pretty much the definition of 'reading with context'. The part about discarding wounds you can't allocate is clearly dependent on the first part telling you where you can allocate wounds.

This then also leads to the (IMO) ridiculous RAW situation where, so long as you can see a the furthest away model in a unit, you can kill the entire unit with a blast even if they are out of LOS. But if you kill 5 out of LOS models then the 1 in LOS model, the remaining 5 out of LOS models suddenly become immune?

And this is less ridiculous than pre-errata where you could land the blast on 9 models out of LoS but could only allocate wounds on the one you could see?
And "ridiculous" situations are hardly grounds for discussing how the rules are written.

Well IMO it worked the same way before and after the FAQ.... the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

The second sentence says nothing about discarding wounds you can't allocate - you've invented that.

the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

To clarify the errata does give the ability for blast weapons to kill individual models that are out of LOS. It does not let them do so if the whole unit is out of LOS.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I don't disagree that it's possible for a missile to veer off course, but if an unguided missile taking a sudden sharp turn midflight is the majority of cases where they miss (as opposed to, say, the operator missing the target for whatever reason) then they are certainly a lot less reliable than I've been led to believe.

The FAQ does not ignore Out of Sight. It changes the pre-FAQ rules by allowing* you to allocate wounds made with a blast weapon to models that are not in LoS of the firing unit. It doesn't appear to interact with Out of Sight at all.

I think the obvious question here is to ask why they didn't just give blasts a blanket exception to Out of Sight or make them resolve based on the position of the blast marker, like barrages. Perhaps they don't intend for blasts to kill random unseen units and feel that would be bad for the game?

no one stated that sudden turns or catastrophic failures cause the majority of poorly targeted missles. Just that it does happen.

On a separate note, the thing that may be blocking line of sight to a unit may not be study or stable enough cause the projectile to detonate. Such as bushes, grass, massonite, sheet metal. "Hey, I'm glad that I hid behing this rice paper wall...otherwise that bomb that exploded on the other side might have killed me!" Said no Tokyo resident ever.

The rules for allocation adressed in Out Of Sight are based on visibility of models in a unit. If you no longer apply the restrictions requiring a model to be visible it would be odd to apply the second part of the rule. In regards to blast rules. Especialy if the rules for blast and barrage expressly allow you to hit and wound those units that are completely out of sight.


Where is this exception to the Out of Sight rule for Barrage weapons. I have never read it. It is assumed and understood that you can allocate those wounds. But according to how this forum works, that is just a widely accepted house rule. The rules for barrage provide diretion on how to determine cover and how to allocate wounds from the blast, it doesn't state that models that are Out of Sight can have wounds allocated to them, doesn't discuss Line of Sight at all.

If there is a written rule providing an exception to Out of Sight in the Barrage rules could you please provide a reference. Every argument that I have seen allowing for the allocation of these wounds has been based on inference and RAI not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tarrasq wrote:

the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

To clarify the errata does give the ability for blast weapons to kill individual models that are out of LOS. It does not let them do so if the whole unit is out of LOS.

It would be absurd to provide rules allowing a player to hit and wound units that out of LoS, then provide rules that allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LoS, only to disallow those rules that were expressly written allowing you to do so.

They obviously intended for you to be able to allocate the wounds caused by scattering onto other units, whether they were Out of Sight or not.

 Idolator wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The FAQ does not ignore Out of Sight. It changes the pre-FAQ rules by allowing* you to allocate wounds made with a blast weapon to models that are not in LoS of the firing unit. It doesn't appear to interact with Out of Sight at all.

I think the obvious question here is to ask why they didn't just give blasts a blanket exception to Out of Sight or make them resolve based on the position of the blast marker, like barrages. Perhaps they don't intend for blasts to kill random unseen units and feel that would be bad for the game?

The rules for allocation adressed in Out Of Sight are based on visibility of models in a unit. If you no longer apply the restrictions requiring a model to be visible it would be odd to apply the second part of the rule. In regards to blast rules. Especialy if the rules for blast and barrage expressly allow you to hit and wound those units that are completely out of sight.


Where is this exception to the Out of Sight rule for Barrage weapons. I have never read it. It is assumed and understood that you can allocate those wounds. But according to how this forum works, that is just a widely accepted house rule. The rules for barrage provide diretion on how to determine cover and how to allocate wounds from the blast, it doesn't state that models that are Out of Sight can have wounds allocated to them, doesn't discuss Line of Sight at all.

If there is a written rule providing an exception to Out of Sight in the Barrage rules could you please provide a reference. Every argument that I have seen allowing for the allocation of these wounds has been based on inference and RAI not RAW.

p.34, Barrage, "...when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model." Out of Sight is applied during wound allocation.

 Idolator wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tarrasq wrote:

the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

To clarify the errata does give the ability for blast weapons to kill individual models that are out of LOS. It does not let them do so if the whole unit is out of LOS.

It would be absurd to provide rules allowing a player to hit and wound units that out of LoS, then provide rules that allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LoS, only to disallow those rules that were expressly written allowing you to do so.

They obviously intended for you to be able to allocate the wounds caused by scattering onto other units, whether they were Out of Sight or not.

It's absurd for 19 hormagaunts to strike at Initiative 1 because hormagaunt #20 had to step over a rock at some point. The rules don't have to follow logical sense (though I'd argue they should where possible). They often, at least in theory, make tradeoffs for playability.

The hit and wound units out of LoS does have a gameplay effect - it allows you to wound units that aren't out of LoS while allowing players to shield units relatively reliably using LoS. Whether that's deliberate or not, we can only speculate.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
p.34, Barrage, "...when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model." Out of Sight is applied during wound allocation.

.

Yes, out of sight is indeed applied during wound allocation. Based on the visibility of the firing unit. Nothing in the above quote mentions a change in visibilty to the firing unit. In fact it doesn't mention the visibility of the firing model. It does give instructions on the direction from which to allocate the wounds, if the unit can, of course, be seen by the firing unit.

If the firing unit can see models in the target unit, you allocate wounds from the center of the blast template. If they cannot see models in the target unit then Out of Sight prevents wounds from being allocated.

It just tells you how to allocate wounds, and doesn't provide the ability to allocate them if they are out of sight.

Like I said before, inference and RAI. It's just accepted by just about everyone. Just as the regular blast should.

Did they intend to keep barrage from being able to stay completely hidden while still being able to shoot at enemy units. Maybe, who knows.

 Tarrasq wrote:

the intent is for blast weapon to be able to kill models out of LOS, and 99.999% of people would read the rules that way.

To clarify the errata does give the ability for blast weapons to kill individual models that are out of LOS. It does not let them do so if the whole unit is out of LOS.

The blast rules give the ability to wound units out of LOS.

Unless being able to wound units out of LOS AND being able to wound models out of LOS = not being able to wound units out of LOS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
Like I said before, inference and RAI. It's just accepted by just about everyone. Just as the regular blast should.

It's not even RAI, it's basic reading comprehension.

Trasvi wrote:
It's not even RAI, it's basic reading comprehension.

I concur. Sometimes you have to use the language of the natives to get your point across though.

Trasvi wrote:

The blast rules give the ability to wound units out of LOS.

Unless being able to wound units out of LOS AND being able to wound models out of LOS = not being able to wound units out of LOS?

If it worked that way there would be no need for the Errata. So obviously GW agreed that the blast rules were not enough.

The fact is that no one has given rules that EXPLICITLY give blasts permission to ignore the second part of Out of Sight. If a firing unit cannot see any model in the unit being fired upon (at any point of wound allocation) the wound pool is cleared and the attack ends. There are no exceptions... yet. There is no room for interpretation here. It's like the rule that you can't end your move on top of enemy models. I don't see anyone try to ignore that one. Yet it seems that how people want blasts to work takes root in some people's head and they can't possibly believe that any rule would tell them otherwise. How many FAQs are we in for this edition? If GW really didn't want the Out of Sight rule to work the way it did they would've changed it, kind of how they changed the rules in the section right before it. I mean for God's sake it's in bold.

As above.

Idolator - please prove that "target unit" is different to the rules given on page 12. Page and graph. If you insist on stating it is just anythign the blast hits you have to provide rules or concede.

Trasvi wrote:

The fact is that no one has given rules that EXPLICITLY give blasts permission to ignore the second part of Out of Sight.

Isn't that what this FAQ has done? They don't have to change the Out of Sight section to validate the FAQ Amendment because the Amendment is to a more specific rule and therefore takes precedence.

How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How is it more specific?

It does not mention NOT emptying the wound pool, so the wound pool still empties

To be more specific it has to specify what it is trying to override. It does not do so.

It is specific to wounds caused by blasts and large blasts. I think that is very clear. I can't imagine how you could argue that it is not.

Seemly it seems that whereever the blast scatters is the target, The scatter will hit and wound anyting whats under the blast marker as long as it is on the same level ( as in you can only hit people on the first floor, and not the 2nd )

And the "allocating" is a wound on the models under the blast, remembering the rules for multiply wounds you start taking casualties from the models closest to the unit that fired the blast, and in the case of barrage you take it from the center of the blast.

So if you fire a Large blast at a Termagant unit and it scatters 12" away from them onto genestealers behind a LOS block and outside the wapon range, they are still hit and take wounds as normal. ( As per rules of the BRB and the further explaination of the FAQ )

So what is REALLY the problem here? it just sounds like someone is digging for a loop hole to escape blast effects.