Blast weapons against vehicles out of range/sight

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.

**rigeld2**

Dracoknight wrote:
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 )

And what's normal for models in a unit you cannot see? Read the Out of Sight rules for clarification.

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

Assigning negative motivations to someone who disagrees with you isn't the right way to have a debate, especially when you've demonstrated that you don't understand the argument in the first place.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Loopy wrote:
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.

No, they don't have to change Out of Sight.

They do, however, need to say that the wound pool doesn't empty because advanced rules only "win" in a conflict. Right now there isn't a conflict and Out of Sight empties the wound pool.

**nosferatu1001**

Loopy wrote:
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.

Good, because Im not arguing that.

Does it specify that the wound pool does NOT empty? ANswer yes or no
THen, once you have that answer, you will have learnt whether it specifies or not. Hint: it doesnt specify. There is no conflict, so the wound pool still empties. You only habve permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool, yet the wound pool is empty. note how one thing (permission to allocate wounds) is not the same as saying that the wound pool is not emptied

**rigeld2**

Trasvi wrote:
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?

They're not able to wound units hat are entirely out of LoS, no.

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.

That's pretty insulting. Ad hominems aren't necessary.
And Swarms being IDed by blasts 2 at a time was "accepted by about everyone" and "basic reading comprehension" because it worked that way for multiple editions in the past.

Rules change. This edition is different from the last. Get over it.

**Loopy**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Loopy wrote:
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.

Good, because Im not arguing that.

Does it specify that the wound pool does NOT empty? ANswer yes or no
THen, once you have that answer, you will have learnt whether it specifies or not. Hint: it doesnt specify. There is no conflict, so the wound pool still empties. You only habve permission to allocate wounds from the wound pool, yet the wound pool is empty. note how one thing (permission to allocate wounds) is not the same as saying that the wound pool is not emptied

So you are choosing to interpret the FAQ as doing absolutely nothing?

**Dracoknight**

@rideld2:

As normal: scattered blast weapons IGNORE LOS. Read up on blast weapons.

as in: you can target a blast weapon on a target in LOS, but it can scatter into a target out of LOS.

**rigeld2**

Dracoknight wrote:
@rideld2:

As normal: scattered blast weapons IGNORE LOS. Read up on blast weapons.

That's absolutely false and I've proven that multiple times. Please quote in the rule where it ignores LoS. (Hint: it never says that)

**Happyjew**

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..

Never seen that, but I did see a Torpedo make a 72,000 G turn into a small thermal exhaust port.

**whill4**

You are correct. The rules don't say blast weapons ignore LoS. But they do say: " Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum range or minimum range and line of sight." It goes on to say and I paraphrase that the shot can hit units out of range and LoS.

**Happyjew**

whill4 wrote:
You are correct. The rules don't say blast weapons ignore LoS. But they do say: " Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum range or minimum range and line of sight." It goes on to say and I paraphrase that the shot can hit units out of range and LoS.

Which has nothing to do with Wound Allocation and Out of Sight.

**whill4**

Wound allocation rules are on page 15.

**rigeld2**

whill4 wrote:
You are correct. The rules don't say blast weapons ignore LoS. But they do say: " Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum range or minimum range and line of sight." It goes on to say and I paraphrase that the shot can hit units out of range and LoS.

Correct. It never mentions allocating (note that wounding a unit and allocating wounds are two completely separate steps that many people incorrectly conflate).

You still haven't cited permission in the B&LB rules to allocate wounds out of LoS - the only thing that adds it is the new errata and nothing in there overrides Out of Sight.

**whill4**

Pg 33 Last two paragraphs of the Blast special rule.

**Happyjew**

whill4 wrote:
Pg 33 Last two paragraphs of the Blast special rule.

Which does not override the actual allocation of wounds.

**rigeld2**

whill4 wrote:
Pg 33 Last two paragraphs of the Blast special rule.

So... still nothing relevant?

That's okay. You tried and that's what counts.

You know - you deserve more than that.

Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker(see diagram).

I've never disagreed that hits are generated.

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.

What's normal for a shooting attack where your unit cannot see any models in the "target unit"?
And remember - wounding the unit (the step where you roll To Wound) is a completely different step from allocating wounds.

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”.

Still doesn't override Out of Sight - it just allows you to allocate wounds to models in the unit that you can't see.

**whill4**

The last paragraph which I paraphrase tells us that once the number of hits has been worked out to roll to wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as normal.

Please explain to me how this is not relevant?

**rigeld2**

whill4 wrote:
The last paragraph which I paraphrase tells us that once the number of hits has been worked out to roll to wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as normal.

Please explain to me how this is not relevant?

Read my edit please - I explained sentence/paragraph by sentence.

**Happyjew**

Right the wounds are allocated as normal. This means you follow the normal rules for wound allocation which tells us that if no model in the target unit is visible, the wound pool is emptied.

**whill4**

You missed the part where it is OK for a blast template to hit and wound units that are out range and LoS.

**rigeld2**

whill4 wrote:
You missed the part where it is OK for a blast template to hit and wound units that are out range and LoS.

No, I didn't. At all.
You're ignoring that wounding a unit has nothing to do with allocating wounds. Which I've explained multiple times now.
Address the actual rules (which I've helpfully quoted) instead of what you want them to say.

**whill4**

What is Out of Sight? I can't seem to find this rule in the BRB>

**Happyjew**

No. As was pointed out by rigeld, wounding a unit (rolling To Wound) and allocating wounds is two completely different things.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whill4 wrote:
What is Out of Sight? I can't seem to find this rule in the BRB>

Page 16.

**whill4**

I do not understand why Blast makes an exception to the normal rules and you want to discount the exception.

**rigeld2**

whill4 wrote:
I do not understand why Blast makes an exception to the normal rules and you want to discount the exception.

I'm not discounting the exception. At all.

I'm saying there is no exception to Out of Sight (the complete rule as in both sentences). You haven't cited one yet.

**whill4**

If it is OK to hit and wound a unit that is not the original target with a blast. If it is OK to to hit and wound a unit that is not within max or min range with a blast. If it is OK to hit and wound a unit not in LoS with blast. Why would you not allocate wounds?

**Fragile**

Strict RAW. Rigeld is absolutely correct. Context not so much.

The basic problem here is that the second sentence in the OoS rule is taken as an absolute. The context of the second sentence modifies the first. It shows what happens when wounds cannot be allocated due to OoS.

The first states that if no models are in LOS wounds cannot be allocated to them. The second states if no models are in LOS then the wound pool empties. The second sentence is required because otherwise the game would hang up with wounds in the pool and no instruction what to do with them and no permission to move on. The sentence should be reworded to say that if No wounds can be allocated then the wound pool empties which would remove this argument.

**rigeld2**

whill4 wrote:
If it is OK to hit and wound a unit that is not the original target with a blast. If it is OK to to hit and wound a unit that is not within max or min range with a blast. If it is OK to hit and wound a unit not in LoS with blast. Why would you not allocate wounds?

Because Out of Sight tells you to empty the wound pool if you cannot see the unit.
You're conflating wounding a unit with allocating wounds. You shouldn't - the actual rules don't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Strict RAW. Rigeld is absolutely correct. Context not so much.

I disagree - I think people are inserting what they want to think to make "context" work as it has in previous editions. We know, for a fact, that not all intent carries forward (Swarm and ID Blast wounds).

The sentence should be reworded to say that if No wounds can be allocated then the wound pool empties which would remove this argument.

Agreed - if the intent is that invisible units should have allocatable wounds.

**whill4**

Why would you decide to take the Out of Sight rule as absolute while discounting the exception made in the Blast special rule?

**rigeld2**

whill4 wrote:
Why would you decide to take the Out of Sight rule as absolute while discounting the exception made in the Blast special rule?

Because there isn't an exception in the blast rule to the second sentence of Out of Sight.

**whill4**

This whole argument just doesn't make since to me. It just seems so illogical.

**Fragile**

Whill4, because nothing addresses the second sentence of that rule.

I disagree - I think people are inserting what they want to think to make "context" work as it has in previous editions. We know, for a fact, that not all intent carries forward (Swarm and ID Blast wounds).

I think intent is clearly spelled out in the FAQ. I do not think they would make such a clear statement about wounding and allocating wounds to OoS models without the intent to override the OoS rule. Again your correct on RAW without that second sentence being addressed, but this will not fall into the First Blood/ Purge the Alien type of arguments.