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.

It makes perfect sense if you ignore previous editions.
Just like the Swarm and ID blast rules.

 Loopy wrote:

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?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

Once again, it is the only conclusion possible. Any unit hit by a weapon or effect must be considered the target unit.

If it is not the case, then no weapon could ever possibly wound more than one unit at a time. Vehicle explosions couldn't have their wounds allocated at all! Having your transports or bastions destroyed wouldn't effect the occupants in any way, other than pinning tests.

There is no concession.

The Death strike missle would be almost pointless to take, beam weapons would be pointless to take.

I would like to clarify your position however.

Do you posit that only the declared target unit may have wounds allocated to it?

No, but only the target unit can take saves.

Dracoknight wrote:

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

Digging for something, like not having to admit that their long and closely held opinions were wrong.

 Idolator wrote:

Dracoknight wrote:

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

Digging for something, like not having to admit that their long and closely held opinions were wrong.

How? We are discussing what the rules actually state, not what we perceive the writers to intend. I for one play that you can allocate blast wounds to models out of sight, and the non-targeted unit gets saves, etc. I've also played it that way since 6th edition came out.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

I seriously never understand how people stick to this belief while insisting that there is one for barrage.

Blast say allocate as normal, barrage says allocate from the center of the marker. Neither specificaly override that second sentence of Out of Sight.

But hey, who am I to say that you can't argue both sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Dracoknight wrote:

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

Digging for something, like not having to admit that their long and closely held opinions were wrong.

How? We are discussing what the rules actually state, not what we perceive the writers to intend. I for one play that you can allocate blast wounds to models out of sight, and the non-targeted unit gets saves, etc. I've also played it that way since 6th edition came out.

The rules for allocation state that wounds are allocated to the target unit and only the target unit. Could you provide an example where wounds are allocted to a unit other than the target unit.
I cannot find one.

The rules for barrage don't provide an exception to Out of Sight either. But many argue vehemently that they do.

I posit that the rule for blasts provide exception to the Out of Sight rule as a whole (always have for that matter). Others here argue that it only allows an exception for part. No amount of argument will change my opinion. Nor will it change what is written.

You have the opinion that the exception only covers part of the rule. Good. I am however not wrong on this. And no one would ever play it that way.

I seriously never understand how people stick to this belief while insisting that there is one for barrage.

Those people do not. You fail to realize that this is a RAW discussion not a HIWPI one.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Going to offer up my opinion:

Here's the exception to the Out of Sight:

"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”.

As I read it, this errata places wounds from blast weapons in it's own pool that overrides the Out of Sight.

So as I understand it, Pre-errata the process is:

Roll direct, non blast shots
Roll wounds.
Roll saves.
Place initial target and then roll deviation of blast weapon.
Determine the number of models hit. Blast rules state that range and sight do not apply.
Roll wounds.
Roll saves.
Create wound pool.
Allocate unsaved wounds. (At this point, Out of Sight kicks in. The example of a large blast causing 9 wounds on the one visible chump would be the proper wound apply)

Now the pre errata process is:
Roll direct, non blast shots
Roll wounds.
Roll saves.
Create wound pool A
Place initial target and then roll deviation of blast weapon.
Determine the number of models hit. Blast rules state that range and sight do not apply.
Roll wounds.
Roll saves.
Create wound pool B
Allocate unsaved wounds from pool A (Out of Sight rule applies)
Allocate unsaved wounds from pool B (Out of Sight rule does NOT apply, as the errata for this wound pool states that this pool can be allocated to models Out of Sight and Out of Range)
Note that A and B are not a defined order, and as the shooter, choosing the weapon allocation order, one could do the blast weapon pool first, it's not really tactically sound.

This errata allows blast wounds to be allocated without sight (or range) being an issue, the key point being that blast caused wounds now exist in their own separate wound pool with exceptions to range and sight.

To me, that reduces the issue down to the whole "target unit" and if the target for a blast weapon is A) the original unit being shot at or B) the unit(s) that fall under the template. That seems to be all that needs clarification now.

FlyingLandon wrote:
Here's the exception to the Out of Sight:

"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”.

As I read it, this errata places wounds from blast weapons in it's own pool that overrides the Out of Sight.

It overrides the first sentence (about not being able to allocate wounds to models out of sight).
What overrides the second sentence?

rigeld2 wrote:

FlyingLandon wrote:
Here's the exception to the Out of Sight:

"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”.

As I read it, this errata places wounds from blast weapons in it's own pool that overrides the Out of Sight.

It overrides the first sentence (about not being able to allocate wounds to models out of sight).
What overrides the second sentence?

There is no need to override the second sentence. The rule is Out of Sight, the errata provides Blast wounds the ability to allocate to units out of LoS. If the rule (OoS) is not applicable then the entire rule is not applicable. Another way to view it is prove that the second sentence of OoS disallows Blasts to allocate the wounds to units/models out of LoS. Blast is an advanced rule and OoS is a basic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

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?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

Okay. The rules Amendment in FAQ 1.4 say that wounds may be ALLOCATED to models out of sight. I can only assume you haven't really read this yet because I can conjure no other way of interpreting this in a reasonable manner.

Fragile wrote:

I seriously never understand how people stick to this belief while insisting that there is one for barrage.

Those people do not. You fail to realize that this is a RAW discussion not a HIWPI one.

You took this quote out of context. There are many people. That insist that Blast does not provide an exception to Out of Sight (RAW) while also maintaining that Barrage does (RAW).

When the truth is, if one insists that there is no exception to out of sight for blast (RAW) then there is also no exception for barrage (RAW).

Both Rules provide instructions on HOW to allocate wounds but, according to the super strict RAW crowd, neither rules says that you CAN allocate those wounds if the unit hit is Out of Sight.

By the way rules are classified in this forum, allowing the allocation is just a house rule. No failure on my part at all, perhaps you should re-read my points.










Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

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?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

That was a question, directed to you. Not a statement attributing something that you did not say to you.

I came to this conclusion based on the puctuation and sentence structure

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

FlyingLandon wrote:
Here's the exception to the Out of Sight:

"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”.

As I read it, this errata places wounds from blast weapons in it's own pool that overrides the Out of Sight.

It overrides the first sentence (about not being able to allocate wounds to models out of sight).
What overrides the second sentence?

There is no need to override the second sentence. The rule is Out of Sight, the errata provides Blast wounds the ability to allocate to units out of LoS. If the rule (OoS) is not applicable then the entire rule is not applicable. Another way to view it is prove that the second sentence of OoS disallows Blasts to allocate the wounds to units/models out of LoS. Blast is an advanced rule and OoS is a basic.

Pretty much as stated above. I'd say it overrides the whole rule.


Otherwise the errata is absolutely pointless, as the only time it EVER takes effect is when there are no more models in LoS. That's the entirety of what this errata does, is wound allocation outside of LoS.

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

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?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

Okay. The rules Amendment in FAQ 1.4 say that wounds may be ALLOCATED to models out of sight. I can only assume you haven't really read this yet because I can conjure no other way of interpreting this in a reasonable manner.

OK, as you have apparently missed it the first time round, or in the 2nd quote, or now in the 3rd quote, I have bolded the bit you keep failing to answer.

I have NOT said it does not mention *allocation*. I have stated, quite accurately, that it does not override the requirement that the wound pool empties. I have asked you to answer this question, and you have not done so.

Can you, maybe, spend a few seconds reading the posts a little more carefully? Answer this question, and you have a rules answer.

Idolator - erm, I wasnt actually quoting you. You can understand that by reading the "quoted" name.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Idolator - erm, I wasnt actually quoting you. You can understand that by reading the "quoted" name.

When did I ever claim that you quoted me?

I will thank you for the update on your choice not to do something and the instruction on how to determine that you did not do something.

To return the favor, I'll let you know that i didn't make a ham sandwhich. You can tell that by the lack of ham sandwiches made in my house today.

Still cannot prove that target unit is anything you hit then?

Given you cannot prove this, you have conceded your argument as far as rules are concerned.

Good day.

FlyingLandon wrote:

andystache wrote:
There is no need to override the second sentence. The rule is Out of Sight, the errata provides Blast wounds the ability to allocate to units out of LoS. If the rule (OoS) is not applicable then the entire rule is not applicable. Another way to view it is prove that the second sentence of OoS disallows Blasts to allocate the wounds to units/models out of LoS. Blast is an advanced rule and OoS is a basic.

Pretty much as stated above. I'd say it overrides the whole rule.

You have permission to ignore part of the rule, that does not give permission to ignore all of it. Cavalry has permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction that generally exists. Does that mean that they ignore all other movement rules?

Otherwise the errata is absolutely pointless, as the only time it EVER takes effect is when there are no more models in LoS. That's the entirety of what this errata does, is wound allocation outside of LoS.

So it's pointless except for one instance... so it's not pointless.
And you're wrong - if you have 5 models covered by a blast that are hiding in a ruin (out of LoS) but close to you and 5 models in LoS but farther away, you can use the blast wounds to kill the hiding guys and then all other shooting from that unit can kill the unit that isn't hiding. This errata enables that - prior to this errata it wasn't possible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

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?

DId I say that? No. Do not put words in others mouths.

Again: answer the questions given, and you will have the ***rules*** answer.

Okay. The rules Amendment in FAQ 1.4 say that wounds may be ALLOCATED to models out of sight. I can only assume you haven't really read this yet because I can conjure no other way of interpreting this in a reasonable manner.

OK, as you have apparently missed it the first time round, or in the 2nd quote, or now in the 3rd quote, I have bolded the bit you keep failing to answer.

I have NOT said it does not mention *allocation*. I have stated, quite accurately, that it does not override the requirement that the wound pool empties. I have asked you to answer this question, and you have not done so.

Can you, maybe, spend a few seconds reading the posts a little more carefully? Answer this question, and you have a rules answer.

Idolator - erm, I wasnt actually quoting you. You can understand that by reading the "quoted" name.

I read your posts, sir. I must have angry kittens for brains because I am quite literally incapable of wrapping my head around your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Still cannot prove that target unit is anything you hit then?

Given you cannot prove this, you have conceded your argument as far as rules are concerned.

Good day.

Other than it breaking the game as we know it? No, I have no proof.

You are right there is nothing designating how to allocate wounds to anything other than the declared target unit.

Blast template wounds can only be allocated to the declared target.
Vehicle Explosions wounds cannot be allocated at all as the explosion hits and wounds models that are not in the target unit.
Beam weapon wounds can only be allocated if the type of beam weapon allows you to declare a specific unit as the target unit, then only to that one unit.
Beam weapons that fire to a point on the table cannot have their wounds allocated at all.
Template weapons can only have wounds allocated to a single declared target unit.
Crashing flyers wounds cannot be allocated as there is no target unit.
Wounds caused by mysterious terrain cannot be allocated as there in no target unit.
Dangerous terrain wounds cannot be allocated as there is no target unit.


Is it your stance that wounds can only be allocated to target units???
I doubt this question will be answered as the position is untenable.

On a separate note. I noticed that you failed to address your false claim that Loopy "put words in your mouth" when clearly he did not.
I also noticed that there no example given of when I claimed that you quoted me.

Bonus edit: Concede is a term used when someone agrees that they have lost. I make no such agreement. Your disregard for the proof provided doesn't mean that that i accept my position is wrong. I belive what you meant to say was.
"Can't convince me...then in my opinion, you have lost the argument."

Idolator - your concession is accepted.

Loopy - yet you havent answered the question. You should do so, as it might clue you in to the part of the rules you are just not reading.

Does the FAQ allow the wound pool to remain full when no models are in LOS? DOes the FAQ address this part of Out of Sight? If the answer is No, which it is, then reread Out of Sight, and note that the wound pool MUST EMPTY if no models are in LOS.

If you dont have any wounds in the wound pool, you cannot allocate any wounds.

Does that help any? If you had just answered the question it would have been a ton easier.....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - your concession is accepted.

Loopy - yet you havent answered the question. You should do so, as it might clue you in to the part of the rules you are just not reading.

Does the FAQ allow the wound pool to remain full when no models are in LOS? DOes the FAQ address this part of Out of Sight? If the answer is No, which it is, then reread Out of Sight, and note that the wound pool MUST EMPTY if no models are in LOS.

If you dont have any wounds in the wound pool, you cannot allocate any wounds.

Does that help any? If you had just answered the question it would have been a ton easier.....

Concede is a term used when someone agrees that they have lost. I make no such agreement. Your disregard for the proof provided doesn't mean that that i accept my position is wrong. I belive what you meant to say was.
"Can't convince me...then in my opinion, you have lost the argument."


The fact that there are many, MANY occurences where there is no delcared target unit is proof that wounds can be allocated to units that are not the declared target unit.

Is it your opinion that wounds can only be allocated to target units???


Edit: Let me set it down here so it doesn't get lost.


Is it your position that wounds may only be allocated to target units?

Nope, I mean it. Your position is based on the target being any unit hit. The rules do not say that, meaning your argument is flawed from the start. As you have admitted you CANNOT support your position, you have conceded the argumnt. You are also continualy breaking the rules of this forum. Shock.

I have not stated my position further than that, as you are attempting to twist arguments away from a debate on the rules, and the effect of this FAQ, to suit what you THINK the rules say.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, I mean it. Your position is based on the target being any unit hit. The rules do not say that, meaning your argument is flawed from the start. As you have admitted you CANNOT support your position, you have conceded the argumnt. You are also continualy breaking the rules of this forum. Shock.

I have not stated my position further than that, as you are attempting to twist arguments away from a debate on the rules, and the effect of this FAQ, to suit what you THINK the rules say.

The rules don't define target unit anywhere. On page 12 "target unit" is used to refer to the unit targeted by shooting. On pg 15 "target unit" is used without qualifiers to describe a unit that has been hit and wounded. So I've just shown you the two pages that use that term and they differ from one another. You cannot show me a section that categorically defines "target unit" for the entire turn/phase. You can point to pg 12 where it is the unit selected to be fired against, I can point to pg 15 where it refers to any unit hit and wounded.

Rigeld2 - "You have permission to ignore part of the rule, that does not give permission to ignore all of it. Cavalry has permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction that generally exists. Does that mean that they ignore all other movement rules?" Cavalry do not have permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction because no such restriction exists. You are citing pg 10 "Movement Distance" for this claim, but paragraph 1 specifies that the movement rules described are only for Infantry and that other unit types have different modes of movement.

Pg 10, paragraph 1, third sentence: "For the time being, we'll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Wehicles, Jump Pack units, Bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later on (see pages 44-49)"

So again, please show that the second sentence in Out of Sight can be used when the rule itself is not being invoked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, I mean it. Your position is based on the target being any unit hit. The rules do not say that, meaning your argument is flawed from the start. As you have admitted you CANNOT support your position, you have conceded the argumnt. You are also continualy breaking the rules of this forum. Shock.

I have not stated my position further than that, as you are attempting to twist arguments away from a debate on the rules, and the effect of this FAQ, to suit what you THINK the rules say.

My position is supported by the fact the there are numerous examples of wounds that must be allocated to units other than the target unit.

You requested an explicit rules citiation. There is nothing explicit. That doesn't mean that I have conceded.

I am trying to understand your position. Since you will not state your position, it becomes increasingly hard to have a cogent conversation. I made my case, your position is, basicaly, "your wrong, now prove that your not."

I've given several examples of situations where wounds must be allocated to units other than the target unit, proving that it can be done.

I am not trying to twist the argument away from the debate. The position that was posited was: wounds cannot be allocated to the unit hit, that was Out of Sight, because it was not the target unit. . My point is that this is invalid as there are numerous examples of wounds being allocated to units that are not designated as target units. VERY VERY on topic.

If that is their stance, the the obvious question would be: When can wounds be allocated to a unit that is not declared as a target unit? It is essential to the debate. Without this point being clear then the entire discussion is pointless.

If you would be so kind as to point out instances when I broke the rules of the forum I will be glad to address them. Please follow the rules of the forum and provide citations, otherwise it would be an unsubstantiated accusation. (which I believe is a violation of the rules)

rigeld2 wrote:

FlyingLandon wrote:

andystache wrote:
There is no need to override the second sentence. The rule is Out of Sight, the errata provides Blast wounds the ability to allocate to units out of LoS. If the rule (OoS) is not applicable then the entire rule is not applicable. Another way to view it is prove that the second sentence of OoS disallows Blasts to allocate the wounds to units/models out of LoS. Blast is an advanced rule and OoS is a basic.

Pretty much as stated above. I'd say it overrides the whole rule.

You have permission to ignore part of the rule, that does not give permission to ignore all of it. Cavalry has permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction that generally exists. Does that mean that they ignore all other movement rules?

Otherwise the errata is absolutely pointless, as the only time it EVER takes effect is when there are no more models in LoS. That's the entirety of what this errata does, is wound allocation outside of LoS.

So it's pointless except for one instance... so it's not pointless.
And you're wrong - if you have 5 models covered by a blast that are hiding in a ruin (out of LoS) but close to you and 5 models in LoS but farther away, you can use the blast wounds to kill the hiding guys and then all other shooting from that unit can kill the unit that isn't hiding. This errata enables that - prior to this errata it wasn't possible.

Then I stand corrected. Per your reading, it's only useful in the one specific instance where a out of sight part of a unit is closer than the visible part of a unit. (Which I think we can all agree is pretty dumb.)

Per my reading, out of sight no longer applies as the errata says I can allocate wounds to models that are not in LOS.

I guess until they errata the errata, and finally say what they mean to say, this is going to be a problem. This is why lawyers have very specific words for specific things, instead of shifting around interchangeable words that almost mean the same thing and having shoddy, shifting layout for what is essentially a technical document.

andystache wrote:
Rigeld2 - "You have permission to ignore part of the rule, that does not give permission to ignore all of it. Cavalry has permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction that generally exists. Does that mean that they ignore all other movement rules?" Cavalry do not have permission to ignore the 6" movement restriction because no such restriction exists. You are citing pg 10 "Movement Distance" for this claim, but paragraph 1 specifies that the movement rules described are only for Infantry and that other unit types have different modes of movement.

Pg 10, paragraph 1, third sentence: "For the time being, we'll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Wehicles, Jump Pack units, Bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later on (see pages 44-49)"

So again, please show that the second sentence in Out of Sight can be used when the rule itself is not being invoked.

Fair enough, poor example.
The Out of Sight rule is invoked, you're just allowed to ignore the first sentence.

BRB 13 wrote:All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit.

A vehicle with Power of the Machine Spirit is allowed to ignore that restriction.
Does that mean all targeting rules are ignored? PotMS doesn't specify so according to your interpretation, all targeting rules are voided and you can fire at things out of range and out of LoS.

 Happyjew wrote:
No, but only the target unit can take saves.

 Happyjew wrote:
I for one play that you can allocate blast wounds to models out of sight, and the non-targeted unit gets saves, etc. I've also played it that way since 6th edition came out.

I'm confused....

Why would you allocate wounds but deny saves for those wounds?
What unit is being denied saves? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

rigeld2 wrote:
A vehicle with Power of the Machine Spirit is allowed to ignore that restriction.
Does that mean all targeting rules are ignored? PotMS doesn't specify so according to your interpretation, all targeting rules are voided and you can fire at things out of range and out of LoS.

The power of the maching spirit rule specificaly states that it may fire at a separate target but is then subject to the normal rules for shooting.

So if it fired a blast weapon it would be able to target a model in a unit that it could see, but scatter onto, hit and wound another unit that is out of sight, then have those wounds allocated as blast wounds don't follow out of sight rules.

No such caveat is placed on the blast rules, the entire Out of Sight rule is ignored.

rigeld2 wrote:

BRB 13 wrote:All models in the unit must shoot at the same target unit.

A vehicle with Power of the Machine Spirit is allowed to ignore that restriction.
Does that mean all targeting rules are ignored? PotMS doesn't specify so according to your interpretation, all targeting rules are voided and you can fire at things out of range and out of LoS.

PotMS allows you to ignore that restriction specifically in selection of a target, with no other specification. Blast, otoh, has it's own specific caveats to the whole process. Targeting - follows normal shooting rules, model must be in LoS, within max range, and be the same unit targeted by the squad. Hitting - uses scatter dice rather than a d6 to determine result, has permission to hit models and/or units outside of max range and LoS. Wounding - as per normal shooting, number of wounds inflicted based on number of models under the templates final resting place, has permission to wound units out of LoS. Allocation - wounds are allocated to the nearest model to the firing unit regardless of LoS. Aside from the initial placement of the template Blast has permission to ignore LoS in all cases and if LoS is ignored after initial placement how do you invoke Out of Sight?