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.

Idolator - except it isnt opinion.

Rules replace / negate when they conflict. Nothing conflicts the second part of out of sight, nothing in the actual FAQ says it replaces all of the OoS rule, so the upshot is that it does not override.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - except it isnt opinion.

Rules replace / negate when they conflict. Nothing conflicts the second part of out of sight, nothing in the actual FAQ says it replaces all of the OoS rule, so the upshot is that it does not override.

I agree, that what you have stated is not opinion. I was being kind.

However, opinion is the only word that works in polite society. It also accurately portrays the separate sides of a dispute. When descisions are made concerning rules they are refered to as opinion. Since this isn't math or science, I believe that the word fits rather nicely.

I'm not even especially sure what your position is, except 1)the stated opinion that I am wrong and 2) a mischaracterisation of the word concede and most recently 3) opinions are not opinions. So, please, if you would be so kind, could you explain how it works according to your understanding.

I also believe (like many others) that there is no "second part" of the Out of Sight rule. It's not enumerated, there are no bullet points, there's not even a second paragraph.

It is my position that Out of Sight is exempted as a whole. Yours , I think, is that certain words are exempted while others are not. It's a disagreement on the meaning of what is written.

 Idolator wrote:
It is my position that Out of Sight is exempted as a whole.

That's my opinion as well, but I do think it's arguable.

 Loopy wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It is my position that Out of Sight is exempted as a whole.

That's my opinion as well, but I do think it's arguable.

If the Errata said "This wound pool doesn't empty and the shooting attack continues when no models in the affected unit are not visible to any model in the firing unit.", I'd wholeheartedly agree. Alas, it does not.

Is it just me or should i feel put-upon by GW for putting such glaring contradictions in the Out of Range and Out of Sight entries in FAQs, the latter AFTER surely receiving a truckload of emails about the former, and not fixing the former in the process. I almost feel as if it's personal.

A paranoid part of my mind is imagining Jervis Johnson sitting back in his chair on his ivory tower cackling maniacally "ROLL IT OFF, BOYS! ROLL IT OFF! MUA-HAHAHAHHAHAAHAAAA!!!!!!!

Rig ans Nos I have your proof that the FAQ allows OoS to be ignored. You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12. Out of Sight says if no models in the target unit are visible the wound pool empties. By definition I must have LoS to fire a Blast weapon all the requirements for OoS are met, the target unit is still visible, therefore all wounds from a Blast template can be allocated provided I do not kill all of the visible models in my original target before allocating wounds. Blasts kill what they hit so long as the original target is still visible.

EDIT: Not only can I allocate the wounds (per your definition of target unit) if the Blast scatters onto another unit that unit may not take saving throws as only the target unit may take saving throw as HJ pointed out

andystache wrote:
You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12.

That's a lie and I've corrected that statement more than a couple of times.
So no, you've found nothing.

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12.

That's a lie and I've corrected that statement more than a couple of times.
So no, you've found nothing.

Okay then how do we define target unit? OoS specifies that the wound pool empties if the target unit is not visible. So either its page 12 or page 15, page 12 makes Blast extra vicious page 15 allows allocation to units out of LoS per the FAQ

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12.

That's a lie and I've corrected that statement more than a couple of times.
So no, you've found nothing.

Okay then how do we define target unit? OoS specifies that the wound pool empties if the target unit is not visible. So either its page 12 or page 15, page 12 makes Blast extra vicious page 15 allows allocation to units out of LoS per the FAQ

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/522704.page#5538856

Did you read the thread?

 Loopy wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It is my position that Out of Sight is exempted as a whole.

That's my opinion as well, but I do think it's arguable.

I agree with that as well. It is arguable.

I even see the points being made on the other side. I just don't agree with them.

One could make a RAW point that you couldn't move models. As the rules for movement are "In your turn, you can move any of your units-all of them if you wish- up to their maximum movement distance" No mention of models.

You could also make the RAW argument that since models do not move, but are moved by a controlling player, they are always stationary.

This could go on and on and on. Context and intent are intergral to the conversation, other wise our big game of pretend just falls apart.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12.

That's a lie and I've corrected that statement more than a couple of times.
So no, you've found nothing.

I'm pretty sure that you did point that out. His statement is factually accurate, you have pointed that out.

Not only that, his point is factually accurate and clearly follows the guidlines of RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Here it is! Huh.

Idolator - not one part of your "rebuttal" (to be kind) contained any rules text, or actually even attempted to refute the argument.

Any chance you could refute it? Rules override / replace when they conflict. Please find the conflict. Page and graph will suffice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolator - not one part of your "rebuttal" (to be kind) contained any rules text, or actually even attempted to refute the argument.

Any chance you could refute it? Rules override / replace when they conflict. Please find the conflict. Page and graph will suffice.

What is the argument? Other than,"You are wrong?"

I've been quite clear that a holistic approach must be made, especialy in this case, as there are many aspects of the rules that interact with one another. Hinging an argument on the wording used in half of a statement while ignoring the greater context is no way to discuss anything.

All arguments are moot at this point however as Andystache made the definitive RAW argument with his post. There can be no denying what is written.

Now, since there are no rules for allocating wounds to any unit other than the target unit and target unit is clearly defined on pages 12 and 15 any argument made on how to allocate wounds to a unit other than a target unit is RAI. Any attempt to keep this a strict RAW doesn't even get off the ground.

It's rather easy to maintain an argument when someone doesn't state their position or answer questions regarding their reasoning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

andystache wrote:
Rig ans Nos I have your proof that the FAQ allows OoS to be ignored. You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12. Out of Sight says if no models in the target unit are visible the wound pool empties. By definition I must have LoS to fire a Blast weapon all the requirements for OoS are met, the target unit is still visible, therefore all wounds from a Blast template can be allocated provided I do not kill all of the visible models in my original target before allocating wounds. Blasts kill what they hit so long as the original target is still visible.

EDIT: Not only can I allocate the wounds (per your definition of target unit) if the Blast scatters onto another unit that unit may not take saving throws as only the target unit may take saving throw as HJ pointed out

Here it is again in case it was missed. The moment that it was accepted that the unit hit by a blast template was to be considered a "target unit" the entire discussion became RAI.

Again, did you miss the point where "target unit" is not relevant, yes? Or no?

There was an argument, which was that you only get to replace / override rules when they conflict. The second rule in OoS does not conflict with the FAQ

DIsprove this. Or concede, yet again. You know, those pesky tenets....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, did you miss the point where "target unit" is not relevant, yes? Or no?

There was an argument, which was that you only get to replace / override rules when they conflict. The second rule in OoS does not conflict with the FAQ

DIsprove this. Or concede, yet again. You know, those pesky tenets....

There is only one Out of Sight rule. The rule is applied as a whole or it is not.

Are you still arguing RAW??? That no longer applies as the RAW do not support allocation of wounds to any unit other than the target unit. In fact, strict RAW, requires you to apply all wounds made, be allocted to the target unit regardless of which unit is hit.

Would you like the citations for wound allocation again?

You might want to read the frist paragrapgh for wound allocation. The one that says " To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the TARGET is allowed. For now we're going to assume that all the models in the target unit have the same saving throw."

Second pargraph TAKING SAVING THROWS: First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one, for each wound being resolved."

Then later, last paragraph frist column. "If the target unit contains several different saving throws, you'll need to follow this process instread of the one presented above."

 Loopy wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
It is my position that Out of Sight is exempted as a whole.

That's my opinion as well, but I do think it's arguable.

Everything is arguable.

A person can argue 2+2 does not equal 4, that doesn't make their position accurate.

Take "out of sight," for example, what should we make of "out of sight," what does it mean or how is it defined?

Do we take layman definition, meaning you simply can't see the models or do we take the BRB definition which is roughly a paragraph long?

Considering we are talking about the game rules, I propose that we define "out of sight" as the brb defines it and when the BRB or FAQ in this case, says to allocate wounds to models even if they are "out of sight" then the whole section defining "out of sight" in the BRB should be ignored.

My $.02 anyway


Edit: spelling

The BRB defines two things that happen when a unit is out of sight.

The amendment allows you to ignore how many of those things?
Remember than the second sentence doesn't rely on the first in the slightest.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, did you miss the point where "target unit" is not relevant, yes? Or no?

There was an argument, which was that you only get to replace / override rules when they conflict. The second rule in OoS does not conflict with the FAQ

DIsprove this. Or concede, yet again. You know, those pesky tenets....

You really keep haeping on those tenants, but you've not provided any to back your position. You've diacounted target unit because we've shown that RAW does not support your interpretation as target unit is used in multiple cases. Beyond that OoS specifically uses the target unit to determine whether it is used.

So to use your phrase provide a page and graph that defines target unit in a way that contradicts my point or concede

EDIT: Rig if the FAQ allows me to allocate wounds and OoS occurs when allocating wounds they are simultaneous. As the acting player I determine the order of simultaneous events. I choose to allocate my wounds as allowed by the FAQ the resolve OoS emptying the remaining wounds.

andystache wrote:

EDIT: the FAQ allows me to allocate wounds and OoS occurs when allocating wounds they are simultaneous. As the acting player I determine the order of simultaneous events. I choose to allocate my wounds as allowed by the FAQ the resolve OoS emptying the remaining wounds.

Nice!!!

andystache wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, did you miss the point where "target unit" is not relevant, yes? Or no?

There was an argument, which was that you only get to replace / override rules when they conflict. The second rule in OoS does not conflict with the FAQ

DIsprove this. Or concede, yet again. You know, those pesky tenets....

You really keep haeping on those tenants, but you've not provided any to back your position. You've diacounted target unit because we've shown that RAW does not support your interpretation as target unit is used in multiple cases. Beyond that OoS specifically uses the target unit to determine whether it is used.

So to use your phrase provide a page and graph that defines target unit in a way that contradicts my point or concede

EDIT: Rig if the FAQ allows me to allocate wounds and OoS occurs when allocating wounds they are simultaneous. As the acting player I determine the order of simultaneous events. I choose to allocate my wounds as allowed by the FAQ the resolve OoS emptying the remaining wounds.

As proven earlier in the thread, target unit must refer to the unit the marker is hitting. If it doesn't, you can generate hits on the "invisible" unit but can't roll to wound.

Again, read the thread. Also, its still an irrelevant argument. Keep tilting at that windmill though.

Edit to catch your edit:

Actual rules quote page 9 wrote:At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time. When these things happen, the player whose turn it is decides the order in which the events occur.

So no, you don't get to decide an order. Since its not two players trying to do something at the same time and all.
Want to intentionally misinterpret any other rules?

Man you really got me there oh wait no the BRB FAQ is there with my back. On phone so you'll have to pull it up yourself, but some directions, go to page 7 read the Q second from the bottom left column. That looks suspiciously like instructions for how to resolve single player simultaneous actions. Bonus points the FAQ cites page 9 to prove my point.

Concede?

rigeld2 wrote:
Edit to catch your edit:

Actual rules quote page 9 wrote:At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time. When these things happen, the player whose turn it is decides the order in which the events occur.

So no, you don't get to decide an order. Since its not two players trying to do something at the same time and all.
Want to intentionally misinterpret any other rules?

I wonder if this is an admission that the two things do in fact happen at the same time.

If that is the case, I believe that there is precedent for handling conditions that occur simultaneously. It's called a dice off.

On the other hand, if one argues that they don't occur at the same time, that would mean: if wound allocations started before the Out of Sight rules comes into effect, then one could argue that the rule doesn't come into play until after all of the wounds have been allocated.

WEEEEEEEE!!!! RAW!!!!!!!!!

Cue the "Cannot overides Must" argument. (Which also breaks the rules as we know it.)

andystache wrote:
Man you really got me there oh wait no the BRB FAQ is there with my back. On phone so you'll have to pull it up yourself, but some directions, go to page 7 read the Q second from the bottom left column. That looks suspiciously like instructions for how to resolve single player simultaneous actions. Bonus points the FAQ cites page 9 to prove my point.

Concede?

I'd missed that interpretation.
So now the onus is on you to prove they're simultaneous actions.
They're not, but go ahead and prove that.

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
Man you really got me there oh wait no the BRB FAQ is there with my back. On phone so you'll have to pull it up yourself, but some directions, go to page 7 read the Q second from the bottom left column. That looks suspiciously like instructions for how to resolve single player simultaneous actions. Bonus points the FAQ cites page 9 to prove my point.

Concede?

I'd missed that interpretation.
So now the onus is on you to prove they're simultaneous actions.
They're not, but go ahead and prove that.

By the samw token you cite no page and graph that they aren't simultaneous. Nor have you provided evidence that OoS takes place before Blast's permission to allocate wounds to models out of LoS. Neither of us can actually provide evidence as the rules for OoS are listed after the section on allocation. Or I could say that since Blast has permission to allocate and allocate comes first in the rule book that OoS never has a chance to be invoked

andystache wrote:

By the samw token you cite no page and graph that they aren't simultaneous. Nor have you provided evidence that OoS takes place before Blast's permission to allocate wounds to models out of LoS. Neither of us can actually provide evidence as the rules for OoS are listed after the section on allocation. Or I could say that since Blast has permission to allocate and allocate comes first in the rule book that OoS never has a chance to be invoked

Are you saying that we have to think for ourselves and try to determine what they intended????? Blaspheme!!!!!!!! That has no place in a RAW discussion.

You sir, are an alright dude.

RAW arguments seldom work, in my opinion. Unless of course you are discussing what the third letter in the word SHOOT is.

It's an "F" by the way.

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
Man you really got me there oh wait no the BRB FAQ is there with my back. On phone so you'll have to pull it up yourself, but some directions, go to page 7 read the Q second from the bottom left column. That looks suspiciously like instructions for how to resolve single player simultaneous actions. Bonus points the FAQ cites page 9 to prove my point.

Concede?

I'd missed that interpretation.
So now the onus is on you to prove they're simultaneous actions.
They're not, but go ahead and prove that.

By the samw token you cite no page and graph that they aren't simultaneous. Nor have you provided evidence that OoS takes place before Blast's permission to allocate wounds to models out of LoS. Neither of us can actually provide evidence as the rules for OoS are listed after the section on allocation. Or I could say that since Blast has permission to allocate and allocate comes first in the rule book that OoS never has a chance to be invoked

So its your stance that OoS can never, even under normal circumstances, be invoked?
That's literally what you just said.

The headings under Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties are not a step by step process, they are to be taken as a whole. Meaning Pit of Sight always applies and the wound pool is emptied.

Edit: and when discussing a permissive rules set "it doesn't say I can't!" Is never a successful argument.
No, it doesn't say they're not simultaneous. It doesn't need to. Thank you for conceding since you agreed you cannot prove they are simultaneous.

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

andystache wrote:
Man you really got me there oh wait no the BRB FAQ is there with my back. On phone so you'll have to pull it up yourself, but some directions, go to page 7 read the Q second from the bottom left column. That looks suspiciously like instructions for how to resolve single player simultaneous actions. Bonus points the FAQ cites page 9 to prove my point.

Concede?

I'd missed that interpretation.
So now the onus is on you to prove they're simultaneous actions.
They're not, but go ahead and prove that.

By the samw token you cite no page and graph that they aren't simultaneous. Nor have you provided evidence that OoS takes place before Blast's permission to allocate wounds to models out of LoS. Neither of us can actually provide evidence as the rules for OoS are listed after the section on allocation. Or I could say that since Blast has permission to allocate and allocate comes first in the rule book that OoS never has a chance to be invoked

So its your stance that OoS can never, even under normal circumstances, be invoked?
That's literally what you just said.

The headings under Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties are not a step by step process, they are to be taken as a whole. Meaning Pit of Sight always applies and the wound pool is emptied.

Edit: and when discussing a permissive rules set "it doesn't say I can't!" Is never a successful argument.
No, it doesn't say they're not simultaneous. It doesn't need to. Thank you for conceding since you agreed you cannot prove they are simultaneous.

So, the rules must be taken as a whole?!?! Well, that makes sense. It made sense when I postulated that a while back.

The FAQ provides exception for the sub-heading "Out of Sight" as a whole. The remainder of the rule set is still applicable as no other sub-sets are mentioned.

As an aside. I think that a definition of concede is in order. As it is misused ALOT! Since it's not being used for words in the book it would be permissible to use.

con·cede/kənˈsid/ [kuhn-seed] verb, con·ced·ed, con·ced·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit: He finally conceded that she was right.
2. to acknowledge (an opponent's victory, score, etc.) before it is officially established: to concede an election before all the votes are counted.
3. to grant as a right or privilege; yield: to concede a longer vacation for all employees.
verb (used without object)
4. to make concession; yield; admit: She was so persistent that I conceded at last.

I've seen no one meet these defined terms. Not being able to provide deffinitive proof is not a concession of a point.

Honestly, the way that word is misused around here is astounding.

On that note...Since no one can provide proof that I was not ordained by the Supreme Being, I accept your consession that I am King of The Known Universe.

 Idolator wrote:
Honestly, the way that word is misused around here is astounding.

Kind of reminds me of the Colbert Report.

"I accept your apology."

andystache wrote:
Rig ans Nos I have your proof that the FAQ allows OoS to be ignored. You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12. Out of Sight says if no models in the target unit are visible the wound pool empties. By definition I must have LoS to fire a Blast weapon all the requirements for OoS are met, the target unit is still visible, therefore all wounds from a Blast template can be allocated provided I do not kill all of the visible models in my original target before allocating wounds. Blasts kill what they hit so long as the original target is still visible.

EDIT: Not only can I allocate the wounds (per your definition of target unit) if the Blast scatters onto another unit that unit may not take saving throws as only the target unit may take saving throw as HJ pointed out

This post is a straw man. No one is arguing that if the unit being shot at has visible models that you can't kill models that are not visible. The problem arises when the whole unit is not visible to the firing unit. With blast weapons, as long as you can see one model in the enemy unit you can allocate to the nearest model. Whereas with a normal weapon if you have to allocate to the nearest visible enemy model in the unit. The moment you can't see a single model in the enemy unit, you empty the wound pool and the shooting attack ends, this applies to both blast and normal weapons.

If the bit that says "...even if it is out of sight..." in the BRB FAQ referred to the whole Out of Sight section, there would be a reference to the page number of the Out of Sight section. The phrase "out of sight" is not a USR. Not all uses of the phrase refers to that section. It simply a way to say you do not have LOS.

This is kind of like the whole "jet packs move just as they would when using their jet packs in the Movement phase" thing. Sure, you could say that means that you can only move your Jet Pack unit 6" regardless of the fact they just told you that you could move 2d6", but nobody's going to do that because that's stupid. This is also stupid. An amusing conversation to have, but kind of like boobs on a bull... rather pointless.

 Tarrasq wrote:

andystache wrote:
Rig ans Nos I have your proof that the FAQ allows OoS to be ignored. You've both pointed to the definition of target unit established on pg 12. Out of Sight says if no models in the target unit are visible the wound pool empties. By definition I must have LoS to fire a Blast weapon all the requirements for OoS are met, the target unit is still visible, therefore all wounds from a Blast template can be allocated provided I do not kill all of the visible models in my original target before allocating wounds. Blasts kill what they hit so long as the original target is still visible.

EDIT: Not only can I allocate the wounds (per your definition of target unit) if the Blast scatters onto another unit that unit may not take saving throws as only the target unit may take saving throw as HJ pointed out

This post is a straw man. No one is arguing that if the unit being shot at has visible models that you can't kill models that are not visible. The problem arises when the whole unit is not visible to the firing unit. With blast weapons, as long as you can see one model in the enemy unit you can allocate to the nearest model. Whereas with a normal weapon if you have to allocate to the nearest visible enemy model in the unit. The moment you can't see a single model in the enemy unit, you empty the wound pool and the shooting attack ends, this applies to both blast and normal weapons.

If the bit that says "...even if it is out of sight..." in the BRB FAQ referred to the whole Out of Sight section, there would be a reference to the page number of the Out of Sight section. The phrase "out of sight" is not a USR. Not all uses of the phrase refers to that section. It simply a way to say you do not have LOS.

I'm a bit confused here. You claim that his argument is a strawman argument. Then make points that have nothing to do with his argument. I don't see anything in his post that states you cannot kill models in a unit that has models visible. I could be wrong. If I am please highlight that portion of his argument.

Secondly, His point is, RAW, a unit, that is out of sight, can have hits and wounds accrued agaisnt it. Those wounds can be allocated against the effected unit as models in the target unit are still visible.
It has it's flaws, but is not a strawman argument and has no bearing on the issue that you addressed.

The true RAW would be that no wounds can ever be allocated to any unit that is not the target unit. This is not debateable as rules allowing for wounds to be allocated to units, other than the target unit, do not exist.

Claiming that the ERRATA (it's not a FAQ) must have a page reference in order to be applied to the Out of Sight rule is interesting but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As it is an ERRATA it is a correction to the rulebook. There are numerous instances of rules written in the rulebook that do not reference the earlier (or later) rules that is excepted by page number.
There are even other ERRATA that provide exceptions that do not reference the page number of the rule excepted.
Here's just one example:

Page 61 – Assault Grenades, Assault.
Change the sentence to read “Models equipped with assault
grenades don’t suffer the penalty to their Initiative for
charging enemies through difficult terrain.”

I don't see any reference to the page detailing the rules for initiative penalties fro charging through terrain. As this is the official ERRATA, it completely replaces what is printed in the book (and will be the rule printed in the book in later printings, maybe, these guys seem pretty lazy about that kind of stuff). By your logic, since it doesn't reference the page of the rule that it exempts, models equiped with assault grenade would still suffer the penalty to their initiative for charging through terrain.

That line of reasoning doesn't hold.

edit:left out a term