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.

andystache wrote:
We are now on the third or fpurth page aince you or Rig attempted to contadict any point, you've both resorted to attacking the opponents but only with implications to keep within the guidelines.

Not true. I haven't attacked you at all. I've contradicted every point you've made and corrected your incorrect assumptions.

lsp you guys have been uaong the concept that OoS is tqo rules under one header. There is no justification for thos. The entire BRB is broken down inro sections with each section being a "rule". By this absurd reading Blast is actually 10+ rules becauae there are that many sentences.

Yes, every "rule" constists of multiple rules. There are rules for vehicles, not a single rule. There are rules for movement, not a single rule.
It's what allows things like the page 7 advanced vs basic or codex vs brb stuff to work - based on individual rules and not everything under the sun.

Again not bothering to quote you. Stop misrepresenting my position, your hyperbole is recognized for what it is. Please stop using hyperbolic arguments to cpntinue this thread in hopes that you can drive us out thereby assauging your apparently bruised ego.

When the wound pool empties the shooting attack ends, this is the process for normal, non-exempt shooting. The only conflict is between Blast weapons, which again have permission to allocate out of LoS, and Out of Sight which empties the wound pool because the target unit is out of site.

This is exactly like your PotMS argument, it only works if you take things out of context and imply things that were never said or even implied

EDIT: Again you skirt the issue. No one is saying that there is only one rule for vehicles. Again you make hyperbolic statements to throw off the trail. What I said was that a rule is what is under the heading, vehicle movement is unsurprisingly cover under the section labelled Moving Vehicles. This does not make every sentence under that header a distinct rule. This is your defense of Out of Sight, that one heading with two sentences represent two diatinct and independantly applied rules.

andystache wrote:
Again not bothering to quote you. Stop misrepresenting my position, your hyperbole is recognized for what it is. Please stop using hyperbolic arguments to cpntinue this thread in hopes that you can drive us out thereby assauging your apparently bruised ego.

I'd appreciate you quoting what you're referring to here.

When the wound pool empties the shooting attack ends, this is the process for normal, non-exempt shooting. The only conflict is between Blast weapons, which again have permission to allocate out of LoS, and Out of Sight which empties the wound pool because the target unit is out of site.

If Out of Sight only forbade you from allocating to models out of Line of Sight you'd be correct - that's a direct conflict and B&LB would win out.
There's an additional rule, however, that does not directly conflict. You're having to reach for a conflict that would break other rules to try and make it work.
I understand why you think this is intended. I wouldn't be surprised (nor care) if GW/a TO rules on that side. I disagree that it is how the rules are actually written.

This is exactly like your PotMS argument, it only works if you take things out of context and imply things that were never said or even implied

Did you or did you not say that ignoring Line of Sight allows you to ignore all restrictions on Line of Sight?
If you did not, could you re-state that in your words?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

andystache wrote:
EDIT: Again you skirt the issue. No one is saying that there is only one rule for vehicles. Again you make hyperbolic statements to throw off the trail. What I said was that a rule is what is under the heading, vehicle movement is unsurprisingly cover under the section labelled Moving Vehicles. This does not make every sentence under that header a distinct rule. This is your defense of Out of Sight, that one heading with two sentences represent two diatinct and independantly applied rules.

Please, outline the number of rules that have to do with targeting a unit. It's a relevant question and I'd appreciate your answer.

Beast wrote:
[Dude, resist..., don't fall into the trap... they don't define your argument, all they should do is try to refute it. Once they start making false accusations about you and casting aspersions on your motivations instead of your argument, they have begun the process of undermining their own credibility (whether they were right or wrong or just asserting their opinion). Let them continue, the rest of us see it for what it is... To be fair though, I think their position is probably right but that is just my opinion...

No, most people do not automatically assume you (or anyone) has an ulterior motive to misrepresent things (especially when it is so easily detected in a forum). The issue of the multi-quote misplacing things is known (and they are probably very well aware of it themselves) so again, it is a deflection from the real issue. They've begun to attack the poster and not the argument. Certainly call them out on it in a polite way, just don't fall into the trap of responding in kind (as you have not done- ) Carry on!

I do agree that their point has it's merits. To me, those merits exist in a very limited scope almost as though in a vacuum. In order to come to their conclusions, one has to first argue that the rules INTEND for you to be able to allocate wound to units other than the target unit then you have to change your argument that the Written rules don't allow you allocate those wounds to Units that are out of sight. It requires you to argue both sides in order to come the place that you want to be.

I've had it out with these guys before on the same subject earlier. If the argument is: there must be specific wording to prevent the wound pool from being emptied when no models in the unit hit are visible, then Barrage weapons would never be able to have their wounds allocated to units that are Out of Sight. The Out of Sight rule prevents wounds from being allocated if the unit firing cannot see models in the unit with no caveats as to where the shot is considered to have come.
I've seen the same guys argue both sides of this point as well. That Barrage gets to allocate their wounds because it's the intent, while arguing that regular blasts can't because it's the written rule.

Once you leave the realm of RAW you are stuck in RAI land. As far as I'm concerned.

I honestly don't even really know where the other side stands as I could never get a clear answer on just what their position was. Other than they thought that I was wrong.

Thanks for the input though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
[

andystache wrote:
EDIT: Again you skirt the issue. No one is saying that there is only one rule for vehicles. Again you make hyperbolic statements to throw off the trail. What I said was that a rule is what is under the heading, vehicle movement is unsurprisingly cover under the section labelled Moving Vehicles. This does not make every sentence under that header a distinct rule. This is your defense of Out of Sight, that one heading with two sentences represent two diatinct and independantly applied rules.

Please, outline the number of rules that have to do with targeting a unit. It's a relevant question and I'd appreciate your answer.

There are three rules that deal with the targeting of a unit, located on page 12 of the BRB. Each individual rule has it's own heading. Those three rules are, Check Range, Line of Sight and Choose Target.

There is another rule for targeting on page 13 that informs you on which models can fire. That rule is under the heading Which Models Can Fire?

Now, lets look at that last one. It has been your position that individual sentences that give guidance are to be construed as a separate rule independent of the other sentences.

There are two sentences that I find intersting in regards to split fire.
Split Fire allows you to overide the second sentence "All models in the same unit must shot at the same target unit"
The third sentence however says something a little different. "If a model cannot shoot at the same target as the other models in it's unit, for any reason, then it cannot shoot at all in this phase." There is no overide of this sentence in the splitfire section.

By your reasoning, If a model behind a wall, cannot see the target of the remainder of his unit, then he would not be able to choose a different target to shoot.

Would this be a correct application of your reasoning?

edit: I was stuck by another nuance of this reasoning, If the model with split fire has Line of Sight, but is out of range from the unit targeted, by the reamainder of the firing unit, he would also not be allowed to fire at anything else.

I've come to the conclusion that there are some people here that would argue the color of a blue sky.

pe·dan·tic [ pə dántik ]
too concerned with formal rules and details: too concerned with what are thought to be correct rules and details, e.g. in language
Synonyms: finicky, plodding, obscure, arcane, dull, doctrinaire, sophistic, hairsplitting, nitpicking, fussy

The rule for me was clear before the bloody FAQ. If a blast deviates and hits and wounds something else other than intended, that can die. If we played by some people's interpretation nothing could die due to some silly interpretation.

GACK

Lungpickle wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that there are some people here that would argue the color of a blue sky.

Well first, you need to prove the sky is in fact blue. Because when I look out my window, it's kinda greyish.

 Happyjew wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that there are some people here that would argue the color of a blue sky.

Well first, you need to prove the sky is in fact blue. Because when I look out my window, it's kinda greyish.

good times!

Lungpickle wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that there are some people here that would argue the color of a blue sky.

pe·dan·tic [ pə dántik ]
too concerned with formal rules and details: too concerned with what are thought to be correct rules and details, e.g. in language
Synonyms: finicky, plodding, obscure, arcane, dull, doctrinaire, sophistic, hairsplitting, nitpicking, fussy

The rule for me was clear before the bloody FAQ. If a blast deviates and hits and wounds something else other than intended, that can die. If we played by some people's interpretation nothing could die due to some silly interpretation.

GACK

Same here. This was crystal clear before. People are rules lawyering for rules lawyering's sake. ROI people, ROI. They wouldn't have even mentioned that wounds could be allocated to the unit hit by the scatter if they didn't mean for them to be able to die.

andystache wrote:

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?

Rig this is what I said about PotMS. You are the only one who brought up LoS in regards to PotMS. So with evidence in front of you would you care to point out how you are not being hyperbolic or misrepresenting my statements?

andystache wrote:

andystache wrote:

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?

Rig this is what I said about PotMS. You are the only one who brought up LoS in regards to PotMS. So with evidence in front of you would you care to point out how you are not being hyperbolic or misrepresenting my statements?

I bolded a relevant statement.
PotMS allows you to ignore a single part of the targeting rules (remember there's more than one).
B&LB allow you to allocate wounds to a model out of line of sight (which is a single part of the Out of Sight rule).

Your assertion is that B&LB allow you to ignore all LoS related restrictions, correct? Please correct me if not.
Assuming that's a correct statement, why would PotMS not allow you to ignore all targeting related restrictions?

"Nothing to see here folks... Move along...."

Can a mod lock this?

It is no longer about the rules but about quoting each other and misrepresentation.

Kudos to both sides....you fought the good fight but its going in circles now.

 Happyjew wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that there are some people here that would argue the color of a blue sky.

Well first, you need to prove the sky is in fact blue. Because when I look out my window, it's kinda greyish.

Nobody's interested in the opinion of a western NY resident on the topic of sky color, sir.

40k-noob wrote:
It is no longer about the rules but about quoting each other and misrepresentation.

Kudos to both sides....you fought the good fight but its going in circles now.

That's pretty insulting... I'm not purposely misrepresenting anything.

 Loopy wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that there are some people here that would argue the color of a blue sky.

Well first, you need to prove the sky is in fact blue. Because when I look out my window, it's kinda greyish.

Nobody's interested in the opinion of a western NY resident on the topic of sky color, sir.

Then again we all might just be hallucinating the color of the sky. In fact, the sky very well may be red. However, we have been brainwashed into thinking that what we call "blue" might actually be "red".

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
It is no longer about the rules but about quoting each other and misrepresentation.

Kudos to both sides....you fought the good fight but its going in circles now.

That's pretty insulting... I'm not purposely misrepresenting anything.

I wasn't naming names or calling anyone out in particular.

But you have to admit, this debate isn't going anywhere at this point.

Addition: I mean this thread is starting to turn into the Weather Channel.

Rig you really are misrepresenting people. My statements on Blast and LoS are the sentence after the one you bolded. So I see two options here either you're skimming posts and only paying attention to sentences that you can highlight or you are intentionally ignoring what I've written. Blast ignores all LoS restrictions that it cites namely that the original placement follows normal rules. Once placement is determined you are instructed to ignore LoS. Now I've said that twice on this pag, three times if I count you quoting and then bolding a portion of my comment and then extrapolating a contradictory reaponse to my actual reply.

EDIT: As Idol pointes out earlier by your interpretation of RAW then Barrage cannot allocate wounds if it hits a unit the firer cannot see. Barrage uses Blasts rules except it uses the center hole for determining cover and for wound allocation. Barrage does not specifically cite Out of Sight nor does it use the term line of site, only the shot is treated as originating from the center of the template. No other rules uses where the shot originated from therefore OoS empties the wound pool because the indorect barrage unit does not have line of site to the target unit

 Happyjew wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that there are some people here that would argue the color of a blue sky.

Well first, you need to prove the sky is in fact blue. Because when I look out my window, it's kinda greyish.

Nobody's interested in the opinion of a western NY resident on the topic of sky color, sir.

Then again we all might just be hallucinating the color of the sky. In fact, the sky very well may be red. However, we have been brainwashed into thinking that what we call "blue" might actually be "red".

Depending on the velocity at which you're traveling when you view the sky it can be vastly different colors. This coupled with the color of the sky depending on your location would require further FAQ's to end the debate.

andystache wrote:
Rig you really are misrepresenting people. My statements on Blast and LoS are the sentence after the one you bolded. So I see two options here either you're skimming posts and only paying attention to sentences that you can highlight or you are intentionally ignoring what I've written. Blast ignores all LoS restrictions that it cites namely that the original placement follows normal rules. Once placement is determined you are instructed to ignore LoS. Now I've said that twice on this pag, three times if I count you quoting and then bolding a portion of my comment and then extrapolating a contradictory reaponse to my actual reply.

I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I've read what you wrote and I'm trying to show why that's false. That's why I asked your opinion on PotMS.

EDIT: As Idol pointes out earlier by your interpretation of RAW then Barrage cannot allocate wounds if it hits a unit the firer cannot see. Barrage uses Blasts rules except it uses the center hole for determining cover and for wound allocation. Barrage does not specifically cite Out of Sight nor does it use the term line of site, only the shot is treated as originating from the center of the template. No other rules uses where the shot originated from therefore OoS empties the wound pool because the indorect barrage unit does not have line of site to the target unit

Correct. And?
In Barrage's case the intent is obvious (as they included the Indirect Fire rules for Barrage). For blasts it is less so.

From wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that there are some people here that would argue the color of a blue sky.

Well first, you need to prove the sky is in fact blue. Because when I look out my window, it's kinda greyish.

Nobody's interested in the opinion of a western NY resident on the topic of sky color, sir.

Then again we all might just be hallucinating the color of the sky. In fact, the sky very well may be red. However, we have been brainwashed into thinking that what we call "blue" might actually be "red".

Depending on the velocity at which you're traveling when you view the sky it can be vastly different colors.
This coupled with the color of the sky depending on your location would require further FAQ's to end the debate.

How do we know the author's intent was Earth's sky? In addition to speed atmospheric composition affects the sky's color. We need an FAQ for speed, atmospheric composition, pollution level and time of day

Fair play for the hallucination reference didn't think that nonsense could make me smile



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rig as you've said many times in this threas intent doesn't matter only RAW. On intent the third paragraph of Blast gives the intent, namely that a weapon using a blast template will always hit something somewhere. It even includes the phrase '... the missile blasting through cover...'. Intent is very clear in this case because it is spelled out.

I'm still waiting for you to decide if we're taking rules as a whole or if you're still going to say that each sentence under OoS is it's own distinct rule despite that not following with any other section of the BRB

Bottom line. As understood.

Target Unit is the term for any unit affected by a weapon or area of effect. (RAI)
All blasts can and do hit and wound units that are out of sight. (RAW and RAI)
All blasts create a separate wound pool that must be allocated.(RAW andRAI)
Regular blasts start with the closest model, barrage blasts start from the center of the marker.(RAW and RAI)
Blast wounds can and sometimes must be allocated to the closest model regarless of Out of Sight. (RAI)
Barrage Blast wounds can and sometimes must be allocated to the closest model top the center of the marker regarless of Out of Sight. (RAI)
Vehicle damage works the same as it normally does, you allocate the hits instead of wounds.(RAW and RAI)

The RAW argument doesn't get off the ground, as the first pillar, upon which everything stands, is by necessity is only RAI.

Then there is the argument that each sentence is a stand alone rule independent of all other rules. This argument is so far outside of normal understanding of the English language that I have a hard time addressing it. It is demonstrably false and could be equated to considering each individual word as it's own stand alone rule. I could provide many examples of where this is not the case. If anyone needs a citation here it is, Pick a random page in any rule portion of any book of rules, read it.
(as an aside to this, i once had a guy try to break a single sentence into different parts and claim that the parts that didn't support his argument were fluff, literally explaining that three words "no holding back" were not understandable to game play)

Claiming that Barrage intent is clear while claiming regular blast is not......Really!?!
Just to be devils advocate: The creators intended for Out of Sight rules to apply to Barrage in order to prevent units from remaining completely hidden while still being able to create massive ammounts of damage.
Not so clear for that anymore.
All in all, Intent is clear for both or neither.

That's it in a nutshell.

Edit:My opponents of this argument have rage quit on me, so this is a breakdown for those that want to honestly understand the reasoning and provide the points if it ever comes up at the game table.

 Idolator wrote:
Bottom line. As understood.

Target Unit is the term for any unit affected by a weapon or area of effect. (RAI)
All blasts can and do hit and wound units that are out of sight. (RAW and RAI)
All blasts create a separate wound pool that must be allocated.(RAI)
Regular blasts start with the closest model, barrage blasts start from the center of the marker.(RAW and RAI)
Blast wounds can and sometimes must be allocated to the closest model regarless of Line of Sight. (RAI)
Barrage Blast wounds can and sometimes must be allocated to the closest model top the center of the marker regarless of Line of Sight. (RAI)
Vehicle damage works the same as it normally does, you allocate the hits instead of wounds.(RAW and RAI)

The RAW argument doesn't get off the ground, as the first pillar, upon which everything stands, is by necessity is only RAI.

First - Blasts do form their own Wound Pool (RAW) at least in regards to the target unit.
Second - blasts do allocate to the nearest model even if not in LOS, at least for the target unit (RaW).
Third - Same with Barrage allocation. You are claiming RAI (which it most likely is), but ignoring the fact that it is RAW
Finally - Of course strict RAW falls apart at the first pillar. This isn't the only place it does so. RAW a non-vehicle model without eyes cannot draw LOS and therefore cannot fire or assault. Is that the intent? Probably not. Unfortunately I am not a mind reader nor can I speak to GW to find out what the intent actually is. For all I know, they intended models without eyes to not be able to shoot.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Bottom line. As understood.

Target Unit is the term for any unit affected by a weapon or area of effect. (RAI)
All blasts can and do hit and wound units that are out of sight. (RAW and RAI)
All blasts create a separate wound pool that must be allocated.(RAI)
Regular blasts start with the closest model, barrage blasts start from the center of the marker.(RAW and RAI)
Blast wounds can and sometimes must be allocated to the closest model regarless of Line of Sight. (RAI)
Barrage Blast wounds can and sometimes must be allocated to the closest model top the center of the marker regarless of Line of Sight. (RAI)
Vehicle damage works the same as it normally does, you allocate the hits instead of wounds.(RAW and RAI)

The RAW argument doesn't get off the ground, as the first pillar, upon which everything stands, is by necessity is only RAI.

First - Blasts do form their own Wound Pool (RAW) at least in regards to the target unit.
Second - blasts do allocate to the nearest model even if not in LOS, at least for the target unit (RaW).
Third - Same with Barrage allocation. You are claiming RAI (which it most likely is), but ignoring the fact that it is RAW
Finally - Of course strict RAW falls apart at the first pillar. This isn't the only place it does so. RAW a non-vehicle model without eyes cannot draw LOS and therefore cannot fire or assault. Is that the intent? Probably not. Unfortunately I am not a mind reader nor can I speak to GW to find out what the intent actually is. For all I know, they intended models without eyes to not be able to shoot.

I noticed that I left off the RAW for the separate wound pool and fixed it. I didn't notice it until it was lit up in yellow. My preview function doesn't show what it will look like once posted for some reason. So you got me there on the error.

the second point, what are you trying to say there? I listed it as RAW and RAI. Are you trying to say that if it is written that it can only be written and not also be the intent?
The same for barrage.

Are you are talking about the fifth and sixth points? (I know that I didn't number them but i did put them in order on separate lines) I mistakenly used the term Line of Sight instead of Out of Sight. Although the two terms can be used interchangably in this case, I though better of it and changed it before i saw this post. To clarify, Blasts and Barrage Blast both allocate regardless of Out of Sight. (RAI)

Your final point is the point that I've been driving home for days now. This cannot be a RAW debate as it never even gets to issue at hand. It has been and (barring another errata changing the wound allocation rules) always will be.

Edit: RAW the player is the one that draws line of sight from model to model, not the models themselves. Also on that note, Zogwort has no eyes, and a Ballistic skill of 0 so they obviously meant for that model not to shoot. Others may have other means to target. (this was just me funning ya!) I don't want to get into this discussion. I got your point.

Yes I was referring to lines 3, 5 and 6 (pre-edit of course). The problem is when one side is arguing what the rules actually say (RAW) and one side is arguing what they think the intent of the rule is (RAI or possibly HYWPI). Per the tenets RAW=/= HYWPI (or even RAI half the time) and you should specify what you are arguing. Using the LOS issue I mentioned:
In order to shoot or assault, non-vehicle models must be able to draw LOS. Agree?
In order to draw LOS for a model you check from the model's eyes. Agree?
If the model does not have eyes (whether because they are wearing a helmet or actually have no eyes) they cannot draw LOS. Agree?
Is the intent for almost every Space Marine, Eldar, Tau or any other army that wears a helmet, to not be able to draw LOS? Most likely not.

 Happyjew wrote:
Yes I was referring to lines 3, 5 and 6 (pre-edit of course). The problem is when one side is arguing what the rules actually say (RAW) and one side is arguing what they think the intent of the rule is (RAI or possibly HYWPI). Per the tenets RAW=/= HYWPI (or even RAI half the time) and you should specify what you are arguing. Using the LOS issue I mentioned:
In order to shoot or assault, non-vehicle models must be able to draw LOS. Agree?
In order to draw LOS for a model you check from the model's eyes. Agree?
If the model does not have eyes (whether because they are wearing a helmet or actually have no eyes) they cannot draw LOS. Agree?
Is the intent for almost every Space Marine, Eldar, Tau or any other army that wears a helmet, to not be able to draw LOS? Most likely not.

I didn't want to get into this conversation it's off topic. I'll gladly have it with you if you wanted to discuss it elsewhere.

However, I have been exceedingly clear that I have been postulating RAI. It's been my position, FOR DAYS, that this can only be an RAI discussion. Everytime I asked the opposition if they were arguing RAW or RAI, all I got was diatribes about breaking tenets, insults and misquotes.

I disagree its completely off-topic. As this thread has devolved into a RAI vs RAW argument and I was trying to make a point.

Furthermore, generally once a thread hits pg 5 or so, I start forgetting exactly what people have said. Since I'm too lazy to read through the entire thing again, it is possible that you were stating RAI, or at least HYWPI. Unfortunately it seems that last few pages have been people saying that X happens even though RAW says it does not. I know for a fact that rigeld at least has said multiple times that his stance is RAW, and he is perfectly content to play it either way. Nos generally always takes the RAW stance for arguments. However, the general assumption is if you do not state that you are talking HYWPI then you are talking RAW.

I'm of the opinion that strict reading of the rules:
Target unit refers to the unit that is chosen as the target of the shooting attack.
Blast weapons can hit and wound units out of range/sight due to scatter.
If the unit wounded is not the target unit, they cannot take saves against the wounds.
If the unit wounded is the target unit, wounds can be allocated to models that are out of sight as long as at least one other model is in sight of the firing unit.
If the unit wounded is not the target unit, wounds cannot be allocated to models out of sight of the firing unit.
Either way once no models are in LOS of the firing unit, all wound pools are emptied per Out of Sight.
However, I don't play this way.

 Happyjew wrote:
I disagree its completely off-topic. As this thread has devolved into a RAI vs RAW argument and I was trying to make a point.

Furthermore, generally once a thread hits pg 5 or so, I start forgetting exactly what people have said. Since I'm too lazy to read through the entire thing again, it is possible that you were stating RAI, or at least HYWPI. Unfortunately it seems that last few pages have been people saying that X happens even though RAW says it does not. I know for a fact that rigeld at least has said multiple times that his stance is RAW, and he is perfectly content to play it either way. Nos generally always takes the RAW stance for arguments. However, the general assumption is if you do not state that you are talking HYWPI then you are talking RAW.

I'm of the opinion that strict reading of the rules:
Target unit refers to the unit that is chosen as the target of the shooting attack.
Blast weapons can hit and wound units out of range/sight due to scatter.
If the unit wounded is not the target unit, they cannot take saves against the wounds.
If the unit wounded is the target unit, wounds can be allocated to models that are out of sight as long as at least one other model is in sight of the firing unit.
If the unit wounded is not the target unit, wounds cannot be allocated to models out of sight of the firing unit.
Either way once no models are in LOS of the firing unit, all wound pools are emptied per Out of Sight.
However, I don't play this way.

Another part of RAW is that since there are no rules for allocating wounds to anything other than the target unit, you cannot allocate any wounds to any unit other than the declared target unit. That was why there could be absolutely no RAW discussion when discussing allocating any wounds to units other than the intended target. (I've generally maintained that RAW arguments are impossible anyway, unless you are arguing spelling, you are always arguing the intent of what it written.

If it were even possible to have a RAW argument, we touched on that as well. That broke down into two camps. One camp read the Out of Sight rule as a whole, the other broke the rule into different parts. I made my opinion on that very clear. It is a single rule, consisting of one part written into two sentences. Single sentences in a paragraph are only a portion of the whole. Honestly, where would that end. Could I begin to disregard punctuation because it doesn't have meaning in game play and the rules make no mention of the brackets used in the sentence?

There are so many examples of where different sentences say slightly different things all regarding the same rule, that almost no exception to any rule would ever get a chance to be used. The exceptions must be applied to the rule or concerned sub set of the rule as a whole. You can look at my Split Fire example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[quote=Idolator 522704 5549628 6c52aea0891a81aac7e52fa62d0469fb.jpgNow, lets look at that last one. It has been your position that individual sentences that give guidance are to be construed as a separate rule independent of the other sentences.

There are two sentences that I find intersting in regards to split fire.
Split Fire allows you to overide the second sentence "All models in the same unit must shot at the same target unit"
The third sentence however says something a little different. "If a model cannot shoot at the same target as the other models in it's unit, for any reason, then it cannot shoot at all in this phase." There is no overide of this sentence in the splitfire section.

By your reasoning, If a model behind a wall, cannot see the target of the remainder of his unit, then he would not be able to choose a different target to shoot.

Would this be a correct application of your reasoning?

edit: I was stuck by another nuance of this reasoning, If the model with split fire has Line of Sight, but is out of range from the unit targeted, by the reamainder of the firing unit, he would also not be allowed to fire at anything else.

While rigeld2 and happyjew are technically correct I would never play it that way unless my opponent insisted on it. I believe the intention based on the fluff (representing ricochets) that their intention was any unit hit can be wounded even if its out of line of sight not just the target unit.

Everyone please remember that the idea of this area is to work out rules problems, not for attacking other users.

 Happyjew wrote:
For all I know, they intended models without eyes to not be able to shoot.

YOU IGNORANT SCUM!

Old Zogwort! BS 0! NO EYES!

DUH!