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.

To get back on topic. RAI does the FAQ from 6th allowing blasts to wound those it hits, give us a basis for treating the Death Ray in the same manor?

 Ghaz wrote:

The main rules allow Blasts that scatter to wound despite being out of range and line of sight:

...so long as there is at least one model in the unit in sight... Otherwise the Out of Sight rule empties the wound pool before the wounds are allocated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
To get back on topic. RAI does the FAQ from 6th allowing blasts to wound those it hits, give us a basis for treating the Death Ray in the same manor?

No. Because the Death Ray isn't a Blast, and this isn't 6th edition.

The change to the blast rules to include the same wording let's us know that the same line of thinking is probably still being used does it not?

 Ghaz wrote:
I did not insult you, thank you. All I did was point out why you were wrong.

You didn't resort to actual insults until you said I don't have common decency, no. You just chose to be condescendingly dismissive over your own inability to see why I would make a simple suggestion.

And yes, continuing to tell someone to look at specific rules when others have pointed out that they're wrong and have no bearing on the matter is rude and condescending.

I did no such thing. I said once to look at those rules, was told where they diverged, then afterwards did nothing but defend myself against rising levels of hostility over an immensely trivial matter and point out why said hostility is utterly unjustified.

Are we done here? I'm all for letting a conversation develop under normal circumstances, but this entire derail has had zero relevance to anything.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

The main rules allow Blasts that scatter to wound despite being out of range and line of sight:

...so long as there is at least one model in the unit in sight... Otherwise the Out of Sight rule empties the wound pool before the wounds are allocated.

I believe their intention was otherwise due to the following for scattering blasts:

In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat).

So is this just another case of GW's sloppy rules?

 Ghaz wrote:

So is this just another case of GW's sloppy rules?

Pretty much, yes.

The actual RAW for Blasts make things very messy when units are partially in LOS. It's is unlikely that they intended for them to work that way.

My usual recommendation is to just ignore the Out of Sight rule for anything that is given specific permission to wound models that are out of LOS.

 Ghaz wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

The main rules allow Blasts that scatter to wound despite being out of range and line of sight:

...so long as there is at least one model in the unit in sight... Otherwise the Out of Sight rule empties the wound pool before the wounds are allocated.

I believe their intention was otherwise due to the following for scattering blasts:

In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat).

So is this just another case of GW's sloppy rules?

They may have intended otherwise, but the rules do not allow allocation our of LoS without an exception, and the blast rules do not have that exception.

rigeld2 wrote:

They may have intended otherwise, but the rules do not allow allocation our of LoS without an exception, and the blast rules do not have that exception.

Yes they do.

The problem isn't that Blasts don't have an exception to allocating out of LOS... it's that they don't have an over-ride for the Out of Sight rule.

So the Blast rules allow you to allocate wounds to models out of LOS... but the Out of Sight rule means that if there are no models visible in the target unit, the wound pool empties immediately, so there are no wounds to be allocated.

 insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

They may have intended otherwise, but the rules do not allow allocation our of LoS without an exception, and the blast rules do not have that exception.

Yes they do.

The problem isn't that Blasts don't have an exception to allocating out of LOS... it's that they don't have an over-ride for the Out of Sight rule.

So the Blast rules allow you to allocate wounds to models out of LOS... but the Out of Sight rule means that if there are no models visible in the target unit, the wound pool empties immediately, so there are no wounds to be allocated.

Right, I misspoke/typed. Sorry.