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.

In a recent game, I got 1st turn and fired my buble chunkas (Heay 1, Large Blast) at a unit that I could see.

3 of them scattered big (9, 11, 11) and the blasts ended up over a tightly clustered group of infantry that were completely out of line of sight of the Bubble Chunkas.

We know from the rules for blasts that they can indeed cause wounds to models out of line of sight.

What Cover Save do those models get? They were 100% obscured by ruins. Does that mean they get a 4+ cover save?

Generally only ruins give a 4+ cover save, with obscurement just being a 5+. I think the rules would be a 5+ in the situation, but I'd gladly give my opponent a 4+.

It seems odd, but I think that is correct. Because it is a ruin that they are behind, it is a 4+.

tag8833 wrote:
We know from the rules for blasts that they can indeed cause wounds to models out of line of sight.

First of all, this is only true for Barrage weapons, and even then, debatable.

Secondly, Blast ("only") weapons cannot allocate Wounds to models out of line of sight, so you need not worry about Cover saves. However, in the case you describe, and IF you had minimal LoS, this rule exists:

Unless specifically noted otherwise, a model in cover behind difficult terrain has a 5+ cover save.

For them to get the 4+ Cover of the Ruins, they have to be within the terrain, not behind it:

Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
We know from the rules for blasts that they can indeed cause wounds to models out of line of sight.

First of all, this is only true for Barrage weapons, and even then, debatable.

There is always one person that tries to debate this. I don't think it is unclear. Page 158 of the rulebook says:
"Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapon's maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight."

Your argument is based on the "Out of Sight" provision of wound allocation on page 35 which explicitly doesn't apply due to the line I quoted above, in the same way that the "Out of Range" provision also doesn't apply. (Do you think we should apply that provision as well?) If you followup that "Wounding" and allocating wounds are different things, I would argue that allocating wounds is a component of "Wounding" as is "Rolling to Wound". You would counter that "Rolling to Wound" is the entirety of "Wounding", and our semantic argument would degrade ad nauseum. Suffice to say, I have never played a game where your interpretation was used. I have never been to a tournament where your interpretation was used. While a case could be made that our Semantic argument doesn't have a clear conclusion one way or the other, in practice it is purely an academic exercise.

However, if you want to keep arguing your case on Template weapons against the slew of events that are allowing them to add wounds to the wound pool but not allocate wounds based on models out of line of sight, I would support you there based on what I feel is a relatively strong RAW argument.

It does not "explicitly" apply. The line from blasts only overrides one part of out of sight. It does not override the emptying pool requirement.

"Wounds must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any model in the attacking unit."

You guys understand that special rules override general rules, right?

I would give them a 5+ cover since they are not in the ruin but are obscured. As far as I can tell from the rules you can absolutely hit and wound units out of line of site should the blast scatter on to them.

The point, as been raised before, is that there are two events to keep track of:

#1: Apply the wound to the nearest model. Explicitly ignores LoS.

#2: If there are no models in LoS, you empty the wound pool.

The claim is that, while the first event is explicitly allowed, the second event still triggers. So the wound pool is empty. So you can't allocate, because there are no wounds left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(RAI is plain as day. RAW I'm not that well read on.)

 jokerkd wrote:
"Wounds must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any model in the attacking unit."

You guys understand that special rules override general rules, right?

Sorry, I missed the part where that rule says that the wound pool does not empty if no models are in Los. Can you highlight it?

Well from a RAW point it isn't unclear.
It can hit and wound models out of range and line of sight.

so Any model that is out of line of sight, can in fact be wounded.

so
...................................l
A.................................l B
....................................l

No matter what way you look at it, B can be wounded, end of.
You can't come up with some reason that B can't be wounded due to line of sight, when we are explicitly told
"may hit and wound models out of line of sight"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just think about your point. If someone tries to wound them, are you saying, "sorry you can't wound them because they are out of line of sight" ?
Regardless of the wound pool clause, you are in fact saying. "You cannot wound them , because they are out of line of sight."

This is explicitly overridden

Number 2 is not RAW

Picking sentences out of paragraphs is not read as written, its read how you want it to read.

A quick flick through the book shows how quickly the game would break if this kind of stupidity were allowed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But seriously, if you ignore the first part of the paragraph, as you are, and claim the last sentence is RAW, then they can be wounded because that sentence does not say they have to be visible to the attacking unit. If they are visible to anything (including the player) then the wound pool is not empty

harkequin wrote:
Well from a RAW point it isn't unclear.
It can hit and wound models out of range and line of sight.

so Any model that is out of line of sight, can in fact be wounded.

Indeed they can. Any wounds that you have in the wound pool can be applied to models out of line of sight.


However, if there are no models in line of sight, how many wounds are in the wound pool?

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Well from a RAW point it isn't unclear.
It can hit and wound models out of range and line of sight.

so Any model that is out of line of sight, can in fact be wounded.

Indeed they can. Any wounds that you have in the wound pool can be applied to models out of line of sight.


However, if there are no models in line of sight, how many wounds are in the wound pool?

In line of sight of what?

The firing unit. Context matters.

But it doesn't matter when you want to take the one one sentence out of a paragraph?

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
Well from a RAW point it isn't unclear.
It can hit and wound models out of range and line of sight.

so Any model that is out of line of sight, can in fact be wounded.

Indeed they can. Any wounds that you have in the wound pool can be applied to models out of line of sight.


However, if there are no models in line of sight, how many wounds are in the wound pool?

So what you are trying to say, is they cannot be wounded because they are out of line of sight?

You are ignoring the specific permission given. The BRB doesn't have to say, this model may have a wound allocated to it, saved, then removed. Model 2 may have a wound ..... It uses some extrapolation.
If you try to break the game, it breaks. No surprise there. You have to ignore the specific permission given to you for your ruling to work.

Basically.
May wound out of LoS models -> Things that would prevent this no longer apply -> wound pool issues no longer exist.

 jokerkd wrote:
But it doesn't matter when you want to take the one one sentence out of a paragraph?

No, the point is that you can't just take one sentence out of a paragraph.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
So what you are trying to say, is they cannot be wounded because they are out of line of sight?

If the entire unit is out of sight, yes, the 'Out of Sight' rule kicks in and the wound pool immediately empties.

If at least one model from the unit is visible, then wounds can be allocated to models that are out of sight, so long as they are closer than the visible model.



It's probably not how it's supposed to work, but since there is no specific statement in the Blast rule to ignore the Out of Sight rule, that's how it works by the rules as written.

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
But it doesn't matter when you want to take the one one sentence out of a paragraph?

No, the point is that you can't just take one sentence out of a paragraph.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
So what you are trying to say, is they cannot be wounded because they are out of line of sight?

If the entire unit is out of sight, yes, the 'Out of Sight' rule kicks in and the wound pool immediately empties.

If at least one model from the unit is visible, then wounds can be allocated to models that are out of sight, so long as they are closer than the visible model.



It's probably not how it's supposed to work, but since there is no specific statement in the Blast rule to ignore the Out of Sight rule, that's how it works by the rules as written.

There is a specific rule. It literally says "may hit and wound models out of line of sight" You are trying to semantically dance around this.


The wound pool issue prevents you from wounding models because they are out of sight, correct?
Therefore it is overridden by the other rule that explicitly allows it.

It's like saying, a super heavy dies to explodes results. "but it has an exception" , doesn't matter, it says vehicles die to explodes ....

Exceptions are exceptions.

harkequin wrote:
May wound out of LoS models -> Things that would prevent this no longer apply....

So... once you have allocated all of the wounds that are in the wound pool, you can continue to apply wounds to the unit?

For how long?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
There is a specific rule. It literally says "may hit and wound models out of line of sight" .

Yup. So, as I said, you can assign wounds from the wound pool to models that are out of line of sight.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be allocated to models?

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
But it doesn't matter when you want to take the one one sentence out of a paragraph?

No, the point is that you can't just take one sentence out of context

the paragraph on pg35 that is overridden by the special rule includes the sentence which says you empty the pool. Unless you ignore the rest of the paragraph (the context), you obviously cant claim the one sentence has an effect

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:
May wound out of LoS models -> Things that would prevent this no longer apply....

So... once you have allocated all of the wounds that are in the wound pool, you can continue to apply wounds to the unit?

For how long?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

harkequin wrote:
There is a specific rule. It literally says "may hit and wound models out of line of sight" .

Yup. So, as I said, you can assign wounds from the wound pool to models that are out of line of sight.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be allocated to models?

You are still ignoring the exception.
What it says -> "It may hit and wound models out of line of sight."
What you are saying "It may not hit and wound them because they are out of line of sight"

The simple answer is usually the correct one.
We know how to do the shooting phase, we are given an exception, therefore we follow all the usual steps except the overridden ones.

So once there is a wound pool, Instead of the clause preventing them being wounded kicking in, the one overriding that does.
You have to try to break the rule to break it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Out of Sight

If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost."

The rule. ^

"may be hit and wounded even if they are out of range and LoS"

The exception. ^

You are taking the wound pool sentence out of context. The entire paragraph is about wounding models out of line of sight. The entire thing is overridden.

harkequin wrote:

The rule. ^

"may be hit and wounded even if they are out of range and LoS".

In this context 'be wounded' means 'have wounds from the wound pool assigned to them'.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be assigned to models?

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:

The rule. ^

"may be hit and wounded even if they are out of range and LoS".

In this context 'be wounded' means 'have wounds from the wound pool assigned to them'.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be assigned to models?

A pointless hypothetical considering the scenario in question has wounds in the pool.

As i said before, if the only part of the paragraph that isnt overridden is the last sentence then you cannot say there are "no visible models" because that sentence does not mention attacking units. Given that anyone at the table can see the models, they are visible and therefore the wound pool is not emptied.

 insaniak wrote:

harkequin wrote:

The rule. ^

"may be hit and wounded even if they are out of range and LoS".

In this context 'be wounded' means 'have wounds from the wound pool assigned to them'.

If there are no wounds in the wound pool, how many wounds can be assigned to models?

No. In this context, 'be wounded' means 'suffer a wound from the attack'

Your interpretation only works if you selectively read the rule.

For all intents and purposes it says.
" you can't do x, because of y & z"

We are told, "although you normally can't, you may do x"

And you are arguing, "according to rule z, you can't do it"

And you're totally ignoring the fact that the rule you keep quoting does not allow you to keep wounds in the Wound Pool if there are no models in LOS.

 Ghaz wrote:
And you're totally ignoring the fact that the rule you keep quoting does not allow you to keep wounds in the Wound Pool if there are no models in LOS.

We are told that it is allowed. The quote says they may be wounded, you are saying they may not be wounded because they are out of LoS.
You are only reading 50% of the rule as overridden.
See Jokerkd 's point. If you only use one part of the rule out of context the whole thing falls apart. If you use context, and take the whole thing together, it makes perfect sense.

Note the exception doesn't say "may have wounds allocated from the wound pool" . It says, "may be wounded"

Out of Sight

If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

The entire thing is overridden. If only the bold part was overridden it would have specified that wounds from the wound pool may be allocated, or something along those lines.
As it stands, we are told they may be wounded. If the underlined part conflicts with that, it is overridden.

From 'Out of Sight' in the rules for the Shooting phase in the main rulebook:

Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

The rule you keep harping on only affects the first sentence of the Out of Sight rule. It has no effect whatsoever on the second sentence.

What is the point of this? Does anyone actually play it that way?

Why would it say it ignores the restriction, but still not work?

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Out of Sight' in the rules for the Shooting phase in the main rulebook:

Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw a line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it, and must instead be allocated to the nearest visible model in the target unit. If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

The rule you keep harping on only affects the first sentence of the Out of Sight rule. It has no effect whatsoever on the second sentence.

Lets say that's true. The second sentence does not require the modeks to be visible to anyone in particular.
Without adding words to the rules, how can you insist that attackers los is necessary?