Blasts wounding things out of Line of Sight and Cover saves

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.

**harkequin**

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.

You have to back that up. Your interpretation selectively reads the rule.
The exception makes no mention of "allocating wounds" or anything that specific. It mentions wounding the models, the second sentence prevents you wounding a model because they are out of line of sight, therefore it is overridden.

**nosferatu1001**

There are no wounds to allocate, so how are you wounding the model?

Up until you allocate to a model, you are affecting a unit. Not a model

**insaniak**

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

Where are those wounds coming from, if not from the wound pool?

The entire thing is overridden.

By what?

Nothing in the Blast rule says to ignore the Out of Sight rule. It just tells us that wounds may be assigned to models out of sight. If you have no wounds in the pool to assign, you don't have any wounds to assign, whether the model is visible or not.

**harkequin**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There are no wounds to allocate, so how are you wounding the model?

Up until you allocate to a model, you are affecting a unit. Not a model

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

"these models cannot be wounded because there is no wound pool because they are out of LOS"

The first sentence overrides the second.

You are given permission to wound them regardless of LOS, therefore, the rules preventing you from wounding models due to LOS are not in effect.

On top of this. The overridden part, is literally part of the same paragraph that deals with wounding models out of LOS, but people are saying that the "out of sight" rule is only affected partly, despite the rule saying you may wound them regardless of them being out of sight

People are reading it 2 ways.
1. The entire rule is overwritten. no issues
2. Part of the rule is overwritten. This creates a literally null rule, with no effect.

There is nothing that makes the 2nd reading more legitimate than the first. And when faced with 2 options, and one is gamebreaking, you go with the one that doesn't break it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nothing in the Blast rule says to ignore the Out of Sight rule. It just tells us that wounds may be assigned to models out of sight. If you have no wounds in the pool to assign, you don't have any wounds to assign, whether the model is visible or not.

It does not say, "you may assign wounds from the wound pool to them"

It says "they may be wounded"
If the wound pool clause conflicts with the override(by preventing said, out of sight models from being wounded), the override wins, because it is an override.

**insaniak**

harkequin wrote:
You are given permission to wound them regardless of LOS, therefore, the rules preventing you from wounding models due to LOS are not in effect.

Indeed they are.

However, along with the rule that prevents you from assigning wounds to models that are out of LOS, there is another rule that empties the wound pool if there are no visible models in the target unit.

So this:

People are reading it 2 ways.
1. The entire rule is overwritten. no issues
2. Part of the rule is overwritten. This creates a literally null rule, with no effect.

...is inaccurate.

The 'second' way of reading it (which is actually the RAW way of reading it) is that the rule forbidding you from assigning wounds to models out of LOS is overwritten, but the rule that empties the wound pool when there are no visible models in the target unit is not.

They're two separate rules.

It does not say, "you may assign wounds from the wound pool to them"

It says "they may be wounded"

Excellent. So I can just continue applying non-existent wounds to them for as long as I like?

That's going to get a bit tedious for my opponent.

If you have no wounds to assign, how are you assigning wounds?

**harkequin**

insaniak wrote:
harkequin wrote:
You are given permission to wound them regardless of LOS, therefore, the rules preventing you from wounding models due to LOS are not in effect.

Indeed they are.

However, along with the rule that prevents you from assigning wounds to models that are out of LOS, there is another rule that empties the wound pool if there are no visible models in the target unit.

So this:

People are reading it 2 ways.
1. The entire rule is overwritten. no issues
2. Part of the rule is overwritten. This creates a literally null rule, with no effect.

...is inaccurate.

The 'second' way of reading it (which is actually the RAW way of reading it) is that the rule forbidding you from assigning wounds to models out of LOS is overwritten, but the rule that empties the wound pool when there are no visible models in the target unit is not.

They're two separate rules.

It does not say, "you may assign wounds from the wound pool to them"

It says "they may be wounded"

Excellent. So I can just continue applying non-existent wounds to them for as long as I like?

That's going to get a bit tedious for my opponent.

If you have no wounds to assign, how are you assigning wounds?

Option 2 is in no way RAW over option 1. You are making an assumption that is not backed by RAW. Show me the quote that says you may override half of the rule.
Nonexistant wounds are no issue here. They have no relevance.
You are pretending I'm saying to allocate regardless of a wound pool, when it is clear I am saying not to empty the wound pool, as this would prevent you from wounding models due to LOS

Nowhere does it tell you what part of the rule specifically to override, there are 2 ways to read it. 1 leads to a null rule and broken game, the other works.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again It mentions nothing of wound allocation, which you are fixating on. It tells you to ignore Rules that prevent you wounding due to Los.
The wound pool emptying is included as It prevents you from wounding someone due to LOS

**insaniak**

harkequin wrote:
Show me the quote that says you may override half of the rule.

I'm not claiming that you override half of the rule, so that seems a tad pointless.

Nonexistant wounds are no issue here. They have no relevance.

They're very relevant if you're trying to claim that you can assign wounds that aren't in the wound pool.

You are pretending I'm saying to allocate regardless of a wound pool, when it is clear I am saying not to empty the wound pool, as this would prevent you from wounding models due to LOS

RIght.

So when I have the last wound in the wound pool, and I assign that to a model, I now have no wounds remaining in the wound pool. This would prevent me from wounding models that are not in LOS... so I may continue to assign wounds to those models, despite the wound pool being empty.

No?

Nowhere does it tell you what part of the rule specifically to override,

That's correct. It just tells you that you can assign wounds to models that are out of LOS.

So that overrides the rule that says that wounds may not be assigned to models that are out of LOS.

It has no effect whatsoever on the number of wounds that you have to allocate.

**Jimsolo**

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

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?

Do the two of you actually insist it be played this way?

**Mr. Shine**

Jimsolo wrote:
Do the two of you actually insist it be played this way?

I truly believe a large, even major, number of disagreements that occur in YMDC would be avoided entirely if people simply prefaced their arguments with a clear disclaimer of it being either HIWPI or RAW, and/or would not continue arguments on the basis of, "Your RAW/HIWPI is stupid and my HIWPI/RAW is better."

**BlackTalos**

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

Yes, it seem the OP does, so it needs to be pointed out that he is incorrect in the matter:

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

Jimsolo wrote:
Do the two of you actually insist it be played this way?

I do, if the Unit in question is completely out of sight. If there's a fine mesh, a few small windows, anything that makes it seem like there could be LoS, i'm sure i'd agree that a scattering explosion inflicts some wounds.

If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

tag8833 wrote:
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.

As for RaW, i was of course referring to your example, where the WHOLE Unit was out of sight. If that is the case, the Wound pool is emptied, as per the Rules.

If your buble chunkas could actually see even just 1 Infantry (i assumed not when you said "that were completely out of line of sight") then yes, you can allocate and remove models that are out of line of sight AND closer to the buble chunkas than the model you can see. If that 1 model is killed, because he was the closest, or you removed closer model and then killed him, the Wound pool empties.

If your Wound pool is empty, how do you cause more Wounds?

**insaniak**

Jimsolo wrote:
Do the two of you actually insist it be played this way?

I said in my first post in this thread that I don't think this is how it's supposed to work.

I believe that GW simply overlooked the way the Out of Sight rule interacts with attacks that don't need LOS, and that in cases like this it should be ignored. That's just a guess, though. It's entirely possible that they did intend for Blasts to only be able to wound out of sight models if at least one model in the unit is visible. Since they no longer believe in explaining their less clear scribblings, it's a little hard to say for sure.

**harkequin**

So when I have the last wound in the wound pool, and I assign that to a model, I now have no wounds remaining in the wound pool. This would prevent me from wounding models that are not in LOS... so I may continue to assign wounds to those models, despite the wound pool being empty.

No?

No again. You are being deliberately obtuse here.
The underlined part is entirely irrelevant. Unless it prevents you wounding because of los (which the emptying does) then it doesn't matter.

You conveniently ignored the part where i mentioned it's the emptying that is also overwritten. not allocating non existant wounds. Of course if you try to break the game it breaks. Non existant wounds are irrelevant still.

That's correct. It just tells you that you can assign wounds to models that are out of LOS.

So that overrides the rule that says that wounds may not be assigned to models that are out of LOS.

You are too obsessed with the "wound allocation" . The rule does not mention this.

Lets break it down to it's constituent parts.

Do you agree, that being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

**jokerkd**

Talos, is that first quote response supposed to be a joke? You must realize he was referring to the "no wounds" crowd, right?

**BlackTalos**

tag8833 wrote:
What Cover Save do those models get? They were 100% obscured by ruins. Does that mean they get a 4+ cover save?

As for your question about the Save (Or were you just making sure to insist that they were 100% Obscured and Blasts could kill them all?):
I have answered above but it did not seem that it was the main purpose of the Thread, was it?

They would get a 5+ for cover through Terrain. Everything is a 5+ "across" Terrain. Some Terrain, like the Ruins they were behind, give better (4+) Saves if you are inside the Ruin.

**insaniak**

harkequin wrote:
You conveniently ignored the part where i mentioned it's the emptying that is also overwritten.

So assigning the last wound doesn't empty the wound pool?

You are too obsessed with the "wound allocation" . The rule does not mention this.

Assigning wounds is wound allocation.

You follow the wound allocation rules for assigning wounds.

Do you agree, that being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

No.

Emptying the wound pool just means that you have no wounds to assign.

You're allowed to assign however many wounds you have in the pool to models that are out of LOS. Once the pool is empty, you have no more wounds to assign. The reason you have no wounds to assign makes no difference.

**jokerkd**

Harkequin, he's being obtuse because he has no argument against what either of us are saying. So he creates a straw man and argues with that

**harkequin**

If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

I wouldn't agree, thatHIWPI seems a bit unfair, the example even given is a rocket ricocheting or behaving erratically. A 90* turn isn't even unrealistic if you look at a firework.

It's the entire purpose of scattering, rockets do crazy things.

**BlackTalos**

jokerkd wrote:
Talos, is that first quote response supposed to be a joke? You must realize he was referring to the "no wounds" crowd, right?

It's not like i could tell from such a minimalistic post?
And this one of yours does not seem to be doing much more than "He's with us, so we're better than you".

Please follow the YMDC Tenets and How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate

Let's get back to discussing the Rules...

**harkequin**

insaniak wrote:
harkequin wrote:
You conveniently ignored the part where i mentioned it's the emptying that is also overwritten.

So assigning the last wound doesn't empty the wound pool?

You are too obsessed with the "wound allocation" . The rule does not mention this.

Assigning wounds is wound allocation.

You follow the wound allocation rules for assigning wounds.

Do you agree, that being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

No.

Emptying the wound pool just means that you have no wounds to assign.

You're allowed to assign however many wounds you have in the pool to models that are out of LOS. Once the pool is empty, you have no more wounds to assign. The reason you have no wounds to assign makes no difference.

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse here? You know as well as i do, that emptying a wound pool because there are no wounds left is not the same as emptying a wound pool because the target is out of sight.

And as for assigning wounds = wound allocation.
The exception doesn't mention assigning wounds.

Finally. If you do not agree that being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight.
Then we have found the issue.

To break it down further.
What part of the statement do you disagree with?
A)Being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding models.
B)You are forced to empty the wound pool due to models being out of LOS.

**BlackTalos**

harkequin wrote:
If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

I wouldn't agree, thatHIWPI seems a bit unfair, the example even given is a rocket ricocheting or behaving erratically. A 90* turn isn't even unrealistic if you look at a firework.

It's the entire purpose of scattering, rockets do crazy things.

Well then you have a great Houserule for when you play Orks.

If we're going down the fluff route, you are aware the Battle Canon is part of these Blast Weapons? Do you know how 120mm guns fire? (Any main gun on modern tanks)
You are telling me these do 90° Turns? I'd love to hear your explanation of this

**harkequin**

BlackTalos wrote:
jokerkd wrote:
Talos, is that first quote response supposed to be a joke? You must realize he was referring to the "no wounds" crowd, right?

It's not like i could tell from such a minimalistic post?
And this one of yours does not seem to be doing much more than "He's with us, so we're better than you".

Please follow the YMDC Tenets and How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate

Let's get back to discussing the Rules...

I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

**BlackTalos**

harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

Why would you play contrary to that Rule?
1) Blasts can Wound models out of LOS, and they most certainly can Hit out of LOS.

2) This generates a Wound pool.

3) That Wound pool is emptied if there are no more models in LOS.

Being forced to follow Rule "3" does not mean you can't do "1" any more?

**harkequin**

BlackTalos wrote:
harkequin wrote:
If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

I wouldn't agree, thatHIWPI seems a bit unfair, the example even given is a rocket ricocheting or behaving erratically. A 90* turn isn't even unrealistic if you look at a firework.

It's the entire purpose of scattering, rockets do crazy things.

Well then you have a great Houserule for when you play Orks.

If we're going down the fluff route, you are aware the Battle Canon is part of these Blast Weapons? Do you know how 120mm guns fire? (Any main gun on modern tanks)
You are telling me these do 90° Turns? I'd love to hear your explanation of this

Warp schenanigans

Seriously though, although Battle cannons are part of the rule, so are Particle weapons. Do you know how they fire? You may have an issue with the Blasts/Barrage system as a whole, and want some re-designations. But I think it's your responsibility to house rule your Auto cannons rather than everyone else to house rule their blast weapons (including frag grenades, which I'm pretty certain can kill Boyz on the other side of a wall)

In anycase as a houserule, fire away. It's just It would nees to clearly be a houserule everyone is clear on (maybe even case by case) rather than, springing your disagreement on them against the BRB.

**BlackTalos**

harkequin wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
harkequin wrote:
If 2 Guardsmen are hugging the back wall of a Bastion, then no, a Blast scattered from a Unit firing on the other side would not do a single Wound (by emptying the pool). They are direct fire Weapons, not barrage.

That's my HIWPI.

I wouldn't agree, thatHIWPI seems a bit unfair, the example even given is a rocket ricocheting or behaving erratically. A 90* turn isn't even unrealistic if you look at a firework.

It's the entire purpose of scattering, rockets do crazy things.

Well then you have a great Houserule for when you play Orks.

If we're going down the fluff route, you are aware the Battle Canon is part of these Blast Weapons? Do you know how 120mm guns fire? (Any main gun on modern tanks)
You are telling me these do 90° Turns? I'd love to hear your explanation of this

Warp schenanigans

Seriously though, although Battle cannons are part of the rule, so are Particle weapons. Do you know how they fire? You may have an issue with the Blasts/Barrage system as a whole, and want some re-designations. But I think it's your responsibility to house rule your Auto cannons rather than everyone else to house rule their blast weapons (including frag grenades, which I'm pretty certain can kill Boyz on the other side of a wall)

In anycase as a houserule, fire away. It's just It would nees to clearly be a houserule everyone is clear on (maybe even case by case) rather than, springing your disagreement on them against the BRB.

Well, whichever houserule you decide to use in your games is up to you.

The rulebook is very clear on how the game is played normally:
If no models are in LOS, the Wound pool empties.

In the OP's example, Bubble Chunkas could not cause any Wounds on a Unit "that were completely out of line of sight". Simple as.

**insaniak**

harkequin wrote:
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse here? You know as well as i do, that emptying a wound pool because there are no wounds left is not the same as emptying a wound pool because the target is out of sight.

It's really not. In either case, the end result is an empty wound pool. Which means there are no wounds to apply to models.

To break it down further.
What part of the statement do you disagree with?
A)Being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding models.
B)You are forced to empty the wound pool due to models being out of LOS.

Both of those statements are correct.

The conclusion that you're going to try to draw from that is not.

Being allowed to assign wounds to models that are out of LOS does nothing more than allow you to assign wounds to models that are out of LOS. You still need to have wounds to assign for that to happen.

If you're going to argue that you have to apply the rule retroactively to any other action that could conceivably stop you from at some point later in the game wounding those models, you're going to wind up with one hell of a confusing game.

**harkequin**

BlackTalos wrote:
harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

Why would you play contrary to that Rule?
1) Blasts can Wound models out of LOS, and they most certainly can Hit out of LOS.

2) This generates a Wound pool.

3) That Wound pool is emptied if there are no more models in LOS.

Being forced to follow Rule "3" does not mean you can't do "1" any more?

Being forced to do 3 literally makes the rule unplayable .....
The instant you have noone in LOS, you may not wound them, so you may not wound models out of LOS.
Unless you are talking about a situation like this?

A.........................................................B
.................................-------------------B
.................................l C C C C C C C

So you could kill off all of C(assuming C&B are one squad) as long as you can see B? But if B was a different Squad, the same blast cannot hurt C? That's just ridiculous. (also hoping the diagram came out right)

**insaniak**

harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

I suspect that this here may be part of the confusion... Nobody is arguing that blasts can't wound models that are out of LOS. They very definitely can.

However, because of the Out of Sight rule, they can (by RAW) only do so if there is at least one visible model in the unit. Because otherwise, the wound pool empties before you get to the bit where you actually assign those wounds to models.

**harkequin**

insaniak wrote:
harkequin wrote:
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse here? You know as well as i do, that emptying a wound pool because there are no wounds left is not the same as emptying a wound pool because the target is out of sight.

It's really not. In either case, the end result is an empty wound pool. Which means there are no wounds to apply to models.

To break it down further.
What part of the statement do you disagree with?
A)Being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding models.
B)You are forced to empty the wound pool due to models being out of LOS.

Both of those statements are correct.

The conclusion that you're going to try to draw from that is not.

Being allowed to assign wounds to models that are out of LOS does nothing more than allow you to assign wounds to models that are out of LOS. You still need to have wounds to assign for that to happen.

If you're going to argue that you have to apply the rule retroactively to any other action that could conceivably stop you from at some point later in the game wounding those models, you're going to wind up with one hell of a confusing game.

How are you arguing that
You are forced to empty the wound pool prevents wounds.
That you are forced to empty due to LOS.
And still disagreeing with
"you are forced to empty the wound pool (due to LOS), and this prevents wounds."

Therefore
"being froced to empty the wound pool prevents wounds (due to LOS)"

This is overridden.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:
harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

I suspect that this here may be part of the confusion... Nobody is arguing that blasts can't wound models that are out of LOS. They very definitely can.

However, because of the Out of Sight rule, they can (by RAW) only do so if there is at least one visible model in the unit. Because otherwise, the wound pool empties before you get to the bit where you actually assign those wounds to models.

Umm , Talos is....

In addition, Not only (in your opinion) would you need a visible model, but the model can't die or you lose the wounds. See the above diagram for ridiculousness .
I know why you are trying to argue RAW is stupid, usually i am on that side.
I'm actually arguing that RAW is actually ok this time, and RAI isn't even needed

**insaniak**

harkequin wrote:

So you could kill off all of C(assuming C&B are one squad) as long as you can see B? But if B was a different Squad, the same blast cannot hurt C? That's just ridiculous. (also hoping the diagram came out right)

Yes, it is. But it's also how the rules currently work, thanks to the Out of Sight rule.

**BlackTalos**

harkequin wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
harkequin wrote:
I think he was mentioning it due to the fact that there is literally a rule that says "blasts may scatter onto, and therefore hit and wound models out of LOS", and was wondering if some people really play contrary to that rule(so you can't wound models out of LOS), despite it's clear intent.

Why would you play contrary to that Rule?
1) Blasts can Wound models out of LOS, and they most certainly can Hit out of LOS.

2) This generates a Wound pool.

3) That Wound pool is emptied if there are no more models in LOS.

Being forced to follow Rule "3" does not mean you can't do "1" any more?

Being forced to do 3 literally makes the rule unplayable .....
The instant you have noone in LOS, you may not wound them, so you may not wound models out of LOS.
Unless you are talking about a situation like this?

...........................................................B
A...............................-------------------B
.................................l C C C C C C.....D D

So you could kill off all of C(assuming C&B are one squad) as long as you can see B? But if B was a different Squad, the same blast cannot hurt C? That's just ridiculous. (also hoping the diagram came out right)

If B & C are one Unit, then yes, you start allocating to the closest model even if it is out of LOS. That what the Blast Rule is for, and actually account for all of your "spinning Shells" fluffs stories.
However you want to explain it realistically, in game Terms it is only because that's how the Rules work:
#1 Allocate to closest first
#2 Empty Pool once both "B" are dead: "D" added above (same Unit) can never be killed by Unit "A"