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 wrote:
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.

Except it's not.

You're taking an allowance to wound models out of LOS as a prohibition on doing anything that would prevent you from wounding models that are out of LOS... which is backwards.

Being able to wound models that are not in sight means that you can assign wounds to them. You still have to have wounds to assign in order for that to happen.

Umm , Talos is....

No, he isn't.

harkequin wrote:

 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. The 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

Where? Please do not put words in my mouth.

harkequin wrote:
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 .

That's correct. The moment the one visible model dies, the wound pool empties. Because that's what the Out of Sight rule says to do... If at any time you have no visible targets, the wound pool immediately empties.

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.

As you can't target a unit you cant see, you have necessarily scattered onto a different unit to hit a unit completely out of line of sight. As the unit hit is not the unit being targeted by the shooters it is not the target unit, therefore I would say RAW the wound pool would not be emptied.

roflmajog wrote:
As the unit hit is not the unit being targeted by the shooters it is not the target unit, therefore I would say RAW the wound pool would not be emptied.

By that logic, you also can't roll to wound, because that also references the target unit.

Or, at best, you roll to wound against the original target's toughness instead of the toughness of the unit the blast lands on.




The general assumption is that the unit the blast hits becomes the 'target' for the purposes of resolving the shot. Otherwise the rules break down completely.

So.... RAW the rules break down completely?

You all keep ignoring it, so I'll keep saying it.

If the rule that says you empty the wound pool is RAW, the models in the unit just have to be visible, and not necessarily to the attacking unit. Which is why RAW is broken

 jokerkd wrote:
You all keep ignoring it, so I'll keep saying it.

If the rule that says you empty the wound pool is RAW, the models in the unit just have to be visible, and not necessarily to the attacking unit. Which is why RAW is broken

Repetition of it is being ignored because I already pointed out that this is incorrect. Again, context matters.

Never mind.

"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.
"

....Wouldn't the target unit be the one you initially fired at (ie targetted for your attack??)... And if so wouldn't you always have LOS since the shots went elsewhere and didn't kill anyone from the unit you targetted?

sm3g wrote:
"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.
"

....Wouldn't the target unit be the one you initially fired at (ie targetted for your attack??)... And if so wouldn't you always have LOS since the shots went elsewhere and didn't kill anyone from the unit you targetted?

From just up the page...

 insaniak wrote:

roflmajog wrote:
As the unit hit is not the unit being targeted by the shooters it is not the target unit, therefore I would say RAW the wound pool would not be emptied.

By that logic, you also can't roll to wound, because that also references the target unit.

Or, at best, you roll to wound against the original target's toughness instead of the toughness of the unit the blast lands on.




The general assumption is that the unit the blast hits becomes the 'target' for the purposes of resolving the shot. Otherwise the rules break down completely.

In that case, the wounds would have to be allocated to the first unit and not the unit under the blast

"The general assumption is that the unit the blast hits becomes the 'target' for the purposes of resolving the shot. Otherwise the rules break down completely."

So general assumptions are okay when they suit you but not other times?

For instance the general assumption is you can wound a unit that is out of site because the shot scattered...gust of wind moved the rocket behind a building....the rocket didn't magically disappear...it still hit something...

sm3g wrote:
"The general assumption is that the unit the blast hits becomes the 'target' for the purposes of resolving the shot. Otherwise the rules break down completely."

So general assumptions are okay when they suit you but not other times?

Yes, I tend to agree with the things I agree with. It's a habit of mine.

For instance the general assumption is you can wound a unit that is out of site because the shot scattered...gust of wind moved the rocket behind a building....the rocket didn't magically disappear...it still hit something...

Sure. The difference is that the assumption about targeting is made due to a rule completely breaking the game if you don't ignore it. It would be absurd for a blast to scatter onto a different unit, but have the wounds still apply to the original target unit instead. And so people fairly universally accept that where the rules refer to the 'target' that they mean the unit that is actually hit by the blast, rather than the one it was originally aimed at.


The issue with models out of sight is somewhat murkier, because the rules as they are written aren't broken... just a little silly. So some people (myself included) might assume that we're supposed to ignore the Out of Sight rule for the pruposes of resolving Blasts. Other assume it still applies... because being a little silly is ultimately a fairly poor criteria for choosing to ignore rules, where 40K is concerned.


Basically, the target issue is one that is (from my experience) fairly universally accepted that we just ignore what the rules say. Whereas the Out of Sight rule has one camp who say to just ignore what the rules say (or in this case, [i]don't[i] say) and another camp who think that the way everyone is playing it is actually what the rules say anyway... and a third, much smaller camp who play it as written.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Sorry, I missed that in your first post. My bad.

You're not really covering (hah) the cover-saves part correctly. Yes its a default 5+ but just if there is nothing else stated.
The BRB only mentions "in" when pertaining ruins, but most people dont know that if youre using the nice models from GW they have their own rules.

Cities of death, CITY RUINS: "City ruins provide a 4+ cover save". No mention of "in" at all. So yeah, if you buy the models, use the correct rules. If you use your self made models, go right ahead. But a manufactorum is a manufactorum. Sure you can house rule wtf you want but then state that before i plop my models on the board...

RAI there's a big possibility they meant that "ruins" should give 4+ even in the 25% cover rule, just that they somehow brainfarted the sentence... as usual.

RAW I believe the wound pool would be emptied if no models can be seen. If going to to tournament I would expect this.

HIWPI is that wounds from blast weapon act just like barrage weapons with regards to whether the wounds they inflict can cause casualties, and that the centre of the blast is used to determine if models can get a cover save. Models are still removed from those closest to the firing unit. This just makes it a little more realistic. If we suppose a tank shell gets fired through a wall, why would the guys on the other side be immune?

-Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1

Yonasu wrote:
You're not really covering (hah) the cover-saves part correctly. Yes its a default 5+ but just if there is nothing else stated.
The BRB only mentions "in" when pertaining ruins, but most people dont know that if youre using the nice models from GW they have their own rules.

Cities of death, CITY RUINS: "City ruins provide a 4+ cover save". No mention of "in" at all. So yeah, if you buy the models, use the correct rules. If you use your self made models, go right ahead. But a manufactorum is a manufactorum. Sure you can house rule wtf you want but then state that before i plop my models on the board...

RAI there's a big possibility they meant that "ruins" should give 4+ even in the 25% cover rule, just that they somehow brainfarted the sentence... as usual.

Nope, Ruins are covered in the Rulebook.

Look at the heading "TERRAIN TYPES","RUINS":

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

I highlighted the "in" for you as you seem to have missed it....

Some specific cases are higher: "A model in cover behind Imperial Statuary has a 3+ cover save." But the 25% Rule applies for these.

You mention the manufactorum, and the Rule is there too:

Terrain type:
Ruins: Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
You're not really covering (hah) the cover-saves part correctly. Yes its a default 5+ but just if there is nothing else stated.
The BRB only mentions "in" when pertaining ruins, but most people dont know that if youre using the nice models from GW they have their own rules.

Cities of death, CITY RUINS: "City ruins provide a 4+ cover save". No mention of "in" at all. So yeah, if you buy the models, use the correct rules. If you use your self made models, go right ahead. But a manufactorum is a manufactorum. Sure you can house rule wtf you want but then state that before i plop my models on the board...

RAI there's a big possibility they meant that "ruins" should give 4+ even in the 25% cover rule, just that they somehow brainfarted the sentence... as usual.

Nope, Ruins are covered in the Rulebook.

Look at the heading "TERRAIN TYPES","RUINS":

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

I highlighted the "in" for you as you seem to have missed it....

Some specific cases are higher: "A model in cover behind Imperial Statuary has a 3+ cover save." But the 25% Rule applies for these.

You mention the manufactorum, and the Rule is there too:

Terrain type:
Ruins: Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

see, now you tried to cover the rules a bit, was that so hard? First you dont read my post where i talk about IN ruins. I capitalized it so you perhaps read it this time, or is it not big enough? Let me know and ill try to make it clearer next time.
Yes manufactorum has a post in the BRB so i guess it was a bad example.
I was civil and you talk down to me, where is the civility in that. I'm sure the tenants have something about that but it's pretty obvious that goes out the window as soon as you start going. God forbid someone posts in here, no wonder it's either you 5k+ post guys or someone with 1 post being active, after a few threads you despair of humanity trolling this place to bits.

Let's keep it civil, folks. If you're seeing posts that you think cross the line, the appropriate response is to report them, not try to escalate the situation.

sm3g wrote:
"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.
"

....Wouldn't the target unit be the one you initially fired at (ie targetted for your attack??)... And if so wouldn't you always have LOS since the shots went elsewhere and didn't kill anyone from the unit you targetted?

And along those lines of always having Line of Sight...you would have to roll for wounds against the unit you targeted and assign wounds to the unit you targeted instead of the unit that the blast landed on...

Which is of course incorrect.

Yonasu wrote:

see, now you tried to cover the rules a bit, was that so hard? First you dont read my post where i talk about IN ruins. I capitalized it so you perhaps read it this time, or is it not big enough? Let me know and ill try to make it clearer next time.
Yes manufactorum has a post in the BRB so i guess it was a bad example.
I was civil and you talk down to me, where is the civility in that. I'm sure the tenants have something about that but it's pretty obvious that goes out the window as soon as you start going. God forbid someone posts in here, no wonder it's either you 5k+ post guys or someone with 1 post being active, after a few threads you despair of humanity trolling this place to bits.

I.... have no idea what point you are trying to make? If my post, pointing that you were incorrect and providing the Rules as support to show you why were "talking down" to you then I apologise.

Do you have a complaint about how the Forum works? I would recommend flagging the specific posts or getting into contact with a Mod (one's been participating in the thread).
If you have any further queries about the Rules for cover, go ahead.

Ruins (and Rubble) in the Rules provide 4+ cover if you are "IN" them. These terms cover pretty much most of the Terrain (even custom-built) that tend to be used (in my community anyway).

Unless it is a piece of Terrain that specifically refers to "in cover behind" granting a higher value, it will be 5+.
As such, firing across Ruins will be a 5+, and as such, i disagreed when you said:
"You're not really covering the cover-saves part correctly. Yes its a default 5+ but just if there is nothing else stated."
and conclude with
" there's a big possibility they meant that "ruins" should give 4+ even in the 25% cover rule"

I cannot believe people what I am reading in this thread *shakes head*.

I will say this in the most polite way possible, but you really have to be a real twonk if you are saying that blasts cannot wound models out of line of site when they scatter. I would hate to play against any of you who are arguing this.

It is plain as day what the rules say, cherry picking bits here and there to justify what you are saying is just silly.

I have played in many many tournaments and leagues and my meta is super competitive, and not once has there been any confusion on how this rule work. For flips sake I went Caledonian Uprising last year (most competitive European tournament) and this never came up once!

If I was a new to the area where you guys play and this was our first game and you came out with this nonsense I would just pack up, leave and never go back. You are actively discouraging play with this behavior.

Take a good hard look at yourself, because you all are being really hardcore TFGs, and remember "no one wants to face TFG".

Yes, it is totally clear that the ruels require the Wound Pool to be emptied if NO models are in LOS. As no part of the Blasts rules override this, your "super competitive" meta has a poor handle on this rule.

So you are saying the blast magically stops hurting people because the shooter cannot see anyone?

I am pretty sure if you are caught within a blast radius whether the person can see you or not you are gonna get hurt.

Are you saying a bolt magically stops travelling because the firing model cant see the 3rd model in, but could see the 1st and 2nd that are now dead?

Shucks, its almost like this abstracted game of IGOUGO set 38k years into the future isnt "realistic"

"whether"

Do you have a rules argument, or are you simply arguing "HYWPI", knowing full well it is a house rule?

It doesn't matter if it is 30 years in the future or 3000000000000000 years in the future, an explosive blast is always going to function on the same. Therefor when interpreting the rules this must be taken into account.

And its not a "house rule". This is rules as played by the top 120 players in Europe. This was the rules decision made by some of the best judges in Europe. This was the interpretation of the rules made by some of the most picky players Win at all Costs players you will ever come across.

And at the end of the day this is about people interpreting the rules in different ways. I think that not only does my way make sense, but it also fits well within "rules as written". Your way is just .... Blegh!

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
And its not a "house rule". This is rules as played by the top 120 players in Europe. This was the rules decision made by some of the best judges in Europe. This was the interpretation of the rules made by some of the most picky players Win at all Costs players you will ever come across.

House rule is still a house rule. Only GW can officially change the rules without it being a house rule.

Its not a house rule its a rule interpretation.

How I choose to interpret them is as follows:

1) I choose a target in line of site.
2) The blast scatters onto a unit out of line of site.
3) The Blast special rule kicks in.
4) Wounds are calculated.
5) Nearest models removed.

Nice and simple, makes sense, falls within the rules.
It follows the simple rules step GW uses which is:

1) I want to do X
2) The basic rules say I cant.
3) I have a special rule that says I can.
4) Special rules override basic rules.
5) Resolve the result of the action.

And if it really comes down to it, if we ever met on the field of battle (assuming I would still play after hearing such silliness), we would have to use the D6 rule which is actually in the book.

No, its a house rule. Being able to wound models out of line of sight doesn't keep the wound pool from emptying if there are no models in line of sight. They are two totally separate situations. You're trying to keep the wound pool from emptying as long as you can potentially allocate wounds when the rules don't allow you to do so. The wound pool empties if there are no models in line of sight, regardless of whether those wounds could be allocated to models out of line of sight or not.