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.

The rules says that they can be wounded from out of line of site.

If they can be wounded then wounds can be allocated to them.

Your interpretation of the rules would make all barrage weapons useless.

And again, the wound pool empties if there are no models in line of sight regardless of whether or not you can allocate wounds to the models out of line of sight. My 'interpretation' is based on the rules, yours is not.

So Barrage is useless?

From 'Out of Sight' in the main rulebook:

If there are no visible models in the target unit, all remaining Wounds in the pool are lost.

Please provide an exception that says this does not apply if you have the ability to allocate wounds to models out of line of sight. Whether you think it makes Barrage 'useless' doesn't change what is written, it just proves that the rules are poorly written.

Yes it does hit them, yes it does wound them.

It's pretty simple to be fair, if you don't understand the concept of exceptions you might want to go read up on it.

This thread is now 4 pages long. Lock it already...

Please answer my question.

By your interpretation of the rules, is the Barrage rule useless (literally) ?

Yes or No please.

Blast weapons don't follow standard wound pool rules quite obviously - Their wound pool is everything they could have possibly scatterd into. Pretty sure the rules don't cover what kind of cover you should receive when a blast goes out of LOS from the model firing it. I'd say cover should be determined by LOS from the target they were aiming the blast at.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Please answer my question.

By your interpretation of the rules, is the Barrage rule useless (literally) ?

Yes or No please.

You had your answer. Now answer my question and show what allows you to ignore the 'Out of Sight' rules.

 Ghaz wrote:

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Please answer my question.

By your interpretation of the rules, is the Barrage rule useless (literally) ?

Yes or No please.

You had your answer. Now answer my question and show what allows you to ignore the 'Out of Sight' rules.

You aren't actually answering his question - which when you answer it - will kinda make your point of view obsolete wont it? Clearly - your rules interpretation makes barrage weapons useless and therefore needs revision.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Please answer my question.

By your interpretation of the rules, is the Barrage rule useless (literally) ?

Yes or No please.

You had your answer. Now answer my question and show what allows you to ignore the 'Out of Sight' rules.

You aren't actually answering his question - which when you answer it - will kinda make your point of view obsolete wont it? Clearly - your rules interpretation makes barrage weapons useless and therefore needs revision.

Exactly, which is why they will not answer the question. Atleast someone round here is sane

So I will ask the question again until it answered. Under your (and the others who agree with you) interpretation of the rules is any weapon with the barrage special rule unable to kill anything out of line of site (despite the fact it can target it)?

Is Barrage useless?

Barrage is useless. As are smart missile systems and impaler cannons.

It's obvious how GW intended the rule to work. They just failed to address it in the rules.

And again, does that actually change what the rules say? No. It just proves that GW can't write clear, consistent rules. I'm not the one claiming that the rules say something that they don't just because it may make another rule appear to be 'useless'. If that happens, you fix it with a house rule instead of pretending the rules say something they don't say.

Don't shift the blame to GW, the rules are clear enough if one applies a modicum of common sense.

I think the problem with GW rules is that people forget the golden rule at the front of the book.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
The rules says that they can be wounded from out of line of site.

If they can be wounded then wounds can be allocated to them.

Indeed they can. Any wounds that are in the wound pool may be allocated to them.

How many wounds can be allocated if the wound pool is empty?




Your interpretation of the rules would make all barrage weapons useless.

Incorrect.

The wording is:

"Barrage can fire indirectly. this means they can fire at a target that they do not have line of sight to." (then it goes on about the scatter, just saying this so you know I am not cherry picking)

It then says in the second bullet point:

"to determine whether a unit is WOUNDED by a barrage weapon is allowed a cover save and WHEN DETERMINING WOUND ALLOCATION ALWAYS ASSUME THE SHOT IS COMING FROM THE CENTRE OF THE BLAST MARKER".

It does not say the shot draws line of site from the blast marker. therefore by your rules interpretation no line of site can be drawn and thus the wound pool is emptied and barrage is useless by your own argument.

If you're assuming the shot came from the centre of the marker, then that's where you draw LOS from... because you draw LOS from the origin of the shot.


I'm not really sure what you're hoping to prove with this line of argument, though. Most people are quite happy to agree that the interaction between Blast and Out of Sight is probably unintentional. Barrage being broken (or not) doesn't change that.

"WHEN DETERMINING WOUND ALLOCATION assume the shot came from the centre of the blast"

It states no where that line of site is involved.

It also states no where in the book that LOS is determined from the origin of the shot, it specifically says on every occasion that the LOS is drawn from the unit.

So using your line of reasoning stated earlier, a unit could declare its target using the barrage rule, but then the Out of Sight rule would kick in and so the wound pool would be dropped. So following your argument an entire category of weapons is rendered unusable.

What I am trying to prove is the argument you are using is obviously wrong and is detrimental to the game. And I am using barrage as my main evidence. Barrage being broken is absolutely key and changes the whole argument!

Its pretty convenient for all the people arguing for this line of thought to suddenly change course from "this is how the rule book says it should be played so everyone should be playing it this way" to "Well its GWs fault not mine" or "Most people play it that way anyway".

The reason why the line must be drawn here is because TFGs will try and use this messed up interpretation of the rules to ruin games. Ruining games puts people off the hobby which is a bad thing. I am not saying the rules are perfect and we are on the same page with the how the game SHOULD be played. But where we differ is you are defending this RAW mentality.

And specific overides basic.

"WHEN DETERMINING WOUND ALLOCATION assume the shot came from the centre of the blast"

Is more specific than the general Line of Sight rules

Fatboy, its honestly seems that you have no idea what you are arguing here.

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 problem with Barrage, Impaler Cannons and SMS is the underlined RULE. If there is no LOS from the firing unit to the target unit, then the wound pool empties. There are Zero wounds to allocate. Its a simple oversight in all their rules for weapons that can fire without LOS.

Sorry, I will summarise.

I am arguing that if a blast scatters from one target to one out of line of site then the out of site target can still be hurt.

Some people in the thread are arguing that the wound pool empties as nothing can be seen.

I am saying that the special rules for blast overrule the basic rule. I am using barrage weapons as a specific example to help prove my point, and was using the opposing argument against itself.

TL;DR: Specific does override basic, Therefore blasts and barrage can kill units out of line of site

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Sorry, I will summarise.

I am arguing that if a blast scatters from one target to one out of line of site then the out of site target can still be hurt.

Some people in the thread are arguing that the wound pool empties as nothing can be seen.

I am saying that the special rules for blast overrule the basic rule. I am using barrage weapons as a specific example to help prove my point, and was using the opposing argument against itself.

TL;DR: Specific does override basic, Therefore blasts and barrage can kill units out of line of site

Except nothing in the Blast rules overrides the rule about the wound pool emptying.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
"WHEN DETERMINING WOUND ALLOCATION assume the shot came from the centre of the blast"

It states no where that line of site is involved.

No, that's handled by the wound allocation rules themselves.

For wound allocation, you go from the centre of the marker. That means that all of the rules for wound allocation treat the centre of the marker as the origin of the shot. That will therefore include establishing LOS for the Out of Sight rule... because the Out of Sight rule is a part of the wound allocation rules.

What I am trying to prove is the argument you are using is obviously wrong and is detrimental to the game.

You're not establishing that, however. Even if we assume that your Barrage argument is correct (which it isn't), all you prove is that the rules are broken. It doesn't prove that people claiming that the rules are broken are incorrect... exactly the opposite, in fact.


You seem to be trying to argue from the position that the rules can't possibly contain a flaw, and so any argument that reveals a flaw must be incorrect. Which is a really, really odd way to approach a rules argument where 40K is concerned... because the rules are flawed.

Its pretty convenient for all the people arguing for this line of thought to suddenly change course from "this is how the rule book says it should be played so everyone should be playing it this way" to "Well its GWs fault not mine" or "Most people play it that way anyway".

Who are you referring to here? So far, there's been one poster in this thread who claims to actually play by the RAW for Blasts. And he's remained pretty consistent with his argument.

The reason why the line must be drawn here is because TFGs will try and use this messed up interpretation of the rules to ruin games. Ruining games puts people off the hobby which is a bad thing. I am not saying the rules are perfect and we are on the same page with the how the game SHOULD be played. But where we differ is you are defending this RAW mentality.

Of course I am. Because it's important for people to actually know when the way they are playing differs from the actual rules... precisely because it helps prevent shenanigans from that hypothetical TFG.

Far better for someone to be aware of the fact that the Blast rules are flawed, and that the way they are playing it is a house rule that fixes the situation, than to have the game derailed by a rules argument when they run into someone who does play by the rules as written, or who wants to apply the actual rules for their own purposes in game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
I am saying that the special rules for blast overrule the basic rule.

And it does.

The basic rule is that wounds have to be allocated to models in LOS.

The Blast rule over-rides that, by allowing you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS.

The Blast rule does not, however, address the Out of Sight rule at all. So Blast allows wounds in your wound pool to be allocated to models that are no in LOS. It has no effect on how many wounds are in your wound pool.

The rules only break when you try to break them, you are as bad as people arguing for a 2+ reanimate, by "RAW".

You are given specific permission to hit and wound enemies regardless of LOS.

Therefore, the wound pool clause That prevents you wounding someone due to LOS Is not in play.
It's how exceptions work.

You are busy assuming that "may be wounded" means "may have wounds from the wound pool allocated".
This is unsupported.

"may be wounded" means "it may be wounded."
You are not forced to empty the wound pool, as this is one of the issue preventing models from being wounded due to LOS .
And as such, is overridden.

This has nothing to do with imagniary wounds like you kept bringing up, as they prevent wounds due to lack of wounds.

When the wound pool naturally empties, that was caused naturally, and is not exempt to the rules, as it is not due to LOS.

harkequin wrote:

You are given specific permission to hit and wound enemies regardless of LOS.

Indeed you do. And so any wounds that you have in the wound pool can be assigned to enemy models regardless of LOS.

You are busy assuming that "may be wounded" means "may have wounds from the wound pool allocated".

Yes, indeed I am. Because that's how wounding from shooting attacks works.

"may be wounded" means "it may be wounded."

Yup. And being wounded by a shooting attack involves having a wound allocated from the wound pool.

You are not forced to empty the wound pool, as this is one of the issue preventing models from being wounded due to LOS .

And this is the crux of it, I think.

You're taking permission to assign wounds regardless of LOS as a binding prohibition on anything ever happening that might prevent a wound from being applied to a model that is out of LOS.

I'm taking permission to assign wounds regardless of LOS as permission to ignore the rule that says that wounds have to be assigned to models in LOS.

Insaniak, In regards to the barrage thing, I get what your saying and that's how I do play it. But you keep saying that when it comes to special rules the Out of Sight rule still applies (like with the Blast special rule). So how this would work for barrage:

1) A unit can target a unit it can not see.
2) It can assign wounds, which are coming from the centre of the blast.
3) But then, if the Out of Sight rule is not overruled, a model in the firing unit can not draw line of sight so the wound pool is emptied.

So yes, the origin of the shot is from the blast, but the Out of Sight special rule is not concerned with the origin of the shot, It is concerned with the models in the unit. Is that making sense?

So we can then apply the same thing to Blasts:

"Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To Wound and save as normal. Remember any wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special Rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it out of sight of any models from the attacking unit"

so following your line of thinking:

1) The blast scatters and hits a unit out of line of sight (pseudo barrage?)
2) wounds can be calculated
3) But then, if the Out of Sight rule is not overruled, a "model in the firing unit" can not draw line of sight so the wound pool is emptied as no wounds can be allocated.

I am arguing that the Out of Sight basic rule is overruled by the special rules.

Therefore the steps involved would be:

Barrage:
1) Target unit out of line of sight.
2) Resolve how many wounds are caused.
3) Out of Sight is overruled due the Barrage special rule, as it allows you to assign wounds from the wound pool to a unit out of LOS.
4) Wounds from the pool can be allocated.

Blast:
1) Blast Scatters from one unit to an Out of Sight target.
2) Resolve how many wounds are caused.
3) Out of Sight is overruled due the Blast special rule, as it allows you to assign wounds from the wound pool to a unit out of LOS.
4) Wounds from the pool can be allocated

. And being wounded by a shooting attack involves having a wound allocated from the wound pool.

I am being allowed to allocate a wound from the wound pool using the special rule.

The special rules we are talking about specifically state the wounds from the "Wound Pool" may be allocated to units out of Line of sight. Therefore Line of Sight special rule is overridden and no longer in play when resolving wound allocation.

Out of sight states "if none of the firing models can draw LINE OF SIGHT". As line of sight is being specifically being overridden due to the special rules, the Out of Sight basic rule is also no longer in play (as the rule it is based on and directly worded around is not in play).

So playing RAW actually does allow you to allocate wounds to units out of line of site due to barrage and blast special rules.

Except nothing in the Blast rules overrides the rule about the wound pool emptying.

Blast (page 158):

"each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker EVEN IF THOSE MODELS ARE OUT OF LINE OF SIGHT" - Line of sight basic rule overridden in this sentence.
"Remember that any wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast Special rule MUST BE ALLOCATED to the closet model in the unit EVEN OF IT IS OUT OF LINE OF SIGHT OF ANY MODELS FROM THE ATTACKING UNIT" - this stops the pool from emptying as wounds are allowed to be allocated.

As line of sight is being specifically being overridden due to the special rules, the Out of Sight basic rule is also no longer in play (as the rule it is based on and directly worded around is not in play).
I am allowed to allocate wounds from the pool, regardless of line of sight.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
So yes, the origin of the shot is from the blast, but the Out of Sight special rule is not concerned with the origin of the shot, It is concerned with the models in the unit.

All Line of Sight is concerned with the models in the unit. Barrage changes that for the purposes of wound allocation. Out of Sight is a function of the wound allocation rules.

I am arguing that the Out of Sight basic rule is overruled by the special rules.

Yes, you are. But the only reason you have provided for this to be the case is 'the rules don't work otherwise'... which is precisely the point being made by the other side of the argument as well.

The special rules we are talking about specifically state the wounds from the "Wound Pool" may be allocated to units out of Line of sight. Therefore Line of Sight special rule is overridden and no longer in play when resolving wound allocation.

Except that the rule in question doesn't say that any rule that has anything whatsoever to do with LOS is ignored. It just says that you can allocate a wound regardless of Line of Sight.

In order to allocate a wound, you need to have a wound to allocate.

Which you don't, because the wound pool empties the moment there are no models visible to the firing unit.

I was going to use some Mek Gunz but now I'm totally confused. What are the two sides of the argument?

Pro being you allocate wounds and remove casualities as normal as Blast rules override LOS?
Con being the wound pool empties as there is no LOS?

 Frozocrone wrote:
I was going to use some Mek Gunz but now I'm totally confused. What are the two sides of the argument?

Pro being you allocate wounds and remove casualities as normal as Blast rules override LOS?
Con being the wound pool empties as there is no LOS?

More accurately:
Pro being you allocate wounds and remove casualities as normal as Blast rules override LOS?
Con being you allocate wounds and remove casualities as normal as Blast rules override LOS... you just have no wounds to allocate unless at least one model in the target unit is visible, as otherwise the wound pool empties.

However, the vast majority (at least going by this and previous discussions on this topic) of people who argue that the 'con' side is the RAW will also say that this is most likely not how it's supposed to work, and will play that you ignore the Out of Sight rule for anything that can allocate wounds to models out of LOS.

Ahh so it's a RAI thing then. Best to clear with opponent if you ever come across it then

Except that the rule in question doesn't say that any rule that has anything whatsoever to do with LOS is ignored. It just says that you can allocate a wound regardless of Line of Sight.

******It just says that you can allocate a wound regardless of Line of Sight******

So line of site IS being disregarded. And a Wound can be Allocated.

In order to allocate a wound, you need to have a wound to allocate.

Page 158: "Any wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast Special rule MUST BE ALLOCATED to the closet model in the target unit"

I have no choice. I must allocate the wound. This is my override of the basic rule. This is my wound that I need to allocate.

"even if it is OUT OF SIGHT of any models from the attacking unit"

It even uses the name of rule that is being overridden.

This is my clause to disregard line of sight and viability, so RAW Out of Sight Rule is not in play, as whilst it is in the Wound Allocation Rules, is it is a rule clearly based on visibility and LOS.