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.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

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.

******regardless of Line of Sight.******

So line of site IS being disregarded.

For allocating wounds to models, yes.

But you don't have any wounds to allocate, because the wound pool is empty.


If I have a rule saying that I can't wear blue hats on Sundays, and then I gain a rule that says that I can ignore that first rule if I also wear a matching cravat... I still won't be able to wear a blue hat on Sunday if I take all of my blue hats out into the yard first thing Sunday morning and set fire to them. I don't have any blue hats to wear... Just a rule that would allow me to wear one if I had one.

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.

That argument would prevent the Out of Sight Rule from ever applying, since you're always required to allocate wounds from the wound pool.


The problem is the ' at any time ' part of the Out of Sight Rule. If you have no visible models, you don't get as far as the part where you're allocating the wounds. They disappear before you get there.

"EVEN IF IT IS OUT OF SIGHT OF ANY MODELS FROM THE ATTACKING UNIT"

There is my clause to disregard line of sight and viability, so RAW Out of Sight Rule is not in play,

Except it's not. It's a clause that let's you allocate wounds to models that are out of sight. Nothing more.

For allocating wounds to models, yes.

But you don't have any wounds to allocate, because the wound pool is empty.


If I have a rule saying that I can't wear blue hats on Sundays, and then I gain a rule that says that I can ignore that first rule if I also wear a matching cravat... I still won't be able to wear a blue hat on Sunday if I take all of my blue hats out into the yard first thing Sunday morning and set fire to them. I don't have any blue hats to wear... Just a rule that would allow me to wear one if I had one.

Except at this point the wound pool is full.

You roll to hit, then wound and then you have the wound pool, then you allocate wounds. You don't allocate wounds then generate a wound pool, I have to have the pool before I can lose it. You don't burn all the hats first, first you get the hats.

That argument would prevent the Out of Sight Rule from ever applying, since you're always required to allocate wounds from the wound pool.

No. It only stops in in this case because Out of sight is not in play.
Normally it would go hit, wound, generate pool, cannot allocate because of out of sight, wounds lost.
instead it goes: hit, wound, generate pool, MUST allocate regardless of line of site or out of sight, resolve causalities.

Before you say "where does it say disregard line of site or out of sight?" I direct you (again) to page 158 of the main rule book:

"each unit suffers one hit for each of their models which is fully or partially beneath the blast marker, even if those models are not within the firer's LINE OF SIGHT (first basic rule discarded). Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, Roll To Wound and save as normal. Remember that an Wounds inflicted by weapons with the blast special rule must be allocated to the closet model in the target unit even if it OUT OF SIGHT of any models from the attacking unit (second basic rule discarded)."

The problem is the ' at any time ' part of the Out of Sight Rule. If you have no visible models, you don't get as far as the part where you're allocating the wounds. They disappear before you get there.

It does not say in the book "at any time". Also its not 'if any part of the rule is in play then the whole rule is in play'. It is 'if the whole rule is in pay then it is in play'. Every criteria for the rule must be in play for it to be active. Otherwise a player could say "well I can see my target but i'm not range, but as part of the rule is in play the whole rule kicks in" ( page 30, Choose a target: You must check range and line of site from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting).

And in this instance I have provided full quotes and evidence that disregards both parts that make up the out of sight rule anyway.

Except it's not. It's a clause that let's you allocate wounds to models that are out of sight. Nothing more.

Basic rule says: You need line of site to allocate rule.
Special rule says: You do not need line of site to allocate wounds.
Result special rule overrides basic, the model has wounds allocated to it, it gets to then make a saving throw after wounds have been allocated to it.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Except at this point the wound pool is full.

You roll to hit, then wound and then you have the wound pool, then you allocate wounds. You don't allocate wounds then generate a wound pool, I have to have the pool before I can lose it. You don't burn all the hats first, first you get the hats.

That's correct. But it's only at that last step that you're actually dealing with models.

You roll to hit against the unit.
You roll to wound against the unit, which generates a wound pool.
You then allocate wounds to individual models, starting with the nearest model in range and LOS.

The only change that Blast makes to that process is in the last step - by allowing you to allocate wounds to models out of LOS.

But as soon as you have a wound pool, you're going to have to apply Out of Sight. So it will kick in before you get to allocating wounds to models... and so will also therefore apply before any rule that modifies how those wounds are allocated to models.

No. It only stops in in this case because Out of sight is not in play.
Normally it would go hit, wound, generate pool, cannot allocate because of out of sight, wounds lost.
instead it goes: hit, wound, generate pool, MUST allocate regardless of line of site or out of sight, resolve causalities.

You've missed the point here. The normal rules also say that you MUST allocate the wounds. So if you're claiming that a statement that you 'must' allocate the wounds means that you ignore Out of Sight, then Out of Sight is always ignored.

Basic rule says: You need line of site to allocate rule.
Special rule says: You do not need line of site to allocate wounds.
Result special rule overrides basic, the model has wounds allocated to it, it gets to then make a saving throw after wounds have been allocated to it.

Yes, that's exactly how it works, as I've been saying all along.

That has no effect whatsoever on the Out of Sight rule.

You keep ignoring the fact that it actually says in the book regardless of OUT OF SITE.

I guess I will have to keep posting it until you actually read it:

page 158, paragraph 4: Once the number of hits has been worked out, roll to wound and save as normal. Remember hat any wounds inflicted by weapons with the blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF IT IS *****OUT OF SIGHT***** OF ANY MODEL FROM THE ATTACKING UNIT".

How many times do I have to post the same thing, It literally says regardless of the out of site rule!

You've missed the point here. The normal rules also say that you MUST allocate the wounds. So if you're claiming that a statement that you 'must' allocate the wounds means that you ignore Out of Sight, then Out of Sight is always ignored.

No you have missed the point.
In the normal rules its says you must allocate the wounds to the nearest model, but that you also need to apply the out of site rule. So out of site is in effect.
The special rule says that must allocate the wounds to the nearest model, BUT THE OUT OF SITE RULE IS NOT IN EFFECT. It is the whole purpose of the special rule! it is different to a normal rule, an exception!

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
You keep ignoring the fact that it actually says in the book regardless of OUT OF SITE.

If by 'ignoring' you mean 'address repeatedly' then yes, I guess I do.

I guess I will have to keep posting it until you actually read it:

page 158, paragraph 4: Once the number of hits has been worked out, roll to wound and save as normal. Remember hat any wounds inflicted by weapons with the blast special rule must be allocated to the closest model in the target unit EVEN IF IT IS *****OUT OF SIGHT***** OF ANY MODEL FROM THE ATTACKING UNIT".

How many times do I have to post the same thing, It literally says regardless of the out of site rule!

You can post it as many times as you like, it still won't mean what you're trying to make it mean.

That rule means that wounds can be assigned even if the model is out of sight.

It has no effect whatsoever on whether or not there are wounds to assign. You are given no permission to ignore the Out of Sight rule, only permission to allocate to models that are not in LOS.

In the normal rules its says you must allocate the wounds to the nearest model, but that you also need to apply the out of site rule.

Which would leave you with a problem, if your claim that 'must allocate' trumps everything else was correct.

The wording is very specific in the book.

Page 158:

The third paragraph uses the words "line of sight"

The forth paragraph uses the words "out of site"

Clearly this is saying that the line of sight rule and out of site rule are not in play. Otherwise they would say line of sight in both paragraphs.


I am not saying it always trumps everything. I am saying that this special rule has the exact wording that allows it to trump the basic rules.

The out of site rule is the entire paragraph under the heading of "out of sight"

"Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and it 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."

So you see, if a rule says "even if out of sight" then it ignores the ENTIRE paragraph, including the part where you empty the wound pool.

The out of site rule is the entire paragraph under the heading of "out of sight"

"Out of Sight
If none of the firing models can draw line of sight to a particular model in the target unit, then wounds cannot be allocated to it, and it 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."

So you see, if a rule says "even if out of sight" then it ignores the ENTIRE paragraph, including the part where you empty the wound pool.

Thank you!

It does not use "Out of Sight", which would reference the rule. It states "out of sight".

There is still no allowance, none, to ignore the requirement to empty the wound pool. If there was it would, have been posted by now.

Page 158: even if it is out of site of any models from the attacking unit.

page 35: if none of the firing models can draw line a line of sight to the target unit.

Seems pretty clear to me that I have an allowance.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Page 158: even if it is out of site of any models from the attacking unit.

page 35: if none of the firing models can draw line a line of sight to the target unit.

Seems pretty clear to me that I have an allowance.

Except it is not an allowance to keep wounds in the wound pool, as the Out of Sight rule will still apply and empty the wound pool before you get to the allocate wounds step.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Page 158: even if it is out of site of any models from the attacking unit.

page 35: if none of the firing models can draw line a line of sight to the target unit.

Seems pretty clear to me that I have an allowance.

Yes... an allowance to allocate wounds to models that are out of sight.

Not an allowance to ignore the Out of Sight rule. Just the rule requiring LOS in order to allocate wounds.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
Page 158: even if it is out of site of any models from the attacking unit.

page 35: if none of the firing models can draw line a line of sight to the target unit.

Seems pretty clear to me that I have an allowance.

SIGHT, not "site". Seriously.

Wondrous selective quoting. Now read what it refers to. Oh look, allocating a wound vs emptying the wound pool. Something you do before allocating a wound to a model.

Before citing quotes, please debate honestly by including the entire rule, and not quoting parts that at the surface appear to support your contention.

The case is proven. Continue arguing in circles if you want, but you have yet to address the actual rules in any meaningful way.

Wondrous selective quoting. Now read what it refers to. Oh look, allocating a wound vs emptying the wound pool. Something you do before allocating a wound to a model.

Before citing quotes, please debate honestly by including the entire rule, and not quoting parts that at the surface appear to support your contention.

If you read my other posts, I have actually time and time again quoted the whole rule.

I'm just getting tired of butting my head against a brick wall.

This is what this debate has come down to:

You guys: It doesnt say you ignore the out of site rule.
I Say: Look at the rule, it uses the exact wording and name of the rule I can overrule.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore.
I say: It does, and it even uses the wording from the out of sight rule in the special rule, referring to firing model visibility.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore.
I say:It uses the names of both rules. Look see, here is the page number and exact quote.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore.
I say: But it does!
You say: no it doesn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

The case is proven. Continue arguing in circles if you want, but you have yet to address the actual rules in any meaningful way.

I am using page numbers, multiple quotes and other examples. You guys are just saying "nah".

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

This is what this debate has come down to:

You guys: It doesnt say you ignore the out of site rule.
I Say: Look at the rule, it uses the exact wording and name of the rule I can overrule.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore.
I say: It does, and it even uses the wording from the out of sight rule in the special rule, referring to firing model visibility.
You say: but it doesn't say which rule to ignore..

Not saying which rule to ignore is not the issue. Nobody has claimed that.

The issue is that it tells you to ignore the rule that requires LOS for wound allocation, not the rule that empties the wound pool if there are no visible models.



Yes, you're quoting rules... But then you're trying to claim that they say something that they don't.

But if we've come this far and you are still completely misunderstood the opposing argument, I'm not sure that there is anything to be gained by continuing here.

I understand the opposing argument.

Your saying "yes line of site is no longer needed for wound allocation, but the wound pool empties as there are no visible models so the out of site rule kicks in".

I am saying that the 4th paragraph on page 158 specifically uses the words "out of site" and "visible models" as a means of letting a player ignore the out of site rule, which is the only rule causing the wound pool to empty.

I am not trying to make a rule mean something it doesn't, I am trying to say that the wording is very specifically laid out in the order it is to make it clear that both the LOS rule and the OOS rule are being overrulled.

As line of site is the first rule that must be over ridden that one is addressed first out of the 2, in the 3rd paragraph. This allows a player to allocate wounds we would normally not be allowed to.

The second rule that must be over ridden is the out of sight when following the sequence of events that allows you to remove enemy models, it is purposely mentioned 2nd out of the 2 rules, as it is second in the sequence of events that normally restrict the number of casualties you can inflict.

Using the words 'out of sight' and actually referencing the 'Out of Sight' rule are not the same thing.

And we disagree. No-one is changing their mind on the subject and no new argument has been put forward in the last few pages.

HIWPI is the same as HYWPI, but it's a house rule. Simple as that

Using the words 'out of sight' and actually referencing the 'Out of Sight' rule are not the same thing.

I know.

I am saying look at the wording in both rules (not using full quote because I have already done that 3-4 times).

Blast: even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
OOS: if there are no visible models in the target unit.

The words in Blast are the counter/opposite to words in OOS.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
I know.

I am saying look at the wording in both rules (not using full quote because I have already done that 3-4 times).

Blast: even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
OOS: if there are no visible models in the target unit.

The words in Blast are the counter/opposite to words in OOS.

And that's exactly the problem with not using the full quote.

The fact that the Blast rule uses the words 'out of sight' does not, in any way, change the context provided by the rest of the rule. It is a rule that applies to allocating wounds from the wound pool. So it affects the allocation of wounds from the wound pool.

It doesn't affect whether or not you have wounds in the wound pool to allocate. Just the way those wounds are allocated, if they exist.

But it also says roll To Wound and save as normal . Which is the next part of the shooting phase directly after Out of Sight.

Why would it mention your opponent getting to make his saving roll if he hasn't got any saves to make due to the wound pool emptying?

Any way I got work soon. Gonna have to pick this up in a bit.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

Why would it mention your opponent getting to make his saving roll if he hasn't got any saves to make due to the wound pool emptying?

Because enemy units aren't always out of sight...?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Out of Sight apples to a specific situation. If that situation doesn't arise, you allocate wounds and roll saves.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:
But it also says roll To Wound and save as normal . Which is the next part of the shooting phase directly after Out of Sight.

Why would it mention your opponent getting to make his saving roll if he hasn't got any saves to make due to the wound pool emptying?

Because there are situations where a wound from a blast weapon would be able to be allocated to a model out of line of sight without the wound pool being emptied beforehand?

If there are models from the target unit in line of sight but the closest model is out of line of sight, and wounds from a Blast weapon are being allocated to models in that unit then "Out of Sight" is not triggered, the wound pool is not emptied and wounds from the Blast weapon can be allocated to models out of line of sight, as allowed by the Blast rules.

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

Using the words 'out of sight' and actually referencing the 'Out of Sight' rule are not the same thing.

I know.

I am saying look at the wording in both rules (not using full quote because I have already done that 3-4 times).

Blast: even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
OOS: if there are no visible models in the target unit.

The words in Blast are the counter/opposite to words in OOS.

But not when you included the context. You know, the point you were asked to include the entire rule when arguing, because it's key? That bit says you ignore line of sight when allocating wounds

It does not state you ignore line of sight when seeing if the wound pool empties. As such Out of Sight, the rule, kicks in, and the pool empties. The blast rule would then allocate wounds, but there are none left.

It's unit vs model you're not getting here. Out of Sight refers to unit and models, and you're ignoring that distinction.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FatBoyNoSlim wrote:

Using the words 'out of sight' and actually referencing the 'Out of Sight' rule are not the same thing.

I know.

I am saying look at the wording in both rules (not using full quote because I have already done that 3-4 times).

Blast: even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit.
OOS: if there are no visible models in the target unit.

The words in Blast are the counter/opposite to words in OOS.

But not when you included the context. You know, the point you were asked to include the entire rule when arguing, because it's key? That bit says you ignore line of sight when allocating wounds

It does not state you ignore line of sight when seeing if the wound pool empties. As such Out of Sight, the rule, kicks in, and the pool empties. The blast rule would then allocate wounds, but there are none left.

It's unit vs model you're not getting here. Out of Sight refers to unit and models, and you're ignoring that distinction.

It does not say you ignore LOS when allocating wounds either .
The blast rule makes no mention of allocating wounds. You are assuming that when it says "wounds" it means "allocates wounds from the wound pool". You need to support this, where does it say that this only applies to the step of allocating wounds from the wound pool, rather than all of wounding.

You may wound regardless of LOS.
Therefore, any clause that prevents you from wounding because of line of sight is overridden.
This includes being forced to empty the wound pool , which prevents you wounding models because of LOS
It also includes not being able to allocate wounds to someone because they are out of LOS

I refer you to units vs models

The on,y time you are wounding models is at the allocation step. All steps before that are unit level actions.

You are required to prove otherwise.

You are thinking of the real world definition of "wounding"

The Process of wounding in the BRB goes;

1. roll to wound
2. put successful wounds in the wound pool
3. allocate wounds to models

the "wounding" that is allowed to ignore LOS step 1


Yes, it's stupid. No, I will never play it that way. But this is an argument you can't win.

Units are made up of models. The point still stands.

Does being forced to empty the wound pool, prevent you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

If so, then you are not forced to empty the wound pool, as it is overridden by your permission to wound them even if they are out of line of sight.

I would like to bring back the subject of Barrage again though.

the Barrage rule specifies using the centre of the blast as the source of the shot for granting cover saves and wound allocation only. I can't see where it overrides the same Out Of Sight rule we are currently discussing

can someone tell me what i'm missing?

 jokerkd wrote:
You are thinking of the real world definition of "wounding"

The Process of wounding in the BRB goes;

1. roll to wound
2. put successful wounds in the wound pool
3. allocate wounds to models

the "wounding" that is allowed to ignore LOS step 1


Yes, it's stupid. No, I will never play it that way. But this is an argument you can't win.

Step 1 never required line of sight, only 2 and 3 ever did.
I know your argument, I'm pointing out that the RAW actually holds up in this situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jokerkd wrote:
I would like to bring back the subject of Barrage again though.

the Barrage rule specifies using the centre of the blast as the source of the shot for granting cover saves and wound allocation only. I can see where it overrides the same Out Of Sight rule we are currently discussing

can someone tell me what i'm missing?

You would have to treat it the same as blasts ie. You are never told that for the purposes of emptying the wound pool, consider the firing unit to be the centre of the blast.

You are told in out of sight "if no model from the firing unit has sight" , this doesn't care for where the shot came from, just the unit that fired it.