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:
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.

Sigh. No, the point remains defeated. As in, your argument is refuted at every step, by the same lack of understanding on your part.

The unit is out of sight. You empty the wound pool. You may now allocate any wounds to models out of line of sight - the actual permission given, not your entire rewrite of rules - but have none. All rules satisfied, none broken.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

harkequin wrote:
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.

Sigh. No, the point remains defeated. As in, your argument is refuted at every step, by the same lack of understanding on your part.

The unit is out of sight. You empty the wound pool. You may now allocate any wounds to models out of line of sight - the actual permission given, not your entire rewrite of rules - but have none. All rules satisfied, none broken.

I can say the exact same about you. Here you keep assuming that it means "allocating wounds from the wound pool" when you have no support for it. I have provided points for mine.

The unit is out of sight. You empty the wound pool.

Bold prevents you wounding models. Under lined is why it is done. You are being prevented from wounding models, because they are out of line of sight.
This is literally the exact situation we have permission to override.

Please answer the question to help me see where we are misreading the situation compared to each other.
Does being forced to empty the wound pool, prevent you from wounding models because they are out of line of sight?

No, again at the point you are emptying the pool, you are not doing anything with models

You are considering the unit

The unit is not the same thing as models. There is a clue in the different words used.

Emptying the wound pool because the unit is out of sight has no bearing on wounding models. Because you aren't wounding models

You cannot say the same about me, as I'm not changing words and rules to suit my viewpoint. Im simply showing the two steps to out of sight has only one override in the blasts rule.

You cannot say the same about me, as I'm not changing words and rules to suit my viewpoint. Im simply showing the two steps to out of sight has only one override in the blasts rule.

Every time you brought up wound allocation you were changing words.

Does being forced to empty the wound pool prevent you from wounding models?

If you have wounds in the pool, you can wound models. If you are forced to empty the pool , you can no longer wound them.

This has prevented you from wounding models.
Do you agree with this section?

Are you forced to empty the pool due to models being out of LOS ? Yes.

Therefore, you are being prevented from wounding this group of models, because this group of models is out of line of sight.

Whether this group happens to be a unit or not makes no difference to the scenario.

As it stands. If you are forced to empty the wound pool, it prevents you wounding them. It is done because of LOS.

This is changing words to point out how the exception works. You may hit and wound models even if they are out of LOS.

I don't know how to make it clearer than what I wrote earlier.

You may wound regardless of LOS.
Therefore, any clause that prevents you from wounding models 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 models because they are out of LOS

harkequin wrote:
Does being forced to empty the wound pool prevent you from wounding models?

Yes, because you don't have any wounds to allocate to the models.

So being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding. Okay.

This is forced by the models being out of LOS, correct?

Now if we put the two together, we get.

The models are prevented from being wounded ( by the wound pool being auto emptied) because they are out of LOS (why the wound pool is emptied).

We are given specific permission to wound regardless of LOS. As such, because the bold (the prevention) is contingent on underlined (the reason), then it is overridden by the exception.

Since we have permission to wound models regardless of LOS.

If there is something that prevents us from wounding a model because they are out of LOS. We have permission to ignore it.
Do you agree with the last paragraph?

harkequin wrote:
So being forced to empty the wound pool prevents you wounding. Okay.

This is forced by the models being out of LOS, correct?

Now if we put the two together, we get.

The models are prevented from being wounded ( by the wound pool being auto emptied) because they are out of LOS (why the wound pool is emptied).

We are given specific permission to wound regardless of LOS. As such, because the bold (the prevention) is contingent on underlined (the reason), then it is overridden by the exception.

Since we have permission to wound models regardless of LOS.

If there is something that prevents us from wounding a model because they are out of LOS. We have permission to ignore it.
Do you agree with the last paragraph?

That is incorrect, your correlation is forced and the Out of sight rule is not overriden. As Nos and others have proven with rules.

Point out how it is incorrect or forced. We literally have an exception. People are forcing the rule to break by saying, the rule only overrides half of the rule it overrides.

The correlation is in no way forced.

We are allowed to wound regardless of LOS.
Therefore, any rule that prevents wounding due to LOS is not in effect.
How on earth is that forced?

You can't wound models if the wound pool is empty. Why the wound pool is empty doesn't matter. Barrage does not allow you to keep wounds in the wound pool if there are no models in line of sight.

 Ghaz wrote:
You can't wound models if the wound pool is empty. Why the wound pool is empty doesn't matter. Barrage does not allow you to keep wounds in the wound pool if there are no models in line of sight.

And why is the wound pool emptied? LoS, yes? The emptying of the wound pool is contingent on LoS not existing, so something that ignores the LoS restrictions would then ignore the emptying of the wound pool do to no LoS.

Every rule in the out of sight section is ignored because the blast rule says "even if it is out of sight of any models in the attacking unit" which includes the loss of wounds in the wound pool. Oddly enough, you can still be out of range from a blast weapon. Barrage literally replaces the firing model with the center of the blast marker.

No. The wound pool doesn't care if there are models that can have wounds allocated to it or not. All it cares about is if you have line of sight, with no exceptions listed. No line of sight, and the wound pool empties even if there would be models that those wounds could be allocated to.

Since we're back to people making gak up - that "quote" above, for example, it's time to call this one.

The actual written rules are clear. Some will try anything to break them.

 Ghaz wrote:
No. The wound pool doesn't care if there are models that can have wounds allocated to it or not. All it cares about is if you have line of sight, with no exceptions listed. No line of sight, and the wound pool empties even if there would be models that those wounds could be allocated to.

Because the exception is listed in the rules for blast and barrage. They don't care about the out of sight rule, or the LoS rule. As these ignore these rules then they beat out the empty the wound pool rule, which is in the out of sight rule, which is ignored. You can not put the end effect of a rule before the beginning of the rule, you know the part that is ignored.

They don't ignore the Out of Sight rule (note the precise reference there) , it ignores the requirement for the model allocated to to be in line of sight. Out of Sight, the rule, is not referenced. The line is "out of sight", and is very specific in the permission granted.

Two rules within Out of Sight. Blast ignores only the one stated. Nothing else. As proven, every other post.

Out of range has the same rule.

And barrage does not say the firing model is the centre of the blast. It specifically says that you use the centre for determining cover saves and wound allocation only. Therefore, though it can hit a unit that is completely out of sight, it then would suffer the same emptying of the wound pool as a normal blast.

By this point, it would appear that all of the available ground has been well and truly trampled. Time to give it a rest, as everyone is just repeating the same points now.