Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was shooting with my riptide at an avatar, in the face! he was behind a hill, and next to him, not visible to the riptide was 3 Eldar jetbikes! which also was under the large blast

I scored a hit, and was about to roll for him and the not visible jetbikes, when my mate claimed that the jetbikes couldnt be hit, since I didnt see them..

Uhm well, what you guys think ??

he also said that, if I had scatterd just an inch, they would be hit!

Seems dodgy to me!:shok:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Blasts that travel out of LOS and range still cause wounds. It's in the USR section under Blast methinks.

Pg.33, top right paragraph.
 

·
WFB Moderator
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
well I would like to post the FAQ entry that solves this... but I can't.

Anyway, the most recent BRB FAQ says that ordnance/blast/large blast wounds should be kept in their own pool as they can kill models out of LoS. That means you have to target a visible model but can hit everything under the template.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Yeah imagine it like the wind curving the really heavy explosive shell around a corner - that's some dam strong wind :grin:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
Blasts that travel out of LOS and range still cause wounds. It's in the USR section under Blast methinks.

Pg.33, top right paragraph.
Thing is, in this instance the Blast didn't scatter and by the RAW the wounds going to models out of LoS is only when it scatters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Thing is, in this instance the Blast didn't scatter and by the RAW the wounds going to models out of LoS is only when it scatters.
"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"

"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker."

Nothing about it not being allowed if it doesn't scatter. Only that you must find out how many wounds are cause after it does, if it does. Unless you have found something that states specifically that wounds are not allocated out of LoS or range when it doesn't scatter you've got no argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
The FAQ mate. Tim/Steve already said this, and it fits your requirement as it is not specific to scattering. The FAQ says if the weapon has the blast/large blast special rule wounds can be allocated to models out of LOS. Scatter or not, since the weapon has the Large Blast it can ALWAYS hit and wound (and yes even cause wounds, and cause wounds to be allocated to) models it cannot see.

Not to mention, I am all for RAW but I think this splitting hairs thing is a little ridiculous.
 

·
WFB Moderator
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
Page33 Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight
Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”
Hope that solves things... when I copied it in I had every space replaced with line breaks. Such a pain to fix.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Wounds from a blast damage everything underneath the template, with or without scattering, with or without LoS and range.



I NTaW hereby agree with the above statement and think anyone who says otherwise is silly and pissed about getting ran by templates.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
"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"

"Once the final position of the blast marker has been determined, take a good look at it from above - the unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially beneath the blast marker."

Nothing about it not being allowed if it doesn't scatter. Only that you must find out how many wounds are cause after it does, if it does. Unless you have found something that states specifically that wounds are not allocated out of LoS or range when it doesn't scatter you've got no argument.
I'm not actually arguing I am stating the case that the guy you were playing was making, I have seen it argued quite often, usually when something valuable is about to die !

There is no requirement for a statement to be made in that rule to prohibit wounds being allocated to models out of LoS because that is the general case with all weapons.

The key to it is "In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight"

Which restricts hitting and wounding out of LoS it to "these cases"

The FAQ does more or less solve it though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
I'm going to jump on the thread and derail it for a second here.

How do I calculate the cover save for a unit that is hit while out of LoS? Non-barrage weapons still counts cover relative to the shooting unit rather than the centre, so how much cover save does a unit have if the shooting model can't see it at all?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
I'm going to jump on the thread and derail it for a second here.

How do I calculate the cover save for a unit that is hit while out of LoS? Non-barrage weapons still counts cover relative to the shooting unit rather than the centre, so how much cover save does a unit have if the shooting model can't see it at all?
The level of cover doesn't vary.

It just has to obscure 25% OR MORE of the model, so 100% would still yield the same cover save.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
What about vehcles then the amount there obscured by effects there cover right 25 percent 5 up 50 percent 4 up etc so 100 percent would give?
 

·
WFB Moderator
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
What about vehcles then the amount there obscured by effects there cover right 25 percent 5 up 50 percent 4 up etc so 100 percent would give?
They get a save for being 25% obsurred, which is improved by 1pt if you have to switch to fire at another facing because the one you want to hit isn't visible.
In this case you aren't changing what part of the vehicle you are shooting at (you aren't hitting the wrong facing) so I don' think you would get any improvement on the basic cover save: the blast is going through the cover itself, not trying to guide its path around the edge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
They get a save for being 25% obsurred, which is improved by 1pt if you have to switch to fire at another facing because the one you want to hit isn't visible.
In this case you aren't changing what part of the vehicle you are shooting at (you aren't hitting the wrong facing) so I don' think you would get any improvement on the basic cover save: the blast is going through the cover itself, not trying to guide its path around the edge.
This. Since the blast marker can hit what is out of LOS there is no need to aim at a different facing so no bonus to the cover save.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
"This. Since the blast marker can hit what is out of LOS there is no need to aim at a different facing so no bonus to the cover save."

No that's not quite right. If all the model firing the blast could see was the side of a vehicle that was otherwise facing the firer directly it would get the cover bonus. What Tim/Steve is saying is that being totally out of sight doesn't improve the save.

That's because it isn't an extreme angle shot, you cover save doesn't get better depending on the amount covered once you have the initial 25%.
 

·
WFB Moderator
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
yeah, if you can see the wrong facing, even with a blast weapon the cover save is at +1... its a weird little side effect of the rules that if you can't see any of the target they don't get the +1 (according to my understanding).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
yeah, if you can see the wrong facing, even with a blast weapon the cover save is at +1... its a weird little side effect of the rules that if you can't see any of the target they don't get the +1 (according to my understanding).
Yep I go with that. I think the idea is that if you can see a little bit of the side you'd shoot at that but it would be at an oblique angle which will make it more likely to glance off. If you can't see it at all you're just shooting through the cover itself as you said before.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top