Are units out of LOS eligible to receive wounds from blasts

[pie zuri]

This one has been hotly contested on Dakka and I've come here to find out what people feel here.

If you shoot a unit out of Line of Sight with a blast weapon can you allocate those wounds to models out of LOS.

An example involves a blast scattering onto a unit completely out of LOS of the firing unit. Assuming wounds got rolled can you than allocate them to those models.

The RAW seems to indicate you can roll to wound them, but in the end, normal allocation happens and nothing outside of LOS can be allocated and the wounds are discarded.

The argument that has erupted is over the wording in the blast rules that says scattering blasts can hit and wound units outside of range and LOS. Does this supersede the part that says to allocate the wounds as normal.

I'm under the impression that blast wounds don't affect units out of LOS. Though enough people there feel differently about it claiming at the very least that the intention of the wording says those wounds should be allocated.

What do you guys feel is the right way to play this?

[DrLove42]

Blast weapons no matter where they hit, wound from the front. So a unit half hidden will still wound the guys who can be seen.

If its a barrage it wounds from the middle of the blast. And therefore wounds the models underneath it even if theyre behind a wall

If its a normal blast it scatters onto a completly hidden...i guess it can still wound them, removing the models closest to the firer first

[evilamericorp]

Of course they can. The blast rules spell out very clearly that they can hit and wound things out of LOS. Why is this even a question?

[pie zuri]

Of course they can. The blast rules spell out very clearly that they can hit and wound things out of LOS. Why is this even a question?

The reason it's a question is that based on interpretation you can say that the rule gave you permission to hit and wound the unit (which you got to do) but isn't explicit in telling you to change anything in the wound allocation step. It does tell you afterward to allocate wounds as normal.

If any of the models had been in LOS they would have gotten the wounds even if the blast hadn't touched them specifically.

[DarkLink]

I believe you are 100% correct, blasts can't kill anything out of LOS.

If you have trouble envisioning why, remember the projectile causing the blast still comes from the shooter, and thus hits the LOS blocking terrain before hitting the target it scattered onto.


Of course they can. The blast rules spell out very clearly that they can hit and wound things out of LOS. Why is this even a question?

Barrage rules do. Not blast rules.

[Bean]

Off hand, I think I agree with Darklink on this one.

Also, as the OP points out, even if the rules for blast weapons do allow you to hit and wound units out of LOS (I'm not sure--I haven't checked) they would also have to modify the wound allocation rules to allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS--and I'm pretty sure they don't.

Just allowing you to hit and wound is not sufficient. You must be allowed to hit, wound, and then allocate wounds. All three are required, and the absence of any is sufficient to make the unit immune.

edit:

So, here are the relevant rules for blast weapons:



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. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat.)

....

Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked out, roll To Wound and save as normal. Any unsaved Wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.


So, looks like the OP is correct. You can hit and wound units that are not in your line of sight. However, you still cannot allocate wounds to models that are not in your line of sight, so any wounds you inflict on such a unit are discarded and have no effect.

That's the RAW.

Seems pretty clear to me that they wanted you to be able to kill guys you couldn't see, but they failed to write the rules such that that is actually allowed. It seems like a reasonable house rule to allow wounds from blast weapons to be allocated to models that the firer cannot see.

And I think that pretty much wraps that up.

[evilamericorp]

even if the rules for blast weapons do allow you to hit and wound units out of LOS (I'm not sure--I haven't checked) they would also have to modify the wound allocation rules to allow you to allocate wounds to models that are out of LOS--and I'm pretty sure they don't.

Just allowing you to hit and wound is not sufficient. You must be allowed to hit, wound, and then allocate wounds. All three are required, and the absence of any is sufficient to make the unit immune.

This is absolutely retarded. Why would the rule SPECIFICALLY say you can hit and wound units outside of range/LOS if you can't allocate the wounds? You're reading way too much into what is completely clear.

I think we can all agree that GW sucks at writing technically correct rules, and these things definitely need some interpretation. Their intention was VERY CLEARLY to allow you to wound things outside of LOS, that's why they put that sentence into the rules. They don't need to say "You can hit units outside of Los. And then you can wound units outside of Los. And then you can allocate wounds to units outside of Los. And then you can take saves on units outside of Los. And then you can remove casualties on units outside of Los. And then you can quit whining about our ****tily written rules pertaining to units outside of Los."

This is just like the bad wording of the grounded rule. Grounded was CLEARLY meant to replace swooping, so that once you are grounded you can be shot/assaulted normally. However, GW's ****ty rules writing doesn't specifically say that you are no longer swooping, so you can be grounded over and over again in the same turn, and even after you hit the ground units still need 6s to hit you. Take GW's writing with a grain of salt, play the way they were intended to work, and stop reading so damn much into their exact grammar.

[Bean]

If you read my edit, you'll see the rules spelled out pretty clearly, evil.

I agree--there seems to have been an error. The intent seems to be contrary to what the rules actually say. Nonetheless, what the rules actually say is clear. If it bothers you, I would suggest adopting a house rule (also outlined above). I intend to do so.

[evilamericorp]

If you read my edit, you'll see the rules spelled out pretty clearly, evil.

I agree--there seems to have been an error. The intent seems to be contrary to what the rules actually say. Nonetheless, what the rules actually say is clear. If it bothers you, I would suggest adopting a house rule (also outlined above). I intend to do so.

If you go by exact RAW, it is impossible to wound your own units with blasts, as the wound allocation rules state "First, allocate a wound from the wound pool to the ENEMY model closest to the firing unit." Your own models are not enemies, and the blast rules don't say you change the allocation rules, so can you not hurt your own models with blasts, even though the blast rules specifically say you can?

Once again; Yes, GW is bad at writing rules. That doesn't mean you can abuse their wording and ignore their very clear intent.

To take it a step further, the above quoted sentence doesn't say the closest enemy model in the unit that was hit, it just says the closest enemy model to the firing unit. Going by RAW, you cannot allocate wounds to ANYTHING but the single enemy model closest to your unit, regardless of what you were shooting at. Advance your army behind a land raider and they are completely immune to all small arms fire, hooray!

[pie zuri]

I consider it's a stretch to say allocating wounds to models out of LOS is "very clearly" meant to happen. It could very well have been GW's intention, but since none of us is GW (I think) we can only assume intent.

Something to consider on why it was worded that way.

It may have written that way to reiterate that you could roll to wound on the units the blast scattered on. Just in case it wasn't clear that the final location doesn't need to be in LOS or in range. Since the blast is essentially a abstract way of calculating wounds and not a definitive location on where it actually landed. It's not the only example of the BRB reiterating itself. It doesn't however make the wording worthless if playing it so models out of LOS aren't killed

How wounding out of LOS with blasts might potentially complicate the shooting phase

I'll assume a couple of things when it comes to the pro-wounding out of LOS camp.
-You still take models closest to the firing unit first.
-Only models that were hit by the blast out of LOS are eligable for for wound allocation.
-Only wounds caused by a blast and only that blast would go towards wounding models out of LOS.
(feel free to clarify)

It's really easy to invision resolution when it comes to just a single blast by itself. Look under template, count the models, roll to wound and allocate

What happens when the firing unit is armed multiple blasts along with some normal direct fire weapons. An example could be the unlikely setup of a 50 man IG blob squad armed with 5 grenade launchers and 5 missile launchers along with a truckload of lazgun. (I know it's unlikely)
Would you need to keep track of where each of the ten blast landed on models out of LOS? Which models were hit by each of the blasts landing on models out of LOS?

In my opinion You would, otherwise you would have laz shots polluting a wound pool on models out of LOS or wounds being allocated to models out of LOS that weren't hit by the blast.
Not to say it wouldn't be possible to do, but it would be painstaking process of record keeping.
I already realize barrage's already work similarly in that it requires more record keeping, but to be fair multiple barrages are relatively rare compared to multiple blasts, they also don't tend to get used much with combined direct fire.

Compare this with the process of just allocating as per normal (no wounding out of LOS). Since the blasts work identically to other direct fire they all just get lumped together without any thought to where the blast actually landed and who was under them as it's all one pool (with the normal pool segregation's).

I'm not looking to change your mind on how you play 40k or house rule. I just want to highlight some potential difficulties with the intention not necessarily being what you think it might be.

This is truly one of those issues that wont be resolved till GW address's it in a faq/errata.

[evilamericorp]

I consider it's a stretch to say allocating wounds to models out of LOS is "very clearly" meant to happen. It could very well have been GW's intention, but since none of us is GW (I think) we can only assume intent.

Something to consider on why it was worded that way.

It may have written that way to reiterate that you could roll to wound on the units the blast scattered on. Just in case it wasn't clear that the final location doesn't need to be in LOS or in range. Since the blast is essentially a abstract way of calculating wounds and not a definitive location on where it actually landed. It's not the only example of the BRB reiterating itself. It doesn't however make the wording worthless if playing it so models out of LOS aren't killed

How wounding out of LOS with blasts might potentially complicate the shooting phase

I'll assume a couple of things when it comes to the pro-wounding out of LOS camp.
-You still take models closest to the firing unit first.
-Only models that were hit by the blast out of LOS are eligable for for wound allocation.
-Only wounds caused by a blast and only that blast would go towards wounding models out of LOS.
(feel free to clarify)

It's really easy to invision resolution when it comes to just a single blast by itself. Look under template, count the models, roll to wound and allocate

What happens when the firing unit is armed multiple blasts along with some normal direct fire weapons. An example could be the unlikely setup of a 50 man IG blob squad armed with 5 grenade launchers and 5 missile launchers along with a truckload of lazgun. (I know it's unlikely)
Would you need to keep track of where each of the ten blast landed on models out of LOS? Which models were hit by each of the blasts landing on models out of LOS?

In my opinion You would, otherwise you would have laz shots polluting a wound pool on models out of LOS or wounds being allocated to models out of LOS that weren't hit by the blast.
Not to say it wouldn't be possible to do, but it would be painstaking process of record keeping.
I already realize barrage's already work similarly in that it requires more record keeping, but to be fair multiple barrages are relatively rare compared to multiple blasts, they also don't tend to get used much with combined direct fire.

Compare this with the process of just allocating as per normal (no wounding out of LOS). Since the blasts work identically to other direct fire they all just get lumped together without any thought to where the blast actually landed and who was under them as it's all one pool (with the normal pool segregation's).

I'm not looking to change your mind on how you play 40k or house rule. I just want to highlight some potential difficulties with the intention not necessarily being what you think it might be.

It doesn't need to be anywhere near this complicated. When working out which models can have wounds allocated to them, ignore range and LOS for wounds caused by blasts.


This is truly one of those issues that wont be resolved till GW address's it in a faq/errata.

And like the thousands of other issues that need FAQing, we will never see it resolved. GW doesn't hire editors that actually understand English when they're writing their rules, why would they spend time later fixing issues that they didn't see or care about in the first place? That would be pandering to the "Competitive" crowd. And we can't have that now, can we. Having good rules would make it impossible to forge a narrative.

[pie zuri]

And like the thousands of other issues that need FAQing, we will never see it resolved. GW doesn't hire editors that actually understand English when they're writing their rules, why would they spend time later fixing issues that they didn't see or care about in the first place? That would be pandering to the "Competitive" crowd. And we can't have that now, can we. Having good rules would make it impossible to forge a narrative.

This is kinda of a defeatist and angry attitude to take in regards to rules getting FAQs. It's not like GW has never addressed their badly worded rules. We haven't yet gotten a 6th ed BRB FAQ, though I'm sure we'll get one in the future. If this issue is addressed is another matter. I assume they create their FAQs based off of questions posed directly to them, and are not actively lurking the BoLS forums looking for unanswerable questions (though they should). If this is a issue people care about they should email GW directly.

You are welcome to whatever interpretation of the rules you would like. I posed this here more for the sake of bringing the issue to peoples attention. If you play tournaments or even random people this is a issue that will inevitably come up and you should be prepared to go into a roll off on the rule as opposed to to just disagreeing and arguing over minutia.

There is plenty of room for interpretation on either side of this argument. I play my way as it's RAW and happens to flow better. In the end if GW does FAQ it I will play that way.

[evilamericorp]

I play my way as it's RAW and happens to flow better. In the end if GW does FAQ it I will play that way.

If you play by the RAW, how do you allocate wounds to your models hit by blasts?

And I don't mean to sound angry or defeatist, and I'm not attacking your interpretation, I'm just tired of GW's ridiculous secrecy policy, obsession with "casual" gaming being better than tournament play, and lack of editing. If they released their rules to the public in PDF form before publishing them, all of these issues would be solved. But they can't do that, that would be bad or something... I love GW's models, I just wish they payed a little bit of attention to their customers every once in a while.

[DarkLink]

It doesn't need to be anywhere near this complicated. When working out which models can have wounds allocated to them, ignore range and LOS for wounds caused by blasts.


State your argument and relevant rules. So far, you've ignored the rules Bean has quoted, made unverified claims, and attempted to distract from the argument with the "GW sucks at writing rules" bit (which, while generally true, isn't relevant to what the rules actually mean). Saying "blast are obviously intended to kill stuff out of LOS" is not much of an argument.

[evilamericorp]

State your argument and relevant rules. So far, you've ignored the rules Bean has quoted, made unverified claims, and attempted to distract from the argument with the "GW sucks at writing rules" bit (which, while generally true, isn't relevant to what the rules actually mean). Saying "blast are obviously intended to kill stuff out of LOS" is not much of an argument.

From the Blast rules, Pg. 33:

"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. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight..."

What would be the point of being able to hit and wound a unit out of line of sight (note this says unit, not models) if you cannot allocate wounds to them and kill models?

[pie zuri]

If you play by the RAW, how do you allocate wounds to your models hit by blasts?

And I don't mean to sound angry or defeatist, and I'm not attacking your interpretation, I'm just tired of GW's ridiculous secrecy policy, obsession with "casual" gaming being better than tournament play, and lack of editing. If they released their rules to the public in PDF form before publishing them, all of these issues would be solved. But they can't do that, that would be bad or something... I love GW's models, I just wish they payed a little bit of attention to their customers every once in a while.

I allocate starting with the model closest to the firing unit moving than to the next closest. I end when I run out of dice in the dice pool or there are no more models in LOS to the firing unit as a whole.

You mentioned before you thought my example was too complicated. If you could create an example that explains how to do it your way it would be nice. I'm open to hearing other peoples interpretations, seeing as this is a issue I will have accept will come down to roll offs and not just me trying to get my way through arguing about grammar, rule's not explicitly stated and the unknown intentions of GW.

[evilamericorp]

I allocate starting with the model closest to the firing unit moving than to the next closest. I end when I run out of dice in the dice pool or there are no more models in LOS to the firing unit as a whole.

You mentioned before you thought my example was too complicated. If you could create an example that explains how to do it your way it would be nice. I'm open to hearing other peoples interpretations, seeing as this is a issue I will have accept will come down to roll offs and not just me trying to get my way through arguing about grammar, rule's not explicitly stated and the unknown intentions of GW.

But the wound allocation rules specifically state you can only allocate wounds to enemy models. There are no rules for allocating wounds to your own models. If you're playing strict RAW, it is impossible to wound your own models with blasts, even though the blast rules say you can hit and wound them.

As for the way I do it, I posted it earlier. For wounds caused by blasts, ignore range and LOS when determining which model to allocate wounds to.

[pie zuri]

But the wound allocation rules specifically state you can only allocate wounds to enemy models. There are no rules for allocating wounds to your own models. If you're playing strict RAW, it is impossible to wound your own models with blasts, even though the blast rules say you can hit and wound them.

As for the way I do it, I posted it earlier. For wounds caused by blasts, ignore range and LOS when determining which model to allocate wounds to.

It's really to no ones benefit to argue over the minutia of placing wounds on enemy models and and the wording of the blast rules. If the blast fell on my own guys I assume the opponent is allocating and rolling wounds seeing i'm his enemy. This could mean guys closest to the enemy, guys closet to the blast firer, guys in a line from the blast firer in a line going to the enemy or maybe just where the blast happened (this is another topic altogether). Even if that assumption is wrong, I don't see it coming up as a issue in a 40k game with semi reasonable people. A solution that both parties agree on would most likely be found.

Since you didn't actually give an example to work with. I assume in your interpretation, once a blast has hit models out of LOS all the wounds created by blasts in the shooting attack now ignore LOS issues. This is my assumption because this way is pretty straight forward without having to keep track of where each blast landed and who was under them.

My questions are (just so I'm clear)

Are the models not in LOS that weren't hit by the blast marker eligible for wound allocation?

If only one blast hit models out of LOS (in multiple blasts) is it just that one that causes wounds out of LOS or is it all blasts fired?

Are the wounds that can be used on models out of LOS allocated last?

If this issue came up in a battle would you insist on getting your way because you feel your opinion of the the rule is without potential flaws, or would you just dice roll a judgement because you accept the rules could be interpreted in different ways?

[evilamericorp]

My questions are (just so I'm clear)

Are the models not in LOS that weren't hit by the blast marker eligible for wound allocation?

If only one blast hit models out of LOS (in multiple blasts) is it just that one that causes wounds out of LOS or is it all blasts fired?

Are the wounds that can be used on models out of LOS allocated last?

If this issue came up in a battle would you insist on getting your way because you feel your opinion of the the rule is without potential flaws, or would you just dice roll a judgement because you accept the rules could be interpreted in different ways?

Say you're shooting a frag missile at a unit in a building, and you can only see one model through a window. The missile hits the model you can see, and the template touches three other models out of LOS. Are you saying you could only kill the one model the firer could see?

Since the rules for blasts say they can hit and wound units outside of range and LOS, I interpret that to mean wounds caused by blasts can be allocated to models outside of range and LOS. So I would roll all the wounds for a unit's shooting, and all the direct shooting could only be allocated to models in LOS, while the blasts would wound the closest model first regardless of LOS.

Since wound groups for different strengths/APs are rolled separately anyways, it wouldn't be a problem to keep the blast wounds separate. The shooter would determine which group to take saves/allocate wounds for first.

I firmly believe this is how GW intended the rule to work, but if someone wanted to argue during a game (if the issue even ever came up, I haven't had it come up in any of the games of 6th I've played) I wouldn't fight about it. Internet time is for arguing about rules, game time is about rolling dice and forging narratives. But then again I play in the BoLS hometown of Austin where we generally have logical players who don't argue over rules minutia during games...

[Saint_Anger]

Read the rule for blast on page 33, the one starting with "This represents the chance of ricochets...".

[evilamericorp]

Read the rule for blast on page 33, the one starting with "This represents the chance of ricochets...".

Yeah, people are arguing that you can hit and wound units outside of LOS because of that sentence, but you can't allocate those wounds because the wound allocation rules say you can only allocate to units in LOS. Silly distinction, huh?

[pie zuri]

Since the rules for blasts say they can hit and wound units outside of range and LOS, I interpret that to mean wounds caused by blasts can be allocated to models outside of range and LOS. So I would roll all the wounds for a unit's shooting, and all the direct shooting could only be allocated to models in LOS, while the blasts would wound the closest model first regardless of LOS.

Since wound groups for different strengths/APs are rolled separately anyways, it wouldn't be a problem to keep the blast wounds separate. The shooter would determine which group to take saves/allocate wounds for first.

I firmly believe this is how GW intended the rule to work, but if someone wanted to argue during a game (if the issue even ever came up, I haven't had it come up in any of the games of 6th I've played) I wouldn't fight about it. Internet time is for arguing about rules, game time is about rolling dice and forging narratives.

In short your interpretation of the blast rules and allocation are as follows

Blasts wounds on the enemy unit regardless of if the blasts hit models out of LOS are eligible to be allocated on to enemies models even if outside of LOS and Range.

I can dig it.

If this issue ever comes up in a game and I lose the roll off. I'll suggest your version of the rule interpretation. Ideally it will just be FAQ'd soon and GW's true intentions will be known.

You wouldn't believe the drek I have heard in regards to alternate suggestions on how the rule is "supposed" to work. Blasts actually working like barrages, blasts that require intricate documentation of models hit, resolving allocation in separate groups, yadda yadda.

In short, I think I'm right, though I don't necessarily think your wrong. We can agree to disagree though. Fingers crossed on this getting resolved

[evilamericorp]

Fingers crossed on this getting resolved

I'm right there with you, on this and a hundred other rules issues.

[incenerate101]

Its a very simple rule.

The blast rule states that the weapons ability to scatter out of range OR LoS represents ricochet or the projectile punching throw cover. Therefore if a unit is out of LoS by what the rules in book say word for word means that because of scatter units can be hit AND wounded as if the firer had originally planned on hitting that unit.

The way you would allocate wounds as with the guard blob example is you designate a target ( lets say unit A ) that said guard blob is going to be firing at. First fire your blasts, scatter them as usual, and IF they scatter onto a seperate unit then the unit hit still suffers the hit. Place dice or counters representing the how many wounds were suffered on that unit. Continue this until the guard blob is shooting. It doesnt matter which units are hit by the blast the weapon still hits normal.

As long as the remaining guard fire their las guns into the unit originally targeted by the blast weapons then there is no rules being broken.

What is the question here? The rules spell out word for word under the blast entry that you can hit and wound models out of LoS due to scatter.

[Bean]

What is the question here? The rules spell out word for word under the blast entry that you can hit and wound models out of LoS due to scatter.

I've been over this, actually, in quite a bit more detail.

Your blast weapon can score hits against a unit that it can't see and it can score wounds against a unit it can't see. However, in order to actually inflict casualties on a unit, you must be able to allocate wounds to models in that unit--and you can't allocate wounds to models that you can't see. Since the rules for blast weapons don't modify the wound allocation rules, you can score your hits and score your wounds, but when it comes time to allocate those wounds, you find that none of the models in the wounded unit can actually have wounds allocated to them.

If you get to a point in the wound allocation process where there are no models that you can allocate wounds to, the remaining wounds are discarded to no effect. Against a unit that you can't see, it doesn't matter how many wounds you inflict--you reach this point where there are no models that you can allocate wounds to immediately, and all the wounds you inflicted are discarded to no effect.

I appreciate your effort, but you pretty clearly failed both to read the rules carefully enough and to read the rest of the thread, where this is spelled out, several times, in detail.

By the rules as written, blast weapons cannot inflict casualties on units they can't see--despite being able to hit and wound them--because they don't get to ignore the rule that prevents them from allocating wounds to models they can't see.

[JMichael]

I've been over this, actually, in quite a bit more detail.

Your blast weapon can score hits against a unit that it can't see and it can score wounds against a unit it can't see. However, in order to actually inflict casualties on a unit, you must be able to allocate wounds to models in that unit--and you can't allocate wounds to models that you can't see. Since the rules for blast weapons don't modify the wound allocation rules, you can score your hits and score your wounds, but when it comes time to allocate those wounds, you find that none of the models in the wounded unit can actually have wounds allocated to them.

If you get to a point in the wound allocation process where there are no models that you can allocate wounds to, the remaining wounds are discarded to no effect. Against a unit that you can't see, it doesn't matter how many wounds you inflict--you reach this point where there are no models that you can allocate wounds to immediately, and all the wounds you inflicted are discarded to no effect.

I appreciate your effort, but you pretty clearly failed both to read the rules carefully enough and to read the rest of the thread, where this is spelled out, several times, in detail.

By the rules as written, blast weapons cannot inflict casualties on units they can't see--despite being able to hit and wound them--because they don't get to ignore the rule that prevents them from allocating wounds to models they can't see.

I agree with this completely. The 'ricochet' seems to just allow you to count those models under the blast marker as 'hit' models and thus allows you to roll more wound dice. Which is different that Wound Allocation.

[Tynskel]

okay. this is redonkulous. When I fire my mortar team at a target they cannot see at all, somehow no wounds are inflicted.

excuse me... allocated.
Reading Comp Fail.


Just allocate closest to the blast center outward...

[Bean]

okay. this is redonkulous. When I fire my mortar team at a target they cannot see at all, somehow no wounds are inflicted.

excuse me... allocated.
Reading Comp Fail.


Just allocate closest to the blast center outward...

For barrage weapons--which mortars are--that is how it works. That is because barrage weapons specify that you should allocate wounds as though the shot were coming from the center of the blast (though, if somehow, none of the models were visible from the center of the blast, you might run into a similar problem--I'm not sure).

However, for non-barrage blast weapons (missile launchers, for instance) there is no such exception to the normal wound allocation rules.

So, no. That example actually doesn't speak to the issue at all.

[evilamericorp]

However, for non-barrage blast weapons (missile launchers, for instance) there is no such exception to the normal wound allocation rules.

Except the part of the blast rules where it says you can hit and wound units outside of LOS...

[IronFortress]

If people are saying that Barrage can overrule normal Wounds Allocation and LoS requirements because its Special Rules states so, then the same would apply for Blast weapons.


End of top right paragraph on page 33 regarding Blast,
"...hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight..."


As for allocating wounds, it is nicely summarized on page 12, lower left and last paragraph,
"... Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit."


While is true that page 15 describes the relationship of the firer and the enemy regarding Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties, the actual wound allocation really is between the firing unit and the target unit.

Moreover, on page 15, the term ENEMY is mentioned twice while the term TARGET is mentioned 4 times. It is not used exclusively and context of the page would essentially remain the same if the term TARGET actually replaced ENEMY completely.

The real problem now is what kind of COVER SAVE does a model in complete cover (ie, out of LoS) get? :eek:

[Bean]

Sorry, Iron Fortress, that's not true at all. Barrage weapons have a rule which specifically overrides portions of the wound allocation rules. Blast weapons do not. That rule is found on page 34, in the "Barrage" box, second bullet point:



...when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model."


So, Barrage weapons can explicitly allocate wounds that the firing model cannot see--so long as they can be "seen" from the centre of the blast marker. This is a substantive alteration of the normal Wound allocation rules.

Blast weapons have no such rule, and are bound by the entirety of the Wound allocation rules, including the part which prevents wounds they inflict from being allocated to models that the firing model cannot see.


So, no. Blast and Barrage weapons work quite differently when it comes to wound allocation. You need to go back and read the rules more carefully.

[Wildcard]

p.33: Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond the weapons maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight (or even your own units, or models locked in combat).

So, even if you can only see 1 model initially when firing blast or large blast, every hit you cause in that manner, can cause a wound, even if you dont anymore see the target - Create a 'non-LoS wound pool' if you like.

Note that if you shoot other weapons that 'require' the LoS, remember to force the allocation of wounds caused by those weapons first, since as soon as you cannot see anyone from the squad, that 'regular' wound pool is lost.


The real problem now is what kind of COVER SAVE does a model in complete cover (ie, out of LoS) get?

We have ruled it as follows:

- Infantry is obscured, so its 5+ (if it indeed is ricochet or unexpected penetration of a wall etc, infantry may not be in position to be in best possible cover while anticipating that). Ofcourse if they would be getting better cover, they will get it (4+ ruins, 3+ fortifications)

- Tanks as obscured, so its 4+ (ricochet or penetration of wall etc could have eaten away the power of the shot, making it less likely to cause damage etc..). Again, every special rule that makes it better, will do so, camo nets +1, stealth +1 etc.. We decided that those things shouldn't be based on fluff, so that technology would be more effective than plain luck!

But, these were fast 'house rules', we already had a 7 hours of gaming behind us for that day, and we were kinda tired to browse the book for more specific rules that would affect the saves..

[evilamericorp]

Sorry, Iron Fortress, that's not true at all. Barrage weapons have a rule which specifically overrides portions of the wound allocation rules. Blast weapons do not. That rule is found on page 34, in the "Barrage" box, second bullet point:

...when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model."

So, Barrage weapons can explicitly allocate wounds that the firing model cannot see--so long as they can be "seen" from the centre of the blast marker. This is a substantive alteration of the normal Wound allocation rules.

Blast weapons have no such rule, and are bound by the entirety of the Wound allocation rules, including the part which prevents wounds they inflict from being allocated to models that the firing model cannot see.


So, no. Blast and Barrage weapons work quite differently when it comes to wound allocation. You need to go back and read the rules more carefully.

So please explain to me how blasts can wound your own models if they scatter onto them. The wound allocation rules do not allow you to wound your own models. They very specifically only allow you to allocate wounds to enemy models.

If you're going to be a rules **** and to completely ignore the clear intention of the rules, you have to go all the way.

Even though the blast rules are CLEARLY worded to say you can hit and wound things outside of range and LOS, and friendly models, the wound allocation rules do not allow this in your mind.

[Wildcard]

So, Barrage weapons can explicitly allocate wounds that the firing model cannot see--so long as they can be "seen" from the centre of the blast marker.

@BeaN: Could you point me to the page that explicitly backs up your argument, that blast fired by barrage needs to have LoS to the targets "from the centre of the blast"?

Because if that is the case, with barrages (and blasts in general) there's something i've understood terribly wrong.

[Rapture]

I understand how this question could be thought reasonable originally, but I think people need to step back and look at the whole picture for a minute.


Your blast weapon can score hits against a unit that it can't see and it can score wounds against a unit it can't see. However, in order to actually inflict casualties on a unit, you must be able to allocate wounds to models in that unit--and you can't allocate wounds to models that you can't see.

Why would any game designer ever conceive a rule interaction like this? The idea that a shot can hit, wound, and then not be allocated is overly complicated, out of character, and contrary to the simple, direct language of the p.33 quote.

I suppose it can be argued that there are times when a dice off it needed - this is not one of those times. The rules directly address the exact issue and say that blast weapons can hit and wound in such situations. Does anyone really think that allocation was intended to invalidate that direct explanation? It can also be argued that this is an example of strict RaW vs. RaI, but remember that common sense has to enter into that equation at some point. No one actually ever suggested that Blood Angels could not disembark from their rhinos because the rules did not specify an access point. That would have been silly - just like this is.

[Renegade]

Sorry, Iron Fortress, that's not true at all. Barrage weapons have a rule which specifically overrides portions of the wound allocation rules. Blast weapons do not. That rule is found on page 34, in the "Barrage" box, second bullet point:

[quote]
...when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model."

So, Barrage weapons can explicitly allocate wounds that the firing model cannot see--so long as they can be "seen" from the centre of the blast marker. This is a substantive alteration of the normal Wound allocation rules.

Blast weapons have no such rule, and are bound by the entirety of the Wound allocation rules, including the part which prevents wounds they inflict from being allocated to models that the firing model cannot see.


So, no. Blast and Barrage weapons work quite differently when it comes to wound allocation. You need to go back and read the rules more carefully.

This is you using BRB rules singularly, which we all know is not how they work. If I can hit a unit the rules make it clear that there is a chance to wound it. The rules for blast states that a unit can be hit if out of LoS or normal range of the weapon, so you this information in working out the next step. You cannot normally hit what you cannot see either, and unless the rule states that a unit has immunity from the weapon type or some such other rule, a weapon can wound.

The track you are taking is similar to the one you took with the Doom, and you were wrong in that case as well.

[incenerate101]

Bean I do understand what you are saying but you must also realize that the rules for weapon types and how those weapons work have been the same for a very long time.

Your interpretation is quite literal and to be quite honest any sensible player would pack up and leave the game for this kind of douche baggery. Plus you would surely be laughed at in any competitive venue as well. Stop trying to change an aspect of the game that has been in place for years and hasn't changed.

[Nabterayl]

Incenerate, I agree that we should never interpret a rule so that it would have had no effect at the time it was written. I can't think of a single textual interpretation profession that doesn't follow that rule.

That said, I don't think the situation is as clear as you seem to. In 5th edition this never came up, because it was absolutely fine to kill models you couldn't see even with normal shooting (so long as you could target the unit at all). In 6th edition, the normal rule is that you can't do that.

And yet hits from blast weapons are both "worked out as normal" and "can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight." But the normal rules state that "if no models in the firing unit can see a particular model, then Wounds cannot be allocated to it." So ... we're told to work out wounds "as normal" and told to ignore the bit about not being able to kill invisible models. What's the sequence then? Is it:

Bean's interpretation. Runs afoul of the meaningless surplusage canon, though some people - including Bean - just disagree that that's a canon of textual interpretation.
Wounds caused by blast weapons are allocated to the specific models under the blast marker or, alternatively, worked out as if the wounds originated from the center of the blast marker. If so, why do barrage weapons state this explicitly and not also blast weapons? In addition, in what way does this interpretation work out wounds "as normal?"

My interpretation is this: keep a record of how many hits on the target unit are caused by blast markers touching models that no model in the firing unit can see (call these "Invisible Models"), as well as the Strength, AP, and any other special rules of such blast weapons. Call the number of hits Out of Line of Sight Hits (OLOSH) and the Strength, AP, and other characteristics of those hits SAPOC.

Work out any other hits caused by the firing unit's weapons. Work out how many wounds are caused by the firing unit's hits.

The firing player now allocates saves or wounds (depending on whether the target unit's saves are homogenous, per page 15), starting with the closest model to the firing unit, and "kills from the front" as normal. As normal, the firing player decides which types of wounds are allocated first. The firing player is allowed to allocate wounds/saves to a number of Invisible Models equal to OLOSH as if the Invisible Models were visible to the firing unit, so long as all wounds assigned to Invisible Models are SAPOC-equivalent. However, the firing player will not necessarily get to kill any Invisible Models, as he still must kill the nearest enemy models first.

Example: A Grey Knights Storm Raven is firing at a unit of ten Chaos terminators. Five terminators are completely invisible to every gun on the Storm Raven, hidden behind a fortification, and five terminators are completely visible to every gun on the Storm Raven. Three visible terminators are closest to the Storm Raven, followed by all five invisible terminators, and most distant are the last two visible terminators (apparently this is a very weirdly shaped fortification). None of the visible terminators have cover. The Storm Raven fires two mindstrike missiles (S4 AP5 blast), twelve shots from hurricane bolters (S4 AP5), and one shot from a twin-linked lascannon (S9 AP2). The lascannon scores 1 hit, hurricane bolters score 11 hits, one mindstrike missile misses completely, and one mindstrike missile scatters behind the fortification; its blast marker touches two of the "invisible" terminators, so it scores two hits.

We now have 13 S4 AP5 hits and one S9 AP2 hit. Rolling to wound, we end up with 7 S4 AP5 wounds and 1 S9 AP2 wound.

Because our saves are not homogenous (the invisible terminators have cover, while the visible ones do not), we allocate wounds and then roll to save. We allocate the S9 AP2 wound first, as is our prerogative as firing player. It must be allocated to the nearest model, which is a visible terminator. He fails his 5++ and is removed as a casualty. We now have 7 S4 AP5 wounds to allocate. We allocate wounds to the next closest terminator (also a visible model) until he dies, which surprisingly only takes 2 wounds. 5 more to go. The next closest terminator is also visible. He dies on the first wound, leaving us 4 wounds to go. The next closest terminator is invisible, but because we scored two "invisible" S4 AP5 hits with our mindstrike missile, we can allocate up to two S4 AP5 hits to invisible models - if those models are next in line according to the "closest dies first" rule. The Chaos player's streak of bad luck continues, and our first S4 AP5 model kills an invisible terminator. Next closest target is another invisible terminator, who makes his save. We have now allocated our two S4 AP5 "invisible" wounds, and the last wounds skip to the next closest visible target.

To tweak the scenario above a bit:

Same rolls as before until we get to our 7 S4 AP5 wounds and 1 S9 AP2 wound. Remember we have three visible terminators who are closer than the 5 invisible terminators. We allocate the lascannon wound to the closest terminator, who is visible, and kill him. We then start allocating S4 AP5 wounds to the next closest terminator, who is also visible. This terminator makes all 7 armor saves. Even though we scored two hits with our mindstrike missile on "invisible" terminators, we didn't even get to try to kill any invisible terminators, because they weren't the closest models in line, and we had to follow normal wound allocation protocol.

I think this follows all the relevant rules. We have rolled to hit as normal. We have rolled to wound as normal. We have allocated wounds as normal, except that we have overridden the general Out of Sight rule (page 16) because, and to the extent that, a blast marker "scattered beyond the weapon's ... line of sight," which requires us to work out hits "as normal" except that "in these cases" we "can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight" (page 33). To satisfy "in these cases," we apply this rule only when a blast marker scatters beyond line of sight and still causes hits. To satisfy "hit and wound units out of range and line of sight" we allow hits on invisible models equal to the number and characteristics of the hits caused by the blast weapon that so scattered; to satisfy "can hit and wound ..." we do not require those wounds to be allocated to invisible models, unless the invisible models are next closest in line to die (which satisfies "as normal"). Anybody have an argument that this doesn't follow any applicable letters?

EDIT: So what kind of cover save do the invisible models get? As with all cover saves, the question is not how much of the model is obscured, but what it's obscured by. In the example above the "invisible" terminators received their cover from a fortification, so, following page 18, they get a 3+ cover save (not that they used it). If they had been invisible because of a hedge, they would have gotten a 6+ cover save, despite being completely invisible. If this seems weird, remember that a man who is visible only from the forehead up and obscured by a tree gets a 5+ cover save, and a man who is visible from the knees up but obscured by a fortification gets a 3+ cover save - it's no weirder than that.

[Wildcard]

Because our saves are not homogenous (the invisible terminators have cover, while the visible ones do not), we allocate wounds and then roll to save. We allocate the S9 AP2 wound first, as is our prerogative as firing player. It must be allocated to the nearest model, which is a visible terminator. He fails his 5++ and is removed as a casualty.

This is wrong: While armor saves (and invulnerable saves) are on model by model basis, the cover saves are not. If even one model in the squad is eliqible for cover save, all the models in the squad will get the best available(absurd i know). However, thats why we now have the focus fire, to determine what level of cover save enemy can use (but we only can kill models with that cover save, or worse).

[Nabterayl]

If even one model in the squad is eliqible for cover save, all the models in the squad will get the best available(absurd i know).
That's how it used to be, certainly. Cover saves are earned on an individual basis now. Consider the following from pages 25 and 26:

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save."
"The type of cover a model receives depends on exactly what he is sheltering behind ..."
"Sometimes, a unit will only be partially in cover, with some of its models in cover and some not ..."

Cover (!= cover save) is never spoken of as conferring a cover save to a unit anymore.

[Wildcard]

My sincerest apologies.. I wonder how the hell i did mix that up so baddly.. even more so, now that you mention it, since on our last game we spent hefty amount of time figuring that out!

So, i kinda remembered the wrong way around, instead of all getting save for one, its one getting save versus all ( 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer)

EDIT

Hmm, how does it actually go now with the weapons from a single vehicle, if one or more weapons can see the target unit partly, because of its own hull? etc similar thing blocking the LoS from the weapon mount?

[Nabterayl]

Hmm, how does it actually go now with the weapons from a single vehicle, if one or more weapons can see the target unit partly, because of its own hull? etc similar thing blocking the LoS from the weapon mount?

Models receive cover from vehicle weapons on a weapon-by-weapon basis. As page 72 says, "If the target unit is in cover from only some of the vehicle's weapons, then work out the target's cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing unit." Thus it's entirely possible that, for instance, the model in question does not have cover from a Leman Russ' battle cannon but does have cover from its hull-mounted lascannon.

[Wildcard]

Hmm, and as such, is it so, that if you see only half of the squad from a sponson mounted weapon, and can only fire that (rest weapons are destroyed, or weapon types not allowed to snapfire etc etc), that you can only kill that half squad? (since the other half is out of the LoS of the sponson weapon in question? O_o

[Nabterayl]

Yes, that is precisely so. Unless the sponson-mounted weapon is a blast weapon, and the blast scatters over models out of the sponson weapon's LoS, in which case ... well, you come to this thread. I've already said how I think that works.

[Wildcard]

Sorry if this may seem like splitting hairs, but i just want to get this 100% right :)


weapon is a blast weapon, and the blast scatters over models out of the sponson weapon's LoS

So, in order to be able to wound someone outside of LoS with blast, that blast has to 'cause wounds' outside of that LoS?

[Nabterayl]

Sorry if this may seem like splitting hairs, but i just want to get this 100% right :)



So, in order to be able to wound someone outside of LoS with blast, that blast has to 'cause wounds' outside of that LoS?

Well, getting that 100% right is really what this thread is about. Nobody disputes the following facts:

A non-barrage blast weapon cannot be aimed at a model out of LOS.
A barrage blast weapon can cause hits even if it is aimed out of LOS, and if it ALSO causes wounds, those wounds are allocated as if they came from the center of the barrage blast marker, regardless of the firer's line of sight.
Non-barrage blast weapons can cause hits and wounds even if it scatters beyond the firer's LOS.
Now, what is not clear is how a non-barrage blast weapon can cause wounds beyond LOS. The catch is that, under normal wound allocation rules, models out of LOS cannot be allocated wounds, and the out-of-LOS wounds are supposed to be allocated "normally." So what does that mean? Does it mean that blast weapons can't allocate wounds to out-of-LOS models after all (this is Bean's argument)? Does it mean that blast weapons that scatter beyond LOS are treated like barrage weapons, wounding as if they came from the center of the blast marker? Does it mean a single hit on an out-of-LOS model opens up the entire target unit to out-of-LOS wounds, even from non-blast weapons?

I've given my interpretation, a few posts up, as well as my critique of Bean's interpretation. Whether you find my reading compelling I can't say.

[Diagnosis Ninja]

What happened to "roll a dice and house rule it later"?

In either situation, in most cases with people I know we would just let it slide, and deal damage, because it's such an odd occurrence. It might be odd visualising the missile go through that wall there, but it isn't like it's an abstract system, or anything.

[War Painter]

I house rule this myself, but its hard to come up with a simple solution everyone can be happy with. Especially depending on interpretation to keep consistency when resolving the wounds and allocation can change drastically from what I've seen. If you assume it allows wounds to be places onto models out of LOS, then you'll always resolve blast wounds last because even if you hit the front 4 who are the only models you can see, you could still allocate wounds onto models outside of LOS if they happened to have been shot down by other fire. I've just noticed that interaction with the various arguments I've seen on this.

[Bean]

It's worth noting that, contrary to an earlier assertion, the rules as written (that blast weapons can hit and wound--but not allocate wounds to--models outside of LOS) does not actually violate the surplusage canon.

Consider the following scenario:

A unit of ten models, half hidden from a single missile launcher behind a wall. The missile launcher fires. The shot scatters out of the firer's LOS, but such that it is still positioned over some of the models in the target unit. The blast weapon rules specify that those models, even though they cannot be seen, still count for the purpose of determining hits and wounds against the unit at large--if three of those models are hit and two are wounded, the visible models must be allocated two wounds.

This rule does serve a purpose, even if we do not invent a house rule to go along with it. To say, then, that the strict RAW interpretation would render some portion of the rules worthless or irrelevant (that, in other words, it would violate the surplusage canon) is an error, and not a valid argument, even if you accept the surplusage canon as legitimate.

So, feel free to cross that argument off your list. Which, again, leaves basically nothing for the other position beyond "I don't think it ought to work that way." That, of course, is fine, and justification for a house rule, but really not justification for trying to turn a question that is actually pretty straight forward into a rules debate.

[Nabterayl]

It's worth noting that, contrary to an earlier assertion, the rules as written (that blast weapons can hit and wound--but not allocate wounds to--models outside of LOS) does not actually violate the surplusage canon.

...

if three of [the invisible] models are hit and two are wounded, the visible models must be allocated two wounds.
Assuming you're referring to me, it sounds like one of us misunderstood the other, because that's exactly how I think the blast rules should be read.

[Bean]

Assuming you're referring to me, it sounds like one of us misunderstood the other, because that's exactly how I think the blast rules should be read.

No idea, honestly--I read through a handful of posts last night, and noticed a general theme of, "but why would they have included the 'can hit and wound models out of LOS' bit at all, if they didn't want you to be able to remove casualties from out of LOS as well?"

This is the answer, I think. I don't remember who used the term surplusage canon earlier, but someone did (and it is correct). That said, whoever did use it made the claim that my position required a rejection of the surplusage canon. While it is true that I'm not a big fan of that particular rule of textual interpretation, it is not the case that, in this particular instance, my position is incompatible with it.

That's all I was pointing out. If we are in agreement, then that's good.

[Bean]

So please explain to me how blasts can wound your own models if they scatter onto them. The wound allocation rules do not allow you to wound your own models. They very specifically only allow you to allocate wounds to enemy models.

If you're going to be a rules **** and to completely ignore the clear intention of the rules, you have to go all the way.

Even though the blast rules are CLEARLY worded to say you can hit and wound things outside of range and LOS, and friendly models, the wound allocation rules do not allow this in your mind.

Hah, that's an interesting point. I'm gonna have to dig up my rulebook and take a look, but I'll bet you're right. You probably can't allocate wounds to your own models, and that would be a more serious error on the part of the rules-writers.

[Tynskel]

I wouldn't say that's an error. That's more like, your models are wounded.

What it means is that strict reading of the rulebook is NOT what the authors intended.

[Bean]

I wouldn't say that's an error. That's more like, your models are wounded.

What it means is that strict reading of the rulebook is NOT what the authors intended.

Almost certainly. Maybe, someday, GW will hire some competent writers...

[Tynskel]

I don't know about that.
The rules that GW writes are quite good. They are both flexible and fun.

[Nabterayl]

Martin Mack's comments that rules can never be written tight enough to preclude all arguments come to mind. There's a reason that when people try to write that tightly you end up with a hundred pages of definitions. Bean, do you have any experience drafting negotiated contracts or statutes? I have to agree with Tynskel that, for amateurs writing for sportsmen, GW has actually gotten pretty good - and I don't mean that sarcastically.

[Anggul]

tl;dr

The reason you can hit and wound models out of LoS but not allocate to them is so that if the blast scatters onto models out of LoS, you can still allocate to something. You can only allocate to models IN your LoS, but the rules allow you to hit and wound the ones who aren't, because otherwise if you had half of a ten-man squad out of LoS, you've got to try and hit 5 guys with a blast, which is too unlikely and would make blast weapons really rather pathetic.


I hope that made sense for those of you who didn't understand why it would say it.

[SeattleDV8]

Thats a good point Anggul.
It is backed up by this example in the Focus Fire rules.
BRB pg19
(but causes a number of hits equal to the number of models underneath it, regardless of whether or not they can have wounds allocated to them, see page 33
BRB pg. 33
.....Wound are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack.

Not all wounds caused by shooting can be allocated in 6th. this is a change from 5th.
The Blast rules spell it out, they follow the normal shooting rules, unlike Barrage.
No wounds may be allocated to models that are out of LOS.

[War Painter]

Man, people here are so much more civilized than on DakkaDakka and Warseer when it comes to this argument. I want to thank all of you for keeping this an enjoyable and mature discussion.

[Nabterayl]

Not all wounds caused by shooting can be allocated in 6th. this is a change from 5th.
The Blast rules spell it out, they follow the normal shooting rules, unlike Barrage.
No wounds may be allocated to models that are out of LOS.
Hang on a tick, unless you're Bean, I don't see how you can read "In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight" to mean "no wounds may be allocated to models that are out of LOS."

DV8, are you also of the "we should allow ourselves to interpret GW's rules such that they have no effect at the time they were written" camp?

[Anggul]

Thats a good point Anggul.
It is backed up by this example in the Focus Fire rules.
BRB pg19
BRB pg. 33

Not all wounds caused by shooting can be allocated in 6th. this is a change from 5th.
The Blast rules spell it out, they follow the normal shooting rules, unlike Barrage.
No wounds may be allocated to models that are out of LOS.

This gentlemen has sealed the deal, well done sir.

[SeattleDV8]

Hang on a tick, unless you're Bean, I don't see how you can read "In these cases, hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight" to mean "no wounds may be allocated to models that are out of LOS."


The 'normal shooting rules' do not allow you to allocate wounds to models out of LOS, it's really straight forward.
There is no permission like with Barrage.

DV8, are you also of the "we should allow ourselves to interpret GW's rules such that they have no effect at the time they were written" camp?
Thats a RAI agrument,("Thats not what they meant!") that does not hold much weight in a debate. All this does is make it a bit more difficult to wound, balanced against the weaker cover saves.
A 50 IG blob squad can put out a great deal of fire, easily doing dozens of wounds, but if only one model is in LOS thats the only one that we are allowed to allocate wounds to.
All of the others are lost.
It is the way it works in 6th.
In 'normal shooting' if you can't see it, you can't harm it.