Barrage hits on vehicle and cover to nearby models?

[Tarsus]

umm... if you think thats what the rules want you to do.. go for it

...

It makes much more sense to me that the hole represents the bomb which fell.. and therefor it hits the ground or whatever object that meets it 1st. rules of gravity and all. I don't think the intention was to have a timed detonation to make the bomb explode 5 meters above the ground for a spray effect. Which is why I would try to rest the Blast as low as possible over the enemy models.

But not all blast or barrage weapons are representing bombs or explosives, some are used to represent air bursts, falling incendiaries or other substances, some are shots coming up from underground, some are representing vortex effects, some are even just areas of effect that have no physical presence. But all of above use the same set of rules, and that is any model that the blast template covers when placed above it is hit. The exact wording is "placed above" it doesn't say placed below, placed touching, or anything else, the marker is used purely as a tool, with the barrage rules saying you assume the origin of the shot as coming from the inside out.

[mishari26]

But not all blast or barrage weapons are representing bombs or explosives, some are used to represent air bursts, falling incendiaries or other substances, some are shots coming up from underground, some are representing vortex effects, some are even just areas of effect that have no physical presence. But all of above use the same set of rules, and that is any model that the blast template covers when placed above it is hit. The exact wording is "placed above" it doesn't say placed below, placed touching, or anything else, the marker is used purely as a tool, with the barrage rules saying you assume the origin of the shot as coming from the inside out.

I couldn't help but notice you again ignored my question about the wall...

and again you said "anything under the Blast is hit".. and no one said they're not hit.. we are saying they are hit, but can't be allocated wounds because of LOS to the hole. So if a wall is fully standing between the model hit and the hole, would the model be dead or not? keeping in mind that the hole is the origin of the shot.

[Infidel]

...we are saying they are hit, but can't be allocated wounds because of LOS to the hole...

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOS in determining what Barrage hits/wound/wound allocates. People keep brining up LoS when the rule makes absolutely ZERO reference to it.

The hole is only used to determine which model is the "closest model" for wound allocation. Against a barrage weapon model get cover if they're in area terrain or if they have some special rule but THAT IS IT. Having a wall (or indeed anything) between you and the blast does not confer any benefit.

Edit: Incorrect rule-reading. Ignore.

[mishari26]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOS in determining what Barrage hits/wound/wound allocates. People keep brining up LoS when the rule makes absolutely ZERO reference to it.

The hole is only used to determine which model is the "closest model" for wound allocation. Against a barrage weapon model get cover if they're in area terrain or if they have some special rule but THAT IS IT. Having a wall (or indeed anything) between you and the blast does not confer any benefit.

umm.. no need to shout?

and you're wrong simply because the text goes exactly:

"To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage is allowed a cover save.....always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the Blast marker...."

So its not just talking about area terrain cover. Because for area terrain you don't need to check anything other than the model itself. You DO use the center of the Blast to determine cover. meaning what in your mind? can you answer my question please?

[Infidel]

"To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage is allowed a cover save.....always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the Blast marker...."

I quoted that. Please tell me where does the word LoS come up?

So its not just talking about area terrain cover. Because for area terrain you don't need to check anything other than the model itself. You DO use the center of the Blast to determine cover. meaning what in your mind? can you answer my question please?

Yes you do use the centre of the blast to determine cover, I posted too hastily. That is my mistake. I will rectify the post. However, while you receive a benefit from having a wall between you and the explosion, it doesn't stop the model from taking hit, receiving wound and potentially dying.

To fully explicate my position as to why you don't get cover from a barrage exploding on the rhino:

1. There is no three dimensionality in 40k unless explicitly stated.
2. Therefore, the blast that impacted on the rhino is actually resolved as if it is at the ground level.
3. Since being physically visible to the centre of the blast is not even remotely relevant, you can draw the "imaginary" LoS through the hull of the rhino to determine which model is the closest for wound allocation.
4. Determine cover, drawing the same imaginary LoS to work out whether something is eligible for a cover save.

Therefore, if the only thing obscuring the marine is the Rhino, it'd cover exactly zero benefit. A wall however, will be a 5+, a ruin wall will be a 4+, and other special fortifications (aegist or other terrain) will follow their own rules. As we have previously established, whether a blast weapon can wound/kill models that are not physically within LoS when the shot did not scatter requires an explicit FAQ ruling, so the discussion is largely moot until that ruling has been resolved.

[DoctorTom]

I
[*]Since being physically visible to the centre of the blast is not even remotely relevant, you can draw the "imaginary" LoS through the hull of the rhino to determine which model is the closest for wound allocation.[*]Determine cover, drawing the same imaginary LoS to work out whether something is eligible for a cover save.

Therefore, if the only thing obscuring the marine is the Rhino, it'd cover exactly zero benefit. A wall however, will be a 5+, a ruin wall will be a 4+, and other special fortifications (aegist or other terrain) will follow their own rules. As we have previously established, whether a blast weapon can wound/kill models that are not physically within LoS when the shot did not scatter requires an explicit FAQ ruling, so the discussion is largely moot until that ruling has been resolved.

So, if the imaginary line goes through the Rhino, it's perfectly okay to ignore it when drawing the line to determine cover even though the Rhino itself can be on the imaginary line between the center of the hole and the target unit? Even though anything else gives a cover save? How do you come up with one intervening thing not providing cover when anything else can?

[Sons of Lorgar]

Well, since models of a shooting unit is ignored as far as cover for the targets are concerned, then the model directly underneath the hole of a blast marker of a barrage should also be ignored since that's where the hits are coming from.

[DoctorTom]

Well, since models of a shooting unit is ignored as far as cover for the targets are concerned, then the model directly underneath the hole of a blast marker of a barrage should also be ignored since that's where the hits are coming from.

The "target" is the hole, not the vehicle.

Would you ignore the presence of the vehicle if the center of the blast missed the vehicle entirely?

[mishari26]

I find it very interesting that @Infidel in his post begins by completely denying the use of LOS in Barrages, then uses it in his steps 3 and 4..

which one is it @Infidel? I think your use of them is correct, except the Rhino does not disappear. You have no basis for this "removal". its a model like any other. it stays there until removed by a genuine rule. not because it makes things easier for you.

Also, the wall I was asking about in my example would be 100% obscuring the marine hit, not partly obscuring him for a 5+ cover save. So if you already checked LOS to the hole, wouldn't you say the 100% obscured model can not be assigned a wound due to the "Out of Sight" section?

Also.. where do you get that the game is 2-dimensional by default?? where does it say this??

There's lots of cases that suggest 3-dimensionality as a matter of course.. like TLOS, like measuring range regardless of elevation, it doesn't tell you to measure the distance on the ground only.. if the shooter is high up on a ruin, you measure the physical distance to target even if it has a vertical component. The "Check Range" section doesn't say anything about ignoring elevation.

[Sons of Lorgar]

If the centre of the blast wasn't over a model after scatter, then no I wouldn't ignore the vehicle, only a model under the hole as far as cover goes, since the barrage rules effectively makes the hole of the template the orgin of force (eg. the 'shooter'), as opposed to direct fire blasts.

[mishari26]

If the centre of the blast wasn't over a model after scatter, then no I wouldn't ignore the vehicle, only a model under the hole as far as cover goes, since the barrage rules effectively makes the hole of the template the orgin of force (eg. the 'shooter'), as opposed to direct fire blasts.

Even if the hole landed on top of the vehicle, why do you ignore the vehicle? where does it tell you to do that?

You're right in saying the hole becomes the origin of the shot for purposes of determining cover and allocating wounds. But does that mean removing the vehicle? I don't see why it does.

[Sons of Lorgar]

I'm saying it means ignoring the model under the hole as if that model was firing the blast, a bit like the nurgle's rot psychic power where every model within a certain radius of the psyker is hit.

[red_drake]

Do you ignore models in the enemy unit when determining if that unit has cover? That makes the most sense and I swear it's written somewhere.

Either way, even If the barrage lands on a model and that model blocks line of sight to the unit, you still roll to wound against that model until it dies, and at that point, line of sight is no longer blocked so it's a moot point.

In the case of the tank blocking the unit, you should still be able to see the rest of the unit unless they are all hiding right up against the hull. The models blocked by the hull can't be allocated wounds, the rest of the unit can

To determine cover, you check line of sight, and if you check line of sight then a model can be out of sight.
If a model is out of sight it can't be allocate wounds.
It's not that complicated.


The only thing that is uncertain is if the blast counts as being on the ground or the top of the hull

[Infidel]

I find it very interesting that @Infidel in his post begins by completely denying the use of LOS in Barrages, then uses it in his steps 3 and 4..

which one is it @Infidel? I think your use of them is correct, except the Rhino does not disappear. You have no basis for this "removal". its a model like any other. it stays there until removed by a genuine rule. not because it makes things easier for you.

I'm not sure why you insist on appending "@" in front of my name but oh well. The key of my post is in the "imaginary", you determine proximity and cover from it, but there is nothing about LoS. It's resolved similarly to the normal LoS mechanic, but it is not. Just as a Leadership test is similar, but is not the same as a Morale test. That is my point of contention anway.

Also, the wall I was asking about in my example would be 100% obscuring the marine hit, not partly obscuring him for a 5+ cover save. So if you already checked LOS to the hole, wouldn't you say the 100% obscured model can not be assigned a wound due to the "Out of Sight" section?

As I have previously agreed with DoctorTom, I believe this is a matter that needs to be FAQ'd. The LoS clause pertains primarily to directed attacks, whereas a scattered blast will have us ignore it completely. There has been some heated discussion on that topic, and the conclusion from that is generally it is a matter that needs FAQ'd.

Also.. where do you get that the game is 2-dimensional by default?? where does it say this??

There's lots of cases that suggest 3-dimensionality as a matter of course.. like TLOS, like measuring range regardless of elevation, it doesn't tell you to measure the distance on the ground only.. if the shooter is high up on a ruin, you measure the physical distance to target even if it has a vertical component. The "Check Range" section doesn't say anything about ignoring elevation.

Where does it say that you place the blast template physically on top of where it hits? You assume that because the shot impacted the vehicle then you effectively place the blast marker on top of the rhino, when in fact, all the rule tells us to do is hold it over the battlefield and then look what is under the template. Is the template then "projected" onto the ground-plane or where the attack will physically be placed? (For example, it the blast impacted a hill, the blast would be resolved with a slight elevation)

I must admit I'm a bit swayed, and I'm no longer so certain of my original position.

[Sons of Lorgar]

I still claim that a wall would grant cover, but no immunity, while the model beside the hit vehicle is 'in the open' and is "sh.. out of luck". (Unless he's a character in which case the Look out sir rule comes into play.)

[DoctorTom]

Where does it say that you place the blast template physically on top of where it hits? You assume that because the shot impacted the vehicle then you effectively place the blast marker on top of the rhino, when in fact, all the rule tells us to do is hold it over the battlefield and then look what is under the template. Is the template then "projected" onto the ground-plane or where the attack will physically be placed? (For example, it the blast impacted a hill, the blast would be resolved with a slight elevation)

So if I hold the blast marker over the battlefield, an inch away from my eye, I hit everything that looks to me like it's under the template, even if from my perception it's covering 2/3 of the table?

[Tarsus]

So if I hold the blast marker over the battlefield, an inch away from my eye, I hit everything that looks to me like it's under the template, even if from my perception it's covering 2/3 of the table?

Yep, that is exactly as it is written in the rulebook. Hold the template over the target and look through it. No more no less.

[DoctorTom]

Yep, that is exactly as it is written in the rulebook. Hold the template over the target and look through it. No more no less.

So basically the same "common sense" that we use to actually have the template down close to the battlefield so that we don't encompass too much a subjective area should also be used for looking from the center of that blast to see what might get cover?

[Infidel]

So basically the same "common sense" that we use to actually have the template down close to the battlefield so that we don't encompass too much a subjective area should also be used for looking from the center of that blast to see what might get cover?

Going 100% RAW runs the risk of one sounding like they've gone full retard...

[Tarsus]

So basically the same "common sense" that we use to actually have the template down close to the battlefield so that we don't encompass too much a subjective area should also be used for looking from the center of that blast to see what might get cover?

Well if you insist on quoting rules from the rulebook that are clearly stupid then you should be prepared to have them quoted back. You can't choose to follow only the rules you want want to and ignore the rules you don't agree with.

Look at the photo I posted in an earlier post, if my opponent told me that "according to the rules" the infantry was out of LoS then I would just raise the template up until it was, as in my opinion any one who thought the infantry couldn't be allocated wounds from that blast deserves to be hit by every stupid rule there is.