Ordnance targets and scatter - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Sparta! Exarch Thomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland
    Posts
    1,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    198 (x4)

    Ordnance targets and scatter

    Hi all,

    In a recent IG thread someone came up with the point that Ordinance is ineffective if it is out of LoS (needing to be an indirect fire weapon to target units out of LoS). The example referred to was of a Battle Cannon shot targeting the only sister in sight and then scattering so it covered the rest of the squad (who were hiding behind a wrecked rhino).
    Now, the direct quote used was:
    I thought you would have realized that a scatter out of LOS is forfeited and even if it lands on enemy troops, they are out of LOS.
    After reading the rules closely (well, arms length away at any rate) the above statement appears to be false.
    Now I’m not sure if I can directly quote the rules on this forum, but the passage in reference is P29, 5th Paragraph under Ordnance Weapons.
    According to the rules, if the initial target was out of LoS or out of range of the centre hole then the shot is wasted and counts as an automatic miss. After this you then proceed to roll the scatter dice and see where the final resting place is.
    So I guess my question is this:
    Is it possible for a shot to scatter outside range and LoS?

    Cheers,

    Thomo

    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (It's time to roll the dice)- Mattrim Cauthon

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Now with STFU flames! Caluin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    36
    Posts
    5,917
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    708 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Exarch Thomo View Post
    Is it possible for a shot to scatter outside range and LoS?
    Short answer: Yes.

    Long answer: Found in the BGB, the final sentence in the passage that you've already read.


  4. #3
    Sparta! Exarch Thomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland
    Posts
    1,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    198 (x4)

    Wow, that was quick. I thought I was correct, I just wanted to make sure just in case I was missing something the other guy was (although judging by the rest of his posts I proabably shouldn't have bothered - they didn't seem to make a lot of sense.)
    Cheers, Caluin for the speedy response.
    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (It's time to roll the dice)- Mattrim Cauthon

  5. #4
    Suffer not the Unclean InquisitorAffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    381 (x8)

    If you go straight RAW out of the rulebook, Ordnance that scatters out of range and/or LOS is in fact useless because of the "there's no legal casualty to remove" argument.

    However, one would direct interested readers to the Official Rulebook FAQ on GW's site for resolution to this issue. =)

  6. #5
    for good and for awesome! kore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    134 (x4)

    Quote Originally Posted by InquisitorAffe View Post
    If you go straight RAW out of the rulebook, Ordnance that scatters out of range and/or LOS is in fact useless because of the "there's no legal casualty to remove" argument.
    Huh?!

    "Scatter rolls can take the Blast marker beyond range or out of sight, ..."

    That is RAW. There is no arguement.
    Karmoon: "well.. any kore = good kore" 12:35pm PST 23 May 2007


  7. #6
    Sparta! Exarch Thomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland
    Posts
    1,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    198 (x4)

    I think he is reffering to page 26 under Removing Casualties where it states that the owning player can "remove any models in the unit providing they are within line of fire and range of the attacker's weaponry"

    That and he was only highlighting a theory, which he then provides an official referrance where it is disproved.
    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (It's time to roll the dice)- Mattrim Cauthon

  8. #7
    for good and for awesome! kore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    134 (x4)

    Quote Originally Posted by Exarch Thomo View Post
    I think he is reffering to page 26 under Removing Casualties where it states that the owning player can "remove any models in the unit providing they are within line of fire and range of the attacker's weaponry"

    That and he was only highlighting a theory, which he then provides an official referrance where it is disproved.
    The Ordnance weapon is a special case. It has special rules that govern it differently compared to standard weapons. The rule on page 29 (quoted) isn't there to say "yeah, it scattered beyond range or LoS but you're screwed". It is actually arguing the fluffy reason why is may still work: the wind blew the shell in that direction. Common sense should be used.
    Karmoon: "well.. any kore = good kore" 12:35pm PST 23 May 2007


  9. #8
    Sparta! Exarch Thomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland
    Posts
    1,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    198 (x4)

    Not only common sense, but the FAQ link provided by Inquisitor Affe. He was by no means endorsing that response - merely propositioning what some people may say - and provided a relevant official source where the hypothetical stance is disproved.
    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (It's time to roll the dice)- Mattrim Cauthon

  10. #9
    Suffer not the Unclean InquisitorAffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,251
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    381 (x8)

    The old argument, before the FAQ sorted it, is that even though the marker can scatter out of sight, there's no exception given anywhere to the rule that only models in range and line of sight of the firer can be removed as casualties. (Still holds true for non Ordnance blasts and Ordnance that didn't scatter.)

    Being aware the FAQ plugs the hole is just useful knowledge in case someone won't yield on it! Someone at GW must have thought it had some sort of marginal merit to bother noting it in the FAQ.

  11. #10
    for good and for awesome! kore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    134 (x4)

    Quote Originally Posted by InquisitorAffe View Post
    Being aware the FAQ plugs the hole is just useful knowledge in case someone won't yield on it! Someone at GW must have thought it had some sort of marginal merit to bother noting it in the FAQ.
    Surprise, surprise!
    Karmoon: "well.. any kore = good kore" 12:35pm PST 23 May 2007


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts