Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Sparta!
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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
 

·
Sparta!
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
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.
 

·
Suffer not the Unclean
Joined
·
2,251 Posts
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. =)
 

·
for good and for awesome!
Joined
·
1,492 Posts
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.
 

·
Sparta!
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
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.
 

·
for good and for awesome!
Joined
·
1,492 Posts
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.
 

·
Sparta!
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
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.
 

·
Suffer not the Unclean
Joined
·
2,251 Posts
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.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top