Hi Dakka, just want a rules clarification and to see whether my interpretation is correct.

Scenario:
A character is successfully hit with a Destroyer weapon.
On the subsequent roll, a 2-5 is rolled (D3+1) wounds.

A) Can Look Out Sir rolls be taken?
B) Can Look Out Sir rolls be taken if the result on the Destroyer Weapon Chart is a 6? (Little unsure as you don't get the opportunity to make a saving roll in this scenario).
C) If answer's to A and B are yes, would (1) the character make Look Out Sir rolls until they lost their last wound or until all wounds have been resolved (whichever comes first), or (2) the character make one Look Out Sir roll and if successful, pass all the wounds onto the model that sacrifices itself?

My personal opinion is that Look Out Sir rolls may be taken in both scenarios (as it is not a save).
In regards to multiple wounds, I think the correct way to resolve it is (1).

Sorry if this is confusing and thanks in advance

The character can pass it on to his underlings, even though it will not receive a save of any type. Form multiple wounds, resolve each wound as a LOS like you would normally. You were correct.

You can LoS on a 6. as it only says "no saves of any kind may be taken". LoS isn't a save. On a 2-5, LoS can be a great tactic for keeping a multi-wound, well kitted character model in the game, as excess wounds from D weapons are lost, rather than allocating to another model.

You cannot LoS any of the destroyer results.

they are not a wound pool like normal shooting.

The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1.

As it is an affect targeted to the model that takes the hit, once a hit is assigned for a model by rolling the result that is what the model suffers, there are no allocated wounds.

this is the same reason if you hit an unit of 1 wound models with a D weapon and roll three 1's and a single 4 then roll a 3 on the D3 the 3 wounds are all suffered by the same model and not three models suffering 1 wound.

blaktoof wrote:
You cannot LoS any of the destroyer results.

they are not a wound pool like normal shooting.

The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1.

As it is an affect targeted to the model that takes the hit, once a hit is assigned for a model by rolling the result that is what the model suffers, there are no allocated wounds.

this is the same reason if you hit an unit of 1 wound models with a D weapon and roll three 1's and a single 4 then roll a 3 on the D3 the 3 wounds are all suffered by the same model and not three models suffering 1 wound.

I disagree. The D Table determines how many wounds the model that takes the hit suffers, and the destroyer rules establishes that excess wounds are lost, and don't move to the next model. No language in it precludes a LoS. "The Model" in this case refers to the model that eventually takes the hit. But you can still LoS to shift that hit to a different model.

Wounds from D weapons are not "allocated", they are "suffered". Can you LoS a Perils of the Warp?

The problem is destroyer results create wounds suffered by a model.

There are no allocated wounds, and as per LoS:

When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters, and there is another model from the same unit within 6", he is allowed a Look Out, Sir attempt.

You only have permission to LoS wounds that are allocated to the character.

Fragile wrote:Wounds from D weapons are not "allocated", they are "suffered". Can you LoS a Perils of the Warp?

blaktoof wrote:The problem is destroyer results create wounds suffered by a model.

There are no allocated wounds, and as per LoS:

When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters, and there is another model from the same unit within 6", he is allowed a Look Out, Sir attempt.

You only have permission to LoS wounds that are allocated to the character.

There is still a wound being allocated, it is simply a destroyer wound, one that causes more than one wound to be lost.

You can't LoS perils, for the same reason you can't LoS Gets Hot, because the wound is coming from the model itself and only affects that model.

allocated wounds come from when firing at an unit normally, you roll to hit, then roll to wound versus toughness/ld or whatever depending on the attack.

The total wounds are put into a pool and then allocated to models. If a wound is allocated to a character it can be LoSed on certain rolls for certain rules.

For D weapons there is no rolling to wound, and no generation of a wound pool. There are no wounds allocated to models, instead there are hits generated that create roll results on a table against models that are hit.

Each model suffers the effect of the roll, if there is one.

There is no allocation of wounds from a wound pool to models, which is the only way LoS works.

I agree results of 6 cannot benefit from LO,S. However remember that this does not override the core rules for model removal which can mitigate the damage similar to LO,S.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Fragile wrote:Wounds from D weapons are not "allocated", they are "suffered". Can you LoS a Perils of the Warp?

blaktoof wrote:The problem is destroyer results create wounds suffered by a model.

There are no allocated wounds, and as per LoS:

When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters, and there is another model from the same unit within 6", he is allowed a Look Out, Sir attempt.

You only have permission to LoS wounds that are allocated to the character.

There is still a wound being allocated, it is simply a destroyer wound, one that causes more than one wound to be lost.

You can't LoS perils, for the same reason you can't LoS Gets Hot, because the wound is coming from the model itself and only affects that model.

The wound from Perils is coming from a psychic test, the wound from Gets Hot is coming from a weapon. Both use the term "suffers" which is the same as D weapons. So anywhere in the D weapon rules where a model is "allocated a wound" and you can LOS it. Otherwise, no.

Fragile wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Fragile wrote:Wounds from D weapons are not "allocated", they are "suffered". Can you LoS a Perils of the Warp?

blaktoof wrote:The problem is destroyer results create wounds suffered by a model.

There are no allocated wounds, and as per LoS:

When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters, and there is another model from the same unit within 6", he is allowed a Look Out, Sir attempt.

You only have permission to LoS wounds that are allocated to the character.

There is still a wound being allocated, it is simply a destroyer wound, one that causes more than one wound to be lost.

You can't LoS perils, for the same reason you can't LoS Gets Hot, because the wound is coming from the model itself and only affects that model.

The wound from Perils is coming from a psychic test, the wound from Gets Hot is coming from a weapon. Both use the term "suffers" which is the same as D weapons. So anywhere in the D weapon rules where a model is "allocated a wound" and you can LOS it. Otherwise, no.

Except that the wound is being allocated. D weapons are still shooting or close combat attacks. The wounds are still applied, via the normal rules, to the closest model in the enemy squad. The player who controls the defending models still determines who takes the hit if multiple models are equidistant. The wounds are still being allocated based on who is closest/controlling player's choice. The player defending can still attempt, per the LoS rule, to shift that allocation to a further away model. All the Destroyer table does is change the amount of damage the wound does to the model it is allocated to. You're looking at it completely backwards. Since D weapons are shooting/assault attacks, and the LoS rules say you can attempt a LoS when wounds are allocated to a model in shooting or close combat, the D weapon table doesn't need to say "you can LoS" for it to be allowed, it would have to say "these wounds are not considered allocated, LoS cannot be taken" in order to DISALLOW it.

The reason perils is different is 10) perils is not a shooting/close combat attack, and 2) the rule specifically states "the psyker" takes the wound.

The reason Get's hot is different is that it explicitly states that you cannot LoS, which D weapons do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dominuschao wrote:
I agree results of 6 cannot benefit from LO,S. However remember that this does not override the core rules for model removal which can mitigate the damage similar to LO,S.

A roll of 6 can absolutely benefit from LoS. A 6 roll only disallows saving throws. LoS is not a save.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Except that the wound is being allocated.

Only the initial wound is allocated. The other wounds are not.

 Ghaz wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Except that the wound is being allocated.

Only the initial wound is allocated. The other wounds are not.

That in no way precludes LoS. You LoS for the initial allocated wound, when it is allocated, as allowed by the LoS rules. Then, after the LoS is resolved, you roll on the D table to determine how many wound that wound causes the model it was finally allocated to to lose. It's one wound., that does more damage. Hence why it's not worded as "does d3, or d6+6 wounds", but as "suffers a hit that wounds automatically, and causes it to lose d3 wounds instead of one"

It does preclude LOS on anything other than the original wound.

 Ghaz wrote:
It does preclude LOS on anything other than the original wound.

There aren't any additional wounds! You're conflating "wounds", verb, small w, "wound", noun, small w, and "Wounds", noun, big W.

The first refers to an attack successful damaging an opponent.

The second refers to said successful attack

The third refers to the amount of damage, expressed in a number of Wounds, that a model can take before it dies

"The model suffers a hit (singular) which wounds automatically (successfully does damage), and causes it to lose d3 Wounds instead of 1 (the amount of damage it does to the model)"

A successful D hit cause ONE wound. However, the D rules alter that wound so that instead of causing the model to lose 1 Wound, like normal, it causes the model to lose d3 Wounds. Those d3 lost Wounds(HP, toughness points, whatever you want to call them) are still caused by a single successful wound (attack that causes damage)

So where in the rules are the rules that tell us the difference between a 'wound' and a 'Wound'? You're making up a difference that's not in the rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
So where in the rules are the rules that tell us the difference between a 'wound' and a 'Wound'? You're making up a difference that's not in the rules.

The sentence he quoted is using them separately grammatically. Capital W is the proper noun usage.

And again, where is the difference between 'wound' and 'Wound' noted in the rulebook? The sentence he quoted doesn't define how they're different.

Is ghaz and blaktoof the same person?

On a more serious note, you can los destroyer weapons. Any wound that comes from a weapon you can los.

Let's tackle this another way.

What rules are we using to allocate the Destroyer Wound?

 Ghaz wrote:
So where in the rules are the rules that tell us the difference between a 'wound' and a 'Wound'? You're making up a difference that's not in the rules.

I'm making up nothing. First off. the specific use of Wound, with a capital W, is right out of the rulebook, and is consistently used throughout the entire book when referring to specific attribute in model profiles. As for the other two uses, I'm doing nothing more than identifying them grammatically, and explaining the context in which they are consistently used though-out the book. the assumption that it is a single wound doing more damage comes from the fact that the rule refers to the model suffering a singular hit, which causes it to lose plural wounds, rather than referring to plural hits each causing to lose singular wounds.

Regardless, none of that changes the simple fact that the logic of "The rules for D weapons don't say they are allocated as part of a wound pool, so you can't LoS" makes absolutely no sense. The rules earlier in the book already explain the concept of how wounds are allocated both in shooting and close combat (i.e., to the closest model, with the controlling player making the call if two models are equidistant), and that when a wound is allocated to a model, if the model is a character, the controlling player can attempt to deflect it to a different model by passing a LoS check. At this point, the assumption would be that the Destroyer rules would state if they differed from the normal rules, not if they stayed the same. That would be ludicrous to expect, the rulebook would be 10,000 pages long, because with each new rule, they would have to reiterate which of the already established basic rules continued to apply to the new rule. A perfect example is the Gets Hot rule. Because it comes from a shooting attack, the assumption would be that you could LoS. Because this is not the case, however, the game designers explicitly state that you cannot make a LoS attempt to avoid a model taking a wound from a Gets Hot result. Nowhere in the Destroyer rules does it say "this wound is not considered to be allocated to the model, and therefore you cannot attempt to LoS". That is the thing that is being made up without being supported by the rule book

You use standard shooting rules / assault rules to allocate wounds from a destroyer weapon. If you don't, then obviously my character takes no wounds from your destroyer weapon, because it was never allocated to him, right?

I was misremembering the table earlier, you cannot LO,S any result on the D table. Reason is, as stated above, destroyer weapons do not create a wound pool because they do not roll to wound. Again though this does not supersede the normal rules for model removal so ICs remain petty well protected.

And obviously some people choose to play it differently. For example BAO faq allows characters to LO,S "destroyer hits" although personally I think Ds were toned down enough already.

dominuschao wrote:
I was misremembering the table earlier, you cannot LO,S any result on the D table. Reason is, as stated above, destroyer weapons do not create a wound pool because they do not roll to wound. Again though this does not supersede the normal rules for model removal so ICs remain petty well protected.

And obviously some people choose to play it differently. For example BAO faq allows characters to LO,S "destroyer hits" although personally I think Ds were toned down enough already.

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that D weapons don't create a Wound pool, just because they don't roll to wound. Again, nowhere in the rules does it say "Wound pools are only created when you roll to wound". In fact the rule on wounds pools read "Total up the number of Wounds you have caused with the weapons that are firing. Keep the dice that have scored Wounds, and create a pool" (for shooting pg. 34), and "Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused during that Initiative step. Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a pool" (For assault, pg. 51). Nowhere in either of those does it say "total up the number of wounds you caused by rolling to wound" or "the dice that have scored Wounds by rolling to wound". It says "the dice that have scored wounds". In the case of a Strength D weapon, the "dice that have scored wounds" are the dice rolled off of the D table after a successful hit that were not a 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

siege2142 wrote:
You use standard shooting rules / assault rules to allocate wounds from a destroyer weapon. If you don't, then obviously my character takes no wounds from your destroyer weapon, because it was never allocated to him, right?

Also, this. There seems to be some basic misunderstanding about what the word "allocate" means. If the wounds aren't allocated, then nobody would take them. If, at some point, for whatever reason, however you want to define it, somebody said "this model has to take the wound", then the wound was allocated to them. And since this allocation happened during the shooting phase, or during close combat, since those are literally the only time a Strength D weapon could have been used, then the character model is entitled to a Look Out, Sir!, as per the rules in those respective sections

Interestingly enough, A Hive Tyrant part of the Skytyrant Formation can LOS any Wounds it suffers.

RaW Desttoyer weapons are broken. Blaktoof highlights the issue:

blaktoof wrote: For D weapons there is no rolling to wound, and no generation of a wound pool. There are no wounds allocated to models, instead there are hits generated that create roll results on a table against models that are hit.

The highlighted part is the issue. You NEVER hit models you hit units. The D table is triggered by rolling on it once for each MODEL hit. Therefore semantics about suffered wounds etc are irrelevant. You need to create a mechanic to make D Weapons work at all. Whether or not you allow LoS in that mechanic is up to you and how you've created your houserule to make D Weapons work.

Once a model has suffered the D table result though it is impossible to LoS as it does effects that occur after a failed save. In essence the best way to make them work with some semblance of RaW is assume D Weapons autowound and you roll on the table for effect AFTER the wound is allocated to a model (thus after LoS but before saves). But that is just my Houserule. Any rule that people use will be their houserule as the rulebook does not give us enough information to work out exactly how D Weapons are supposed to work.

col_impact wrote:


What rules are we using to allocate the Destroyer Wound?

The right question would be: what rules are we using to generate wounds and allocating them when generating a Destroyer HIT?

It specifically states the destroyer weapon does not roll to wound. But it creates a vacuum. You can hit something but you don't wound it. So how are we to determine who gets to suffer its effects and on which model (in case you have several hits on a unit with several models eligible to receive its effects, like a multi-char unit all in B2B) if there is no step to allocate the wound somehow?

Clearly a loophole.

Allocation needs to happen normally, and LOS should apply.

There is no wound allocated, merely suffered. Be it d3+1 or removed from play.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
There is no wound allocated, merely suffered. Be it d3+1 or removed from play.

So who suffers the wounds? A unit of 10 models gets hit by a D weapon 6 times. What do you do next and resolve that?

Also there is no "d3+1 or removed from play" only a wound that causes the model to lose d3 or d6+6 wounds.

tom_ep wrote:

col_impact wrote:


What rules are we using to allocate the Destroyer Wound?

The right question would be: what rules are we using to generate wounds and allocating them when generating a Destroyer HIT?

It specifically states the destroyer weapon does not roll to wound. But it creates a vacuum. You can hit something but you don't wound it. So how are we to determine who gets to suffer its effects and on which model (in case you have several hits on a unit with several models eligible to receive its effects, like a multi-char unit all in B2B) if there is no step to allocate the wound somehow?

Clearly a loophole.

Allocation needs to happen normally, and LOS should apply.

See my post above, on the actual rules for creating and allocating wound pools. There is no loophole or gap in the rules. The idea that D Weapons do not create a wound pool to allocate because they don't roll to wound is flawed. The wound pool is created from "the dice that scored wounds". It doesn't matter that you didn't roll to wound, the dice rolled on the D table and did not generate a 1 are still are "the dice that scored wounds". The D table merely change the parameters of the "with each dice representing a Wound", by stating "that causes it to lose d3/d6+6 Wounds instead of one".

It's simple.

1) Roll to hit with the D Weapon.
2) Roll on destroyer table
3) Create Wound Pool from dice that did not roll a 1 on D table (these are the dice that scored wounds)
4) Allocate dice from the wound pool
5) Resolve LoS
6) Once the final allocation of wounds is finished, roll to see how many Wounds the model loses



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't know where people are getting this distinction that "suffers" is some special GW terminology meaning "this model get hit by a wound without it being allocated", when there is absolutely no consistent language I'm the BRB that supports this. In fact, there are numerous cases of this language in the book, specifically referring to wounds that were allocated to the model. See the rules for Concussive, Eternal Warrior, FNP, Instant Death, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strike Down. Every one of them uses the language "when a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds". Shall we assume, then that these rules only apply to D Weapons, because based on the interpretation people are using in this thread, models hit by other weapons had them "allocated" rather than "suffering" them. "Allocate" nor "suffer" are not mutually exclusive game terms. They aren't game terms in general. They are perfectly normal English words being used in plain context.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

tom_ep wrote:

col_impact wrote:


What rules are we using to allocate the Destroyer Wound?

The right question would be: what rules are we using to generate wounds and allocating them when generating a Destroyer HIT?

It specifically states the destroyer weapon does not roll to wound. But it creates a vacuum. You can hit something but you don't wound it. So how are we to determine who gets to suffer its effects and on which model (in case you have several hits on a unit with several models eligible to receive its effects, like a multi-char unit all in B2B) if there is no step to allocate the wound somehow?

Clearly a loophole.

Allocation needs to happen normally, and LOS should apply.

See my post above, on the actual rules for creating and allocating wound pools. There is no loophole or gap in the rules. The idea that D Weapons do not create a wound pool to allocate because they don't roll to wound is flawed. The wound pool is created from "the dice that scored wounds". It doesn't matter that you didn't roll to wound, the dice rolled on the D table and did not generate a 1 are still are "the dice that scored wounds". The D table merely change the parameters of the "with each dice representing a Wound", by stating "that causes it to lose d3/d6+6 Wounds instead of one".

It's simple.

1) Roll to hit with the D Weapon.
2) Roll on destroyer table
3) Create Wound Pool from dice that did not roll a 1 on D table (these are the dice that scored wounds)
4) Allocate dice from the wound pool
5) Resolve LoS
6) Once the final allocation of wounds is finished, roll to see how many Wounds the model loses



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't know where people are getting this distinction that "suffers" is some special GW terminology meaning "this model get hit by a wound without it being allocated", when there is absolutely no consistent language I'm the BRB that supports this. In fact, there are numerous cases of this language in the book, specifically referring to wounds that were allocated to the model. See the rules for Concussive, Eternal Warrior, FNP, Instant Death, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strike Down. Every one of them uses the language "when a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds". Shall we assume, then that these rules only apply to D Weapons, because based on the interpretation people are using in this thread, models hit by other weapons had them "allocated" rather than "suffering" them. "Allocate" nor "suffer" are not mutually exclusive game terms. They aren't game terms in general. They are perfectly normal English words being used in plain context.

That's some cool houserules and all. But you only roll on the Destroyer table for models hit not units. Also until you roll the d3s (or d6s) you don't have a total number of wounds to put into the wound pool.

I'm not saying that your way is bad. I think it is a very good way to handle the broken rules. However the rules here are undeniably broken and your houserule has no more validity than anyone elses.

 FlingitNow wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

tom_ep wrote:

col_impact wrote:


What rules are we using to allocate the Destroyer Wound?

The right question would be: what rules are we using to generate wounds and allocating them when generating a Destroyer HIT?

It specifically states the destroyer weapon does not roll to wound. But it creates a vacuum. You can hit something but you don't wound it. So how are we to determine who gets to suffer its effects and on which model (in case you have several hits on a unit with several models eligible to receive its effects, like a multi-char unit all in B2B) if there is no step to allocate the wound somehow?

Clearly a loophole.

Allocation needs to happen normally, and LOS should apply.

See my post above, on the actual rules for creating and allocating wound pools. There is no loophole or gap in the rules. The idea that D Weapons do not create a wound pool to allocate because they don't roll to wound is flawed. The wound pool is created from "the dice that scored wounds". It doesn't matter that you didn't roll to wound, the dice rolled on the D table and did not generate a 1 are still are "the dice that scored wounds". The D table merely change the parameters of the "with each dice representing a Wound", by stating "that causes it to lose d3/d6+6 Wounds instead of one".

It's simple.

1) Roll to hit with the D Weapon.
2) Roll on destroyer table
3) Create Wound Pool from dice that did not roll a 1 on D table (these are the dice that scored wounds)
4) Allocate dice from the wound pool
5) Resolve LoS
6) Once the final allocation of wounds is finished, roll to see how many Wounds the model loses



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't know where people are getting this distinction that "suffers" is some special GW terminology meaning "this model get hit by a wound without it being allocated", when there is absolutely no consistent language I'm the BRB that supports this. In fact, there are numerous cases of this language in the book, specifically referring to wounds that were allocated to the model. See the rules for Concussive, Eternal Warrior, FNP, Instant Death, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strike Down. Every one of them uses the language "when a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds". Shall we assume, then that these rules only apply to D Weapons, because based on the interpretation people are using in this thread, models hit by other weapons had them "allocated" rather than "suffering" them. "Allocate" nor "suffer" are not mutually exclusive game terms. They aren't game terms in general. They are perfectly normal English words being used in plain context.

That's some cool houserules and all. But you only roll on the Destroyer table for models hit not units. Also until you roll the d3s (or d6s) you don't have a total number of wounds to put into the wound pool.

I'm not saying that your way is bad. I think it is a very good way to handle the broken rules. However the rules here are undeniably broken and your houserule has no more validity than anyone elses.

It has nothing to do with house rules, this is simply how it works. Unless you can point me to a specific sentence where it says "a destroyer weapon's hits are not considered allocated, and therefore cannot be benefit from a LoS", the rules apply as previously written. Advanced rules state when they differ from the basic rules, not when they concur. To expect every special rule to state that the basic rules still apply would be ludicrous. The Destroyer rules aren't at all broken (okay, well, they are, but not in this case). If you read all the applicable rules, everything you need to figure out how destroyer weapons allocate is there. And it doesn't matter what the roll is on the d3 or d6, because you don't need to know the total number of Wounds the attack caused until it comes time to resolve damage, because the Wound Pool isn't comprised of the total number of Wounds caused, it is comprises of "the dice that scored wounds".

So say I hit a unit of 10 models 6 times with a Destroyer weapon. What do I do next? Where are those rules found? Resolve it for me.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So say I hit a unit of 10 models 6 times with a Destroyer weapon. What do I do next? Where are those rules found? Resolve it for me.

No problem. You do exactly what you do with any other weapon. Say it's a shooting D attack. You roll six hits/get six models under the template, whatever. Now, you roll six times on the D table, to get the result of your hits (this here is, in essence, your To Wound roll; this is why you don't roll to wound). You roll two 1s, three 3s, and one 5, for two lucky escapes and 4 devastating hits. You set aside the four dice that caused devastating hits, these are the dice that scored wounds. Now, you allocate the first die to the closest model, which is a character model. At this point it may take a LoS, as it has had a Wound Allocated to it. It fails the LoS, and must now take a save. The character has a 4+ invulnerable save, which it passes. The first hit is resolved. The second die is allocated to the same character, as it is still the closest model. This time, it passes its LoS, and so the dice is now allocated to the next model in the unit. This model does not have a save. This is the point at which the D weapon changes the parameters of the wounding process. The model is wounded, but as per the D table, the model loses d3 of its Wounds rather than 1, with any excess being lost. On the third die, the character fails its look out sir, fails its invul save, loses d3 Wounds and is removed from combat. The final die then allocates as usual to the next closest model, who is not a character, does not have a save he can take, and also dies.

You allocate the scoring dice themselves. What the Destroyer rule has done, in essence, if alter the rule of "Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a 'pool', where each dice represents a Wound" to "Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a 'pool' where each dice represents d3/d6+6 Wounds). The actual attack the is still referred to in the singular, though, "A hit that wounds automatically", and is still scored and allocated as one wound-scoring die.

You set aside the four dice that caused devastating hits, these are the dice that scored wounds. 

The issue here is the Destroyer table does wounds to models not units. The wound pool is for wounds caused to units (as to hit and to wound rolls are made against units). The unit has no wounds generated against it so why have you put any into the wound pool?

 FlingitNow wrote:

You set aside the four dice that caused devastating hits, these are the dice that scored wounds. 

The issue here is the Destroyer table does wounds to models not units. The wound pool is for wounds caused to units (as to hit and to wound rolls are made against units). The unit has no wounds generated against it so why have you put any into the wound pool?

Because that's a false distinction. In the end wounds are always done to models. All the wound pool does is organize the wounds scored against a unit, and then allocate which models actually suffer the wounds. You still target a unit, not a particular model, unless the D weapon is also precision shot/strike (and to my knowledge, none of them are; and keep in mind, even precision shot/strike, which target a particular model, still explicitly allow look out sirs). Even with a non D weapon, eventually, once the Wounds have been allocated, a particular model actually suffers the wound. The D table changes how the model that suffers the Wound suffers it, not how you allocate wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hence why, in all of the rules I quoted in a previous post, Concussive, Instant Death, etc., it still reads "when a model suffers and unsaved wound". Units are targeted, but in the end Wounds are always suffered by a single, individual model.

Yes the wound pool is what transfers wounds from units to models. The Destroyer table skips this step but doesn't tell us how to transfer hits from units to models. Hence it is broken.

If you'd t doesn't tell you how to do it, then you don't make up a new way to do something, you do it the way you were taught. In this case, allocating a hit to a character, then letting a grunt go "oh, gak! LOOK OUT, SIR!"

What tells you to allocate hits? Where are those rules found?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes the wound pool is what transfers wounds from units to models. The Destroyer table skips this step but doesn't tell us how to transfer hits from units to models. Hence it is broken.

Destroyer weapons do not skip the wound pool step. That is where your error is. Literally nowhere does the book say that the wound pool is comprised only of wounds generated by rolling To Wound. It is comprised of dice that have scored wounds. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you rolled to wound. All that matter is, did you roll a die, and the result of that roll resulted in a wound being generated. If yes, than that die scored a wound. You roll to hit with a destroyer weapon. Then you roll on the D table, and if you roll anything but a 1, that die wounds. The dice rolled on the D table are the dice scoring wounds. They are the Wound Pool, they are what are allocated, in the normal fashion described in the rules for shooting and assault. The only thing the D table changes is the basic formula of the rules for the wound pool shown on pages 34 and 51. Now, instead of 1 die = 1 wound, it becomes 1 die = d3/d6+6 wounds.

"Total up the number of Wounds you have caused with the weapons that are firing. Keep the dice that have scored Wounds, and create a pool, with each dice representing 1 Wound"

"Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused during that Initiative step. Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a pool, with each dice representing 1 Wound"

The problem is, you're creating a requirement for the wound pool that is stated nowhere in the rules. It does not say "Total up the number of Wounds you have caused with each dice that was rolled To Wound, and create a pool, but any other way that a wound is generated other than rolling To Wound somehow magically doesn't create a wound pool, and therefore never allocates to any model, because only Wound pools allocate, yet still somehow hits a particular model out of the unit, which is the definition of being allocated, through a logical impossibility possible only through the Emperor's divine grace". I says to create a pool out of the dice that scored Wounds. The dice that scored wounds are any dice that caused a wound, such as the dice rolled on the D table that results in a hit that wounds automatically. The only thing that the D-table rules change is the amount of lost wounds that dice represents from 1 to d3/d6+6.

There is always a wound pool. The wound pool is not some magical special rule that only applies to certain types of attacks. It is literally nothing more than a tool for organizing the process of distributing damage, when damage has been done by something.

The reason the D table doesn't tell you how to allocate the damage when it doesn't create a Wounds pool is that there is absolutely nothing in the rules that precludes it creating a wounds pool. The reason it doesn't explain how to allocate the wounds is because the rules had already explained how to create a wound pool and how to allocate damage. The reason you think the D table is broken is because you're expecting the designers to explicitly state that the rules they spent the last 163 pages explaining still apply to the game. That's not how it works. You explicitly state when the rules differ from the core rules. Gets Hot differs from the core rules, by not allowing a LoS for a wound allocated during shooting, so it explicitly states that. Blast weapons differ from the core rules on rolling to hit, by rolling for scatter instead, so it explicitly states that. Relentless differs from the normal rules about how movement and shooting certain weapons, or charging and shooting certain weapons, so it explicitly states that.

The problem is, you're expecting the book to explicitly state that the rule still apply as normal, and using as a justification for needing this statement rules that don't actually appear anywhere in the book.

Nice rant please point to where I said the wound pool required a to wound roll? It requires wounds created against a unit so it can allocate those wounds to models. D Weapons never cause wounds to units so the wound pool cannot be used.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Nice rant please point to where I said the wound pool required a to wound roll? It requires wounds created against a unit so it can allocate those wounds to models. D Weapons never cause wounds to units so the wound pool cannot be used.

For sake! All wounds are done to individual models! All the wounds pool does is tell you how many total wounds have to be allocated to the individual models. Give me a single instance in the rules in which a entire unit is wounded. Models are wounded. Units do not have a Wounds characteristic. Models do. A unit is targeted. The number of those hits that actually wound are determined through whatever method that weapon uses. For most weapons, that is a To Wound roll, for Destroyer weapons, it is a roll on the D table. Then they are allocated to the individual models. When you attack with a D weapon, you target a unit, not a model, just like every other weapon. Even with a template D weapon, you still target a unit, you just have the possibility to hit more than one unit, just like with every other blast weapon. At some point the attack on the unit must, logically, be converted into attacks on individual models.
This is the same no matter what weapon you are using. In the end, it is always a model that suffers the final effects of the wound, this is not unique to destroyer weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And even if all that "normal attacks wound units, D weapons wound models" codswallop were correct, which it isn't, not of that would change the fact that the rules also never, ever state that the wound pool is only created from wounds against a unit (mainly, because that doesn't even make sense)

I think you need to read the rules again. Wounds are done to units. If they were done to models then the majority toughness rule would never apply as a model only ever has 1 toughness value. How do you even think the wound pool works if you think wounds are done to models?

Lets go back to that ten man unit. Lets call them A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J & K. We'll call the unit U1. I roll to hit and get 10 hits with a normal weapon. Do I roll to wound against U1 or a model if the later (as you claim who do I roll against give me the letter please).

Now if the answer above is a particular model how can the wound pool assign those wounds to a different model?

If the answer above is U1 then you have wounds against a unit and use the wound pool to allocate those wounds to specific models within that unit. If this is the case then Destroyer Weapons don't work as they take place instead of a to wound roll but do wounds to models not units. Thus the wound pool can't be used and we have no way to determine which models take the wounds (as no models are hit).

If this is the case then Destroyer Weapons don't work as they take place instead of a to wound roll but do wounds to models not units. Thus the wound pool can't be used and we have no way to determine which models take the wounds (as no models are hit).

So what your saying is I can't take a los, but that's okay brcauser my models will never take an allocated wound. Perfect!

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think you need to read the rules again. Wounds are done to units. If they were done to models then the majority toughness rule would never apply as a model only ever has 1 toughness value. How do you even think the wound pool works if you think wounds are done to models?

Lets go back to that ten man unit. Lets call them A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J & K. We'll call the unit U1. I roll to hit and get 10 hits with a normal weapon. Do I roll to wound against U1 or a model if the later (as you claim who do I roll against give me the letter please).

Now if the answer above is a particular model how can the wound pool assign those wounds to a different model?

If the answer above is U1 then you have wounds against a unit and use the wound pool to allocate those wounds to specific models within that unit. If this is the case then Destroyer Weapons don't work as they take place instead of a to wound roll but do wounds to models not units. Thus the wound pool can't be used and we have no way to determine which models take the wounds (as no models are hit).

Yes, the determination of whether or not any wounds are generated are resolved against the majority toughness of the unit, so as to not slow down the game. The Wound itself is resolved against the individual model. Otherwise, why should you get to take your 2+ armor save on the character. The whole unit took the wound, you should have to use the rest of the squad's 6+ t-shirt save. It doesn't work that way because the wound was done to the actual freaking MODEL, who uses his own characteristics.

You're also ignoring numerous other examples that disprove your interpretation of what a wound being done to a model means. Look at Gets Hot.

"the firing model immediately suffers a wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken) - this wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a wound cause by the Gets Hot special rule". If, by your logic, wounds done to a model don't create a wound pool, and therefore can't be LoS'ed, then why did the game designers feel the need to state that you can't LoS a gets hot result? That should have already been covered by you imaginary rule.

By your logic, next time your T4 eternal warrior Warlord gets hit by a strength 10 weapon, he's dead, because Eternal Warrior states "when a model suffers" a wound, and non-destroyer weapons wound units, not models.

By your logic, FNP is now a waste of points because it doesn't do anything, since it only applies when "A model" suffers a wound, and you can't use it against D weapons. Oh, well.

Next time you're all excited because your thunder hammer just reduced the initiative 8 tyranid to initiative 1, well too bad, because concussive only work when "a model" is wounded by the weapon.

And again, nowhere does it say that the wound pool is comprised only of wounds done "to units" not "to models". I've quoted the exact rule to you, straight out of the book, at least three times. If you can't be arsed to actually read a rule, you shouldn't be playing the game.

What I'm saying is that RaW Destroyer weapons don't work. You have to create rules to make their allocation work. Depending on how you create those rules will determine whether or not you can LoS the rules. So essentially a debate on whether LoS is allowed or not is worthless as it depends on what houserules you've created to make D Weapons work so the disparate opinions on here are due to no common basis on how to resolve D Weapons.

Personally the houserules I use to make D Weapons work do allow LoS. But that is no more or less valid than anyone else's houserules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
What I'm saying is that RaW Destroyer weapons don't work. You have to create rules to make their allocation work. Depending on how you create those rules will determine whether or not you can LoS the rules. So essentially a debate on whether LoS is allowed or not is worthless as it depends on what houserules you've created to make D Weapons work so the disparate opinions on here are due to no common basis on how to resolve D Weapons.

Personally the houserules I use to make D Weapons work do allow LoS. But that is no more or less valid than anyone else's houserules.

That's the thing you don't understand. Nobody is creating house rules here, except you. I have done nothing but present the actual, official rules in the book, and explain to you why the rules you've made up in your head don't invalidate those rules. The problem is, you've created house rules, then used those house rules to attempt to invalidate the actual rules, then deemed the actual rules "house rules" because they don't agree with your actual, genuine house rules.

RaW? I've given you the RaW, numerous times. You've used rules that aren't in the book to then explain why the RaW doesn't work.

Yes, the determination of whether or not any wounds are generated are resolved against the majority toughness of the unit, so as to not slow down the game. The Wound itself is resolved against the individual model. Otherwise, why should you get to take your 2+ armor save on the character. The whole unit took the wound, you should have to use the rest of the squad's 6+ t-shirt save. It doesn't work that way because the wound was done to the actual freaking MODEL, who uses his own characteristics. 

Did you even read my post? Do you speak English? Yes saves are rolled by models. Why because AFTER you take a wound out of the wound pool you apply it to a model. BEFORE then it is a wound on the unit. I don't know how else to explain that to you. You roll to wound against units. You take the wounds caused to a unit and put it in the wound pool you take the UNIT'S WOUND POOL and assign those wounds to MODELS from that UNIT. Understand the difference between units and models yet?

You're also ignoring numerous other examples that disprove your interpretation of what a wound being done to a model means. Look at Gets Hot. 

"the firing model immediately suffers a wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken) - this wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a wound cause by the Gets Hot special rule". If, by your logic, wounds done to a model don't create a wound pool, and therefore can't be LoS'ed, then why did the game designers feel the need to state that you can't LoS a gets hot result? That should have already been covered by you imaginary rule. 

Yes the rules are full of redundant reminders there to add clarity as evidently many people playing the game don't understand plain English. That example actually supports my position.

By your logic, next time your T4 eternal warrior Warlord gets hit by a strength 10 weapon, he's dead, because Eternal Warrior states "when a model suffers" a wound, and non-destroyer weapons wound units, not models.

By your logic, FNP is now a waste of points because it doesn't do anything, since it only applies when "A model" suffers a wound, and you can't use it against D weapons. Oh, well. 

Next time you're all excited because your thunder hammer just reduced the initiative 8 tyranid to initiative 1, well too bad, because concussive only work when "a model" is wounded by the weapon. 

I never said wounds never get applied to models. The models EW rule is irrelevant until the wound is allocated to him using the wound pool. That is literally what wound allocation is all about allocating wounds on a unit to the models in the unit. Same for the other pointless nonsensical points you've tried to make.

So back to my example please tell me who you roll to wound against? U1 or one of the letters?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Yes, the determination of whether or not any wounds are generated are resolved against the majority toughness of the unit, so as to not slow down the game. The Wound itself is resolved against the individual model. Otherwise, why should you get to take your 2+ armor save on the character. The whole unit took the wound, you should have to use the rest of the squad's 6+ t-shirt save. It doesn't work that way because the wound was done to the actual freaking MODEL, who uses his own characteristics. 

Did you even read my post? Do you speak English? Yes saves are rolled by models. Why because AFTER you take a wound out of the wound pool you apply it to a model. BEFORE then it is a wound on the unit. I don't know how else to explain that to you. You roll to wound against units. You take the wounds caused to a unit and put it in the wound pool you take the UNIT'S WOUND POOL and assign those wounds to MODELS from that UNIT. Understand the difference between units and models yet?

You're also ignoring numerous other examples that disprove your interpretation of what a wound being done to a model means. Look at Gets Hot. 

"the firing model immediately suffers a wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken) - this wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a wound cause by the Gets Hot special rule". If, by your logic, wounds done to a model don't create a wound pool, and therefore can't be LoS'ed, then why did the game designers feel the need to state that you can't LoS a gets hot result? That should have already been covered by you imaginary rule. 

Yes the rules are full of redundant reminders there to add clarity as evidently many people playing the game don't understand plain English. That example actually supports my position.

By your logic, next time your T4 eternal warrior Warlord gets hit by a strength 10 weapon, he's dead, because Eternal Warrior states "when a model suffers" a wound, and non-destroyer weapons wound units, not models.

By your logic, FNP is now a waste of points because it doesn't do anything, since it only applies when "A model" suffers a wound, and you can't use it against D weapons. Oh, well. 

Next time you're all excited because your thunder hammer just reduced the initiative 8 tyranid to initiative 1, well too bad, because concussive only work when "a model" is wounded by the weapon. 

I never said wounds never get applied to models. The models EW rule is irrelevant until the wound is allocated to him using the wound pool. That is literally what wound allocation is all about allocating wounds on a unit to the models in the unit. Same for the other pointless nonsensical points you've tried to make.

So back to my example please tell me who you roll to wound against? U1 or one of the letters?

It is not a wound on the unit, it is a wound waiting to be allocated to a model. That's the thing, is you don't even extend your absurd logic evenly. You roll to hit a unit, then you roll to see how many of those hits wound (what you are referring to as "wounding a unit"), then you allocate the wounds to individual models based on the rules for wound allocation. What you are referring to as "wounding a unit" is nothing more than the wounds being non-specific until such time as they are allocated. D Weapons are no different. You roll to hit the unit, then you roll to see how many of those hits wound (this is determined differently, but you're still doing the same damn basic thing, determining how many of those hits wound), then you allocate those wound to individual models. Until the wounds have been allocated to a particular unit, they are non-specific (again, what you are referring to as "wounding a unit).

Here's an idea. Actually pick up your damn rule book. Give me an actual quote of a rule that says something to the effect of "you don't create a wound pool unless the wounds are caused to a unit" or "when you roll To Wound, you're wounding the unit, not the models". Find me any rule that establishes a clear difference between wounding a unit and wounding a model. Find me a single example of a redundant repetition of an established rule not phrased as "As a reminder..." or "remember..." or "this does not change x rule". Tell you what give me a quote of a single rule that supports your position. You keep talking about RaW, and accusing me of not reading the rules, and yet I've quoted you numerous rules that support my position, straight out of the rule book that's been in my lap for the last two hours, while you have yet to actually quote a single rule as written, instead just making unsubstantiated, unsupported claims about what the rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, keep in mind, page 156 "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule". Ergo, if it doesn't say it does something differently, then it doesn't. It's a simple as that.

You target units correct? Then you roll to hit against units correct? When you roll to wound do you use a specific models toughness or do you roll to wound against the majority toughness of the unit?

BrB page 34 wrote:To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart

So we roll to wound against a target correct? And what do we target, units or models?

BrB page 35 wrote: To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds from the Wound pool

So casualties are caused by wounds in the wound pool. So can casualties be caused to a unit or a model? So before the wounds in the pool are allocated who were they rolled against and who do they count against?

Closest models goes onto make it clear you are allocating wounds from the wound pool to a unit's models. Thus again proving the wounds are applied to the entire unit so that they can be allocated to any of the models in that unit.

RAW FlingitNow is correct. The only thing D weapons work on at the moment are Vehicles and Vehicle Squadrons, due to how they handle Armor Penetration/Hit Allocation.

Wound pools do not allocate hits, they allocate Wounds (p35). Destroyer hits are not Wounds. Additionally, even the Destroyer hits table results themselves cause hits, not Wounds. This is the basic problem for allocation presented in the thread.

The argument that "Dice that have Scored Wounds" (p34) counts for Destroyer hit table rolls would not apply. Destroyer hits have not scored any Wounds (yet). This would also be ignoring the sentence immediately before, which requires you to "total up the Wounds you have caused with the weapons that you are firing" (p34). You have not caused any Wounds (yet). This directly contradicts AnFéasógMór's ruling that you can make a Wound Pool with Destroyer hits or Destroyer hit table results.

RAI it's clear that there's some sort of allocation that's supposed to happen. Do they want us to roll on the table for all of the hits then allocate these results ('wound pool' method), or allocate one hit then roll on the table for that one and repeat until empty (vehicle squadron method)? It says to roll on the table instead of rolling to-Wound, so I have to assume that they probably want us to allocate the table results. Did anyone even playtest this?

HIWPI Either allocate the Destroyer hits (pre table rolls) as the Vehicle Squadron rules to individual models (and LoS those Hits) OR use AnFéasógMór's method and make "wound pools" of the table roll results (counting rolls of 1, 2-5, and 6 as different pools) then allocating as if they were standard Wounds (and LoS those "Wounds"). There are many ways to play this, but none are RAW.

TL;DR these rules are badly written. If they went on the p163 table and changed the table wording to something like "The unit suffers a hit that wounds automatically and removes d3 Wounds instead of 1 from the wounded model (after failing any saving throws for the single wound)" then we would've been a lot better off.

 Dilt wrote:
RAW FlingitNow is correct. The only thing D weapons work on at the moment are Vehicles and Vehicle Squadrons, due to how they handle Armor Penetration/Hit Allocation.

Wound pools do not allocate hits, they allocate Wounds (p35). Destroyer hits are not Wounds. Additionally, even the Destroyer hits table results themselves cause hits, not Wounds. This is the basic problem for allocation presented in the thread.

The argument that "Dice that have Scored Wounds" (p34) counts for Destroyer hit table rolls would not apply. Destroyer hits have not scored any Wounds (yet). This would also be ignoring the sentence immediately before, which requires you to "total up the Wounds you have caused with the weapons that you are firing" (p34). You have not caused any Wounds (yet). This directly contradicts AnFéasógMór's ruling that you can make a Wound Pool with Destroyer hits or Destroyer hit table results.

The destroyer rolls have caused wounds, what they have no yet done is caused a specific number of wounds. Causing d3 wounds is still causing wounds, because while variable, it is still at a minimum one. And the results do not generate hits, they generate "a hit that automatically wounds". When compared to the way non-D weapons works, you can clearly define a "scored wound" as a successful hit combined with a successful wound, which the terminology on the D table fulfills. All it changes is that you total up the number of d3s or d6s you generate, instead of the number of individual wounds, because the D-table has changed the 1 Wound referenced in the rule on wound pools to d3 or d6+6 wounds. It's a simple equivalency.

RAI it's clear that there's some sort of allocation that's supposed to happen. Do they want us to roll on the table for all of the hits then allocate these results ('wound pool' method), or allocate one hit then roll on the table for that one and repeat until empty (vehicle squadron method)? It says to roll on the table instead of rolling to-Wound, so I have to assume that they probably want us to allocate the table results. Did anyone even playtest this?

HIWPI Either allocate the Destroyer hits (pre table rolls) as the Vehicle Squadron rules to individual models (and LoS those Hits) OR use AnFéasógMór's method and make "wound pools" of the table roll results (counting rolls of 1, 2-5, and 6 as different pools) then allocating as if they were standard Wounds (and LoS those "Wounds"). There are many ways to play this, but none are RAW.

TL;DR these rules are badly written. If they went on the p163 table and changed the table wording to something like "The unit suffers a hit that wounds automatically and removes d3 Wounds instead of 1 from the wounded model (after failing any saving throws for the single wound)" then we would've been a lot better off.

The rule is written just fine when you take into account "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule". Reading through a similar thread on the subject on another 40k forum, someone put it excellently. The destroyer table establishes a special rule which dictates what happens to "the model" that suffers the attack, but it does not specify which model the attack is resolved on; since we are given no special rule dictating how to choose which model the hit is resolved on, then per the above rule, we can assume that the normal rules apply

Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This more or less what I'm saying. Unfortunately, some people need things explained to them in 20 paragraphs that should be explainable in 2 sentences, if they understood the underlying principles of the game. But whatever. I didn't have anything better to do today. Which is a sad thought, but that's life.

Although I still think D is OP'ed, but only because of the "no saves of any kind allowed" on a 6 result.

Except feel no pain! Because it isn't a save.

siege2142 wrote:
Except feel no pain! Because it isn't a save.

Which you can never take against Destroyer Weapons

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This is not RaW though. This is your houserule made up to be what you think is the rules. A good fit for the intention but not the RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This is not RaW though. This is your houserule made up to be what you think is the rules. A good fit for the intention but not the RaW.

Except that what I posted actually is the rules as written, paraphrased in an ironic manner. Your continued inability to understand paraphrasing or irony is very much on record at this point.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This is not RaW though. This is your houserule made up to be what you think is the rules. A good fit for the intention but not the RaW.

Except that what I posted actually is the rules as written, paraphrased in an ironic manner. Your continued inability to understand paraphrasing or irony is very much on record at this point.

SJ

I'm kind of getting the sense that he doesn't actually understand what RAW and "house rule" actually mean, given that most of his argument is that the rules written in the book (rule as written) don't apply, because rules that aren't in the book (house rules) contradict them.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This is not RaW though. This is your houserule made up to be what you think is the rules. A good fit for the intention but not the RaW.

Except that what I posted actually is the rules as written, paraphrased in an ironic manner. Your continued inability to understand paraphrasing or irony is very much on record at this point.

SJ

It really isn't RaW. As explained Wound Pools are created from wounds done to targets of shooting attacks. Targets of shooting attacks (and the same is true of assault) are UNITS the D Weapon does wounds to MODELS.

Just because you don't understand the difference doesn't make your Houserule into RaW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm kind of getting the sense that he doesn't actually understand whatRAW and "house rule" actually mean, given that most of his argument is that the rules written in the book (rule as written) don't apply, because rules that aren't in the book (house rules) contradict them.

A perfect example of why many threads go round in circles. Some one who can't understand plain English or even simple definitions like Unit and Model tries to argue RaW. Makes up a raft of houserules to make things they want to work, work and then calls it RaW.

If your argument is claiming that rules that apply at the unit level also magically work at model level you need rules to support that model level interaction. You can't just claim that they work. Also if your interpretation is based on the assumption that the rule book is wrong (when it says you roll to wound against units for example) then that again is not RaW.

It really isn't RaW. As explained Wound Pools are created from wounds done to targets of shooting attacks. Targets of shooting attacks (and the same is true of assault) are UNITS the D Weapon does wounds to MODELS.

See, that's where your little house rule comes in. Nowhere in the book does it say "only use the wounds pool for 'wounds done to units'. Even if it did, nowhere in the destroyer rules does it say that destroyer attacks are targeted or allocated any differently than attacks from a normal weapon. What the rules do say is that if a special rule bends or breaks the basic rules, it will say so. Ergo, the rules for destroyer weapons do not provide an alternative method of allocation, so they are allocated according to normal rules. But you are hung up on an interpretation of wound allocation based on terminology and principles that do not appear in the rules. That is a house rule. The D table tells you what happened to the model. It doesn't tell you how to determine which model, because that was already an established principle of the game.

If your argument is claiming that rules that apply at the unit level also magically work at model level you need rules to support that model level interaction. You can't just claim that they work. Also if your interpretation is based on the assumption that the rule book is wrong (when it says you roll to wound against units for example) then that again is not RaW.

This isn't how it works. You are claiming that the terminology used on the D table breaks the normal rules for how wounds are allocated to models. The rules clearly state that when a rule breaks the normal rule, it will be stated in that rule. Per that rule, the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming a break from the normal rules for allocation, and you have yet to post a single actual RAW that supports that claim.

So normal shooting you target a UNIT, to roll to hit a UNIT, you roll to wound a UNIT. Do you agree to the above or is the rulebook wrong?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So normal shooting you target a UNIT, to roll to hit a UNIT, you roll to wound a UNIT. Do you agree to the above or is the rulebook wrong?

This is correct. The problem you seem to be having is that the Destroyer Weapon damage table replaces the To Wound step in the normal wounding process. D-weapons wound automatically, they deal 0-12 wounds per model per hit, with any excess wounds lost rather than transferred to other models in the units. This is a specific change in how wounds are allocated that is related to D-weapons per the rules for D-weapons.

Here's a fun fact: if Grenaticus, or any Inperial Knight that is a Warlord, is in a Challenge, per the 7th Ex rules for Challenges any excess wounds caused by the character Knight's Reaper Chainsword do in fact carry over onto the opposing character's unit. This is a special exception to the normal wounding caused by D-Weapons, and was not the case in 6th when Challenges were first introduced (I.e., when excess wounds from Challenges were lost rather than transferred to the unit).

SJ

Yes Destroyer table replaces the to wound step which we agree causes wounds to units. Does the Destroyer table ever cause any wounds to units?

Fling what he's saying is that each D hit (since its replacing the to wound step) counts as automatic wounds on the unit (which can then be look out sir'd).


I sort of agree with this, but its certainly not written in black and white.

That is a cool houserule. But no where in the rules do D Weapons ever state they do any wounds to a unit. Hence whyD Weapons don't work RaW.

Its not as easy as some are making it out otherwise major tournaments would not be addressing the issue with their own FAQs.

Honestly I haven't had the issue come up very often. Usually characters don't matter much at that point while ICs are rarely placed in a position to be taking LO,S from destroyer weapons that I can remember.

That said I'm not against LO,S for destroyer weapons. However, I do believe its applying logic to which is often hard to argue since past practice/precedence with other attacks that do not specifically allocate 'wounds' has been that LO,S cannot be taken (jotww, shattershard etc.. old stuff but still). This probably where the hangover is coming from. But anyway, lets move past that for a second and assume we simply replace 'wounds' with 'destroyer table result'.

So now how are you fellas resolving the rest? For example like this:

A destroyer weapon fires on a unit including an IC. The IC is the closest model. 4 models are hit. 4 rolls on the D table are made (discarding any 1s) and separating the other results into 'D table pools' of results 2-5 and 6. The active player chooses a pool in order of his choosing and allocates 'D table results'. The non active player chooses to LO,S. Saves if available are made, then number of wounds are rolled for, and finally a maximum of 4 models are removed.

I assume that you would replace 'wounds' in every instance so you couldn't for example LO,S wounds after the d3 wounds have been rolled right?

dominuschao wrote:
Its not as easy as some are making it out otherwise major tournaments would not be addressing the issue with their own FAQs.

Honestly I haven't had the issue come up very often. Usually characters don't matter much at that point while ICs are rarely placed in a position to be taking LO,S from destroyer weapons that I can remember.

That said I'm not against LO,S for destroyer weapons. However, I do believe its applying logic to which is often hard to argue since past practice/precedence with other attacks that do not specifically allocate 'wounds' has been that LO,S cannot be taken (jotww, shattershard etc.. old stuff but still). This probably where the hangover is coming from. But anyway, lets move past that for a second and assume we simply replace 'wounds' with 'destroyer table result'.

So now how are you fellas resolving the rest? For example like this:

A destroyer weapon fires on a unit including an IC. The IC is the closest model. 4 models are hit. 4 rolls on the D table are made (discarding any 1s) and separating the other results into 'D table pools' of results 2-5 and 6. The active player chooses a pool in order of his choosing and allocates 'D table results'. The non active player chooses to LO,S. Saves if available are made, then number of wounds are rolled for, and finally a maximum of 4 models are removed.

I assume that you would replace 'wounds' in every instance so you couldn't for example LO,S wounds after the d3 wounds have been rolled right?

That is how I would read it yes. The way D Weapons work, "d table results" is equal to and replaces "wounds" in the allocation process. Basically, if you expressed it mathematically, 1 dice = 1 Wound normally, the d table states "causes it to lose d3/d6+6 Wounds instead of 1", so now 1 dice = d3/d6+6 Wounds.

Fair enough then and If I can get this across to my buddies it might actually change my approach, if only a little. Fwiw we've been playing no LO,S but core rules for model removal almost entirely mitigated the situation anyway.

A destroyer weapon fires on a unit including an IC. The IC is the closest model. 4 models are hit. 4 rolls on the D table are made (discarding any 1s) and separating the other results into 'D table pools' of results 2-5 and 6. 

This is a fine Houserule. However it is a houserule. The Wound Pool and wound allocation are for allocating wounds caused to a unit to the specific models within that unit. Destroyer Weapons never do any wounds to units. So how to get from hits on a unit to wounds on specific models is never address for Destroyer Weapons hence however you do that process it is a Houserule. Depending on how you choose to do that process will decide whether LoS is possible or not.

I have no idea which side i'm agreeing with as the discussion is a little confusing, but the RaW is relatively simple here:
D weapons follow these rules against a Unit of 10 marines with a Captain right at the front:

"If the attack hits, roll on the table..." Say you roll a "4"

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

So the Captain (model) at the front takes a Hit (To Hit), followed an automatic Wound (To Wound). He has the opportunity to save this Wound (Saves) before he "lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".

As (I think) Flingitnow is saying, this resolution is applied to 1 model: The closest model to have suffered a Hit from the D-Weapon. LoS is not possible as the "standard" resolution never gets past the To Hit stage.
As soon as you have rolled To Hit, you follow the rules for "Destroyer Weapons" which apply to the model hit.

I'm not say whether LoS applies or not. I'm saying the process breaks after the to hit process so how you fix that break determines whether you get LoS or not so discussing RaW on LoS is entirely pointless as we have no common ground on which to bade the discussion.

Lets take a look at your process. Why does the Captain take a hit? Wound allocation (which triggers LoS) is the only process that cares who's closest in the unit. We are not using that process as we have no wounds on the squad and tjis is hits not wounds. So why have you allocated the hit to the Captain? What rules have you used to do that?

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not say whether LoS applies or not. I'm saying the process breaks after the to hit process so how you fix that break determines whether you get LoS or not so discussing RaW on LoS is entirely pointless as we have no common ground on which to bade the discussion.

Lets take a look at your process. Why does the Captain take a hit? Wound allocation (which triggers LoS) is the only process that cares who's closest in the unit. We are not using that process as we have no wounds on the squad and tjis is hits not wounds. So why have you allocated the hit to the Captain? What rules have you used to do that?

Ah , i see what you mean now.
The To Wound step required for "closest model" allocation is only found within the D-Weapon 'sub-rule'. But by that time, we are already on a model-to-model basis (per Destroyer rules).

Thinking about this logically (and this is indeed interpretation rather than RaW), you first need to reach the "that wounds automatically" part of the rule before you start allocating the Wounds.
Which, i though was an avoided step, but it seems like it is not: Can you Look out Sir an automatic Wound?

I believe the answer to that question is the answer to the thread.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not say whether LoS applies or not. I'm saying the process breaks after the to hit process so how you fix that break determines whether you get LoS or not so discussing RaW on LoS is entirely pointless as we have no common ground on which to bade the discussion.

Lets take a look at your process. Why does the Captain take a hit? Wound allocation (which triggers LoS) is the only process that cares who's closest in the unit. We are not using that process as we have no wounds on the squad and tjis is hits not wounds. So why have you allocated the hit to the Captain? What rules have you used to do that?

Ah , i see what you mean now.
The To Wound step required for "closest model" allocation is only found within the D-Weapon 'sub-rule'. But by that time, we are already on a model-to-model basis (per Destroyer rules).

Thinking about this logically (and this is indeed interpretation rather than RaW), you first need to reach the "that wounds automatically" part of the rule before you start allocating the Wounds.
Which, i though was an avoided step, but it seems like it is not: Can you Look out Sir an automatic Wound?

I believe the answer to that question is the answer to the thread.

this argument is base on what definitions. GW never tell us what is "wounds automatically" mean as far as game term goes and many other terms.

I will start with the term "wounds automatically" then go backward. so anf and fling applies their own definition on those terms like "wounds automatically". Anf defining "wounds automatically" generate "Score Wounds" of the normal kind and then follow the normal process. Fling is not defining as such. IFF "Score Wounds" is generated does those "Score Wounds" goes into wound pool? if so how they goes in? When does the D table kick in?

then you have the "allocation" issue. does hit a model also hit the unit? A unit after all is make up of model(s). Can the word "model" be interrupt as "unit"? How are we define "allocation"? is all wounds allocated? or is there some special way that a wound can be assign but not allocated to the model? By definition does "hit" trigger a wounding process?

Depend on context even common terms can change definition. example: car. when someone say car does he/she mean sedan or automotive? If it turn out to be a truck then is he/she wrong on calling it a car? another example: gun. "They have a gun" does that mean they have an artillery piece and not a pistol (in military setting)? or they have a pistol or rifle (in urban setting)? or in more basic term a tube with propellants (in prison setting)?

this is what they are arguing about. What are the "real" definitions and what process included in those definitions.

Your argument might be better if it was legible.

SJ

tyllon wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not say whether LoS applies or not. I'm saying the process breaks after the to hit process so how you fix that break determines whether you get LoS or not so discussing RaW on LoS is entirely pointless as we have no common ground on which to bade the discussion.

Lets take a look at your process. Why does the Captain take a hit? Wound allocation (which triggers LoS) is the only process that cares who's closest in the unit. We are not using that process as we have no wounds on the squad and tjis is hits not wounds. So why have you allocated the hit to the Captain? What rules have you used to do that?

Ah , i see what you mean now.
The To Wound step required for "closest model" allocation is only found within the D-Weapon 'sub-rule'. But by that time, we are already on a model-to-model basis (per Destroyer rules).

Thinking about this logically (and this is indeed interpretation rather than RaW), you first need to reach the "that wounds automatically" part of the rule before you start allocating the Wounds.
Which, i though was an avoided step, but it seems like it is not: Can you Look out Sir an automatic Wound?

I believe the answer to that question is the answer to the thread.

this argument is base on what definitions. GW never tell us what is "wounds automatically" mean as far as game term goes and many other terms.

I will start with the term "wounds automatically" then go backward. so anf and fling applies their own definition on those terms like "wounds automatically". Anf defining "wounds automatically" generate "Score Wounds" of the normal kind and then follow the normal process. Fling is not defining as such. IFF "Score Wounds" is generated does those "Score Wounds" goes into wound pool? if so how they goes in? When does the D table kick in?

then you have the "allocation" issue. does hit a model also hit the unit? A unit after all is make up of model(s). Can the word "model" be interrupt as "unit"? How are we define "allocation"? is all wounds allocated? or is there some special way that a wound can be assign but not allocated to the model? By definition does "hit" trigger a wounding process?

Depend on context even common terms can change definition. example: car. when someone say car does he/she mean sedan or automotive? If it turn out to be a truck then is he/she wrong on calling it a car? another example: gun. "They have a gun" does that mean they have an artillery piece and not a pistol (in military setting)? or they have a pistol or rifle (in urban setting)? or in more basic term a tube with propellants (in prison setting)?

this is what they are arguing about. What are the "real" definitions and what process included in those definitions.

As "automatic Wound" is never defined in the rulebook, you need to look at precedents and come to your own conclusions:
Where do other "automatic Wound" exist?
- Gets Hot
- Perils of the Warp
- Rending
- Purge Soul (Sanctis Powers)
etc.

Most of those seem like the type of wounds you cannot LoS for... but this is not defined.

I'm going to say no to Look out Sir at the moment.

D - Hits are very different. One of the most prominent reasons for me saying 'no' is that, because of the wording (hits on the model) when people play D weapons they tend to not reallocate excess wounds caused when that model dies (Not using wound pool rules). The reason is a extension to the fact you would not get a Look out sir.

Basically I advise you play this consistently. If you do allocate wounds from the Dhit until the wound pool is empty, regardless of the 'target model' (Gee I feel dirty typing that...) then you should also be allowing Look out sir. If not then no.

I play it as allocating Str. D hits like wounds, so roll on the chart for how many hits you scored, then create pools depending on the result and allocate them as wounds. Treating them this way, it does allow for a LOS! roll. It follows closely to standard shooting rules.

*house rule* - just to be clear

 grendel083 wrote:
so roll on the chart for how many hits you scored

You mean what 'types' of Hits? (how many potential Wounds removed?) Or does D add Hits i do not know about?

 grendel083 wrote:
I play it as allocating Str. D hits like wounds.
Treating them this way, it does allow for a LOS! roll. It follows closely to standard shooting rules.

*house rule* - just to be clear

I think it is very very similar to how i would allocate the "that wounds automatically" part of the rule to the models being closest.

IE: You count the Hits the Weapon inflicted (say Blast = 5) and roll all of them on the table.
You get: 1,3,3,4,6.
You allocate a "that wounds automatically" (2-5 Table result) three times.
You allocate a "that wounds automatically" (6 Table result) once.

But at the time when you allocate that "(2-5 Table result)" i think is where you have decided you can LoS that Wound (correct?).

Whereas i think i'd lean toward a "no", too, because we are in a "model + auto-Wound" setting, similar to Gets hot or Perils. (<- My House rule)

 grendel083 wrote:
I play it as allocating Str. D hits like wounds, so roll on the chart for how many hits you scored, then create pools depending on the result and allocate them as wounds. Treating them this way, it does allow for a LOS! roll. It follows closely to standard shooting rules.

*house rule* - just to be clear

That is essentially how I would play it too. Unfortunately whatever we do with D weapons is going to force a houserule. I play it as if it said "The UNIT suffers a hit that wounds automatically and it causes THE MODEL to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1 IF UNSAVED."

 FlingitNow wrote:
"The UNIT suffers a hit that wounds automatically and it causes THE MODEL to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1 IF UNSAVED."

Okay, yeah, best way to put what i was thinking in rule terms. We should send that wording to the FaQ teams....

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
so roll on the chart for how many hits you scored

You mean what 'types' of Hits? (how many potential Wounds removed?) Or does D add Hits i do not know about?

Yes, that's what I meant.

"Roll on the chart for however many hits you scored" is what I was trying to say there. So 5 hits will a blast, means 5 rolls, then the results will split those results into pools. Exactly like in your example.

Whereas i think i'd lean toward a "no", too, because we are in a "model + auto-Wound" setting, similar to Gets hot or Perils. (<- My House rule)

That's fair enough.
Personally i see it as "if you can LOS! a battle cannon blast, why not a D blast?". It's just a bit more destructive. But that's just my house rule

I'm not sure why you all find this so difficult. It might just be that multi wound Wounds aren't that common in 40k (as far as I know), but in Fantasy these things are actually quite common, just as auto wounding hits and auto hitting attacks are.

The normal process to resolve an attack is as follows, in most cases:
1) Roll to hit
2) Roll to wound
3) Allocate the wound to a specific model.
4) Roll for "Look out sir" if applicable.
5) Resolve the damage caused by the wound
5A) Roll saving throws
5B) Resolve any possible wound multipliers (keeping in mind that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)
6) Actually apply the inflicted wound to the model it is allocated to.
7) Remove the model if all the wounds have been removed.

Now if we apply this to an attack with a destroyer weapon we get the following:
1) Roll to hit (as normal)
2) Roll on the destroyer table. (This is basically the to wound roll, with a 1 being a non wounding hit and a 2-6 being a wounding hit)
3) Allocate the wound to a specific model.
4) Roll for "Look out sir" if applicable.
5) Resolve the damage caused by the wound
5A) Roll saving throws (Not applicable if the roll on the destroyer table was a 6)
5B) Resolve any possible wound multipliers (keeping in mind that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)
- On a 2-5 that would be a total of Max(D3, wounds on profile)
- On a 6 that would be a total of Max(D6+6, wounds on profile)
6) Actually apply the inflicted wound to the model it is allocated to.
7) Remove the model if all the wounds have been removed.

As you can see the only thing that is essentially different compared to resolving a standard attack is that you roll on the Destroyer table instead of the To Wound table.
The rest of the process is identical. So you do get a LoS roll for attacks by destroyer weapons, just like you would get for an ordinary attack.

aemon wrote:
I'm not sure why you all find this so difficult. It might just be that multi wound Wounds aren't that common in 40k (as far as I know), but in Fantasy these things are actually quite common, just as auto wounding hits and auto hitting attacks are.

The normal process to resolve an attack is as follows, in most cases:
1) Roll to hit
2) Roll to wound
3) Allocate the wound to a specific model.
4) Roll for "Look out sir" if applicable.
5) Resolve the damage caused by the wound
5A) Roll saving throws
5B) Resolve any possible wound multipliers (keeping in mind that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)
6) Actually apply the inflicted wound to the model it is allocated to.
7) Remove the model if all the wounds have been removed.

Now if we apply this to an attack with a destroyer weapon we get the following:
1) Roll to hit (as normal)
2) Roll on the destroyer table. (This is basically the to wound roll, with a 1 being a non wounding hit and a 2-6 being a wounding hit)
3) Allocate the wound to a specific model.
4) Roll for "Look out sir" if applicable.
5) Resolve the damage caused by the wound
5A) Roll saving throws (Not applicable if the roll on the destroyer table was a 6)
5B) Resolve any possible wound multipliers (keeping in mind that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)
- On a 2-5 that would be a total of Max(D3, wounds on profile)
- On a 6 that would be a total of Max(D6+6, wounds on profile)
6) Actually apply the inflicted wound to the model it is allocated to.
7) Remove the model if all the wounds have been removed.

As you can see the only thing that is essentially different compared to resolving a standard attack is that you roll on the Destroyer table instead of the To Wound table.
The rest of the process is identical. So you do get a LoS roll for attacks by destroyer weapons, just like you would get for an ordinary attack.

That's cool houserules and all but that is not what Destroyer Weapons say they do.

Technically, D weapons are the ultimate form of Barrage. Only the models under the template/marker suffer wounds.

Fragile wrote:
Technically, D weapons are the ultimate form of Barrage. Only the models under the template/marker suffer wounds.

Except that it doesn't say that anywhere in the rules, and of the two main Super-Heavies being played right now, Stompas and Imperial Knights, neither of them has a template based D weapon.

Fragile wrote:
Technically, D weapons are the ultimate form of Barrage. Only the models under the template/marker suffer wounds.

That's not how D Weapons work.

It appears I've unintentionally opened a debate/can of worms.

From what I can gather, RAW you can't, but you house-rule it as yes you can?

How would/do you house rule it? Would you make 1 Look Out Sir roll, or D3 depending on how many wounds the character took?
(if that makes sense)

 Frozocrone wrote:
It appears I've unintentionally opened a debate/can of worms.

From what I can gather, RAW you can't, but you house-rule it as yes you can?

How would/do you house rule it? Would you make 1 Look Out Sir roll, or D3 depending on how many wounds the character took?
(if that makes sense)

It makes sense, but as much as Look out Sir is a possible yes/no, the method of application is clear.

If you do allow LoS, it will be 1 roll per D-Weapon hit. You LoS first, and then find out how many Wounds is take off (D3)

 Frozocrone wrote:
It appears I've unintentionally opened a debate/can of worms.

From what I can gather, RAW you can't, but you house-rule it as yes you can?

How would/do you house rule it? Would you make 1 Look Out Sir roll, or D3 depending on how many wounds the character took?
(if that makes sense)

It's not RaW that you can't. It is RaW D weapons don't work so you have to create rules to make them work. How you create those rules will determine whether you can LoS or not. Personally the houserules that make most sense to me result in LoS working.

Yeah, sorry, to emphasise again: RaW just does not resolve here, you can houserule Yes or Houserule No.
Probably leaning to 'Yes' now as well... LoS on a lascanon sounds just as feasible as LoS on any D-weapon.

I was just saying that by RaW it has to be 1 roll of LoS, not D3 as your last post said.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Yeah, sorry, to emphasise again: RaW just does not resolve here, you can houserule Yes or Houserule No.
Probably leaning to 'Yes' now as well... LoS on a lascanon sounds just as feasible as LoS on any D-weapon.

I was just saying that by RaW it has to be 1 roll of LoS, not D3 as your last post said.

This

I'm sorry to necro this thread, but I'm quite interested in the topic at hand, and the discussion between Fling and Anf left me somewhat confused. Personally, I've always seen the Destroyer attacks resolved as per Anf's version, and for the life of me, I can't seem to grasp why exactly Fling considers that to be a house rule, or that D weapons do not function as per RAW.

As far as I can gather, his explanation is that since the D attack does not wound the unit, but rather, models, it does not function, in which case, how does he see Challenges function? From my understanding, in an example of say, a Wraithknight, shooting its 2 SD shots at 10 guardsmen would follow the regular rules of To Hit, after which, its Special Rule of "Destroyer Weapons" would come into play, handling the rest, generating wounds against the closest models...

Some additional explanations on why this isn't considered RAW, would be greatly appreciated.

Just a quick run down if I remember - It is a Rule mismatch, Game Workshop suddenly slips from 'Units' to 'Models.'

Chaos occurs as a Rule being resolved against the Unit as a whole is suddenly being resolved against individual models, with nothing explaining how to handle the sudden change between the two. House Rules are then required to solve the many problems that occur because of this slip. Easy topics, such as how the Hit is being 'allocated' to the Model within the Unit can be straight forward with common sense. Harder issues, such as how the Wounds generated by this table interact with Special Rules, have popped up from time to time in these forums. It is easier to crackle madly about these things, and then continue doing it as your group does it, instead of get into arguments over who is right and wrong.

I throw it on the pile of 'Game Workshop forgets what Units and Models are' that are getting more common since 7th Edition.

Fair enough, I just don't see it happening in this situation. In my mind, the To Hit happens against the unit, and the To Wound, replaced by Destroyer Weapon, with the allocation being on specific models. I even see precedent with Focused Witchfire powers, so I don't quite see how there'd be a problem with Destroyer Weapons.

My bigger issue consists of how many wounds "Wounds automatically" create. Assuming that you create a pool of the dice that scored hits, and you consider each of those hits 1 wound, so that you can Look out Sir them. This stems from an understanding that "wounds automatically" = 1 automatic wound, however I don't exactly see any definition of that anywhere. I think wounds automatically implies a minimum of 1 automatic wound, but not necessarily 1, so that becomes slightly confusing to me...

You roll to hit against a unit you roll to wound against a unit. The Destroyer table applies a hit to a model, what model and how we are never told. So you have to create a houserule of how you get from a hit on a unit to a hit on a model, exactly how you do that will interact differently with things like Look out Sir and other special rules.