Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Feedback on why you chose the vote you did always appreciated! :-)

I chose A. Its the way my group has always done it. When we have multiple rapid fire plasma gunners, say in a hardened vet squad or stormtroopers, we also roll for each individual trooper. In this way it is possible to get two overheats, but only lose one trooper.

Agreed with Ekranoplan.

A, anything else is shady, at best

Someone would complain if I did anything but A.

I picked A, because that way there is no arguement about which member of the squad had an overheated plasma weapon.

Technically, it'd be MOST correct to roll for every model separately. Might seem pointless, but if one of the Plasma Pistol models was in a particularly important spot, for example, the only model within 6" to get the charge, losing him, rather than his otherwise identical squadmate, could matter.

I agree with Phryxis. Each model should be rolled for individually.

Rolled individually.

Since the poll says you are "rolling to hit", then no choice is possible. Only when allocating wounds does the target squad have any choices.

erhm...

Voted B. A is a needless convention that slows the game down and is never specified in the rules.

How does it slow the game down? Four IG (command squad) rapid fire their plasma guns. Use a different color die for each guardsman. Pick up any ones, roll to see if they die. If two of those ones are the same color dice, only that guardsman dies.

It saves the time you took digging around to get your 8 multicolored dice, yes.

Given the above example, you roll three fails, and one guardsman fails twice, you reserve the right to say that you only take two wounds instead of of the three you actually took?

Using b: If I roll three fails, and fail three saves, I remove three guys.

Which is more fair?

I voted A, and have been doing it this way for awhile. It's both more fair to the player firing and the player being fired at in sensitive situations like testing for assault range or exactly half of the models in cover, that sort of thing.

If during set up you take out four colors of dice (I've never needed more than 4), roll them as normally, and then let proximity assign rolls to models, it takes about 10 seconds to explain what you're doing to your opponent and then another five seconds to actually do it each time.

I've never gotten any complaints about this method. It lends itself more to humor when Guardsman Bob rolls two ones, kills nothing, and blows himself up.

Given the above example, you roll three fails, and one guardsman fails twice, you reserve the right to say that you only take two wounds instead of of the three you actually took?

To maintain internal consistency, if you had astronomically bad luck and four of your to-hit rolls resulted in '1', you would then have to take four saves and remove four models if you failed them all. How is that more fair or reasonable? Bob fired and his gun exploded so he threw it to Bill as he died, Bill tried using the hotpotatogun and it explodes again?

Yes, if I rolled four ones (and I have), I would have taken four wounds. Failing four armor saves, I would take four models from the board.

It's the counterbalance to me being able to say that plasma gunner bill died, and not vet sgt pete. It's also consistant with the current saving throw rules. 4 wounds are caused, and I assign four wounds to those in the group that caused it. I don't see the problem.

C - roll To-Hit for each model individually, to minimize Gets Hot casualties.

For example, if I step up and Rapid-Fire the Plasma Guns, I could have 2 Gets Hot results. If I am lucky, they're both from the same guy, so I cannot lose more than one Plasma Gunner.

If I foolishly rolled all of the To-Hit rolls together to save time, then I could potentially lose *both* Plasma Gunners. That would be a real tragedy.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Yes, if I rolled four ones (and I have), I would have taken four wounds. Failing four armor saves, I would take four models from the board.

It's the counterbalance to me being able to say that plasma gunner bill died, and not vet sgt pete. It's also consistant with the current saving throw rules. 4 wounds are caused, and I assign four wounds to those in the group that caused it. I don't see the problem.

So.... Gunpotato? I don't see any reason that two weapons misfiring would kill four models. It penalizes yourself unnecessarily.

So does losing a sgt with a PF to a missed plasma pistol shot.

Gotcha. Fairness has got nothing to do with your argument, then, you're just saving the "better" models.

And you're splitting hairs to save more plasma models as well. The cheese goes both ways, sourclams.

Not in the least. By taking shots individually, I'm ensuring greater accuracy in wound allocation. The model that fumbles the shot dies. Always.

Your proposed method simply lets you use cheap units to shield expensive units, since it's very rare that marines will roll and fail Gets Hot! wounds in sufficient number to actually put that many out of commission.

And if my "cheap" unit fumbles twice, he can kill his Sgt who didn't fumble. Two wounds caused, two guys in danger. It balances out.

If we're just assigning Gets Hot wounds as a pool, then why can't they be assigned to grunts and mooks?

And you're splitting hairs to save more plasma models as well. The cheese goes both ways, sourclams.

The discussion is pointless.

Either you break up the rolls before they're made, so you can play correctly, or you don't. If you don't, sure, there are all sorts of hueristics that hurt the shooting squad more in some cases, and less in others, but the situation is created by a refusal to assign rolls to models.

Sure, it slows down play. So does rolling at all. Why not just roll a bunch of dice, see how they feel to you, then pick a winner?

Having gone back and re-read the rules, I must now put a frozen crow pie in the the microwave. It clearly states firer, and there really can't be any debate.

Mea culpa.