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.

A question that has brought some contention to our gaming group recently is the issue of order of damage results.

Let's say I shoot a super-heavy vehicle three times and get "Weapon Destroyed" three times in a row. My opponent argues that I can't target the primary weapon three times in hope to destroy it, but instead I have to choose a different weapon each time, and then he gets to make his 4+ repair roll (I forget the exact rules). Now, he called GW to get a ruling on this, and the gentleman he spoke to basically agreed with his argument. But I'm not sure that makes sense. Why isn't it the case that you handle each result to it's fullest before resolving the next result?

When you say you shoot it three time, do you mean from one source unit or 3 different units?

There's no rules about the timing of applying damage results.

I see no reason why you wouldn't try to destroy the primary weapon and then if he passes the primary weapon's 'save' you could try to destroy it again with the next hit as the weapon has not been destroyed.

So in short, I'm in agreement with you. Your opponent didn't want to lose his primary weapon so he created a rule in his mind that doesn't actually exist.

He gets his 4+ save roll only for primary weapons (For example for the baneblade, its the main baneblade cannon)

I think, you can pick it until its destroyed.

Imriel wrote:When you say you shoot it three time, do you mean from one source unit or 3 different units?

One source unit.

yakface wrote:
There's no rules about the timing of applying damage results.

I see no reason why you wouldn't try to destroy the primary weapon and then if he passes the primary weapon's 'save' you could try to destroy it again with the next hit as the weapon has not been destroyed.

So in short, I'm in agreement with you. Your opponent didn't want to lose his primary weapon so he created a rule in his mind that doesn't actually exist.

You would think so... but he points out that shots happen simultaneously and as such their results should not be dependent on the results of other shots. Of course, from my side, I can accept that, but if I target the primary weapon 3 times before he gets to make his save, wouldn't that be sufficient? And he did call GW... I have no doubt about that. The problem is the guy he talked to wasn't very clear in his response and my friend walked away feeling like he was agreed with.

[quote=jupistar And he did call GW... I have no doubt about that. The problem is the guy he talked to wasn't very clear in his response and my friend walked away feeling like he was agreed with.

mikhaila wrote:

jupistar wrote: And he did call GW... I have no doubt about that. The problem is the guy he talked to wasn't very clear in his response and my friend walked away feeling like he was agreed with.

Doesn't mean a whole lot, as he could have just heard what he wanted to hear, then nodded at you and said 'yep, I'm right'.

No, it wasn't like that. More along the lines of, "the guy said that it could work this way or it could work that way, but we probably should do it this way because otherwise that occurs" and none of it was clear or set in stone, plus my guy misunderstood (I think) part of what the guy was saying. In the end, there really is no good resolution, because the rules aren't clear on the order of attack results or how multiple attack results can affect things, etc... Basically, this really isn't a basic rulebook question, because it's not relevant in the basic rulebook (no one gets primary weapon repair rolls). It's more of an issue with Apocalypse not being clear with regards to Primary Weapons. I wonder if there will be an FAQ for Apocalypse.

It would help if you could give a better idea jupistar of exactly how he was repairing his weapon, I initially thought that it would be fine to apply them however you want as long as you declare it all before he makes his rolls however having looked at the apocalypse book I think I see the basis for his argument.

IF the repair roll he was using was the "Damage Control" rule where you do nothing with the super heavy for a single turn and get to roll 1 dice per structure point repairing a weapon or drive for each 5+ rolled then I think he is right.

This is because unless his attempt to keep the weapon alive is being done in your shooting phase as what is effectively a save it is an issue because the weapon destroyed result means the weapon is already destroyed and you cannot destroy a weapon 3 times over through any means.

No, we're referring to the Primary Weapon special rule on pg. 96 of the Apoc. book. Here, a Gun Crew Shaken or Weapon Destroyed result may be negated on a 4+ roll of a d6. I erred when I spoke of "repair".

At the OP.

I believe you can target the weapon multiple times. Personally, I would want my opponent to let me know what the weapons were before I started rolling, and not tacking on the others as I passed my saves.

In other words:

Opponent: "Okay, that's three weapon destroyed results."
Me: "Where would you like to allocate them?"
Opponent: "Let's see. Your Baneblade cannon has a 4+ 'Primary Weapon' saving throw, so I'll put two against that, and then the third against the Demolisher Cannon."
Me: "All right then, so that's a dead Demolisher, and let me roll two D6's for the Primary Weapon save, and...ah, one failed. The Baneblade Cannon is dead too then."

Had I failed both saves, he would have wasted one weapon destroyed result, but seeing as how I believe it would be unfair to allocate one at a time, waiting for me to save each one before allocating another (if necessary).

CK

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:At the OP.

I believe you can target the weapon multiple times. Personally, I would want my opponent to let me know what the weapons were before I started rolling, and not tacking on the others as I passed my saves.

In other words:

Opponent: "Okay, that's three weapon destroyed results."
Me: "Where would you like to allocate them?"
Opponent: "Let's see. Your Baneblade cannon has a 4+ 'Primary Weapon' saving throw, so I'll put two against that, and then the third against the Demolisher Cannon."
Me: "All right then, so that's a dead Demolisher, and let me roll two D6's for the Primary Weapon save, and...ah, one failed. The Baneblade Cannon is dead too then."

Had I failed both saves, he would have wasted one weapon destroyed result, but seeing as how I believe it would be unfair to allocate one at a time, waiting for me to save each one before allocating another (if necessary).

CK

See, that's his argument (about allocating one at a time). But he also doesn't think I should be allowed to target the same weapon with multiple attacks *before* he makes his save. I'm willing to waste some shots, in some cases, to ensure the destruction of a primary weapon. Needless to say, a FAQ ruling would be ideal here.

Sounds like Cheezt Gak to me.

If he's a mate-just make the saves so you can have fun together.

Or roll a dice. Ringing GW for a ruling is like ringing the Vatican to get a ruling on Kiddy-fiddling. You will get a different answer from two different guys on the same day, or Nun at all. Wakka Wakka Wakka.