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.

An interesting question came up in a game yesterday and I'm wondering if there is an answer to it in the rules. My opponent and I were unable to find one so we just rolled off.

Situation:

I have a Land Speeder unit consisting of 3 identically armed models. Two of the models have already suffered Crew Shaken results from shooting.
The squadron is charged by Khorne Berserkers in the assault phase and suffers 1 glancing hit which also results in Crew Shaken.

Question:

Where in the rulebook does it describe how I allocate the results?

Problem:

p.64
Shooting Phase
Once all of the armour penetration rolls have been made, the player controlling the squadron allocates the glancing and penetrating hits to the squadron members as he would allocate wounds to members of a normal unit

Assault Phase
Damage results have the same effect as described above, and aer allocated against the squadron at initiative value, in the same way as a normal combat.

The problem is that the only time you allocate wounds is when you have a complex unit, however the squadron consists of 3 identical models and is therefore not a complex unit. The Allocating Wounds section in the Assault Phase rules also says that wounds are allocated by the controlling player only when the models are not the same in gaming terms.

Is there a passage in the rules which definitively describes how results are allocated to a squadron or is this a genuine problem with the rules brought about by GW's poor tendency to tell us to refer to previous sections of the rules which aren't compatible with one another? Furthermore, if the controlling player can allocate the results, what is to stop him from allocating all of the results to the same model (for instance, 5 Crew Shaken results)?

(Note that the situation pertains to allocating damage results in the assault phase, but the question has the same relevance to the shooting phase)

I think the model should have been identified to take the hit BEFORE the penetration/glance roll is made.

Since wounds are allocated as evenly as possible before saves are made I think that the glance would be applied to a unit before the glancing damage roll is made.

That seems to be the way GW wants wounds allocated, but hey, I've been wrong before. Twice, I think.

Please cite the passage in the rules which supports your interpretation.

ok what you do is roll for hits the squadron then to pen the squadron then you allicate them to the vechicals and roll to see what happens ... if you're only hit once more allicate the hit to the already stunded vehical and see what happened ... full rules are on page 64

Again, please cite specific rules. This isn't Warseer--interpretations should actually be supported by something. I've already cited the rules on page 64 and explained why they are inadequate.

I don't know what the Problem is here you listed the rules and they are rather clear....

Once all of the armour penetration rolls have been made, the player controlling the squadron allocates the glancing and penetrating hits to the squadron members as he would allocate wounds to members of a normal unit

So you should have designated a model before you found out it was a crew shaken result.....

Ok read the Second pargraph of the shooting phase (i'll be skipping the stuff thats not needed)(reds me chatting)

When a squadon of vehickes is fired at, roll to hit and for armour penetration against the squadron's common Armour Value ...
so against the group no distinction between them


...Once all of the prentration rolls have been made, player contolling the squadron allocates the glancing and penetrating hits as he would allocate wounds to members of a normal unit ... roll for cover saves ...
Now you place the pen. / glancing hits against different vehicals and then roll on to see what happens to them
... you could place all the pen hits on the same vehical if it has it has a different set up

... ok happy or need more help?

You've already posted the necessary rule. What makes them inadequate? It specifically spells out how you allocate the hits to the squadron.
1. Shoot, determine number of hits.
2. Roll to penetrate
3. Defending player allocates pen/glance to the models in the squadron (basically, even if they are all the same you treat each model as a unique item).
4. Attacker rolls on the pen/glance chart as appropriate for the models allocated to receive those hits

Danny, you are correct. There is a slight glitch, but I don't see how/why it is such a concern.

If you follow the rules for Complex units for a unit of identical models, it turns out the same.
It seems clear that the basic rules are just a simplification of the complex unit rules.

With that in mind, you simply allocate the hits evenly to each vehicle, then roll cover saves, then determine results.

Yes there is enough wiggle room to try and argue the point... if you feel so inclined.

I agree with coredump and Mondo (et al)

That's what I get for trying to apply logic to it...

The problem is that the controlling player does NOT allocate wounds when the unit is not complex (the controlling player removes casualties, however there are no casualties in this situation). The squadron is not complex, therefore the controlling player does not allocate wounds.

This is made clear in the original post, but no one has yet addressed it.

It is a concern because it leaves a situation where there is no method for allocating damage results at all, so how is it worked out?

It's worked out as the rule says to work it out. The defender allocates the pen/glancing hits. The attacker then rolls the damage results for each vehicle. Each vehicle receives whatever damage results are rolled for it. You're getting hung up on the comparison to a 'normal unit'. Forget that, use the rest of the rule and you'll be happier. Bottom line is you treat a vehicle squadron as if each model is separate or unlike members of a squad. Don't know what more we can tell you.

Danny, I *did* address it. I said you are correct.

Strictly speaking, there is a glitch in the rules. But...

If you follow the rules for allocating wounds in a complex unit, but apply it to a unit with identical models... the results are the same.
It seems obvious that the 'basic' rules are a streamlined version with the exact same results. If you applied the complex unit rules to all units, nothing different would happen.

So yes, you do not allocate the wounds on an identical model unit, but if you did, it would work just fine.
The rules tell you to allocate the hits, it seems clear that you would do so following the complex rules, but all the vehicles would be in the same group.

Like I said, there is wiggle room.... but I don't see it going anywhere.

Coredump, with all due respect, you did recognize it, but the only solution you have provided is a house rule, which I'm not really interested in. I'm curious to see if there is a solution to be found within GW's rules.

It's worked out as the rule says to work it out. The defender allocates the pen/glancing hits. The attacker then rolls the damage results for each vehicle. Each vehicle receives whatever damage results are rolled for it. You're getting hung up on the comparison to a 'normal unit'. Forget that, use the rest of the rule and you'll be happier. Bottom line is you treat a vehicle squadron as if each model is separate or unlike members of a squad. Don't know what more we can tell you.

don-mondo, the rulebook only says to allocate wounds (or glancing/penetrating hits in this case) when you are dealing with a COMPLEX UNIT. This is not a complex unit therefore the rules for allocating wounds amongst members of a complex unit are entirely IRRELEVANT. This is the third time I am stating this.

Isn't the issue here whether the owner of the landspeeder unit can allocate new results on top of a model that has already been damaged (in some way) before?

Since the first wave of hits came from shooting and the current ones are coming from H2H, then I'd say the owner of the unit is free to assign the extra glancing hit to the model that's already been glanced.

Isn't this also the same for being shot at from multiple units. If a land speeder unit of 3 is shot by four different units you'd resolve each one separately right? So if the first group to shoot was able to immobilize a model you'd give that to land speeder A. If the second unit shooting did a stunned and weapon destroyed you could destroy the weapon on land speeder A and stun land speeder B.

If the third unit shot and destroyed a model you'd destroy land speeder A. If the fourth only managed a shaken result, you'd shake (so to speak) the already stunned model.

You'd do this because this is neither a complex unit nor does it have wounds.

Am I wrong?

Russ

You would indeed resolve each separately, but there still seems to be nothing in the rules that actually permits the controlling player (or anyone else, for that matter) to allocate damage results. This applies to both shooting and assault results.

For example, using your proposed scenario, what rule allows the controlling player to assign the immobilization result to model A as opposed to model B or C? The only rules permitting the player to do this are reserved for situations involving complex units, which the squadron is not. If the squadron was a complex unit then that would be the correct way to play it (commonly referred to as designating a vehicle to be the "gimp").

Dude, catch a clue. You found a glitch, congrats. If I had a spare cookie laying around I would send it to you.

The rules say to allocate wounds like a normal unit, but normal identical units don't allocate wounds.

You are a super genius.... well done.

Now, the rules *do* say to allocate wounds. And there *are* rules for allocating wounds, they are just not normally used for units of identical models. So, if you read the rules in the context they are delivered, it should be evident to use the only wound allocation rules available.

IOW, it says to use the wound allocation rules as for a normal unit. Well, when it comes to wound allocation, complex units *are* the 'normal' unit.

Dude, you're not the only one participating in this thread.

I'm asking if anyone can find something in the rules that solves the problem. If you have nothing of value to contribute then kindly remove yourself from the topic.

Now, the rules *do* say to allocate wounds. And there *are* rules for allocating wounds, they are just not normally used for units of identical models. So, if you read the rules in the context they are delivered, it should be evident to use the only wound allocation rules available.

Perhaps it SHOULD be evident, but that's not the way the rules are written.

IOW, it says to use the wound allocation rules as for a normal unit. Well, when it comes to wound allocation, complex units *are* the 'normal' unit.

This point may hold some water, but hinges on the ambiguous and undefined term "normal". I would think by "normal unit" they mean any non-squadron unit, though other narrower interpretations are also possible. However, defining "normal unit" as "complex unit" in this context leads me to wonder why they didn't just say "complex unit" to begin with, unless they mean to include any type of unit.

This is the dumbest thread I have seen in a long time, everyone sees the problem and the most logical solution yet it's still worth debating?

There is no real debating going on its just one guy that wants to bend the rules to his favor, trying to find the moral justification to do so..... and failing.

Why such hostility for asking a simple rules question?

I presented a scenario that has no clear resolution in the rules. Everyone who has chimed in has said that it probably SHOULD be played that I can allocate the damage results myself, however rather than do so without justification I came here to ask if someone can confirm whether it is legal.

I'm bending the rules because I'm doubting whether or not the interpretation that benefits me is legal? What kind of alternate reality are you living in? Or maybe you're just trolling, in which case, piss off.

This is the dumbest thread I have seen in a long time, everyone sees the problem and the most logical solution yet it's still worth debating?

The most logical solution, however, is unsupported by the rules. I'm looking for clear RAW support, not Joe Schmoe's personal opinion.

It says you assign glances and penetrates the same way you assign wounds, it says the same way you assign wounds because it doesn't go on to offer it's own unique ones, this directs you back to the wound assigning rules, not to the rules for checking if you need to assign wounds, you already know you need to assign wounds because the section of rules on vehicles in squadrons said so.

I think it's clear enough.

Actually it says you assign wounds as you would for a normal unit. A normal unit would not have wounds assigned unless it is also a complex unit, which this is not. Therefore you don't assign wounds.

Still clear?

vehicles don't have wounds, therefore you aren't assigning wounds, therefore you don't not assign wounds because the unit is not complex.

It's still clear that the rules cover this perfectly and any claims to the contrary are you being a pedant at best but more than likely just twisting rules.

Regardless the only time this becomes an issue is when you have a unit of of vehicles which are the same some of which have already been damaged in some way, if they were all healthy it wouldn't matter which one takes the damage. So you have to realise that damaged vehicles are not the same in game terms as undamaged vehicles and thus the unit is a complex unit once it has suffered some sort of damage no matter of how it started.

There's no problem here AT ALL.

Hmm did you read the example on pg 64? Vehicles are treated different from a normal unit ie each model can be assigned glancing or penetrating hits without being different.

Why are you letting your speeders be charged in the first place? That seems to be a bigger problem to me.

In my opinion, this was answered in the first 5 posts.

Iron Bear