Shattershard Rule; Defender doesn't get to assign?

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.

**Morans**

Like this one perhaps?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/296151.page

**Kommissar Kel**

I was thinking more one that comes from the company; to give somewhat of an insight as to how the developers intended the rule.

Also Note that gwar feels the same way as i do about the implosion missile; but was eerily quiet about the Shattershard.

**BloodThirSTAR**

Dashofpepper wrote:I wanted to verify something....

There is a single use weapon called a Shattershard in the new DE codex. It has no strength or AP value, and is a template. It calls for any non-vehicle model hit by the Shattershard to take a toughness test or be removed from play.

Now....the defender gets to allocate wounds before rolling saves, but this weapon doesn't wound - and specifically calls out the models being hit - making it seem to me that the defender doesn't get to choose which models will take the toughness test - but rather that it must be the ones under the template.

Does anyone see fault with that understanding?

I went back and reread the rule. I agree with the OP now. The rule for this attack is explicitly stated how it works, if an enemy model is under the template then they take a T test.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

I feel it's similar to JoTWW and should work the same way as in models hit not models chosen

**Hulksmash**

Yep, it's not extremely OP anyway. Against standard characters in most armies they'll only eat it 1/3 of the time. Against bigger tougher units it goes up to 1/6. Not that big of a threat to me so play it that it hits the models under it directly but follow the template placement rules. All is well in who-ville

**Oshova**

Kommissar Kel wrote:I was thinking more one that comes from the company; to give somewhat of an insight as to how the developers intended the rule.

You mean the developers who don't bother writing their own FAQs?

**Kommissar Kel**

Oshova wrote:
Oshova wrote:
Kommissar Kel wrote:I was thinking more one that comes from the company; to give somewhat of an insight as to how the developers intended the rule.

You mean the developers who don't bother writing their own FAQs?

Kommissar Kel wrote:Also Note that gwar feels the same way as i do about the implosion missile; but was eerily quiet about the Shattershard.
Since it is a simmilar issue to the Shattershard, I am sure he feels the same about both weapons. I guess we just need to wait for him to be able to update his FAQ.

Now if only Gwar where here to post some response to this . . . =p

Oshova

i know that they do not necessarily write their own FAQs; but they are an official source(even if it is just Official House rules), but when they nick someone else's FAQs instead of getting indignant that person should feel vindicated and prideful(even though no acknowledgment was given).

Shattershard and implosion Missile do entirely different things; Gwar said implosion Missile is allocatable, Shattershard should not be.

**calypso2ts**

Telling people how to feel always ends up with people being mad...for example

Me: You shouldn't be upset, I had a great time drinking with my friends.
MY Wife: (gets mad....)

There is a precedent to test by model, I think it is a bit of an awkward fit the way they setup the rules (it should be a one time use ability used in place of the models shooting maybe...) but the intent seems to be do it by model...

**ChrisCP**

Tri wrote:
ChrisCP wrote:IMO the effect is resolved long before wounds are happening - as it doesn't go through that process, you're hit, you take test.
... but they're not removed till after saves are taken. With other weapons it should play out like this

1) Work out which models are hit (all weapons)
(A or B first makes no difference they're happening at the same time)
2)a) Test the models that need to be toughness tested
2)b) Roll for wounds
3) Allocate wounds (big question would be do models that have failed their toughness test count as having a taken wound ... my guess would be yes, so they only take a second wound when every one else has at least one)
4) roll for saves (note even if the model doesn't have a save it shouldn't be removed till this point)

Well that’s how I would play it any way.

If you fail the T-test you're removed from play, then and there, no save of any kind, there's no wounding so no allocation - "hit by the shattershard must take a T-test or be removed from play". so at 2a), 2b) should be 'remove fail models' then onto 3) roll for wounds!

**solkan**

So where's the precedent for a weapon which does not specify that it takes effect immediately to take effect before wound allocation and casualty removal?

In the absence of that precedent, or an explicit statement that the models are removed from play immediately, that leaves the conclusion that it works like every other non-wounding weapon--effects are applied after casualty removal.

**ChrisCP**

So are you trying to say they take a T-test after the shooting process? Because shattershard say if you're hit by it take a T-test or be removed, and page 29 shows what being hit by a template is? I'm not sure how your trying to make a point...

**nosferatu1001**

You test immediately, and you are not told to wait to remove the model, so you dont.

You have no permission to wait for the wound allocation, or casualty removal, steps, so you cannot.

**Tri**

I may have got it mixed up with the Implosion Missile ... forgive me, there are many rules that could do with explaining.