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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Awfeel wrote:
EDIT ---- Unsaved wounds are allocated wounds that were previously unsaved no?

Yes, but that does not matter at all, as once the wound pool is empty the restriction no longer applies, and the next time you populate the wound pool you follow the process all over again, including choosing the closest model and allocating wounds to it until the model is dead or wound pool is empty.

"Yes, but that does not matter at all, "

Why not? The wounds begetting wounds part of the page isnt a bulletin. Its a must that seems globally true for assault phases.

 Awfeel wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Awfeel wrote:
EDIT ---- Unsaved wounds are allocated wounds that were previously unsaved no?

Yes, but that does not matter at all, as once the wound pool is empty the restriction no longer applies, and the next time you populate the wound pool you follow the process all over again, including choosing the closest model and allocating wounds to it until the model is dead or wound pool is empty.

"Yes, but that does not matter at all, "

Why not? The wounds begetting wounds part of the page isnt a bulletin. Its a must that seems globally true for assault phases.

Uh, I explained why not right after I said "Yes, but that does not matter at all, "

You might want to read the rest of my last post.

To Sum up: Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty." (25)

If you allocate a wound to a model, then "you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty"

Once the Wound pool is empty, you no longer have to "continue to allocate Wounds to" a model...

Saved wounds are still allocated wounds.

That is the problem you have to face with your interpretation. If that line does mean that you continue to allot wounds to the models that have suffered allocated wounds in the past then you must include all wounds, saved or otherwise. After all it doesn't state unsaved wounds, which is a term used many times in other places of the book to clearly highlight situations where wounds that made it past a models saves can trigger other rules. If we are going to use your interpretation then we still have to use the terminology put forth in the book. Therefore you are required to keep track of every wound generated in the game, when it was generated and to what models they where allocated to regardless of if it was saved or not.

So do you keep a huge spreadsheet of every model and mark down when they get wounds allocated to them?

But if there are multiple units in CC and 1 of the units becomes more than 2" away, it can't be hit by the attacking models? Or if there is 1 model within 2", the attacking models can hit them and wounds from the wound pool are allocated to them?

If there are multiple units in CC, the attacker has to declare who is swinging where.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Awfeel wrote:
The first "sentence" in my post is a DIRECT QUOTE from the BRB.

edit--

you guys are arguing that wounded models have not had a wound allocated to them. js

I removed it because it didn't help your argument at all. And you provided no citation for that bolded statement.
Are you making an argument that the rules are intended to work the way you say, or that they're currently written to work the way you say?
Please be clear.

Page 28, Fight Sub-Phase, Directing Attacks.

Just keep in mind, in the multiple unit attack scenario, that base contact still plays a big part. It is very likely that at least one attacking model will be in base contact with either or both units after piling in. At that point you follow the rules stated in the above mentioned section when it comes to determining which model is attacking which unit. Do keep in mind these are additional rules, so all the rules before it do still count.

Such as those on page 23 which highlight how you determine if a friendly model is engaged in combat or not.

Here's an example of how a model can take wounds in the combat at one initiative step, and yet not take more wounds at a later initiative step:

My GKSS charges into combat with a Warboss and Boyz. (Probably a foolish idea...but for the sake of illustration....) I have three halberds in the unit, who strike at I6, and seven models at I4. No challenges are given. The Boss is at the front of his the unit, and the halberds at the front of mine. I roll charge, take no casualties from OW; three halberds get into B2B with the Boss, and seven other Knights are in B2B with only Boyz. My I6 goes first and causes one wound on the Boss. Now we move down to Step 4; since the closest models to my I4 models are unwounded Boyz, they take the wounds BEFORE the Boss takes any wounds, even though he already received a wound in this assault phase.

Now you GKSS are 1 unit and the Orks are 1 unit, correct? And since no challenge was issued. Then the Ork Player can choose any Ork in BtB to take the wounds, not just his Warboss for any Int. The str would be 3 and toughness would be 4 because that's the average of the units going to the highest for all to hit/ to wound rolls. The to save would be from any model in BtB.

My question was in there were 2 units in CC and the pile in caused the Nob and Warboss to be more than 2" away from one of the units, the wound pool would only be on the unit they can hit. Or does Both units in their entirety have to pile in during each int step?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you cause more wounds to a single unit during an Int step, the wounds would carry to the rest of the unit, even if they are more than 2" away from the attacking Model.

Yes, at each Init step, if a given attacking model is eligible to attack more than one unit, you have to declare which unit(s) they are attacking. How many attacks from whom at which units. Then roll and resolve. And yes, wounds can kill models who are not engaged as long as they're in the unit which was attacked, aren't in a Challenge, and the closer models have already died.

Then the Ork Player can choose any Ork in BtB to take the wounds, not just his Warboss for any Int.

Any Ork in BtB with the models attacking at that Init step. If none of the models attacking at I4 are in base with the Warboss, it would actually be illegal to allocate any of the I4 wounds to the Warboss until he became the closest model.

Ok this is how we did Melee in the game I played tonight. Highest Int, piled in and attack (starting with the closest model from the attacker - no real choice on who took the wound, wound pool emptied. The next highest Int those models piled in and attacked and again only the closest models. Wounds were allocated starting with the closest.
This continued until everyone had gone. Morale check (I remember why I took a Bosspole - it saved my units). Though it didn't come up, we did have several unit attacking the same target. We agreed that 2" meant they were unengaged those units would not receive any wounds from the pool.

We did not declare with unit we were attacking, it always fell on to the model that was closest to the unit.

Well page 28 says that you should declare the unit your unit is attacking.

Directing Attacks section.

If you have 2 units both in BtB with the attacking model. The BtB models will take the wounds first reguardless of which unit they are in. So declaring your attack is a waste. Since the wounds are allocated by the defending unit, not the attacking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless a challenge is issued. The 2 bosses of the unit will do a separate attack reguardless of their position in BtB and thoses wounds will be allocated only to them. Also, the wound pool of the rest of the units in Melee can not allocated wounds to either of these bosses. Challenge can't be issued if there isn't a boss in the unit, or a single model in the unit.

Incorrect, you CANNOT wound a un it you have not chosen to attack. Reread your close combat allocation rules

I have the small rule book (p20 -p28) and I can't find where it says anything about not wounding a BtB model from a second unit. In fact the only thing it describes is a disordered charge where you can attack multiple units with a single charge and that resolves with the closest models (of either unit) first. Could you please Quote the rulebook with the title of the paragraph?

There is no mention of declaring a Target Unit in the Assault Phase - unless you are charging, because you can't charge a unit you did not shoot at.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, could you defend your point - "read the book", is not a defence since there are a lot of ambiguous rules, that require interpretation. I might have read the book wrong and telling me to read the book, means that I will continue to read it wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Allocating Wounds (p25)
the Bold Sentence "Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the shooting phase." Then it goes on to say about Ties and they are determined by "the player controlling the model being attacked."

Directing Attack (p28)
second bullet point. States that the attacker can declare how many hits (before rolling) go to which unit (giving each unit a separate wound pool). I think this is the point you are trying to make. This allows the attacker to choose the unit, not declare a Target Unit - because he can split his attacks, correct? If the attacking model is not in BtB or the same distance from the second unit, he can only attack and wound pool to the units that are closest to him.
So yes we played the wound pool wrong - but it wouldn't have made any difference. If 2 units are being attacked by a single unit, all of the units that are in BtB can be targeted, The attacker would declare how many hit to either unit they are taking and roll the to hits separately, creating 2 wound pools (the unit would save based on the wound pool and allocate wounds according to closest first).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My question is on a different Int. If my warboss is within 2" of a unit, that is in BtB with another model in his unit. can the Warboss allocate to hit rolls to that Unit. Or (this is how we played it) can he only hit the unit with models in BtB with him?

 Sleg wrote:
My question is on a different Int. If my warboss is within 2" of a unit, that is in BtB with another model in his unit. can the Warboss allocate to hit rolls to that Unit. Or (this is how we played it) can he only hit the unit with models in BtB with him?

Either or as the second bulletpoint on page 28 says:

"A model that is in base contact, or engaged, with more than one enemy unit when it strikes blows, can split its Attacks freely between those units."

The warboss is in B2B with one unit and engaged with another unit he "can split its Attacks freely between those units."

That's what I thought it said, if he is 2" or more away, he is not considered engaged. But if a Model is within 2" and in BtB with a member of his unit, he would be allowed to split the shot, even if the attacking model is not in BtB with a member of the other unit.

That would have made a huge difference and we should implement that in further battles.

We were doing it, that he can only attack closest units to the attacking Model, if not in BtB with the second unit, he could only attack the unit that is closest. Which is why I said before it didn't matter, because I wasn't splitting my 'to hits". But if I'm able to split them, I will do this from now on.