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.

If you have two models that are equidistant to the character you are using LOS with, do you get choose which model to take the wound? And if the models have two wounds (ex Paladins), can you choose a different model for the second (or third, fourth, etc) for subsequent LOS rolls?

I would say you should discuss this before hand with your opponent and decide to that the controlling player can select or that you must randomize the wounds.

You need to resolve all wounds one at a time on the closest model in a disparate group of models.

IMO they added this into the rules to avoid situations like spreading wounds around. If its decided one model is the "closest" and takes the wound then it makes sense it would continue to be the closest until it moves or dies.

Once one model is determined to be the closest you continue to allocate to him until he is dead.

Fragile wrote:
Once one model is determined to be the closest you continue to allocate to him until he is dead.

That isn't in there. You could easily have two equidistant models.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Once one model is determined to be the closest you continue to allocate to him until he is dead.

That isn't in there. You could easily have two equidistant models.

There's no reason it wouldn't follow the same precedent used for the entire rest of the game for determining which model is closest.

The only thing LoS is doing is redirecting the wound onto the closest model, but otherwise its still casualty removal so why wouldn't you use the same perfectly useable guidelines for determining which models are closest (which is to randomize between equal distant models and then treat that model as the closest until it dies)?

I mean, its not like there's some better solution present to utilize.

tbh I think that is fine, and I'd have no problem just using the closest model.

I'm more concerned with their new wording regarding how you actually perform LOS; which seems really odd.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
tbh I think that is fine, and I'd have no problem just using the closest model.

I'm more concerned with their new wording regarding how you actually perform LOS; which seems really odd.

What's odd about it?

They removed the bit about applying it AFTER an unsaved wound because they also changed the rules so that you're always using the mixed save allocation style whenever a unit contains a character. So it actually makes things nice and clear. Whenever a unit contains a character you're allocating wounds BEFORE rolling saves, and that means you're doing LoS tests always before a save is taken.

It is much more clear than it was before, so I don't understand how it is 'odd' now.

Well before, in a same save unit with a character

wounds, take saves, roll LOS, remove casualties

now it is

wounds, roll all LOSs, take saves, remove casualties


Just seems like its going to take longer than picking out failed saves and the LOSing those. You have to allocate all of the wounds before you even take any saves.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
Well before, in a same save unit with a character

wounds, take saves, roll LOS, remove casualties

now it is

wounds, roll all LOSs, take saves, remove casualties


Just seems like its going to take longer than picking out failed saves and the LOSing those. You have to allocate all of the wounds before you even take any saves.

But the difference between how LoS was resolved with same save and different save units is what created confusion. Yes, now you have to use the mixed save rules for any unit that has a character, but honestly in my gameplay experiences it seemed like most units that involved characters were generally already using mixed save situations anyway. So I see it as making things more consistent and therefore better.

And if both you and your opponent can figure out that there's no statistical difference between how you resolve LoS when dealing with a character that's getting the same save as his unit, you can go ahead and resolve it the way you used to anyway.