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.

My question is:
If multiple models are the same distance away from the character(Black Dots) and the models are all multi-wound models. Do you randomize all the look out sirs on to different models, or do you simply randomize were the rolling starts? Basically is it still possible to spread the damage out in the unit ?

If you can't decide which one is closest, you randomize.

So yes.

I'll leave my personal opinion out of it, though.

If the model is chosen by the player or randomized, I'm unclear on. But, the new wound allocation rules are perfectly clear on once you start allocating to a model you continue to do so until all saves have been made or the model is removed. So no, you may not spread the wounds out.

 ToBeWilly wrote:
But, the new wound allocation rules are perfectly clear on once you start allocating to a model you continue to do so until all saves have been made or the model is removed. So no, you may not spread the wounds out.

From the same attacking units wound pool.

a different unit shooting would make you randomize again.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 ToBeWilly wrote:
But, the new wound allocation rules are perfectly clear on once you start allocating to a model you continue to do so until all saves have been made or the model is removed. So no, you may not spread the wounds out.

From the same attacking units wound pool.

a different unit shooting would make you randomize again.

Correct.

If someone were to ever really try to cheese this bad, I'd just bust out my micrometer. Wanna be grade A cheese? I'll bring the anti cheese.

The new FAQ and general rules set is strongly towards stopping wound shenanigans. As someone who tooled out 2W models in the past to do so, it's no longer legit. Learn a new strategy.

yeah, the chances of having 4 multiwound models exactly the same distance doesn't happen.

If two models are the same distance, we are going to choose via random choice. If we have decided model 1 is closest for wound pool A, then it should continue to be closest for wound pool B.

The chance that somehow something will live and then the cloestmodel is going to change warrants the attacking player to ask for an electron microscope to verify distances... if we are going to eyeball or dice off for one to be closer, then it stays closer tull we are done. Otherwise I want exact measurements.

Honestly placing models to be equal distance can never happen.

nkelsch wrote:
Honestly placing models to be equal distance can never happen.

You in Texas? I'll make it happen for money.

It's possible definitely. It's not that hard. It's exactly like ensuring max coherency to avoid pie plates...
Get any kind of measuring assistance device that has a 2" end. Place IC. Place end in contact with IC. Place other model. Move stick and repeat.
Each other model will be exactly 2" away.

rigeld2 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Honestly placing models to be equal distance can never happen.

You in Texas? I'll make it happen for money.

It's possible definitely. It's not that hard. It's exactly like ensuring max coherency to avoid pie plates...
Get any kind of measuring assistance device that has a 2" end. Place IC. Place end in contact with IC. Place other model. Move stick and repeat.
Each other model will be exactly 2" away.

One of these would make it easy to do.



Not that I'd do that to make assigning wounds a chore or cheesy, though.

Exactly what I was going to use. And I don't want/need to do it, I was just observing it could be done.

rigeld2 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Honestly placing models to be equal distance can never happen.

You in Texas? I'll make it happen for money.

It's possible definitely. It's not that hard. It's exactly like ensuring max coherency to avoid pie plates...
Get any kind of measuring assistance device that has a 2" end. Place IC. Place end in contact with IC. Place other model. Move stick and repeat.
Each other model will be exactly 2" away.

Then I get my micrometer and start, measuring each one. You'll mess up.

It's cheese ball and you'll be hot on your way to either having no opponents or a TO hitting you with slow play.

Even easier than that, place 3 models in base contact with the front model. Voila! Equidistant.

Voila! Blast marker!

I was just contesting the 'you can't place them equidistant' bit. Of course you can.

This is like the whole 'can a single model multi assault' of 5th. While people claim in odd scientific lab situations it can happen, it never happens in a game.

So me as the shooter is going to use a multi-tool to place my closest model 2" from 4 models which are already in place so when I shoot them they can randomize the wounds across 4 multiwound models?

Never going to happen! Now I suppose for overwatch you can attempt it, but I can't see that it can possibly be worth shorting yourself movement distance in order to be equidistant with 4 different models to attempt to put your wounds around on multiwound models... especially with random assault distance it behoves you to get as far as you can in the movement phase.

I can't see a valid scenario when this would even occur and with crude tools one will always be closer.

Just make scenic movement trays for your guys.