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.

How are wounds allocated in a Vector Strike? From nearest to the attacking model at the end of the Movement phase? From where it started? Defender's call? I can't find anything explicit in the BRB.

I would play it as from the direction of the flight.

So closest to the place the striking model began its movement.

At my FLGS, we've always played Vector Strikes just like Screamers' Slash Attack: resolve the wounds from the Striking model's final position.

You can either to it as closest. As the Vector Strike is resolved after movement you would apply to final position, or you can simply use the random method.

We played it from the start position because it seemed to be the most cinematic, but as the attack is resolved after the move, RAW seems to suggest from the final position. Hence our confusion. It makes it a bit hard to know how to position your characters, special weapons, etc, when there's FMCs about.

Snapshot wrote:
We played it from the start position because it seemed to be the most cinematic, but as the attack is resolved after the move, RAW seems to suggest from the final position. Hence our confusion. It makes it a bit hard to know how to position your characters, special weapons, etc, when there's FMCs about.

Yeah, I'm headed up to a mates place this weekend for some 40k and he rocks a FMC sometimes. I'm just going to clarify how he wants to handle it before the game so there's no confusion or arguments. If I went to a Tournie I'd ask the TO. I like the idea of it being from the flight paths starting point. On a similar point how about ork big bombs dropped in the movment phase or those DE things?

If there's nothing that changes the way the allocation works, then you resolve it as normal; closest model from where the attack originated, which is this case is where the model took off from.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
If there's nothing that changes the way the allocation works, then you resolve it as normal; closest model from where the attack originated, which is this case is where the model took off from.

That is incorrect, you allocate wounds closest to the firing unit.

.....At the end of the Movement phase, nominate any one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy Flyer. That unit takes D3+l hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP 3.....


The attack occurs after the movement is done.

Yup. I think it makes the most sense and is easiest to measure and check from the model's final position.

Which, I presume not coincidentally, is exactly how the Screamer rules explicitly say to do it.

And yet the Screamers' rule specifically states it. So why doesn't Vector Strike say it? There's an obvious answer here...

As for the assertion that the overall rule is allocate wounds to the closest model to the firing unit, that is incorrect. Barrage weapons and close combat are two examples that show this. It is closest model to the origin of the attack, which is the firing unit for the purpose of non-Barrage shooting only. In combat it's the attacking model. For Barrages it is the centre of the template. These latter two are not 'the firing model'.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
And yet the Screamers' rule specifically states it. So why doesn't Vector Strike say it? There's an obvious answer here...

As for the assertion that the overall rule is allocate wounds to the closest model to the firing unit, that is incorrect. Barrage weapons and close combat are two examples that show this. It is closest model to the origin of the attack, which is the firing unit for the purpose of non-Barrage shooting only. In combat it's the attacking model. For Barrages it is the centre of the template. These latter two are not 'the firing model'.

Your trying to look for exceptions to justify your position. Barrage specifically states its rules for allocation.

Pg 15.... in two places.

Allocate wounds and remove casualties.
Next, allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to
the firing unit.

Allocate Wounds
First, allocate a Wound from the 'Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit.

Close Combat, PG 25, note the bold


Allocating Wounds

After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular Initiative step, Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed. Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase

Vector Strike doesn't say it because they forgot to specify. They forgot several things in this rulebook, including specifying that you can't move over friendly models (even though the assault moves section references that restriction as if it's an understood concept).

Barrages are very much in keeping with the Screamer rule, and the proposed solution for FMC vectors. In all three cases you have a clear origin point for the attack, from which it's easy to determine which is the closest model, measuring if necessary. If you try to do it from the origin point on a Vector Strike, you have to do it BEFORE moving the model, which clashes with the outlined procedure.

In any case, I have no doubt the hard and fast RAW is from the direction of the model itself so in other words the final position after the move. As that's how all other unspecified attack work. But I think it would be cool playing it from the direction of flight. But there's nothing stopping us from premeasuring the flight distance over the target unit, making the vector strike then resolving the movement if we wanted to do it that way in a friendly game.

How many other "all other unspecified attack" are there? I only know of screamers.

I also seem to recall some attacks that are allocated randomly; so it isn't without precedence.

coredump wrote:
How many other "all other unspecified attack" are there? I only know of screamers.

I also seem to recall some attacks that are allocated randomly; so it isn't without precedence.

Unspecified as in normal attacks, meaning resolved by allocating from the attacking models location when the attack is made (IE after the move). Specified attack being barrage and other attacks that have a specific way they are resolved.

Sweep Attacks (p82) use Random Allocation (p15). That's not a bad HYWPI/RAI parallel.

RAW, it seems simplest to allocate from closest to the MC's position at the end of the movement.

coredump wrote:
How many other "all other unspecified attack" are there? I only know of screamers.

I also seem to recall some attacks that are allocated randomly; so it isn't without precedence.

Bladevanes, which were also FAQ'd to use end position, from memory

nosferatu1001 wrote:

coredump wrote:
How many other "all other unspecified attack" are there? I only know of screamers.

I also seem to recall some attacks that are allocated randomly; so it isn't without precedence.

Bladevanes, which were also FAQ'd to use end position, from memory

Nope, random allocation.

As of right now, the application of wounds for something like this is inconsistent at best.

Thats new - previously it was final position.

Gah, consistency GW, consistency!

Just linking this thread to this one

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/481677.page

'cause they are obviously related. Given the importance of knowing the direction of attack for determining cover saves (as well as wound allocation, as discussed), I'm tending to toss the cinematic interpretation in the bin, and go with using the final position to determine wounds and cover.

As people have pointed out, this also seems to be the RAW interpretation.