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.

Last night I was playing a guy who plays a number of local tournaments and a situation came up where he hit my nob unit with a power fist, qualifying for instant death.

Based on wound allocations in close combat, I (victim) would allocate a wound to the closest model(s). Once all wounds have been allocated to that ork, it continues to the next closest.

The closest model for the 1 instant kill wound was a nob with 1 wound already on it. Next closest was a full wound mob with all wounds.

He said that the instant kill wound has to go to full wound models before partially wounded models. We looked up instant death and assault wound allocation and could not see anything backing his evidence. He said a local tournament group plays it that way but to move the game along, the wounded mob was removed and we played on.

Was this a 5th Ed rule or is did we play it out correctly where the victim chooses the wound allocation from closest (wounded or not) and goes from there?

That was a 5th edition rule and you played it correctly.

After looking through my rules book, I see no reference to what your speaking of. So you was right.

you get to choose how wounds are placed that are generated at the same init step.

So assume you had a power ax and a powerfist wound generated. There are 2 nobs, the closest with 1 wound and the further with 2 wounds. You can choose to resolve the ax first and then the powerfist, likely killing them both. (nob squads cannot LOS right?)

on the other hand if you still had a power ax and a powerfist wound generated. There are 2 nobs, the closest with 2 wounds and the further with 1 wound. You can choose to resolve the PF first and then the ax, likely killing them both. (nob squads cannot LOS right?)

BUT if you had a powerfist and a powersword. There are 2 nobs, the closest with 2 wounds and the further with 1 wound. The powersword wound happens first, wounding the first nob, then the powerfist wound happens and kills the first nob, leaving his friend alive.

Not correct Exergy,

No where in the assault rules is permission granted for the defending player to chose which order the wound pool is allocated, only that they get to declare which model has the wounds allocated to them first in situations where two or more are of equal distance from the attacker. This is supported as the concept of multiple wound pools is established on page 15, in which states the shooting player gets to chose how these wounds are resolved. Then there is multiple lines within the assault rules which reference shooting such as page 22 which states attacks in close combat are resolved like shots during the shooting phase, including allocation of wounds.

The largest example of why the attacking player gets to decide is on page 25, the paragraph on the left above the sub section of multiple toughness values, which allows you to create multiple wound pools in the first place using the same method described on page 15 in the shooting section.

In assault, the attacking player chooses the wound pool order. The attacked player chooses amongst equi-distant models which is closest.

 Exergy wrote:
you get to choose how wounds are placed that are generated at the same init step.

I'm assuming by 'you' in this case you mean the attacking player. In this context the OP was the 'defending' player (i.e the Ork player), so to clarify its the person making the attacks who gets to decide the ORDER you take the hits but its the player who is taking the hits who gets to allocate them (if there is any choice, you still have to obey the 'allocate to closest model first' restriction)

yeah you've got it now. An easier example would be to say if you were fighting a squad who had several guys just giving close combat wounds and one sarge or something who had a powerfist, say you get 2 wounds from Mr. Powerfist, and 3 from close combat weapons, the attacker can decide whether you resolve powerfist wounds(possible ID) first , or close combat weapon wounds, but within the 3 close combat wounds you took, you get to decide which models take them, if all in btb contact, and in which order, then do the same for powerfist wounds.