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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This is not RaW though. This is your houserule made up to be what you think is the rules. A good fit for the intention but not the RaW.

Except that what I posted actually is the rules as written, paraphrased in an ironic manner. Your continued inability to understand paraphrasing or irony is very much on record at this point.

SJ

It really isn't RaW. As explained Wound Pools are created from wounds done to targets of shooting attacks. Targets of shooting attacks (and the same is true of assault) are UNITS the D Weapon does wounds to MODELS.

Just because you don't understand the difference doesn't make your Houserule into RaW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm kind of getting the sense that he doesn't actually understand whatRAW and "house rule" actually mean, given that most of his argument is that the rules written in the book (rule as written) don't apply, because rules that aren't in the book (house rules) contradict them.

A perfect example of why many threads go round in circles. Some one who can't understand plain English or even simple definitions like Unit and Model tries to argue RaW. Makes up a raft of houserules to make things they want to work, work and then calls it RaW.

If your argument is claiming that rules that apply at the unit level also magically work at model level you need rules to support that model level interaction. You can't just claim that they work. Also if your interpretation is based on the assumption that the rule book is wrong (when it says you roll to wound against units for example) then that again is not RaW.

It really isn't RaW. As explained Wound Pools are created from wounds done to targets of shooting attacks. Targets of shooting attacks (and the same is true of assault) are UNITS the D Weapon does wounds to MODELS.

See, that's where your little house rule comes in. Nowhere in the book does it say "only use the wounds pool for 'wounds done to units'. Even if it did, nowhere in the destroyer rules does it say that destroyer attacks are targeted or allocated any differently than attacks from a normal weapon. What the rules do say is that if a special rule bends or breaks the basic rules, it will say so. Ergo, the rules for destroyer weapons do not provide an alternative method of allocation, so they are allocated according to normal rules. But you are hung up on an interpretation of wound allocation based on terminology and principles that do not appear in the rules. That is a house rule. The D table tells you what happened to the model. It doesn't tell you how to determine which model, because that was already an established principle of the game.

If your argument is claiming that rules that apply at the unit level also magically work at model level you need rules to support that model level interaction. You can't just claim that they work. Also if your interpretation is based on the assumption that the rule book is wrong (when it says you roll to wound against units for example) then that again is not RaW.

This isn't how it works. You are claiming that the terminology used on the D table breaks the normal rules for how wounds are allocated to models. The rules clearly state that when a rule breaks the normal rule, it will be stated in that rule. Per that rule, the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming a break from the normal rules for allocation, and you have yet to post a single actual RAW that supports that claim.

So normal shooting you target a UNIT, to roll to hit a UNIT, you roll to wound a UNIT. Do you agree to the above or is the rulebook wrong?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So normal shooting you target a UNIT, to roll to hit a UNIT, you roll to wound a UNIT. Do you agree to the above or is the rulebook wrong?

This is correct. The problem you seem to be having is that the Destroyer Weapon damage table replaces the To Wound step in the normal wounding process. D-weapons wound automatically, they deal 0-12 wounds per model per hit, with any excess wounds lost rather than transferred to other models in the units. This is a specific change in how wounds are allocated that is related to D-weapons per the rules for D-weapons.

Here's a fun fact: if Grenaticus, or any Inperial Knight that is a Warlord, is in a Challenge, per the 7th Ex rules for Challenges any excess wounds caused by the character Knight's Reaper Chainsword do in fact carry over onto the opposing character's unit. This is a special exception to the normal wounding caused by D-Weapons, and was not the case in 6th when Challenges were first introduced (I.e., when excess wounds from Challenges were lost rather than transferred to the unit).

SJ

Yes Destroyer table replaces the to wound step which we agree causes wounds to units. Does the Destroyer table ever cause any wounds to units?

Fling what he's saying is that each D hit (since its replacing the to wound step) counts as automatic wounds on the unit (which can then be look out sir'd).


I sort of agree with this, but its certainly not written in black and white.

That is a cool houserule. But no where in the rules do D Weapons ever state they do any wounds to a unit. Hence whyD Weapons don't work RaW.

Its not as easy as some are making it out otherwise major tournaments would not be addressing the issue with their own FAQs.

Honestly I haven't had the issue come up very often. Usually characters don't matter much at that point while ICs are rarely placed in a position to be taking LO,S from destroyer weapons that I can remember.

That said I'm not against LO,S for destroyer weapons. However, I do believe its applying logic to which is often hard to argue since past practice/precedence with other attacks that do not specifically allocate 'wounds' has been that LO,S cannot be taken (jotww, shattershard etc.. old stuff but still). This probably where the hangover is coming from. But anyway, lets move past that for a second and assume we simply replace 'wounds' with 'destroyer table result'.

So now how are you fellas resolving the rest? For example like this:

A destroyer weapon fires on a unit including an IC. The IC is the closest model. 4 models are hit. 4 rolls on the D table are made (discarding any 1s) and separating the other results into 'D table pools' of results 2-5 and 6. The active player chooses a pool in order of his choosing and allocates 'D table results'. The non active player chooses to LO,S. Saves if available are made, then number of wounds are rolled for, and finally a maximum of 4 models are removed.

I assume that you would replace 'wounds' in every instance so you couldn't for example LO,S wounds after the d3 wounds have been rolled right?

dominuschao wrote:
Its not as easy as some are making it out otherwise major tournaments would not be addressing the issue with their own FAQs.

Honestly I haven't had the issue come up very often. Usually characters don't matter much at that point while ICs are rarely placed in a position to be taking LO,S from destroyer weapons that I can remember.

That said I'm not against LO,S for destroyer weapons. However, I do believe its applying logic to which is often hard to argue since past practice/precedence with other attacks that do not specifically allocate 'wounds' has been that LO,S cannot be taken (jotww, shattershard etc.. old stuff but still). This probably where the hangover is coming from. But anyway, lets move past that for a second and assume we simply replace 'wounds' with 'destroyer table result'.

So now how are you fellas resolving the rest? For example like this:

A destroyer weapon fires on a unit including an IC. The IC is the closest model. 4 models are hit. 4 rolls on the D table are made (discarding any 1s) and separating the other results into 'D table pools' of results 2-5 and 6. The active player chooses a pool in order of his choosing and allocates 'D table results'. The non active player chooses to LO,S. Saves if available are made, then number of wounds are rolled for, and finally a maximum of 4 models are removed.

I assume that you would replace 'wounds' in every instance so you couldn't for example LO,S wounds after the d3 wounds have been rolled right?

That is how I would read it yes. The way D Weapons work, "d table results" is equal to and replaces "wounds" in the allocation process. Basically, if you expressed it mathematically, 1 dice = 1 Wound normally, the d table states "causes it to lose d3/d6+6 Wounds instead of 1", so now 1 dice = d3/d6+6 Wounds.

Fair enough then and If I can get this across to my buddies it might actually change my approach, if only a little. Fwiw we've been playing no LO,S but core rules for model removal almost entirely mitigated the situation anyway.

A destroyer weapon fires on a unit including an IC. The IC is the closest model. 4 models are hit. 4 rolls on the D table are made (discarding any 1s) and separating the other results into 'D table pools' of results 2-5 and 6. 

This is a fine Houserule. However it is a houserule. The Wound Pool and wound allocation are for allocating wounds caused to a unit to the specific models within that unit. Destroyer Weapons never do any wounds to units. So how to get from hits on a unit to wounds on specific models is never address for Destroyer Weapons hence however you do that process it is a Houserule. Depending on how you choose to do that process will decide whether LoS is possible or not.

I have no idea which side i'm agreeing with as the discussion is a little confusing, but the RaW is relatively simple here:
D weapons follow these rules against a Unit of 10 marines with a Captain right at the front:

"If the attack hits, roll on the table..." Say you roll a "4"

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

So the Captain (model) at the front takes a Hit (To Hit), followed an automatic Wound (To Wound). He has the opportunity to save this Wound (Saves) before he "lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".

As (I think) Flingitnow is saying, this resolution is applied to 1 model: The closest model to have suffered a Hit from the D-Weapon. LoS is not possible as the "standard" resolution never gets past the To Hit stage.
As soon as you have rolled To Hit, you follow the rules for "Destroyer Weapons" which apply to the model hit.

I'm not say whether LoS applies or not. I'm saying the process breaks after the to hit process so how you fix that break determines whether you get LoS or not so discussing RaW on LoS is entirely pointless as we have no common ground on which to bade the discussion.

Lets take a look at your process. Why does the Captain take a hit? Wound allocation (which triggers LoS) is the only process that cares who's closest in the unit. We are not using that process as we have no wounds on the squad and tjis is hits not wounds. So why have you allocated the hit to the Captain? What rules have you used to do that?

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not say whether LoS applies or not. I'm saying the process breaks after the to hit process so how you fix that break determines whether you get LoS or not so discussing RaW on LoS is entirely pointless as we have no common ground on which to bade the discussion.

Lets take a look at your process. Why does the Captain take a hit? Wound allocation (which triggers LoS) is the only process that cares who's closest in the unit. We are not using that process as we have no wounds on the squad and tjis is hits not wounds. So why have you allocated the hit to the Captain? What rules have you used to do that?

Ah , i see what you mean now.
The To Wound step required for "closest model" allocation is only found within the D-Weapon 'sub-rule'. But by that time, we are already on a model-to-model basis (per Destroyer rules).

Thinking about this logically (and this is indeed interpretation rather than RaW), you first need to reach the "that wounds automatically" part of the rule before you start allocating the Wounds.
Which, i though was an avoided step, but it seems like it is not: Can you Look out Sir an automatic Wound?

I believe the answer to that question is the answer to the thread.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not say whether LoS applies or not. I'm saying the process breaks after the to hit process so how you fix that break determines whether you get LoS or not so discussing RaW on LoS is entirely pointless as we have no common ground on which to bade the discussion.

Lets take a look at your process. Why does the Captain take a hit? Wound allocation (which triggers LoS) is the only process that cares who's closest in the unit. We are not using that process as we have no wounds on the squad and tjis is hits not wounds. So why have you allocated the hit to the Captain? What rules have you used to do that?

Ah , i see what you mean now.
The To Wound step required for "closest model" allocation is only found within the D-Weapon 'sub-rule'. But by that time, we are already on a model-to-model basis (per Destroyer rules).

Thinking about this logically (and this is indeed interpretation rather than RaW), you first need to reach the "that wounds automatically" part of the rule before you start allocating the Wounds.
Which, i though was an avoided step, but it seems like it is not: Can you Look out Sir an automatic Wound?

I believe the answer to that question is the answer to the thread.

this argument is base on what definitions. GW never tell us what is "wounds automatically" mean as far as game term goes and many other terms.

I will start with the term "wounds automatically" then go backward. so anf and fling applies their own definition on those terms like "wounds automatically". Anf defining "wounds automatically" generate "Score Wounds" of the normal kind and then follow the normal process. Fling is not defining as such. IFF "Score Wounds" is generated does those "Score Wounds" goes into wound pool? if so how they goes in? When does the D table kick in?

then you have the "allocation" issue. does hit a model also hit the unit? A unit after all is make up of model(s). Can the word "model" be interrupt as "unit"? How are we define "allocation"? is all wounds allocated? or is there some special way that a wound can be assign but not allocated to the model? By definition does "hit" trigger a wounding process?

Depend on context even common terms can change definition. example: car. when someone say car does he/she mean sedan or automotive? If it turn out to be a truck then is he/she wrong on calling it a car? another example: gun. "They have a gun" does that mean they have an artillery piece and not a pistol (in military setting)? or they have a pistol or rifle (in urban setting)? or in more basic term a tube with propellants (in prison setting)?

this is what they are arguing about. What are the "real" definitions and what process included in those definitions.

Your argument might be better if it was legible.

SJ

tyllon wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not say whether LoS applies or not. I'm saying the process breaks after the to hit process so how you fix that break determines whether you get LoS or not so discussing RaW on LoS is entirely pointless as we have no common ground on which to bade the discussion.

Lets take a look at your process. Why does the Captain take a hit? Wound allocation (which triggers LoS) is the only process that cares who's closest in the unit. We are not using that process as we have no wounds on the squad and tjis is hits not wounds. So why have you allocated the hit to the Captain? What rules have you used to do that?

Ah , i see what you mean now.
The To Wound step required for "closest model" allocation is only found within the D-Weapon 'sub-rule'. But by that time, we are already on a model-to-model basis (per Destroyer rules).

Thinking about this logically (and this is indeed interpretation rather than RaW), you first need to reach the "that wounds automatically" part of the rule before you start allocating the Wounds.
Which, i though was an avoided step, but it seems like it is not: Can you Look out Sir an automatic Wound?

I believe the answer to that question is the answer to the thread.

this argument is base on what definitions. GW never tell us what is "wounds automatically" mean as far as game term goes and many other terms.

I will start with the term "wounds automatically" then go backward. so anf and fling applies their own definition on those terms like "wounds automatically". Anf defining "wounds automatically" generate "Score Wounds" of the normal kind and then follow the normal process. Fling is not defining as such. IFF "Score Wounds" is generated does those "Score Wounds" goes into wound pool? if so how they goes in? When does the D table kick in?

then you have the "allocation" issue. does hit a model also hit the unit? A unit after all is make up of model(s). Can the word "model" be interrupt as "unit"? How are we define "allocation"? is all wounds allocated? or is there some special way that a wound can be assign but not allocated to the model? By definition does "hit" trigger a wounding process?

Depend on context even common terms can change definition. example: car. when someone say car does he/she mean sedan or automotive? If it turn out to be a truck then is he/she wrong on calling it a car? another example: gun. "They have a gun" does that mean they have an artillery piece and not a pistol (in military setting)? or they have a pistol or rifle (in urban setting)? or in more basic term a tube with propellants (in prison setting)?

this is what they are arguing about. What are the "real" definitions and what process included in those definitions.

As "automatic Wound" is never defined in the rulebook, you need to look at precedents and come to your own conclusions:
Where do other "automatic Wound" exist?
- Gets Hot
- Perils of the Warp
- Rending
- Purge Soul (Sanctis Powers)
etc.

Most of those seem like the type of wounds you cannot LoS for... but this is not defined.

I'm going to say no to Look out Sir at the moment.

D - Hits are very different. One of the most prominent reasons for me saying 'no' is that, because of the wording (hits on the model) when people play D weapons they tend to not reallocate excess wounds caused when that model dies (Not using wound pool rules). The reason is a extension to the fact you would not get a Look out sir.

Basically I advise you play this consistently. If you do allocate wounds from the Dhit until the wound pool is empty, regardless of the 'target model' (Gee I feel dirty typing that...) then you should also be allowing Look out sir. If not then no.

I play it as allocating Str. D hits like wounds, so roll on the chart for how many hits you scored, then create pools depending on the result and allocate them as wounds. Treating them this way, it does allow for a LOS! roll. It follows closely to standard shooting rules.

*house rule* - just to be clear

 grendel083 wrote:
so roll on the chart for how many hits you scored

You mean what 'types' of Hits? (how many potential Wounds removed?) Or does D add Hits i do not know about?

 grendel083 wrote:
I play it as allocating Str. D hits like wounds.
Treating them this way, it does allow for a LOS! roll. It follows closely to standard shooting rules.

*house rule* - just to be clear

I think it is very very similar to how i would allocate the "that wounds automatically" part of the rule to the models being closest.

IE: You count the Hits the Weapon inflicted (say Blast = 5) and roll all of them on the table.
You get: 1,3,3,4,6.
You allocate a "that wounds automatically" (2-5 Table result) three times.
You allocate a "that wounds automatically" (6 Table result) once.

But at the time when you allocate that "(2-5 Table result)" i think is where you have decided you can LoS that Wound (correct?).

Whereas i think i'd lean toward a "no", too, because we are in a "model + auto-Wound" setting, similar to Gets hot or Perils. (<- My House rule)

 grendel083 wrote:
I play it as allocating Str. D hits like wounds, so roll on the chart for how many hits you scored, then create pools depending on the result and allocate them as wounds. Treating them this way, it does allow for a LOS! roll. It follows closely to standard shooting rules.

*house rule* - just to be clear

That is essentially how I would play it too. Unfortunately whatever we do with D weapons is going to force a houserule. I play it as if it said "The UNIT suffers a hit that wounds automatically and it causes THE MODEL to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1 IF UNSAVED."

 FlingitNow wrote:
"The UNIT suffers a hit that wounds automatically and it causes THE MODEL to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1 IF UNSAVED."

Okay, yeah, best way to put what i was thinking in rule terms. We should send that wording to the FaQ teams....

 BlackTalos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
so roll on the chart for how many hits you scored

You mean what 'types' of Hits? (how many potential Wounds removed?) Or does D add Hits i do not know about?

Yes, that's what I meant.

"Roll on the chart for however many hits you scored" is what I was trying to say there. So 5 hits will a blast, means 5 rolls, then the results will split those results into pools. Exactly like in your example.

Whereas i think i'd lean toward a "no", too, because we are in a "model + auto-Wound" setting, similar to Gets hot or Perils. (<- My House rule)

That's fair enough.
Personally i see it as "if you can LOS! a battle cannon blast, why not a D blast?". It's just a bit more destructive. But that's just my house rule

I'm not sure why you all find this so difficult. It might just be that multi wound Wounds aren't that common in 40k (as far as I know), but in Fantasy these things are actually quite common, just as auto wounding hits and auto hitting attacks are.

The normal process to resolve an attack is as follows, in most cases:
1) Roll to hit
2) Roll to wound
3) Allocate the wound to a specific model.
4) Roll for "Look out sir" if applicable.
5) Resolve the damage caused by the wound
5A) Roll saving throws
5B) Resolve any possible wound multipliers (keeping in mind that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)
6) Actually apply the inflicted wound to the model it is allocated to.
7) Remove the model if all the wounds have been removed.

Now if we apply this to an attack with a destroyer weapon we get the following:
1) Roll to hit (as normal)
2) Roll on the destroyer table. (This is basically the to wound roll, with a 1 being a non wounding hit and a 2-6 being a wounding hit)
3) Allocate the wound to a specific model.
4) Roll for "Look out sir" if applicable.
5) Resolve the damage caused by the wound
5A) Roll saving throws (Not applicable if the roll on the destroyer table was a 6)
5B) Resolve any possible wound multipliers (keeping in mind that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)
- On a 2-5 that would be a total of Max(D3, wounds on profile)
- On a 6 that would be a total of Max(D6+6, wounds on profile)
6) Actually apply the inflicted wound to the model it is allocated to.
7) Remove the model if all the wounds have been removed.

As you can see the only thing that is essentially different compared to resolving a standard attack is that you roll on the Destroyer table instead of the To Wound table.
The rest of the process is identical. So you do get a LoS roll for attacks by destroyer weapons, just like you would get for an ordinary attack.

aemon wrote:
I'm not sure why you all find this so difficult. It might just be that multi wound Wounds aren't that common in 40k (as far as I know), but in Fantasy these things are actually quite common, just as auto wounding hits and auto hitting attacks are.

The normal process to resolve an attack is as follows, in most cases:
1) Roll to hit
2) Roll to wound
3) Allocate the wound to a specific model.
4) Roll for "Look out sir" if applicable.
5) Resolve the damage caused by the wound
5A) Roll saving throws
5B) Resolve any possible wound multipliers (keeping in mind that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)
6) Actually apply the inflicted wound to the model it is allocated to.
7) Remove the model if all the wounds have been removed.

Now if we apply this to an attack with a destroyer weapon we get the following:
1) Roll to hit (as normal)
2) Roll on the destroyer table. (This is basically the to wound roll, with a 1 being a non wounding hit and a 2-6 being a wounding hit)
3) Allocate the wound to a specific model.
4) Roll for "Look out sir" if applicable.
5) Resolve the damage caused by the wound
5A) Roll saving throws (Not applicable if the roll on the destroyer table was a 6)
5B) Resolve any possible wound multipliers (keeping in mind that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)
- On a 2-5 that would be a total of Max(D3, wounds on profile)
- On a 6 that would be a total of Max(D6+6, wounds on profile)
6) Actually apply the inflicted wound to the model it is allocated to.
7) Remove the model if all the wounds have been removed.

As you can see the only thing that is essentially different compared to resolving a standard attack is that you roll on the Destroyer table instead of the To Wound table.
The rest of the process is identical. So you do get a LoS roll for attacks by destroyer weapons, just like you would get for an ordinary attack.

That's cool houserules and all but that is not what Destroyer Weapons say they do.

Technically, D weapons are the ultimate form of Barrage. Only the models under the template/marker suffer wounds.

Fragile wrote:
Technically, D weapons are the ultimate form of Barrage. Only the models under the template/marker suffer wounds.

Except that it doesn't say that anywhere in the rules, and of the two main Super-Heavies being played right now, Stompas and Imperial Knights, neither of them has a template based D weapon.

Fragile wrote:
Technically, D weapons are the ultimate form of Barrage. Only the models under the template/marker suffer wounds.

That's not how D Weapons work.

It appears I've unintentionally opened a debate/can of worms.

From what I can gather, RAW you can't, but you house-rule it as yes you can?

How would/do you house rule it? Would you make 1 Look Out Sir roll, or D3 depending on how many wounds the character took?
(if that makes sense)

 Frozocrone wrote:
It appears I've unintentionally opened a debate/can of worms.

From what I can gather, RAW you can't, but you house-rule it as yes you can?

How would/do you house rule it? Would you make 1 Look Out Sir roll, or D3 depending on how many wounds the character took?
(if that makes sense)

It makes sense, but as much as Look out Sir is a possible yes/no, the method of application is clear.

If you do allow LoS, it will be 1 roll per D-Weapon hit. You LoS first, and then find out how many Wounds is take off (D3)