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.

The Situation:
My Dark Artisan DE formation (the formation combines two MCs, a Talos, yellow, and a Cronos, green, with an IC, a haemonculus, into a single unit) charged into combat against a unit of 2 Zoanthropes, one of which had a wound on it from shooting.
The Talos and Cronos attacked at the same initiative before the Zoanthropes. As explained in The Assault Phase section of the BRB, p.51, I put the wounds from each MC into different wound pools since they have different strengths and special rules.
The Cronos wiffed his attacks. The Talos landed 2 wounds, one of which was instant death due to a piece of wargear.
My opponent then declared he'd take the instant death wound on the Zoanthrope with 1 pre-existing wound (they have 2 each), which is not in base contact with the source of the wounds, thereby negating the benefit of the instant death rule from killing the other full health model.

The Question: Can he do that?
I took a picture to show that the Zoanthrope with the pre-existing wound is clearly NOT in base contact with the Talos (yellow).

He argues that the section on p.52, "A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step." takes precedence, and that since both the Talos and Cronos were at the same initiative he is justified in putting the wounds on a model NOT in base contact with the model that dealt the wounds.

But in doing so he ignores my argument, which is from two paragraphs sooner - "Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase."
Since the Talos dealt the wounds, the Zoanthrope in base contact with it is obviously closest and must take the wounds first.

Basically he is saying that base contact doesn't matter and that the wounds DON'T come from the specific model that dealt them.
And I'm saying that the rules say the wounds DO come from their specific sources, just like the assault rules say it is similar to wound allocation in the shooting phase.

Who is correct?

I see his point in that ordinarily wounded models need to go first, but I thought that in cc B2B models had to take wounds first. So I'm thinking you were right.

Your friend is correct.

When allocating wounds from shooting it is the nearest model in the unit. Since the Cronos and Talos attack at the same time, then one model in base contact (chosen by the owning player) is determined to be the closest.

If the Talos and Cronos attacked at different initiatives then it would not have been legal.

How? That completely disregards the previous paragraph that says wounds are allocated closest first, just like the shooting phase. And shooting is resolved by wounds landing on the closest model to the model that did the attacking.

Please support with a rules reference.
You talking about me choosing which of the Cronos or Talos is closest, or him choosing which Zoanthrope is closest?

If it was a case of 2 talos with identical war gear, then sure he could choose either Zoanthrope to drop the wounds on. But since they're different models with different rules and strengths, the wounds go into different wound pools. And each wound pool is resolved separately, starting with the closest enemy model.

".. closet to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused the wound." P.35 BRB

as they are both in base contact, they are both as close as each other. Your friend is correct.

 Laughingcarp wrote:
How? That completely disregards the previous paragraph that says wounds are allocated closest first, just like the shooting phase. And shooting is resolved by wounds landing on the closest model to the model that did the attacking.

Please support with a rules reference.

Re-read the very first sentence of Allocate Wounds under The Shooting phase. It clearly says the wound is allocated to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused the wound.

Since CC Wounds are allocated the same way, they are allocated to the enemy model closest to the attacking unit. Per your OP, the Cronos and Talos are a single unit.

You talking about me choosing which of the Cronos or Talos is closest, or him choosing which Zoanthrope is closest?

If two models are equidistant when shooting, you randomize to determine which is considered the closest. In CC, the owning player chooses (so if two Zoanthropes are in base contact with two Talos' the Dark Eldar player chooses which Talos is the "closer" model when allocating Wounds to them).

If it was a case of 2 talos with identical war gear, then sure he could choose either Zoanthrope to drop the wounds on. But since they're different models with different rules and strengths, the wounds go into different wound pools. And each wound pool is resolved separately, starting with the closest enemy model.

If the Talos and Cronos are not in the same unit, then you would allocate starting with the Zoanthrope closest o the attacking model.

Edit: Ninja'd ^^

He was correct. Both Zoanthropes are in B2B (equally close) so the owning player chooses who takes the wound. Like you quoted earlier. Pg52 first bullet point. Both zoanthropes are in B2B with a model attacking at that initiative step so he gets to choose.

Pg34 Allocate wounds (shooting) Second Paragraph
First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused that Wound.

Since wounds are allocated like shooting in assault (pg51 like you quoted) It doesn't matter which guy is closest to the Talos since you had just one unit in combat and he had two models equally close to your one unit he got to choose which took the wound.

Now if you had them in separate units or initiative steps then sure you would be right.

My opinion/interpretation

Happyjew got it. Short answer is that the wound is allocated based on distance from the attacking unit, not attacking model. So any model in base contact with the unit is fair game.

 Happyjew wrote:

You talking about me choosing which of the Cronos or Talos is closest, or him choosing which Zoanthrope is closest?

If two models are equidistant when shooting, you randomize to determine which is considered the closest. In CC, the owning player chooses (so if two Zoanthropes are in base contact with two Talos' the Dark Eldar player chooses which Talos is the "closer" model when allocating Wounds to them).

Just to make sure, you're talking about the Dark Eldar player chooses which Talos is the "closer" model when the Zoanthropes are wounding the Talos right? The player owning the models being attacked chooses which model the Wound is allocated to.

 portugus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

You talking about me choosing which of the Cronos or Talos is closest, or him choosing which Zoanthrope is closest?

If two models are equidistant when shooting, you randomize to determine which is considered the closest. In CC, the owning player chooses (so if two Zoanthropes are in base contact with two Talos' the Dark Eldar player chooses which Talos is the "closer" model when allocating Wounds to them).

Just to make sure, you're talking about the Dark Eldar player chooses which Talos is the "closer" model when the Zoanthropes are wounding the Talos right? The player owning the models being attacked chooses which model the Wound is allocated to.

Correct. The "them" at the end of my statement refers to the Talos'.

Gotcha thanks.

And so even the fact that the Talos and Cronos are entirely different models, both of them putting wounds into different wound pools due to differing Strengths and special rules, in base contact with different enemy models, doesn't matter at all?

So if I understand, you're saying that this is totally legitimate:

A = chaos champion with lightning claws
B = chaos space marine
X = terminator independent character
Y = space marine

A B B B B
Y Y Y Y X

Say they were engaged in close combat standing in two lines, each in base contact with the enemy model in front of them as shown in the letter-diagram above.
The Chaos team attacks and the lightning claw model lands 2 wounds. Since they're at I4, same as the other Chaos Marines, the Space Marine player can elect to take the lightning claw wounds on the Terminator, thus rendering the AP3 entirely useless?

So long as the Champion is a member of the Chaos Marine unit, and the Terminator is joined to the Space Marine unit, yes, that's exactly how it works.

 Laughingcarp wrote:
The Chaos team attacks and the lightning claw model lands 2 wounds. Since they're at I4, same as the other Chaos Marines, the Space Marine player can elect to take the lightning claw wounds on the Terminator, thus rendering the AP3 entirely useless?

The wound pool would be separated by differing AP, and the attacking player chooses the order that the sub-pools are resolved in, but if the SM player elects to have the wound hit the terminator he/she must continue to do so until it dies or the pool empties (not including Look Out Sir! rolls) - pages 51-52.

 Quanar wrote:
The wound pool would be separated by differing AP, and the attacking player chooses the order that the sub-pools are resolved in, but if the SM player elects to have the wound hit the terminator he/she must continue to do so until it dies or the pool empties (not including Look Out Sir! rolls) - pages 51-52.

Ok, but then if a LoS roll is made successfully, and the wound is allocated to a nearby model, the wounds must continue to be allocated to said nearby model until the wounds pool is empty or the model is dead correct? You can't allocate a LoS wound to a nearby friendly and then continue to take wounds on the character?

 Laughingcarp wrote:

 Quanar wrote:
The wound pool would be separated by differing AP, and the attacking player chooses the order that the sub-pools are resolved in, but if the SM player elects to have the wound hit the terminator he/she must continue to do so until it dies or the pool empties (not including Look Out Sir! rolls) - pages 51-52.

Ok, but then if a LoS roll is made successfully, and the wound is allocated to a nearby model, the wounds must continue to be allocated to said nearby model until the wounds pool is empty or the model is dead correct? You can't allocate a LoS wound to a nearby friendly and then continue to take wounds on the character?

Nope, that is exactly what you do, the Character is still "closest" so keeps making LoS! to the nearest model or taking the wound.

In the end of your scenario, they both would be dead. Instant death wounds to full health models in base to base then, then the single wound kills the other. Both thrones die that turn.

Lungpickle wrote:
In the end of your scenario, they both would be dead. Instant death wounds to full health models in base to base then, then the single wound kills the other. Both thrones die that turn.

Erm, no. That's not how it'd work. The thread goes into detail.
The end result would be a thrope with a single wound.

Lungpickle wrote:
In the end of your scenario, they both would be dead. Instant death wounds to full health models in base to base then, then the single wound kills the other. Both thrones die that turn.

Only one of the wounds was ID. The other one wasn't. Hence, the model with 1W left takes the ID one and the other model just gets the regular wound.

Right but couple that with the issue of their 3++.
The way he did it, he took the wounds on the 1-wound Zoan. The regular wound was rolled first, and he saved. Then the ID wound was rolled, and he failed.
Still dead, but it took both the regular wound and the ID wound to do it.

So to clarify on the challenges thing, in CC if I start allocating wounds onto a character, I can then LoS them onto a nearby friendly right?
But once I've allocated a wound onto that nearby friendly, I DON'T have to keep putting them there, I can go back to the character the wounds were going on in the first place?

 Laughingcarp wrote:
So to clarify on the challenges thing, in CC if I start allocating wounds onto a character, I can then LoS them onto a nearby friendly right?

That's correct.

But once I've allocated a wound onto that nearby friendly, I DON'T have to keep putting them there, I can go back to the character the wounds were going on in the first place?

Also correct.

LOS doesn't affect the wound allocation process. It just lefts you budge the wound over onto someone else.

For reference, the literal rule says, "a Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to. Roll the model’s saving throw (if it has one) and remove the casualty (if necessary)."

In a situation like this, yes, he chooses. Though that entire particular wound pool needs to go on the model chosen if it survives the initial wound, of course (you don't get to just spread them all around wound for wound, but rather wound pool for wound pool).

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughingcarp wrote:
So to clarify on the challenges thing, in CC if I start allocating wounds onto a character, I can then LoS them onto a nearby friendly right?

That's correct.

But once I've allocated a wound onto that nearby friendly, I DON'T have to keep putting them there, I can go back to the character the wounds were going on in the first place?

Also correct.

LOS doesn't affect the wound allocation process. It just lefts you budge the wound over onto someone else.

Thank you.