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 do!

I'll warn you, this is likely to be long and fairly rambly. So long and fairly rambly, that I've actually decided to use my PC for easier typing.

Now, to start off, I'd like you to turn to Page 220 of your 9th Ed rulebook. I'm reading from the Indomitus version, but I believe the pages are the same. And it continues across in to Page 221.

Let's look at subsection 3, Allocate Attack

Allocate Attack

If and attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

The italicised part is new, to be the best of my knowledge. And I feel it could be something we really need to wrap our heads around - especially with the new coherency rules.

See, in 8th and I think 7th, a common tactic where units could have a mix of equipment was to load up an invulnerable save or two (such as Stormshields), and have them tank any high AP attacks, and their less protected brethren taking the low AP attacks. Of course, one can't necessarily do that now.

Particularly when we consider how shooting works. The example in the rulebook (page 217) involves a Tactical Squad, armed with 8 Bolters, 1 Meltagun and 1 Missile Launcher. The 8 Bolters and 1 Meltagun target the same unit, the Missile Launcher something else. And, as the shooting player, it's my choice which of those batches I open up with, and each batch is resolved separately.

This is where the player being shot at has to be careful not to break their own unit coherency. For purely argument's sake, let's consider a five man unit Deathwing unit, two of which have Stormshields (X in the example), the other three having Storm Bolter and Powerfist (Y in the example)

If the models are 1" apart, in a straight line, deployed as so....

Y-X-Y-X-Y

There is a risk that if he allocates to the Stormshields in the hope of surviving the incoming fire, he can break his own coherency. And if he really, really doesn't think it through, like, at all? I could simply kill both Stormshields, and that's the unit gone, as the remaining three aren't in coherency.

That is of course a very simplistic example. It's deliberately so because this is the first post, and I don't want anyone going cross eyed just yet.

And it is also fairly situational occurrence. But, if played well, can allow a player's shooting phase to be hideously effective, if they've gone for mixed equipment loadouts in a unit.

The coherency thing occurred to me as I was considering 20 man Necron Warrior squads with a mix of Blasters and Flayers. Intent is to allow my opponent only to chew through the Blasters first, allowing the shorter ranged but far punchier weapons to survive to the mid to late game, where ideally ranges will have closed. Is that a good idea? Doesn't matter for this thread. But, it does mean when allocating wounds in this way, specifically to preserve certain models, I'll really need to think about their positioning in the unit. A slight error on my behalf, and I can be forced to break coherency.

The main 'losers' of mixed equipment units seem to be things like Crisis Suits, Tyranid Warriors etc, especially if they're smaller units. Because, if my opponent takes their eye off the ball, and allocates poorly, kill one? Potentially whole unit gone if it was the one in the middle.

So yeah, perhaps not as long as I was anticipating, but definitely a bit of rambling. And these are the thoughts of someone not terribly up on modern 40k.So I dare say I'm missing something which renders this not quite as useful, or something which can really, really be exploited by high end players.

What's your thoughts, Dakka? Speek yur branes.

Ot but lf you intend for short ranged weapons to survive why you are removing them first?

Because I got myself all confused. Like a dumbass!

I dont think anyone is going to be congalining units like that tbh. And if they were, they'd obviously put the stormshield guys to the edges

X Y Y Y X

You just need to start positioning your "bodyguard" models to the edges of the unit, and always try to have as much redundancy in your squad coherency as possible. If weapon ranges are measured on a unit to unit basis, the actual positions of your heavier weapons doesnt matter much either.

tauist wrote:
I dont think anyone is going to be congalining units like that tbh. And if they were, they'd obviously put the stormshield guys to the edges

X Y Y Y X

You just need to start positioning your "bodyguard" models to the edges of the unit, and always try to have as much redundancy in your squad coherency as possible. If weapon ranges are measured on a unit to unit basis, the actual positions of your heavier weapons doesnt matter much either.

I thought weapons were measured model --> target unit. Is it actually just unit --> unit now?

In order to target an enemy unit, at least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be visible to the shooting model.

tauist wrote:
I dont think anyone is going to be congalining units like that tbh. And if they were, they'd obviously put the stormshield guys to the edges

X Y Y Y X

You just need to start positioning your "bodyguard" models to the edges of the unit, and always try to have as much redundancy in your squad coherency as possible. If weapon ranges are measured on a unit to unit basis, the actual positions of your heavier weapons doesnt matter much either.

Hence this thread. The change is quite easy to miss, and avoiding disaster requires a new level of forward planning.

But are there other ways to cunningly exploit and leverage this rule interaction?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tauist wrote:
I dont think anyone is going to be congalining units like that tbh. And if they were, they'd obviously put the stormshield guys to the edges

X Y Y Y X

You just need to start positioning your "bodyguard" models to the edges of the unit, and always try to have as much redundancy in your squad coherency as possible. If weapon ranges are measured on a unit to unit basis, the actual positions of your heavier weapons doesnt matter much either.

Hence this thread. The change is quite easy to miss, and avoiding disaster requires a new level of forward planning.

But are there other ways to cunningly exploit and leverage this rule interaction?

Like so much of the "complexity" in 40k, this kind of issue disappears very quickly once players are aware of it. Yes, it's possible to get hosed by the combination of coherency and wound allocation rules but the way around the problem is so trivially easy I suspect it'll happen to most people once, then they'll make sure it doesn't happen again. That's the problem here: your opponent is completely in control of when or if this happens so there aren't really any ways to exploit this interaction.

The biggest impact the would allocation rules have is to make squads with mixed defensive profiles slightly worse because you can't always allocate wounds to the most optimal model any more.

But....does it really disappear?

See, having a handle on the minutiae is still tactical depth. The difference between knowing to X Y Y Y X, and not Y X Y X Y your positioning is. However you butter it, a tactical subtlety. Just as seeing your opponent in a Y X Y X Y formation, and how to force their hand, is a tactical subtlety.

It still informs our actions, even when we’re taking pains not to make that mistake.

In fact, the taking pains not to make such an error is inherently Tactical, no?

Now. Back to the original topic? Are there other situations where we might be able to exploit this rule. And how might we go about it?

The allocation is a tactical response by the “defending” player in response to the tactical choice by the attacker to choose the order of batches.

For example, the attacker chooses to batch the bolters first, followed by the Meltagun. Let’s say 5 bolters wound, followed by 1 wounding MG roll.

Hypothetically, the defender should roll saves one at a time until a model is destroyed, by my understanding. Once a model is destroyed, the defender now nominates a new model to take saves until destroyed. So it’s a bit of a guessing game on the Defender’s part to be able to guess the right time to allocate to the “super-saver” in the unit. One bolter and one Meltagun left to save? Do I chance my super saver saving the bolt gun to then save vs the MG, or do I chance a chump dying to the Bolter before allocating the MG to a super-saver?

In reverse, MG first followed by Bolter wounds would likely be allocated to super-saver, and SS will likely be taken out by swarms of bolter wounds... playing the odds. So does the defender choose to “sacrifice” SS to the dice gods, or accept the MG loss of a chump?

Tactically speaking, does the attacker have a bunch of high AP attacks left? Is there a plasma-Squad up next? Probably write off a chump to the MG to keep SS around to minimize damage from Plasma squad next. If not? Maybe consider sac’ing SS to the odds, as regular savers are as likely to survive more bolters...

Situationally, as an attacker you might be able to order a series of different unit attacks against some different defending units to greater maximize your damage, depending on the defender’s earlier damage results... if the defending units have models with different defence stats within them.

This really only comes into play when a defending unit has multiple defence profiles *and* the attacker has multiple *units* with varied attack profiles within.

Ultimately, the defender chooses whether or not to make this a potential issue during their list building. So I think it’s only exploitable if the defender chooses to put them self in that position.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But....does it really disappear?

See, having a handle on the minutiae is still tactical depth. The difference between knowing to X Y Y Y X, and not Y X Y X Y your positioning is. However you butter it, a tactical subtlety. Just as seeing your opponent in a Y X Y X Y formation, and how to force their hand, is a tactical subtlety.

It still informs our actions, even when we’re taking pains not to make that mistake.

In fact, the taking pains not to make such an error is inherently Tactical, no?

Really trying not to be overly negative here, but to me that's not really tactical, no. Anything that is so simple as to be successfully done by working though a basic checklist of actions just doesn't seem tactical to me. It's the same with tri-pointing, IMO. It's actually very, very simple to do and requires no real skill other than an awareness the option exists, which is experience, not tactics.

IMO, for a decision to be tactical rather than just rote procedure it needs to have some element of weighing genuine options, considering risk vs reward and, more often than not, it won't have a 100% "correct" way to do things - it's more judging probabilities on a spectrum. I think the way objectives work in 9th is a good example of how the tactical depth has increased. For example, in my game yesterday I constantly found myself having to make decisions such as whether to charge in with a Necron Warrior unit to tie up the enemy and prevent them moving to secure objectives, or stay where I was and be able to use my shooting in subsequent turns. That's a decision that requires me to judge what my opponent will do, as well as whether a short-term gain is worth it now or if the long-game is more important. Crucially, those are decisions that have no easily defined answer and may even depend on what your opponent views as their primary goals in upcoming turns, which have to be considered as well. Compared to how I arrange the models in my own unit the two situations are just nowhere near the same sort of thing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Now. Back to the original topic? Are there other situations where we might be able to exploit this rule. And how might we go about it?

At the heart of what I'm talking about above is this question. Even if your opponent makes this mistake, it's still not really exploitable. Maybe it changes your target priority to shoot the poorly arranged unit over a similarly threatening one. Even then, lethality is still so high in 40k I find it fairly rare that I'm shooting units with the expectation of damaging them rather than outright killing them.

Can I just point out that a unit can never be removed completely due to being out of coherency. Models are removed one by one unit the unit is back in coherency so the last model will always be left on the table.

That’s a good point indeed.

I like the rule. One of my opponents regularly likes to put the small arms against his bigger Tau suits with the better saves and the large arms against the drones - now he has to risk either the big guns hitting his suit or the small arms wiping away his drone screen

Why would you not target the drones with the small arms they are a different unit and the big suits can't intercept on their behalf

Where as with the big suit targeting the tau player can still swap to drones as its a separate unit with bodyguard rule

Sumilidon wrote:
I like the rule. One of my opponents regularly likes to put the small arms against his bigger Tau suits with the better saves and the large arms against the drones - now he has to risk either the big guns hitting his suit or the small arms wiping away his drone screen

Not quite. As drones are separate units they have to be targeted separately. So attempting to tank the small arms on the +2 save crisis suit and then using savior protocols on the lascannons is still valid. What he can't do is tank the small arms on the 2+ save suit and then attempt to tank the Lascannon on the shield generator crisis suit that is in the same unit. Which was also a common Tau strategy.

That said... targeting the shield drones with poor-AP weapons to drown them in saves before targeting the Suits with high-AP weapons is a good strategy.

The addition of "already had attacks allocated to it this phase" is actually a really good way to slow the game down.

Let's take my Orks (27 shootas and 3 rokkits) vs a unit with 2 stormshields and 3 normal guys.

I fire a shoota, as a tester. No batching, just a single shoota. I keep doing so until one wound gets through for you to save. And I see who you save with.

If you save with the stormshield, I then roll all my remaining shootas, perhaps in batches, until he dies, having wasted his stormshield.

If you save with the regular dude, I fire the rokkits one at a time. Assuming one hits and wounds, you must take the hit on the dude without the stormshield, as he has already taken the shots.


Alternative approach. I fire a rokkit from a deffkopta at your unit, and the stormshield tanks it. For the rest of the phase, he has t otake very shot until he dies - so massed shoota blob rubs their hands together at the prospect of nearly guaranteeing removing the stormshield protecting the unit.


All it will take is a single powerful shot followed by massed light shots and invulnerable-saving heroes will bite the dust.

EG:

1: rokkit shoots, and the stormshield saves it.
2: shootas shoot and kill off the stormshield, as he has to take it
3: flashgits shoot and wipe out the unit, who was relying on that stormshield to tank the high-AP hits.

Yes, as far as I can see, shooting at mixed defense units will have trixy options. It may shift units that previously relied on 1-2 "better saves" towards full saves, or no upgraded saves.

I'd suspect that 1-2 Stormshield units will drop them... I would.

 some bloke wrote:
The addition of "already had attacks allocated to it this phase" is actually a really good way to slow the game down.

Let's take my Orks (27 shootas and 3 rokkits) vs a unit with 2 stormshields and 3 normal guys.

I fire a shoota, as a tester. No batching, just a single shoota. I keep doing so until one wound gets through for you to save. And I see who you save with.

If you save with the stormshield, I then roll all my remaining shootas, perhaps in batches, until he dies, having wasted his stormshield.

If you save with the regular dude, I fire the rokkits one at a time. Assuming one hits and wounds, you must take the hit on the dude without the stormshield, as he has already taken the shots.

That isn't legal, once you have started using 1 weapon profile you must complete all attacks with that weapon profile from within that unit before moving onto the next weapon profile, you can't flip to a different profile and back again.

Yeah, how the various rules interact means there are limited “ranging” shot opportunities.

To stick to the Orky example? Whilst you can’t “range” with a single Shoota from a Single Mob? One could put a Trukk’s ‘Eavy Shoota to that purpose, provided of course you hit and cause a wound. Same with a single Shoota declared at a different target from the rest of his Mob. But when it’s a single unit giving it some Dakka, like weapons against like target have to be batched up.

It’s also important to bear in mind that wound allocation isn’t batched the way the shots are. So whilst the model with the hypothetical Stormshield carrier is surely doomed, once they’ve snuffed it, your opponent is free to reallocate.

As others have said, I’m sure there’s a way to leverage this small change. Situational as it may well be, you can still use it, right place, right time, to force your opponent’s hand.

Am I correct in assuming that this rule allows you to pull part of your army that is standing in cover BEFORE you pull the guys standing in the open? Cause that could be very important for a gaurd blob sitting with +2 on its saves from a strat and a spell, with half the troops in cover and a tip of the blob streched out to bring a half dozen obsec to the nearby objective.
And by "blob" I mean "30 gaurd conscripts" rather than a smaller unit. So 24 of them are sitting in cover with a 2+ save base and 6 of them are sort of closer to the nearby objective -- which is itself just barely not in the terrain feature cause you cleverly put one there to do this exact thing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Let's look at subsection 3, Allocate Attack

Allocate Attack

If and attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

If it works the way I think. Then maybe you fire a high AP weapon at the termie squad to get your opponent to allocate to the Storm Shield, then bury that same termie in hi volume shooting to remove it. In reverse, some ork boyz with some sluggas nearby could fire first, allocating nearly useless dice to a non storm shield termie, then picking a high AP weapon next probably gets you one dead terminator before he allocates the next wound to the Storm Shield model.

I just skimmed the thread. But when shooting my ork opponent nobs he has to put wounds on the same model as one he did before. There where 3 different nob types. And the way he positioned if he pulled the first naked one, and I killed one more the rest would be out of unit coheremcy and I coud stop attacling them and kill some in the leadership phase.

Yup. The (relatively) easy counter play is to keep your upgrades near the middle of the unit, so that if chumps die you're falling to the centre, so to speak, instead of towards the edges.

It got rather complicated. He disembarked from a destroyed vehicle. Tryed to screen his character from one side. Then go in mellee in another direction the turn after.