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.

Where in melee combat does it say to Random Allocate any wounds? In Melee that went through pains taking effort to explain how to allocate wounds. This is not shooting where there is a chance for an undefined target or closest model - which they even state that these are rare as well.

This is using the 6th edition rule book. The FAQ is not outdated as it was rewritten for 6th edition rules. you can't dismiss what it says because you want it that way.

 Sleg wrote:
Where in melee combat does it say to Random Allocate any wounds? In Melee that went through pains taking effort to explain how to allocate wounds. This is not shooting where there is a chance for an undefined target or closest model - which they even state that these are rare as well.

This is using the 6th edition rule book. The FAQ is not outdated as it was rewritten for 6th edition rules. you can't dismiss what it says because you want it that way.

Again, have you bothered to read the rules for random allocation? When the source of the wound is not defined, you use RA. No choice.

I am not dismissing the FAQ. What I have REQUIRED you to do is show the RULE that states the *bosspole model* is the source of the wound. You cannot actually how this rule, but huff and puff and pretend you have done.

Find it, or concede. Further refusal to provide page and graph will be considered concession. You are making a RAI argument.

 Sleg wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
I've seen a couple of posts hook on the "base contact" thing... allocating as though it were a close combat wound.
Bear in mind that the rule does *NOT* tell you to allocate this way. We also can't assume any model as the source, as the rule doesn't give us one either, so you couldn't even know what model you're meant to be looking at base contact with.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3180058a_Orks_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

First FAQ
Q. Are saves allowed against Wounds caused by rolling a ‘1’ for the
‘Waaagh!’ Fleet roll? Or by a bosspole’s re-roll? (p31)
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed. These are just
the same as Wounds suffered in close combat from a normal
weapon (actually, a big green fist…).

The reason everyone is saying this whole BTB thing is because GW is saying it is the same as Wounds suffered in Close Combat. Closest Model or Model in BTB take the wound. If multiple models are in BtB the player of the attacked unit can choose, which model takes the wound. If the closest model is a character, they can look out sir, but they can NOT pick the model that holds the Bosspole, even if that model is the closest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vombat wrote:
Seems like most people agree on this:
When the orks take a hit by a bosspole. Randomize the hit. Roll a die, close your eye an pick one or any other way both can agree its random.

If its a big number, you can ask your opponent to write down a number on a note (13 for exampel). Then you just start pointing on a model and say one, two, theree and so on and the opponent will say stop when its the randomzed model.

I had another question about the Bosspole: Is a bosspole user allowed to use it on another model with a bosspole?
In a unit with nobs, can you randomize a hit to another nob with a pole?

Page 5 is very clear on how you randomize as was made very clear to me - though some people know how to speed roll though diving up the unit into equal groups no higher than 6. Roll the die, if the roll is a 6 and no model is assigned re-roll until you first get your group and then roll until you get the model that is assigned to the roll. Continue this method until the wound pool is empty. For me, if it doesn't make a difference which model is removed (ie no special weapons or character in the unit), for the sake of time, just pick and remove the models as need - this is not for everyone and probably wont be allowed in Tournies (I think it would). But that is the Method.

As for you question about 2 Bosspoles (other than being a waste of 5 points). The Ork Player, picks which figure is using the Bosspole. Only that model can not take the wound. the other Model with the Bosspole could take the wound. If the FAQ over rides the BRB, then you would resolve the Bosspole wound as if it were a close combat attack. Just like a roll of a 1, the character in the unit, will deliver the wound. If there is no character, then I guess most people will random allocation the wound, personally, if there isn't a character or boss in the unit, I would jus let them pick the model that takes the wound.

He states it right here with the FAQ quote at the top of his post. The attack is coming from a BIG GREEN Fist in CC (as per the FAQ). Follow CC rules as stated on page 25 BRB Allocating wounds paragraph 1 and 2. Simple really...

An average mob of ork boyz has 40-60 big green fists. Cyborking might reduce that number though. Which one did it come from?

Osirisx - yep, so WHICH big green fist is that? Please provoide a rules quote specifying which one, to the model

Page and paragraph

No need, it clearly states owning player chooses the model on that page and paragraph of the BRB concerning CC wounds that I already quoted. Maybe I am reading the posts wrong but it seems people are trying to add rules that don't apply to a very simple situation. The FAQ clearly states (without a doubt) that the wound is treated EXACTLY like a CC hit so you would follow the rules for CC. If the model cant be decided by those rules then it states it is the OWNING players choice who dies. For the correct page and paragraph here it is AGAIN.

BRB Page 25 Paragraph 1 and 2. Please read this and tell me where it says you have to randomize who dies.

No where in the CC rules does it say to randomly determine where the wound comes from or who gets it. So this being an abstract (albet they try to make as solid as possible) game you should follow those guidelines. If you don't want to, then don't, but the rules is very clear.

osirisx69 wrote:
No need, it clearly states owning player chooses the model on that page and paragraph of the BRB concerning CC wounds that I already quoted.

They choose *from those models in base contact* with the model dealing the wound. Did you read EITHER the rule you quoted, OR any of the last few pages which dealt with that exact point? Because it looks like you havent

osirisx69 wrote: Maybe I am reading the posts wrong but it seems people are trying to add rules that don't apply to a very simple situation.

The rules state, when you are unable to determine the source of an attack, you use random allocation. The rules apply because, as has been shown over many, many pages, the source of the attack isnt known.

osirisx69 wrote:The FAQ clearly states (without a doubt) that the wound is treated EXACTLY like a CC hit so you would follow the rules for CC.

That isnt in dispute. Again, this has already been covered. Read more carefully next time.

osirisx69 wrote: If the model cant be decided by those rules then it states it is the OWNING players choice who dies.

No it says: owning player when there is a "tie" in terms of closest, i.e. 2 or more models in base. Please show where this tie is coming from

osirisx69 wrote:For the correct page and paragraph here it is AGAIN.

BRB Page 25 Paragraph 1 and 2. Please read this and tell me where it says you have to randomize who dies.

Please read and show where it covers being uncertain of their location.

osirisx69 wrote:No where in the CC rules does it say to randomly determine where the wound comes from or who gets it. So this being an abstract (albet they try to make as solid as possible) game you should follow those guidelines. If you don't want to, then don't, but the rules is very clear.

Yes, you are unaware of the location of the attack, so you randomise. Its right there in the random allocation rules. You dont "get it" because you seem to be unaware that the source is unclear.

No you are incorrect. I will show you line by line (again) how the rules goes. BRB page 25 paragraph 1 Sentence 2 " WOUNDs are allocated and resolved starting with the closet model, just like in the shooting phase"

Can this rule be Satisfied? The answer is no because we cannot determine who the closest model is.

Next rule Paragraph 2 "A wound must be allocated to an enemy in base contact with the model attacking at that initiative step. if there is more then one eligible candidate the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to. "

Can this rule be Satisfied? The answer is no because we cannot determine who the closest model is.

Next rule Paragraph 3 " if there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at initiative step the wound is allocated to the closest enemy model, if several enemy models are the same distance away then the controlling player chooses which is allocated as above.

Can this rule be Satisfied? The answer is yes. Since the origin of the attack has not been satisfied the remaining rule is the owning player choose the mode.

Nos please stop being aggressive and ignoring the simple pages I have shown. I am not attacking you (you seem to be attacking me for some reason) I am just clearly and as per the forum rules showing how your argument is incorrect. I feel you are breaking one of the forum rules right now.

Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule

[Edit]

What is a rule?

This is an area where people commonly get confused. Rules are limited to:
◾Game Rulebooks.
◾Army Books/Codexes
◾Official FAQs published on the Games Workshop website pertaining to the current edition of the game.
◾Anything published by Games Workshop that is noted as being official (i.e. for 40K, rules denoted as "Chapter Approved" that are not also marked as "trial" or "experimental", etc).
◾Other Official Rulebooks (such as game supplements like "Cities of Death" or "Apocalypse").

No where have you posted a page or sentence that says if the attack in CC is from an unknown location you must randomize it wound.

osirisx69 wrote:
Next rule Paragraph 3 " if there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at initiative step the wound is allocated to the closest enemy model, if several enemy models are the same distance away then the controlling player chooses which is allocated as above

You choosing out of the models that are the same distance. Not choosing from the entire unit.
How can you determine which group of models to choose from? You can't even determine if one model is closest, so you can't determine a group of equal-distance models to choose from.

Again origin of the model cannot be determined so you fall back to the last paragraph.

If there is a line or paragraph that says "if the origin of the cc wound cannot be determined then you must randomize it" please post it.

If you have anything close to that please post it. I would be more then happy to make my ork opponent lose his Bog Shoota!

As I see it written though, he is right, he gets to choose who dies.

BRB p25 wrote:Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase

So except for the slight differences it goes on to mention, you use the rules for allocation found in the Shooting section. This includes:

BRB p15 wrote:Random Allocation:
...At times, you will not be able to tell which model is closest...
...but can also occur if the position of the attacker is unclear...

The position of the attacker is unclear, so Random Allocation must be used.

osirisx69 wrote:
Again origin of the model cannot be determined

Why are you adding an abstract rule to this, and why are you quoting a line that's not even on the randomizing paragraph in the BRB page 5
. If you are grabbing the line from the shooting attack section page 15 Paragraph 6 then you have already mistook the argument. The FAQ CLEALRY states you use the CC rules because it is a close combat attack. They then say if there are more then 1 model use the rules as follows.

Please post where you see the position of a CC attack is unclear so you must randomize.
Page 5 of the rule book as no mention of CC attacks or even Shooting

Again this feels like a clear violation of the Forums rules.

Refuting an Argument

"To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains." - Mary Pettibone Poole, A Glass Eye at a Keyhole

There are basically two ways to refute a deductive argument.
1.Disprove a premise. If a premise is shown to be false, then it can't lead to the conclusion. Be sure to reference the specific premise you are disproving. Use the numbers he provided.
2.Show that the premises don't lead to the conclusion. This is usually a bit trickier, but a conclusion can't stand if it's based upon improperly applying premises.

And that's basically how you have a rules discussion. One side makes an argument, the other refutes, and they go back and forth until one side proves their case. In all rules disagreements, at least one side will almost always be wrong. If you're proven wrong, admit it and move on. You'll gain far more respect for admitting to an error than you will for stubbornly holding to an unsupportable position.

In those rare circumstances where both parties are right...congratulations, you've discovered a loophole in the rules. Now you know what you may need to discuss with your opponent before a game, in order to avoid an argument during the game.

Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule

[Edit]

What is a rule?

This is an area where people commonly get confused. Rules are limited to:
◾Game Rulebooks.
◾Army Books/Codexes
◾Official FAQs published on the Games Workshop website pertaining to the current edition of the game.
◾Anything published by Games Workshop that is noted as being official (i.e. for 40K, rules denoted as "Chapter Approved" that are not also marked as "trial" or "experimental", etc).
◾Other Official Rulebooks (such as game supplements like "Cities of Death" or "Apocalypse").



[Edit]

What isn't a rule?

Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here's some of them:
◾Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy", they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it's not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you've just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.
◾Random comments about the game from a Games Designer heard at a convention (for example). Remember, random comments made by games designers, whether made on a forum, at a game convention, or sent in an email are not "official" because other players who weren't present to see or hear the comments have no way of verifying that such a thing was ever actually said. But more importantly, if the designers really wanted their comments to be official they have the capacity to make it so by updating the official online FAQs.

osirisx69 wrote:
Why are you making up rules?

Excuse me?
Did I not just quote the words straight from the rulebook? As requested?
I would appreciate less insults, and an appology. I made nothing up.

The FAQ CLEALRY states you use the CC rules because it is a close combat attack.

Yes, it's a close combat attack. Now show where it's coming from please. With actual rules.

They then say if there are more then 1 model use the rules as follows.

The rule says if more than one model are tied for distance, you choose from between them. You don't choose from the entire unit. This still requires you to know where the attcak is coming from.

 grendel083 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Why are you making up rules?

Excuse me?
Did I not just quote the words straight from the rulebook? As requested?
I would appreciate less insults, and an appology. I made nothing up.

The FAQ CLEALRY states you use the CC rules because it is a close combat attack.

Yes, it's a close combat attack. Now show where it's coming from please. With actual rules.

They then say if there are more then 1 model use the rules as follows.

The rule says if more than one model are tied for distance, you choose from between them. You don't choose from the entire unit. This still requires you to know where the attcak is coming from.

Please calm down and re-read my post. I was in the middle of editing for content.

Really its just a game.

osirisx69 wrote:
Calm down re-read the post. Really its just a game.

You edited your insult - but he still saw it.

That's aside from the fact that you have failed to address his rules points.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Calm down re-read the post. Really its just a game.

You edited your insult - but he still saw it.

That's aside from the fact that you have failed to address his rules points.

Again for the speed tastics out there.

Please calm down and re-read my post. I was in the middle of editing for content.

osirisx69 wrote:
Calm down re-read the post.

The now heavily eddited post? Edditing an insult doesn't mean you never posted one.

and why are you quoting a line that's not even on the randomizing paragraph in the BRB page 5

That's randomising in general. I quoted the specific Random Allocation for dealing with wounds.

If you are grabbing the line from the shooting attack section page 15 Paragraph 6 then you have already mistook the argument. The FAQ CLEALRY states you use the CC rules because it is a close combat attack

And the first quote I made was how they they use the same rules. There are a couple of exceptions, but Random Allocation isn't one of them.

Please post where you see the position of a CC attack is unclear so you must randomize

It would be alot easier if you show where the position of the close combat attack is. If you can't then it is unclear. If it is unclear, use the Random Allocation rule.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Calm down re-read the post. Really its just a game.

You edited your insult - but he still saw it.

That's aside from the fact that you have failed to address his rules points.

Again for the speed tastics out there.

Please calm down and re-read my post. I was in the middle of editing for content.

And none of your edits apologized, nor did they address his rules points.

 grendel083 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Calm down re-read the post.

The now heavily eddited post? Edditing an insult doesn't mean you never posted one.

and why are you quoting a line that's not even on the randomizing paragraph in the BRB page 5

That's randomising in general. I quoted the specific Random Allocation for dealing with wounds.

If you are grabbing the line from the shooting attack section page 15 Paragraph 6 then you have already mistook the argument. The FAQ CLEALRY states you use the CC rules because it is a close combat attack

And the first quote I made was how they they use the same rules. There are a couple of exceptions, but Random Allocation isn't one of them.

Please post where you see the position of a CC attack is unclear so you must randomize

It would be alot easier if you show where the position of the close combat attack is. If you can't then it is unclear. If it is unclear, use the Random Allocation rule.[/quote

The second bullet point is incorrect, you only use the shooting attack rules if you can determine where the origin of the attack is made from PAGE 25 Paragraph 3 is the last rule in the CC wounds and it by default takes precedence over the rules above.

The third bullet point is what I meant by making up rules. No where in the rule book does it state "if the CC wound from a CC attack come from an unknown location you must randomize." It also does not state in EITHER Page 5 BRB Randomizing or page 15 BRB Random allocation of shooting attacks." that if you cannot determine the location of a CC wound you must randomize.


Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule

[Edit]

What is a rule?

This is an area where people commonly get confused. Rules are limited to:
◾Game Rulebooks.
◾Army Books/Codexes
◾Official FAQs published on the Games Workshop website pertaining to the current edition of the game.
◾Anything published by Games Workshop that is noted as being official (i.e. for 40K, rules denoted as "Chapter Approved" that are not also marked as "trial" or "experimental", etc).
◾Other Official Rulebooks (such as game supplements like "Cities of Death" or "Apocalypse").



[Edit]

What isn't a rule?

Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here's some of them:
◾Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy", they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it's not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you've just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.
◾Random comments about the game from a Games Designer heard at a convention (for example). Remember, random comments made by games designers, whether made on a forum, at a game convention, or sent in an email are not "official" because other players who weren't present to see or hear the comments have no way of verifying that such a thing was ever actually said. But more importantly, if the designers really wanted their comments to be official they have the capacity to make it so by updating the official online FAQs.

following the CC rules I think the player should pick a model. The two bullet points in CC wound allocation end with the player picking a model.

1. the source of the CC wound is the player who is causing a wound on the unit.
2. if several models are the same distance away the controlling player picks. the unit is equal distance away from the unit, or take it more literally and pick the model closest to the player.
3. shooting rules are for shooting attacks, this is demonstrably a CC attack. so there is no call to use the random allocation rule.
4. just to really split hairs, RAW wounds are allocated to enemy models, my models are not enemy models so I can't allocate wounds to them to begin with. Ergo when you use a bosspole no wound can be allocated.

osirisx69 wrote:
you only use the shooting attack rules if you can determine where the origin of the attack is made from

No rule says this. Unless you can provide one?

PAGE 25 Paragraph 3 is the last rule in the CC wounds and it by default takes precedence over the rules above.

All of the rules on P25 assume that you know where the attack is coming from. If you're refering to:

If several enemy models are the same distance away, then their controlling player chooses which is allocated the Wound, as above

Then this allows you to choose from the models equal distance from the position of the attack. Since there is no position of the attack, how can there be models equal distance from it? How can you choose from them?

The third bullet point is what I meant by making up rules. No where in the rule book does it state "if the CC wound from a CC attack come from an unknown location you must randomize." It also does not state in EITHER Page 5 BRB Randomizing or page 15 BRB Random allocation of shooting attacks." that if you cannot determine the location of a CC wound you must randomize.

Page 5 doesn't cover attacks or wounds, so there's no reason to use that rule.
I've quoted the rule where you use the same allocation rules for shooting that you use for combat.
These rules include a method for allocation when the position of the attack is unclear.
Either you follow the rules and use this method, or you have no way of allocating.
Unless you can prove the position of the attack

sirlynchmob wrote:
following the CC rules I think the player should pick a model. The two bullet points in CC wound allocation end with the player picking a model.

1. the source of the CC wound is the player who is causing a wound on the unit.
2. if several models are the same distance away the controlling player picks. the unit is equal distance away from the unit, or take it more literally and pick the model closest to the player.
3. shooting rules are for shooting attacks, this is demonstrably a CC attack. so there is no call to use the random allocation rule.
4. just to really split hairs, RAW wounds are allocated to enemy models, my models are not enemy models so I can't allocate wounds to them to begin with. Ergo when you use a bosspole no wound can be allocated.

This is how its played except the not dead part. Clean simple and best of all it follows the rules as best as it can.

sirlynchmob wrote:
1. the source of the CC wound is the player who is causing a wound on the unit.

The player? You mean you? You're the source of the attack? No rule lists a player as a source of attack.

2. if several models are the same distance away the controlling player picks. the unit is equal distance away from the unit, or take it more literally and pick the model closest to the player.

Equal distance from the source of the attack. Can you prove the where the source of the attack is?

3. shooting rules are for shooting attacks, this is demonstrably a CC attack. so there is no call to use the random allocation rule.

Apart from the rule that says they use the same Allocation rules?

4. just to really split hairs, RAW wounds are allocated to enemy models, my models are not enemy models so I can't allocate wounds to them to begin with. Ergo when you use a bosspole no wound can be allocated.

Very true, there is no rule for "friendly attack". But there are many such rules that break if you go down that road.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
1. the source of the CC wound is the player who is causing a wound on the unit.

The player? You mean you? You're the source of the attack? No rule lists a player as a source of attack.

2. if several models are the same distance away the controlling player picks. the unit is equal distance away from the unit, or take it more literally and pick the model closest to the player.

Equal distance from the source of the attack. Can you prove the where the source of the attack is?

3. shooting rules are for shooting attacks, this is demonstrably a CC attack. so there is no call to use the random allocation rule.

Apart from the rule that says they use the same Allocation rules?

4. just to really split hairs, RAW wounds are allocated to enemy models, my models are not enemy models so I can't allocate wounds to them to begin with. Ergo when you use a bosspole no wound can be allocated.

Very true, there is no rule for "friendly attack". But there are many such rules that break if you go down that road.

The issue seems that (and correct me if I am wrong) you feel since the source of the attack cannot be explicitly defined then you must default to the random allocation rules in the shooting section.

is this correct?

osirisx69 wrote:
The issue seems that (and correct me if I am wrong) you feel since the source of the attack cannot be explicitly defined then you must default to the random allocation rules in the shooting section.

is this correct?

Yes.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
1. the source of the CC wound is the player who is causing a wound on the unit.

The player? You mean you? You're the source of the attack? No rule lists a player as a source of attack.

2. if several models are the same distance away the controlling player picks. the unit is equal distance away from the unit, or take it more literally and pick the model closest to the player.

Equal distance from the source of the attack. Can you prove the where the source of the attack is?

3. shooting rules are for shooting attacks, this is demonstrably a CC attack. so there is no call to use the random allocation rule.

Apart from the rule that says they use the same Allocation rules?

4. just to really split hairs, RAW wounds are allocated to enemy models, my models are not enemy models so I can't allocate wounds to them to begin with. Ergo when you use a bosspole no wound can be allocated.

Very true, there is no rule for "friendly attack". But there are many such rules that break if you go down that road.

2, the source is the player. if that is a undefined spot, then the whole unit would be oo" (infinite) inches away from it. or equal in the same undetermined range from some unspecified spot.

source of the wound (player) or as you insist nothing (no source)
distance from unit to nothing: oo
all models in the unit are equal distance away from the source/nosource.
player picks.

 grendel083 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
The issue seems that (and correct me if I am wrong) you feel since the source of the attack cannot be explicitly defined then you must default to the random allocation rules in the shooting section.

is this correct?

Yes.

And that's where you might have a disconnect from the RAW is. No where in the CC section does it state you must know the origin of the CC attack. As a matter of fact they put in very clear rules that state what to do if you cannot determine the model to die. The rule is, the owning player chooses the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
1. the source of the CC wound is the player who is causing a wound on the unit.

The player? You mean you? You're the source of the attack? No rule lists a player as a source of attack.

2. if several models are the same distance away the controlling player picks. the unit is equal distance away from the unit, or take it more literally and pick the model closest to the player.

Equal distance from the source of the attack. Can you prove the where the source of the attack is?

3. shooting rules are for shooting attacks, this is demonstrably a CC attack. so there is no call to use the random allocation rule.

Apart from the rule that says they use the same Allocation rules?

4. just to really split hairs, RAW wounds are allocated to enemy models, my models are not enemy models so I can't allocate wounds to them to begin with. Ergo when you use a bosspole no wound can be allocated.

Very true, there is no rule for "friendly attack". But there are many such rules that break if you go down that road.

2, the source is the player. if that is a undefined spot, then the whole unit would be oo" (infinite) inches away from it. or equal in the same undetermined range from some unspecified spot.

source of the wound (player) or as you insist nothing (no source)
distance from unit to nothing: oo
all models in the unit are equal distance away from the source/nosource.
player picks.

Again this is the correct way as per the rules as I see them.

sirlynchmob wrote:
source of the wound (player) or as you insist nothing (no source)
distance from unit to nothing: oo
all models in the unit are equal distance away from the source/nosource.
player picks.

There is a HUGE difference between nothing and 00.
You can't measure to it, so how can you prove they're equal distance?
Maths strongly disagrees with you on this point.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
source of the wound (player) or as you insist nothing (no source)
distance from unit to nothing: oo
all models in the unit are equal distance away from the source/nosource.
player picks.

There is a HUGE difference between nothing and 00.
You can't measure to it, so how can you prove they're equal distance?
Maths strongly disagrees with you on this point.

While the math is correct in the assumption of HUGH distance, his/her basic logic is sound. The unit takes a hit. If you cannot determine who cause the hit the owning player chooses who dies. If that is the ork warlord so be it, if that's a shoota boy so be it, if that's a choppa bot so be it.

osirisx69 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
The issue seems that (and correct me if I am wrong) you feel since the source of the attack cannot be explicitly defined then you must default to the random allocation rules in the shooting section.

is this correct?

Yes.

And that's where you might have a disconnect from the RAW is. No where in the CC section does it state you must know the origin of the CC attack. As a matter of fact they put in very clear rules that state what to do if you cannot determine the model to die.

The allocation rules however, require you to know where the source of the attack is.

The rule is, the owning player chooses the model

That rule does not exists.
It is a misquote, you can only chose from models that are equal distance from the source of the attack.
If you don't know where the source of the attack is, you can't determin which models are equal distance from it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:
While the math is correct in the assumption of HUGH distance, his/her basic logic is sound. The unit takes a hit. If you cannot determine who cause the hit the owning player chooses who dies. If that the ork warlord so be it, if that's a shoota boy so be it, if that's a choppa bot so be it.

Again, not what the rule says.