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.

Deleted for errors

 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.

distance of model A to source: Unknown
distance of model B to source: Unknown
distance of model C to source: Unknown

Unknown = unknown, they are all equal distance away from the source. Player picks

 grendel083 wrote:

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.

No the allocation rules do not apply to CC attacks if you cannot determine the location. That where I think you are not seeing the point. Yes the CC wound allocation states "just like a shooting attack" but then it clarifies that statement in the next 3 paragraphs. It clearly states in those paragraphs that the owning player chooses the model to die if it cannot be determined who is closest.

osirisx69 wrote:
No the allocation rules do not apply to CC attacks if you cannot determine the location.

Please provide a rule proving this.

That where I think you are not seeing the point. Yes the CC wound allocation states "just like a shooting attack" but then it clarifies that statement in the next 3 paragraphs.

It mentions nothing if the source is unkown. So you follow the allocation rules as it says. Which still includes Random Allocation.

It clearly states in those paragraphs that the owning player chooses the model to die if it cannot be determined who is closest.

It absolutley does not! It says you pick from equal distance models. It in no way mentions what to do if the source is unknown. Fortunatly we are still told to use the dame allocation methods as shooting, which does include a allocation method wehn the source is unknown.

Anyway, off for the evening. Hopefully when I check back you'll have found some rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:
distance of model A to source: Unknown
distance of model B to source: Unknown
distance of model C to source: Unknown

Unknown = unknown, they are all equal distance away from the source. Player picks

They're not equal distance, or they might be. The answer is: Unknown.
They can't be equal, if you don't know what the values are.

 grendel083 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
No the allocation rules do not apply to CC attacks if you cannot determine the location.

Please provide a rule proving this.

That where I think you are not seeing the point. Yes the CC wound allocation states "just like a shooting attack" but then it clarifies that statement in the next 3 paragraphs.

It mentions nothing if the source is unkown. So you follow the allocation rules as it says. Which still includes Random Allocation.

It clearly states in those paragraphs that the owning player chooses the model to die if it cannot be determined who is closest.

It absolutley does not! It says you pick from equal distance models. It in no way mentions what to do if the source is unknown. Fortunatly we are still told to use the dame allocation methods as shooting, which does include a allocation method wehn the source is unknown.

Anyway, off for the evening. Hopefully when I check back you'll have found some rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:
distance of model A to source: Unknown
distance of model B to source: Unknown
distance of model C to source: Unknown

Unknown = unknown, they are all equal distance away from the source. Player picks

They're not equal distance, or they might be. The answer is: Unknown.
They can't be equal, if you don't know what the values are.

Page 25 paragraph 2 and 3 clearly defined the rules on allocation of wounds if you cannot determine who is the closest model.

" if several enemy modes are the same distance away then their controlling player chooses which is allocated the wound."

direct quote from the BRB. I have supplied this many times.

The location of the wound is unknown so all models are equal distance away.

Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supercedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation.


Have a good night.

osirisx69 et al.

I have a unit of 20 Guardians. Which one is closest?

 Happyjew wrote:
osirisx69 et al.

I have a unit of 20 Guardians. Which one is closest?

well that's a bad analogy.

How about we have 9 ork boys and a nob with a boss pole. Which one is closest?

there are 3 good answers to this question.

1. the player is the source of the wound. so closest to the player.
2. the nob is granting the player the ability to inflict a wound, so closest to the nob.
3. going with the no source on the battle field, then the source is outside the known universe (from the models point of view) therefore everyone is equal distance to the source. Player picks a model.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=parallel-universes-level-2003-05
"THE SIMPLEST TYPE of parallel universe is simply a region of space that is too far away for us to have seen yet. The farthest that we can observe is currently about 4X10^26 meters, or 42 billion light-years"

so all models are 42 billion light years away from the source, +/- a few inches. so close enough to call all models in the unit equal distance.

 Happyjew wrote:
osirisx69 et al.

I have a unit of 20 Guardians. Which one is closest?

This has no bearing on the topic. We are not talking about Eldar, guardians or non boss pole units.


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…).

Drifting Off the Topic at Hand

It's important to stay on topic, because while similar situations are interesting and sometimes worthy of note, they have no inherent ability to support or refute this type of argument. If you do reference a related, but different, situation, be sure to note that they are merely conversation.

i.e. In 40K, Independent Characters always fight in an assault separately from any squad they have joined or are part of. It does no good to point out that Hive Tyrants with Tyrant Guards do not fight separately, because Hive Tyrants are not Independent Characters, and thus not germane to the topic of Independent Characters fighting in assault.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
osirisx69 et al.

I have a unit of 20 Guardians. Which one is closest?

well that's a bad analogy.

How about we have 9 ork boys and a nob with a boss pole. Which one is closest?

there are 3 good answers to this question.

1. the player is the source of the wound. so closest to the player.
2. the nob is granting the player the ability to inflict a wound, so closest to the nob.
3. going with the no source on the battle field, then the source is outside the known universe (from the models point of view) therefore everyone is equal distance to the source. Player picks a model.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=parallel-universes-level-2003-05
"THE SIMPLEST TYPE of parallel universe is simply a region of space that is too far away for us to have seen yet. The farthest that we can observe is currently about 4X10^26 meters, or 42 billion light-years"

so all models are 42 billion light years away from the source, +/- a few inches. so close enough to call all models in the unit equal distance.

How is my example a bad analogy? You have a unit of X. You need to know which model is closest. Since the reference point is undefined, there is no answer. Since there is no answer, they are not all equidistant. Since they are not all equidistant, you do not have permission to arbitrarily pick a model.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
osirisx69 et al.

I have a unit of 20 Guardians. Which one is closest?

well that's a bad analogy.

How about we have 9 ork boys and a nob with a boss pole. Which one is closest?

there are 3 good answers to this question.

1. the player is the source of the wound. so closest to the player.
2. the nob is granting the player the ability to inflict a wound, so closest to the nob.
3. going with the no source on the battle field, then the source is outside the known universe (from the models point of view) therefore everyone is equal distance to the source. Player picks a model.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=parallel-universes-level-2003-05
"THE SIMPLEST TYPE of parallel universe is simply a region of space that is too far away for us to have seen yet. The farthest that we can observe is currently about 4X10^26 meters, or 42 billion light-years"

so all models are 42 billion light years away from the source, +/- a few inches. so close enough to call all models in the unit equal distance.

How is my example a bad analogy? You have a unit of X. You need to know which model is closest. Since the reference point is undefined, there is no answer. Since there is no answer, they are not all equidistant. Since they are not all equidistant, you do not have permission to arbitrarily pick a model.

elder (unless I am mistaken) have no boss pole so the analogy does not apply.

Drifting Off the Topic at Hand

It's important to stay on topic, because while similar situations are interesting and sometimes worthy of note, they have no inherent ability to support or refute this type of argument. If you do reference a related, but different, situation, be sure to note that they are merely conversation.

i.e. In 40K, Independent Characters always fight in an assault separately from any squad they have joined or are part of. It does no good to point out that Hive Tyrants with Tyrant Guards do not fight separately, because Hive Tyrants are not Independent Characters, and thus not germane to the topic of Independent Characters fighting in assault.

osirisx69 wrote:
elder (unless I am mistaken) have no boss pole so the analogy does not apply.

Fine then, I have a unit of "whatevers" which one is the closest? Closest to what? You cannot answer the first question without answering the second question. Until you have a reference point, then you cannot claim that model A is closer than model B, nor can you say that model C and model D are the same distance away.

i.e. In 40K, Independent Characters always fight in an assault separately from any squad they have joined or are part of. It does no good to point out that Hive Tyrants with Tyrant Guards do not fight separately, because Hive Tyrants are not Independent Characters, and thus not germane to the topic of Independent Characters fighting in assault.

First, ICs that are part of a unit do not fight separately. At least not since the start of 6th edition. Second, Hive Tyrants joined to Tyrant Guard are considered to be ICs for LOS! rolls, Challenges, Precision Shots and Precision Strikes.

 Happyjew wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
elder (unless I am mistaken) have no boss pole so the analogy does not apply.

Fine then, I have a unit of "whatevers" which one is the closest? Closest to what? You cannot answer the first question without answering the second question. Until you have a reference point, then you cannot claim that model A is closer than model B, nor can you say that model C and model D are the same distance away.

i.e. In 40K, Independent Characters always fight in an assault separately from any squad they have joined or are part of. It does no good to point out that Hive Tyrants with Tyrant Guards do not fight separately, because Hive Tyrants are not Independent Characters, and thus not germane to the topic of Independent Characters fighting in assault.

First, ICs that are part of a unit do not fight separately. At least not since the start of 6th edition. Second, Hive Tyrants joined to Tyrant Guard are considered to be ICs for LOS! rolls, Challenges, Precision Shots and Precision Strikes.

I am using that quote from http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate#Forgetting_That_the_Specific_Overrules_the_General

I copied directly from the web page. If there is something on that page you disagree with please take it up with the one who created it. I only posted it as mark to show that you are straying off topic.

We are talking about orks with a boss pole who suffer a wound from said boss pole. Nothing more nothing less.

 Happyjew wrote:

How is my example a bad analogy? You have a unit of X. You need to know which model is closest. Since the reference point is undefined, there is no answer. Since there is no answer, they are not all equidistant. Since they are not all equidistant, you do not have permission to arbitrarily pick a model.

the answer is "undefined" as undefined=undefined just as X=X. they are all equidistant of "undefined" away. player picks. Just as most people wound concur that 5" is close enough to be considered equal to 5.000001, and 5.0000023, or even 5.1" They are close enough to not break out the lasers, then we should also be able to agree that undefined is equal to undefined. and the player still picks.

You have a set plane of 4'x6', any point not defined on that plane will be equal distance to all points on that plane. As there is point A one one plane, and Unspecified point not on that plane, there is no set path to get to each point, so you can either use a line, curve, or squiggle to figure out the distance which can equate to all points being equal as well.

Simple question. Using the rules as they are written, where does the wound come from?

 Happyjew wrote:
Simple question. Using the rules as they are written, where does the wound come from?

The ork unit that failed the moral check.

osirisx69 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Simple question. Using the rules as they are written, where does the wound come from?

The ork unit that failed the moral check.

Page and paragraph.

Deleted for content

osirisx69 wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Simple question. Using the rules as they are written, where does the wound come from?

The ork unit that failed the moral check.

Page and paragraph.

Page 3 ork 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…).

I see no rules saying the unit causes the wound. There is no defined source.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Simple question. Using the rules as they are written, where does the wound come from?

The ork unit that failed the moral check.

Page and paragraph.

Wait are asking for the page reference on the ork codex that says the ork unit takes a hit from the boss pole?

"Each time a unit with a Bosspole fails a Morale test you may choose to inflict a wound on that unit (not on the model with the Bosspole)"

Here is the FAQ to add to it.

Page 3 ork 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…).



Please read the entire thread. The RULE is posted over 15 times I counted. I am not understanding why you are trying to derail this very healthy and complex debate.

 Happyjew wrote:
Simple question. Using the rules as they are written, where does the wound come from?

the player. The player is inflicting a CC wound on the unit. Undisputed RAW. This is why I say closest to the player is a valid RAW option.

I don't know where you guys get this "undefined" stuff, but "HI" I'm right here. /wave

This is me, I am the source, Call me Neo.
This is me inflicting a CC wound on my unit
This is me touching the model I'm inflicting the wound on. B2B I choose.
This is me waving my hand over the unit. Unit is equidistant to me, I choose.

osirisx69 wrote:
Page 25 paragraph 2 and 3 clearly defined the rules on allocation of wounds if you cannot determine who is the closest model.

This sentence is not the same

" if several enemy modes are the same distance away then their controlling player chooses which is allocated the wound."

as this one.

If multiple models are the same distance, then it's a measurable distance.
That is different from being unable to determine a distance.

osirisx69 wrote:
" if several enemy modes are the same distance away then their controlling player chooses which is allocated the wound."

As you can see, you can only use this rule if several models are the same distance away.
Since there's nothing to measure to, how can you tell if there's several models at equal distance?
You can't.
So you can't use this rule.

"Each time a unit with a bosspole fails a Morale test you can choose to inflict a wound on that unit "
if your nob has a bosspole you can snipe out grazy if it tickles your fancy. but he does get his 2+ save as will a boy or a diffrent nob biker with a bosspole

I know this is a RAW discussion. But I still can't help but find it hilarious how the smallest and most inconsequential rules questions turn into 6 pages of Talmudic debate on the matter. Seriously is which ork REALLY that important?

We just let the player pick, it's really not a big deal. The difference between one more or one less ork really is not a game breaker in almost every game you'll ever play.

Osirisx - no, I was not attacking you. I was requiring you to prove which model is the closest model, as only THEN do you pick

You keep posting:
" if several enemy models are the same distance away then their controlling player chooses which is allocated the wound."
without apparently ever reading the bold test.

You have stated you do not know the source of the attack. If you do not know the source of the attack, you cannot state which model is the closest. If you cannot state which model is the closest, you cannot pick a model using these rules, as you have not met the requirement.

You then have to fall back on the actual rules on page 15, Random Allocation, which tell you what to do when the source of an attack is unclear. Whic h it is. You have even stated so, more than once

Until you can show the source of the attack (you cannot) and therfore a way to define the closest model, you have no choice but to use Random Allocation.

Your next post must contain proof as to the source of the attack. Failure to do so is concession you must use Random Allocation - as that is a shooting allocation method, that you are told to use in the CC rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:
distance of model A to source: Unknown
distance of model B to source: Unknown
distance of model C to source: Unknown

Unknown = unknown, they are all equal distance away from the source. Player picks

From someone who faces this kind of problem every day at work:

That's wrong, and maybe the whole problem of your argument.

If you compare two unknown values to each other, the result is always unknown. Unknown can never be greater than, smaller than, equal or not equal to another unknown. Unless you can prove that both unknowns are, in fact, the same value, and thus completely eliminate the value from your equation, you cannot make any statement about the questions "Is Unknown equal to Unknown?".

An abstract example:
A + B = C
X - Y = Z
Both C and Z are unknown and could each be any number. However, you can never tell whether C is equal to Z without knowing A, B , X and Y. In the same way, you cannot know whether models are equidistant from the source without knowing the source.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Simple question. Using the rules as they are written, where does the wound come from?

the player. The player is inflicting a CC wound on the unit. Undisputed RAW. This is why I say closest to the player is a valid RAW option.

I don't know where you guys get this "undefined" stuff, but "HI" I'm right here. /wave

This is me, I am the source, Call me Neo.
This is me inflicting a CC wound on my unit
This is me touching the model I'm inflicting the wound on. B2B I choose.
This is me waving my hand over the unit. Unit is equidistant to me, I choose.

So, is it legal for me to grab your hand and move it to the model I want killed?

lordwellingstone wrote:
I know this is a RAW discussion. But I still can't help but find it hilarious how the smallest and most inconsequential rules questions turn into 6 pages of Talmudic debate on the matter. Seriously is which ork REALLY that important?

It could be. For example, lets say the mission being played is the scouring. The Ork player controls both 3 pt objectives and has a single boy (from a scoring unit) within 3" of the 4 pt objective. His opponent controls the other three objectives, and has all 3 Secondary objectives. The unit controlling the 4 pt objective fails their Morale check and uses the boss pole. If the re-roll fails the opponent wins, however, if the re-roll passes then you get one of two possibilities:

a) the ork player gets to choose. In this case you know he will not pick the one boy within 3" guaranteeing a win.
b) the removed model is random. While there is a good chance that the model removed will not be the one claiming the objective (dependent on unit size) there is a chance the removed model is the one holding the objective, just taking victory from the hands of the orks.

We just let the player pick, it's really not a big deal. The difference between one more or one less ork really is not a game breaker in almost every game you'll ever play.

This I agree with. In a friendly game, I could care less. However, in a tournament-setting where prizes are on the line, it could be the difference between winning a battleforce of your choice or a blister pack.

Even more, it could be that the random ork is the one holding the waagh banner (already wounded nob), reducing their WS and making the warboss hit on 4s when he strikes, not 3s. Or it could be a rokkit boy, the only model left able to take down your scoring heldrake, and so on.

ITs why following the rules can often be important, and in this case it can be - and the rules ARE clear, despite claims to the contrary.

RAW you use random allocation, form page 15, because you have an unclear source of the attack. Using any other method, without agreeemnt to change the rules, is cheating.

Agree (except for the rokkit boy taking down a helldrake - not going to happen ).

If you don't like how the rules work, explain it to your opponent:

"Look here, it says the model is hit by a green fist, but it doesn't explicitly say that the nob is the one punching. Do you want me to remove one of the orks closest to the nob or a random one?"

9 out of 10 opponents will agree with you that the nob is indeed the source of the wound. The one who doesn't usually isn't worth arguing with anyways. If you don't feel like getting this issue out of the way before the game, just randomize. No interpretation supports picking the boy to remove freely.

You say that - lost a heldrake to a single plasma gun shot to the front. 6, 6, 6 (after failed inv)

As above. You have absolutely no cause in rules or RAI to ever choose which model you want. None at all.