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.

Does the 2" rule still apply to a unit that only has 2 models splitting their attacks vs 2 different units.

i think you should elaborate this question a little more and that this should be in the "You make da call" forum

Moved.

I'm presuming that the OP means he has two models (A and B) with A in base contact with enemy C and with B in base contact with enemy D, but wants A to attack D and for B to attack C?

As per page 28 Fight sub-phase; Directing attacks a model can split it's attacks as long as it is 'engaged' with more than one enemy unit.
Being 'engaged' is described on page 23 Who can fight?; A model is engaged in combat, and must fight if:

Quanar has it. In a way that might make more sense - I'm assuming the two models are within 2" of each other, and using Quanar's references...

In terms of attacking enemy unit C, let's say you have model A in base contact. If model B is within 2" he's engaged too, both models can attack this unit.
In terms of attacking enemy unit D, in a similar way if model B is in base contact and A is within 2" he's engaged so again both models can attack.
But, as each model can only make its Attacks once you must declare which models are attacking which units before rolling the dice.

In this situation, you could have one model attack each unit, or both attack either unit.

The 2" rule I'm talking about is number of attackers/wounds pool to be allocated. Say the target unit is abadon and 1 term. They are locked in combat and surrounded by 3 TH/SS and 5 LC term. My TH/SS term have 1 in base contact with abadon and his term, 1 in base contact with only his term, and the final one behind those 2 forming a triangle. The LC terms are a seperate sqd with 2 in base contact with abadon and the other 3 wrap around his term so they are not in contact with his abadon. What happened was his term targeted the TH/SS squad and abadon targeted my LC sqd. Will abadon's attack and wound pool wrap around the term that was targeting the other unit?

If Abbaddon (I can't spell his name, heck...) chooses to target all his attacks at the LC squad, allocate wounds caused to the closest LC termy (you choose if they are both equally far away - like both in BTB).
So in your example, the 2 in BTB with Abby get killed first and then wounds continue on to the next closest LC termy. There is no limit to how far away such Wounds can be allocated (in previous editions, there were "kill zone" distances, but not in 6th).

So even if the farthest unit is +5" away he would be taking wounds? If that's the case the kill zone needs to be re-implemented. So if you stab a guy 10 times in front of me, takes 5 before he dies, and I'm 10ft away somehow the last five fly over and stab me? Sounds cheesy to me. But the RB does say units not in combat do not take wounds since they did not participate.

As long as the model is in the unit that is being attacked it can have wounds allocated to it if it is the closest model to the models attacking at a particular initiative value.

Lets say you have a line of 30 plague Zombies they are all about an inch apart the furthest zombies would be about 58 inches from each other. If a unit charged one end and did 30 AP4 wounds all 30 zombies would die even though some of them are 40 or more inches away.

The rules are an abstraction, trying to approximate a confusing, swirling, noisy melee involving 8-foot tall super-human persons wearing tank armour.

The models on the tabletop may be stationary, but combatants are constantly moving about (which is why shooting into combat is also disallowed). Situations like DR's example of Zombies are (to my experience) fairly rare on the tabletop, so (in my opinion) not worth making the rules more complicated.

Of course, you are quite welcome to discuss this with your group and agree to a House Rule for it.

They may be stationary and I understand this is just a game, but lol I'd have to say that zombie situation is pretty stupid for the wounds to pass on like that. ESP since only about 3-6 of them can contribute to the combat after a 3" consolidation move. Unless you are literally super man, flash, or night crawler there no way you can run swinging a huge sword with heavy armor on, kill 30 guys along 50 yards, and then end your move 3 yards from where you started, lol.

I think the simplest way it can be put is this. For the purposes of allocating Attacks, you have to check which UNITS you are engaged with.
Then for allocating Wounds, you can allocate Wounds to any member of the unit(s) you attacked, in the following order:
1) Base contact
2) Engaged, within 2"
3) Any others.

Someone please, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

draegen wrote:
They may be stationary and I understand this is just a game, but lol I'd have to say that zombie situation is pretty stupid for the wounds to pass on like that. ESP since only about 3-6 of them can contribute to the combat after a 3" consolidation move. Unless you are literally super man, flash, or night crawler there no way you can run swinging a huge sword with heavy armor on, kill 30 guys along 50 yards, and then end your move 3 yards from where you started, lol.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

 DeathReaper wrote:


The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Well lets see... Oh what do you know, they limited wound allocation for ranged weaponry due to its range. :0 What a interesting concept...

draegen wrote:
Well lets see... Oh what do you know, they limited wound allocation for ranged weaponry due to its range. :0 What a interesting concept...

Until you realise that weapons are 100% effective out to their range, but after 0,0000000000001 inches beyond their range they can not even attempt a shot... Sounds like the rules are not based in modern day physics or logic.

draegen wrote:
Well lets see... Oh what do you know, they limited wound allocation for ranged weaponry due to its range. :0 What a interesting concept...

Not exactly. If you keep up to date with the FAQs, you can use a plasma pistol to kill someone up to 4 times its maximum range if there happens to be a lascannon in the unit firing as well.

 Super Ready wrote:

draegen wrote:
Well lets see... Oh what do you know, they limited wound allocation for ranged weaponry due to its range. :0 What a interesting concept...

Not exactly. If you keep up to date with the FAQs, you can use a plasma pistol to kill someone up to 4 times its maximum range if there happens to be a lascannon in the unit firing as well.

Not if the Plasma pistol is out of range to start with.
If its out of range of the unit completely, it can't shoot at all.
But if it's in range of one model, and the Lascannon you mentioned kills that one model, then the plasma pistol can still wound another member of the unit (up to the lascannon's max range).

Wow.... You guys look like you rather break the game mechanics to win than make common sense about it... Would never want to play one of you guys lol. Probably start saying you can charge through walls, move regular infantry up sides of bridges, and plow through Titan sized buildings with land raiders.... O.o

draegen wrote:
Wow.... You guys look like you rather break the game mechanics to win than make common sense about it...

Sounds like somebody needs to remember what this forum is for...

draegen wrote:
Probably start saying you can charge through walls

Only if the unit can see the unit on the other side, and both players agree that units can move through the walls.

, move regular infantry up sides of bridges, and plow through Titan sized buildings with land raiders.... O.o

Again depends on how you treat the terrain.

I've played games where models could only move up a landing pad at one of the support structures, or (with a difficult terrain check) at the sides.

I was being sarcastic... -.- I always go over terrain with my opponent before we start the game, I don't like rules being made up as you play because then it would just be bias to their benefit. And when I'm wrong I always fess up to it. But we are way off topic.... As it stands now a melee character with 5 base attacks can produce more casualties extending over 35" which makes it more powerful than ranged weaponry....

draegen wrote:
Wow.... You guys look like you rather break the game mechanics to win than make common sense about it... Would never want to play one of you guys lol. Probably start saying you can charge through walls, move regular infantry up sides of bridges, and plow through Titan sized buildings with land raiders.... O.o

"Common sense/Logic" and the 40K rule set have little to do with one another.

Hence the 'welcome to the 40th millennium, where wars are won by swords' I've heard more then a few times....

In the zombie situation consider that its a Melee combatant charging into battle and all those zombies hurtling in the opposite direction.

The Melee combatant may have only moved 5 meters as he hacked down a couple waves of charging zombies.

Its not like he kills the guy in front, then the next guys says oh its my turn and charges..its a melee. Makes sense to me anyways!

Well if said model A attacked squad B in a straight line like a zombie situation. Model A kills 5, leaving a gap of 10"-15". Even after remaining models consolidate 3" there will still be a significant gap.

draegen wrote:
Well if said model A attacked squad B in a straight line like a zombie situation. Model A kills 5, leaving a gap of 10"-15". Even after remaining models consolidate 3" there will still be a significant gap.

There will be a significant space between the models on the table. why is this an issue again? The rules are clear.

JinxDragon wrote:
Hence the 'welcome to the 40th millennium, where wars are won by swords' I've heard more then a few times....

You ain't lying.... Learned the other day how much of a cheese ball abadon is. I'll just blow him up from far away next time.

The "giant conga line of models suffering a ton of wounds" situation is an extreme corner case. Of course in real game situations the distances are rarely far.

Super Ready wrote:

draegen wrote:
Well lets see... Oh what do you know, they limited wound allocation for ranged weaponry due to its range. :0 What a interesting concept...

Not exactly. If you keep up to date with the FAQs, you can use a plasma pistol to kill someone up to 4 times its maximum range if there happens to be a lascannon in the unit firing as well.

This is correct. It works out to the same advantage for ranged weaponry with the zombie line. A squad with a bunch of flamers + 1 LC at one end of the line and they'll be killing zombies well out of their normal range.


...to much advantage for melee this edition lol. That's just funny.