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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Whats wrong with the general wound allocation system? From the front makes sense to me.

Two things:

1) It creates endless arguments. Which model is 0.000001" closer, etc. Even if you make it so that barrage weapons don't use that method (multiple-shot barrage weapons are the worst offenders) you still have the argument for general shooting.

2) It's completely unrealistic. Let's say you have a tank character, and standing a few inches to the side (and 0.01" farther away) a melta gunner. And let's say my priority is killing the melta gunner to protect my tank. Well, why the hell would be supposedly trained troops dump shot after shot into a re-rollable 2++ instead of just shooting at the melta gunner? "Closest first" only makes sense if everyone is standing in a line leading directly away from the incoming fire, if everyone is spread out in a ruin you have the absurd "cinematic" experience of everyone being amazingly accurate shots and picking out the closest model for the whole squad to focus on (even if only a single fingertip of that model is visible), but never shooting at the most important threats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Timmy149 wrote:
I agree. Why does the dude at the back of your squad get killed before the guys at the front? That makes zero sense. Fantasy is different simply because of the way all of the regiments are created.

Because you point your gun at the guy in the back and shoot him.

Hence precision shots. It makes a lot more sense. I mean, why does a marine choose to shoot the guardsman with the lasgun over the one with the plasma gun? The guy at the front is a much bigger threat, a petty lasgun doesn't do much to marines in the fluff.

 Timmy149 wrote:
why does a marine choose to shoot the guardsman with the lasgun over the one with the plasma gun?

Possibly because he can't see him? in tabletop 12 inches is enough that at dusk your ability to see is decreased to such a level that it affects your ability to shoot him. Then factor in the fact that a 6 turn game goes over ~2-3 hours (turn 1-2 means nightfighting disapears which in reality takes at least 30 mins). Each turn of shooting will be representative of lots of volleys of fire many of which will be aimed at the guys a that are further away but the guys at the front are more likely to be hit (and so are removed first). Also who is to say that the plasma gun guardsmen isn't killed but 2/3 other guys in the squad have special weapon training and can pick up the gun and use it in his place (sounds like imperial guard tactics to me).

Now when you introduce a hulking terminator standing at the front who appears impervious to harm, it starts getting unrealistic (obviously your people are going to stop firing at him). Add to that Barrage weapons weapons getting to hit whoever they want like the ultimate sniper weapons of the 40k universe. At that point it get's unrealistic.

I think you should be able to focus fire against armour saves in the same way as you can cover saves i.e. I only want wounds allocated to people with 3+ or worse saves.

You've spelt Ordnance wrong..

I see the front casualty as an abstraction to simply and effectively determine who gets hit. Tanking on 2+ is a bit of an issue, but I don't see hitting chumps before the heavy weapon guy as a problem. People who think you can just casually take aim at the heavy weapon guy while twenty rank and file are blazing away at you really don't know how that gak works.

I can't think of any reason why removing from the front shouldnt apply to Barrage weapons (Regardless of whether they are also Ordiinance, or not) when it happens to every other type of weapon. The only reason I can think of is because they wanted cover saves to come from the centre of the blast (given the overhead ballistic trajectory) and it would be a source of potential confusion to then remove casualties from the front. But it results in it ironically being the greatest precision sniping weapon in 40k.

wtnind wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
why does a marine choose to shoot the guardsman with the lasgun over the one with the plasma gun?

Possibly because he can't see him? in tabletop 12 inches is enough that at dusk your ability to see is decreased to such a level that it affects your ability to shoot him. Then factor in the fact that a 6 turn game goes over ~2-3 hours (turn 1-2 means nightfighting disapears which in reality takes at least 30 mins). Each turn of shooting will be representative of lots of volleys of fire many of which will be aimed at the guys a that are further away but the guys at the front are more likely to be hit (and so are removed first). Also who is to say that the plasma gun guardsmen isn't killed but 2/3 other guys in the squad have special weapon training and can pick up the gun and use it in his place (sounds like imperial guard tactics to me).

Now when you introduce a hulking terminator standing at the front who appears impervious to harm, it starts getting unrealistic (obviously your people are going to stop firing at him). Add to that Barrage weapons weapons getting to hit whoever they want like the ultimate sniper weapons of the 40k universe. At that point it get's unrealistic.

I think you should be able to focus fire against armour saves in the same way as you can cover saves i.e. I only want wounds allocated to people with 3+ or worse saves.

assume the guy at the front has the plasma gun