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.

Hello!
This might be way easier than I think, but...

Dreadknight is fighting a unit of five spawn. He activates punches guys.
Now, does he roll his hits/wounds 3 times then activate his doom fists and crunch a single spawn?
Or does he hit, allocate a single wound to each guy, then activate and kill three separate guys? The spawn are T6 (which might matter)

Thanks in advance!

No difference. Causes unsaved wound, activates NFW, attack causes ID. Three wounds is three dead spawn

If you activate something (or if it just outright causes instant death)

Then you apply 1 wound to the nearest model or randomize if they're all the same distance.

If it fails it's save or gets no save since it took a wound from a instant death weapon (unless it has special rules negating instant death) it loses all of it's remaining wounds.

You would then allocate another wound, and repeat until all wounds are allocated or there are no enemy models left.

In short 3 wounds = 3 dead. I just wanted to lay out the actual process which helps when other variables come into play.

You activate it once and it is considered activated for all 3 hits. yes, 3 dead spawn.

Just dont forget that if the spawn are not within combat distance, they cannot have wounds allocated to them. Be mindful of over killing models out of range.

GoliothOnline wrote:
Just dont forget that if the spawn are not within combat distance, they cannot have wounds allocated to them. Be mindful of over killing models out of range.

Where do you find that "melee wound allocation range" that you seem to know about?
Hint : check page 25 , just above the assault marines/orks diagram

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
Just dont forget that if the spawn are not within combat distance, they cannot have wounds allocated to them. Be mindful of over killing models out of range.

Where do you find that "melee wound allocation range" that you seem to know about?
Hint : check page 25 , just above the assault marines/orks diagram

Citation required here.

Page 25 states you allocate wounds to the closest enemy model. If I bring 6 spawn 2 are in b2b and therefore engaged, the others must gradually move at their initiative step closer to become b2b with said model they are fighting. IF per say, I have the remaining spawn upwards of 10" away maintaining coherence, yet the front 2 are locked in cc and you cause instant death on 3 wounds, is the 3rd model that is not in b2b also killed? what if you cause 9, do my models magically disappear from almost a foot away?

GoliothOnline wrote:

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
Just dont forget that if the spawn are not within combat distance, they cannot have wounds allocated to them. Be mindful of over killing models out of range.

Where do you find that "melee wound allocation range" that you seem to know about?
Hint : check page 25 , just above the assault marines/orks diagram

Citation required here.

Page 25 states you allocate wounds to the closest enemy model as if it were a shooting attack. If I bring 6 spawn 2 are in b2b and therefore engaged, the others must gradually move at their initiative step closer to become b2b with said model they are fighting. IF per say, I have the remaining spawn upwards of 10" away maintaining coherence, yet the front 2 are locked in cc and you cause instant death on 3 wounds, is the 3rd model that is not in b2b also killed? what if you cause 9, do my models magically disappear from almost a foot away?

p25 wrote:If there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step, the Wound is allocated to the next closest enemy model. If several enemy models are the same distance away ,then their controlling player chooses which is allocated the Wound, as above.

Do you see a range restriction in there? There's a reason he gave you a page number and location on the page to read.

In short - yes, CC attacks can outrange shooting attacks if you construct a stupid enough scenario.

Indeed you would,
Page 25 has a section headed 'allocating wounds' and in this section is two bullet points. The second bullet point explains how you go about allocating wounds if no models are in base to base contact. Nothing within this bullet point informs us that there is a maximum range at which these wounds can be allocated, so enough wounds can wipe out an entire unit even the models where on the other ends of the battlefield.

It's even said that models not engaged can be allocated wounds ...

rigeld2 wrote:

p25 wrote:If there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step, the Wound is allocated to the next closest enemy model. If several enemy models are the same distance away ,then their controlling player chooses which is allocated the Wound, as above.

Do you see a range restriction in there? There's a reason he gave you a page number and location on the page to read.

In short - yes, CC attacks can outrange shooting attacks if you construct a stupid enough scenario.

Conga Line Firewarriors i've seen played (two actual rows at 2" apart against blasts) can still be fully destroyed if you reach and Wound (massively) the first 1 or 2 guys =P

Probably not a sight in tournies...

I have a massive problem with this notion...

No where have I ever played with that section of the rule book, and have always played with the 2" buffer for CC. Literally, 3-4 LGS, your pile in move was always used as your buffer and anyone not in it couldn't be killed....

That makes me absolutely sick.

GoliothOnline wrote:
I have a massive problem with this notion...

No where have I ever played with that section of the rule book, and have always played with the 2" buffer for CC. Literally, 3-4 LGS, your pile in move was always used as your buffer and anyone not in it couldn't be killed....

That makes me absolutely sick.

I imagine this gets misplayed a lot. I mean a lot.
I'm going to be watching for this. So many people still play with 5th edition combat rules out of habit. It just isn't the same.

It seems bloody redic to be able to kill with melee attacks outside of melee range.... how the bloody hell is an ork mob killing a conga line stretching 40" across the board and killing bob the plop sitting on the other end?...

GoliothOnline wrote:
It seems bloody redic to be able to kill with melee attacks outside of melee range.... how the bloody hell is an ork mob killing a conga line stretching 40" across the board and killing bob the plop sitting on the other end?...

And you just hit the nail on the head. It is designed to stop that kind of exploitation of huge lines of CC units.

GoliothOnline wrote:
It seems bloody redic to be able to kill with melee attacks outside of melee range.... how the bloody hell is an ork mob killing a conga line stretching 40" across the board and killing bob the plop sitting on the other end?...

I'm still laughing at this... lol

But very bizarre indeed: other example, line of 2" apart marines with others on a 2nd floor of ruins played at the local GW. Shrike and guard wiped the squad, including the guy up top about 10" away.

GoliothOnline wrote:
It seems bloody redic to be able to kill with melee attacks outside of melee range.... how the bloody hell is an ork mob killing a conga line stretching 40" across the board and killing bob the plop sitting on the other end?...

40k has never been realistic. Its a game, get over it.

Its ruled this way for game balance, because it would be stupid if being a conga line made the unit immortal

 CrownAxe wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
It seems bloody redic to be able to kill with melee attacks outside of melee range.... how the bloody hell is an ork mob killing a conga line stretching 40" across the board and killing bob the plop sitting on the other end?...

40k has never been realistic. Its a game, get over it.

Its ruled this way for game balance, because it would be stupid if being a conga line made the unit immortal

Never been realistic, conga lines are stupid, units become immortal, get over it, its a game...

Its a game,

Not realistic,

Balance purposes,

Immortal units,

Conga line...

Get over it...

Bust out the pretzels, nothing else matters in terms of tactics I guess.

GoliothOnline wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
It seems bloody redic to be able to kill with melee attacks outside of melee range.... how the bloody hell is an ork mob killing a conga line stretching 40" across the board and killing bob the plop sitting on the other end?...

40k has never been realistic. Its a game, get over it.

Its ruled this way for game balance, because it would be stupid if being a conga line made the unit immortal

Never been realistic, conga lines are stupid, units become immortal, get over it, its a game...

Its a game,

Not realistic,

Balance purposes,

Immortal units,

Conga line...

Get over it...

Bust out the pretzels, nothing else matters in terms of tactics I guess.

Huh?

I could see a range limit to close combat, but it would have to be really large. Basically, if the models couldn't possibly make it into engagement status by the end of the final pile-in, so about 13". The 2" kill zone was dumb - dumber than the current no-limit.

EDIT:

Oh, and on the timing. You check between failing the first save (the spawn probably won't get one but whatever) and allocating or removing any casualties. This means that if you succeed, you'll get three kills (as everyone's saying), but it also means that if you fail, the wounds will be allocated normally and you'll get one kill (not three spawn taking one wound each).

GoliothOnline wrote:
Bust out the pretzels, nothing else matters in terms of tactics I guess.

Tactics? You can see current military services forming a conga line, to reduce casualties?
Or by tactics did you mean abususing a game mechanic for an unrealistic advantage?

 grendel083 wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
Bust out the pretzels, nothing else matters in terms of tactics I guess.

Tactics? You can see current military services forming a conga line, to reduce casualties?
Or by tactics did you mean abususing a game mechanic for an unrealistic advantage?

Comparing the game to real life military tactics is just plain silly. Unless you're talking about zombie cultists...They don't care

A tactic to soak up wounds using a method of combat that would thereby stall for time, IS a tactic... The logic of you simply exterminating the whole squad even when you aren't within melee, truly DOES favor the shooting portion of the game. Why even bother with melee at this point? Most already don't...

As for the earlier post I made, might as well bust the pretzels out until 7th. There IS logic in this game, and there is also realism. Don't believe me?

page 23 "Unengaged Models: Unengaged models cannot attack in close combat - they're too far from the crush of battle." Go figure eh? The models that aren't in battle but locked in combat, apparently cannot strike blows because they're too far away from the combat... wowee! But they can still be struck in return... Dont ask why...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset, but by playing devils advocate on this, I simply want you all to understand how ridiculous this seems from one point of view to the other. Sure, most of you have been playing long enough to have the experience of dealing with some absurd amount of fodder tieing up a valuable unit of your in melee, and you must have felt like that wasn't really "fair". Sure, it really wasn't. But instead of simply killing them off in combat when (By all LOGIC) they were unengaged, rules should have been that the models that are unengaged cannot strike blows, nor be dealt any. And should have also been added that models locked in combat could also consolidate towards other models that were locked in the same combat, but otherwise were unengaged so as to speed the process up.

I think the reason the allocating wounds/participating in combat is so one-way is to encourage piling in as best you can and not conga-lining. It is more tactically sound to do CC realistically.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I think the reason the allocating wounds/participating in combat is so one-way is to encourage piling in as best you can and not conga-lining. It is more tactically sound to do CC realistically.

I completely agree with you, as to why that was the case. But more realistically, it should have been models do something along the lines of pile in 2D6 as if they were still charging into combat... and until they are either in B2B, or B2B with a model that it, itself was B2B they continue to do so.

GoliothOnline wrote:

The logic of you simply exterminating the whole squad even when you aren't within melee, truly DOES favor the shooting portion of the game. Why even bother with melee at this point?

Being able to cause more casualties in melee benefits shooting? How are you arriving at that conclusion? If you have a decent melee unit against a poor melee unit it's going to benefit the better melee unit to be able to force wounds on the unengaged models.

ItsPug wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:

The logic of you simply exterminating the whole squad even when you aren't within melee, truly DOES favor the shooting portion of the game. Why even bother with melee at this point?

Being able to cause more casualties in melee benefits shooting? How are you arriving at that conclusion? If you have a decent melee unit against a poor melee unit it's going to benefit the better melee unit to be able to force wounds on the unengaged models.

You're over thinking my point.
I have had Fire Warriors cause wounds to my Terminators. It's not unheard of. Even killing them with the luck of the dice. However, me charging a group of 12, getting into B2B with 1 and subsequently causing enough wounds to wipe out the entire squad, isn't exactly balanced... Being a predominantly shooti army like Tau, there isn't ever a reason to take things like Kroot these days for this exact reason.. Why blanket your fire warriors with them? They just get wiped out on your turn anyways. So spam more shooti, and anything that TRIES to get into melee range, end up being shot to gak.

I am pretty sure it was done to counter the conga line.
in addition, it is also meant to represent the fluid nature of cc.
I also find it funny when people say cc is dead in 6th, certainly it is not the case in the games I have been playing.

you just have to coordinate better, but cc is still very viable.

GoliothOnline wrote:

ItsPug wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:

The logic of you simply exterminating the whole squad even when you aren't within melee, truly DOES favor the shooting portion of the game. Why even bother with melee at this point?

Being able to cause more casualties in melee benefits shooting? How are you arriving at that conclusion? If you have a decent melee unit against a poor melee unit it's going to benefit the better melee unit to be able to force wounds on the unengaged models.

You're over thinking my point.
I have had Fire Warriors cause wounds to my Terminators. It's not unheard of. Even killing them with the luck of the dice. However, me charging a group of 12, getting into B2B with 1 and subsequently causing enough wounds to wipe out the entire squad, isn't exactly balanced... Being a predominantly shooti army like Tau, there isn't ever a reason to take things like Kroot these days for this exact reason.. Why blanket your fire warriors with them? They just get wiped out on your turn anyways. So spam more shooti, and anything that TRIES to get into melee range, end up being shot to gak.

I don't get what you are trying to say. Its not like your 12 FWs suddenly got good at killing termies, and if you are in a conga line then your offense is bad because you still adhere to the 2" from model in base contact rule to determine who can swing.