Target Priority and Leadership Tests

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.

**vipoid**

It wasn't exactly elegant design but I get what they were going for at least.

However, I think the real problem with mechanics like this (along with most mechanics involving Ld) is that there's generally a fluff reason for most of the factions in 40k to ignore them. Tyranids should ignore them because Hive Mind, Necrons should ignore them because they're logical machines, Space Marines should ignore them because SPEESE MERINES! etc.

So what you inevitably end up with is all the designers' favourite factions getting ever more ways to ignore the rule while the runts are stuck getting screwed by it.

It's the same reason Fear was a running joke in 7th edition, because so many armies either ignored it outright or else had miniscule odds of failing (Ld9-10 with a reroll). Yet in spite of the fact that it rarely ever worked, GW insisted on putting it absolutely everywhere.

AnomanderRake wrote:
Moorecox wrote:
This is one of the worse rules ever written by the developers.

That's a strong statement. Worse than Flickerjump? The 7e Markerlight table? Instinctive Behaviour? ATSKNF, making a huge chunk of the game ignore one of the core mechanics? Look Out, Sir? Anything to do with the Artillery type? D-strength Distortion weapons, bringing the power of Titan main guns to your sub-200pt plastic infantry? 8e/9e Reserves, presenting an invincible risk-free alpha-strike box you can't interact with in any way? 8e's reroll/modifier interaction flowchart? The sidebar in the 8e FW Index where they said "We haven't actually squatted Corsairs, honest, you can still use your HQ models as sergeants!"? The Horde rule in 8e WHFB? Leaving Guess range weapons in 8e WHFB while also allowing pre-measuring? The whole of at-launch AoS? The Solar Auxilia command squad banner (I still don't know what that rule actually means, everyone I've ever played with/asked thinks it does something slightly different)? WHFB 7th Daemons? The 40k Daemons books where you bought a roll on a table instead of an actual upgrade? End Times Alarielle? The Banner of the World Dragon? Any time they try to write anything that triggers on 1s or 6s? 8e/9e blast weapons? The pre-nerf 7e/30k quad-mortar? Randomly selected psychic powers? The 9e Deathwatch Chapter Tactics? Psykers in Kill Team? The Shadow Warriors warband in Mordheim? 6e Jink? 8th/9th "bombs"? Shattered Legions? CP per detachment? Anything to do with the closest-target character thing? Any non-Vindicare/Exodus "sniper" in any edition? The gibberish that is "only the plastic kit assembly instructions allowed" datasheets? The Stormcast +1 save bubble warlord trait? BFG Holofields? 4e/5e Holofields? Any Seer Council implementation post-3rd? The Biel-Tan 3e army list? Most versions of Dark Reapers? No unit size caps in WHFB? BS to scatter distance, thereby requiring you to roll scatter dice while also making it barely matter when firing blast weapons?

It does seem odd that people are calling this rule out as being nonsensical, yet we're currently in an edition where one unit throwing grenades can prevent an entirely different unit, on the other side of the battlefield, from throwing theirs.

**Galas**

Hellebore wrote:
Target priority prevented a unit from doing something the way the player wanted, which is exactly the same as having to roll for BS or any other dice based rule in the game.

How is saying that it's bad you can't automatically choose the best target to shoot at any different from saying it's bad you can't automatically choose the best outcome of your shooting?

The game uses plenty of rules that prevents it turning out exactly like the player wants and they are apparently fine - why would my marine with lascannon ever not kill the thing they shot at? They're good shots and are firing an anti-tank gun.

Any one making a claim that it's objectively worse is entirely blinkered by status quo rules structures that are invisible by their normalisation.

Target priority had its imperfections, but that's what tweaking and updating is for, in the same way that all the other existing 'rules that remove player agency' have gone through.

I disagree with your assertion.

The difference is between rolling to see if my decision as a player has the effect I want it to have (Expected in literally any kind of dice game, wargame, erpg), or rolling to even be able to make a decision.

You know why nobody used Slaking in Pokemon? Even with his OP stats? Because he had a 50% chance of just ignoring you and doing nothing. It was fluffy, he was a sloth afterall. It also sucked.

The truth is: I'm the one playing the game, not my miniatures. They are tokens. Stuff like releasing a berserker virus on a unit to make them more powerfull but forcing them to charge any near model? Great! I HAVE the decision if I want to release that berserker virus, or just take that unit. Rolling dice just for the privilege of actually playing the game instead of it being in automatic mode?

I mean. Autochess are very popular. I spend a couple of months playing the LoL one non stop. They have appeal. But they are also fast and fun. I don't want warhammer to be an autochess where each rounds is 2-3 hours.

I put target priority rules in warhammer (In Necromunda, for example, they work much better as a skirmish game) the same at the same tier than Animosity greenskin rules for fantasy. Roll a dice for each unit to see if they actually allow you to play the game. But you are the only army in the game that has that! Great! Fluffy! Stupid piece of gak rule. I don't know how many people wanted it in 9th edition. "Orks without animosity aren't orks!" the worst thing is they are bringing it into Bloodbowl 3rd edition. A disgrace.

**DarkHound**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because if it existed we'd have another set of warlord traits, relics, psychic powers and strats in every book (along with innate bespoke unit special rules and/or equipment upgrades) that would allow you to ignore it, re-roll it, get bonuses to avoiding it, force opponents to always be stuck using it, and everything in between.

That's why.
Just the base leaderships of the game saw to that. Similar to how pinning never really worked that well.

vipoid wrote:
However, I think the real problem with mechanics like this (along with most mechanics involving Ld) is that there's generally a fluff reason for most of the factions in 40k to ignore them. Tyranids should ignore them because Hive Mind, Necrons should ignore them because they're logical machines, Space Marines should ignore them because SPEESE MERINES! etc.

So what you inevitably end up with is all the designers' favourite factions getting ever more ways to ignore the rule while the runts are stuck getting screwed by it.

As far back as the game has existed, there's been these sim-like rules. And edition after edition they've been stripped away. Some may remember their existence fondly as an example of realism or depth, but the fact is every army had ways to skirt or ignore those rules because they weren't fun. They bogged down the game to remember and use, and their effects sucked to play. Nobody ever actually pinned a squad with sniper rifles or artillery (I challenge you to remember a game where it happened). Everybody was either fearless, or L10, or re-rollable, or automatically rallied anyway. Frankly, they pulled these rules on purpose.

40k has never been a good simulation wargame, and it's always been moving toward being a better game instead (yes, even 6th and 7th, as awful as they were compared to 5th). I think 9th is the best shape 40k has ever been in terms of player agency and engagement. It's certainly the most fun I've ever had with the game.

**Hellebore**

Galas wrote:
Hellebore wrote:
Target priority prevented a unit from doing something the way the player wanted, which is exactly the same as having to roll for BS or any other dice based rule in the game.

How is saying that it's bad you can't automatically choose the best target to shoot at any different from saying it's bad you can't automatically choose the best outcome of your shooting?

The game uses plenty of rules that prevents it turning out exactly like the player wants and they are apparently fine - why would my marine with lascannon ever not kill the thing they shot at? They're good shots and are firing an anti-tank gun.

Any one making a claim that it's objectively worse is entirely blinkered by status quo rules structures that are invisible by their normalisation.

Target priority had its imperfections, but that's what tweaking and updating is for, in the same way that all the other existing 'rules that remove player agency' have gone through.

I disagree with your assertion.

The difference is between rolling to see if my decision as a player has the effect I want it to have (Expected in literally any kind of dice game, wargame, erpg), or rolling to even be able to make a decision.

You know why nobody used Slaking in Pokemon? Even with his OP stats? Because he had a 50% chance of just ignoring you and doing nothing. It was fluffy, he was a sloth afterall. It also sucked.

The truth is: I'm the one playing the game, not my miniatures. They are tokens. Stuff like releasing a berserker virus on a unit to make them more powerfull but forcing them to charge any near model? Great! I HAVE the decision if I want to release that berserker virus, or just take that unit. Rolling dice just for the privilege of actually playing the game instead of it being in automatic mode?

I mean. Autochess are very popular. I spend a couple of months playing the LoL one non stop. They have appeal. But they are also fast and fun. I don't want warhammer to be an autochess where each rounds is 2-3 hours.

I put target priority rules in warhammer (In Necromunda, for example, they work much better as a skirmish game) the same at the same tier than Animosity greenskin rules for fantasy. Roll a dice for each unit to see if they actually allow you to play the game. But you are the only army in the game that has that! Great! Fluffy! Stupid piece of gak rule. I don't know how many people wanted it in 9th edition. "Orks without animosity aren't orks!" the worst thing is they are bringing it into Bloodbowl 3rd edition. A disgrace.

Your premise is fairly arbitrary though.

You've said it's the difference between how something you want turns out vs whether you can do what you want - but that's applicable at all levels of the game.

ie, the only outcome of shooting a unit is destroying it - so the decision to shoot something is the decision to destroy it. But the rules get in the way of the outcome you want with hitting, wounding and saving. Thus these rules are preventing you getting your outcome.

You could look at it another way - Ld becomes a x+ value and determines how likely you are to succeed at the test.

When you target an enemy unit further away from the closest, you make a leadership roll for each model to determine if they've been able to focus. All successful models can attack the other unit, while the rest split to shoot the closest.

So now you have a mechanic that looks just like all the others that prevent you from succeeding in the areas you want, except this one never fails which makes it more friendly than the wound roll does in achieving your outcomes - which is to destroy enemy units.

**Gregor Samsa**

It is a good rule - it may have been implemented poorly, but the concept is sound.

It is no secret that leadership is a greatly neglected aspect of a unit's statline. Many have brought up all compelling and true reasons why this is so.

but it doesn't have to be that way...

For those who think the sky would fall over some "fog of war" creeping into the game's decision tree:

there is tons of design space in 40k for units that have low combat output but high leadership.

Warmaster, an old GW specialty game used a system like this and imo it worked quite well. As well one of my favourite tabletop games

I think although the "flow" of 40k games is better than it has been in many years, finding a tactical niche for leadership has yet to be properly realised. 40k matches should be about more than just doing damage to each other. All strategic battles have reasons for the battle - leadership is the RPG attribute which represents this.

**Cyel**

Hellebore wrote:

You could look at it another way - Ld becomes a x+ value and determines how likely you are to succeed at the test.

When you target an enemy unit further away from the closest, you make a leadership roll for each model to determine if they've been able to focus. All successful models can attack the other unit, while the rest split to shoot the closest.

So now you have a mechanic that looks just like all the others that prevent you from succeeding in the areas you want, except this one never fails which makes it more friendly than the wound roll does in achieving your outcomes - which is to destroy enemy units.

Congratulations! You created a rule that makes players spend hours on end on tedious non-interactive operation of the game's engine (boring dice rolling) instead of playing just to see if they actually can play or if the game plays itself this time.

And that's in a game which already has an abysmal ratio of obligatory upkeep to active gameplay and would benefit from cutting all the dice rolls necessary for action resolution in at least half.

**Hellebore**

Cyel wrote:
Hellebore wrote:

You could look at it another way - Ld becomes a x+ value and determines how likely you are to succeed at the test.

When you target an enemy unit further away from the closest, you make a leadership roll for each model to determine if they've been able to focus. All successful models can attack the other unit, while the rest split to shoot the closest.

So now you have a mechanic that looks just like all the others that prevent you from succeeding in the areas you want, except this one never fails which makes it more friendly than the wound roll does in achieving your outcomes - which is to destroy enemy units.

Congratulations! You created a rule that makes players spend hours on end on tedious non-interactive operation of the game's engine (boring dice rolling) instead of playing just to see if they actually can play or if the game plays itself this time.

And that's in a game which already has an abysmal ratio of obligatory upkeep to active gameplay and would benefit from cutting all the dice rolls necessary for action resolution in at least half.

I reject your premise of 'non interactive'. Your definition is arbitrary.

You've decided that a dice roll that isn't rolled against a target for damage is not interactive. By this definition BS is also not interactive and thus tedious and pointless - you only roll it against itself, not against an enemy.

My arguments have all been to show how arbitrary bias towards rules is what is leading this discussion, not any objective truth or superiority of mechanics.

You understand that the rules includes limitations on targeting units already right? Look out sir controls how your models shoot - oh no the simulation is killing my interactivity!

Yet again further evidence that this argument is entirely subjective, couched in objective language to try and give it some kind of legitimacy.

**Cyel**

No.

You made an assumption that I have no problem with rolls already existing in the game.

I do. I don't play it because it bores me to tears with how long and boring the obligatory upkeep takes. If the game has FAR too much dice rolling in it, it needs ideas for reducing time spent on this boring part, not ideas for adding even more of what makes it boring.

I'd definitely be more interested in playing if the arduous slog of hit-wound-save-damage was combined into a single roll that took into account all the conditional modifiers.

I'd be ok for dice to be removed altogether for something more deterministic and player-driven. For example choosing from a hand of card modifiers and orders (like the beautiful combat system in A Game of Thrones) or managing a resource pool (ammo/ battle stress or whatever) to alter the default results of actions.

Or if dice were used pre-decision, like in Troyes or Castles of Burgundy or (if you want a miniature "war"game) Guild Ball, to create a varying menu of interesting choices for players instead of arbitrarily telling them every now and again that their decision (and their role in the game) is irrelevant.

**kirotheavenger**

I dislike target priority because it's an extra layer of dice rolling (god knows 40k has quite enough of that already) that fundementally fails to achieve what it's meant to.
Why is my main battle tank getting scared of the Gretchin with a spanner 300m away when there's a mob of rocket launchers 305m away?

I do agree that rolling to see if you're allowed to shoot what you want is mechanically not all that different to rolling to see if you've hit what you shot at; but it certainly feels different. Although that isn't even the primary reason why I'm opposed to it. That's for the reasons I outlined above.

40k is sorely lacking a morale system. The system it has now is only really morale in name, it's just extra lethality. "oh a bunch of stuff died, even more dies!"
Replacing that with a suppression/panic system, as is found in games like Legion, Dust, Necromunda, and more, will help a tonne. It would give units more ways to interact beyond killing each other, it would open up more design space for special rules that aren't solely kill/survive better. It would open up more room for tactical decisions "do I suppress two units or kill one unit?" or whatever.

**Unit1126PLL**

Ah, yes, the old WAR(game) vs (war)GAME debate.

I personally prefer the WAR(game) as some of you well know, and would happily trade away GAME elements in favor of more WAR elements.

That's because I got into 40k because of the lore/setting, and it'd be nice for the rules I use to conform to that setting, rather than be totally distinct.

I get that some people would rather it be a GAME first, though more's the pity that the various 40k-themed board and card games never got their attention.

**Cyel**

A "gamey" element can be really thematic. You just have to put an effort into making it so.

Rolling dice for hours on end is hardly any more thematic and immersive than choosing a commander to lead in a battle in A Game of Thrones or deciding to capture enemies for ransom instead of killing them in Rising Sun.

Having a compelling narrative doesn't automatically have to mean giving away your (player's) agency and replacing it with randomapalooza when you have designers who know what they are doing.

**kirotheavenger**

Cyel wrote:
A "gamey" element can be really thematic. You just have to put an effort into making it so.

I totally agree. My favourite mechanics in games are simple and quick to play but that really capture the essence of what they're trying to represent. It's definitely possible and some games do it excellently.

40k does it honestly horrifically. The rules are neither quick, simple, nor elegant. They don't even really capture what they're trying to represent imo. 40k rule's are good for one thing and one thing only, and that's making people feel like they're getting something unique and special (and therefore worth buying).

**Unit1126PLL**

Cyel wrote:
Having a compelling narrative doesn't automatically have to mean giving away your (player's) agency and replacing it with randomapalooza when you have designers who know what they are doing.

If that compelling narrative requires any reflection at all of Clausewitzian Friction in the operation of your army, then yes, actually, taking away the player's agency is part of the gig.

That's what Clausewitzian Friction is. A degradation of an army's ability to operate efficiently as a team because of Murphy's Law, essentially. It means that the perfectly orchestrated plan that General Player is going to execute might go awry because of a broken radio or thrown tank track (or, in this case, panicky guardsmen engaging the nearest threat rather than the more "true" threat).

It's essentially not possible to challenge the player with Clausewitzian Friction without removing their agency to some degree - since the major point of Friction is that "a general/C2 structure does not have total control of its army at all times, and cannot always be on-hand to make the necessary decision at a lower echelon". Just replace "general" with "player" and change the warfighting terminology to game terminology, and the point literally says:
"The player does not have total agency over his army at all times"
-----
In fact, the badassness of a rule like this can be seen in the way the the Imperial Guard codex from this time treated Vox Casters. The men could use the leadership of proximate officers (12" I think). This meant that they were more likely to fire at the designated target if the officer was shouting at them, and less likely if they were left on their own. You could purchase Vox Casters for your army, which made that leadership buff board-wide (because now your officer can talk into a radio to anyone on the battlefield) for any unit that also had a Vox Caster. It's the best representation of C3 (command, control, and communication) that 40k has ever had.

**H.B.M.C.**

Stick your Clausewitziawhatever.

Having to do a whole suite of rolls to see if your guys can shoot what you want them to shoot isn't fun.

**Unit1126PLL**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Having to do a whole suite of rolls to see if your guys can shoot what you want them to shoot isn't fun.

It is if you're interested in simulating a real battle set in a setting where that sort of thing might happened. Some people find that fun.

I want my guardsmen to fail that test and have it lose the battle for me, so I can write about the consequences. Would the sergeant feel guilty that he couldn't see the bigger picture or control his men (it was his Leadership that failed after all)? Or could it even result in his death, doomed by his own lack of willpower in the face of the friction of war? Would he be fired by a higher-up or shot by a commissar if he survives? Would the nearby presence of an officer help him keep his cool, or did the officer have to personally come over to ensure the test was passed (the 12" rule)? Would he bring a Vox Caster for his squad the next battle, determined never again to be out-of-communication and failing to see the bigger picture?

Some people actually do want to find out how their army would "actually perform" in the setting, and Clausewitzian Friction (or how an army overcomes it) is arguably the most important factor in victory, even in the 40k setting.

Fun Is Subjective

**Cyel**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Cyel wrote:
Having a compelling narrative doesn't automatically have to mean giving away your (player's) agency and replacing it with randomapalooza when you have designers who know what they are doing.

If that compelling narrative requires any reflection at all of Clausewitzian Friction in the operation of your army, then yes, actually, taking away the player's agency is part of the gig.

And yet designers abstract plenty of things in every wargame without batting an eye. Why not abstract things that make the experience miserable?

**H.B.M.C.**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fun Is Subjective

Let's see you say that when you fail a big swathe of tests, your army can't do anything, and you get blasted off the table the next turn.

**Unit1126PLL**

Cyel wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Cyel wrote:
Having a compelling narrative doesn't automatically have to mean giving away your (player's) agency and replacing it with randomapalooza when you have designers who know what they are doing.

If that compelling narrative requires any reflection at all of Clausewitzian Friction in the operation of your army, then yes, actually, taking away the player's agency is part of the gig.

And yet designers abstract plenty of things in every wargame without batting an eye. Why not abstract things that make the experience miserable?

Because for some people it doesn't make the experience miserable?

I enjoy games where my control over my units is constrained. Bolt Action and especially Chain of Command are perfect examples. Heck, the C2 problems in Chain of Command get so bad that it's the only wargame I've played where bringing on your entire army can actually be a weakness if you don't have the C2 structure to actually ... well, C2 all of the variety of units you showed up with.

Simulating real war is fun - at least for some people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fun Is Subjective
Let's see you say that when you fail a big swathe of tests, your army can't do anything, and you get blasted off the table the next turn.

Then that's a lesson for my regiment in Leadership, and a tragic story about the deaths of good men because their leaders were incompetent or foolish.

That's the crucial thing about narrative gaming: it's okay to lose, and it's even okay to lose big.

**Gnarlly**

It seems that some people are misinterpreting the Target Priority rule from 4th edition, with some assuming that their unit cannot shoot at all if the LD test is failed or that a single grot prevents the shooting unit targeting a tank directly behind the grot. I have copied/pasted the actual rule below so that everyone can understand how the mechanic worked.

Edit: Also, vehicles automatically passed the LD check for Target Priority. See page 62 of the 4th edition rulebook.

**Rihgu**

Are Nobs Large Targets? Because I'm pretty sure every reference was Grots blocking for Nobs, not Tanks.

**JNAProductions**

Rihgu wrote:
Are Nobs Large Targets? Because I'm pretty sure every reference was Grots blocking for Nobs, not Tanks.

Exactly.

**Gnarlly**

Rihgu wrote:
Are Nobs Large Targets? Because I'm pretty sure every reference was Grots blocking for Nobs, not Tanks.

From a previous post above: "Why is my main battle tank getting scared of the Gretchin with a spanner 300m away when there's a mob of rocket launchers 305m away?"

And yes, that is and has always been the main role for Grots: to die as meat shields for the more important Ork units. But if your army is comprised of trained, disciplined soldiers (high LD), then you are rewarded with a significantly greater chance of being able to disregard the meat shield and focus fire on the more important targets. Again "(WAR)game vs war(GAME)."

**JNAProductions**

Gnarlly wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Are Nobs Large Targets? Because I'm pretty sure every reference was Grots blocking for Nobs, not Tanks.

From a previous post above: "Why is my main battle tank getting scared of the Gretchin with a spanner 300m away when there's a mob of rocket launchers 305m away?"

Okay... And your point?

The mob of rocket launchers are infantry. So are Grots. Unless I'm misreading the rule, you'd have to target the grot on a failed leadership test.

**Gnarlly**

JNAProductions wrote:
Gnarlly wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Are Nobs Large Targets? Because I'm pretty sure every reference was Grots blocking for Nobs, not Tanks.

From a previous post above: "Why is my main battle tank getting scared of the Gretchin with a spanner 300m away when there's a mob of rocket launchers 305m away?"

Okay... And your point?

The mob of rocket launchers are infantry. So are Grots. Unless I'm misreading the rule, you'd have to target the grot on a failed leadership test.

See my edit to my post above. Vehicles/tanks automatically passed the Target Priority LD test in 4th edition.

**JNAProductions**

Okay. That I did not know.

But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?

**Gnarlly**

JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. That I did not know.

But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?

You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.

But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).

**JNAProductions**

Gnarlly wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. That I did not know.

But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?

You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.

But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).

But that doesn't make sense. If there's a singular grot 10" and a squad of nobs 11" away, why would they shoot the grot? They're not more scared of the grot-the nobs are barely further away, and much MUCH scarier.

That's the thing-if I was GMing a game, I'd say "No Leadership test needed-you can shoot the obvious threat instead of the obvious non-threat," but as a competitive wargame, GMs are not standard. Such a rule removes the agency of the player, without even really simulating the battlefield that much better.

**Gnarlly**

JNAProductions wrote:
Gnarlly wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. That I did not know.

But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?

You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.

But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).
But that doesn't make sense. If there's a singular grot 10" and a squad of nobs 11" away, why would they shoot the grot? They're not more scared of the grot-the nobs are barely further away, and much MUCH scarier.

That's the thing-if I was GMing a game, I'd say "No Leadership test needed-you can shoot the obvious threat instead of the obvious non-threat," but as a competitive wargame, GMs are not standard. Such a rule removes the agency of the player, without even really simulating the battlefield that much better.

You are continuing to focus on an extremely unlikely scenario in 4th edition: that of a single grot standing fast after the other grots in his squad have been killed, most likely by shooting given this discussion is focused on Target Priority in the shooting phase. With the grot's poor LD statistic of 5, and the requirement for the grot unit to take a LD test after suffering 25% casualties from shooting with a -1 penalty to the test for the unit being less than 50% of its starting size, that grot unit in this scenario would nearly always be Falling Back due to a failed LD test and thus could be ignored for purposes of Target Priority.

**JNAProductions**

Gnarlly wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Gnarlly wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. That I did not know.

But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?

You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.

But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).
But that doesn't make sense. If there's a singular grot 10" and a squad of nobs 11" away, why would they shoot the grot? They're not more scared of the grot-the nobs are barely further away, and much MUCH scarier.

That's the thing-if I was GMing a game, I'd say "No Leadership test needed-you can shoot the obvious threat instead of the obvious non-threat," but as a competitive wargame, GMs are not standard. Such a rule removes the agency of the player, without even really simulating the battlefield that much better.

You are continuing to focus on an extremely unlikely scenario in 4th edition: that of a single grot standing fast after the other grots in his squad have been killed, most likely by shooting given this discussion is focused on Target Priority in the shooting phase. With the grot's poor LD statistic of 5, and the requirement for the grot unit to take a LD test after suffering 25% casualties from shooting with a -1 penalty to the test for the unit being less than 50% of its starting size, that grot unit in this scenario would nearly always be Falling Back due to a failed LD test and thus could be ignored for purposes of Target Priority.

So replace "one grot" with "a squad of grots". It still doesn't simulate the battlefield well. Grots are pathetically weak, they look pathetically weak, whereas nobs are quite deadly, and look the part.

**Gnarlly**

JNAProductions wrote:
Gnarlly wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Gnarlly wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. That I did not know.

But what about, say, a team of Devastators?
Why would they fire on a Grot with a 12” pistol, who’s 20” away, instead of the mob of Tankbustas, 21” away?

You're right, they would definitely want to target the mob of Tankbustas. They would roll against their LD and very likely pass the test, especially given that in 4th edition they could use the LD of the Space Marine Commander if he is on the table ("Rites of Battle" ability). You have to be really unlucky to fail against LD 10.

But if you had a squad of basic Imperial Guard infantry without a leader nearby? There is a good chance those undisciplined soldiers would just shoot at the closest enemy, whether they be grots or not. Again, LD used to matter and impacted each faction differently (and sometimes significantly).
But that doesn't make sense. If there's a singular grot 10" and a squad of nobs 11" away, why would they shoot the grot? They're not more scared of the grot-the nobs are barely further away, and much MUCH scarier.

That's the thing-if I was GMing a game, I'd say "No Leadership test needed-you can shoot the obvious threat instead of the obvious non-threat," but as a competitive wargame, GMs are not standard. Such a rule removes the agency of the player, without even really simulating the battlefield that much better.

You are continuing to focus on an extremely unlikely scenario in 4th edition: that of a single grot standing fast after the other grots in his squad have been killed, most likely by shooting given this discussion is focused on Target Priority in the shooting phase. With the grot's poor LD statistic of 5, and the requirement for the grot unit to take a LD test after suffering 25% casualties from shooting with a -1 penalty to the test for the unit being less than 50% of its starting size, that grot unit in this scenario would nearly always be Falling Back due to a failed LD test and thus could be ignored for purposes of Target Priority.
So replace "one grot" with "a squad of grots". It still doesn't simulate the battlefield well. Grots are pathetically weak, they look pathetically weak, whereas nobs are quite deadly, and look the part.

True: grots are weak and nobs are deadly. But a mob of grots is also deadly. If you were in the thick of battle, being charged by a mob of screaming grots with their bosses following behind them, are you honestly going to aim your gun at the nobs behind them because they look more dangerous or are you going to shoot at the grots because they are the more immediate threat? Unless you have received significant training and firearms discipline in the military, my money's on you shooting at the closest charging target.