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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It's also failing to differentiate between attacks and non attacks, which is just plain wrong.

I agree with you. But, I understand now how extremely unlikely it is that you could wound the king before the guards and therefore I don't disagree with the ruling. For example I have a friend who has never not brought the king to the table, and I've never landed a mortal wound on that model in at least 15 games, and I did kill the king all 15 games. (Now the C'tan is different, I go out of my way to drop mortals on it, on the turn of or before I kill it.)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it's just you seem to dislike "this forum", so just don't bother with it. No one forces you to do so. But constantly complaining that "this forum' isn't doing what you want it to do, that gets annoying.

Kustom Mega Kannon. Doesn't nee to be another thread as yiu could end up in the same position as wuth the SK, making your decision to just "spirit of" it away doesn't work.

Sazzle x who ruled this?

My HIWPI works better for getting a game played than flailing about on the internet complaining the rules are broken when to get to the “issue. In this thread you have to actively choose a path that may break the game. If you choose to do so you’d better have a solution. No one like the Argument Phase.

(And there’s precious little point attacking a HIWPI stance, as you’d know if you’d read the tenets of YMDC.)

Thanks for KMK context. Seems this is very different in that the “issue” in this thread is only if people choose to try and have multiple wounded models, whereas the KMK could result in it by following the rule. Hey, looks like a HIWPI is needed there in absence of FAQ… my previous suggestion would work well. That’s if you enjoy finishing a game via reasonable patches to rules holes. If you just enjoy arguing, well, crack on.

I've been around since those tenets were drawn up.

I'm not complaining about hiwpi. Claiming moral superiority over anyone enjoying a civilised discussion, and whining that this isn't how you want the forum to work,,is obnoxious.

So, given you've said your piece - again - you have no need to further interact with this thread. Those happy to have a discussion csn continue. Seems like a great way for everyone to get along just fine.

I miss the part where you’re a mod and get to exclude people.

Suggest you cease the personal attacks and get back on topic, as my post was.

I'm not excluding people, nor attacking you personally. But you have (repeatedly) said your piece, have no intention to change it, and seemingly dislike anyone else discussing it - so the obvious solution is to take no further part.

That's entirely on topic, because rather than someone complaining that the forum doesn't discuss things in the way they want, we could have an examination of the rules around it, see how others have handled it (shock! People have opinions too!) and see if there's a sensible route forwards.

So, now we can carry on.

Sazzle - I think the main issue is that, as we have a difference in attack and non attack that's important, rulings need to be consistent with that - or at least explicitly call out where they've had to conflate the two - otherwise it's causing more issues potentially.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sazzle - I think the main issue is that, as we have a difference in attack and non attack that's important, rulings need to be consistent with that - or at least explicitly call out where they've had to conflate the two - otherwise it's causing more issues potentially.

It might preferred that a general rule fix such as... "all instances where damage of any kind could potentially be assigned to a non-body guard model in a unit with bodyguard models and another model in that unit... must be applied to the bodyguard model first and per the normal wound allocation rules", but you won't find it and GW marketing has no reason to do that, they sell books for points changes now, and issue regular FAQs to manipulate army's power levels to drive sales. And it could cause more problems down the road if it is worded slightly wrong and screw up maybe the new Tau codex with their now attached for the game drones to units. Instead a simple explicit clarification and staying away from general rulings in the middle of an edition, with so much change is constantly happening is really the only way to go. AND... The ITC ruling solves this issue.

It just means you end up with lots of little changes - and yet another faq. Ugh.

Hence trying to work out a rules based way so you at least have consistency. I don't think what we came up with is that bad, it has a small flail at allocating further damage where you would have a single phase choice of where to allocate

Not sure they do points changes for sales, the PBC was already the biggest seller, and they didn't drop anythung anyone wants...