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.

hey there!

example: unit A shoots unit B and only sees 2 of 10 models. It deals 10 wounds.
Can I allocate 2 wounds to the visible models and then the rest of the wounds is lost? or do I have to continue allocating wounds even if no model can be seen?

Aeri wrote:
hey there!

example: unit A shoots unit B and only sees 2 of 10 models. It deals 10 wounds.
Can I allocate 2 wounds to the visible models and then the rest of the wounds is lost? or do I have to continue allocating wounds even if no model can be seen?

LOS is only checked once, when declaring what weapons will shoot where. Wounds can be allocated to models not in LOS just fine. In fact you could have 30 models, only 1 in LOS, and end up killing the whole unit.

It's a quirk of the rules that has to exist otherwise LOS sniping happens like in previous editions. Example: I set up two rhinos so the only model I can see of your group is your fancy special weapons guy, I can now unload all my dakka onto that one poor guy and guarantee it dies. With the current rules, YOU get to decide who dies, not me.

On the flip side of this, since your really supposed to shoot each model separately, you can in fact take the models that are in LOS first and the rest of your unit is safe.

We just roll for the whole unit at once to save time.

I previously assumed that you had to kill models out of LOS as well, but since each model is supposed to fire seperate of each other as per the BRB its actually quite legal to just allocate to the guys in LOS first and the rest of the squad is safe as no models are in LOS of the rest of the firing models.


You can of course, allocate wounds to the models out of LOS first, if for example, you want to keep a guy on an objective or keep him screening a character for example. In this case you would continue to recieve damage.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
On the flip side of this, since your really supposed to shoot each model separately, you can in fact take the models that are in LOS first and the rest of your unit is safe.

We just roll for the whole unit at once to save time.

I previously assumed that you had to kill models out of LOS as well, but since each model is supposed to fire seperate of each other as per the BRB its actually quite legal to just allocate to the guys in LOS first and the rest of the squad is safe as no models are in LOS of the rest of the firing models.


You can of course, allocate wounds to the models out of LOS first, if for example, you want to keep a guy on an objective or keep him screening a character for example. In this case you would continue to recieve damage.

No, you cannot. You don't "shoot each model separately", you "roll to hit" for each model separately.

Since I need to be more specific than "you only check LOS once", you determine line of sight in "Step 2. Choose Targets". This is the ONLY time you check line of sight. You roll to hit, either via fast rolling or separately in "Step 4. Resolve Attacks". Even if a SINGLE model of a 300 model unit is in LOS, you could inflict 300 wounds and wipe the unit.

The UNIT itself goes though each step together, you don't resolve each step of the sequence for each model individually.

What you CAN do is take casualties in such a way that a second unit no longer has line of sight at some point further on in the Shooting Phase, you cannot prevent the currently shooting unit from killing your guys.

I am afraid you have misread the BRB.

Bacon that's how I have been playing since 8th started and have had about 10 people recently tell me that its wrong.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Bacon that's how I have been playing since 8th started and have had about 10 people recently tell me that its wrong.

Well, those 10 people are wrong. Simple as that. Ask them to show you where in step 4 it asks for you to check line of sight again.

If they claim that each model goes though each step individually, show them Step 1 where it says "First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with." or Step 2 "Having chosen a shooting unit, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks."

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Bacon that's how I have been playing since 8th started and have had about 10 people recently tell me that its wrong.

Those 10 people are in fact wrong.

Bacon is correct.

You check LoS once at step 2. No other part of the shooting rules require you to check LoS again. 1) You pick the unit you want to be doing the shooting. 2) You select targets for all of their guns at the same time. At this point each gun on every model needs to be able to establish LOS to the enemy UNIT. 3) you roll to hit 4) you roll to wound 5) you allocate wounds one at a time.

By this point the wounds have already reached the unit. LoS no longer matters. You simply pick a model to take the wound, roll to save, and move on to the next wound. It does not matter if the dead models reduce the unit to a point where they are out of LoS. Again, your 3 steps past checking for it.

BCB is correct.

Additional question- Do I have to go through each step for each type of weapon that I have? For example if I have a unit with 4 of weapon X and 3 of weapon Y and 3 weapon Z all with different ranges do I have to recheck before speed rolling each type of weapon or once the LoS and ranges have been checked do I just roll as normal?

No, you measure all ranges and declare all targets for all of a unit's weapons before rolling any dice. You never go back and remeasure after that.

thanks. I ran into someone who told me that when I went to use my shorter ranged weapons after some longer ranged ones that since he had removed all of the models from the range of my shorter weapons they couldn't shoot at that unit anymore.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
thanks. I ran into someone who told me that when I went to use my shorter ranged weapons after some longer ranged ones that since he had removed all of the models from the range of my shorter weapons they couldn't shoot at that unit anymore.

7th ed rules rather than 8th ed rules - usual problem - people recall rules from previous editions and think they are current, can happen with the most experienced/tournament players.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
thanks. I ran into someone who told me that when I went to use my shorter ranged weapons after some longer ranged ones that since he had removed all of the models from the range of my shorter weapons they couldn't shoot at that unit anymore.

Thats wrong. Even if rolling the dice for weapons with different ranges is not done simultaneously, the actual shooting happens at the same time. You opponent cannot hide models from getting wounded by removing those within range and within LOS. Any wounds you inflict must be allocated to all models in the targeted unit, even if they are outside range, and outside LOS, after removing casualties.

Bacon is correct.

The only thing which changes as you suffer wounds is the use of cover for the target unit, and if you lose a unit who is shielding the others - but those are separate discussions.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


It's a quirk of the rules that has to exist otherwise LOS sniping happens like in previous editions. Example: I set up two rhinos so the only model I can see of your group is your fancy special weapons guy, I can now unload all my dakka onto that one poor guy and guarantee it dies. With the current rules, YOU get to decide who dies, not me.

That reeks of tactics. Can't have that, now, can we

M.

 Infantryman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


It's a quirk of the rules that has to exist otherwise LOS sniping happens like in previous editions. Example: I set up two rhinos so the only model I can see of your group is your fancy special weapons guy, I can now unload all my dakka onto that one poor guy and guarantee it dies. With the current rules, YOU get to decide who dies, not me.

That reeks of tactics. Can't have that, now, can we

M.

That's actually not tactics but gamey micromanagement.

Both rules sucks. Hopefully GW comes up with better 3rd one sometimes.

I've always preferred 'owning player removes casualties of their choice'. Stops a pile of nonsense and speeds up the game. The old fluff justification (strangely omitted this time) for 'kill who you like' was that troopers would scoop up the special/heavy weapons of their fallen comrades, a Corporal would take over from Sergeant, etc. So your Lascannon guy might die but someone else grabs the gun and keeps trying to bring down the enemy Dreadnought. I always liked that imagery. :-)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I've always preferred 'owning player removes casualties of their choice'. Stops a pile of nonsense and speeds up the game. The old fluff justification (strangely omitted this time) for 'kill who you like' was that troopers would scoop up the special/heavy weapons of their fallen comrades, a Corporal would take over from Sergeant, etc. So your Lascannon guy might die but someone else grabs the gun and keeps trying to bring down the enemy Dreadnought. I always liked that imagery. :-)

Yeah, it handles it quite nicely, and is completely reasonable. I know I'd ditch my hellgun for a plasma gun if my fire-team partner got wasted.

Larks wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I've always preferred 'owning player removes casualties of their choice'. Stops a pile of nonsense and speeds up the game. The old fluff justification (strangely omitted this time) for 'kill who you like' was that troopers would scoop up the special/heavy weapons of their fallen comrades, a Corporal would take over from Sergeant, etc. So your Lascannon guy might die but someone else grabs the gun and keeps trying to bring down the enemy Dreadnought. I always liked that imagery. :-)

Yeah, it handles it quite nicely, and is completely reasonable. I know I'd ditch my hellgun for a plasma gun if my fire-team partner got wasted.

Definitely! And if you just saw his plasma gun cook him, you wouldn't... hence that guy dying to plasma overheat still fits nicely with this abstraction.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Larks wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I've always preferred 'owning player removes casualties of their choice'. Stops a pile of nonsense and speeds up the game. The old fluff justification (strangely omitted this time) for 'kill who you like' was that troopers would scoop up the special/heavy weapons of their fallen comrades, a Corporal would take over from Sergeant, etc. So your Lascannon guy might die but someone else grabs the gun and keeps trying to bring down the enemy Dreadnought. I always liked that imagery. :-)

Yeah, it handles it quite nicely, and is completely reasonable. I know I'd ditch my hellgun for a plasma gun if my fire-team partner got wasted.

Definitely! And if you just saw his plasma gun cook him, you wouldn't... hence that guy dying to plasma overheat still fits nicely with this abstraction.

It's satisfying when logic and rule line-up so succinctly.

Insanely bat-gak rare, but satisfying!

Yeah, I'm not running out into the line of fire to man anything - be my guest, though.

 Infantryman wrote:
Yeah, I'm not running out into the line of fire to man anything - be my guest, though.

That sounds a bit like Heresy guardsman! *BLAM*

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Larks wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I've always preferred 'owning player removes casualties of their choice'. Stops a pile of nonsense and speeds up the game. The old fluff justification (strangely omitted this time) for 'kill who you like' was that troopers would scoop up the special/heavy weapons of their fallen comrades, a Corporal would take over from Sergeant, etc. So your Lascannon guy might die but someone else grabs the gun and keeps trying to bring down the enemy Dreadnought. I always liked that imagery. :-)

Yeah, it handles it quite nicely, and is completely reasonable. I know I'd ditch my hellgun for a plasma gun if my fire-team partner got wasted.

Definitely! And if you just saw his plasma gun cook him, you wouldn't... hence that guy dying to plasma overheat still fits nicely with this abstraction.

I'd be more inclined to believe the plasma gun cooked along with him, so even if you were insane enough to want to pick it up, it's nothing but molten metal.

I know it's a bit off topic, but I always imagined the plasma-gun cooking as actually leaving the weapon just fine.

It's a hilarious grimdark idiosyncrasy of the Mechanicum that they'd build a fail-safe into a gun that dumps all the excess energy into the surrounding area (including the user)... but leaves the gun just fine.

That's my excuse for why the Imperium's plasma guns haven't all burned up every other battle that Guilliman isn't at (provided those exist).

 Infantryman wrote:
Yeah, I'm not running out into the line of fire to man anything - be my guest, though.

Naturally, I would wait until it's my side's turn before picking it up.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I know it's a bit off topic, but I always imagined the plasma-gun cooking as actually leaving the weapon just fine.

It's a hilarious grimdark idiosyncrasy of the Mechanicum that they'd build a fail-safe into a gun that dumps all the excess energy into the surrounding area (including the user)... but leaves the gun just fine.

That's my excuse for why the Imperium's plasma guns haven't all burned up every other battle that Guilliman isn't at (provided those exist).

I always figured that's what the vent on top was for.