The Sportmans's solution would be to apply the disrupt hits to the non-disposable units if at all possible. To do otherwise is gamey at best, and poor sportsmanship at worst.

Follow the principle that special rules should get to have an effect as often as possible and you won't go wrong.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I most certainly agree.

Playing Tau is gamey at best, and poor sportsmanship at worst.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I think you are mis-quoting/interpreting. Neal talks about normal and MW hits and then goes on to say in the next sentence that the various types of these normal (i.e. non-MW) hits should be applied to the appropriate targets they can affect. Therefore the disrupt hits should be applied preferentially to non-disposable units.

Am I correct in thinking the talk of the normal front to back applying means the number of hits is determined by the front to back-ness, applying one hit to the closest and then back and then repeating this procedure once all have one, but within that which sort of hit goes where is determined by maximising effect? (I don't have my rulbeook off-hand to check)

So I think I have the concept down and we've been playing close to what the intent is, but if I could summarize:

Hits are broken into two catagories:



In general, hits are to be applied to units that can be impacted by them, not the other way around.

Am I understanding the intent correctly?

If so, and that is the intent, then I do think it should be codified in the FAQ as E&C recommended, otherwise you'll have groups of players allocating hits in two different ways.

Could make a mess at a tournament.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I think its only MW and TK that have extra rounds. The berries all go in the first allocation, to maximise abilities as they go! So lance shots go in round 1 with preference to RA units were possible within the front to back limitations.

I think this should codified too.

Honda: my understanding is different in that lance is a special flavour of normal hit applied to the most appropriate targets within in the initial front to back hit numbers. You then go back and do just MW/TK hits in a separate round.

Fair enough, though this begs the question, is that how it ought to be? Should we in fact allocate all "normal" types of hits in one round and all other "special" hits in the other?

The the process becomes clearer, at least to me, as anything that has a special rule (including potential new future rules) goes in one class, everything else falls under the general use class.

@Mephiston: BTW, my son and I read your entire painting blog last night and on top of being highly entertained (i.e. Pylon Incident), were extremely impressed with your armies.

Cheers,

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Different Mephiston I think Honda. The only 'pylons' I own are of an ottery nature and in packets on a shelf!

That's my understanding too.

So to use an example:

Say 3 Chimeras (Front) and a Russ take 3 normal hits, a lance hit and a MW hit the procedure goes:

3 normal hits on the chimeras, and the lance applied to the Russ.  Once saves are taken the frontmost unit remaining then gets allocated a MW hit.

However if the same unit takes 2 normal hits, a lance hit and a MW hit:

2 normal hits on Chimeras, the lance on the remaining Chimera and then once saves have been worked out the MW hit is allocated to the frontmost survivng unit.

Can I just ask if the attacker were to allocate hits would this sporting dilemma be removed?

Ok so the origianl FAQ addressed a problem of distribution to ensure that as many units got a hit allocated to them as possible. Otherwise a feeling of unfairness was created.

But it didn't care the effectiveness of a shot against a unit. If a lace was allocated to a non RA unit then it was beyond the scope of the FAQ.

So we now believe that this is unfair also?

If so then I'd say yeah to Meph, let attacker allocate.

This would also make redundant the special WEtargeting rule (and possibly the macroweapon second round rule?)

edit: no you still want the WE targeting rule.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

I would note that the "allocation convention" and the "attacker nominates" methods would both tend to result in the exact same allocation 'choices'.

Therefore I say stick with the convention, both as a matter of personal preference ("attacker allocates" feels unnessesarily adversarial to me, considering there is another method available which is 'impartial'), and so as not to need to change the basic wording of the rules as they stand now (the convention does not require a change to the wording of the rules as written).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

There will sometimes be differences between "attacker chooses" and this convention (which I always assumed was the way to play) - suppose you have a unit of 4 terminators, 4 land raiders getting hit by 4 lance and 4 normal hits. I'm sure someone else can come up with a better example where the units each party desires to take the lance hits are more obvious.

I agree there could be some choice differences though they would be fairly rare IMO, but in either case I prefer an impartial "rules allocate" rather than the more adversarial, and dare I say it, "gamey" style of the attacker allocating.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter