Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 5
  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Assault & CC hits
Markconz
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:06 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(thurse @ Oct. 09 2007,14:24)
QUOTE
By the way, I think the confusion is due to the fact that all the rules concerning hit allocation are not in the same place. So it is easy to forget something. A summary of these rules would be great ( well we've started to do that, but it would fit well in a handbook. Cheers Marconz!:) )

Thanks thurse.

Like Neal Hunt says I strongly recommend you discard the old experimental rules as most people have. In his change documents, Neal has included descriptions and commentary about the rejected old experimental rules, and the more widely accepted new version.

The new version is incorporated into the Handbook. See page 14 (shooting - no changes), page 20 (assault, some changes), page 26 (macro weapons, some changes).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
rpr
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516

(Markconz @ Oct. 10 2007,04:06)
QUOTE

The new version is incorporated into the Handbook. See page 14 (shooting - no changes), page 20 (assault, some changes), page 26 (macro weapons, some changes).


Of hit allocation (in handbook especially), is following things clearly enough stated in rules:

- when allocating hits, if the range is equal, the defender allocates, right? (like have 4 units in CC and get 2 hits - defender chooses which get the 2. Similarily, 4 terminators in CC with 2 grots and 2 nobz score 2 normal hits and 2 MW - the defender can allocate normal hits first to nobz and then MW to grots. If there is 3 MW, can he allocate last MW to a grot, or do the units in equal range "remember" the order?)

- all TKs are allocated to WEs (if there is), even if that means that WE could get like 5x of its DC hits? i.e. Ork formation has battle fortress (WE) and 30 boyz. Boyz are in base-to-base contact with someone with TK melee attack while fortress is in 10cm range. Enemy in CC with boyz scores 4 TK hits - all those get allocated to fortress?

- if there is TK and MW, the defender chooses the order of allocation? (this might have effect when there is invulnerable targets, or if there is several war engines)

- if in above example the enemy is a War Engine, its TK hits will hit the boyz, not the fortress
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:07 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(rpr @ Oct. 10 2007,06:58)
QUOTE
Of hit allocation (in handbook especially), is following things clearly enough stated in rules:

In the Handbook (as in the original Rulebook), the different rules for allocating hits are spread over 4 sections... yes this may make things a little confusing alright.  I wonder if it is actually worth including all rules in a summary (as thurse suggests), perhaps near (or in) 1.96...hmm.

Of course the intention for the 2004  Exp hit allocation rules was to have 'one universal system' all in one place (1.96) which was a good idea, but unfortunately the 'one universal system' itself sucked.


- when allocating hits, if the range is equal, the defender allocates, right? (like have 4 units in CC and get 2 hits - defender chooses which get the 2. Similarily, 4 terminators in CC with 2 grots and 2 nobz score 2 normal hits and 2 MW - the defender can allocate normal hits first to nobz and then MW to grots. If there is 3 MW, can he allocate last MW to a grot, or do the units in equal range "remember" the order?)

Actually that is a good point.... I can't find a reference to what happens if range is equal(?) I've always played yes defenders choice but I can't seem to find this specifically.

- all TKs are allocated to WEs (if there is), even if that means that WE could get like 5x of its DC hits? i.e. Ork formation has battle fortress (WE) and 30 boyz. Boyz are in base-to-base contact with someone with TK melee attack while fortress is in 10cm range. Enemy in CC with boyz scores 4 TK hits - all those get allocated to fortress?
Yes. Though I note the rule says a WE 'fired at'.

"If a Titan Killer weapon is fired at a formation that
includes both war engines and other types of units then all
Titan Killer weapon hits must be applied to war
engine targets. Roll for damage immediately after
allocating the hit. The War Engine counts as having
been allocated a number of hits equal to the damage
rolled"

Should this section read?:

"If a Titan Killer weapon hits a formation that
includes both war engines and other types of units then
all Titan Killer weapon hits must be applied to war
engine targets. Roll for damage immediately after
allocating the hit. The War Engine counts as having
been allocated a number of hits equal to the damage
rolled"


Also is the intention that the WE should take all TK hits in a round, rather than spilling over after it's been allocated it's DC amount? I presume it is.

- if there is TK and MW, the defender chooses the order of allocation? (this might have effect when there is invulnerable targets, or if there is several war engines)


From the rules TK are just another MW in all respects except a few, ie.

2.2.10 "In all other ways, Titan killers are treated as
macro-weapons."

Though once again it is not specifically noted that choice here would be defenders.


- if in above example the enemy is a War Engine, its TK hits will hit the boyz, not the fortress
Yes.

Hmm, interesting questions - Neal?

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:01 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Hena @ Oct. 10 2007,09:37)
QUOTE

(rpr @ Oct. 10 2007,09:58)
QUOTE
- all TKs are allocated to WEs (if there is), even if that means that WE could get like 5x of its DC hits? i.e. Ork formation has battle fortress (WE) and 30 boyz. Boyz are in base-to-base contact with someone with TK melee attack while fortress is in 10cm range. Enemy in CC with boyz scores 4 TK hits - all those get allocated to fortress?

WEs get allocated hits up to their DC. If there is TK(d3), the damage is rolled for allocation (and assigned to one WE only). So only situation where you can get more TK hits per WE than their DC amount is where the TK(dX) rolls higher than required to kill the target. Or if there is too few targets that hits gets assinged in second round (eg. everyone is hit first, then everyone is hit second time and so on).

Why? Don't the rules say all TK hits must be allocated to WE? If it is as you say, then shouldn't it say all TK hits must be allocated to WE up to their DC before they are allocated to any other targets.  If the Macroweapon allocating hits rule is supposed to cover this as well (instead of the TK allocating hits rule)... then this is certainly not as clear as it could be, as is evident by how rpr and I have interpreted it.

- if there is TK and MW, the defender chooses the order of allocation? (this might have effect when there is invulnerable targets, or if there is several war engines)

Remember that attacks are allocated in two phases. First norma, then MW (and TK). And if you allocate hits to one WE, then you must allocate equal number of hits to DC before allocating to next target.

You are not answering his question I think. He asked if the defender chooses the order of allocation.

- if in above example the enemy is a War Engine, its TK hits will hit the boyz, not the fortress
So in this example there are 4TK hits. Of these 3 (at max) could be assigned to the fort. 1 would not. However this happens only if the WE is closest to target. See thread
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....t=10568


As for the first point.

I'm confused  :(

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:27 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Hmm. And Hmm some more.

As rpr suggested,  I think the problem is that whatever system is supposed to be used, the rules do not describe it as clearly as they should. They are spread over several sections, and not clear within and between those sections either :(

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
rpr
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516

(Hena @ Oct. 10 2007,13:15)
QUOTE

RULE 3: TK hits are always allocated first to WEs.

At what point?
Let's assume that there is in CC a WE (DC 2) and 1 other unit behind it.
The caused hits are: 2x normal, 1x MW, 1x TK.

So, according to these rules, this can be done this way:
Defender puts 2 normal hits to WE (closest target), then
puts TK to unit behind it. Then remaining MW is allocated to WE.
(I read it to mean that the TK must be first dealt to WE, but nothing says that I must deal TK before that MW)

Similarily, in CC, there is WE and one normal unit. Caused hits are 2x MW, 1x TK - can the defender first deal both MW to WE, then deal TK to remaining normal unit?

So the real question here is the "execution order of the rules" and especially where does that 'first' refer to...

As long as TK and MW are not separated, we will have the following issue/gamey thing: 3 RA units take 2 TK and 2 MW hits - defender can allocate both TKs to single unit (going to die anyway) and then MWs to remaining ones. This could be avoided a bit if the assigning would be done in three steps...  1. normal 2. MW 3. TK

..actually, could we just reverse that order? (would limit "flying power fists") Allocate first TK, then MW, finally normal hits. Then roll for damage in reverse order (in case of shielded targets, i.e. normal hits would drop down the shields, then MW and TK would do their work).
For TK allocation there would then be the extra rule that it is dealt to WE (regardless of range in shooting, or if in same CC)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Certain parts of hit allocating have always been a bit of a nightmare, further confused by the "speed rolling" suggestion to speed things up. I agree that it should be possible to generate a single section to cover this important aspect of the game rather than referring to it in many places, although that does go against the current rules structure and principles. As such, IMHO it would be better placed between sections 1&2 with references to it in the relevant sections (or possibly summaries which could be even better)

Rpr is correct that there is no clarification about where hits should be allocated in cases where all other aspects are equal (eg 2x hits to 4x units). Normally, this is unimportant so speed rolling may be appropriate, but occasionally it could matter a great deal eg, one of the units contains a Character. An unsuccessful attempt was made on the SG forums to try to resolve this. Treating MW and TK weapons as a separate round of combat seems to work relatively well, with the only real issue being over CC MW weapons and whether/how to resolve 'lost' attacks (where there is no legitimate target because the enemy has already been killed). Also care is needed over the distinction between the number of TK hits caused and allocated, and the number of damage points inflicted (or deflected by shields).

As Neal and other noted, the order of hit allocation (separate rounds), Shields and their properties etc all need to be covered, which will make this quite a lengthy explanation - but one that really is needed to answer the questions being raised at many levels but newcomers and veterans alike.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:36 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Ok here is a proposal to clean up the mess, and get rid of some awkward and strange exceptions that seem to have crept into these rules:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/wiki/ti ... ?fileId=13

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:21 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Guys:  The procedure for hit allocation is the same for assault and ranged hits.  The differences are not due to the hit allocation procedure.  They are due to the allowable "targetting" options in ranged fire (AP/AT/WE and in/out-of-cover targetting) versus assault (single pool of hits) and the increased likelihood of identical ranges in assault (base contact).

It's unfortunate that so much of the verbiage is duplicated in the assault section.  It leads people to think it's a separate and different procedure, but it's not and is not intended to be.  I didn't do a full rewrite to shuffle all the bits together because I was trying to keep the changes minimal rather than doing major restructuring of the rulebook presentation.

The "TK always allocated to WEs" is unnecessary for ranged fire because WEs can be targetted by the attacker.  That targettigni option doesn't exist in assaults.  I asked about whether to include the mandatory WE allocation for the purposes of assigning TK hits in assault and got mixed responses.  I figured I would leave it as-is (TK hits not dedicated to WEs) but as has been pointed out, the multi-TK allocation implies that the TK will be assigned to WEs as a matter of course.

At this point, I'd say making them dedicated to WEs would probably be best for clarity.

===

rpr:  You're missing one important aspect for the MW/TK allocation.  All normal hits are allocated and resolved before MW/TK hits are allocated.  From your example of the WE/non-WE formation, the WE would be assigned both normal hits because it is closest.  Those normal hits would be resolved (saving throws made).  If the WE survived, it would be assigned hits for the new MW/TK round.  As it is DC2, it would receive both the MW and TK hits, even if it only had one damage point left.  If it happened to be destroyed by the normal hits, then obviously, everything would go on the unit behind it.

Further, if the unit was behind the WE, it might not even be in Line of Sight.  If not, it cannot be allocated hits at all.  If there were normal hits, they would all go on the WE because it's the only valid target.

===

Allocation for equi-distant models:  It's not specified in the rules either way.  I'd say the most common method I've seen used in games is that the defender gets their choice, as long as they keep with the intent of the allocation as described in the FAQs: A: The intent of the hit allocation rule is that you must allocate hits out to strike as many units as possible.

Perhaps that has to do with the fact that the "defender allocates" bit in the experimental rules has been out so long that people have simply accreted the concept to their understanding of the book rules, but it seems to work.  I don't see a reason to force a change.  With the addition of TK-to-WE restriction, the defender's actual choice (and ability to do "gamey" stuff) will end up being extremely limited.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Neal, Although you didn't do a full re-write, how easy would it be to do so, leaving summaries in the relevant sections, and bringing the whole lot together in one section? Rpr is the last in a whole long line of people (including me) who have got some element of this wrong - sometimes disasterously so - and it would really help IMHO.

Could we prevail on you to consider doing this, if only to  preserve your own sanity (and reduce your internet time).

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Assault & CC hits
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:21 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Ok bugger I've just realised I have left the paragraph from the old (version 1) experimental rules for Titan Killer hit allocation (3.2.5) in the Handbook.  Crap!   :blush:  :blush:  :blush:

!! However, it appears that you want to actually use that 3.2.5 TK 'must' hit allocation rule Neal (as in the document I posted above?). Or do you? I suggested the 'must' restriction should apply to both shooting and close assaults because like I said:

Same method used for shooting and close combat - adhering to Jervis?s principle of avoiding exceptions, and importantly it also makes War Engines concentrate their TK attention on each other in an assault situation which feels appropriately ?God Machine Like? (rather than wasting their TK on grots).



What about the other change I proposed.
Ie ditch the restriction on how War Engines must allocate their CC and FF hits in 3.3.2 (but make sure they have to be in bc to use any CC attacks), because as I mention:

1. With the rule change to ?flying powerfists? being able to hit things beyond base contact, those last lines have become an exception to a general rule (and Jervis hates exceptions). Also it splits the hit allocation rules over yet another section.

2. It makes little sense that WE are not able to reach beyond their base, but other units can. If anything should be able to ?swing it?s CC weapon about? it should be a WE.  As for balancing, I added the line that a WE still has to be in base contact with at least one unit to use its CC attacks. That  representing it theoretically getting close enough to use those attacks effectively.


Also it seems you want to specify that the the defender chooses hit allocation when equidistant?

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 5
  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net