I'm in the "defenders choice" camp. Characters, specialpipmed units etc haveone in common: they are elite units. So they should be good at surviving compared an ordinary unit of the same type.
If a formation Leman Russ and a Leman Russ with a Commissar within the same range to the attacker gets a hit, then it is perfectly eligible that the hit is alllocated to the ordinary Leman Russ.
Either the Commissars Tank has found a way to better use terrain than the ordinary less elite tank or the less elite tank has sacrificed himself in order to protect such an inspiring/valuable leader.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Okay, now I'm confused again.

At this point there appear to be 2 effects being discussed here.

1) allocating AP and AT hits in such a way that LVs cannot unfairly absorb double hits while other elligible targets take none.

sol'n: Make a rule stating something to the effect that in cases where a mixed target formation takes both AP and AT hits, those hits must be assigned to maximize the number of units the suffer hits in the target formation.

controversy: little, because most lists don't really have the ability to use LVs as screens in this way anyway.

2) allocating 'special effect' hits in such a way to ensure that their effects get used.

sol'n: Make a rule to the effect that hits from special weapons must be assigned to units that would maximize the usefulness of the effect.

controversy: I have to think this would cause bigger protests than the 1st part. I mean, aren't grotz supposed to be use to negate things like this? Can't players purposely put sacrificial units closer to the enemy so that they absorb the brunt of the attack?

I think the most common example of this would be a shielded titan that suffers both normal AT hits as well as 'special' AT hits. In that case, should we really force the player to allocate the regular hits to the shields first, so that the special effects (lance negating RA, disrupt hit causing BMs) might actual occur?

I'm on the fence, mainly because I've always played that it was up to the attacker to make sure his attacks have the most effect - by saving the special attacks until the chaf has been stripped from the target formations (by other, non-special fire in earlier turns or from other shooting formations).

From a realistic POV, 'special' hits ought have the same chance of hitting any given elligible unit that a normal hit has. Meaning hits ought to be randomized. That's obviously too fiddly, though, epsicially if more than one special effect is in play.

Another solution might be to allow the defender to allocate half the hits as he pleases, but then allow the attacker to allocate the other hlaf, like this:

After determining the number and type of (non-template) hits on a targeted formation, the players take turns (starting with the defending player) assigning those hits to the targeted formation, starting with the unit closest to the firing formation and continuing with the next closest unit, etc.

This would increase the amount of time it takes for the entire process, but it certainly would be straight forward (if I could figure out a clear way to write the rule) and pretty much end any arguement of whether a unit 'disserves' to be hit with X type of weapon. Heck, you could even move MW hits into this round of allocation (but not TKs, since they're often one shot and would otherwise end up going to the the first guy the defender picks).

Not necessarily, individual soldiers with those special weapons can realistically be assumed to be specifically targetting them at their favoured target type for best effect.

The closest units would still get hits allocated to them first and would receive more hits overall in total and be able to screen that way.

This is just debating the hit placement of specific special sorts of hits and again the soldiers could be assumed to target these at preferential targets from the oncoming attackers. In Stompzillas example before where 4 shots (1 of which is lance) attacks 3 Chimera and a Leman Russ, the lance firer could be assumed to specifically target the Russ and the others the more weaker targets they have more chance of damaging.

As an attacker I've tended to apply the normal hits from an attacking unit to a titan first, then followed by special effect ones afterwards, so this is what I've been doing anyway.

Don't you think applying special hits to grotz or void shields, for example, is two fingers up to your opponent?  In a "I can use my special unit/ability to absord fire and blast markers and deny you your special attack, so i get a double bonus and you get nothing.  Up yours mate" kind of way?  

Isn't that a bit unsporting?

can someone remind me why we apply MW hits in a second round of allocation?

Is it because the rules assume that a choice unit is shielded, either by actual shields, or by lesser units such that the second round of allocation MW allocation is more like to  be applied to the choice unit because the shields are now gone. (ignoring any special WE targeting rules here).

Can we generalise here? MW (and its derived type TK) are both special weapon abilities. Not types (there are only two types; AP and AT)

Should any and all special abilities be simply bundled into the second round? Would this be sufficient?

I know it might be advantageous in some instances to allocate say TK hits before Lance hits, but would this be sufficient in most instances? Otherwise we'd need to specify further classifications, which order they come in and what abilities belong to that class.

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

I believe the simple answer to be: "Because it favours the attacker if you do it that way"

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well, that's the problem - I've usually played that the defender has the final say in what order the hits are applied, so the special hits generally get assigned to the shields first. I mean, that is the rule as written, right?

Being fair and sportsmanlike is one thing, but I always operated under the assumption that the game intended the defender to have the advantage in this situation (mainly because the rules as written obviously result in the special effects getting wasted unless the attacker really puts forth an effort to ensure otherwise).

If that is now seen as being unfair to the attacker, that's fine, but I see no reason to favor the attacker over the defender.

If you have a character unit and none character unit as equally valid targets is it unsporting to not put the hit on a character?

If the rules implore us to be generous in applying mixed hits to LVs (and they do) and if the rules implore us to be generous when measuring distances (and they do), then should we not also be generous in allowing hits with special effects to actually get to use their abilities?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Nope, MW is its own type, separate from AP and AT. TK on the other hand is a weapon note, a special ability similar in application to lance or ignore cover, just one that is almost always found accompanying MW.

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

No. The rules that you have to allocate hits fron to back is still valid.
Only when two units which a special hit would show other results are within the same range then you would place the hit so that it would have the most effect.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Should you have a standard hit, and a lance hit, and you allocate the lance hit to your character unit and the standard hit to 'just' a terminator unit, that would undeniably be a "sporting" action, surely.

Therfore, it does seem that doing the inverse would nessesarily be not "sporting", at the least.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Honestly, I don't see it any differently that a TK(D6) weapon rolling a 4 against an EoV squadron, where that extra point of damage is lost because it doesn't carry over to a 2nd unit.

In the cases where there are shields or grotz or whatever that end up absorbing special effects, I've always assumed that that was working as intended. After all, that is the clear effect of the rules as written.

I mean, you may as well complain that AP weapons can't strip shields. Sure, maybe some people may feel that AP weapons effect shields, but the rule specifically state otherwise.

First, I'd like to point out that the rules don't actually implore us to be generous in applying mixed hits to LVs - that's a change we're currently discussing. Also, measuring range is a separate issue, and has more to do with taking away non-game related advantages of people that can better judge distances.

As for the rest, I'm just saying that it isn't clear which special rule is supposed to trump some other special rule.

Who's to say that grotz shouldn't reasonably be expected to absorb those disrupt hits. Grotz have a special rule, disrupt is a special rule. Which takes priority?

As for being generous, why shoud we have to be generous to the attacker instead of to the defender? It's a matter of opinion.

I honestly don't care one way or the other, as it will generally be a wash over the course of a game, but it just seems like an arbitrary choice who the game favors. And all of these ideas do constitute a substantive change in the rules, so I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here.