yes allocations for MW are made after allocations and saves for normal hits. Though you can still through the to-hit dice at the same time as your regular attacks.

as Morgan Vening says, the problem is allocations mixed attacks of normal weapons and normal barrage weapons. (or indeed mw weapons and mw barrages)

In some sense - if you use the exact method for barrages then it is debatable that 'allocations' are actually made. You roll-to-hit each unit under the template. The allocation is implicit. But is it actually an allocation? And therefore you can allocate non barrage hits to units that have already been hit by a barrage This seems like a nonsense, but is understandable in the context that barrages in the exact method seems to be such a different system to normal shooting.

Well anyway, to me, so far the best and fairest method seems to be as Ginger pointed out. Work out your barrage hits and allocations first (either by the exact method or general method) then allocate hits from normal shooting avoiding the units that already have allocations from the barrage (except where you can legitimately double up of course). once you allocations are made make your saves. Repeat the process for MW; First MW barrages then MW non barrages.

Combination of normal attacks and MW barrages raises a question about timeing the placement of the barrage, as if you role to hit individually under a MW barrage as a separate step after normal hits and wounds have been taken then you may have a different number of targets under the template and therefore this works differently than normal MW shooting where hits are done before any wounds are allocated. It also raises the question about placement of the barrage template if it is done as a separate step as again normal wound may alter where you can place the template to get max under it.

I'm beginning to wonder how the hell we have all been playing a game with such woolly rules all these years

Oh god, I broke Epic.

I take it all back! Everyone go back to playing the way they were! If we don't look at the crack in the universe, it doesn't exist!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Probably because unlike some other GW games, epic seems to attract players who are happy to go with whatever works rather than gettin anal about RAW

The to-hit determination comes before allocation. I think if the barrage includes allocation when rolling to-hit, then that obviously comes before regular allocation regardless of whether they are MW or not. So, it would be - barrages of all kinds with allocation, regular to hit, regular allocation (skipping units already hit), normal resolution, MW allocation and resolution. Theoretically, you could have weirdness (like a single MW hit causes multiple "skips" in allocation) but I've never heard of anyone have trouble allocating MW barrages, which leads me to think that it's not a problem.

If you use the barrage as a "counting attacks" method, then you'll need to place barrages and count attacks before anything is resolved, regardless of whether it's MW or normal barrage. Assuming you have to allocate hits to units under the barrage, it could go: barrage allocation, normal allocation (skipping units already hit), resolve all normal hits, MW barrage allocation, MW allocation, resolve MW hits. That would mirror the basic normal/MW allocation pattern.

or it could go: barrage allocation (both normal and MW), normal allocation (skipping units already hit), resolve normal hits, MW allocation, resolve MW hits. This is functionally the same as above, as all barrage hits are allocated first in both methods.

This could also run into some theoretical weirdness either way (like in the first, normal fire might kill all units under barrages, leaving no targets for allocating MW barrage hits) but no one has ever reported problems with this, either.

I agree with you Neal - was just posting when you got in first - again

When applying mixed weapons fire under the normal rules we quite often get the situation where a unit survives a 'standard' hit, and then suffers a MW hit thus concentrating the casualties. Here we are effectively doing the same thing within the confines of the template.

So I would agree on placing the barrage template first before resolving all 'standard' hits front-to-back across the formation, including units unnder the template. Then you resolve the MW hits on any remaining units under the template - and you can still adopt either approach to do this.

I'm pretty sure (and just read the rules again) that aircraft only get passive AA when they're being intercepted, so they don't project "AA bubbles" over the board. Otherwise you could flak rush with aircraft eg. ground attack a fm under a nightwing fm, but keep the nightwings within AA range of the thunderbolts. The thunderbolts would then get their AA attacks when the nightwings disengage. I know that other groups play that aircraft can project AA bubbles that protect other aircraft, but I'm sure that's a local thing, rather than a universal rule.

Hopefully someone will enlighten the both of us. I wouldn't be greatly surprised if I still had something wrong there.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

As flying A/C can only flak if you end in their arc/range then the won't be flaking in the disengagement. I also seem to recall that the accepted convention is that all disengagement moves are considered simultaneous.

I've been looking for a ruling that matches what I've been told re defensive a/c flak (i.e. only shoots when an a/c ends it's move in arc/range) but I'm struggling. I've not done a search here but I'm sure this is where it has been clarified.

The rules say that ground based AA can fire when an aircraft's flight path crosses its AA fire arc.

(Airborne) Aircraft are, by ommission, therefore not allowed to fire AA at aircraft that are just passing through their AA bubble.

Just went and read the rules, and it looks like the only situations where you can fire AA as an airborne aircraft is :
A- If you're making an interception or CAP (A type of interception)
B- If your aircraft is being directly intercepted.

So it seems just ending a move in an aircraft's AA arc isn't good enough, you also have to be directly intercepting that aircraft in order to trigger its AA?***


A side-effect of this interpretation (Which may be wrong), would be that order of disengagement (simulatious or not) is irrelevant in the end phase, because airborne flak can only be triggered by an Intercept or a CAP.


***Unless it's on the ground, when its flak works like a ground-based AA unit.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And as the disengagement rules make no mention of how to determine the order they should be moved in I think the fairest is to assume them to be simultaneous.

Aye, I guess it wouldn't affect flak, but it certainly might affect a player's decision about whether to leave their Thunderhawk on the ground or not.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It was clarified by Jervis a few years ago, but it was on one of the old forums IIRC.
It was around the time he tried to introduce the "immediate disengage rules" for aircraft to stop unrealistic AA pockets by stationary aircraft protecting ground formations, though a few disliked this due to their models not being on the table long enough.

Which I personally think is a silly reason to oppose a rule. Immediate disengagement makes a lot of sense to me.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart