Lol, I think with hackdown hits you have to accept some things are going to just be weird. For example, an Orkeosaurus is a 6DC War Engine that can take hackdown hits. Each hit would remove 1 DC. How does that work? Do its legs fall off when it gets scared?

I think we're solidly in the realm of making up an interpretation according to what we think is sensible for the game, the rules aren't much help. The "no LoS needed" justification for allocating to units inside transports seems a bit spurious to me. Are we now going to start allowing barrage weapons to roll to hit units in transports? They don't need LoS either, and nor do hits from drop pods, nearby criticals etc. I don't see it as any different really, best just to make a ruling based on what we think makes sense for hackdowns specifically (whatever that ruling is).

In any case I am still confused by the back and forth, it seems we have contradictory opinions being voiced. If hackdowns can be allocated to units inside transports (fearless or otherwise), I'm not 100% clear if you intend for that allocation to happen before making saves for units inside destroyed transports? For my part I think it makes sense that you cannot allocate directly to units inside transports, but (as a special case for hackdowns) can allocate to units AFTER they bail out of a destroyed transport.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

the only possible issue I can see with allocating hackdowns, making saves, then allocating more hackdowns is the time issue. Granted it's not a big issue, but it's still there.
For example, as one of the more extreme scenarios, I could have an Aspect Squad entirely mounted in Falcons. If, for unfathomable reasons, it horribly lost a combat, taking no casualties and with all troops in their transports you would have to: Allocate a hit to the falcon. Make a save for the one unit inside. Possibly allocate a hit to those troops if they're alive. Allocate a hit to the next falcon... and repeat.

You make a good point on the 'no LoS' issue not being good justification. Whatever's decided should be decided either due to sense or gameplay (and gameplay has advantages and disadvantages however you look at it).

For the sake of simplicity I'd recommend allocating all hits (however it's decided is the best way), then rolling any appropriate saves in one go. It's just 'cleaner' and faster.


The online rulebook has certainly cleared up a lot of issues, but I'll throw out one more I'd like clarified:
A skimmer on overwatch can 'pop down' at the end of its shooting- is this before the moving enemy unit could get a chance to shoot at it?

Yes actually I wasn't specific enough, in your scenario I would allocate all hackdowns to transports then roll all saves together, then allocate any remaining hackdowns. But honestly that's just my interpretation and could be over thinking it, not too bothered what happens, in our games we'd probably just go with what made sense to us at the time. If one player is expecting it to work a certain way and it influences the way he sets up for the assault it would matter but I can't see me doing that.

On overwatch not 100% sure this is what you mean, but yes I would say it pops down as soon as it has fired, which for example might mean it pops down out of sight of the formation it has shot at before that formation gets its own chance to shoot.

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet K1 using Tapatalk

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Umm, I am more concerned about the possibility that this approach makes units in a Fearless transport 'immune' to hackdown hits, which to me, seems contrary to the intent of the rules. It potentially raises other sillinesses - eg. what happens to a broken marine formation in a Landing Craft that loses a further assault? RAW, they are automatically destroyed, but are they now 'immune' to this because they are inside a Fearless transport . . . ?

As to the process if we are to allocate hackdown hits to units that survive the destruction of their transport, in order to ensure the hackdown hits were correctly allocated to the nearest units, this would actually mean that the player would have to test the contents of the nearest transport before moving on to the next.

While possibly more accurate, to me it is simpler to allocate hits to all the nearest non-fearless units, merely testing those Fearless units that were subject to the destruction of their transport.

Yes things in fearless transports would be protected, but it also sort of makes sense that they would be to me. Note that this wouldn't apply to broken formations who lose, which the rules already say are automatically destroyed - that happens regardless of how many points/hackdowns they lose by. So no, they are not immune.


I think "correctly" is overstating it - this is not how hit allocation during shooting or assault works either, as there you would not be able to allocate to the units inside at all. So I don't see why it has to be that you allocate to the units inside a transport before allocating to the next transport. Indeed the most "correct" if we're following the existing precedents would be that units inside transports are not eligible to be hacked down at all (though of course they could be destroyed if they failed their save after bailing out of a transport). Since that does seem wrong, we're now left to just make up something specifically for this case. But yes, yours is one interpretation of how to do that.


I agree it'd be simpler, have no particular stake in the game myself. It would normally result in fewer things dying though, since you have to use hackdowns to destroy units that might otherwise have died anyway when transport is destroyed. Is that an intended effect? It also seems to fly in the face of the FAQ that tells you to make a cover save when a transport is hacked down.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

This gets more than a little confusing, and hard to explain. Personally, for pure simplicity, I'd want to rule that either:
a) Transported units can't be allocated hackdowns, at all (though this still leaves the odd landing craft situation above)
or
b) Transported units can be allocated hackdowns, even if the transport itself is fearless (this one's odd, but maybe the panicked passengers overcome the crew in order to flee?)
I think a simple black and white rule is needed, otherwise you could fill up a whole page with specific, strange scenarios.

For what it's worth I don't think the hackdown/transport question is particularly unusual in itself- especially not since I've found the rule that units can be trapped in their transport during assaults (2 enemy stands touching prevents disembarkation).

But in practice you rarely do leave units in transports during the assault (or have trapped units AND they survive) so IME it is rare.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

It'd be simpler, and also thres the issue that this game go by phases. If we do things that way you say, we would be going hackdowns part ---vehicle saves -- hackdowns part which doesn't exist at all in any part of the game. Going forth and back in the phases is something unheard in E:A. And if we go by that we would need to do the same at shooting (so transported units are no longer inmune to AP, and can be used to allocate hits on units previously on cover) and in normal losses in the assault too. All the time forth and back in the phases.

So all hackdowns to everyone like Dave and Nealhunt said, and then vehicle saves.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list

Well it's not my way Like I said, if you want to follow the way allocation works in the rest of the game then you would not allocate to units inside transports at all. That is also unheard of in the rest of the game... So it's down to which rules fudge you feel most comfortable with.

I assume people would do exactly the same when broken formations receive BMs in shooting? i.e. allocate to transport, then contents, then next transport etc?

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet K1 using Tapatalk

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I agree, however it is handled for combat hack-downs should be exactly the same for blast marker hackdowns.

My preferred way to play it is that units in transports can't be allocated hits at all- just as with every other ruling in the game. All methods have ups and downs, but this way at least clearly fits the RAW (and answers many other possible questions, such as the fearless transport issue).

With respect guys, Blast Markers and Broken Formations does not help much either as it refers back to 1.9.6 in shooting, but again this section is specifically referring to 'panic' rather than 'damage'. Obviously we can infer the formation panicking relative to a threat, so would take off units nearest that threat.

1.12.7 Work Out Result, also refers to 'panic', but also includes hacking down or 'damage'

1.9.6 shows that hits are applied to the appropriate targets in LoS and range

The distinction between units panicking under fire and panicking / being killed in an assault is a description rather than a process. This is why Neal Hunt pointed out in his reply that these kind of hits need neither LoS nor Range to be applied. Consequently Neal concludes these kind of ('panic') hits should be applied to all units (other than those that are Fearless) irrespective of whether the units are inside transports or not.

Basically, the injunction to apply hits "as in shooting" or "as in assault" is merely to apply the hits 'front-to-back' relative to the nearest threat, rather than applying them to the nearest 'visible' unit ie transports only rather than their contents.

I'm now totally confused about what you think we should be doing. When shooting broken units the rules say apply them as you would do in shooting (which would mean not against units in transports) and describe the hits as panic.

In the assault resolution rules it says apply them as you would in the assault itself (again, which would mean not against units in transports) and likewise refers to panic.

And your conclusion is that we should ignore the rules for assaults, but stick with the rules for shooting, meaning:
a) in shooting, units in transports cannot be removed through blast markers, only if they fail their save after bailing out of a non-fearless transport
b) in assault, units in transports CAN be allocated hits, including within fearless transports

And this is because "as you would [inflict] hits inflicted in the assault" refers only to the ordering and not to the eligibility. (The same reason that units out of range can be hacked down).

Surely the issue then is that in shooting, the rules have almost exactly the same qualification - ie it says "as you would in shooting ie front to back" which would have to be interpreted in the same way as you are interpreting it for assaults, surely?

A further question, then: can blast markers remove broken units that are out of range?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Ok, let me try again.

1. In shooting, (1.9.6) says to allocate hits to units in LoS and Range, by unit type, and "Hits must be allocated to the closest potential target first". This is allocating damage to the nearest potential targets.
   
   • If shooting at units in transport, AP shots are discarded because the transported units are not in LoS even if they are in range***, so they cannot be damaged.
   • This process still applies when shooting at a Broken formation, however a number of BMs could be caused for units lost to fire, which in turn causes other units to 'panic'.
   
   
2. In assault, 1.12.5 (Resolve attacks, 3rd para says to allocate hits to those units "directly engaged in combat". This is allocating damage to the nearest units. Units in transport are not directly engaged in the combat***, so cannot be allocated hits because they are not in a position to be damaged.
   
   
3. After the assault, 1.12.7 (Work out the result) is different because it is allocating 'panic' to units. These units do not have to be in range to be affected, nor in LoS - so a formation that is clipped with only 2 units in the assault could potentially lose many more units outside the range or LoS of the assault to 'panic'. The same is true for units inside transports who are notionally outside LoS; because 'panic' or Hackdown hits do not require LoS or Range be applied.
   
   Here is the relevant FAQ from 1.12.7
   Quote:
   Q. Are the extra hits the losing formation suffers only applied to units that were directly involved?
   A. No, they are applied to any units in the losing formation.
   
   
4. When allocating BMs to a Broken formation (1.13.4) this is allocating 'panic' to other units in the formation. The same argument from the FAQ to 1.12.7 applies here, these hits do not need LoS or range.

In summary
Shooting and assaults cause damage that needs to respect the location and type of the target when it is allocated.
After these are resolved, Hackdowns and BMs on Broken formations cause 'panic', which is allocated to the units nearest to the threat irrespective of range or LoS.
As a consequence, being inside a Fearless transport does not make units immune to Hackdown hits or other losses. I hope that makes better sense



*** There are exceptions where some transport allows contents to fight in assaults or to shoot, in which case they become eligible to receive hits from the usual processes - but let's ignore these confusions, OK?

Ok so you are now saying you DO apply it the same for shooting as you do for assaults. Not sure what you were trying to say, it would seem simply saying 'yes' to that question would have sufficed

At least it is consistent, even if those interpretations and corresponding FAQs are based on some pretty tenuous logic.

Anyway it's been fun (I know, hard to believe)

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list