Right - so its barrage hits, then allocate and resolve other hits.

So if I shot a square of 4 units with a MWBP, AP and tk zap I would place template, see who is hit by the MW barrage and mark them, then allocate AP hits, resolve AP hits, then the MW hits manifest themselves if the unit they had hit is still alive but before resolving them I would also allocate the TK hit to any unit not already assigned a MW hit?

And also from a normal barrage it can mean units are double tapped while others are ignored? Rather than any AP hits 'filling in the gaps' in allocation. So if I got on units a,b,c,d all in a line away from the shooter, hits, either normal or MW from a barrage, on units A and D and 2 AP hits it would be 2 hits on unit A and one on units B and D rather than one on each?

And I've just seen E&C's post so in fact its not the same for a barrage of the same type of fire, only for different types of fire? What if its an IC or disrupt barrage?

Unless you prefer Nealhunt's way of doing it.


If following my method, yep that's right.


I'm sure you know what this question means. :-)


Nope, only the difference between AP/TA and MW matters. Just like when you're allocating conventional ranged shooting, you allocate all the AP and AP Disrupt hits at the same time, then allocate all the MW and MW ignores cover in a second block... you dig?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think his third question is, basically: If he has four units in a line, with A closest and D furthest away, and then gets 2 AP hits and 2 barrage hits, then A and B get hit twice while C and D escape, rather than everyone getting hit once.

Well, that's more of a statement the way I put it. Still.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Yeah I understand now. And yeah, that'd only happen with mixed barrages.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This is why I think this is wrong. There should be no "if it's this combination you allocate this way, if it's that combination, you allocate that way" situation.

Isn't it no different to allocating mixed AP and MW shooting?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

No. It is different.

You're proposing that if there are MW barrage hits, that you allocate them to those exact units, but then keep those hits in some sort of suspended status while you allocate the non-MW hits, potentially to the MW targets. The units effectively count as not having any hits allocated them. Hence, you can end up with lots of overlapping hits and lose your MW hits.

Losing MW hits is a big freakin' difference to most people. That can't happen with mixed normal/MW hits. You don't end up with "double tapped" hits with non-barrage allocation (until you've assigned hits to every unit, obviously). You always get them.

What's the point of that "suspended hit" status during allocation? If you're going to do that, why would you allocate them at all?

It preserves the principle that in normal shooting you allocate AP/AT hits and MW hits in separate blocks.

Your method, whilst it may be fairer to the MW Barrage-firer, allocates AP/AT and MW as a single non-overlapping block, which is a modification to the core rule that separates those two shooting types, no?

In the case where the type of shooting matched (AP/AT attacks and a conventional Barrage or MW shooting and a MW Barrage) then I would be allocating as you suggest, maximizing the spread of hits to the widest number of units possible.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Okay, I think I see the issue.

The barrage allocation seemingly violates two principals - non-overlap and separate normal/MW rounds of allocation. We have to decide which of those is more important to preserve.


Personally, I think we should favor not wasting hits. Both the LV and the multi-TK-early-allocation FAQs are focused on not denying the attacker legitimately earned hits. The discussions of whether we should include directed allocation for special ability hits (Disrupt, IC, Lance) were based on that premise. The MWCC change is also arguably based on that idea of non-overlap as well as the overall simplification of assault allocation. Obviously, this is a big hot button with respect to fairness. When pushed on the issue we have already introduced "fudge" processes into the game for preserving that principal (like the LV "just make it work" FAQ). With a "fudge" in line with the precedents, this principal can be preserved.

In contrast, the barrage rules are explicit (though somewhat confusing) in violating the sequence of allocation. The normal/MW split is unavoidably broken. Even if you shoehorn the barrage hits back into the normal/MW split, the split is still not quite repaired, as it were. It can only be partially preserved and only at the expense of causing lost hits.

I'm aware that there is a certain amount of double-edged sword in this argument/position and there are likely some good counterpoints that I'm not seeing at the moment. However, my gut reaction is that the "robbed of my hits" response is always going to be seen as more of a problem than a moderate contortion of the rules to preserve perception of fairness.

I do appreciate the help on my questions, but now I am dazed and confused. Fortunately we have not faced this situation too often. Of the top of my head I can't think of this situation with the IG. I have cases of regular BP and AT/AP weapons shooting together, but no MWBP and AT/AP together. My Eldar opponent does have this with his psychic lance on the Warlock.

So, for non-barrgae AP/AT hits and MW hits it is two distinct hit allocation phases? Its only when we start talking about MWBP that things start to get murky?

Regards

Neal : I'm happy to play with whatever the FAQ ends up having in it. My personal inclination is towards sometimes losing the MW Barrage hits, as it's vaguely analogous to a round of mixed AP/MW shooting that kills everything in range before the MW hits get a chance to be applied (Thus they are "lost" in that case too). But whatever the consensus ends up being is fine with me.


Pretty much, yeah. We appear to have stumbled upon a slightly unclear part of the rules here, but we'll get it sorted out soonish I suspect.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Hi SgtBalicki, I sympathise. Hopefully I have the following summary correct:-

For non-barrage shooting with combined AP/AT and MW hits there are two distinct hit allocation phases :-
1) Allocate and resolve normal hits, then
2) Allocate and resolve MW hits.

If you are combining barrage and other weapons, it is usually simpler to position the barrage template and allocate any barrage hits first, because barrage hits need to be placed on units under the template, and the rules require all hits to be allocated as evenly as possible across the formation.
Note:- Any hits from MW weapons would still be allocated and resolved after normal hits

However, there are a very few aesoteric cases where the fomation contains both normal weapons and a MW barrage tempate. The barrage rules govern the positioning of the MW template, but normal hits 'should' be allocated first, possibly to units under the template and potentially removing all legitimate targets for the MW hits. It is this aspect that is bending the little grey cells more than somewhat.


----------------------
Neal and E&C, I am not sure there is a problem here is there? The statisics involved in gaining hits and saving them means that in practice the 'normal' hits are unlikely to completely remove all the units under the template. So, I would have thought you ought to be able to

• position the template to identify those units eligible for MW hits,
• go through the firing process to identify and pool the relevant hits,
• allocate and resolve 'normal' hits first, ignoring the presence of the template
• finally allocate an resolve MW hits against any units remaining under the template.

Note:- In the unlikely event that all eligible targets have been removed, then you would 'lose' the MW hits, but is that really an issue? After all, for that to occur there must have alredy been a significant kills inflicted on the target formation

I don't think that's the same. You have to kill every target. I'd say that's an overkill issue, not a "lost due to rules" issue. People tend to get a lot less bent about overkill.


Yep.