According to most, in the last example it is 2. Also if a unit took 3 disrupt hits and 3 normal hits, 2 of which were unsaved, it would be 3+1 = 4 BMs.

You do have to roll them separately and track which hits are saved, it's just that the result of one hit/save does not affect whether to roll another and hence the order does not matter. If you're hit by 1 disrupt and 1 regular hit and save 1 of them, it matters which 1 was saved, but if you rolled the disrupt save first and failed the save, you'd still have to roll the normal save.

Again though, personally I don't really agree that this is the intended interpretation because IMO the language used by the rule indicates it is only representing a situation where there is 1 disrupt hit per unit. I don't think the "extra" normal BM is justified.

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

I agree, a unit failing a hit from a distrupt hit and thus dies to it, should not imo result In further BMs even if it has normal hits allocated to it. Only if the unit survives the distrupt hit is it IMO eligible for further a BM.

In regards to multiple distrupt hits to the same unit, I do believe the rules are clear enough that all those hits should indeed cause BMs to the formation.

But in summary, to answer the question if a Q&A should be added, I do believe, since players seem to play it a bit differently , one might be required to clear up how distrup and normal hits on the same unit should be handled.

The reason I don’t place more BMs when a unit fails it’s save and dies to the distrupt hit, is the end of the rules text, “Any units that fail their save are removed as casualties but do not cause a second Blast marker to be placed on the target formation.” But if that is meant to be isolated to only the distrupt hit, that might need clarification then, when normal hits kill on top of the distrust kill.

Yes I agree, for me it is not at all clear that the last part is intended to only be talking about the disrupt hits. Especially because it switches from a hit-oriented language to a unit-oriented one, and it is already clear that the disrupt BMs are instead. It reads to me that the disrupt rule is replacing the BM allocation rules, not adding to them. But sufficiently ambiguous that it can go either way for sure.

I also agree that the RAW is reasonably clear that each disrupt hit = a BM even if it's multiple hits per unit. I just don't think we can say definitively it is what was intended, because the wording is written with the assumption that 1 hit = 1 unit = 1 BM and doesn't really gel very well with how the allocation rules are written. No matter though. If things are not clear, it's best to follow the RAW as closely as we can.

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