Strength D blast wound allocation

[Lord Krungharr]

Sorry if this has been covered, but the D rules say each model hit by the weapon, which is normally a blast, has a D6 on the D table rolled for it. Does this mean every model suffers a potentially different fate? Or do all the wounds get counted up, and then enter a wound pool to be allocated closest to the firer per normal shooting attack? And then, these pooled wounds could be Look Out Sirred?

I would vote for the latter normal pool effect. Other blasts just cause one hit per model under the template, and roll once to wound with a 1 wound effect possible. The D blast seems to work the same way, just able to cause WAAAAAAY more wounds. But I am wondering if I'm not thinking of it properly?

Thanks for your replies!

[Ssyrie]

But wouldn't that make it possible to 'snipe' with D blast weapons? The models close to the center would always die, while the ones near the edge might survive. Rolling for each individual model would give each model the same odds of surviving. Not great odds, but at least the same.

[Gleipnir]

STR D blast weapons behave like all other blast weapons in terms of the wounds being resolved from those closest to the firing model first, only the Barrage and Apocalyptic Mega Blast are resolved from the middle.

Basically you would count the number of models in a unit "hit" under the template and then roll for a die for each of them and separate then apply either your 2-5 rolls or 6's rolled in the wound pool first, with Look Out Sir rolls being permitted for each roll, though no other saves.

[daboarder]

No you don't gleipnir.

D weapons very specifically apply multiple WOUNDS to each MODEL under the template.

You roll up 4 wounds on a tac marine and 1 on a captain, the captain only takes the 1 and the tac marine eats 4.

[Gleipnir]

No you don't gleipnir.

D weapons very specifically apply multiple WOUNDS to each MODEL under the template.

You roll up 4 wounds on a tac marine and 1 on a captain, the captain only takes the 1 and the tac marine eats 4.

Correct but the shooting player determines the order mixed wounds in the wound pool are allocated

Maybe I am missing what you are trying to say daboarder are you implying that the wounds are resolved model by model under the template rather than as shooting rules for blast weapons indicates? Because I see no rules that say that, in the Apocalypse or Escalation rules for D weapons, just an alternate table for determining results of a hit from the standard to wound or armor penetration.

The rules for allocating those wounds via Wound Pool and Mixed wounds wouldn't change.

[daboarder]

their is no mixed wound pool

D weapons work like this

place template, scatter, for each individual model Under the template, determine, one at a time, how many wounds THAT model suffers.

[Gleipnir]

their is no mixed wound pool

D weapons work like this

place template, scatter, for each individual model Under the template, determine, one at a time, how many wounds THAT model suffers.

Can you point to the wording that says this in the rules? page number? I could be mistaken but from reading both Escalation and Apocalypse page entries for D weapons neither one says ignore the rules for mixed wounds or the wound pool only to ignore saving throws and feel no pain reanimation protocols etc..

I am not suggesting the a hit that inflicts 2-4 Wounds would be spread among multiple models it would be resolved as a multi wound Wound in the wound pool directed at the closest model, or in the case of Look Out Sir the model closest to the character making the save.

[daboarder]

D weapon rules, Firstly they tell you that the below is HOW you work out their damage. Therefore they don't follow normal allocation. I don't have the normal apocalypse and cant be arsed to get my digital copy off my external.

Then the table shows that you generate wounds, you roll on the table for each model, every result is on a model by model basis. there is no wound pool.

[Gleipnir]

So no you can't point out in the rules where it says that mixed wounds and the wound pool is ignored or that the wounds are resolved model by model for that matter.

[daboarder]

Yes actually I can, but you've clearly got a high horse mate so good for you, I'll wait for one of the others to come here


If a weapon has a D instead of a Strength value in its profile, it means it is a Destroyer
weapon. To resolve a Destroyer weapon's attack, roll To Hit as you would for a
standard attack. If the attack hits, roll on the table below instead of rolling To Wound
or for armour penetration. No saving throws of any kind are allowed against
damage from a Destroyer weapon, including special rolls such as Feel No Pain or
N ecron Reanimation Protocols.


D6 Non-vehicle
1 Lucky Escape: None.
2-5 Seriously Wounded: Lose D3+ 1 Wounds.
6 Deathblow: Lose D6+6 Wounds.

all the results are specific to the model that suffers them, good day

[Gleipnir]

Yes actually I can, but you've clearly got a high horse mate so good for you, I'll wait for one of the others to come here

I apologize if you take my statement to be insulting I sincerely am willing to admit I am wrong if you can demonstrate the wording that would indicate so, I just think you are mistaken(of which all of us can be) and asked for you to detail it in the rules(since you told me I was wrong), rolling on a table separate from To Wound or Armor Penetration has never nullified mixed wounds and the wound pool in the past.(the Reference section even spells out the shooting unit chooses the order allocating mixed wounds from the wound pool for both To Wound rolls and AP rolls)

To my knowledge how wounds/AP/D weapons is allocated is determined by rules for Shooting attacks, including Blast and Template(closest first) Or from the center of the maker for Barrage/Mega-Aplocalyptic Blast, exceptions being rules for Precision shots and Focus Fire, though why you would focus fire a D weapon is beyond me, for that matter I am not certain you can even focus fire a Blast or Template weapon.

In the rules you cite which is verbatim page 72 of the Apocalypse book, nothing says wounds are "allocated" any differently, only that To Wound and Armor Penetration rolls are replaced with a separate table, hits are even determined as a standard attack of its type standard shooting Template, blast etc, model by model is mentioned nowhere, since all standard shooting attacks make use of wound pool and mixed wounds according to the Game Summary spelled out on page 151 of the Mini-BRB, and no contradictory rules are in place to replace them Basic Versus Advanced page 7(the absence of a rule in one section without contradiction, while its inclusion in another section does not negate a basic rule it simply means the basic rule is in effect unless contradicted or stated otherwise)

Ill provide an example for you using Grav weapons.

Grav weapons resolve their effects different than standard To Wound table, does that mean because they use a Special Rule now all the wounds generated by Grav weapons are ineligible for mixed wounds and are allocated on a model per model basis? Of course not. The same can be said for Destroyer Weapons, that have a special rule that replaces the standard To Wound and Armor Penetration rolls is all.

An example using a Shadowsword attacking a onrushing group of 20 Ork Boys with a Warboss behind 10 closer Ork boys in the unit;

Shadowsword rolls to Scatter with Volcano cannon and scatters over 8 Boys in the back of the unit, also fires 2 twin linked heavy bolters hitting 5 times, and hits twice with Lascannons.

Roll to Wound 8 dice for the Cannon(these 8 rolls use the special rules for D weapons), 5 dice for the Heavy Bolters and 2 dice for the Lascannons, end result on the cannon you roll two 1's, five 2-5's(roll D3+1 for each, getting two 2's, one 3 and two 4's), and one 6(roll d6+6 for 9), roll three wounds with the heavy bolters, and two wounds with the lascannons.

The wound Pool is separated into 3 Heavy Bolter shots, 2 lascannon shots, 2 D Weapon attacks that inflict 2 wounds, 1 D weapon attack that inflicts 3 wounds, 2 D weapon attacks that inflict 4 wounds, and one D weapon shot that inflicts 9 wounds.

As the shooting player I choose the order I wish to resolve the different wound types by pool, wounds are allocated based on closest enemy first I choose to allocate Bolters and lascannon first, orcs are in the open and fearless so cannot go to ground, no armor save so 5 closest orks die to bolts and lascannons, I then assign the five weaker D weapon attacks killing the next 5 closest Orks, I then assign the strongest 9 wound attack against the Warboss, who makes a Look Out Sir roll and vaporizes the Ork boy closest to him.

Had the Warboss been to the front of the unit I would have resolved the attacks in the opposite order to force as many Look Out Sir rolls as possible

Same Shadowsword firing at a squadron of Leman Russ the closest model 40" away and obscured the other two in the open but more than 4" apart, hits with Volcano cannon and one of two Lascannon shots, chooses to resolve the volcano cannon first rolling to wound with a 4 on the D weapon table causing an Explodes result(with no cover save permitted for being obscured), then roll for Armor Penetration with Lascannon on next closest Leman Russ scoring an glancing hit on its front armor.(no saves)

[Gleipnir]

all the results are specific to the model that suffers them, good day

This statement is nowhere in the rules and is purely opinion, but thanks for wishing me a good day all the same

Nothing there indicates the rules for Wound Pool(pg.14), Mixed Wounds(pg.15) or the order said wounds or special rules are allocated is changed from closest model first(pg.15), shooting player sets the order different STR wounds, AP or special rules are resolved, Destroyer weapon effects is a special rule, Psyker advanced rules contain special rules, as do Vehicle advanced rules. The rules define special rules as "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules(pg.10-31), it is represented by a special rule." Pg.32

Since having a Wound Pool or Mixed wounds and allocating Destroyer attacks closest model first does not "contradict" the basic rules(pg.7) only the To Wound table being used and removing the ability to save, the only thing being bent is that.

The game turn summary pg.151 Mini-BRB or pg. 427 BRB for shooting attacks supports this. It applied the Vehicle's Armor Penetration special rules to the basic rule shooting sequence w/o removing the wound pool or mixed wounds.

[Semaj14]

I cam see where the thought of each model taking these wounds are. And if I'm not mistaken that's how we used it at the GW store I played an apock game at with an official gw employee overseeing the battle. On the destroyer weapon attack table (pg17 in escalation) for wounding non vehicle models it says
1. Lucky escape
The model is unharmed
2. Seriously wounded
The model looses d3ect ect
3.deathblow
the model loses ect ect

Between a gw store manager and that wording I would say its dealt on a model by model basis. Of course you still count how many models are touched by the template and then work it out closest to the fierer as per normal allocation.

[Gleipnir]

Yeah I understand people being confused by it as well since 5th edition would have resolved it model by model for those units hit rather than allocating wounds per 6th edition rules, closest first in the order of attacks of the shooting player's choice.

It also plays out faster resolving hits model by model under the blast marker which is another reason people resolve it wrong I found.

I may be incorrect about resolving the effects of special rules prior to the saving throw however, meaning the D3+1 wounds rolls and D6+6 roll, though may need to be allocated and then resolved model by model after any saves Look out Sir rolls etc.. if applicable. The game summary for penetrating hits seems to indicate this.

[Nabterayl]

Shadowsword rolls to Scatter with Volcano cannon and scatters over 8 Boys in the back of the unit, also fires 2 twin linked heavy bolters hitting 5 times, and hits twice with Lascannons.

Roll to Wound 8 dice for the Cannon(these 8 rolls use the special rules for D weapons), 5 dice for the Heavy Bolters and 2 dice for the Lascannons, end result on the cannon you roll two 1's, five 2-5's(roll D3+1 for each, getting two 2's, one 3 and two 4's), and one 6(roll d6+6 for 9), roll three wounds with the heavy bolters, and two wounds with the lascannons.

The wound Pool is separated into 3 Heavy Bolter shots, 2 lascannon shots, 2 D Weapon attacks that inflict 2 wounds, 1 D weapon attack that inflicts 3 wounds, 2 D weapon attacks that inflict 4 wounds, and one D weapon shot that inflicts 9 wounds.

As the shooting player I choose the order I wish to resolve the different wound types by pool, wounds are allocated based on closest enemy first I choose to allocate Bolters and lascannon first, orcs are in the open and fearless so cannot go to ground, no armor save so 5 closest orks die to bolts and lascannons, I then assign the five weaker D weapon attacks killing the next 5 closest Orks, I then assign the strongest 9 wound attack against the Warboss, who makes a Look Out Sir roll and vaporizes the Ork boy closest to him.

As far as I can tell this is all anybody was ever arguing for. It's certainly how I read the rule. As long as one remembers that no Destroyer hit can kill more than one model, regardless of what you roll on the Destroyer weapon table, you're good - whatever you want to call that.

[Lord Krungharr]

I apologize if you take my statement to be insulting I sincerely am willing to admit I am wrong if you can demonstrate the wording that would indicate so, I just think you are mistaken(of which all of us can be) and asked for you to detail it in the rules(since you told me I was wrong), rolling on a table separate from To Wound or Armor Penetration has never nullified mixed wounds and the wound pool in the past.(the Reference section even spells out the shooting unit chooses the order allocating mixed wounds from the wound pool for both To Wound rolls and AP rolls)

To my knowledge how wounds/AP/D weapons is allocated is determined by rules for Shooting attacks, including Blast and Template(closest first) Or from the center of the maker for Barrage/Mega-Aplocalyptic Blast, exceptions being rules for Precision shots and Focus Fire, though why you would focus fire a D weapon is beyond me, for that matter I am not certain you can even focus fire a Blast or Template weapon.

In the rules you cite which is verbatim page 72 of the Apocalypse book, nothing says wounds are "allocated" any differently, only that To Wound and Armor Penetration rolls are replaced with a separate table, hits are even determined as a standard attack of its type standard shooting Template, blast etc, model by model is mentioned nowhere, since all standard shooting attacks make use of wound pool and mixed wounds according to the Game Summary spelled out on page 151 of the Mini-BRB, and no contradictory rules are in place to replace them Basic Versus Advanced page 7(the absence of a rule in one section without contradiction, while its inclusion in another section does not negate a basic rule it simply means the basic rule is in effect unless contradicted or stated otherwise)

Ill provide an example for you using Grav weapons.

Grav weapons resolve their effects different than standard To Wound table, does that mean because they use a Special Rule now all the wounds generated by Grav weapons are ineligible for mixed wounds and are allocated on a model per model basis? Of course not. The same can be said for Destroyer Weapons, that have a special rule that replaces the standard To Wound and Armor Penetration rolls is all.

An example using a Shadowsword attacking a onrushing group of 20 Ork Boys with a Warboss behind 10 closer Ork boys in the unit;

Shadowsword rolls to Scatter with Volcano cannon and scatters over 8 Boys in the back of the unit, also fires 2 twin linked heavy bolters hitting 5 times, and hits twice with Lascannons.

Roll to Wound 8 dice for the Cannon(these 8 rolls use the special rules for D weapons), 5 dice for the Heavy Bolters and 2 dice for the Lascannons, end result on the cannon you roll two 1's, five 2-5's(roll D3+1 for each, getting two 2's, one 3 and two 4's), and one 6(roll d6+6 for 9), roll three wounds with the heavy bolters, and two wounds with the lascannons.

The wound Pool is separated into 3 Heavy Bolter shots, 2 lascannon shots, 2 D Weapon attacks that inflict 2 wounds, 1 D weapon attack that inflicts 3 wounds, 2 D weapon attacks that inflict 4 wounds, and one D weapon shot that inflicts 9 wounds.

As the shooting player I choose the order I wish to resolve the different wound types by pool, wounds are allocated based on closest enemy first I choose to allocate Bolters and lascannon first, orcs are in the open and fearless so cannot go to ground, no armor save so 5 closest orks die to bolts and lascannons, I then assign the five weaker D weapon attacks killing the next 5 closest Orks, I then assign the strongest 9 wound attack against the Warboss, who makes a Look Out Sir roll and vaporizes the Ork boy closest to him.

Had the Warboss been to the front of the unit I would have resolved the attacks in the opposite order to force as many Look Out Sir rolls as possible

Same Shadowsword firing at a squadron of Leman Russ the closest model 40" away and obscured the other two in the open but more than 4" apart, hits with Volcano cannon and one of two Lascannon shots, chooses to resolve the volcano cannon first rolling to wound with a 4 on the D weapon table causing an Explodes result(with no cover save permitted for being obscured), then roll for Armor Penetration with Lascannon on next closest Leman Russ scoring an glancing hit on its front armor.(no saves)


Grav weapons don't wound by a blast, so any argument that they would use a different type of wound allocation is moot.

I am still uncertain as to which form of wound allocation is correct with D-blasts. But I did notice in the Vortex rules, which are always blasts of some sort, they say for Wound Allocation treat it as Barrage. So that would suggest a normal form of Wound Allocation is to be used with D weapons of all sorts....that is start closest to the firing model and go from there. However this seems to contradict the D weapon rule that says which model is hit rolls a separate result on the table.

Option 1) If we take the Shadowsword example above to be correct, it would in fact NOT follow normal Wound Allocation rules. ALL D wounds from the Volcano Cannon are in fact the same and would be in the same pool. Each result on the D table doesn't change the nature of the wound, just the quantity of wounds suffered. So in the above example there would be 24 D wounds to be allocated, not just 8.

Option 2) If we say that one D blast hit can ONLY kill 1 model, then we also violate normal Wound Allocation rules because all of the wounds are the same type from the same weapon, and thus should all be in the same pool. There's also no rule saying each D-table result should be in a different pool. I would certainly rather have it that way though, as yesterday 3 JuggerHeralds and 18 FleshHounds got D blasted off the table because we did it the Option 1 way.

Option 3) If we say each model suffers the result of the D-table it rolls for the hit(s) it suffers, then yes, the D-blasts can snipe like nothing else. So in theory you could have a single model suffering 12 D wounds, but they would not carry over to other models. The D weapon rules suggest it's supposed to be like this, but that snippet in the Vortex rules about Barrage suggest otherwise.

This is why GW pisses everyone off, a superb example of VERY poorly thought out rules, and I might add, needlessly overpowered rules. Like I mentioned, yesterday my 2250 game of Khorne Daemons w Angraath and Void Shield Generator lasted 3 turns vs an Eldar army with 6 Wave Serpents and a Revenant Titan w 2 pulsars. The only reason it didn't end Turn 2 was because he D blasted Angraath first rather than dropping the Voids with the Wave Serpents.

It's just stupid o.p. and will segregate the gamers into those who refuse to play with this crap, and those that must have the ever-bigger stuff just to keep up, and then getting upset when a bunch of other people never want to play against them. It's just gonna boil down to games using Reavers with Coteaz or Vect as Allies to see who gets to go first. Very lame.

I would readily vote to use the old D weapon rules frankly, maybe even saying successful invul saves have to be re-rolled against them or giving the D-blasts Barrage.

[Gleipnir]

Grav weapons don't wound by a blast, so any argument that they would use a different type of wound allocation is moot.

I am still uncertain as to which form of wound allocation is correct with D-blasts. But I did notice in the Vortex rules, which are always blasts of some sort, they say for Wound Allocation treat it as Barrage. So that would suggest a normal form of Wound Allocation is to be used with D weapons of all sorts....that is start closest to the firing model and go from there. However this seems to contradict the D weapon rule that says which model is hit rolls a separate result on the table.

Option 1) If we take the Shadowsword example above to be correct, it would in fact NOT follow normal Wound Allocation rules. ALL D wounds from the Volcano Cannon are in fact the same and would be in the same pool. Each result on the D table doesn't change the nature of the wound, just the quantity of wounds suffered. So in the above example there would be 24 D wounds to be allocated, not just 8.

Mixed Wounds are separated by Strength, AP and Special rules, Destroyer is a special rule, so you are allocating the results of each Destroyer special rule one at a time not totaling the sum of the wounds and allocating them all separately


Option 2) If we say that one D blast hit can ONLY kill 1 model, then we also violate normal Wound Allocation rules because all of the wounds are the same type from the same weapon, and thus should all be in the same pool. There's also no rule saying each D-table result should be in a different pool. I would certainly rather have it that way though, as yesterday 3 JuggerHeralds and 18 FleshHounds got D blasted off the table because we did it the Option 1 way.

Again nothing in the Destroyer rules tells you to change how wounds are allocated(only the special rules table to use in place of the Roll To Wound and Armor Penetration), in fact they often specify to use the normal methods, you could argue that you would not roll to determine the results of each D weapon hit that is allocated prior to allocating it, but apart from firing on Vehicle Squadrons there is not much precedence for doing so.


Option 3) If we say each model suffers the result of the D-table it rolls for the hit(s) it suffers, then yes, the D-blasts can snipe like nothing else. So in theory you could have a single model suffering 12 D wounds, but they would not carry over to other models. The D weapon rules suggest it's supposed to be like this, but that snippet in the Vortex rules about Barrage suggest otherwise.

Nothing in the D weapon rules suggest it changes how wounds are allocated, Shooting and blast attacks are closest to the firing unit first, assault is base contact first, and barrage is closest to the middle, when two options are equidistant the controlling player decides who to allocate it to.


This is why GW pisses everyone off, a superb example of VERY poorly thought out rules, and I might add, needlessly overpowered rules. Like I mentioned, yesterday my 2250 game of Khorne Daemons w Angraath and Void Shield Generator lasted 3 turns vs an Eldar army with 6 Wave Serpents and a Revenant Titan w 2 pulsars. The only reason it didn't end Turn 2 was because he D blasted Angraath first rather than dropping the Voids with the Wave Serpents.

It's just stupid o.p. and will segregate the gamers into those who refuse to play with this crap, and those that must have the ever-bigger stuff just to keep up, and then getting upset when a bunch of other people never want to play against them. It's just gonna boil down to games using Reavers with Coteaz or Vect as Allies to see who gets to go first. Very lame.

Yes and no gamers will find the most point efficient means of dealing with the most egregious D weapon abuse. Whether it be by spamming ridiculous amounts of Void Shields, or flyers, though it is severely unbalancing when you allow the D weapon titans in but restrict Apocalypse formations to react to them, and does make for one more option a take all comers list has to account for often at a severely high point cost, which is why I would advocate for a 25% Lord of War point cap.

[George Labour]

daboarder is doing it correctly and what's written in the book is the way it's meant to be played.

There's no 'pool' of wounds or adding up of anything involved. You just roll a dice for each specific model and look on the chart. Boom, done.

[Gleipnir]

daboarder is doing it correctly and what's written in the book is the way it's meant to be played.

There's no 'pool' of wounds or adding up of anything involved. You just roll a dice for each specific model and look on the chart. Boom, done.

5th edition yes

current 6th edition rules you couldn't be more wrong, nothing in the Destroyer "special rule" tells you to ignore either how wounds are allocated (pg 14, pg 33 for Blast, and pg. 77 for vehicle squadrons) or how mixed wounds are combined (Wound Pool pg.14, Mixed Wounds pg.15) both of those are basic rules, so doesn't take much reading to actually cover them all.

Of course if you can cite an actual rule that tells me to allocate the wounds the way you think they should be I'm listening

[Lord Krungharr]

Gleipnir, you keep saying "nothing in the Destroyer "special rule" tells you...", but in fact they do tell us something. The D rules say each model hit rolls a D6 on the table. That strongly suggests the intent that each model hit has the result rolled for that model and suffers only that result. But this is why there's mass confusion, as that is certainly contrary to normal methods of determining the wound pools/wound allocation for D-blasts (if any in this case). Why would Vortex mention Barrage and the regular D rules not mention anything about where the wounds are allocated from?

None of the options discussed thus far satisfy the D weapon rules AND the BRB rules.

I think if it were changed to 'for each model hit, roll a D6, and the unit suffers that number of wounds...' then it would be much more clear. But that's not what is written, though perhaps it is what was intended. Unfortunately, that will mean VASTLY more damage to a unit than just resolving the D rolls on each model hit unto itself with no carry over of wounds.

That's why I would say for balance, one could have the unit suffer a number of D rolls equal to the number of models hit, then allocate each hit rather than wounds starting closest to the firing model like normal. Then each result could not kill more than 1 model, which is fair IMO. And there is precedent for that with the FAQ about Swarms and Instant Death Templates, where 1 Template hit only can kill 1 Swarm: the doubling of wounds does not carry over.

Again, that does not satisfy BRB, but I think with the state of D weapons, that is the most fair way to have it. Of course if it were a Vortex, the results would be allocated from the template hole, per Barrage, like the Vortex rules state.

[Gleipnir]

Gleipnir, you keep saying "nothing in the Destroyer "special rule" tells you...", but in fact they do tell us something. The D rules say each model hit rolls a D6 on the table. That strongly suggests the intent that each model hit has the result rolled for that model and suffers only that result. But this is why there's mass confusion, as that is certainly contrary to normal methods of determining the wound pools/wound allocation for D-blasts (if any in this case). Why would Vortex mention Barrage and the regular D rules not mention anything about where the wounds are allocated from?

None of the options discussed thus far satisfy the D weapon rules AND the BRB rules.

I think if it were changed to 'for each model hit, roll a D6, and the unit suffers that number of wounds...' then it would be much more clear. But that's not what is written, though perhaps it is what was intended. Unfortunately, that will mean VASTLY more damage to a unit than just resolving the D rolls on each model hit unto itself with no carry over of wounds.

That's why I would say for balance, one could have the unit suffer a number of D rolls equal to the number of models hit, then allocate each hit rather than wounds starting closest to the firing model like normal. Then each result could not kill more than 1 model, which is fair IMO. And there is precedent for that with the FAQ about Swarms and Instant Death Templates, where 1 Template hit only can kill 1 Swarm: the doubling of wounds does not carry over.

Again, that does not satisfy BRB, but I think with the state of D weapons, that is the most fair way to have it. Of course if it were a Vortex, the results would be allocated from the template hole, per Barrage, like the Vortex rules state.

Lord, you need to read the actual text for the Destroyer rule man, nowhere does it say each model hit rolls d6 on the table.

In fact the rule specifically says;

If a weapon has a D instead of a Strength value in its profile, it means it is a Destroyer weapon. To resolve a Destroyer weapon’s attack, roll To Hit as you would for a standard attack. If the attack hits, roll on the table to the right instead of rolling To Wound or for armour penetration. No saving throws of any kind are allowed against damage from a Destroyer weapon, including special rolls such as Feel No Pain or Necron Reanimation Protocols.

Nothing in that wording says change how either Wound Pool or Mixed Wounds(which reference attacks w/special rules) or how hits/wounds are allocated to targets, all that changes is you roll on the D weapon table instead of the Roll To Wound Table or Armor Penetration, and the target that has a D weapon hit allocated to it cannot make saves or Feel no Pain etc.. Though Look Out Sir, since it is not mentioned and is not a save is permitted. Blast weapons determine target for allocating wounds closest first, until the D weapon wound pool is empty(no I am not saying you total the wounds scored from rolls with D weapons, its a special rule and the basic rules cover how those are handled in the wound pool you resolve each D weapon 1 target at a time as you would a standard attack of its profile in the case of Blast as a shooting attack closest model first)

[Nabterayl]

each result could not kill more than 1 model
Are you guys actually disagreeing? Gleipnir, are you contending that the number of models killed by a Destroyer weapon can exceed the number of hits inflicted by a Destroyer weapon? I've found your posts unclear on that point.

[Gleipnir]

Are you guys actually disagreeing? Gleipnir, are you contending that the number of models killed by a Destroyer weapon can exceed the number of hits inflicted by a Destroyer weapon? I've found your posts unclear on that point.

no i've never contended that 1 D hit results in more than 1 models death, nor have any of the examples I've provided ever said that.

BTW Nab I've successfully gotten 4 separate(and each different) answers from GW red shirts(store manger, email and 2 separate CSRs) on that Vortex rule we were talking about before, so cross your fingers for some form of FAQ at somepoint :) But don't hold your breath, wouldn't want you to asphyxiate.

[Nabterayl]

no i've never contended that 1 D hit results in more than 1 models death, nor have any of the examples I've provided ever said that.
Okay ... I thought that was your position.

And it pretty clearly seems to be Krungharr's position too. So ... what is the disagreement in this thread again? I seem to have missed it.?

[Gleipnir]

They are arguing that models under a D weapon Blast template are hit by the D weapon and said hits are rolled for against those models under the template model by model in the old 5th edition fashion rather than following the rules for allocating wounds closest model first in the unit hit per the rules for shooting attacks which is the rules that blast weapons use for 6th edition

The ability to bury key units to the back of a unit is really the only form of defense for units with the new 6th edition no saves allowed D weapons, so not sure why so many folks want to use the 5th edition method of allocating the hits.

[daboarder]

hold on. Gleipnir could you explain giving an example, your stance on this issue.

[Gleipnir]

Reposted from earlier in the thread.

I apologize if you take my statement to be insulting I sincerely am willing to admit I am wrong if you can demonstrate the wording that would indicate so, I just think you are mistaken(of which all of us can be) and asked for you to detail it in the rules(since you told me I was wrong), rolling on a table separate from To Wound or Armor Penetration has never nullified mixed wounds and the wound pool in the past.(the Reference section even spells out the shooting unit chooses the order allocating mixed wounds from the wound pool for both To Wound rolls and AP rolls)

To my knowledge how wounds/AP/D weapons is allocated is determined by rules for Shooting attacks, including Blast and Template(closest first) Or from the center of the maker for Barrage/Mega-Aplocalyptic Blast, exceptions being rules for Precision shots and Focus Fire, though why you would focus fire a D weapon is beyond me, for that matter I am not certain you can even focus fire a Blast or Template weapon.

In the rules you cite which is verbatim page 72 of the Apocalypse book, nothing says wounds are "allocated" any differently, only that To Wound and Armor Penetration rolls are replaced with a separate table, hits are even determined as a standard attack of its type standard shooting Template, blast etc, model by model is mentioned nowhere, since all standard shooting attacks make use of wound pool and mixed wounds according to the Game Summary spelled out on page 151 of the Mini-BRB, and no contradictory rules are in place to replace them Basic Versus Advanced page 7(the absence of a rule in one section without contradiction, while its inclusion in another section does not negate a basic rule it simply means the basic rule is in effect unless contradicted or stated otherwise)

Ill provide an example for you using Grav weapons.

Grav weapons resolve their effects different than standard To Wound table, does that mean because they use a Special Rule now all the wounds generated by Grav weapons are ineligible for mixed wounds and are allocated on a model per model basis? Of course not. The same can be said for Destroyer Weapons, that have a special rule that replaces the standard To Wound and Armor Penetration rolls is all.

An example using a Shadowsword attacking a onrushing group of 20 Ork Boys with a Warboss behind 10 closer Ork boys in the unit;

Shadowsword rolls to Scatter with Volcano cannon and scatters over 8 Boys in the back of the unit, also fires 2 twin linked heavy bolters hitting 5 times, and hits twice with Lascannons.

Roll to Wound 8 dice for the Cannon(these 8 rolls use the special rules for D weapons), 5 dice for the Heavy Bolters and 2 dice for the Lascannons, end result on the cannon you roll two 1's, five 2-5's(roll D3+1 for each, getting two 2's, one 3 and two 4's), and one 6(roll d6+6 for 9), roll three wounds with the heavy bolters, and two wounds with the lascannons.

The wound Pool is separated into 3 Heavy Bolter shots, 2 lascannon shots, 2 D Weapon attacks that inflict 2 wounds, 1 D weapon attack that inflicts 3 wounds, 2 D weapon attacks that inflict 4 wounds, and one D weapon shot that inflicts 9 wounds.

As the shooting player I choose the order I wish to resolve the different wound types by pool, wounds are allocated based on closest enemy first I choose to allocate Bolters and lascannon first, orcs are in the open and fearless so cannot go to ground, no armor save so 5 closest orks die to bolts and lascannons, I then assign the five weaker D weapon attacks killing the next 5 closest Orks, I then assign the strongest 9 wound attack against the Warboss, who makes a Look Out Sir roll and vaporizes the Ork boy closest to him.

Had the Warboss been to the front of the unit I would have resolved the attacks in the opposite order to force as many Look Out Sir rolls as possible

Same Shadowsword firing at a squadron of Leman Russ the closest model 40" away and obscured the other two in the open but more than 4" apart, hits with Volcano cannon and one of two Lascannon shots, chooses to resolve the volcano cannon first rolling to wound with a 4 on the D weapon table causing an Explodes result(with no cover save permitted for being obscured), then roll for Armor Penetration with Lascannon on next closest Leman Russ scoring an glancing hit on its front armor.(no saves)

[Nabterayl]

hits are rolled for against those models under the template model by model in the old 5th edition fashion
That's not the 5th edition method of allocating wounds, or of determining who got hit by a blast weapon. In 5th edition the position of a blast marker was only relevant for counting how many hits were scored; where those hits went after that followed another mechanic entirely (defender's choice, subject to the rules for buckets of "identical" models).

But either way, of course Destroyer has nothing to do, by itself, with determining which models in the target unit suffer the results of a Destroyer hit. Yes, the Destroyer table that takes the place of the To Wound table and the armor penetration mechanic does reference "the model." But to figure out which model is "the" model we need to fall back on more basic principles, as Gleipnir has been saying.

This was laid out correctly on the first page. If we have a Destroyer blast weapon, we roll for scatter and ask how many models in the target unit are under the marker. Let's say there are four. Following the normal procedure for shooting, we then roll to wound. Destroyer interrupts us at this point and tells us to roll on the Destroyer table instead, so we do. Let's say we roll a 1, a 2, a 4, and a 6. Following the normal procedure for shooting, we allocate one of these wound replacements to the nearest model (who may or may not have been one of the four models physically under the marker). Shooting player decides to allocate the 1 to the nearest model. Nearest model obviously survives. Shooting player then decides to allocate the 2 to the nearest model. The nearest model loses 1d3+1 Wounds. Let's say it survives that. Shooting player then decides to allocate the 4 to the nearest model. It loses another 1d3+1 Wounds. Let's say that kills it. Shooting player then allocates the 6 to the new nearest model. That model loses 1d6+6 Wounds. Attack is over.

That's always the procedure. The only variable is whether, when we say "nearest model," whether we mean nearest to the shooter or nearest to the center of the blast marker. But Destroyer doesn't affect that at all.

We can tell the same story with Look Out, Sir! included. Let's keep all the same rolls as above, but this time stipulate that the nearest model is a character. The shooting player decides to allocate the 1 to the nearest model. It obviously survives. It then decides to allocate the 2 to the nearest model. The defending player decides to use Look Out, Sir! to move that 2 to the next nearest model. Let's say he succeeds. The model nearest the nearest model takes the 2 and loses 1d3+1 Wounds. The attacking player then decides to allocate the 4 to the nearest model, who so far has lost no Wounds. The defending player decides to use Look Out, Sir! on the 4 as well. Let's say he succeeds. The model nearest the nearest model (who could, in theory, be the same guy who suffered the effects of the 2) loses 1d3+1 Wounds. The attacking then allocates the 6 to the nearest model, who still has lost no Wounds. The defending player can choose to use Look Out, Sir! on the 6 as well, if he wishes.

[Gleipnir]

That's not the 5th edition method of allocating wounds, or of determining who got hit by a blast weapon. In 5th edition the position of a blast marker was only relevant for counting how many hits were scored; where those hits went after that followed another mechanic entirely (defender's choice, subject to the rules for buckets of "identical" models).

But either way, of course Destroyer has nothing to do, by itself, with determining which models in the target unit suffer the results of a Destroyer hit. Yes, the Destroyer table that takes the place of the To Wound table and the armor penetration mechanic does reference "the model." But to figure out which model is "the" model we need to fall back on more basic principles, as Gleipnir has been saying.

This was laid out correctly on the first page. If we have a Destroyer blast weapon, we roll for scatter and ask how many models in the target unit are under the marker. Let's say there are four. Following the normal procedure for shooting, we then roll to wound. Destroyer interrupts us at this point and tells us to roll on the Destroyer table instead, so we do. Let's say we roll a 1, a 2, a 4, and a 6. Following the normal procedure for shooting, we allocate one of these wound replacements to the nearest model (who may or may not have been one of the four models physically under the marker). Shooting player decides to allocate the 1 to the nearest model. Nearest model obviously survives. Shooting player then decides to allocate the 2 to the nearest model. The nearest model loses 1d3+1 Wounds. Let's say it survives that. Shooting player then decides to allocate the 4 to the nearest model. It loses another 1d3+1 Wounds. Let's say that kills it. Shooting player then allocates the 6 to the new nearest model. That model loses 1d6+6 Wounds. Attack is over.

That's always the procedure. The only variable is whether, when we say "nearest model," whether we mean nearest to the shooter or nearest to the center of the blast marker. But Destroyer doesn't affect that at all.

Don't disagree with any of this, well apart from the obvious Focus Fire and Precision Shots exceptions.

When I referred to the 5th edition method I was referring to the 5th edition means of resolving Instant Death wounds to models hit under the blast template of a Destroyer weapon, based on the old 5th edition rules and FAQs

[daboarder]

right ok I get you now

[Buddhist_Possum]

I gotta go with daboarder here. The fact that the d6 role can result in more actual wounds than models hit would lean towards each MODEL rolls a dice.

D6 - 1
Vehicle or Building - Clipped: The target suffers a penetrating hit.
Non-vehicle - Lucky Escape: The model is unharmed.

D6 - 2-5
Vehicle or Building - Solid Hit: A Super-heavy vehicle loses D3+1 Hull Points. Other
vehicles suffer an Explodes! result from the Vehicle Damage table. Buildings suffer a
Detonation! result from the Building Damage table.
Non-vehicle - Seriously Wounded: The model loses D3+1 Wounds.

D6 - 6
Vehicle or Building - Devastating Hit: As for Solid Hit, above, except a Super-heavy
vehicle loses D6+6 Hull Points instead.
Non-vehicle - Deathblow: The model loses D6+6 Wounds.

Let's say you hit a termagaunt pile and get 6 hits. Then you roll 6d6, all resulting in a 2+. That would mean you get 12 minimum wounds from that, instead of just 6 gaunts.

I'm pretty sure it's a model by model basis, otherwise you could get twice/three times more wounds from these.

It's the ultimate shot, more or less. It just eradicates that circle.

[Gleipnir]

No one here is debating how many models are removed from D weapon hits.

As the thread is entitled its about how the wounds are allocated which in the case of D weapons that are shooting attacks, Blast or Template are allocated to the closest target in the unit hit first regardless of where the template lands in said unit,

Vortex D weapons and Apocalyptic Mega Blast D weapons are allocated to the model nearest to the center first.

That said you can play it wrong all you want the game has that wonderful roll for it rule and that's what house rules are for.

[Lord Krungharr]

Mmkay, I think I'm with you now.

Rather than summing up all the wounds from all the results and allocating those like we would for a normal blast, instead for a D-blast, we must determine how many models are hit by the blast and then either:

1) Allocate hits, rolling a result for each starting with the model closest to the firing model.

or

2) determine quantity of hits, then roll all results on D table, and allocate the results for each hit, starting with the model closest to the firing model.

Either of these ways would not be able to kill more than 1 model per hit. So the question remains, does one allocate hits and roll the D-table result separately model by model starting with the closest? Or does one first roll all those results, keep them in pools of 1s, 2-5s, and 6s, then allocate the results? I'm feeling the latter method makes more sense, it reminds me of Rending weapons. Rolled all at once, needing a base roll to wound with special case on 6s....

I do think that Look Out Sir could NOT be used to reallocate a hit or D-table result however, as Look Out Sir only reallocates a wound.

[Nabterayl]

Or does one first roll all those results, keep them in pools of 1s, 2-5s, and 6s, then allocate the results? I'm feeling the latter method makes more sense, it reminds me of Rending weapons. Rolled all at once, needing a base roll to wound with special case on 6s....
This is the way that makes the most sense to me. Destroyer tells us to roll on the Destroyer table instead of the To Wound table, but that's all it tells us to substitute. Thus, the method that makes the fewest changes from the normal method seems to me the closest to the text, and that would be the three-pool approach you outline above (and that Gleipnir and I have used in our examples).


I do think that Look Out Sir could NOT be used to reallocate a hit or D-table result however, as Look Out Sir only reallocates a wound.
This is a fair point. I don't think I would object to somebody using Look Out, Sir! on a 2-5 or a 6 from a Destroyer hit, but I think you're right that, technically, those results are neither Wounds nor unsaved Wounds.

[Gleipnir]

I wouldn't have an issue with someone pooling all the D weapon hits then rolling on the D weapon table after its been allocated closest model first, frankly the order that special rules are resolved in relation to everything else in the Allocate Wound & Remove Casualty phase varies from rule example to rule example so often its murky at best in terms of when it actually occurs, example for vehicles you roll on the Vehicle Penetrating Hit table after the wound is allocated and all saves if applicable have been taken. There are additional Special Rules examples that imply you should roll on thier table or generate thier effect to determine the results prior to allocating the wound however.

In the spirit of the rule description for Mixed Wounds though I prefer to determine what results I can and allow the shooting player to determine the order they are applied as normal though so he can put the different types of wounds(STR, AP, Special rule) in the order that benefits him most since the defending player can already somewhat control what is hit first by virtue of his own unit positioning.

[Defenestratus]

Hrmph

We've been playing it such that the hits cause that many wounds to the squad.

Otherwise D-weapons are ridiculously underpowered and our apoc games would take days if not weeks to complete.

There's no reason why a Revenant shouldn't blow away a mob of 30 orks with one of its arms.

But Gleipnir's explanation makes the most sense... damnit.

[Nabterayl]

Yeah, D weapons aren't for eliminating huge swaths of enemies. That's the niche filled by the lower Strength, bigger template weapons. Destroyer weapons are for punching out really hard targets. Personally I think that's all to the good; it makes the range of weapons that titans can carry less useless than the alternative would.

[Buddhist_Possum]

No one here is debating how many models are removed from D weapon hits.

As the thread is entitled its about how the wounds are allocated which in the case of D weapons that are shooting attacks, Blast or Template are allocated to the closest target in the unit hit first regardless of where the template lands in said unit,

Vortex D weapons and Apocalyptic Mega Blast D weapons are allocated to the model nearest to the center first.

That said you can play it wrong all you want the game has that wonderful roll for it rule and that's what house rules are for.

Actually we are, because you are trying to take wounds from the front and your misunderstanding of the rules would put more wounds into the pool and destroy more models (from the front).

Wounds are allocated on a model by model basis. The rule even says "roll to hit as normal". It doesn't say anything about rolling to wound as normal. It says "roll on the chart" which has "The model loses D3+1 Wounds", for example.

It doesn't say "takes wounds", it says "loses wounds". It also says "model", not "unit".

No one here is going to be convinced by another person so it all moot, but this is the clearest interpretation of the rule. I would never play against someone who is like:

"My D blast did 24 wounds to your unit".
"But you only hit 6 guys"
"Wound allocation says I did 24 wounds"
"Nope" -flips table

It just doesn't make sense. If they wanted you to wipe a UNIT with them, they would be apocalyptic blast! (Larger blast, get it?)

And yes, all this goes back to your blast wound allocation theory.

[Buddhist_Possum]

Yeah, D weapons aren't for eliminating huge swaths of enemies. That's the niche filled by the lower Strength, bigger template weapons. Destroyer weapons are for punching out really hard targets. Personally I think that's all to the good; it makes the range of weapons that titans can carry less useless than the alternative would.

This guy gets it.

[Gleipnir]

Actually we are, because you are trying to take wounds from the front and your misunderstanding of the rules would put more wounds into the pool and destroy more models (from the front).

Wounds are allocated on a model by model basis. The rule even says "roll to hit as normal". It doesn't say anything about rolling to wound as normal. It says "roll on the chart" which has "The model loses D3+1 Wounds", for example.

It doesn't say "takes wounds", it says "loses wounds". It also says "model", not "unit".

No one here is going to be convinced by another person so it all moot, but this is the clearest interpretation of the rule. I would never play against someone who is like:

"My D blast did 24 wounds to your unit".
"But you only hit 6 guys"
"Wound allocation says I did 24 wounds"
"Nope" -flips table

It just doesn't make sense. If they wanted you to wipe a UNIT with them, they would be apocalyptic blast! (Larger blast, get it?)

And yes, all this goes back to your blast wound allocation theory.

Buddhist its not that long a thread, read it and you will not see anyone saying a D hit spreads its wounds among multiple models apart from yourself, a D weapon large blast that hits(ie covers 8 models) only removes at most 8 models.

[Buddhist_Possum]

Buddhist its not that long a thread, read it and you will not see anyone saying a D hit spreads its wounds among multiple models apart from yourself, a D weapon large blast that hits(ie covers 8 models) only removes at most 8 models.

So you're saying you can never have more wounds than hits?
Where's that rule?

[Gleipnir]

So you're saying you can never have more wounds than hits?
Where's that rule?

Nope not saying that nor have I ever said that, 1 D hit has the potential to deal multiple wounds to a single model it is allocated to, it is simply allocated to the models in the unit as standard method of its type(Shooting, Template, Blast) closest model in the unit first.

When you sort all your hits that wound into the Wound Pool you sort them into separate pools based on STR, AP and Special Rules(Destroyer is a special rule) The shooting player determines the order those separate pools are resolved as an attack of its type. Since the roll on the Destroyer table takes place en lieu of a Roll to Wound on the To Wound Table or Armor Penetration which occurs prior to allocating said wounds in most cases(vehicle squadrons are an exception as you allocate them as hits per their special rules) This allows the shooting player to place his shots where they will do the most damage by arranging the order they are resolved.

It is not allocated to "models hit" under the template, that was the old method from 5th Edition and early 6th edition prior to the 6th Edition Apocalypse release, Destroyer weapons that auto-wounded had Instant Death, permitted invulnerable saves and only inflicted 1 wound to Eternal Warrior.

[Nabterayl]

I would never play against someone who is like:

"My D blast did 24 wounds to your unit".
"But you only hit 6 guys"
"Wound allocation says I did 24 wounds"
"Nope" -flips table
But nobody is arguing in favor of 24 wounds to the unit. Here's the argument as I understand it.


Setup
An SD AP1 Large Blast weapon fires at a unit of ten space marines. The space marines happen to be lined up in single file facing the firing unit. Space Marine One is at the front of the file, closest to the shooter. The remaining space marines are further away from the shooter in numerical order, so that Space Marine Ten is at the very back of the file, farthest from the shooter.

After scatter, the large blast marker ends up on top of Space Marines Four, Five, and Six. No other model is under the blast marker.

Interpretation One
The weapon has scored three hits, specifically on Space Marines Four, Five, and Six. Each of those models must roll on the Destroyer table and suffer the effects. A maximum of three space marines can die, and only Space Marines Four, Five, and Six can die because they were the models physically under the blast marker.

Interpretation Two A
The weapon has scored three hits, on the unit generally. The nearest model (initially, Space Marine One) must roll on the Destroyer table and suffer the effects. This process is repeated three times, redefining "the nearest model" as necessary given casualties. A maximum of three space marines can die, and because of the layout of the squad, those space marines will Space Marines One, Two, and Three (the three nearest models to the shooter).

Interpretation Two B
The weapon has scored three hits, on the unit generally. The shooting player must roll three times on the Destroyer table. The shooting player must then allocate each roll on the Destroyer table, in any sequence he wishes, to the nearest model. Each model that has had a Destroyer table result must suffer the effects of that result. A maximum of three space marines can die, and because of the layout of the squad, those space marines will Space Marines One, Two, and Three (the three nearest models to the shooter).

Which is correct? I contend (and Gleipnir seems to as well, and maybe daboarder) that One is clearly wrong, and Two A and Two B are more or less interchangeable (though they aren't actually 100% the same in effect). I personally think Two B is the technically correct way to play it.

[Gleipnir]

I concur with this, though I wouldn't make a stink about someone preferring to use Two A over Two B

[Defenestratus]

Buddhist its not that long a thread, read it and you will not see anyone saying a D hit spreads its wounds among multiple models apart from yourself, a D weapon large blast that hits(ie covers 8 models) only removes at most 8 models.

Well I was.

But I begrudgingly admitted that I was wrong.

Seems that I need to add to my Str D arsenal so I can deal with hordes of greater daemons easier.

[Gleipnir]

I do think that Look Out Sir could NOT be used to reallocate a hit or D-table result however, as Look Out Sir only reallocates a wound.

Look Sir Rolls apply because they follow a wound being allocated to a character model so long as another model from the unit is within range in the same unit. Because the basic rules use the word wound for every fricking action in the Roll To Wound phase.

Examples of when the term wound refers to everything in the basic rules, unless contradicted;

Roll To Wound - when used to describe the step following the Roll to Hit(not to be confused with when it is being used to refer to the To Wound Table)
Wound Pool - a general mechanic for the basic game that isn't contradicted by most advanced rules
Mixed Wounds - again another basic mechanic that happens to have the term wound in its name
allocate wounds - a general mechanic in the basic game for when you are assigning wounds, glancing and penetrating hits follow the same steps(ie they didn't rewrite the entirely of the basic rules for vehicles, so where no contradiction or change to the core rules exists they remain)
unsaved wounds - again written in the basic rules as a basic general mechanic, although as a consequence of much raging over invulnerability entry in the Basic Rules they did finally errata the more general usage to make their intention crystal clear.

You are confusing the basic rule language based on the word "wound" being used in its general rules emphasis, which by virtue of its use in the games basic rule set is used exclusively throughout the Basic Game Rules pg.10-31, GW would have been better served to write such general rules using a neutral term like Damage, and reserved use of the term wound and glancing and penetrating hits for non vehicle and vehicle models exclusively in their mechanics but then what would we nerd rage over.

Basically you have to use some common sense in interpreting what is included in the basic rules sections of the rules, since GW were too lazy to use a more general term for when it is intended to be used in the general, and too lazy to reprint basic rules as they apply to every common use of the rules in each respective Advanced Rule section, heck they couldn't even be bothered to spell it all out crystal clear in the follow up Assault Rules after the Shooting Rules.

[Lord Krungharr]

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. If a character is allocated a D result which ends up being 12 wounds, he then has wounds to Look Out Sir. Hopefully there are bunches of zombies around to make that happen!

[Buddhist_Possum]

But nobody is arguing in favor of 24 wounds to the unit. Here's the argument as I understand it.


Setup
An SD AP1 Large Blast weapon fires at a unit of ten space marines. The space marines happen to be lined up in single file facing the firing unit. Space Marine One is at the front of the file, closest to the shooter. The remaining space marines are further away from the shooter in numerical order, so that Space Marine Ten is at the very back of the file, farthest from the shooter.

After scatter, the large blast marker ends up on top of Space Marines Four, Five, and Six. No other model is under the blast marker.

Interpretation One
The weapon has scored three hits, specifically on Space Marines Four, Five, and Six. Each of those models must roll on the Destroyer table and suffer the effects. A maximum of three space marines can die, and only Space Marines Four, Five, and Six can die because they were the models physically under the blast marker.

Interpretation Two A
The weapon has scored three hits, on the unit generally. The nearest model (initially, Space Marine One) must roll on the Destroyer table and suffer the effects. This process is repeated three times, redefining "the nearest model" as necessary given casualties. A maximum of three space marines can die, and because of the layout of the squad, those space marines will Space Marines One, Two, and Three (the three nearest models to the shooter).

Interpretation Two B
The weapon has scored three hits, on the unit generally. The shooting player must roll three times on the Destroyer table. The shooting player must then allocate each roll on the Destroyer table, in any sequence he wishes, to the nearest model. Each model that has had a Destroyer table result must suffer the effects of that result. A maximum of three space marines can die, and because of the layout of the squad, those space marines will Space Marines One, Two, and Three (the three nearest models to the shooter).

Which is correct? I contend (and Gleipnir seems to as well, and maybe daboarder) that One is clearly wrong, and Two A and Two B are more or less interchangeable (though they aren't actually 100% the same in effect). I personally think Two B is the technically correct way to play it.

So now we are arguing that you can't have more wounds than hits on the unit, which clearly could happen with D weapons under your interpretation of the rules.

There is nothing I can find, and please help me do so, that says you can't have more wounds than hits dealt on a unit from D weapons.

If we go by what a lot of you are saying, per your example here:

3 Space Marines are hit; they roll 3 D weapon rolls; all dice are 2+, which equals at minimum 6 wounds; 6 wounds in the pool = 3 dead marines, starting at the front?

This makes absolutely no sense to me because a normal blast's wound count cannot exceed it's hits because of NORMAL wound rolling. If there is something that doesn't allow this to happen with D weapons, then I'm on board with you all but until someone shows me that, I'm going with Interpretation One.

It's not that simple to say "only 3 die" when you could potentially pump 36 wounds into a unit. Why would anyone shoot D weapons at a unit if that were the case?

[Buddhist_Possum]

You would have to resolve the D weapon wound rolls one at a time, against the first guy in the row completely before moving on to the next one.

That's the only way your theory makes sense to me, and it also doesn't follow any normal wound allocation.

Ex. the blast hits 3 space marines in the back, the first guy closest (SM1) rolls the first D weapon wound, gets a 4 which equals 3 wounds, he's dead. The next guy (SM2) in line gets his roll. He gets a 2, so 2 wounds. He's dead. Then the final wound is to the next closest (SM3), and he rolls a 1, he's fine.

Again, this is the only way your interpretation makes sense and I'm still hesitant with this one because those were not the MODELS hit.

[Nabterayl]

So now we are arguing that you can't have more wounds than hits on the unit ...

There is nothing I can find, and please help me do so, that says you can't have more wounds than hits dealt on a unit from D weapons.
The Destroyer rule says, "If the attack hits, roll on the table to the right instead of rolling To Wound or for armour penetration" (emphasis added). That table then tells us that "the model" loses either 0, 1d3+1, or 1d6+6 Wounds.

It doesn't say that the unit loses any Wounds, which is why it would be improper to tally up all the Wounds rolled and throw them into a Wound pool. The things that go into the pool are the Destroyer results themselves. Instead of allocating a single Wound to a model, Destroyer weapons allocate groups of 1d3+1 or 1d6+6 Wounds to a model.


It's not that simple to say "only 3 die" when you could potentially pump 36 wounds into a unit. Why would anyone shoot D weapons at a unit if that were the case?
Destroyer weapons are not, and historically have not been, about sweeping away huge numbers of infantry. They began their life in 40K as "Titan-killer" weapons, and that's still what they are. They're for putting down tanks, monstrous creatures, super-heavies, and gargantuan creatures. They're about killing things with multiple Wounds or Hull Points very quickly (and because they now explicitly inflict multiple Wounds rather than inflicting Instant Death, they aren't mitigated by Eternal Warrior the way they were in 4th/5th). If you want to kill 36 guys with a single shot, odds are there's a better weapon for that. That's what Baneblade cannons, plasma blastguns, Vulcan mega-bolters, and the like are for. When you've got one target that absolutely has to die, that's what Destroyer weapons are for. If you get one tank and your opponent is a horde of fire dragons, you want a Baneblade. But if you're facing a Baneblade, you want a Shadowsword.



This makes absolutely no sense to me because a normal blast's wound count cannot exceed it's hits because of NORMAL wound rolling. If there is something that doesn't allow this to happen with D weapons, then I'm on board with you all but until someone shows me that, I'm going with Interpretation One.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you clarify?

[Buddhist_Possum]

The Destroyer rule says, "If the attack hits, roll on the table to the right instead of rolling To Wound or for armour penetration" (emphasis added). That table then tells us that "the model" loses either 0, 1d3+1, or 1d6+6 Wounds.

It doesn't say that the unit loses any Wounds, which is why it would be improper to tally up all the Wounds rolled and throw them into a Wound pool. The things that go into the pool are the Destroyer results themselves. Instead of allocating a single Wound to a model, Destroyer weapons allocate groups of 1d3+1 or 1d6+6 Wounds to a model.


Destroyer weapons are not, and historically have not been, about sweeping away huge numbers of infantry. They began their life in 40K as "Titan-killer" weapons, and that's still what they are. They're for putting down tanks, monstrous creatures, super-heavies, and gargantuan creatures. They're about killing things with multiple Wounds or Hull Points very quickly (and because they now explicitly inflict multiple Wounds rather than inflicting Instant Death, they aren't mitigated by Eternal Warrior the way they were in 4th/5th). If you want to kill 36 guys with a single shot, odds are there's a better weapon for that. That's what Baneblade cannons, plasma blastguns, Vulcan mega-bolters, and the like are for. When you've got one target that absolutely has to die, that's what Destroyer weapons are for. If you get one tank and your opponent is a horde of fire dragons, you want a Baneblade. But if you're facing a Baneblade, you want a Shadowsword.



I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you clarify?

I'm starting to understand what you guys are trying to say, but it still seems a bit hard to swallow.

Just the wound packet itself seems weird.

The amount of hits = the amount of D wound rolls you get when resolving wound rolls

So you get to put those D hits anywhere you choose if you shot multiple weapons?

Normally you roll to hit, then wound, then they save. With this, you are saying 'roll to hit, then I have 3 D weapon rolls to make, to the front models as they come up and whatever else may have been shot'. So how do you stack these wounds? Are you saying whenever a D weapon wounds come up, the next model in line gets that stack of wounds?

so you're effectively assigning D wound dice to specific models and the rest of the shots go after them, or before, depending on how you choose to stack the wound pool.

[Gleipnir]

I'm starting to understand what you guys are trying to say, but it still seems a bit hard to swallow.

Just the wound packet itself seems weird.

The amount of hits = the amount of D wound rolls you get when resolving wound rolls

So you get to put those D hits anywhere you choose if you shot multiple weapons?

Normally you roll to hit, then wound, then they save. With this, you are saying 'roll to hit, then I have 3 D weapon rolls to make, to the front models as they come up and whatever else may have been shot'. So how do you stack these wounds? Are you saying whenever a D weapon wounds come up, the next model in line gets that stack of wounds?

so you're effectively assigning D wound dice to specific models and the rest of the shots go after them, or before, depending on how you choose to stack the wound pool.

Well the rules for Mixed Wounds allow the shooting player to determine which wounds(wounds in this case referring to each attack seperated by STR, AP, and special rules) are resolved first, so if you wanted to save the D weapon shots for the juicier targets deeper in the unit and resolve the other weapons or attacks to those closest first thats the shooting players choice.

[Buddhist_Possum]

I guess that sounds good, it's just going to be hard to explain to adamant players....case in point (me)

[Nabterayl]

so you're effectively assigning D wound dice to specific models and the rest of the shots go after them, or before, depending on how you choose to stack the wound pool.
Yes, exactly. It's no different than doing the same thing with melta wounds, or rending wounds.

[Buddhist_Possum]

Yes, exactly. It's no different than doing the same thing with melta wounds, or rending wounds.

Not really. It's a bit different.
It's effectively a wound pool for a certain number of D hits.

So you could have a melta shot, a lascannon shot, a few bolter shots & and some D weapon hits that deal multiple wounds to a set number of models, if such a vehicle fired all this stuff.

If it were that simple, we wouldn't have this thread =P

[Nabterayl]

So you could have a melta shot, a lascannon shot, a few bolter shots & and some D weapon hits that deal multiple wounds to a set number of models, if such a vehicle fired all this stuff.
Sure. If a Shadowsword opened up with everything it had on a single target, you could have a wound pool that included lascannon hits, heavy bolter hits, and Destroyer table results, and the shooting player would decide which to resolve first against the nearest model currently standing. If it's Lysander tanking for a bunch of space marines, you probably decide to allocate the Destroyer hits against him until he goes down. If there's four space marines in between Lysander and the Shadowsword, maybe you allocate the lascannon and heavy bolter wounds before allocating the Destroyer table results.

[Gleipnir]

Not really. It's a bit different.
It's effectively a wound pool for a certain number of D hits.

So you could have a melta shot, a lascannon shot, a few bolter shots & and some D weapon hits that deal multiple wounds to a set number of models, if such a vehicle fired all this stuff.

If it were that simple, we wouldn't have this thread =P

True enough not many special rules with effects that generate multiple wounds to a model in one hit, I think that has more to do with the fact they wanted Destroyer to be subtly different from just being Instant Death as it was originally, which in most cases it still is for most practical purposes, with only other Supers or Monstrous Creatures able to reasonably absorb a single hit, its the vehicles/buildings that get hit that got hosed hardest

[Gleipnir]

Sure. If a Shadowsword opened up with everything it had on a single target, you could have a wound pool that included lascannon hits, heavy bolter hits, and Destroyer table results, and the shooting player would decide which to resolve first against the nearest model currently standing. If it's Lysander tanking for a bunch of space marines, you probably decide to allocate the Destroyer hits against him until he goes down. If there's four space marines in between Lysander and the Shadowsword, maybe you allocate the lascannon and heavy bolter wounds before allocating the Destroyer table results.

Though Lysander is still likely to 2+ roll Look Out Sir any D shots coming his way until there are no more marines in his unit within 6" of him.

Poor little marines selflessly throwing themselves in front of the captain like that.

a 2+ IC look out sir roll at times gets terribly silly.

[Nabterayl]

they wanted Destroyer to be subtly different from just being Instant Death as it was originally
Yeah, I think this was a good change. My favorite was the Defence Laser, which was a Destroyer weapon with a 10" blast (the biggest blast marker at the time). Could destroy a dozen Land Raiders in a single shot. Could deal a maximum of one Wound to Marneus Calgar =P

The new Destroyer rule fixes that problem. Now that weapon would destroy a dozen Land Raiders and Marneus Calgar with a single shot.

[Gleipnir]

Yeah, I think this was a good change. My favorite was the Defence Laser, which was a Destroyer weapon with a 10" blast (the biggest blast marker at the time). Could destroy a dozen Land Raiders in a single shot. Could deal a maximum of one Wound to Marneus Calgar =P

The new Destroyer rule fixes that problem. Now that weapon would destroy a dozen Land Raiders and Marneus Calgar with a single shot.

Hah my Marneus Calgar laughs at your puny D weapons, diving behind all kinds of 30 man Honor Guard.

it is a bit funny when a D weapon blows thru the strongest walls and cover yet Marneus Calgar ducks behind an Imperial guardsman and is saved :)

At least its not Sworn Protector.

[Nabterayl]

Well, it wasn't even that. Anything with Eternal Warrior more or less laughed at Destroyer weapons, because Destroyer weapons always wounded and always inflicted Instant Death ... which, against Eternal Warrior, meant one wound. So Calgar could stand all by his lonesome in an empty field, get hit by a surface-to-orbit laser full in the face, and ... lose one wound.

Nowadays, that wouldn't work so well, because instead of inflicting Instant Death, Destroyer weapons just remove a whole bunch of Wounds if they remove any at all. He might still survive, but it wouldn't be a case of taking the blast full in the face and saying, "Wow, that hurt about as much as getting hit by a boltgun."