Shooting rule check

Also it says in Resolving Attacks on the next page, it even states "Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases you can roll for multiple attacks together. The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time"

Yes you can roll them together, but are treat 1 at a time. Meaning you have 4 Bolters you resolve each bolter 1 by 1. Resolving Attacks is 4 steps, 1. to hit, 2. wound roll, 3. allocate wound, 4. saving throw.

Meaning how i've been playing it and how i read (how my local plays it also, but IDK how tournaments ruled it, it doesnt come up but rarely) you are suppose to roll each model and each "profile" for that model one at a time from the to hit all the way to the save.

Those cases to roll together (outside of fast dice) would be 1 model with 2 TL bolters like SM Bikers.

Resolving one at a time is correct. It can make a difference for things like a Shadowfield or multiple wound models. In most cases it doesn't really affect the outcome.

You have the four steps identified in resolving attacks listed. They do not include selecting a target, which was done earlier in the process. So while you resolve attacks one at a time, they are resolved against their declared targets.

There is no rule to recheck if the target is still visible or in range in the resolve attacks or remove casualties sections.

Therefore, if you declare attacks against a valid target, you get to resolve attacks against them, which may cause casualties. That applies even if previous shooting from your unit has removed all the models from range and line of sight.

So if resolve each attack one at a time does that your opponent could tank say 4 blaster shots onto his one terminator with a storm shield?

Yes, thats why you use other guns 1st to kill the trash units. DW is suppose to be really good wound and unit manipulation but htye just cost to much. If they get DW right in the codex they will be very scary on the table.

Kantalla wrote:

|Meavar wrote:

Then in step 3 you again pick how much shots will go against each target...

That's the bit I don't think is correct.

You have allocated your shooting by picking the targets in step 2. Step 3 is simply saying I'm resolving this weapon next, before rolling the dice for Step 4.

From dumpeal's example, that means taking the plasma guy doesn't stop the casualties further into the unit, so it is unlikely the plasma guy is gone unless you finish off the unit.

I quotefrom step 3: "In either case, declare how you will split the shooting unit's shots"

So splitting shots is not done in step 4 (so officially you can kill invisible models).
But you do not check for range and visibility in step 3 when you split the shots, so you can target out of range stuff if another weapon can reach it in step 2. No sane person plays it like this of course.
But that means you have to put the range checking somewhere else as well, and where that is determines if you can kill invisible/out of range models.

I can see where you are pointing out a potential silliness (I targeted that unit 45" away with my Lascannon, so now I will throw a grenade at it!), and clearly the rules shouldn't allow that to happen.

To me most of step 3 belongs in step 2, and is a clarification of how that works with multiple weapons and/or models. The key line to me is "In either case, declare how you will split the shooting unit's shots before any dice are rolled..."

Although that line is under the heading for step 3, because it happens before any dice are rolled, that is essentially still part of choosing targets, as you couldn't return to that part of the process after resolving the first weapon's attacks.

Something else I have noticed with a more careful read through is previous editions essentially told us to loop back to steps 3 and 4 until the shooting is complete, and that language isn't present this edition. Step 3 tells you to resolve the attacks, and step 4 tells you how resolve attacks works. I think that is a good thing given repeatedly redoing some of the targeting stuff under step 3 seems really silly.

Alto of the language is left out thus edition. Its seems they have dumb it down but have left out alot key wording

Sent from Topic'it App