progressions is correct. You always have to exceed the threshold value to take them out, not merely equal it.

So then shouldn't it be 6, 12, 18, etc.?

So then shouldn't it be 6, 12, 18, etc.?

No. It's each time you exceed a multiple, so in this case it's when you exceed 5/10/15/20 (so 6/11/16/21).

Which means only the first guy is tougher than the rest of his buddies...

It's more just to keep the bookkeeping simple. They're minions, it should be fast and easy to keep track of.

Technically the shot that kills the first minion ALSO does one point of damage to the second minion. Likewise the shot that kills the second minion does a point of damage to the third.

Each minion must still sustain damage in excess of his wound threshold to be killed, it's just that they're in a group so the bookkeeping overlaps.

See, to me that doesn't make as much sense, but maybe that's just me, and how my brain logi-fies stuff. .

For my Bookeeping, I right 1,2,3 down the page (number of minions).

Beside each I right a 5 WT (for example) and then go over an inch or two and write their enhanced attacks (for being in a group).

As each five points (or 2, or 3, depending) of damage is done I cross it off. When a minion reaches zero, I cross it off.

I will review the rules in light of what you posted, but a WT 5 in any situation (to me, anyways), means when that adversary regardless of type, takes 5 damage, it's out of commission. Otherwise, wouldn't they just make its WT 6?

It's because of the use if the word "exceeds" when talking about Thresholds.

...but only for the first guy.

I will review the rules in light of what you posted, but a WT 5 in any situation (to me, anyways), means when that adversary regardless of type, takes 5 damage, it's out of commission. Otherwise, wouldn't they just make its WT 6?

Not quite, as HappyDaze said, it needs to EXCEED its threshold.

And because minions are lumped together in a group, the shot that kills the first minion also does one point of damage to the second minion. The shot that kills the second minion does one point of damage to the third minion.

I can understand the confusion, but I really don't see that it's a huge problem that this isn't "fair" to the second and third minions. They're going to exist for one encounter and get killed. They're not going to mind

But it's not "confusion" (at least to me). It's "unnecessary". Point being... Why bother with the added complexity of having the first one drop only after exceeding the WT, but not the rest? Why not just make it simple and drop one every 5 (including the first)? Instead of 6/5/5/5... Or every 6 if you want consistency.

Explain it the way you are (the extra point, carries over to the next guy) all you want, it's thin. Reality is (math-wise), it takes 6 points of your total damage to drop the first minion, the next 5 points you commit drops the next, etc. There's no getting around that.

On top of that, let's say you do 13 damage to a storm trooper minion group. After soak, you deal 8 damage. This drops the first one (leaving 2 points of carryover, partially wounding another one). On the next round when you attack them again, that second trooper magically picked up an extra point of "survivability". Because you have to go back to exceeding the WT for the "new" first guy. So, whereas he would have dropped had you done just 3 more points of damage on that first attack, now you must do at least 4 damage. That's just patently silly.

*shrug* it works and makes sense for me. Sorry you feel differently.

That's just patently silly.

For a touchy guy projecting (falsely) about someone else judging his game, you sure do know how to pontificate.

That's just patently silly.

For a touchy guy projecting (falsely) about someone else judging his game, you sure do know how to pontificate.

So because I think FFG dropped the ball, or FAQ'ed themselves into an illogical ruling, I'm projecting (falsely) on whom, exactly?

Please go find things to get all up at arms about somewhere else. Your comment failed to further the discussion. At this point, you are just trolling.

I think that the problem is you're viewing the members of a minion group as individuals rather than simply as components of a group. I think of it like this:

The formula is consistent: Damage > xWT = x minion(s) down

So,

Damage > 1WT = one minion down

Damage > 2WT = two minions down

Damage > 3WT = three minions down

Etc.

I understand all that, as you have explained it. But IMO it does not invalidate the issue expressed in my last example. The amount of damage required to drop an injured minion changed when the next attack resets the "must exceed WT rule".

The minion group has six members and WT 5. It takes 6 Damage after Soak; this is > 1Wt, so one minion is down. Next turn it takes 9 more Damage (after Soak) for a total of 15 Damage; this is >2WT so a second minion is dropped. On the following turn it takes 1 Damage (after Soak) for a total of 16 Damage; this is >3WT so a third minion is out.

Just keep track of the accumulated Damage taken. Don't try to think of it as "this one takes this, that one takes that" - the whole group has one combined pool of WT.

That's just patently silly.

For a touchy guy projecting (falsely) about someone else judging his game, you sure do know how to pontificate.

So because I think FFG dropped the ball, or FAQ'ed themselves into an illogical ruling, I'm projecting (falsely) on whom, exactly?

Hey, I don't necessarily disagree with you here. I'd find it easier to think about to just take out minions in increments of the minion's WT count...that one point isn't going to make a difference in the long run.

But when I disagreed with you earlier in this thread, over something very minor, you decided to get up in arms and defensive over people you perceived to be telling you how to play the game, when in fact no one did anything of the kind. Now you're going on and calling people silly.

Basically, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. So who's a troll?

You're a troll. I never called anyone silly. I called the rule (and the disconnect in logic entailed in its application) silly. But you know that. As no doubt most anyone else who bothered to read my post could plainly see.

But by all means, troll on.

Back to addressing actual posters with something to contribute:

Just keep track of the accumulated Damage taken. Don't try to think of it as "this one takes this, that one takes that" - the whole group has one combined pool of WT.

How would you address actual in-play situations where a PC may wish to target specific members of the group due to circumstances? Yet there could be lingering damage that may or may not be applicable to the group but not necessarily that specific member of said group.

ccarlson, I'd like to respectfully suggest that you may be taking the concept of a minion group a little too seriously.

There shouldn't really even BE situations where it makes any sense to "target specific members of the group". It's three Stormtroopers standing in a group firing at you.

If you want to shoot at them, fire off a barrage of shots. You might get lucky and take out one of them, and wing another one.

It's just meant to be an undifferentiated mass of enemies working together as a unit. It's really just a thing to simplify the bookkeeping of having lots of soldiers as a main type of enemy.

Minion groups do not have damage "applicable to the group but not necessarily that member of the group". It just doesn't work like that.

If you really feel this strongly about the minion rules, perhaps maybe just don't use them?

It's perfectly acceptable to have a group of 3 Stormtroopers who are technically Minions but not in a group. Then you can fire at specific members of the group, track their wound thresholds individually, and so on, to your heart's content.

Minion rules are a narrative abstraction designed to make it easier to run groups of enemies. If you don't feel it simplifies anything, then maybe just ignore those rules and do it however you feel works best.

snip

Just keep track of the accumulated Damage taken. Don't try to think of it as "this one takes this, that one takes that" - the whole group has one combined pool of WT.

How would you address actual in-play situations where a PC may wish to target specific members of the group due to circumstances? Yet there could be lingering damage that may or may not be applicable to the group but not necessarily that specific member of said group.

So like... "I want to shoot Stormtrooper 2of3 because I hate his stupid face!" and in doing so the player actually does enough damage to take out 2 stormtroopers? You drop Stormtrooper 2of3 and either 3of3 or 1of3... whichever one the player feels has a face of appropriate stupidness to join 2of3.

If the Stormtroopers are grouped, they are grouped. 2of3 doesn't get to hog all the damage because he decided to hide behind the yellow barrel instead of the green crate that 1of3 and 3of3 hid behind.

Whats so complicated about that?

But it's not "confusion" (at least to me). It's "unnecessary". Point being... Why bother with the added complexity of having the first one drop only after exceeding the WT, but not the rest? Why not just make it simple and drop one every 5 (including the first)? Instead of 6/5/5/5... Or every 6 if you want consistency.

Ok, after reading through this thread again I finally get what you are saying. Yes, each additional minion is easier to take down, as the point "carries over on to his buddies" if you want to think about it that way.

On top of that, let's say you do 13 damage to a storm trooper minion group. After soak, you deal 8 damage. This drops the first one (leaving 2 points of carryover, partially wounding another one). On the next round when you attack them again, that second trooper magically picked up an extra point of "survivability". Because you have to go back to exceeding the WT for the "new" first guy. So, whereas he would have dropped had you done just 3 more points of damage on that first attack, now you must do at least 4 damage. That's just patently silly.

Despite your disagreements, whafrog made a great point about each combat roll being a series of attacks, movements etc. This easily allows you to explain that carry-over damage narratively. As far as the soak being applied only once per combat check, this is just the game mechanic, flawed or not. It does seem silly to "reset" as it were and now have to do 4 damage instead of just doing 3 additional damage earlier, but it is what is it. From my experience it doesn't seem unbalanced. Besides, there is nothing stopping you from giving each minion their own soak and running them as individuals instead of groups if you prefer. This would make minions more difficult, but to each his own.

In my games I prefer to simplify this like someone mentioned earlier and just do the 5/10/15/20 instead of the 6/11/16/21. They are minions after all. Most of the time the final combat check that finishes off the group does more than enough damage anyway to exceed the total Wound Threshold.

In my games I prefer to simplify this like someone mentioned earlier and just do the 5/10/15/20 instead of the 6/11/16/21. They are minions after all. Most of the time the final combat check that finishes off the group does more than enough damage anyway to exceed the total Wound Threshold.

Which, at the end of the day, is what I'm doing as well.