PDA

View Full Version : Wound Allocation



Pink Horror
04-05-2008, 23:45
The scariest thing I read about the planned 5th edition is the new wound allocation system. This is because:

a) I don't want to have to roll a dozen individual times for a squad of Orks that gets saturated in bolter fire.

b) If I get a couple no-save wounds and a bunch of saves-allowed wounds on a unit (devastators with heavy bolters and plasma cannon, for example), I don't want those weaker wounds to turn into a reward for my opponent, allowing him to stick both no-save wounds on the same model.

Can someone help with my fears?

Battle-Brother Wags
05-05-2008, 00:08
As far as I understand the rumored wound allocation rules, your fears seem to be well founded. I honestly don't know how this will go down, either. Perhaps the current concept from the leaked PDF won't be the actual setup. Not sure. At any rate, I wouldn' be upset if someone could help with both our fears.

Dach
05-05-2008, 01:35
The rules seem quite complicated at first, but during actual gameplay it's not that bad.

First the new rules only apply if there are more wound than normal trooper.

Then if that happen, you just roll all the normal trooper at once. (no difference from 4th here) THEN roll one die for each special trooper (heavy, special, sergeant, etc)

Double wound allocation from a AP that pierce the armour or from power weapon is just to balance the fact that now you can actually kill ANYONE within the squad.

IMO it's really going to be a great thing, no more the powerfist user will be the last to die EVERY DAMN GAME. (or put any special, heavy weapon that come to mind...) :D

Gensuke626
05-05-2008, 01:51
Dach is correct in his interpretation of the rules. While it says everyone makes individual saves, it also says that any basic trooper is interchangeable for any other basic trooper. So roll all the grunts at once, then roll for specialists and sarges. This is, of course, going to make ork big mobs REALLY powerful. You can't distance snipe the guns anymore and they have the numbers to soak up the wounds...

Pink Horror
05-05-2008, 02:51
If you're supposed to roll individual saves on troops, and have 2 guys left, rolling pass, pass, fail, fail results in 1 death. Rolling pass, fail, pass, fail results in 2 deaths. You can't just combine them.

There's plenty of times that rapid-fire weapons are unloaded on squads with 5 or less bodies. It only takes 6 wounds for double allocation. Let's say 2 wounds are from a plasma gun and 4 from bolters, against 5 marines. The 5th edition rules, as I understand the rumors, have the plasma gun's 2 wounds only killing 1 guy, and the marine rolls 4 saves.

But, if I were to be "lucky" enough to only get 3 bolter wounds and 2 plasma gun wounds against those marines, now 2 marines have to die to the plasma gun, and the marine player rolls 3 saves. That's 1 more guaranteed death in exchange for 1 save, because I rolled "worse". Something is wrong here.

It's not right that less wounds from the bolters likely results in more dead marines! Now, instead of trying to shoot at maximum range to pick off the veteran, I'm purposely not firing with some of my guns to keep the wounds from wrapping around. I'd like to play a game that doesn't have either scenario in its official rules.

Overall, this might actually help my style of play, since I have an unreasonable fondness (unreasonable because I know it's not cost effective) for packing as many points as I can into a single squad member and using small units. That doesn't mean I have like this rumored change.

The Dude
05-05-2008, 05:36
If you're supposed to roll individual saves on troops, and have 2 guys left, rolling pass, pass, fail, fail results in 1 death. Rolling pass, fail, pass, fail results in 2 deaths. You can't just combine them.

Only if those guys have different wargear, otherwise you’d roll them all together.


There's plenty of times that rapid-fire weapons are unloaded on squads with 5 or less bodies. It only takes 6 wounds for double allocation. Let's say 2 wounds are from a plasma gun and 4 from bolters, against 5 marines. The 5th edition rules, as I understand the rumors, have the plasma gun's 2 wounds only killing 1 guy, and the marine rolls 4 saves.

But, if I were to be "lucky" enough to only get 3 bolter wounds and 2 plasma gun wounds against those marines, now 2 marines have to die to the plasma gun, and the marine player rolls 3 saves. That's 1 more guaranteed death in exchange for 1 save, because I rolled "worse". Something is wrong here.

I think you’re REALLY confused here. It’s the controlling player’s responsibility to allocate wounds. Always has been but that doesn’t mean they can choose to allocate 2 Plasma Gun shots to the same Marine.

The way I understand it, you roll like with like. This goes for weapons too, so you would (for example) resolve the Bolters first, allocating the wounds to 4 Marines (say that’s 3 regular Marines and 1 special weapon), causing 3 saves rolled together for the standard guys and 1 rolled separately for the Special Weapon. Then you would resolve the Plasma shots, allocating 2 wounds to the squad. Say you dropped 2 standard Marines with bolter fire, that leaves 1 standard and 1 special hit. Any cover saves would both be rolled separately.

Am I making sense?

Edit: Re-reading the pdf, my way is perfectly plausible, however there is the section titled “Fast rolling vs. different weapons” which recommends rolling everything at once with different coloured dice. This could cause confusion, in that an unscrupulous player could use RAW to allocate as Pink Horror described. If this isn’t clarified in the final draft, I would suggest simply making separate rolls for all special weaponry, which is “allowed” under the same section.

Dach
05-05-2008, 06:19
actually the way I see it, they resolve at the same time.

One round of shooting or one round of the same initiative in CC is the same like in 4th edition.

So yes you can take 2 plasma wound on the same guys like in the example he just said.

Yes it may sound stupid from that specific point of view, but I still find it's a great counter-balance for every special guys needing to make their own save.

If you go overshoot, maybe you 2 plasma shot will only resolve in one dead normal marine but you willl get the chance that the melta guys or the powerfist sergeant will die.

If you keep some of your weapon from firing, yes every plasma shot will make a kill, but that melta, sergeant won't fear death coming his way...

Fair trade-off me think :)

Pink Horror
05-05-2008, 07:25
Am I making sense?

Yes. Your interpretation makes sense, as it's pretty much how I play. But it's also not what I read about 5th edition. I hate playing like a rules lawyer, but I'm pretty good at this.

Apparent 5th Edition Attack Procedure:

1) Attacker Rolls To Hit. All shooting must be resolved simultaneously. All attacks with the same initiative in an assault against the same target work the same way. You can use different colored dice to speed this up.

2) Attacker Rolls To Wound. This goes against the majority toughness of the target. Everything is still considered simultaneous. This is where you add in the flamer template hits, which are also simultaneous.

3) Defender Allocates Wounds. All simultaneous wounds are spread out evenly, not wrapping around until everyone has one. Wounds that allow different saves, cause instant kills, etc. do not individually have to be allocated as evenly as possible. Just the total number of different colored dice, beads, whatever, has to be spread out evenly.

4) Defender Rolls Saves. Each model has its saves rolled individually. There is nothing at all about combining them. There isn't even any mention of combined saves for the same model, though this would obviously make no difference on a one-wound model, or on the only multiple-wound model in a unit, or if you have to roll them all (?) even after the model dies. Some fail enough to die. Some get to live. Three unsaved wounds on a one-wound guy do not apparently affect anyone else at all, except for one situation...

5) Defender Removes Models. If that was it, you'd just remove whoever failed the saves. There are two exceptions, though:

a) Identical Models. Instead of pulling the actual wounded model off the board, you can pick another model from the unit that is identical in rules, which can be useful in trying to maintain unit coherency.

b) Multiple Models With Multiple Wounds. When a multiple-wound model fails a save for an Instant Death wound, if that model has a wound already and another multiple-wound model in the unit does not, the Instant Death must happen to one of the unwounded multiple-wound models instead. Similarly, if a multiple-wound model fails a save that does not cause Instant Death, and there is another multiple-wound model in the unit that already has a wound, the wound happens to that other model. I don't know if you have to roll saves for an already dead figure, though, so these models, in an attempt at simplicity, have become very complicated. My document says how the rule "effectively" works, but not how it actually works. This is my best, rules-lawyerly attempt.

I really hope what I'm reading has been changed. It keeps sounding worse and worse to me as I read it.

The Dude
05-05-2008, 07:29
actually the way I see it, they resolve at the same time.

One round of shooting or one round of the same initiative in CC is the same like in 4th edition.

So yes you can take 2 plasma wound on the same guys like in the example he just said.

Yes it may sound stupid from that specific point of view, but I still find it's a great counter-balance for every special guys needing to make their own save.

If you go overshoot, maybe you 2 plasma shot will only resolve in one dead normal marine but you willl get the chance that the melta guys or the powerfist sergeant will die.

If you keep some of your weapon from firing, yes every plasma shot will make a kill, but that melta, sergeant won't fear death coming his way...

Fair trade-off me think :)

This clearly isnít the intention of the rules though. If it was, theyíd have all weapons only affect a single mini, and simply offer a number of re-rolls equal to the number of shots.

They donít want us micro-managing the number of guys who actually shoot. Thatís not fun at all. I think the fact that they specify that you can roll different weapons separately shows that they do intend for shots from these weapons to be distributed evenly.

Hell, I donít have my rulebook here at work, but Iím fairly sure this is almost exactly how wound allocation works now with the exception that they have specified that special guys that cop wounds have to roll separately.

If Iím right, an unscrupulous RAW knob-jockey could allocate both Plasma hits to a single plebe now, thus avoiding a wound. If Iím wrong, please explain.

Pink Horror
05-05-2008, 08:09
If Iím right, an unscrupulous RAW knob-jockey could allocate both Plasma hits to a single plebe now, thus avoiding a wound. If Iím wrong, please explain.


The controlling player allocates the two
plasma gun wounds and the spare wound on a normal
Space Marine armed with a bolter (heís trying to
minimise the damageÖ) and two of the other wounds
on each of the other models.

What I'm complaining about isn't just unreleased RAW - it's in the accompanying example!


He then proceeds to take saves for each model individually.

My two fears. :(

The Dude
05-05-2008, 08:18
What I'm complaining about isn't just unreleased RAW - it's in the accompanying example!

My two fears. :(

I understand your fears, but as I explained, it is written in the rules that you can roll different weapons separately, therefore your opponent couldnít allocate 2 plasma and 1 bolter onto a single model, because the wound allocation rules would demand that when you rolled the plasma shots separately, they would get allocated to separate minis.

My suggestion is to roll all the basic stuff first, therefore giving a greater chance of taking out a special guy through specific allocation. Then roll special stuff, therefore slightly increasing itís chance of taking out something special due to reduced numbers. Of course, you may want to resolve template or blast weapons first to avoid them spacing their guys out or reducing the chance of hitting on a scatter.

So The Dude recommends this order of resolution:

1 Ė Blast and Template Weapons
2 Ė Small arms (Bolters, Lasguns etc)
3 Ė Non-blast/template Special and Heavy weapons (Heavy Bolter, Plasma Gun)

If you resolve all of these separately, your opponent cannot exploit the wound allocation rules.

azimaith
05-05-2008, 08:27
The scariest thing I read about the planned 5th edition is the new wound allocation system. This is because:

a) I don't want to have to roll a dozen individual times for a squad of Orks that gets saturated in bolter fire.

b) If I get a couple no-save wounds and a bunch of saves-allowed wounds on a unit (devastators with heavy bolters and plasma cannon, for example), I don't want those weaker wounds to turn into a reward for my opponent, allowing him to stick both no-save wounds on the same model.

Can someone help with my fears?

Uh how do you think wound allocation is supposed to work now? Your supposed to allocate first then remove and the wounds need to go onto different models. People just do it the fast way (which as a side effect, makes squad heavy/special/sergeants really hard to kill)

Pink Horror
05-05-2008, 08:29
Hell, I don’t have my rulebook here at work, but I’m fairly sure this is almost exactly how wound allocation works now with the exception that they have specified that special guys that cop wounds have to roll separately.

In 4th edition, shots are divided into sets of like weapons. Saves are taken the entire group of members of a unit with the same armour. Two unsaved wounds cannot go on the same one-wound guy. That's the big difference.

I see it coming up when a unit like chosen charges into combat with some lightning claws. Those lightning claw hits are going to get concentrated on a small number of models, too. I can easily see getting 6 CCW wounds and 3 LC wounds against a squad of 4 PF terminators. One guy will get to take all of the claw hits, and each other one will get to stick around to punch you if he can make two 2+ saves. And he's not crying about having a storm bolter in his other hand, because you need two PFs to get an extra attack anyway. (This is actually why I like the power fist change: meganobs and terminators look like idiots in 4th, which only suits the nobs.)

Battle-Brother Wags
05-05-2008, 11:49
I understand your fears, but as I explained, it is written in the rules that you can roll different weapons separately, therefore your opponent couldnít allocate 2 plasma and 1 bolter onto a single model,

But that is exactly what happens in the example of wound allocation in the pdf. They stack the plasma wounds instead of spreading them out in order to minimize the deaths.

xinsanityx
05-05-2008, 12:00
I understand your fears, but as I explained, it is written in the rules that you can roll different weapons separately, therefore your opponent couldn’t allocate 2 plasma and 1 bolter onto a single model, because the wound allocation rules would demand that when you rolled the plasma shots separately, they would get allocated to separate minis.

My suggestion is to roll all the basic stuff first, therefore giving a greater chance of taking out a special guy through specific allocation. Then roll special stuff, therefore slightly increasing it’s chance of taking out something special due to reduced numbers. Of course, you may want to resolve template or blast weapons first to avoid them spacing their guys out or reducing the chance of hitting on a scatter.

So The Dude recommends this order of resolution:

1 – Blast and Template Weapons
2 – Small arms (Bolters, Lasguns etc)
3 – Non-blast/template Special and Heavy weapons (Heavy Bolter, Plasma Gun)

If you resolve all of these separately, your opponent cannot exploit the wound allocation rules.

You're just plain wrong here as far as the leaked pdf goes. The example they give even has them stacking two plasma shots on one guy. They recommend placing a di next to each guy to represent each wound, but for quickness you can roll all of the same together as long as it doesn't double up, once it doubles up you can start failing 2 wounds on one guy and only that 1 guy dies. This is the way that everyone i know interprets it. You are the first person i've ever seen suggest otherwise.

This makes terminators absolutely insane. A squad of 5 terminators can easily take 3 plasma gun wounds, and 8 bolter wounds from a round of rapid fire nastiness from a squad of 10 full chaos marines. With these new rules those 3 plasma gun wounds would only ever kill one terminator. In the leaked pdf rules you clearly can stack plasma/lascannon wounds on one guy so only he dies.

The Dude
05-05-2008, 12:16
But that is exactly what happens in the example of wound allocation in the pdf. They stack the plasma wounds instead of spreading them out in order to minimize the deaths.

:confused: I must have missed that totally. However, I still maintain that the ďFast rolling vs. different weaponsĒ rule allows me to roll different weapons seperately. This of course causes a conflict with the example, but my argument is that they had chosen to roll all together.

As far as I can tell, there is a single ommited paragraph that is the issue here


When a unit suffers wounding hits, each will affect a different model - you cannot claim that all the hits strike a single model.

Obvioulsy because of the example, this is the intent of the rule. Not sure how much of a problem it will turn out to be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is changed in the final print.:eyebrows:

xinsanityx
05-05-2008, 12:41
Obvioulsy because of the example, this is the intent of the rule. Not sure how much of a problem it will turn out to be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is changed in the final print.:eyebrows:

Yeah i think that paragraph on page 23 clearly shows the intent is to minimize damage. It even uses the words "minimize damage," and "he proceeds to take saves for each model individually."

I really hope it is changed in the final print as it will slow the game down tremendously when a squad of 5 marines takes 10 wounds. You'll have to roll 2d6 5 times. Not only will it effect plasma weapons stacking, but also bolter wounds stacking, because if a single marine fails 2 saves, thats still only 1 marine dead.

Battle-Brother Wags
05-05-2008, 12:42
"When a unit suffers wounding hits, each will affect a different model - you cannot claim that all the hits strike a single model."

Obvioulsy because of the example, this is the intent of the rule. Not sure how much of a problem it will turn out to be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is changed in the final print.:eyebrows:

I think this quote is simply to show that you still have to apply wounds to every model before you can wrap them around. So people can't just say, "oh, I just took two plasma gun wounds (and nothing else), I think I'llstack them." YOu can't stack unless every model has a wound applied to it first,then you wrap them around and are able to stack.

But in any case, you'd want to wrap them around even ifall the woundssimply come from standard bolter fire. Because then youhave the chance that one model will fail morethan one save, thereby "saving" you from losing morethan one guy.

Man, my spacebar is stickingbad today!

Tastyfish
05-05-2008, 16:49
All they need is one sentance saying that excess wounds overflow onto other models in the squad and then the whole issue is solved - you can start fast dice rolling again and there is no drawback in shooting too many basic weapons alongside specials at one squad.

Brother Armand
05-05-2008, 19:26
We were covering this over on RN. I did a little math for my post, but in playing the actual rues, wound allocation is actually VERY fair, with the potential to deny special models, but also to save them.
VS a unit of 10, anything less than 10 wounds won't change. for 11-20 wounds, you do have the potential to allow the 'killer' wound to double up on some red shirt. However, consider than in an assault, (the example you use), the one wielding the power weapon is capable of 2-4 attacks in general. Let's assume a champ/sgt is very lucky and scores the full compliment of 4 PW attacks on the charge and is further lucky enough to wound on each, (we're removing probability for the moment to amplify a point about maximum effect, since probability and actual occurrence are two totally different things).

If said unit scored 10 or fewer wounds on the 10 model opponent, with 4 of them being PW attacks, you have now spread those attacks across 4 models. In order to minimize the number of PW attacks spread out, you would have to deliver 13 wounds to drop the # of affected models to 3, 22 wounds to drop that to 2 and 31 to drop them to affecting on only a single model. 31 wounds vs a unit to negate 4 PW attacks from affecting more than one model. If you can manage 31 wounds on your opponent with 4 being PW, you are probably doing a helluva job. Consider that to score 31 WOUNDS in a single round of combat, the avg 10 model SM squad w/ BP+CCW & Vet Sgt must hit and wound on every strike, (10 attacks/model + 10 attacks for addl CCW + 10 attacks for charging + 1 attack for Vet sgt).

Using the ubiquitous Las/Plas as a model, you need to score 21 WOUNDS to relegate 2 Plas and 1 Las wounds to a single model vs a 10 model unit. Vs a 5 model unit that drops to 11 wounds. Consider again that 11 wounds vs a 5 man unit is rough, esp when one if a guaranteed kill. That leaves 8 saves to be made. Since like models are lumped with like, the owner would take 6 saves on the scrubs and 2 on the sgt, (assuming no SW was available). 4 of the 6 will pass and 1.3 of the 2 will pass. Let's say the sgt is lucky, that still means the unit is down to 2 models at best, (Las/Plas death + 2 failures on scrubs).

I think you make too great a deal of this. What the rules for allocating wounds have done is they simply do not allow a numerically superior unit to overwhelm and automatically deny a smaller unit it's special kit. It's actually pretty damn fair considering the volume of fire required to negate special wounds.Basically, if you do only a few wounds, some of them being 'killers' such as PW or Plas, then the odds of disposing of a specific model can be a bit high. However, if the volume of fire/attacks is excessive, then you can dump the killer wounds on someone specific, saving the rest of the squad. Of course, you are only saving them because each model is taking 2+ saves.

We've used the multicolored dice route for fast rolling for years. So long as like models are saved at like times, everything is quick & painless. This is actually a pretty decent way to handle wounding and should avoid a number of potential arguments once everyone is used to it.

Tastyfish
05-05-2008, 19:53
We've used the multicolored dice route for fast rolling for years. So long as like models are saved at like times, everything is quick & painless. This is actually a pretty decent way to handle wounding and should avoid a number of potential arguments once everyone is used to it.

This doesn't work though unless excess wounds get transferred across to other members of the squad. You would need to have multicoloured dice for each squad members, rather than just the special weapons and commanders. There is no provision doing this that the average squad member takes two wounds.

However if wounds can spill over (which seems to be the way that majority toughness works, which just makes the whole thing even more bizarre) then there is no issue with using special dice for characters and heavy weapons.

The main issue isn't the plasma weapon thing, its more the save boost to things with a good save against large quantities of firepower. It now takes even more lasgun fire to down a marine.

Brother Armand
05-05-2008, 21:14
Consider if you will the ubiquitous 6 man Las/Plas squad w/ Vet Sgt. It consists of;

Sgt
Lascannon
Plasmagun
3x Bolter Marines

Consider now that said unit suffers 7 wounds from an opposing 8 man Las/Plas squad. 1 Plas shot (P), 1 Las shot (L) and 5 bolter shots (B). Now we apply the wounds.

Sgt (B)
Lascannon (B)
Plasmagun (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (L,P)

So, we know 1 Marines is dead, so we don't even bother rolling for him. Now you have 4 distinct marine 'types' to roll saves for. The 2 bolter marines can be rolled for together. Let's assume instead you took the same 7 wounds on a 10 man Las/Plas squad.

Sgt
Lascannon
Plasmagun
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (L)
Bolter (P)

2 Marines dead, plus 5 saves on like bolter marines. Scoop up 5 dice for the bolters, any unsaved can be removed from any of the 5. Like may be removed from like so long as you keep it in mind. It really is a perfectly workable system, so long as you allocate the wounds beforehand in a way that everyone understands.

I'm still surprised at how poorly this is being received by some. I read it and knew it was good before we even playtested it.

Pink Horror
05-05-2008, 21:42
If said unit scored 10 or fewer wounds on the 10 model opponent, with 4 of them being PW attacks, you have now spread those attacks across 4 models. In order to minimize the number of PW attacks spread out, you would have to deliver 13 wounds to drop the # of affected models to 3, 22 wounds to drop that to 2 and 31 to drop them to affecting on only a single model. 31 wounds vs a unit to negate 4 PW attacks from affecting more than one model. If you can manage 31 wounds on your opponent with 4 being PW, you are probably doing a helluva job. Consider that to score 31 WOUNDS in a single round of combat, the avg 10 model SM squad w/ BP+CCW & Vet Sgt must hit and wound on every strike, (10 attacks/model + 10 attacks for addl CCW + 10 attacks for charging + 1 attack for Vet sgt).

11 total wounds drops it to 3 guys with PW wounds on them, because one gets doubled up. 12 drops it to 2, because now 2 guys have 2 wounds each. You apparently weren't thinking this out properly in the other discussion.

The number of wounds you can put on one guy is based on how many times you've wrapped around. Wrapping around once (11-20 wounds in this example) lets you double up wounds. Yes, to stick all 4 no-save wounds on one guy (to lose 3 kills), you need 31 wounds. But to lose 2 kills, you only need to cause 12. I don't know where you guys got 22 or 13 from. (and to make this more feasible, let's imagine a squad that can have more than one power weapon mixed in with a ton of of regular CCW attacks, like Khorne Chosen).

Yes, it might take a whole bunch of wounds to lose all but 1 kill. But I don't even need to wound double the number of enemy models to see my sure kills cut in half. Here's a really bad case: Khorne Chosen with LCs charges 6 marines. 4 lightning claw guys get 6 wounds. Dead marines, right? No, because my 3 pistol guys also attacked, getting 3 more wounds. Now 3 guys die to LCs, and each 3+ save keeps one of the other 3 alive. So much for making it easier to kill the power fist! I guess those pistol guys should have holstered their weapons. :cries:

I'm not too concerned about what's going to happen to 10+ man squads. It's when I shoot at a pack of something like 3 Obliterators, with no special weapons and no sarge, that this bugs me the most. It only takes 4 total wounds (and there's easy to wound, hard to beat saves against) for everything to start wrapping. If I manage to get lucky enough to force 3 invulnerable saves, I'd only have to get unlucky enough to force 4 armour saves to see every invulnerable save dumped on the same Obliterator. The rule that's supposed to make it easier to kill specialized troops makes it much harder to kill them if there's little or no regular jerks in the unit. The poor Devastator sarge now will, if he's "lucky", get to take more than one kill-shot for his buddies. And as the game gets close to its conclusion, the squads get pretty small.

Don't bring balance into this - I don't care if this makes the game more or less balanced. I just care that it feels stupid. The worst part is that causing a bunch of small-arms wounds can be a bad thing. I don't ever want causing more wounds to be less damaging! Is that unreasonable?

I consider letting the opponent choose who to kill to be an abstraction that helps add some fun and quickness to the game. It's fun to get to keep your tooled up leader around as long as possible. It's an abstraction no worse than the first couple of wounds on a Carnifex doing nothing to its effectiveness, either. It's much easier to stomach than being forced to hold back my bolter fire for better odds when I'm trying to finish off a tough squad.

Marrak
05-05-2008, 21:53
I do believe you're still supposed to remove whole models when possible.

Even if you do wrap around saves on a small group of models and stack the unsaved wounds on one, that's still a LOT of extra wounds that you need to make saves for, and even Terminators fail saves 1 in 6 times. :)

Either way, it kind of makes sense; how exactly does the guy with the plasma gun have the best luck for the entire squad game after game? Isn't it possible that once in a while some large blast-o-death is going to vaporize him first, instead of generic trooper #2?

Pink Horror
05-05-2008, 22:05
Sgt (B)
Lascannon (B)
Plasmagun (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (L,P)


First:
Bolter (L,P) <- The reason this is received poorly.

Second, your situation already shows how easy it is to be stuck rolling 4 times. It's very easy to turn this into 5:
Lascannon (B)
Plasmagun (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B, B)
Bolter (L,P)

In this situation in 4th edition, I get an average of 3.67 dead marines. 4 out of the 5 guys will die 54% of the time, forcing either the las or the plas off the board.
Rumored 5th edition lets both the las and the plas stay alive 44% of the time (down from 46%). But, my average is now down to 2.56 dead marines. I have to lose more than 1 average kill just to add 2% to my chance of getting a nasty gun off the table!

The Song of Spears
05-05-2008, 22:06
I'm still surprised at how poorly this is being received by some. I read it and knew it was good before we even playtested it.

Umm... because its more than a little strange (IMO= stupid) that a player can ignore multiple armor piercing shots due to being able to pile them on the same trooper should the total number of shots exceed the number of troops in the unit. There is no good reason why two plasmagun hits will ALWAYS hit the same guy should the number of shots fired exceed the number of troops shot at.

IMO it should be that once a armour piercing wound has been applied, a second armour piercing shot should not be able to be applied to a already 'dead' trooper.

Pink Horror
05-05-2008, 22:09
I do believe you're still supposed to remove whole models when possible.

How does this matter?

Pink Horror
05-05-2008, 22:39
Umm... because its more than a little strange (IMO= stupid) that a player can ignore multiple armor piercing shots due to being able to pile them on the same trooper should the total number of shots exceed the number of troops in the unit. There is no good reason why two plasmagun hits will ALWAYS hit the same guy should the number of shots fired exceed the number of troops shot at.

Exactly. Sure, I would like a chance to kill the sarge. But I'm not going to trade that for giving my a guaranteed wound reducer that gets to kick in every time I accidentally cause too many bolter or CCW wounds. It's all relative.

Anyway, having to score enough wounds to cause at least one to every member of the unit in order to have any chance at killing the leader still wouldn't be very satisfying. If I causes 4 wounds to a unit of 5 guys, it would still be relatively unsatisfying to not have any chance of harming the sarge.


IMO it should be that once a armour piercing wound has been applied, a second armour piercing shot should not be able to be applied to a already 'dead' trooper.

Unfortunately, troops with secondary invulnerable saves or troops hiding in light foliage will have a way around this rules suggestion.

Here's my suggestion, if you want to hurt those specialists:

After rolling to hit, split away the shots that hit on a 6 from the other hits. For each of those, roll a BS test, and put the ones that fail back in with the hits that rolled less than 6. Go through the 4th edition procedure with non-special pool of hits (without the ability to force one save, of course). Then, there's two scenarios:
If any of the members of the target unit are still in play, the special hits get rolled against that unit, except when it comes to deciding which models to remove, the shooter gets to pick.
If you killed off the target unit, you now choose another legal target, and you roll to hit again, and repeat whole the procedure with the new target.

There, you get limited sniping and split fire as a bonus.

Tastyfish
06-05-2008, 00:01
What? You're adding in a whole two extra phase of shooting though, that's madness (a second firing round and then a possible second wound/save round with someone else allocating)! We're supposed to be streamlining things.

You have to roll seperately for save everytime one more wound is inflicted on a unit than its current number - whilst with horde units this is uncommon the result of it isn't going to wildly alter the result (the number of orks and guants who pass both 6+ saves is going to be small) - small elite units are going to encounter it fairly often and for marines are going to lose about 10% less casulties than they would normally (assuming you've not got any AP3 or lower weapons).

Takes just as long to roll for 20 guants as it does for each extra marine, so you end up with it taking longer to work out shots against small units - how does this make sense?

Pink Horror
06-05-2008, 00:34
What? You're adding in a whole two extra phase of shooting though, that's madness (a second firing round and then a possible second wound/save round with someone else allocating)! We're supposed to be streamlining things.

Good point.

The Dude
06-05-2008, 01:23
It's much better to say all like shots must be applied in a row, and subsequent rounds of wounds must be allocated in the same order as the first, thus ensuring multiple AP shots won't hit the same mini (unless there's a huge amount of them).

zealot!
06-05-2008, 03:46
I'm still surprised at how poorly this is being received by some. I read it and knew it was good before we even playtested it.

qft. ty for taking the time to explain it out to them.

Nurgling Chieftain
06-05-2008, 04:06
If it really ends up that you're allowed to roll multiple saves for each identical model when a large squad takes a lot of wounds (and I use dire avenger squads with bladestorm so that's like 4+ times per game just from them), I think I'll just go play a different game.

Jaeger48
06-05-2008, 05:50
Consider if you will the ubiquitous 6 man Las/Plas squad w/ Vet Sgt. It consists of;

Sgt
Lascannon
Plasmagun
3x Bolter Marines

Consider now that said unit suffers 7 wounds from an opposing 8 man Las/Plas squad. 1 Plas shot (P), 1 Las shot (L) and 5 bolter shots (B). Now we apply the wounds.

Sgt (B)
Lascannon (B)
Plasmagun (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (L,P)

So, we know 1 Marines is dead, so we don't even bother rolling for him. Now you have 4 distinct marine 'types' to roll saves for. The 2 bolter marines can be rolled for together. Let's assume instead you took the same 7 wounds on a 10 man Las/Plas squad.

Sgt
Lascannon
Plasmagun
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (L)
Bolter (P)

2 Marines dead, plus 5 saves on like bolter marines. Scoop up 5 dice for the bolters, any unsaved can be removed from any of the 5. Like may be removed from like so long as you keep it in mind. It really is a perfectly workable system, so long as you allocate the wounds beforehand in a way that everyone understands.

I'm still surprised at how poorly this is being received by some. I read it and knew it was good before we even playtested it.


Agreed, I thought this was fairly straightforward and at least gives you a chance to kill that pesky powerfist before getting raped. I like that it removes the 10 wound fist-sarg

Hellebore
06-05-2008, 06:49
I think the problem is that one extra shot reduces your killing capacity quite markedly:

Sgt (B)
Lascannon (B)
Plasmagun (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (L,P)

If the above unit takes ONE less bolter round, suddenly it looks like this:

Sgt (B)
Lascannon (B)
Plasmagun (B)
Bolter (B)
Bolter (P)
Bolter (L)

Because there isn't excess shots.

That's a pretty massive kill ratio difference all due to causing one extra hit from a weapon that won't guarantee a kill (unlike the two shots that will).

You are either going to have to optimise your shots by firing at units with more models than you have bullets, or take units with only one AT weapon so that the opponent can't take advantage of it and dump them on one model.

EDIT: With that kind of weapon configuration you are actually better off missing with more bolter shots, that one shot is the difference between a 84% kill and a 15% kill...


Hellebore

Pink Horror
06-05-2008, 07:16
Agreed, I thought this was fairly straightforward and at least gives you a chance to kill that pesky powerfist before getting raped. I like that it removes the 10 wound fist-sarg

In 4th edition, you could force the sarge to take a save if you got enough wounds. In 5th edition, unless your opponent volunteers his sarge, you'll have to get the same number of wounds to force him to take one save. The only difference here comes in when you manage to get more than twice the number of wounds. But now your opponent rolls those pairs of saves individually, and because of that you just caused less wounds overall for all that work.

Also, now, whenever you use mixed weapons to attack a unit of terminators, obliterators, dark reapers, wraithguard, bikers, chosen, devestators, etc., where most or all of the models are the nasty kind and the wimps are non-existent or only a minority, you will cause less deaths. Is that trade worth it? Did you read this:


Khorne Chosen with LCs charges 6 marines. 4 lightning claw guys get 6 wounds. Dead marines, right? No, because my 3 pistol guys also attacked, getting 3 more wounds. Now 3 guys die to LCs, and each 3+ save keeps one of the other 3 alive. So much for making it easier to kill the power fist! I guess those pistol guys should have holstered their weapons.

Or this:



If I manage to get lucky enough to force 3 invulnerable saves, I'd only have to get unlucky enough to force 4 armour saves to see every invulnerable save dumped on the same Obliterator.

I haven't seen one of the people claiming to like this rule comment on either of those examples.

You're not getting a small chance to get a wound on one of those fist sarges for nothing! You're trading away some of the ability to kill his more elite friends in other units! And don't forget: now, when you're in an assault with him, your opponent will still get to allocate wounds on his whole squad, even if they're in a conga line behind him, before you get a chance to kill him. Power-gamers are going to purposefully put only the sarge in base-to-base when his squad charges you, with the rest of his unit as far away as possible. Happy?

Units with Rending are going to get doubly screwed by the new rules. The rolls of 6 are going to get piled onto as few models as possible, and with the total number of wounds that typical renders can score, you can expect to lose a lot of wounds that way.

This is about way more than two plasma wounds.

Pink Horror
06-05-2008, 07:34
It's much better to say all like shots must be applied in a row, and subsequent rounds of wounds must be allocated in the same order as the first, thus ensuring multiple AP shots won't hit the same mini (unless there's a huge amount of them).

Good idea. You made me think of a way to play the game that sounds kind of cool to myself, but would require a lot of dice or beads:
I'd roll the different kinds of weapons separately (like most people do now, right?). But no saves would be made immediately: you'd leave the wounds on the table. Wounds would have to be distributed as evenly as possible. They all stay on the table and build up until the end of each turn, and then you roll them all! Why force all the bullets to come from the same squad when trying to kill the specialists?
This gets a little interesting in the assault phase. Models with more pending wounds than their W characteristic wouldn't get to strike. It would help take some of the power out of having a big save. Big heavy things like terminator armour could have special rules saying you can earn back the chance to strike, regardless of pending wounds, on a 4+.
You could cover a unit of marines with suppression fire before a charge, not worrying about how many saves they'll eventually make, just preventing melee attacks. It could be interesting, if impractical.

Splata
06-05-2008, 08:03
well said hellebore.

At no time should you be penelised for having more attacks than you need. If such a thing goes ahead you will definatly be seeing a conga line fleeting out of my raiders so that only my agoniser (power weapon) wielder can get a hit it, especially against 2+ save troops. This is a serious nerf against any squad that takes a unit leader with better weaponry.

The other negative of this is that it makes power weapons of sooo much better as they strike at a different I. Because now you can use your squad to try to snipe and your PF to do the massive damage to make the enemy flee. Wow... so opposite of the way i thought it would be, aren't the leaders in the movies the ones that go head to head?

Pink Horror
06-05-2008, 09:34
One more plasma gun scenario, a real simple one to fully explore the issue:

It's down near the end of the game. There's two enemy marine squads on the board, each with one bolter and one plasma gun. One uses rapid fire on the other.

In 4th edition, the more wounds the merrier. If I happen to cause 3 wounds, either they're both dead (from 2 plasma shots), or my opponent takes the bolter off the board and has to pass two saves with the plasma guy. Hooray!

In 5th edition, though, 3 wounds is much worse. Regardless of whether the wounds I rolled were 2 plasma and 1 bolter, or 1 bolter and 2 plasma, my opponent now has one dead bolter guy, and only has to pass 1 save to keep his plasma gun alive to shoot me back. Either the third wound was a bolter shot that actually costs me the 2nd kill, or the third wound was a plasma shot that doesn't get to do any damage. Boo!

Let's see if I'm better off not firing the bolter.

If I fire just the plasma gun, since I'd have to pass every roll it's pretty clear I kill both of them ~30.9% of the time.

What happens if I fire both? In 5th edition, it gets pretty complicated with wound allocation, so I'll break it down, holding saves until the end.

Chance to cause each number of wounds:
Plasma Gun
1 wound: ~49.4%
2 wounds: ~30.9%
Bolter
1 wound: ~44.4%
2 wounds: ~11.1%

Chances for different sets of wounds to allocate:
1 Bolt: ~8.7%
1 Plasma: ~22.0%
2 Bolts: ~2.2%
2 Plasma: ~13.8%
1 Bolt + 1 Plasma: ~21.9%
2 Bolts + 1 Plasma: ~5.5%
1 Bolt + 2 Plasma: ~13.7%
2 Bolts + 2 Plasma: ~3.4%

Chance for 2 deaths:
2 Bolts: ~2.2% * ~11.1% = ~0.2%
2 Plasma: ~13.8% * 100% = ~13.8%
1 Bolt + 1 Plasma: ~21.9% * ~33.3% = ~7.3%
2 Bolts + 1 Plasma: ~5.5% * ~33.3% = ~1.8%
1 Bolt + 2 Plasma: ~13.7% * ~33.3% = ~4.6%
2 Bolts + 2 Plasma: ~3.4% * ~55.6% = ~1.9%

Total chance to kill both when firing both guns in 5th: ~29.6%

I don't like that at all. More shots should mean more damage!

kokujin_atsuhara
06-05-2008, 09:39
The problem losing APhits or PWhits because excess of wounds it's bad.
Yes.

But you are only thinking about killing the sarge, or the PF, or similar.
In the Las/plasma squad that you have used like an example, we can see that now we can sniping all special minis in an oppossing unit.

And we must remember that the leaked PDF is outdated.

Perhaps, and it's a lot simpler that many suggestions I have read here, could be a line in the final document that reads:
"Wounds from attacks that ignores ST, shoot or CC, must be allocated to different models each."
And after that, some type of logical reason.

If there is no line, no clarify, and you can lose a kill for making an extra wound...well, that's a change, now there is other things that seem wrong.

I think 5th edition is better in general.
Better, is not perfect.

Titan Wolfe
06-05-2008, 09:55
I'm always amazed by the sudden onset of panic in people at the thought of a"Rule change" or in this case "New rules" . Many of us have played this game for a long time now,seen many a rule change . We go with the flow ,take things on the chin ,make the neccessary changes to our army lists and carry on playing the game we love .
In truth we have just over 60 days to wait for the new rules to come out ,no doubt there will be some leakage of things closer to the time . In the me time just play the game today and leave tomorrows problems for tomorrow.

Pink Horror
06-05-2008, 10:23
I'm always amazed by the sudden onset of panic in people at the thought of a"Rule change" or in this case "New rules" . Many of us have played this game for a long time now,seen many a rule change . We go with the flow ,take things on the chin ,make the neccessary changes to our army lists and carry on playing the game we love .

What panic? As stated in other threads, I play the game with other people who think like me and would house-rule this away in two minutes. I'm just trying to explain this change, because on the surface it barely appears to have any bad effect at all.

How does your statement add to the conversation? I've played for a long time, seen many changes, and made changes to armies and rules, too. This is a sub-forum for the discussion of 5th edition rules. Why come into a thread and say that the discussion of the rules is pointless? Should I head over to the background forum, and say how amazed I am that anyone would care about that stuff? Interrupt a eulogy, and say I'd always amazed that folks have good things to say about dead people?

Arkturas
06-05-2008, 11:34
As it is it doesn't make a lot of sense. There is also the vague notion that standard troop saves in a unit can be rolled together. Is that compulsary or can you roll the saves individually to get a better survival rate? Also units like deathwing, have every model with a different weapon, individual rolling for the entire unit so a better survival rate than a unit where 2 or more storm bolter models are rolled together.

If an advantage can be gained by applying different legal rolling techniques then there is a problem.

Now if there was a statement to the effect that all excess wounds to individual models after saves must be allocated by the defending player to other models in the unit, there would be no problem.

Splata
06-05-2008, 11:39
Ouch.

but agreed.
I've been playing this game since second ed. and really i find what you say just inflamatory. First that you assume that you have been playing longer because we are having a reasonable debate over how the new rules seem to be taking us and the fact that we don't like it. And Second that just because someone has been playing longer than someone else puts them in a much better position to be a judge of good rules or bad rules.

Personally i see this as a bad rule that goes against the flow of the game. It slows down the game by forcing you to save for each individual trooper (if they get hit more than once each) and it also slows don the killing rate which seems to be another prioity of theirs if you look at the new CC resolution rules.

In no form of the rules that I have ever known does more shots do LESS damage. This to me seems ludacrus and just makes another point where people will basically be having to math hammer something out in the middle of a game to try to figure out what is the better way of kiling something, because dammit, if you charge a squad of terminators and land 11 blows on 5 guys and 3 of them are power weapon attacks that is a major major blow to how much damage your squad is going to output as opposed to if your squad had made 8 blows onthe same squad! (a probable 2.2 dead termi's as opposed to a probably 2.7 :wtf:) In fact it means that we are probably going to get back to min-maxing CC squads that have squad leaders because at least that way we won't be wasting so many attacks! And why we are trying to get back to min-maxing i don't know!

Now before we get another but its so you can force the specil weapons to take tests, this could all easily be averted if attacks were sorted out from lowest AP to highest AP (0->6) or any other order for that matter.

Nkari
06-05-2008, 12:00
And we must remember that the leaked PDF is outdated.




I would hardly think it is out dated, the ork(amongst others) codex had been out roughly the same time, and _no_ changes where made in it, even tho it needed several clarifications and typo fixes. And that book is less than half the size of the rulebook, so whats the chance they will change anything ?

So I would not hold my breath that anything in the pdf will be changed..

Splata
06-05-2008, 12:57
Some things have been confirmed as definately changing. ie. blocking LoS. I would like to see one of these updated ones, but alas i do not know anyone with such a book

Titan Wolfe
06-05-2008, 14:23
Ouch.

but agreed.
I've been playing this game since second ed. and really i find what you say just inflamatory. First that you assume that you have been playing longer because we are having a reasonable debate over how the new rules seem to be taking us and the fact that we don't like it. And Second that just because someone has been playing longer than someone else puts them in a much better position to be a judge of good rules or bad rules.

Personally i see this as a bad rule that goes against the flow of the game. It slows down the game by forcing you to save for each individual trooper (if they get hit more than once each) and it also slows don the killing rate which seems to be another prioity of theirs if you look at the new CC resolution rules.

In no form of the rules that I have ever known does more shots do LESS damage. This to me seems ludacrus and just makes another point where people will basically be having to math hammer something out in the middle of a game to try to figure out what is the better way of kiling something, because dammit, if you charge a squad of terminators and land 11 blows on 5 guys and 3 of them are power weapon attacks that is a major major blow to how much damage your squad is going to output as opposed to if your squad had made 8 blows onthe same squad! (a probable 2.2 dead termi's as opposed to a probably 2.7 :wtf:) In fact it means that we are probably going to get back to min-maxing CC squads that have squad leaders because at least that way we won't be wasting so many attacks! And why we are trying to get back to min-maxing i don't know!

Now before we get another but its so you can force the specil weapons to take tests, this could all easily be averted if attacks were sorted out from lowest AP to highest AP (0->6) or any other order for that matter.

At least what I said earlier might have upset someone ,but what Splata said I totally agree with ....well said good sir.

The Song of Spears
06-05-2008, 16:08
It's much better to say all like shots must be applied in a row, and subsequent rounds of wounds must be allocated in the same order as the first, thus ensuring multiple AP shots won't hit the same mini (unless there's a huge amount of them).

I 10000% agree. This is the way it should be done. Wounds should wrap around applying just as you stated, good one! :)



EDIT: With that kind of weapon configuration you are actually better off missing with more bolter shots, that one shot is the difference between a 84% kill and a 15% kill...


You have done a fantastic job of pointing out just how bad, and i mean really bad, the current leaked PDF wound allocation system is. Good work! :)

Why is GW so worried about controlling who dies? Why can't it be as simply as "one wound is applied to each model, if excess wounds start at the first model you applied wounds to and continue to apply wounds in the same order, spread them around as evenly as possible."

This is simple, it show how a hail of bullets hits everyone in the unit equally, and how models with multiple wounds don't get shot first or last all the time.

it seems like there is a agenda with the PDF in the way they deliberately allow wounds, low/power weapon wounds to be negated. Maybe they are trying to get us to use less power weapons due to their decreased effectiveness?

Unplugged
06-05-2008, 17:33
EDIT: With that kind of weapon configuration you are actually better off missing with more bolter shots, that one shot is the difference between a 84% kill and a 15% kill...

Isn't this true in 4th already? Assume 4 Krak Missiles and a few bolters fire a 5 man marine squad. Lets say all Missiles hit. Thats 4 Marines dead - unless you hit and wound with more than one bolter, because then 2 missile wounds will be put on the same marine and the bolters get spread around (you'll get a torrent of fire-result, but thats only 1/3 to help anyway - because its a only bolter your opponent will choose). This problem appears as soon as you have more hits then Target models and differnt AP values. Or am I forgetting/missing something?

The Song of Spears
06-05-2008, 18:12
Isn't this true in 4th already? Assume 4 Krak Missiles and a few bolters fire a 5 man marine squad. Lets say all Missiles hit. Thats 4 Marines dead - unless you hit and wound with more than one bolter, because then 2 missile wounds will be put on the same marine and the bolters get spread around (you'll get a torrent of fire-result, but thats only 1/3 to help anyway - because its a only bolter your opponent will choose). This problem appears as soon as you have more hits then Target models and differnt AP values. Or am I forgetting/missing something?

Um... i think you are:

You dont allocate wounds that way in 4th ed. They are pure wounds in 4th ed. So if all 4 missiles hit and wound (assuming no cover) 4 marines die. The if 6 bolters hit and 3 wound, and 2 marines die, that brings the death toll up to 6 wounds, thus 6 models need to be removed (discarding the extra wound as obviously there are only 5 models)

in 5th ed: 4 krak wounds are allocated, as well as the three bolter wounds, thus on the 5 marines, three get a bolter wound assigned to them, and two get a missile wound assigned to them, with the final two missiles getting assigned to the same two guys who got the first two missile wounds assigned to them. after the one failed save as before from the bolter shot, this leaves us with 2 marines alive.

So in the 4th ed all five marines die, in 5th ed, 2 marines survive = IMO stupid

Why are the multiple missile shots aways hitting the 'same guys'? thats very odd...

Pink Horror
06-05-2008, 18:37
Why are the multiple missile shots aways hitting the 'same guys'? thats very odd...

The bolter marines told the missile launchers, "Don't worry about the 2 guys with special weapons and the sarge, we'll own them!"

triplare
06-05-2008, 19:09
I like the proposed wound allocation system. Much better than it is set up as right now, IMO.

Nurgling Chieftain
06-05-2008, 19:58
There's a lot of talk about what works better and worse in the new system. Definitely the new system is less intuitive; an extra wound can work against the firer, which is silly. But, in a game like this, that's kind of par for the course, and IMO not a big deal.

What IS a big deal in my opinion is rolling all these dice for all these individual models. No matter how many colors you have available, this is going to slow the game down dramatically. I know, I've seen it, we're already playing with these rules. And they're retarded. You have to either carefully line up each of the various models with a different color and then remember them - which doesn't work very well past about three - or simply roll separately for each model, which is what usually ends up happening.

So, when I do 20 wounds to a 10 man squad (and I do), and my opponent rolls two saves for each individual model, well, that's just a big, fat, annoying waste of time.

Tastyfish
06-05-2008, 21:15
I like the proposed wound allocation system. Much better than it is set up as right now, IMO.

I curious in what respects you see this, currently its easier to kill heavy weapons and sergants with the torrent of fire rules (since excess wounds will take them out and you need enough hits to get each guy in the unit once before the powerfist or heavy weapon has to make a save. Only difference with the new system is that less people die overall, it will take 4-5 times as long to resolve every shooting action and because of point one, the specialists last even longer.

I appreciate the intention of the new rules, and I can understand it if Torrent of Fire was one of those rules that never got remembered and thus needed to be changed - however I can't see any other upside here.

lucullus
07-05-2008, 00:05
Actually if you have mixed armour saves this is exactly how it already works in 4th ed. You apply the wounds to each model and then start applying second wounds. 4th Ed even give the example of putting 2 unsaveable wound on the same model if the wounds wrap around. This happens all the time to my aspect warriors and guardian squads that have warlocks.

lucullus
07-05-2008, 00:09
I actually use torrent of fire all the time. Falcon with pulse scatter and shkcan. will get 6 wounds quite often esp if it is guided. please have your PF Sgt take a save. Against marines using 5 or 6 man squads it is easy to get enough hits to invoke torrent of fire.

Gensuke626
07-05-2008, 00:40
just my 2 cents...This is how I interpret the rumored rule and how I would cover it.

I have a squad of 10 marines. In the squad I've got a guy with a ML, and a guy with a Plasma, and the sarge.

I get hit by...I dunno...A guardian defender squad with a star cannon platform. For the sake of arguement I suffer 14 wounds and 2 star cannon wounds.

I allocate the wounds across my squad. I have 7 bolter boys, so one of them takes a starcannon wound. everyone else suffers 1 wound and I still have 6 to pass out, so the guy who got struck by the star cannon takes another one to his face. The regular bolter boys take the remaining 5 wounds, then I roll.

I roll 9 dice, since I auto fail the Starcannon save. 5 dice are white, for the normal grunts who tool 2 hits, 1 is blue for the grunt who only took 1 hit, 1 is red for the ML, 1 is Green for the plas, and 1 is black for the sarge. I roll their saves and remove casualties as needed. Any white dice that save, I re-roll for the second save.

Dunno, that's how I'd do it, and that's how it works as far as I know.

triplare
07-05-2008, 00:58
I curious in what respects you see this

Me curious about why killing more models faster makes for better gameplay.

I'll just say that I like grouping weapon types shots, and designating specific models to take the hits (when possible).

I'm not trying to convince you that your opinion is flawed. I just truly like it better than how it is in 4th edition.

Fin.

Draconian77
07-05-2008, 01:09
I have to say out of all the rumoured rules changes come 5th I'm not worried about this. It does add a sense of realism to the game when some marine other than Numbers 1 through 7 die first, all the time. It won't take as long as some people are making it out. Maybe at first it will, but give it 3+ games and it won't be a problem any more.

I actually like the idea of all those armour piercing shots hitting the same model if the squad is all wounded and then some. Might stop the prolific use of Plasma guns, makes units like Bikes and Terminators more appealing which they need to be given that they no longer score.

Nurgling Chieftain
07-05-2008, 01:28
It won't take as long as some people are making it out....So sayeth those who have not done it.

The whole thing reminds me of 3rd edition HtH, when all characters (including sergeants!) could - and usually did - pick out specific models for their attacks. It took f-o-r-e-v-e-r. Man, was I glad when they got rid of that rule, the game sped up dramatically.

I do not want to spend lots and lots of time allocating wounds in a 40k-scale game. It adds very little compared to the amount of time it takes. Far better, IMO, to accept that it's all a bit abstract and the squad usually (or even always) keeps its best items until it takes a certain amount of damage. ToF was a reasonable compromise. This, is not.

MasterDecoy
07-05-2008, 01:37
meh, if my 10 man squad takes 20 wounds, I roll 10 dice, then count how many died, roll another 10 dice, minus the amount who failed the first time, takes about 5 seconds really.
Roll for special weapons seperatly (as I probably would be already in 4th anyway)

I dont think having models actually able to survive the entire battle is a bad thing IMHO. (which is quite rare atm, 90% of my games end with one side with 10% left of his force, and the other with 0->3% left)

and before you accuse me of not having done it, my brother and I play exclusivly 5th ed(alpha ;) lol ) when we play against each other.

Quite frankly, after playing a few games, I really liked the changes they made and my 4th ed army didnt get nerfed in the slightest (I actually think it got stronger)

Draconian77
07-05-2008, 01:39
Your sort of assuming there aren't you Nurgling?

I tried games using the 5th ed rules and I honestly don't see the problem. One thing I did find is that it is much faster using 1 colour die and just rolling seperately for the special models. Different coloured die can be confusing and time consuming.

ToF made was not a reasonable compromise. It was very hard to ToF a 10 man squad of anything.

Splata
07-05-2008, 06:26
Master Decoy, while I admit i like your method, it isn't 5th Ed. You have the rules quite quite wrong. You allocate ALL wounds then roll for each troop individually, not you allocate one wound per troop then roll rinse and repeat.

This is personally my favoite solution. It does mean a few more rolls perhaps, but it feel it is the best merging of the rules and wanted outcomes. Although it does make armour not as effective,l which does not seem to be what GW want.

EDIT: take that back, you are doing it correctly master decoy, appologies. As it stands my second example is still my favorite way to work out wounds though.

Pink Horror
07-05-2008, 07:54
meh, if my 10 man squad takes 20 wounds, I roll 10 dice, then count how many died, roll another 10 dice, minus the amount who failed the first time, takes about 5 seconds really.
Roll for special weapons seperatly (as I probably would be already in 4th anyway)

Nothing wrong with that. If you happen to have a squad with 10 identical models get hit by exactly 20 identical wounds, I guess that should work out. I have a feeling the minimum number of roll sets will often be higher than 2, though. Turn that 20 into a 19 or 21, and now there's 3 sets. And people would probably be hesitant to streamline things this way, fearing that the results would change. Your example also clearly shows how additional wounds get neutered, no matter what kind. Against a 4+ save, you'll average having to roll 15 saves instead of 20. The average of 10 kills turns into 7.5.


I dont think having models actually able to survive the entire battle is a bad thing IMHO. (which is quite rare atm, 90% of my games end with one side with 10% left of his force, and the other with 0->3% left)

I think the greater survivability should -
1) Not be affected by whether the shots come from 3 units with 10 shots each or 1 unit with 30.
2) Not penalize me for good luck on wound rolls.
3) Not force me to keep my regular squad members out of the charge (I'm a big Chosen fan).
4) Come mostly from changes to usual game terrain and assaults (the rulebook claims assaults are high-risk, high-reward, but many assault troops, with the enormous number of dice they throw, guaranteed 1st strike, likely targets, and their toughness and saves, have barely any risk).


and before you accuse me of not having done it, my brother and I play exclusivly 5th ed(alpha ;) lol ) when we play against each other.

I'll just accuse you of not doing it right. :evilgrin: Or at least not trying hard enough to abuse the rules, which is how new rules should be treated. Or just focusing too much on having fun than deliberately forcing the issues that might make the new rules a pain.


Quite frankly, after playing a few games, I really liked the changes they made and my 4th ed army didnt get nerfed in the slightest (I actually think it got stronger)

None of my 5th edition complaints are about balance issues. The core should be about establishing a solid foundation that can support a complex (if I have to spend an evening playing it, and the rest of my life preparing, it better not be shallow), engaging game. Balance is best left to the army lists. Nothing in the core rules can prevent the designers from accidentally handing out over-powered units or special rules. The codices even let people dupe the FOC chart now. There's nothing the core rulebook can do that the codex can't break.

Meanwhile, every decade of this cobbled-together hobby should probably have a house-cleaning, like with the simple, get-you-by army lists that were in the 3rd edition book. I thought that was brilliant. The game can't really evolve when it's stuck being compatible, in a rules and balance sense, with a pile of different supplements, with things like the Grotesques' Feel No Pain, unchanged since '98. Some 5th edition changes are nice house rules finally made official, but nothing excites me. Only Troops capturing objectives could have been introduced with a few new missions. If GW keeps maintaining its game this way, we'll end up with 40k Vista.

Splata
07-05-2008, 11:16
Actually Pink Horror the problem with vista (ok one of, but a biggy) is that Vista was a re-write, it was the house cleaning!

Unplugged
07-05-2008, 12:22
Um... i think you are:

You dont allocate wounds that way in 4th ed. They are pure wounds in 4th ed. So if all 4 missiles hit and wound (assuming no cover) 4 marines die. The if 6 bolters hit and 3 wound, and 2 marines die, that brings the death toll up to 6 wounds, thus 6 models need to be removed (discarding the extra wound as obviously there are only 5 models)

You're right, of course. Don't know what exactly I was thinking, but there is a situation in which additional low-ap/low strength shots already can make things worse. I think it was ... against Tau Suits with shield drones or something. But yeah, here it doesnt make a difference.

Pink Horror
08-05-2008, 00:30
Actually Pink Horror the problem with vista (ok one of, but a biggy) is that Vista was a re-write, it was the house cleaning!

The core book is the OS. The codices are the applications. Cleaning house would be making Vista not work with any program written to work for a previous version of Windows. Vista is filled with bugs partially because, when Microsoft tries to update Windows, every way a program could use the system, every old software rule that any little application might reference, had to be included. And so did every old feature. And I thought rewriting everything was the goal, but a lot of old code still made it in, because it was too huge of a task. Regardless, the part of Vista that was to be rewritten was the code, the guts, which don't have an analogue in the rulebook. The API and the UI are much closer in analogy to the rules of a game, and those had to conform to old expectations of both people and processes. Go on MSDN and read through the thousands of things that Vista was forced to keep around.

Luckily 40k exists on a much smaller scale, but when people expect GW to make sure that the special rules in books released for 3rd edition don't combine to become overpowered, or get rendered completely obsolete, in 5th edition, the designers have limited freedom. Would a new characteristic have improved 40k? Scrapping invulnerable saves (they're not really invulnerable any more, with all the things that now ignore them)? I guess we'll never know.

Rlyehable
08-05-2008, 05:03
The "wound allocation problem" could be solved with 2 added sentences:
"In shooting, allocate wounds in order of AP starting with AP:1 and ending with AP:-. In close combat, allocate wounds that ignore armor saves first, then other wounds."

Fletch
08-05-2008, 18:17
After reading through the "proposed" 5th edition rules, I must say that I am one of the happy ones, and not just because it has an air of 2nd ed. to it.

When you read these proposed changes it comes down to personal preference. I like having "a chance", 3rd and 4th became nothing more than games of denial. Players would load up on as many high AP weapons as they could, as it guaranteed lots of dead things (usually lots of expensive dead things). If only my car could have been powered by the tears of those marine players that came here daily to cry about the old star cannon having 3 AP2 shots.

So what might these proposed rules do? The will give players a chance. I donít think it will slow up the game one bit as I find how long it takes to play a game isnít as much a mechanic of the rules as a mechanic of who your opponent is. You know the type, those that donít foresee their next turn, take forever meticulously measuring each model making sure they have exactly 2Ē (no less, no more) between models. Same type that stare at the drive-thru menu for what seems like days, as if it had changed in the last 10 years.

There are advantages and disadvantages to these new ďhow to wound and rollĒ rules. We will adapt and I believe the majority of players, maybe not the majority of the online forum community, will embrace and enjoy them.

Splata
09-05-2008, 00:18
After reading through the "proposed" 5th edition rules, I must say that I am one of the happy ones, and not just because it has an air of 2nd ed. to it.

When you read these proposed changes it comes down to personal preference. I like having "a chance", 3rd and 4th became nothing more than games of denial. Players would load up on as many high AP weapons as they could, as it guaranteed lots of dead things (usually lots of expensive dead things). If only my car could have been powered by the tears of those marine players that came here daily to cry about the old star cannon having 3 AP2 shots.

So what might these proposed rules do? The will give players a chance. I donít think it will slow up the game one bit as I find how long it takes to play a game isnít as much a mechanic of the rules as a mechanic of who your opponent is. You know the type, those that donít foresee their next turn, take forever meticulously measuring each model making sure they have exactly 2Ē (no less, no more) between models. Same type that stare at the drive-thru menu for what seems like days, as if it had changed in the last 10 years.

There are advantages and disadvantages to these new ďhow to wound and rollĒ rules. We will adapt and I believe the majority of players, maybe not the majority of the online forum community, will embrace and enjoy them.

I have one request.

Please, for all our sakes, read the posts before posting and then contribute to the conversation. That was a nothing comment. Basically mindless drivel. It could almost have been posted in any of these 5th ed. threads and would not have applied to any of them.

We will have to use them and I like a lot of the new rules too. But i feel the implementation of this rule is excessively counter intuitive and if anyhting is going to slow down the game more as players work out how many weapons they should be firing for maximum effect. Perhaps in this case a person with a falcon even if they could fire all their weapons at a marine squad won't as it will nullify their better ones! Isn't that silly? Don't you feel that this is not the direction the game should be going?

This isn't so much a my unit is being nerfed (although my DE will, but my nids won't) thread but a this rule is really taking us down the wrong path and needs a fix thread.

fwacho
09-05-2008, 03:47
actaully I think I like this rule. Meltas become superior plasma in almost every way. (five man squads particualrly) The power fist loses it's all powerful feel (-1 attack and chance to have them heaped) power weapon gets better (more chances to score 3 or more wounds (thus killing two models)

Yes teh anti-MEQ armies are gonna get a revamp. meltas will be switch for plasmas powerswords for powerfists with melta bombs handed out like candy. Bolter teams marine units with a heavy bolter and melta gun will become standard. bacially this is a met-game shift.

Yes, the game will take n extra 10 minutes a turn (read a full hour more for 1500+ games) as you go down teh line rolling sae for each trooper.

you forget that guard get better as unsaved wounds don't carry over to other models. The tide is shifting back to assault again. (sadly as that is what WHFB is about) where the real damage will happen. shooting gets less potent on average but can really hurt an opponent on a bad dice day. you fail that srg save and it 'll come back to haunt you. (and how many people do you know that always fail when rolling a single dice? I know a few.)

Over all with wound allocation.
1. game gets slower.
2. characters have to worry when getting massed shot at. (nothing new there) but seriously.. how often do you use "torrent of fire" in your games. I would say once every other game for me.
3. plasma gun potentially suffers (use combat squads and shoot at large squads instead.) I really see the plasma gun loosing a kill as a once a game thing if that much. (unless you are spamming them in which case I don't feel sorry for you.)
4.emphasis on getting 3 hits with a power weapon becomes big deal. expect to see more lightening claws fielded.

Fletch
09-05-2008, 05:10
I have one request.

Please, for all our sakes, read the posts before posting and then contribute to the conversation. That was a nothing comment. Basically mindless drivel.

You mean some constructive contribution like this…………


Actually Pink Horror the problem with vista (ok one of, but a biggy) is that Vista was a re-write, it was the house cleaning!

Maybe its just that I gave my opinion something like…..



Personally i see this as a bad rule that goes against the flow of the game.


After reading through the "proposed" 5th edition rules, I must say that I am one of the happy ones, and not just because it has an air of 2nd ed. to it.

I guess your general feeling for the rule is much more constructive and contributed vastly more than everyone else’s or at least mine.




It slows down the game…….



I don’t think it will slow up the game one bit as I find how long it takes to play a game isn’t as much a mechanic of the rules as a mechanic of who your opponent is.

A direct response and my opinion on the issue that some, like you, feel the rule will slow up the game.

Admittedly it may not have been one of my meatier or more thought provoking posts. But you have zero right other than being a total **** to criticize or try to sanction what should or should not be posted within a particular thread, especially one in which you yourself would be at times considered guilty of what you are accusing me of. Maybe if I threw in a comment or two about Vista it would have been totally appropriate in a 40k forum discussion and worthy of Splata's praise instead of his/her/its wrath.

Best to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

***EDIT, I guess I should add something constructive and answer the thread originators concerns in this my second post on the topic.....It may seem at first an overwhelming proposition to roll for each individual trooper, but I believe that you in time will find it to be just as fun if not more fun than rolling one big heap of dice and knocking models over en mass.

I, like I have mentioned previously find the game more fun, possibly more personal when the game experience can be individualized. Picking up the dice pointing to your lil'greenskin and fending off those 3 wounding rolls, is imo more fun not to mention a reason to WAAGH! Move on to the next guy and hope he is as lucky as the last. Compare that to picking up a hand full of dice rolling them in a heap, counting up the failures, comparing it to the number of troopers in the squad and picking up the dead en mass is imo lame and non engaging. I think a few more seconds a resolution is worth the added potential for true heroic fun; time that can be made up many times over in other areas where players tend to drag their feet.


Regarding the flow or feel of having multiple AP "denial" weapons in a squad wasted; the old way is not better its just different. I pity the player that would actually hold shots or refuse to strike in combat because they are worried that their auto death shots could potentially be wasted on just one or two models per weapon. Just seems like someone has a case of the "powergammer" when they make statements a kin to that.

The worry about losing out on the AP denial weapons is just pretty much unfounded imo. I believe that the new rumored rules have to be looked at as a whole. Those opposed to one rule may not fully understand them when looked at as a collection of rules working together. Case in point....currently in 4th ed. you can only kill those models within your "kill zone" (BtB out to 2") in the proposed 5th ed. you will be able to kill any model in the locked squad even those outside the immediate engagement area. This increases your squads ability to cause more casualties not diminish them. Also your opponent will no longer be able to remove all models in base or within 2" of one of your still yet to attack combatants to deny them their attacks in a later initiative step (the current 4th ed rule). In the new proposed rules your engaged models (determined at the beginning of the phase) still get their attacks whenever their initiative step is i.e. 1 (Mr. Powerfist) even if at that time you have no opponents left in BtB or within 2". Heck, I bet more people have had their Heroic characters or "hidden Powerfist" loose out on attacks in a combat under the current rules due to your opponent always removing their targets first thus leaving them unengaged at the time their initiative step came due resulting in zero attacks, then will have wasted all of their now always useable multiple "autodoomy" hits on just one model in 5th edition. 1 dead is better than none. Same goes for shooting, now all models in the unit are fair game, even the ones behind the walls.

So the new wound allocation rules when combined with the new "who can be hit" rules add up to pure gold. The rules also impact other things, take for example the counter-attack special rule for a squad, under the current rules its mediocre at best. This was usually because most opponents when facing squads with this ability would box the initial combat in and not allow those unengaged models that could then counter attack to go past the initial combats they initiated with their original charge. This limited the damage they could cause per the 2" kill zone rule. Now that you can kill anyone at any distance, counter-attack got a whole lot juicier. Now I can "engage" most if not all of my models, and since any engaged models at the start of the combat cannot be denied thier attacks and that the 2" kill zone is gone and you can kill any model in the locked unit, it just makes for a lot more carnage.....so are you still really going tol complain that your counter attacking initiative 1 powerfist can now attack and kill things even if those 2 wounds got allocated to just one model (which is not even in BtB or within 2" when initiative step 1 comes due).........come on now, its not that bad after all.

P.S. I hate Vista

Pink Horror
09-05-2008, 07:34
So the new wound allocation rules when combined with the new "who can be hit" rules add up to pure gold.

My opponent has 30 Orks spread across the table. I charge the power klaw nob and get a bunch of wounds, and they get removed from over 12" away. That's "pure gold"? That's helping me kill the nob?

I charge a few meganobs, and get enough wounds to wipe out the squad with my lightning claws, but the ccw wounds let half the squad stay alive? I'm supposed to enjoy that?

This is not about balance, not about whether shooting is getting a boost or a nerf. It is about one mechanic feeling like it makes sense. None of the other mechanics can be a remedy for one mechanic not making sense. Has LOS sniping been eliminated? Great, but it doesn't fix the problem. Are power weapons better/worse? Who cares! It's not about that! It's not about balance! It's about how the rules play out: the simple fact that sometimes one gun will shoot worse because other members of a squad happened to fire is very annoying, and practically provides no benefit.

As others have said, it's easy to fix the brunt of this. Just allocate all the weapons of each different kind in some arbitrary order: plasma guns first, then bolters, then flamers, then whatever. The order doesn't matter. Isn't it grand when there is an easy fix to an annoying rule that sucks some fun out of the game?

There's the secondary issue of lost shots (or stabs). By rolling individually, forcing enough saves makes some saves disappear. For example, in 4th edition, getting 20 close combat wounds on 10 guardsmen forces them to pass 11 saves out of 20 to have a single member survive. This happens 3.76% of the time. In 5th edition, each guardsman has to individually pass 2 saves in a row to survive. One out of every nine guardsmen make this, on average. Now at least one survives 69.2% of the time. This is different, and monotonous to carry out IMO, and results in fewer casualties, but I don't mind it as much. I'd still like people to know about it, though. Though wounds are loss, there isn't any benefit to holstering your weapons. There's just diminished returns. What annoys here is nature of how shots get split. You are penalized for having one squad of 20 instead of two squads of 10. Having to fire everything at one target seems like enough of a penalty to me. I'd agree to play this way if someone else wanted to, but I wouldn't ask for it.

Fletch
09-05-2008, 08:32
My opponent has 30 Orks spread across the table. I charge the power klaw nob and get a bunch of wounds, and they get removed from over 12" away. That's "pure gold"? That's helping me kill the nob?

I charge a few meganobs, and get enough wounds to wipe out the squad with my lightning claws, but the ccw wounds let half the squad stay alive? I'm supposed to enjoy that?

This is not about balance, not about whether shooting is getting a boost or a nerf. It is about one mechanic feeling like it makes sense. None of the other mechanics can be a remedy for one mechanic not making sense. Has LOS sniping been eliminated? Great, but it doesn't fix the problem. Are power weapons better/worse? Who cares! It's not about that! It's not about balance! It's about how the rules play out: the simple fact that sometimes one gun will shoot worse because other members of a squad happened to fire is very annoying, and practically provides no benefit.

As others have said, it's easy to fix the brunt of this. Just allocate all the weapons of each different kind in some arbitrary order: plasma guns first, then bolters, then flamers, then whatever. The order doesn't matter. Isn't it grand when there is an easy fix to an annoying rule that sucks some fun out of the game?

There's the secondary issue of lost shots (or stabs). By rolling individually, forcing enough saves makes some saves disappear. For example, in 4th edition, getting 20 close combat wounds on 10 guardsmen forces them to pass 11 saves out of 20 to have a single member survive. This happens 3.76% of the time. In 5th edition, each guardsman has to individually pass 2 saves in a row to survive. One out of every nine guardsmen make this, on average. Now at least one survives 69.2% of the time. This is different, and monotonous to carry out IMO, and results in fewer casualties, but I don't mind it as much. I'd still like people to know about it, though. Though wounds are loss, there isn't any benefit to holstering your weapons. There's just diminished returns. What annoys here is nature of how shots get split. You are penalized for having one squad of 20 instead of two squads of 10. Having to fire everything at one target seems like enough of a penalty to me. I'd agree to play this way if someone else wanted to, but I wouldn't ask for it.


Maybe pure gold was a bit of a stretch when I understand that others will not agree with me, but at least for me I find the potential for the new rules to be refreshing and don't look at them as a punishment. I find the whole AP system severly flawed and punative in nature. I find these changes as a way to start digging us out of the terrible AP hole the game was put into with 3rd edition. Thats called an attempt to balance a bad thing and that bad thing is the AP system, or the all or nothing system. I found taking the dice out my hand with the AP system as sucking the fun right out of a game. I like having a chance even if its only a slight one, its what makes doing something fun. Its not fun knowing that my opponent has stacked his/her army with large amounts of power weapons / AP denial weapons, so basically I dont get to roll any dice during his/her turn I just get to remove models.

You seem to be upset that you can't do the same thing each time and expect the same result, i.e. when shooting a plasma gun and hitting twice it should always kill two models. You don't like the thought that one time I may kill one and another two, based solely on how much additional shots wound as well. Its a game of chance (being based on the roll of dice), doing this only brought back the element of chance.

You talk about AP "denial" weapons as if they were smart weapons. Its only fun if I can shoot shoot shoot with my plasma guns like they are a kin to sniper like weapons, i.e. each shot hits home on a seperate new target. You act like its outside the "game realm" of reason to think that a plasma gunner would actually pump two shots into the same target hoping to kill it. I mean its ok if two shots are fired at the same target if the first or second shot doesnt wound (since how do you determine which dice you roled was the first or second shot) then of course they can be against the same target. However you don't feel its fair that if both hit and both wound that it should be agaisnt the same target, because then that second shot is wasted and looked at as a liability. The new rules only allowed for this logical mechanic to be applied if and only if enough wounds are caused on a unit to wrap, meaning that the mechanic has a lesser effect as it is not always applied in each shooting resolution.

With regards to your lightning claw example, its again situational and again about the game of denial that most everyone that was introduced to the game with 3rd or later have ever known. I mean first you would need to have mixed CCW and Lightning Claws which typically means that the Claws are attached to a single character which it is unlikely that every model in the enemy unit would be within its kill zone anyway. Or if a unit of them then you dont have to worry about CCW since those units usually all wield power type weapons. Also, the Claws and the CCW would have to be allocated in the same initiative steps, since in HtH wounds are resolved at each step, meaning that your Power Fist attacks will never be mixed up with CCW attacks.

So currently you can kill everyone in your kill zone but only those in that sphere. Now you can hit and potentially kill everyone locked in the combat but the trade off is some of them might actually have a chance to live (which as the defender might seem more fun than the other way around).

It basically comes down to if you like the AP/power weapon system that was created in 3rd edition. (An attempt to make the game easier and faster), or if you are more smyphetic to 2nd edition type rules. The ones where power weapons were str5 -2 save. Marines for example (the most played army) went from hit, wound, save in 2nd edition to hit, wound, dead in 3rd edition. This is just an attempt (simple maybe) to bring the game back to something less exact to something where the dice are not continually taken out of the hands of the defender as they are with the current edition.

5th's rumored rules do offer that squad of 20 some additional advantages now that were not available in 4th. While they may not be as "math hammer" as 2 x 10 man units in shooting, they do however have a place. One is now that you can effectively screen units behind you, having the ability to field mob size units can offer wider protection to other more elite units trailing behind. Those units that could be singled out by those AP denial weapons before in 4th, meaning that you rarely if ever made it to the dance in tact unless mounted up. So a unit of 20 is going to be a big thorn that your opponent just simply cannot ignore anymore.

And regarding your guard example. Again we can disagree, I like having the ability to pick up the dice point to my model and say dangit sarge you need to live!!! Embrace the odds and roll the dice and then say heck yeah when his armor actually works. Its why we, or at least I play the game. I don't like the Yatzee mentality of loading 20 dice into a plastic barrel throwing them down and seeing how many models I need to pick up. The game became the equal of going to the game shop and speed dating (pick up games). I don't mind playing one less game if it offers all kinds of fun and stories......

Ah yes the stories. Some may not understand nor care, but I still find it funny how even these many years later my buds and I can be sitting around talking and old games of 2nd edition come up, as the game allowed for heroic oppurtunities, like a single guardsman making 8 saves in a single thus allowing the unit to deny an objective. Denial based systems dont allow me these oppurtunities but on very rare occassions. I hope some of the magic comes back with 5th edition.


Hell why do you think apoc is so popular and freaking fun.....because if felt like the old days again.

Fletch
09-05-2008, 09:09
****EDITED

Removing double post, sorry

Draconian77
09-05-2008, 09:26
@Fletch: Good posts and you pretty much put into words what I was too lazy to do.

The Ap system is flawed, it really encourages maxing out of Ap3-2-1 weapons in order to make sure every wound is a kill and on a cynical note Space Marines began to win less when everyone built there lists around anti-MEQ.

Your example about the single Guardsmen having a 69% chance to survive now, I know what you are saying but it is rumoured that the new moral rules will be tougher on LD tests isn't it?

If you charge the squad of 30 Orks without first having softened them up with supporting fire then quite frankly...

I'm not so sure that Meltaguns will replace Plasma Guns, plasma guns duoble tapping almost always get 1 hit at BS4 whereas the Melta will do nothing occassionaly.

A chance to kill the Special Weapon-Heavy Weapon-Power Fist/Weapon Seargant is well worth the chance that all your Ap2 wounds wrap round(Especially if you play Tyranids) I don't think it will add time to the game once players get their heads around it, its not overly complicated and if someone slows down the game by trying to figure out how many shots he has to roll for maximum damage then I pity him.

ssgtdude
09-05-2008, 17:16
As I am reading this I'm not totally enthused with what I am reading.

AS I understand it the rule plays out basicly like this.

Marine squad (Standard squad no multiple wound characters or special armor) of ten is hit by Guard rapid fire Lasguns.
I manage to wound 20 times with the guardsmen (Large platoon of guard)
(Just for argument all the shots are lasgun to simplify this)
SMurf player would then roll ten dice remove the number of saves and roll the remaining dice and total the fails from both rolls?

So if roll 1 of the ten dice was 3 failed saves he then rolls 7 dice and if he has 2 fails he only takes a total of 5 wounds from the 20 potential?

Another example
Basicly it will work like this...

You fire your platoon with GL and 9 Lasguns for squad 1 and Squad two has Flamer and 9 Lasguns, the JSO squad has three Plasma shots into a group of Marines.

Going into this you hit all ten Smurfs with the Flamer and wounding 4
the 18 Lasguns rapid fire and hit 18 times wounding 9
the Plasma shots hit twice and do one wound. The GL fails to wound.

Allocation goes like this.
Marine Squad
SM 1 Plasma wound, Flamer wound, Lasgun (Plasma AP's and Marine will die)
SM 2 Flamer wound, Lasgun
SM 3 Flamer wound, Lasgun
SM 4 Flamer wound, Lasgun
SM 5 Lasgun
SM 6 Lasgun
SM 7 Lasgun
SM 8 Lasgun
SM 9 Lasgun
SM 10 (Vet Sarg with power Fist)


Something is bascially wrong here. I do under stand that you are wrapping wounds, but the allocation system is wacky. Since as it is reading you are allocating the full number of wounds per weapon to the entire squad number at the begining of the phase. To me being able to allocate wounds to a model that would die anyhow is completely wrong.

Another problem comes in with the fact that you can fire at the same unit and the unit will just continue to save all the allocation until you have fired everything that you are going to fire at them before making saves. Therefore, that ID plasma death will also be allocated the Auto Cannon shot, the Krak Missle, and one of the Heavy Bolters, as well as one of the Bassie template rounds.

Which means that in a single shooting phase that one model that dies allocated a total of 7 wounds saving the Vet sarge so that he doesn't have to make a single save.

Is this correct? or am I reading all of this wrong?

Fletch
09-05-2008, 20:30
As I am reading this I'm not totally enthused with what I am reading.

AS I understand it the rule plays out basicly like this.

Marine squad (Standard squad no multiple wound characters or special armor) of ten is hit by Guard rapid fire Lasguns.
I manage to wound 20 times with the guardsmen (Large platoon of guard)
(Just for argument all the shots are lasgun to simplify this)
SMurf player would then roll ten dice remove the number of saves and roll the remaining dice and total the fails from both rolls?

So if roll 1 of the ten dice was 3 failed saves he then rolls 7 dice and if he has 2 fails he only takes a total of 5 wounds from the 20 potential?

Another example
Basicly it will work like this...

You fire your platoon with GL and 9 Lasguns for squad 1 and Squad two has Flamer and 9 Lasguns, the JSO squad has three Plasma shots into a group of Marines.

Going into this you hit all ten Smurfs with the Flamer and wounding 4
the 18 Lasguns rapid fire and hit 18 times wounding 9
the Plasma shots hit twice and do one wound. The GL fails to wound.

Allocation goes like this.
Marine Squad
SM 1 Plasma wound, Flamer wound, Lasgun (Plasma AP's and Marine will die)
SM 2 Flamer wound, Lasgun
SM 3 Flamer wound, Lasgun
SM 4 Flamer wound, Lasgun
SM 5 Lasgun
SM 6 Lasgun
SM 7 Lasgun
SM 8 Lasgun
SM 9 Lasgun
SM 10 (Vet Sarg with power Fist)


Something is bascially wrong here. I do under stand that you are wrapping wounds, but the allocation system is wacky. Since as it is reading you are allocating the full number of wounds per weapon to the entire squad number at the begining of the phase. To me being able to allocate wounds to a model that would die anyhow is completely wrong.

Another problem comes in with the fact that you can fire at the same unit and the unit will just continue to save all the allocation until you have fired everything that you are going to fire at them before making saves. Therefore, that ID plasma death will also be allocated the Auto Cannon shot, the Krak Missle, and one of the Heavy Bolters, as well as one of the Bassie template rounds.

Which means that in a single shooting phase that one model that dies allocated a total of 7 wounds saving the Vet sarge so that he doesn't have to make a single save.

Is this correct? or am I reading all of this wrong?


No its not correct.

In your first scenerio, where you caused 20 wounds on 10 marines. The Marine player would then need to allocate wounds to his models, applying one wound to each model before applying a second to any model and continuing to apply all wounds equally (when possible) until all wounds have been applied. So each marine would end up with 2 wounds. (i.e. you cant have 9 marines with saving against one wound and 1 marine saving against 11 wounds). The marine player would then pick up two dice and roll the two saves per model individually removing any marine that failed at least one of the wounds (as they only have one wound).

In your second scenerio each of your units would fire at the marines seperatly resolving each of their shooting before moving onto the next squad. So if your first squad puts in 9 wounds with the lasguns the marine wound allocate one each to 9 of the 10 marines and roll one armor save for each of the 9. If that resulted in 4 failed save your second squad would be firing against the 6 remaining marines and so on. Say in your second squad you wounded 7 times, 5 with lasguns and 2 with plasma (this is where the issue is with players) the marine player having to allocate the 7 wounds to the 6 remaining marines would first start by applying one wound per and then allocating the remaining one wound this means the marine could apply 5 lasguns to 5 marines and then 2 plasma to 1 marine.

SM 1 lasgun wound
SM 2 lasgun wound
SM 3 lasgun wound
SM 4 lasgun wound
SM 5 lasgun wound
SM 6 plasma wound + plasma wound

ssgtdude
09-05-2008, 20:41
No its not correct.

In your first scenerio, where you caused 20 wounds on 10 marines. The Marine player would then need to allocate wounds to his models, applying one wound to each model before applying a second to any model and continuing to apply all wounds equally (when possible) until all wounds have been applied. So each marine would end up with 2 wounds. (i.e. you cant have 9 marines with saving against one wound and 1 marine saving against 11 wounds). The marine player would then pick up two dice and roll the two saves per model individually removing any marine that failed at least one of the wounds (as they only have one wound).

In your second scenerio each of your units would fire at the marines seperatly resolving each of their shooting before moving onto the next squad. So if your first squad puts in 9 wounds with the lasguns the marine wound allocate one each to 9 of the 10 marines and roll one armor save for each of the 9. If that resulted in 4 failed save your second squad would be firing against the 6 remaining marines and so on. Say in your second squad you wounded 7 times, 5 with lasguns and 2 with plasma (this is where the issue is with players) the marine player having to allocate the 7 wounds to the 6 remaining marines would first start by applying one wound per and then allocating the remaining one wound this means the marine could apply 5 lasguns to 5 marines and then 2 plasma to 1 marine.

SM 1 lasgun wound
SM 2 lasgun wound
SM 3 lasgun wound
SM 4 lasgun wound
SM 5 lasgun wound
SM 6 plasma wound + plasma wound


Thanks for the clearification, but it still leaves me dumbfounded that you are able to apply a wound to a marine that is already going to die with the two plasma shots going to a single model.

I guess I would understand it easier if that single model was special in some way as to be able to make a invul or something against it, but to just be able to apply them to a single model is what I have the problem with.

Fletch
09-05-2008, 21:37
Thanks for the clearification, but it still leaves me dumbfounded that you are able to apply a wound to a marine that is already going to die with the two plasma shots going to a single model.

I guess I would understand it easier if that single model was special in some way as to be able to make a invul or something against it, but to just be able to apply them to a single model is what I have the problem with.

IMO its just GWs way of trying to diminish somewhat the negative impacts the AP system has had on the 40k game system without just scraping the system all together, which would have made for a very dramatic change to those folks introduced to the game after 2nd edition (A majority of the current player base).

Fantasy and 40k used to be the same when it came to armor and saving throws, i.e. a numeric base armor save modified by the attack (-1, -2, -3) etc. In 3rd edition 40k went to the AP system and the games dynamic changed dramatically. The dice were literally ripped out of the hands of the defender in many cases. The game of "denial" or "mathhammer" was born, such terms as MEQ were coined. All in an attempt to design armies that were based on not allowing your opponent the oppurtunity to save against your shots. This was because the AP system was designed as all or nothing. I am sure many folks could probably live with shooting at power armored marines allowing them a 3+, 4+, 5+ or 6+ at times depending on the weapon being used. But in 3rd and now in 4th its just the marine gets their 3+ or nothing at all. Which way do you think most folks decided to design their armies around? Allowing the marine a 3+ or trying to take it away, because thats the only two choices GW allowed the players in 3rd and now 4th edition. Most chose maximum denial.

So while it may seem a bit odd or out of wack I assure you everything will be ok. Within a few games playing under 5th edition you will understand. Now the forums will still have the "doomsayers" but after having played both Warhammer and 40k under every edition along with about every other popular tactical minitures wargames in the past 25+ years, I don't see these changes as negative or balance ending. Its bringing back the element of chance.

Draconian77
09-05-2008, 21:49
In the first example where 10 Marines take 20 wounds you just roll 20 armour saves and remove the casualties the exact same as 4th ed because all the Marines are the same. This is how the PDF rule is worded IIRC.

If the squad had a Plasma Gunner you would roll 2 armour saves for him and 18 for the rest. (But not 2 at a time, again this is from memory.)

Anyway the general idea is to have an increased chance to kill the special models in a squad and reduce the effectiveness of spamming low AP weapons.

I will say that this makes 5 man Devastator squads quite bad and as the new marine codex is rumoured to only have 5 or 10 man squads I think I know what we will be seeing.

Andrew Luke
09-05-2008, 22:18
That is a huge difference though... Rolling 18 saves for 9 guys and 2 for one guy means you will suffer many more casualties than if you rolled twice for each guy, because failures can double up. I really hope they make that a CLEAR ruling, else we are gonna have yet more WAAC/RAW bitch fests..

Pink Horror
09-05-2008, 22:29
You seem to be upset that you can't do the same thing each time and expect the same result, i.e. when shooting a plasma gun and hitting twice it should always kill two models. You don't like the thought that one time I may kill one and another two, based solely on how much additional shots wound as well. Its a game of chance (being based on the roll of dice), doing this only brought back the element of chance.

The new chance isn't based on anything logical. I can already sometimes kill one and sometimes kill two. That's what hits and wounds mean.


You act like its outside the "game realm" of reason to think that a plasma gunner would actually pump two shots into the same target hoping to kill it.

It would be perfectly fine if there was some fair way to sometimes have the plasma gunner shoot the same guy. I'm not complaining about overall power. How many times to I have to say that?
The problem is that, if a few plasma guns shoot at a big unit alone, every shot will land on a different guy, but if one plasma gun fires among a hail of gunfire at a small unit, and gets the luck to score two wounds, they're guaranteed to hit the same guy. That isn't a chance based on anything logical or fun. You want someone to get two hits but accidentally pump them into the same corpse? It's called rolling a 1 to wound.


I mean first you would need to have mixed CCW and Lightning Claws which typically means that the Claws are attached to a single character which it is unlikely that every model in the enemy unit would be within its kill zone anyway. Or if a unit of them then you dont have to worry about CCW since those units usually all wield power type weapons.

Chaos Chosen!


It basically comes down to if you like the AP/power weapon system that was created in 3rd edition.

No, it doesn't at all. It's not about power! It's not about the other rules! It's one bad rule in isolation! As long as there's different kinds of wounds, being able to, based on the total number of all the different kinds of wounds, let the target choose to stick the worst ones on the same guys is bad. You don't like AP? That's a separate issue. Fixing your problem with AP by adding another, even more unrealistic rule is not the answer. Just fix AP.


5th's rumored rules do offer that squad of 20 some additional advantages now that were not available in 4th.

We're not talking about "advantages". We're talking about those "oh crap" moments when your bolters or CCWs happen to roll up too many wounds, or those "this doesn't feel right" moments when not firing some weapons maximizes some kills.


And regarding your guard example. Again we can disagree, I like having the ability to pick up the dice point to my model and say dangit sarge you need to live!!!

I did say it was a side issue that I'd be willing to accept. But I'd rather speed up the game and roll the bucket.


Denial based systems dont allow me these oppurtunities but on very rare occassions. I hope some of the magic comes back with 5th edition.

Then fix the denial system. Don't embrace another system that sometimes happens to reduce its effectiveness, only under certain conditions that should have nothing to do with how well those weapons perform, and that'll make players take even more unrealistic choices on the battlefield.

Pink Horror
09-05-2008, 22:34
In the first example where 10 Marines take 20 wounds you just roll 20 armour saves and remove the casualties the exact same as 4th ed because all the Marines are the same. This is how the PDF rule is worded IIRC.

Maybe, when there's a multiple-page discussion about a rule, with quotes scattered about, there's a chance your recollection is wrong. I know mine is imperfect. That's why I'd carefully read the document before accusing someone else of interpreting it improperly. But I guess we're different that way.

Andrew Luke
09-05-2008, 22:37
I mean we are already playing Knights In Space, we should just use the fantasy system and be done with it ;-D

Draconian77
09-05-2008, 22:51
@Pink Horror

"Maybe, when there's a multiple-page discussion about a rule, with quotes scattered about, there's a chance your recollection is wrong. I know mine is imperfect. That's why I'd carefully read the document before accusing someone else of interpreting it improperly."

Well its not like I read every page every time I post. I'm sorry that I have more pressing matters to attend to than a debate about one of the rules in one of my miniture based hobbies.

Due to the toneless nature of the Internet you really do come across as condescending to the point of boorishness.

Fletch
10-05-2008, 00:09
The new chance isn't based on anything logical. I can already sometimes kill one and sometimes kill two. That's what hits and wounds mean.

It would be perfectly fine if there was some fair way to sometimes have the plasma gunner shoot the same guy.

Thatís exactly what they have done in the 5th editions proposed rules. They have created a possibility, of sometimes having a chance (hitting the same model twice), where in 4th ed it never happened, and we/you seem to be fine with that guaranteed illogical outcome. Now the outcome is based on such variables as the number of troops in the target unit, number of total wounds done to that target unit, and number of plasma (insert AP denial weapon here) wounds scored above 1. I mean really if you only have 1 plasma gun and only hit and wound once then you really are just worried about nothing.



I'm not complaining about overall power. How many times to I have to say that?

Actually it seems very much like you are. You are complaining that you want to retain a guarantee of killing one model for each wound an AP denial weapon does. That itís being changed to something different is something you donít care for. Suggestions given from the other side of the debate seem to all circle back to nothing more than the status quo thing....My AP denial weapons need to kill at a 1 to 1 ratio, wounds to models. Anything less is unacceptable, illogical, unbalanced, did I mention unfair.



The problem is that, if a few plasma guns shoot at a big unit alone, every shot will land on a different guy, but if one plasma gun fires among a hail of gunfire at a small unit, and gets the luck to score two wounds, they're guaranteed to hit the same guy. That isn't a chance based on anything logical or fun. You want someone to get two hits but accidentally pump them into the same corpse? It's called rolling a 1 to wound.

They are only guarenteed to hit the same guy in a small unit if on top of the multiple plasma gun wounds the target unit took additional amounts of wounds from other sources along with the plasma (insert AP denial weapon here) wounds. So itís not a guarantee its just a situational chance event, what the chance is, has way to many variables to say it happens 100% of the time when those planets align. What I can say with 100% certainty though is currently if I score X number of wounds with plasmaguns I know for a fact it will always kill X number of models (unless X is more than the number of troopers in the target unit). Iím not saying it will never happen, but you are saying the opposite "it will always happen" which is at the very least extreme and unfounded. I find it funny that I don't recall seeing any posts back in the day titled....."whatís the point of firing all the lasguns/bolters in my unit when I brought so many plasmaguns with?" I mean a specialist unit of 3 plasmaguns opens up on 5 marines and score 6 wounds, along with 3 wounds from the lasguns. The lasgun wounds are now just wasted...that just seems wacky and unfair......Nope donít think anyone posted that one.

With regards to those plasma hits having a better or best chance at killing at a one to one ratio on really big units. That was done imo for balance. Now that units can effectively screen units behind them, there needed to be some paper for that rock. Allowing a faster or more effective way to whittle down to size these units opening up lanes of fire is fine, not to mention these ďmobĒ type units tend not to have much in the way of armor so a bolter round is typically about as effective as a plasmagun in those scenarios.




Chaos Chosen!

I never said there wasnít a unit out there and it doesnít change my original response on the issue.



No, it doesn't at all. It's not about power! It's not about the other rules! It's one bad rule in isolation! As long as there's different kinds of wounds, being able to, based on the total number of all the different kinds of wounds, let the target choose to stick the worst ones on the same guys is bad. You don't like AP? That's a separate issue. Fixing your problem with AP by adding another, even more unrealistic rule is not the answer. Just fix AP.

Pink you canít isolate rules and pick them apart and say they donít work without taking into account how said rule works with other similar or reliant rules in the game. Itís just silly to suggest that rules are written in a vacuum. I could just see the dev team assignments, each person is given one single rule to develop one aspect of one part of the gameÖ..then throw them all together and see just how well it creates balance and flow in a game.



We're not talking about "advantages". We're talking about those "oh crap" moments when your bolters or CCWs happen to roll up too many wounds, or those "this doesn't feel right" moments when not firing some weapons maximizes some kills.

That is such a powergamer/mathhammer statement. You are talking about and have always been talking only about how to ďmaximizeĒ your advantage.




ÖÖ I'd rather speed up the game and roll the bucket.
Another piece of the puzzle falls into place



Then fix the denial system. Don't embrace another system that sometimes happens to reduce its effectiveness, only under certain conditions that should have nothing to do with how well those weapons perform, and that'll make players take even more unrealistic choices on the battlefield.

I can only imagine how well those 40k players that grew up entirely on 3rd/4th edition would accept a total overhaul compared to a slight tweak. I hate to use the terms real or unreal when debating or discussing what can or canít happen in the game. However, I do understand it sometimes feels necessary to when trying to make a point.

I think my biggest issue with this whole topic is that somehow you feel cheated. That you now have to ďthinkĒ about what to do in order to ďmaximizeĒ the damage you can inflict on an opponents unit. By this I mean you would actually forfeit firing weapons because you are afraid that your opponent might just wiggle out of your hail of denial doom by being given the chance at rolling an armor save.

Rlyehable
10-05-2008, 04:24
IMO its just GWs way of trying to diminish somewhat the negative impacts the AP system has had on the 40k game system without just scraping the system all together...

Fantasy and 40k used to be the same when it came to armor and saving throws, i.e. a numeric base armor save modified by the attack (-1, -2, -3) etc. In 3rd edition 40k went to the AP system and the games dynamic changed dramatically. The dice were literally ripped out of the hands of the defender in many cases. The game of "denial" or "mathhammer" was born, such terms as MEQ were coined. All in an attempt to design armies that were based on not allowing your opponent the oppurtunity to save against your shots. This was because the AP system was designed as all or nothing. ... Allowing the marine a 3+ or trying to take it away, because thats the only two choices GW allowed the players in 3rd and now 4th edition. Most chose maximum denial.

Do you feel the same way about close combat weapons? Currently (and in 5th ed.) it is very much an "all or nothing" system. You either have a power weapon (sword, fist, etc.) or you don't, so you either get your full save or none. GW tried to give a smidgen of modification back into the system with the Choppa rule (reduce the armor class to a set maximum), but the MEQ armies cried "fowl"! So, GW removed it.

Draconian77
10-05-2008, 11:31
Well I don't feel the same way about close combat weapons and yes I'm intervening.

My main reasons being: They are hard to spam up on and normally have a disadvantage as well as an advantage.

Power Weapons: Against T4 armies these can really struggle to get significant kill.

Powerfists: Strike at I1. Many players remove the models close to the PF searge denying him his attacks, at least that won't happen anymore. Can't take advantage of defensive cover I10.

Not to mention that in combat you can be struck back and you will probably take casualties getting there.

Generally speaking 5 Men+Hidden Fist are more expensive than 5 Men+Plasma

Taking 10 Plasma Guns in a MEQ army has almost no risk, no disadvantage and is incredibly boring.

Pink Horror
10-05-2008, 17:06
Now the outcome is based on such variables as the number of troops in the target unit, number of total wounds done to that target unit, and number of plasma (insert AP denial weapon here) wounds scored above 1

So we agree that the variables have little to do with the characteristics of the weapon being fired. You don't have a problem with that?


Actually it seems very much like you are. You are complaining that you want to retain a guarantee of killing one model for each wound an AP denial weapon does.

I am only complaining that it is being done in a haphazard way. More wounds should be more damage. It doesn't have to be linear, but it should be smooth. There shouldn't be big dips in that curve, where sometimes more wounds means less damage, when you get a bad combination.

This really isn't about the power of my army or any particular army. I know Chaos well so I can come up with examples quickly, but the last list I put together would have been affected positively, because it had small squads and mostly uniform weapons. In my examples I often use Chaos units, such as Obliterators, as the targets too.


What I can say with 100% certainty though is currently if I score X number of wounds with plasmaguns I know for a fact it will always kill X number of models (unless X is more than the number of troopers in the target unit).

Hey, that sounds like as easy, fair system! I guess that's what it means to score a wound! Why muck it up with the number of boltgun shells that happened to strike home?


I’m not saying it will never happen, but you are saying the opposite "it will always happen" which is at the very least extreme and unfounded.

I basically said that it would almost always happen in certain situations, which is being general and circular enough to be true. It's a limited statement, not extreme. And it's founded on probability.


"what’s the point of firing all the lasguns/bolters in my unit when I brought so many plasmaguns with?" I mean a specialist unit of 3 plasmaguns opens up on 5 marines and score 6 wounds, along with 3 wounds from the lasguns. The lasgun wounds are now just wasted...that just seems wacky and unfair......

Yeah, cause people are sure to complain about wounds against a dead squad, right? C'mon. Be serious. There's a huge difference between "wasted" wounds being simple overkill on a whole squad, and wounds lost to a wound allocation system that keeps a squad alive. If you don't see the difference, you're frankly not capable of having a rational discussion about this.


With regards to those plasma hits having a better or best chance at killing at a one to one ratio on really big units. That was done imo for balance.

That shows how ridiculous your opinion can be. The system was obviously designed to force specialists to take saves. This mess with different AP shots is a side-effect.


I never said there wasn’t a unit out there and it doesn’t change my original response on the issue.

You claimed it would rarely happen. But with some squads, it will be quite common. That's a big difference.


Pink you can’t isolate rules and pick them apart and say they don’t work without taking into account how said rule works with other similar or reliant rules in the game.

What's it mean to "work"? Once again this sounds like a balance argument. I DON'T CARE! I'm really being honest. You could prove to me that, thanks to all the other changes being made, throwing a couple plasma guns in a squad will be just as great as before. It doesn't matter. Honestly, I really can isolate a rule and pick it apart. I've shown that this isn't fun to me, because sometimes extra small arms fire will be detrimental to your damage potential. And often you won't find out until the total number of wounds rolls in, which will bring about an unfair and unrealistic feeling. It's okay for the rules to be unrealistic if it serves a good purpose and doesn't stick its unrealism in your face like that too often. Unfortunately for your argument, the only thing you bring up as a positive is nerfing AP denial. That's a really, roundabout, foolish way to fix AP denial, isn't it?


It’s just silly to suggest that rules are written in a vacuum.

No, it is not nearly as silly. I am only expecting each part to be of high quality. I am not suggesting that they should be created in isolation to each other. Just judged that way. If my car has uncomfortable seats, nothing about the engine could change that. I'm complaining that one part is bad, not that the entire car is worthless.


That is such a powergamer/mathhammer statement. You are talking about and have always been talking only about how to “maximize” your advantage.

It definitely involves math. Math helps prove your point, when you say that situation X is likely to happen. What's wrong with that? And it's so much easier to write "I" and "me" than "my opponent" all the time. That's the only reason I use my advantage. Go ahead and stick my opponent in there for all my arguments. They don't change.


Another piece of the puzzle falls into place

What puzzle? There is no secret agenda here. I listed the two things that bother me with the opening post. One is every unfairly lost wound, and another is having to roll individually.


I hate to use the terms real or unreal when debating or discussing what can or can’t happen in the game. However, I do understand it sometimes feels necessary to when trying to make a point.

Well, then I can see why you don't understand what I'm saying. The major problem I have, much larger than the dice issue, is how the game feels: its realism and the sense that it makes. I'm not just squeezing that stuff in there to try to make a point: it is the whole point.


By this I mean you would actually forfeit firing weapons because you are afraid that your opponent might just wiggle out of your hail of denial doom by being given the chance at rolling an armor save.

Are you saying that somehow someone would be playing unfairly if the bolters didn't fire? If the CCWs never attacked? Well, if that's the case, I'd rather have rules that don't promote that sort of thinking at all.

If it were practical, I'd happily pick the recipient of each wound randomly, with a token for each model in the squad. The token would go back in the cup each time, so that there would be a chance for the same guy to get every wound. That would be a fair, somewhat realistic system.


Well I don't feel the same way about close combat weapons and yes I'm intervening.

Well, then replace all my shooting examples with close combat examples. Units with Rending will give you really good odds of seeing multiple AP denial wounds stacked on the same target, but the problem may be more glaring with a mixture of squads, because all attacks with the same initiative happen simultaneously. So instead of one squad with one power weapon, that'll be lucky to get two wounds, think of a terminator assault squad with lightning claws charging in to help out a tactical squad. It's the same issue.

Edit: I originally addressed Draconian77 thinking he was Fletch. But what I wrote still seems to apply, so I fixed the quote tag and a couple of typos.

Draconian77
10-05-2008, 20:11
Yes, it looks like squads that deal out multiple Save ignoring wounds will cause less damage. Why is this a bad thing? It means squads you payed pts for won't just be removed in a flurry of your opponents dice rolls, fights will last more than a round or two and the wound allocation system apllies to both players, it is not imbalanced as long as it affects both players? Maybe you are denied wounds this time but maybe he will denied wounds next game, who knows?

But really I don't see too many problems looking at the math.

10 Genestealers charge 10 Marines.

30 Attacks/20 Hits/10 Wounds(3 of which are 6's) In this case the rending rules can't wrap around. So about 5 kills total.

10 Genestealers charge 5 Marines. 10 Wounds-2 Marines are rended and the remaining Marines each take 2 saves. So about 4 kills.

Hardly a drastically reduced effectiveness now is it?

The other example would be 10 Marines(I4) + 5 Terminators with Lightning Claws(I4) charge 10 Chaos Marines.

20 Attacks from the marines/10 hits/5 wounds.
20 Attacks from the Terminators/10 hits/8 wounds.

Chaos Marine(Power Woundx2)
Chaos Marine(Power Woundx2)
Chaos Marine(Power Woundx2)
Chaos Marine(Power Wound)
Chaos Marine(Power Wound)
Chaos Marine(Save)
Chaos Marine(Save)
Chaos Marine(Save)
Chaos Marine(Save)
Chaos Marine(Save)

Average about 7 kills. Is there a problem with this? Yes under 4th edition those CSM would have probably died but when he charges you you can do the same thing.

Sorry for the long post but its just a little math and like I said I don't have a problem with the conclusion which is squads filled with armour save denial weapons will inflict less damage than they use to. I don't see it happening too often but it definately can happen.

Pink Horror
11-05-2008, 00:59
Sorry for the long post but its just a little math and like I said I don't have a problem with the conclusion which is squads filled with armour save denial weapons will inflict less damage than they use to. I don't see it happening too often but it definately can happen.

Why apologize? You examples help provide an avenue of discussion.

Though a loss or gain in damage compared to 4th edition is something worth talking about and an issue by itself, and something I use for illustrating how 5th edition will change things, it is more annoying to see losses/gains between different situations in the same edition of the game, for relatively arbitrary reasons.

The fewer models in the target squad, the easier it generally is to set up examples that exploit wound allocation. For example, turn those 10 chaos marines into 8 chaos marines, that would be entirely wiped out by the terminators. Thanks to the nature of the rules, 5 terminators alone fight better than 5 terminators and 10 marines. That's the essential problem: more attacks doing less damage. It won't happen all the time, but it will happen. And because the odds are harder to calculate once wound allocation comes into play, every time those nasty attacks get doubled up, it feels like maybe you shouldn't have fired so many other shots. That feeling is one of those moments that invades upon your suspension of disbelief.

Replace the terminators with dark reapers and the marines with dire avengers, and now you can't squeeze all the big hits onto half the squad. Why should some weapon configurations suffer, i.e. mixed initiative in close combat and mixed weapons in individual squads, while other configurations, though affected by multiple failures not spreading, can firing away without thinking about the detrimental effects of their squad configurations? Mixed initiative is good, mixed AP is bad. Why have these differences?

It's a bad thing because it promotes strange decisions, such as not firing certain weapons, or designing your army to take advantage of this effect.

I can ask why is it a good thing. There have been a few provided reasons:

Killing the specialists - torrent of fire gives you a shot that works a lot simpler, without all the side-effects.

Nerfing of AP denial - if this is the goal, there are probably 100 better ways of doing it. Why affect something as close to the core as wound allocation when it's the armour piercing mechanic that supposedly needs fixing? Obvious solution: have an armour stat, an AP stat, and a table, like strength and toughness.

Individual save rolls - if this is desired, it can be added without the ability to stack all the worst wounds on the fewest models. These two facets are not intertwined.

Draconian77
11-05-2008, 01:41
Why apologize? You examples help provide an avenue of discussion.

Though a loss or gain in damage compared to 4th edition is something worth talking about and an issue by itself, and something I use for illustrating how 5th edition will change things, it is more annoying to see losses/gains between different situations in the same edition of the game, for relatively arbitrary reasons.

But do you really see any major balancing problems with these rules when they apply to both players?

The fewer models in the target squad, the easier it generally is to set up examples that exploit wound allocation. For example, turn those 10 chaos marines into 8 chaos marines, that would be entirely wiped out by the terminators. Thanks to the nature of the rules, 5 terminators alone fight better than 5 terminators and 10 marines. That's the essential problem: more attacks doing less damage. It won't happen all the time, but it will happen. And because the odds are harder to calculate once wound allocation comes into play, every time those nasty attacks get doubled up, it feels like maybe you shouldn't have fired so many other shots. That feeling is one of those moments that invades upon your suspension of disbelief.

Now I'm not trying to be cynical here but there are very few squads in the game that I am aware of that pump out high volumes of Ap3-2-1 shots and a high volume of low Ap shots. Also I would like it noted that GW have made the decision to make space MEQ(The models who are most affected by low Ap wrapping) 5 or 10 man squads. We wont see multiple 7 man squads to try and exploit these rules.

Replace the terminators with dark reapers and the marines with dire avengers, and now you can't squeeze all the big hits onto half the squad. Why should some weapon configurations suffer, i.e. mixed initiative in close combat and mixed weapons in individual squads, while other configurations, though affected by multiple failures not spreading, can firing away without thinking about the detrimental effects of their squad configurations? Mixed initiative is good, mixed AP is bad. Why have these differences?

Mixed Ap is only really bad if your squad throws out a lot of both types of weapon, otherwise it won't matter.

It's a bad thing because it promotes strange decisions, such as not firing certain weapons, or designing your army to take advantage of this effect.

Maybe, for example a 8 model marine squad with a plasma firing at another 5 model marine squad might declare that he is firing the plasma and 4 bolters. The bolters should cause about 3 wounds so he figures his Plasma won't be wrapped. However if he then misses with one of his Plasma shots he really has wasted firepower.


I can ask why is it a good thing. There have been a few provided reasons:

Killing the specialists - torrent of fire gives you a shot that works a lot simpler, without all the side-effects.

ToF isn't good enough. I see maybe 1-2 cases every 2 games. Your average units won't cause ToF against 7+ model marine squads.
It also only gives you a chance of killing 1 model. Assume MEQ(33%) failure rate of either the Heavy weapon, the special weapon or the Seargent. In 5th all 3 would have to make a save making it likely one of them will die.


Nerfing of AP denial - if this is the goal, there are probably 100 better ways of doing it. Why affect something as close to the core as wound allocation when it's the armour piercing mechanic that supposedly needs fixing? Obvious solution: have an armour stat, an AP stat, and a table, like strength and toughness.

This I cannot answer, it belongs with "True Los" and "Troops only scoring", "S4 defensive weapons",etc Rules like these where not needed. IMO 5th edition was not needed. I believe most players could have spent 10 minutes fixing 4th edition's problems and we would have had a much better game than proposed 5th.

Nidzilla- Elite Carnifexes come with 2x Scything Talon and Fleet. Done.
Rending- Asscannon spam just follow codex DA, that was fine. Harlies cannot be transport, special rule. Done.
Falcons- Make Holofields like Tau Decoy Launchers.(Re-roll a 5 on the glancing chart isn't it? I don't play Tau.) Drop to 15pts.
Lash-The models must remain in the same formation the where in prior to the 2D6 movement. Done.
Throw in a few extra Penalties to Ld here and there and we would have had a solid ruleset.

Individual save rolls - if this is desired, it can be added without the ability to stack all the worst wounds on the fewest models. These two facets are not intertwined.

Whilst true, many players would take the "kill them all approach" and pack as many low Ap weapons in as possible. Who cares about individual saves if you can kill all of your opponents models without them getting to take saves? Maybe if the changed ToF to allow the attacker to allocate both the target and the weapon that he is hit by.(Essentially Lascannon/Plasma Sniping) It might be okay but would heavily penalise armies such as Tyranids who do not pierce armour but do inflict multiple wounds.


Purple is mine. Enjoy the colours! (10 Character minimums...)

Pink Horror
11-05-2008, 02:22
Purple is mine. Enjoy the colours! (10 Character minimums...)

My quote says magenta. :D
Quotes, inside quotes, it's madness that the system won't let me quote!


But do you really see any major balancing problems with these rules when they apply to both players?

It will cause an amount of aggravation to each player based on the size of each player's squads and the manner in which chosen weapon configurations combine. Eldar get Exarchs with initiative boosts, so their power weapons don't mix with their squads, they often have small squads with only one or zero specialists, and their squads often fire one type of AP (especially my Eldar, because I like lots of shurikens).
Because their scatter laser's power comes from its strength and number of shots and not its AP, it blends in fine with a squad, while a squad with two plasma guns in it has a legitimate complaint. For some reason, when firing plasma guns at marines the marines get to benefit from excess wounds, but when firing scatter lasers at Orks the Orks can't stack all the laser's chances to wound on fewer models.
There's a lot of variables here. What it all means is that both armies are not affected equally. Force composition matters. But if it brings the armies more into balance or pushes them farther apart, I don't know. I don't care at this point.


Now I'm not trying to be cynical here but there are very few squads in the game that I am aware of that pump out high volumes of Ap3-2-1 shots and a high volume of low AP shots. Also I would like it noted that GW have made the decision to make space MEQ(The models who are most affected by low AP wrapping) 5 or 10 man squads. We wont see multiple 7 man squads to try and exploit these rules.

Chaos has MEQs that can come in any number of sizes, and so do other armies, so it will be seen, if if one army can't do it. A 5 man squad exploits the rules, and the dangers of shooting as one big group, just fine. Once the wounds start pouring in there's a lower volume of low AP shots. And then there's mixes of heavy bolters and bolters vs. AP 4, guard command squads, an Ork squad with an attached shokk attack and a big shoota, heavy bolters and a plasma cannon vs. a packed AP 3 squad (they can squish together because those blast wounds will be stuck on the same couple of guys!), and all manners of assault combos with multiple squads.


Maybe, for example a 8 model marine squad with a plasma firing at another 5 model marine squad might declare that he is firing the plasma and 4 bolters. The bolters should cause about 3 wounds so he figures his Plasma won't be wrapped. However if he then misses with one of his Plasma shots he really has wasted firepower.

This is another instance of feeling cheated that could be avoided with a slight change.


Whilst true, many players would take the "kill them all approach" and pack as many low Ap weapons in as possible. Who cares about individual saves if you can kill all of your opponents models without them getting to take saves?

"...but there are very few squads in the game that I am aware of that pump out high volumes of Ap3-2-1 shots and a high volume of low Ap shots."

Draconian77
11-05-2008, 02:48
Of the top of my head I can't really think of any Eldar squad this will affect other than Dire Avengers. Harlies all have rending, Banshees always strike first and Scorpions normally have an Exarch with a Power Fist.

Won't a lot of the variable MEQ models in Codex:CSM be non-scoring in 5th ed? Take less damage in certain situations but at the end of the day they won't scare even if they are unharmed.

I wouldn't worry too much about Orks/Guard/Nids and Ap wrapping due to the changes in cover saves and the screening rules. I still think the rule will primarily affect MEQs so I will focus on them. Also whilst its true units with 4+ saves will vs Heavy bolters and the likes will be a minor issue the fact that they only have a 50/50% chance in the first place makes ToF more and Special/Heavy/Seargeant sniping easier to achieve against them. I pity Dire Avenger Exarchs.

I don't think he should fell cheated, I think he should fell ashamed of himself for not trying to drown the enm=emy in bolter shells but its all personal at the end of the day. If some wants to fire less guns at me for a perceived advantage Ill be happy to stay silent.


"...but there are very few squads in the game that I am aware of that pump out high volumes of Ap3-2-1 shots and a high volume of low Ap shots."

This quote is fine. It still supports my argument. The kill them all approach is achieved by replacing the weapons that cause wounds followed by armour saves to spamming as much Ap2 weapons as possible without causing serious damage from the "weaker" weapons.

A list of units/armies that are commenly seen.

Las/Plas squads.
5 man Stormtrooper squads, 2 Plasma.
5 man Vet Squads, 3 Plasma.
5 Man Dev squads/havocs, 4 Missiles
Dark Reapers
Crisis suits/Plasma
Obliterators
Most tanks, especially Pie-plate of doom(S8 ap3 or better) ones.
Dark Eldar sniper squads.

These are the sort of squads that are used to wipe MEQ type units of the gaming table. They do not put out a large amount of low Ap fire and rely solely on the multiple Ap3-2-1 weapons to remove squads without recourse to an armour save.

Your right though, it is magenta. :eek:

Fletch
11-05-2008, 04:33
@ Pink & Drac

This discussion seems like it has become between just the three of us lately.

While I do like a good discussion, there comes a certain point when one just has to realize that no matter what is said our opinions are not going to change.

There are always going to be those for, against and undecided regarding opinions of the rules. Hopefully our discussion helped some, but in the end GW is going to do what they think needs to be done to keep the game progressive all the while making a few bucks in the process.

I at least am done on this topic..... :skull:

Pink Horror
11-05-2008, 05:14
I at least am done on this topic

Let's schedule a time to get back at each other's throats when the printed rules are in our hands. :evilgrin:

lucullus
11-05-2008, 07:05
Why apologize? You examples help provide an avenue of discussion.

Though a loss or gain in damage compared to 4th edition is something worth talking about and an issue by itself, and something I use for illustrating how 5th edition will change things, it is more annoying to see losses/gains between different situations in the same edition of the game, for relatively arbitrary reasons.



4th edition actually already has this rule for squads that have mixed armour saves. Such as eldar guardians with a warlock, black templar units that both 3+ and 4+ units in them. Look in the 4th edition book and ready the mixed armour rules. They have basically taken them and used it for everything.



Replace the terminators with dark reapers and the marines with dire avengers, and now you can't squeeze all the big hits onto half the squad. Why should some weapon configurations suffer, i.e. mixed initiative in close combat and mixed weapons in individual squads, while other configurations, though affected by multiple failures not spreading, can firing away without thinking about the detrimental effects of their squad configurations? Mixed initiative is good, mixed AP is bad. Why have these differences?



Those squads are good example of units that would already use the wound allocation rules as they quite often have an exarch that has a different save the the rest of the unit.



It's a bad thing because it promotes strange decisions, such as not firing certain weapons, or designing your army to take advantage of this effect.


You already have to do this when firing at a unit the has more than one armour save in 4th ed rules.

Draconian77
11-05-2008, 10:32
Let's schedule a time to get back at each other's throats when the printed rules are in our hands. :evilgrin:

Sounds like a plan.

Good call Fletch.