PDA

View Full Version : Wound allocation



Mandragola
30-05-2008, 01:25
I was having a look at the rules for wound allocation in store today. It's a bit different to the rumours I've seen so far, so I thought I'd start a thread.

Wounds can be allocated to models anywhere in the unit, including out of sight and range, as we know.

However, saves are not rolled individually, or at least not quite, but for groups of identical models. Hits are allocated 1 per model, then a 2nd per model, then a 3rd and so on, as you would expect, but then you roll all the saves for a group of identical models together and take off a casualty (or cause a wound) for each failed save. On a unit of guys with the same gear you just roll all the saves and take off casualties as in 4th.

Things are a bit different for "complex units". So, say for example a devastator squad with a sergeant, 2 lascannons, 2 missile launchers and 5 normal guys takes 20 wounds. The sergeant has to take 2 saves, 4 go on lascannon guys, 4 on missile launchers and 10 on bolter guys.

This makes it a bit harder to waste low AP shots by stacking them all on the same model, unless you have a unique guy you don't need. In earlier rumoured rules it looked like you might be able to put multiple low AP shots on the same guy, but now they will go on a group of identical guys. In the above example, if the group of 5 marines marines take 10 wounds, 2 from plasma, they do end up losing 2 guys to the plasma wounds. The group loses a guy for each unsaved wound.

There's quite a big example to demonstrate this in the rulebook, but I'm guessing there will still be some debate on this one.

It will be interesting to see whether people start to include unique models just so they can make them soak plasma gun hits.

Stezerok
30-05-2008, 02:22
It will be interesting to see whether people start to include unique models just so they can make them soak plasma gun hits.

rather interesting idea... but what kind of "unique" models are worth taking just to make into ablative wounds?

I will say one thing about this, and that is some of us Eldar players may start to rethink our Exarchs a bit, as suddenly they're pretty vulnerable...

Good Hunting,
-Stezerok

vipernyc
30-05-2008, 05:34
Its a little weird, because it seems like you could wind up with wasted shots. To use your above example, lets say that the 5 marines fail all 10 armor saves - under the old system, those wounds would just carry over to the rest of the squad. With this system, if the 5 bolter guys fail all of their saves, and the lascannon guys make all of theirs, the extra wounds that were allocated to the bolter guys are wasted.

So in a way, its easier to get wounds onto specialists, but you lose a lot of the benefits of having a large amount of wounding hits.

Not sure if I like that.

Stezerok
30-05-2008, 06:17
well, I agree with you, that it does make for interesting situations in the game. I think it will be a bummer when some shots are "wasted" as you say, but I like the sort of realism of it, that combat doesn't always yield the orderly fashioned results we expect. In warfare some people take a single shot and they're gone, but sadly some people get pumped full of lead like in the rambo movies, and essentially those shots were wasted, but it does happen...

Good Hunting,
-Stezerok

big squig
30-05-2008, 06:53
Its a little weird, because it seems like you could wind up with wasted shots. To use your above example, lets say that the 5 marines fail all 10 armor saves - under the old system, those wounds would just carry over to the rest of the squad. With this system, if the 5 bolter guys fail all of their saves, and the lascannon guys make all of theirs, the extra wounds that were allocated to the bolter guys are wasted.

So in a way, its easier to get wounds onto specialists, but you lose a lot of the benefits of having a large amount of wounding hits.

Not sure if I like that.
That's exactly the idea. If a 10 man tac squad with a flamer, ML, and sarg takes 14 wounds...
That's 7 wounds on the bolters, 1 on the flamer, 1 on the ML, 1 on the sarg, and the remaining 4 wrap back on to the bolters (total 11 wounds on bolters).

Let's say you roll the 11 bolter's armor saves and fail 9 of them. That's 7 dead bolter marines, the other two failed wounds are lost as they were not designated to a non-bolter marine. Then you roll on die for the flamer, one for the ML, and one for the sarg. If you fail one, you HAVE to remove the guy you were rolling for.

Mandragola
30-05-2008, 09:49
The mathhammer is a bit tricky.

If you take a 5 man marine squad and make it take 15 saves, in theory they should fail 5 and all die - on average. It's pretty likely that they will.

If they were all unique and each had to make 3 saves then quite often you will get a situation where one guy fails 2 saves and another passes all of them, meaning wasted kills and survivors.

On the other hand though, when rolling all 15 saves together there's also a reasonable chance that you would only fail 4, and have survivors, or fail 6 and have wasted kills.

The new version makes it more likely that somebody survives, and gives you the chance to have survivors at the same time as wasting kills on other models, but the guys who do survive will often just be bolter marines.

You do have the option of making many units contain unique guys now. You could certainly have a deathwing terminator squad with 5 unique members, for example. It's possible that we'll start to see units with plasma and melta, instead of 2 plasma guns, and things like that.

Reece
30-05-2008, 12:35
I like it... it blows a big hole in the math hammer crap. :)

-Reece

Lardidar
30-05-2008, 14:17
This is how I said it worked weeks ago ... no one listens to me ... grumble grumble :)

From the games I have played so far it is a good little system of doing it, it is also just as fast once you get used to it (took us 2-3 games)

kingofthesquats
30-05-2008, 14:36
I'm glad Mathahammer is taking a blow with this one. I have never made a beardy army and it gets boring playing them.

Also the 'battle brother lucius picks up battle brother marneus' plasma gun' arguament is crap in my opinion. When your get shot at and shelled I think it's more realistic people would concentrate on staying alive. If 40k battles were in 'real time' they'd be very short. Also, not everyone is trained in the use of every specialist weapon.

I think the potential loss of key models will force players into better tactical thinking rather than numbers games and how many wounds they can absorb before they 'have' to lose a special model. Bullets don't always pick out the guys with the worst weapons first.

Get over it beardies.

Stezerok
30-05-2008, 14:45
Bullets don't always pick out the guys with the worst weapons first.


and this is exactly what I love about the rule!

Good Hunting,
-Stezerok

Reece
30-05-2008, 15:06
I also makes campaign style scenarios (where you write up stories for guys) a little cooler. I always found it... suspicious... that the guy with the Meltagun NEVER died. :)

-Reece

Dras
31-05-2008, 00:56
I was just wondering how unit coherency will work with the new rules for wound allocation.

For example, if I have a unit made up of a bunch of eldar warlocks and one eldar farseer and some of the warlocks get killed that isn't much of a problem, you just remove some models such that every model is still within 2" of another. But if the farseer dies and the models were in a long line to maximize how spread out they were it seems like there is a good chance you will loose unit coherency. I have no problem with this (I think), but what happens next?:confused:

Bloodknight
31-05-2008, 01:08
That what is supposed to happen - you lost coherency, so in the next turn you have to move to regain it.

EarlGrey
31-05-2008, 01:36
Losing coherency is a bit of a pain for heavy weapons when you want to stand still. If one model moves, the whole unit counts as moving!
It's nice to see unit coherency (and thus unit formation) playing a slightly bigger part.

brado
31-05-2008, 03:03
Another weird thing in my opinion is how they didn't bring over the WHFB rule that states if a standard bearer or musician in the front rank dies, one of the guys from the back ranks takes the position, thus having those models removed last. What is stopping another marine picking up the fallen's melta gun? With sergeants and heavy weapons I can understand, but assault/rapidfire I don't understand it.

IJW
31-05-2008, 03:18
What is stopping another marine picking up the fallen's melta gun?
The gun got shot? Anyway, given that the owning player decides who to allocate Wounds to first, it's pretty much built-in.

nix
31-05-2008, 03:39
Also keep in mind that the initial qound allocation is decided by the receiving player, not the attacker. For example:

Unit of 9 Dire Avengers plus 1 Exarch
11 wound are inflicted on unit
First 9 are assigned to the Avengers
1 Assigned to Exarch
remaining 1 wound assigned to 1 Avenger

Avengers take 10 saves
Exarch takes 1

This means that taking larger units of similar troops and 1 upgraded or "complex" troop insulates the upgraded troop from wounds. If you think about it, a unit of 5 marines with boltguns inflicts a maximum of 10 wounds with perfect rolling.

Now the shooting of large squads of shooty gaunts, Tau Fire warriors, etc become fairly nasty because they have the opportunity to inflict enough wounds to pick out the "complex" upgraded troops.

Dras
31-05-2008, 13:39
This new rule sounds good to me. It makes sense and it seems like it will improve the game. However, as far as utilizing the rule to my advantage I might actually be doing the opposite of most people in some cases.

With models that have more than one wound or really good saves I may actually put an extra wound on that model. For example, if I run 5 shining spears (each of which are pretty expensive) with an autarch attached (expensive but has a 4+ invulnerable save and three wounds) and receive seven hits there is a reasonable chance I will put the seventh hit on the autarch (4 on the four normal spears, 1 on exarch, 2 on the autarch = 7 hits total), paticualaly if the attacks will be ignoring normal saves.

The basic idea is that anything that will wound the autarch will wound any of the spears, but maybe instead of loosing 2 spears and taking one wound on the autarch, I can just loose 1 spear and take 2 wounds on the autarch. This minimizes the short term effect of taking these 3 wounds, of course it might turn out to be a mistake if the autarch ends up dying when he otherwise wouldn't later in the game.

Somewhat related, if I take a Death Jester with a Harlequin troupe and the Harlequins are being overwhelmed in close combat by a horde of something like genestealers, I'll be glad to put extra hits on the jester as at that point he won't be as useful in the game as my more standard harlequin's that have kisses. Here the hope would simply be that if I'm already going to take two or more wounds to my unit, maybe 2 of them can be stacked on this one model that's no longer near as useful in the game.

In some ways it will all really depend, I think a farseer leading spears will be too valuable to risk loosing early unlike an autrach so I probably wouldn't use this strategy in that case, but it will be an interesting, maybe even very interesting choice at times.

Obviously I like eldar given my examples.

StrikerFox
01-06-2008, 11:05
yesh, so my squad of 19 boys led by a nob, would roll for 19 boys, and then the nob...

if theres more than 20 wounds (which i have yet to see), then i would have to go again thru 19 boys, then the nob....
so on, and so forth, until forth is then first.... nipple.

Lungboy
04-07-2008, 15:33
It seems you can use the new allocation to absorb kills somewhat. Played example: A CSM squad of 4 marines, 1 icon bearer and 1 sergeant take 8 wounds. 4 are AP1, 4 are from bolters. CSM player assigns a bolter hit to the icon, a bolter to the sergeant, 2 bolters to 2 marines, 2 ap1 to the final 2 marines, then the last 2 ap2 shots to the same 2 marines. The 2 with AP1 shots removed straight away, wasting 2 ap2 hits, and the remaining 4 in the squad all save vs the bolters.

edit: seems i was misinformed, it was 3 AP1 shots and 2 were assigned to the icon bearer to soak one up. Nothing to see here.

vudster
05-07-2008, 01:17
I see this the other way around. In the example pictured in the rules, the marines take fewer casualties than they have failed saves. This is because the "extra" wound is thrown away just like some of you have pointed out. If the unit had been all the same, they would have lost one additional model for the same number of failed saves since all the saves are rolled together and one model removed for each. How is it fair that Tau, Guard, Necrons, and others having units of exactly the same types take more casualties for the same number of failed saves? I have play tested only once but this very situation came up. One player said that you must roll all the saves at once while a Tau player said he was going to use the wound allocation scenario scripted for units of different types. Fairness says we should use the same rules for all. Personally, I think GW missed this problem and will fix it.

pillbox
05-07-2008, 11:19
quick question, what about an ork nob unit which could potentially have 10 unique models all with 2 wounds each? if 2 unique nobs are wounded is 1 nob removed and 1 unwounded, or both have 1 wound each?
These guys could absorb 10 wounds before a model is removed!

Killmaimburn
05-07-2008, 11:31
Heres some stuff I wrote about wrapping a few weeks back somewhere else..I welcome others picking it apart for accuracy (especially those with the book sat on their laps), but basically it seems a whole new avenue of army building, like delibrately for torrenting. We basically worked out in the thread that with the loss of restraint on range and LOS etc that using saves this way balanced out the more aggresive shooty style of 5th (and it has played that way in my games so far)


Some silly examples of wound wrapping and why I'm not sure about it compared to organised qualifying to snipe.

Victims=2 neophytes 4 initiates
Shot by 2 plasma guns 'rapid firing'/in close up fire mode and 5 bolters doing the same ( a fairly standard squad with 7 men inc 2 special weapons is about as normal as I'll get)
So I put the first 2 plasma shots on the neophytes (my chosen first group), 4 bolter wounds on the 3+s, 2 more plas on the 4+s (neophtes) 4 more bolter on the 3+s, then put the remainding 2 bolter shots on the 4+s as well (to totally minimise shots as recomeneded on p25)
So thats 2 scout dudes taking 4 plasma and 2 bolter saves and 4 MEQ dudes taking 2 regular saves each...seems a bit strange

In the exmaple the leader with CCW and BP is classed as a different group, does this mean I can stick a lascannon shot and a melta shot on his head whilst his squad (a fully armed dev squad) just take the petty gun saves..if the squad gets hit enough..so I'm in a safer place if I'm hit more (to push the scarier wounds further from my precious stuff)
Thats going to make imperial termies impossible
20 bolter saves and 2 that would deny them a save,they already consider the sargent "mr sacrifice", here he can absorb both AP denying wounds and suck up a few of those 2+s from the squad too?

To this end in squads where upgrades aren't all that neccessary e.g my beserkers.. is it worth buying one a plasma pistol or something cheap..to choose as a group to suck up the spare bits and pieces (to encourage waste)? A cheap upgrade for a lowly gruntling could be the new cheese?
(It turns everyone in to those dumb witchhunter buying worse saves to get hqs to live longer guys Wink )

And yet they won't let a 2 wound guy whose lost his arm take one for the team when a lascannon lines up..

Am I right? can it get sillier?

Interesting note.. i think my nids benefit a bit, as everyone always used to snipe out whoever was at the front of the squad but now no sniping means I'll always take from back to front (I just can't waste anyones shots deliberately with that unit type)

Does this as the aggressor mean that sometimes holding back gribbly fire is more effective? (most of the exmaples above could be prevented if you ONLY fire high AP weaponry) Is this the deathnell of all those scary noobs who took one of each weapon in devastater squads (as a heavy bolter will make the plasma cannon less effective etc against meq)

Pt2 Reply to other poster

RAI from the rulebook says to allocate with an intent to waste through clever wrapping, did mixed armour tell you you must try to waste shots? (the melta example in 5th ed)

There is no mention of majority first it can all be done by player basis on how many special elements there are (which is a) much more common, b) much more prone to waste)
E.g. 5man bolter squad inc a leader basic guy with 2ccws will last considerably longer if it buys a flamer to stack and waste incoming shots through.
Dice put in front of models
CCW guy=CCW 3 generic guys=GGs flamer guy=FG

CCW GGS GGS GGS FG(plas wound)
CCW GGS GGS GGS FG(plas wound)
CCW ------------------ FG(plas wound)
So wound dice means the bolter guys take 6 regular saves, the flamer guy is removed (but in so doing saves 2 other members of his squad from dieing because he could be singled out) The CCW guy takes 3 saves, he'll fail one, but if he's failed 2 he's also saved a member of the squad by having a different load out.
So from 9 wounds with save and 3 non savable wounds on a 5 man meq squad you'd probably still be left facing 1 bolter guy.Where as previously that would have killed off a 9 man squad(EDIT maths screw up on my part...but its at least 6 and I'm tired;) ).. fairly big difference. And it shows on the table too.

Views?:)