PDA

View Full Version : Wound Allocation... Shenanigans?



Starwolf
15-07-2009, 18:35
Ok, so we've all had time to get used to hearing about, and playing against, armies that take advantage of the wound allocation rules. Be they ork nobz, tyranid warriors, or what have you, the units that can take separate wargear to spread out their wounds, rather than have models die, has become standard in 5th edition... or has it?

I'm curious as to where folk stand on this issue of mixing up wargear so that multiple wound models in a unit will be safer, in the short run, from incoming wounds.

Vepr
15-07-2009, 18:43
If you see a large unit of Tyranid warriors with mixed weapon build outs you should be happy your opponent wasted the points and the elite slot.

Ixquic
15-07-2009, 18:46
In a league where the goal is to win you have to expect people to do it.

In a friendly game it's not really that fun to face so I would avoid it.

LonelyPath
15-07-2009, 18:48
It's not something I ever like seeing, but then I only play in friendly games, never in leagues of tournaments for a long time now. When I do see units catered for taking advantage of rules allocation I am glad that they've made a unit that's far easier to weaken and wipe out and also has a far lesser impact on my army, as is often the case with those I've seen.

Bellygrub
15-07-2009, 18:58
I'm guilty of doing it to a point. My Ork nobz usually run two Big Choppa's, One PK, two standard choppa nobz and a painboy. Toss in the Banner and you've got a unit that's mostly equipped different.

Of course this is how I'd run the unit no matter how the wound allocation rules worked. I find the rule to be a pain in the bum most times.

Creeping Dementia
15-07-2009, 19:08
It's pretty annoying, but I live with it. I don't personally do it with my Crisis suits, but if it's that important to some people then I'll go with it without complaining. I mainly just hate that it drags out my shooting phase for so long.

Bodysnatcher
15-07-2009, 19:17
It depends on the size of the unit - 3 crisis suits with different weapons, fine. 10 Nobz with a painboy as well - eep.

Zingbaby
15-07-2009, 19:20
Well at least in the case of Nid warriors; it is just a better unit with mixed weapons - regardless of the wound allocation rules.

But I do think it is a bit cheesy to build units simply to exploit a certain aspect of the rules. More and more GW has been trying to sell this idea that the rules are more of a guideline for people to use in order to have fun and more-or-less 'fair' games. They are meant to be stretched and altered in the name of imagination and fun... however exploitation, of any sort, is just lame and reflective of a poor sportsman imo.

Nym
15-07-2009, 19:24
Problem with the Nobz : it's almost impossible to build a unit of them that only has 1 wound group.

Like 10 Nobz all with Slugga&Choppa, or all with Big Choppas, etc...

As soon as you drop a Power Klaw in there, a Painboy and a Bosspole, you already have between 3 and 4 groups. And if you want a Big Choppa, that's 4 to 5 groups...

Nezmith
15-07-2009, 19:28
In this week alone, I've faced:

A Nob Biker unit, which needed to lose six wounds before a single model left the board.

Farsight Enclave Suits, which needed to lose eight wounds before a single model left the board.

Now you might think, "Eh, just six wounds? No problem."

I play necrons. They either have a better Armor save than my AP, or in the case of the Nobs, even if I deny them their Armor save, they still get FNP or their cover save.

DarkstarSabre
15-07-2009, 19:34
I'll be frank here. With 'nids I prefer to have similar weapons but at times it's just more viable to have mixed units of Devourer/Deathspitters rather than all in ones. Because an all in one group can be avoided. And that is rather annoying.

BobTheZombie
15-07-2009, 19:51
I would deliberately take advantage of the rule if my opponent also uses a crushingly competitive list. Like 3++ Terminators. Otherwise, it's a bit of a grey area. I tend to theme my lists around what I like model wise and what I can afford, so I don't go in for ultra competitive list building, and nor would I really wish to in a friendly gaming atmosphere. Having said that, no-one seems to use the wound allocation rule round here unless I remind them anyway. There is a difference between a competitive unit and an exploitative use of a unit, but the problem is where the line is, as it isn't clear.

Vedar
15-07-2009, 20:09
Its the new 5th ed way to play. Like it or not it is the rule. If you are mad at people doing it then you are mad at people playing by the rules.

Lord Humongous
15-07-2009, 20:26
I agree with Vedar... kind of. I don't really fault people who use the rules that way, but I DO fault GW for creating those rules and not addressing the situation in some way.

Green Shoes
15-07-2009, 20:39
I am fine with it even in friendly games, as it is a pretty clear, explicit rule. I would go so far as to claim that the writers knew what type of shenanigans and crazy units would sprout from said rule.

Since the rule is pretty straight-forward, and not a "gray area" like so many others that are cause for exploitation, I say let people do what they want with their Nobs and don't bitch about it.

Lord Inquisitor
15-07-2009, 20:50
I am fine with it even in friendly games, as it is a pretty clear, explicit rule. I would go so far as to claim that the writers knew what type of shenanigans and crazy units would sprout from said rule.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Certainly some of the more inventive uses of the hit-allocation system seem contrary to the spirit of the rules.

I abhor the hit-allocation rules as they stand. They lead to such bizzare results such as firing more weapons resulting in less casualties, or squads with different weapons for each guy being more survivable, so on and so forth. I have a squad of Chaos Terminators with 4 plasmas and 1 reaper autocannon. When shooting 5 Space Marines including a sergeant and flamer guy that aren't in cover, the average number of wounds inflicted by my reaper autocannon is -1. Yep, minus one. Firing my reaper autocannon actually results, on average, one space marine being ressurected from the dead.

Now, that given, the rules are the rules. Just as with Kill Points, the hit allocation system is here to stay, however bad a system it may be. So I will use the hit-allocation system to my advantage in any competitive game (i.e. tournament) and I would naturally not be offended if my opponent did too.

The Song of Spears
15-07-2009, 21:02
Personally, i don't like the rule that you have to remove whole models first. I think wounds should always be spread around as much as possible.

In a firefight it just makes sense that with all the bullets flying, multiple members of a unit would have wounds.

i vote that its always ok, it just helps fix a otherwise lame rule.

JLBeady
15-07-2009, 21:03
I'm not crazy about the wound allocation system as it stands, but feel that it is better than 4th ed.

Because the rules seem pretty clear and I can agree with what seems to be the obvious intent behind them, players that struture their units to take advantage of the rules especially in competitive enviroments is okay with me. I would even say it's okay in friendly games so long as you disclose up front with the opponent that some of the units you use take advantage of the those rules. If he has a problem with it, he has the oppurtunity to back out at that point, or if seeing a lot of resistence on your opponents part, you have the choice of modifying the unit or leaving it out of the game.

Of course what's funny is units like Nob Bikers and Crisis suits should be configured with different weapons, abilities as it is those abilities that make those units effective given the points you invest in them and it's also fluffy.

Peril
15-07-2009, 21:04
It is exploitation of the worst sort. Torrent of Fire/Flurry of Blows was just fine, thanks.

megatrons2nd
15-07-2009, 21:28
It doesn't bother me as much as the "I can see a leg and kill your whole squad" thing for "true" line of sight.

Vaktathi
15-07-2009, 21:31
I tend to look very unfavorably upon an opponent gaming the wound allocation system. It's one thing to bring a hard unit, it's another to exploit allocation of wounds in a manner that wasn't intended (but was plainly obvious).

Ekranoplan
15-07-2009, 21:47
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Certainly some of the more inventive uses of the hit-allocation system seem contrary to the spirit of the rules.

I abhor the hit-allocation rules as they stand. They lead to such bizzare results such as firing more weapons resulting in less casualties, or squads with different weapons for each guy being more survivable, so on and so forth. I have a squad of Chaos Terminators with 4 plasmas and 1 reaper autocannon. When shooting 5 Space Marines including a sergeant and flamer guy that aren't in cover, the average number of wounds inflicted by my reaper autocannon is -1. Yep, minus one. Firing my reaper autocannon actually results, on average, one space marine being ressurected from the dead.

Now, that given, the rules are the rules. Just as with Kill Points, the hit allocation system is here to stay, however bad a system it may be. So I will use the hit-allocation system to my advantage in any competitive game (i.e. tournament) and I would naturally not be offended if my opponent did too.

This is what I dislike about the wound allocation system the most: the fact that firing more weapons can lead to less casualties, like a IG Banewolf firing its Chem Cannon and Heavy Flamer at MEQs.

What really annoys me is that this problem could have been easily avoided if the rules would just prevent you from lumping all the low ap hits into one group, and lumping all the high ap hits into antoher group. For example, if you had to allocate all the armor penetrating wounds first, as evenly as possible, then allocate all the none armor penetrating wounds as evenly as possible, you would end up with each group taking their share of low AP and high AP wounds.

Culven
15-07-2009, 21:49
I have no problems with someone maximizing the wound allocation potential of their units. It may seem unsporting, but it is not illegal. In some cases, it even results in a less-than-optimal unit and wasted points.

CrownAxe
15-07-2009, 21:55
It doesn't bother me as much as the "I can see a leg and kill your whole squad" thing for "true" line of sight.

Warahmmer is an abstraction, what is probably happening is that the unit is moving around so that multiple guys are in the line of fire, ricochet hitting member of the unit that weren't in LoS or members of the units moving from their position in cover to replace their fallen comrades

Cry of the Wind
16-07-2009, 01:35
I don't have a huge issue with it myself. Generally if someone is making a light list they probably won't abuse that rule to the max and if it is a hard list, well what did you expect? Overall I think it is more of an issue of a poor mechanic rather than a poor sportsman.

Docnoxin
16-07-2009, 04:30
I play a hard hitting unit of Nobz in pretty much all my Ork lists, size of the game just determines the size of the mob. With that being said there is now way to kit your nobz without wound allocation being an issue.

As it has been stated before if you take a painboy, 1 pk nob, and a waaagh banner you have already created 4 different groups to apply wounds to. I choose the load out of my nobz to be able to handle all types of circumstances. In no way is it worthwhile to take all of any one wargear type of Nob.

In no way is this exploiting the rule in any fashion. This is simply playing the unit as it was intended. These are supposed to be the toughest boyz in the whole warband, and they all have their personal tools of the trade. Lets not forget that a nob with pk and any type of armor cost 50 pts with a rather worthless 4+ armour save, and to make it better you have spend another 30pts for a painboy.

Staurikosaurus
16-07-2009, 04:43
What really annoys me is that this problem could have been easily avoided if the rules would just prevent you from lumping all the low ap hits into one group, and lumping all the high ap hits into antoher group.

They kind of do IIRC. You remove models owed to instant death first, then apply the remaining wounds and roll saves.

big squig
16-07-2009, 04:57
The wound allocation rules wouldn't be so much of a problem if you had to roll for saves as soon as each model had one wound on it. Then pull casualties and apply other wounds...rinse repeat until all wounds have been dealt.

So, if a space marine squad takes 2 plasma wounds, 8 bolter wounds, and 3 heavy bolter wounds, you could apply 1 plasma wound to one model, the 8 bolter wounds to eight models, and 1 HB wound to one model. You would make the saves and kill off the plasma wounded guy (assuming no cover) and pull out any one who failed their save. Then, you could apply the other plasma wound and the other HB wounds.

It's a bit longer to do than the system we have now, but at least it can't be abused.

and I don't agree with going back to the 4th ed system as it's stupid that sargs and heavy weapons always die last.

Ironmonger
16-07-2009, 05:09
I put other, because there are so many mixed-wound units now. Look at a max Kroot Carnivore Squad: you have a Shaper (3), 19 Kroot (1), 12 hounds (1), and 3 Krootox (3). Given, most of the models are only single wounds, but a heavy proportion are multiples.

Da_Killa
16-07-2009, 05:27
Guys, just get over the wound allocation rule
it shouldnt make that bigger difference in your gaming lives

MoonReaper
16-07-2009, 06:05
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Certainly some of the more inventive uses of the hit-allocation system seem contrary to the spirit of the rules.

I abhor the hit-allocation rules as they stand. They lead to such bizzare results such as firing more weapons resulting in less casualties, or squads with different weapons for each guy being more survivable, so on and so forth. I have a squad of Chaos Terminators with 4 plasmas and 1 reaper autocannon. When shooting 5 Space Marines including a sergeant and flamer guy that aren't in cover, the average number of wounds inflicted by my reaper autocannon is -1. Yep, minus one. Firing my reaper autocannon actually results, on average, one space marine being ressurected from the dead.

Now, that given, the rules are the rules. Just as with Kill Points, the hit allocation system is here to stay, however bad a system it may be. So I will use the hit-allocation system to my advantage in any competitive game (i.e. tournament) and I would naturally not be offended if my opponent did too.


Im pretty new with 5th ed but really I dont understand how the -1 comes up.

Or what do we mean exploiting the rules? How can more weapons lead to less wounds, it doesnt make sense mathematically.
I play necrons and ofc I dont have models with different wargear, but opponents I faced DID do the wound allocation according to the rules. How exactly did they exploited the rules to get an advantage?

laudarkul
16-07-2009, 06:23
It's acceptable even in friendly games. It's a rule (wound allocation) and it's stated in codex.

Grimtuff
16-07-2009, 06:28
Meh, I use it on my Bloodcrushers all the time. It makes them infinitely more survivable which is something that is vital in a Daemon army.

Enderel
16-07-2009, 07:50
Im pretty new with 5th ed but really I dont understand how the -1 comes up.

Or what do we mean exploiting the rules? How can more weapons lead to less wounds, it doesnt make sense mathematically.
I play necrons and ofc I dont have models with different wargear, but opponents I faced DID do the wound allocation according to the rules. How exactly did they exploited the rules to get an advantage?

It's down to the interesting way that wounds can be allocated. If you hit and wound with a large number of low AP weapons (AP1/2) you would normally kill off the unit, regardless of troops groups (normal, specialist, srg, heavy weapon), however if you mix in a higher AP weapon (AP4) it waters down the kills as you can allocate.

e.g. Against a 5 man combat squaded Marine unit with 4 marines and a specialist. 4 plasma guns can get you 8 plasma wounds. So that would be all 5 marines dead.

With wound allocation with a reaper involved (AP4) you can get 8 plasma wounds and 2 reaper wounds.

Against the same five man squad you could allocate two plasma shots against 4 normal marines and then the reaper shots (which can be saved and often are!) against the specialist / heavy weapon / srg. So for firing more shots you have less chance of killing off the whole unit..

Radium
16-07-2009, 07:57
It's part of the game now, so it's acceptable all the time.
I feel like the rule wasn't really necessary, but it adds a bit more risk to normal units with specialists, while it makes multiwound units insanely survivable.

Nakor
16-07-2009, 08:27
The wound allocation rules wouldn't be so much of a problem if you had to roll for saves as soon as each model had one wound on it. Then pull casualties and apply other wounds...rinse repeat until all wounds have been dealt.



easyer to just apply wounds from lowest to highest. that way all your armor penetrations are spread about and then the saves come after. this allows some of the high ap wounds to be absorbed by 'dead' models while stopping just a few models taking all the low ap wounds.

Darnok
16-07-2009, 10:13
Meh, I use it on my Bloodcrushers all the time. It makes them infinitely more survivable which is something that is vital in a Daemon army.

I used Bloodcrushers the first time in my last game, under full "use" of the wound allocation aspect. And I will do that again, every single time I use them.

It is not that the unit would be total crap without using different wargear, far away from it. But the difference is significant. And some of that wargear is indeed very useful, so am I expected to just not use it? It's the same with Ork Nobz, some of their stuff is just too plain good not to be taken.

Another point I don't understand: why do people using multi-wound models have to feel guilty of some kind of "exploition" of the rules? This is about using options of said models. Aren't options there to be used? Aren't there a million threads on WarSeer about evil GW killing all the options? This just doesn't fit... :eyebrows:

Nezmith
16-07-2009, 10:22
Its easy to look at which armies will Hate wound allocation and which will praise it.

Just look at who can take a unit with multiple types of models and who can't.

Its very clear who gets to use this rule, and who gets abused by it.

40k Boy
16-07-2009, 10:45
I've voted for always acceptable - it is not an exploit, it is actually how the rule works. Yeah, GW might have fluffed, but when it comes down to it, it is not an illegal tactic. However, i think if someone is creating units to take advantage of this, then they are concentrating too much on one aspect of the game only. No-one in our group has ever done this (As far as i've played), people are too bothered about creating the optimal mix of weapons for the points available, there just isnt that culture of forming units in specific builds to take advantage of certain rules.

Brother Loki
16-07-2009, 10:56
I think the rule is a massive mistake. It not only makes certain units ridiculously survivable compared to others, as well as creating counterintuitive situations where its better to shoot less weapons, but it also slows play down massively. Instead of taking 10 seconds to roll some saves and remove casualties it takes a minute or more to allocate, roll each group separately and so on.

primarch16
16-07-2009, 11:11
Its not the end of the world, just makes some units quite tough to beat.

Another nasty one is 5 Bloodcrushers, icon, instrument and fury of Khorn with herald on Juggernaught.

shabbadoo
16-07-2009, 11:23
I don't see it as a problem at all, as usually loading out a unit to such a varied state will make of it a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none type of unit and so "taking advantage" of wound allocation will be its main strength. This is more true with some units than others of course. A unit built with single purpose, or strongly favoring a certain purpose, tends to function better anyways so the perceived advantage is somewhat false.

When I build my Nobz squads it is so as to beat the snot out of the enemy and not to take advantage of wound allocation, as I really never want to be in the position of saying "Yeah! My hodge-podge unit got *HAMMERED*! Time to take advantage of that wound allocation! Score!" ;)

Nobz are certainly the unit that can take advantage of wound allocation the most, but that is only if you let them. The opponent who tries to deal with a tricked out Nobz squad with a single lower points value(than the Nobz)unit will likely see wound allocation work against them, and they'll probably blame wound allocation for so many Nobz surviving when they really should be blaming themselves for not applying enough resources to make wound allocation is so heinous as to be a moot point in the first place. Oops, I just revealed the secret of how to deal with Nobz(and other variably armed, multi-wound model units).

Vaktathi
16-07-2009, 11:34
To be fair, a couple units spring to mind that make excellent use of wound allocation without really any unusable investment.

For example, Nob Bikers:
3 powerklaws, 1 with skorcha, 1 with rokkit
3 'uge choppa's, 1 with skorcha, 1 with Rokkit
1 Nob with Waagh banner
1 Painboy
1 Nob with Skorcha
1 Nob with nothing.
Plus Warboss

that's 11 models, each different, and each upgrade provides some utility. The Skorcha's will make a mess of weeny units, the Waaagh banner gives them WS5, the Painboy obviously FNP. the only kinda questionable thing is the Rokkits, but they can kill MEQ's somewhat ok, so it's only like 10pts maybe on those.

With such a unit, one can pretty much be assured to be able to spread around wounds to their most optimal location to ensure the greatest survivability, at basically almost no cost that isn't going to provide some sort of benefit.

I *hate* this unit. It's fast, it's killy and extremely good at multiple assaults (having these guys able to assault 4 somewhat spread out units in a single turn has happened before, and they wiped them all), and unbelievably hard to kill short of dumping three ordnance templates into it and a dozen lascannons turn one to get it down below half. The raw amount of BS4 bolter fire needed to kill this unit if able to maximize wound allocation spread would be enough to kill 156 Boyz. Add to this that it can be a Scoring troops unit, and turboboost across the board for a 3+ cover save and a second turn assault into almost anything and it's a real headache. Sure, it's 600something points, but if It's not killed turn 1 (which most armies outside IG or DE won't have an easy time doing) it's going to more than make it's points back, and it's big and fast enough to make it to multiple objectives. It's only downside is that it can't go up Ruins levels.

Sknight
16-07-2009, 11:37
I wouldnt like this to be the case but it is definetely prevalent in games ive seen. This is just another form of rules exploitation to gain an advantage over a technicalit rather than skill. It shouldnt be done intentionally. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers
Knight

ex-green
16-07-2009, 11:39
If its in the rules then why not, everyone takes advantage of some sort of upgrade at sometime.

Fixer
16-07-2009, 11:39
For the most part wound allocation works. It works with marine units and Eldar squads where you're rewarded for taking larger units and the special weapons caddies become vulnerable.

It breaks down with wounds that allow different saves or multiple wound targets. Especially with Orks. In order to get a chance to take down a powerfist in a full marine unit you have to cause 10 wounds to them. In order to kill a Powerklaw nob in a Shoota boy unit you need to do 60 wounds to the squad.

Then there's also the wound absorbtion on Independant character issue. I'm guilty of this myself, where Vulkan attached to some scouts and stood in front of three separate guard heavy bolters on Chimaras, taking those individual AP4 shots to the face so the squad attached didn't have to.

I think we could probably fix the wound allocation rules with a few alterations:

1: wounds that allow different saves must be placed on a model per model basis with those that allow the lowest save first. For example a combat squad with sgt and special weapon takes 4 wounds that allow no saves and 6 wounds that allow an armor save. 4 wounds that allow no save are placed on the 3 normal models, one is placed on the sergeant. The remaining 6 wounds that allow armor saves are then placed with 2 on the sergeant, and 1 on each other model. The special weapon trooper has to make one armor save. (better than the alternative where the player decides to put two armor save wounds on the sgt and special weapons trooper, and the three guys take all the armor ignoring saves)

2: Multiple wound models:
Following the rule above: In a unit consisting of only models with multiple wounds, wounds that cause instant death must be applied to the models with the most wounds first.

Against wounds that to not cause instant death, wounds must be applied to the models with the least wounds first.

3: Independant characters
An independant character can only be assigned a wound for an armor save after all other models in the unit have had one applied.

Osbad
16-07-2009, 11:49
They're the rules. Live with them.

Vaktathi
16-07-2009, 11:50
They're the rules. Live with them.

By that line of thinking, I can't embark or disembark from a Valkyrie.

Hypaspist
16-07-2009, 12:01
Acceptable in any format. Thats the rules, it represent bullets/shells/blasts, flying in random directions at targets. Sure, some units are harder than others, and its usually the combination of abilities (so 2 wounds, wound allocation spread, armour/cover/FNP) that makes the units feel broken, not the wound allocation rule itself.
I prefer wound allocation now to 4th edition, it makes the losses random, and I like that (sure you can to an extent control the probability of those losses, but sometimes that comes back and bites you.)

Fixer
16-07-2009, 12:23
Acceptable in any format. Thats the rules, it represent bullets/shells/blasts, flying in random directions at targets. Sure, some units are harder than others, and its usually the combination of abilities (so 2 wounds, wound allocation spread, armour/cover/FNP) that makes the units feel broken, not the wound allocation rule itself.
I prefer wound allocation now to 4th edition, it makes the losses random, and I like that (sure you can to an extent control the probability of those losses, but sometimes that comes back and bites you.)

A Banewolf fires it's Chem cannon at a Vanguard unit with 5 different models and wounds 4. It kills 4 models.

A banewolf fires it's Chem cannon and it's heavy flamer at a Vanguard squad with 5 different models. Causing 5 wounds with the heavy flamer and 4 with the chem cannon. The owning player places the 4 no save wounds on two models, and the 2 saveable wounds on two models and 1 savable wound on 1 model. All armor saves are passed.

Because the Banewolf has fired additional weapons the unit takes less casualties. That doesn't make a lick of sense.


By that line of thinking, I can't embark or disembark from a Valkyrie.

Or an additional point, no vehicle (except flying vehicles with bases) can fire flame weapons. The Flame rules specifically say the small end of the template has to be placed in contact with the model's base. Since vehicles don't have a base and no part of the model is described as counting as a base (Only having weapons mounts and a hull) the weapon cannot ever fire it's flame cannons.

Or Necron units that get up from WBB have to join the nearest enemy Necron unit (even if it's the enemy unit)

Sometimes the rules just don't make sense and you have to go with what's right and what's fair instead of what's written.

Even in a tournament I wouldn't use the above Banewolf or tank flamer example to unfair advantage because it's just wrong.

40K should be a game around strategy and miniature gaming. Not about finding nonsensical rules loopholes to gain advantage. Frankly I think most of these problems could be solved by following the most important rule for life itself: Don't be a dick.

Captain Micha
16-07-2009, 12:49
As stupid as the Rule is, frankly I say abuse it if you can.

It's not your fault that whoever designed this rule had a brain fart.

Hypaspist
16-07-2009, 12:56
A Banewolf fires it's Chem cannon at a Vanguard unit with 5 different models and wounds 4. It kills 4 models.

A banewolf fires it's Chem cannon and it's heavy flamer at a Vanguard squad with 5 different models. Causing 5 wounds with the heavy flamer and 4 with the chem cannon. The owning player places the 4 no save wounds on two models, and the 2 saveable wounds on two models and 1 savable wound on 1 model. All armor saves are passed.

Because the Banewolf has fired additional weapons the unit takes less casualties. That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Arguably, the chem cannon hits the two models in front that shield the three chaps behind, or is spewed forth and *actually* only hits two models, or the heavy flamer burns up some of the chemical, meaning it never reaches its target.
Don't forget also as you can take wounds from templates from any part of the squad (whether they were under said template or not) then the template itself is a representation of what actually happens. and dont get me wrong, I agree that it feels leaves you feeling somehow cheated to fire more weapons, get more hits, and cause less casualties, however in your example above, as the owning player, you don't *have* to fire both weapons, especially when you know that only a rookie mistake is going to lead to your opponent to allocating wounds from the chem cannon one on each possible target.


40K should be a game around strategy and miniature gaming. Not about finding nonsensical rules loopholes to gain advantage. Frankly I think most of these problems could be solved by following the most important rule for life itself: Don't be a dick.

Ok, what 40k IS, is a tactical tabletop miniature wargame (with a hefty slice of luck involved) where there is a set of rules to assist you playing. 'Reality' is almost impossible to apply to said game without slowing the game to a crawl. which means that you get some rules that dont make good common sense, or more commonly in GW's case, some rules which are poorly written or unclear, apply fair and common sense logical to those (ie immolator fires it's twin linked Heavy Flamer from its turret rather than it's lack of base) however, where the rules are clearly written, thats the way the game designers feel best suit that particular section of the game in this edition, you are after all free to house rule it.

As to the section of not being a D**k, if we were playing down at the FLGS and you went to fire both cannons, I'd probably point out the wound allocation results, and suggest using the chem cannon only, albeit as a gamble (no-one expects the one pip inquisition!) at a tournament, (assuming the sole object is victory, and not at a more 'relaxed have fun tournament', yes they exist) I might let you make the tactical error for yourself.

Enderel
16-07-2009, 14:26
Don't you have to fire for full effect Hypaspist? So you cannot, not fire weapons you have available to you as long as it doesn't impact a later phase? e.g. you can choose not to fire bolters if you wish to charge but you have to fire bolt pistols if you want to use the doom siren? Thought I saw that in the rules but not near rule book at mo.

Hypaspist
16-07-2009, 15:03
I don't remember reading that, but I am also very prepared to be wrong if that's what the book says, I will have a look at my BRB when I get home.

EDIT: Search fu taken from Rules Forum regards a question about shooting.

Optional shooting (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191769)

Mortius27
16-07-2009, 15:37
You can not hold back shooting if you fire one gun you must fire all of them.

Ekranoplan
16-07-2009, 15:42
The easiest way to fix these problems is to just make it so you have to assign wounds from each weapon in turn.

So your combat squad gets hit by a Chem Cannon and you take 4 wounds. You then assign these wounds. 3 wounds go to the normal marines, 1 wound goes to the sergeant.

Then you fire the heavy flamer, inflicting 2 wounds. You must immediatly assign 1 flame wound to the special weapons trooper because he has taken none. You then assign the remaining flame wound anywhere you want too. This flame wound is wasted, but it prevents people from using the extra heavy flamer wounds to double up the chem cannon wounds on the same group. This works because the chem cannon wounds have been assigned already and cannot be changed.

In an another example, lets say the combat squad took 5 wounds from the chem cannon and 5 wounds from the heavy flamer. Under the current rules the player just needs to allocate 10 wounds, so they would put 5 chem cannon wounds and 1 heavy flamer wound on the normal marines, and 4 heavy flamer wounds on the sarge and special weapons troopers.

Under my system, you would have to assign the 5 chem cannon wounds, without doulbing up untill each group takes its share of chem cannon wounds. Thus each model will get a chem cannon wound. Then you assign the 5 heavy flamer wounds without doulbing up unill each group takes its chare of heavy flamer wounds, thus each model will get a heavy flamer wound.

electricblooz
16-07-2009, 16:22
You can not hold back shooting if you fire one gun you must fire all of them.

Most assuredly not. Any squad/unit can select which weapons it wishes to fire and which it wishes not to fire; otherwise, having assault weapons in a squad with rapid fire weapons would be useless because you could never fire the assault weapons and assault.

I'll admit that I have never followed how a player can do this:
A banewolf fires it's Chem cannon and it's heavy flamer at a Vanguard squad with 5 different models. Causing 5 wounds with the heavy flamer and 4 with the chem cannon. The owning player places the 4 no save wounds on two models, and the 2 saveable wounds on two models and 1 savable wound on 1 model. All armor saves are passed. Because all wounds in a group must be allocated before moving on to another group of wounds. So could someone explain - step by step - how thisresult happens? (Note: I'm not denying it - I just don't understand it.

Fixer
16-07-2009, 16:32
I'll admit that I have never followed how a player can do this: Because all wounds in a group must be allocated before moving on to another group of wounds. So could someone explain - step by step - how thisresult happens? (Note: I'm not denying it - I just don't understand it.

The wound allocation rules say you have to spread the wounds out equally amongst the models of the unit but not which type of wound. If you had a 2+ save Honor guard unit with 5 differently equipped models that was shot a squad of Tau battlesuits in Fireknife configuration, taking 5 AP2 plasma wounds and 6 AP 4 Rocket pod wounds you need to place 2 wounds on each model and a third on one of them.

So using the plasma guns alone they would kill the unit (one wound per model) however since they have the additional wounds from the rocket pods the owning player places 3 AP2 wounds on one model, 2 AP2 wounds on another model and the remaining 3 models make two 2+ armor saves each.

By mixing in attacks that allow better saves against a complex unit you've just lost 3 kills.

Captain Micha
16-07-2009, 16:34
You know which models aren't getting saves. Anyone and their kid brother knows Chem cannons are AP3, and thus should be stacked as best possible to lose as few possible models. The heavy flamers can be spread around. As long as the # wounds are dealt is all Wound Stupification cares about. It doesn't care about models removed.

It was a Problem of a Rule, in search of a Solution, replacing a Rule which didn't cause any problems in the first place.

Hypaspist
16-07-2009, 16:41
Banewolf fires two weapons, chem cannons and heavy flamer, getting 4 wounds (no save) and 5 Wounds (armour save applies) this comes from one vehicle so is 9 wounds from one source.

The Vanguard unit is complex 5 ways (so 5 models all armed/equipped differently)
The owner of the Vanguard then decides how to allocate the wounds. They decide that as fun as it would be to take the 4 no armour save wounds on separate models they allocate the wounds as follows.

Vanguards take saves as follows 12345 = models C = Chem Cannon wound, H = Heavy Flamer Wound
9 wounds, 5 groups (of 1 model each), so 4 will take 2 each, and 1 will take 1

1 2 3 4 5
C C H H H
C C H H

so thats 2 Vanguard taking 2 saves (oops no armour save applies), 2 vanguard taking 2 saves (from the heavy flamer and thus get their armour save, but have to make 2 each, statistically 1 should die) and 1 vanguard taking 1 save (will probably make the save)

in actual fact in the example only two vanguard die.

CandleJack
16-07-2009, 17:16
I mix the weps on Nobz but usually forget about wound allocation and most of my opponents are hesitant to remind me of it.
It does benefit me greatly.

Lord Humongous
16-07-2009, 18:51
The easiest way to fix these problems is to just make it so you have to assign wounds from each weapon in turn.

Not quite. For example, if a unit of 4 marines took 6 wounds (2 from plasma gun, 2 from bolters, and 2 from plasma cannon) applying them in that order would still result in fewer casualties than just the plasma gun and plasma cannon.

Ideally I think wounds should be applied in order of decreasing fatality; IE, those that allow no save first (as one lot), then the rest as batches in order of allowing increasingly good saves (6+ first, then 5+, etc). Typically this would group wounds into 2 batches, but its possible there would be more. By applying the "worst saves first", you'd ensure those don't get stacked up.

de Selby
16-07-2009, 19:11
My two pence: I voted that it's always acceptable to take advantage of the 5th ed. allocation rules. It's not a loophole or an exploitation, it's something that GW specifically and deliberately put into the rules in 5th ed, and it was obvious that it worked in this daft way and it could only ever work in this daft way.

When there's an obvious difference between RAW and RAI I tend to frown on people going out of their way to exploit RAW. But I don't think that's the case here.

I still think it's a stupid rule and I'd be happy to houserule it back to something else with opponent's consent.

Madigan
16-07-2009, 19:24
The few units capable of "exploiting" wound allocation are either sub-par if they do so ('nid warriors) or pay out in points for the benefit (ork nobs). The way I see it, paying points out the wazzo to have units of models with multiple wounds, only to have the main rulebook negate the benefit of multiple wounds by forcing people to remove as many whole models as possible, was silly to begin with. There's only one unit in the game that can play the "wound allocation game" successfully, anyhow, and big units of nobs "exploiting" wound allocation tend to be bloated in points and easily dispatched with liberal use of S8 or higher weapons.

Vaktathi
16-07-2009, 19:29
The few units capable of "exploiting" wound allocation are either sub-par if they do so ('nid warriors) or pay out in points for the benefit (ork nobs). The way I see it, paying points out the wazzo to have units of models with multiple wounds, only to have the main rulebook negate the benefit of multiple wounds by forcing people to remove as many whole models as possible, was silly to begin with. There's only one unit in the game that can play the "wound allocation game" successfully, anyhow, and big units of nobs "exploiting" wound allocation tend to be bloated in points and easily dispatched with liberal use of S8 or higher weapons.

Again though, Ork Nobs don't really need to pay much for it as I point out in a previous post. It can be done in the process of making an effective and cost efficient loadout.

While S8+ weapons are obviously the best for these things, it's still not exactly easy when they have a 4+ cover save on a bike, or a 3+ when turboboosting, and the first two hits get assigned to the Warboss, and many armies simply can't put out that much S8+ firepower.

Wut?
16-07-2009, 19:43
it only works 1/3 times but for 25 extra points you can upgrade your SM captain to a chapter master and drop a str 10 ap 1 ordinance blast on nobs on turn 1 which ignores FNP and Instantly kills nobs and warbosses.

*note i do not do this, as i havent met a player who has a list that warrants this kind of harshnes

Lord Inquisitor
16-07-2009, 19:58
Arguably, the chem cannon hits the two models in front that shield the three chaps behind, or is spewed forth and *actually* only hits two models, or the heavy flamer burns up some of the chemical, meaning it never reaches its target.
Not very convincing. Take my Terminators with combi-plasma example early in the thread. I fire the reaper autocannon and I will (on average) expect -1 casualties. They're what, using the autocannon bullets for cover? Equally, the same effect can happen when I fire my sonic blasters with a doom siren. What's the explanation there, destructive interference? :rolleyes:

I do feel cheated when I choose not to fire weapons because they'll likely cause less casualties than if I do. It's counter-intuitive and "gamey." It's one of my great dislikes about 40K. Don't get me wrong - I use the hit allocation system to my advantage when I do play, at least competitively - but I don't like it and I find arguments that defend it very hollow.

There are plenty of other reasons I despise the hit-allocation system. Actually figuring out the optimum way to allocate wounds takes time, and that's on top of the fact that the hit allocation system in 4th ed was for 90% of units vastly faster. Games are slower in 5th because of this.



Not quite. For example, if a unit of 4 marines took 6 wounds (2 from plasma gun, 2 from bolters, and 2 from plasma cannon) applying them in that order would still result in fewer casualties than just the plasma gun and plasma cannon.
The alternative house rule is generally worded that wounds are grouped into those that allow a save and those that do not. Then it works. You allocate all of the hits that allow a save evenly and then allocate the hits that do not. You can still find optimum ways of allocating hits even under this system, but it is far more even and "fair".


The few units capable of "exploiting" wound allocation are either sub-par if they do so ('nid warriors) or pay out in points for the benefit (ork nobs).
The issue is far more widespread than that, you don't need to have 2-wound models to exploit the hit-allocation system (they just do it better). My Noise Marine squads can easily have 5 differently-armed models (champion, icon guy, blastmaster guy, sonic blaster guy, bolter guy).

Lord Humongous
16-07-2009, 20:23
The way I see it, paying points out the wazzo to have units of models with multiple wounds, only to have the main rulebook negate the benefit of multiple wounds by forcing people to remove as many whole models as possible, was silly to begin with.

Then perhaps ALL multi wound models should be treated as unique for wound allocation purposes? That would make those "sup par" warrior units better and stop the orc nobs from being forced to pay such a huge amount (or even a small amount) for gear they don't really use, right? It would also make Orgryn much tougher, and even Chaos Spawn might not be totally crap. Actually, pretty much any mutli-wound unit would rock, because they could take ((Num Wounds-1)) * Num Models) wounds before loosing a single member.

Madigan
16-07-2009, 20:39
I honestly wouldn't have any issues with that, Lord Humongus. It certainly would give players a better reason to bring high strength weapons, and would help ogryns and IG HW squads to be more worth their points cost.

Lord Humongous
16-07-2009, 20:44
Yeah, its not a bad idea, bit it still doesn't solve the "more shooting = less casualties" issue you can get; that's mainly a problem with single-wound units. I agree that many (though not all) multi-wound units would be more reasonably costed if that were the case. On the other hand, it does potentially make for a lot of "record keeping". To avoid that, I suppose you could just record how many wounds the entire unit has taken, then start pulling off models when needed.

Lord Inquisitor
16-07-2009, 20:45
I've only used them a few times but I think Ogryns are pretty stonking as it is. Being able to take 10 wounds on a squad of 5 before even losing a single model (bearing in mind that only S10 can insta-kill them) might be a little good.

Harmmany
16-07-2009, 20:53
hoenstly if they changed would allocation from saying "different equipment" to "different name" or "different basic statline" it would be less of a problem for example

9 nob bikers with various wargear
1 painboy
warboss on bike

goes from being 11 units to 3 units. Painboy, Nob, Warboss.

you remove whole models where possible.

So if you had say 5 unsaved wounds on your nobs you would pick 2 to die and have 1 floating wound. Just like if you had 5 unsaved wounds on 7 guys you would pick 5 to die and 2 would remain.

Koschai
16-07-2009, 21:04
My view on this is that in 4th edition you would have 1 guy left when the squad was all but wiped out and he'd coincidently be the guy loaded up with all the tasty equipment. Its amazing that all the enemy shots missed this critical guy!

In the new edition you spread all your equipment out as much as you can so that no single casualty robs your unit of its functionality.

Which of these options sounds the most realistic approach to a combat situation...

Clearly if your models are two wounds each they can take more punishment and with wounds being scattered across the squad they will live longer. I think this is exactly what was intended and shows the benifit of big hulking 2 wounds models.

I dont believe this is exploitation and fully endorse its use in army lists and games both competitive and friendly.

Plus I play a Death Guard army so nothing I have takes advantage of this rule.

Hypaspist
16-07-2009, 21:58
Not very convincing....

Perhaps not, but then I didn't espouse it as what actually happened, just a way of rationalising it if you cared to. If firing two weapons is sub optimal and you are likely to get a better reuslt with just one (chem cannon and heavy flamer example) then is there not a clear tactical choice to make? (Particularly on templates, which auto hit)

In that situation I would just fire the most lethal weapon to minimise the use of wound allocation. Unless of course I was playing orks or inquisition, in which case the more burninating the better.

I personally find this system preferable to having to kill the entire squad before the special weapons trooper went down (though not for that reason). This more accurately reflects the chance that 10 bullets/shells could hit 6 members of a 10 member squad (as an example) instead of 1 each. Are you honestly saying that in every situation soldiers on the move are able to pick out 10 separate targets from each other? Perhaps they are, and perhaps not, (and this is well besides the point becuase logical analyses of 'real life' falls down when applied to a wargame) but 10 wounds killing all 10 members of a squad has its flaws as well.
- I don't consider that a completely hollow argument, however you may see it differently

Vaktathi
16-07-2009, 22:20
My view on this is that in 4th edition you would have 1 guy left when the squad was all but wiped out and he'd coincidently be the guy loaded up with all the tasty equipment. Its amazing that all the enemy shots missed this critical guy! Or it could be used to show other squad members picking up the other guys weapons, etc. and is far harsher on armies that rely on these things (e.g. IG melta vets) than armies with homogeneous units (e.g. Fire Dragons)



Clearly if your models are two wounds each they can take more punishment and with wounds being scattered across the squad they will live longer. I think this is exactly what was intended and shows the benifit of big hulking 2 wounds models.
Except GW usually goes out of it's way to say you have to remove whole models, and multiwound models that are identical (like Obliterators) don't get to game the system, it's only when you make each one unique that you can game the system. In almost every other instance, GW tries to avoid allowing players to spread around wounds. On Oblits for example, if I fail two armor saves, one guy dies, I can't assign one wound to each.

Lord Humongous
16-07-2009, 22:29
hoenstly if they changed would allocation from saying "different equipment" to "different name" or "different basic statline" it would be less of a problem for example

9 nob bikers with various wargear
1 painboy
warboss on bike

goes from being 11 units to 3 units. Painboy, Nob, Warboss.

you remove whole models where possible.

So if you had say 5 unsaved wounds on your nobs you would pick 2 to die and have 1 floating wound. Just like if you had 5 unsaved wounds on 7 guys you would pick 5 to die and 2 would remain.

Yeah, but then (for example) a unit of 10 chaos marines with two meltaguns and an icon never looses a meltagun or icon until all the other guys are dead. The current wound allocation rules handle that rather nicely, although I suppose an adpattation of rain of fire / torrent of blows would do the trick.

Archangel_Ruined
16-07-2009, 23:05
It's not some daft loophole that could never work. I've found it punishes most units, as the above post shows. It might just be my sucky dice but nine times out of ten it's the heavy or special weapon in my marines that bites the dust first. Multi wound models are something of an exception, and yes it's an utter a*se to deal with. I'd call shenanigans in a friendly game as I take whole models out of my army where applicable (pretty much just attack bikes, I don't field ogryns in my guard).

MegaPope
16-07-2009, 23:23
This is, sadly, an example of change for the sake of change, rather than for anything constructive.

What exactly was wrong with what had gone before as far as casualty removal was concerned?

And why does no one take up the dropped special/heavy weapon anymore? Given that, in any race's background, the technology is so universal that everyone is cross trained, why are valuable resources left on the battlefield when they're potentially still usable? If someone drops the plasma gun when they die, you get that SOB back whatever it takes, because it's your most effective weapon. Holding a position? You keep that machinegun firing as long as you can, because it's all that's keeping the enemy back. Standard fallen? Get those colours back up there, soldier!

Basically - and it pains me to say this - wound allocation alterations are one thing 5ed could've done without, like universal 2-wound, one-base IG weapon teams.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
17-07-2009, 01:58
I agree with Vedar... kind of. I don't really fault people who use the rules that way, but I DO fault GW for creating those rules and not addressing the situation in some way.

Perfectly stated. In my opinion the new wound allocation rules were fixing something that wasn't necessarily broken in the first place. The old wound allocation worked just fine in my experience.

Skraal2099
17-07-2009, 02:13
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I never the use the wound allocation rules. I didn't even know they existed until I started going on warseer. At my local GW, where I was taught how to play, we just roll the saves collectively for each unit and allocate the wounds from the failed saves.

Ventus
17-07-2009, 02:22
On my group of 6 tyranid warriors, one has a barbed strangler and the other 5 have deathspitters. Otherwise they are exactly the same. I know many people think all the warriors should be given a different biomorph to exploit the wound allocation rules but I don't agree unless the unit has a real use in being different. That said, it is a legit rule and I wouldn't fault someone for using it. The fingers should point to GW for making a poor rule, not to players using it since as was mentioned everyone uses certain rules that help their army.

Koschai
17-07-2009, 04:04
Hmm I hadn't considered guys picking up other peoples weapons. Simple oversight on my part I guess. Valid point.

I do still agree with spreading wounds over 2 wound models, but I also agree it should be universal and not only for models with different equipment.

Triggerdog
17-07-2009, 04:22
I play guard so its kinda hard to do while still being useful.

as for an answer to it, well, it doesnt matter how many clickers and guns a unit is festooned with if you start slapping it with battle cannon shells.

Commissar Bob
17-07-2009, 16:26
I'm also a Guard player so i generally agree that when throwing S8+ ordinance around, the would allocation rules aren't that big a problem.

However for certain armies without access to that sort of firepower(Inquisition w/out allies, Nids etc) it seems to me the wound allocation rules really destroy one's chances to hurt a super-unit like biker nobz or seer councils of doom before they do considerable damage to your army before dieing. Tyranid Warriors, if they were a little more survivable, could also fall into that category. While I'm unsure how best to fix the situation, it is a problem.

But in general I feel there are a lot of problems with the shooting phase that GW needs to address, with one of the biggest being the lack of leadership modifiers for being shot to pieces.:eyebrows:

Lord Inquisitor
17-07-2009, 17:51
Perhaps not, but then I didn't espouse it as what actually happened, just a way of rationalising it if you cared to. If firing two weapons is sub optimal and you are likely to get a better reuslt with just one (chem cannon and heavy flamer example) then is there not a clear tactical choice to make? (Particularly on templates, which auto hit)
I vehemently disagree that this is a "tactical" choice. It is a "game ploy." As I said before, I can very well exploit the wound allocation system myself, that doesn't make it a good system.

If I'm firing my plasma terminators at a small marine squad with specialists, I know that firing my reaper autocannon is not the smart thing to do. It isn't a "tactical" choice - there's no way it makes sense from a tactical perspective.


I play guard so its kinda hard to do while still being useful.
Guard command squads are the exception. Particularly ones with bodyguards can play the game perhaps better than any other squad. Five bolter rounds and four lascannon hits? Oh, the bodyguard takes all four lascannon hits and the other guys take their armour and FNP saves...


I'm also a Guard player so i generally agree that when throwing S8+ ordinance around, the would allocation rules aren't that big a problem.
Depends. You want to be careful firing your 3x heavy bolters along with the battlecannon as you might well end up causing less casualties against MEQs...

DarkstarSabre
17-07-2009, 19:19
Yeah, but then (for example) a unit of 10 chaos marines with two meltaguns and an icon never looses a meltagun or icon until all the other guys are dead. The current wound allocation rules handle that rather nicely, although I suppose an adpattation of rain of fire / torrent of blows would do the trick.

That never needed to be handled. The assumption always was that the best equipment would be kept, picked up as their user fell to keep using it. Icons in particular are a bugbear here, being a poorly thought out hash-job to replace the Marks system...

Captain Micha
18-07-2009, 11:49
The old system wasn't actually a problem (and two of my three armies didn't even have the option for special weapons so there).

As I said before, this new rule is a Problem in search of a solution, replacing a perfectly fine old rule.

"BUT I CAN"T SNIPE MARINEEZZZ!"

Yeah and now thanks to that stupid mentality, we have Nob Bikers. who take more than 1500 points worth of shooting to kill, if you happen to be the wrong army.

Thanks....

Ekranoplan
18-07-2009, 15:57
Not quite. For example, if a unit of 4 marines took 6 wounds (2 from plasma gun, 2 from bolters, and 2 from plasma cannon) applying them in that order would still result in fewer casualties than just the plasma gun and plasma cannon.

Ideally I think wounds should be applied in order of decreasing fatality; IE, those that allow no save first (as one lot), then the rest as batches in order of allowing increasingly good saves (6+ first, then 5+, etc). Typically this would group wounds into 2 batches, but its possible there would be more. By applying the "worst saves first", you'd ensure those don't get stacked up.

Yeah, this is kind of what I meant but didn't think it out completely.

You would first allocate the wounds that allow no armor save, then allocate the wounds that do. I think that would fix these shenanigans completely. Can anyone think up an example that is ambiguous or would allow for shenanigans?

Zoring
18-07-2009, 16:39
I've never had a problem with the wound allocation yet. In the example given above with S8+ Ordnance, when firing a Russ our gaming group always put the template down, work out hits, wounds, armour saves, remove models and then fire the bolters after that's all resolved. Surely doing it that way prevents some of these problems?

Ekranoplan
18-07-2009, 16:46
I've never had a problem with the wound allocation yet. In the example given above with S8+ Ordnance, when firing a Russ our gaming group always put the template down, work out hits, wounds, armour saves, remove models and then fire the bolters after that's all resolved. Surely doing it that way prevents some of these problems?

It does. And it is so incredibly simlpe. When my group first read the wound allocation rules we thought you fire a weaopn, get wound results, then allocate the wounds, then proceed to the next weapon. That how we have been playing it for some time now. I feel like these shenanigans could have been prevented with 1 or 2 more sentences in the rules about wound allocation.

Corrode
18-07-2009, 17:13
I've never had a problem with the wound allocation yet. In the example given above with S8+ Ordnance, when firing a Russ our gaming group always put the template down, work out hits, wounds, armour saves, remove models and then fire the bolters after that's all resolved. Surely doing it that way prevents some of these problems?

It's also the wrong way to do it. It's fine as a house rule, but that's not how the rules are supposed to work - otherwise, with multiple templates you'd get less hits for each subsequent template, which isn't really intended or how most people (afaik from reading people talk about Burnas getting 100+ hits) play it. I also had someone pull this on me today by firing bolters into a trukk, killing it, then flaming what was inside - totally illegal as far as I'm aware. Resolving things separately also lets your opponent stack saves on things most likely to survive - do I want to chance a Nob's 5+ invulnerable or call the Ghazgkull Waaagh! to take it on a 2+ with a model which can't be IDd? The choice isn't exactly difficult.

Badger[Fr]
18-07-2009, 17:29
Yeah and now thanks to that stupid mentality, we have Nob Bikers. who take more than 1500 points worth of shooting to kill, if you happen to be the wrong army.

And of course, the wound allocation is to blame. The fact that Nob bikers have T5, 2 wounds, FNP, and three different saves is irrelevant here. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure people complaining about the rules actually understand them... Unless your opponent is gifted with prescience and can predict which models will fail their saves, he can't suffer ten wounds on the same unit without taking casulties.

badguyshaveallthefun
18-07-2009, 18:03
I don't deliberately build lists to take advantage of the rules. But I happen to also play Fantasy and I want that full command on my bloodcrushers. And my nobs? I don't purposely give everyone something different, but I take multiple redundant wargear incase they take casualties and I spread equipment out so that casualties don't hurt the squad as much (strictly wargear speaking, things like 2 bosspoles, 2 power claws, 4 big choppas, etc..) I have I think 6 different wound groups in my unit of 10 nobs.

Zoring
22-07-2009, 04:14
It's also the wrong way to do it. It's fine as a house rule, but that's not how the rules are supposed to work - otherwise, with multiple templates you'd get less hits for each subsequent template, which isn't really intended or how most people (afaik from reading people talk about Burnas getting 100+ hits) play it. I also had someone pull this on me today by firing bolters into a trukk, killing it, then flaming what was inside - totally illegal as far as I'm aware. Resolving things separately also lets your opponent stack saves on things most likely to survive - do I want to chance a Nob's 5+ invulnerable or call the Ghazgkull Waaagh! to take it on a 2+ with a model which can't be IDd? The choice isn't exactly difficult.


After reading the book again this is indeed how they say you should do it. We never even realised and just puttered along doing it our own way :D You are right in that Blast markers get less and less hits as you go.

We never really properly played wound allocation either, if a 10 man unit had taken 10 wounds we always rolled for saves (if all their armour was the same) then say 8 people died we just took away 8 mooks and left the sarge and some other guy. 4th edition way? Never played 4th just read the rules.

As far as your example that is strictly against the rules, it mentions specifically that you cannot blow up a transport and then hit the guys bailing out of it but you can assault it, all your guns are fired simoltaneously apparently.

big squig
22-07-2009, 04:57
I play guard so its kinda hard to do while still being useful.

as for an answer to it, well, it doesnt matter how many clickers and guns a unit is festooned with if you start slapping it with battle cannon shells.

Yes, but its also dumb that if you shoot more than a Battle Cannon you do less damage.

If you shoot a couple heavy bolters along with that battle cannon, I can apply the heavy bolter wounds on my sarg and/or specialists and put all the battle cannon wounds on my bolter guys. Chances are my sarg and specialist will live...but if you had shot just the battle cannon, chances are the whole squad would be dead.

jrothove
22-07-2009, 05:41
It doesn't bother me as much as the "I can see a leg and kill your whole squad" thing for "true" line of sight.

Amen to that sentiment. There are cheesier things afoot than Wound allocation rules.

Although it has proven beneficial to me when my opponent is forced to risk a wound on a valuable model, instead of removing wounds from rank-and-file troops first. EG, having to make a save against a hvy weapon, or icon bearer, Fist-Sgt, etc, when previously they could be some of the last men standing in theory,I think.

The rule is a pain, but fair. My biggest gripe is the time eating aspect.:chrome: