Wound allocation is apparently tricky

[daboarder]

Read page 16 again. There is no such requirement. You are confusing the fast dice side bar with the look out sir one. You may roll before or after saves. It specifically says this, in fact. One ic with 2+/3++ can absorb fire for an entire unit of naked guys, if he is the closest model, or under the hole in case of barrage templates.

Under LOS:

WHEN A WOUND (OR UNSAVED WOUND) IS ALLOCATED TO ONE OF YOUR CHARACTERS.....

I'm sorry what was I missing again?

Let me be clear.

Yes a character with a different save can tank the unit until he is dead. If he does so he must forgo his LOS roll as the wound has been allocated to him before he rolls his save.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Truth be told, I believe the new wound allocation is one of th best and most elegant pieces of game design by GW in a long, long while.

Sadly, the Look Out Sir rule is a complete ****...

The rule used to be around before. Hence why people say "the good ol days".

It's a little tweaked now, so the future is bright in some regards.

[Latro_]

Under LOS:



I'm sorry what was I missing again?

Let me be clear.

Yes a character with a different save can tank the unit until he is dead. If he does so he must forgo his LOS roll as the wound has been allocated to him before he rolls his save.

hehe dude, just give up. Let him findout in a tournament or somin. The only way it can be explained better is in a video, which i may do at some point if i cba.

[Satan]

I've only played on test game so far, but if I understood things correctly then these days you allocate wounds taken in shooting after saves (barring the Cover situation, yes yes, I know) - which is all very straightforward and well, but they kept the old wound allocation for CC where you allocate prior to rolling, which is somewhat confusing. They should've just kept it the same throughout...

[IJW]

It's near-identical for both shooting and assault, the only difference is how you decide on the 'closest' model.

See post #55.

[Satan]

It's near-identical for both shooting and assault, the only difference is how you decide on the 'closest' model.

See post #55.

But it isn't? It's reversed in fact? Or did I miss something?

[IJW]

I think you missed something. No matter if it's shooting or CC, if all the saves are the same then you roll saves and allocate wounds to the 'closest' model until dead, if there are different saves then you allocate hits to the 'closest' model and make saves until dead.

[borithan]

Basically theoretically all wounds are allocated before making saves, its just that they make the point (repeatedly) that if the units shares the same saves it doesn't matter and the save can be made first and then unsaved wounds allocated instead.

In the case of units with multiple saves you have to do it before saves.

[Satan]

Basically theoretically all wounds are allocated before making saves, its just that they make the point (repeatedly) that if the units shares the same saves it doesn't matter and the save can be made first and then unsaved wounds allocated instead.

In the case of units with multiple saves you have to do it before saves.

It says so for shooting but the rules are very clear on pg. 25 - in CC you allocate Wounds before rolling saves? Of course, the closest one still dies, but this is what I'm talking about - they should've kept it consistent...

[borithan]

Well, it is exactly the same as in shooting, where you allocate wounds before saves. So the suggestion to speed up shooting (in identical save units roll saves before allocation) should freely apply to close combat, especially seeing as it changes exactly nothing (though I understand the definition of what is closest is different). I don't think you need an explicit rule to say "This time saving advice can be applied everywhere it is relevant and will not change the final outcome."

[Satan]

Well, it is exactly the same as in shooting, where you allocate wounds before saves. So the suggestion to speed up shooting (in identical save units roll saves before allocation) should freely apply to close combat, especially seeing as it changes exactly nothing (though I understand the definition of what is closest is different). I don't think you need an explicit rule to say "This time saving advice can be applied everywhere it is relevant and will not change the final outcome."

But you don't - in Shooting you allocate wounds AFTER saves.

I can't envision a situation where it changes anything right now, but I think they should've kept it consistent as using 2 different methods of resolving wounds is confusing. In that respect I think the 5th edition wound allocation was superior to this.

[IJW]

But you don't - in Shooting you allocate wounds AFTER saves.

Only if all the models have the same save, in which case there's no possible way for it to make a difference.

[Satan]

So why not write it the same? Why not roll saves in CC prior to wound allocation? I just dislike it when they can't stay consistent.

[Bubble Ghost]

One thing at least is clear - that this is the most badly-written rule GW have produced for a while. Somehow, and I don't think I could have done this if I'd tried, they've made a single, simple system sound like three contradictory ones. Discovering 6th ed wound allocation for the first time must be what it was like to be a Victorian explorer - hacking though mile after mile of dense rules undergrowth with a machete, circling lost for days, all hope seemingly gone, before at last discovering the unambiguous treasure at the heart of the jungle.

Screw it, I'll have a go too.

"Allocating" wounds is not the same thing as models suffering wounds. Wound allocation refers specifically, and only, to the process of moving wounds from the Wound Pool to a specific model in the affected unit. It may be that this wound has already had a save attempt made against it and failed, i.e. it is an "unsaved wound" (if you're using the "fast dice" method, the first one described, for units with the same save); or it may be that the save has not been taken yet (because the model allocated the wound has different armour). In either case, this moment of moving the wound from the pool to a model, the allocation, is when you must take your Look Out Sir roll.

Yes, when a character with different armour takes a save and fails, this becomes an "unsaved wound" in literal English. But this is not him being allocated the wound, this is him suffering it. The wound was already allocated, before the save, and so it's now too late to Look Out Sir.

So why not write it the same? Why not roll saves in CC prior to wound allocation? I just dislike it when they can't stay consistent.

It's bad teaching. They have a habit sometimes of not actually explaining the mechanics, but rather leading you through examples - "do this, do this, do this, congratulations, you've done some wound allocation!" But you're none the wiser as to how it actually works. They describe the "fast dice" method first because you can use it for the simplest type of unit, but it's actually a shortcut version of the allocation mechanic, meaning they then have to explain it again for complex units - making it sound like a different mechanic, when it's actually the same one.

[Satan]

One thing at least is clear - that this is the most badly-written rule GW have produced for a while. Somehow, and I don't think I could have done this if I'd tried, they've made a single, simple system sound like three contradictory ones. Discovering 6th ed wound allocation for the first time must be what it was like to be a Victorian explorer - hacking though mile after mile of dense rules undergrowth with a machete, circling lost for days, all hope seemingly gone, before at last discovering the unambiguous treasure at the heart of the jungle.

Screw it, I'll have a go too.

"Allocating" wounds is not the same thing as models suffering wounds. Wound allocation refers specifically, and only, to the process of moving wounds from the Wound Pool to a specific model in the affected unit. It may be that this wound has already had a save attempt made against it and failed, i.e. it is an "unsaved wound" (if you're using the "fast dice" method, the first one described, for units with the same save); or it may be that the save has not been taken yet (because the model allocated the wound has different armour). In either case, this moment of moving the wound from the pool to a model, the allocation, is when you must take your Look Out Sir roll.

Yes, when a character with different armour takes a save and fails, this becomes an "unsaved wound" in literal English. But this is not him being allocated the wound, this is him suffering it. The wound was already allocated, before the save, and so it's now too late to Look Out Sir.

I already get it. But I just think it's poor games design to write it in what, 2 or 3 different ways with the same steps resolved in different orders.

[Bubble Ghost]

I already get it. But I just think it's poor games design to write it in what, 2 or 3 different ways with the same steps resolved in different orders.

I was writing that before you posted that you got it. But still, not everyone does...

[robertrim timbered]

Basically theoretically all wounds are allocated before making saves, its just that they make the point (repeatedly) that if the units shares the same saves it doesn't matter and the save can be made first and then unsaved wounds allocated instead.

In the case of units with multiple saves you have to do it before saves.

Yes they make that point, but actually it does matter!
Look at this example:

I have 3 hits on a unit with one character with 2 wounds being the closest and 2 basic troopers behind him

fast dice
I throw 3x saves, 2 saves are failed, I take 2 LOS, which are passed: 2 troopers are dead, one character with 2 wounds is left.

3 saves taken, 2 saves failed, 2 los taken, 2 los passed 2 troopers dead


One by one
First wound allocated to character, he decides on not taking LOS, het takes his armor save, does not pass it, gets one wound
Second wound allocated to character, he takes his LOS and passes, the trooper passes his save, nothing happens
Third wound allocated to character, he takes his LOS and passes, the trooper fails his save and dies

3 saves taken, 2 saves failed, 2 los taken, 2 los passed, wound on the character, 1 trooper killed, one trooper left

Same result of dice, different and actual better outcome.

So you better decide on taking your LOS or not before for taking your saves.......

[Phazael]

Fine, you guys want to be snarky about it, we can. I do go to tournaments, a ton in fact. I also help run a couple. If you trot over to the boards where the actual guys running GTs hang out (Dakka, BoLs, ect), they will tell you exactly what I am. You are assuming that majority saves are back in effect, where nothing of the kind is even hinted at in the entire rulebook. The actual proceedure is you assign wounds, one at a time, to the closest model, rolling saves on it individually until it is dead, then continue with unresolved wounds on the next one. If the entire unit has the same save, then sure roll them all then dole out the wounds one at a time. If there is anything with even a slightly different save (including some models in cover, ect), you need to dice it out one at a time. This exact scenario (the 2+/3++ bullet shield) is being discussed at length by people who ACTUALLY PLAY AND RUN GTs. You are infering things that are not actually what the rules say.

Since you love semantics so much, here is a mental exercise for you: If what I am describing is not the case, then why bother with giving people the option of choosing to LOS saved or unsaved wounds?

Feel free to continue to snark up the thread, but unless GW FAQs things otherwise (entirely possible, since the game becomes unplayably slow in assault with complex units), you are in fact the one who is in for a shock the next time you attend a tournament. I am just trying to be helpful, not get in a who is the bigger weenie constest.....

[Latro_]

Omg do you actually read their posts? We're not trying to be intentionally rude or sarcastic, its just frustrating when someone does not 'get it'

'then why bother with giving people the option of choosing to LOS saved or unsaved wounds?'

As it has been repeated, repeatedly. This is NOT an option it is a reaction to the fact you may of ALREADY rolled all the saves at once to save time BEFORE LoS and the ALLOCATION of an UNSAVED wounds.

EXAMPLE 1:
10 Marines and a marine sergeant
They all have a 3+ save
The Marine sergeant is at the front
I wound the squad with 5 shuriken catapults
Since they ALL have the same save to save time i roll my 5 saves right away (heck i might pass them all ending it right there)
I get a 2 and a 1
I now have two UNSAVED WOUNDS
I now have to ALLOCATE those UNSAVED WOUNDS to the squad
My segeant is closest so i have to allocate to him first
at this point i can do an LOS roll on an UNSAVED WOUND to save the serg or he can simply be removed.
If i pass a marine within 6" dies if i fail the sergeant dies and i move onto the next closet model

EXAMPLE 2:
10 Marines and a marine captain with terminator armour
They have a 3+ save the captain a 2+ save
The marine captain is at the front
I wound the squad with 5 shuriken catapults
Since the squad DOES NOT have the same save I CANNOT roll all the saves at once.
I therefore have to roll save each on the captain until he dies or instead he tried a LoS roll that if he passes a marine needs to take a 3+ save

That is exactly how it works.

[IJW]

We're not being snarky (at least we weren't to start with) we're pointing out that you appear to have misread the rules.

You cannot have the 2+ guy at the front fail his save and then use LOS! to allocate the wound to another model with a different save. In effect, every wound that a model suffers went through that model's saving throw.