PDA

View Full Version : What did the rules writers intend with the Wound Allocation Rules?



Gingerwerewolf
27-01-2011, 13:20
I was thinking of a Poll but I think there are many many answers to this question:

What do you think that the writers of 5th Edition 40k intended when they wrote the Wound Allocation Rules?

Ive seen more argumants about those rules about whats fair, whats cheating and whats in the spirit of the game, that Ive come to the opinion that it is the most complex part of the game.

I was always under the impression (coming from 2nd edition) that 3rd through 5th have streamlined the game to make it faster and flow easier. As faster games means bigger armies = more exciting (and probably more money spent by customers - I cant help but cynically think)

My points about it would be that wound allocation is almost like a dark art, and that generals who use it to their advantage are almost sorcerers in their allocation.
So:
Did they add it to add a tactical dynamic to the game?
Did they add it to reduce the power of shooty armies to get people into close combat?
Did they add it to help people keep their favourite models on the board longer?
Did they add it to simplify the game? (2nd edition was a nightmare IIRC)
Did they add it to swap the tactical decision of firing away from the attacker and onto the defender?

Im sure there are other ideas, whats yours?

PS not sure if this should have been in the rules forum, tactics forum or the General. Like the wound allocation rule Im discussing their are arguments for any or all of the above! ;)

Hypaspist
27-01-2011, 13:33
I think they did it to stop the special weapons elements of any given squad always being the last ones that were removed (be they Powerfist Sarge/Melta Gun/Plasma Cannon, etc)

I don't mind the wound allocation as they are to be honest, I'm sure this is at odds with many people's opinions. They are all fairly arbitrary ways to determine in a firefight, who it is that *actually* takes the wound.

Wound allocations as is, is no more, or less, realistic than 10 wounds removing 10 models in a squad, indicating that each shot hit a different target. (effectively I see no reason why one model can't get hit multiple times vs three models each being hit)
*shrug*
I guess this comes with a large YMMV tag though.
:)

Hendarion
27-01-2011, 13:34
They intended to prevent Mr. Lascannon to be the last of the squad to die by making him roll his armour-safe separately in case enough wounds had been put on his squad.

aka_mythos
27-01-2011, 13:36
Well this is an instance where GW's designers weren't too happy with how the rule turned out. They were intended as simplified means of dealing with people using large squads to hide heavy weapons, special weapons, and otherwise individually powerful models. They tried to keep it simple but also fair and what's happened is people have taken this and really turned it around.

Its intended to makes sure those distinctive models see their fair share of "hits"... but people have used the rules as a means of diverting attacks rather than evenly distributing attacks. Either by using sacrificial lambs to pull killing blows away from special units or diverting wounds to the models with the better armor save to shield the unit... and in units saturated with distinctive models, the rule is used to keep the unit at full strength for longer than they might otherwise.

Minsc
27-01-2011, 13:44
The rule allocation was a good idea from the beginning - however it doesn't work in the 'real' world due to how easy it is to abuse (and I don't think that was the plan from the beginning).

I'd personally go back to the old system than suffer this abusive system we have now.
(I have 4 L.claw termies and 1 stormshield termie. I place your 3 power attack wounds on my stormshield termie aigh?) :rolleyes:

Lord Khabal
27-01-2011, 13:46
I think that the rules has written are the dumbest thing in 40k, not so much the !allocation" per se, but the "timming" on which the allocation occurs. What is the logic in firing 4 plasma guns and a flamer at (say) 4 SM, resulting in 4 plasma wounds and 4 flamer wounds, killing 2-3 SM (by allocating 4 plasma wounds to 2 SM, and 2 flamer on the other two), and if you shot only the plasma guns you would kill the 4 SM? It makes no sense.

All it took to fix this was to write the line: When units have more than one type of weapon, the controlling player resolves each weapon type at a time.

Leeman Russ
27-01-2011, 14:07
I agree with Lord Khabal - that one line would appear to fix everything. I'll certainly be house-ruling that at my club! :)

Bunnahabhain
27-01-2011, 14:10
Why? To get rid of range and LOS sniping.

They just replaced it with something far worse.

shadow hunter
27-01-2011, 14:26
To be honest, we dont use it. We couldn't be arsed faffing about allocating wounds.

We just roll to hit and roll to wound. Then take saves, and defender remove models. However - you have to remove those in base contact first followed by those within 2". Cant say any of us have really been annoyed by hidden powerfists. They generally only have 1 or 2 attacks anyway.

For shooting, again we just remove models - leaving specialists. figuring another member of the squad would pick up the heavy weapon anyway.

As we are all doing it (and its a friendly environment) its worked fine.

This is using - Eldar, Dark Eldar, marines (various), daemons, Orks, Tau, Nids. Necrons appear to still be in stasis in our group (the guy cant be arsed with WBB)

Gingerwerewolf
27-01-2011, 14:47
To mix it up a bit from what people are saying, there are posts on forums all over the place that descibe the Tactics of using Wound allocation in these ways.

Orks and Tyranids seem to be the biggest users of it to add survivability.

If it was a mistake it was a big one and one that they could easily FAQ'd especially with the new and updated FAQs.

Im leaning towards the idea that they intended it to solve the unfairness of special / heavy weapon survivability but introduced unkillable squads as an accidental side effect. Then they've had to keep it because certain armies rely on it and it would be a game changing mechanic.

Dwane Diblie
27-01-2011, 14:55
All it took to fix this was to write the line: When units have more than one type of weapon, the controlling player resolves each weapon type at a time.

Or to be put more complicatedly. You must allocate wounds first by allocating all IK wounds that ignore armour, then wounds that ignore armour, then IK wounds that can be saved, then wounds that can be saved. You do not start again with each type of wound, you would continue from where the last wound left off. eg:

1 Lascannon wound, 3 Plasma Cannon Wounds, 6 Heavy Bolter wounds on 6 Long Fangs with 2 Lascannons, 2 Plasma Cannons, A Missile Launcher, Sargent and a Wolf Guard in terminator armour.

Lascannon can instantly kill a Marine and so must be placed first. I would place it on the Missine Launcher.
3 Plasma Cannons will ignore the Marines armour and are then placed next. I would place them on the wolf guard and the sargent and a lascannon.
6 Heavy Bolters are allocated last. I would start by plasing 1 on the final Lascannon and 2 Plasma Cannons. Now I have a wound on everyone and I still have 3 left. Start over and place them on the Missile Launcher, Sargent as these will be dead already and the last on the Wolf Guard as if he lives past the Plasma Cannon then he has a 2+ save.

This way 3 Long Fangs die out right and the Wolf Guard has a good chance of it. The current way 2 Long Fangs wound die out right and the Wolf Guard would have little to no chance of dying.

:P

Hendarion
27-01-2011, 15:02
All it took to fix this was to write the line: When units have more than one type of weapon, the controlling player resolves each weapon type at a time.

No, it doesn't.
Lets say it had only been 3 plasma and 3 flamers on 5 marines, 1 of them has a Melta, the other 4 are normal Marines.
Now lets solve by weapon type and lets start with the flamer. 3 wounds on 3 normal marines, one of them dies. Now apply the plasma wounds. 4 Marines remaining, means 3 dead Marines. Mr. Melta still survived without having to roll a single saving throw. In the original use of wound allocation the Melta-dude should have made at least one saving throw. Now he doesn't. Yea, it means more dead Marines in total by allocating per weapon type, but it does not do what the original rule had intended to do! So the rule could be skipped entirely as the same result would apply.
I don't see how this is a fix for wound allocation and the original purpose of that rule.

Lion El Jason
27-01-2011, 15:17
Personally I never had too much of an issue with the old Defender chooses method. It represented the squad members protecting their Sgt or heavy weapon specialists though it did lead to "Hidden" powerfists etc...

I don't mind the current wound allocation rules either, I think its quite evocative for a terminator squad to be hit by some plasma and the thunder hammer guy jumps forward to take the hits on his shield, or other similarly narrative elements.

The rules work, they just have some side-effects. These were known about and intended. Anyone saying the designers didn't know what this would bring is deluded There is an example of exactly the kind of thing people call "Abuse" in the rulebook to illustrate how to play the rule!

Gingerwerewolf
27-01-2011, 15:19
Wound allocation is incredibly complicated. By adding Rules, the writers have made a loophole.

Ok as a kinda add to the origional question:
If they were trying to cure the origional wound allocation problems: what was it that was so problematic about saving the Best Weapons till last with your wound allocation? How was that unfair?

In the movies when the guys on a heavy weapon got shot someone else picked it up and used it.

ColShaw
27-01-2011, 15:24
Like gingerwerewolf, I always figured the heavy/special weapon guys were just picking up the fallen weapons and carrying on... like standard bearers/musicians in WFB (which are still protected till last in that system...)

I agree that the intent was to see that everybody in the unit takes his chance when the lead rains down, but I really don't think it works as intended. I don't think they fully thought through the ramifications of large multi-wound units with lots of different equipment. Or the way people could use wound-allocation in situations where shooting more shots into a unit might actually result in more survivors, which has never made any sense to me.

Lord Damocles
27-01-2011, 15:25
what was it that was so problematic about saving the Best Weapons till last with your wound allocation?
It encouraged small squads/min-maxing and/or squads which existed purely as a delivery system for the guy with the Fist.


As Bunnahabhain noted, the old system also led to line of sight and range sniping, which were complained about bitterly in 4th ed.

Lion El Jason
27-01-2011, 15:27
What's the loophole? Its only a loophole if it does something unintended and it seems the designers knew exactly what they were doing. The rule works because it forces some saves to be made by special models.

The old defender chooses method was only really an issue in assault, a single powerfist guy (Possibly the only one able to hurt the enemy much) would be there forever.

It was ok at the time but the hidden powerfists and the like became an issue.

Gingerwerewolf
27-01-2011, 15:43
What's the loophole? Its only a loophole if it does something unintended and it seems the designers knew exactly what they were doing. The rule works because it forces some saves to be made by special models.

The old defender chooses method was only really an issue in assault, a single powerfist guy (Possibly the only one able to hurt the enemy much) would be there forever.

It was ok at the time but the hidden powerfists and the like became an issue.

But isnt Ork Squad Design still like this? Arent Ork Mobs just a way to deliver an Ork with a Powerfist?

Or am I going to have to re-read the rule for the umpteenth time in half as many days? :cries:

GrogDaTyrant
27-01-2011, 16:32
But isnt Ork Squad Design still like this? Arent Ork Mobs just a way to deliver an Ork with a Powerfist?


To a point, yes. But that is largely due to the low number of weapon upgrades available, the (diminishing) upgrade options, and the complete and total necessity of the Powerklaw. PKs are mandatory, because they currently serve as the anti-tank, anti-monster, anti-IC, anti-walker for the entire army. There are certainly a few other options that may have been FAQ-ed to alleviate that (*cough* deathrollas), but the PK is still the primary method the army has for dealing with just about everything. It's as integral to the current Ork codex as Synapse is for Tyranids.

From a Shoota perspective however, the mobs are no longer 'delivery systems' for the Nob. Shootas provide a wall of firepower and are immensely versatile, whereas Slugga/Choppas are really nothing more than 30-ablative wounds that just happen to have 3 base attacks if they get a chance to swing. In any case, you wouldn't see this trend with PKs in mobs if the units had more weapon upgrade options, upgrade slots, and other weapon options for the Nob. Another thing that would help out, would be for Slugga/Choppas to go back to swinging at I4 on the charge.

Hendarion
27-01-2011, 17:17
Like gingerwerewolf, I always figured the heavy/special weapon guys were just picking up the fallen weapons and carrying on... like standard bearers/musicians in WFB (which are still protected till last in that system...)

So if the Sergeant is killed, someone else picks up his 2nd profile attack and his higher leadership value or rips off the power fist which is totally fixed to the body armour? Interesting.

Aliarzathanil
27-01-2011, 17:31
It could all be fixed by giving the shooter that option to insist on wound allocation or to allow the defender to use majority armour and toughness and pull the full models of his choosing (essentially like last edition).

This would allow it to perform as intended, which is to say that a powerfist or meltagun here and there might get clipped, but would remove the incentive to game the system.

Vaktathi
27-01-2011, 17:32
Two things.

They wanted it so that the powerfist, meltagun and missile launcher dudes were not the last dudes left in a unit all the time every time (although I really don't see why its an issue given that the units pay the points for these upgrades and rely on them for effectiveness unlike homogenous units like say Fire Dragons). They also wanted different armor values in a unit (e.g. Black Templar squads with initiates and neophytes) to function better and for those values to have more meaning.

The problem is that it has opened up many more cans of worms because they didn't take into account multiple wound units or differing AP values. As a result the system is gamed far more than it should be, and we get ridiculous situations with wounds be spread piecemeal around units and events where *more* shooting equates to *fewer* casualties. Having wounds allocated and resolved in order of AP from lowest AP to highest (e.g. 10 man Tac squad takes 4 AP2 hits and 12 AP5 hits, the player must allocate the AP2 wounds and remove those models before allocating the remaining 12 AP5 hits to the remaining 6 models) would help a bit, a little with the former and almost totally with the latter, but not 100%.

Bunnahabhain
27-01-2011, 17:41
From a Shoota perspective however, the mobs are no longer 'delivery systems' for the Nob. Shootas provide a wall of firepower and are immensely versatile, whereas Slugga/Choppas are really nothing more than 30-ablative wounds that just happen to have 3 base attacks if they get a chance to swing. In any case, you wouldn't see this trend with PKs in mobs if the units had more weapon upgrade options, upgrade slots, and other weapon options for the Nob. Another thing that would help out, would be for Slugga/Choppas to go back to swinging at I4 on the charge.

Agreed, except for that last sentence.

There are a few units I think of as 'baselines', that should provide references for most infantry. Standard Guardsmen, Ork Boys and tactical marines are the main ones.

I don't mind Orks should be tougher than Guardsmen, and better at fighting than most of them, but stronger and faster as well? For an archetypal horde, that's a bit much....

Chaos and Evil
27-01-2011, 17:45
It's worth mentioning that the wound allocation system now used in 40k was first used in Epic:Armageddon.

Only, there's one crucial difference that makes it a cool rule in Epic, and a "gamey" rule in 40k: In the Epic version, the wounds are applied to each model in the "squad" from the front-to-back (The "front" being the part of the formation nearest the enemy that are shooting at them), then front-to-back again once each model has been allocated a hit, etc. Hits are also applied in several stages, starting with "normal hits", then "Macro weapon hits" (Roughly equivilent to an AP2 or AP1 weapon in 40k) and then "Titan Killer" hits (Roughly equivilent to Destroyer hits in 40k). Each stage is allocated then saved against, before you move on to the next.

The 40k version, of course, just lets the owning player pick which models will take the saving throws (Or just die, if the AP of the shot is good enough), with no sub division of allocation into different AP levels that must be saved against separately***.

The Epic version promotes intelligent placement of models by the player in the manoever phase (And it also means that the opponent can manoever for advantage when *his* movement phase comes around).

The 40k version promotes... well, everything people are complaining about above.

But then, the 40k rules are designed for a different player age group...


***Leading to "AP cycling".

brotherhostower
27-01-2011, 17:46
So if the Sergeant is killed, someone else picks up his 2nd profile attack and his higher leadership value or rips off the power fist which is totally fixed to the body armour? Interesting.

It's only fixed to the armor in terminator/mega-armor squads. And yes, the model that picked it up (like in any "good" war movie) was picked up by the up-and-coming youngster who "had the potential all the time!" to make such things easily explainable (yes, this works less in an eldar or tyranid army than any other but works well for marines, orks, imperial guard, dark eldar, etc). Honestly they could have added a "lookout sir!" save like in fantasy and it would've worked pretty good to rep someone jumping in front of the sgt to take that lascannon shot.

GrogDaTyrant
27-01-2011, 17:56
I don't mind Orks should be tougher than Guardsmen, and better at fighting than most of them, but stronger and faster as well? For an archetypal horde, that's a bit much....

Didn't seem to cause problems in 3rd and 4th, where they charged at I4. The completely broken 'Choppa' rule was the culprit there. Keep in mind I don't want them to be base I4. I just wouldn't mind having an incentive to use Choppa/Sluggas again, even if it meant they were 7 or 8pts a model. If they went to I3, then that would also alleviate many of the problems that arose due to the biased Initiative roll-offs for breaking/fleeing, and the now 66% useless "Hit and Run". I don't even bother trying to remember it on my Deathkoptas.

On side note about the switch-over to the current Ork codex, I donated my entire Goff-themed army to a LGS mostly because of the downgrade Choppa/Sluggas received. Although part of that reasoning was my lovingly converted Skarboyz becoming generics, and the army dropping from 1850 to 1k overnight. Wasn't too pleased with those changes.

Vaktathi
27-01-2011, 18:04
To be fair, Choppa Boyz dropped on cost dramatically and their wound output against marines actually increased on a model per model basis when charging and on a point for point basis everywhere else (given the 33% cost decrease), and gave them I3 at least when charging instead of I2 all the time.

ColShaw
27-01-2011, 18:53
So if the Sergeant is killed, someone else picks up his 2nd profile attack and his higher leadership value or rips off the power fist which is totally fixed to the body armour? Interesting.

Good sarcasm.

I was actually talking about special/heavy weapons, but yes, I think this would apply, too. The squad's second-in-command takes over, snatches up the power fist (which no, is not totally fixed to the body armor; look at an IG powerfist sometime: they're totally self-contained units) and shouts "follow me!"

The only problem with 4th Ed shooting I had was the ability through careful range-guessing, to "snipe" close enemy models.

GrogDaTyrant
27-01-2011, 19:04
To be fair, Choppa Boyz dropped on cost dramatically and their wound output against marines actually increased on a model per model basis when charging and on a point for point basis everywhere else (given the 33% cost decrease), and gave them I3 at least when charging instead of I2 all the time.

While true, it was too much of a point-drop and now emphasizes them as 'cannon-fodder' quality.

All in all the individual boy dropped substantially in cost, and the point-for-point damage output improved on-paper. Realistically however, units remain at the same model-caps and the ability to get more models into combat remained the same with the exception of trukks-mobs.

However they did decrease dramatically against multi-attack models, such as Assault Marines or especially Berzerkers and other 3+ base attack models at I4. Having them drop in cost wasn't a 'boon' in my opinion. It was more of a 'we're not going to fix the initiative roll-off issues, we're just going to make them dirt cheap.' As someone who was interested in playing in more tournaments (at the time), having an already crowded model count increase substantially was not ideal. Especially when finishing a game within the time-limit proved challenging enough without static shoota-spam.

In any case, the 120+ model count Goff army was donated to a LGS. Which worked out fine, because the new codex's minuscule blurb about the Goffs changed their "fluff" to cannon-fodder hordes of boyz.

AndrewGPaul
27-01-2011, 19:11
Or the sergeant, usually being more experienced, makes better use of cover than trooper noob who gets shot in the face. 40K has gone from being a game where the basic unit is an individual model to one where it's a squad. Except for some reason they've got stuck halfway and haven't done a good job of explaining it. Games like AT-43 and Disposeable Heroes treat the squad as the basic entity; you measure LOS from squad leader to squad leader, or the closest models in the firing and target units. the actual position of the individual troopers generally doesn't matter a great deal.

That's why in 40K a model can get shot from behind a wall if his mates are in LOS, why the missile launcher can't shoot if the sergeant moves, and why you don't have individual LOS and targeting rules like you did in 1st and 2nd editions.

Regarding the "baseline" troops, an Ork should really be tougher (T4) and clumsier (I2) than a human, and a Marine is better than both.

jasdc1
27-01-2011, 19:15
As the rules are now, you have the potential to lose less models in a squad than actual wounds suffered.

totgeboren
27-01-2011, 19:25
No, it doesn't.
Lets say it had only been 3 plasma and 3 flamers on 5 marines, 1 of them has a Melta, the other 4 are normal Marines.
Now lets solve by weapon type and lets start with the flamer. 3 wounds on 3 normal marines, one of them dies. Now apply the plasma wounds. 4 Marines remaining, means 3 dead Marines. Mr. Melta still survived without having to roll a single saving throw. In the original use of wound allocation the Melta-dude should have made at least one saving throw. Now he doesn't. Yea, it means more dead Marines in total by allocating per weapon type, but it does not do what the original rule had intended to do! So the rule could be skipped entirely as the same result would apply.
I don't see how this is a fix for wound allocation and the original purpose of that rule.

Maybe I misinterpreted the suggested rule change, but he never said that the rule that all models must be allocated one hit before anyone can be allocated a new hit was to be removed?

I would put the rule like this.
"After all wounds have been determined, start by allocating all the wounds caused by the weapon(/s) with the lowest Ap value, then proceed with the next best and so on until all wounds have been allocated."

So your example would turn out as;
3 plasma and 3 flamer wounds on 5 marines, 1 of them has a Melta.
The three plasma wounds are allocated to the normal marines, one flamer wound to the normal marines, one flamer wound to the melta. Now all have been hit once, so the last flamer wound can be placed on either the normal marines, or the melta. Considering that you generally want to keep the melta around, the last flamer wound goes on the normal marines.
So your four normal dudes need to roll two saves, and three die anyway. Your melta needs to roll one save.

I think that was the result that was intended by both GW and the poster you replied to.

theunwantedbeing
27-01-2011, 19:29
Nothing like 4 plasma wounds all on the same guy because you also shot the squad with some bolters, rather than a plasma wound on 4 seperate guys to make you hate wound allocation.

I doubt the designers intended the above to happen.

Really you should have to resolve wounds from each weapon before moving to the next to eliminate the issues of wound allocation. Still determine hits together, just determine the wound allocation per set of like-weapons.
so all the bolters at once, all the plasma at once, etc
Doesn't necessarily have to be lowest AP to highest, or highest to lowest though.

So the above example becomes 4 guys get plasma'd and then the survivors get a face full of bolter rounds and it becomes beneficial to fire everything rather than being less useful.

Lion El Jason
27-01-2011, 20:01
@theunwantedbeing
And you basically just described the 4th ed "Defender chooses who dies" mechanic.

While you may get enough wounds overall from a squad to get the specials to make saves, each individual weapon likely won't so you can't ever kill the Sgt, special or heavy weapon without wiping out the squad...

So you solved nothing!

TheMav80
27-01-2011, 20:04
A little of everything. If you look at the example diagram in the book it specifically tells you to put the AP 1 wound on the same guy they put the extra wound on. That way saving you a guy.

TheMav80
27-01-2011, 20:13
Nothing like 4 plasma wounds all on the same guy because you also shot the squad with some bolters, rather than a plasma wound on 4 seperate guys to make you hate wound allocation.

I doubt the designers intended the above to happen.

Really you should have to resolve wounds from each weapon before moving to the next to eliminate the issues of wound allocation. Still determine hits together, just determine the wound allocation per set of like-weapons.
so all the bolters at once, all the plasma at once, etc
Doesn't necessarily have to be lowest AP to highest, or highest to lowest though.

So the above example becomes 4 guys get plasma'd and then the survivors get a face full of bolter rounds and it becomes beneficial to fire everything rather than being less useful.


They DID intend for the above to happen. They use it as an example in their own rulebook!

Page 25.
The diagram explains wound allocation. In that diagram, I quote "He is trying to minimise the damage by allocating both the worst wound (the meltagun) and the spare wound on the same model."

Not liking the rule is fine and cool. Let's not pretend the rule is being 'abused' by people or that the designers just had no idea how it would work. It is working as intended.

Homer S
27-01-2011, 20:14
To be honest, we dont use it. We couldn't be arsed faffing about allocating wounds.

We just roll to hit and roll to wound. Then take saves, and defender remove models. However - you have to remove those in base contact first followed by those within 2". Cant say any of us have really been annoyed by hidden powerfists. They generally only have 1 or 2 attacks anyway.

For shooting, again we just remove models - leaving specialists. figuring another member of the squad would pick up the heavy weapon anyway.

As we are all doing it (and its a friendly environment) its worked fine.

This is using - Eldar, Dark Eldar, marines (various), daemons, Orks, Tau, Nids. Necrons appear to still be in stasis in our group (the guy cant be arsed with WBB)
So, you just pasted over those pages in your 5th edition book with those from 4th then? ;)

Homer

Lion El Jason
27-01-2011, 20:20
Not liking the rule is fine and cool. Let's not pretend the rule is being 'abused' by people or that the designers just had no idea how it would work. It is working as intended.

+1

Its all working as intended, juts get over it and play.

theunwantedbeing
27-01-2011, 20:24
Not liking the rule is fine and cool. Let's not pretend the rule is being 'abused' by people or that the designers just had no idea how it would work. It is working as intended.

There's a slight difference between only killing 1 guy with 4 plasma because you boltered the unit as well and allocating a single melta wound and a spare one on the same guy.

Clearly the designers intended you to be able to minimise damage, but it all gets very silly at times because of it.

GrogDaTyrant
27-01-2011, 20:28
Its all working as intended, juts get over it and play.

My limited understanding of games-development in general, is that it is exceedingly rare to have anything work as intended. Some developments just don't rear their ugly head until the masses get their hands on it and stretch it to the breaking point.

I personally don't think Wound Allocation is working as it was intended. I think there was a noble effort behind it, but I seriously doubt they went into it thinking of ways to make Nobs more resilient than they ever needed to be.

Voss
27-01-2011, 20:36
My limited understanding of games-development in general, is that it is exceedingly rare to have anything work as intended. Some developments just don't rear their ugly head until the masses get their hands on it and stretch it to the breaking point.

I personally don't think Wound Allocation is working as it was intended. I think there was a noble effort behind it, but I seriously doubt they went into it thinking of ways to make Nobs more resilient than they ever needed to be.

Honestly, if its just making one unit slightly more resilient and fulfilling its purpose with everything else, then it is working just fine.

Worrying about what the designers intended is a waste of time- its clear how it actually does work, and thats all that matters.

Lion El Jason
27-01-2011, 20:41
There's a slight difference between only killing 1 guy with 4 plasma because you boltered the unit as well and allocating a single melta wound and a spare one on the same guy.

Clearly the designers intended you to be able to minimise damage, but it all gets very silly at times because of it.

You realise your oft repeated example is silly of course?

Even on a minimum sized unit of 5 average guys to put 4 plasma wounds on one guy you'd need 12 bolter wounds. That simply doesn't happen.
That's right, the people arguing that sometimes it goes too far are arguing that non existent scenarios are too far.
While what actually happens in the scope of the game is mostly fine.

Don't compare fantasy, dreamed up set ups to things we deal with every game.
The things that actually happen are pretty much fine. The stuff people made up that never happens would be too far but its outside the scope of the game... it never happens.

While I think it likely someone will come up with some statistical aberration that they claim actually happened to them, even if it is true the odd one in a million event is also easy to (Rightly) discount.

oni
27-01-2011, 21:11
The problem as I see it is not the wound allocation rules; it's the players. Either they don't understand how it works or they don't apply it properly. The misunderstanding and/or misapplication is so bad that I've stopped trying to correct people on it. If I were to apply psychology to this phenomenon I would dare to say that most people who complain about wound allocation either (a) Don't understand the rule and it's application and as most people who don't understand something do... they just complain rather than try to learn -or- (b) They do understand and lash out at how in some rare instances it can be abused and whine because they're butt hurt.

Xarian
27-01-2011, 23:01
Even on a minimum sized unit of 5 average guys to put 4 plasma wounds on one guy you'd need 12 bolter wounds. That simply doesn't happen.

It's entirely possible to put 12 bolter/lasgun/shoota wounds on one squad. Easy, in fact, especially when you're talking about shooting Guard or Sisters of Battle, and pretty much every army can generate enough shots to do that.

Or were you just trolling?

Hypaspist
27-01-2011, 23:11
Xarian, I think what Lion El Jason was saying was more that in order to allocate 4 plasma wounds onto one man within a 5 man squad (in order to minimise casualties) you would need a further 12 bolter wounds at the same time. 5 x 3 wounds each = 15 wounds and the spare wound goes on the model who already has 3 Plasma wounds allocated to him.

In turn this would have necessitated (on average dice, vs Marines, from Marines) 24 Bolter hits, and 4-5 Plasma hits,
Which in turn would have needed, 36 Bolter shots and 6/7 Plasma shots, assuming Rapid Fire (Numbers don't obviously work out perfectly here)

Therefore, we are talking about a unit that is shooting that is at least 21/22 Marines strong, toting 3/4 Plasma Guns (rapid firing) and 18 Bolters (Rapid Firing)

A unit which is (as far as I can recollect) impossible to create.

so whilst it's an extreme example, I believe the point being made was that the abuse of the wound allocation is never so bad as to *actually* save that many models.

I may of course have interpreted LEJ incorrectly...


(but in either case, probably not trolling ;) )

:)

Bubble Ghost
27-01-2011, 23:18
All I know is that if I shoot my Sonic Blasters and my Doom Siren at an MEQ unit, I cause fewer casualties than if I'd shot nothing but the Doom Siren. I have learned to maximise my unit's damage output by NOT FIRING fifteen shots. It is head-smash-on-table frustrating.

TheMav80
27-01-2011, 23:40
I was going to say that the only way I know this happens is with Guard vehicles.

A Russ, having not moved, could throw out a S8 AP3 large blast, a lascannon shot, and 6 HB shots.

Lord-Caerolion
27-01-2011, 23:42
Only in 40k do guns become magic and shoot bullets that heal your injuries if you have certain numbers of them. "Quick, the Sarge is hurt! Shoot him in the head with a bolter!"

Dwane Diblie
28-01-2011, 03:46
You would need 24 marines with bolters or 32 Guardsmen with Lasguns to pull this off using math hammer. That being said all you actualy need is 16 additional hits with basic weapons.

A full chaos Havoc can do this with a bit of luck. Throw in a character or 2 and drasticaly increases its chance.
A standard Guard platoon can do it with ease if you combine all 5 squads in to one big one.
A War Walker Squad is in a similar position when armed with Brightlance and Scatterlaser.
How about a Burner Boy mob with its 3 Mekboyz toting Kustom Mega Blastaz.

I am sure nearly every army has an example of being able to reduice fire to increase casualties.

magnum12
28-01-2011, 03:54
There's also the fact that the current awful wound allocation rules are simply incompatible with AOE attacks.

Example A: A 3 man Chaos Terminator squad suffers 3 plasma cannon wounds and 4 bolter wounds. Because of the bolter wounds, only one terminator is hit with all 3 plasma cannon wounds, as if the explosion dealed a 3 hit combo that only hit one person.

Example B: A Bane Wolf inflicts 4 Chem Cannon wounds and 4 Heavy Flamer wounds on a complex 5 man SM veteran squad (certainly reasonable statistically as 1-2 wound rolls would fail). 2 Chem Cannon wounds are allocated on 2 vets, 2 H flamer on one, and 1 H flamer on two. Even basic physics should say that this makes ZERO sense barring extreme wind conditions. A direct hit from a gout of toxic gas hits everything caught in it, not magically hitting only certain people multiple times (see the comment about comboes.)

Lion El Jason
28-01-2011, 06:48
All I know is that if I shoot my Sonic Blasters and my Doom Siren at an MEQ unit, I cause fewer casualties than if I'd shot nothing but the Doom Siren. I have learned to maximise my unit's damage output by NOT FIRING fifteen shots. It is head-smash-on-table frustrating.

I'm not convinced this is correct but I admit I can't remember Doom Siren stats atm. Those 15 shots should get 2 kills of their own and only allow double stacking of doom siren hits, not tripple stacking.


A Russ, having not moved, could throw out a S8 AP3 large blast, a lascannon shot, and 6 HB shots.

Hmmm... This is a true example if you shoot a 5 man squad. Otherwise I think you're still better firing everything.


There's also the fact that the current awful wound allocation rules are simply incompatible with AOE attacks.


Its true this kinda doesn't make sense. I'd certainly be in favour of a rule to force AoE hits to at least be placed on different models.


I am sure nearly every army has an example of being able to reduice fire to increase casualties.

But as we see every time, it requires full units of shooters at tiny units of targets and exactly the right combination of hits and wounds. Its a corner case at best IMO and I play Deathwing, we spend pages in our tactics thread working out how to maximise this rule!

I agree there are issues, but I also find it quite satisfying and cinematic when my terminators get shot with a lascannon and my TH&SS guy jumps in the way with his shield or after all those shots my characters in the unit may have been hit but are still standing.
Does it make it any easier when I lose casualties from my crusader? No, but those are the rules and you have to play them. I'm not saying the rule is perfect. It does what its designed to: It forces special models to take their share of saves.
Since nobody has mentioned a better idea that works I guess we're stuck with it.

Vaktathi
28-01-2011, 06:59
Hmmm... This is a true example if you shoot a 5 man squad. Otherwise I think you're still better firing everything. It's entirely possible against just about any type of squad to end up with situations where more shooting results in fewer casuatlies. Say against a 10man tac squad wound them all with a battlecannon, ordinarily they would all be dead, but I also fired the heavy bolters, resulting in 3 more wounds that get stuck on the flamer, missile, and searg and the 10 BC wounds on the putzes. One of them dies, and 8 putzes die, but two excess wounds are lost and what should have been a dead unit is still around.



I agree there are issues, but I also find it quite satisfying and cinematic when my terminators get shot with a lascannon and my TH&SS guy jumps in the way with his shield The problem is that it happens *every* *single* *time* something like that is shot at them. It's too easy to game that, especially in a very uncinematic way.


It does what its designed to: It forces special models to take their share of saves.
At the cost of making such models much hardier if they have multiple wounds, and situations where *more* shooting equates to *fewer* casualties. It broke a lot more to fix that issue.


Since nobody has mentioned a better idea that works I guess we're stuck with it. Again, assigning and resolving by AP would work wonders. It wouldn't totally fix it, but it would go a long way. There's plenty of times where lots of mixed AP shooting results in fewer casualties, particularly with heavy/special weapon units like Vets or Devestators and tanks like the Leman Russ or AC/LC preds.

Lion El Jason
28-01-2011, 07:16
Assigning by AP fails to do anything. you may as well not even try to make specials take saves.

The examples are still corner case. Wounding all 10 guys with a BC?

Dr Zoidberg
28-01-2011, 07:20
It's entirely possible against just about any type of squad to end up with situations where more shooting results in fewer casuatlies. Say against a 10man tac squad wound them all with a battlecannon, ordinarily they would all be dead, but I also fired the heavy bolters, resulting in 3 more wounds that get stuck on the flamer, missile, and searg and the 10 BC wounds on the putzes. One of them dies, and 8 putzes die, but two excess wounds are lost and what should have been a dead unit is still around.

(Forgive me if this a dumb question as I haven't played since the final days of 2nd Ed and the start of 3rd).

Do you have to fire all at once? Couldn't you fire the battlecannon, resolve the shooting; and if there is anything left, follow up with the heavy bolters? Or does a unit/squad's shooting need to be done all together?

Chapters Unwritten
28-01-2011, 07:31
Greetings all. I am a longtime lurker who registered just to respond to this thread!

I will say that I feel all aspects of wound allocation as it currently stands were completely intended. The "MSU" style of squad (or indeed, any style of small squad) has always been basically a foolish notion in my (admittedly brief) time in 40k. Less models always equals less wounds till worthlessness (i.e. below half and falling back, or Ld tests). It also means less attacks, less shots, and often less unique powerful "paid-for" weapons or items. For this reason I feel like wound allocation is designed with the intention of making small expensive units tougher.

There's really two ways to deal with it as it stands. Firstly, you could just make it so that all multi-wound models don't die as easily, though I suspect this would not be popular as it would make ALL multi-wound units have the benefit of "Nob Wound Allocation". However it would be nice for a small unit of multi-wound models to actually be scary again, wouldn't it?

I mean, not for nothing, but as it currently stands it seems the suspension of disbelief for a lot of people is "Hey how could I shoot 5 plasma rounds and they all only hit 1 guy!?!" I find this pretty funny because when it comes to multi-wound units, the gripe is the opposite: "Each one of these guys should be hit with all my shots till he dies and they shouldn't ever hit multiple guys!" Just seems to be a bit daft in both directions, IMO.

The most elegant way to handle the rules conundrum is to hope that GW adds this gem of a houserule to wound allocation:

"Wounds that cannot be saved must be allocated first."

Problem solved! :D

Axeman1n
28-01-2011, 07:37
All firing from one source is done simultaneously.
I'd love to go back to 10 unsaved wounds cause 10 wounds. If a "Unique" save group loses all of it's wounds, then any extra wounds will carry over to the "Unique" save group of the owning players choice. This way, even if you manage to cause 4 plasma wounds, and he places them all on one model, you still manage to kill 4 marines with them.

shabbadoo
28-01-2011, 07:42
The basic wound allocation rules allow for models equipped differently to be killed. Randomly. Models with special equipment no longer hide in the units. That's what they are for.

Thrax
28-01-2011, 07:43
The cynic might say the intention of Wound Allocation was to make players clamor for a 6th Edition.

We also play as in 4th Edition but with a twist. When rolling to wound, any 6's rolled are set aside. The attacking player has the option of "attempting to allocate" those wounds. If they re-roll the 6's with the same hit number they needed to hit in the first place, the attacker allocates wounds. If the roll isn't made, the wounds are lost. No model may be allocated more than one wound until other models in the targeted squad receive one too.

Works great for us. We find precedence in the attacker allocating damage on enemy vehicles yet it seems far more reasonable, while still allowing for the chance to take out the target's specialists but with the risk of causing less damage.

Vaktathi
28-01-2011, 08:15
Assigning by AP fails to do anything. you may as well not even try to make specials take saves. It solves the problem of more shooting=fewer casualties. If all those AP3 rounds have to be assigned and resolved before the AP4 rounds, then there's nobody to siphon off wounds to reduce casualties left. If you assign and resolve the AP4 wounds first, then you likely have 9 guys remaing with 10 AP3 wounds, and they all die. Neither results in more shooting equating to fewer casualties. Sure, the low AP wounds aren't going on the specials *first*, but then they are getting all those lower AP shots stacked on them later, and are still having to take saves. In this example, the entire squad would be dead, special included, unlike the current rules which would likely leave 2 still alive, contrary to what the rules were trying to accomplish.



The examples are still corner case. Wounding all 10 guys with a BC?It was an easy round number for an example, could just as easily have been 5. 5 BC wounds against 5 dudes, 3 HB wounds. 8 wounds total, you have a serg, and 2 specials, the 2 putzes take 4 BC wounds, 1 goes on the least important special and he takes an HB wound too, then 1 HB wound each to the serg and remaing special. In all likelyhood 2 survivors out of what otherwise would have been 5 dead.


(Forgive me if this a dumb question as I haven't played since the final days of 2nd Ed and the start of 3rd).

Do you have to fire all at once? Couldn't you fire the battlecannon, resolve the shooting; and if there is anything left, follow up with the heavy bolters? Or does a unit/squad's shooting need to be done all together?

Yes, shooting is simultaneous and is declared and resolved at the same time.

totgeboren
28-01-2011, 08:50
Assigning by AP fails to do anything. you may as well not even try to make specials take saves.


I don't understand why you are so set in stone that if we assign by Ap order, we must remove the rule that all models must be assigned one hit each before doubling up?

hobdoglin
28-01-2011, 09:10
Couldn't the varying weapon layouts be worked out separably? though this would require more time.
for example: in the shooting phase a shotta boy mob targets a space marine tactical squad. role for the shoota/sluga armed orks first, resolving the hits/wounds/casualties. Then role for the rokkit armed orks, resolving hits/wounds/casualties.

Maybe non special/heavyweapon weapons should be worked out first followed by special then heavy. helping depict the fact that it takes longer to setup and operate the more complicated harder hitting weaponry.

Chapters Unwritten
28-01-2011, 09:19
I think honestly it's worth noting that wound allocation has made more potent arrays of weaponry possible in the game. The fact that we can stack harsh weapon wounds balances out the fact that more platforms can take more crazy weapons nowadays.

If you didn't have wound allocation, things like the average Leman Russ barrage would be even more devastating then they already are -- especially for small units!

I still think the easiest fix is to say, "Any wounds that will not grant a save must be allocated first."

That means if you get hit with 3 plasmas and 10 bolter shots, you will have to allocate the plasmas to three separate models before stacking the rest.

Personally I prefer how it is. There is a lot of controversy about "10 wounds should be 10 kills!" but that is not always the case, and honestly I think it is rather fitting of the WH40k universe that there are times when an individual will be torn to shreds by multiple shots, instead of each blast neatly hitting one of his mates in the vitals (which, quite frankly, doesn't happen. Even in war nowadays, every bullet doesn't kill a man, and there are certainly plenty of men who have been hit with more than their fair share).

I'd love to see wound allocation and cover marry together. How about models outside cover have to be allocated to first, or other clever ways of implementing lethality for stragglers? Could be an interesting concept to explore.

Axeman1n
28-01-2011, 10:03
One bolter wound is not a single bolter round, nor is it representing a single bullet. In most cases it's a flurry of shots that result in the wounds. No unit is neatly killed one by one.

Gingerwerewolf
28-01-2011, 10:08
Worrying about what the designers intended is a waste of time- its clear how it actually does work, and thats all that matters.

Im sorry but as the OP of this thread I have to ask, why did you post in it if you think its a waste of time?

My reason for my question is that Ive been playing 40k for so long through 5 editions of the game and the above rule "area" has ALWAYS been a hotbed of discussion on forums and the like. Its because no one likes loosing their models. Especialy the Special ones. (Characters, Special and Heavy Weapons etc) and whoever said that the problem mostly comes down to people's misunderstanding the rule is SPOT on! (Thanks Oni)

Ive house ruled in every system, and come up with my own rules and army lists for expansions of my own devising. I enjoy designing rules but I also make mistakes in them and so, I was asking, as a rule designer, what people thought was going on when a designer thought up a rule. Thats the point of the thread.

Its interesting to see peoples takes on the design of the rule, and Im very pleased that so many people have posted and discussed it. Simple fix's of the addition of a line here or the removal of a line there can change the entire principle of the rule.

The discussion here that interests me is the way that people deal with it, how they would do it better and if they blame GW / Designers for "Breaking the Game". Working as intended is a fine response.

New point: There is a juxtaposition as well. The Codex Designers are different people to the Game Designers. How much do you think the two communicate?

Simo429
28-01-2011, 10:15
I think that the rules has written are the dumbest thing in 40k, not so much the !allocation" per se, but the "timming" on which the allocation occurs. What is the logic in firing 4 plasma guns and a flamer at (say) 4 SM, resulting in 4 plasma wounds and 4 flamer wounds, killing 2-3 SM (by allocating 4 plasma wounds to 2 SM, and 2 flamer on the other two), and if you shot only the plasma guns you would kill the 4 SM? It makes no sense.

All it took to fix this was to write the line: When units have more than one type of weapon, the controlling player resolves each weapon type at a time.
But thats not how it works
The four space marines would all be the same so they would all die.

Gingerwerewolf
28-01-2011, 10:24
Additional point:

How about the following Plasma Gun "Gets Hot!" situation:

Imagine you had a 10 man squad of Sterguard Veterans. 2 Plasma Guns, 8 Combi Plasma's. Drop Pod. Bam first turn of the game they drop within 12" of the enemy and disembark.
In the Shooting Phase, with a sea of green in front of them they opened fire, full rapid fire.

Thats 20 roles of 3+ to hit. With the rolls of 1's making the firing model take a saving throw.

Now if everyone is firing Plasma my first intention would be to grab 20 dice and roll away but I cant do that!
As each model is firing twice, so each model could actually be killed twice, so I could roll ten 1's but only 5 would die if only five of the models had rolled all the 1's.

I know this isnt the same as normal wound allocation but to me it shows a flaw that anyone (myself included) could make from rush reading the rules, and not thinking about their actions. Very much like assigning wounds in the situations above.

If Im firing more than one plasma in a Squad I always use different coloured dice in pairs to represent each trooper.

Tarax
28-01-2011, 10:43
I've seen several attempts to find a sollution to wound allocating, and I like to add my own:

Allocate the wounds according to weapon that caused them whereby each wound caused by a certain weapon is allocated to seperate models, starting with the weapon that caused most wounds and moving to the weapon that caused least wounds. Eg, a Leman Russ Battle Tank causes 4 wounds with its Battle Cannon, 1 wound with its Lascannon and 3 wounds with its Heavy Bolters. On a unit of 5 models, 4 of them are wounded by the BC, the 5th model is wounded by the HB, 2 models already wounded by the BC are also wounded by the HB and the LC can be allocated to any model already wounded only once, ie either one of the BC or the one of the HB.

Whatever rule we can think of, it will never be 'realistic'. Shells will fall at different speed, there will be some models that are not hit at all, etc.

As to the original question: I think the rule was intended to make special models more vulnerable, ie they would not always be the last one standing.

Personally I would like to see the return of the 4th ed rule where only models in sight and range could be casualties, and these models would also have to be removed.

shadow hunter
28-01-2011, 10:53
So, you just pasted over those pages in your 5th edition book with those from 4th then? ;)

Homer

Exactly. We've only recently started gaming regularly again - and only ever game at each others house. So it's not an issue. Its how we prefer to play, and the game is made for ammeding to your own house rules.

Because of using the older method - I can honestly say we've had no arguements, complex wound allocation methods or unfairness. Although I must admit, none of us are the power gamers that I often see in the army list section here.

Azulthar
28-01-2011, 11:12
I personally prefer the wound allocation rule over lucky power-fist and lascannon wielders.

Besides, the meta-game is interesting enough: do I take the wound on this special model that gets a save, or would I rather not risk it and kill a normal model? As for 'forcing' squads to take all kinds of different weapon layouts: that's just added benefit! Finally a bit more variety :p

An alternative would be to increase the cost of these weapon upgrades to represent them having 'special protection'.

NerZuhl
28-01-2011, 11:35
You do realize that to take maximum benefit of "soaking" those plasma hits, your sacrificing the unique member of the squad.

Only a couple of units in the game can allocate wounds in such ways to really maximize it with out sacrificing a most expensive model.

Add in the fact that the opponent is spending more points to achieve this type of allocation. I can only think of Deathwing which can maximize allocation at no additional cost. But that is an expensive unit to start with.

I frankly love wound allocation, namely cause now I can kill that special weapon in a squad with standard weapons. A volley of bolter fire can torrent out that embolden seer in a seer counsel.

I really don't understand why people have such a hard time allocating wounds. It is fast and easy to do. Adds a layer to the strategy as well. Yeah, so what if a mook soaks up your two plasma hits, that special weapon guy still has to make a save. Which is better than the special weapon guy is ni-invulnerable to your attempts to eliminate until he is the last man standing.

Bubble Ghost
28-01-2011, 12:28
I'm not convinced this is correct but I admit I can't remember Doom Siren stats atm. Those 15 shots should get 2 kills of their own and only allow double stacking of doom siren hits, not tripple stacking.

And I am absolutely convinced it's correct because it happened. When I was new to 5th ed and oblivious to wound allocation shenanigans, I fired at a squad of Night Lords with my Doom Siren and wounded all five of them. I clenched my fist in triumph. But then the rest of the squad fired their magic healing rays, which I later found out are called Sonic Blasters, and brought two of them back to life.

Any way you look at it, the more wounds you inflict, the worse off you are, which is an utterly stupid state of affairs. It's all very well saying "you probably won't inflict enough wounds for it to happen", but that's completely ignoring the key issue, which is not whether this actually happens or not, but that you are hoping to inflict fewer wounds to make sure that it doesn't. Any system in which you are hoping to fail, because failure is more beneficial than success, has serious issues.

And anyway, this is all quite apart from the enormous imbalance it creates between power weapons and power fists as upgrade choices, thanks power fists striking out of normal order and thus every hit counting, whereas power weapon hits get stacked onto the same guy. Power fists don't need any help.

+++

Wound allocation in principle is great - it gives just the right amount of survivability to specialists without making them invincible. It just needs a caveat that no one can be allocated a second wound which will deny them a save until the whole unit has such a wound. That would actually speed things up, too, because it would remove the element of tactical gamesmanship which is what causes all the head-scratching.

Of course, if regular joes with assault rifles had something to actually do apart from soak up bullets for specialists, wound allocation wouldn't be necessary at all...

ehlijen
28-01-2011, 12:35
To those saying wound allocation makes shooting lot's of plasma worse when the basic firearms are also firing:
Have you tried just taking less plasma? If firing 3 plasma guns and 7 lasguns results in 1 dead flamer marine from the plasma fire and a lot of made armour saves and firing 1 plasma and 9 lasguns kills the same number of marines, why not save the 30 points.

It's diminishing return and that could be a good thing for the metagame.

Gingerwerewolf
28-01-2011, 15:07
To those saying wound allocation makes shooting lot's of plasma worse when the basic firearms are also firing:
Have you tried just taking less plasma? If firing 3 plasma guns and 7 lasguns results in 1 dead flamer marine from the plasma fire and a lot of made armour saves and firing 1 plasma and 9 lasguns kills the same number of marines, why not save the 30 points.

It's diminishing return and that could be a good thing for the metagame.

Thats a very interesting point and one that I had never even considered, diminishing returns on upgrades for a squad.

What do people think would happen if you were to change the order of the way that shooting is done.

Thus

Roll to Hit
Enemy takes saves
Roll to wound

is more logical but possibly more complicated.

ColShaw
28-01-2011, 15:46
Thats a very interesting point and one that I had never even considered, diminishing returns on upgrades for a squad.

What do people think would happen if you were to change the order of the way that shooting is done.

Thus

Roll to Hit
Enemy takes saves
Roll to wound

is more logical but possibly more complicated.

This is mathematically the same, in terms of expected result, but GW is on the record as saying that they like the last die roll to be made by a model's controller, so they have a chance at "saving" the model from death.

Gingerwerewolf
28-01-2011, 16:49
This is mathematically the same, in terms of expected result, but GW is on the record as saying that they like the last die roll to be made by a model's controller, so they have a chance at "saving" the model from death.

The difference would be that you dont know who is going to die when you make your Saves so will lead to potentially different choices as to hit / wound allocation.

Lord Damocles
28-01-2011, 18:49
This is mathematically the same, in terms of expected result, but GW is on the record as saying that they like the last die roll to be made by a model's controller, so they have a chance at "saving" the model from death.
It also speeds the game up.

Rolling saves for hits which subsequently fail to wound is a waste of time.

Omniassiah
28-01-2011, 19:25
It also speeds the game up.

Rolling saves for hits which subsequently fail to wound is a waste of time.

Saves no time at all. your rolling to wound for wounds that may just be saved anyway. The better chance you have at saving the quicker making saves first is and the opposite is true the other way.

Archibald_TK
28-01-2011, 23:16
The examples are still corner case. Wounding all 10 guys with a BC?
I find the fact that you are doubting the efficiency of wound allocation at negating multiple low AP shots very funny considering your name and avatar. I am a Tau player, I play Crisis suits and guess who was the player who posed the biggest problem to me (and everybody else for that matter) when it came to wound allocation? The Deathwing player of course.

Back when I was playing 3 suits team and before the DA FAQ this was the standard setup:
My unit can launch 6 AP2 shots and 6 AP4 shots (mix of BS3 & 4) everything wounding on 2+.
His unit is composed of 5 Terminators, all of them being different.

- If I chose to fire everything I will cause around 6 to 7 wounds, a mix of plasma and missiles. That means that even if 4 of the wounds end up being plasma ones, only 2 Terminators will accumulate them and save at 5+, all the other at 2+. Better yet, even if he fails 2 of his 5+ saves if they happen to be on the same Terminator he'll only lose a single model.
- If I chose to only fire with the plasma between 3 and 4 Terminators will save at 5+. Every unsaved wound will remove a Terminator (barring pre-FAQ Narthecium).

No need to tell you which one is better. I am quite happy that the FAQ at the same time made Deathwing more competitive (by a large margin) and also incited players to spam the same SS/SH setup on all models.

I consider that any system where firing more leads to less casualties is flawed, yet it's the system we play with. I personally just adapted and went for MSU instead of 3 men team to limit the amount of wounds in a single firing phase (which ended up being a good thing as I discovered the joy and many advantages of playing MSU against many other different armies). Doesn't change the fact that the system is flawed.

Chapters Unwritten
29-01-2011, 21:49
I don't really consider it flawed. If anything, I would consider it smart, if only because it makes it a little bit less of a no brainer to spam the cheapest/strongest weapon combos wherever possible. This was a fairly common style in 4th edition. A model can take a weapon upgrade...so take it. Nowadays there is more incentive to change things up. I use 5 unique models in 10-man Grey Hunter squads just to increase their survivability, myself.

I also don't feel that "more firing" should always equal "more wounds." If any of you fellas has ever done a full auto run at a firing range, you know what I mean. You'll hit a lot of stuff, just not always your target.

Now imagining what it would be like with rounds the size of pop cans, I can easily understand how firing wildly could cause less casualties.

Also, isn't it nice to put a bit more thought into your shooting? Sure it's not perfect, mates, but let's be real here -- it doesn't take much of a commander to run up and fire every round at his squad's disposal. At least we have some kind of tactical thought to put in, even if it is a side effect.

Vaktathi
29-01-2011, 22:09
I also don't feel that "more firing" should always equal "more wounds." If any of you fellas has ever done a full auto run at a firing range, you know what I mean. You'll hit a lot of stuff, just not always your target. I own guns, I've shot them, this isn't the same thing. There's a difference between firing more shots from one weapon, and multiple independent elements firing.

I should not get fewer casualties for pouring more firepower into an enemy unit by unloading the heavy bolters on a Leman Russ than if I'd fired *only* the battlecannon. Likewise, it's very stupid that if I'd just fired my Plasma Guns in my CSM unit I'd have inflicted more casualties than if the rest of the squad had not opened up as well. Otherwise, what's the point of those extra weapons?

This isn't the same thing as sitting on the trigger and spraying lead everywhere, and its poor game design.

Lion El Jason
29-01-2011, 22:47
I find the fact that you are doubting the efficiency of wound allocation at negating multiple low AP shots very funny considering your name and avatar. I am a Tau player, I play Crisis suits and guess who was the player who posed the biggest problem to me (and everybody else for that matter) when it came to wound allocation? The Deathwing player of course.

Don't get me wrong, its a powerful technique and I did spend a lot of time looking and discussing the ways to make squads fit and how best to allocate, who is expendable etc...
And in my opinion that is the rules biggest fail. A game mechanic (Rather than fluff or a tactic or synergy) is dictating how the game is played.

What I'm saying is that
1: People are spending too much time worrying about a small part of the game (Even if its become a bigger part than it should be).
2: People are hugely exaggerating the downsides. Losing 4 kills does not happen and not wanting to fire troops only happens in corner case examples. Its not all the time and in most games it'll never be an issue.

The problem is that not shooting = more kills is silly even if its uncommon.
I like totgeborens suggestion but will point out that is not what was suggested before.

Vaktathi
29-01-2011, 23:26
I think you are grossly underestimating the occurrence of such issues. With my IG, I typically run across a situation at least once per turn, depending on the enemy I'm facing, where I have to hold back firing weapons or risk causing fewer casualties to an enemy. With my other armies, it usually occurs about once or twice a game. Definitely enough to be noticeable, especially if there's something with differing saves.

theunwantedbeing
29-01-2011, 23:35
The problem is that not shooting = more kills is silly even if its uncommon.

Your right, the problem is that wounds don't spill over onto other models of the squad that aren't 100% identical.

So a squad of 10 marines becomes more survivable because one of them is carrying a flamer.
Or some of them carry 2 pistols, or 2 chainswords and this makes the squad better at surviving getting shot at.

Its fine when it's not being abused in the above manner.

So maybe it's a player issue more than anything.
But then, it does help for rules that are harder to abuse...or rules where those abuses are less abusive.

Stealin' Genes
30-01-2011, 03:44
I still think the easiest fix is to say, "Any wounds that will not grant a save must be allocated first."

That means if you get hit with 3 plasmas and 10 bolter shots, you will have to allocate the plasmas to three separate models before stacking the rest.


I think this would fix everything. The point I find most frustrating about wound allocation is that it makes genestealers significantly weaker, because a large number of the rending hits they score are liable to disappear through wound allocation shenanigans.

Aliarzathanil
30-01-2011, 06:24
Going by AP works pretty well and fixes a lot of the problem.

We've (my gaming group) made wound allocation a requirement only at the request of the shooter in Apoc games as we found the multiple nob units and their wound allocation shenanigans were slowing things down too much.

big squig
30-01-2011, 08:32
I still think third ed did it best. There were no wound allocation rules. If you took 5 wounds, you made 5 saves, and pulled a wound for each failed save from where ever you wanted. Super simple. I mean, what's stopping someone from just picking up the dead guy's lascannon? And squad leaders are heroic, they should always die last.

I mean in fantasy, the banner/instrument is always picked up by someone else, and the champion is always the last to die in heroic fashion. Why should 40k be any different?

Tarax
30-01-2011, 08:49
@Big Squid: I believe that in 40K they include the chance of the special weapon being destroyed together with the person wielding it.

Fantasy is also different in that it's assumed that a regiment does not consist of the models you see, but is much larger, while in 40K a ratio of 1:1 is more implied.

NerZuhl
30-01-2011, 09:17
I still think third ed did it best. There were no wound allocation rules. If you took 5 wounds, you made 5 saves, and pulled a wound for each failed save from where ever you wanted. Super simple. I mean, what's stopping someone from just picking up the dead guy's lascannon? And squad leaders are heroic, they should always die last.

I mean in fantasy, the banner/instrument is always picked up by someone else, and the champion is always the last to die in heroic fashion. Why should 40k be any different?

Ugh, and go back to majority save? No thank you.

Honestly people, when a unit is taking enough wounds that it can do funny things with the allocation, the unit isn't gonna last long anyway.

A lot of these discussions make the assumption that saves are passed, and not consider the potential damage.

Lets look at worse possible situation
Deathwing
1x HH/SS 1xHH/SS/Missile 1xLC 1xVanilla 1xSergents
5 Unique models
4 Plasma shots go into the squad. 1 on the HH/SS, 1 on the Vanilla, 1 on the Serge, 1 on the LC. On average the HH/SS survives and 2 of the 5+ die. So 2 dead

Now if you put 4 plasma wounds + 10 savable wounds (pretty damn good shooting btw, and the worse possible number) I put 3 plasma on the HH/SS guy, 1 plasma + 2 normal on the Vanilla, 3 standard on the LC, 3 Standard on the Serg and 2 normal on the Missile. HH/SS guy dies (odds are one save is failed), Vanilla will die most likely. Out of the LC and Serg, one will probably fail a save. And leaving the Missile left for 2 saves. If everything goes average you will still kill 2-3 of the squad. Fantastic luck sees the entire squad live, horrible luck sees the entire squad die.

The biggest difference between the two situations is luck. Luck isn't as large a player in the 4 plasma shots. Most likely situation is that 1-2 die, with the possibility of 4 dieing. However, if you add in 10 bolter shots, this range changes from 0-4, all the way to 0-5.

Now look at basic Marine squad that divided into two squads (because getting the number of wounds to cause stacking situations in a 10 man is a bit crazy)
Lets look at the ideal 5 man squad
1 Flamer, 3 mooks, 1 serg
4 Plasma hits. Opponent chooses either serg or flamer to live.

4 Plasma + 10 normal. 3 plasma on the flamer, 2 normal on the serg, 9 on the mooks. Lets say an average result is flamer dead and 2 mooks.

"Huh, 1 less dead."
"System is broken!"
"Oh, but you forgot the possibility of the entire squad dieing just became a reality."
"I guess"

Lets say it is even a 10 man squad. 4 plasma + 10 normal will kill 2 special weapons guaranteed (assuming we are trying to minimize damage). With the remaining guys having to take saves. Lets say luck is amazing tonight and all that shooting resulted in 2 wounds.
"WTF MAN, that is so damn cheap."
"But good sir, you just killed two of the special weapons in that squad, limiting their abilities greatly."
"Oh well then, carry on"

Now the bane of all noobs the dreaded Biker Nobs. They can play musical wounds with the best. And in this one case, if you think you are going to really put so many wounds in to the squad in one fire that 2 insta kill shots (the only ones that really matter) are gonna get soaked, then reduce it. A Russ should get 3-4 wounds with it's battle cannon, 9 additional heavy bolter shots aren't going to result in enough wounds on a full strength nob squad to matter. (averaging only 3 wounds)

There are a lot of things wrong with 5th edition. Wound allocation has yet to cause anything to be a problem. If anything, codex rules are the source of headaches.

Leaving the Unique models in a unit the ability to be un-touched can create surprise situations. Especially when a unit is concealing a choppy model that can wreak serious havoc.

I have won many games against a Farseer bike squad because I was able to eliminate those leadership boosts from the squads with large torrents of fire.

Archibald_TK
30-01-2011, 10:19
Honestly people, when a unit is taking enough wounds that it can do funny things with the allocation, the unit isn't gonna last long anyway.
Not always true, especially for small elite infantry squads or if the army you are facing rely primarily on shooting and has no way to finish you in the CC phase.



Lets look at worse possible situation
Deathwing
1x HH/SS 1xHH/SS/Missile 1xLC 1xVanilla 1xSergents
5 Unique models
4 Plasma shots go into the squad. 1 on the HH/SS, 1 on the Vanilla, 1 on the Serge, 1 on the LC. On average the HH/SS survives and 2 of the 5+ die. So 2 dead
You are using a typical pre-FAQ Deathwing configuration with post-FAQ Stormshield. Try it with a SS that gives you a 5++ vs shooting and you'll end up with 3 dead Terminators on average. Also remember that back there the pre-FAQ Narthecium would negate the first wound taken, even if it was AP2 and it combined very well with wound allocation to turn into a real nightmare.
This situation of course has become a thing of the past.


The biggest difference between the two situations is luck.

I would have said that the difference is that in the first case you have no choice but to rely on luck while in the second case you can stack the odds in your favor.

But I'd like to point out something, with each new Codex and the updates to old Codexes (especially DA) I find wound allocation to be less and less of an issue. I don't remember being myself in a situation of shooting less to do more wounds for quite some time. At least not one so blatant that the additional wounds would not compensate for the soaked wounds.

PS-

if you think you are going to really put so many wounds in to the squad in one fire that 2 insta kill shots (the only ones that really matter) are gonna get soaked
You cannot soak up ID wounds as you must allocate them first to different models.

LordDarkhan
30-01-2011, 11:19
While I agree that the wound allocation issue is very annoying, I don't feel like it needs to be changed to be fixed in most cases. My problem comes when units consisting of multiple wound models use it to the degree I've seen it used. The Nob example is everywhere, but they're not the only unit doing it. Bloodcrushers can do similar shenanigans, as can Crisis Suits and the soon-to-be two-wound GK Terminators. Those are just off the top of me head, and there are likely several more examples I could conjure up if I looked.

It may be a small case, but as game designers, it is their job to look for this sort of thing. Perhaps they really did look, and just missed it. Either way, it will almost certainly be addressed in 6th edition, and explained away with fluff (don't forget that the 3rd edition rulebook used the example of a marine picking up a fallen comrade's missile launcher as the reason the special weapon stays till the end).

In the mean time: it sucks, but we can't do anything about it, so design your armies accordingly.

Eldoriath
30-01-2011, 12:33
I belong to the group that it was an evolvement of the torrent of fire we had in 4th ed. The chance to take out that single lascannon/melta/powerfist/whatever without having to kill the whole squad first.

Bubble Ghost
30-01-2011, 14:33
People talking about the effect on game balance are completely missing the point. The problem is not that you are somehow being "robbed" of kills you believe you "should" have made; it's the fact that you are hoping to inflict fewer wounds. That is just utterly stupid.

The assault phase is a similar train wreck of priorities. The attacker is often hoping his troops fail miserably so that they can't be shot at, while the defender is hoping his troops are slaughtered or run like sissies.

The rarity, or lack of it, of an actual occurrence of these situations is beside the point, as is whether their influence can be accounted for with skilful play. Completely irrelevant. The very fact that such situations exist, and thus that you are left hoping "don't shoot that unit too much! Don't hit them too hard! No you idiots, don't PASS your Leadership test!!!" is just heartbreakingly unsatisfying as a player. Regardless of their effect on an outcome of a game, these two things are just in a completely different galaxy of broken to anything else in the game.

shin'keiro
30-01-2011, 15:39
What did the rules writers intend with the Wound Allocation Rules?

Umm... to allocate wounds? :rolleyes:

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
30-01-2011, 15:55
Umm... to allocate wounds? :rolleyes:
+1 Insightful!

Da Black Gobbo
30-01-2011, 16:11
I think the Allocation system should be changed, it's stupid and really dumb, here's and example:

My veterans with 3 meltas, shotguns and democharge shoot some berserkers (a unit of 6). The blast hit 6 and wound 4, 2 melta wounds and i'm thinking about not shooting the shootguns before that but i decide go for it (FAILURE). I manage to conect 6 shotgun wounds, this lead us to the stupid wound allocation, the whole squad should have been killed, but, 6 wounds without AP are placed into 3 zerkers, and the rest in the other 3, so he makes all his saves and 3 berserkers charge my vets moping the floor with them...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Dwane Diblie
30-01-2011, 16:17
You cannot soak up ID wounds as you must allocate them first to different models.

Although this is what should happen it is unfortunatly no the case. You must remove ID unsaved wounds from the subgroup first before stacking wounds on left over models. That is after the saves have been taken. So 2 ID shots in a unit of unique models that has taken enough wounds can stack them both on one model before taking saves.

NerZuhl
30-01-2011, 17:12
I think the Allocation system should be changed, it's stupid and really dumb, here's and example:

My veterans with 3 meltas, shotguns and democharge shoot some berserkers (a unit of 6). The blast hit 6 and wound 4, 2 melta wounds and i'm thinking about not shooting the shootguns before that but i decide go for it (FAILURE). I manage to conect 6 shotgun wounds, this lead us to the stupid wound allocation, the whole squad should have been killed, but, 6 wounds without AP are placed into 3 zerkers, and the rest in the other 3, so he makes all his saves and 3 berserkers charge my vets moping the floor with them...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Well, your example is invalid for a couple of reasons.
First you can't wait and see what wounds you do with 1 weapon before shooting the other. You declare all shooting before rolling anything

Second, those three remaining zerkers still have 6 saves to make. That means on average 2 more will die.

Third, why don't you charge the remaining zerkers which will be realistically 1-2. You will have at least 13-16 remaining attacks after his attacks. And you negate his Furious charge and additional attack.

Fourth, you are using imaginary situations with the perfect results happening to demonstrate a flaw. Your perfect rolling with the shotguns. Followed by perfect rolling by the zerkers. Followed by perfect rolling of melee attacks by the 3 zerkers to wipe the entire squad.

Fifth, you got out of your Chimera

Archibald_TK
30-01-2011, 17:34
Although this is what should happen it is unfortunatly no the case. You must remove ID unsaved wounds from the subgroup first before stacking wounds on left over models. That is after the saves have been taken. So 2 ID shots in a unit of unique models that has taken enough wounds can stack them both on one model before taking saves.
By the Gods you are right. That's insane I constantly end up realizing that rules that I've always taken for granted, I actually misread. Thank you.

That's huge because nobody in my gaming group actually plays it that way, not because we use a house rule but because we all failed at reading comprehension (well I shouldn't be that categorical, I'm the only one with an English rulebook and the foreign ones tend to have some major botches in the rules so maybe their books are the culprits and I'm the only one unable to read properly). We always applied all ID wounds first then the regular ones. I suppose if we were fielding complex units with different T values like the DE do we would have noted something odd but otherwise it just seemed so natural that we never doubted the way we were playing.

My Crisis survivability actually increased quite a bit now.

adeptusphotographicus
30-01-2011, 19:01
We avoided the whole issue quite simply.

Once you declare who is shooting and what we roll all the variables first.

Roll once for the plasma gun, resolve.. NEXT, roll for the missile, resolve, NEXT, roll the handfull of dice for the troopers, resolve.

quick, easy, no stacking, or roll over issues. can choose order of things to resolve if that is an issue.

Lord Damocles
30-01-2011, 19:04
quick, easy, no stacking, or roll over issues.
Quite a few character sniping issues though...

jack da greenskin
30-01-2011, 19:14
So maybe it's a player issue more than anything.

I have a squad of IG veterans shooting at some marines. 3 hits and 3 wounds with the meltas, and I get 8 hits and 7 wounds with the demo-charge. I have 10 hits on 10 models that ignore their armour. If I shoot with my lasguns/shotguns, even 1 wound would increase the survivability of the squad by 66%, using ATSKNF to weedle out of it.

Not just an isolated case with a lot of armour denying weapons. What about a LRBT with 9 BS shots? "oh, the melta and PF searge are taking the ap5s? How heroic."

And it's not a player issue. Ask yourself, how many players do you know who'd allocate an armour denier to everyone before a piddly laser round? No-one that I know, thats for sure.

TrooperTino
30-01-2011, 19:17
We play with the old system. It's faster and that the seargant or HeavyWeapon survives till the end is seen as something good in our group.

40k was never ment to be very realistic and the "hero" of a squad surviving longer is totaly in-universe.

adeptusphotographicus
31-01-2011, 00:46
Actually no character sniping issues as how could there be?

If character is in a squad then any hits are allocated by the player. Should they wish to let their character get plucked so be it.

If I hammer a squad with various weapons as long as I resolve one weapon type at a time then how could there be conflict?

Deus Mechanicus
31-01-2011, 01:33
And squad leaders are heroic, they should always die last.

Unless you're a Devastator sergeant :shifty:

Freman Bloodglaive
31-01-2011, 01:46
I've had a similar situation in combat, my Wolf Priest inflicted three wounds, then the skyclaws he was leading inflicted about fifteen (love that preferred enemy). The five man squad they hit (command squad) allocated the three power weapon attacks onto one guy, and a combination of armour and feel no pain meant the rest remained standing. The power fist mashed another couple though, but that still meant there were two standing where there should have been none.

big squig
31-01-2011, 04:40
People talking about the effect on game balance are completely missing the point. The problem is not that you are somehow being "robbed" of kills you believe you "should" have made; it's the fact that you are hoping to inflict fewer wounds. That is just utterly stupid.

The assault phase is a similar train wreck of priorities. The attacker is often hoping his troops fail miserably so that they can't be shot at, while the defender is hoping his troops are slaughtered or run like sissies.

The rarity, or lack of it, of an actual occurrence of these situations is beside the point, as is whether their influence can be accounted for with skilful play. Completely irrelevant. The very fact that such situations exist, and thus that you are left hoping "don't shoot that unit too much! Don't hit them too hard! No you idiots, don't PASS your Leadership test!!!" is just heartbreakingly unsatisfying as a player. Regardless of their effect on an outcome of a game, these two things are just in a completely different galaxy of broken to anything else in the game.

Thank you. It's utterly depressing that these situations exist in a wargame.

big squig
31-01-2011, 04:42
Unless you're a Devastator sergeant :shifty:

lol. Being a dev sarg is almost a demotion.

Lord Damocles
31-01-2011, 09:55
Actually no character sniping issues as how could there be?

Roll for the Plasma, and then roll for the troopers to kill off the ememy squad. Then fire the Missile to splat the attached character.

Gingerwerewolf
31-01-2011, 12:54
As Im reading through all the responses here Im seeing something here. The rules have changed 4 times in 5 editions. So it is somehting that the designers are aware of, its almost as if each change they make, they become unable see the problems that people feel are there.

So in 2nd and 3rd edition people complained about the survivability of special weapons. Two different systems (due to an over all Game Mechanics change) mean the same problem was encountered. 4th edition led to character / range sniping. 5th led to unique tooled units to mess with multiple wound models.

If you look at it this way, they are getting better at adressing the problem as each version of the rules has been affecting smaller and smaller groups of players.

There are lots of ways to solve this problem, but are any of us prescient enough to see how any of the rules that we suggest are going to effect the game. Bubble Ghost has a very good point with our attitudes to how we want to play the game and the mechanics not supporting that.

From another angle as well, is it only the people who have a strong feeling either way that make a fuss?

And what about the people who use the rules to their advantage? Fair or not its in the rulebook so everyone should use it. Is it as NurZul says, that the codex's that cause the problems because not every army can use it. Or is it those that abuse it that spoil the rule for what it is and cause the dissatisfaction?

Bubble Ghost
31-01-2011, 13:33
I honestly think the root problem is that normal troopers with basic weapons just don't matter at all, because they don't have anything to do. Their guns are not a credible lethal threat (nothing innately wrong with that, Guardsmen shouldn't be mowing down Space Marines, nor even other Guardsmen), and in 40K, that's all guns do.

So naturally the guys with the powerful special weapons become the focus of the entire unit, because they're so often the only ones who can have any effect on the outcome of a game. You don't purchase 'squads' in a game of 40K - you purchase a particular amount of specialist equipment, then a certain number of bodies to protect it with.

If that situation evened itself out, and special weapons had more of a supporting role, it wouldn't matter that they were surviving longer - and so contrived ways of making them more vulnerable, such as the ones 4th and 5th ed have tried, wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Gingerwerewolf
31-01-2011, 16:32
I honestly think the root problem is that normal troopers with basic weapons just don't matter at all, because they don't have anything to do. Their guns are not a credible lethal threat (nothing innately wrong with that, Guardsmen shouldn't be mowing down Space Marines, nor even other Guardsmen), and in 40K, that's all guns do.

So naturally the guys with the powerful special weapons become the focus of the entire unit, because they're so often the only ones who can have any effect on the outcome of a game. You don't purchase 'squads' in a game of 40K - you purchase a particular amount of specialist equipment, then a certain number of bodies to protect it with.

If that situation evened itself out, and special weapons had more of a supporting role, it wouldn't matter that they were surviving longer - and so contrived ways of making them more vulnerable, such as the ones 4th and 5th ed have tried, wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

So would adding in something as simple as a Suppressive Fire Mechanic help?

Ignore the problem with Wound Allocation and move onto a Mechanics change for firing?

Chapters Unwritten
01-02-2011, 11:28
I have a squad of IG veterans shooting at some marines. 3 hits and 3 wounds with the meltas, and I get 8 hits and 7 wounds with the demo-charge. I have 10 hits on 10 models that ignore their armour. If I shoot with my lasguns/shotguns, even 1 wound would increase the survivability of the squad by 66%, using ATSKNF to weedle out of it.

Not just an isolated case with a lot of armour denying weapons. What about a LRBT with 9 BS shots? "oh, the melta and PF searge are taking the ap5s? How heroic."

And it's not a player issue. Ask yourself, how many players do you know who'd allocate an armour denier to everyone before a piddly laser round? No-one that I know, thats for sure.I have to be honest. I see this as intentional, and part of the reason the units that you have listed are able to exist in 5th ed.

How else could such crazy volumes of such destructive shots be balanced at all? I realize it can seem counterintuitive at times, but honestly, do you really think that they intended you to wipe 10 models out of SM army's average 50-60, with one unit's fire, that cost less than what you shot it at? Honestly with 4th ed wound allocation I could imagine them easily sending something like the Leman Russ up 100 points in value, if it is really supposed to wipe out ~200 points each shooting phase.

Without wound allocation to make these things more manageable, half of the units in most of the modern books wouldn't even be close to balanced at their current prices.

I agree that hoping for less wounds is a bit silly, but it's equally as silly that I can't fire my gun while I run...or that my tank moves as fast as a guy on foot...or that 90% of the bikers in this game are killed more by blades of grass they fly onto then by gunfire. There are lots of silly things in the game. For better or worse wound allocation at least adds some thought and strategy beyond the obvious "Give your guys as many powerful guns as possible and then fire them as often as you can to win" approach that was present in 4th ed.

Wound allocation is what makes it reasonable to have the crazily powerful units we have currently. I personally hope they find a way to keep it, but make people more happy. Otherwise it's going to be a SEVERE mess when 6th ed rolls around, and we have all these units that were made with wound allocation survival tactics in mind.

AndrewGPaul
01-02-2011, 12:19
So would adding in something as simple as a Suppressive Fire Mechanic help?

Ignore the problem with Wound Allocation and move onto a Mechanics change for firing?

the suppressive effects of fire should, IMO, be built into the shooting rules, not a bolted-on extra. Something similar to Epic; if a unit takes a number of hits (before rolling to wound) equal to its Leadership score or more from a single source*, it must take a Pinning test. Perhaps with additional penalties for Ordnance fire or being attacked with weapons whose AP is better than your Save.

* or perhaps more generally; something like if it takes 20 hits or more from any source.

Bubble Ghost
01-02-2011, 15:10
the suppressive effects of fire should, IMO, be built into the shooting rules, not a bolted-on extra. Something similar to Epic; if a unit takes a number of hits (before rolling to wound) equal to its Leadership score or more from a single source*, it must take a Pinning test. Perhaps with additional penalties for Ordnance fire or being attacked with weapons whose AP is better than your Save.

* or perhaps more generally; something like if it takes 20 hits or more from any source.

Recording numbers of hits over a turn is more bookkeeping than I'd like for 40K. I reckon it could just be some sort of suppression test for being hit at all by assault rifles or pinning weapons. The better your armour or cover, the more likely to pass. Then your Leadership helps you recover afterwards. Here's roughly how I'd do it (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5269991&postcount=25).

Mind you, 40K's turn sequence as is would not suit any kind of suppression mechanic. It would just be yet another alpha strike advantage. That would have to change before anyone even thought about putting suppressing fire into the game. And they won't do it anyway - if you directly suggested it, they'd explain that 40K is supposed to be about pure carnage (with an unspoken "because it's hard for redshirts to jump around sounding excited about suppressing fire" on the end). The idea of Space Marines ducking into cover isn't Awesome™ enough for what 40K aspires to be these days. *sigh*



I agree that hoping for less wounds is a bit silly, but it's equally as silly that I can't fire my gun while I run...or that my tank moves as fast as a guy on foot...or that 90% of the bikers in this game are killed more by blades of grass they fly onto then by gunfire. There are lots of silly things in the game.

There's a difference between just silly, and counter-intuitive. It's not counter-intuitive to have a reduction in shooting effect if you're concentrating more on movement - it may be heavy handed to say "can't shoot at all", but it makes sense, it's intuitive, and it's on the same all-or-nothing level of simplistic realism as the rest of the game. Likewise tanks moving carefully through the kind of terrain that 40K games take place on, or bikes crashing into cover. It's heavy-handed but it makes sense, trying to ride a bike over a wall is dangerous.

But more guns directly leading to fewer casualties is something else entirely. It's illogical and counter-intuitive. There is a massive difference between this and something which is merely unrealistic.

Chapters Unwritten
02-02-2011, 04:26
How exactly does one distinguish the two?

Bubble Ghost
03-02-2011, 14:21
Are you saying you see no difference between a simplistic represenation of a real factor, and something that makes no logical sense at all..?

Hypaspist
03-02-2011, 14:44
I'd say you (could) take it as representative of members of the squad fronting up to actively take more wounds on behalf of their comrades. There is nothing illogical about squad members being meat shields.

Bunnahabhain
03-02-2011, 15:17
I'd say you (could) take it as representative of members of the squad fronting up to actively take more wounds on behalf of their comrades. There is nothing illogical about squad members being meat shields.

You mean, in practical terms...

Sarge yelling at troopers A and B to break cover across that gap, to get the sharp-shooter in the building opposite to reveal their position, so the rest of the squad can get them...

Although I'm still not quite sure how something like that explains how the tank pumping HE shells into your position becomes less dangerous to the squad if it fires its machine guns as well.



The easiest solution is to not use an AP system at all- something that intergrartes weapon strength, AP, and cover all in one is much better, and you don't get these false result from it.

Hypaspist
03-02-2011, 15:42
You mean, in practical terms...


Yes something like that. (I was actually thinking of 8 Squad members being issued with the command to step up in front of the Sarge +1 in order to ensure the squad wasn't entirely wiped out by simultaneous volleys from several squads.
(as a means to explain why wound stacking is not *so* outrageous)

With regards to blast wounds, it's often the case where, from the blast epicentre, some squad members would shield others from the worst of it.
(and in reality, potentially reduce the AP of the blast as effects their comrade)

You can potentially rationalise things lots of different ways.
Is it perfect balance?
Probably not.

Is it realistic, and logical?
I'd argue that sometimes, in the malaise of attempting to make a game suspend as little disbelief as possible, and get the balance right, some things get sacrificed. (either intentionally, or unintentionally)

Previously, the system allowed you to always save the special weapons trooper/sarge until last, but Low AP weapons were deadly (and effectively, made casualties a sure thing on a 1 for 1 basis)

Now, the system allows you to 'stack' wounds, though you have to fairly distribute wounds by the number, meaning everything has a 'chance' of dying.

Is it realistic that every Plasma wound always hit's a different target?

As realistic, perhaps, as all Plasma wounds always missing the Seargant/heavy weapons trooper/special weapons trooper.

I don't see either the previous method or the current wound allocation system as better to be fair.

Sometimes it's the difference between a Squad wipe out and a few men surviving. Other times it's the difference between 3 troopers dying and losing your specials/sarge (when you previously wouldn't have).

I just think it's a small issue to get worked up about.

Fable
03-02-2011, 15:51
I understand that the outcome seems backwards to how many of us think shooting should work (shooting more should equal better, not diminish your returns) but considering the example provided in the rulebook I think it's hard to deny that it works exactly as intended.

Bubble Ghost
03-02-2011, 19:47
The fact that you can crowbar in a tenuous rationalisation of wound allocation is irrelevant - you can rationalise almost anything. The very word itself refers to after-the-fact explanation which, in the case of a set of gaming rules that are aiming to evoke if not necessarily simulate aspects of drama and reality, should not be necessary in the first place.

Thing is, the flaw of the wound allocation rules is that players end up not firing certain weapons, because by doing so they will cause more damage than by firing them. This is the bottom line which does not hold up, no matter how you look at it, because it's so deeply unsatisfying from a gaming point of view. For this reason, wound allocation - along with hoping your charging unit isn't too successful - is the absolute worst rule in 40K, despite so nearly being great (on paper, it gives just the right amount of vulnerability to important models. My problems with it are firstly that it encourages implausible gamesmanship which ruins the sense of immersion, and second, that it shouldn't even be necessary, because specialists should not be as important as they are).

Anyway. If players of your game are hoping their troops fail at something, because that will be to their advantage, you have cocked up your rules somewhere. Can we agree on that much?



I understand that the outcome seems backwards to how many of us think shooting should work (shooting more should equal better, not diminish your returns) but considering the example provided in the rulebook I think it's hard to deny that it works exactly as intended.

This is true.

Chapters Unwritten
06-02-2011, 08:02
You are right in that the wound allocation (and the assault situations) do decrease immersion. However, I feel like it was much, MUCH more so in 4th edition. I'd rather have these two relatively minor bits. And honestly, I feel like wound allocation is the lesser of the two of them.

It is only the fact that firing less weapons equals more damage that is disconcerting. The easiest thing to fix that would be to not change a thing, and then make the shooting rules require you to fire everything you can, much like the assault rules force you to try and attack. Of course, this removes a tactical element from the game.

I think part of the problem is that we have a holdover on some old, old mechanics in the current game. There are much simpler ways to introduce specialist vulnerability, of course (how about every roll of 6 to wound hits an "upgraded" model?)

The issue is that they also wanted to make smaller elite units more viable. I'd rather they have done this other ways, rather than mixing it into the same rules meant to make specialists vulnerable. But hey, the way I see it, at least we have the option.

Hopefully it will be better next edition, but for right now I do not see it as a huge, game-breaking issue. I know I will not have a lot of people on my side when I say that, but honestly, I don't find all of those super units out there so tough. Nob Bikers are a problem because of their constant cover save, not because of wound allocation (at least that is one man's humble opinion!).

lanrak
06-02-2011, 09:26
Hi all.
I see the curent wound allocation in 40k as indemic to the poor development that runs through this lamentable rule set.

As Chaos and Evil pointed out a simple system that works well, was in a set of rules written and owned by GW.
ALL they had to do was translate it from EA to 40k.

How incredibly difficult is it to copy a rule from a modern tatical wargame , and put it in 40k?

Well aparently it is so difficult a team of proffesional developers can not achive it ...even though most average gamers could see the 'bit that is missing.' without too much trouble.:rolleyes:

So why did 40k end up with another abstracted and counter intuitive rule to add to the bloated rules and game play disconnect?

I belive there are 2 options.
1) Easy fix for 6th ed along with TLOS, to guarentee the 'Oh!Look they made it so much better now!' responces... :rolleyes:

2) They are developing 40k rules for a core demoghraphic,who are not actualy gamers.
(GW corperate belive 80% of thier customers quit before playing a 'full sized' game of 40k.)

TTFN

Gingerwerewolf
06-02-2011, 10:30
Hi all.
I see the curent wound allocation in 40k as indemic to the poor development that runs through this lamentable rule set.

As Chaos and Evil pointed out a simple system that works well, was in a set of rules written and owned by GW.
ALL they had to do was translate it from EA to 40k.

How incredibly difficult is it to copy a rule from a modern tatical wargame , and put it in 40k?

Well aparently it is so difficult a team of proffesional developers can not achive it ...even though most average gamers could see the 'bit that is missing.' without too much trouble.:rolleyes:

So why did 40k end up with another abstracted and counter intuitive rule to add to the bloated rules and game play disconnect?

I belive there are 2 options.
1) Easy fix for 6th ed along with TLOS, to guarentee the 'Oh!Look they made it so much better now!' responces... :rolleyes:

2) They are developing 40k rules for a core demoghraphic,who are not actualy gamers.
(GW corperate belive 80% of thier customers quit before playing a 'full sized' game of 40k.)

TTFN

If Im being honest here I think you are assuming more thought than there actually is into Games Workshop's Marketing / sales Deptartment "Control" over Games design.

I cannot believe that they deliberately make rules that can be Fixed in later editions.
I cannot believe that they develop rules not to be played.

The Games Designers are people EXACTLY like us. They have great intentions that can sometimes go wrong. The rules designers are blokes like us who got their dream job and are trying their hardest to make something great.

Games Workshop is not the Evil Corporation that "Tim Robbins" talks about in Team America.

Gingerwerewolf
06-02-2011, 10:35
The fact that you can crowbar in a tenuous rationalisation of wound allocation is irrelevant - you can rationalise almost anything. The very word itself refers to after-the-fact explanation which, in the case of a set of gaming rules that are aiming to evoke if not necessarily simulate aspects of drama and reality, should not be necessary in the first place.

Thing is, the flaw of the wound allocation rules is that players end up not firing certain weapons, because by doing so they will cause more damage than by firing them. This is the bottom line which does not hold up, no matter how you look at it, because it's so deeply unsatisfying from a gaming point of view. For this reason, wound allocation - along with hoping your charging unit isn't too successful - is the absolute worst rule in 40K, despite so nearly being great (on paper, it gives just the right amount of vulnerability to important models. My problems with it are firstly that it encourages implausible gamesmanship which ruins the sense of immersion, and second, that it shouldn't even be necessary, because specialists should not be as important as they are).

Anyway. If players of your game are hoping their troops fail at something, because that will be to their advantage, you have cocked up your rules somewhere. Can we agree on that much?

This is true.

Id agree that hoping to fail something is very counter intuative to making a game enjoyable and immersive. I think you are spot on in.

Planning to fail something can be a very valid tactic, as proved by the rule "Combat Tactics"

There are times with my Blood Angels when I wish I could still use combat tactics.

Havock
06-02-2011, 12:28
The rule allocation was a good idea from the beginning - however it doesn't work in the 'real' world due to how easy it is to abuse (and I don't think that was the plan from the beginning).

I'd personally go back to the old system than suffer this abusive system we have now.
(I have 4 L.claw termies and 1 stormshield termie. I place your 3 power attack wounds on my stormshield termie aigh?) :rolleyes:

It would have been 'decent' if you have to spread the attacks around evenly per type of attack.
So no naked sergeant taking 3 plasma gun hits while the rest of the squad decides to save against 8 lasgun wounds. Or whatever.

Axel
06-02-2011, 16:11
Obviously the intent for the new ruleset was to fix a problem with the allocation of wounds.

Actually I think it works acceptably well.

OK, situations happen in which adding ineffective fire to effective will lessen the total effect (because "harmless" wounds can be stacked upon worthy characters). Thats a backdraw to some degree, but not gamebreaking. For rationalization, if you spoil the aim of the important weapons by coordinating with the ineffectual, or warn the opponent of incoming fire then the overall effective CAN be diminished. Its not that you HAVE to fire all weapons.

Could it be better? Yes.
Is it gamebreaking, or mindnumbingly unrealistic? Imho no.

Pink Horror
06-02-2011, 16:57
The example shows that the writers knew how to read their own rule. It doesn't show that they intended for the heavy bolter shots from the Leman Russ to reduce the number of wounds it typically causes. It doesn't show that they intended Nob Bikers to become a popular tournament build. Saying that's a purposeful game balance decision is incredibly stupid. After all, you don't have to shoot the heavy bolters.

Remember when the 5th edition playtest rules leaked? There was a big argument online about wound allocation then, and they tweaked it a bit in the published rules. If the game designers had the foresight to predict all of this stuff, I doubt the playtest rules and the published rules would have had any differences. The fact is, the current version of wound allocation barely had any testing before it was published, and the designers had no idea how the rules would work out - they appear to disdain number crunching - the best you could say is at least they knew how to read it properly and illustrate how it worked. With the latest armies, we seem to get rules that the designers never even read properly, so they were better back then.

Lord Inquisitor
06-02-2011, 17:00
My couple of small denomination coins.

Wound allocation broadly does what was intended. If you shoot an average unit of troops with several specialists OR complex units with different armour values that used to be a pain to work out in the old rules, you simply allocate to each group.

The problem only starts when you look at multi-wound models or when firing a mix of weapons. I think that the "wound allocation game" where you can get multiple lascannon hits on one guy or have situations where a player will not fire a weapon as it will result in less kills was certainly not intended nor was it considered during development (somehow) as it would have been very easy to close that rules loophole. As for spreading around wounds on multi-wounded models, that probably wasn't intended but it may have been considered and deemed a necessary evil.

Sekhmet
06-02-2011, 18:29
So naturally the guys with the powerful special weapons become the focus of the entire unit, because they're so often the only ones who can have any effect on the outcome of a game. You don't purchase 'squads' in a game of 40K - you purchase a particular amount of specialist equipment, then a certain number of bodies to protect it with.


That's a very Imperial/DE perspective.

Necrons. lol no upgrades and no models in a squad that are unique... meaning that unless you attach a lord or make scarabs with a tomb spyder, wound allocation plays almost no role in Necron games (unless your opponent is bringing multi-wound squads of unique models, in which case it's still wound allocation as intended)
Tau. A couple of exceptions like Stealth Suits and Pathfinders. Tau can, however, play wound allocation games on incoming hits with their customizable multi-wound suits.
Chaos Daemons. Is upgrading one guy to rending really the reason you bought the squad?
Tyranids. See Necrons.
Eldar. Yes you can upgrade guardian squads, but I don't see too many guardian squads. Exarch upgrades can help the entire squad and their special weapons aren't that much better than the standard aspect warriors' weapons.
Orks... sort of. A lot of their squads have upgrades, but 30 boyz aren't really a delivery system for a single power klaw, are they?

Lord Inquisitor
06-02-2011, 18:51
Necrons. lol no upgrades and no models in a squad that are unique... meaning that unless you attach a lord or make scarabs with a tomb spyder, wound allocation plays absolutely no role in Necron games.
Makes quite a bit of difference when firing at other armies though.


Chaos Daemons. Is upgrading one guy to rending really the reason you bought the squad?
No, but the ability to spread wounds around is really the reason you bought the rending upgrade, particularly on multi-wound models that are immune to instant death like Bloodcrushers.


Eldar. Yes you can upgrade guardian squads, but I don't see too many guardian squads. Exarch upgrades can help the entire squad and their special weapons aren't that much better than the standard aspect warriors' weapons.
Eldar can play the hit allocation game very effectively with Seer Council type squads.


Orks... sort of. A lot of their squads have upgrades, but 30 boyz aren't really a delivery system for a single power klaw, are they?
Often yes! Particularly against vehicles and dreadnoughts.

I think Bubble Ghost's points still stand, regardless of the existence of armies like Necrons that can't take specialists. It is entirely reasonable to represent a squad as an abstract form in the ruleset and the hit allocation rules fail rather spectacularly to represent anything verging on reality. Now if you had to allocate all hits that ignore armour THEN all hits that don't, it would be rather more reasonable.

Personally I think the hit allocation system stinks in general, even without all the hit-allocation silliness. It's just too clunky, too slow. Three lascannon wounds and 15 bolter wounds? You should roll 15 saves and remove any that fail plus three for the lascannon, rather than counting out all the hits and trying to get all three lascannon on one guy. 4th's system was much better just in terms of fluidity of game play (unless you hit mixed armour squads, which were a pain).

But that's off topic given that we're discussing what was intended and how it came out, which are obviously different things.

lanrak
06-02-2011, 20:42
Hi Gingerwerewolf.
If we compare the 'level of rules to gameplay' of 40k to other games , even those written by GW game developers.
Are there any that are any where near as bad as 40k?
NO.

ONLY when game devs are working on 40k(and WHFB to a lesser extent), do they seem to make so many 'school boy' errors.
And end up with very complicated and abstract rules that deliver minimal gameplay.

Yet when they are free from the 'corperate inteferance' they are not forced to use the 'old fashioned and clunky game mechanics'.

You may belive this is just co-incedence, I dont.:evilgrin:

TTFN

RedSarge
06-02-2011, 20:54
I belong to the group that it was an evolvement of the torrent of fire we had in 4th ed. The chance to take out that single lascannon/melta/powerfist/whatever without having to kill the whole squad first.

I seriously forget what "Torrent Of Fire" did in 4th, can someone enlighten me?
(I'm not sure if it was you picking a model, or your opponent picks a weapon to save against)

TheMav80
06-02-2011, 21:55
I seriously forget what "Torrent Of Fire" did in 4th, can someone enlighten me?
(I'm not sure if it was you picking a model, or your opponent picks a weapon to save against)

If you did more wounds than the squad had models you (the shooter) got to pick one guy that had to take a wound.

You might have had to do twice the wounds as there were models actually. I can't quite remember.

Sekhmet
06-02-2011, 21:58
If you did more wounds than the squad had models you (the shooter) got to pick one guy that had to take a wound.

You might have had to do twice the wounds as there were models actually. I can't quite remember.

If you did as many wounds as models in the squad, the shooter could force a model to take a save. Said model was not immune from dying to the rest of the shots.

Gingerwerewolf
07-02-2011, 09:34
Hi Gingerwerewolf.
If we compare the 'level of rules to gameplay' of 40k to other games , even those written by GW game developers.
Are there any that are any where near as bad as 40k?
NO.

Hi Lanrak

Ok what games are you talking about? I feel that I need to read these rules now to compare myself.


ONLY when game devs are working on 40k(and WHFB to a lesser extent), do they seem to make so many 'school boy' errors.
And end up with very complicated and abstract rules that deliver minimal gameplay.

Yet when they are free from the 'corperate inteferance' they are not forced to use the 'old fashioned and clunky game mechanics'.

You may belive this is just co-incedence, I dont.:evilgrin:

TTFN

Genuine question then: Could this be a case of "Microsoft Windows Forced Backward Compatibility"?
Its been around 10 years since it had a complete clean slate, rewrite or whatever (and some might say it wasnt even a clean slate from 2nd to 3rd) So perhaps they are trapped by their options of having to make their Codecies still compatible.
Also arent most of the Codecies that exploit the Differently Equipped, Multi Wound Models from 4th edition?

Cheeslord
07-02-2011, 10:17
I think Gingerwerewolf has something there ... the Permanently Half Broken model means the each new rules set, although it will inevitably screw up almost all existing codices a bit, has to not screw them up so badly they don't work at all since they may not get round to re-writing the codices for several years (just before they write a new rule set to screw them up again). Especially they mustn't significantly screw with the Space Marines as they are the core army set. So they are handicapped in what they can change and everything is a compromise.

Re-writing the whole system at once would require too many man-hours for too small a profit, too far in the future (not to mention stopping development on other games while they all worked on it)... and people would still complain loudly on the forums that the new rulles were "terrible" and "the end of 40k" regardless of what they wrote anyway.

Mark.

lanrak
07-02-2011, 11:23
Hi Gingerwerewolf.
Prime examples of GW game developers at thier best, are Epic Armageddon, Bloodbowl,Starship Troopers,LoTR, and Kings Of War.(And the other specialist games tend to allow more game play with less rules too.)

Yes, the enforced backwards compatibility and 10 year span between updates of some codexes is a horrendous hinderance to the game development of 40k.
And do you think the studio wants to leave armies untouched for years?
No this is corperate inteferance.

I belive when the game developers are 'allowed to run free like nature intended' they could re-write 40k to allow for more diversity of game play and faster release of more balanced codexes.
(It only took TG 8 years to write the rules and achive a provable level of balance for 23 armies for AoA.)

If they re-wrote 40k based on Epic,(modern tactial battle game,) it would make far more sense than using WHFB.(Napoleonic battle game).

I am aware the GW corperate belive that over 80% of its core demoghraphic never actualy get around to playing a 1500pt game of 40k.
And they belive 'actual game play' is less important than writing 'inspiring rules' to support the latest releases.

GW corperate totaly messed up when they made the change to 3rd ed without allowing the change in the rules to reflect the change in game play.
(A lesson they learned from, and resulted in LoTR skirmish AND WoTR battle game.)

40k continues to be a game about unit interaction, focused on individual minatures, and 'ballanced' at the army level.:rolleyes:

In other word an abstract comprimise enforced by shortsighted corperate thinking.

Cheeslord.
'' Re-writing the whole system at once would require too many man-hours for too small a profit, too far in the future (not to mention stopping development on other games while they all worked on it)... and people would still complain loudly on the forums that the new rulles were "terrible" and "the end of 40k" regardless of what they wrote anyway.''

I am sure this is the argument GW corperate use to excuse thier short term focus.However as older gamers move on due to lack of game play, and new gamers are meeting with an ever increaseing price barrier...

How long before an ex GW game developer writes a clearly defined concise and intuitive rule set that undercuts 40k sales?
(In the same way KoW is undercutting WHFB.)

Anyhow ,back on topic.
The GW rules writers intended to improve the gameplay of 40k.
However, due to limitations imposed by GW corperate ,it went wrong.
And is therfore perfect for the abstract comprimise that is 40k 5th ed.:evilgrin:

TTFN

Gingerwerewolf
07-02-2011, 13:59
The two GW games you listed there are, in my opinion of course, inferior in this ruleset than they were in the previous ones.

Ive Played Blood Bowl since 1st Edition and I VASTLY prefer the 2nd edition ruleset to that of the 3rd Edition or the evolved Living Rulebook that is its current set. Though I still play the Living Rulebook

Epic 3rd Edition, was the game that made me stop playing Epic and Space Marine. I hated the models of the titans, and I hated the rule set. Ive gone back onto the GW website to see if the newer rules adress any of the problems I had with it. I wont go into them here as its way off topic

So I guess I am doing exactly what Cheeslord is saying will happen, when they did completely rewrite the rules I threw my toys out of the pram and ran off crying.

I have done that a couple of times over the years too, my first ever Pen and Paper RP game was D&D and to say that I dislike this latest edition is an understatement.

So perhaps the designers, with all their rules musings, are trapped between a rock and a hard place. No matter what they do, they offend someone.

We also all know that GW could never put the resources into clean slate game so perhaps that is the Corporate interference that Ianrak talks of. However "(It only took TG 8 years to write the rules and achive a provable level of balance for 23 armies for AoA.)" is rediculous. What do we do in the 8 years while waiting for this mythical magical update that the internet community will most probably tear apart in minutes?

Where are you getting your 80% statistic from? Ive worked for GW and Im still good friends with lots of people there (which is why I said what I said in a previous post) and I have never heard that particular statistic before you mentioned it twice here.

Pink Horror
10-02-2011, 04:54
I really doubt there is anyone on the corporate side who could read the rulebook, and tell the difference between "actual game play" and "inspiring rules", and make any specific requests that would hinder the former for the sake of the latter intentionally.

Chapters Unwritten
10-02-2011, 10:54
The example shows that the writers knew how to read their own rule. It doesn't show that they intended for the heavy bolter shots from the Leman Russ to reduce the number of wounds it typically causes. It doesn't show that they intended Nob Bikers to become a popular tournament build. Saying that's a purposeful game balance decision is incredibly stupid. After all, you don't have to shoot the heavy bolters.I believe for better or worse, this is GW's intention.

You don't think a vehicle with so many weapons was meant to always fire and cripple the target in gameplay, do you? Especially with it being granted the ability to move and fire a bit above and beyond most vehicles?

It is this very "loophole" that allows us to have ridiculous weapon combinations. Without it, things like the Leman Russ, the plasma veteran squad, the Sternguard squad, etc. would all be far too powerful.

lanrak
10-02-2011, 10:58
Hi Pink Horror.
If your are given the information' ...these new minatures MUST recover the cost of the moulds or else we will be looking to review your position within the company...'
It has a massive difference on the end rules to, '...ensure these new units work within the context of the game , and are in synergy and simpathetic to the background and existing units and rules...'

And maybe the more talented game developers can achive both at the same time.However it is obvious which priority is highest in the game developers mind...

Gingerwerewolf.
Most people prefer the first version they played of any game type.;)
ANY version of those game I listed ALL have more gameplay to pages of rules than 40k.
The catch 22 is GW made a mistake when the didnt change the core game mechancs to suit the new play style of 40k in 3rd ed.Loads of 40k players left due to the' loss of character and detail'.

And since then GW plc are too scared to change the game mechanics in case more people jump ship.

So 40k is stuck with inaproipriate game mechanics that dont cover the gameplay. This results on a massive kludge of USRs and special rules that results in an abstract tangle of rules.
And because of the lack of clarity and brevity , things that look to fit the abstract nature of 40k, are just so counter intuitive , it adds to the kludge!

So here we are 13 years later , with a set of rules that is probably the most complicated abstract counterintiutive mess curently available.(Comparitive to its limited gameplay.)

Thats 5 year more than AoA took to achive provable level of balance for TWENTY THREE ARMIES!!
TG released a AoA beta and let the gamers play it and listened to feed back and developed the game WITH the gaming community.So TG got AoA extensivly playtested for free, and the gamers got a game developed for them!

GWs 'isolationist' mind set is doing them alot of harm IMO.

I agree GW plc are too frighten by potential loss of customer in the short term to do anything radical like a re-write.They have missed the oportunity to have 40k skirmish and 40k battle game.(As they implemented corectly with LoTR and WoTR.)

As reguards to the '...at least 80% of our target demoghrahpic leave the GW hobby before playing a 1750 pt game...' it was from an ex emloyee.
So it could be sour grapes?

However , as the official GW plc fiscal reports show,are loosing volume of sales.So maybe they are loosing existing customers faster than they can recruit new ones....(If the sales had remained consistant with RRP increases for the last 10 years , GW would have another 86 million turn over....:eek:)

I can only assume the 'lack of actual game play development in 40k' is down to influences outside the GW design studio,but inside GW corperation.

TTFN

Gingerwerewolf
10-02-2011, 12:30
Well Ianrak you have some interesting points in there, Good ones but Im not sure I agree with all of them.

One thing Ill say first though is that because GW created a game that we all love, we, and by that I mean all players Ex and otherwise (which obviosly includes ex staff) have a tendency to lean towards extreme reactions when something goes wrong with our precious game. Something to take into account.

Something else is the fact that I am an Ex Staff Member from the Early 90's till early 2000 and I worked in all the London Stores and in HQ in Lenton. I have nothing but love for the company and had they paid me enough money Id probably still be working there now. No bad feelings, and I still believe the Staff Training indoctranation that I got in the 90's. 10 Commandments anyone? ;)



If your are given the information' ...these new minatures MUST recover the cost of the moulds or else we will be looking to review your position within the company...'
It has a massive difference on the end rules to, '...ensure these new units work within the context of the game , and are in synergy and simpathetic to the background and existing units and rules...'

And maybe the more talented game developers can achive both at the same time.However it is obvious which priority is highest in the game developers mind...


Im sorry mate but I completely disagree. Remember that GW is a PLC which means that it has stocks and share. A massive amount of those shares are owned by various members of the Company that we all know and love: Jes Goodwin, John Blanche, Jervis Johnson. Having met these guys there is NO WAY they would allow the "review your position in the company" by finance team.

Also the cost of moulds has tumbled over the years, especially with the CAD design process becoming so automated and easy. The expense of CAD equipment is an order of magnitude cheaper than it was 10 years ago. (this I know as I professionally design PCs and software for Designers in my current job) GW also Own their own mould production company which reduces the cost even further.


Gingerwerewolf.
Most people prefer the first version they played of any game type.;)
ANY version of those game I listed ALL have more gameplay to pages of rules than 40k.
The catch 22 is GW made a mistake when the didnt change the core game mechancs to suit the new play style of 40k in 3rd ed.Loads of 40k players left due to the' loss of character and detail'.

And since then GW plc are too scared to change the game mechanics in case more people jump ship.


Could not agree more, and exactly as you say teh reason I threw my toys out the pram and cut back was because of the lack of detail in 3rd. Id love them to bring back the detail and character of 40 in 2nd.


Thats 5 year more than AoA took to achive provable level of balance for TWENTY THREE ARMIES!!
TG released a AoA beta and let the gamers play it and listened to feed back and developed the game WITH the gaming community.So TG got AoA extensivly playtested for free, and the gamers got a game developed for them!

GWs 'isolationist' mind set is doing them alot of harm IMO.

I agree that GW's isolationist tendencies do harm them, however Im guessing that the player base of 40k, compared to AoA is probably an order of magnitude higher, and as such to effort to involve the Gamers will fail as they will be more people moaning and screaming about the system then not. Remember the Worldwise campaign? Do you remember the damage that caused?



As reguards to the '...at least 80% of our target demoghrahpic leave the GW hobby before playing a 1750 pt game...' it was from an ex emloyee.
So it could be sour grapes?

Definately sounds like that to me. They dont even take current staff's comments for vague truth in the Rumors section of this website, so you shouldnt take the ex staff members as any more unbiased ;) (See what I did there?)


However , as the official GW plc fiscal reports show,are loosing volume of sales.So maybe they are loosing existing customers faster than they can recruit new ones....(If the sales had remained consistant with RRP increases for the last 10 years , GW would have another 86 million turn over....:eek:)

I can only assume the 'lack of actual game play development in 40k' is down to influences outside the GW design studio,but inside GW corperation.

do remember also that GW have been on the comedown from the very best IP investment that they have ever made into another company. Lord of the rings is now 10 years old, and there were a lot of Gamers still playing after the film quit the cinemas and moved to the bargain bin in DVD shops. During 2000 to 2003 Lord of the Rings was the most played bame in store. Now its back to how it used to be, with 40k First, Fantasy Second, and LotR third as to what games are played and what core rules are sold. Thats still having an effect. If they are sensible GW will retake it back when The Hobbit comes out.

I put the games rules design down to the fact that the guys who write the books and play the games are actually gentlemen that are all friends and so dont take the mick with unbalanced armies and the like. Im willing to bet that they never look at the Army lists online and never come onto Warseer ;)

lanrak
10-02-2011, 13:34
Hi Gingerwerewolf.
As reguards to the influence of the corperate managment on the development of 40k, I often thought Andy Chambers had 40k gameplays best interests at heart.
And looking at what 40k could have been under his direction ,(SST), I feel his disagreement with the GW corperate managers is indemic of the 'dont change anything but make it better' influence of the GW corperate managers inflict.

Jervis Johnson is the only 'old guard game developer' left at GW towers because he follows the company line.Nice bloke, talented game developer but just 'going through the motions' to retirment age IMO.

As the number of gamers has dwindled over the years (arguably due to poor game development,) he says that collectors are now GWs prime demoghraphic...so the games are just ' ...the icing on the cake...':rolleyes:

Jes and John have never had to comprimise thier artwork to my knowledge.(Maybe covering up the odd exposed nipple perhaps?:D)
But current 40k rule set is one massive comprimise and it shows.

Where as during the golden years of GW (1995 to 1998 ) when a wide diversity of games develped without so much interferance from corperate managment let GW DOUBLE turn over in 3 years...

And ever since GW corperate mangers became '..fat and lazy on the back of easy sucess of LoTR...'
Thier 'interferance' with game developent has led to a massive reduction in sales volumes.(Turn over has risen at the rate of inflation for the last decade appx 35%.But price rises have been at approximatley 130%:eek:)

The studio guys write the game they want to play , and are perfect for thier play style.However , they charge money for these 'beta house rules to have some fun with.'
And so having payed money for a publication most customers feel they deserve a reasonable level of quality.
Eg editing/proof reading -even a spell check might be nice...:D

There are better quality rules free to download on the internet.

Why not make the current rules free to down load, with a 'source book 'relased with the new minatures ,(codex with everthing but rules.)

Linking the game development with minature relases has a negative effect on game development.

A simple comparison.
Look at Allesio Calvatores Kings of War rules .A prime example of good game design, clarity brevity and wit.

Then look at WHFB,relativley stifled insular and bloated .

The only differnce is the 'restrictions and limitations' placed on the developer by GW corperate managment.
Just imagine what would happen if an ex GW staffer wrote a new rule set for 40k at a similar level as Alessio's KoW.

(PS what position did you hold at GW?)

TTFN

Bubble Ghost
10-02-2011, 14:00
Im willing to bet that they never look at the Army lists online and never come onto Warseer ;)

I'm willing to bet you're wrong.:)

It is true that they develop the rules with friendly games between people who aren't going to take the mick with each other in mind, though. This is what their games are for. The entire concept of a tabletop game assumes you're doing it with people you get on with, and I for one am completely fine with that approach - in fact GW already go to greater lengths in attempting to dick-proof their rules than most games, far more so than I'd like them to bother with.

I get that they're doing it for clarity's sake, but there's a point at which excessive clarification has the opposite effect - I'd rather be treated as an adult with a brain who is capable of resolving simple issues by discussion, personally. In fact one of the things that really appeals to me about 5th ed 40K (in comparison to earlier versions, rather than other games) is the number of times things like "agree with your opponent" is hardwired into the rules. There should be more of that.

But I get who their market is. Sadly.

Gingerwerewolf
10-02-2011, 15:45
I'm willing to bet you're wrong.:)

It is true that they develop the rules with friendly games between people who aren't going to take the mick with each other in mind, though. This is what their games are for. The entire concept of a tabletop game assumes you're doing it with people you get on with, and I for one am completely fine with that approach - in fact GW already go to greater lengths in attempting to dick-proof their rules than most games, far more so than I'd like them to bother with.

I get that they're doing it for clarity's sake, but there's a point at which excessive clarification has the opposite effect - I'd rather be treated as an adult with a brain who is capable of resolving simple issues by discussion, personally. In fact one of the things that really appeals to me about 5th ed 40K (in comparison to earlier versions, rather than other games) is the number of times things like "agree with your opponent" is hardwired into the rules. There should be more of that.

But I get who their market is. Sadly.

Id say that your points are good and I think the reason that they are putting more of the "Clarity" in, is because they want to run tournaments and as such the rules have to be so much more defined in such a place.

GW have always produced rules that work better with a neutral judge or arbiter, heck its even written into the rules of the old RT and into games like Inquisitor.

Amoungst my friends we have been trying to get 3 people around for the games, one to be an Adeptus Arbites to judge and rule on the game, while the other two play. Its been good and helped us with the games alot.

(And helped curb my over enthusiastic lamentations as I never win)

The only thing is with the Adeptus Arbites role is getting the chicken to stay on your head. ;)

Bubble Ghost
10-02-2011, 18:13
Id say that your points are good and I think the reason that they are putting more of the "Clarity" in, is because they want to run tournaments and as such the rules have to be so much more defined in such a place.

Heh. I don't think tournaments are nearly as important as tournament players like to think they are - I can't pretend I'm still in the loop, but if tournaments somehow really matter to GW these days, that'll be a relatively recent development.

It's more likely because the less ambiguity there is, the less complicated a concept it is to grasp for newcomers, for whom the idea of cooperating with someone who is also ostensibly your opponent is going to be a pretty alien one. That's a skill you learn through activities like wargaming - few people of GW's target age are going to bring it with them.

Pink Horror
11-02-2011, 03:11
I believe for better or worse, this is GW's intention.

You don't think a vehicle with so many weapons was meant to always fire and cripple the target in gameplay, do you? Especially with it being granted the ability to move and fire a bit above and beyond most vehicles?

It is this very "loophole" that allows us to have ridiculous weapon combinations. Without it, things like the Leman Russ, the plasma veteran squad, the Sternguard squad, etc. would all be far too powerful.

Yeah, except tanks covered in big guns and squads filled with awesome weapons have been in every edition, and we didn't need this rule in any of the other ones. Also - sternguard... it's been awhile for me, don't they all have special ammo or something that would make discussing wound allocation irrelevant? Wound allocation is not for balancing them, that's for sure. Plasma veterans get practically all of their firepower out of the plasma guns, right? Do you really think wound allocation was added to purposefully keep players from rolling the few measly las weapons left over? I think you've proven your opinion is invalid. Thanks. You're also completely ignoring the "it's not game balance, it ruins game feel" argument.

cailus
11-02-2011, 03:39
It's brilliant for Orks in assault.

As you have large numbers of models and can withdraw casualties from anywhere, it means your Powerklaw guy survives to the very last.

cailus
11-02-2011, 04:00
Im sorry mate but I completely disagree. Remember that GW is a PLC which means that it has stocks and share. A massive amount of those shares are owned by various members of the Company that we all know and love: Jes Goodwin, John Blanche, Jervis Johnson. Having met these guys there is NO WAY they would allow the "review your position in the company" by finance team.




Sorry but you're completely wrong. Most of GW's shareholders are financial institutions:


http://investor.games-workshop.com/information_for_investors/your_shares/shareholder_stats.aspx

Shareholder statistics
Number of shares Percentage
The Nomad Investment Partnership LP 7,414,887 23.8%
Investec Asset Management Limited 5,768,410 18.5%
Phoenix Asset Management Partners Limited 4,190,607 13.5 %
Polar Capital Partners 1,162,220 3.7 %

Information correct at 26 July 2010

So I seriously doubt Messrs Blanche, Goodwin and Johnson have any influence on strategic direction. They are employees and like the recent firing of Rick Priestley, completely and utterly expendable.

Lion El Jason
11-02-2011, 09:48
Im sorry mate but I completely disagree. Remember that GW is a PLC which means that it has stocks and share. A massive amount of those shares are owned by various members of the Company that we all know and love: Jes Goodwin, John Blanche, Jervis Johnson. Having met these guys there is NO WAY they would allow the "review your position in the company" by finance team.

Lol... Rick Priestly anyone?

He was recently erm... "pushed rather than jumped" from GW and has held many senior company positions as well as owning significant stock.

The two are not related.

lanrak
11-02-2011, 10:20
Hi.
Thanks for the reality check Lion El Jason.;)

And remember JJ is only took charge of 40k after Andy Chambers 'left' GW after a ' difference of oppinion about the direction of 40k'.:eek:

And the list of well known game develpers and inspirational-passionate hobbiests who helped GW to greatness, that have parted ways recently is quite long ....

IF 'founding members' and 'lead game developers' (40k overlords) can find thier position within GW plc under review...no current dev is safe!

So corperate influence is the main reason why 40k rules are so diffuse and abstract.IMO.

This would explain why talented game developers that thrive elsewhere , seem to make so many 'mistakes' with the 40k rules and codexes....

TTFN

Carlosophy
11-02-2011, 16:51
To be honest, we dont use it. We couldn't be arsed faffing about allocating wounds.

We just roll to hit and roll to wound. Then take saves, and defender remove models. However - you have to remove those in base contact first followed by those within 2". Cant say any of us have really been annoyed by hidden powerfists. They generally only have 1 or 2 attacks anyway.

For shooting, again we just remove models - leaving specialists. figuring another member of the squad would pick up the heavy weapon anyway.

As we are all doing it (and its a friendly environment) its worked fine.

This is using - Eldar, Dark Eldar, marines (various), daemons, Orks, Tau, Nids. Necrons appear to still be in stasis in our group (the guy cant be arsed with WBB)

We still do this too because it works. I for one like the idea my exarch/nob/sarge is the last to die in a squad as it makes him seem more heroic. In a real situation another trooper would pick up the meltagun or flamer and run with it.

If they nerfed fearless to mean a squad may re-roll all failed checks AND can always regroup it would balance it out.