PDA

View Full Version : The multiple wound shenanigans



Sinnertje
06-01-2012, 04:29
So, I've read about this in another topic, but since I didn't want to start some massive derailment there, I figured I'd make a new topic.

Anyway, the multiple wound shenanigans, apparently something ork nobs do, and certain GK's too.

What is it? And is it really as bad as people make it out to be?

red_drake
06-01-2012, 04:37
Its abusing the wound allocation rules that say models of the same equipment take saves together. It only works in units of multi-wound models.
In the normal case, whole multi-wound models must be removed at a time, but if they are all equipped differently, you can allocate single wounds to each model which lets you avoid taking whole models off

Ulrig
06-01-2012, 05:08
Yeah, it is as bad as people make it out to be.

I always play wound allocation nobs with cybork bodies and feel no pain.
Only a couple things I fear...
Heavy Power weapon attacks (not really talking about strength, more in numbers...Death Company for example) It is nigh impossible to roll that many invuls and come out ok, and then when I attack last it is a bad deal
.
Strength 8 Templates are the thing for me to fear with my Nobs, but are actually easy to avoid considering my Nobs are usually rolling through units in Hand to Hand.

Honestly though....as long as I don't hit something too heavy in number of power weapon attacks and Higher init, I usually always come out on top. I have had players roll up to my nobs with a full termie unit just to be knocked down.

Carnage
06-01-2012, 05:13
It does actually work to a limited degree on single wound models. For example;

10 Imperial guardsmen with 3 plasma guns and 7 lasguns fire at 5 space marines with a sergeant and flamer in the open. 14 lasgun shots score 6 wounds, the plasma-guns score 5 wounds. Thanks to some creative wound allocation games the marine player decides to assign the plasma wounds to the flamer and serg, and the lasguns to the normal boys. So instead of 5 guys just falling over, you put 3 plasma wounds on the flamer, which kills him 3 times, 2 plasma wounds on the sergeant which kill him twice. Now you have 6 armor saves to make for the 3 remaining marines. So you have a decent chance of walking away from the volley with at least 1 marine instead of losing them all to the plasma fire. Ironically, if the IG player HADN'T have fired the lasguns, the plasma would have been spread out and killed the entire unit. More guns = less deaths. BAD RULES DESIGN.

The problem on multi-wound uniquely equipped units is that they survuve a lot longer then their 2 wounds would suggest. Nobs and Paladins are the worst offenders here. A 10 man paladin squad basically has to suffer 11 wound before it loses a model (assuming no instant death of course). It's possible to knock half of the squads wounds off without reducing their damage output at all, which is just silly. Throw in a warding staff and Draigo, so S8 AP2 shots the squad suffers get thrown on the draigo's 3++ invul and T5, so at worst you lose 1 wound, and rarely at that. In melee you throw as many powerfist/powerweapon wounds on the warding staff as possible, and let the other dudes soak the non-ID or normal attacks.

It's more book keeping and slows the game down, not to mention it goes against the spirit of the rules which are pretty clear on removing whole models where possible. My friend's Draigo wing list for example, he has had to label the bases of all his paladins and write a spreadsheet for keeping track of wounds, because we kept using like 15+ dice as wound markers and were running out of dice for actually rolling for other stuff.

IMO, it's one of the 2 worst rules in the game at the moment. The other being no-retreat wounds.

hazmiter
06-01-2012, 06:09
The way I interpret the rule is that the instant kill, no saves get allocated to models, then, armour saves are allocated to models, that way it is easier. The wound shenannigans get worse when the player puts instant death on a 1 wound model and the ones with full HP are unaffected, which goes against the ruling of whole models with max wound idko first.
Eg, 3 paladins, 1 on 1 wound, 2 on 2 wounds, idko on 1 wound model, 2 pw on same model, 1 pw on next, 4 regular on same 2 full wound models.
I have seen it done.

Again, priority is.
Instant death 1st.
Then armour ignoring attacks.
Then armour saves.
All are different types of damage, and must be allocated accordingly.
That's my interpretation.

ehlijen
06-01-2012, 06:19
Again, priority is.
Instant death 1st.
Then armour ignoring attacks.
Then armour saves.
All are different types of damage, and must be allocated accordingly.
That's my interpretation.

That's not an interpretation, that's a houserule. Nothing wrong if you guys want that, but please clearly label it as a houserule.

The wound allocation rules work perfectly fine as long as the codices and players stick to the design philosphy of large numbers of basic weapons and small numbers of special weapons. Then stacking saves on single models saves basic models at the cost of guaranteeing the death of the more potent and expensive specialist. Sure, some basic guys might survive, but the unit still has lost most of its damage potential. In 3rd ed everyone complained that the sarge and specialist were always magically the last to die. Now they die first and people still feel cheated somehow...

Ulrig
06-01-2012, 06:25
The way I interpret the rule is that the instant kill, no saves get allocated to models, then, armour saves are allocated to models, that way it is easier. The wound shenannigans get worse when the player puts instant death on a 1 wound model and the ones with full HP are unaffected, which goes against the ruling of whole models with max wound idko first.
Eg, 3 paladins, 1 on 1 wound, 2 on 2 wounds, idko on 1 wound model, 2 pw on same model, 1 pw on next, 4 regular on same 2 full wound models.
I have seen it done.

Again, priority is.
Instant death 1st.
Then armour ignoring attacks.
Then armour saves.
All are different types of damage, and must be allocated accordingly.
That's my interpretation.


Well I am glad we will never play.
It goes by initiative...period, many of the Instant Death attacks go last (usually) in initiative. (Power Fist for example)

Scribe of Khorne
06-01-2012, 06:40
Its not abuse when its using the rule as directly spelled out and intended. :rolleyes:

hazmiter
06-01-2012, 07:11
Id in cc depends on initiative that is true, but in shooting it does not.
Close combat would be
1st lot initiative 4.
Armour saves invul saves if any.
Last lot, instant death attacks via fist and hammer.
Depends on army.

Close combat is annoying when they pile pw attacks on bad stuff and normal on the good.

Sierk
06-01-2012, 07:41
I think the worst offenders of this are the spacewolves where almost every single model in the squad has a different weapon but this still works for me because he often fails his save on his SC lol. I am not the most experienceed of this rule because usually as a necron player all my attacks are of the same type becuase of lack of options aside from lords. My freinds dont like the rule purely because usually every model in his entirely specialized unit has equal chances of dieing.
including the ones that didnt get to take the CC attacks yet and in shooting as mentioned above his SC more often than not dies

GotrekFan
06-01-2012, 08:59
I read in a 6th ed rumour that there will be a final "tidy-up" phase of the turn where multi-wound infantry (not characters/ MC) will due if they have suffered >= half their wounds total.
I'm not sure if this has been debunked orbit, but would seem like a way to do away with wound shenanigans.

IcedCrow
06-01-2012, 13:12
This is why we houserule that you take off whole models at all times regardless of their equipment load out.

Bold_or_Stupid
06-01-2012, 14:11
I think the worst offenders of this are the spacewolves where almost every single model in the squad has a different weapon but this still works for me because he often fails his save on his SC lol. I am not the most experienceed of this rule because usually as a necron player all my attacks are of the same type becuase of lack of options aside from lords. My freinds dont like the rule purely because usually every model in his entirely specialized unit has equal chances of dieing.
including the ones that didnt get to take the CC attacks yet and in shooting as mentioned above his SC more often than not dies

Wound allocation only works for SWs with Thunderwolf cav. the wound allocation rules actually hurt small SW units with a range of kit as it means you can get unlucky and lose specials easily.

Captain Collius
06-01-2012, 14:11
one it is within the rules so it is leigtimate.
two its wrong on a real level if i charge with my special cc squad i get 16 power weapon attack 10 regular attacks and 5 powerfist attacks these should be allocated evenly bu i know the powerweapon and pwoer fist will hit regular orks just as his power claw will hit a basic marine

Rated_lexxx
06-01-2012, 16:13
I read in a 6th ed rumour that there will be a final "tidy-up" phase of the turn where multi-wound infantry (not characters/ MC) will due if they have suffered >= half their wounds total.
I'm not sure if this has been debunked orbit, but would seem like a way to do away with wound shenanigans.

Seems like a bit of unneccesry bookwork. There are very few units that can take advantage of this with nobz being the obvious culprit. Though I don't see orks winning a lot of tourneys.

Scribe of Khorne
06-01-2012, 16:55
Nobs, Bloodcrushers, TWolf Cav, and now Paladins. You take away wound allocation for multi-wound models and those units become far less then what they where obviously intended to be.

Nurgling Chieftain
06-01-2012, 17:11
You take away wound allocation for multi-wound models and those units become far less then what they where obviously intended to be.Lol, what? You take away wound allocation abuse and those units become normal mid-tier units instead of being substantially tougher than they were obviously intended to be.

MajorWesJanson
06-01-2012, 17:50
I'm hoping the rumored change in 6th for wound allocation is true- not by equipment on models, but by the models toughness and saves. All models with T4 and 3+ save are one group, a captain with T4, 3+ 4++ is another group, and a terminator librarian attached with T4 2+ 5++ is another group.

Scribe of Khorne
06-01-2012, 17:58
Lol, what? You take away wound allocation abuse and those units become normal mid-tier units instead of being substantially tougher than they were obviously intended to be.

So you really think that GW didnt see what people where doing with Nob Bikers and Bloodcrushers before they wrote TWolfCav rules, and that despite a vast period of time and playtesting they then went ahead and created the exact same potential in a unit with a 2+ save no less?

You honestly expect me to believe that Kelly and Ward didnt know exactly how those units would be used in respect to a very clear, and plainly stated rule?

You truly believe it was not Kelly/Ward's intent for TWolf/Paladin units to use (not abuse...) the wound allocation rule as the vast VAST majority of the player base does?

:wtf:

GW intends for those units to be played with wound allocation as it was written, there is simply no other conclusion unless you think they do not playtest period, and simply do not understand their own game. :rolleyes:

EDIT:

Bloodcrushers - 3 upgrades possible, making for a nice round 4 distinct units, fits perfectly with wound allocation.
TWolv - 3+ upgrades possible, making again for very easy wound allocation builds.
Paladins -5+ upgrades possible, super easy to make variable units for wound allocation.

If you dont think thats the intended use of the units in relation to the rule I would argue that you are missing the point in a pretty big way.

Nurgling Chieftain
06-01-2012, 18:21
Why, yes, actually, I do think that the same codex that gave us Fortitude and Psybolt Ammo for 5 points each, nevermind Purifiers in general, can safely be assumed to "not playtest period, and simply do not understand their own game". I think that's a fair assessment entirely. I don't think the terms "Crowe Tax" nor "Psyfilemen" ever crossed their minds.

Nor do I think that GW is going to hesitate to nerf-behind-the-scenes a bunch of units widely complained about for their unnatural longevity, and furthermore, I think that if you think they wouldn't, you're, well, very new to the game at best.

That being said, I also think it's entirely possible that Paladins were made with the idea that "wound allocation shenanigans" were going away soon. Alternatively, and here I'm going to really blow your mind, I suspect that the studio itself doesn't even play that way and almost never really did. From what I've seen they play like slightly inebriated gentlemen, and not at all like cutthroat rules-mongers squeezing every ounce of capability from the ruleset. They probably deliberately assign new wounds to already wounded models.

Colonel_Kreitz
06-01-2012, 18:55
So you really think that GW didnt see what people where doing with Nob Bikers and Bloodcrushers before they wrote TWolfCav rules, and that despite a vast period of time and playtesting they then went ahead and created the exact same potential in a unit with a 2+ save no less?

You honestly expect me to believe that Kelly and Ward didnt know exactly how those units would be used in respect to a very clear, and plainly stated rule?

You truly believe it was not Kelly/Ward's intent for TWolf/Paladin units to use (not abuse...) the wound allocation rule as the vast VAST majority of the player base does?


I think it's pretty clear that the way wound allocation is currently abused was not the intent. If you go back and listen to the designer's notes (there was a series of podcasts released around the time 5th Edition came out), they outright say that the wound allocation rules were meant to benefit the SHOOTER, not the target.

Basically, in 3rd Edition, as some have noted, the special weapons and the sergeants were always the last to die. They tried to remedy this with the Torrent of Fire rules in 4th, but ToF didn't work all that well. They tried to push it a step further with wound allocation in 5th, but it backfired and became a huge abuse.

And yes, I'd argue it's an abuse because even though it's how the rules are written and therefore legal, it's clear from GW's commentary that the effect of the rule was *not* the designer's intent.

Theocracity
06-01-2012, 18:59
They probably deliberately assign new wounds to already wounded models

Then why didn't they write the base rules to reflect that?

A squad of variably armed badasses is a cool unit, and should be a viable type of unit to have on the table - especially for 40K. But without defensive power, these kind of units are almost never worth their points. Wound allocation is currently a tool that allows a player to field these units effectively, without losing large chunks of their power and points cost to a couple of 1s or a strength 8 weapon. Think about Carnifex broods.

I think it can be abused, but there are other options besides neutering them entirely. The rumored 6th edition doc mentioned the concept of 'Abandonment,' where you could still wound allocate to distribute damage - but at the cost of movement, as attempting to move would force you to remove any wounded models. That way you could have a squad of badasses that could hold a position or win an assault, but risked losing anyone if they had to move afterward. Dunno if those rumors are true but I like this as an option.

Scribe of Khorne
06-01-2012, 19:20
You guys blow me away. :p

I guess I just dont choose to take the position that the people writing the rules are plainly retarded when it comes to their understanding of what they are writing.

You can claim that things are undercosted (psybolts), but to look at the unit entries, and to know the way multi-wound models are handled, to say there is no clear intent for them to be used that way? Thats just too much of a leap for me to take.

Colonel_Kreitz
06-01-2012, 19:41
You guys blow me away. :p

I guess I just dont choose to take the position that the people writing the rules are plainly retarded when it comes to their understanding of what they are writing.

You can claim that things are undercosted (psybolts), but to look at the unit entries, and to know the way multi-wound models are handled, to say there is no clear intent for them to be used that way? Thats just too much of a leap for me to take.

Oddly, I think that it really is unintended. GW takes the position (and has taken the position for years) that the game is meant to be friendly, and not really meant to be highly competitive. That's why the GW tournament scene includes sportsmanship scores and why the Golden Rule of 40K is "have fun."

As a result, I think GW has a long track-record of horribly exploitable rules. If you don't believe me, look at 3rd Edition codices. You will see a long list of almost hilariously insane rules that allowed ridiculous exploitation from anyone that chose to exploit them.

This being said, they have gotten much better at this over the years. I think that recent codices, despite their flaws, are much less imbalanced than some of the codices we've seen in the past, both internally and externally. But GW still acts like it's player base won't take advantage of loop-holes and huge problems can still emerge.

For example, it's very clear to me that GW never intended 5 man Long Fang teams to be the back-bone of Space Wolves. Space Wolves are a close-in assault army with some fire support, but Long Fang teams should never have been the focus of the army. Similarly, 4 man blaster teams were never meant to be the focus of Dark Eldar, and I strongly doubt that lists oriented on tons of Crypteks were the intended focus of the Necron Codex.

I don’t know if these are abuses per se, but they don’t appear to be the designer’s intent in the way the army is played. Similarly, the designers themselves said that the wound allocation rules were supposed to benefit the shooter by increasing the odds of knocking off special weapons gunners or sergeants. This is clearly not how they work in multi-wound units, but I think GW wrote these multi-wound units as though people played the way they had intended their rules to work, rather than how people actually play.

Theocracity
06-01-2012, 19:42
You guys blow me away. :p

I guess I just dont choose to take the position that the people writing the rules are plainly retarded when it comes to their understanding of what they are writing.

You can claim that things are undercosted (psybolts), but to look at the unit entries, and to know the way multi-wound models are handled, to say there is no clear intent for them to be used that way? Thats just too much of a leap for me to take.

Agreed.

Even if you discount GK, the most recent Necron dex has wound-allocate Wraiths. It's pretty obviously intentional.


I don’t know if these are abuses per se, but they don’t appear to be the designer’s intent in the way the army is played. Similarly, the designers themselves said that the wound allocation rules were supposed to benefit the shooter by increasing the odds of knocking off special weapons gunners or sergeants. This is clearly not how they work in multi-wound units, but I think GW wrote these multi-wound units as though people played the way they had intended their rules to work, rather than how people actually play.

Metagamers gonna metagame. Nothing's going to prevent competetive players from taking things that benefit in the weird realm of 'competetiveness.' That doesn't effect the way they wrote the rules. Maybe they wanted wound allocation to increase special weapon casualties for single wound squads, and also took the opportunity to increase the surivability of hero-esque multi wound squads.

Scribe of Khorne
06-01-2012, 20:00
Similarly, 4 man blaster teams were never meant to be the focus of Dark Eldar, and I strongly doubt that lists oriented on tons of Crypteks were the intended focus of the Necron Codex.

I donít know if these are abuses per se, but they donít appear to be the designerís intent in the way the army is played. Similarly, the designers themselves said that the wound allocation rules were supposed to benefit the shooter by increasing the odds of knocking off special weapons gunners or sergeants. This is clearly not how they work in multi-wound units, but I think GW wrote these multi-wound units as though people played the way they had intended their rules to work, rather than how people actually play.

Respectfully I think you are completely wrong. If you face a fully mech IG army, you better believe that if you arent packing lances in nearly every slot, you simply will not pop those vehicles. Blasterborn are there to fill a need in the list, nothing more, nothing less.

Look at the trends in the books, thats all we can do in terms of divining the intent of studio unless you want to get Kelly or Ward on the phone. Most books have multi-wound units that can take advantage of the wound allocation rules as written. These books have been separated by years in some cases, and so its difficult for me to not see that as an intentional action.

Carnage
06-01-2012, 20:47
Respectfully I think you are completely wrong. If you face a fully mech IG army, you better believe that if you arent packing lances in nearly every slot, you simply will not pop those vehicles. Blasterborn are there to fill a need in the list, nothing more, nothing less.

Look at the trends in the books, thats all we can do in terms of divining the intent of studio unless you want to get Kelly or Ward on the phone. Most books have multi-wound units that can take advantage of the wound allocation rules as written. These books have been separated by years in some cases, and so its difficult for me to not see that as an intentional action.

That's his point though, those DE units are "internet staples" because chimeras are staples of IG armies. The designers don't design these armies for the hardcore players in my experience, they assume people will be using ratlings, storm troopers, rough riders, infantry platoons and the like, you know, a "Little-bit-of-everything" army. It's the IG army of 6+ chimeras/vets + manticores + hydras + Vendettas, that are the actual "Hard-core meta" that causes an escalating arms race that ends in blaster-borne, full mech'ed out DE lists being necessary to compete. It's a vicious circle that is only capped out by limits in the codexes and people's imaginations.

In a "scrub" meta you don't need to use all raider/venoms, or chims or be all mech'ed up, you don't have to "game" the wound allocation rules to squeeze every shred out of survivability possible, it's completely unnecessary to win, or even do very well. I honestly believe that the developers don't see the game from a "hard-core" point of view, they don't see what could be possible within their own rules because they aren't looking for these loop-holes/power gamer tricks because they don't play with or against armies like that. It's us, the internet community of power-gamers that finds and exploits these things and passes them down to the average player. If you found a community of players completely cut off from the internet, i can guarantee their lists would be off the wall compared to standard internet wisdom, and I'd bet you wouldn't see them playing these wound allocation games like we do.

Faeslayer
06-01-2012, 20:53
Agreed.

Even if you discount GK, the most recent Necron dex has wound-allocate Wraiths. It's pretty obviously intentional.

I agree as well. It's not like they don't know what's going on at this point.

It's entirely possible that codices continue to have wound-shenanigan units because it's something that will change next edition, so it's best to have all of the codices continue to be consistent.

Regardless, wound allocation functions as designed, and isn't really an abuse. What am I to do, take my differently-armed ragtag Nobz mob and just play them all armed with the same weapon? Or should I ignore the rules of assigning wounds? I'm not a very competitive player, at the end of the day, but I'm not going to do either of those things. I built that unit for looks and I'm playing it WYSIWYG.

hazmiter
06-01-2012, 21:24
Well wound allocation shenanigans or no, if you allocate a wound from gk all through a squad, you better hope like hell they fail the psychic test.

Dr Zoidberg
06-01-2012, 21:36
If you found a community of players completely cut off from the internet, i can guarantee their lists would be off the wall compared to standard internet wisdom, and I'd bet you wouldn't see them playing these wound allocation games like we do.

I think even many internet-connected gamers know when you play 'hardcore' and when fun is the aim of the game.

The local indie where I play runs regular day tournies where 90% of the dozen - two dozen guys who show up are gamers in their late 20s onwards (all the way up to their 50s) who have been playing since the days of either RT or 2ed.

In the 12 months I've played there, I've not once felt that one of them has brought lists geared towards 'hardcore' competitive gaming. Yes, there are always some powerful builds that do very well, but never anything that would not be considered 'unfun'.

Nor have I ever encountered a situation where I felt somebody was unduly abusing the multiple wounds system. Granted, at times I've been frustrated by some results of shooting, but I genuinely believe that most people play the wound system in a way that balances maximising their saves with what's in the spirit of the game. In other words, they don't want to play somebody who abuses it, so they won't either.

I agree entirely with you about GW gearing their rules towards this sort of casual, fun, but still competitive play; not hardcore tournaments where everybody is out to win at all costs. Because at the end of the day, 40K is just a game and having fun with some good company is the primary focus.

I think the majority of gamers are after that sort of experience, but its the 'hardcore' gamers who are the loudest/most vocal online.

Colonel_Kreitz
06-01-2012, 21:40
Respectfully I think you are completely wrong. If you face a fully mech IG army, you better believe that if you arent packing lances in nearly every slot, you simply will not pop those vehicles. Blasterborn are there to fill a need in the list, nothing more, nothing less.


Yes, you do need to Blasterborn, but I think you're missing my point a little bit here. The issue isn't whether or not Blasterborn are needed to beat IG, or indeed whether Long Fangs are needed to beat mech armies in general. The issue I'm raising is the design philosophy that runs through all the codices and through the rule book.

To that point...


That's his point though, those DE units are "internet staples" because chimeras are staples of IG armies. The designers don't design these armies for the hardcore players in my experience, they assume people will be using ratlings, storm troopers, rough riders, infantry platoons and the like, you know, a "Little-bit-of-everything" army. It's the IG army of 6+ chimeras/vets + manticores + hydras + Vendettas, that are the actual "Hard-core meta" that causes an escalating arms race that ends in blaster-borne, full mech'ed out DE lists being necessary to compete. It's a vicious circle that is only capped out by limits in the codexes and people's imaginations.

In a "scrub" meta you don't need to use all raider/venoms, or chims or be all mech'ed up, you don't have to "game" the wound allocation rules to squeeze every shred out of survivability possible, it's completely unnecessary to win, or even do very well. I honestly believe that the developers don't see the game from a "hard-core" point of view, they don't see what could be possible within their own rules because they aren't looking for these loop-holes/power gamer tricks because they don't play with or against armies like that. It's us, the internet community of power-gamers that finds and exploits these things and passes them down to the average player. If you found a community of players completely cut off from the internet, i can guarantee their lists would be off the wall compared to standard internet wisdom, and I'd bet you wouldn't see them playing these wound allocation games like we do.

Exactly. The designers do not look at this through the lens of hardcore/competitive gaming. I can't speak to this because I only occasionally pick up White Dwarf, but I would wager that if you looked at White Dwarf, you would never see an instance of abusive wound allocation. That's just not how the designers play or how they view the game.

Similarly, people love to comment on how much White Dwarf army lists suck. Frankly, they do suck. They're rarely coherent and are generally a hodge podge of cool units with some degree of underlying theme. Certainly, this is largely about showing off new untis and the lists are also limited to what the studio has painted.

This being said, I think that's really how the designers view the game and play. The game isn't meant to be super-competitive and I don't think the designers really think through all the super-competitive options. Thus, you have 3 units of 5 man Long Fang missile launcher teams filling out every Space Wolf army you see.

I'm not saying you shouldn't play competitively, by the way (Lord knows we don't need another one of those fights on the boards). A lot of people do and have a lot of fun with it. I'm just saying that to understand why the rules exist as they do and the angle the developers took in writing rules, one should understand that the developers do not appear to look at the codices from a hardcore players perspective.

Tying this back, I think that this goes make gaming wound allocation contrary to the designers intent and, in my opinion, abusive. Some of this comes from my own observations (I think the evolution of how wound allocation is handled in in 3rd, 4th, and now 5th edition is good evidence of this), but again, some is straight from the mouths of the designers (they outright said that wound allocation should benefit the person shooting). The rules exist as they do and should be played as they are unless you have a house rule. I'm not saying you should game the way you allocate wounds, especially in a competitve environment. I'm just saying that the rules are poorly written and the actual effect is contrary to the intended effect.


I think even many internet-connected gamers know when you play 'hardcore' and when fun is the aim of the game.

The local indie where I play runs regular day tournies where 90% of the dozen - two dozen guys who show up are gamers in their late 20s onwards (all the way up to their 50s) who have been playing since the days of either RT or 2ed.

In the 12 months I've played there, I've not once felt that one of them has brought lists geared towards 'hardcore' competitive gaming. Yes, there are always some powerful builds that do very well, but never anything that would not be considered 'unfun'.

Nor have I ever encountered a situation where I felt somebody was unduly abusing the multiple wounds system. Granted, at times I've been frustrated by some results of shooting, but I genuinely believe that most people play the wound system in a way that balances maximising their saves with what's in the spirit of the game. In other words, they don't want to play somebody who abuses it, so they won't either.

I agree entirely with you about GW gearing their rules towards this sort of casual, fun, but still competitive play; not hardcore tournaments where everybody is out to win at all costs. Because at the end of the day, 40K is just a game and having fun with some good company is the primary focus.

I think the majority of gamers are after that sort of experience, but its the 'hardcore' gamers who are the loudest/most vocal online.

Exactly agreed. And thankfully, I think the majority of players are the kind that allocate wounds that are in the spirit of the game (ie they don't try to find a way to pile 5 AP2 shots on one model).

ColShaw
06-01-2012, 21:40
Well wound allocation shenanigans or no, if you allocate a wound from gk all through a squad, you better hope like hell they fail the psychic test.

You HAVE to allocate wounds that way. This is not particularly relevant to the current conversation.

The thing that's bugging me is that the arguments on both sides are both presuming intent on the part of the rules writers. Even with the podcasts, nobody knows for absolute certain what was intended for the rules.

My opinion is that wound allocation on multi-wound units is subject to abuse, that I do not think was the intention of the rules writers. This is, however, irrelevant because it is one area in which the written rules are completely clear. In tournament play, as in ordinary play, I won't play it except as written. I would, if I played an army that could do it, avoid building lists containing what I consider to be abusive units, but I won't hold other players to that, nor will I complain about it to them if they do field such units.

There are plenty of worse things out there.

Latro_
06-01-2012, 22:12
To OP very simple way to describe it is:

say 5 marines with boltguns take 10 wounds
you have to allocate a wound to every model before assigning a second wound to the same model. So in this case each marine takes two wounds.

However, you Save wounds in groups of identically armed models.

So in this case you simply roll 10 saves because all 5 marines have boltguns.

Now if one of those 5 marines had a meltagun, you would allocate the same so each model would have 2 wounds and you roll the saves in groups but this time round there are two groups. 8 wounds are on models with boltguns and two wounds are on a model with a meltagun.

Now should this meltagun roll two 1's only he dies, not any of the other 4 marines.
And say (unlikely) of the 8 wounds on the 4 marines 5 or more are failed, only the 4 in that group die, then meltagun guy wasn't in that group so he is ok, even if those 4 marines fail all 8 saves!

In this way there is more chance less models will die because excess wounds can potentially be ignored.

People take this to extremes by trying to get as many differently armed models in a unit. It is especially effective for multi-wound models in units because not only does the groupings thing remove potential wounds, it also keeps models alive as normally with mutli-wound models in a unit you apply wounds until an entire model dies, but the group thing breaks them out of this, this 'intended' exploit of the rule is what folks refer to as shenanigans.

Chapters Unwritten
06-01-2012, 22:15
Its not abuse when its using the rule as directly spelled out and intended. :rolleyes:I really despise how this rule is perceived as well. In older editions taking a squad that had multiple wounds but a low model count was not worthless but when it's supposed to be a squad of super hard models it never quite worked out. The new rules are obviously intended to be used this way as the units in question have these abilities. Nobz are unique in that, on the bikes, they have added toughness, a sick weapon, vast speed, and a pointlessly super-good 4+ cover save. That they are the de facto argument against the rule is really poor considering they are from a previous edition, and that this unit is one of the only things keeping them truly competitive in 5th edition.

People call it "abuse" only because it is unprecedented. The 40k fanbase is one of the most codgerly and stubborn ones around. Units with low model counts do not feel or play tough with 1 wound each.

The other alternative is for GW to rake us across the coals some more and make people buy 10 Canis Wolfborns instead of 5, by making all of T-wolves 1 wound, etc. I for one hope it stays (and I do not use Thunderwolves, so it does not benefit me personally).

However, that being said, I do hope the rule gets amended. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be the case with all multi-wound model based units, or why there is a need to pay for awkward wargear to accomplish it. However I also have to give GW props as, let's face it, this is one of the few things in the game to dare break the obnoxious cycle of "redundancy beats variety."

Would you ever take a melta bomb, a storm shield, a wolf claw, and a plasma pistol in a T-wolves unit otherwise?

The intent has always seemed pretty clear to me, from the fact that they keep putting out books that are able to do it.

hazmiter
06-01-2012, 22:24
Good points all round, this has actually inspired me to take paladins with the same equipment, 4 plus invul out wieghs the shenannigans in my honest opinion, that and I prefer simplistic play over shenannigans when it comes to wound allocation. The one exception to this would be the mc hammer and flamer in squad. Guarentee that I'd fail saves on those 2 off the bat.

The issue I find with multi wound specialist style grouping to do said shennannigans is that what if you needed that member with the psycannon and pair of falchions, whoops, the multi melta killed him, and the two halbeard guys, one dead, 1 on one wound. The hammer justicar, he's on one wound, oops, shield breaker, he's dead. Just as there are benifits, the downside is that its overspecialised to make the shennanigans work.

HalfBlood
06-01-2012, 23:10
I have heard that the 6th edition allocation rule says that that for every second wound you do in shooting you allocate it. Therefore if you do 10 wounds 5 plasma 5 regular on asquad if marines once the first 5 wounds are allocated you allocate the rest solving these problems

Rated_lexxx
07-01-2012, 00:03
I have heard that the 6th edition allocation rule says that that for every second wound you do in shooting you allocate it. Therefore if you do 10 wounds 5 plasma 5 regular on asquad if marines once the first 5 wounds are allocated you allocate the rest solving these problems

I hope not this seems very hokey way of doing it and gives all the bonus to the shooter. In a lot of shooting phase you will get 2 or more wounds.

Oh I will allocate the wound to you*insert very good weapon* and it dies.

Why would I ever upgrade if I know they are going to be plucked off in the first turn.

My biggest pet peeve with GW is when they say design the game for the casual gamer and not the hardcore gamer. Sounds like a cop out for lazy playtesting

In this day of the internet everyone is going to know the hardcore army list so there is no secret about what works and what doesn't.

If they designed the rules with tourny in mind it befits everyone . The rules will be balance for both casual and hardcore tourny...but to me it sounds like a excuse for lazy play testing

hazmiter
07-01-2012, 00:09
If that is the case then is be a little freaked out...... And wouldn't it basically Nerf the need for a vindicare.... Dammit sharpshooting is his niche not for hoard shots!!!!
Hey I can allocate half the wounds I've done to you, have the lascannon on your ic, the plasma on your pw guy...... That's the vindicare spot.

Ulrig
07-01-2012, 00:17
Lol, what? You take away wound allocation abuse and those units become normal mid-tier units instead of being substantially tougher than they were obviously intended to be.

So you are saying Nobs are supposed to be a mid-tier CC unit.

*sigh*

Carnage
07-01-2012, 00:36
So you are saying Nobs are supposed to be a mid-tier CC unit.

*sigh*

He's saying that they shouldn't be a top tier unit solely because they have 2 wounds and different weapons. If they drop to a second rate unit just because they cannot abuse wound allocation anymore then they clearly need to be fixed in some other manner.

Lets face, outside of the W2, nobs pretty much are a second rate unit. Poor initiative, average WS, average toughness, below average save (if you consider 3+ average), below average LD, they have 3 attacks base, which isn't bad but not amazing by today's standards. The fact they aren't a complete joke in today's game is because they have abnormally high survivability due to the multiple wounds and allocation games.

Rated_lexxx
07-01-2012, 00:50
He's saying that they shouldn't be a top tier unit solely because they have 2 wounds and different weapons. If they drop to a second rate unit just because they cannot abuse wound allocation anymore then they clearly need to be fixed in some other manner.

Lets face, outside of the W2, nobs pretty much are a second rate unit. Poor initiative, average WS, average toughness, below average save (if you consider 3+ average), below average LD, they have 3 attacks base, which isn't bad but not amazing by today's standards. The fact they aren't a complete joke in today's game is because they have abnormally high survivability due to the multiple wounds and allocation games.

Having 3 attacks for a non MC non IC is actually really good.

Ulrig
07-01-2012, 00:55
He's saying that they shouldn't be a top tier unit solely because they have 2 wounds and different weapons. If they drop to a second rate unit just because they cannot abuse wound allocation anymore then they clearly need to be fixed in some other manner.

Lets face, outside of the W2, nobs pretty much are a second rate unit. Poor initiative, average WS, average toughness, below average save (if you consider 3+ average), below average LD, they have 3 attacks base, which isn't bad but not amazing by today's standards. The fact they aren't a complete joke in today's game is because they have abnormally high survivability due to the multiple wounds and allocation games.

Awesome, this coming from a guy who can run a dreadnaught with limitless attacks.

Please indulge me on how they can be fixed "in some other manner"

"2nd Rate"...clearly we have not played. It is just not the stats, its the stats and the options. Init 4, str 5 on a charge, WS 5 with Waagh Banner, Leadership 10, with re-rolls, (If you do not increase your ork leadership by one means or another...you are an idiot), 5++ invul and FNP, 3 attacks and any weapon.

...Yep...that looks 2nd tier to me

*sigh*

Now given what I just gave you there, runs a crap load of points...in an elite slot. So how easy do you want it to be to take this unit down to be "fair"

Carnage
07-01-2012, 02:21
Awesome, this coming from a guy who can run a dreadnaught with limitless attacks.

Really? A "Your opinion means nothing because you play a good army" insult? Really?

Please indulge me on how they can be fixed "in some other manner"

Off-hand? Natural WS5, a bump in toughness, fnp base, cheaper, better/cheaper weapon options...etc. Any of the above would help if wound allocation goes away.


"2nd Rate"...clearly we have not played. It is just not the stats, its the stats and the options. Init 4, str 5 on a charge, WS 5 with Waagh Banner, Leadership 10, with re-rolls, (If you do not increase your ork leadership by one means or another...you are an idiot), 5++ invul and FNP, 3 attacks and any weapon.

...Yep...that looks 2nd tier to me

*sigh*

Now given what I just gave you there, runs a crap load of points...in an elite slot. So how easy do you want it to be to take this unit down to be "fair"

Crap load of points indeed. You are looking at 40+ points a model before including a transport or bike for them. That's assault terminator territory.

Not really sure why we're arguing here, as we seems to agree that if wound allocation goes away it will severely hurt them. Nobs aren't exactly an unstoppable power house at the moment, and are at best a "good" unit. IF wound allocation is removed/changed, like i hope it will be, then they will be a marginal or bad choice. They will need more damage output or more survivability for their current points to make them good again.

Ulrig
07-01-2012, 02:42
Really? A "Your opinion means nothing because you play a good army" insult? Really?

Off-hand? Natural WS5, a bump in toughness, fnp base, cheaper, better/cheaper weapon options...etc. Any of the above would help if wound allocation goes away.



Crap load of points indeed. You are looking at 40+ points a model before including a transport or bike for them. That's assault terminator territory.

Not really sure why we're arguing here, as we seems to agree that if wound allocation goes away it will severely hurt them. Nobs aren't exactly an unstoppable power house at the moment, and are at best a "good" unit. IF wound allocation is removed/changed, like i hope it will be, then they will be a marginal or bad choice. They will need more damage output or more survivability for their current points to make them good again.

Sorry, after reading your last post I agree we should not be arguing. But It really rubbed me the wrong way when you said Nobs were an "OK" unit. In a nicely aging mid-teir codex they are my star players. There is literately nothing I will not charge into when a full unit is backed by Ghaz.

As far as improving them as you mentioned, yes you can do all those things. No it will not matter they will still fall way too quickly.

Scribe of Khorne
07-01-2012, 03:24
They will need more damage output or more survivability for their current points to make them good again.

Thats where you start to get into problem's.

Lets say you want to keep them as effective as a unit without the use of wound allocation as it stands.

Just think about it for a bit. Higher defensive effectiveness per model, as well as high offensive potential per model would be required. People bitch nonstop about codex creep on this forum, but you would HAVE to artificially inflate the stats of multi-wound models to match the unit effectiveness they currently have if you remove the wound allocation mechanism.

Either you accept the intent is for nobs/crushers/twolf/paladin/wraiths to be 'elite' in terms of resilience and therefore unit effectiveness, or you believe the designers are forgetting the rules of their own game, and how people use them in the real world and so continue to provide a means for people to keep those units effective after suffering a level of damage that would gut most units.

If you accept the intent is to keep then strong, and you dont want individual models to be out of line in terms of offensive or defensive power, then you must maintain some kind of mechanism for wound allocation that is favorable to the controlling player.

If you believe the current usage and resilience of those units (over years and several books :wtf:) is NOT the intent of the game designers, then you believe those units to be grossly overpowered (yet appropriately costed??) in the current setting, and that they will essentially be gutted come 6th without massive FAQ/Re-writes.

I know which scenario makes a ton more sense to me.

Okuto
07-01-2012, 05:56
Its one of those rules that didn't mean to be as distasteful as it is....

I do it...rarely as the bulk of my armies can't do it well.....simple because it's what's in the book....

Do I think it's a bad rule? Yep...slows the game down and makes a unit survive a insane amount of fire.....

But my banewolf with multi-melta doesn't care thankfully......you're all dying the same....

Scribe of Khorne
07-01-2012, 06:21
Its really that slow to say 'this guy, this guy, and this guy are wounded, rolling saves' and either roll them one at a time, or *gasp* use different dice?

I dont understand how its distasteful. You have guys, with multiple wounds. Maybe one gets hit, then maybe next round, another guy is hit! Makes so much sense its crazy.

Now, hiding wounds from high levels of wounds and just making them disappear? Yeah thats a bit harder to take on a conceptual level at first, and can be a bit counter intuitive, but its still not slow, or hard, we are rolling dice here people not coding software.

Okuto
07-01-2012, 06:31
It'd be alot faster just to remove whoever it in the line of fire....

In a usual game I play it's usually

Ok three dice on this guy...three on him....two on him...etc etc...
Ok roll for each guy....
Roll for next guy....rinse and repeat....
ok losses
NEXT!
I'm shooting again......
Repeat entire process.....

So yeah it's kinda slow.....generally most of the my club members just take off who ever they want....thats in the line of fire that is.....if that means Mr. missile launcher survive 9 wounds....so be it...I rather have that than the slow system we currently have.....

I only found it distasteful the first time my mixed foot nob squad soaked up an insane amount of damage.....well what found to be excesive shooting......also unintended it with my chaos termis...

Battleworthy Arts
07-01-2012, 06:33
Ive never actually seen wound allocation do more than negate a 3 or 4 wounds... but usually to the overall shredding of the target squad anyway.

Its sort of hinky, but has never seem to change the tide of any game I've personally seen.

EDIT: I do personally think it slows the game down. Roll to wound majority toughness, roll majority saves, let targeted player pick casualties.

Okuto
07-01-2012, 06:34
I got to save two nobs thanks to it who dragged themselves on a objective and win me the game....

hazmiter
07-01-2012, 07:40
Wound allocation gets insane on 1 wound models, today, 10 strong team of henchmen, 3 dca, 7 henchmen, 3 flamers. Shot flamers at abbaddon and 2 surviving terminators, ( abbaddon on 2 wounds by this point, he chased off a libby and gk termies. ) killed 1, charged in, dca wounded abbaddon twice and he failed saves and died, the attacks back killed the three flamers, and wound allocated 3 more to the dca who had done their job, 2 dca survive. The last terminator hit and did 2 wounds, so I chose the last 2 dca, another survived, then the warriors got their go. 12 attacks, most hit, 6 wounded, wiped squad. This was all after weakening them with gk terminators etc.

hazmiter
07-01-2012, 07:41
One wound models play hard if its an all or nothing against hq, deciding what to keep and kill is the hardest. Dunno how its relevant, but same goes to multi wound models I guess.

HalfBlood
07-01-2012, 18:27
I hope not this seems very hokey way of doing it and gives all the bonus to the shooter. In a lot of shooting phase you will get 2 or more wounds.

Oh I will allocate the wound to you*insert very good weapon* and it dies.

Why would I ever upgrade if I know they are going to be plucked off in the first turn.

My biggest pet peeve with GW is when they say design the game for the casual gamer and not the hardcore gamer. Sounds like a cop out for lazy playtesting

In this day of the internet everyone is going to know the hardcore army list so there is no secret about what works and what doesn't.

If they designed the rules with tourny in mind it befits everyone . The rules will be balance for both casual and hardcore tourny...but to me it sounds like a excuse for lazy play testing


I should been more specific. Once all models in a squad take a wound the shooter can allocate the 2nd wound.

Ex you have a squad of 5 space marine one searg and 1 melta. The shooter does 7 wounds therefore the controller of the marines puts a wound on each member. Then their are 2 wounds left these wounds are now placed by the shooter. The shooter would place 1 wound on the melta and 1 wound on the searg.

Sinnertje
07-01-2012, 18:34
The shooter would place 1 wound on the melta and 1 wound on the searg.

Hang on. Doesn't this just mean that there's a bigger chance of losing either your melta and/or your sgt?
They have to take 2 saves, and if they fail 1 save but make the other, it's still a dead space marine...? Why would you do that?
Confusing.. I just always give all my models 1 wound, and then randomly give the others one too... (okay maybe a bit in favour of certain wargear.)

Scribe of Khorne
07-01-2012, 18:35
I should been more specific. Once all models in a squad take a wound the shooter can allocate the 2nd wound.

Ex you have a squad of 5 space marine one searg and 1 melta. The shooter does 7 wounds therefore the controller of the marines puts a wound on each member. Then their are 2 wounds left these wounds are now placed by the shooter. The shooter would place 1 wound on the melta and 1 wound on the searg.

Yeah, I can see it happening, shooting is way too weak as it is.....oh wait...:o

madden
07-01-2012, 22:03
Try shooting down farsight with full bodyguard and max drones that's a lot of different groups considering the differing weapons/war gear they can have then mixed drones. It can be done but slows the whole game down creates a load of book keeping and really deters shooting them with any spec weapons.
(and yes it does cost a lot in points).

Rated_lexxx
07-01-2012, 22:33
Hang on. Doesn't this just mean that there's a bigger chance of losing either your melta and/or your sgt?
They have to take 2 saves, and if they fail 1 save but make the other, it's still a dead space marine...? Why would you do that?
Confusing.. I just always give all my models 1 wound, and then randomly give the others one too... (okay maybe a bit in favour of certain wargear.)

There has to be a balance of a chance to lose certin guys without the guarantee the will die first or guarntee to die last. The current system does a pretty good job of that. When it comes to multi wound modals are armed differently some people get annoyed

HalfBlood
07-01-2012, 23:02
Hang on. Doesn't this just mean that there's a bigger chance of losing either your melta and/or your sgt?
They have to take 2 saves, and if they fail 1 save but make the other, it's still a dead space marine...? Why would you do that?
Confusing.. I just always give all my models 1 wound, and then randomly give the others one too... (okay maybe a bit in favour of certain wargear.)


Yea but next edition changes that.

Now I have my computer i can explain it better(by typing more).


Ok Player One has 10 Space Marines. For the sake of this example we say the squad has 2 meltas and a searg

Lets say 11 AP 5 wounds are dealt to the squad, and 4 AP 3. Adds up to a total of 15 wounds dealt.


So now Player One chooses the first 10 wounds and how they would be placed. Obviously we will put the 4 AP3 wounds of regular marines. He then allocates 1 wound to every other member in the squad(who has not received a wound left, this includes the 1 searg, the 2 meltas, and 3 other regular marines. After this is done their are 5 wounds left. That havent been placed.

In this current edition the controller of the squad (Player One) gets to decide which models will receive an extra wound. He has 5 wounds to place, so strategically he will choose to give the 4 marines that received an AP3 wounds an additional wound, and then one poor marine will receive 2 wounds.

Next edition, these 5 wounds are placed by the shooter, therefore the shooter will place 1 of these wounds of the searg, and each melta. The other 2 wounds would be placed on marines with the AP5 wound.

The rule would say that once a entire squad has received a wound allocated by the controller, the shooter may allocate the rest of the wounds. (following the rule that no model can receive an additional wound untill all models in the squad have received equal wounds. Basically meaning the shooter can place the remaing wounds all on one model.

Egaeus
07-01-2012, 23:02
Ex you have a squad of 5 space marine one searg and 1 melta. The shooter does 7 wounds therefore the controller of the marines puts a wound on each member. Then their are 2 wounds left these wounds are now placed by the shooter. The shooter would place 1 wound on the melta and 1 wound on the searg.

Isn't this basically an expanded version of the "Torrent of Fire" rule from 4th? In 4th the shooter was only allowed to place a single wound if they did more wounds than the target has models...so now they would get to place all excess, or is it just one per two excess wounds (i.e. in the example given of the two wounds left the shooter would get to place one and the defender the other)?

The thing to me is that there is an intersection of rules that causes the issue...first you have "wound allocation", which, all by itself, can be "abused" in some ways (piling multiple low-AP wounds on a single model is the most common example) plus the rules for "multiwound models". It's all artificial game mechanics...GW could have made multiwound models hard core from the beginning had they allowed the defender to distribute wounds "as normal" and not require the removal of "whole models".

Part of the issue as I see it is that there is no good quick and easy way to determine which models in a unit are actually hit by attacks. So the distribution of wounds is inherently going to favor the attacker or the defender because someone gets to choose who takes them. What concerns me is that if they shift too far to the attackers side then what is the point of upgrading a sergeant or taking a special/heavy weapon if they are just going to be the first to die...unless one is hoping the unit doesn't get attacked or gets to shoot/assault first?

Demoulius
07-01-2012, 23:16
One of the few things that can effectivly deal with all these problems is a vindicator :evilgrin:

Paladins and nobz both disapear to it...If invul saves (if any) are failed ofcourse :p

And er... The shot doesent scatter :shifty:

Carnage
07-01-2012, 23:33
One of the few things that can effectivly deal with all these problems is a vindicator :evilgrin:

Paladins and nobz both disapear to it...If invul saves (if any) are failed ofcourse :p

And er... The shot doesent scatter :shifty:

We all know Vindicators aren't a viable unit for top end play...come on now.

Demoulius
08-01-2012, 00:37
Top end play? If your talking about tourney play only and a vindy isent "tourny" enough for you then yea, I wouldnt know how to deal with it either... Ignore it and/or game for a draw? :shifty:

Seriously its a tank that can deal with tanks and infantry, what do you find bad about it? :confused:

Carnage
08-01-2012, 01:52
Top end play? If your talking about tourney play only and a vindy isent "tourny" enough for you then yea, I wouldnt know how to deal with it either... Ignore it and/or game for a draw? :shifty:

Seriously its a tank that can deal with tanks and infantry, what do you find bad about it? :confused:

It's a 130+ point gun tank with 1 gun. Any roll on the damage table basically takes it out of the game, and with it's potentially damage (ya know, S10 AP2 large blast) and crumby range means it going to be in the thick of the action and typically eating a significant amount of fire power.

I use one in my BA army quite often, as the 12" move and fire is pretty sweet, but I realize it's more there to draw fire from important targets then to actually DO anything.

fluffstalker
08-01-2012, 09:11
I use two in my DG army....


But that's only cause if I want to stay heresy era/fluffy, I can't use oblits. Can't use lash either. Dangnation.

Chapters Unwritten
11-01-2012, 01:27
Ok Player One has 10 Space Marines. For the sake of this example we say the squad has 2 meltas and a searg

Lets say 11 AP 5 wounds are dealt to the squad, and 4 AP 3. Adds up to a total of 15 wounds dealt.

So now Player One chooses the first 10 wounds and how they would be placed. Obviously we will put the 4 AP3 wounds of regular marines. He then allocates 1 wound to every other member in the squad(who has not received a wound left, this includes the 1 searg, the 2 meltas, and 3 other regular marines. After this is done their are 5 wounds left. That havent been placed.

In this current edition the controller of the squad (Player One) gets to decide which models will receive an extra wound. He has 5 wounds to place, so strategically he will choose to give the 4 marines that received an AP3 wounds an additional wound, and then one poor marine will receive 2 wounds. Incorrect, at least in so far as that this will somehow benefit the current player being shot at. The 5 wounds he places still need to have saves rolled and the amount you fail will remove casualties. So by your example, he has 4 of them automatically dead, 7 to roll for which could kill more. 2 of which could be the meltas and one of which is the sergeant.


Next edition, these 5 wounds are placed by the shooter, therefore the shooter will place 1 of these wounds of the searg, and each melta. The other 2 wounds would be placed on marines with the AP5 wound. If you're trying to paraphrase the rumored rules you are incorrect here. The rumor is that every 5th wound of a weapon type, the shooter allocates, and otherwise it's 4th ed casualty removal. So your same example in 6th edition would be no placement of the AP3 wounds (you didn't do 5 of them, only 4), and of the remaining 7 wounds only one of them would be placed by the shooter. I personally think it is going to be a great system. I will miss multi wound models actually being intimidating and appropriately survivable, though. Without wound allocation, 5 Nobs is basically the same as 10 Boyz, and that doesn't sound right at all, does it? No, personally I just think they should have went ahead and made it so all multi wound models can do the "trick" for allocation. All of the things that have multiple wounds should be sufficiently more difficult to kill, after all.


The rule would say that once a entire squad has received a wound allocated by the controller, the shooter may allocate the rest of the wounds. (following the rule that no model can receive an additional wound untill all models in the squad have received equal wounds. Basically meaning the shooter can place the remaing wounds all on one model.While it would be nice to see high rate of fire weapons be worth more in general, let's keep in mind that this is basically the same as saying "the most dangerous guys test first on the second volley of wounds" because that is always what the opponent is going to want. You might as well not even ask them.