Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, the nob biker list, whilst legal under RAW is generally considered horrifically cheesy and about the best reason for getting rid of the current (and slightly complex) wound allocation rules.

But as that's not going to happen for at least the next 4 years, I started thinking about other complex units.

Take a Tau crisis team for example - you could quite cheerfully have different options amongst team members because target locks let you take a genuine multi-purpose unit that only gives up 1 KP whilst being able to split fire amongst different targets.

Would this be considered cheesy? Possibly not, but is that largely down to XV8's not being that hard to kill (certainly compared to Nob bikers!)?


So the question is, at what point does your unit design cross the line from being a 'genuine' complex unit to one which is designed to abuse the rules?

it happens at the time when people take different wargear for the sole purpose of using the wound allocation system to their advantage... sure for fluff reasons you can say the nob bikers don't carry the same gear... (why would they?!) but things become cheesey when you do this despite the RAI, as even mentioned in the RAW for the wound allocation to multiwound models!

With all due respect to those who bought and read "The Care and Feeding of Fluff-Bunnies", but it's a game. I advocate a healthy dose of reading the rules, and following them. Admittedly, sometimes that takes a bit of navel-gazing in the case of GW, but if it's legal, why further convolute the proceedings?

its legal, so i dont have any probs with it, allthough, i doubt i would do it, why spend extra points on gear you either dont want or dont need?

i'd be happy with:

biker klaw boss
biker painboy
biker nob with waaagh and klaw
2 biker klaw nobz
5 big chppa biker nobz

still annoying with wound allocation, but not as bad, and less time and points playing about with em.

Ammo runts for nobz squads.
Blacksun filters for crisis suits.
Basically, cheap stuff which you'll never use for its intended purpose.
That's the kind of thing I find cheesy, the whole 'Yeah, one battlesuit has a blacksun filter which I'll never use, just coz of the wound allocation rules'.

So if you're opponent is honest enough to admit that he designs units with rules mechanics in mind he's TFG.

What's the difference between this and any other rules based army build decision?

People who put power fists on models are just exploiting the vehicle penetration rules!!!!111

Are these 'cheese' arguments just 'bad rules design' arguments by proxy?

I admit it. I take bolters on my Marines to exploit the shooting rules.

Nob bikers are the one and seemingly ONLY game breaking application of the new wound allocation rules.

getting rid of the current (and slightly complex) wound allocation rules.

They aren't really complex at all..

Take a Tau crisis team for example - you could quite cheerfully have different options amongst team members because target locks let you take a genuine multi-purpose unit that only gives up 1 KP whilst being able to split fire amongst different targets.

Generally those units are covered in shield drones anyway, and shooting them down is hard enough as it is. I have a friend who utilizes different loadouts in his crisis teams, but he does it for added effectiveness of shooting and not to exploit the wound allocation rules. Either way crisis teams are fairly easy to kill in close combat, and are quite difficult to kill at range. There just aren't enough multi wound suits in a squad for it to really matter.


Nob bikers are essentially the only game breaking instance of these rules being exploited, and thats more due to poor unit design (troop elite ultrabikes with feel no pain!) than it is any weakness in the allocation system.

Though not nearly as powerful as individualizing multi-wound models, the concept works similarily for models like Wolf Guard Terminators, who for 1 point, can individualize by equiping a lone model with a wolf tail talisman who say already has a storm shield. Example:

WGT 1: TH, SS, WTT
WGT 2: TH, SS
WGT 2: TH, SS, Wolf Pelt (3 pts)
WGT 4: LC Pair, WTT
WGT 5: LC Pair

What does that actually accomplish though?

You don't need that many different models to exploit the rules.

Bloodcrushers do just fine with the full-set of upgrades.

One icon-bearer (the only really useful upgrade), one instrument (yeah, cause a unit of bloodcrushers is going to tie combat??), one rending guy (Ok, i supose this gives him a small chance to hurt a landraider, but, realistically, with a S5 power-weapon, he's already wounding when he rolls a '6', and a landraider is the only vehicle in the game that the rending makes a difference against).

I played my first game with these the other night. My unit of 8 crushers withstood 60 gauss-rifle shots and another 30 attacks from necrons, and lost only two models. That's not game-breaking?

One of the closest example to the Nobs in another army that I can think of are the tyranid warriors, but I have not seen any groundbreaking lists that have taken advantage of wound allocation for these units. The Nob Bikers are undoubtedly the unit that gets the most benefit from the new wound allocation rules.

ShumaGorath wrote:What does that actually accomplish though?

It increases the chance of having wasted wounds that can't roll over onto another model due to different gear.

All games have 'gamey' aspects, wound allocation is just one of them.

Was it realistic in fourth edition that the Vet Sgt with a powerfist was always the last marine to die in a unit? That was gamey in a different respect.

Wound allocation works for every unit that doesn't have multiple wounds and unique wargear, which is pretty much nobz and crisis suits.

My unit of 8 crushers withstood 60 gauss-rifle shots and another 30 attacks from necrons, and lost only two models. That's not game-breaking?

Not really. 60 shots, 40 hits, 13.3 wounds, 8.8 saves (they have a 3+ save right?) 4.4 lost wounds. Following that 30 attacks, 15 hits, 5 wounds, 3.33 saves 1.667 lost wounds.

~6 wounds. ~3 dead daemons. Volume of fire doesn't work on high toughness low armor save models.

Fiends of Slaneesh have 2 wounds each. Not sure what wargear they can get to individualize, but annoying just the same. They can't be insta-killed, have Inv save, and brutal when they charge, and they will (6" move, fleet, 12" charge).

Back to OP....

So going through any codex and finding something good and playing it is now considered "cheesy"?



This is human nature, fellas. Someone is going to do it regardless of opinions and stigma of being TFG. Think of it as a challenge to yourself to find ways of dealing with "Cheddar". I mean, what can you do?

wound allocation rules only do anything for multiple wound models, and it is borderline cheese, but oh well. I can live it as I think the new rules work well. Nothing will be perfect in a system this complex.

I actually like the wound allocation system... does that make me a bad person?


I mean the system works regardless of the size and makeup of the squad so long as you read the rules (and despite what people say about poor rules writing, it is a very clear part of the rules with a good example given)

Is it a cheesy part of the game? I don't think so and think it is a massive improvement on the old torrent of fire rules or the "ah forget it they all die" majority/minority saves weirdness of yesteryear

Only the nobz bikers seem to annoy people- but people are starting to understand and deploy counters to them (heavy flamers, tarpit units, or my personal fav... demolisher cannons) They are just one thing in the game, and like so many other "game-breaking" things people can and will develop counters (rhino-rush, drop-pod assualt, wraithlords, nidzilla, monoliths, landraider rush, deamonbomb etc...etc...)

It's also a double edged sword...

Take the Nobz Bikers. Before, you'd simply take a few redundant bodies with minimal, if any upgrades in case of shooting casualties, opting to remove these badboys first.

Now however, there is every chance it's the heavily armed ones which will get knackered first, so I fail to see the real problem?

Or am I missing something? Not meant cheekily, it's an honest statement here!

shuma, your math hammer there is fine, but thinking about it and how it "should" work doesent work.

dice roll argument; roll a die 6 times, now in theory there is an equal chance of each number, meaning you should be able to roll that dice 6 times and have a result of each number being rolled only once.
so theory is all well and good, but try it, its pretty much impossible to predict how dice will roll through %'s or fractions.
its all down to luck of the dice, its not unheard of for a single las shot to kill a landraider, or for it to miss 4 times in a row.
all down to luck, so math hammer is fine, but i rather not rely on something i have no control over

I love those arguments that there is no 'cheese' or 'beardy' abuses because the rules allow them to do it.

You know, you are legally and well with in your right allowed to be a total gakker and treat everyone you meet with absolute disregard to their well being and think only of yourself, and you can argue that you are legally allowed to be one and be completely right, but guess what....your still a gakker.

i agree with that padixon.

allthough, if that does happen to me (hasnt yet) ill make sure that unit is on the recieving end of 45 deffgunz

Wound allocation isn't all bad (uless your upgraded sergent equivilentd constantly fail saves like mine seem to).

As to Nob bikers, really are a threat on the table but so are many other things. I'm sure that down the road when the next wave of armies comes out there will be some killer unit that is really good. These usually take time to figure out how to beat its just nob bikers are... well curretnly the big bad boyz on the playground its only time before somebody kickes them out.

Ok, I have to admit that my knowledge of this whole, 'wound allocation' problem is either: beyond my understanding or I've just decided to ignore it. Now keep in mind I don't play tournaments and I only have one other guy I regularly play here in my town. I suppose we're still using the 3rd ed rules for this. Typically if either of us have wounds, we roll saves then remove the number of models of our choice from the squad that failed the save.

I know 5th ed doesn't play that way and you're suppose to allocate the wounds to models with like wargear first and continue until all wounds are allocated. What I don't understand is how things like Special Weapons are supposedly in more danger now. I guess if you actually remove the model a save was failed on that would endanger them more. Is this the issue? Maybe I need some remedial training.

JD21290 wrote:shuma, your math hammer there is fine, but thinking about it and how it "should" work doesent work.

dice roll argument; roll a die 6 times, now in theory there is an equal chance of each number, meaning you should be able to roll that dice 6 times and have a result of each number being rolled only once.
so theory is all well and good, but try it, its pretty much impossible to predict how dice will roll through %'s or fractions.
its all down to luck of the dice, its not unheard of for a single las shot to kill a landraider, or for it to miss 4 times in a row.
all down to luck, so math hammer is fine, but i rather not rely on something i have no control over

Actually the probability of the dice rolling as you described are extremely low... 1.5% if I've done the math right.

Ok, I just re-read the rules for 'wound allocation' and the fact you do remove the specific model that failed a save would definately make the chance of a Special Weapon or whatnot to be removed from play easier. The other thing I notice is this seems to only be a real issue when you have lots of fire from a single unit hitting a squad. This is obviously more prevalent given rapid firing but I still don't remember a time lately where I had to take say..more than 8 or so saves from firing. (No..I haven't played orcs much ) I'm also a player that tends to take full 10 man squads either for my CSM or DE Raider squads. Ofc the way I play my DE I try to prevent taking much fire on them if at all possible anyway.

By the same token I think the new rules are just as much a benefit since you can 'stack' a kill shot where you would like, making it do less damage to your squad as a whole. So good and bad really but I think it's fine tbh.

As far as the concern of the OP about where that line is drawn from a unit that is cheesy (by taking advantage of the new WA rules) and one that isn't...I don't really know. I think it really boils down to what becomes 'cheese' collectively from the gaming community. I know zero about orks or specifically Nob bikers but I'm sure there is way more at play there than just what the WA rules allow. I'd be guessing but I'd say they have something like T6? As far as points cost per bike...I'd guess...40 pts ea? If so they're going to be darned expensive. Given the way my CSM bikers tend to get slaughtered, I'm not so sure bikes are worth their points at even 33 pts ea. Don't even get me started on my DE bikers...

My current marine complex unit that holds up great do to the new wound alloc rules is as follows:

Drop pod (free for droping the packs on the assault marines)
5 Assault Marines ( sgt. with LC and SS, one marine with flamer)
Chaplin cassius (T6, 4+ inv, FNP)
Libby (with Gate and the S5 AP3 flame power)
Tech Marine with full harness(2+, flamer, PP, 2 PF attacks,)

I drop that near their best troop squad and let loose with the libby S5 AP3 flanmer then 3 more flamers and 3 boltpistols and a plasma pistol. Then watch as that draws the fire of pretty much the whole enemy army on their next shooting phase. Which is great because I get to dish out the wounds to guys with invulnerable saves, 2+ armour, multi wounds and FNP. And any thing extra goes to the bucket of three marines. Generally holds up real well and wastes the enemies turn. Then I go assault or pop tanks or if in assault just warp out and rejoin the rest of the army that rode across the board to rhino rush the rest of their army. The wound alloc of the new rules really lets you pull some cool bait tactics now.

If you are giving wargear to models just to exploit the wound allocation system, that's the point at which it becomes exploitative. When you design a unit to circumvent another rule or the spirit of another rule (such as removing whole multi-wound models first, etc) that's exploitative. And no, please, be real people, it's *not* like taking powerfists to exploit vehicle pen rules, a powerfist is an anti-big thing weapon, people always used them for anti-tank, they just became more effective. People did not always make sure each model was distinct so as to spread around wounds to avoid removing models.




Honestly, I never like the 5th ed would allocation rule. IT unfairly hurts too many units (CSM icon bearers, special/heavy weapon models, etc) for no real balance reason while having no or little effect on others (uniform units like gaunts, or nearly uniform units like Aspect Warriors) and is simply exploitative for others (nob bikers).

There really just doesn't seem to be any real upside to the rule, and it makes everything go so much slower.

Inquisitor Lords with full Retinues could be the ultimate screen...

Way to step up and take one for the team!!!