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.

Just got to look at the book and this is for anyone who has also actually read it. Ok, wound allocation; you go through the squad placing wounds and then roll them in groups, no big deal. Here the problem I found today. A five man CSM squad with two special weapons and a champ takes 4 plasma wounds and 6 bolter wounds, thats 10 wounds every one has to take two. The two guys with bolters take two plas wounds each the special weapons and the champ get two bolter wounds each, meat wall dies and maybe something important dies, no problem there seems fine. Play out the same situation but don't fire the bolters, 4 plasma wounds have to kill four men out of the squad. So with the rules are they are written if your firing multiple low ap shots it actually pays not to fire your basic guns... Any one else see where I'm coming from here?

Yep, this has been discussed since the 5th edition PDF leaked. However I would strongly disagree with your assesment. IMHO, it is almost never a good idea to forgo firing your regular weapons in a unit except for in a very select few situations.

First off, this will *only* matter when a very small unit is taking a very high number of wounds. Most people seem to ignore that fact in their examples, as you did. What I mean is that in your example you say that the unit suffers 10 bolter wounds and 4 plasma wounds. There really aren't that many units in the game capable of putting that many wounds onto an enemy unit after rolling 'to hit' and 'to wound'.

Say the firing squad was BS4. . .in order to get 4 plasma wounds and 10 bolter wounds on a squad of 5 CSM the firing unit would generally have to be firing 6-7 plasma shots and 30 (!) bolter shots. What kind of unit besides perhaps a titan is going to kick out that much firepower?

Second, what you fail to mention in your example is that 10 saving throws against bolter shots are being wasted if you don't fire them. That equals 3-4 more failed armor saves and therefore potentially 3-4 more casualties on top of the two caused by the double-stacked plasma wounds.

Also, by firing that many shots you're guaranteeing that the champ and both the special weapon models in the unit are taking an armor save that if they fail, means they will be removed as a casualty.

If you just have the 4 plasma wounds, the opposing player is going to be able to just pull 3 regular models and one special weapon model.


The reality is, it is almost always better to fire all the weapons in your unit except if the enemy unit is extremely small (2-3 models), has a really great armor save (2+ save).

I agree with you 100%. The problem came up yesterday with my store owner when we were play testing and he fired a squad of 3 warwalkers into a squad of four chaos termies, and then got a bit ticked when his scatter lasers caused the three starcannon wounds to stack on one termy. I'm just trying to get a consencus on what the online community thinks about it before we discuss it further in the shop.

It does seem a bit awkward having heard what you've just said, but GW must have had a reason for doing it, you probably just have to hope players will play in the spirit of the game and not just 'win at all costs' (And yeh I know thats not likely to happen, but what else can you do)

That's absurd. Putting the starcannon wounds isn't playing to "win at all costs." It's simply opting not to shoot yourself in the foot. In 4th, do you consider it a mark of a WAAC mentality when a player chooses to remove a bolter Marine as a casualty instead of the lascannon?

depends, wether or not the opponent has many tanks left, i'd rather have a bolter if they don't. But again thats my opinion. And what I meant was the Enemy isn't likely to have fired all the shots at one person, I'd have fired all round with Starcannon shots if it was a real life situation

Missing the point. Point is, the current system has its own (rather obvious) tricks to removing casualties in the way least harmful to yourself. Obviously you don't consider this a mark of a WAAC mentality (you said it yourself: when a bolter's more useful in the current situation than a lascannon, you'd rather remove the lascannon) in 4th ed, so why should it be so in 5th?

Don't blame the player for the fact that the obvious best course of action is ridiculous in commonsense terms. Blame the designer who made it so.

Agree with TC. Even the PDF gave the example of putting two Plasma Gun wounds on one model to mitigate casualties. It's how GW has written the rules (with intent, no less).

Theres a very simple solution that we came up that makes sense, but no where in the rules does it say you must allocate in the following way. If you assigned wounds from one type of weapon at a time and resolved them all at once there would be no problem. I would assign all of the plasma wounds first, or second doesn't really matter, then assign all of the bolter wounds. That way the low ap weapons still do there job.
The response I keep getting on most forums is ,"How often is this kind of situation really going to come up?"
After thinking about it, with my army, quite a bit. As I tend to take 4-6 man chaos termy squads with 50% wound soaks and 2-3 differently equip troopers. Every time one of those squads get shot at by a squad designed to take heavy infantry down i.e. multiple low ap weapons and some massed fire, I now get a huge advantage unless they only fire there special weapons. I suppose it adds another layer of strategy but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

Game rules are game rules and real life has nothing to do with them no matter how much we would like it to. The purpose of that style of wound allocation was to down power the ability of heavy and special weapons. It was an intentional nerf. While I, myself, personaly, don't like the way it was done, a nerf has been a long time in comming and I'm glad one is here. I just wish it make more sense.

Play tested again, found another issue, rending close combat units. Harlies, stealers and deamonettes really get the shaft from the combination of the new wound allocation rules plus the rending nerf. The large number of attacks and the relative small number of rends means you can, in many cases, stack most to all rending wounds on one man in a small mixed squad. My six man Plague Marine squad with two specials and a champ survived ten harlies charging it, I'm feelin pretty good about stealers now too.

The more unique troopers you put into a heavy infantry squad the more survivable it becomes, which as a chaos player is great for me, Termies, Chosen and Havocs are even better then before, but I'm not sure its quite fair.

I agree that there does seem to be a trend with the newer codexes and rules to limit how large a factor the special weapons have in the game. Combine this with Troops as the scoring units, it almost seems to be steering folks towards buying more models....

Sarigar wrote:...... it almost seems to be steering folks towards buying more models....

Big surprise there.

Bit off topic but still dealing with 5th Ed wound allocation. What happens with Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon teams.

I have a team of six Guardsman forming three teams. Both members of each team I assume are "armed" with the heavy weapon. Do you allocate wounds per team? So six wounds = each team gets two wounds or each Guardsman gets one. If the model depicted as "firing" the heavy weapon fails his save and the other Guardsman doesn't, can I still pull the "loader" as both models are said to be armed with the Heavy?

Or because all Guardsman are armed similarly, do I just roll six wounds for the entire unit?

kadun wrote:Bit off topic but still dealing with 5th Ed wound allocation. What happens with Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon teams.

I have a team of six Guardsman forming three teams. Both members of each team I assume are "armed" with the heavy weapon. Do you allocate wounds per team? So six wounds = each team gets two wounds or each Guardsman gets one. If the model depicted as "firing" the heavy weapon fails his save and the other Guardsman doesn't, can I still pull the "loader" as both models are said to be armed with the Heavy?

Or because all Guardsman are armed similarly, do I just roll six wounds for the entire unit?

Hopefully this will be covered a bit in the IG 5th edition FAQ, but there's a good chance it won't, of course.


Per the codex entry both heavy weapon team members are armed the same: They have a lasgun and they both crew the heavy weapon.

That means per the 5th edition rules you would make saves for all of them as a group together and then the owning player would have the choice of which models to remove. Therefore you'd effectively have to kill 4 guys out of a heavy weapon squad before the first heavy weapon was removed.


At least that's my take on it. . .

yakface wrote:First off, this will *only* matter when a very small unit is taking a very high number of wounds. Most people seem to ignore that fact in their examples, as you did. What I mean is that in your example you say that the unit suffers 10 bolter wounds and 4 plasma wounds. There really aren't that many units in the game capable of putting that many wounds onto an enemy unit after rolling 'to hit' and 'to wound'.

Generally I agree... but if you were using a strategem that would allow for the unit to have re-rolls, say like in CoD you could see those kinds of results. Anyway, your point is there, these situations are not likely, so what the hell. Just wanted to throw that out there.

How does the new wound allocation rules affect the 'Shieldwall' special rule of Tyrant Guard.

It appears to me that the new wound allocation would virtually nullify the Shieldwall effect of the Tyrant Guard taking all the wounds until they are killed before the Tyrant itself is wounded, when more wounds than models are scored.

Would it be correct to say that if a unit of Hive Tyrant + 2 Tyrant Guard which takes 3 wounds (all from the same weapon), the wounds would be distributed among them as such... Tyrant, Guard, Guard (one wound each)? And then the models would roll for thier saves as normally allowed against the weapon.

Also does this happen the same for multiple multi-wound model units (say 4 Tyranid Warriors with 2 wounds each)? Would you end up with a situation where a unit has some models with only 1 wound left instead of removing whole models first?
Say 4 Tyranid Warriors take 2 wounds from the same weapon, placing the wound one each on two models... if they both fail the save you would now have a unit of 2 Warriors with 2 wounds and 2 Warriors with one wound each?

I suppose I am in essence asking... does the rule where 'you must remove WHOLE multi-wound models first' still exist in 5th edition?

Rockit wrote:How does the new wound allocation rules affect the 'Shieldwall' special rule of Tyrant Guard.

It appears to me that the new wound allocation would virtually nullify the Shieldwall effect of the Tyrant Guard taking all the wounds until they are killed before the Tyrant itself is wounded, when more wounds than models are scored.

Would it be correct to say that if a unit of Hive Tyrant + 2 Tyrant Guard which takes 3 wounds (all from the same weapon), the wounds would be distributed among them as such... Tyrant, Guard, Guard (one wound each)? And then the models would roll for thier saves as normally allowed against the weapon.

Also does this happen the same for multiple multi-wound model units (say 4 Tyranid Warriors with 2 wounds each)? Would you end up with a situation where a unit has some models with only 1 wound left instead of removing whole models first?
Say 4 Tyranid Warriors take 2 wounds from the same weapon, placing the wound one each on two models... if they both fail the save you would now have a unit of 2 Warriors with 2 wounds and 2 Warriors with one wound each?

I suppose I am in essence asking... does the rule where 'you must remove WHOLE multi-wound models first' still exist in 5th edition?

The Shieldwall doesn't do that now in 4th edition.

Currently the Tyrant/Tyrant Guard form a single unit and the Tyrant can't be picked out as a separate unit. There are no special rules saying that the Tyrant Guard take all the wounds before the Tyrant does and in fact if you take Extended Carapace on the Tyrant (thus invoking the mixed armor rules) the Tyrant *has* to have wounds allocated to him if the unit suffers at least as many wounds as there are models in the unit.


In 5th edition, this won't change much. The Tyrant and Tyrant Guard will form a single unit and the Shieldwall rule overrides the rulebook's base rule about Monstrous Creatures always being a valid shooting target even when joined to units.

Since the Tyrand and Tyrant Guard aren't identical in their stats and equipment they count as a 'complex unit' and you will allocate wounds evenly amongst the unit before taking any armor saves.

The end result will be very little change.


As for your question about removing whole models first: yes it still does exist, but it only pertains to groups of creatures with the same stats and equipment. So if one Tyrant Guard already has a wound then any further unsaved wounds allocated to the Tyrant Guard would have to go on the wounded model. But you'd still be able to allocate the lone wound on the Hive Tyrant instead if you wanted because he has different stats.

So yes, you can absolutely end up with situations of multiple models each with a wound provided they have different stats or equipment (like Tyranid Warriors with different weapons).

Storm Lord wrote:It does seem a bit awkward having heard what you've just said, but GW must have had a reason for doing it, you probably just have to hope players will play in the spirit of the game and not just 'win at all costs' (And yeh I know thats not likely to happen, but what else can you do)

Or it could be that they are trying to make more money by forcing people to get more stuff by creating luke warm rules by mashing Lotr and 2nd edition stuff.

Thanks for the clarification Yakface!

So we actually allocate the wounds to all the like models but when the save rolls are done, remove whole models first then assign left over wounds, still taking whole models where possible. Got it.

kittenslayer wrote:

Storm Lord wrote:It does seem a bit awkward having heard what you've just said, but GW must have had a reason for doing it, you probably just have to hope players will play in the spirit of the game and not just 'win at all costs' (And yeh I know thats not likely to happen, but what else can you do)

Or it could be that they are trying to make more money by forcing people to get more stuff by creating luke warm rules by mashing Lotr and 2nd edition stuff.

Don't demonize GW for trying to make money. They are a company and that's what they are supposed to do. But I agree that this rule is both cumbersome and unfair. But I think I'll be able to abuse it pretty hard. So I think I'll make a motion to my playing group to not use 5th Ed wound allocation in friendly fun games.

You know, it seems like it would be more effective to resolve wounds that ignore saves and wounds that don't seperatly. eg, you do the plasma wounds first, THEN you do the bolter wounds to maximize effect, instead of a couple troopers getting shot repeatedly with rounds that automatically kill them anyway.

~TS

TommyStriker wrote:You know, it seems like it would be more effective to resolve wounds that ignore saves and wounds that don't seperatly. eg, you do the plasma wounds first, THEN you do the bolter wounds to maximize effect, instead of a couple troopers getting shot repeatedly with rounds that automatically kill them anyway.

~TS

The way that would make sense in a 'bullets flying at the unit in general' kind of way... I HATE to say it...

Random hit allocation (roll once for each model & repeat until all hits have been applied). THEN roll to wound for each hit on each model. THEN roll to save (if applicable) for each wound on each affected model.

I am NOT saying I endorse or want this. I AM saying that in a tabletop game where you want shots randomly fired into a unit of possibly disparate composition by weapons of possibly disparate composition... this would be a fair way to do it.

my 2 cents.