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, I read some pdf files about the new wound allocation rules. Let's say a unit of 10 space marines, including a sergeant and 2 HW take 10 shoota wounds. Then the player owning the space marines would have to allocate 1 wound to each model, including the specials/sergeant, and roll separate dices for those right? How about if a flamer template was to touch only the sergeant and those two with HW, can the player owning the models allocate those wounds to normal marines, or would he have to make the saves for only those directly under the template?

Using 5th ed shooting resolution rules you can remove a model from any part of the formation so long as just 1 model is within range of the weapon being fired.

Therefore, no more template sniping. If you're touching only the sergeant and wound, he can remove it from the back of the squad.

Likewise, if only the sergeant is in range and you shoot him with 30 wounds, the entire squad takes 3 wounds and has to make saves potentially wiping out 9 marines that weren't even within the danger zone.

You are correct in the wound allocation (from my understanding of the 5th edition rules)

But i don't think you roll the "separate dice" (i.e. roll saves one at a time)... i think you roll for groups of "Similarly Equipped" models?

Its my understanding that you'd roll three groups of dice in your example: 7 dice for the bolter marines, 2 dice for the HW marines, and one for the sarge

I don't have a copy of the 5th edition rules or PDFs but this brings up some other questions that might need answering

A. Do the wounds have to come from the groups that you saved for?
OR
B. Is this just for determining SAVES only and you can still pull CASUALTIES from anywhere after all the saves are taken?


also what happens if we modify the example and each marine took 2 wounds... If the sarge fails his 2 saves

C. Is he the ONLY marine that dies from those 2 failed saves (and one of those wounds is technically wasted?)
OR
D. 2 marines still die, but because of option B above being the correct ruling, its ANY 2 marines are pulled as casualties and the sarge may live on?

casualties come from the guys that make the saves... if the sarge fails 2 saves he dies... one wound simply evaporates away. If all seven saves on normal marines are failed, they all die and any extra go away

IMO, this is where the true nerf to rending and AP in general comes into play.

5 Marines (1 Flamer and 4 Bolters) suffer 20 wounds from Genestealers, 4 Rending and 16 Normal.

Flamer takes 4 Rending Hits.
Marine 2 - 5 each take 4 regular wounds.

So Marine 1 is a dead duck, 3 rending wounds evaporate.
The other four marines attempt 16 saves.

I think this would really encourage people to always include at least 1 model in a small elite squad that either has a different weapon or slightly different profile.

Wounds of the same type must be evenly distributed. So the flamer guy could take 1 rending wound then the Marines 2-5 would take 3 rending wounds. The 16 normal saves would have to be evenly distributed as well, the order is irrelevant.

No book in front of me to give you an exact wording unfortunately.

zmc wrote:Wounds of the same type must be evenly distributed. So the flamer guy could take 1 rending wound then the Marines 2-5 would take 3 rending wounds. The 16 normal saves would have to be evenly distributed as well, the order is irrelevant.

No book in front of me to give you an exact wording unfortunately.

I'm sorry, you are incorrect. If there are enough wounds inflicted on the unit it is entirely possible to dump all the 'special' wounds onto a single model. It is even demonstrated this way in the rulebook example for wound allocation.

Sraosa wrote:

So Marine 1 is a dead duck, 3 rending wounds evaporate.
The other four marines attempt 16 saves.

. . .and the other 4 marines promptly die from four failed saves. That's the problem with the examples that a lot of people throw up, in order to get all the rending hits onto a single model the unit has to take so many wounds that it is going to practically be wiped out anyway.

The truth is, you are right. There are highly circumstantial situations where tiny units with very high armor saves will actually suffer less wounds if the opponent inflicts enough 'standard' wounds along with those that ignore armor saves. But such situations only occur rarely and with great unpredictability and there are rules in place in v5 that also punish you for taking such small units (kill points).

In the end once you play some games I think you realize it isn't as potent an ability as you might first think it will be (at least that's been my experience).

There seems to be a bit of cat-and-mouse about the wound allocation rules.

Receivers want to take large squads so large amounts of wounds don't result in them losing their special weapons and characters.

Then again, they want to take small squads so they can pile multiple nasty AP2, power weapon etc. wounds on one guy, giving the rest saves. While the 4 rending, 16 normal hits example is a bit extreme, it's much more likely to be something like 2 plasma wounds and 4 bolter wounds - 4 guys take 1 each, the flamer takes two plasma wounds and your squad comes out less worse for wear.

Meanwhile the opponent is wanting to take large squads - to be able to cause a wound for every model in the enemy unit and start having the chance to take out enemy special weapons like a hole puncher, but you also want small units of special weapons so that you don't spread the wounds out too much and your nastier weapons get their full kill count.

yakface wrote:The truth is, you are right. There are highly circumstantial situations where tiny units with very high armor saves will actually suffer less wounds if the opponent inflicts enough 'standard' wounds along with those that ignore armor saves. But such situations only occur rarely and with great unpredictability and there are rules in place in v5 that also punish you for taking such small units (kill points).

I used to run 3 warwalkers with 3 scatter lasers and 3 star cannons. This configuration would lead to exactly the sort of thing shown here (maybe not quite as bad, but those star cannons would really be a waste). Guess its time to go with all scatter lasers.

yakface wrote:
. . .and the other 4 marines promptly die from four failed saves.

Obviously you have not been practicing rolling armor saves in your spare time like you should!

I agree with you about how this ends up working in game. In general I find it really makes volume of fire more important to have in single units. Assigning wounds before saves means that having 10 marines rapid firing at once is better by far than having 5 marines firing in two sets. So having larger squads would seem to be generally better for units with out a great deal of special weaponry to balance out the wounds (ie. firewarriors, maybe Sisters, but not marines.)
On the defensive side, it seems that having larger squads is only good if the troops themselves are less expensive than their special weapons. At least that seems to be the main concern. Smaller squads allow more wasted wounds as stated, but larger squads ensure more survivable special weapons.

I think there are other issues that affect the consideration as well, such as assaults not allowing consolidation, which favors smaller units that die quickly, leaving the assaulter to take it in the face in the next shooting phase. Over all, there is probably a good bit of analysis to be done.