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.

Wanted a sanity check on something I noticed in the 5th Edition rules.

Let's say you've got 5 Marines, getting shot. They take 3 wounds from Lasguns, and 2 from a Plasma Gun.

Each wound must be allocated to one Marine, and then saves taken. Can't save against the Plasma gun, everyone else gets a save. End result, 3 dead Marines, on average.

Now let's say the same squad had actually taken 4 wounds from Lasguns, and 2 from a Plasma Gun.

You have one extra wound to allocate. So, you put two wounds from the Plasma Gun on the same Marine, and the remaining 4 Lasgun wounds on other Marines. End result, 2.33 dead Marines, on average.

It would appear that you can actually lose FEWER models as a result of taking MORE wounds.

Stupid?

Seems like this benefits armies that do their killing with large volumes of poor AP fire. It makes it harder to kill off entire units, but easier to kill higher value individuals in the unit. Makes me think I should finish painting my Tyranids...

You are correct, that is indeed the way it works.

Phryxis wrote:

Seems like this benefits armies that do their killing with large volumes of poor AP fire. It makes it harder to kill off entire units, but easier to kill higher value individuals in the unit. Makes me think I should finish painting my Tyranids...

This was something I noticed while playing my first 5th ed game the other day. I took an experimental BA list (All JP's) against my friend's Tau, and his massive volume of shooting invariably left my units without any specialised models by the time I got close enough to assault. Granted this BA list was my first (ever), and coupled with my first 5th ed game the results may have been flawed, but he killed my whole army. Every. Single. Model.

Edit: Nevermind.

Lordhat wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

Seems like this benefits armies that do their killing with large volumes of poor AP fire. It makes it harder to kill off entire units, but easier to kill higher value individuals in the unit. Makes me think I should finish painting my Tyranids...

This was something I noticed while playing my first 5th ed game the other day. I took an experimental BA list (All JP's) against my friend's Tau, and his massive volume of shooting invariably left my units without any specialised models by the time I got close enough to assault. Granted this BA list was my first (ever), and coupled with my first 5th ed game the results may have been flawed, but he killed my whole army. Every. Single. Model.

You don't want all JPs.... Get some Rhinos in there too... overcharged engines is the way to go S8 RAMS BABY! As well as blocking sight to key units. I never leave home without at least 2 Rhinos

Be nice if a FAQ stating that you reslove unsaveable (high AP) results first, remove models; then resolve all other wounds requiring saves. That would be a good house rule and give TFG one less thing to cheese about.

That would make a some sense, but then again this is GW rules-writing we're talking about.

p.26 BITCHEZ!!!!

That only applies to mulit-wound models and Instant Death (no saveable wounds). They'll still need to FAQ it and fast. Heck, the example on p. 25 shows how to do that cheese manouver if you're hit by enough firepower.

Because it DOES only apply to multi-wound models. because in any other case a failed save has the same effect as an ID wep. Hence the example on p.25 using that "tactic" since in the case of units with only 1 wound models in them, it makes no difference in the str of the attack, since it only can cause 1 wound anyways. 1 wound from a plasma gun and 1 wound from a meltagun have the same effect... 1 dead marine.

Note also that ID isn't the same as being wounded by a weapon you don't get a save against.

Regardless what the rules say about ID wounds, they don't prevent you from assigning multiple unsavable wounds to a single model.

They also don't prevent the silly situation where getting shot MORE can actually save lives in the unit.

We had this discussion AT LENGTH in my local store...you've got it correct, conditionally.

The only way you can stack those plasma hits on the same marine to rob someone of their kills is if its a seperate "batch" of saves, such as a vet sargeant or special weapons trooper. If you've got nothing but basic marines, it will be two plasma kills and nothing you can do about it.

There's a clause in the rules that people (myself included) are overlooking. Whenever a unit fails a save, OR SUFFERS A WOUND WHERE NO SAVE CAN BE ATTEMPTED, a model is removed. This is how we've interpreted it, and when you're staring at the rules, it can get friggin' confusing...so stay with me here.

Your example

five marines-(M), 4 lasgun-(L), 2 plasma-(P)

You CAN distribute the hits this way.

M-P,L
M-P
M-L
M-L
M-L

...losing two marines automatically and rolling saves for three, but WAIT, youve read the rulebook, lets try this instead to minimise the plasma casualties....

M-P,P
M-L
M-L
M-L
M-L

...I just stacked my plasma...saving me a marine, right? Wrong. The rulebook states on pg 24 a unit suffers an unsaved wound and a model must be removed for every wound where a save is not allowed. These are all basic marines and two unsaved wounds have been suffered...you STILL lose two marines. BUT WAIT....

....You realise that one of the marines is a vet sargeant-(V), lets see if it works now....

V-P,P
M-L
M-L
M-L
M-L

....YES, your ploy to save a wound actually works this time. When the rules on "batches" are considered the veteran is essetially a seperate 'unit' within the unit. Wounds on this type of model wont bleed over.

....at least thats how we've interpreted it. Sort of confusing really and wound'nt be surprised if the next poster comes on and totally proves me wrong.

I beleive this is the correct interpretation of the wound allocation rules however.

But the rules presented on page 24 doesn't apply to the squad in the example. The squad in the example is a Complex Unit (ie the models are not identical in gamings terms).

The rules on page 25 (Complex Units) are used instead. And no restrictions are mentioned on how you apply those wounds (besides "1 on each before lapping around"). Right?

Le Grognard wrote:That only applies to mulit-wound models and Instant Death (no saveable wounds). They'll still need to FAQ it and fast. Heck, the example on p. 25 shows how to do that cheese manouver if you're hit by enough firepower.

That's just it, it's not a "cheese manuover" and they even put the example in the rulebook to let everyone know it is okay to do.

The rule is what it is and everyone has access to the same casualty rules. It is a small price to pay IMHO to have a easier to understand casualty removal system that doesn't require loads of special rules for odd situations.

The problem with your previous suggestion:

Be nice if a FAQ stating that you reslove unsaveable (high AP) results first, remove models; then resolve all other wounds requiring saves. That would be a good house rule and give TFG one less thing to cheese about.

Is that it starts to have issues as soon as you have models with differing saves and/or a model with an invulnerable save. Not to mention all the cover saves units get to take!

IMHO, the rule is fine the way it is. It creates an odd situation every now and then but as long as you know what the rule is ahead of time and know that both you and your opponent get to use it, it really isn't a big deal.

I agree with Deadshine1.

The rules clearly state that you roll batches for "identical" minis in your unit - not INDIVIDUAL minis.

So if you stack two plasma wounds onto the one bolter dude, you still loose two marines (provided you've got one more marine that has the same stat line and equipment as the dude you put the wounds on).

The cheeze comes into it when you're talking about Crisis suits, Nid Warriors or Ork Noobs where each member of the unit has different wargear.

Meep357 wrote:

The cheeze comes into it when you're talking about Crisis suits, Nid Warriors or Ork Noobs where each member of the unit has different wargear.

Multi-wound units that have the ability to take many models with different stats/equipment are pretty rare by overall game standards (Tyranid Warriors, Nob mobs, and Crisis suit units are the main offenders).

Personally I think having these rare units have an advantage is a small price to pay to have one basic set of casualty removal rules that applies to all units.

And while the advantage is that the wounds get spread around instead of killing of a model whenever possible, the negative is that you can accidentally end up losing a model with a particular weapon/ability. Say you put a wound on a model to spread the wounds around to avoid losing a model, but then the unit gets hit by a bunch of wounds that force you to allocate one wound to every model. Now you're left up to the fickle gods of luck to decide which of your specialty models are going to die and which are going to live.

So while this 'tactic' is undeniably useful, it does indeed carry with it some drawbacks.

yakface wrote:So while this 'tactic' is undeniably useful, it does indeed carry with it some drawbacks.

I certainly agree there Yak (people are all ready crying Cheeze over the tactic because they only see the advantage, not the drawbacks).

I was mearly sighting an example where wound stacking was possible to limit casualties.

Most people don't realize that the wound allocation system is almost identical to the old system, just that the old system only took effect when there were more wounds than models in the unit, not more wounds than "average joe" models in the unit.

As for stacking plasma hits, from my very shallow understanding of the rule, I think it's allowed. I haven't looked into it, but I just read it over once or twice, and I don't plan on dissecting the rule quite yet.