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.

Space Marine 7-man tactical squad

# wounds:

16 armor saves
6 power weapon wounds

By allocating one to each model he could do the following:

3 models with 3 armor saves each
1 model with 4 armor saves
3 models with two power weapon hits plus one armor save each

G

I have no idea what you are asking, if they were all basic bolter marines then no, however if there was a Sgt. and some special weps then yes.

Assume they are all just bolter carrying Marines.

G

then they are not a complex unit and models from the same group roll together, so 6 will die outright to Powerweps and that last guy needs to make 16 saves. you only get to "allocate" wounds in complex units. IE not the same wargear.

Then no. When assigning wounds, you assign the wounds to each model individually, but you roll the saves and check how many wounds have been taken for each set of identically-armed models.

Take the example above, and assume you failed three of the 16 regular saves. You'd have taken six 'unsaved' wounds due to AP and three due to just failing saves, which is nine wounds on those models. Therefore, they all die.

If one had been a sergeant (differently armed or with different stats), however, you could allocate three regular hits to him and the rest to the unit. If he passed all three saves, he would survive because no wounds were allocated to the "sergeant-style" set, no matter how many wounds the "bolter-style" set failed.

Thats a point. Not actually getting a save means not rolling for one.

Ergo, complex unit or not, 6 wounds have to be allocated first, and as one wound is enough to kill a standard Marine, and you cannot allocate to dead models, thats 6 lost to the Power Weapon (of your choosing though) and then the other saves doled to the survivor(s).

So no, not legal in the slightest. If it was, I'd allocate all 6 Power Weapon Wounds to just two troops.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Thats a point. Not actually getting a save means not rolling for one.

Ergo, complex unit or not, 6 wounds have to be allocated first, and as one wound is enough to kill a standard Marine, and you cannot allocate to dead models, thats 6 lost to the Power Weapon (of your choosing though) and then the other saves doled to the survivor(s).

So no, not legal in the slightest. If it was, I'd allocate all 6 Power Weapon Wounds to just two troops.

Not entirely true. You assign the wounds to model sets before taking into account the AP, and then roll by batches. So if, in the example above, there was a sergeant amongst the marines, it would be totally legal to assign four of the six power attacks to the sergeant and the remaining two, along with the sixteen normal hits, to the six marines. The number of hits on each model is as equal as possible, which is all that the rules care about.

... do you guys even read the Wound Allocation rules? Of course it is legal.

However, this does not mean that he will roll 3 dice for each marine. The marines die outright from power weapon wounds. Then you would roll the remaining armour saves as an aggregate.

Of note, the much better way to do this would be to allocate:
5 marines: 3 wounds each
1 marine: 3 p/w wounds + 1 reg wound
1 marine: 3 p/w wounds
2 marines die, 15 saves are taken.

stjohn70 wrote:... do you guys even read the Wound Allocation rules? Of course it is legal.

However, this does not mean that he will roll 3 dice for each marine. The marines die outright from power weapon wounds. Then you would roll the remaining armour saves as an aggregate.

Of note, the much better way to do this would be to allocate:
5 marines: 3 wounds each
1 marine: 3 p/w wounds + 1 reg wound
1 marine: 3 p/w wounds
2 marines die, 15 saves are taken.

If all 7 marines have the same equipment then it doesn't matter what wounds you assign to which model. Once you determine how many failed(and/or unsavable wounds) remain, you will remove the maximum number of models possible from that group.

... do you guys even read the Wound Allocation rules? Of course it is legal.

I would suggest YOU read the rules. Specifically Pg. 24 under "Remove Casualties"

...for each unsaved wound a model is removed from the table.

The fact (as has been stated here) that each Marine in te squad is the same makes wound allocation uneccessary.

6 Dead Marines, 16 saves to make for the last guy.

If they're all the same model, it doesn't matter. 6 dead and 16 armor saves.

While the 16 armor saves aren't technically all allocated on the seventh model in the unit - they are spread out among the 7 models - it ultimately doesn't matter as those models are the same. All 16 armor saves need to be passed for the 7th model to survive.

If there were six the same and one different, like with a sergeant, you can slap 4 power weapon attacks on the sergeant and two on the rest. 2 of the 6 would die, the sergeant would die, and 16 armor saves would need to be passed for the other four to live. The odds are still bad, yet it's still better.

Now, if it were 6 bolter marines and a sgt. then you would allocate things differently.

If I wanted to give my sgt the best possible chance to survive, I would assign the 6 PW and 13 regular wounds to the bolter marines and 3 to the sgt. This would mean that the 6 bolter marines are dead due to the pw attacks and I wouldn't need to bother rolling 17 armor saves. I would just have to roll the 3 for my sgt.

I could do the following but it's less optimal because I would have to make more armor saves to keep models alive. I could stack 4 PW attacks on the sgt., 2 PW and 16 armor saves on the bolter marines. this means that the sgt and two marines are dead and I have to take 16 armor saves. To keep at least one marine alive in this situation I'd have to make 13 if those 16 armor saves.

Bah, you're correct - I'm too used to there being "other" types... Sgt, Hvy weapon, spec weapon, etc.

My bad.

Now what if the same seven man tactical squad included a sergeant, plasma gunner and a Marine with a lascannon. Wounds taken are the same as before:

16 armor saves
6 power weapon wounds

Now would it be legal to allocate the wounds as follows:

3 models with 3 armor saves each
1 model with 4 armor saves
3 models with two power weapon hits plus one armor save each

G

Assign them in groups:
Group A (4 Tactical Marines)
Group B (Plasma Gunner)
Group C (Lascannon)
Group D (Sergeant)

There are 22 wounds to assign, so everyone has to have at least 3, with one available to assign where you wish.

Best way:
Group A gets all 6 PW wounds + 7 regular (takes care of extra wound)
Groups B, C, & D each get 3 regular wounds.

All 4 Tactical Marines die to PW wounds, and you need to make 3 saves for each of the three models. This gives you the best chance to have one a model left. Granted, any surviving models are going to lose the combat badly and possibly take more wounds if they get caught.

Alternately, to try to maintain the maximum number of models - but not caring about special weapons, put:
Group A gets 12 wounds
Group B gets 3 PW + 1 reg
Group C gets 3 PW
Group D gets 3 regular
... statistically, you'll still lose your squad, but you have the chance to have the fewest losses this way.

Alternately, to try to maintain the maximum number of models - but not caring about special weapons, put:
Group A gets 12 regular wounds
Group B gets 3 regular
Group C gets 2 PW & 1 regular
Group D gets 4 PW

Actually if you alotted like this it'd be more survivors.

More survivors but less chance to have the ones you want survive. Which is what st.john70 says in his post as well.

jwolf wrote:More survivors but less chance to have the ones you want survive. Which is what st.john70 says in his post as well.

Alternately, to try to maintain the maximum number of models - but not caring about special weapons, put:

The problem with all this is that the specific allocation needs to start with the to-hit rolls. Allocate the attacks to specific models and follow through. Anything else is asking for an argument, as this thread so plainly reveals. I would be willing to do it that way for regular battles, but they need something quicker for apocalypse.

No,no,no,no,no...

Read pg. 39. Allocation happens after wounds are rolled. As long as all of the stated wounds are at the same Initiative value you work them out as stated.

You may be thinking of allocating attacks to two units in multiple combats...which has no bearing on the topic at all.

Once you get used to it, its pretty quick.

Play a couple of games with a unit where every member is equipped differently, you'll quickly get the hang of it

I re-read and re-read the entry in the rulebook last night on wound allocation and complex units. While it doesn't say that you can do wound allocation this way, it also doesn't say that you can't. That said, this approach doesn't feel right.

The rule seems to imply that you apply wounds by placing a wound on each model in turn and then, in the case of spill over, cylcling back around to the first model and repeating the process--the implied order in this process making it such that all wounds from various sources would be applied in turn and not split up. The rule does not take the approach listed here, which is to divide the total number of wound by the number of models in the squad and assign dice accordingly. The difference is subtle, but I'm not sure that the rule anticipated models taking multiple power weapon wounds when other models aren't taking any. Additionally, applying the rule this way makes power weapons subject to rapidly diminishing returns in situation where the unit attacking has 1) a high number of attacks relative to models in the opposing unit, and 2) the opposing unit is excessively complex.

That said, this seems to me to be an overly-aggressive interpretation of the rule, and while not technically incorrect, it's probably likely to get FAQed at some point and brought into line with a more reasonable approach to its application.

Brice

BBeale wrote: Additionally, applying the rule this way makes power weapons subject to rapidly diminishing returns in situation where the unit attacking has 1) a high number of attacks relative to models in the opposing unit, and 2) the opposing unit is excessively complex.

Ergo the Tyranid rending nerf

Brice, could you give an example of how you would allocate wounds?

BBeale wrote:I re-read and re-read the entry in the rulebook last night on wound allocation and complex units. While it doesn't say that you can do wound allocation this way, it also doesn't say that you can't. That said, this approach doesn't feel right.

The rule seems to imply that you apply wounds by placing a wound on each model in turn and then, in the case of spill over, cylcling back around to the first model and repeating the process--the implied order in this process making it such that all wounds from various sources would be applied in turn and not split up. The rule does not take the approach listed here, which is to divide the total number of wound by the number of models in the squad and assign dice accordingly. The difference is subtle, but I'm not sure that the rule anticipated models taking multiple power weapon wounds when other models aren't taking any. Additionally, applying the rule this way makes power weapons subject to rapidly diminishing returns in situation where the unit attacking has 1) a high number of attacks relative to models in the opposing unit, and 2) the opposing unit is excessively complex.

That said, this seems to me to be an overly-aggressive interpretation of the rule, and while not technically incorrect, it's probably likely to get FAQed at some point and brought into line with a more reasonable approach to its application.

Brice

Yeah, if I read you right, I really don't see a diiference between your proposal and the divide and allocate crowd. For example, Lets say I have 3 marine models in a squad (3+ armour, no cover/invul) each with differnet wargear/weapons labeled A, B, and C. This squad gets wounded by 2 plasma shots if I cycle 5 bolter (all shots were fired by a single enemy unit).

Using the cycling method:
I put a plasma wound on A, then a bolter wound on B, then a bolter wound on C. I then cycle back to A, putting another plasma wound on A, another bolter wound on B, and another bolter wound on C. Lastly, I cycle back one more time and put the final bolter wound on model A.

Using the Division method:
I note that there are 7 wounds and 3 models. 3 goes into 7 twice with a remainder of 1. Therefore, I put 2 plasma wounds and a bolter wound on A, 2 bolter wounds on B, and 2 bolter wounds on C.

Either way, I get the same result

I think the difference in that way of doing it is saying that you can't stack the power weapon hits on the sargeant. You should be spreading them around.

gaylord500 wrote:I think the difference in that way of doing it is saying that you can't stack the power weapon hits on the sargeant

Isn't there a diagram in the BRB that does just that?

No, the diagram has a melta weapon wound (only one) if I recall correctly from looking it over last night.

By cycling as the rule book describes, I think it is anticipated that wounds are applied from each weapon type in turn, so in the 3 marine example the first two marines would each get a plasma weapon wound, with the remaining wounds distributed evenly--it would look something like this:

1 2 3
p p b
b b b
b

This approach also negates the deminished returns issue I discussed above.

I don't think that the rule anticipated the type of "clustering" described in this thread, if for no other reason than the issue of diminishing returns. My discomfort may just be a result of conventions from the previous rule sets, but I think that the rulebook anticipates like type wounds will be placed in turn through the process described in the rule, instead of the dvision process argued here.

Brice

There's no rule in that section that forces you to distribute AP wounds as evenly as possible, only that you distribute the actually number of wounds caused buy a unit as evenly as possible amongst your models.

Which is what I said to begin with. However, the rule never says that like-type wounds can be split up either. I certainly think the rule anticipates a more regimented approach towards wound distribution, which includes assigning like-type wounds together instead of separated by other wounds in an effort to place as many armor-negating wounds on a single model as possible. I think that this division approach is a strained interpretation and not likely to be intended.

Brice