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.

Okay so I've been out of the hobby for a few years and I picked up the AoBR box because my lil bro wants to start playing. Aside from misplacing about a hundred thousand points in emperors children and all my tau the only problem I am having is the wound allocation rule. I am used to rolling dice: to hit, to wound, to save. Now if I am correct my opponent is able to put wounds from the plasma canon, lascanon and heavy bolted wounds on as few models as he possibly can, when I get off a bunch of shots. It is like GW is saying here go ahead and cheat. Can anyone tell me what the purpose of this is for because now it seems that all my blastmaser shots are going to waste. It also seems to slog my games down from a little under two hours to almost double the time because every time we roll there is dice stacking and model pwning (at least a dozen marines are knocked over in this process. It just seams like now multiple heavy weapons are useless as all the wounds get stacked on one model.

It also seems to give an unfair advantage to thoose shoo do not understand the game as well as others. For example if I play against someone who has many more games under their belt (thats my PC for a rules lawyering Game Master) they will be able to exploit this to a greater degree than I seems the old system was.
Im not complaining just confused as to why this was implinented.

The only thing majorly different from wound allocation is mostly in regards to Complex Units. To some degree the majority of units are going to be complex simply because if you take any special weapons or an upgrade character the unit is now 'complex'.

There shouldn't be any wound stacking until all of the models in the unit have taken one wound, at this point if there are still wounds to allocate. The owning player still decides which model in the unit takes a specific wound. Once wounds are allocated, saves are taken. The example in the RB pg25 gets confusing when it uses that term 'spare wound'. In my mind I always group wounds by weapon type and in the example they placed the instant-kill before finishing placing the normal wounds. Personally, I think they did it to just make a point of minimizing the damage. Also, I've rarely seen a group of shots with that many wounds taken. I suppose if I played with or against orcs I'd see things like that more often.

Knowing the rules better has *always* been an advantage, in every game, ever.

The target is still limited by two main factors

Must allocate wounds evenly, so if you get 8 wounds on 4 models, each will get 2 wounds.

Models that are the same, roll their saves together.

So if those 4 models were all the same, it doesn't matter how the wounds get allocated, since all the saves will get rolled together.


In total, there are ways that this can have some weird situations; but spreading out the wounds can also lead to weird situations.

I think I understand where Griffsnog is coming from. I will lay an example down.

My Sisters of Battle squad fires at a Terminator Squad. I use DEvine Guidance to make all 6's count as AP 1 wounds. I manage to roll four 6's and 7 other normal wounds. So 11 wounds need to be allocated to 5 Termies.
Under the wound assignment rules, it does not state you need to assign all wounds of a specific type at once so the wound allocation could take place like this.

Termie 1 (Termie Captain) - AP1 W / AP1 W / AP1 W
Termie 2 - W / AP1 W
Termie 3 - W / W
Termie 4 - W / W
Termie 5 - W / W

So under the rules allocation, only 2 Models are in "real" danger by having to roll the Invulnerable save, while the other 3 get there much beter normal save, even though I have dealt 4 Dangerous AP1 wounds.

Does it seem a bit unfair...Sure, but it is the rules, and we play by the rules.

General_Drazz wrote:I think I understand where Griffsnog is coming from. I will lay an example down.

My Sisters of Battle squad fires at a Terminator Squad. I use DEvine Guidance to make all 6's count as AP 1 wounds. I manage to roll four 6's and 7 other normal wounds. So 11 wounds need to be allocated to 5 Termies.
Under the wound assignment rules, it does not state you need to assign all wounds of a specific type at once so the wound allocation could take place like this.

Termie 1 (Termie Captain) - AP1 W / AP1 W / AP1 W
Termie 2 - W / AP1 W
Termie 3 - W / W
Termie 4 - W / W
Termie 5 - W / W

So under the rules allocation, only 2 Models are in "real" danger by having to roll the Invulnerable save, while the other 3 get there much beter normal save, even though I have dealt 4 Dangerous AP1 wounds.

Does it seem a bit unfair...Sure, but it is the rules, and we play by the rules.

Yeah, I can see what you're getting at here...TBH, maybe I should think better about where I allocate my wounds from now on...

thank you General, that is a much better example than the one in the rulebook. I have mostly anal units of 6 due to my fluffy Emperor's Children so to me there is no such thing as a non-complex unit because of the champ and a mix of sonic/ standard equpiment.

So if I am interpreting this correctly the best thing to do is stack all the heavy wounds on as few models as possible to minimize losses. Does this also mean heavy weapon squads should not mix and match weapons but should stack the same one?

Griffsnog wrote:thank you General, that is a much better example than the one in the rulebook. I have mostly anal units of 6 due to my fluffy Emperor's Children so to me there is no such thing as a non-complex unit because of the champ and a mix of sonic/ standard equpiment.

So if I am interpreting this correctly the best thing to do is stack all the heavy wounds on as few models as possible to minimize losses. Does this also mean heavy weapon squads should not mix and match weapons but should stack the same one?

General's example may, or may not, be completely accurate - it all depends on the equipment of the terminators. If every terminator is equipped differently, it's correct. If (any of) Terminators 2-5 are identical, however, it isn't.

For complex units, do the following:
1) Identify how many "groups" you're dealing with. Each group is made up of identical models.
Example: a 6-man Noise Marine squad has a Champion, a Blastmaster, and 4 marines w/sonic blasters. That's 3 groups.

2) Allocate wounds across groups.
Example: The NM squad is hit by 5 plasma wounds and 11 lasgun wounds (deep striking Vets, oh no!). You must assign one wound per model in a group to every group, before you can begin "stacking". 16 wounds across a 6 model squad means everyone takes at least 2.

First pass (5 plasma, 11 lasgun remaining):
Aspiring Champ: 1x Lasgun wounds
Blastmaster Marine: 1x Lasgun wounds
4 Noise Marines: 4x Lasgun wounds

Second pass (5 plasma, 5 lasgun remaining):
Aspiring Champ: 2x Lasgun wounds
Blastmaster Marine: 2x Lasgun wounds
4 Noise Marines: 7x Lasgun wounds, 1x plasma wound

Final pass (4 plasma remaining)
Aspiring Champ: 2x Lasgun wounds
Blastmaster Marine: 2x Lasgun wounds
4 Noise Marines: 7x Lasgun wounds, 1x plasma wound and 4x plasma wounds

Alternatively, to preserve additional bodies, you could do this:
Aspiring Champ: 2x plasma wounds and 1 plasma wound
Blastmaster Marine: 2x plasma wounds and 1x lasgun wounds
4 Noise Marines: 8x Lasgun wounds and 2x lasgun wounds

As you can see, in either case, the Hardened Vets may have been better off not shooting the lasguns at all - 5 Noise Marines would be very dead if they hadn't. As-is, there's a good chance of at least 2 surviving.

The most commonly-abused use of the allocation rules involves Nob Bikers, where it is used to spread wounds across individually-armed Nobs, such that no single Nob takes a second wound, until all his buddies have been allocated at least one. As a bonus, the Warboss can soak up a couple of S8 wounds, preventing Nob instant death.


As to your questions:
First, there are two uses for wound allocation: to preserve body count (by stacking kill shots onto fewer models, or by spreading wounds around in a multiwound unit like Nobs); or to preserve a particular model (by allocating survivable hits to him, and kill shots to his buddies).

Second, the more individual groups you have in a unit, the easier it is to manipulate who survives. In a 10-man Dev squad, for example, using identical weapons means only 3 groups: the sgt, the heavies, and the grunts. Sticking in two types of weapons increases the number of groups to 4 (although it may not be otherwise tactically sound).

Thanks to all for confirming to me that my choice of sticking with fourth edition was the right one. (I have enough migraines as it is...)

There is the occasion when you're better off firing less guns than more. It is weird, but it happens. The examples cited above are good.

It's one 'gamey' aspect of fifth. There's others, but this is possibly the biggest. All games have some 'gamey' aspects that can be exploited to varying degrees.

While this may be viewed as stretching the rules to get an advantage, since both sides can use the same rules it should not have that large of an overall effect. If I am playing someone who is having trouble understanding this rule I make a point of pointing out to my opponent the various ways they can allocate the wounds. This helps them understand the rule and gives them the ability to make a "command decision" that will have a further effect on their armies capabilities.

I also am of the opinion that this rule functions exactly as GW intended. It limits insta-kill wounds , cuts down on the power of certain weapons and makes certain units a bit more survivable.

Hialmar wrote:While this may be viewed as stretching the rules to get an advantage, since both sides can use the same rules it should not have that large of an overall effect. If I am playing someone who is having trouble understanding this rule I make a point of pointing out to my opponent the various ways they can allocate the wounds. This helps them understand the rule and gives them the ability to make a "command decision" that will have a further effect on their armies capabilities.

I also am of the opinion that this rule functions exactly as GW intended. It limits insta-kill wounds , cuts down on the power of certain weapons and makes certain units a bit more survivable.

Relatively few armies can "stretch" wound allocation to the extent of, say, Orks. And I'm certain GW did not intend for the "Wound Allocation" rules to be used so as to prevent whole models from being removed.

The rules, however, are quite straightforward, once you work through them a time or two.

It seems that as a counterpoint to the breaking down of the models in the target unit into groups, each group of weapons should also be considered separately, to keep such things as plasma and meltagun wounds from being stacked on a single model. Anything that makes any of the weapons fire that you direct at a target pointless has got to be bad. Also, if every model in a unit is slightly different than all others, essentially you are rolling for each model separately, and so a great mass of fire is even more important in dealing with them.

warpcrafter wrote:It seems that as a counterpoint to the breaking down of the models in the target unit into groups, each group of weapons should also be considered separately, to keep such things as plasma and meltagun wounds from being stacked on a single model. Anything that makes any of the weapons fire that you direct at a target pointless has got to be bad. Also, if every model in a unit is slightly different than all others, essentially you are rolling for each model separately, and so a great mass of fire is even more important in dealing with them.

Why should low AP hits magically hit diffrent targets?
It wouldn't be more realistic.

I think the rules are fine now. It's often better to have identically armed models but the current rules give an advantage to diversity

FYI, per the rules, Instant Death! wounds MUST be allocated to an unwounded model, if possible, and are resolved FIRST, before all other lower power wounds. Don't let your opponents be running around your meltas and missles like this!

Rmeju

rmeju wrote:FYI, per the rules, Instant Death! wounds MUST be allocated to an unwounded model, if possible, and are resolved FIRST, before all other lower power wounds.

True when dealing with multiple-wound models in a group that are equipped the same. Not true when dealing with several groups of multi-wound models equipped differently.

This is not only highly abusive by Nob bikers, but what I can get away with with Tyranid Warriors is freaking ridiculous.

And Tau Commanders/Retinues

Im still confused but have to come back when I know to how to ask the right question.

Really, it's just a different abuse than what used to happen. What used to happen was that special models got to have magical protection against being removed as casualties until the rest of the squad was dead. Now those models have to take saves earlier and can be removed earlier.

It's a different kind of abuse, but that's the way the rules work.

I think the old system was a lot better. I don't mind having to kill 9 guys first to scratch the lascannon if it gets rid of Nob biker wound silliness.

SuperCow wrote:And Tau Commanders/Retinues

Difference is I can put 45 Tyranid Warriors on the table. I can do that for about 1400 points and they are effective.

How many Nob Bikers could you have in a list?

If you're going to specifically allocate any part of the attack resolution process, you really should start by plcing attacks, then dealing with them one model at a time. Anything else, and you get this mess.

Mattlov wrote:

SuperCow wrote:And Tau Commanders/Retinues

Difference is I can put 45 Tyranid Warriors on the table. I can do that for about 1400 points and they are effective.

How many Nob Bikers could you have in a list?

Technically, you can have 72 of them. But it to make them all different, makes for sub optimal broods. And using all warriors, makes for a sub optimal armies. So it all balances out.

Moz wrote:

rmeju wrote:FYI, per the rules, Instant Death! wounds MUST be allocated to an unwounded model, if possible, and are resolved FIRST, before all other lower power wounds.

True when dealing with multiple-wound models in a group that are equipped the same. Not true when dealing with several groups of multi-wound models equipped differently.

Several single-model groups is, I believe, more precise, as there can only be a wounded or an unwounded model.

I do not wish to highjack this thread but I have a question for you guys, too, so if I may:

Let's assume I have 1 unit of 3 multi-wound models and 2 groups. Unit gets shot at, single-model group (consisting of 1 model obviously) suffers a single wound. Unit gets shot at by another enemy and suffers yet another single wound. Am I now free to allocate it to whatever model I like or do I have to allocate it to the already wounded guy?

To be precise, I'm thinking of the Warboss accompanying Nob Bikers here. The first enemy shoots at them and they suffer one Lascannon wound, which the Warboss takes to prevent insta-gib. A second unit fires, and one more wound is dealt - does it have to go on the Warboss or not?

It's only when the attack becomes an unsaved wound that you are forced to apply it to an already wounded model, but you distribute attacks to groups before rolling for saves, as such, if you have a complex unit of multi wound models, you can allocate the saves such that the already wounded model is not forced to take one.

Its really all silly atm in fifth edition but it sure makes the game simpler.

Drunkspleen wrote:It's only when the attack becomes an unsaved wound that you are forced to apply it to an already wounded model, but you distribute attacks to groups before rolling for saves, as such, if you have a complex unit of multi wound models, you can allocate the saves such that the already wounded model is not forced to take one.

That's what I thought, thanks.