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 am going to be the first to admit that I havn't actually seen many of the wound allocation 'tricks' coming up in actual game-play (see this article for what I am talking about), but the fact that so many people are talking about them sort of rankles me.

IMHO my proposed change will speed up games. However, I am really doing it to eliminate people trying to cram every single option they can into a squad just so they can overkill 1 guy and leave the rest of the squad fine.

The wound allocation rules for complex units wording could be changed to include
'allocate wounds from similar weapon types in groups'.

Most people don't abuse wound allocation rules. When they aren't abused they work fine. The issue really only comes up in tournaments when people are more motivated to be a TFG and abuse the rules.

The only real issue is when every model in the unit is different.

Secondly as JourneyPsycheOut says the only time its a problem is when you're at a tournament playing against a nobber, so theres no point making a house rule to fix it because any situation where it needs fixing you can't use house rules.

If you had to allocate wounds to previously wounded models, it'd be a step in the right direction.

Yeah, that thing about multi wound squads having to take whole casualties as possible is annoying to argue about.

but personally I find the whole idea of putting the allocation "tip" in there is stupid if it can't really be used.

So far as I am concerned, a simple clarification that the "remove whole models" rule trumps wound allocation is all that is needed.

Jackmojo wrote:So far as I am concerned, a simple clarification that the "remove whole models" rule trumps wound allocation is all that is needed.

This idea doesn't work in practice because you assign wounds to models BEFORE rolling armor saves, which means with a complex unit you often can't guarantee which group will actually end up being wounded. If you force players to put a wound that ignores a model's armor onto a previously wounded model, then you make taking a better armor save in a unit much less appealing.

For example, say I have a unit of Nobs, some with regular (6+ save) armor and some with heavy (4+ save) armor. One Nob with 6+ save armor is wounded from previous enemy shooting. Now, the Nobs get hit and wounded by a single Heavy Bolter (AP4) wound. With your proposed rule I now am not allowed to put that wound onto a model with the 4+ armor and have a chance to save it, instead I just have to kill off a lightly armored Nob.

Frankly, that's just as silly as some of the things that can occur with the current system.


The only system that would fix many of the issues without creating new issues is the following (these rules are resolved in order):


1) Any wound that has the potential to inflict instant death on at least one model in the unit must be allocated before other wounds.
2) Any wound that ignores the basic armor save of at least one model in the unit must be allocated before other wounds.


And that's it! What this rule does do is it makes players allocates those 'deadly' wounds first, which makes it much harder to stack all the deadly wounds onto one or two models. This means it is rarely not a good idea to fire your 'lesser' weapons (like bolters or lasguns) along with the heavy weapons.

The owning player still gets to choose where those deadly wounds are allocated so they can still put them on the models where they will do the least amount of damage, but again, the ability to dump all the 'deadly' wounds onto a few models is greatly reduced.

yakface wrote:
This idea doesn't work in practice because you assign wounds to models BEFORE rolling armor saves, which means with a complex unit you often can't guarantee which group will actually end up being wounded. If you force players to put a wound that ignores a model's armor onto a previously wounded model, then you make taking a better armor save in a unit much less appealing.

You are of course correct about the rules such as they are. I really just preferred the simplicity of the old 'torrent of fire' rules, and only needing to keep track of odd wounds on the unit rather then on each individual model. They were adequate for the level of abstraciton in the game.

I also have issues with the 'game-iness' of how the multi-wound model unit allocation can be abused by certain units.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:

yakface wrote:
This idea doesn't work in practice because you assign wounds to models BEFORE rolling armor saves, which means with a complex unit you often can't guarantee which group will actually end up being wounded. If you force players to put a wound that ignores a model's armor onto a previously wounded model, then you make taking a better armor save in a unit much less appealing.

You are of course correct about the rules such as they are. I really just preferred the simplicity of the old 'torrent of fire' rules, and only needing to keep track of odd wounds on the unit rather then on each individual model. They were adequate for the level opf abstraciton in the game.

I also have issues with the 'game-iness' of how the multi-wound model unit allocation can be abused by certain units.

Jack

I agree. There were several thing that they did with 4th edition that are much superior than the changes to 5th, such as the terrain and model sizes and those awesome charts that laid out exactly and concisely who could see to shoot, who could be seen, which models damage could be allocated to and so on. You do need some abstraction in a unit-based game, otherwise it takes too long.

A really radical 'out-there' idea for Wound Resolution is this:

(Assuming all one ToughnesS)

Unit gets hit.

Count hits, Roll To Wound

Owning player allocated one wound to each model in the unit, in whatever order or fashion he wants, ensuring that each model has taken one hit before any model takes a second or subsequent hit.

Take like-saves at the same time (all 3+, all 4+, etc.)

Player removes casualties in whatever order he sees fit, removing whole models

It's crazy I know, but I think that's the way they did it in the previous two editions and there was nothing wrong with it. It certainly didn't add more steps the game by making you allocate hits to each type of model in the unit separately.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's crazy I know, but I think that's the way they did it in the previous two editions and there was nothing wrong with it. It certainly didn't add more steps the game by making you allocate hits to each type of model in the unit separately.

So a space marine vet sarge doesn't risk being killed until his whole unit is dead but a Dire Avenger Exarch still gets picked out... doesn't sound all that fair to me.

Hymirl wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's crazy I know, but I think that's the way they did it in the previous two editions and there was nothing wrong with it. It certainly didn't add more steps the game by making you allocate hits to each type of model in the unit separately.

So a space marine vet sarge doesn't risk being killed until his whole unit is dead but a Dire Avenger Exarch still gets picked out... doesn't sound all that fair to me.

Who besides exarchs are affected though? Black templar squads? Inquisitors in a retinue? Independent characters placed in bizarre choices for units?

Maybe it's not perfect, but if the only problem it has is with a few very specific units it's a better system than the current one (which comes into play against 2/3 of the units in the game).

Or if you really want, have majority armor saves work like majority toughness. Now it's even easier.

yakface wrote:

Jackmojo wrote:So far as I am concerned, a simple clarification that the "remove whole models" rule trumps wound allocation is all that is needed.

This idea doesn't work in practice because you assign wounds to models BEFORE rolling armor saves, which means with a complex unit you often can't guarantee which group will actually end up being wounded. If you force players to put a wound that ignores a model's armor onto a previously wounded model, then you make taking a better armor save in a unit much less appealing.

For example, say I have a unit of Nobs, some with regular (6+ save) armor and some with heavy (4+ save) armor. One Nob with 6+ save armor is wounded from previous enemy shooting. Now, the Nobs get hit and wounded by a single Heavy Bolter (AP4) wound. With your proposed rule I now am not allowed to put that wound onto a model with the 4+ armor and have a chance to save it, instead I just have to kill off a lightly armored Nob.

Wouldn't AP4 ignore both nobs' armor saves?

I've brought this up before in a wound allocation thread, but I believe it bears repeating. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to roll all of the attacks, wounds and saves and determine the number of unsaved and unsavable wounds then roll to determine where they fall within the unit. Roll a die and count over that many, allocating a wound then continuing through at the same interval until all of the wounds have been allocated. No models would be removed until all wounds have been allocated, so some may be wasted, but to do otherwise would compromise the randomness of it. It's all up to the dice roll, so there is no loophole for anyone to abuse it.