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 while farting around at work today, I came up with a simple modification to the wound allocation rules that I think would remove everyone's gripes with the current system.

Why not let the attacking player decide whether or not to use the current unique model allocation, or to allocate based solely upon each model's best possible save (ie, a unique character, or a model with special armor or wargear that allows a better save, would still use their own allocation pool, and roll their own saves. The defender could then allocate the wounds as he saw fit (the normal 1 wound on everybody before doubling up would still apply), then roll his saves as normal, removing whole models when possible.

The benefit of waiving unique model allocation is obviously the removal of 'gamey' situations like a full unit of Nobs designed around exploiting the current wound allocation rules.

The drawbacks of opting out of the rules would be that the defender would be able to allocate wounds to all the models in his unit with the same best save value(for rolling purposes), so he would always be able to wound or remove lesser equipped models instead of stronger models, even when his unit is saturated(when every model in the unit has at least 1 save) with wounds.

This would obviously 'nerf' units that are able to spread wounds around(like Nobs) from a competitive standpoint, but I feel like it would bring wound allocation back in line with what it was (IMO) intended to do in the first place, prevent units from being artificially stronger than they should be, due to wargear shenanigans.

So what do you guys think? Too complex? Too overboard? I do want to make clear, I'm not attacking Nob Bikers(or any other variant of Nobs for that matter). I just feel that the current wound allocation system allows for some rather cheesy exploits from wargear selections, which is currently most prevalent in Nob squads. With that said, even with this addendum, I still think Nobs would be great units.

There's a simpler way.

Roll to hit.
Roll to wound.
Owning player assigns wounds to models that are both in range and within LOS of the firing unit (or killzone in the case of HTH).
Roll saves.
Remove casualties.

It worked that way for two editions. I don't see why it needs to be any more complex than that.

H.B.M.C. wrote:There's a simpler way.

Roll to hit.
Roll to wound.
Owning player assigns wounds to models that are both in range and within LOS of the firing unit (or killzone in the case of HTH).
Roll saves.
Remove casualties.

It worked that way for two editions. I don't see why it needs to be any more complex than that.

God no, only being able to kill 2-3 models would kill units like Dire Avengers, were you have a 2-3 inch sweet spot were you can shoot them and not get charged.

Wounds are fine as they are now, they are not complex and they are fair. Sure Nobs can allocate wounds distinctly but enough fire power will bring them down anyway.

On one turn they may not lose any models because they allocated the wounds to individual models. but the next turn they'll lose twice as much models.

Here's my suggestion:

In a unit of multi-wound models, you have to allocate wounds to previously wounded models.

That would prevent a Nob unit from taking 10 wounds and not losing a model. At 10 wounds, you'd lose 5 models.

But also mean that once a IC takes a single wound, he will be forced to recieve wounds over his troops.

I'd be ok with ICs still counting as a separate unit for wound allocation.

The problem is Nobs. Tau Suits can abuse it a little, but they're only 3-man units (with up to 6 single-wound drones attached), so the can't exploit it as much.

I think the concept of the rule is fine - the sergeant with the powerfist might not be the last man standing. But, I'd be okay with some torrent of fire rule as well. I like that there's some chance that the creamy center of the unit (the sgt with a powerfist and combi-weapon) can fall, but I don't like the result - Nobs.

dietrich wrote:Here's my suggestion:

In a unit of multi-wound models, you have to allocate wounds to previously wounded models.

That would prevent a Nob unit from taking 10 wounds and not losing a model. At 10 wounds, you'd lose 5 models.

Page 26 "Units of Multiple-Wound models"

Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible.
Wounds may not be 'spread' around to avoid removing models.

You can 'exploit' wound allocation by having models that are non-identical in the unit. So, if you have 10 models that are non-identical, you can spread the wounds around since they're not identical.

My proposal is just that you have to assign wounds to previously wounded non-identical models first.

I'm actually OK with the current rules, if applied in toto.

Allocate wounds model-by-model within the unit, allocating to already-wounded models first.

dietrich wrote:Here's my suggestion:

In a unit of multi-wound models, you have to allocate wounds to previously wounded models.

That would prevent a Nob unit from taking 10 wounds and not losing a model. At 10 wounds, you'd lose 5 models.

I like that addendum a lot Dietrich...It's very simple, and gets to the root of the issue with large, unique, multiwound units. It does still allow them to cheese out the first round of damage, but subsequent rounds are blunted.

I still think just being able to (as an attacker) waive unique model allocation (thus, allowing the defender to choose exactly where his wounds go BUT forcing him to remove whole models whenever possible) would work as well. Unless a saving throw is materially altered, there's no reason wounds should HAVE to be rolled for individually.

combo wrote:But also mean that once a IC takes a single wound, he will be forced to recieve wounds over his troops.

Not true, at least in close combat. In CC he's considered his own unit, in the shooting phase, there'd have to be an addendum for ICs, which would complicate the wording a little bit, unfortunately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm actually OK with the current rules, if applied in toto.

Allocate wounds model-by-model within the unit, allocating to already-wounded models first.

Actually you don't allocate to already wounded models first. That's how multwound squads are able to artificially spread wounds around.

No? Then how do you remove already-wounded models before unwounded models?

For Nobs, I thought the primary advantage was in the initial model-by-model wound allocation.

"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible.
Wounds may not be 'spread' around to avoid removing models."

The problem being that as Nobs can take different wargear, they count as non-identical and so the wounds are spread evenly. All it really needs is an FAQ clarification that includes Nobs in this rule explicitly, and that'd be fine.

Really all that is needed is a sentence clarifying/stateing/changing that the "must remove whole models" bit trumps the wound allocation rules.

Some thing like this:

Once wound allocation is complete and all saves have been made and casualties removed as normal, the controlling player must remove as casualties enough models, of his choice, so that there are as few remaining wounds as possible

Jack

I like current wound allocation. It encourages taking bigger units (which since MSU gives inherent strategic advantages is important) and I like the cinematic feeling that actually losing special weapon guys, sergeants, etc. gives to the game.

Deitrich's idea is a good one, though, and is simple, but I don't see GW adding it to the rules.

willydstyle wrote:I like current wound allocation. It encourages taking bigger units (which since MSU gives inherent strategic advantages is important) and I like the cinematic feeling that actually losing special weapon guys, sergeants, etc. gives to the game.

Deitrich's idea is a good one, though, and is simple, but I don't see GW adding it to the rules.

I always thought it was funny that my sergeants and special weapon troopers died last...

My problem with the current rules is the fact that it allows Crisis suits and such get to spread their wounds around so much. Seems like they should have to remove whole models before spreading wounds. Maybe take all of the same saves at once and then remove whole models? I don't know.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

willydstyle wrote:I like current wound allocation. It encourages taking bigger units (which since MSU gives inherent strategic advantages is important) and I like the cinematic feeling that actually losing special weapon guys, sergeants, etc. gives to the game.

Deitrich's idea is a good one, though, and is simple, but I don't see GW adding it to the rules.

I always thought it was funny that my sergeants and special weapon troopers died last...

My problem with the current rules is the fact that it allows Crisis suits and such get to spread their wounds around so much. Seems like they should have to remove whole models before spreading wounds. Maybe take all of the same saves at once and then remove whole models? I don't know.

Granted the wound system itself is highly abstracted, as the system already has a way to determine how difficult a target is to wound (toughness) and a way to abstract hits that didn't do enough damage to put a model out of action (the shot didn't wound), but IMO if there is a unit of particularly tough models, it would be more likely that multiple soldiers would recieve wounds too light to incapacitate before some of them start "dying."

Without the capability to "spread wounds around" then multiple wounds isn't really much of a bonus either, IMO, especially with the way that Instant Death works. In fact, the only unit that wound allocation seems really bad with is nob bikers, and I've always been of the opinion that it's the fact that they have every type of save in the game, plus FNP that makes them hard.

I guess it all depends on how much of a bonus you want multiple wounds to be. Probably because I play 2 MEQ armies, I wouldn't want nobs or crisis suits getting any better.

What you said makes sense. Not much I can say to the contrary.