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.

Problem: Diversified squads are more surviveable than they have any right to be (Only really problematic with multi-wound models)
Solution: Models in units will be classified in two types: Standard and non-standard. Standard is defined as the largest group of models that have identical wargear, nonstandard models are defined as models that do not fit into that description.
For example:
A space marine squad of 10 marines with a Melta and a Missile launcher.
The sergeant, the Melta marine, and the missile launcher marine are in the non-standard group. The Bolter Marines are in the Standard group.

Upon taking successful wounds the controlling player chooses which group takes the wounds, However, the opposing player (the player that caused the wounds) get to allocate the wounds.

So for example: The aformentioned marine squad takes 4 lasgun wounds and 1 melta wound.
The marine player chooses to allocate those wounds to the non-standard group.
The guard player allocated the melta wound to the Missile launcher marine, and 2 lasgun wounds to each of the other two.
Saves are taken and casualties are removed.
Now, if the marine player fails all 4 of his armor saves, he must remove 4 models of his choice, two of which must be the melta and the sergeant marine. This is to precent someone from just taking 1 special weapon and allocating 12 save-less wounds all to him.

IMO this accomplishes 2 things:
1.) It makes special weapon bearers slightly more protected.
2.) stop Nobs from playing musical wounds and stops everyone else from playing 2 wounds 1 casualty.
What I want this thread to accomplish:
Is this abusable? Could you use this rule to tip the game in your favor?
Is this balanced? Is anyone (besides nob bikers, boo hoo you have to remove 1 nob if you fail two 3+ and FNP saves)
Could this be worded in a much, much simpler way?

HI.
How about allocating one wound per model starting on the closest models ,When all models have had a wound allocated, repeat untill all wounds allocated?

Or is this too simple ?

TTFN
Lanrak.

The problem with this whole wound allocation mess is that it starts with the wounds. The best way to do it in my mind is like this.
Step#1: The attacker allocates all of the attacks that he is eligible to direct at the target unit, using different colored dice for special weapons, etc.
Step#2: Both players roll a D6. The player with the higher roll gets to reposition a number of attacks equal to the difference to other models within unit coherency distance.
Step #3: The attacks are resolved against the models that they end up on and those models suffer all wounds they have coming to them. If any of the attacks are template weapons, the initial model that the template is placed on is one of the attacks that may be repositioned, and then scatter is resolved and all models under the template are hit as usual.
It might take a bit longer, but it's the rules equivalent of WYSIWYG.

Don't fix/change anything! I'm still getting used to how things are now!

djphranq wrote:Don't fix/change anything! I'm still getting used to how things are now!

Which is precisely why they need to be fixed. If the rules were not so screwy, assimilating the new edition would be much quicker. When I first sat down to read the fifth edition rules, I lost count of the number of times I threw the book to the ground and exclaimed to myself "What were those idiots thinking!?!"

The system works fine, sure some units like Nob Bikers get incredibly survivable because of it, but they dont break the game, and every other "fix" ive heard suggested has caused more problems than it'd fix

Nob bikers are certainly more survivable, but still easy to kill. On the flip side, meta-game has shifted towards mechanized lists and....Orks don't know what melta means. There's balance even there.

To the OP; don't really like your idea. I believe that if it ain't broken, don't fix it. I'm not convinced that wound allocation is broken...although I do think that it would make more sense for templates to hit the models that are underneath them instead of wound allocation by the defending player.

Nob bikers are super survivable because they're T5 and have every type of save in the game, including FNP. The wound allocation is just icing on the cake.

IMO the current wound allocation is elegant and adds a welcome level of complexity.

Lanrak wrote:HI.
How about allocating one wound per model starting on the closest models ,When all models have had a wound allocated, repeat untill all wounds allocated?

Or is this too simple ?

TTFN
Lanrak.

That would work too I guess.

How about the owning player allocates wounds to any model he likes in the target unit as long as they are within LOS and Range of the shooting unit. Then the owning player takes all his saves at once, and then removes one casualty for every failed save, ensuring that casualties come from models that are within LOS & Range of the shooting unit.

Y'know, like it was before Jervis Edition 40K.

That way we don't have idiotic situations where a single guy can be seen and in range and the rest of his squad hiding behind a wall and out of range gets killed, or having specific members of the squad picked out. We also avoid messy rules-bending to give Nob Bikers (and similar units) unique wargear so you can play allocation games.

It will also speed things up. No more rolling saves for different model types - you just roll all your 3+ saves at once, and so on.

Now that's a system I like, It's nice and short, simple, and not abusable!

Yes, it was called 3rd and 4th Edition 40K. God only knows why Jervis felt the need to feth around with it...

Because using your own rhino to snipe special/heavy/sarge/ICs is lame.

willydstyle wrote:Because using your own rhino to snipe special/heavy/sarge/ICs is lame.

Eh?

I'll take that over having to allocate wounds to models out of LoS and range, and slowing down the game while I roll saves for different model types.

The old system worked fine. There was no reason to change it. The fact that these threads keep cropping up is just proof that the new system is junk, much like most of 5th's "improvements".

The new system doesn't slow down the game if you take the time to know it. You self-admittedly don't play 5th ed, so I don't think you're the best judge of what's working well with the edition or not.

H.B.M.C. wrote:How about the owning player allocates wounds to any model he likes in the target unit as long as they are within LOS and Range of the shooting unit. Then the owning player takes all his saves at once, and then removes one casualty for every failed save, ensuring that casualties come from models that are within LOS & Range of the shooting unit.

Y'know, like it was before Jervis Edition 40K.

That way we don't have idiotic situations where a single guy can be seen and in range and the rest of his squad hiding behind a wall and out of range gets killed, or having specific members of the squad picked out. We also avoid messy rules-bending to give Nob Bikers (and similar units) unique wargear so you can play allocation games.

It will also speed things up. No more rolling saves for different model types - you just roll all your 3+ saves at once, and so on.

I think the squad should be in the LOS, but it can hit as many as possible, starting from closest and moving back, because projectiles go farther than we might intend. so basically everything you just said w/out only hitting the ones in LOS.

I greatly prefer the new system, even with its flaws, to 3rd or 4th edition's range dancing and LoS sniping.

Hi.
I prefer the alternative method of using 'fire zones'.

These are determined by the 'squad leaders '(sergeants attached characters etc.)LOS.
Place the template ('X 'inch diameter,)within weapon range and LOS of the squad leader.(Template size depends on number of firing models.)
Centering it over the targeted models .(Just the models in LOS.)
Take casualties from the closest targeted models first.

But then most alternative are preferable to 40ks 20 year old ancient mechanics .IMO.

Dashofpepper wrote: I believe that if it ain't broken, don't fix it. I'm not convinced that wound allocation is broken...although I do think that it would make more sense for templates to hit the models that are underneath them instead of wound allocation by the defending player.

I don't particularly care, hence why I haven't appeared in the thread until now, but allow me to point something out: I was teaching a guy how wound allocation in 40k works, and at one point he outright LAUGHED because it seemed so stupid.

It had to do with the fact that a defending player can just stack all the hard hits on one guy, letting his other guys take the saves. As he pointed out "Why would the guy with the powerfist KEEP HITTING dead people?"

Your point of the template is another example of such strangeness.

What if we followed an adapted version of the old days? You fire on a unit, LOS, range, all that. Defending player must allocate them on the fired on model, or a model within 2" from the same unit. You must allocate a wound to every model in range before adding a second wound to any one, yada yada yada.
This represents bullets veering slightly, normal soldiers moving forward to protect special allies, and that one unlikely guy who stepped in the wrong spot.

Eh, it's easier or whatever...I'm not about to swap the system for something WAAAAY more complicated.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: I believe that if it ain't broken, don't fix it. I'm not convinced that wound allocation is broken...although I do think that it would make more sense for templates to hit the models that are underneath them instead of wound allocation by the defending player.

I don't particularly care, hence why I haven't appeared in the thread until now, but allow me to point something out: I was teaching a guy how wound allocation in 40k works, and at one point he outright LAUGHED because it seemed so stupid.

It had to do with the fact that a defending player can just stack all the hard hits on one guy, letting his other guys take the saves. As he pointed out "Why would the guy with the powerfist KEEP HITTING dead people?"

Your point of the template is another example of such strangeness.

What if we followed an adapted version of the old days? You fire on a unit, LOS, range, all that. Defending player must allocate them on the fired on model, or a model within 2" from the same unit. You must allocate a wound to every model in range before adding a second wound to any one, yada yada yada.
This represents bullets veering slightly, normal soldiers moving forward to protect special allies, and that one unlikely guy who stepped in the wrong spot.

because that was a rediculously slow method of doing things, plus would be open to huge abuse (Ie setting up your guys in a long line so only ever 3 models can be shot at. Woo all your anti infantry bladestorm killed 3 guys. Nice work)

Combo: I see your point, but I'd argue abusing the rules that way would lead to it's own problems.

If your unit is in that long of a line, any attack from the side could rip you apart.

Also, charging with that unit would mean you'd only ever get 4 or 5 guys in CC.

Lastly, It'd hurt your own fire power. If the guy at the end of the line is 8" further back from the enemy, he's probably not going to be able to hit.


And abuse like that occurs in today's game. I've seen gunline armies set up so the at the heavy weapons are in front of a single file line of normals, and the guy just picks off the end of the line, until he can't.

Lanrak wrote:Hi.
I prefer the alternative method of using 'fire zones'.

These are determined by the 'squad leaders '(sergeants attached characters etc.)LOS.
Place the template ('X 'inch diameter,)within weapon range and LOS of the squad leader.(Template size depends on number of firing models.)
Centering it over the targeted models .(Just the models in LOS.)
Take casualties from the closest targeted models first.

But then most alternative are preferable to 40ks 20 year old ancient mechanics .IMO.

Isn't that from the Starship troopers game? I believe that system was written by Andy Chambers. It's still around, in a WWII format but you don't hear much about it.

Hi Warpcrafter.
Yes thats one game that uses it.
It never ceases to amaze me how GW manage to take the simple game play of 40k, and write the most complicated counterintuitive ambiguos, and therfore abusable rules set possible!

( IMO, the SST rule set that Andy Chamber had written for 4th ed 40k , was a superior rule set.It was rejected by GW corperate managment because it did not lend itself to aiding marketing as well as the 3rd ed type rule sets. )


TTFN
Lanrak.