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.

Ok I have tried reading up on this to better understand the uber wound allocation you can get out of a nob squad for example. (Im wanting them, as I play Orks)
Im still not really getting it. Can someone enlighten me in depth how to do this? So I can make my Nobz even more bad ass then they already are. Thanks

simple ,wargear weapons armor. make different combos for all, then all are separate groups for rolling wounds



Automatically Appended Next Post:
, i mean armour saves

AFAIK, the reason to separate wargear is to give you different 'buckets' in which to distribute you wounds.

The rules state that a unit of multiple-wound models failing an save must remove a wounded model first before allocating a wound to a subsequent model. With different wargear on each model you can make it such that you can now place wounds on unwounded models before you have to remove a whole model. You can also assign ID wounds to models who already have a wound instead of having to remove an unwounded model for each ID wound.

Here are your examples of how helpful this can be:

5 Ogryns with 3 wounds each and identical wargear take 6 wounds, 2 of which are ID. Since you must remove whole models before wounded models and ID affects unwounded models before wounded models you would lose 2 Ogryns to the ID wounds, a further Ogryn would take 3 wounds and a 4th Ogryn would take 1 wound. You now have 2 Ogryns, one of which with 2 wounds.

5 Nobs with 2 wounds each and all different wargear (taking the same 6 wounds, 2 of which being ID) could assign the 2 ID wounds on one model and 4 wounds on the other 4 Nobs netting you a loss of a single model, and a wound on each Nob. 4 Remaining Nobs. If they had all the same gear you'd have 4 dead Nobs

The ID cheese only works if you have MORE wounds than the models in the unit. If you had 6 Nobs (assuming the same example shooting above) you would assign one ID to the first Nob, then the 4 regular wounds to 4 more Nobs, but then you would need to assign the second ID wound to the last nob and would result in 2 dead Nobs instead of just 1.

Hope that makes sense! (and I hope I'm right...)

DoW

And an example . . . we have three nobs

Nob 1, Nugrob, has a bike and a big choppa
Nob 2, Gora, has a bike and power klaw
Nob 3, Keith, has a bike and is a painboy

They are shot at by a space marine devistator squad (curse dem humies) They are hit by and wounded by krak missile, a lascannon shot and a plasma blast (hitting 2). Since the Krak missile and lascannon will cause instant death both wounds will be allocated to Nugrob, and the other 2 wounds are given to Gora and keath. (Since I like orks ...) They all manage to make their cover save and kill the Space marines next turn. If they hadn't the worst that could happen was they lost 1 guy and took 2 wounds.

DogOfWar wrote:The ID cheese only works if you have MORE wounds than the models in the unit.

Exactly, the silly thing with this is that enemies are sometimes better off if they don't shoot with all guns. A Devastator Squad with four Lascannons and six bolters will most likely kill more Nobz from a group of five if they only fire the Lascannons...

Eh, Nobs are easy to kill.

Your mom is easy to kill.

willydstyle wrote:Your mom is easy to kill.

There's a joke in here somewhere about rolling 2D6 for penetration... but I think I'm going to wisely give it a miss

DoW

I've got your AP1 in my pants.

willydstyle wrote:I've got your AP1 in my pants.

Thats hot.

Anyways, basically what everyone else said. Diff wargear means you roll wounds separate means that basically you can have 1 wound on everyone if they're kitted out differently. Albeit, however, STR 8 weps with low AP (battlecannons for example) would make this rule pretty moot anyway if you fail their invun lol

I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the title of this thread makes an incorrect assumption. The proper use of wound allocation is not cheese, or beard. Also, players who use this rule are not rules laywers, or powergamers. I dislike the use of those terms. When you resort to those terms simply because your opponent has bothered to understand the rules, you lower yourself as a player. I apologize if the OP was simply trying to gather attention to the thread. The proper use of wound allocation is part of the game, and is simply a rule to be followed.

Iboshi2 wrote:I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the title of this thread makes an incorrect assumption. The proper use of wound allocation is not cheese, or beard. Also, players who use this rule are not rules laywers, or powergamers. I dislike the use of those terms. When you resort to those terms simply because your opponent has bothered to understand the rules, you lower yourself as a player. I apologize if the OP was simply trying to gather attention to the thread. The proper use of wound allocation is part of the game, and is simply a rule to be followed.

Fair point.

I would still say the wound allocation system isn't perfect - since it can cause a vehicle like a LRBT to wish they could shoot less, owing to the fact that vehicles are required to shoot any and all weapons available (okay that's debatable, but still) - and that's not so much strategy as technicality in my book.

It's certainly an effective tactic - and I would not begrudge anyone using it to their advantage - but you've got to admit that tweaking your unit so that every multi-wound model is different for wound allocation is a little bit cheesy.

DoW

It really IS a tad bit cheesy. I had been playing with my nobs being pretty much the same. Mostly 2 or 3 wound groups instead of making them ALL different. But recently Ive noticed the "nob wound allocation cheesy" comment more and more adn thought wait a second, Im missing something here.


Thanks everyone that explained this in detail to me. I honestly understand it now, and will make my opponents hate my nobz further.

its cheesy, if only because it violates RAI, which the developers actually put into the rules.

they say "this rule is intended to stop you from removing wounded models with instant death wounds" or something like that, yet the rule is worded such that it really doesn't.

epic fail on the part of GW.

KingCracker wrote:It really IS a tad bit cheesy. I had been playing with my nobs being pretty much the same. Mostly 2 or 3 wound groups instead of making them ALL different. But recently Ive noticed the "nob wound allocation cheesy" comment more and more adn thought wait a second, Im missing something here.


Thanks everyone that explained this in detail to me. I honestly understand it now, and will make my opponents hate my nobz further.

People say it is, but I'd like to think (uh oh here it comes) that GW knew what they were doing when they wrote the rulebook, (ahhhhhhhhh!) and therefore it really should be there. With a unit like nobz, I'd say fluffwise, bountiful variation is not out of the ordinary.

I fight variation Nob squads one in a while. As a guard player, I don't fire my L.Russ at them, because the Manticore or Basilisk does a better job!

I suppose you guys are correct, I just dislike the terms. Sorry to rant.

No apology necessary, good sir! That's what the spirit of YMDC is all about. It's discussion and insight from multiple sources that ultimately helps you make decisions about how to play the game.

All is well on the internets!

DoW

Iboshi2 wrote:I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the title of this thread makes an incorrect assumption. The proper use of wound allocation is not cheese, or beard. Also, players who use this rule are not rules laywers, or powergamers. I dislike the use of those terms. When you resort to those terms simply because your opponent has bothered to understand the rules, you lower yourself as a player. I apologize if the OP was simply trying to gather attention to the thread. The proper use of wound allocation is part of the game, and is simply a rule to be followed.

The whole point of cheese is that it still falls within the rules, but is generally taking advantage of the functionality of them to create an extremely powerful <Army List/Unit/Character> etc.

For example take Pun-Pun of Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 edition. I won't bore you with the specifics of it all, but suffice it to say this Character has been designed entirely within the rule set of Dungeons and Dragons, such that at level 5 he can attain every spell in the game as a spell-like ability with an infinitely high caster level, every feat that is beneficial to him, immunity to weapon damage, natural invisibility, all energy immunities, immunity to almost any status changing effect such as polymorph or paralysis etc, he can also have every ability score (strength dexterity etc.) infinitely high.

There are no rules being broken, it's just that a method was found by which the rules could be taken advantage of to create an infinitely strong character, and that IS cheese. You aren't breaking the rules to be cheesy, or beardy, or a rules-lawyer, but regardless of if it falls within the rules or not, other players will often look down upon you for your choice of taking advantage of them.

edit: Additional Pun-Pun info for anyone who is interested.

Using the wound allocation system to place bigger hits on the same models thereby minimizing the number of dead models is NOT cheesy.
It is recommended by GW, in the rulebook, that you should do just that.

Combining it with the multi-wound squad rules is in itself not cheesy either. Nobody, at least to my knowledge, whines about Tyranid Warriors, Raveners and Crisis suits with different gear.

Are the rules really broken because we can find one (1) unit that can do this better than others?

Steelmage99 wrote:Using the wound allocation system to place bigger hits on the same models thereby minimizing the number of dead models is NOT cheesy.
It is recommended by GW, in the rulebook, that you should do just that.

Combining it with the multi-wound squad rules is in itself not cheesy either. Nobody, at least to my knowledge, whines about Tyranid Warriors, Raveners and Crisis suits with different gear.

Are the rules really broken because we can find one (1) unit that can do this better than others?

I'm not saying it's cheesy necessarily, just that the argument "it's in the rules so it's not cheesy" is entirely invalid.

Steelmage99 wrote:Using the wound allocation system to place bigger hits on the same models thereby minimizing the number of dead models is NOT cheesy.
It is recommended by GW, in the rulebook, that you should do just that.

Combining it with the multi-wound squad rules is in itself not cheesy either. Nobody, at least to my knowledge, whines about Tyranid Warriors, Raveners and Crisis suits with different gear.

Are the rules really broken because we can find one (1) unit that can do this better than others?

Cheese != Broken Rules.

Drunkspleen's post (directly above yours) does an excellent job of explaining the difference.

Now that I've had time to think about it, I guess I really don't have a problem with cheesy lists or tactics in a tournament setting - you're playing to win, after all - but I think it can be a little unnecessary if you are playing friendly games with your friends. Of course doing so doesn't make you a bad person in any stretch of the imagination (gotta practice for the GT sometime, right?) but unfortunately it does tend to sap the fun out of a friendly match quite quickly if your opponent isn't on the same wavelength.

DoW

It is more than just in the rules.

The example given by GW uses the wound allocation system to minimize casualties. They even go as far as pointing out that they are using the rules to minimize the number of casualties.

Note that I am not saying that 10 Nob Bikers with different gear is a particular nice thing to do to your opponent. I am merely pointing out that by GWs own admission using the system to minimize casualties is more than OK.....it is a smart thing to do.

Steelmage99 wrote:It is more than just in the rules.

The example given by GW uses the wound allocation system to minimize casualties. They even go as far as pointing out that they are using the rules to minimize the number of casualties.

Note that I am not saying that 10 Nob Bikers with different gear is a particular nice thing to do to your opponent. I am merely pointing out that by GWs own admission using the system to minimize casualties is more than OK.....it is a smart thing to do.

I disagree in the case of multiwound models because I think it was intended within the rules that forcing you to remove whole models where possible would actually be useful, but these units take advantage of the fact that occurs after wound allocation to prevent that rule from ever even coming into play.

Obviously what I believe the intention of the rule was is meaningless, and even in a friendly environment I wouldn't argue about it, although I might consider it unfriendly to pull out a Nob Biker list all of a sudden in a friendly match. But I personally believe that, maximising the number of model groups to nullify the effects of a certain rule in the book IS a bit cheesy.

And this goes back to cheese, nothing is inherently cheesy, it's entirely a function of environment, and personal perception. If you are playing in an environment where everyone is there specifically to win at any cost then nothing is cheese, because everyone knows what to expect. Similarly, there is no universal cheesy move, and people will often disagree, but it is worth noting what many people would consider cheesy. You might not consider a list to be cheese, but if say 80% of your potential opponents will think so, then the end result will be if you take that list and play, odds are your opponent will not enjoy/appreciate the game and will be less inclined to play you in the future.

I think that when that was written it was assumed that there was a trade-off, i.e. you'd take less casualties but be loosing a squad leader or a special weapon. Nobz make a mockery of this as they are essential interchangeable whilst being technically different.

It wouldn't be difficult to uncheese this.

If ID wounds are allocated first and groups containing models with a wound shoud be allocated to first then the problem would be solved. (no stacking multiple ID wounds on one or two models and no giving everyone a single wound before you remove a model).

I tend toward thinking the tactic to be cheesy.

When you start thinking about shooting half the guns on your tank to be more certain of killing more models in a unit, that's something that I think could be a clear case for breaking RAI. (Or, at least, as clear a case as we're likely to get without some coercion of the GW rules developers.)

Either way you look at it, cheesy or fair-use; it gives TFG one more tool.

Cheese is whatever the opponent is using.