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.

Jidmah wrote:
Agree. As ork player almost never leaving home without nobz, both rolling their saves and keeping track of their wounds is a pain in the rear armor, especially if I forgot to bring a pen. I don't have an easy fix though, if you drop wound allocation altogether, specialist models become invincible again, any other sort of random allocation isn't any faster than it is now. With the leaked rule "patching up" rule, at least tracking wounds is going to get easier.

The allocation method that ends up getting used will inevitably work in the favor of some tactic or another. Dropping allocation while making no other changes would tend to favor the approach of putting expensive special models in cheap units, yes. The way we do it now takes longer, requires more tracking, has additional abuses and still tends to leave the most valuable members of the squad for last. Given that most armies, crucially including Space Marines, rely on a select few models in a unit doing a greater share of the heavy lifting I expect that whatever method ends up getting used in the future won't disfavor it.

If the sort of range sniping that has been rumored comes in then a model's identity would no longer affect allocation since such matters would be determined by position. That has the potential to be done fast, if nothing else.

The thing is wound allocation shenanigans were a byproduct of games workshop trying to fix a 4th edition problem. The unkillable segeant or heavy weapon guy. Back then you would just never take saves on that guy always removing other models until he was the last man standing.

I can't state in words how frustrating that was combined with ATSKNF. A single guy with a lascannon who constantly falls back, regroups, and blows something up.

Now at least that guy is forced to make saves. Even if you can wounds stack the ID hits its a bit better now. Its the multi-wound guys with a different 5pt piece of wargear that ruin the spirit of the rule change.

Maybe specialist units like that shouldn't be given a ton of wargear upgrades. Make them like obliterators where they all come with a bunch of stuff but are all the same allocation wise.

Kevlar wrote:Its the multi-wound guys with a different 5pt piece of wargear that ruin the spirit of the rule change.

Spirit of the rule?
You mean using the exact tactic that is spelled out when explaining the wound allocation rules?

Nothing is getting ruined, people are just offended (for some reason) by units being able to spread wounds around.

rigeld2 wrote:Nothing is getting ruined, people are just offended (for some reason) by units being able to spread wounds around.

For some reason? Are you being willfully ignorant, or did you just not bother reading what other people have written in this thread? Nobody is arguing against the principle of fairly spreading out damage, they're arguing that the actual rule as enacted in 5th ed is itself a bad rule.

Kevlar wrote:The thing is wound allocation shenanigans were a byproduct of games workshop trying to fix a 4th edition problem. The unkillable segeant or heavy weapon guy. Back then you would just never take saves on that guy always removing other models until he was the last man standing.

I can't state in words how frustrating that was combined with ATSKNF. A single guy with a lascannon who constantly falls back, regroups, and blows something up.

Now at least that guy is forced to make saves.

Now if you're hitting that unit with mixed AP weapons however, a lot of the time where the entire unit would have died last edition, those special weapon guys stick around. In many ways, the unit is a whole is more durable, while more uniform units (such as say, Fire Dragons or Gaunts) don't get to game allocation.

It's pretty much only when you blast them with a ton of identical shots that those special guys become more vulnerable, otherwise they can stack those AP shots on the putzes and the saveable wounds on the special guys and likely keep them around longer.

Overall, the old allocation system caused far fewer headaches and slowdowns.

Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Nothing is getting ruined, people are just offended (for some reason) by units being able to spread wounds around.

For some reason? Are you being willfully ignorant, or did you just not bother reading what other people have written in this thread? Nobody is arguing against the principle of fairly spreading out damage, they're arguing that the actual rule as enacted in 5th ed is itself a bad rule.

No I'm not being willfully ignorant. Yes I've seen people whinging about it. I don't see any better way of doing it.

There's a reason people are offended by spreading wounds around. Primarily because previous editions very much went out of their way to disallow that entirely, and the game still pretty much holds true to that unless they are equipped differently since the rules aim at trying to get rid of single wound specialists faster than the previous ruleset. It wasn't much of an issue when the 5E rules were released because there really was only one unit that could equip lots of multi-wound models differently, and that was Nobz, and likely simply wasn't foreseen since GW does next to no playtesting (or at least external playtesting)

Vaktathi wrote:There's a reason people are offended by spreading wounds around. Primarily because previous editions very much went out of their way to disallow that entirely, and the game still pretty much holds true to that unless they are equipped differently since the rules aim at trying to get rid of single wound specialists faster than the previous ruleset. It wasn't much of an issue when the 5E rules were released because there really was only one unit that could equip lots of multi-wound models differently, and that was Nobz, and likely simply wasn't foreseen since GW does next to no playtesting (or at least external playtesting)

Wasn't foreseen? Have you read the example used to describe wound allocation? They use Nobz!
And rules change. Just because a previous edition did something one way isn't a good reason to keep it that way.

rigeld2 wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:There's a reason people are offended by spreading wounds around. Primarily because previous editions very much went out of their way to disallow that entirely, and the game still pretty much holds true to that unless they are equipped differently since the rules aim at trying to get rid of single wound specialists faster than the previous ruleset. It wasn't much of an issue when the 5E rules were released because there really was only one unit that could equip lots of multi-wound models differently, and that was Nobz, and likely simply wasn't foreseen since GW does next to no playtesting (or at least external playtesting)

Wasn't foreseen? Have you read the example used to describe wound allocation? They use Nobz!
And rules change. Just because a previous edition did something one way isn't a good reason to keep it that way.

Russ shoots at a squad of 8 MEQ in a crater, 2 with meltaguns, 1 sargent, 1 IC (let's pretend for simplicity's sake that their transport was popped so they're clumped together). I get lucky and direct hit, wounding all 8 models. Success!
Now I shoot the hull and sponson Heavy Bolters, I score 2 wounds.

But wait...

My opponent can assign the Heavy Bolter wounds to the IC and the sargent, and give the rest to the rest of the squad. Suddenly I've gone from each member of the squad having to take a 5+ cover or die, and Instant Deathing the IC, to the IC and the sarge getting a 3+ armour save, and no instant death.
If I chose not to fire the Heavy Bolters, that wouldn't have happened. Each member would get a 5+ cover save. Now two of them have a 3+, would be more if I'd have gotten more HB wounds.

So I will never shoot a "weaker" weapon at a unit if I think there's a decent chance of scoring a lot of wounds with a better weapon. It's just stupid.
It's true though that against a lot of enemies it won't matter. Against, say, 'nids, it won't matter.

rigeld2 wrote: I don't see any better way of doing it.

Then you're not looking hard enough. There have been various proposed better ways of doing it even in this very thread.

rigeld2 wrote:And rules change. Just because a previous edition did something one way isn't a good reason to keep it that way.

Just because rules change doesn't mean they change for the better. When they change for the worse, going back to a previous edition makes them better.

rigeld2 wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:There's a reason people are offended by spreading wounds around. Primarily because previous editions very much went out of their way to disallow that entirely, and the game still pretty much holds true to that unless they are equipped differently since the rules aim at trying to get rid of single wound specialists faster than the previous ruleset. It wasn't much of an issue when the 5E rules were released because there really was only one unit that could equip lots of multi-wound models differently, and that was Nobz, and likely simply wasn't foreseen since GW does next to no playtesting (or at least external playtesting)

Wasn't foreseen? Have you read the example used to describe wound allocation? They use Nobz!

Yes, because it was really the only one they could use at the time, and it's unit where they're all the same except one so that most get rolled as one and aren't spread around and it picks out the special guy, and talk about how additional hits cannot be spread amongst the remaining healthy Nobz but must be taken on already wounded nobz.

And rules change. Just because a previous edition did something one way isn't a good reason to keep it that way.

Yes they do change, however the intent here wasn't likely to enable multi-wound models to spread out wounds, their example makes that fairly clear.

If they really intended multi-wound models to be able to effectively spread out wounds, they could have just written it that way without having to resort to them each having to be different.

They didn't.

insaniak wrote:Why wouldn't they? It was a legal option.
As far as I'm aware, there wasn't much of a tournament scene for Rogue Trader. It wasn't really a tournament sort of game... That kicked off with 2nd edition.

Reviewing Wikipedia, I see that 2nd edition came out in 1993. I had my time lines off, as its been a few years.

I have corrected all my posts and sincerely apologize for posting incorrect data.

I'm curious : In tourney's were happening in 2nd edition -- how did people deal with squat armies that had nothing but heavy bolters. I played that army a few times then stopped as people at my FLGS stopped playing me.

Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: I don't see any better way of doing it.

Then you're not looking hard enough. There have been various proposed better ways of doing it even in this very thread.

Except they aren't better.

rigeld2 wrote:And rules change. Just because a previous edition did something one way isn't a good reason to keep it that way.

Just because rules change doesn't mean they change for the better. When they change for the worse, going back to a previous edition makes them better.

I think previous editions were worse, not better.

Joey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:There's a reason people are offended by spreading wounds around. Primarily because previous editions very much went out of their way to disallow that entirely, and the game still pretty much holds true to that unless they are equipped differently since the rules aim at trying to get rid of single wound specialists faster than the previous ruleset. It wasn't much of an issue when the 5E rules were released because there really was only one unit that could equip lots of multi-wound models differently, and that was Nobz, and likely simply wasn't foreseen since GW does next to no playtesting (or at least external playtesting)

Wasn't foreseen? Have you read the example used to describe wound allocation? They use Nobz!
And rules change. Just because a previous edition did something one way isn't a good reason to keep it that way.

Russ shoots at a squad of 8 MEQ in a crater, 2 with meltaguns, 1 sargent, 1 IC (let's pretend for simplicity's sake that their transport was popped so they're clumped together). I get lucky and direct hit, wounding all 8 models. Success!
Now I shoot the hull and sponson Heavy Bolters, I score 2 wounds.

But wait...

My opponent can assign the Heavy Bolter wounds to the IC and the sargent, and give the rest to the rest of the squad. Suddenly I've gone from each member of the squad having to take a 5+ cover or die, and Instant Deathing the IC, to the IC and the sarge getting a 3+ armour save, and no instant death.
If I chose not to fire the Heavy Bolters, that wouldn't have happened. Each member would get a 5+ cover save. Now two of them have a 3+, would be more if I'd have gotten more HB wounds.

So I will never shoot a "weaker" weapon at a unit if I think there's a decent chance of scoring a lot of wounds with a better weapon. It's just stupid.
It's true though that against a lot of enemies it won't matter. Against, say, 'nids, it won't matter.

Your example is giving one side of the rules where it works against them in 5th edition, but in 4th edition you would have just rolled all the cover saves and never removed the sgt or special weapons guy. Now at least you are forcing them to make the saves where before you wouldn't make them take a save until they were the only guy left in the squad. Hit that squad with a flamer and the whole unit takes saves but the special guys can and do die before the regular squad members.

Is that more or less realistic? More or less fair?

Not really, just different.

Joey wrote:So I will never shoot a "weaker" weapon at a unit if I think there's a decent chance of scoring a lot of wounds with a better weapon. It's just stupid.
It's true though that against a lot of enemies it won't matter. Against, say, 'nids, it won't matter.

Taken to extremes, yes it seems stupid. Examples like yours are uncommon at best. Oh, and craters are a 4+ cover, not 5.

It's more stupid to be able to snipe any model you want through positioning.
Allocating by AP has other problems.

Kevlar wrote:
Your example is giving one side of the rules where it works against them in 5th edition, but in 4th edition you would have just rolled all the cover saves and never removed the sgt or special weapons guy. Now at least you are forcing them to make the saves where before you wouldn't make them take a save until they were the only guy left in the squad. Hit that squad with a flamer and the whole unit takes saves but the special guys can and do die before the regular squad members.

Is that more or less realistic? More or less fair?

Not really, just different.

I didn't say 4th was better, but simply allocating by AP group would solve it in a stroke. You could argue it'd make it too long but really, it's not often that multiple AP weapons will be shooting at a complex unit and causing over-lapping wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:
Taken to extremes, yes it seems stupid. Examples like yours are uncommon at best. Oh, and craters are a 4+ cover, not 5.

It's more stupid to be able to snipe any model you want through positioning.
Allocating by AP has other problems.

We house rule craters as 5+, so my mistake.
It's really not uncommon at all. Any MEQ army with small infantry units (BA, GK, occasionally SM) will face this. If I'm shooting vets at an MEQ squad of 5, I'm not going to shoot the lasguns in case they over-lap.
If there's even a chance that the wounds will overlap (i.e. I get more than half of the squad with both of the weapon groups), I won't shoot the weaker weapons.
As someone else says, there are plenty of armies that you will not notice this against, others it will be endemic.

you could fix wound alo by doing what i sugested from the start, use a system similar to the inia steps

so work from AP1 up for example

8 bolters 1 melta and a krak hit a marine unit
alocation for AP1 starts first, take cover ivun, then remove the guy, move to ap2
nothing here
ap3 alocate and remove guy, taking cover or invun
ap4
ap5 alocate and remove casualties

so to use the example above
pie plate wounds 8 dudes, wounds allocated as now, ap 3 happens 1st
say 4 saves
heavy bolter then goes and alocated as now
say 3 saves

see its simple

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:So I will never shoot a "weaker" weapon at a unit if I think there's a decent chance of scoring a lot of wounds with a better weapon. It's just stupid.
It's true though that against a lot of enemies it won't matter. Against, say, 'nids, it won't matter.

Taken to extremes, yes it seems stupid. Examples like yours are uncommon at best. Oh, and craters are a 4+ cover, not 5.

It's more stupid to be able to snipe any model you want through positioning.
Allocating by AP has other problems.

I'm actually intrigued to hear what problems you, rigeld2, have with the allocating by AP method that has been brought up. It seems to be one of the better suggestions I've ever heard to "fix" the issue of wound allocation and where shooting less is more. It really does seem like a practical solution and I'm really interested what points you have against it.

Formosa wrote:you could fix wound alo by doing what i sugested from the start, use a system similar to the inia steps

so work from AP1 up for example

8 bolters 1 melta and a krak hit a marine unit
alocation for AP1 starts first, take cover ivun, then remove the guy, move to ap2
nothing here
ap3 alocate and remove guy, taking cover or invun
ap4
ap5 alocate and remove casualties

so to use the example above
pie plate wounds 8 dudes, wounds allocated as now, ap 3 happens 1st
say 4 saves
heavy bolter then goes and alocated as now
say 3 saves

see its simple

No one is arguing it isn't simple. But how is it more fair or more realistic?

All you are doing is shifting the shooting phase even further in favor of the shooter rather than the defender. Because Warhammer is a you-go, I-go system this would place even more weight towards an alpha strike.

I wouldn't want to see more weight given to alpha strikes unless they changed the turn format so that neither side removes casualties until both sides have done their attacks. Close combat is different because it happens in both phases and is based on initiative. Shooting is a very one sided process.

Kevlar wrote:Because Warhammer is a you-go, I-go system this would place even more weight towards an alpha strike.

Why not change this?

Lots of other game companies have alternating unit-activation, and as long as the system is properly balanced to discourage MSU that would abuse this (Since most of the versions I've seen always let the person with multiple remaining units activate them at the end instead of parsing it out somehow, for speed and simplicity). First person would still have a small alpha-strike advantage, but a much, much less noticeable one imo.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:So I will never shoot a "weaker" weapon at a unit if I think there's a decent chance of scoring a lot of wounds with a better weapon. It's just stupid.
It's true though that against a lot of enemies it won't matter. Against, say, 'nids, it won't matter.

Taken to extremes, yes it seems stupid. Examples like yours are uncommon at best. Oh, and craters are a 4+ cover, not 5.

It's more stupid to be able to snipe any model you want through positioning.
Allocating by AP has other problems.

I'm actually intrigued to hear what problems you, rigeld2, have with the allocating by AP method that has been brought up. It seems to be one of the better suggestions I've ever heard to "fix" the issue of wound allocation and where shooting less is more. It really does seem like a practical solution and I'm really interested what points you have against it.

See the post right below yours.
By doing that you give shooting armies even more power. Alpha strikes are already good - you want to make them better?

rigeld2 wrote:
See the post right below yours.
By doing that you give shooting armies even more power. Alpha strikes are already good - you want to make them better?

That's because firepower is too cheap in 5th edition codexes compared to bodies. Shouldn't have to have to have stupid rules to compensate for that.
You could say "well there's too much cheap twin-linked dakka about" and nerf twin-linking, but it wouldn't solve the problem.

Joey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
See the post right below yours.
By doing that you give shooting armies even more power. Alpha strikes are already good - you want to make them better?

That's because firepower is too cheap in 5th edition codexes compared to bodies. Shouldn't have to have to have stupid rules to compensate for that.
You could say "well there's too much cheap twin-linked dakka about" and nerf twin-linking, but it wouldn't solve the problem.

So... Only slightly silly and weird rule or change every codex point values.

Hum.

rigeld2 wrote:Except they aren't better.

If you think a more complicated rule wherein you have a reasonable chance that applying more attacks will result in you doing less damage is better than a more simple rule where doing more attacks always means you do more damage, then you're entitled to that opinion.

Don't be shocked when nobody agrees with you...

Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except they aren't better.

If you think a more complicated rule wherein you have a reasonable chance that applying more attacks will result in you doing less damage is better than a more simple rule where doing more attacks always means you do more damage, then you're entitled to that opinion.

Don't be shocked when nobody agrees with you...

It's not complicated. And I'd rather shooting didn't get more deadly in this game.

Joey wrote:So why do I meet up with my friends 3 times a week to battle, when before I could barely be arsed to go round once a week to play cards? And it's mainly with models that aren't even mine.

What does that have to do with the rules?

Joey wrote:The 40k rules are great.

No, they're a tolerable pain in the arse that we put up with to play games in the 40K universe.

There are much better game systems out there.

Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except they aren't better.

If you think a more complicated rule wherein you have a reasonable chance that applying more attacks will result in you doing less damage is better than a more simple rule where doing more attacks always means you do more damage, then you're entitled to that opinion.

Don't be shocked when nobody agrees with you...

This +1000%

rigeld2 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except they aren't better.

If you think a more complicated rule wherein you have a reasonable chance that applying more attacks will result in you doing less damage is better than a more simple rule where doing more attacks always means you do more damage, then you're entitled to that opinion.

Don't be shocked when nobody agrees with you...

It's not complicated. And I'd rather shooting didn't get more deadly in this game.

It's complicated enough that it is routinely the biggest thing new people have issues with, and causes the most slowdown at tournament levels in my experience. If a mechanic quite often will result in situations where utilizing the maximum amount of your killing power against a foe actually reduces the damage they take, that's well...stupid. One can try and justify it all day long, it's still stupid and should be changed. When such a mechanic is also a frequent issue newcomer barrier and time waster, it's doubly stupid.

Finicky rules that result in counter-intuitive outcomes are bad rules. Bad rules are not rules that should be kept.


If shooting is overdominating your games, add more terrain and/or make greater use of alternate deployment methods. Don't sit in front of the Guard gunline and expect to make it across in one piece, introduce outflanking, scouting, and deepstriking elements and get some more terrain on that board.

There is nothing inherently broken about shooting in this game unless you just want to toss dudes across the board to get into hand to hand as fast as possibly and crush everything with hammers without too much thought. Even then, there are several armies that will do just that for you. Fantasy may also be more your thing at that point.

One will notice that an "allocate by penetration" type deal would also help out with CC quite a bit too, making powerweapons against mixed units much more useful rather than being used as a method to discard additional armor saves (well, we'll put the power weapon wounds on the 3 putzes, the command will take 1 save, and we'll put the remaining 3 saves on the already dead guys).

Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except they aren't better.

If you think a more complicated rule wherein you have a reasonable chance that applying more attacks will result in you doing less damage is better than a more simple rule where doing more attacks always means you do more damage, then you're entitled to that opinion.

Don't be shocked when nobody agrees with you...

THis -1000

The "simple" rule results in the counter intuitive outcome, and counter any attempt at realism, that the guardsmen wounding twice with a plasma gun ALWAYS hits 2 different models, and never the same one.

The more complicated (and really isnt - i dont know anyone who plays in the UK tournament scene that struggles with it, even new guys) wound allocation system is a *far* more realistic system and *far* more likely to result in a specialist atually dying. ToF was AWFUL in 4th ed - it did nothing most of the time.

Coordinating fire from 2 guys is significantly simpler than coordinating fire from 10 guys. Basic logic will tell you that, even if you dont believe others when they tel you this simple fact.

Oh, and 40k is very much a shooting game - has been for 2 editions now. That should be fairly obvious when razor/venom/chim spam is the norm amongst competitive lists.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

THis -1000

The "simple" rule results in the counter intuitive outcome, and counter any attempt at realism, that the guardsmen wounding twice with a plasma gun ALWAYS hits 2 different models, and never the same one.

2 shots in game terms is not actually 2 shots in "real" terms. An assault cannon isn't just firing 4 shells, a heavy stubber doesn't just fire 3 bullets, etc. This logic is faulty. The guardsmen with the plasma gun is firing a plasma weapon with a rate of fire similar to that of an assault rifle over the timespan of several seconds, enough to aim at different targets with multiple bursts represented in game terms represented by individual shots.

The more complicated (and really isnt - i dont know anyone who plays in the UK tournament scene that struggles with it, even new guys)

Gonna call jerky on that, even if they aren't having "problems", it still takes people a lot more time to work out the allocation, especially with mixed AP/S shots on complex units, and having played 5E from the beginning and having run several 4-6 week long leagues and 2 tournaments myself during that time in addition to attending tons of events, new players almost almost universally take forever to get used to and remember the system.

wound allocation system is a *far* more realistic system and *far* more likely to result in a specialist atually dying.

You mean like how it's better to just shoot a battlecannon and not use the heavy bolters you paid for too?

ToF was AWFUL in 4th ed - it did nothing most of the time.

Depends on what you hit them with and how good their save was.

Coordinating fire from 2 guys is significantly simpler than coordinating fire from 10 guys. Basic logic will tell you that, even if you dont believe others when they tel you this simple fact.

Except somehow if they're all firing the same weapon or their target is uniformly equipped they apparently become marvelous at coordinating fire...

Oh, and 40k is very much a shooting game - has been for 2 editions now. That should be fairly obvious when razor/venom/chim spam is the norm amongst competitive lists.

Which has a lot more to do with vehicle rules and lack of infantry action options (most other games have more options than just move/shoot/run/assault) than shooting necessarily.

You think plasma guns really operate that high a rate of fire? You dont read much of the background, do you.....seconds per round, not rounds per second.

So it is far more realistic that he would ALWAYS without fail wound 2 different people, every time? Not exactly.

It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen