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.

This should be FAQ'd...

it demonstrates the problem with the lack of quality GW has for play testers. GW should employ GT champions as their play testers as these are the guys who stay up all night thinking of new ways to exploit the rules.

G

I agree that this needs to be FAQed. This is one of those examples within the rules where the explanation and diagrams don't go far enough. If there would have been a second melta weapon wound in the diagram, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Brice

There's nothing to FAQ. A wound is a wound is a wound. Just because a wound from a plasma gun is guaranteed to be converted to an unsaved wound does not make it special in any way during the wound allocation step.

edit spelling.

I don't think it needs to be FAQ'd at all. It's really quite clear, and it only 'feels wrong' because you couldn't do it in 4th.
Stop looking at the 5th ed rulebook as a list of changes to 4th ed, and start looking at it as a rulebook on its own. Forget everything that came before it.

You can't separate 5th addition from 4th, or even 3rd for that matter--they're the same game with some fine tuning. This isn't like the radical shift from 2nd to 3rd. By itself that is not a justification to reinvent the wheel, despite what many people are trying to do.

That said, the approach that I'm advocating is certainly more ordered, and complies to the letter with the methodology laid out in the rulebook. Additionally, my approach does not create the diminished returns effect for high ap, rending, and power weapons. Further, it takes into account the conventions of previous additions and conforms to GW's stated desire to make CC faster and more deadly. Finally, it doesn't feel beardy-my approach wouldn't give complex units an advantage over simple units in terms of allocating armor-negating wounds.

Brice

BBeale wrote:You can't separate 5th addition from 4th, or even 3rd for that matter--they're the same game with some fine tuning. This isn't like the radical shift from 2nd to 3rd. By itself that is not a justification to reinvent the wheel, despite what many people are trying to do.

Right... so the people who start in 5th, theyre not playing the game at all, and wont be until they go and buy all the old rulebooks? No. It's a stand alone rulebook. When someone plays a rule one way, you cant turn around and pull out the 3rd ed rulebook and go "no no no, because back in 2001 it said this!".

BBeale wrote:
That said, the approach that I'm advocating is certainly more ordered, and complies to the letter with the methodology laid out in the rulebook. Additionally, my approach does not create the diminished returns effect for high ap, rending, and power weapons. Further, it takes into account the conventions of previous additions and conforms to GW's stated desire to make CC faster and more deadly. Finally, it doesn't feel beardy-my approach wouldn't give complex units an advantage over simple units in terms of allocating armor-negating wounds.

The developers encourage making house rules, so by all means - change it up how you see fit. Thats not what the rules are though, so it would be a bit rich to begrudge people for playing how the rules actually really clearly tell them to play.
Did you find removing casualties so that power fists couldn't attack 'beardy' as well, or are you being selective in judging everybody else?

It doesnt actually come up nearly as much as you would think, due to how few units have everyone equipped differently, and if you actually sit down and get used to what the new rules are, it doesnt slow the combat down any either.

I don't read BBeale's posts as at all critical of people stacking wounds to reduce casualties; he just said it didn't feel right to him.

It seems like everyone reads the RAW the same way here - there is a rule that allows a player to allocate wounds as he sees fit within certain limits, and stacking power weapon wounds doesn't breach those limits so is legal by RAW. Although it's clear that this is what GW have said in the rules, it's not clear that this is what they intended to say.

Stacking wounds like this is going to be a contentious subject - my wife for example would agree with BBeale that although legal, it "feels wrong". She came up with the same way of allocating wounds from each weapon in turn, although she recognises that nothing in the rules actually forces you to do it this way.

A FAQ answer from GW would help either by changing the rule wording or by confirming that the rule as written is operating the way it was intended to, and the way it was applied during play and balance testing.

Proximity,

Removing casualties so that Powerfists lost their attacks was an issue that was directly addressed in 3.5 and 4th. The rule was changed so that models within 2 inches of combat got their attacks, and the issue of base-to-base was removed. Yes, I thought it was beardy at the time, but that was the letter of the rule--there weren't multiple interpretations as in this case.

That said, this is a similarly beardy application, and one I don't think is likely to survive a FAQ. As far as being used to the 5th edition rules goes, I obviously am, and I'm not sure why you felt the need to go there.

Ultimately, all of the issues addressed in my earlier posts still apply to this division method (which for the record, is not the method outlined in the rulebook, although the results are the same if you make the critical assumption that like-type wounds do not have to be placed in turn), which is why this issue deserves a FAQ.

The biggest issue I have with this method can be summed up with one question:

Why should complex units gain an advantage over simple units with regard to armor-negating attacks?

Brice

BBeale wrote:The biggest issue I have with this method can be summed up with one question:

Why should complex units gain an advantage over simple units with regard to armor-negating attacks?

Brice

The biggest issue I have with this method is:

Why shouldn't complex units gain an advantage over simple units with regard to armor-negating attacks?

Whitedragon,

Passing on you answering my question by mirroring it. Wound allocation is not meant to give an advantage to anyone. It was introduced as a method for making combat more realistic by adding a risk element for special weapons and leader models--at least that was how it was introduced in White Dwarf. The biggest problem, is that when applied in the method discussed in this thread, it creates a situation whereby armor-negating attacks are subject to diminishing returns versus complex units--something that does not occur versus simple units. If you think this was intended, why?

Brice

The real fact of the matter is that this issue rarely crops up. How often are you going to do enough wounds to a unit that there will even be a 1:1 ratio?

This issue comes up a lot more than you might think. For example, any time you have a something like a full unit of genestealers, a full assault squad, a full unit of boyz with a PK nob, etc. charge a small command squad (Space Marines, IG, etc.), this issue is going to rear its ugly head.

Brice

The rules are clear, I find it hard to believe that it was not anticipated.

While it may 'feel wrong' so does spreading out wounds. You fire, and each time a lascannon wounds a model, it just 'happens' to be a different model? How lucky you must be.

To make it feel right, we should randomize which models get hit. Of course, pure random doesn't feel right either. Perhaps we should be able to 'influence' which models are targetted...


Except in some rare situations, complex units are not really any better off.

Yes, you may get to choose to lose a pfist sgt instead of losing 2 regular tac marines. Does that really make you better off?

Yes, the 7 man unit with lascannon and plasma gun has the option of stacking wounds on the (expensive/special) gun. But only if it takes enough wounds, and of the right type...
It is *much* more likely that it will take 6 bolter wounds, and have a 33% chance of losing a plasma gun. So much for an advantage.

yes, I can't double up wounds on my stealers, but then again, I don't have to worry about losing a key model to an unlucky roll.

BBeale wrote:This issue comes up a lot more than you might think. For example, any time you have a something like a full unit of genestealers, a full assault squad, a full unit of boyz with a PK nob, etc. charge a small command squad (Space Marines, IG, etc.), this issue is going to rear its ugly head.

Brice

While I respect the fact that this situation "feels" wrong to you, you have to recognize that taken at face value the rules are absolutely perfectly clear. Players are free to allocate their wounds however they best see fit and the diagram (on page 25) does illustrate exactly this, especially where the caption says:

"He is trying to minimize the damage by allocating both the worst wound (the meltagun's) and the spare wound on the same model."


This tidbit of intention shows that the designers are perfectly aware that players are able to minimize casualties with how they allocate wounds and they are okay with it.

The only problem is that you don't want the rules to be like that so to you the diagram isn't as explicit as it needs to be.


The thing is, both players use this allocation method so both players are able to use it to their advantage. While it is true in very rare circumstances where a very small unit has a very high armor save it will actually suffer less casualties if the shooting unit fires MORE high AP shots along with their low AP firepower, the reality is (from playing many v5 games) that these occurances are very, very rare.

In order for any one model to have two low AP wounds dumped onto them it means the unit has suffered enough wounds so that every model already has at least one. In order for any one model to have three low AP wounds dumped onto them it means every model in the unit has at least two wounds allocated to them, etc, etc, etc.

So while allocation does allow extra wounds to be ignored in some cases, the fact remains that in these situations the unit is going to be pretty much hammered any way (that many saves are going to equal dead models).

Complex units do allow players to soak extra damage on occasion but it also means players lose particular models at times when they would prefer to not lose them.

Finally, the shooting player always has the option to not fire with some of his models if he recognizes that he is in one of the very rare circumstances where shooting with all his models will result in less casualties.

Yak,

I agree with almost everything you just said. However, I think there's a different way of looking at how like-type wounds are applied that may be implied in the rule. In the rulebook example, the melta weapon wound was applied first, then the boltgun wounds. I think it is unlcear how the rulebook would have applied a second mealt weapon wound, and I suspect that it would have gone on a second model. That said, the way it is presented in this thread benefits me more than the method I'm advocating (see below).

Here's an example of why this doesn't work. I am currently playing Deathwing. The potential for abuse in applying the division method when you have a Deathwing squad in CC with all of the command upgrades and weapons mix is particularly telling. 5 models, each representing a separate wound set, each with a 2+ save, almost completely marginalizes the effects of power weapons in CC. The disparity between complex units and simple units as to the effects of armor-negating weapons only increases as armor saves get better. I'm sure there are other examples out there that are just as broken. In any event, if same-type wounds are applied in turn, these disparities disappear.

Brice

BBeale wrote:Here's an example of why this doesn't work. I am currently playing Deathwing. The potential for abuse in applying the division method when you have a Deathwing squad in CC with all of the command upgrades and weapons mix is particularly telling. 5 models, each representing a separate wound set, each with a 2+ save, almost completely marginalizes the effects of power weapons in CC. The disparity between complex units and simple units as to the effects of armor-negating weapons only increases as armor saves get better. I'm sure there are other examples out there that are just as broken. In any event, if same-type wounds are applied in turn, these disparities disappear.

Brice

I'm not saying it isn't a good house rule, but it isn't what is in the rules. If you actually go back to threads when v5 was first released I was putting forth a very similar concept as a good house rule.


Instead, I say you just accept it and enjoy the slight increased ability you get for your units. I know I have and I really don't mind anymore because in actual gameplay it doesn't actually occur very often.

Because you have to realize that in CC powerfists are striking at a different Initiative step from the rest of the unit's attacks as are any characters with a power weapon that have a higher Initiative value. So it only applies to power weapon wounds that strike the same time as the rest of the unit's attacks and only becomes more effective the more wounds the unit actually suffers.

While it can definitely allow to ignore some power weapon wounds, if you're taking 2-3 regular saves per model you're likely going to be losing a few models anyway besides the one model that has the power weapon wounds dumped onto him.

I completely overstand, yet I feel no less guilty when I put 3 rending attacks on a single terminator and get to face a shocked expression as I pass all of my armor saves and invulnerable saves (stormshield taking the rends). As I said originally, it wouldn't shock me if this wasn't intended. It's a shame that the diagram didn't have a second melta wound applied.

Brice

BBeale: If it makes you feel better, look at it this way.

Ten marines, one weilding a Plasma gun fire at a five-marine Combat squad, which contains a Sergeant with power fist.

Most of the shots are going to be fairly indiscriminate. However, I'm willing to bet that the Plasma gunner is going to try to take out the more dangerous sergeant with his more deadly weapon.

Therefore, when he hits twice, they're significantly more likely to both land on the more dangerous model - so his armour turns to slag while bolt shots bounce off the less worrying bolter marines.

Is it any better if the game 'assumes' that every rending hit will automagically hit a different target?

And, the complex unit 'advantage' will bite you when you have to take saves on certain models, even though you have only taken a few wounds.

Again, the 'best' method would be a random effect, that can be influenced by several factors.... but that would also take forever....

ConditionOfMan wrote:The real fact of the matter is that this issue rarely crops up. How often are you going to do enough wounds to a unit that there will even be a 1:1 ratio?

Nerf: Crops up in CC with my Tyranid Genestealers in every game I play
Bonus: My Daka Tyrants and DS warriors have sniped special weopons on several occasions

I deal with it

Yak I think everyone here knows the issue from a RAW POV. Some people question if this was the actual intent. This forum is here so we can ask these kinds of questions. GW has said assault will be more brutal... that just about everything from here to Timbucktoo gets a 4+ save from shooting. So the question is did GW intend for this wound allocation loop hole to work as discussed? My instinct say flat out NO.

G

You pull one wound models off for every PW wound. Then roll accordingly.

So, in this case. You pull off 6 marines, then roll 16 saves on the sergeant. Not sure where people are getting hung up. You only allocate* wounds in which you get a save.

*meaning (In the words of Obama) Spread the wealth around.

Unless GW playtested with absolute drooling idiots, or only playtested one or two games, I'd say your insticts were failing you, GBF.

It didn't take very long for me to figure out this "strategy" at all.

Of course it never takes very long for rules questions (not addressed by the rules) to come up with new rules.

Harkainos wrote:...You only allocate* wounds in which you get a save....

Can you back this statement up with a page & paragraph number?

Edit:

In the combat section it tells you to use the same method for wound allocation as found in the shooting section (pg. 39).

On page 25 in the diagrammed example they allocate a wound that will not be saveable (melta).

You allocate all wounds and then take saves on the ones you can and then determine how many wounds unsaved.

He won't because he can't...

Late to the party and completely wrong.

BBeale wrote:I completely overstand, yet I feel no less guilty when I put 3 rending attacks on a single terminator and get to face a shocked expression as I pass all of my armor saves and invulnerable saves (stormshield taking the rends). As I said originally, it wouldn't shock me if this wasn't intended. It's a shame that the diagram didn't have a second melta wound applied.

Brice

Stormshield taking the rends..... Great IDEA!!!!!!!! Note to self: you can throw in a couple lightning claws, just make sure you have a thunderhammer & stormshield or two in the unit.

I look at the ability to stack wounds allowing no save onto one model as the trade-off for having to roll separate saves for the more valuable upgrade characters and special weapons in a unit. If my unit of 8 marines, incl. a flamer and a vetsgt, takes 8 bolter wounds, I know that the vet sgt is going to fall his save, the flamer probably will, but the 6 bolter guys - they'll be fine! In previous editions, I'd roll the saves, and lose a few tac marines. Now, there's a 1/3 chance of each special model being removed.

As Yak said, there's occassions were it's better not to shoot all your guns (say a unit with 7x boters, 2x Plasma rifle and 1 Plasma pistol at a unit of 3 termies - you're better off not shooting the bolters), but they're pretty extreme. And everyone knows the rules coming in, so it's not a surprise.

I normally run two TH/SS, and 3 LC's in a LRC escorting Marneus around. Went through half a Nid horde army, two units of guants, one stealers, one fex, and a flyrant only losing 1TH and 1LC that way. As a marine player, I think 3+SS is a bit much.

Come on jackass... go somewhere to brag.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yak I think everyone here knows the issue from a RAW POV. Some people question if this was the actual intent. This forum is here so we can ask these kinds of questions. GW has said assault will be more brutal... that just about everything from here to Timbucktoo gets a 4+ save from shooting. So the question is did GW intend for this wound allocation loop hole to work as discussed? My instinct say flat out NO.

G

As I quoted from the diagram previously it clearly states that a player is allowed to allocate wounds in order to minimize casualties. In the early PDF versions of the rules they had an even more extreme example where two plasma wounds and a standard wound were dumped onto a single model.

I think it is safe to assume (in this case) that GW is aware of how the wound allocation works and is okay with people using it as they wrote it.