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.

If they changed it to say that lower AP wounds had to be allocated first to as many models as possible, this wouldn't be an issue. Gotta leave something for 6th edition though, right? I like it far better than the old system, since you don't have a bunch of three man tactical squads of sergeants, plasma gunners, and rocket launchers running around at the end of the game.

Vaktathi wrote:

GW wanted to make it so that upgrades weren't always the absolute last models to die...

I don't understand the problem with having your most the most powerful guy in the unit standing last (is that how it usually worked in 4th?). It makes sense (the best guy would usually last long in a real fight), it's cinematic, and it lets you play with your cool goodies as long as possible (for both sides).

well on page 25 it says...

The player must allocate one wound to each model before he can allocate a second

once all models have one wound allocated to them players must allocate a second wound to the target unit before a third can be allocated

i am curious as to how and why you have this issue

for example... if you have 5 models with 4 reg save wounds and 6 non save wounds they all die

the 4 each get a savable wound then 1 gets a non savable wound then all 5 get a non savable wound thus all 5 die

case closed

i dont see the issue?

Rle68 wrote:well on page 25 it says...

The player must allocate one wound to each model before he can allocate a second

once all models have one wound allocated to them players must allocate a second wound to the target unit before a third can be allocated

i am curious as to how and why you have this issue

for example... if you have 5 models with 4 reg save wounds and 6 non save wounds they all die

the 4 each get a savable wound then 1 gets a non savable wound then all 5 get a non savable wound thus all 5 die

case closed

i dont see the issue?

Its an issue to some people because there are times when less fire power is more. Take for instance you have a squad of marines firing at Nobs. 1 ML and 1 Melta in the squad and 5 Nobs all armed differently. Lets say you do 4 bolter wounds and both of your special weapons wound. The Nob player assigns 1 bolter wound to each nob and the last Nob (probably the one with no upgrades) takes both special weapon hits (due to all models have a wound and the last one starts the "wrapping" process). Now you end up with at the very best: 1 dead Nob.

Now take for instance you don't shot your bolters and fire both special weapons only. At the very best situation you have 2 dead Nobs.

See, in many minds this is both unfair and doesn't make any sense. Less fire power is sometimes more? This is wound wrapping and I see it used more often like this than not. Personally I actually liked the 4e rule. It actually encouraged loads of firepower with the torrent of fire rule. Not to say the 5e doesn't encourage it per se; I just think GW was trying to make it more fair, and just missed the mark by a mile (coulld it be they didn't see the unintended consequences?).

padixon wrote:Its an issue to some people because there are times when less fire power is more. Take for instance you have a squad of marines firing at Nobs. 1 ML and 1 Melta in the squad and 5 Nobs all armed differently. Lets say you do 4 bolter wounds and both of your special weapons wound. The Nob player assigns 1 bolter wound to each nob and the last Nob (probably the one with no upgrades) takes both special weapon hits (due to all models have a wound and the last one starts the "wrapping" process). Now you end up with at the very best: 1 dead Nob.

Now take for instance you don't shot your bolters and fire both special weapons only. At the very best situation you have 2 dead Nobs.

See, in many minds this is both unfair and doesn't make any sense. Less fire power is sometimes more? This is wound wrapping and I see it used more often like this than not. Personally I actually liked the 4e rule. It actually encouraged loads of firepower with the torrent of fire rule. Not to say the 5e doesn't encourage it per se; I just think GW was trying to make it more fair, and just missed the mark by a mile (coulld it be they didn't see the unintended consequences?).

I believe that in that particular situation the extra wounds to the Nob that took the ML and Melta hits have to be reallocated, Instant death rules. I also think you're allocating the rules wrong (multi wound models should take up to the number of wounds before assigning wounds somewhere else).

Would have to look them up to be sure though, and its late.

Hans Chung-Otterson wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

GW wanted to make it so that upgrades weren't always the absolute last models to die...

I don't understand the problem with having your most the most powerful guy in the unit standing last (is that how it usually worked in 4th?). It makes sense (the best guy would usually last long in a real fight), it's cinematic, and it lets you play with your cool goodies as long as possible (for both sides).

Right, I understand, and I personally never had a problem with it. The problem is that the way that GW went about "solving" this problem resulted in situations where it's *more* likely to have these guys around and situations where *More* shooting equates to *fewer* casualties.

Nope. Unsaved wounds that inflict instant death have to be allocated to uninjured models within the group that they were allocated to. If you can allocate them to a group of one model, one inflicts instant death and the other does nothing.

matterofpride wrote:The current system can leave you feeling cheated which isnt that great.

Right, I think this is the biggest problem with it, and why this thread even exists.

It feels wrong to be punished for doing more damage. The current system didn't actually improve the wounding system, it just made us feel worse about it.

I don't se what the problem is. Just have 2 squads shooting at the squad. First one breaks the smaler models, next one kills the character.

Or get better guns. Like the vindicator cannon. Instant death for everybody!

Niiai wrote:I don't se what the problem is. Just have 2 squads shooting at the squad. First one breaks the smaler models, next one kills the character.

Or get better guns. Like the vindicator cannon. Instant death for everybody!

Not quite the problem.

The problem is when you have something like a Leman Russ, where it fires its battlecannon at like 5 SM's (say with a sergeant, a melta, and a missile launcher) and wounds them all. Normally this would kill all 5 dudes. But because it also fired its heavy bolters, that means there are 3 armor saves to be allocated. the sergeant takes an armor save, the meltagun takes two armor saves, and the missile launcher and two bolters all take the BattleCannon wounds. As a result 3 die outright, and 2 get chances to take their 3+ armor saves.

This means had you not shot the Heavy Bolters, the entire squad would be dead, but because you put *more* firepower into the squad, *fewer* dudes died.

Maybe have higher-strength/lower AP hits sorted first would solve that?

Also, it can leave you cheated, but then again, it's not like people can't benefit from this either.

5e wound allocation is the worst rule of this edition. Not every book has as many options to play wound allocation shannigans. It also penalizes you for doing more wounds. It is also a penalty to have units that mix power weapons and normal weapons. It drags the game out, making it much longer than it should, by having complex armor save rolls and keeping units alive longer than they should.

padixon wrote:Its an issue to some people because there are times when less fire power is more. Take for instance you have a squad of marines firing at Nobs. 1 ML and 1 Melta in the squad and 5 Nobs all armed differently. Lets say you do 4 bolter wounds and both of your special weapons wound. The Nob player assigns 1 bolter wound to each nob and the last Nob (probably the one with no upgrades) takes both special weapon hits (due to all models have a wound and the last one starts the "wrapping" process). Now you end up with at the very best: 1 dead Nob.

Now take for instance you don't shot your bolters and fire both special weapons only. At the very best situation you have 2 dead Nobs.

This isn't entirely accurate.

In the first situation, you definitely have one dead Nob, and potentially have 4 more wounded.
In the second situation, you have two dead Nobs... and no potential for any more to be wounded.

It's not quite as open and shut as 'less shooting is better'... and it only works out like that in certain specific situation. The number of units that can actually have every member unique as Nobz can is limited.

I believe that in that particular situation the extra wounds to the Nob that took the ML and Melta hits have to be reallocated, Instant death rules. I also think you're allocating the rules wrong (multi wound models should take up to the number of wounds before assigning wounds somewhere else).

Instant Death has nothing whatsoever to do with wound allocation. ID is applied after you have rolled your saves, which happens after wound allocation. So if the Nobz are all different, 2 ID hits on the same Nob will only kill that one Nob.

Nor does the model's number of wounds have any bearing on wound allocation. It's the number of wounds being allocated that count, not the model's Wounds stat.


Frankly, I think the biggest problem with 5th ed wound allocation is simply the fact that so many people misunderstand how it works. If they stick with a similar system next edition, I hope they manage to find an easier way to explain it, because it is a little confusing at a first read, and a lot of players struggle to get a handle on it, or wind up playing it wrong.

Vaktathi wrote:

Niiai wrote:I don't se what the problem is. Just have 2 squads shooting at the squad. First one breaks the smaler models, next one kills the character.

Or get better guns. Like the vindicator cannon. Instant death for everybody!

Not quite the problem.

The problem is when you have something like a Leman Russ, where it fires its battlecannon at like 5 SM's (say with a sergeant, a melta, and a missile launcher) and wounds them all. Normally this would kill all 5 dudes. But because it also fired its heavy bolters, that means there are 3 armor saves to be allocated. the sergeant takes an armor save, the meltagun takes two armor saves, and the missile launcher and two bolters all take the BattleCannon wounds. As a result 3 die outright, and 2 get chances to take their 3+ armor saves.

This means had you not shot the Heavy Bolters, the entire squad would be dead, but because you put *more* firepower into the squad, *fewer* dudes died.

I still do not see the problem. Under another sett of rules something else would be wrong. It is just a system go with the flow. And I would rather be abel to shoot with both the bolter and the battle cannon because of scatter etc. If it bothers you that mutch then do not shoot the bolter, or shoot units that are more spred out so you can't fit them all under a template. But why on earth are the marines standing out in the open out of terain getting shot by the battle cannon?

On a side note, is not the battlecannon an ordenance weapon? Unless you are BT I do not think you can shoot both. With IG being one of the major and best army lists out there I do not see why they complain. It was under the current rules that the codex was balanced up. If the rules where diferent then the costs would be hier on each tanks with this problem.

insaniak wrote:
Nor does the model's number of wounds have any bearing on wound allocation. It's the number of wounds being allocated that count, not the model's Wounds stat.

I think that whoever it was that mentioned unwounded models was referring to the fact that you have to remove unwounded models to ID within the same allocation group.

I still stand by my earlier comment that this advantage is worked into the high cost paid for specialist troopers.

In, say, a 10 man BA assault squad with two meltas and a powerfist, the squad costs 245pts, 45pts of which are upgrades for three characters, 10pts is the sgt cost, and 54pts are the cost of those three troopers.

This means that of the squad, 53pts, or over 20%, or in one guy (the sergeant), and 109 pts, or 44%, are in three models. Why shouldn't the rules favor such a major investment?

@ insaniak: It was a bit simplistic But I kept it that way so I wouldn't have to write this: I included the Nobs as an example because they normally have their FNP dude with them. If you work the averages from a full squad of Marines (in rapid fire range) with a ML/melta and then work in the average saves assuming the Nob squad have a 4+ save and a 4+ FNP for example then you would have 1.3 wounds that make it through. And both other instant death wounds land on the same model (in which each model is their own group) in this case you end up with 1 dead Nob. IF you fired nothing but your Instant death shots than you get a full 4 wounds worth of damage (2 dead nobs) instead of 3.3 (2 wounds + the average 1.3 wounds caused by rapid fire bolters). This is assuming both the big weapons hit of course (which was included in both examples).

EDIT: I bring this up, because in 4e, you never had any problems with your weapons not doing their full damage. And situations now in 5th, we have our money making weapons landing on the same guy more often than it should be happening IMO. In a recent game this happened. I had 2 plasma hits I put on the same guy (because the other guys all had their 1 shot each). I happened to make all the saves from the bolters and true to form the plasmas killed that one guy. (This was a complex squad) My opponent was a little taken back by it (after he rolled 2 plasma wounds he assumed he would have 2 dead guys at the very least as he played a lot of 4e, not too much 5th) and I had to explain the situation. And I can fully understand his frustration.

Situations *due* come up where I find myself running the numbers to decide if I should hold fire from the 'weaker' weapons so the money makers don't end up on the same guy.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't mind this rule *too* much. I just think GW could of done a better job with it. Normally it works just fine against the vast majority of normal units, but when you get complex squads especially ones with multi-wounds (namely Nobs and Thunderwolves) then things can get weird when deciding what to shoot and what not to at times.

On the ID thing:

"If among the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict instant death, the player must first, if possible, remove one unwounded model for each wound that causes instant death, and then proceed as normal (this is done for each group of identical multiple wound models)" BRB page 26

Emphasis mine. So yeah, I was wrong, the nobz can do that, its only codex's that don't let you mix and match equipment on your multiple wound models that get hit that way.

Ailaros wrote:

matterofpride wrote:The current system can leave you feeling cheated which isnt that great.

Right, I think this is the biggest problem with it, and why this thread even exists.

It feels wrong to be punished for doing more damage. The current system didn't actually improve the wounding system, it just made us feel worse about it.

It's certainly no worse than the previous system though. It has the same short comings, only the perspective is different.

Niiai wrote:It is just a system go with the flow.

?

Lots of things are systems, including some of the world's least tasteful government types. Why does something being clearly written down mean that it can't be bad?

I'd certainly think that it's possible to create a system in which doing more damage always means that you do more damage. I'd much rather go with the flow of that.

Does it really make sense that every single AP shot hit a different guy and all the regular bullets all stacked up on just one guy though?

Random allocation, or non-unit based offense are possible solutions, but nothing in 40k's past has been better than it is now. They haven't necessarily been worse either.

DarknessEternal wrote:Does it really make sense that every single AP shot hit a different guy and all the regular bullets all stacked up on just one guy though?

No, but it makes more sense than telling some of your guys NOT to open fire so that you can do more damage.

Niiai wrote:

I still do not see the problem.

The problem is that *more* shooting equates to making it *safer* for the enemy and inflicting *fewer* casualties.

When the game system makes it harder for you to harm your opponent the more you shoot at them, something is wrong.

That is the problem.

Under another sett of rules something else would be wrong. It is just a system go with the flow. And I would rather be abel to shoot with both the bolter and the battle cannon because of scatter etc. If it bothers you that mutch then do not shoot the bolter, or shoot units that are more spred out so you can't fit them all under a template.

Again however, the game shouldn't be incentivizing you to shoot less. That's a bug in the system, and poor game design.

But why on earth are the marines standing out in the open out of terain getting shot by the battle cannon?

Because it was an example, and it happens quite a bit, especially when the BC has a 72" range and can hit units anywhere. Not everything can be in cover all the time.

On a side note, is not the battlecannon an ordenance weapon? Unless you are BT I do not think you can shoot both.

Leman Russ lumbering behemoth rule.

With IG being one of the major and best army lists out there I do not see why they complain. It was under the current rules that the codex was balanced up. If the rules where diferent then the costs would be hier on each tanks with this problem.

It was just an example, you could do the same thing with many other armies. You could take a 5man CSM Terminator unit with 3 combi-flamers firing at Dark Eldar in cover too, 2 combi flamers and 3 combi bolters are going to get allocated differently, likely resulting in fewer casualties than they may have taken without the bolters. Any time mixed-save fire is conducted by a unit.

And no, it's not likely this was taken into account in unit costing.

Rle68 wrote:well on page 25 it says...

The player must allocate one wound to each model before he can allocate a second

once all models have one wound allocated to them players must allocate a second wound to the target unit before a third can be allocated

i am curious as to how and why you have this issue

for example... if you have 5 models with 4 reg save wounds and 6 non save wounds they all die

the 4 each get a savable wound then 1 gets a non savable wound then all 5 get a non savable wound thus all 5 die

case closed

i dont see the issue?

Because you don't know how to allocate wounds.

If you have 1 sarge and 4 bolter marines, under your wound scenario, it would go something like this.

Sarge gets allocated a save wound
4 bolter marines get allocated 4 non-save wounds

This leaves 3 save wounds and 2 no save wounds. Each model has been allocated a wound. Time to allocate the rest.

Sarge gets allocated a save wound
4 bolter marines get allocated 2 non-save wounds and 2 save wounds.

Sarge now has 2 save wounds and the bolter marines have 6 non save wounds and 2 save wounds. Each model has 2 wounds assigned.

Sarge makes 2 armor saves and lives.
4 bolter marines now die.

So much for 6 unsaveable wounds.

Case closed.