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.

beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

Why dont you go to YMDC and ask what YMDC is for?

It's for clarifying rules. It seemed like the OP was saying the rulebook is pretty clear.
If it was that clear, YMDC wouldn't be as active as it is.

From what I've seen, YMDC is widely used to try and prove one's interpretation of the rules using mental acrobatics and arguing in circles.

Only by RAI.

Was there ever a wound allocation method that WASN'T abused?

The main issue with the 5th edition rulebook is that it isn't selling enough models

Kirasu wrote:The main issue with the 5th edition rulebook is that it isn't selling enough models

they drop their prices and they won't have the problem.

rigeld2 wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

Why dont you go to YMDC and ask what YMDC is for?

It's for clarifying rules. It seemed like the OP was saying the rulebook is pretty clear.
If it was that clear, YMDC wouldn't be as active as it is.

A good bit of the time it seems like people grabbing at straws to pervert the rules in their favour.

Buttons wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

Why dont you go to YMDC and ask what YMDC is for?

It's for clarifying rules. It seemed like the OP was saying the rulebook is pretty clear.
If it was that clear, YMDC wouldn't be as active as it is.

A good bit of the time it seems like people grabbing at straws to pervert the rules in their favour.

Bingo!

Having come in on 5th, I think that the rules are easy to pick up.
The discrepancies with the older codices are a bit annoying though.

Luke_Prowler wrote:Was there ever a wound allocation method that WASN'T abused?

4th ed wasn't so bad. Back then, you did each type of weapon in its own allocation phase. First you applied all the wounds for the lasguns, for example, and then, after the armor saves were made and the necessary models removed, you then went and applied all of the plasma gun wounds in their own step. Repeat for every different kind of weapon.

It didn't really slow things down that much, and made it so that any killing power you applied always actually added to the damage that you do, unlike this current edition where it is very, very possible for applying more wounds to result in you doing less damage over all.

Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

Buttons wrote:A good bit of the time it seems like people grabbing at straws to pervert the rules in their favour.

If I had a dollar for eveery time over the last decade or so that I've been accused of that (usually in a discussion of a rule for an army that I don't even play with or against) I would have... well, probably about 6 dollars.

By and large YMDC isn't like that at all. People talking about YMDC invariably remind me of the old story of a blind man being shown an elephant... People see that multi page thread with several people disecting the precise meaning of a certain word and decide that this is what YMDC is all about... completely oblivious to the 10 threads either side of it where a question is asked and answered and everyone gets on with their lives.

If you're not interested in discussing the minutae of the rules, then just avoid those threads. I don't have any interest in discussing video games... but I don't feel the need to insult those who frequent the Video Game forum for having the temerity to discuss something that doesn't interest me.




On topic, my only real gripe with 5th edition is wound allocation. From rules discussions, it seems to be one of the most frequently misunderstood rules issues in the game currently, and while the actual mechanics of it are fairly simple, it can be rather difficult to track on the table with particularly complex units. I would very much like to see something a little simpler for 6th edition.

To me many of the options found in the pancake edition solve 5th completely to my eyes.

Cover, directed attacks if your close, vehicles being able to be glanced to death again.

Bidding for 1st turn, how they deal with victory points, ect.

having played since rogue trader, 5th is better than 3rd and 4th, it just still has lots of abuses.

Certain codexes need flushed or fixed as well, they are too strong in these rules.

Wound allocation by wargear and 4+ cover save for everyone.

Tacitcal marines in cover with a 3+ 4+++ is just silly. Orks getting a free 4+ save is also silly.

Also, honestly its sad that there even needs to be a YMDC for 40k. It is not hard to just clarify these rules. I guess thats another thing to the list. The lack of rules clarity when the effort it takes to make sure your own game runs smoothly is tiny.

terranarc wrote:Wound allocation by wargear and 4+ cover save for everyone.

Tacitcal marines in cover with a 3+ 4+++ is just silly. Orks getting a free 4+ save is also silly.

Also, honestly its sad that there even needs to be a YMDC for 40k. It is not hard to just clarify these rules. I guess thats another thing to the list. The lack of rules clarity when the effort it takes to make sure your own game runs smoothly is tiny.

This a million times over. When I was starting out, the rules literally made my head hurt. They were confusing at times and could be vague. Our store has an extremely competitive player base, and they've been showing me all the little tricks to abusing these systems so I don't get cheated. But whats sad is that they shouldn't even have to do this in the first place. When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

I'm just lucky my store is showing me what to watch for, I doubt many newbies got that chance...

MrMoustaffa wrote:/ When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

It is kind of childish to insist that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties is "abuse" when the example associated with said rules tells us that is is good gamesmanship to do just that.

Steelmage99 wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:/ When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

It is kind of childish to insist that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties is "abuse" when the example associated with said rules tells us that is is good gamesmanship to do just that.

Shooting More = Less damage.

One can tell this is a gross misinterpretation of logic.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:/ When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

It is kind of childish to insist that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties is "abuse" when the example associated with said rules tells us that is is good gamesmanship to do just that.

Shooting More = Less damage.

One can tell this is a gross misinterpretation of logic.

It is shown in the example as being a smart thing to do.

Logic has nothing to do with it, and it certainly cannot be considered abusing the rules when the Games Designers shows us that "this is the intent of the rule".

SOmeone at 40k night said this
"In 40k right now its about "Buy this model and win" not tactics"
Make sense, I dont think what models i have now i think what model to get next to destroy enemies.

I think if cover saves were reduced to 5+ for some terrain (I.E. woods and the like) and units could assault out of all transports (With the addition of improved rules for vehicle destroyed/explodes) could make the game slightly better, but overall, 5th is nice.

This is purely selfish, but I dislike the cover rules because I personally get screwed.

Every little bush being a 4+ cover save means that my armour piercing sorcerous bolts I'm paying tons of points for just happen to blow up a bush or a branch half the time.

Then my 4+ invulnerable save is a big waste of points in the shooting phase when everything else gets the exact same thing just for having a branch or bush in front of them.

There is literally no benefit or change for Thousand Sons when they go into cover which makes little sense, all of a sudden shots are unerringly accurate and hit cover 0% of the time when shooting at Thousand Sons.

Change cover into a to hit modifier like Fantasy and make me happy.

Steelmage99 wrote:Logic has nothing to do with it

No, but bad game design does. Being in a situation where you need to apply less killing power to make sure you do more damage is awful game design at best, and idiotic at worst. You don't need to make an appeal to logic for why the current wound wrapping system is broken.

Likewise, any system where you can gain a serious advantage with careful memorization of the rules is also a bad design. If you want a game where the winner is the one who can figure out the rules fastest, go play Mao.

Steelmage99 wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:/ When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

It is kind of childish to insist that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties is "abuse" when the example associated with said rules tells us that is is good gamesmanship to do just that.

Shooting More = Less damage.

One can tell this is a gross misinterpretation of logic.

It is shown in the example as being a smart thing to do.

Logic has nothing to do with it, and it certainly cannot be considered abusing the rules when the Games Designers shows us that "this is the intent of the rule".

I know it's not really abuse as well, which is why I don't get upset when people do it to me. I understand that's intentionally in the game, but that doesnt mean I have to like it. If I was in a friendly game, I probably wouldn't bother with it too much, as it just feels weird.

My problem is it makes small arms on basic infantry EVEN MORE WORTHLESS. I mean seriously, I know lasguns suck. You don't need to punish me when I actually stick some wounds with them. Seriously. When I would rather just shoot my 3 meltas, instead of 3 meltas and 18 lasguns, because I know the 3 meltas will probably do more damage on their own, something is messed up. I think in the past 3 games I've played, I've fired my lasguns 3 times, and that was usually when a small PCS had their Heavy weapon sniped and had nothing else to use.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

My only real gripe with 5th Ed. is cc Strength not having a direct correlation to beating/ modifying armour saves.. a Nob with uge choppa on the charge can take down a dread- But that guardsman with the flak jacket can shrug it off.

Hoping that cc weapons get armour save modifiers similar to how it worked in 2nd Ed... With a baseline str5 = -1, str6 =-2 and scaling from there. Power weapons maybe get an additional -1 or -2.

Just some thoughts

Kaldor wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

If they got rid of Multi-wound allocation, they could work them down to levels of cost that's worthwhile than.

It seems also counter-intuitive that shooting more weapons actually lessens the amount of damage you do, there just needs to be either a better system, or have it removed. I don't mind wounds being allocated to different models. (A bit anyways), but I do mind when shooting more = weakness.

Ailaros wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Logic has nothing to do with it

No, but bad game design does. Being in a situation where you need to apply less killing power to make sure you do more damage is awful game design at best, and idiotic at worst.

Sure, we might not like a given rule or we might find it counter-intuitive.
That does not change the fact that the rule, its intent and its example are all clear.

You don't need to make an appeal to logic for why the current wound wrapping system is broken.

One shouldn't be making an appeal to logic, when it comes to the rules of 40k, at all.

Likewise, any system where you can gain a serious advantage with careful memorization of the rules is also a bad design. If you want a game where the winner is the one who can figure out the rules fastest, go play Mao.

What careful memorization is required to understand the wound allocation rules? And what does that have to do with anything?

Does a given players inability to remember that Fleet allows a unit to Assault after Running have any impact on the perceived "power-level" of Fleet?

Saying that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties (as bloody shown in the example) is abuse is like saying that moving the full 6" for an Infantry model is abuse.



This is about the childish use of "abuse" and "shenanigans" in regards to the wound allocation rules.
It is not about whether I like the rules or find them particularly good for the game as a whole.

I will also go on record saying that the wound allocation rule is perfectly easy to both understand and use in game. and that the amount of questions concerning this rule utterly baffles me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrMoustaffa wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Logic has nothing to do with it, and it certainly cannot be considered abusing the rules when the Games Designers shows us that "this is the intent of the rule".

I know it's not really abuse as well, which is why I don't get upset when people do it to me. I understand that's intentionally in the game, but that doesnt mean I have to like it.

Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

With the amount of wounds, on complex wound models (aka, diverse unit loadout)

Say there's five, with say..all 3 melta wounding, and about 12 lasgun wounds, by the nature of wound allocation he can allocate the three melta wounds to one model, thus sparing the rest of his models from the melta wrath, thus, doing less damage with more shots.

Maybe it should be changed, maybe it shouldn't, but it doesnt seem right that a marine in his power armour will almost gain almost no bonus against shooting when he's taking cover. Though it would break the game, especialy when you start looking at units with FNP and re-rolls to saves (fateweaver).

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Okay I'm shooting at 3 MEQ with my veteran squad.
If I shoot just the plasma guns :
I get 6 shots, 4 hits, 3 wounds. That's all three of them that have to take a cover/invulnerable.
Now if I shoot the plasma guns AND the lasguns
I have the 3 plasma gun wounds, but I get another 2 lasgun wounds. Now the other player can dump the plasma gun wounds on two models, and simply have the third model make an armour save, whears with JUST the plasma guns he would have to take a cover/invulnerable (or be dead if he was in the open).

Joey wrote:

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Okay I'm shooting at 3 MEQ with my veteran squad.
If I shoot just the plasma guns :
I get 6 shots, 4 hits, 3 wounds. That's all three of them that have to take a cover/invulnerable.
Now if I shoot the plasma guns AND the lasguns
I have the 3 plasma gun wounds, but I get another 2 lasgun wounds. Now the other player can dump the plasma gun wounds on two models, and simply have the third model make an armour save, whears with JUST the plasma guns he would have to take a cover/invulnerable (or be dead if he was in the open).

Does that constitute abuse?

At the risk of wasting time pre-game, my opponent and I, clarify exactly which terrain feature has what save and only use TLOS for wound allocation. IMO if a squad can bring overwhelming firepower on another unit ie more than one wound per model the meltas/plasmas get done last. If anyone survived the initial fusillade then the stonger guns finish them off.

The wound allocation issue seems to be more about TFG than the rules.