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.

Long time lurker here ...

I posted this issue late last night on Warseer but didn't get much response. From what I understand of the document, it seems that the new allocating wounds process means that small squads with decent saves being hit by a large number of wounds are much more survivable (and similarly, units that rely on large # of high-AP wounds such as war walkers or HB squads are less effective). For instance, if a squad of 5 SM gets hit with 15 wounds. Each wound is allocated to each model, e.g.

SM1 (w,w,w) SM2 (w,w,w) SM3 (w,w,w) SM4 (w,w,w) SM5 (w,w,w)

Then each model in the unit (regardless of LOS) rolls for its saves. Thus, say SM1 fails 1 save, okay, then it is dead. SM2 and SM3 saves all their wounds, then they are still alive. SM4 rolls terribly and fails all three. It's dead, and those additional fails are simply wasted, since SM5 now gets to roll its 3 wounds, and passes all three.

SM1 (p,f,p) = dead
SM2 (p,p,p) = alive
SM3 (p,p,p) = alive
SM4 (f,f,f) = dead
SM5 (p,p,p) = alive

Grand total of 4 failed saves, but only 2 models die.

Am I understanding this correctly? Unless I've totally misunderstood the document, this is going to make calculating/MathHammer quite a bit more complicated. It is also going to really slow the game down as well. Perhaps with it, the new blast rules, and the emphasis on large troop squads, four turn tournament games will become the norm.

That's my understanding of it too Randy.

Man, I'd love to be a fly on the wall of GW HQ this morning.

Part of me wonders if this leak was intentional, because it appears to be everywhere.

Part of me wonders if this might have been the work of a playtester dissatisfied with the rules and wanting to show GW what the response would be and maybe get a few changes made.

At this point, I wish GW would just harness the power of the web to distribute information. They could just post an official Trial-5th edition like they did with the assault rules prior to fourth.

Looking at Randy's post, if that's true, it seems a large deviation away from both 40k and Fantasy norms. More surprised at the latter, with a lot of other mechanisms seemingly coming in to align the rules of the two more closely.

Of course, the rationale may well be (and probably should be) to pick the Fantasy rules that work and apply well in 40k also. And maybe 40k wound allocation, if done the traditional (and quicker) way just allows too much abuse in mixed complement squads. A more elegant solution would be nice.

If Orks are going to be the biggest WAAC army in 5th, then I'm happy I have 46 Berzerkers. 184 attacks on the charge with 3's to hit and 3's to wound. You run, I run, we all run, it is anarchy!!

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I like the fact that you can't move and fire gobs and gobs of weapons now. It's about mobility or about shooting, you do not get everything in one easy to use package. More choices mean more mistakes or good moves.

Lets see if choosing to move or fire worked in 3rd edition. Nope, it looks like vehicles just stood there blasting away for 6 turns. And they only have more incentive to do so now that they no longer count as scoring. Weee...

And who would design a vehicle that couldn't effectively fire on the move. Name one modern tank that can't. (and don't give any WWII era garbage as a rationalization when their fighting in an era with grav tanks/titans/orbital bombardments/planet destroyers)

Therion wrote:Am I reading this right? First people whine about Falcons non-stop for years, and when Falcons are nerfed people are fine with AV14 vehicles becoming the new Falcons. Let me remind you that a Falcon with discount guns and star engines on top of the other crucial upgrades does cost 210 points. AV13 vehicles will be nearly as tough of course as the old Falcons for almost half the price. The new Falcons on the other hand will be absolute garbage, and you're fine with that too.

You're comparing what essentially is a AV14 bunker firing two twin-lascannons from behind cover to a vehicle that, under current rules, can perform battlefield miracles that would make God Almighty look like a 3rd class con artist?

Wehrkind wrote:Obviously in the dark grimmness or whatever of the far future, all gun crews are recruited from PA road workers. You need 5 guys standing around smoking and drinking coffee so 2 guys can fire the gun, while 3 others supervise.

Of course, you are on the exact opposite side of the globe, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about... Still, I think it is pretty obvious that the gun crews are union workers, and thus are very rigorous about their rules.

This gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling that people around the world don't necessarily have it better than me...

BTW could someone PM me with a torrent location or something? I'm feeling a bit lonely here...

Here come the Dark Angels with loads of cheap razorbacks in the trees. Oh wait their troops are still 110pts for 5? Forget it.


Here come the BA with loads of cheap razorbacks in the trees and their 3 attack bikes can get a multimelta for no cost. 9 multimelta attack bikes, in three squads, for 450pts total might be all the anti-tank you need. Roll out the 50pt razorbacks with 5-man squads, a big death company and you are ready to rumble.

randyc9999 wrote:Long time lurker here ...

I posted this issue late last night on Warseer but didn't get much response. From what I understand of the document, it seems that the new allocating wounds process means that small squads with decent saves being hit by a large number of wounds are much more survivable (and similarly, units that rely on large # of high-AP wounds such as war walkers or HB squads are less effective). For instance, if a squad of 5 SM gets hit with 15 wounds. Each wound is allocated to each model, e.g.

SM1 (w,w,w) SM2 (w,w,w) SM3 (w,w,w) SM4 (w,w,w) SM5 (w,w,w)

Then each model in the unit (regardless of LOS) rolls for its saves. Thus, say SM1 fails 1 save, okay, then it is dead. SM2 and SM3 saves all their wounds, then they are still alive. SM4 rolls terribly and fails all three. It's dead, and those additional fails are simply wasted, since SM5 now gets to roll its 3 wounds, and passes all three.

SM1 (p,f,p) = dead
SM2 (p,p,p) = alive
SM3 (p,p,p) = alive
SM4 (f,f,f) = dead
SM5 (p,p,p) = alive

Grand total of 4 failed saves, but only 2 models die.

Am I understanding this correctly? Unless I've totally misunderstood the document, this is going to make calculating/MathHammer quite a bit more complicated. It is also going to really slow the game down as well. Perhaps with it, the new blast rules, and the emphasis on large troop squads, four turn tournament games will become the norm.

I think you've understood it perfectly and you're right. In many ways this is a worse solution than the current issue.

The thing you have to remember is that the current wound allocation rules simply do not work as written. Most everyone plays a certain way based off personal preference and what seems right but if you really break down the current rules when it comes to some of the more wacky situations the whole thing is completely cracked.


That said, I really think they need to alter these rules before the book is published. I'm okay with allocating wounds to models before rolling saves because it removes the whole mixed armor debacle but they really need to change the rules for allocation.

Wounds that ignore a model's REGULAR armor save (not invulnerable or cover saves) need to be allocated and resolved BEFORE allocating and resolving wounds that don't ignore a model's basic armor save.

Allowing a single model to have multiple wounds that ignore its armor save while the rest of the unit saves against the basic wounds seems like a real recipe for disaster. The more firepower a unit puts out vs. the smaller the target enemy unit the more players are really able to absorb all kinds of firepower into a single model while leaving most of the unit unscathed.

Having now found and read the leaked pdf, Randy's assessment is exactly right. Units that put out a lot of shots stand to lose a few kills and small units stand to take a few less casualties. I'm not sure it's a major problem, though, because it only becomes really significant when the whole squad is taking multiple saves, and it balances out somewhat with better odds at killing upgrade characters and heavy weapons.


The real problem is how they treat armor-penetrating wounds (rending, AP2, etc). Asmodai is correct: they actually give an example of putting two plasma wounds on one guy to reduce casualties.

This is just bizarre; it leads to cases where causing more wounds results in fewer casualties. Those who've read the pdf can confirm this; this is not only how it works in this draft, there's even an example indicating that it's meant to work this way.

Example:
2-donkeycannon termies shoot up a squad of six 4+ save genestealers, and do six wounds with the assault cannons, which allow no saves.

6 cannon wounds = 6 dead nids = dead squad

But if they also get, say, 3 stormbolter wounds, the nid player can assign wounds as follows:

G1: 1 bolter wound (gets save)
G2: 1 bolter (save)
G3: 1 bolter (save)
G4-6: 2 cannon wounds each, dead

By causing more wounds, the nid squad goes from wiped out with no saves to half of the squad getting saves.

More wounds = fewer casualties = Whaa??

Edit: Yeah, so this is basically an example of what Yakface just said in a lot fewer words.

GW may have meant to make it a balancing thing that lets marines/necrons be a little more resilient against the future hordes of orks and gaunts. But, it won't do squat for Tau, Eldar, or DE.

Can someone PM me with the link. I can't find it in the forums.

Dire Wombat wrote:...
...

By causing more wounds, the nid squad goes from wiped out with no saves to half of the squad getting saves.

More wounds = fewer casualties = Whaa??

Edit: Yeah, so this is basically an example of what Yakface just said in a lot fewer words.

Different weapons though, which affects the result.

The way the game works you can either do it the 4th edition way, which brings in all the problems with majority armour and toughness and stuff, or you can simplify it they way they are doing and you have this "unfairness" problem. It depends on how people look at things.

I have always regarded the To Hit/To Wound/To Save triple die rolling as a way of squeezing a finer grained percentage probability out of a D6, rather than a literal hit that needs a literal wound and save. Looking at your example, how were the bullets meant to know in advance that some figures would save? And what if no-one had saved, what about the extra unsaved wounds then? Would they have carried on to the next door squad.

It will of course tend to favour small, "hard" units like SMs over hordes like Stonefox said.

Ork kommandos already have a character that can allow them to come in my deployment zone, and at least if kommandos without him can come in from different edges, they will actually be a good choice for the slot. It will be a pain, yes, but Orks will have an issue if they have any lootas, or big guns in the backfield and I am fielding scouts. They could also roll poorly and come in on an edge far away from my units.

Setup is 24" apart now, so even though they are running, they have an extra 6" to make up vs the 18" of before. Trukks are 6" slower than before, so I have a little more time to choose my targets. I can also run to redeploy, and or get into my vehicles (being mech) and redeploy to get out of the way of the masses. The missle launchers I usually field in a tourney style list will be much better now at clearing out orks with frag, while a whirlwind or vindicator will work wonders, especially against massed boyz mobs and hidden lootas.

I don't see anything that tactics and armament can't help me with. With Waagh!, Gahzkull and Weirdboyz you have a fast moving army already.

It really isn't anything I already don't fear.

Wehrkind wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote: Why? Isn't the point of having multiple crew so the tank can do different things at the same time? Do they all stop to wish the gunner good luck, or deliver a catchy one-liner each time they fire?

Obviously in the dark grimmness or whatever of the far future, all gun crews are recruited from PA road workers. You need 5 guys standing around smoking and drinking coffee so 2 guys can fire the gun, while 3 others supervise.

Of course, you are on the exact opposite side of the globe, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about... Still, I think it is pretty obvious that the gun crews are union workers, and thus are very rigorous about their rules.

LMAO i'm for western pa tis very ture

I think the wounds per model issue is going to end up only working if one applies different types of wounds seperately, rolling saves in between.
Take, for example, the demi-rending Sisters have now. On a 6 to wound with Divine Guidance, it's AP1. So even with regular bolters I might have 20 hits, and say 10 wounds vs. MEQ, 3 of which are now AP1. The only really sensible thing to do is to say "Ok, apply all the AP1 shots. Roll saves as appropriate. Ok, apply all the AP5 shots. Rolls saves." Basically treat AP as I in reverse order. That way your opponant can put the low AP hits on redshirts, but you don't get punished for doing more damage.

We sort of play this way now, assigning hits to specific models when there are differing armor saves up until torrent of fire comes into play. It works pretty well when you have an HQ or something hanging out with a troops unit etc. and want to take an invulnerable save against a plasma gun instead of toasting Brother Ryan's privates. 90% of the time it never comes up though, so I don't really see this as being too terribly different. Worries me a bit though.

It puts much more value on squad firepower than just heavy duty firepower (say, from an Assault Cannon). I think this kinda makes the game more interesting, as it's another beating the AC takes - together with the rumoured Rending Nerf.

So, if I've got a squad of 10 plague marines with 2 plasmaguns shooting at 5 terminators - is it actually *better* for me to shoot only the plasmaguns and hold fire with the bolters?

If I shoot the PGs, I get 3-4 hits, probably 3 wounds, each of which is distributed to a different termie. Then they roll their saves. I should kill 2 (1 will make his inv. save).

If I also shoot the 7 bolters from the other PMs, say I get lucky and score 8 wounds (from 12 hits). Now, the termies have 11 wounds on 5 guys. They can legally put all 3 plasma wounds on 1 guy (who will die 26/27 times), and assign 2 bolter wounds to each of the other 4 guys. Each termie has a 1/3 chance of failing one of the two armor saves, so I should kill one more. Same result as just firing the plasma guns.

This is a worst case scenario for the PMs (they scored just enough bolter wounds to allow wrapping the 3rd plasma wound onto the same guy, and the bolter wounds are subject to 2+ saves). Odds are that only one wrap would be allowed, so two termies would be eating plasma wounds. It *is* odd that if the bolters had dealt 7 wounds instead of 8, I'd likely have been able to kill a third termie...

And against anything with worse than 2+ saves, it's definitely worth firing everything. Ok, it's not as bad as I had thought. Just leads to a few weird situations...

Perhaps it's the reason you can choose that some of your guys won't fire at all if you don't want them to. I've seen someone mention this rule in the thread. The pure Assault Cannon shots or Plasma shots won't be "soiled" by some bolters if the owning player chooses so.

Yet, I'd prefer Yakface's solution.

I don't get why the target player is allowed to group the plasma hits on one of his guys but must distribute the bolter hits equally.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't get why the target player is allowed to group the plasma hits on one of his guys but must distribute the bolter hits equally.

Target player has to distribute the total # of wounds evenly. Thus, if 4 wounds and five models, then target player can decide which model didn't get wounded. If 6 wounds and 5 models, then target player has to give each model a single wound, plus choose which model to give a second wound to. Now imagine that of those 6 wounds, 2 of them are plasma. Then the target player will of course give both plasma to the same model, thus killing only one model. However, if there were only 4 wounds (2 of them plasma), then 2 models would have to take a plasma each.

Yes, but I don't get why that is allowed.

This goes back to the problem that not all wounds were created equally.

It seems more sensible to distribute hits from weapons as evenly as possible, then do the wounds and saves.

I shouldn't be arguing for it because as a Tau player my shield drones become super-useful if I can pile up the plasma.

Because in the bizarre world of in which the Design team live; it rains gum drops, Oompa Loompas dance and this makes sense.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't get why the target player is allowed to group the plasma hits on one of his guys but must distribute the bolter hits equally.

It's equal distribution of all wounds, regardless of which weapon caused them. If a unit takes 10 wounds, each model must save vs 2. If 2 of those wounds are plasma, it says you can put them both on 1 model. Each model gets 2 wounds, but 1 model sucks up the plasma wounds.

Don't like it. I do like Yak's suggestion.

Edit - wow, looks like answers came while I was reading the thread and replying.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, but I don't get why that is allowed.

This goes back to the problem that not all wounds were created equally.

It seems more sensible to distribute hits from weapons as evenly as possible, then do the wounds and saves.

I shouldn't be arguing for it because as a Tau player my shield drones become super-useful if I can pile up the plasma.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all wounds are created equal, that they are endowed by the Games Workshop Studio staff with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the right to be stacked in any way desired.

And now for something completely dfferent:

Has anyone confirmed the existence/nonexistence of a penalty to attacking skimmers in CC? Are they still only hit on a 6?

if not, good bye skimmer lists period. If so, it still might be viable.

Looks like the tide of Biel-Tan armies is about to rise. Lucky Snakes (Serpent rush with Fortune) will be the new assault spam. 'Course the Serpents won't be firing more than one weapon after the drop-off, but at least it will keep them cheaper. VE, StarEngines, Stones, that's it. Add Seer on jetbike (or Eldrad giving the kiss-off to two Serpents from the starting line) and hit the accelerator pedal. Do it with 4 assault squads or 2 assault squads and 2 PW/SS Dire Avenger units, and something's going to die. The best part is that they can go rescue Dark Reapers after they've dumped the assault contingent.

At least it's more thematic than walking forwards behind a Rhino wall.

I like his suggestion that they should fix it before they publish the rules.

You still need a 6 to hit skimmers.

Savnock wrote:
Looks like the tide of Biel-Tan armies is about to rise. Lucky Snakes (Serpent rush with Fortune) will be the new assault spam. 'Course the Serpents won't be firing more than one weapon after the drop-off, but at least it will keep them cheaper. VE, StarEngines, Stones, that's it. Add Seer on jetbike (or Eldrad giving the kiss-off to two Serpents from the starting line) and hit the accelerator pedal.

In other words 3rd edition, part 2. (plus the most god awful wounding rules they have managed to create yet)

Back to Mechanized Assault Lists and Tanks that never move..

Sarigar wrote:You still need a 6 to hit skimmers.

Counting down till Voodoo reads this and hits the ceiling.

T minus 100..