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.

I cant stand this tactic. Sure it is kind of annoying to kill of models but that isnt even the worst part about it.

I hate this because:
1. It is ridiculously hard to keep track of who is wounded (example: a nob squad)
2. You don't even know who is receiving the wound in some cases your opponent can just apply a wound to some model unwounded.
3. Fluff purposes apparently only one guy can get shot a time then they rotate positions?
4. Instant kill wounds get put on already wounded models on most occasions.
5. Did I mention their annoying to face?
6. It takes up so much time allocating the wounds to every guy one at a time.
7. When they do die some cases your opponent accidentally removes the wrong model. This can be done accidentally if you have a rather large squad which is sometimes the case.
8. Which brings me to my last point. It gives people an easy opportunity to cheat

Does anyone else share my hatred for this kind of unit?

What I got from that was "I don't like fighting complex units so I'll complain about how OP they are". The rules are there to make sure that special weapon dudes don't always last the longest. And TBH, if they did it wouldn't make sense either...


Sorry if I sounded rude.

Tomb King wrote: I cant stand this tactic. Sure it is kind of annoying to kill of models but that isnt even the worst part about it.

I hate this because:
1. It is ridiculously hard to keep track of who is wounded (example: a nob squad)

When playing in a casual game, I put a die next to any wounded model. As they're all WYSIWYG, this isn't too hard to keep track of.
At tournaments, if I have a squad that has multiple options, I call them out individually on the army list that I have printed for my opponent, and we can put a check mark next to any that are wounded.

2. You don't even know who is receiving the wound in some cases your opponent can just apply a wound to some model unwounded.

They need to state who is receiving any wound prior to rolling their save for that model. If your opponent is not doing that, you might show them the rulebook, rather than complain about the rules.

3. Fluff purposes apparently only one guy can get shot a time then they rotate positions?

If I have a squad of ten men hiding behind a wall, where one man stands out, and you shoot at that squad with, say, a 20-shot punisher cannon, how is it that the nine men behind the wall are able to get shot? Oh, yeah, it's a game, not a simulation.

6. It takes up so much time allocating the wounds to every guy one at a time.
7. When they do die some cases your opponent accidentally removes the wrong model. This can be done accidentally if you have a rather large squad which is sometimes the case.
8. Which brings me to my last point. It gives people an easy opportunity to cheat

If your opponents are cheating, you should find new opponents, not complain about the rules. Those of us who actually play by the rules have no problem telling our opponents which model is taking a save, rolling a die, and leaving a marker if he's wounded, or removing the right model if that's appropriate.

Someone complaining about how awful wound wrapping is? I don't know if anyone has come to the conclusion before.

Seriously, this should be stickied, or something.

lol. Its fine it just gets really old if you play against a lot of orc and daemon players. Any solutions?

Tomb King wrote: ...

4. Instant kill wounds get put on already wounded models on most occasions.

...

I believe Instant Death causing wounds must be allocated on unwounded (or the least wounded) models first when allocating for shooting wounds.

Zyllos wrote:

Tomb King wrote: ...

4. Instant kill wounds get put on already wounded models on most occasions.

...

I believe Instant Death causing wounds must be allocated on unwounded (or the least wounded) models first when allocating for shooting wounds.

And you would be correct. If someone is trying to pull this bologna, call them on it.

Fantastic Plastic wrote:

Zyllos wrote:

Tomb King wrote: ...

4. Instant kill wounds get put on already wounded models on most occasions.

...

I believe Instant Death causing wounds must be allocated on unwounded (or the least wounded) models first when allocating for shooting wounds.

And you would be correct. If someone is trying to pull this bologna, call them on it.

You're both wrong, sort of.

If you have a unit of identically armed multi-wound models taking instant death saves, then yes you must remove whole models first from those.

However, if you have uniquely armed models (as the OP was commenting on) then you first follow the rules for allocating wounds. It's perfectly legal to assign ID-causing wounds to already wounded models, and remove them, if there are no other models of that type.

somerandomdude wrote:

Fantastic Plastic wrote:

Zyllos wrote:

Tomb King wrote: ...

4. Instant kill wounds get put on already wounded models on most occasions.

...

I believe Instant Death causing wounds must be allocated on unwounded (or the least wounded) models first when allocating for shooting wounds.

And you would be correct. If someone is trying to pull this bologna, call them on it.

You're both wrong, sort of.

If you have a unit of identically armed multi-wound models taking instant death saves, then yes you must remove whole models first from those.

However, if you have uniquely armed models (as the OP was commenting on) then you first follow the rules for allocating wounds. It's perfectly legal to assign ID-causing wounds to already wounded models, and remove them, if there are no other models of that type.

This should already be assumed. But yes, you still assign Instant Death wounds to the least wounded model first, barring wound allocation groups.

Gah, this thread again? Between this and the "kill points suck thread" there is a bunch of fail today.

C'mon, its a basic part of 5th ed. Its better than the situation last ed where people would just remove redshirsts until the only important models in the unit were left. At least this way it is possible for special weapons and sarges to randomly get picked out. Sure, with multi wound models it makes it hard to actually kill anything with a couple of wounds. Guess what, That Is the Point. If a player brings 500+ points into a unit, it should take a considerable amount of firepower to down it. The units people complain about wound allocation with are almost universally in the 300+ point range. If someone is paying for a unit that is relatively small yet costs so much, shouldn't it survive random small arms fire? You can't fire a couple volleys of pea shooters at a deathstar and expect it to fold.

Good players have adjusted. They bring a good mix of weapons that can clear out weedy units, and the fire power to take out deathstars. The bad players just complain about it, while still playing their 3+ year lists that used to be good (at least in their own mind).

Zyllos wrote:This should already be assumed. But yes, you still assign Instant Death wounds to the least wounded model first, barring wound allocation groups.

Exactly, which is what the OP was referring to.

Like I said, you two were "sort of wrong". You would be correct if we were talking about identically armed models, but since the OP wasn't (as is clear by specifically mentioning Nobz, complaining about how hard it is to keep track of all the wounds, etc.) you were wrong in your statement.

It's a fine rule for making sure sergeants or special weapons get hit as well, but when you start it with things like nobs, its completely ridiculous. And yes, I'm building a diversified nob biker squad atm, which is going to get pulled out whenever someone tries to pull this crap

Tomb King wrote: I cant stand this tactic. Sure it is kind of annoying to kill of models but that isnt even the worst part about it.


1. It is ridiculously hard to keep track of who is wounded (example: a nob squad)

All my lists and opponents lists are always written/typed.

I make a mark next to each wounded WYSIWYG Nob on the list. Those are the wounded ones. Second wound or ID is marked again or scratched through. Easy, cheat proof.

For MegaNobz, I just put a die by the wounded ones. Much easier than the regulars nobz mentioned above.

I can kill them just fine. It is just annoying as I said originally. It slows down the game play a lot and just has so many possibilities for a mistake to be made. Do you know how long it takes to roll each model separately and then mark down the wounds for each model? Which is worse when they have 2 saves. lmao

I guess I am complaining out of annoyance not brokenness. I think its funny when people do it because I take out a majority of their army in just a few rounds of shooting.

notabot187 wrote:Gah, this thread again? Between this and the "kill points suck thread" there is a bunch of fail today.

C'mon, its a basic part of 5th ed. Its better than the situation last ed where people would just remove redshirsts until the only important models in the unit were left. At least this way it is possible for special weapons and sarges to randomly get picked out. Sure, with multi wound models it makes it hard to actually kill anything with a couple of wounds. Guess what, That Is the Point. If a player brings 500+ points into a unit, it should take a considerable amount of firepower to down it. The units people complain about wound allocation with are almost universally in the 300+ point range. If someone is paying for a unit that is relatively small yet costs so much, shouldn't it survive random small arms fire? You can't fire a couple volleys of pea shooters at a deathstar and expect it to fold.

Good players have adjusted. They bring a good mix of weapons that can clear out weedy units, and the fire power to take out deathstars. The bad players just complain about it, while still playing their 3+ year lists that used to be good (at least in their own mind).

This might completely blow your mind here, but try to follow along: thinking something is slowed (example: your post up here, as well as current wound allocation rules) is not the same as knowing how to deal with it (example: clicking the quote button and typing a response even though your post is irredeemably stupid, or taking units that can abuse wound allocation shenanigans/defeat units that abuse wound allocation shenanigans)

Wound and wargear nonsense, while effective, provides no benefit to the game as a whole, and a substantial amount of negatives - It adds time, destroys immersion, and is counter-intuitive. The writer wanted (for whatever reason) the ability for an opponent to arbitrarily destroy your special weapons guy, what he wound up doing was adding a new level of absurdity to the metagame.

When considering a nob biker unit, i decided, if i ever do one, i'd model a grot, or similarly small piece to each model. Proberly on the back of the bike, or the ork.
I would magnatize this, and remove it once a wound was taken.

This would solve alot of problems with "cheating" or forgetfulness.
I've had the discussion before "i thought the painboy took a wound?"

I would like to know if anyone takes sensible wargear on nob bikers these days, instead of taking a mix just to "abuse" a rule. I would love to see more people not abusing wound allocation. if wound allocation didn't exist in its current form, what would people arm nob bikers with? Loads of PKs?

The only instances I usually have of wound allocation are things like banewolves with flamers and lasguns mixed with plasma. It seems a bit silly that some of the squad eat all the bad AP, it is like everyone has the "look out sir!" rule.

I keep a table on my army list with each of my Nobz w/ their specific wargear printed out, with 2 boxes next to each one. I mark when each takes a wound, and I mark when they are killed, and remove accordingly. It takes me less time to wound-allocate my Nobz than Joe Space Marine Player trying to decide whether to put a wound on his Meltagun or Sarge, or how many saves each dude takes.

Cheesy? I don't think so.

Unnecessarily complicated? Not if you read the rules.

Slows down the game? Hell no. I speed it up.

Threads like this make have only one proper response:

MikeMcSomething wrote:

notabot187 wrote:Gah, this thread again? Between this and the "kill points suck thread" there is a bunch of fail today.

C'mon, its a basic part of 5th ed. Its better than the situation last ed where people would just remove redshirsts until the only important models in the unit were left. At least this way it is possible for special weapons and sarges to randomly get picked out. Sure, with multi wound models it makes it hard to actually kill anything with a couple of wounds. Guess what, That Is the Point. If a player brings 500+ points into a unit, it should take a considerable amount of firepower to down it. The units people complain about wound allocation with are almost universally in the 300+ point range. If someone is paying for a unit that is relatively small yet costs so much, shouldn't it survive random small arms fire? You can't fire a couple volleys of pea shooters at a deathstar and expect it to fold.

Good players have adjusted. They bring a good mix of weapons that can clear out weedy units, and the fire power to take out deathstars. The bad players just complain about it, while still playing their 3+ year lists that used to be good (at least in their own mind).

This might completely blow your mind here, but try to follow along: thinking something is slowed (example: your post up here, as well as current wound allocation rules) is not the same as knowing how to deal with it (example: clicking the quote button and typing a response even though your post is irredeemably stupid, or taking units that can abuse wound allocation shenanigans/defeat units that abuse wound allocation shenanigans)

Wound and wargear nonsense, while effective, provides no benefit to the game as a whole, and a substantial amount of negatives - It adds time, destroys immersion, and is counter-intuitive. The writer wanted (for whatever reason) the ability for an opponent to arbitrarily destroy your special weapons guy, what he wound up doing was adding a new level of absurdity to the metagame.

It doesn't really add time once you get used to it. No more time than a marine players stacking his PW wounds on a single guy (like a flamer marine) with the normal wounds on the bulk of the squad. It isn't any less complicated than the old "torrent of fire" rules. Remembering how to mark and assign wounds isn't any harder than memorizing the to hit and to wound tables, and most people I know haven't even looked at them in years.

I don't really see how figuring out who got hit by what is ruining immersion either. I mean, can it be any worse than believing that somebody can survive a direct hit from an auto cannon round and keep coming? The game is already pretty abstract, I see no real problem. It gives people incentive to run something different than the typical marines vs xenos horde (elite orks, immersion RUINED!).

I suspect that people that do the most complaining on this issue are players who don't really want to think. They want to be happy playing their blue on blue games IoM vs IoM or whatever. Any time a non marine army gets some rule that is to their advantage, people complain about it. Wound allocation is a ork thing, and some other armies can sort of do it (but don't since it isn't good for them). I've heard this type of complaint about tau (can split fire!, can ignore cover, get uber S10 weapons!), sisters (faith points are hax!), daemons (fatecrusher beat my army), or eldar (the avoid battle unless your opponent leaves an opening army, contest game on last). Its their gimmicks, and for the most part it isn't even all that good.

notabot187 wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:

notabot187 wrote:Gah, this thread again? Between this and the "kill points suck thread" there is a bunch of fail today.

C'mon, its a basic part of 5th ed. Its better than the situation last ed where people would just remove redshirsts until the only important models in the unit were left. At least this way it is possible for special weapons and sarges to randomly get picked out. Sure, with multi wound models it makes it hard to actually kill anything with a couple of wounds. Guess what, That Is the Point. If a player brings 500+ points into a unit, it should take a considerable amount of firepower to down it. The units people complain about wound allocation with are almost universally in the 300+ point range. If someone is paying for a unit that is relatively small yet costs so much, shouldn't it survive random small arms fire? You can't fire a couple volleys of pea shooters at a deathstar and expect it to fold.

Good players have adjusted. They bring a good mix of weapons that can clear out weedy units, and the fire power to take out deathstars. The bad players just complain about it, while still playing their 3+ year lists that used to be good (at least in their own mind).

This might completely blow your mind here, but try to follow along: thinking something is slowed (example: your post up here, as well as current wound allocation rules) is not the same as knowing how to deal with it (example: clicking the quote button and typing a response even though your post is irredeemably stupid, or taking units that can abuse wound allocation shenanigans/defeat units that abuse wound allocation shenanigans)

Wound and wargear nonsense, while effective, provides no benefit to the game as a whole, and a substantial amount of negatives - It adds time, destroys immersion, and is counter-intuitive. The writer wanted (for whatever reason) the ability for an opponent to arbitrarily destroy your special weapons guy, what he wound up doing was adding a new level of absurdity to the metagame.

It doesn't really add time once you get used to it. No more time than a marine players stacking his PW wounds on a single guy (like a flamer marine) with the normal wounds on the bulk of the squad. It isn't any less complicated than the old "torrent of fire" rules. Remembering how to mark and assign wounds isn't any harder than memorizing the to hit and to wound tables, and most people I know haven't even looked at them in years.

I don't really see how figuring out who got hit by what is ruining immersion either. I mean, can it be any worse than believing that somebody can survive a direct hit from an auto cannon round and keep coming? The game is already pretty abstract, I see no real problem. It gives people incentive to run something different than the typical marines vs xenos horde (elite orks, immersion RUINED!).

I suspect that people that do the most complaining on this issue are players who don't really want to think. They want to be happy playing their blue on blue games IoM vs IoM or whatever. Any time a non marine army gets some rule that is to their advantage, people complain about it. Wound allocation is a ork thing, and some other armies can sort of do it (but don't since it isn't good for them). I've heard this type of complaint about tau (can split fire!, can ignore cover, get uber S10 weapons!), sisters (faith points are hax!), daemons (fatecrusher beat my army), or eldar (the avoid battle unless your opponent leaves an opening army, contest game on last). Its their gimmicks, and for the most part it isn't even all that good.

For starers! Im the one who originated this thread. My armies, Tyranids, DE, IG, and CSM. I hardly even play marines. I know it isnt a good strategy. My only argument is how annoying it is and how much it slows down the game. I am laughing when you all try to compare a SM squad to Ork Nobz with every different possible upgrade. At most a space marine squad can allocate to 3 different models, a flamer, a sgt, and heavy weapon. None of which can get an invul save or feel no pain without pulling some crazy shenanigans. I have never been able to finish a game against an orc player running the nobz that way. The best I have ever made was turn 4. As we will never have time for a turn 5. Even if I played 30 minutes of an hour and a half round. I have only met one player who could play his orcs fast and he didnt do the allocation game.

I've played allocation ork nob units many times.
It doesn't really slow the game that much, considering thats alot of points thats not spent on many more units, or a few larger units. Depending on the nob unit size...
I don't see how people can be taking so much time unless its deliberate or through lack of practice as all the ork players in my area seem to have it down to a tee.

How do you do allocation with marines? Put all the no armor save wounds on one guy. Get shot by a squad with a plasma gun, and a bunch of bolters, it doesn't take much thought to put all the plasma on the same guy. Its no different than what orks do, but its not nearly as effective since marines have 1 wound, while orks nobs have 2. I've also seen people actually use the sarge in a termies squad to soak an extra wound or two, even though he has the same or similar gear, he has a separate stat line.

As for the ork players who can't seem to play their own army... they need to practice more. At a tourney if they are taking too long with their turns, call a judge. Also, since ork nobs take up a bunch of points, at least you don't have to wait for the 100+ infantry to move.

I think the rule is a bit annoying because it can be a lot to keep track of but it can be handled. Personally, I think it would be best if the attacking player could allocate the wounds instead (following the current rules in other aspects). Kind of stupid that his most powerful guys would focus on the least dangerous opponent.. but rules are the way they are..

Mizeran wrote:I think the rule is a bit annoying because it can be a lot to keep track of but it can be handled. Personally, I think it would be best if the attacking player could allocate the wounds instead (following the current rules in other aspects). Kind of stupid that his most powerful guys would focus on the least dangerous opponent.. but rules are the way they are..

And almost every game will have this kind of phrase.
"Firing krak missile at x unit, allocating it to your sergeant/nob/exarch"

It'd easy to believe that if have a special weapons, your not going to be poking your head out of cover. Your weapon is special and most likely you'll wait for the perfect shot/s. If you die, someone could theoretically pick up your weapon and carry on. I see no problem with allocation possibly avoiding certain models deaths but still allowing it to happen.
As for charecter upgrades, when a charecter leads a unit from the front, directing his men and giving a big "F U" to incoming fire, its heroic, it looks cool, and it happens in movies. But theres still a chance he takes a stray round in the face (his own fault for not wearing a helmet)

I find allocation to be alot better than "O look my sarge and melta marine were the last to die... again" and it works pretty well until units come in and abuse it. But i have no problem taking them down either, throw enough dice at them and they will fall.

dayve110 wrote:

Mizeran wrote:I think the rule is a bit annoying because it can be a lot to keep track of but it can be handled. Personally, I think it would be best if the attacking player could allocate the wounds instead (following the current rules in other aspects). Kind of stupid that his most powerful guys would focus on the least dangerous opponent.. but rules are the way they are..

And almost every game will have this kind of phrase.
"Firing krak missile at x unit, allocating it to your sergeant/nob/exarch"

It'd easy to believe that if have a special weapons, your not going to be poking your head out of cover. Your weapon is special and most likely you'll wait for the perfect shot/s. If you die, someone could theoretically pick up your weapon and carry on. I see no problem with allocation possibly avoiding certain models deaths but still allowing it to happen.
As for charecter upgrades, when a charecter leads a unit from the front, directing his men and giving a big "F U" to incoming fire, its heroic, it looks cool, and it happens in movies. But theres still a chance he takes a stray round in the face (his own fault for not wearing a helmet)

I find allocation to be alot better than "O look my sarge and melta marine were the last to die... again" and it works pretty well until units come in and abuse it. But i have no problem taking them down either, throw enough dice at them and they will fall.

Good point, it's hard to get it good

dayve110 wrote:When considering a nob biker unit, i decided, if i ever do one, i'd model a grot, or similarly small piece to each model. Proberly on the back of the bike, or the ork.
I would magnatize this, and remove it once a wound was taken.

This would solve alot of problems with "cheating" or forgetfulness.
I've had the discussion before "i thought the painboy took a wound?"

This a realy great idea, sadly it's to late for my nobz to steal it... I use orange plastic-strips and stick them to the base of any wounded models.

TombKing:
In my opinion your opponent is trying hard to cheat. You will never "accidently" pic up the wrong nob in your squad, unless you didn't build your nobz(the models) yourself, they are primed black+unpaintet and someone else wrote your army list. And even then it should be quite hard to misstake a doc for a nob with a combi-scorcha. If he fails to keep track of his units, make him write it down. Also, tell him to get different collored dice so he can roll for three nobz at once, that way a whole squad would be rolled for in no more than six throws.

Trickstick:
To be honest? My nob bikers would look exactly the same. You'd never give a nobz unit all PKs, they're expensive as hell. I have 5 bikers, 2 PK, 2 BC, 1 Doc plus BP, Waaagh!-banner and a combi-scorcha. A sixth one would most likely get another PK, so they would still all be different either way.
Bigger units of regular nobz would look differnt than now tough.