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.

So, I've realized something....the wounding rules in 40k don't make the greatest amount of sense. The best example I can come up with is a 'Nid MC taking wounds. Let's say it gets a direct hit from a battle cannon and fails it saves, it has now taken one wound. On a similar note, if it got hit by a lasgun, was wounded, and failed it saes it....also takes one wound. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? Shouldn't a tank shell be more painful than a rifle shot? Yeah, instant death helps cover this...but what about T6 models? What about models with EW? Shouldn't the tank shell/antitank laser be more painful to them than a rifle shot?

In my opinion, yes, nad this is what I propose to fix it.


Wounding: If a model receives an unsaved wound from a weapon that has a high enough strength to wound it on a 2+, then it takes d3 wounds, instead of one.

The snarky part of me wants to say "You really think 'Nids need a nerfing against high strength gunline armies?"

But the reasonable part of me wants to say "I like this idea because it's logical and makes sense!"

I'm not sure who is going to win yet.

DoW

If this replaced instant death, i could see this being good. Maybe some special things like MC's would cause d6 instead of d3 wounds.

Welcome to 2nd edition. It was a bad idea then too.

It would apply to all things so, each monstrous creature attack that hits, wounds and the model fails its invul save would do d3 wounds to the model too. I think it'd actualy HELP the 'Nids against non-gunline armies, as monstrous creatures would be able to eat through anything in close combat, as it should be.

Darkness, care to explain why it's a bad idea?

Ahh i remember when a heavy bolter got a random number of shots determined by the rapid fire dice and each hit caused 1 D4 wounds...
those were the days...

I could actually see a system whereby damage of a weapon whose strength is higher than toughness has a chance to cause a second (or third) wound, in a similar way to how you hit with a model that has a BS higher than 5. A S8 shot against T6 wounds on 2+ and then wounds again on a 5+, or something.

Sounds like it would make things more complicated though.

Plus, remember, 40k isn't designed to make sense, it's designed to provide a balanced rules set. There are already plenty of counterintuitive things in the rule book that we accept in the name of balance and good game design.

Ailaros wrote:Plus, remember, 40k isn't designed to make sense, it's designed to provide a balanced rules set. There are already plenty of counterintuitive things in the rule book that we accept in the name of balance and good game design.

I'd love to see these "good design" parts you're talking about, Ailaros.

But I can give some merit to this idea, if only if it improves the worst 5th edition codex (at current, IMO). This does create some issues though.

I presume this would only apply to multiple wound models. So that a battle cannon that hits 5 guys can't kill the whole squad. The biggest balancing points comes from what to do with ID (if anything), which threshold "another wound" can be caused, and how many "extra wounds" can possibly be dealt.

Interesting idea, though. I could see these things being very possibly added in. Lasguns wounding Trygons piss me off too.

The battle canon is stronger so it has a better chance of wouding it than a lasgun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The battle canon is stronger so it has a better chance of wouding it than a lasgun.

Indeed, wounds only be dealt to the model, so if a battlecannon hits a Guardsmen, and causes 3 wounds, that Guardsmen would be very, very dead, but the wounds would not spill over onto the rest of the squad though. However, it would mean that for say...Terminators, you'd have to take multiple armor saves to ensure your survival.

The max wounds that can be given is 3, as you're rolling a d3 for wounds. And you would get to make an armor/cover/invulnerable save against each wound. Also, bear in mind that this wouldn't stop lasguns wounding a Trygon. However, it would mean that a lasgun would only cause 1 wound no matter what, while a strength 8 or higher weapon would cause d3 wounds instead. So the higher strength weapon can hurt the model more than the small arms weapon.

@Ailaros

Indeed, however it's nice to pretend and hope that we'd get some connection to the laws of physics in our rulebooks, no?

ChrisWWII wrote:Indeed, wounds only be dealt to the model, so if a battlecannon hits a Guardsmen, and causes 3 wounds, that Guardsmen would be very, very dead, but the wounds would not spill over onto the rest of the squad though. However, it would mean that for say...Terminators, you'd have to take multiple armor saves to ensure your survival.

The max wounds that can be given is 3, as you're rolling a d3 for wounds. And you would get to make an armor/cover/invulnerable save against each wound. Also, bear in mind that this wouldn't stop lasguns wounding a Trygon. However, it would mean that a lasgun would only cause 1 wound no matter what, while a strength 8 or higher weapon would cause d3 wounds instead. So the higher strength weapon can hurt the model more than the small arms weapon.

Agreed on the first part.

So wounds are always D3? What strength does the weapon have to be? Is it relative to the target's toughness (Can Strength 6 cause a guardsman to take D3 wounds, but not a Trygon)? Is there a cap?

DarknessEternal wrote:Welcome to 2nd edition. It was a bad idea then too.

Welcome to FLAMING OTHER POSTERS IS NEVER AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE. IF YOU CANNOT ABIDE BY THE RULES OF THE SITE, DO NOT POST.

As I said in the OP, the strength has to be high enough to wound the model on a 2+. So yes. A Trygon would require S8 or higher to cause d3 wounds, while a Marine would only require S6 to get hit with d3 wounds. Strength D, would cause d3 wounds no matter what your Toughness is (provided it doesn't kill you outright!).

DarknessEternal wrote:Welcome to 2nd edition. It was a bad idea then too.

Ahh yes. Assault Cannons that had special dice and did multiple wounds-----allies----vortex grenades----shooting into close combat. As a Nid player, 2nd edition was great fun

ChrisWWII wrote:As I said in the OP, the strength has to be high enough to wound the model on a 2+. So yes. A Trygon would require S8 or higher to cause d3 wounds, while a Marine would only require S6 to get hit with d3 wounds. Strength D, would cause d3 wounds no matter what your Toughness is (provided it doesn't kill you outright!).

OK. How does this apply to close combat? The same if a power fist is punching a Trygon? What about power weapons, force weapons, Monstrous Creatures, and other things that ignore armor. Witchblades always wound on 2+ - do they cause multiple wounds?

I'm really trying to help you flesh out the idea, here, nothing more. If you have the time, I'd like a quick summary on how this applies on a large scale (IE as if you were writing the rule in the book).

EDIT:

Welcome to 2nd edition. It was a bad idea then too.

NO IT WASN'T.Go figure

That was funny.

Ahh, ok then. Well, the same would apply there, this would be a universal rule worked into the section for 'wounding' in both close combat and shooting. Any attack with a strength high enough to cause a wound on a 2 or more will roll a d3, and the target will take that number of wounds. It would work like this:
1) Roll to Hit
2) Roll To Wound
3) Allocate Wounds
4) Determine Number of Wounds per Model
5) Enemy Takes Saves

Since the attack has to have a strength high enough to wound on a 2+ withcblades and poisoned attacks would not cause multiple wounds, as those have a special rule determining how they wound, instead of just based on strength alone. All other things work as described in the rulebook: power weapons would do what they do in usual attacks, and you wouldn't be able to take you armor saves, etc. etc. Instant Death would remain.

Here's an example of how it would work:

I score 5 wounds on an IG CCS with heavy bolter fire, and allocate one wound per model. Since the heavy bolter is AP4, my regular Guardsmen are removed as casualties, leaving my Company Commander with one wound allocated on it. My opponent rolls to determine the number of wounds, and turns up a 2. I then take my 2 invulnerable saves, and lose wounds as required.

Mulltiple wounds worked well in 2nd, and continue to work well in Fantasy, I like this idea and am interested in seeing where it goes.

personally id just make ID D6 wounds, and Str 6+weapons D3, but only to multi wound models, keep it simple

I personally think it should be tied to toughness rather than just weapon strenght. It makes sense that a Marine takes multiples wounds from S6 or S5 weaons like a heavy bolter, multilaser, etc...but it makes less sense for a Trygon to suffer multiple wounds, and even LESS sens for a Wraithlord to. This rule is designed to make things a bit more logical, and making it purely based on strength doesn't do that.

thing is Str6 is at the very least anti-material sized weapons, anything above str7 is AT and will devestate most soft targets

Which is represented by the 2+ comparison between Strength and Toughness. Heavy antiinfantry/light antitank weapons will cause more damage to Marines and other infantry, avoiding the nonsense we currently have where Marines can take Manticore rockets to the face, and still barely die thanks to a 3+ armor save. At the same time, monstrous creatures will depend. A missile launcher may cripple a Carnifex, but will have a hard time doing the same amount of damage to a Wraithlord.

Trying to tie it to just a Strenght value creates as many problems as it solves.

problem with the 2+ wound thing, Tau VS anything T3...
Also free HB on taq sqauds
a large amount of re-balance would be needed

A pulse rifle would only get its d3 wounds on things T3 or below. Heavy bolters would be the same, and since those wounds would only apply to single models, it really wouldn't be too big a problem. A Guardsman who has taken 3 wounds is as dead as a Guardsman who has taken 1 wound.

I really don't think it'd be as unbalancing as you claim.

This is would make Codex: More Tanks (AKA Guard) even more powerful because it make any high strength large blast barrage ordnance be able to kill anything it wanted. There would be literally no draw backs.

Not to mention it would make EW useless because the model could still be oneshot by a kack missile

It'd benefit anyone with access to high strength weaponry, and would definitely help against things like Dreadknights, Wraithlords, etc.

It wouldn't make EW useless, as I recall most SM heroes have 4 wounds. One krak missile could grieviously hurt it, but not kill it. And that makes sense no? No matter how fancy Abaddon's shield is, a missile that gets through and hits him in the face is going to be painful as all hell. It's definitely going to hurt more than a lasgun round.

Most characters have 2-3 wounds; only a few really rough ones have 4.

Weapons which do multiple wounds still exist in WH; they took them out of 40k starting in 3rd ed, switching over to the Instant Death mechanic instead.

If you were going to reintroduce multiple wounds, you'd need to take out Instant Deat, and increase the number of wounds on every monstrous creature, probably doubling them, at least. They're all statted and point-costed based on the current paradigm.

Well against a MC the wounding might be diffrent as the shell hits armour plating but still hurts while the lasgun hits the eye

I think that this is wery bad idea. This rule would make mc out of their purpose, taking damage and holding enemys best troop etc. and this rule will make more catastrophial change to nids, daemons and other armies who play mcs lot. I cant even think what that rule would do against nids while they dont have enought inv. And think about nightbringer, his god. How can he take multiple wounds? How about swarms? There is so many questions that cant be answered and if you think of making balanced rules for high streght, keep going. Still not bad idea but there is plenty more to do with that rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bad idea but maby good if used right and made right way I mean.

I agree with Mannahnin completely.

As the models are right now, even if you just did D3 wounds, that insta-kills just about every model currently in existence. That makes a mockery of all armor and all equipment. And typical SM HQ's with 4W aren't seen in games below maybe 1500 pts, because they're just too expensive to take. (outside of fun lists.)

You're also adding more steps to an already drawn out process. How long of a game are you willing to play just to make it more 'life like'?

In order to implement this it would take a good bit of re-working of rules, weapon selections for armies and stat changes. Imo, to much work for something that's already working well with the existing rules.

But feel free to give it a whirl, I'd be interested to see what you come up with.

Well, you'd be able to continue to take saves against each wound as the case may be. If your Terminator takes d3 wounds, then you just have to make d3 saves. I kind of view it as a way to introduce some of the armor save reduction mechanic from fantasy,...high strength weapon inflicting multiple wounds would be there to increase the likelihood someone would fail your armor save.

I can see the point about it monstrous creatures though...Would making it so that MCs could only take multiple wounds from ordnance weapons be considered enough?

I could definitely see something like this being the answer to the 'removed from game' vs. ID vs. EW mechanic that seems to have gained a life of its own in the current codexes.

That, or those mechanics need a total rebalance in the next edition.