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 have to agree with a lot of people on this thread, the wound allocation rules were a change made that wasn't really needed. All it has really done has offered a chance to force special squad members to take armour saves, while detracting from the actual effectiveness of squad's additional armaments.

To further this, why SHOULDN'T a PG, ML and Sarg be the last survivors?
A sergeant is a veteran of combat, he may have the slightest of edge in experience over his squad members. A dropped weapon maybe picked up by a surviving member or alternatively why would the 'Look out sir' effect not also apply to the PG, ML wielding soldier. Haven't these guys EARNT the weapon they're carrying? Wouldn't the others TRY to protect this ancient and treasured tech?

How do you pick up a gun that has just been pulverised by tyhe same battlecannon round that killed its wielder?

You can start picking up the pieces maybe....

or alternatively why would the 'Look out sir' effect not also apply to the PG, ML wielding soldier. Haven't these guys EARNT the weapon they're carrying? Wouldn't the others TRY to protect this ancient and treasured tech?

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...

And thats under circumstances that a weapon may survive, in the case of a battle cannon it is possible for the other space marines (the casualties) to shield the bearer or even JUST the weapon.

How do you pick up a Heavy Bolter then? In the case of a Space Marine the ammo feed is in the backpack, which is integrated with the armour. It'd be kinda hard to just "pick that up".

By it being a game not a simulation. A certain degree of abstraction is necessary.

If I wanted realism I wouldn't play a game in which giant augmented masters of the martial arts wearing power armor and carrying fully automatic rocket launchers fight psychic aliens and undead robots.

Jefffar wrote:By it being a game not a simulation. A certain degree of abstraction is necessary.

If I wanted realism I wouldn't play a game in which giant augmented masters of the martial arts wearing power armor and carrying fully automatic rocket launchers fight psychic aliens and undead robots.

So... the argument has no merit then? Funny that, it's almost as if that's what I said in the first place!

But the argument that does have merit with a game is fun.

GW needs to go with a mechanic that is fun. This means it has to be quick and simple so as to not bog down play.

However the rule also needs to account for three scenarios that are not fun. Scenario 1: Those special weapons models you paid extra for are useless because they always die first. Scenario 2: It is impossible to kill the enemy special weapons because wounds are never allocated to them. Scenario 3: It is possible for either player to abuse the system to modify the number of casualties taken.

So to be fun the rule must be simple, fast, and able to prevent the scenarios above.

So, is the current system fun? If not, how can we make it fun?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How do you pick up a Heavy Bolter then? In the case of a Space Marine the ammo feed is in the backpack, which is integrated with the armour. It'd be kinda hard to just "pick that up".

They're super enhanced warriors. They simply drag the body with the ammo.

*EDIT OR they rip the pack off the back of the armour and drag that along leaving the rest of the body behind.

**EDIT OR they have one of their buddies carry the back pack while firing their own weapon single handedly or rested on the held back pack

SIDE NOTE
On another note I seem to recall rules (in inquisitor I think...) where you had unpowered power armour (lacking the huge power plant in the back pack) which could suggest its detachable and (as I remember only space marines could move around in the unpowered armour just as if it were on (but they didn't gain its strength bonuses) This may be completely wrong as my memory is hazy its been a good 6 years (at least) since I have even seen the rule book...

JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How do you pick up a Heavy Bolter then? In the case of a Space Marine the ammo feed is in the backpack, which is integrated with the armour. It'd be kinda hard to just "pick that up".

They're super enhanced warriors. They simply drag the body with the ammo.

*EDIT OR they rip the pack off the back of the armour and drag that along leaving the rest of the body behind.

or just press the release catch and then place it on themselves

Formosa wrote:

JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How do you pick up a Heavy Bolter then? In the case of a Space Marine the ammo feed is in the backpack, which is integrated with the armour. It'd be kinda hard to just "pick that up".

They're super enhanced warriors. They simply drag the body with the ammo.

*EDIT OR they rip the pack off the back of the armour and drag that along leaving the rest of the body behind.

or just press the release catch and then place it on themselves

Yeah or just do that....

I can understand people comparing 3rd and 4th edition to 5th edition 40k seeing a gradual improvment over time.

And so based on this limited view of rule sets, they may not be ware of how bad 5th ed 40k actualy is!

If 40k was played with JUST standard infantry, then the rules would be fine.
Unfortunatley , all the other units need to have a massive amount of additional rules that contradict the core rules.
And add confusion and complication to the rule set.

Most of the games I like playing have rules that show the players how the game works ,then lets them get on with playing the game.

40k rules show the players how the game doesnt work, by listing the few core rules, than emidiatley contradicting them with poorly defined exceptions.

In summary,
5th ed rules book uses inapropriate game mechanics that delivers one dimentional game play in an overcomplicated, abstract and counterintuiive way.

Lanrak wrote:I can understand people comparing 3rd and 4th edition to 5th edition 40k seeing a gradual improvment over time.

And so based on this limited view of rule sets, they may not be ware of how bad 5th ed 40k actualy is!

If 40k was played with JUST standard infantry, then the rules would be fine.
Unfortunatley , all the other units need to have a massive amount of additional rules that contradict the core rules.
And add confusion and complication to the rule set.

Most of the games I like playing have rules that show the players how the game works ,then lets them get on with playing the game.

40k rules show the players how the game doesnt work, by listing the few core rules, than emidiatley contradicting them with poorly defined exceptions.

In summary,
5th ed rules book uses inapropriate game mechanics that delivers one dimentional game play in an overcomplicated, abstract and counterintuiive way.

Got any examples, or do you just expect us to take your word for it?

Well, to fix wound alloction, how about this.

each identical weapon must be resolved seperately. So in the example of a battlecannon and Hbs, you must remove casalties before the HBs hit/wound (whichever). That is what we normally do my way, without realising it, and believe me,it is perfectly fine.

I don't like that, all the bodies in the squad were there before the shots were fired, why do the smaller pool of guys take the next wave of hits?

How about defender allocates wounds as normal but if the attacker rolls a 6 to hit he may allocate the associated wound?

No. That rule is always suggested for sniper weapons but it should not be around.

Jefffar wrote:I don't like that, all the bodies in the squad were there before the shots were fired, why do the smaller pool of guys take the next wave of hits?

The heavy bolters were fired after the BC to finish everyone else off? You can assume any failed hits/wounds may have already gone to guys killed by the BC's and the remaining wounds are only those that hit the guys left? There's lots of things you can come up with to avoid making additional shooting pointless or worse, detrimental.

How about defender allocates wounds as normal but if the attacker rolls a 6 to hit he may allocate the associated wound?

That just adds even more complexity and time consumption.

Hi again.
As many may not have seen other rule set to compare them to current 40k.

All the good ones write rules that cover all units by defining common traits.And writing characteristics that directly represent them on the battlfield.

EG
All units have a Mobility value.This is the maximum distance the model may move when taking a movement action.
M4 ,M6.M8,M12, etc.

Movment phase.
Units have the option of remaining stationary and improving thier observation range.(And allowing them to use heavier support weapons.)
Units have the option to move up to thier M characteristic , and fire small arms and light support weapons.
Unit have the options to move at double the M characteristic and not make any ranged attacks.

Aternative game turn (Alternating phases.)
A moves.
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assault
B assault.
(Roll of for who goes first each turn.This is just one of about half a dosen alternative to get more interaction in the game play.)

Alternate damage resolution.(Ranged and close combat for ALL units!)
All units have an Armour Value.from 1 to 15.(Vehicles and MCs have front side and rear values.)
All weapons have an Armour Piercing value from 5 to 20.

When a model is hit by a weapon, roll a D6 and add the result to the model Armour value.
IF this is hgher than the weapons Armour Piericing value the model passes its armour save.
If this value is equal or lower the model failed its armour save and takes damage.

All models have a damage threshold, 3 to 9.
All weapons have a damage value 1 to 5.

If the model fails its armour save the atacker rolls a D6 and adds it to the weapons damage value.

If this result is lower than the target damage threshold the target is unharmed.

If the result is over the targets damage threshold the target looses one wound/structure point .

If the result is double , or triple the targetd damage threshold it looses 2 or 3 wounds/structure points.

Large creatures and vehcles have wounds/structure points in mobility and armamanet.
As they lose wounds /structure points , they lose mobility or armament/attacks as aprpriate.

JUST ONE example of a damage resolution that is straigntforward and intuitive, that gives proportional results.(I may not have explained it too well though.)

This reduces the current 5th ed book by about 30 pages.In which we can include a straight forward fog of war, supresion mechanics and have greater morale and command and control and still have pages left over!

But some people like huge amounts of superfluos pages of poorly defined badly implemented rules to argue over.

Vaktathi wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I don't like that, all the bodies in the squad were there before the shots were fired, why do the smaller pool of guys take the next wave of hits?

The heavy bolters were fired after the BC to finish everyone else off? You can assume any failed hits/wounds may have already gone to guys killed by the BC's and the remaining wounds are only those that hit the guys left? There's lots of things you can come up with to avoid making additional shooting pointless or worse, detrimental.

That sounds overly complicated and I don't really like the sound of it.

I thought the 4th ed torrent rule was pretty functional. If you inflicted as many or more wounds as the defending unit had models in it, the attacker could designate one model which had to suffer a save separately on its own- the defender got to choose which kind of wound/weapon it was from if there were multiple, though. The designated model could still also die from wound overflow from the other wounds, though.

So if you shot an enemy unit of 5 guys with (say) some plasma and bolters, and inflicted 5 wounds, you could say- "the sgt will take the torrent wound". Your opponent could then say "okay, it'll be one of the bolter wounds", and so get the 3+ against it, but if he failed it the sgt would have to be removed. This was a decent way to make sure the sgt or heavy wasn't always the last to die, without allowing the wound removal shananigans we presently have.

Honestly I think the 5th ed rules are really great. The only thing I really see as in need of fixing is wound allocation. I could also see changing area terrain back into blocking LOS completely if drawn across it, just to get more LOS blocking back on the table because so many stores and gamers are gorram lazy and have failed to properly outfit their tables with LOS blocking buildings and hills since 5th came out.

Lanrak wrote:

Spoiler:

Hi again.
As many may not have seen other rule set to compare them to current 40k.

All the good ones write rules that cover all units by defining common traits.And writing characteristics that directly represent them on the battlfield.

EG
All units have a Mobility value.This is the maximum distance the model may move when taking a movement action.
M4 ,M6.M8,M12, etc.

Movment phase.
Units have the option of remaining stationary and improving thier observation range.(And allowing them to use heavier support weapons.)
Units have the option to move up to thier M characteristic , and fire small arms and light support weapons.
Unit have the options to move at double the M characteristic and not make any ranged attacks.

Aternative game turn (Alternating phases.)
A moves.
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assault
B assault.
(Roll of for who goes first each turn.This is just one of about half a dosen alternative to get more interaction in the game play.)

Alternate damage resolution.(Ranged and close combat for ALL units!)
All units have an Armour Value.from 1 to 15.(Vehicles and MCs have front side and rear values.)
All weapons have an Armour Piercing value from 5 to 20.

When a model is hit by a weapon, roll a D6 and add the result to the model Armour value.
IF this is hgher than the weapons Armour Piericing value the model passes its armour save.
If this value is equal or lower the model failed its armour save and takes damage.

All models have a damage threshold, 3 to 9.
All weapons have a damage value 1 to 5.

If the model fails its armour save the atacker rolls a D6 and adds it to the weapons damage value.

If this result is lower than the target damage threshold the target is unharmed.

If the result is over the targets damage threshold the target looses one wound/structure point .

If the result is double , or triple the targetd damage threshold it looses 2 or 3 wounds/structure points.

Large creatures and vehcles have wounds/structure points in mobility and armamanet.
As they lose wounds /structure points , they lose mobility or armament/attacks as aprpriate.

JUST ONE example of a damage resolution that is straigntforward and intuitive, that gives proportional results.(I may not have explained it too well though.)

This reduces the current 5th ed book by about 30 pages.In which we can include a straight forward fog of war, supresion mechanics and have greater morale and command and control and still have pages left over!

But some people like huge amounts of superfluos pages of poorly defined badly implemented rules to argue over.

It also completely changes the game. If you don't want to play Warhammer 40k I'd suggest you say that instead of attributing it to the rules.

Ok well weapon/special/character deaths being last in a squad removes all point in 'sniping'. However when it comes to ACTUAL sniper units (those with sniper weaponry) they should just be able to pick their targets.... problem solved. Under the current rules its possible for SM scout snipers to do LESS damage if the squad also has a missile launcher in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also those rules suggestions you just made are pretty simple stuff, and you have made a valid attempt at solving the entire systems inherent flaws. And as for the remarks of 'if you don't want to play warhammer etc.' Thats completely unfair and more than a little insulting. You asked for an example of how it could be better, he provided one so OF COURSE its not going to be the current system. It does not 'completely change the game' because 40k will be 40k regardless of rule changes. Its just a different WAY of playing the game.

@ Jefffar > we already use a similar mechanic for wound allocation:

If a 6 is rolled to Wound, the attacker has the option to allocate the wound directly. If the previous to Hit roll is rolled again, the attacker can choose which model makes the save. If the previous to Hit roll fails, the wound is lost.

This allows the attacker to attempt to pick out targets but at the risk of losing the wounds entirely. We have found it adds a an interesting option without bogging down basic game play as most of the time people just want to make sure each wound counts.

amanita wrote:
If a 6 is rolled to Wound, the attacker has the option to allocate the wound directly. If the previous to Hit roll is rolled again, the attacker can choose which model makes the save. If the previous to Hit roll fails, the wound is lost.

How do you deal with grotz fighting space marines or MEQ in close combat? Or lasguns wounding nurgle marines or bikers as those require 6's to wound to begin with, how do you deal with it if a 6 is all that can affect it? Your system seems logical but there are a few what ifs about it, could you elaborate for me?

It works the same way regardless. If grotz are lucky to hit in the first place they probably won't take the chance to allocate a specific model, but they may try.

Tougher models that are only wounded on a 6 may always be allocated since a 6 is rolled, but there is still the risk the previous hit roll is failed, thus losing the wound.
Weapons that rend may seem too powerful, since a roll to rend is the same for possible allocation, but that's mitigated by the fact that the original roll To Hit must be redone. Kinda risky to possibly lose that sure fire wound!

There is no limit on how many original wounds may be directed toward a model in the unit. Let's say while rolling to Wound, a tactical squad happens to roll 4 6's while shooting at a mob of 20 boyz with a nob. The space marine player decides to allocate all those hits at the nob.

Seems like overkill, and perhaps unfair?

Well, the marine declares which model is receiving the allocation (the nob) and re-rolls. So approximately 2.64 wounds are inflicted on the nob, who will probably save half of that due to 'eavy armor and so still survive the fusillade. Extra wounds saved by a model are lost of course, and if too many wounds are assigned to a model killed the wounds can't be re-assigned to other models.

The chance to allocate wounds to a specific model with this method can also spare other models in the unit.

That's interesting. I think JbR didn't catch the "must re-roll to-hit" part.

I like it, and I'm a grumpy beehatch, I don't like anything.

OP

Tanks are too difficult to destroy.

The combat resolution favours elite armies because of it going off casualties and in the case of fearless hordes massively penalizes them because of the no-retreat rule.

Cover saves are too high which marginalizes shooting.

Totalwar1402 wrote:OP

Tanks are too difficult to destroy.

The combat resolution favours elite armies because of it going off casualties and in the case of fearless hordes massively penalizes them because of the no-retreat rule.

Cover saves are too high which marginalizes shooting.

This, except for the first one.

Tanks are not the problem. Transports are. You merely need to shake a tank and it's done until you can shoot at it again

Totalwar1402 wrote:Tanks are too difficult to destroy.

I would say rather than the process for destroying tanks is too inconsistent. A 250 point vehicle can be destroyed by a single shot in the first turn... or it can hang around shrugging off shots from now until the end of time.

If the rumoured hull points for vehicles are true, I'll be a happy boy.

My big concern with that is a return to the 4E situation where anti-infantry weapons and basically spamming fists against tanks becomes somewhat viable anti-tank.

And with the anti tank firepower many armies can already put out, one will find that the hybrid and "tank light" armies will suffer even more.

I don't find vehicles all that bad unless you just happen to roll poorly, not unlike anything else. A marine can live through anything that isn't AP3 as long as he keeps rolling that 3 too..