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.

Basically why is it beneficial to do this with squads composed of models with a single wound?

it isnt i dont think.

You get to stack multiple wounds on 1 model. No matter how many saves you fail only 1 will die.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
For example: Say I have a unit of Purifiers (first thing that comes to mind) which is fully allocated for shenanigans.

The unit takes 10 wounds. I allocate each 2 as per the rules. However should I fail 2 on a single model I don't lose 2 models. I only lose 1 since they were both allocated to a single dude.

Lukus83 wrote:You get to stack multiple wounds on 1 model. No matter how many saves you fail only 1 will die.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
For example: Say I have a unit of Purifiers (first thing that comes to mind) which is fully allocated for shenanigans.

The unit takes 10 wounds. I allocate each 2 as per the rules. However should I fail 2 on a single model I don't lose 2 models. I only lose 1 since they were both allocated to a single dude.

Plus it can help save maybe a speacial weapon or something you want to keep!

Easy example: You have a plague marine sergeant and a plague marine left from a squad.

You take two plasma wounds: game over the squad is dead.

You take 2 plasma wounds and 3 bolter wounds. You allocate two of the bolter wounds to the sergeant. The other bolter wound and the two plasma wounds go to the gimp. The gimp dies from the plasma and takes the other plasma wound and a bolter wound with him.

That's why you allocate: you can stack wounds and potentially eliminate them so you don't have to roll. In the above case, it was actually superior to do less wounds because of wound allocation.

(i.e., if there are enough wounds, you can stack some or all of the no save wounds on the same models)

scuddman wrote:Easy example: You have a plague marine sergeant and a plague marine left from a squad.

You take two plasma wounds: game over the squad is dead.

You take 2 plasma wounds and 3 bolter wounds. You allocate two of the bolter wounds to the sergeant. The other bolter wound and the two plasma wounds go to the gimp. The gimp dies from the plasma and takes the other plasma wound and a bolter wound with him.

That's why you allocate: you can stack wounds and potentially eliminate them so you don't have to roll. In the above case, it was actually superior to do less wounds because of wound allocation.

(i.e., if there are enough wounds, you can stack some or all of the no save wounds on the same models)

I dont believe you can stack no save wounds on one model. I am pretty sure no save wounds must all be allocated around the squad evenly. After that the savable wounds can then be allocated the the models who already have no save wounds on them.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

scuddman wrote:Easy example: You have a plague marine sergeant and a plague marine left from a squad.

You take two plasma wounds: game over the squad is dead.

You take 2 plasma wounds and 3 bolter wounds. You allocate two of the bolter wounds to the sergeant. The other bolter wound and the two plasma wounds go to the gimp. The gimp dies from the plasma and takes the other plasma wound and a bolter wound with him.

That's why you allocate: you can stack wounds and potentially eliminate them so you don't have to roll. In the above case, it was actually superior to do less wounds because of wound allocation.

(i.e., if there are enough wounds, you can stack some or all of the no save wounds on the same models)

I dont believe you can stack no save wounds on one model. I am pretty sure no save wounds must all be allocated around the squad evenly. After that the savable wounds can then be allocated the the models who already have no save wounds on them.

You make no distinction to what the wounds are when allocating.

If you can lose one model that cost 10 points to save a model that cost you 70 points, then obviously it would be preferable to place the wound on the 10 point model rather than the 70 point model - particularly if that 70 point model was prepared to do more damage the next turn when it retaliates.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

scuddman wrote:Easy example: You have a plague marine sergeant and a plague marine left from a squad.

You take two plasma wounds: game over the squad is dead.

You take 2 plasma wounds and 3 bolter wounds. You allocate two of the bolter wounds to the sergeant. The other bolter wound and the two plasma wounds go to the gimp. The gimp dies from the plasma and takes the other plasma wound and a bolter wound with him.

That's why you allocate: you can stack wounds and potentially eliminate them so you don't have to roll. In the above case, it was actually superior to do less wounds because of wound allocation.

(i.e., if there are enough wounds, you can stack some or all of the no save wounds on the same models)

I dont believe you can stack no save wounds on one model. I am pretty sure no save wounds must all be allocated around the squad evenly. After that the savable wounds can then be allocated the the models who already have no save wounds on them.

Incorrect, Scuddman has the correct explaination.

There are situation that can arise, especially with special/heavy weapons and smaller min/max squads as targets, that firing more guns results in less damage output. Eg, you'd be better off in scudd's example to have not fired the bolters, it would have resulted in more dead plague marines.

It's a silly issue with the wound allocation rules. It's should work out in a way that each weapon type you are hit by is distributed separately.

Example: a 5 men purifier squad has 1 kof ( halberd), 1halberd guy, 1 hammer guy and 2 psycannon gunner. A plague marine squad with 2 plasma guns rapid fire at them, and thanks to the DICE GOD they've made 3 plasma wounds and 8 bolter wounds.

The GK player put 3 plasma wounds on the poor halberd guy, and 2 bolter wounds on every one else. After the save rolls, only 1 halberd guy and 1 psycannon gunner been killed.

If they are all same models, he should kill at least 3 purifiers.

What if all the guys are the same? I thought you could still dissipate AP1/2 like that.

Example: 5 Space Marines with exactly the same gear take 2 plasma wounds and 5 bolter wounds. One guys eats two plasma and the rest roll saves.

Is that incorrect?

dnanoodle wrote:What if all the guys are the same? I thought you could still dissipate AP1/2 like that.

Example: 5 Space Marines with exactly the same gear take 2 plasma wounds and 5 bolter wounds. One guys eats two plasma and the rest roll saves.

Is that incorrect?

Yes, incorrect, you roll saves for all of them at the same time, so you'd have 2 dead and 5 saves on the others.

dnanoodle wrote:What if all the guys are the same? I thought you could still dissipate AP1/2 like that.

Example: 5 Space Marines with exactly the same gear take 2 plasma wounds and 5 bolter wounds. One guys eats two plasma and the rest roll saves.

Is that incorrect?

incorrect.
check pg. 25 of the rule book

That 5 marines are in the same "model group", you should remove dead models from it. That means you need to roll 5 saves( let's say that you failed 1) and remove 2+1 marines from this "model group"

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

scuddman wrote:Easy example: You have a plague marine sergeant and a plague marine left from a squad.

You take two plasma wounds: game over the squad is dead.

You take 2 plasma wounds and 3 bolter wounds. You allocate two of the bolter wounds to the sergeant. The other bolter wound and the two plasma wounds go to the gimp. The gimp dies from the plasma and takes the other plasma wound and a bolter wound with him.

That's why you allocate: you can stack wounds and potentially eliminate them so you don't have to roll. In the above case, it was actually superior to do less wounds because of wound allocation.

(i.e., if there are enough wounds, you can stack some or all of the no save wounds on the same models)

I dont believe you can stack no save wounds on one model. I am pretty sure no save wounds must all be allocated around the squad evenly. After that the savable wounds can then be allocated the the models who already have no save wounds on them.

I believe it's also in the actual BRB that suggests to do it this way too, using melta guns as an example instead. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, so don't ask me for page numbers, but maybe someone can post the page. I do know it's in there, and I'm pretty sure it discusses a couple melta wounds going onto a single guy so only one guy is guaranteed to die (normal allocation rules permitting).

timetowaste85 wrote:

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

scuddman wrote:Easy example: You have a plague marine sergeant and a plague marine left from a squad.

You take two plasma wounds: game over the squad is dead.

You take 2 plasma wounds and 3 bolter wounds. You allocate two of the bolter wounds to the sergeant. The other bolter wound and the two plasma wounds go to the gimp. The gimp dies from the plasma and takes the other plasma wound and a bolter wound with him.

That's why you allocate: you can stack wounds and potentially eliminate them so you don't have to roll. In the above case, it was actually superior to do less wounds because of wound allocation.

(i.e., if there are enough wounds, you can stack some or all of the no save wounds on the same models)

I dont believe you can stack no save wounds on one model. I am pretty sure no save wounds must all be allocated around the squad evenly. After that the savable wounds can then be allocated the the models who already have no save wounds on them.

I believe it's also in the actual BRB that suggests to do it this way too, using melta guns as an example instead. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, so don't ask me for page numbers, but maybe someone can post the page. I do know it's in there, and I'm pretty sure it discusses a couple melta wounds going onto a single guy so only one guy is guaranteed to die (normal allocation rules permitting).

pg.25

jgehunter wrote: You make no distinction to what the wounds are when allocating.

Thats not true at all, how else do you propose to determine which wounds will negate armor or cover saves? You have to distinguish which wounds where caused by which weapons during wound allocation, thats right out of page 25 of the BRB.

But after rereading it, it seems that I was incorrect in my postulation that you may not stack armor save denying wounds onto one model. As long as you have enough wounds to evenly distribute wounds around the unit being hit, you can certainly stack all the armor denying wounds onto one model.

Ex: 5 space marines suffer 25 wounds, 5 of which are caused by plasma (assume no cover save) 4 marines will take armor saves, and one marine will get the crap shot out of him by the 5 plasma wounds.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
Ex: 5 space marines suffer 25 wounds, 5 of which are caused by plasma (assume no cover save) 4 marines will take armor saves, and one marine will get the crap shot out of him by the 5 plasma wounds.

Only if the guy taking all the plasma was armed differently from the rest

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

jgehunter wrote: You make no distinction to what the wounds are when allocating.

Thats not true at all, how else do you propose to determine which wounds will negate armor or cover saves? You have to distinguish which wounds where caused by which weapons during wound allocation, thats right out of page 25 of the BRB.

But after rereading it, it seems that I was incorrect in my postulation that you may not stack armor save denying wounds onto one model. As long as you have enough wounds to evenly distribute wounds around the unit being hit, you can certainly stack all the armor denying wounds onto one model.

Ex: 5 space marines suffer 25 wounds, 5 of which are caused by plasma (assume no cover save) 4 marines will take armor saves, and one marine will get the crap shot out of him by the 5 plasma wounds.

I meant that you have to know which wound is which but you don't take it in account when allocating, of course it is important for taking saves afterwards.

When wound allocating is a plain Sgt in an Assault Squad considered the same as a normal Assault Marine? I would imagine that even though a regular Assault Marine and a Sgt. share the same wargear they are different because they have different statlines thus making them different models for the sake of Wound Allocation right?

Also let's look at a Terminator CC Sgt. Is he considered different from the other Terminators just because he has a seperate statline or is he the same as whichever models are loaded out like he is?

Moving thread to YMDC.

Red Comet wrote:When wound allocating is a plain Sgt in an Assault Squad considered the same as a normal Assault Marine? I would imagine that even though a regular Assault Marine and a Sgt. share the same wargear they are different because they have different statlines thus making them different models for the sake of Wound Allocation right?

Absolutely.

Red Comet wrote:Also let's look at a Terminator CC Sgt. Is he considered different from the other Terminators just because he has a seperate statline or is he the same as whichever models are loaded out like he is?

This was the subject of enormous debate. In some folks' opinion it's only a different profile if it has different numbers. In others the name matters. I'm in the latter camp, because the rule tells us to group together models which are "identical in gaming terms", but Sergeants (and other squad leaders like a Purifier Knight of the Flame) are specifically different and called out as individual models for the purposes of certain special rules. The Sanguinor, for example, upgrades a random sergeant. And the Knight of the Flame is the first guy to die from Perils of the Warp.

I'm going to have to agree with you Mannahnin. If its given its own line for the same stats why wouldn't it be considered different? He is a different model according to the book itself since it doesn't say in the Unit Composition:

5 Assault Terminators

It says:
1 Terminator Sergeant
4 - 9 Assault Terminators

I could be wrong but is a Sergeant not also counted as an upgrade character? Things that can target characters specifically can target the Sergeant (I'm thinking of some Tyranid leaping beast attack as an example, the name escapes me).

He is identical in stats and equipment, but being an upgrade character should be enough to make him stand out in game terms.

being an upgrade character should be enough to make him stand out in game terms.

Is that stated in the model's profile? I think its still the question if the models name is part of it or not.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote: Ex: 5 space marines suffer 25 wounds, 5 of which are caused by plasma (assume no cover save) 4 marines will take armor saves, and one marine will get the crap shot out of him by the 5 plasma wounds.

If all 5 marines are identical, you can allocate the wounds however you want, but since they're all the same wound group, you're going to end up spreading out the unsaved wounds across the group anyway.

If that one marine was a Sergeant, or had a flamer or something, THEN he could eat all 5 plasma rounds, because being different from the rest of the squad, he's in a separate wound group and has to roll his saves separately.


5th Ed. wound allocation is one of my biggest beefs with the game right now. It's needlessly complicated, slows the game down, and encourages nothing desirable in terms of player behavior or game outcomes.

My gaming group more or less still uses wound allocation rules from 3rd edition, I believe. The unit's owner spreads out unsaved wounds evenly across the unit in whatever manner they see fit, removing models wherever possible in units with multi-wound creatures. Nobody feels cheated out of their special weapon hits, everyone's unit upgrades get to survive till the unit's bitter end and maybe actually do something in the game, and no-one ever has to make asinine decisions like "will it be more effective if I fire LESS weapons?"

It wasn't really a conscious decision either, more just stubborn refusal to adapt to complicated and counter-intuitive rules changes. Don't fix what ain't broke.

Mannahnin wrote:

Red Comet wrote:Also let's look at a Terminator CC Sgt. Is he considered different from the other Terminators just because he has a seperate statline or is he the same as whichever models are loaded out like he is?

This was the subject of enormous debate. In some folks' opinion it's only a different profile if it has different numbers. In others the name matters. I'm in the latter camp, because the rule tells us to group together models which are "identical in gaming terms", but Sergeants (and other squad leaders like a Purifier Knight of the Flame) are specifically different and called out as individual models for the purposes of certain special rules. The Sanguinor, for example, upgrades a random sergeant. And the Knight of the Flame is the first guy to die from Perils of the Warp.

The rule calls for then to be "Identical in gaming terms"

Then it goes on to list what they mean by "Identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear." P.25 BRB

So if they have Identical "profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear." then they are the same as far as the Complex unit rules are concerned.

This is the flip side to Mann's interpretation and has been discussed at length here and does not need to be debated again.

Is it that time of the month again? I swear the time between "is the name part of the profile" debates seems to be getting shorter all the time.

I am 100% with DR on the fact that we don't need to do it again so soon. It's been done ad nauseam.

I cant believe were still debating wound allocation on the crusp of 6th ed.

After rereading p25, I'd like to restate things to see if I get this.

Wounds are distributed (before any saves are rolled) to models, not wounds groups. Then groups are rolled together. Unsaved wounds remove models until no one is left in that group. Unsaved wounds from one model in a group are the same as those from another. They both contribute to whole wounds on the group. Unsaved wounds cannot cross wound groups. Stacking wounds protects guys in different groups, not identical models in the same group.

In a unit of 4 identical marines and 1 sergeant, the only way to protect the sergeant is to put AP1-3 on the marines and regular saves on the sergeant. For example, they take 2 plasma wounds and 5 bolter wounds. The wounded player wants the sergeant alive. He takes 2 plasma wounds on one marine, 2 bolter wounds on another, and 1 each on the other two. Then one bolter wound on the sergeant. When he rolls saves, he rolls two different groups: 4 dice for the marines and 1 for the sergeant. The sergeant passes, but the marines fail 1 save. In the end, 3 marines die. But even if the marines fail 3 saves for a total of 5 unsaved wounds, the sergeant lives.

Is that right?

Yes.

I think this whole thread is a perfect example of how bad the wound allocation rules are. They're designed to stop special weapons and/or upgrade characters being picked out but instead end up allowing players to mitigate heavy weapon hits.

Worst thing about 5th edition in my opinion...but that's just me and it doesn't mean I'm right.