What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?

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.

**Kevlar**

Kaldor wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

Sorry, but the way the game has always been played was you remove whole models first. The wound allocation shenanigans do make multi-wound units vastly more survivable than they have ever been, or ever should have been. It doesn't make them worth their points, it makes them extremely undercosted.

**Kevlar**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:TLOS has been around since 3rd edition, so I don't see it going away any time soon.

How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

How does a bike climb a ruin?

Kill points are awful because they change the basic premise of the game. Victory points made the game much more tactical, strategic. You would protect your most valuable assets with screens of cheaper troops, use mobile stuff to get to vulnerable enemy, etc. The game was more strategic and made more sense. It was more "realistic" as compared to how an actual representation of real war would pan out.

With kill points the focus of the game changes drastically. It is less strategic and more, "Gee which cheap small units can I quickly eliminate to get ahead in kill points". It would be like playing chess but instead of focusing on putting the enemy king in checkmate the object is just to kill more pawns than your opponent. Sillines.

Bikes should be able to climb stairs but just make it so that any bikers assaulting a multi level building lose relentless and their +1 toughness for that turn.

**Kevlar**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Here's an answer: to hold back MSU. Look at most tournaments to see what happens when people largely ignore KPs.

That isn't "the" answer and it isn't the only type of list punished by such a silly rule. Like said above, even footslogging horde orks are punished for using a grot screen. KPs are a stupid lazy mechanic which is why tournaments do not use them. VPs are much more flexible and realistic with an easy to add in bonus or penalty for specific scenarios.

**Kevlar**

Jefffar wrote:Perhaps wound allocation with an order of operations based on the wound type (ID, No Save and Normal)?

Force as many models as possible to take the ID or No Save wounds first, then spread the normal stuff around more or less equally.

Either way it becomes unrealistic. Who is to say both plasma gunners didn't target the same enemy trooper. As it is now wound allocation benefits the defender. Swinging it the other way wouldn't make the game any better or more realistic, just different in that it would be geared more toward the attacker.

Being that alpha strikes already ruin a lot of games where they start I don't think wound shenaningans are neccessarily a bad thing. They really only come into play with big units getting hit with a lot of firepower. Something we see a lot of in an alpha strike. Later in the game its less of an issue as squads are too small or attackers don't have as many guns blazing.

**Kevlar**

The thing is wound allocation shenanigans were a byproduct of games workshop trying to fix a 4th edition problem. The unkillable segeant or heavy weapon guy. Back then you would just never take saves on that guy always removing other models until he was the last man standing.

I can't state in words how frustrating that was combined with ATSKNF. A single guy with a lascannon who constantly falls back, regroups, and blows something up.

Now at least that guy is forced to make saves. Even if you can wounds stack the ID hits its a bit better now. Its the multi-wound guys with a different 5pt piece of wargear that ruin the spirit of the rule change.

Maybe specialist units like that shouldn't be given a ton of wargear upgrades. Make them like obliterators where they all come with a bunch of stuff but are all the same allocation wise.

**Kevlar**

Joey wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:There's a reason people are offended by spreading wounds around. Primarily because previous editions very much went out of their way to disallow that entirely, and the game still pretty much holds true to that unless they are equipped differently since the rules aim at trying to get rid of single wound specialists faster than the previous ruleset. It wasn't much of an issue when the 5E rules were released because there really was only one unit that could equip lots of multi-wound models differently, and that was Nobz, and likely simply wasn't foreseen since GW does next to no playtesting (or at least external playtesting)

Wasn't foreseen? Have you read the example used to describe wound allocation? They use Nobz!
And rules change. Just because a previous edition did something one way isn't a good reason to keep it that way.

Russ shoots at a squad of 8 MEQ in a crater, 2 with meltaguns, 1 sargent, 1 IC (let's pretend for simplicity's sake that their transport was popped so they're clumped together). I get lucky and direct hit, wounding all 8 models. Success!
Now I shoot the hull and sponson Heavy Bolters, I score 2 wounds.

But wait...

My opponent can assign the Heavy Bolter wounds to the IC and the sargent, and give the rest to the rest of the squad. Suddenly I've gone from each member of the squad having to take a 5+ cover or die, and Instant Deathing the IC, to the IC and the sarge getting a 3+ armour save, and no instant death.
If I chose not to fire the Heavy Bolters, that wouldn't have happened. Each member would get a 5+ cover save. Now two of them have a 3+, would be more if I'd have gotten more HB wounds.

So I will never shoot a "weaker" weapon at a unit if I think there's a decent chance of scoring a lot of wounds with a better weapon. It's just stupid.
It's true though that against a lot of enemies it won't matter. Against, say, 'nids, it won't matter.

Your example is giving one side of the rules where it works against them in 5th edition, but in 4th edition you would have just rolled all the cover saves and never removed the sgt or special weapons guy. Now at least you are forcing them to make the saves where before you wouldn't make them take a save until they were the only guy left in the squad. Hit that squad with a flamer and the whole unit takes saves but the special guys can and do die before the regular squad members.

Is that more or less realistic? More or less fair?

Not really, just different.

**Kevlar**

Formosa wrote:you could fix wound alo by doing what i sugested from the start, use a system similar to the inia steps

so work from AP1 up for example

8 bolters 1 melta and a krak hit a marine unit
alocation for AP1 starts first, take cover ivun, then remove the guy, move to ap2
nothing here
ap3 alocate and remove guy, taking cover or invun
ap4
ap5 alocate and remove casualties

so to use the example above
pie plate wounds 8 dudes, wounds allocated as now, ap 3 happens 1st
say 4 saves
heavy bolter then goes and alocated as now
say 3 saves

see its simple

No one is arguing it isn't simple. But how is it more fair or more realistic?

All you are doing is shifting the shooting phase even further in favor of the shooter rather than the defender. Because Warhammer is a you-go, I-go system this would place even more weight towards an alpha strike.

I wouldn't want to see more weight given to alpha strikes unless they changed the turn format so that neither side removes casualties until both sides have done their attacks. Close combat is different because it happens in both phases and is based on initiative. Shooting is a very one sided process.