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.

"Wounds in the Shooting Phase are first allocated to the majority model type in the unit, starting with the relevant model closest to the firing unit. If two or more model types are tied for the highest number, it is Defender's choice which takes Wounds first."
(accompanied by the appropriate point changes)

Example:

If I have a unit of Grey Knight Paladins with Draigo, the unit composition is:
Draigo
Apothecary
2 Paladins with Psycannons
3 other Paladins with Storm Bolters

The first models to take wounds would be the Paladins with Storm Bolters, then the Paladins with the Psycannons, then Defender's choice between Draigo and the Apothecary. If one shooting attack killed two of the Storm Bolter Paladins, then the next would target the Psycannon Paladins, because they're the most numerous. Characters would still have Look Out Sir and Precision Shots would still be able to target who they want.


The idea is units can't hide behind one uber resilient model to give near invulnerability to the unit. And it also reduces some of the power of flanking, to reflect a unit's ability to wheel around to face a new threat. I would normally recommend flanking stay powerful, but right now it's ridiculous the sheer number of units that can appear out of nowhere behind a unit.

Not a fan. If I position my Crusaders to protect my arco flagellants and inquisitor from fire, their storm shields should protect them. Likewise if the unit gets outflanked, the inquisitor should be made more vulnerable.

I prefer "defender chooses casualties" myself. Quick, smooth, fixes a lot of problems, and casualties from the front honestly doesn't add nearly enough "tactics" to be worth fething around with

@Dakkamite.
Letting the defending player choose casualties does not fix lots of problems, just gives you a different set of problems to address...

The reason wound allocation has so many issues in 40k , is because of the gross abstraction in the resolution process caused by the removal of the to hit modifiers.
Without a method to reduce effectiveness of shooting at targets at long range or in cover etc.Shooting becomes far to powerful.

So rather than fix the problem at source, (by adding a few simple modifiers.)
GW tried to fiddle the results with several methods that just shifted the problems elsewhere.
(Increased movement rates,special rules to stop units breaking due to shooting casualties, and letting the defender pick casualties.)

So if we correct the problems in the core rules , it sorts out the symptoms found in the rest of the game play.

Lanrak wrote:
@Dakkamite.
Letting the defending player choose casualties does not fix lots of problems, just gives you a different set of problems to address...

The reason wound allocation has so many issues in 40k , is because of the gross abstraction in the resolution process caused by the removal of the to hit modifiers.
Without a method to reduce effectiveness of shooting at targets at long range or in cover etc.Shooting becomes far to powerful.

So rather than fix the problem at source, (by adding a few simple modifiers.)
GW tried to fiddle the results with several methods that just shifted the problems elsewhere.
(Increased movement rates,special rules to stop units breaking due to shooting casualties, and letting the defender pick casualties.)

So if we correct the problems in the core rules , it sorts out the symptoms found in the rest of the game play.

That is a very sensible position to take, and I have participated in a discussion on that topic on another thread. However, What I was suggesting here was that it seems a bit silly for entire enemy units to pour all of their firepower into someone they barely have a chance to hurt, when an entire unit of easily killable individuals are standing behind him. What I suggested was intended to slightly improve characters' survivability against ranged shooting by making them the last models in a unit to take Wounds from ranged attacks, but it also means that the unit's durability is actually the majority durability, being as you can't hide half a dozen space Marines behind a single Storm Shield or two.

Why not allocate hits to the closest models to the attacking unit.(One hit per model in the unit in weapons range , before multiple hits can be allocated.)

Then roll to wound the successful hits on models

Then roll to save , successful wounding hits.

So casualties are applied to to closest models in the unit, randomly (depending one who gets wounded , who passes their save.)
Rather than having to wound the closest uberarmoured model, before any hits/wounds are applied to models further back.

This is just one alternative to letting a particular player choose casualties to their advantage.

You gain very little for a lot of extra fiddling by allocating hits rather than wounds.

If I can simply pick who is hit, you roll, wound, and I save and remove dudes.

With this method, you roll to hit, then we allocate hits, then we roll to wound on each guy, followed by the save on each guy - you could easily roll five times as many *sets* of dice as via other methods. Theres far to much of that skirmish level detail stuff in the game as is.

Lanrak wrote:
@Dakkamite.
Letting the defending player choose casualties does not fix lots of problems, just gives you a different set of problems to address...

What would those be? Defender allocated casualties were before my time so I'm not aware of the issues it brings up.

The reason wound allocation has so many issues in 40k , is because of the gross abstraction in the resolution process caused by the removal of the to hit modifiers.
Without a method to reduce effectiveness of shooting at targets at long range or in cover etc.Shooting becomes far to powerful.

So rather than fix the problem at source, (by adding a few simple modifiers.)
GW tried to fiddle the results with several methods that just shifted the problems elsewhere.
(Increased movement rates,special rules to stop units breaking due to shooting casualties, and letting the defender pick casualties.)

So if we correct the problems in the core rules , it sorts out the symptoms found in the rest of the game play.

Best thing in the world for 40k would be to burn all the rulebooks and start afresh. That doesn't however mean that every thread needs to become a 40k rules-rewrite thread

You want to talk about to hit modifiers, make another topic - its a conversation I'd like to participate in. But fixing the entire game goes well beyond the scope of this particular conversation

The issue letting defenders choose causes is the inability of the attacker to take up tactical positions to deal with strong models by taking out their support.

Case in point, it is apparently possible with the new Iron hands to have a character with a 1+ FNP.

If the defender chose where the wounds went the entire unit would be unkillable without very specific weapons.

On the other hand, you can strip away the characters supporting models including his apothecary to make him actually vulnerable.

What if defender chooses the Wound Allocation but expand Precision Shot? Perhapse Characters have Precision Shots on a 5+, while other models have Precision Shots on a 6+, then specific units could have special rules that give positive or negative modifiers for Precision Shot. Look Out Sir would still apply.

 Bill1138 wrote:
What if defender chooses the Wound Allocation but expand Precision Shot? Perhapse Characters have Precision Shots on a 5+, while other models have Precision Shots on a 6+, then specific units could have special rules that give positive or negative modifiers for Precision Shot. Look Out Sir would still apply.

Hahaha, If you want to give Flyrants precision shot on the 12 shot s6 twinlink devs just because they are characters I would love to watch the river of tears because of it.

Lance845 wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:
What if defender chooses the Wound Allocation but expand Precision Shot? Perhapse Characters have Precision Shots on a 5+, while other models have Precision Shots on a 6+, then specific units could have special rules that give positive or negative modifiers for Precision Shot. Look Out Sir would still apply.

Hahaha, If you want to give Flyrants precision shot on the 12 shot s6 twinlink devs just because they are characters I would love to watch the river of tears because of it.

That is why I suggested adding special rules with modifiers to balance certain units to reflect their costs and fluff abilities.

Another alternative:

Perhapse after the To-hit rolls, a second roll was made for each successful hit, for which 6s were precision shots, all other values being equal, and then rolling To-Wound. That way something using the "spray and pray" tactic doesn't get a disproportionate number of Precision Shots, but by sheer volume of fire, something should statistically hit who they want.
So that Flyrant (IDK his BS), if he had BS3, he'd hit 6/12 shots, with an additional 3/6 on the re-rolls, for a total of 9 hits. That would then result in 1.5 Precision Shots. So 1-2 shots would be alocated by the Flyrant's player, while the other 7-8 would be allocated by the target's controlling player.

HI folks.
I did not explain my idea too well sorry.
The point I was trying to make is each successful hit is applied ONE per model starting with the closest model to the attacker ,until all models in weapons range have received a hit.
(Place the successful hit dice next to each model.resolve shortest ranged weapons first and longest ranged weapons last.)
When all models in weapons range have taken one hit.Apply further hits to the models closest to the attacker until all models have taken 2 hits.The repeat for 3 and 4 hits etc.

This means the roll to wound will be applied through the unit, and effect each hit model separately..

eg if we have X representing models hit Hits and Y representing models with with wounding hits..

X XY X XY

X XY XY X X

X X X

This allows the hits to be spread through the unit 'naturally' .Rather than players choose where the wounds are applied, the dice rolls decide which models are effected in the normal course of resolution.

I may need to clarify this a bit more?

Lanrak wrote:
HI folks.
I did not explain my idea too well sorry.
The point I was trying to make is each successful hit is applied ONE per model starting with the closest model to the attacker ,until all models in weapons range have received a hit.
(Place the successful hit dice next to each model.resolve shortest ranged weapons first and longest ranged weapons last.)
When all models in weapons range have taken one hit.Apply further hits to the models closest to the attacker until all models have taken 2 hits.The repeat for 3 and 4 hits etc.

This means the roll to wound will be applied through the unit, and effect each hit model separately..

eg if we have X representing models hit Hits and Y representing models with with wounding hits..

X XY X XY

X XY XY X X

X X X

This allows the hits to be spread through the unit 'naturally' .Rather than players choose where the wounds are applied, the dice rolls decide which models are effected in the normal course of resolution.

I may need to clarify this a bit more?

I *kind of* see what you are getting at, but fail to see how a 'hit pool' adds any depth or makes anything operate smoother, unless I'm not understanding your idea properly. At best, all I can see this doing is the same exact thing as 7th edition in a different way and with more book keeping.

HI again.
I may have got my wires crossed a bit?
But I thought people were complaining that letting the defending player allocate failed wounds throughout the units would lead to 'special models' (characters leaders special and heavy weapon troops.) being removed last.In some very counter intuitive ways in some cases.

And the general counter argument is if you let the attacker pick where the wounds are allocated the special models die first!(This can also can be counter intuitive.)

So allocating wounds to the models closest to the attacker seems to have been implemented to 'fix' this issue in the current rules .(I am not sure as I have not got 7th ed 40k .)

But this has caused some players to put 'bullet catcher' models closest to the enemy to soak up the hits , to save lighter armoured. lower toughness models from harm.

This was the problem I thought I was trying to solve.

As hits are placed against models closest to the attacker ONE per model up to max range of the weapons.(Start by resolving the shortest ranged hits first.)
This means that the whole unit could receive one or more hits each.

Rather than most of the hits being wasted trying to cause a wound on 'bullet catcher' models they have little chance of wounding.

The attacker rolls to wound for each of the different types of models hit , so the wounds are applied randomly through the unit.

I might have completely misunderstood the what the perceived problems are though!

Lanrak wrote:
HI again.
I may have got my wires crossed a bit?
But I thought people were complaining that letting the defending player allocate failed wounds throughout the units would lead to 'special models' (characters leaders special and heavy weapon troops.) being removed last.In some very counter intuitive ways in some cases.

And the general counter argument is if you let the attacker pick where the wounds are allocated the special models die first!(This can also can be counter intuitive.)

So allocating wounds to the models closest to the attacker seems to have been implemented to 'fix' this issue in the current rules .(I am not sure as I have not got 7th ed 40k .)

But this has caused some players to put 'bullet catcher' models closest to the enemy to soak up the hits , to save lighter armoured. lower toughness models from harm.

This was the problem I thought I was trying to solve.

As hits are placed against models closest to the attacker ONE per model up to max range of the weapons.(Start by resolving the shortest ranged hits first.)
This means that the whole unit could receive one or more hits each.

Rather than most of the hits being wasted trying to cause a wound on 'bullet catcher' models they have little chance of wounding.

The attacker rolls to wound for each of the different types of models hit , so the wounds are applied randomly through the unit.

I might have completely misunderstood the what the perceived problems are though!

The idea of evenly distributing the hits across the unit would be perfect if not for the time element. Regardless of the number of shots or the number of models in the unit, you would have to make a separate Wound roll against each model, and then they'd individually have to take their saves. This would easily double the lengths of many games.

Ex: a 50-man blob shooting at a 50 man blob, with one shot each. That would mean that you have to roll a single dice 50 times to determine which models are wounded, then each Wounded model would have to roll his save individually. And if they have FNP, then they have to roll that individually as well. This is an extreme scenario, but it does serve the point.

I think the alternative suggestions were intended to be alternatives that wouldn't lengthen the game as much as this.

 Bill1138 wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
HI again.
I may have got my wires crossed a bit?
But I thought people were complaining that letting the defending player allocate failed wounds throughout the units would lead to 'special models' (characters leaders special and heavy weapon troops.) being removed last.In some very counter intuitive ways in some cases.

And the general counter argument is if you let the attacker pick where the wounds are allocated the special models die first!(This can also can be counter intuitive.)

So allocating wounds to the models closest to the attacker seems to have been implemented to 'fix' this issue in the current rules .(I am not sure as I have not got 7th ed 40k .)

But this has caused some players to put 'bullet catcher' models closest to the enemy to soak up the hits , to save lighter armoured. lower toughness models from harm.

This was the problem I thought I was trying to solve.

As hits are placed against models closest to the attacker ONE per model up to max range of the weapons.(Start by resolving the shortest ranged hits first.)
This means that the whole unit could receive one or more hits each.

Rather than most of the hits being wasted trying to cause a wound on 'bullet catcher' models they have little chance of wounding.

The attacker rolls to wound for each of the different types of models hit , so the wounds are applied randomly through the unit.

I might have completely misunderstood the what the perceived problems are though!

The idea of evenly distributing the hits across the unit would be perfect if not for the time element. Regardless of the number of shots or the number of models in the unit, you would have to make a separate Wound roll against each model, and then they'd individually have to take their saves. This would easily double the lengths of many games.

Ex: a 50-man blob shooting at a 50 man blob, with one shot each. That would mean that you have to roll a single dice 50 times to determine which models are wounded, then each Wounded model would have to roll his save individually. And if they have FNP, then they have to roll that individually as well. This is an extreme scenario, but it does serve the point.

I think the alternative suggestions were intended to be alternatives that wouldn't lengthen the game as much as this.

I wouldn't say time is the main issue here (although that is a concern; rolling 50 individual d6s would take a half an hour). The special models in a squad dying first/ last is not the issue here either. That is a reward/ penalty that changes the direction of the game in a small way. What wound allocation needs to be is a mechanic that adds tactical decision making possibilities. Currently, one player picking casualties is predictable and one- sided. Alternatively, a flat system like 6/7th ed 40k where casualties are always taken from the front, or for the sake of argument, any alternative where a flat, absolute rule governs an entire set of interactions causes really one- dimensional counters to become the norm, like, "oh, I'll just bubble- wrap everything," and "just do x, never do y," kind of thinking that removes strategy and the need for actual problem solving from the game and puts that on the list- biulding stage or the "dice- rolling stage" of the game.

I can't think of anything that hasn't been suggested yet, but that's why I want to see how this thread turns out. From a design philosophy perspective, the system in place needs to take some kind of variable into account that the player can control. When someone says. "what is the best way to kill this unit?" or "What is the best loadout for these guys?" the answer should always be "Well, that depends," because a system where one answer always applies is not fun to play, not fun to talk about and just lazy design. Lanrak has the idea here, and I think the best place to start would be some compromise between the "hit pool" and a time- saving method to streamline it.

From a design philosophy there is a thing called emergent game design. Its when you don't specifically make a rule but instead the game play occurs naturally from the interactions between rules. Bubble wrapping as a tactic being a example.

The very best games have excellent emergent game play.

Bubble wrapping is not a bad thing in my opinion. The needing to take up positions to target certain units is also something I like. Think about it like dealing with the shields on imperial knights.

But if you dont like the effect. then what effect do you want?

Aha sorry my bad.
The method I proposed was the long hand description, the actual practice of it is a bit quicker.But not a really practical solution.

The other option I was thinking of would be to keep casualties applied to the models closest to the attackers , but distrubute them between all model types in weapons range. .
EG if there are 2 types of models in the unit , the attacker can split the wounds equally between the model types.

As combatants generally do not waste all their ammo on targets they have little chance of damaging.