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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


Edit, I just looked it up and gauss flayers do not use em pulses to destroy targets, they just disassemble matter (including flesh and bone).

Yes, by using a powerful magnetic field. Hence gauss.
Apparently the magnetic field is so strong it can split apart molecules or something. Warhammer science is weird.

Atoms are made of charged particles which could be affected by an electromagnetic field I suppose.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Gauss never did anything special to monsters. I dunno why, but they didn't. I guess the implication is that the gauss "beam" is electromagnetic in nature (because that's what gauss is, a unit of magnetic flux density) so it messes up electronic systems.

Trying to make gauss effective against infantry and monsters goes against the rule history behind it, and game balance as well; Necrons can dunk on vehicles, but they have relatively more trouble against monsters, and that's fine.

Even against wraithlords it wasn't that great. Wraithlords still had enough wounds and armor to get into melee, and disruption fields did nothing against monsters, so your warriors were pretty much screwed unless you veiled or monolith'd them out.

I'm pretty sure Gauss & Fields worked against Monsters in the 5th Ed Codex, so there is some precedent.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Gauss never did anything special to monsters. I dunno why, but they didn't. I guess the implication is that the gauss "beam" is electromagnetic in nature (because that's what gauss is, a unit of magnetic flux density) so it messes up electronic systems.

Trying to make gauss effective against infantry and monsters goes against the rule history behind it, and game balance as well; Necrons can dunk on vehicles, but they have relatively more trouble against monsters, and that's fine.

Even against wraithlords it wasn't that great. Wraithlords still had enough wounds and armor to get into melee, and disruption fields did nothing against monsters, so your warriors were pretty much screwed unless you veiled or monolith'd them out.

I'm pretty sure Gauss & Fields worked against Monsters in the 5th Ed Codex, so there is some precedent.

Huh, did they? It's been a while, so I don't remember that.
I do know that the 5th ed codex gave necrons a lot more options in dealing with monsters / vehicles through cryptek loadouts.

I really miss having different types of crypteks and the necron court. That was the best part of 5th ed. The fluff was crap, the vehicles don't look right and some stat lines were borked, but it did have some nice flavoring and loadouts that 8th ed lacks.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I really miss having different types of crypteks and the necron court. That was the best part of 5th ed. The fluff was crap, the vehicles don't look right and some stat lines were borked, but it did have some nice flavoring and loadouts that 8th ed lacks.

Likewise.

I also enjoyed Crypteks basically being stand-in squad sergeants.

I actually had an army back then that consisted primarily of 6 Immortal squads, each led by a Cryptek. It wasn't the most effective but it was a lot of fun to play.

Gauss always had the theme of being able to damage any kind of target. This is back in the days of two major things: 1) You were unable to deal damage to something that had double your S in T and 2) Vehicles used a unique damage system where they required specific high-S high AP weapons for a chance to explode, most of the time, vehicles would only suffer glancing hits, even from said high T/AP weapons.

Gauss had 2 special rules:
1) It would bypass the immunity of double T by automatically wounding anything on a wound roll of 6. This made them "special" against monsters, allowing basic infantry to wound a Wraithlord.
2) Gauss weapons would also automatically deal a glancing hit to any vehicle on an armor penetration roll of 6, meaning massed infantry had a good shot at destroying tough vehicles (it would usually take 2-3 glancing hits to destroy one).

Since 8th edition removed the special armor penetration system AND made it a universal rule that 6's auto-wound they essentially removed from Necrons the special game impacting abilities they had. Instead, gauss weapons have 1 extra AP than an equivalent weapon and that simply does not result in the same in-game impact of past editions.

I do believe that access to D2 on wounds of 6 could bring back some of this power and would go miles into making Necron infantry meaningful against vehicles again, but I'd even argue that it should be D d3 against Vehicles and D 2 against anything else.

It is interesting to notice that at the same time warscythes were extremelly powerful against vehicles due to having the Armor Penetration rule, allowing it to roll 2d6 (instead of a single one) on armor penetration rolls, which coupled with high-AP made lords and overlords the bane of any vehicle in melee. that has also been lost in the translation from 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit addition: They can increase the costs to whatever feels appropriate but I'd love to get back this versatility of Necron weaponry.

Gauss special rule: This weapon deals +1 damage on wound rolls of 6. Against vehicle targets it instead deals d3 damage on wound rolls of 6.

Warscythes: Deal +3 damage on wound rolls of 6. Against vehicle targets it instead deals d6 damage on wound rolls of 6.

We could figure out balance later but from the legacy of gauss weapons and their impact in the game this would do nicely to bring back the ability to "glance to death" and the punch that necron Warscythes would bring to the table. They are very underwhelming now.

I was partly right, in that there was a time Gauss auto-wounded on 6s.
It just that it wasn't in 5th (which was still just auto-glancing), it was in 7th Ed.

arhurt wrote:
Gauss always had the theme of being able to damage any kind of target. This is back in the days of two major things: 1) You were unable to deal damage to something that had double your S in T and 2) Vehicles used a unique damage system where they required specific high-S high AP weapons for a chance to explode, most of the time, vehicles would only suffer glancing hits, even from said high T/AP weapons.

Gauss had 2 special rules:
1) It would bypass the immunity of double T by automatically wounding anything on a wound roll of 6. This made them "special" against monsters, allowing basic infantry to wound a Wraithlord.
2) Gauss weapons would also automatically deal a glancing hit to any vehicle on an armor penetration roll of 6, meaning massed infantry had a good shot at destroying tough vehicles (it would usually take 2-3 glancing hits to destroy one).

Since 8th edition removed the special armor penetration system AND made it a universal rule that 6's auto-wound they essentially removed from Necrons the special game impacting abilities they had. Instead, gauss weapons have 1 extra AP than an equivalent weapon and that simply does not result in the same in-game impact of past editions.

I do believe that access to D2 on wounds of 6 could bring back some of this power and would go miles into making Necron infantry meaningful against vehicles again, but I'd even argue that it should be D d3 against Vehicles and D 2 against anything else.

It is interesting to notice that at the same time warscythes were extremelly powerful against vehicles due to having the Armor Penetration rule, allowing it to roll 2d6 (instead of a single one) on armor penetration rolls, which coupled with high-AP made lords and overlords the bane of any vehicle in melee. that has also been lost in the translation from 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit addition: They can increase the costs to whatever feels appropriate but I'd love to get back this versatility of Necron weaponry.

Gauss special rule: This weapon deals +1 damage on wound rolls of 6. Against vehicle targets it instead deals d3 damage on wound rolls of 6.

Warscythes: Deal +3 damage on wound rolls of 6. Against vehicle targets it instead deals d6 damage on wound rolls of 6.

We could figure out balance later but from the legacy of gauss weapons and their impact in the game this would do nicely to bring back the ability to "glance to death" and the punch that necron Warscythes would bring to the table. They are very underwhelming now.

Good summary. I think I agree with all of that.

As an aside, I also miss the 5th edition flexibility of crypteks. The different disciplines were a cool concept that really drove home just how high-tech necrons were.

I don't get why you'd want to deal d3 (average 2) instead of 2.

I get even less why you'd want to deal d6 (average 3.5) instead of 5 (2+3).

I don't think making a rule about added damage will work. Even if your weapons does 6 damage, it takes a single save to negate it. The fact that wound count is so much higher makes me think the added damage solution wouldn't work well.
I think I'm stuck in the mortal wounds camp. I'm going to see if I can get someone to playtest some variations just for fun.

punisher357 wrote:
I don't think making a rule about added damage will work. Even if your weapons does 6 damage, it takes a single save to negate it. The fact that wound count is so much higher makes me think the added damage solution wouldn't work well.
I think I'm stuck in the mortal wounds camp. I'm going to see if I can get someone to playtest some variations just for fun.

I mean, going from damage 1 to damage 2 means that gauss troops would be doubling their damage against vehicles. The goal here isn't necessarily to make warriors highly efficient tank killers; it's to take some of the burden off of the rest of your list and to spread your threat around so that you're not throwing a trio of doomsday arks into every list you build.

Sloppy math says...
10 warriors = 20 shots = ~14 hits = ~4.5 wounds. Assuming 3+ armor, you'll half of those through (so 2.25). So at damage 2, a basic warrior squad without buffs just did 4.5 wounds to something with the defensive profile of a rhino. That's just shy of half a dead rhino in a single volley. Now at 110 points, that's not a game-breaking amount of offense, but it also means that the rest of your army only has to get through about half as many wounds to finish that rhino off. And that means you can more comfortably spend some of those doomsday ark points on something a bit less cookie cutter.

Yeah, D3 would actually be a downgrade from D2. You have a 33% chance of dealing just 1 damage, and in terms of game flow it would slow things down. Furthermore, there are already gauss weapons that deal variable damage, and as such adding an effect that adds variable damage would be awkward. Double damage is a much simpler solution that doesn't cause any complications.

Or do you mean +D3? Because that would scale a little better with the stronger weapon types.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

punisher357 wrote:
I don't think making a rule about added damage will work. Even if your weapons does 6 damage, it takes a single save to negate it. The fact that wound count is so much higher makes me think the added damage solution wouldn't work well.
I think I'm stuck in the mortal wounds camp. I'm going to see if I can get someone to playtest some variations just for fun.

Because the game totally needs an army that can spam mortal wounds like no tomorrow in the shooting phase, which can spill over to other models.
You might as well make deathmarks troops.

Death marks are a whole other story. Give them the ability to wound anything on a 2+ that's not a vehicle and call it a day.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

punisher357 wrote:
I don't think making a rule about added damage will work. Even if your weapons does 6 damage, it takes a single save to negate it. The fact that wound count is so much higher makes me think the added damage solution wouldn't work well.
I think I'm stuck in the mortal wounds camp. I'm going to see if I can get someone to playtest some variations just for fun.

Because the game totally needs an army that can spam mortal wounds like no tomorrow in the shooting phase, which can spill over to other models.
You might as well make deathmarks troops.

Well, you could always make it mortal wounds on 6s against vehicles, but then you could just reword it as a higher damage characteristic and avoid weird interactions.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, D3 would actually be a downgrade from D2. You have a 33% chance of dealing just 1 damage, and in terms of game flow it would slow things down. Furthermore, there are already gauss weapons that deal variable damage, and as such adding an effect that adds variable damage would be awkward. Double damage is a much simpler solution that doesn't cause any complications.

Or do you mean +D3? Because that would scale a little better with the stronger weapon types.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

punisher357 wrote:
I don't think making a rule about added damage will work. Even if your weapons does 6 damage, it takes a single save to negate it. The fact that wound count is so much higher makes me think the added damage solution wouldn't work well.
I think I'm stuck in the mortal wounds camp. I'm going to see if I can get someone to playtest some variations just for fun.

Because the game totally needs an army that can spam mortal wounds like no tomorrow in the shooting phase, which can spill over to other models.
You might as well make deathmarks troops.

Like no tomorrow? BS +3 means that roughly 13/20 hit. Let's say 10 hits wound, it would generate, 1-2 mortal wounds on a 6. Doesn't sound game breaking to me, but I'm not going to argue about it.

Deathmarks are already fairly useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm still in favor of mortal wounds on a 6. I haven't heard a better idea yet, but that's just my opinion.

punisher357 wrote:

Like no tomorrow? BS +3 means that roughly 13/20 hit. Let's say 10 hits wound, it would generate, 1-2 mortal wounds on a 6. Doesn't sound game breaking to me, but I'm not going to argue about it.

10 wounds is much closer to 12 than 6, so you'd be doing just under 2 mortal wounds on average. 20 shots comes from 10 warriors, so you'd be looking at about the same number of mortal wounds as a smite on top of tactical doctrine bolter shooting. I'm not saying that's broken, but it does seem pretty strong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm still in favor of mortal wounds on a 6. I haven't heard a better idea yet, but that's just my opinion.

Is there any particular reason you want gauss to kill multiple models with a single shot? From a fluff perspective, I don't see the connection. Form a mechanical perspective, that overlaps with tesla's gimmick.

Wyldhunt wrote:

punisher357 wrote:

Like no tomorrow? BS +3 means that roughly 13/20 hit. Let's say 10 hits wound, it would generate, 1-2 mortal wounds on a 6. Doesn't sound game breaking to me, but I'm not going to argue about it.

10 wounds is much closer to 12 than 6, so you'd be doing just under 2 mortal wounds on average. 20 shots comes from 10 warriors, so you'd be looking at about the same number of mortal wounds as a smite on top of tactical doctrine bolter shooting. I'm not saying that's broken, but it does seem pretty strong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm still in favor of mortal wounds on a 6. I haven't heard a better idea yet, but that's just my opinion.

Is there any particular reason you want gauss to kill multiple models with a single shot? From a fluff perspective, I don't see the connection. Form a mechanical perspective, that overlaps with tesla's gimmick.

First of all, there is no guarantee you will kill multiple models with a single shot. The first damage dealt is a normal wound and could be saved.You're also assuming the warriors are in rapid fire range, which I wasn't. I was referring to a 20 man unit outside RFR.

Also, at this point, I'm sick of hearing people say "from a fluff perspective". It's an asinine argument. You can't make the game work based on fluff. Besides, the fluff regularly gets thrown out. How is it that warriors and immortals are subject to morale? That doesn't line up with fluff and I could not care less about having a discussion about that. Most "fluff rules", in my opinion, don't contribute much to the game, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

Second of all, there is no way in hell that from 13 hits you'll average 10 wounds.

Of course 10 wounds is closer to 12 than 6. However, the AVERAGE number of 6's you'd roll with 10 wounds is 1.67, which is why I said 1-2 mortal wounds.

Even assuming you have a full squad of 20 warriors (or a ghost ark) in rapid fire range, that averages 26.6 hits. Being generous and assuming 20 of them wound, the result would still only be 2-4 mortal wounds on average. Let's split the difference and say 3.
Remember, that's assuming an abnormally high number of wounds to hits ratio.

I see no problem with this at all. However, that's my opinion and someone else may be of the opinion that it does cause a problem. To each their own.

All of this is hypothetical and GW isn't going to listen, regardless.

punisher357 wrote:

First of all, there is no guarantee you will kill multiple models with a single shot.

I... certainly didn't mean to imply that every single gauss shot would hit and then proceed to roll a 6 to-wound. But one of the main differences between doing mortal wounds on 6+ and simply increasing the damage of the weapon is that it would spill over onto additional models. This would make gauss better at clearing out horde. To my mind, gauss should lean towards killing hard targets, and tesla should lean towards clearing out hordes. So with that in mind, I was wondering if you saw some reason to have gauss step on tesla's toes by making it better at clearing out hordes.Sincere question.

The first damage dealt is a normal wound and could be saved.

Are you making the argument that a certain percentage of gauss wounds should automatically ignore saves of all kinds then? Reasonable people could be of that opinion.

You're also assuming the warriors are in rapid fire range, which I wasn't. I was referring to a 20 man unit outside RFR.

Apologies. I might be missing something. Why does the source of the 20 shots matter?

Second of all, there is no way in hell that from 13 hits you'll average 10 wounds.

True enough. I was using the numbers that you gave.

Of course 10 wounds is closer to 12 than 6. However, the AVERAGE number of 6's you'd roll with 10 wounds is 1.67, which is why I said 1-2 mortal wounds.

Sure. 1.67 is significantly closer to 2 than to 1. I was attempting to emphasize that between the options of 1 and 2, 2 was closer to the average. Although as you've pointed out, 10 wounds was not, in fact, an average number of wounds for 20 shots.

Even assuming you have a full squad of 20 warriors (or a ghost ark) in rapid fire range, that averages 26.6 hits. Being generous and assuming 20 of them wound, the result would still only be 2-4 mortal wounds on average. Let's split the difference and say 3.
Remember, that's assuming an abnormally high number of wounds to hits ratio.

I see no problem with this at all. However, that's my opinion and someone else may be of the opinion that it does cause a problem. To each their own.

Fair enough. I still haven't run the numbers to compare that kind of damage output to comparable units/weapons (like intercessors with bolters). Maybe throwing mortal wounds on top of current gauss shooting would math out to something perfectly acceptable. My concern is more with internal balance/niche protection. Again, I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect tesla would start to look a lot less appealing in slots where it competes with a gauss alternative. But again, maybe not. I'd have to break out the abacus.

Also, at this point, I'm sick of hearing people say "from a fluff perspective". It's an asinine argument. You can't make the game work based on fluff. Besides, the fluff regularly gets thrown out. How is it that warriors and immortals are subject to morale? That doesn't line up with fluff and I could not care less about having a discussion about that. Most "fluff rules", in my opinion, don't contribute much to the game, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

While fluff shouldn't be used as an excuse for poor game balance, fluff is still an important consideration in matters of game design. Part of the function of 40k's rules is to evoke the fluff. Having one's faction and units "feel" like they do in the fluff is one of the appeals of the hobby to many of us. So, if the rules fail to satisfy in that regard, they're missing out on one of the sources of "fun" they could provide. 40k without satisfyingly fluffy rules is like pizza with a soggy crust. The pizza on the whole might be great, but it would've been better if they'd gotten the crust right.

To use hyperbole to illustrate a point, let's pretend we ran some numbers and found that giving hormagaunts a 2+ armor save somehow added a lot to the mechanics of the game. Somehow, 2+ save hormagaunts does a lot for game balance, creates interesting tactical decisions, etc. However, there's still going to be a weird disconnect between the fluff and the crunch when a cheap, expendable gribbly is actually more survivable than something like a space marine.

But eh. You're not wrong. That's really a discussion for another thread.

Give it 'on a to wound roll of 6+, this weapon's AP is improved by 2 (AP-2 becomes AP-4)'.

This could give scaling guass weapon crits?

I don't like the idea of giving Gauss weapons a Mortal Wounds mechanic. Specifically the ability to ignore invulnerable saves.

I think Gauss should do double damage on a unmodded 6 to wound. That way it still gives the D2 people are looking for in Necron Warriors and Immortals with Gauss Blasters, while also making Heavy Gauss Cannons have a significantly larger damage spike compared to regular Gauss Cannons. The chances of you rolling a 6 to wound and a corresponding 6 for damage is very unlikely, and it still can be stopped by invulns/saves so it's not like you're taking 12 damage a turn.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Fair enough. I still haven't run the numbers to compare that kind of damage output to comparable units/weapons (like intercessors with bolters). Maybe throwing mortal wounds on top of current gauss shooting would math out to something perfectly acceptable. My concern is more with internal balance/niche protection. Again, I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect tesla would start to look a lot less appealing in slots where it competes with a gauss alternative. But again, maybe not. I'd have to break out the abacus.

While fluff shouldn't be used as an excuse for poor game balance, fluff is still an important consideration in matters of game design. Part of the function of 40k's rules is to evoke the fluff. Having one's faction and units "feel" like they do in the fluff is one of the appeals of the hobby to many of us. So, if the rules fail to satisfy in that regard, they're missing out on one of the sources of "fun" they could provide. 40k without satisfyingly fluffy rules is like pizza with a soggy crust. The pizza on the whole might be great, but it would've been better if they'd gotten the crust right.

To use hyperbole to illustrate a point, let's pretend we ran some numbers and found that giving hormagaunts a 2+ armor save somehow added a lot to the mechanics of the game. Somehow, 2+ save hormagaunts does a lot for game balance, creates interesting tactical decisions, etc. However, there's still going to be a weird disconnect between the fluff and the crunch when a cheap, expendable gribbly is actually more survivable than something like a space marine.

But eh. You're not wrong. That's really a discussion for another thread.

I wouldn't care if the mortal wounds generated by gauss didn't ignore invulnerable saves.
Even with mortal wounds, I think Tesla would be better at clearing hordes. It generates more hits/volume of fire. I think people would take Tesla immortals to clear hordes and use gauss on monsters and vehicles.

My biggest gripe about fluff is how it's often used as a one way street. People constantly use it in a biased fashion. It would be more correct fluff wise to have warriors and immortals ignore morale, but that's not the case. I think it would add to the feel of the army too.

Ah, but I digress....

I'm open to other mechanics. I just haven't heard any that are better, in my opinion, than mortal wounds.

Once upon a time, when vehicles were the power houses on the field necrons killed them with volume of fire and glancing hits. We didn't have much for anti tank, but it was fine because gauss covered it well enough. It was a weapon that threatened everything. We lost that this edition and have been paying for it.
A tank or monster now has around 8-12 wounds. By adding mortal wounds to gauss we would be closer to the old mechanic.

(I hope no one is pedantic enough to suggest I'm advocating that we go back to a past edition.)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Give it 'on a to wound roll of 6+, this weapon's AP is improved by 2 (AP-2 becomes AP-4)'.

This could give scaling guass weapon crits?

That could potentially work. I'd like to play test that.

 Grimskul wrote:
I think Gauss should do double damage on a unmodded 6 to wound. That way it still gives the D2 people are looking for in Necron Warriors and Immortals with Gauss Blasters, while also making Heavy Gauss Cannons have a significantly larger damage spike compared to regular Gauss Cannons. The chances of you rolling a 6 to wound and a corresponding 6 for damage is very unlikely, and it still can be stopped by invulns/saves so it's not like you're taking 12 damage a turn.

This is terrible board-game design, it prevents fast dice, any rule or profile that prevents fast dice should be changed. I have personally advocated IF get the rule vs vehicles (in that case it rarely prevents fast dice) and GW have made several weapons with damage determined by wound rolls so don't take it as a personal attack.

With a rule like this against Terminators, you would need to make wound rolls one at a time and then your opponent would need to make saves in the right order. If you limited the rule to against vehicles it would only slow the game down when it comes to vehicle units with multiple models which is a rare thing.

Technically you can't fast-dice Damage anyway RAW - you're meant to roll them 1 by one.

Well if tesla is the score extra hits on 6s weapon. Why not make gaus the score extra wounds on 6s weapon. Instead of D2 on 6s to wound as suggested, why not have it score an extra wound on 6s to wound?
Personally I like the MW suggestion, but .maybe this could be the middle ground?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Technically you can't fast-dice Damage anyway RAW - you're meant to roll them 1 by one.

It's not the damage and saving throws I am concerned with, it's the wound rolls. Lets say you have 16 hits, now you roll to wound one at a time so you end up with a damage order that looks like this 1-1-1-2-1-1-2-2 and then your opponent rolls saves one at a time or rolls the three 1s, then the 2, then two 1s, then the two 2s. Another way of doing it would be rolling the wound rolls one at a time, then each time a wound is successful your opponent immediately makes a saving throw. Either way, you are going to have 20-ish rolls for something that should be done by 2 rolls. Making the weapons D3-1 (to a minimum of 1) damage would be way better in terms of speeding the game up, it would mean you only have to slow dice the damage rolls, but fast dice the wound and save rolls.

Why would you need to roll the wound rolls one at a time? There are plenty of effects that go off on wound rolls of a 6 (Eldar Shuriken & Slaanesh Daemon Claws) and it's not like those force us to roll Wound rolls one at a time. The owner of the targeted unit chooses the order in which wounds are allocated when fast-rolling, so some of them dealing double damage vs not doesn't matter either.

I don't see the problem. Allocate the wounds as normal, use different colored dice for the sixes. Barely any slow down.

I roll 16 wound rolls, five 6s (dealing 2 damage each), eleven 4s and 5s (dealing 1 damage each). Which save does the Terminator take first, what save does he take second? Your opponent can roll 1 damage one at a time until he takes a wound then save the two damage wounds one at a time until the model dies, that way you essentially never benefit from the 2 damage. If you roll your wound rolls one at a time your opponent has to do them in order and the 2 damage might actually come into play.

The AP thing is also problematic if your opponent has some models in cover. You can take the high ap wounds on the guys outside and the guys inside will get cover against the wounds with less AP. I have never thought of the issue before, in melee the order is irrelevant.

Before anyone says this is wasting time I'd argue taking saves for Ork Boyz is as much a waste of time and all the Ork players I've played usually take their saves anyways. It's up to GW to make a ruleset that doesn't force or reward players for dragging out the game.

So its more effective against single multi wound models then? Sounds working as intended to me.

I thought you allocate all wounds model by model first before saving? Or am I thinking of early editions?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So its more effective against single multi wound models then? Sounds working as intended to me.

I thought you allocate all wounds model by model first before saving? Or am I thinking of early editions?

Yes it is more effective against single units, who cares? Isn't it more important that you could be spending five minutes to do a shooting attack for a unit of Warriors?

5th or 6th you had to spread as evenly as possible, 7th was front-man takes all the heat, 8th is allocate 1 w at a time anywhere you please unless a model is wounded in which case he takes the heat.